HPB-SB-14-115

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 14, p. 115	volume 14, page 115 vol. title: vol. period: pages in vol.:
Legend HPB note HPB highlighted HPB underlined HPB crossed out <Editors note> <Archivist note> Lost or unclear SBT, DT Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

LIGHT.
December 9, 1882.

“THE PERFECT WAY” AND ITS CRITICS.

To the Editor of “Light.”

Sir,—A slashing pen is apt to be dangerous to its employer. In the impetuosity of his onslaught, “Trident” has done himself, no less than others, an injustice. Let me, then, once again, enter the lists, this time to tender a helping hand to my too adventurous opponent.

“Trident” cannot really hold that religion bears no relation either to memory or to manner of living. Tradition and intuition—the two factors in religion—are each dependent upon memory, the former dealing with its historical, the latter with its spiritual, element. And if it be indeed true that it is possible for one who has lived on earth in the far past to return and communicate of his knowledge concerning any leading religious founder with whom he may have been associated, such invaluable testimony would be due to the faculty which “Trident” repudiates, namely, memory.

But even more essential to religion than the knowledge of events, historical merely and external, is the knowledge of those interior experiences which represent the Divine operation within the soul of the individual. Here it is that the intuition finds its especial office; and inasmuch as without her recollection of those experiences the soul could not communicate of them to the individual, and without his recollection of them the latter could not impart of them to others, it is upon memory, again, that religion largely depends.

“Perception and recollection—these are the sources of Inspiration.” But I forbear to quote, lest your correspondent may again make the mistake of suggesting that I cite from myself.

Having shewn how close is the relation of religion to memory, I come to that between religion and diet. As the regulator of conduct, religion is necessarily the regulator of diet. For diet is a department of conduct, and this as respects quality as well as quantity. To deny the relation in question, is to repudiate the practice of temperance, whether in eating or in drinking, as a religious duty, and to admit cannibals, gluttons, and drunkards to the kingdom of Heaven. The conditions of admission to that kingdom are dependent upon attitude of mind and state of heart. The question between us is whether those conditions are fulfilled by one who, either personally or by proxy, batters in the skull or cuts the throat of a gentle, innocent, highly-sensitive fellow-creature, in order to devour its flesh, when the earth around him supplies in abundance wholesome and legitimate food. Nor is the cruelty to the animals the worst part of the evil involved in such a practice. Men themselves are unutterably degraded by it and kept back. It is not the wolf or tiger, but the lamb, which is represented in the Sacred Writings, as the type of him who finally overcomes evil and attains to perfection and bliss. And there is abundant reason to believe that only from food at once pure in itself, and righteously come by, can the spirit within (the “God of the man,” as I have termed it) extract the elements needful for the edification of the individual to the full stature of his due perfection. It may well be that were “Trident” to put himself on this regenerative regimen, he would find it easier to shew himself in print the courteous gentleman he, no doubt, is in reality.

As to my “relying for inspiration upon a phantom,” it is necessary only to point out that it is not I, but “Trident” himself, who does this. My “phantom,” being a shade of my past self, is but as a note-book, to facilitate the recovery of my own recollections. “Trident” on the contrary, as is shewn by his letters, postulates the intervention of extraneous Spirits, which are veritable “phantoms,” and seems to think that without their inspiration man would have little or no knowledge of things spiritual.

I regret greatly having to make this further demand upon your space, but the compulsion is not of my own making. The consolation must lie in the hope that some, at least, of your readers—those who are of teachable mind—will derive benefit from the greater explicitness attendant on each fresh re-statement of opinion.—Yours, &c.,

Cantab.

–––––––

<Untitled> (Sir,—It is necessary to give a reply…)

To the Editor of “Light.”

Sir,—It is necessary to give a reply, which shall be made as brief as possible, to the questions and statements made on the above subject in a letter printed in a recent issue of “Light,” under the heading, “Teachings of ‘The Perfect Way.’”

