HPB-SB-10-93: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| item =1 | | item =1 | ||
| type = image | | type = image | ||
| file = | | file = SB-10-093-1.jpg | ||
| status = | | image size = 300px | ||
| status = ok | |||
| author = | | author = | ||
| title = | | title = | ||
| Line 28: | Line 29: | ||
| item =2 | | item =2 | ||
| type = article | | type = article | ||
| status = | | status = proofread | ||
| continues =94 | | continues =94, 95, 96, 97 | ||
| author =Massey, C.C. | | author =Massey, C.C. | ||
| title =True and False Personality | | title =True and False Personality* | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| source title =Spiritualist | | source title = London Spiritualist | ||
| source details = | | source details = No. 376, November 7, 1879, pp. 217-21 | ||
| publication date =1879-11-07 | | publication date = 1879-11-07 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| notes = | | notes = | ||
| Line 42: | Line 43: | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style S-Small capitals| The}} title prefixed to the following observations may well have suggested a more metaphysical treatment of the subject than can be attempted on the present occasion. The doctrine of the trinity, or trichotomy of man, which distinguishes soul from spirit, comes to us with such weighty, venerable, and even sacred authority, that we may well be content, for the moment, with confirmations that should be intelligible to all, forbearing the abstruser questions which have divided minds of the highest philosophical capacity. We will not now inquire whether the difference is one of states or of entities: whether the phenomenal or mind consciousness is merely the external condition of one indivisible Ego, or has its origin and nature in an altogether different principle; the Spirit, or immortal part of us, being of Divine birth, while the senses and understanding, with the consciousness—Ahankara—thereto appertaining, are from an ''Anima Mundi, ''or what in the Sankya philosophy is called Prakriti. My utmost expectations will have been exceeded if it should happen that any considerations here offered should throw even a faint suggestive light upon the bearings of this great problem. It may be that the mere irreconcilability ’of all that is characteristic of the temporal Ego with the conditions of the superior life—if that can be made apparent—will incline you to regard the latter rather as the Redeemer, that has indeed to be born within us for our salvation and our immortality, than as the inmost, central, and inseparable principle of our phenomenal life. It may be that by the light of such reflexions the sense of identity will present no insuperable difficulty to the conception of its contingency, or to recognition that the mere consciousness which fails to attach itself to a higher principle is no guarantee of an eternal individuality. | ||
It is only by a survey of what individuality, regarded as the source of all our affections, thoughts, and actions, is, that we can realise its intrinsic worthlessness; and only when we have brought ourselves to a real and felt acknowledgment of that fact, can we accept with full understanding those “hard sayings” of sacred authority which bid us “die to ourselves,” and which proclaim the necessity of a veritable new birth. This mystic death and birth is the keynote of all profound religious teaching; and that which distinguishes the ordinary religious mind from spiritual insight is just the tendency to interpret these expressions as merely figurative, or, indeed, to overlook them altogether. | |||
Of all the reproaches which modern Spiritualism, with the prospect it is thought to hold out of an {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|10-94}} | |||
{{Footnotes start}} | |||
<nowiki>*</nowiki> A paper read before the Theosophical Society last Tuesday night. | |||
{{Footnotes end}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer-sources}} | |||
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px> | |||
london_spiritualist_n.376_1879-11-07.pdf|page=3|London Spiritualist, No. 376, November 7, 1879, pp. 217-21 | |||
</gallery> | |||
Latest revision as of 08:28, 15 August 2024
Legend
True and False Personality*
The title prefixed to the following observations may well have suggested a more metaphysical treatment of the subject than can be attempted on the present occasion. The doctrine of the trinity, or trichotomy of man, which distinguishes soul from spirit, comes to us with such weighty, venerable, and even sacred authority, that we may well be content, for the moment, with confirmations that should be intelligible to all, forbearing the abstruser questions which have divided minds of the highest philosophical capacity. We will not now inquire whether the difference is one of states or of entities: whether the phenomenal or mind consciousness is merely the external condition of one indivisible Ego, or has its origin and nature in an altogether different principle; the Spirit, or immortal part of us, being of Divine birth, while the senses and understanding, with the consciousness—Ahankara—thereto appertaining, are from an Anima Mundi, or what in the Sankya philosophy is called Prakriti. My utmost expectations will have been exceeded if it should happen that any considerations here offered should throw even a faint suggestive light upon the bearings of this great problem. It may be that the mere irreconcilability ’of all that is characteristic of the temporal Ego with the conditions of the superior life—if that can be made apparent—will incline you to regard the latter rather as the Redeemer, that has indeed to be born within us for our salvation and our immortality, than as the inmost, central, and inseparable principle of our phenomenal life. It may be that by the light of such reflexions the sense of identity will present no insuperable difficulty to the conception of its contingency, or to recognition that the mere consciousness which fails to attach itself to a higher principle is no guarantee of an eternal individuality.
It is only by a survey of what individuality, regarded as the source of all our affections, thoughts, and actions, is, that we can realise its intrinsic worthlessness; and only when we have brought ourselves to a real and felt acknowledgment of that fact, can we accept with full understanding those “hard sayings” of sacred authority which bid us “die to ourselves,” and which proclaim the necessity of a veritable new birth. This mystic death and birth is the keynote of all profound religious teaching; and that which distinguishes the ordinary religious mind from spiritual insight is just the tendency to interpret these expressions as merely figurative, or, indeed, to overlook them altogether.
Of all the reproaches which modern Spiritualism, with the prospect it is thought to hold out of an <... continues on page 10-94 >
* A paper read before the Theosophical Society last Tuesday night.
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 376, November 7, 1879, pp. 217-21