HPB-SB-8-27

T i

vol. 8, p. 27

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

vol. 8 (September 1878 - September 1879)

Legend

SBT, DT

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

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

< Hindu Psychology (continued from page 8-26) >

reliable witnesses. I will relate one of this character. While in Madras I was several days the guest of Mr. D. S. White, residing in Kilpauk. This gentleman, connected with the Board of Education, and Assistant-Registrar of Assurances, is a free-thinker on all matters religious and political. Accompanied by him, two Eurasian gentlemen connected with the publication of the Anglo-Indian, and a few others, I repaired to a native’s house, to see the phenomena of casting out a demon among the lower class Hindus. The subject was a woman, and not, I confess, a very prepossessing one. Her eye was dull; the surface of the hand cool, moist, clammy, and the whole appearance stupid in the extreme. Inquiring of the mother, through my interpreter, I learned that this young woman had, in the first place, spells of being very silent, of looking into vacancy, and refusing to notice her friends. These peculiarities were followed by tremblings, whirling motions of the head, and other obsessional conduct, till she refused to bathe, to comb her hair, or speak. It was pronounced, “possession by a dumb devil.”

They sent for a “devil-priest,” as they- familiarly term them, one gifted with the power of exorcism. He could not attend, and, after some waiting, a “priestess” came, and then another. A circle was drawn in the sand in front of the hut, one of these mediumistic women stepping inside of the circular area became spasmodic, the head began to whirl; she was soon entranced, and called for camphor. A rude lamp of cocoa-nut oil was burning just outside the circle, and the incense-smoke of the camphor came from the interior of the circle. At this point another woman was entranced by a spirit speaking a different dialect. And now while the incense-smoke was dying away, they brought and placed the obsessed Tamil woman within the area of the circle. Then followed rude music, with threatenings and coaxings of the demoniacal spirit to leave. It was a failure. And now, unexpectedly to Mr. White, his servant woman who had been in his employ for twelve years, was suddenly entranced, constituting herself master of the ceremonies. This servant woman, Mrs. Anthraci, declared that the other women failed because controlled by evil spirits. She then commanded the dress of the obsessed woman to be changed, a new mat to be placed for her to sit upon, the green branch from a tree to be brought, and some frankincense to be burned. It was all done. Then she beat the obsessed woman’s body with a rod, “pathetised” her head, invoked the gods, &c., &c., and “the dumb devil left.” This was one of the many phenomena I witnfessed among the lower and poorer classes. Those that I saw in Hindu high life, and especially among the Dravida Brahmans, I do not propose to peddle about too cheaply.

I psychologised quite a number in India. The Hindus being mild, negative, and sensitive, are easy subjects.

Owing to introductions to native princes, and distinguished Brahmans and Mahomedans, when dining with His Grace the Duke of Bucking- ham, Governor of Madras, and also at the levee held by Lord Lytton, the Viceroy of India, I was put into fraternal relations with some of the most distinguished native Brahmans of India. And to some of these I am under deep and lasting obligations. To say that these gentlemen “imposed upon me,” is to insult them.

When Mr. W. L. D. O’Grady, editor of the American Builder, and late of the Bank of Madras, writes hereafter upon “Hindu Psychology,” will he have the kindness not to measure my knowledge of this subject by his yard-stick of arrogance?

The last Banner of Light, just put into my hands, makes me say I had a glorious time with Buddhist priests in India. It should have read Brahman priests. Probably my careless penmanship caused the blunder. It was in Ceylon, China, and other Eastern countries that I saw so many Buddhist priests.

J. M. Peebles, M. D.

London, January 8th, 1878.

Present or Departed?

Sir,—Common sense being usually, even if fallaciously, alleged to meet the spiritualistic position, one is hardly prepared to agree with Mr. White in making it do duty on the opposite side, so as to “apprehend that common sense will draw us back to the conclusion that spirits are what they represent themselves to be, namely, ‘men and women, &c.’” What is common sense? Is it any criterion of certainty? If the evidence of the senses be meant, how is illusion to be avoided? If the assistance of reason be invoked, what is the standard of appeal? Suppose, for example, it seems common sense to me that alphabetic writing should represent only the sound of speech, is it common sense for other people to introduce considerations of authority, history, etymology? Or if orthography be hardly a question of common sense, is Spiritualism more so? If it is, does not common sense teach, rightly or wrongly, that when we leave the world at death, we cannot return at leisure? Evidence to the contrary is not only exceptional, but involves exceptional conditions, and appeals generally either to foregone conclusions, or to other perceptions than those of common sense, which must be inadequate to the purpose, or we should not find Dr. Slade and the Davenports on the one hand believing in the intervention of departed spirits, and Mrs. Hardinge and Mr. Watkins, or Col. Olcott, “T. J.,” and Dr. Wyld on the other, denying that this is always or necessarily the case. It is not fair to claim the voice of common sense on one side more than on the other. We are either above or below the plane, not on it.

In some Angelic and Holy Communications, published anonymously many years ago, we were told that—“Table manifestations, hand-guiding, drawings, are all of mundane origin. It is the work of abnormal nature; spirit proper has nothing whatever to do with it.”

