HPB-SB-12-107

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 12, p. 107

vol. 12

page 107

 

SBT, DT

Legend

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

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

Notes by the Way

"The Theosophist" on things in general fnd M.A. (Oxon) in particular

Tile December number of the Indian Journal of Occultism touches so many points of interest to me that I venture to say Something on a few of its many topics. It deals with the Church Congress, with Mr. Oxley’s “Philosophy of Spirit,” with Gerald Massey’s inquiry after Elementals, with the possibility of a Creative power in man, and with “Light,” in respect of a courteous protest which this journal put forward against any flinging of mud against abusive missionaries. It is no part of my business to take up the editorial glove, but I frankly say that I am very glad to see the intention abandoned, if it ever seriously existed. There is so much that is better worth the doing, and the average missionary is quite beneath the reach of argument, and deals, besides, ill such wholesale vituperation of “the heathen,” as it pleases him to call Buddhists and others, that he would fail to see that he had done any harm. Nor am I disposed to split hairs as to what is a fact. There is in the article so headed much that, speaking for myself only, I agree with: the little that I should contest sinks into insignificance before my cordial acquiescence in such sentiments as I find in various parts of this number.

–––––––

Nothing, for instance, could approach nearer to the spirit of catholic tolerance for divergence of opinion in matters nonessential than these words:—

“Time alone will shew who of us is right, and who wrong, in the matter of Spiritualism; or, perchance, the great problem might be doomed for ever to remain unsolved for the majority, while the minority will go on explaining it, each according to its lights and understanding. Still, instead of abusing and endeavouring to annihilate each other, as Protestants and Roman Catholics do on account of their faiths, we ought to confine ourselves to a correct presentation of our facts and of the theories we found on them, allowing every one to accept or reject what he pleases and quarrel with no one on that account. This is the position we, of the Theosophical Society, composed of so many different creeds and beliefs, have always desired to take. In our turn—firmly convinced of ‘the honesty and sincerity of purpose’ of the Spiritualists, if the Theosophist has occasionally derided some of their too tricky mediums, it has ever, on the other hand, defended those it knew to be genuine; and the journal has never insulted, or tabooed their whole body, as the Spiritualists have our Society. Some of our best and most devoted members are Spiritualists, and very prominent ones, who have ever been the best friends and supporters of the movement. . . . From its beginning the Theosophist, if it has not always advocated, has, at least, warmly defended Spiritualism, as a careful perusal of its back numbers will show. It has defended it from the attacks of Science, of Journalism, and against the denunciations of private individuals, while the Spiritualist has never lost an opportunity of caricaturing us. With Spiritualists as a body, we have never quarrelled, nor do we ever mean to quarrel. Let our esteemed contemporary Light give credit for so much at least to those Who profess themselves the enemies but of Bigots, Hypocrites, and Pharisees.”

–––––––

I trust I shall not be included in the category of those whom tile Theosophists stigmatise; and I reiterate my admiration of the spirit that dictates the passages I have quoted. If I seem to remember some not very far off and hardly faint echoes of a vigorous denunciation which I thought too sweeping, and hardly discriminating in its vehemence, I will turn my ear to catch the more soothing notes of the evangel of the new ore, and try to be in harmony with its strain. We are both in quest of truth, and we may possibly have got hold of different notions which can be harmonised. We shall not mend matters by insisting on the already sharply defined points of difference. We can afford to follow the advice to live at peace, or, to choose a better metaphor, to stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of our common cause.

“Divided as we may be in our conflicting beliefs as to the agency of the phenomena, we are at one as regards the reality of the manifestations, mediumship in all its various aspects, and the highest phases of Spiritualism, such as personal inspiration, clairvoyance, &c., and even the subjective intercourse between the living and the disembodied souls and spirits under conditions fully defined in Part I. of ‘Fragments of Occult Truth.’ (See October Theosophist.) At all events, there is a far lesser abyss between the Spiritualists and the Theosophists than there is between the Protestants and the Roman Catholic clergy, their common Christianity notwithstanding. Their house is one and, divided against itself, it must finally fall: while our houses are two. And if we are wise and, instead of quarrelling, support each other, both will be. found built on a rock, the foundation being the same though the architecture be different.”

–––––––

But it is important, before we form this column of mutual defense and support, that we know exactly where we are, and on what lines of agreement we can meet. There is, no doubt, much in common between us—this not least, that the exoteric world would regard us both as equally crazy. There is more; and I am glad to find that Parti, of “Fragments of Occult Truth,” which, it seems, I have wrongly called a manifesto, is not to be held as the fully inspired theosophical word to which none may add and from which none may deviate, under pain of anathema. It is to be supplemented: but I presume it is good as far as it goes. If so, it presents points of difficulty which are to me, as at present advised, insuperable. They will, however, I hope, be elucidated in subsequent “Fragments,’’ for which it is only fair that we should wait. In those future documents (may I call them?) I trust an attempt will be made to discriminate between a Spiritualism which is pure, ennobling, and elevating, and that vulgar, foolish, or fraudulent imitation of the truth which our friends scorn to take as their one typo. With all their denunciations of the latter I go along. No efforts that can avail to make Spiritualism of good repute can be otherwise than welcome to me. But surely we are not all to be included in olio common condemnation. Some discrimination is necessary. And the courteous treatment which “Light” receives at the hands of the Theosophist emboldens me to hope that we are not all wholly bad in its estimation.

–––––––

I am concerned to find myself occupying a very disproportionate amount of space in the January number of the Theosophist. I am very sorry that what I say should call for such extended notice. 1 can but fear that the attempt to prove that the theosophical position is not (as I say it is in the way in which it was presented in “Fragments of Occult Truth”) “one of complete antagonism to Spiritualism,” requires some considerable effort and some extended space. If we Spiritualists communicate only with some “shells” oil their way to a more or less rapid extinction; if all communications from the world of Spirit deserve the opinion which has been freely expressed of them; if our circles are the haunts of devils, as is alleged; if we ourselves are misguided and obsessed when We are not consciously knavish, what is to be said? “Let the righteous,” said the Psalmist of old, “smite me friendly and reprove mo.” “But,” he added, with a reservation, “lot not their precious balms break my head.’’ I feel a little as if, in a perfectly friendly way, brick-bats were flying about.

<... continues on page 12-108 >

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  Light, v. 2, No. 57, February 4, 1882, pp. 49-50