HPB-SB-5-61: Difference between revisions

From Teopedia
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |What is the Intelligence?|5-60}}
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |What is the Intelligence?|5-60}}


{{Style P-No indent|vation, simply because they are without the pale of the Church of Christ. Setting these aside as lost, we have still left 350.000.000 professing Christians of one kind or another—observe, however, that the idolaters amount to at least three times this number. But, to be orthodox in our estimate, we must still further reduce the numbers of those likely to be saved,—first, by all the Roman Catholics, of whom there, are 182,422,532; also the Greek Church, amounting to 74,614.300—the two latter amounting in all to 257,046,832. This leaves us only the Protest ant churches, the united members of which only amount to 99.755,534. being not much more than a third of the whole Christian Church. Shall we then stop here, and take our 95,755.534 Protestants as the number of those for whom salvation is possible? No, says our theology; you must deduct from these, at least, the Unitarians, 183,000; the Mormons, of'' ''whom there are 100.902; the Swedenborgians, 12.000: and some would even include the Universalists, amounting to 656,000, thus reducing the Protestants to 94,803,632. But we must remember that these figures embrace a great variety of sects and de nominations, as the Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Moravians, Adventists, and others of less note, in each of which it is only the advanced minds that will admit the possibility of salvation out of their own communion. And were it possible to ascertain the precise number of those who are really the followers of Christ, perhaps our total would dwindle down from millions to as many thousands.}}
{{Style P-No indent|which Mr. Massey has indicated its possible application, I am unable to perceive the manner in which an assumed current passing through assumed ideomotor nerves, whose functions have no relation to any of the sympathetic centres of the body, could not only pass beyond the limits of the medium’s body, but generate a separate entity outside it. And when that separate entity is capable of free volition; when it shows hands whose action involves that of trachial, and possibly of shoulder, muscles; when the force which ''e.g., ''lifts a chair or touches a coat, acts from a centre at a distance from the medium’s body, I cannot see how such force can be said to be analagous or identical with that cerebral or even reflex action by which the medium may move his own hands or feet. I accord with Mr. Massey that the battle of Spiritualism will have to be fought over the “intelligence.” I confess that the spiritual theory, merely as a provisional hypothesis, is far more convenient than that of the physiologists; at the same time, that, as I have already expressed, the truth may lie between the two extremes. For if the old Epicurean philosophy is once disinterred from the oblivion of which it is unworthy, the conditions under which duplication of the ''forma ''of an object by the production of its ''simulacrum ''may be effected are clearly comprehensible and definable. Such ''simulacra ''or ''eidola'' may be like the body of Dr. Slade; they may imitate his handwriting; their hands may be similar to and capable of as free volition as his own, and yet they may not be in any way “spiritual.” Such “form” may be diminished to a less extent than that of the original body, which may account for the writing by a slate pencil fragment in a space less than half an inch in vertical diameter. The form producing this writing may not be, and probably is not, as large as that of an ordinary human hand. I am merely indicating this line of argument, premising that the account of the Epicurean philosophy given in ''Diogenes'' ''Laertius ''is perfectly unintelligible without comparison with the ''Fragmenta ''of which we must regret that so little is preserved to us.}}


Surely these facts require no comment. No thinking mind could possibly admit that such a manifest failure of the whole scheme of creation is possible, and when we know from actual testimony that such a person and place as the orthodox devil and hell does not exist in the afterlife, we may well banish such God degrading and demoralizing doctrines as these, which have, like a hideous nightmare, burdened Immunity too long.
I may also remark that a duplication of form by no means involves a duplication of matter, nor of substance. Of course I use the word substance in the sense of Aquinas; and while wishing to avoid all theological controversy, would express my opinion that the teaching of the schools as to matter and form has in England, at least, been steadily going down hill:—
 
{{Style P-Quote|Ǣtas parentum, pejor avis, tutit
 
Nos nequiores, mox daturos
 
Progeniem vitiosiorem.}}
 
I know that no follower of Locke or Berkeley can see the matter as I see it; perhaps some Fichtians may. And I would be curious to know how many (Spiritualists are in accord with me. For the assumption of duality of form is in no way irreconcilable with the views which Miss Kislingbury so clearly expressed some weeks ago in her excellent letter, “Form-manifestations ''versus ''materialisations.” An assumption of duality of substance (taking as above the old scholastic definition) would involve more dilemmas than I could venture to refute within your space. And an assumption of duality of matter is (at least to my mind), besides being physically impossible, liable to grave objections from the schools of Chrysippus, and perhaps from that of Carneades. I must on this subject speak with diffidence, not having the slightest leaning towards the teachings of the Neo-Academicians, and submitting my opinion to' the judgment of an authority which is final on all matters relating to the definition of substance, and the phenomena of Being, Still, I see nothing in some hints which Rosmini has thrown out, contrary to my opinion. And if the matter be left as an open scientific question, I would be strongly inclined to deny (even potentially) any duality or duplication of matter. But the whole subject has (even before the Christian aera)''' '''been thought out by wiser and better men than the fag-end of the nineteenth century has as yet produced. The ''jeu d’esprit ''which some time ago put in the mouth of Herbert Spencer the words—
 
