HPB-SB-8-165

T i

vol. 8, p. 165

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

vol. 8 (September 1878 - September 1879)

 

SBT, DT

Legend

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

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

< Christian Occultism or Esoteric Christianity (continued from page 8-164) >

visible eyes, and hear without visible ears, and handle without visible hands, and see and know equally the near and the far, the present, the past, and the future: attempt to demonstrate the truth of this to the materialist, and that religion is the highest science and philosophy, and proves that man’s soul and spirit are supreme over all secondary laws, and over matter, and that the spiritual man being master of himself, is supreme master over matter, and can thus, as a spiritual force, pass through matter, which is a mere form of secondary foree, as heat passes through iron, or light passes through glass; attempt to demonstrate such truths as these, and he will desire either to place you in a madhouse, or will hale you before the magistrate in the attempt to east you into outer darkness with stripes and imprisonment.

True religion, nevertheless, is the highest of all the sciences and of all philosophies, because the salvation of our bodies and souls can thereby be demonstrated to be physiological and psychological facts, and those who begin to live the life will begin to perceive that the doctrine is true, and those who fully live the life will know that it is true.

The fact that magical powers may be possessed by men of a low moral nature, and used for foolish or vile purposes, is no objection to the fact of the divine and miraculous man, any more than the fact that the greatest mental genius is sometimes associated with the most degrading viee is an objection to mental genius.

Should, however, any man attain to the spiritual supremacy over matter, he is not only in a position of the greatest responsibility, but of imminent danger unless he gives himself entirely to unselfishness; and indeed “it were better for that man that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the depths of the sea,” than that he should use these powers for any purpose antagonistic to the glory of God and the good of the human race, or to the coming of the external and internal kingdom of heaven, the salvation of the bodies and souls of men and women.

Explanations

Sir,—I am sorry that some references to me by Mr. Harrison in the correspondence published in your paper this week makes it necessary for me to say something in explanation.

In his letter to Mr. Bennett, Mr. Harrison says that I told the committee that some members of Council did not understand the general terms of the reference to cover the question that had been raised. I could not, however, tell the committee this, because I had no knowledge of what members of Council, except myself, did or did not understand and intend. I could only argue upon what was apparent and probable.

Mr. Harrison’s letter seems to imply that in his opinion the committee were guilty of something worse than a mere error of judgment in deciding against my contention. By “the committee,” Mr. Harrison apparently means the majority, or rather some of the majority, for one of them agreed with me in considering that the question could only be entertained, if at all, as one of economy. In fact, if an amendment had been moved to this effect, instead of taking a division on the question generally, the majority would have been exactly reversed. But, in any case, to impute bad faith to the committee, as such, would, it seems to me, be as absurd as to impute bad faith to the Council which affirmed its decision.

I do not understand Mr. Harrison to mean this, but most certainly I do not. What I did complain of in respect of fair play, procedure, and policy, sufficiently appears from my letter to the Council, and to that I have nothing to add, nor of it anything to retract or to modify. But we learn now from Mr. Bennett that the general words of reference were advisedly employed by “some members of the Council at least” “as a courteous way” of raising the question. I have heard of courtesy disarming opposition, but I never knew another occasion on which this charming quality was so completely effectual for that purpose.

In his letter to Mr. Calder, Mr. Harrison speaks of my having brought charges. I am not aware that I have brought any charges. In my letter to the Council I simply stated facts. I had nothing to do with people’s motives, but only with the effects of their actions; and I asked the Council to infer that on the previous occasion its members had not been properly informed, nor the question brought before the committee in accordance with the principles which ought to regulate the proceedings of public bodies on controverted matters.

It may, no doubt, be impossible to state facts without suggesting charges, until the facts are explained. We now have the explanation; and, of course, if all was intended simply in “courtesy,” nothing has been done in bad faith. Unfortunately, acts, unlike words, have objective effects, which cannot be effaced by recourse to the “Pickwickian sense.” The tenderness of feeling which shrinks from wounding opponents by open avowals of hostile intentions is also singularly well adapted to the success of an ambuscade. Injurious as they may seem to an innocent conscience, it is only too natural that cruel and odious misconstructions should arise under the circumstances. But I have steered clear of them myself in those representations of mine to which Mr. Harrison refers.

It would be impertinent in me to offer any one unasked advice as to the policy of demanding or the obligation of conceding apologies. All I can say to Mr. Harrison on the subject is that if he waits to appologise until I have set him the example, I fear the displeasure of the Council or of its president must remain unappeased, except by such other measures as in their wisdom and power they may adopt.

C.C. Massey.

Temple, 1st March.

Astrology

Sir,—The numerous responses I have received to my application for astrological data oblige me to have recourse to your columns for acknowledgment, as it is impossible for me to answer them all individually without some delay. To each of my kind assistants who gives an address I hope, however, soon to write.

I cannot have too many accurate data for my purpose, and hope that the supply may continue to come in. When, however, the birth is in a foreign country, the trouble of calculating for a latitude for which I do not possess a “Table of Houses” is more than it is worth while to bestow upon individual instances for the purpose in view. Moreover, some of my correspondents are apparently more desirous to test my skill than to afford me the means of testing astrology. I will ask such to remember that I am only a student and experimentalist, making no pretensions to be an expert.

C.C. Massey.

Temple, March 2nd, 1879.

The Theosophical Society

Madeli and his ilk

...

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  London Spiritualist, No. 341, March 7, 1879, p. 116