Jump to content

Blavatsky H.P. - Madame Blavatsky on Indian Metaphysics: Difference between revisions

Blavatsky H.P. - Madame Blavatsky on Indian Metaphysics (view source)

Revision as of 13:19, 5 December 2024

118 bytes added ,  5 December 2024
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 26: Line 26:


In my doubts as to what this assailant might be, I invoked the help of Webster to give me a possible clue in the {{Page aside|327}} pseudonym. “Scrutator,” says the great lexicographer, “is one who scrutinizes,” and “scrutiny” he derives from the Latin scrutari, “to search even to the rags”; which scrutari itself he traces back to a Greek root, meaning “trash, trumpery.” In this ultimate analysis, therefore, we must regard the nom de plume, while very applicable to his letter of February 22nd, very unfortunate for himself; for at best it makes him a sort of literary chiffonnier, probing in the dust-heap of the language for bits of hard adjectives to fling at us. I repeat that, when an anonymous critic accuses two persons of “slanderous imputations” (the mere reflex of his own imagination), and of “unfathomable absurdities,” he ought, at least, to make sure (1) that he has thoroughly grasped what he is pleased to call the “teachings” of his adversaries; and (2) that his own philosophy is infallible. I may add, furthermore, that when that critic permits himself to call the views of other people—not yet half-digested by himself—”unfathomable absurdities,” he ought to be mighty careful about introducing as arguments into the discussion sectarian absurdities far more “unfathomable” and which have nothing to do with either science or philosophy.
In my doubts as to what this assailant might be, I invoked the help of Webster to give me a possible clue in the {{Page aside|327}} pseudonym. “Scrutator,” says the great lexicographer, “is one who scrutinizes,” and “scrutiny” he derives from the Latin scrutari, “to search even to the rags”; which scrutari itself he traces back to a Greek root, meaning “trash, trumpery.” In this ultimate analysis, therefore, we must regard the nom de plume, while very applicable to his letter of February 22nd, very unfortunate for himself; for at best it makes him a sort of literary chiffonnier, probing in the dust-heap of the language for bits of hard adjectives to fling at us. I repeat that, when an anonymous critic accuses two persons of “slanderous imputations” (the mere reflex of his own imagination), and of “unfathomable absurdities,” he ought, at least, to make sure (1) that he has thoroughly grasped what he is pleased to call the “teachings” of his adversaries; and (2) that his own philosophy is infallible. I may add, furthermore, that when that critic permits himself to call the views of other people—not yet half-digested by himself—”unfathomable absurdities,” he ought to be mighty careful about introducing as arguments into the discussion sectarian absurdities far more “unfathomable” and which have nothing to do with either science or philosophy.
I suppose [gravely argues “Scrutator”] a babe’s brain is soft, and a quite unfit tool for intelligence, otherwise Jesus could not have lost His intelligence when He took upon Himself the body and the brain of a babe [!!?].
I suppose [gravely argues “Scrutator”] a babe’s brain is soft, and a quite unfit tool for intelligence, otherwise Jesus could not have lost His intelligence when He took upon Himself the body and the brain of a babe [!!?].
The very opposite of Oliver Johnson evidently, this Jesus-babe of “Scrutator’s.”
The very opposite of Oliver Johnson evidently, this Jesus-babe of “Scrutator’s.”


