HPB-SB-8-131

T i

vol. 8, p. 131

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

vol. 8 (September 1878 - September 1879)

Legend

SBT, DT

• HPB note
• HPB highlighted
• HPB underlined
• HPB crossed out
• <Editors note>
• <Archivist note>
• Lost or unclear
• Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

< Untitled (continued from page 8-130) >

...

<Untitled> (Now that certain...)

...

<Untitled> (The Society receives...)

...

<Untitled> (Sir,- with reference...)

Sir,—With reference to the interesting correspondence caused by the bomb which Miss Kislingbury lately exploded in the Spiritual camp, I wish to say a few words.

The view of Miss Kislingbury and the Theosophists that immortality is not for all, but must be won through strenuous effort in the great battle for continued life, appears to me to be such a melancholy hypothesis as to the arrangements governing this very peculiar world (if it be not also a view involving manifest injustice), that I beg to join in Mr. Stainton-Moses’s reasonable request that Miss Kislingbury should kindly let us have some proofs for such a startling allegation.

I must add, nevertheless, that this doctrine possibly has the support of no less a master of thought than Goethe, who, in his Conversations with Eckermann (Bohn's translation, page 412), says: “What a deal have people philosophised about immortality—and how far have they got? I doubt not of our immortality, for nature cannot dispense with the entelechia (spirit or soul); but we are not all in like manner immortal, and he who would manifest himself in future as a great entelechia must be one now.”

In a previous Conversation (p. 360), Goethe however says: “Neither does the philosopher need the countenance of religion to prove certain doctrines, as, for instance, eternal duration. Man should believe in immortality; he has a right to this belief; it corresponds with the wants of his nature, and he may believe in the promises of religion. But if the philosopher tries to deduce the immortality of the soul from a legend, that is very weak and inefficient. To me the eternal existence of my soul is proved from my idea of activity; if I work on incessantly till my death, nature is bound to give me another form of existence when the present one can no longer sustain my spirit.”

Again, in another conversation (p. 308), Goethe says:—“Every entelechia is a piece of eternity, and the few years during which it is bound to the earthly body does not make it old.”

It remains, however, a serious question whether this continual occupation of the thoughts with the question of a future life, which appears particularly to occupy Spiritualists and Spiritualistic literature, be not a sign of a low state of culture, and of an unhappy and diseased habit of extreme self-consciousness. In the best ages of the world, and with those minds which have done most to advance true culture, there has always been less of this self-introspection and vain prying into what maybe intentionally hidden from man (so far as strict proof is concerned), and more of active effort for their own improvement and for that of humanity, leaving them less time and inclination for these speculations as to a future state. If the time occupied in these theologic pursuits had been applied in trying to establish the much wanted solidarity in material things, the state of the world and society, it seems to me, would have been in a better condition; and I doubt not that when this solidarity (the evident aim of the teaching of Jesus) shall have been attained, the world will be so much happier, and so much occupied with practical improvements, that men will have no time to indulge in these sort of inquiries, but being intensely happy and contented noiv, they will have faith enough to conclude, without wasting time in abstract philosophical speculations, that they will be equally happy then.

Goethe says (p. 66):—“This occupation with the ideas of immortality is for people of rank, and especially ladies who have nothing to do. But an able man, who has something regular to do here, and must toil and struggle and produce day by day, leaves the future world to itself, and is active and useful in this. Thoughts about immortality are also good for those who have not been very successful here.”

If we would all pay more attention to realise the great ideal of the future, “Solidarity in material things; Individuality in spiritual things,” it might, perhaps, be better for us.*

After all, we should never forget Goethe’s words of wisdom (p. 161): —“Man is born not to solve the problems of the universe, but to find out where the problem begins, and then to restrain himself within the limits of the comprehensible. His faculties are not sufficient to measure the actions of the universe, and the attempt to explain the outer world by reason is, with his narrow point of view, but a vain endeavour. The reason of man and the reason of the Deity are two very different things.”

It seems to me that the great advantage of Spiritualism is that it will encourage a more accurate investigation of the occult powers of man incorporated on earth, for I think these abnormal powers now existing only in germ, with an environment here on earth unsuitable to their exercise, will eventually afford the most satisfactory proofs of a continued existence beyond the grave; for is it not evident that these powers can only be accounted for by supposing a future sphere for their development and normal exercise? Without such a sphere they seem worse than useless. To my mind, impressed by my own experience, and from what I have read of Spiritualistic literature, the proofs of immortality derived from this source are more convincing than the statements of the “intelligent operator at the other end of the line,” because so very many of the communications made by these operators have been found to be so altogether untrustworthy, that it becomes a most difficult and doubtful matter to distinguish what is true from what is false and personation.

I am far from saying that there may not be some trustworthy communications from this source, and still more that in future, when seances are better conducted with harmonious circles, and the medium protected, a great deal of what is valuable may not be obtained.

Dr. Wyld, in his letter in The Spiritualist of 10th January, says that “the hidden and esoteric doctrine of Christ can be understood by those only who hold the mystical key.” Now as I, and I doubt not many others, do not possess this key, but at the same time are very desirous to know all truth, I think Dr. Wyld would confer a favour on many by stating openly what that hidden esoteric doctrine is. Mysteries and esoteric teaching were necessary in former ages of intolerance, when the more enlightened members of society were afraid to express openly their real opinions, on account of fear either of the wrath of the ignorant multitude, or of the calculated and interested persecution of the organised priesthoods of all religions; but now there exists no necessity for any esoteric teaching, and it seems to me that any one possessing any hidden knowledge, or the key to such, is bound to disclose it, so that all may enjoy the benefit of the truth, as well as the initiated.

I am sure many also would wish to know “the secret of the Logos” alluded to by Dr. Wyld, in order to ascertain if it be in any way different from the well-known Neoplatonic and Gnostic views. Perhaps Dr. Wyld will be kind enough to give your readers some information on these most interesting subjects.

<... continues on page 8-132 >

* John S. Mill, who was far from being an enthusiast, agreed with the view of Jesus that the present organisation of labour, based on the principle of private interests and selfishness, was not the final form which would be developed by social humanity.

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  London Spiritualist, No. 335, January 24, 1879, pp. 45-6