In Art Magic we read:—

“There are no phenomena produced by disembodied spirits which may not be effected by the still embodied human spirit, provided a correct knowledge of these powers is directed by a strong and powerful will.”

ln Swedenborg we are informed that—.

“Every man has an inferior or exterior mind, and a mind superior or interior. . . . These two minds are altogether distinct; by the inferior mind man is in the natural world, together with men there; but by the superior mind he is in the spiritual world, with the angels there. These two minds are so distinct that man, so long as he lives in the world, does not know what is performing within himself in his superior mind, and when he becomes a spirit, which is immediately after death, he does not know what is performing in his inferior mind.” A.E. 527.

It would seem to follow from the last statement, that the departed spirit is wholly unconscious of the manifestation—a view difficult of apprehension, and certainly beyond the range of common sense. But I take leave to submit that it is not worthy of the careful investigator to rely on a criterion which, to say the least, is as likely to be fallacious as to be true.

What is the Intelligence?

Sir,—With reference to the letter headed “ What is the intelligence?” in your issue of 28th ult., may I, as one of those who have from time to time reported the sayings and doings of “Joey” and “Abdullah,” crave space for a few words?

For myself, I must demur to your correspondent’s view that the only hypothesis upon which we can attach any real value to “manifestations” as sources of important knowledge is that the agencies in question are spirits of the departed who have entered a higher sphere of life. For I can imagine no greater privilege, or better means of obtaining very important information, than to be brought into direct contact with the Prince of Darkness himself, did such a being exist. I am absolutely careless as to whether the facts arise from what are commonly sailed good or bad or sources; this might be a proper consideration, perhaps, for those to whom Spiritualism has become a religion, or who permit its control over the emotional side of their nature; but it is in my view so essential to begin on the lowest round of the ladder that any question of morals involved may fairly (nay, ought to) be disregarded by those who are seeking to tabulate facts with scientific and verifiable accuracy.

Of the reality of the phenomena I am thoroughly convinced, but I am guiltless of having propounded any theory as to their origin, for within my large experience I confess I have not found the means of forming any. I could wish that this suspension of judgment were much more general, and that a well defined line were drawn between the scientific and speculative sides of the question.

It is easy to speculate, and, unfortunately, nearly every one deems himself competent for that task; but it is not so easy to exercise a rigid self-suppression which should fear one’s own individuality as a factor of dangerous import. If speculation were competent to deal with this question, there is no subject which should now stand in fuller daylight; but in this nineteenth century the investigation of the whole matter has to be commended ab initio, because the only method known to man of obtaining accurate knowledge has hitherto been disregarded.

The genius power of generalisation illumines the world but infrequently, and Spiritualists, as well as psychologists and astronomers, must be content to collect facts and facts and facts until it shall appear and place them in their proper relations. If this were done many Spiritualists would be much surprised to learn what a fact really is.

In my opinion, therefore, the most pressing work lies within the sphere of the Experimental Research Committee.

I am afraid that your correspondent’s expectation “to find it proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the phenomena have their source in other than merely human or physical agencies,” scarcely evinces the proper temper of mind with which to begin the investigation; but, if without prejudgment, he will study the facts on the low ground I advocate, he will, doubtless, help to be of good service. Wm. Newton, F.R.G.S.

January 1st, 1878.

<Untitled> (Sir,—The lengthy paper...)

Sir,— The lengthy paper, by “M.A.” (Oxon.), which appeared in the last number of The Spiritualist, requires comment. For my own part, I am at a loss to understand why it was written. It professes to deal with three opponents of the “cardinal dogmas” of the spiritual faith, and as I happen to form one of the trio, I may be allowed to criticise the critic. I believe it is the bounden duty of a controversialist to be exact in quoting the conclusions arrived at by his adversary—even if the language itself should not be employed. No one asks more loudly than “M.A.” himself, in his onslaughts upon Dr. Carpenter, for accuracy of expression, and yet we find him one of the first to mislead by erroneous excerpts. “We have believed, that through the gate of mediumship we have access to the world of spirit, and that through the same gate the spirits of our dead were able, under certain restrictions, to return and speak with us.” This is a “cardinal dogma,” which I for one am blamed for attacking, it being “the central fact round which the whole fabric of Spiritualism is built up.” Now let us see how far “M.A.” does us justice. Dr. Wyld, we are informed, “tells us that we have no proof of the return of the departed,” whereas his very words are “the spirits of the departed have a thousand times reappeared as ghosts before taking their final leave of the world,” and again in another column, where the learned doctor is arguing on the possibility of the manifestations being produced by embodied spirits, he remarks, “I wish it to be distinctly kept in mind that I do not say all the phenomena we are acquainted with are so produced.” So far, then, Dr. Wyld does not demolish the “cardinal dogma” of “M.A.”

Turning to Colonel Olcott, to ascertain how he effects the “dogma,” I do not see that it is much injured at his hands. Even “M.A.” admits that the Colonel allows that objective physical manifestations may be produced through a medium by “the spirits of the departed.”

Lastly, I cannot understand how the communication of “T. J.” in any way has reference to the “cardinal dogma.” Assuredly, there was nothing in his article to warrant the inference that spirits do not communicate through mediums, and because the examples given through <... continues on page 8-28 >

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  London Spiritualist, No. 281, January 11, 1878, p. 21