HPB-SB-14-117

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 14, p. 117	volume 14, page 117 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

< Sir,—It is necessary to give a reply… (continued from page 14-115) >

LIGHT.
December 9, 1882.

to teach any such thing as that he asserts we ascribe to him, we declared our conviction that his doctrine on the subject of Spirit and matter was one with our own!

As last words on this controversy, we wish to say generally that we have never put forward any “hypothesis” or “opinions.” We have taught, and shall still teach, the doctrine of all mystic adepts from Hermes Trismegistus to the Theosophists of our own century, a doctrine given to us by precisely the same method as to all who live the requisite life. And the rule of that life we have openly proclaimed in both precept and practice. We have been asked by some to shew our credentials for our authority—to give a sign of the truth of our doctrine. Our answer is that the whole of that doctrine, in its minutest details, was obtained independently of any initiation at human hands, independently of any previous study in contemporary schools of Occultism, and by a method so clear, so luminous, so divine in character, as to leave no doubt of its source in the memory of the interior Ego. And since the book which contains this doctrine has been given to the world, it has been made abundantly clear that the recipients of the most venerable traditionary teaching in the world—that of India—are in perfect accord with us. Re-birth in manifold existences both on this planet and in others, the complex nature of the human kingdom, the inevitable relation of cause and effect, the superiority of vegetable over flesh food, respect for innocent animal life, the spiritual character of all mystical scriptures, conditional salvation—all these, and the minor teachings they involve, are now being made public by those from whom we had no possible means of learning them, withheld, as they have hitherto been, from even the admitted disciples of the Adepts on whose authority they are now declared.

There has, then, been neither appropriation nor invention in the case; there has been recovery only, and this not by the mediation of “Spirits,” but through interior recollection. Thus the book is in itself, as one of your correspondents has suggested, a proof at once of the doctrine of Re-Incarnation and of the soul’s ability to regain and communicate of its memories of the past. And it is upon the appeal of such intrinsic evidence to developed and instructed understandings that we rely for the recognition and appreciation which are its due.

The Writers of “The Perfect Way.”

[The discussion on the “Teachings of ‘The Perfect Way’” must end here.—Ed. “Light.”]

–––––––

“ALLIED TOPICS.”

To the Editor of “Light.”

Sir,—Your correspondent, “Student,” has, in a very considerate manner, touched a weak point in the conduct of your excellent journal—the want of an open column for the discussion of questions relating to “the highest interests of humanity.” On referring to the original prospectus, I read that the promoters promised to issue “a high-toned and impartial weekly journal, devoted primarily to the interests of Spiritualism, and secondarily, to the fair discussion of such other topics as may occupy the attention of men and women of advanced thought.” Inquiries have frequently been made by one or another why the “secondary” feature of the undertaking has been so completely ignored, but no satisfactory answer has been forthcoming. To my knowledge, the clôture which the management have exercised towards all reforms has been a disappointment to a large number of subscribers, and I also believe, detrimental to the financial success of the paper. Spiritualists are naturally thinkers and reformers, and they look to see some of the utterances of the earnest men and noble women who are devoting their lives to the abolition of social evils (the existence of which so much wars against a higher spiritual development) in the columns of their journal. I have, on occasions, been present at gatherings of from fifty to a hundred of these social reformers, all interested in particular humanitarian projects, of whom two-thirds, at least, were avowed Spiritualists; but not one word relating to the object that so deeply enlisted their sympathies would be permitted to appear in the columns of “Light.” This policy of exclusion has not found favour with “men of light and’ leading” in other countries any more than at home. William Lloyd Garrison, the leader of the Anti-Slavery movement in America, and one of the greatest reformers of this century, while devoting his journal, the Liberator, mainly to the great object of his life—the emancipation of the slave—gave hospitable welcome to Spiritualism, and all other philanthropic movements of his day, no matter how unpopular at the time. A similar policy governs the leading weekly class-journals in America; and the most liberal of those devoted to Spiritualism is the one that has obtained the widest circulation.

Melanchthon.

December 4th, 1882.

–––––––

<Untitled> (Sir,—I see with a feeling akin to dismay…)

To the Editor of “Light.”

Sir,—I see with a feeling akin to dismay that “Allied Topics,” which have lately slumbered, are again shewing signs of activity. This vivacity is of evil omen. Your readers are probably divided into two broadly defined camps. Of these one contains a considerable number of persons who interest themselves in such subjects as are mentioned in the letter of “A Student.” Some would alter the laws respecting the position of women; some would abolish property in land; some think that lunatics should be better looked after. But very few indeed, except some unbalanced minds to whom mere novelty and change are in themselves attractive, agree among themselves. Each has his private fancy. On the other side you have those who are Spiritualists proper, and who are united in a common desire to advance what they believe to be the truth, and to leave absolutely alone, so far as publication is concerned, most questions on which they are by no means agreed, and some of which they cordially detest, and all of which they regard as outside of the sphere of action marked out for them.

This latter body includes within it, as I know, some of the most influential of the present supporters of “Light.” It would include all, or nearly all, those members of the Society for Psychical Research whom “A Student” wishes to attract—men who would infallibly be repelled and disgusted by finding the journal, which they read for its news of Spiritualism, filled week by week with discussion of what they would regard as merely irrelevant hobbies or worse. “Student’s” two suggestions are incompatible. You cannot attract such minds by such means. You can, indeed, leave them alone, and cater for another class, and I am not prepared to say that you would not be more successful in that way in extending your circulation. But are you prepared for the cost? It will involve nothing less than a complete change in the character of your paper; a change which will sweep away its distinguishing characteristics, and alienate those who now value it for its freedom from those very peculiarities which it is proposed now to introduce. It will involve a complete change of front; and it will compel many who now cordially support its policy to consider how far they can any longer identify themselves with a new departure which is so little to their taste.

For myself, I deprecate the very discussion of such a change, but the suggestion having been made, it is important that there should be no undervaluing of the consequences that would follow on its adoption.

M. A. (Oxon.)

December 2nd.

[We give the above letters as specimens of a considerable number which have been addressed to us on the subject. So far as we can at present judge the balance of opinion amongst our readers is strongly against any departure from the course which we have adopted hitherto.—Ed. “Light.”]

–––––––

A CORRECTION.

To the Editor of “Light.”

Sir,—There is a sentence in my last week’s article which I particularly wished to be intelligible, but which the mysterious introduction of a single syllable in the press—I thought I had struck it out in the proof—has rendered absolutely nonsensical. I am made to speak of “objective unconsciousness”! Will you allow me to reproduce the sentence correctly? “What took place in Devachan was the gradual in-drawing of the past-life experience till it ceased to be objective consciousness, and became the subjective basis of another external life or personality.”

The conversion of experience into character is a principle of the utmost importance; and I wished to shew that as soon as the old experience had been completely used up, or worked up, for this purpose, the subjective basis of the new personality would be laid. We can easily conceive that it would then demand an objective activity and expression, this demand being the “Tanha,” “Trishna,” and Upadana (thirst, desire, grasping), which, according to Buddhism, is the cause of re-birth. This, too, avoids the really absurd and impossible account ascribed by Mr. Rhys Davids* to the early Buddhists—that it is the craving for life of the dying person which causes the birth of an altogether distinct individual with the same Karma.

C.C.M.

^* Hibbert Lecture, 1881, p. 95, Mr. Rhys Davids gives no authority at this place; I cannot at this moment say if he does elsewhere.

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  Light, v. 2, No. 101, December 9, 1882, p. 553