Most modern Christians believe that Jesus ate not only fish, but flesh, and this impression constitutes for them clear licence and sanction to do likewise, although a careful examination of the Sacred Writings, and a scrupulous comparison of the various statements made in the Gospels, would go far to convince them that the probabilities of the case are strongly in favour of a wholly different view.

In the 2nd chapter of Matthew it is stated that Jesus was a “Nazarene.” The fact that the writer refers to prophecy for his authority plainly shews that he means not a Nazarene in the sense of a mere inhabitant of Nazareth, but a “Nazarite,” for the reference made can only be to the declaration of Jacob (Genesis, xlix. 26), in which the word nâzîr occurs for the first time in the Bible, and in the Protestant version is translated “separate”; to the directions given by an angel to the mother of Samson; and to the vow of Hannah in regard to Samuel. According to ecclesiastical tradition, a Nazarene or Nazarite appears to have been one who wore his hair long, clothed himself in a single outer garment without seam, abstained from fermented drinks, and, in the higher degrees of the order, as among the Essenes, from flesh-meats also, after the manner of John the Baptist. The belief that Jesus was one of this order is not only supported by Gospel statement, but by legendary art, based on early conviction and doctrine, as is conclusively shewn by all the Christian representations of the Master, depicting Him invariably in the Nazarite garb, with flowing hair and beard. That He was an adherent of John’s doctrine appears further probable from the fact that He sought and underwent baptism at the hands of the latter, and the very word “Essene” is derived from a root signifying “Bather.” To be “bathed” was, therefore, to profess Essenism.

There is no evidence, written or traditional, that Jesus ever partook of flesh. The phrase, “the Son of Man is come eating and drinking,” is plainly shewn by the context (in the revised edition) to refer to the eating of bread; and it implies that Jesus did not push abstinence to asceticism, as did John. The Paschal Lamb difficulty (in connection with the Last Supper) arises out of a simple misunderstanding, easily rectifiable. The Last Supper is shewn in the Gospel of John, who himself was a prominent figure on the occasion,* to have taken place on the evening of the thirteenth day of the month of Nisan, that is, as is many times distinctly affirmed, before the day of the Paschal meal, which was the fourteenth of Nisan. On this latter day (Friday) the Crucifixion itself took place, for we are told in all four Gospels that this event occurred on the preparation day of the Sabbath, which Sabbath, being also the Convocation day, was “an high day.” The date of the Crucifixion is unmistakably fixed by John in the verse: “They led Jesus, therefore, into the palace; and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the palace, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.”

That the Crucifixion took place the day after that of the Last Supper, is clearly stated by all four Evangelists, and this fact affords plain evidence that the mention of the “eating of the Passover” in relation to the Supper is an erroneous interpolation, for all of them agree that it was held on the thirteenth of Nisan (Thursday), on which day the Passover could not have been eaten.

In calling attention to these facts, over which Biblical students have been much and hopelessly exercised, we cannot refrain from once more pointing out the uncertainty of the historical data of the Gospels, and the danger—exemplified in your correspondent’s letter—of citing from “the plain, clear, unmistakable record” of one Gospel narrative, a statement which is flatly contradicted by another of equal or even greater authority.

But that Jesus ate fish, is, if these Gospel records are to be accepted in their literal sense—an assumption we emphatically contest—pretty well established. Let your correspondent bear with us while we point out the strong indications which exist why the fish-eating and fish-catching attributed to Jesus and His disciples, have, not a literal, but a parabolic and mystic meaning, precisely as have also the many references to the “cup” and to wine-drinking in the same narratives. All these allusions are related to astronomical symbology and identify the hero of the Christian Evangels with His ancient prototypes.

It is admitted by most critics of the Sacred Scriptures, that they are largely based on and governed by reference to that science which in earlier times, and in Eastern lands,—whence both the Hebrew and Christian oracles are derived,—dominated and directed all expressions, whether tabular or written, of<... continues on page 14-116 >

^* This observation is not less pertinent if we suppose the Fourth Gospel to have been written, not by John, but according to John, for in either case it would record his version of the event in question.

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  Light, v. 2, No. 101, December 9, 1882, pp. 551-553