HPB-SB-7-86: Difference between revisions
m (+images) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| subtitle = Just What the Lady above Referred to thinks about things here | | subtitle = Just What the Lady above Referred to thinks about things here | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| source title = | | source title = | ||
| source details = April 12, 1878 | | source details = April 12, 1878 | ||
| publication date = 1878-04-12 | | publication date = 1878-04-12 | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| item = 3 | | item = 3 | ||
| type = letter | | type = letter | ||
| status = | | status = proofread | ||
| continues = 87, 88 | | continues = 87, 88 | ||
| author = Olcott, H. S. | | author = Olcott, H. S. | ||
| title = Colonel H. S. Olcott on Recent Criticisms–Psychical Drawings | | title = Colonel H. S. Olcott on Recent Criticisms–Psychical Drawings | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| source title = Spiritualist | | source title = London Spiritualist | ||
| source details = April 12, 1878 | | source details = No. 294, April 12, 1878, pp. 175-7 | ||
| publication date = 1878-04-12 | | publication date = 1878-04-12 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style S-Small capitals|Sir}},—When Theosophists were invited to discuss the phenomena and philosophy of mediumship, I supposed that that was the paramount object in view. This conviction was strengthened by our hospitable reception in the columns of the organ of educated British Spiritualists. What we had to say was courteously given space, and, to our great satisfaction, the critics whom we found arrayed against us were the best of their wranglers. Having myself been what may properly be termed an orthodox Spiritualist for a quarter of a century, familiar with most forms of the phenomena, an observer of mediums, acquainted with the notions of leading writers upon Spiritualism and the personal friend of some, I was measurably qualified to comprehend the meaning of our opponents, and enter into sympathy with their motives. Their ideas had long been my ideas, their difficulties in accepting new ones identical with those which presented themselves to my mind when the Eastern notions of psychological phenomena were first explained to me. | ||
The substantive issue between Theosophists and Spiritualists, as we understood it, was whether the transmission of intelligence through mediums, and the occurrence of verifiable physical phenomena, were ''prima facie ''proof of the agency of our deceased friends. I aim to be brief, but I think this phrase about defines the matter. Mediumism accepted as a fact, the transmission of intelligence conceded, the occurrence of psycho-physiological phenomena, not explicable on the theory of fraud, our debate was narrowed down to nature of the intelligence. And yet in this was embraced the All; in this speck, the Kosmos. | |||
As far back as 1854, when the leading Spiritualists of New York thought it expedient to inaugurate a series of Sunday meetings for the purpose of instructing the public about the phenomena, a meeting was called at the office of the ''Spiritual Telegraph, ''and a board of trustees chosen to collect subscriptions, invite speakers, and “take the whole management of the meetings.” The trustees were nominated as persons “who entertain, or are supposed to entertain, different views upon the subject of Spiritualism.” Of these trustees Hr. It. T. Hallockwas one, and I another. There were two preambles adopted with the resolution to elect the board, the second of which recited that, since the great diversity of “human temperaments, intellectual developments, and spiritual experiences, tend to different conclusions upon spiritual as well as temporal things,” it was becoming in “seekers after truth to bear and forbear, and patiently hearken to the reasons of another’s faith.” The shade of opinion that I was supposed to represent was that not only mediumship, but its fruits, should be tried by the inexorable standard of utility: what promised to be beneficial, either to the individual or to society, should be encouraged, all else discountenanced. This idea was fully discussed by me in the ''Telegraph. ''And as the same divergence of opinion respecting the phenomena still exists, we imagined that the debate was still open. | |||
Upon examination, I find that the issue of ''The Spiritualist ''for March 1st, 1878, bears the serial number 288, the journal being in its eleventh volume; its sub-title is “Journal of Psychological Science.” It therefore appears that to the discussion of psychological science this publication has devoted nearly three thousand five hundred pages since its foundation. How natural for American students of this subject to take as a matter of course that what they should say, if grammatically and decently expressed, would be welcomed as lending fresh interest to an old theme? What wonder that we should have attributed the polite attention we actually received to a genuine wish to learn what else than had been said was to be said upon this theme? Or, that we should have rejoiced to find ourselves spared the necessity to establish an organ of our own, when so admirably edited and high-toned a journal as ''The'' ''Spiritualist ''was in existence? Let our surprise then be imagined at finding ourselves bowed politely out of court by the editor, and favoured by certain contributors with epithets that would not be out of place in the mouths of William Eddy’s band of vituperative angels. | |||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on |7-87}} | {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on |7-87}} | ||
| Line 91: | Line 97: | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer-sources}} | |||
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px> | |||
london_spiritualist_n.294_1878-04-12.pdf|page=9|London Spiritualist, No. 294, April 12, 1878, pp. 175-7 | |||
</gallery> | |||
Latest revision as of 08:53, 7 March 2024
Legend
< Ghost Stories Galore (continued from page 7-85) >
...
