Jump to content

HPB-SB-14-46: Difference between revisions

HPB-SB-14-46 (view source)

Revision as of 08:33, 5 November 2026

34 bytes removed ,  Yesterday at 08:33
незначительные правки
(незначительные правки)
(незначительные правки)
 
Line 10: Line 10:
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued|On Some Theosophic Doctrines.|14-41}}
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued|On Some Theosophic Doctrines.|14-41}}


{{Style P-No indent|Christ Himself. See the protest evoked by the letter of “H. X.” in the October number of the ''Theosophist.'' Their religious feelings on this head are entitled to the utmost respect; but, of course, we cannot be expected to share them. We can only judge of the Brothers through the long and learned philosophical works they have dictated, by the very surprising, not to say alarming thaumaturgic powers they evidently possess, and by the respect, almost amounting to worship, they have manifestly been able to inspire in their fellow countrymen. But when their recluse and ascetic lives are appealed to, it must be remembered that we Protestants are not at all sure whether the highest ''spiritual'' wisdom is not attainable rather by Christ’s mode of eating and drinking with publicans and sinners, and going about among them with a heart full of universal sympathy, than by John the Baptist’s, of living in the wilderness upon locusts and wild honey. That the East, however, which “let the legions thunder by, then plunged in thought again,” can teach us much wisdom, and impart to us momentous knowledge, for all our boasted civilisation, fussy, superficial, grasping, and sordid, full of horrible contrasts, shams, conventions, unsatisfying respectabilities, hollow negations, and grotesque, soul-destroying creeds, beneath which heave and smoulder all the dormant hells, full of infernals, I well believe. And this new communion of Eastern with Western ideas interests me greatly; it cannot fail of ultimate profit. I would only protest against a too gaping admiration, and a too hasty disposition to swallow wholesale all that may come to us with tremendous pretensions, even though attested by prodigies, from that ancient continent, whence we already derive, through Aryan brethren, so much of inestimable value, but whence, assuredly, all that issues is not quintessential gold. It was said also, with truth, of a region nearer home, that it was “a land of many Cants with a C, but only one Kant with a K.” But whether to us Nazarene and European dogs much more precious wisdom will be “vouchsafed,” if we prove ourselves unworthy of it by free criticism, must be a point extremely doubtful to one who reads the native letters evoked by the (certainly unreasonable) remonstrance of “H.X.,” who had been accepted as a Chela, or disciple, by the Brothers (see the October number of the ''Theosophist'').<nowiki>*</nowiki> The rapier-point of contempt never penetrated more palpably through the sheath of self-suppression. But this spirit on either side should be discouraged. The genius and temperaments of our races differ; yet let them honour, and learn from one another. Our branch of the Aryan family has sterling qualities that our brethren lack, and they own many admirable gifts, of which we have too little; but the close, intellectual intercourse of nations must be for mutual profit.}}
{{Style P-No indent|Christ Himself. See the protest evoked by the letter of “H. X.” in the October number of the ''Theosophist.'' Their religious feelings on this head are entitled to the utmost respect; but, of course, we cannot be expected to share them. We can only judge of the Brothers through the long and learned philosophical works they have dictated, by the very surprising, not to say alarming thaumaturgic powers they evidently possess, and by the respect, almost amounting to worship, they have manifestly been able to inspire in their fellow countrymen. But when their recluse and ascetic lives are appealed to, it must be remembered that we Protestants are not at all sure whether the highest ''spiritual'' wisdom is not attainable rather by Christ’s mode of eating and drinking with publicans and sinners, and going about among them with a heart full of universal sympathy, than by John the Baptist’s, of living in the wilderness upon locusts and wild honey. That the East, however, which “let the legions thunder by, then plunged in thought again,” can teach us much wisdom, and impart to us momentous knowledge, for all our boasted civilisation, fussy, superficial, grasping, and sordid, full of horrible contrasts, shams, conventions, unsatisfying respectabilities, hollow negations, and grotesque, soul-destroying creeds, beneath which heave and smoulder all the dormant hells, full of infernals, I well believe. And this new communion of Eastern with Western ideas interests me greatly; it cannot fail of ultimate profit. I would only protest against a too gaping admiration, and a too hasty disposition to swallow wholesale all that may come to us with tremendous pretensions, even though attested by prodigies, from that ancient continent, whence we already derive, through Aryan brethren, so much of inestimable value, but whence, assuredly, all that issues is not quintessential gold. It was said also, with truth, of a region nearer home, that it was “a land of many Cants with a C, but only one Kant with a K.” But whether to us Nazarene and European dogs much more precious wisdom will be “vouchsafed,” if we prove ourselves unworthy of it by free criticism, must be a point extremely doubtful to one who reads the native letters evoked by the (certainly unreasonable) remonstrance of “H.X.,” who had been accepted as a Chela, or disciple, by the Brothers (see the October number of the ''Theosophist'').* The rapier-point of contempt never penetrated more palpably through the sheath of self-suppression. But this spirit on either side should be discouraged. The genius and temperaments of our races differ; yet let them honour, and learn from one another. Our branch of the Aryan family has sterling qualities that our brethren lack, and they own many admirable gifts, of which we have too little; but the close, intellectual intercourse of nations must be for mutual profit.}}


