Teopedia

HPB-SB-4-154: Difference between revisions

Page Addition

HPB-SB-4-154 (view source)

Revision as of 06:57, 9 February 2024

11,771 bytes added ,  9 February
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |The Views of the Theosophists|4-153}}
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |The Views of the Theosophists|4-153}}


...
As it is therefore impossible to test the theosophical conclusions by the canons of scientific evidence, we have no right to weigh the Theosophists (of whom I am not one) by our own balance.


What we have to thank them for, is the proof that some at least of  the phenomena which have been credited to the action of departed spirits, and even sometimes to departed souls, are really due to an occasional  act of the “medium’s” own power, by the exercise of his own will, and are, in fact, mere repetitions of himself. If no other good than this had been done by the Theosophical Society, we might thank them heartily for having ''u ''cut out the core” of Spiritualism. We have also to thank them for the expression of opinions in quarters which would have been deaf to the voice of the metaphysician, although that expression has perhaps not thrown much light on the underlying problems of Life and Mind. As a writer in the ''Pall Mall Gazette ''some years ago said—
“The fundamental problem which debated now for ages,
Is still attacked and still unsolved by all our modern sages;
Is, if an effort I may make, a simple form to throw it in,
Just what we know, and why we know, and what’s the way we know it in.”
{{Style P-Signature in capitals|C. Carter Blake.}}
{{HPB-CW-separator}}


{{HPB-SB-item
{{HPB-SB-item
Line 16: Line 29:
  | item =1
  | item =1
  | type = article
  | type = article
  | status = wanted
  | status = proofread
  | continues =
  | continues =
  | author = Kislingbury, Emily
  | author = Kislingbury, Emily
Line 22: Line 35:
  | subtitle =
  | subtitle =
  | untitled =yes
  | untitled =yes
  | source title =
  | source title = London Spiritualist
  | source details =
  | source details = No. 282, January 18, 1878, p. 33
  | publication date =
  | publication date = 1878-01-18
  | original date =
  | original date =
  | notes =
  | notes =
Line 30: Line 43:
}}
}}


...
{{Style S-Small capitals|Sir}},—''' '''As I have recently had the privilege of much personal converse with the leaders of the Theosophical Society in New York, I shall be glad if you will allow me space to reply to some of the points raised by “M.A., Oxon.,” in his paper on “The Views of the Theosophists.” I do so in all humility, because I am but a novice, a recent student of these subjects, and am, doubtless, much less informed on many points connected with them than the author of the above paper. Nevertheless, to use his own apt simile, though I am not the rose, I ''have ''lived near it.
 
First, let me say that I do not see anything new in the doctrine of potential immortality. What else is meant by St. Paul when he insists that we must ''win ''our salvation; that we must rise from death unto life; that we must strive after immortality? If we already have it, why labour, strive, and fight for it? We may be born with this potentiality, but we have to make our calling and election sure. The Theosoph says that the spiritual light comes to us at about the age of seven years; well, the exact time is a detail. The Church recognises it as a grace, a something superadded in baptism; hence her insistance on the necessity of that rite at the earliest possible age. For this reason baptism is a sacrament, and not merely a symbol, even in the Protestant Church. It is the supreme moment at which the earthly-born lump of matter, containing already its etherialised portion, or astral soul ensheathed within it, becomes, as the Church has it, “a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.”
 
Then, does not the union of the human soul with the Divine spirit, as set forth by the Theosophists, suggest the real significance of the “I and my Father are one” of Christ? and of the expressions, “make me one with Thee, O Lord,” “dwell Thou in my heart,” “descend into my soul,” “depart not from Thy servant, 0 Thou God of my salvation,” of the pious believer? What else is that oneness with God, that union with Christ, which is the primary end and aim of the Christian religion? That “faith” which is first essential before “works” can become an effectual factor in the Christian life? Conversely, as to the doctrine of possible annihilation. If immortality can be won, it can also be not won, ''i.e., ''lost. And as “M.A., Oxon.” asks for the Gospel I will refer him to the parable of the sheep and the goats.—Matt. xxv. 31-46.
 