Line 33: Line 35:
With crushing irony he speaks of us as “our teachers.” Now, I remember having distinctly stated in a previous letter that we have not offered ourselves as teachers, but, on the contrary, decline any such office—whatever may be the superlative panegyric of my esteemed friend, Mr. O’Sullivan, who not only sees in me “a Buddhist priestess” (!), but, without a shadow of warrant of fact, credits me with the foundation of the Theosophical Society and its Branches! Had Colonel Olcott been half as “psychologised” by me as a certain American Spiritualist paper will have it, he would have followed my advice and refused to make public our “views,” even though so much and so often importuned in different quarters. With characteristic stubbornness, however, he had his own way, and now reaps the consequence of having thrown his bomb into a hornet’s nest. Instead of being afforded opportunity for a calm debate, we get but abuse, pure and simple—the only weapon of partisans. Well, let us make the best of it, and join our opponents in picking the question “to rags.” Mr. C. C. Massey comes in for his share, too, and, though fit to be a leader himself, is given by “Scrutator” a chief!
With crushing irony he speaks of us as “our teachers.” Now, I remember having distinctly stated in a previous letter that we have not offered ourselves as teachers, but, on the contrary, decline any such office—whatever may be the superlative panegyric of my esteemed friend, Mr. O’Sullivan, who not only sees in me “a Buddhist priestess” (!), but, without a shadow of warrant of fact, credits me with the foundation of the Theosophical Society and its Branches! Had Colonel Olcott been half as “psychologised” by me as a certain American Spiritualist paper will have it, he would have followed my advice and refused to make public our “views,” even though so much and so often importuned in different quarters. With characteristic stubbornness, however, he had his own way, and now reaps the consequence of having thrown his bomb into a hornet’s nest. Instead of being afforded opportunity for a calm debate, we get but abuse, pure and simple—the only weapon of partisans. Well, let us make the best of it, and join our opponents in picking the question “to rags.” Mr. C. C. Massey comes in for his share, too, and, though fit to be a leader himself, is given by “Scrutator” a chief!


Neither of our critics seems to understand our views (or his own) so little as “Scrutator.” He misapprehends the meaning of Elementary, and makes a sad mess of spirit and matter. Hear him say that elementary is a new-fangled and ill-defined term . . . not yet two years old!
Neither of our critics seems to understand our views (or his own) so little as “Scrutator.” He misapprehends the meaning of Elementary, and makes a sad mess of spirit and matter. Hear him say that elementary  
 
{{Style P-Quote|is a new-fangled and ill-defined term . . . not yet two years old!}}


This sentence alone proves that he forces himself into the {{Page aside|329}} discussion, without any comprehension of the subject at issue. Evidently, he has neither read the mediaeval nor modern Kabalists. Henry Khunrath is as unfamiliar to him as the Abbé Constant. Let him go to the British Museum, and ask for the Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae of Khunrath. He will find in it illustrative engravings of the four great classes of elementary spirits, as seen during an evocation of ceremonial magic by the Magus who lifts the Veil of Isis. The author explains that these are disembodied vicious men, who have parted with their divine spirits, and become as beasts. After reading this volume, “Scrutator” may profitably consult Éliphas Lévi, whom he will find using the words “Elementary Spirits” throughout his Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie, in both senses in which we have employed it. This is especially the case where (Vol. I, p. 262 et seq.) he speaks of the evocation of Apollonius of Tyana by himself. Quoting from the greatest Kabalistic authorities, he says:
This sentence alone proves that he forces himself into the {{Page aside|329}} discussion, without any comprehension of the subject at issue. Evidently, he has neither read the mediaeval nor modern Kabalists. Henry Khunrath is as unfamiliar to him as the Abbé Constant. Let him go to the British Museum, and ask for the Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae of Khunrath. He will find in it illustrative engravings of the four great classes of elementary spirits, as seen during an evocation of ceremonial magic by the Magus who lifts the Veil of Isis. The author explains that these are disembodied vicious men, who have parted with their divine spirits, and become as beasts. After reading this volume, “Scrutator” may profitably consult Éliphas Lévi, whom he will find using the words “Elementary Spirits” throughout his Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie, in both senses in which we have employed it. This is especially the case where (Vol. I, p. 262 et seq.) he speaks of the evocation of Apollonius of Tyana by himself. Quoting from the greatest Kabalistic authorities, he says:


When a man has lived well, the astral cadaver evaporates like a pure incense, as it mounts towards the higher regions; but if a man has lived in crime, his astral cadaver, which holds him prisoner, seeks again the objects of his passions and desires to resume its earthly life. It torments the dreams of young girls, bathes in the vapour of spilt blood, and wallows about the places where the pleasures of his life flitted by; it watches without ceasing over the treasures which it possessed and buried: it wastes itself in painful efforts to make for itself material organs [materialize itself] and live again. But the stars attract and absorb it; its memory is gradually lost, its intelligence weakens, all its being dissolves . . . The unhappy wretch loses thus in succession all the organs which served its sinful appetites Then it [this astral body, this “soul,” this all that is left of the once living man] dies a second time and for ever, for it then loses its personality and its memory. Souls which are destined to live, but which are not yet entirely purified, remain for a longer or shorter time captive in the astral cadaver, where they are refined by the odic light, which seeks to assimilate them to itself and dissolve. It is to rid themselves of this cadaver that suffering souls sometimes enter the bodies of living persons, and remain there for a time in a state which the Kabalists call embryonic [embryonat]. These are the aerial phantoms evoked by necromancy [and I may add, the “materialized Spirits” evoked by the unconscious necromancy of incautious mediums, in eases where the forms are not transformations of their own doubles]; {{Page aside|330}} these are larvae, substances dead or dying with which one places himself en rapport.
{{Style P-Quote|When a man has lived well, the astral cadaver evaporates like a pure incense, as it mounts towards the higher regions; but if a man has lived in crime, his astral cadaver, which holds him prisoner, seeks again the objects of his passions and desires to resume its earthly life. It torments the dreams of young girls, bathes in the vapour of spilt blood, and wallows about the places where the pleasures of his life flitted by; it watches without ceasing over the treasures which it possessed and buried: it wastes itself in painful efforts to make for itself material organs [materialize itself] and live again. But the stars attract and absorb it; its memory is gradually lost, its intelligence weakens, all its being dissolves . . . The unhappy wretch loses thus in succession all the organs which served its sinful appetites Then it [this astral body, this “soul,” this all that is left of the once living man] dies a second time and for ever, for it then loses its personality and its memory. Souls which are destined to live, but which are not yet entirely purified, remain for a longer or shorter time captive in the astral cadaver, where they are refined by the odic light, which seeks to assimilate them to itself and dissolve. It is to rid themselves of this cadaver that suffering souls sometimes enter the bodies of living persons, and remain there for a time in a state which the Kabalists call embryonic [embryonat]. These are the aerial phantoms evoked by necromancy [and I may add, the “materialized Spirits” evoked by the unconscious necromancy of incautious mediums, in eases where the forms are not transformations of their own doubles]; {{Page aside|330}} these are larvae, substances dead or dying with which one places himself en rapport.}}


Further Lévi says (op. cit., p. 164):
Further Lévi says (op. cit., p. 164):


The astral light is saturated with elementary souls . . . Yes, yes, these spirits of the elements do exist. Some wandering in their spheres, others trying to incarnate themselves, others, again, already incarnated and living on earth; these are vicious and imperfect men.
{{Style P-Quote|The astral light is saturated with elementary souls . . . Yes, yes, these spirits of the elements do exist. Some wandering in their spheres, others trying to incarnate themselves, others, again, already incarnated and living on earth; these are vicious and imperfect men.}}


And in the face of this testimony (which he can find in the British Museum, two steps from the office of The Spiritualist!) that since the Middle Ages the Kabalists have been writing about elementaries, and their potential annihilation, “Scrutator” permits himself to arraign Theosophists for their “effrontery” in foisting upon Spiritualists a “new-fangled and ill-defined term” which is “not yet two years old”!!
And in the face of this testimony (which he can find in the British Museum, two steps from the office of The Spiritualist!) that since the Middle Ages the Kabalists have been writing about elementaries, and their potential annihilation, “Scrutator” permits himself to arraign Theosophists for their “effrontery” in foisting upon Spiritualists a “new-fangled and ill-defined term” which is “not yet two years old”!!
Line 48: Line 52:
Does anything herein stated, either as from ourselves, or Khunrath, or Lévi, contradict the statement of the “learned occultist” that:
Does anything herein stated, either as from ourselves, or Khunrath, or Lévi, contradict the statement of the “learned occultist” that:


Each atom, no matter where found, is imbued with that vital {{Page aside|331}} principle called spirit . . . Each grain of sand, equally with each minutest atom of the human body, has its inherent latent spark of the divine light?
{{Style P-Quote|Each atom, no matter where found, is imbued with that vital {{Page aside|331}} principle called spirit . . . Each grain of sand, equally with each minutest atom of the human body, has its inherent latent spark of the divine light?}}


Not in the least. “M. A. (Cantab.)” asks, “How then, can a man lose this divine light, in part or in whole, as a rule before death, if each minutest atom of the human body has its inherent latent spark of the divine light?” Italicizing some words, as above, but omitting to emphasize the one important word of the sentence, i.e., “latent,” which contains the key to the whole mystery. In the grain of sand, and each atom of the human material body, the spirit is latent, not active; hence, being but a correlation of the highest light, something concrete as compared with the purely abstract, the atom is vitalized and energized by spirit, without being endowed with distinct consciousness. A “grain of sand, as every minutest atom, is certainly “imbued with that vital principle called spirit.” So is every atom of the human body, whether physical or astral, and thus every atom of both, following the law of evolution, whether of objective or semi-concrete astral matter, will have to remain eternal throughout the endless cycles, indestructible in their primary, elementary constituents. But will “M. A. (Cantab.)” for all that, call a grain of sand, or a human nail-paring, consciously immortal? Does he mean us to understand him as believing that a fractional part, as a fraction, has the same attributes, capabilities, and limitations as the whole? Does he say that because the atoms in a nail-paring are indestructible as atoms, therefore the body, of which the nail formed a part, is of necessity, as a conscious whole, indestructible and immortal?
Not in the least. “M. A. (Cantab.)” asks, “How then, can a man lose this divine light, in part or in whole, as a rule before death, if each minutest atom of the human body has its inherent latent spark of the divine light?” Italicizing some words, as above, but omitting to emphasize the one important word of the sentence, i.e., “latent,” which contains the key to the whole mystery. In the grain of sand, and each atom of the human material body, the spirit is latent, not active; hence, being but a correlation of the highest light, something concrete as compared with the purely abstract, the atom is vitalized and energized by spirit, without being endowed with distinct consciousness. A “grain of sand, as every minutest atom, is certainly “imbued with that vital principle called spirit.” So is every atom of the human body, whether physical or astral, and thus every atom of both, following the law of evolution, whether of objective or semi-concrete astral matter, will have to remain eternal throughout the endless cycles, indestructible in their primary, elementary constituents. But will “M. A. (Cantab.)” for all that, call a grain of sand, or a human nail-paring, consciously immortal? Does he mean us to understand him as believing that a fractional part, as a fraction, has the same attributes, capabilities, and limitations as the whole? Does he say that because the atoms in a nail-paring are indestructible as atoms, therefore the body, of which the nail formed a part, is of necessity, as a conscious whole, indestructible and immortal?


Our opponents repeat the words Trinity, Body, Soul, Spirit, as they might say the cat, the house, and the Irishman inhabitating it—three perfectly dissimilar things. They do not see that, dissimilar as the three parts of the human trinity may seem, they are in truth but correlations of the one eternal essence—which is no essence; but unfortunately the English language is barren of adequate expression, and, though they do not see it, the house, the physical Irishman and the cat are, in their last analysis, one. I verily begin {{Page aside|332}} to suspect that they imagine that spirit and matter are two, instead of one! Truly says Vishnu Bawa Brahmachâri, in one of his essays in Marathi (1869), that “the opinion of the Europeans that matter is “Padârtha” (an equivalent for the “pada,” or word “Abháva,” i.e., Ahey, composed of two letters, “Ahe,” meaning is, and “nahin,” not), whereas “Abhâva” is no “Padârtha,” is foolishly erroneous!” Kant, Schopenhauer and Hartmann seem to have written to little effect, and Kapila will be soon pronounced an antiquated ignoramus. Without at all ranging myself under Schopenhauer’s banner, who maintains that in reality there is neither spirit nor matter, yet I must say that if ever he were studied, Theosophy would be better understood.
Our opponents repeat the words Trinity, Body, Soul, Spirit, as they might say the cat, the house, and the Irishman inhabitating it—three perfectly dissimilar things. They do not see that, dissimilar as the three parts of the human trinity may seem, they are in truth but correlations of the one eternal essence—which is no essence; but unfortunately the English language is barren of adequate expression, and, though they do not see it, the house, the physical Irishman and the cat are, in their last analysis, one. I verily begin {{Page aside|332}} to suspect that they imagine that spirit and matter are two, instead of one! Truly says Vishnu Bawa Brahmachâri, in one of his essays in Marathi (1869), that  
 