Madame's View of New York
...
Colonel H. S. Olcott on Recent Criticisms–Psychical Drawings
Sir,—When Theosophists were invited to discuss the phenomena and philosophy of mediumship, I supposed that that was the paramount object in view. This conviction was strengthened by our hospitable reception in the columns of the organ of educated British Spiritualists. What we had to say was courteously given space, and, to our great satisfaction, the critics whom we found arrayed against us were the best of their wranglers. Having myself been what may properly be termed an orthodox Spiritualist for a quarter of a century, familiar with most forms of the phenomena, an observer of mediums, acquainted with the notions of leading writers upon Spiritualism and the personal friend of some, I was measurably qualified to comprehend the meaning of our opponents, and enter into sympathy with their motives. Their ideas had long been my ideas, their difficulties in accepting new ones identical with those which presented themselves to my mind when the Eastern notions of psychological phenomena were first explained to me.
The substantive issue between Theosophists and Spiritualists, as we understood it, was whether the transmission of intelligence through mediums, and the occurrence of verifiable physical phenomena, were prima facie proof of the agency of our deceased friends. I aim to be brief, but I think this phrase about defines the matter. Mediumism accepted as a fact, the transmission of intelligence conceded, the occurrence of psycho-physiological phenomena, not explicable on the theory of fraud, our debate was narrowed down to nature of the intelligence. And yet in this was embraced the All; in this speck, the Kosmos.
As far back as 1854, when the leading Spiritualists of New York thought it expedient to inaugurate a series of Sunday meetings for the purpose of instructing the public about the phenomena, a meeting was called at the office of the Spiritual Telegraph, and a board of trustees chosen to collect subscriptions, invite speakers, and “take the whole management of the meetings.” The trustees were nominated as persons “who entertain, or are supposed to entertain, different views upon the subject of Spiritualism.” Of these trustees Hr. It. T. Hallockwas one, and I another. There were two preambles adopted with the resolution to elect the board, the second of which recited that, since the great diversity of “human temperaments, intellectual developments, and spiritual experiences, tend to different conclusions upon spiritual as well as temporal things,” it was becoming in “seekers after truth to bear and forbear, and patiently hearken to the reasons of another’s faith.” The shade of opinion that I was supposed to represent was that not only mediumship, but its fruits, should be tried by the inexorable standard of utility: what promised to be beneficial, either to the individual or to society, should be encouraged, all else discountenanced. This idea was fully discussed by me in the Telegraph. And as the same divergence of opinion respecting the phenomena still exists, we imagined that the debate was still open.
Upon examination, I find that the issue of The Spiritualist for March 1st, 1878, bears the serial number 288, the journal being in its eleventh volume; its sub-title is “Journal of Psychological Science.” It therefore appears that to the discussion of psychological science this publication has devoted nearly three thousand five hundred pages since its foundation. How natural for American students of this subject to take as a matter of course that what they should say, if grammatically and decently expressed, would be welcomed as lending fresh interest to an old theme? What wonder that we should have attributed the polite attention we actually received to a genuine wish to learn what else than had been said was to be said upon this theme? Or, that we should have rejoiced to find ourselves spared the necessity to establish an organ of our own, when so admirably edited and high-toned a journal as The Spiritualist was in existence? Let our surprise then be imagined at finding ourselves bowed politely out of court by the editor, and favoured by certain contributors with epithets that would not be out of place in the mouths of William Eddy’s band of vituperative angels.
<... continues on page 7-87 >
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 294, April 12, 1878, pp. 175-7