Again, I see in the Theosophist teaching no subversion of the old tripartite division, viz.:—Body, the physical or outward man; Soul, the spirit-body of the Spiritualist, perisprit of the Spiritist, astral soul of the occultist; and Spirit, the Divine Light, the over-shadowing, at times indwelling God, whose presence, even in the Jewish Temple, was symbolised by a luminous cloud which rested over the Ark of the Covenant.
 
That which, to my understanding, is the most misleading, and calculated to produce the most erroneous ideas, is the term, ''a ''spirit, ''my ''spirit. Spirit is and remains one; indivisible, eternal, unchangeable, even as all light that illumines our earth is one, proceeding always from the same source, though there may be one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon.
 
I hope “M.A., Oxon.,” will forgive me for saying that he has not shown his accustomed patience and care in dealing with the views of the Theosophists. I say this advisedly, for we look to him as a teacher and leader, and his words are as an oracle to the listening crowd of Spiritualists in England and America. Therefore, it is the more to be regretted that he finds himself unable to stand as an interpreter and a reconciler between the Theosophists and the Spiritualists, and that he is forced instead to widen the breach already begun, and which is, after all, more imaginary than real.
 
For what is the point at issue between “M.A., Oxon.,” and the Theosophists? Both admit that there are various agencies at work in the production of the phenomena of Spiritualism; they differ only as to the rank they assign to each agency. The following illustrates my meaning, at least approximately:—
 
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|{{Style S-Small capitals|The Theosophists.}}
|{{Style S-Small capitals|"M. A., Oxon."}}
|-
|{{Style P-No indent|1. Will-power, human souls, doubles.}}
{{Style P-No indent|2. Elementaries (low-class beings) and elementals.}}
{{Style P-No indent|3. The good departed.}}
|{{Style P-No indent|1. The good departed.}}
{{Style P-No indent|2. Elementaries (low-class beings).}}
{{Style P-No indent|3. Will-power, human souls, doubles.}}
|-
|}
 
Probably neither would agree as to the exact order of the above, but that, again, is a detail. If there is any truth in the general proposition, is it worth while for Theosophists and Spiritualists to divide on the question of rank or degree?
 
“M.A., Oxon.,” asks for finalities. He wants things laid down on “exact lines of demonstration,” But surely at the present stage of our inquiry this is to be deprecated. I thought that the one good result of our nineteenth-century training was the learning to hold our judgment in suspense, and not to hasten to conclusions. The Theosophists have furnished us with an exposition of the teachings of the old philosophies in mattei’s spiritual. We are grateful to them, and we will consider their theories at our leisure. But we do not want them to do all our thinking for us; we will see how much of those theories we can assimilate, after testing them by our own facts, and we can then, if necessary, re-arrange our own categories. Speaking personally, I for one am able to see many things, not in Spiritualism only, but in religion and morals, much more clearly by the light of theosophical teachings; and I trust that no prejudices will be roused by the present discussion which may prevent others from deriving a similar benefit. The shortest road to a clear understanding is the study of Mme. Blavatsky’s book ''Isis'' ''Unveiled, ''in which what I have designated the Theosophist teachings may be found enshrined.
 
{{Style P-Signature in capitals|Emily Kislingbury.}}
 
{{HPB-CW-separator}}


{{HPB-SB-item
{{HPB-SB-item
Line 37: Line 84:
  | item =2
  | item =2
  | type = article
  | type = article
  | status = wanted
  | status = proofread
  | continues =
  | continues =
  | author = Collier E.W.
  | author = Collier E.W.
Line 43: Line 90:
  | subtitle =
  | subtitle =
  | untitled =yes
  | untitled =yes
  | source title =
  | source title = London Spiritualist
  | source details =
  | source details = No. 282, January 18, 1878, p. 33
  | publication date =
  | publication date = 1878-01-18
  | original date = 1877-12-31
  | original date = 1877-12-31
  | notes =
  | notes =
Line 51: Line 98:
}}
}}


...
{{Style S-Small capitals|Sir}},—Mr. Fitzgerald has, by reducing elementals to an equation, demolished one of the beliefs of the theosophists, but he has not alluded to the other statements made by Colonel Olcott.
 