I have a final word, however, to say on the doctrine of ''Karma'', and the question closely allied to it, that of a future life.
I have a final word, however, to say on the doctrine of ''Karma'', and the question closely allied to it, that of a future life.


''Karma'' is supposed to provide for the satisfaction of our moral instincts, for our aspirations after just compensation, and redress of wrong, though Buddhism admits of no future life. The individualising force of ''Karma''—desire for more life, and more satisfaction—according to the merits and demerits of the defunct individual—creates a new one in his place; that is the form the doctrine of transmigration took in Gautama’s system. But how does that fulfil our sense of justice? The great puzzle with us is how it can be just to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children. And this system but gratuitously doubles the enigmas provided by the terrible fact of heredity. The sins of a man, it appears, are visited not only on his children, but also on a new-born individual, whom he has fatally created by his ''Karma'', and who is, of course, in no sense himself, simply because there never was any self to identify, either during this life, or after it. It is not, and cannot be pretended that the new-born (illusory) individual is the ''same'' as the deceased; therefore, the prosperous sinner is never punished after this life, nor the persecuted good man compensated. That is all done vicariously; and yet we have loud outcries from these teachers (very justifiable, as I think) against ''our'' popular version of the Christian Atonement by substitute! How to reconcile this teaching of Gautama with what we have had recently put forward as Buddhism in the expositions {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|o}}f<ref name="editor-fold-46">The letters obscured by the fold in “of”, “but”, “some”, “such” and “indeed,” are restored from the same article in Light, 11 November 1882, p. 504.</ref> Occultism, which I have discussed, I do not at all know, {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|bu}}t at any rate Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky profess Buddhism. If there were self-identification on the part of a deceased person, at once, or later, with the re-incarnate individual, that would be a different matter; then he must have been the same all through his births and deaths, though not always able to recognise himself as the same. For {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|som}}e favoured individuals Occultists tell us there will be s{{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|uch}} self-recognition in the end, ''though, of course, not permanently''; but how they reconcile this teaching with the teaching of Gautama, I do not understand—though, indee{{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|d,}} Gautama is said to have remembered his former incarnations—but how he can have done so, if his own teaching be true, it seems impossible to explain. For he was, ''ex-hypothesi'', not the same.<nowiki>*</nowiki>
''Karma'' is supposed to provide for the satisfaction of our moral instincts, for our aspirations after just compensation, and redress of wrong, though Buddhism admits of no future life. The individualising force of ''Karma''—desire for more life, and more satisfaction—according to the merits and demerits of the defunct individual—creates a new one in his place; that is the form the doctrine of transmigration took in Gautama’s system. But how does that fulfil our sense of justice? The great puzzle with us is how it can be just to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children. And this system but gratuitously doubles the enigmas provided by the terrible fact of heredity. The sins of a man, it appears, are visited not only on his children, but also on a new-born individual, whom he has fatally created by his ''Karma'', and who is, of course, in no sense himself, simply because there never was any self to identify, either during this life, or after it. It is not, and cannot be pretended that the new-born (illusory) individual is the ''same'' as the deceased; therefore, the prosperous sinner is never punished after this life, nor the persecuted good man compensated. That is all done vicariously; and yet we have loud outcries from these teachers (very justifiable, as I think) against ''our'' popular version of the Christian Atonement by substitute! How to reconcile this teaching of Gautama with what we have had recently put forward as Buddhism in the expositions {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|o}}f<ref name="editor-fold-46">The letters obscured by the fold in “of”, “but”, “some”, “such” and “indeed,” are restored from the same article in Light, 11 November 1882, p. 504.</ref> Occultism, which I have discussed, I do not at all know, {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|bu}}t at any rate Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky profess Buddhism. If there were self-identification on the part of a deceased person, at once, or later, with the re-incarnate individual, that would be a different matter; then he must have been the same all through his births and deaths, though not always able to recognise himself as the same. For {{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|som}}e favoured individuals Occultists tell us there will be s{{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|uch}} self-recognition in the end, ''though, of course, not permanently''; but how they reconcile this teaching with the teaching of Gautama, I do not understand—though, indee{{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|d,}} Gautama is said to have remembered his former incarnations—but how he can have done so, if his own teaching be true, it seems impossible to explain. For he was, ''ex-hypothesi'', not the same.*


