HPB-SB-14-37: Difference between revisions

{{Footnotes end}}

{{HPB-SB-item

}}

{{Style P-Title|NOTES BY THE WAY.}}

<center>'''Contributed by “M.A. (Oxon.)”'''</center>

The ''Journal of Science'' has now completed a candid and temperate notice of Mr. Sinnett’s ''Occult World.'' The writer deals with the evidences of extraordinary power, such as the creation of the cup and saucer at Simla by Madame Blavatsky, fairly and in a judicial spirit. He considers that the narrative must be accepted as a record substantially accurate of a real occurrence. He puts aside the supposition of an elaborate fraud as “literally bristling with difficulties,” and arrives at the conclusion that “the cup and saucer were produced in the earth where found, by an agency to us inconceivable.” This is a startling concession when it is considered from what quarter it comes. We are so accustomed to find the inexplicable or the unexplained treated by open science as the impossible, especially in the case of psychical phenomena, that this candid consideration of an antecedently incredible statement is as startling as it is welcome.

But wonderful as this display of power unquestionably was, the multiplication of such marvels to the utmost extent would have little effect on certain minds. The feats of the juggler bear so close a resemblance on the surface to these displays of occult power that many minds will refuse to regard them as any valid evidence of more than clever trickery. The unearthing of crockery where no crockery ought to be, the production of tea-pots from unlikely places, are strikingly akin to the average conjuring trick, the cooking of an omelette in a hat, or the finding of a large doll in the pocket of some nervous young gentleman. There is a superficial similarity between them that cannot be overlooked. Nor, when the absolute genuineness of the feats is conceded, can they be regarded by the most friendly critic as suitable or convincing evidence of the existence of persons who claim, not only a superior knowledge, but also a higher sanctity and a purer philanthropy than that which inferior mortals can boast. Open science may not be able to create crockery as occult science can, but it can, at least, point to a long list of successes won in the field of investigation and research; to inventions which have extended our knowledge of Nature, and to contrivances which have ameliorated the lot of countless myriads of our fellow-men. I am far from saying that these Adept Brothers, of whom I know so little, do not spend themselves in some measure in the service of humanity, any more than I would say that the benefits conferred on us by the intervention of superior spiritual beings on our earth are incommensurate with reasonable expectation. But it is not to be denied that what the outer world knows of the results in both cases is somewhat calculated to provoke the ridicule of the sceptic. It is fair to say that Mr. Sinnett’s book gives some letters from one of these Adepts, which contain some noble thoughts, and we are indebted to Spiritual sources for some glimpses of a higher philosophy than most of us possessed before. But, after all, it is the creation of crockery and the displacement of furniture that make most impression on the average Philistine.

On this point the Reviewer has some pertinent observations. Koot Hoomi makes a strong point of his reticence, for the life-time of a man would not suffice to convince a whole world of sceptics. He is not anxious to convince any man. He wraps himself up in his own virtue, and hardly condescends to hold the door ajar. It is, of course, merely idle to prescribe to persons who assume this attitude any course of conduct towards the outer world. But I entirely appreciate the words of the Reviewer when he points out that such feats, so like mere jugglery, are by no means the best evidence of superior knowledge. “Suppose the Brotherhood were to say, ‘Point your telescope to such and such a spot in the heavens, and you will find a planet as yet unknown to you, having such and such elements’ or, ‘Dig into the earth in such a place, and you will find a mineral containing a metal new to your science: its atomic weight, its specific gravity, &c., are so-and-so.’ . . . Such or similar proofs, not of superior ''power'', but of higher ''knowledge'', would not increase any man’s facilities for evil-doing.” Rather, I may add, would they increase the store of human knowledge, and prove incontestably the presence among us of some beings wiser and more beneficent than we. But, as the Reviewer points out, we search in vain for any such evidence. “Till some foothold of this kind is given us, it is useless to bid us join the Theosophical Society or change our mode of life.’ Teachings so indefinite we are compelled to reject, not indeed ‘superciliously,’ but sadly.” It is impossible to find any reasonable fault with such an attitude. It is true that the Adept Brothers pose as men reluctant to open the door of knowledge to any but the most patient and persistent appeal made by one who has proved himself a worthy postulant. That is an attitude incompatible with some steps lately taken. Too much or too little has been said in their name, and the result is bewilderment and confusion.

Mr. J. W. Slater, in the same number, has a very interesting and suggestive paper on “Odours and their Recognition.” What is the attraction that a rich perfume has for most men; what the irritating repulsion exercised by a foul odour over persons especially of sensitive organisation? Nothing harmonises (if I may use a word that is degenerating into slang) some people so much as sweet perfumes; not the blended beauty of a rich painting, nor the melody of perfect music. For some years I was familiar with the power of sweet odours in inducing a feeling of placidity and repose. I was a regular attendant at a circle where this method of harmonising us was adopted by the unseen friends who came to us. Waves of scent-laden air swept round and round our heads and over our hands, and liquid perfume fell frequently and in profusion on the table-cloth. So marked was this that the room in which our meetings were held never lost the sweet smell, and I well remember the delightful odour which greeted me on one occasion on going into it after it had been shut up for some months. These abnormal perfumes did for us what music does for most circles. They induced that sense of calm repose and delight which, probably because it is the farthest from discord and unrest, is the most favourable for what Dr. Beard would call the great psychical or spiritual delusion. Strange that in the calmest mood of pleasurable quiet, when least distracted and most himself, man should be most deceived, deluded, and misled. Strange, ''if'' true.

I remember, too, as I have already recorded here, how, by some subtle chemistry that, which was a fragrant perfume, was changed into an intolerable stench. The discord of our mental states was expressed by the odour that filled the room. By some inexplicable Spirit-chemistry the inharmonious thoughts expressed themselves in that disagreeable odour. That which had no objective existence when we formed our circle, became the objective and palpable expression of our inner thoughts. Is not this proof of the intimate connection that exists between the members of a circle, the medium, and the manifestations? Does it not shew that like causes produce like results; and that harmony must precede any satisfactory or agreeable manifestation of Spirit-power? This comes out, too, in the controversy respecting Miss Wood’s séances—a controversy on {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|14-38}}