HPB-SB-14-34

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 14, p. 34	volume 14, page 34 vol. title: vol. period: 1882 pages in vol.: 174 The underlying masthead belongs to the 16 September issue of Light; the pasted clippings are from different issues. The opening continued article is from September 2, 1882.
Legend HPB note HPB highlighted HPB underlined HPB crossed out <Editors note> <Archivist note> Lost or unclear SBT, DT Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

LIGHT.
September 2, 1882.

< “Isis Unveiled,” and “The Theosophist” on Re-Incarnation. (continued from page 14-33) >

last number, expresses exactly what has long been my opinion almost conviction, on the subject.

If, therefore, there was no real inconsistency between the two teachings contrasted, I, of all people, was least excusable in imagining one. Well, I can only say that after a careful re-reading of the passage in “Isis” I am astonished at the confidence and coolness with which the inconsistency is denied! Had the statement simply been that “the individual or rather his astral monad” is not re-incarnated, we might pass over the strangely misleading character of a denial which is accompanied by not the slightest hint of the far more important affirmation. Yet even then, should we not feel justly indignant with a teacher who knowing all the while that “the individual” is re-incarnated should answer a question on the subject by saying “the individual—or rather his astral monad,—is not re-incarnated,” as if, “or rather his astral monad,” were merely a somewhat more correct description of the subject-matter of the inquiry? For “Isis,” be it remembered, was addressed to Americans and English, not to “Eastern Occultists.” But let that pass, and consider the reason which the writer in “Isis” goes on to give for the exceptional cases. “But when the new being has not passed beyond the condition of monad, or when, as in the idiot, the trinity has not been completed, the immortal spark which illuminates it has to re-enter the earthly planet, as it was frustrated in its first attempt.” (Italics mine.) It is the failure in such rare cases to form a true composite human being that is alleged as the sole reason for the “re-entry” on the theatre of this world of “the immortal spark” (the spiritual monad). And is this not inconsistent with the statement that that very monad will re-enter hundreds and thousands of times, building up hundreds and thousands of distinct and successive personalities? And what can be more explicit than the following statement, which I also cited from “Isis”? “If reason has been so far developed as to become active and discriminative, there is no Re-Incarnation on this earth, for the three parts of the triune man have been united together, and he is capable of running the race.” No doubt this passage is a part of the same exposition, and it will be said that the qualification with which the whole account commences, governs it throughout. I must leave it to competent and candid critics to decide. Let me say in conclusion that I should not have raised this question at all, impugning the consistency of friends to whose instructions I pay the greatest heed, but for the deep interest I take in this subject, my desire to see it cleared as far as possible from ambiguity, and my consequent impatience of any doubtful pretensions to positive knowledge with regard to it.

C. C. M.

stayed, and that she had dreamt of being there. A little later,

–––––––

LIGHT.
October 28, 1882.

NOTES BY THE WAY.

Contributed by “M.A. (Oxon.)”

“C.C.M.” sends me from his own experience a case of dream-intimation of death which works in with others I have printed.

“Towards the end of 1875, a relative in the country, from whom I had received much kindness, and whose house had been almost a second home to me from my childhood, lay seriously ill. All the family knew that the end was approaching, but though I naturally often thought of him, I had heard nothing more of his condition for a few days before the night or early morning in which I had the following dream. I was playing with children in a part of the grounds near his house, when suddenly I heard my name loudly called from the house in the powerful voice of my relative when in vigorous health. I was startled, having in my dream a distinct recollection of his illness. Running to the house, I was still more surprised to find him sitting on a chair on the gravel walk in front, outside the library window. Near him stood his daughter and her husband—so at least I guessed, for whereas his figure was perfectly defined and in light, those of the others were more obscure. All traces of his illness had disappeared, unless his sitting was a sign of weakness. He seemed altogether the fresh, healthy man of years ago. I exclaimed ‘Oh, how much better you are looking!’ There was some reply, but then the dream faded, and in recording it (as I did) next morning I could not be sure whether the words impressed on me, ‘Yes, I am very glad to get out,’ were an obscure recollection, or naturally suggested by the imagination of a Spiritualist like myself. However, on awaking I remembered the dream, and at once said to myself, ‘—— is dead.’ On going down late to breakfast I found a letter announcing the fact. He had died the previous evening, many hours, of course, before my dream.”

