HPB-SB-4-152: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |Spiritualism and the Theosophists|4-151}} | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |Spiritualism and the Theosophists|4-151}} | ||
... | {{Style P-No indent|the final separation of the spirit, but in process of dissolution with the astral body. And no one, I think, would probably recognise and lament more than Col. Olcott, that neglect of ancient philosophy which makes it possible for a western scholar to say that he hears now, for the first time, the doctrine that this divine and alone immortal spirit has to be united in consciousness with the individual, in order that the latter may participate in its immortality. But M.A., Oxon., could hardly have said this, had he read Mr. Maitland’s book on ''The Soul and How it found Me, ''or even my review of that book in these pages. But are Col. Olcott and M.A., Oxon., such poles asunder on this doctrine of potential im- mortality, and is the latter so sure that he himself represents the “usually received” doctrine of human immortality? Let us hear him. “I hanker after the old and nobler faith that man has in him the ''promise and potency ''of immortality; that he may delay his realisation of his inheritance, that he may, in rare and obstinate cases of rejection of all light, ''sink'' ''into darkness and final death, ''but that for the children of men at some far distant day the darkness shall turn to light, the potency become fruition.” (The italics are mine.)}} | ||
Again, “But if by a course of preferred vice, by ingrained preference for the ‘earthly, sensual, devilish,’ he chooses evil and refuses good, then, by the action of the same invincible law he sinks lower and lower, till beyond hope. But these cases are few and far between.” If words have any meaning, M.A., Oxon, no more than Col. Olcott, attributes to man an inherent and inalienable immortality. If it is in man’s nature, good, or bad, to be immortal, then no “ingrained preference” can make him lose it; and this is the “usually received” doctrine. But if not, must not immortality, that is to say, life no longer precarious and probational, but assured, be the consequence of the addition or complete union with some being that possesses this prerogative? And until this union is effected, is it not more proper to say that immortality has to be gained than that it may be lost? For this seems the only difference between Col. Olcott and his critic. As to ''when ''the hope of immortality may be lost, that is not a difference in principle. If not already gained, the prize must be striven for, and when the strife is abandoned the hope is gone, the spirit lost, whether here or hereafter. | |||
Descending “from faith to works,” it is complained that the Theosophists offer no u proof” of their u hypotheses,” their elementaries and elementals. They tell us the teaching of the great masters of occult learning and experience, from whom they derived it; of testimony at least as abundant and trustworthy as that of modern mediums; and they point us to facts within our own observation more consistent with the agency of such beings as these are described, than with any other theory. But we, without studying, demand from them proofs of the results of their study, and in a love of logical superiority, ask evidence without seeking for it where they tell us it is to be found. Surely they must smile. And perhaps they may reply, “Come to our school and ''learn.''” | |||
Temple, January 13th, 1878. | |||
Revision as of 06:16, 9 February 2024
Legend
< Spiritualism and the Theosophists (continued from page 4-151) >
the final separation of the spirit, but in process of dissolution with the astral body. And no one, I think, would probably recognise and lament more than Col. Olcott, that neglect of ancient philosophy which makes it possible for a western scholar to say that he hears now, for the first time, the doctrine that this divine and alone immortal spirit has to be united in consciousness with the individual, in order that the latter may participate in its immortality. But M.A., Oxon., could hardly have said this, had he read Mr. Maitland’s book on The Soul and How it found Me, or even my review of that book in these pages. But are Col. Olcott and M.A., Oxon., such poles asunder on this doctrine of potential im- mortality, and is the latter so sure that he himself represents the “usually received” doctrine of human immortality? Let us hear him. “I hanker after the old and nobler faith that man has in him the promise and potency of immortality; that he may delay his realisation of his inheritance, that he may, in rare and obstinate cases of rejection of all light, sink into darkness and final death, but that for the children of men at some far distant day the darkness shall turn to light, the potency become fruition.” (The italics are mine.)
Again, “But if by a course of preferred vice, by ingrained preference for the ‘earthly, sensual, devilish,’ he chooses evil and refuses good, then, by the action of the same invincible law he sinks lower and lower, till beyond hope. But these cases are few and far between.” If words have any meaning, M.A., Oxon, no more than Col. Olcott, attributes to man an inherent and inalienable immortality. If it is in man’s nature, good, or bad, to be immortal, then no “ingrained preference” can make him lose it; and this is the “usually received” doctrine. But if not, must not immortality, that is to say, life no longer precarious and probational, but assured, be the consequence of the addition or complete union with some being that possesses this prerogative? And until this union is effected, is it not more proper to say that immortality has to be gained than that it may be lost? For this seems the only difference between Col. Olcott and his critic. As to when the hope of immortality may be lost, that is not a difference in principle. If not already gained, the prize must be striven for, and when the strife is abandoned the hope is gone, the spirit lost, whether here or hereafter.
Descending “from faith to works,” it is complained that the Theosophists offer no u proof” of their u hypotheses,” their elementaries and elementals. They tell us the teaching of the great masters of occult learning and experience, from whom they derived it; of testimony at least as abundant and trustworthy as that of modern mediums; and they point us to facts within our own observation more consistent with the agency of such beings as these are described, than with any other theory. But we, without studying, demand from them proofs of the results of their study, and in a love of logical superiority, ask evidence without seeking for it where they tell us it is to be found. Surely they must smile. And perhaps they may reply, “Come to our school and learn.”
Temple, January 13th, 1878.
The Doctrine of Annihilation–Personal Experience in Mediumship
...
... for a better state of existence, her elementals are souls which have already lost their spirits, and will themselves, in process of time, become annihilated.*)
...
(*) Quite the reverse. Never said such a thing and the “Isis” is then to show the mistake. Either the fair Baroness has not read at attention, or she did not understatnd it.
...
<... continues on page 4-153 >
Editor's notes
- ↑ The Doctrine of Annihilation–Personal Experience in Mediumship by Vay, Adelma Von, Spiritualist, The, Jan., 18, 1878