{{Style P-Quote|“The opinion of the Europeans that matter is “Padârtha” (an equivalent for the “pada,” or word “Abháva,” i.e., Ahey, composed of two letters, “Ahe,” meaning is, and “nahin,” not), whereas “Abhâva” is no “Padârtha,” is foolishly erroneous!”}}
 
Kant, Schopenhauer and Hartmann seem to have written to little effect, and Kapila will be soon pronounced an antiquated ignoramus. Without at all ranging myself under Schopenhauer’s banner, who maintains that in reality there is neither spirit nor matter, yet I must say that if ever he were studied, Theosophy would be better understood.


But can one really discuss metaphysical ideas in an European language? I doubt it. We say “spirit,” and behold, what confusion it leads to! Europeans give the name spirit to that something which they conceive as apart from physical organization, independent of corporeal, objective existence; and they call spirit also the airy, vaporous essence, alcohol. Therefore, the New York reporter who defined a materialized Spirit as “frozen whiskey,” was right, in his way. A copious vocabulary, indeed, that has but one term for God and for alcohol! With all their libraries of metaphysics, European nations have not even gone to the trouble of inventing appropriate words to elucidate metaphysical ideas. If they had, perhaps one book in every thousand would have sufficed to really instruct the public, instead of there being the present confusion of words, obscuring intelligence, and utterly hampering the Orientalist, who would expound his philosophy in English. Whereas, in the latter language, I find but one word to express, perhaps, twenty different ideas, in the Eastern tongues, especially Sanskrit, there are twenty words or more to render one idea in its various shades of meaning.
But can one really discuss metaphysical ideas in an European language? I doubt it. We say “spirit,” and behold, what confusion it leads to! Europeans give the name spirit to that something which they conceive as apart from physical organization, independent of corporeal, objective existence; and they call spirit also the airy, vaporous essence, alcohol. Therefore, the New York reporter who defined a materialized Spirit as “frozen whiskey,” was right, in his way. A copious vocabulary, indeed, that has but one term for God and for alcohol! With all their libraries of metaphysics, European nations have not even gone to the trouble of inventing appropriate words to elucidate metaphysical ideas. If they had, perhaps one book in every thousand would have sufficed to really instruct the public, instead of there being the present confusion of words, obscuring intelligence, and utterly hampering the Orientalist, who would expound his philosophy in English. Whereas, in the latter language, I find but one word to express, perhaps, twenty different ideas, in the Eastern tongues, especially Sanskrit, there are twenty words or more to render one idea in its various shades of meaning.
Line 61: Line 69:


The ultimate abstract definition of this—call it God, force. Principle, as you will—will ever remain a mystery to Humanity, though it attain to its highest intellectual development. The anthropomorphic ideas of Spiritualists concerning spirit are a direct consequence of the anthropomorphic conceptions of Christians as to the Deity. So directly is the one the outflow of the other, that “Scrutator’s” handiest argument against the duality of a child and potential immortality is to cite “Jesus who increased in wisdom as his brain increased.”
The ultimate abstract definition of this—call it God, force. Principle, as you will—will ever remain a mystery to Humanity, though it attain to its highest intellectual development. The anthropomorphic ideas of Spiritualists concerning spirit are a direct consequence of the anthropomorphic conceptions of Christians as to the Deity. So directly is the one the outflow of the other, that “Scrutator’s” handiest argument against the duality of a child and potential immortality is to cite “Jesus who increased in wisdom as his brain increased.”
Christians call God an Infinite Being, and then endow Him with every finite attribute, such as love, anger, benevolence, mercy! They call Him All-Merciful, and preach eternal damnation for three-fourths of humanity in every church; All-Just, and the sins of this brief span of life may not be expiated by even an eternity of conscious agony. Now, by some miracle of oversight, among thousands of mistranslations in the “Holy” Writ, the word “destruction,” the synonym of annihilation, was rendered correctly in the King James’ version, and no dictionary can make it read either damnation, or eternal torment. Though the Church {{Page aside|334}} consistently put down the “destructionists,” yet the impartial will scarcely deny that they come nearer than their persecutors to believing what Jesus taught and what is consistent with justice, in teaching the final annihilation of the wicked.
Christians call God an Infinite Being, and then endow Him with every finite attribute, such as love, anger, benevolence, mercy! They call Him All-Merciful, and preach eternal damnation for three-fourths of humanity in every church; All-Just, and the sins of this brief span of life may not be expiated by even an eternity of conscious agony. Now, by some miracle of oversight, among thousands of mistranslations in the “Holy” Writ, the word “destruction,” the synonym of annihilation, was rendered correctly in the King James’ version, and no dictionary can make it read either damnation, or eternal torment. Though the Church {{Page aside|334}} consistently put down the “destructionists,” yet the impartial will scarcely deny that they come nearer than their persecutors to believing what Jesus taught and what is consistent with justice, in teaching the final annihilation of the wicked.


Line 72: Line 81:


Of course, all this will appear to “Scrutator” “unfathomable absurdities,” for, unfortunately, few metaphysicians shower down from Western skies. Therefore, so long as our English opponents will remain in their semi-Christian ideas, and not only ignore the old philosophy, but the very terms it employs to render abstract ideas; so long as we are forced to transmit these ideas in a general way—particularly being impracticable without the invention of special words—it will be unprofitable to push discussion to any great length. We would only make ourselves obnoxious to the general {{Page aside|337}} reader, and receive from other anonymous writers such unconvincing compliments as “Scrutator” has favoured us with.
Of course, all this will appear to “Scrutator” “unfathomable absurdities,” for, unfortunately, few metaphysicians shower down from Western skies. Therefore, so long as our English opponents will remain in their semi-Christian ideas, and not only ignore the old philosophy, but the very terms it employs to render abstract ideas; so long as we are forced to transmit these ideas in a general way—particularly being impracticable without the invention of special words—it will be unprofitable to push discussion to any great length. We would only make ourselves obnoxious to the general {{Page aside|337}} reader, and receive from other anonymous writers such unconvincing compliments as “Scrutator” has favoured us with.
{{Style P-Signature|H. P. BLAVATSKY.
{{Style P-Signature|H. P. BLAVATSKY.}}
New York, March 7th, 1877. <ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[An obvious error for 1878.—Compiler.]}}</ref>}}
{{Style P-No indent|New York, March 7th, 1877.<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[An obvious error for 1878.—Compiler.]}}</ref>}}


{{HPB-CW-separator}}
{{HPB-CW-separator}}
{{HPB-CW-comment|[In H.P.B.’s {{SB-page|v=7|p=56|text=Scrapbook, Vol. VII, pp. 56-57}}, there is pasted a cutting from The Spiritualist of London, dated March 29, 1878. It is an article by G. Damiani regarding “The Manifestations in Naples of the Alleged Spirit of Nana Sahib.” H.P.B. wrote the following remarks at the end of this article:]}}
{{HPB-CW-comment|[In H.P.B.’s {{SB-page|v=7|p=56|text=Scrapbook, Vol. VII, pp. 56-57}}, there is pasted a cutting from The Spiritualist of London, dated March 29, 1878. It is an article by G. Damiani regarding “The Manifestations in Naples of the Alleged Spirit of Nana Sahib.” H.P.B. wrote the following remarks at the end of this article:]}}


How interesting—were it not for the fact that there is every reason to believe that Nana Sahib is still alive.
How interesting—were it not for the fact that there is every reason to believe that Nana Sahib is still alive.
{{Footnotes}}
{{Footnotes}}
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/24100"