If these statements can be substantiated, and are not mere vague speculations, they are the most important that have appeared in the pages of ''The Spiritualist ''during the three years I have taken it.
 
I shall not question all the statements put forward, but confine my remarks to the view of man as a trinity.
 
Man, according to the theosophists, is a trinity—body, soul, and spirit. The babe is born into this world a duality, and becomes a trinity when it begins to reason. The spirit is separated from soul and body, sometimes, before bodily death—at any rate, at bodily death—and the soul then exists alone for an incalculable time, when it is reunited to spirit, and exists for ever; or, on the other hand, it is annihilated, leaving the spirit to exist for ever.
 
Let us put these beliefs to the test of common sense—admitting, for the sake of argument, that the babe is born a duality. We know that he has a fleshly body, and that he sees, feels, and thinks. Theosophists will not, I suppose, admit that the fleshly body of the babe sees, feels, and thinks, but will say that the soul does.
 
They must then logically admit that a dog sees, feels, and thinks; and, as this is not a faculty of his fleshly body, he, too, must have a soul. Consequently, a babe before it begins to reason and a dog are similar in this life—body and soul; and, after bodily death, a man and a dog are similar—soul only.
 
Soul they regard as sublimated matter, and to this sublimated matter (molecules or atoms?) they annex the faculties of seeing, feeling, and thinking, but deny it to gross matter.
 
Reason they do not, apparently, annex to matter; but on this point there is some ambiguity in Colonel Olcott’s statement. He says the babe becomes a trinity when it begins to reason, which must mean, either that the spirit then joins the duality, and, having the faculty of reason, reasons for the three; or, that reason is inherent in the soul, and, being developed by age, the soul is thereby fitted for the union with spirit, which takes place.
 
If spirit be the reasoning part of the trinity, theosophists must admit that thought and perception are powers of the spirit; for reason without perception or thought is not to be grasped by any mind.
 
Once admit that the spirit has perception, thought, arid reason, there is no necessity for annexing any of them to the soul, unless theosophists hold that both spirit and soul possess them.
 
The body, they say, goes into the crucible of evolution. Why not the soul, which they consider matter? Why, in theory, do they annihilate this sublimated matter? and how is it annihilated?
 
They regard the spirit as immortal. I have endeavoured to show from Colonel Olcott’s statements that it reasons, perceives, and thinks, and we may therefore reasonably conclude that the soul will not be necessary for its well-being during eternity, although it may serve a purpose for a time after bodily death, just as the body has in this life.
 
Is not the spirit the man?
 
Colonel Olcott will greatly oblige me by restating those views of the theosophists upon which I have commented, as follows:—
 
(a) What they know based upon personal observation.
 
(b) What they believe on reasonable grounds—giving those grounds.
 
(c) What is speculation only; also by giving a definition of the word “reason.”
 
I am in search of truth, and do not write in a spirit of hostility. This will be apparent to Colonel Olcott by my endorsing his remarks relative to will power, about which Dr. Carpenter knows very little, although he has doubtless exercised it to a limited extent on his mesmeric sensitives.
 
{{Style P-Signature in capitals|E. W. Collier.}}
 
189, Queen’s-road, Dalston, London, Dec. 31, 1877.




{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px>
london_spiritualist_n.282_1878-01-18.pdf|page=11|London Spiritualist, No. 282, January 18, 1878, p. 33
</gallery>
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/17518"