And even if we grant, with some schools, that ''Nirvana'' means tranquil, impersonal bliss, remember that Gautama has got beyond this condition, having reached ''Parinirvana'', which unquestionably does mean extinction, annihilation; and this is the consummation, both devoutly to be wished, and ultimately to be attained by the Arahat, or saint, who is aware that sorrow always attends consciousness. It, therefore, seems, to the shallow Western mind, a mere farce to talk of “losing, or gaining one’s immortality,” when all the time immortality is a sheer impossibility, and even if it were possible, a thing utterly undesirable, the very longing for which, as parent of all sin, suffering, and illusion, is to be laboriously suppressed. This Pessimism has commended itself to a few eccentric minds in Germany, to the great poet Leopardi in Italy, and is not, indeed, without echoes among ourselves, in our own darker moods. But Pessimism it is: let there be no sailing under false colours. Even if you elect the absorption theory of Brahmanism, remember there can be no immortality for ''us'', only for Being with a big B: and how far may that concern us? But consciousness without individuality is an impossible figment of imagination. There must be subject and object. The stupid, the weak, and the wicked, moreover, will be put out rather sooner than the rest. But then, revive all the old difficulties that confronted us in Materialism: nay, Materialism is alive in the Spiritualist camp, only under a subtle disguise. What provision, then, for strict justice, and vindication of the righteous cause? What satisfaction for love? What fulfilment for aspirations after the ideal in so many baffled bosoms? Ah! the wreck and ruin of a million abortions, and germs full of promise, destined never to bear fruit! There is no Father, and conscious Substance of our own selves, Source and Begetter of all good, Vindicator, Helper, and present, living Saviour of man, wrestling with the Powers of Darkness, of still more helpless creatures below men, of all animated nature groaning and travailing in pain together. For that love and life are but a vain, unintelligible, interrupting episode in the reign of Absolute Darkness is not a solution of the mystery that commends itself to most of us, either morally or philosophically. To me it seems but a lame and impotent conclusion indeed. I hold strongly that the moral, affectional, intuitional elements in our nature are even more entitled to be heard on this subject than those which belong to the senses and understanding. But without God, and personal immortality, conscience and our deepest affections are paralysed, flouted, and put to shame. Yet Madame Blavatsky has told us that she believes in no God, personal or impersonal. I must add that nothing could seem, to some of us, more repulsive than the character ascribed in recent essays of the ''Theosophist'' to seekers after abnormal magical power, and the elixir of life. Cold, inhuman, unscrupulous, and unserviceable pursuit of personal dominion, could not have been depicted more crudely, and with less disguise. ''Mejnour'' did not, in them, appear attractive. At any rate, let not Eastern Theosophy pretend to give us more spiritual, substantial, and consolatory views of human nature and destiny than our own European Agnosticism can give; for not only does it represent immortality as an evil dream, but even unselfish sympathy and service, according to its doctrine, are to be first embraced, and then ultimately discarded, only for the sake of a yet more transcendent ''summum bonum'', which is the blind alley, dead wall, and ''reductio ad absurdum'' of a godless annihilation! Virtue needs, indeed, no wage, but the wage of “going on;” yet if she know herself to be but a gleam of lightning in the long night of eternity, how shall she feel herself of much higher value than all perishable things beside? Still the moral teaching of Buddhism is undoubtedly very high; humility, self-repression, and universal charity are inculcated; our duty to the lower animals being nobly insisted on; the character of Sakya-Muni is, moreover, magnificent, though his intellectual system be unsatisfactory. And ethics, as Matthew Arnold tells us, are three-fourths of life. But of such a spirit we find perhaps little in modern occultist teachings; though I confess that Koot Hoomi’s own utterances to Mr. Sinnett appear to breathe a higher tone, one more in harmony with His spirit, “who carries the lambs in His bosom, and gently leads those that are with young.” So are the ethics of Positivism noble; but neither of these systems satisfies heart and reason both, as does the Christianity of Jesus Christ.