–––––––

LIGHT.
September 16, 1882.

<Untitled> (A meeting of the Council of the C. A. S. will be held…)

A meeting of the Council of the C.A.S. will be held at Great Russell-street on Monday next, at 6.30 p.m.

–––––––

LIGHT.
September 30, 1882.

SUPERSENSUOUS PERCEPTION AND
PROPHETIC DREAMS.

To the Editor of “Light.”

Sir,—Professor Barrett, in “Light,” has asked for an accurate version of an incident reported about two months ago in a Plymouth paper (the Western Mercury), and copied into the London papers. Being at Exeter when the paragraph appeared, I went on to Plymouth with a letter of introduction from a friend to the proprietor of the Mercury, hoping to get the exact evidence as far as possible at first hand for the Society for Psychical Research. The proprietor of the paper introduced me to the editor, from whom I learned that the matter was already the subject of a correspondence between himself and another member of our Society, in whose hands I should have been quite satisfied to leave it. The editor informed me that since the publication of the account in his paper one of the women who had made the statement on which it was founded, had called upon him, and had stated that they had received no official information of the death of their relative, the petty officer at Alexandria, from the Admiralty, as they almost certainly would, had the fact been so. Although I suspected this to belong to another class of cases, in which the anxiety or distress of living persons has been simultaneously communicated to friends at a distance, there was no chance of establishing this by evidence without the testimony of the man himself as to what was happening to him at the time his voice was heard. Curiously enough, this man’s name was included in a list of killed at Alexandria sent to the editor by the naval correspondent of the paper, but which had not been published when the letter of Mr. Revington giving the women’s statement, was received.

Possibly some further and more particular information might now be obtainable; and the “vexatious fact” (as another investigator of those things has described it) that the man was not dead should not prevent further inquiry, as the case may possess another significance, though not just that which was supposed.

The following cases of anticipatory dreams have been communicated to me by a gentleman who has authorised me to publish his name and the names of the other persons mentioned. I give them in the words of my informant, Mr. E. R. Pearce, 5, Paper Buildings, Temple, a member of the Western Circuit:—

“Mrs. Lawrence, of Camelford (my great-great-aunt) dreamed (circa 1810) that she went to London, and that on her return home an accident happened as they were driving through the streets of Glastonbury; that she was seriously injured, lost a shoe, and was taken to the hotel senseless. She said next day that this would never come true, for she should never go to London again. Many months afterwards her husband had to go to London, and she went with him. Coming back from London she was sitting bodkin in the post chaise, and in driving through Wells* an accident happened, the horse taking fright at some men who were mending the street. Her head was badly injured, and she was taken senseless to the hotel, where she was laid up for a long time. In the accident she lost a shoe. This account is from my aunt, Miss Eliot, a niece of Mrs. Lawrence.”

In reply to my further inquiries, Mr. Pearce wrote me, “I hear that there is no written record of Mrs. Lawrence’s dream. The oral account is doubly verified. Miss Eliot, from whom I had it, heard it several times from Mrs. Lawrence. Besides this, my grandmother, Miss Eliot’s sister, was one of the party at the time the accident happened. The party consisted of six in two carriages, and my grandmother, who must have been thirty-one years of age at that time, was in the first of the two, and it was in the hinder one that Mrs. Lawrence was travelling. My grandmother stayed with Mrs. Lawrence and nursed her, and my aunt, Miss Pearce, has heard my grandmother (her mother) tell the story numbers of times, and she entirely confirms Miss Eliot’s version of it.”

Now, the above is “hearsay,” but it is good evidence of its kind. There are two living witnesses who heard the story, one, Miss Eliot, “several times,” from the lady to whom the dream and fulfilment occurred; the other, Miss Pearce, “numbers of times” (as would be likely) from her mother, who was present at the time of the accident.

It would, however, be satisfactory to ascertain from Miss Eliot whether she had heard of the dream before the accident. If so, her evidence would be more valuable than that of Mrs.<... continues on page 14-35 >

* Wells is some miles from Glastonbury.

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  Light, v. 2, No. 95, October 28, 1882, p. 478

• 

  Light, v. 2, No. 89, September 16, 1882, p. 414

• 

  Light, v. 2, No. 91, September 30, 1882, p. 436