{{Style P-Quote|Appearances, he seems to think, do not exhaust totality,
 
But indicate that underneath there’s some unknown reality.}}
 
{{Style P-No indent|conveys the idea to which a disciple of the old schoolmen is led.  Friends will bear with me if my spectacles are twenty-one''' '''hundred years old. They are the best I have.}}
 
{{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|I have as yet failed to obtain any solution of the extraordinary message, “133 is Charles F. Crokats.” Whatever meaning may be attached to it, the whole subject was entirely unknown to Dr. Slade, and as seventeen years have now elapsed, the matter is not now in my memory.}}




Revision as of 17:30, 10 February 2024

vol. 5, p. 61
from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society
vol. 5 (1875-1878). Miscellaneous Scraps from January 1st 1878
 

Legend

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


< What is the Intelligence? (continued from page 5-60) >

which Mr. Massey has indicated its possible application, I am unable to perceive the manner in which an assumed current passing through assumed ideomotor nerves, whose functions have no relation to any of the sympathetic centres of the body, could not only pass beyond the limits of the medium’s body, but generate a separate entity outside it. And when that separate entity is capable of free volition; when it shows hands whose action involves that of trachial, and possibly of shoulder, muscles; when the force which e.g., lifts a chair or touches a coat, acts from a centre at a distance from the medium’s body, I cannot see how such force can be said to be analagous or identical with that cerebral or even reflex action by which the medium may move his own hands or feet. I accord with Mr. Massey that the battle of Spiritualism will have to be fought over the “intelligence.” I confess that the spiritual theory, merely as a provisional hypothesis, is far more convenient than that of the physiologists; at the same time, that, as I have already expressed, the truth may lie between the two extremes. For if the old Epicurean philosophy is once disinterred from the oblivion of which it is unworthy, the conditions under which duplication of the forma of an object by the production of its simulacrum may be effected are clearly comprehensible and definable. Such simulacra or eidola may be like the body of Dr. Slade; they may imitate his handwriting; their hands may be similar to and capable of as free volition as his own, and yet they may not be in any way “spiritual.” Such “form” may be diminished to a less extent than that of the original body, which may account for the writing by a slate pencil fragment in a space less than half an inch in vertical diameter. The form producing this writing may not be, and probably is not, as large as that of an ordinary human hand. I am merely indicating this line of argument, premising that the account of the Epicurean philosophy given in Diogenes Laertius is perfectly unintelligible without comparison with the Fragmenta of which we must regret that so little is preserved to us.

I may also remark that a duplication of form by no means involves a duplication of matter, nor of substance. Of course I use the word substance in the sense of Aquinas; and while wishing to avoid all theological controversy, would express my opinion that the teaching of the schools as to matter and form has in England, at least, been steadily going down hill:—

Ǣtas parentum, pejor avis, tutit

Nos nequiores, mox daturos

Progeniem vitiosiorem.

I know that no follower of Locke or Berkeley can see the matter as I see it; perhaps some Fichtians may. And I would be curious to know how many (Spiritualists are in accord with me. For the assumption of duality of form is in no way irreconcilable with the views which Miss Kislingbury so clearly expressed some weeks ago in her excellent letter, “Form-manifestations versus materialisations.” An assumption of duality of substance (taking as above the old scholastic definition) would involve more dilemmas than I could venture to refute within your space. And an assumption of duality of matter is (at least to my mind), besides being physically impossible, liable to grave objections from the schools of Chrysippus, and perhaps from that of Carneades. I must on this subject speak with diffidence, not having the slightest leaning towards the teachings of the Neo-Academicians, and submitting my opinion to' the judgment of an authority which is final on all matters relating to the definition of substance, and the phenomena of Being, Still, I see nothing in some hints which Rosmini has thrown out, contrary to my opinion. And if the matter be left as an open scientific question, I would be strongly inclined to deny (even potentially) any duality or duplication of matter. But the whole subject has (even before the Christian aera) been thought out by wiser and better men than the fag-end of the nineteenth century has as yet produced. The jeu d’esprit which some time ago put in the mouth of Herbert Spencer the words—

Appearances, he seems to think, do not exhaust totality,

But indicate that underneath there’s some unknown reality.

conveys the idea to which a disciple of the old schoolmen is led. Friends will bear with me if my spectacles are twenty-one hundred years old. They are the best I have.

I have as yet failed to obtain any solution of the extraordinary message, “133 is Charles F. Crokats.” Whatever meaning may be attached to it, the whole subject was entirely unknown to Dr. Slade, and as seventeen years have now elapsed, the matter is not now in my memory.


The Prince of Wales Among the Indian Jugglers

...


Editor's notes

  1. ↑ The Prince of Wales Among the Indian Jugglers by unknown author. From The Times, December 28


Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/w-lib/index.php?title=HPB-SB-5-61&oldid=17611"