And even if we grant, with some schools, that ''Nirvana'' means tranquil, impersonal bliss, remember that Gautama has got beyond this condition, having reached ''Parinirvana'', which unquestionably does mean extinction, annihilation; and this is the consummation, both devoutly to be wished, and ultimately to be attained by the Arahat, or saint, who is aware that sorrow always attends consciousness. It, therefore, seems, to the shallow Western mind, a mere farce to talk of “losing, or gaining one’s immortality,” when all the time immortality is a sheer impossibility, and even if it were possible, a thing utterly undesirable, the very longing for which, as parent of all sin, suffering, and illusion, is to be laboriously suppressed. This Pessimism has commended itself to a few eccentric minds in Germany, to the great poet Leopardi in Italy, and is not, indeed, without echoes among ourselves, in our own darker moods. But Pessimism it is: let there be no sailing under false colours. Even if you elect the absorption theory of Brahmanism, remember there can be no immortality for ''us'', only for Being with a big B: and how far may that concern us? But consciousness without individuality is an impossible figment of imagination. There must be subject and object. The stupid, the weak, and the wicked, moreover, will be put out rather sooner than the rest. But then, revive all the old difficulties that confronted us in Materialism: nay, Materialism is alive in the Spiritualist camp, only under a subtle disguise. What provision, then, for strict justice, and vindication of the righteous cause? What satisfaction for love? What fulfilment for aspirations after the ideal in so many baffled bosoms? Ah! the wreck and ruin of a million abortions, and germs full of promise, destined never to bear fruit! There is no Father, and conscious Substance of our own selves, Source and Begetter of all good, Vindicator, Helper, and present, living Saviour of man, wrestling with the Powers of Darkness, of still more helpless creatures below men, of all animated nature groaning and travailing in pain together. For that love and life are but a vain, unintelligible, interrupting episode in the reign of Absolute Darkness is not a solution of the mystery that commends itself to most of us, either morally or philosophically. To me it seems but a lame and impotent conclusion indeed. I hold strongly that the moral, affectional, intuitional elements in our nature are even more entitled to be heard on this subject than those which belong to the senses and understanding. But without God, and personal immortality, conscience and our deepest affections are paralysed, flouted, and put to shame. Yet Madame Blavatsky has told us that she believes in no God, personal or impersonal. I must add that nothing could seem, to some of us, more repulsive than the character ascribed in recent essays of the ''Theosophist'' to seekers after abnormal magical power, and the elixir of life. Cold, inhuman, unscrupulous, and unserviceable pursuit of personal dominion, could not have been depicted more crudely, and with less disguise. ''Mejnour'' did not, in them, appear attractive. At any rate, let not Eastern Theosophy pretend to give us more spiritual, substantial, and consolatory views of human nature and destiny than our own European Agnosticism can give; for not only does it represent immortality as an evil dream, but even unselfish sympathy and service, according to its doctrine, are to be first embraced, and then ultimately discarded, only for the sake of a yet more transcendent ''summum bonum'', which is the blind alley, dead wall, and ''reductio ad absurdum'' of a godless annihilation! Virtue needs, indeed, no wage, but the wage of “going on;” yet if she know herself to be but a gleam of lightning in the long night of eternity, how shall she feel herself of much higher value than all perishable things beside? Still the moral teaching of Buddhism is undoubtedly very high; humility, self-repression, and universal charity are inculcated; our duty to the lower animals being nobly insisted on; the character of Sakya-Muni is, moreover, magnificent, though his intellectual system be unsatisfactory. And ethics, as Matthew Arnold tells us, are three-fourths of life. But of such a spirit we find perhaps little in modern occultist teachings; though I confess that Koot Hoomi’s own utterances to Mr. Sinnett appear to breathe a higher tone, one more in harmony with His spirit, “who carries the lambs in His bosom, and gently leads those that are with young.” So are the ethics of Positivism noble; but neither of these systems satisfies heart and reason both, as does the Christianity of Jesus Christ.
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/56695"