 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1882 pages in vol.: 174 |
LIGHT.
November 11, 1882.
< “The Perfect Way” and its Critics. (continued from page 14-64) >
borg’s meaning, precisely as he has failed, so singularly, to apprehend ours on another point? We trust so, for we have great respect for Swedenborg, though not unaware of his limitations.
To conclude with a reply to the Hon. R. Noel’s objection to our statement respecting the compound constitution of man, we think his difficulty is due to his not having taken into account the various gradations into which the central-essential Ego differentiates its consciousness, according as it subsists in the outer or the inner spheres of the individual system. Thus, while all consciousness is, originally, that of the Spirit, each separate element, body, astral soul, and anima divina, possesses a consciousness of its own, suited to its character and needs, making each of these, in a sense, a distinct personality, and enabling them each to subsist apart from the others, though, in the case of the body, for a short time only. Body, soul and spirit are thus, not precisely one, but they “agree in one,” as declared in the hermetic formula cited on page 18. And when severed, each represents and retains, so long as it survives, the functions exercised and the characteristics presented by it when in combination, so inveterate is the principle of personality in the substance of existence. Should our critic ask for some handy illustration of the mystical truths just indicated, we would remind him of the natural order known as the articulated animals, of which every segment possesses an independent life of its own, and if separated from the body of which it forms part, continues to exist and even to reproduce itself for a period more or less long. This rough comparison may serve to convince him that at least the idea he finds so much difficulty in accepting is neither monstrous nor without parallel in Nature. The subject is, however, too intricate and lengthy to be adequately discussed here. All that we have advanced respecting it has been, for us, amply verified by our own independent experience. And if Mr. Noel will carefully examine certain passages in our second Appendix, “Concerning the Hereafter,” and compare them, not with any preconceived opinions, but with any actual experiences he may have, he will, we are confident, be sooner or later at one with us.
Since writing the above we have read, in the current number of “Light,” two letters, one of which, like that from Bristol, fills us with amazement, and the other with a sentiment akin to indignation. It is now beyond doubt that several of our would-be critics have not read—perhaps have not even seen—the book they are so eager to decry!
“R.J.S.” misquotes in representing us as saying that Paul was only or always “in the astral,” and, therefore, altogether unworthy of heed. What we have said is that “Paul, whose teaching and character are in many respects of the noblest, was not uniformly enlightened, but oscillated between the astral and the celestial, mixing error and truth accordingly.” This he himself, by implication, admits when he says that he sometimes wrote “as a man,” or even “as a fool,” and that at others he only thought he had the sanction of the Divine Spirit for his assertions. Had Paul but acted on his own advice in regard to the necessity of “discerning spirits,” and expunged before dissemination all that he wrote from the lower level, he would certainly not have left it in the power of “R.J.S.” to cite him as an authority on behalf of the inevitable brutalities of the slaughter-house or the revolting and inhuman practice of corpse-eating. As it is, the very fact that Paul found it necessary to interfere in this matter between two differing schools of the Church, proves that the conviction and practice in regard to flesh-eating were far from uniform among professing Christians, and that no inconsiderable number of them refrained on principle from bloody meats. And, if we listen to tradition, and study such historical memoranda as we possess on the subject, we shall find that Paul himself was the innovator, and that the general habits and teaching of the early Church were Nazarene or Essenian, and therefore vegetarian. Jesus the Nazarene must certainly have been an abstainer from flesh and strong drink, and even the statements in regard to His custom of eating fish are, as one of us has elsewhere demonstrated, not literally, but mystically intended. James, the “brother” of Jesus, and one of his most familiar associates, is universally reputed to have been a vegetarian, and so also was an innumerable company of the early saints, both men and women. The stricter devotional Orders of the Catholic Church, like those of all other divine Mysteries, have always abstained from flesh; and, Paul notwithstanding, this unbloody and innocent diet has from the beginning been regarded by all Adepts as constituting “the excellent—or perfect—way.” Certain it is, that the prophecy of Isaias—“They shall not hurt nor slay in all My holy mountain”—will never be realised by those who persist in destroying and devouring like beasts of carnage. How shall we hasten the restoration of Paradise by continuing the manners of the Fall? If we truly and earnestly desire to regain the Golden Age, and to become citizens of Heaven, we must begin by adopting the new life, and by returning to natural and human modes of sustenance. The eating of blood, and the habit of slaughter, are part of the Fall, and came with it. We, of the new Life, desire to return to Eden. And, as a first step thither, we abandon that horrible and degrading custom which has so long assimilated our race to that of the lowest types of bestial existence; we reject the offal which delights the wolf and the swine, and turn instead to the pure sun-created fruits and grains, unbloody gifts of fragrant trees and fields, for which alone the anatomy of man is fitted. We cannot err in following the indications—nay, the commands,—of nature, for these are the surest words of God.
“R. J. S.” seems to argue that the superiority of certain races is due to their habit of flesh-eating. As well might he assert it to be due to their not less universal habit of dram-drinking. Both habits are equally abuses and drawbacks, and have doubtless withheld these very races from the higher and interior civilisation they have hitherto invariably and significantly failed to reach. For there can be no true and perfect civilisation without sympathy and solidarity between all the children of God’s family, and without the recognition of the fact which must be the basis of that solidarity,—that the same Spirit breathes in all, that the same Destiny is over all, and that the same Immortality is the heritage of all, no matter on what round of the ladder each individual soul, at any given time, may stand. To kill, to devour, or to torture any sentient fellow-being for a selfish end, is a breach of the law of solidarity, and there is but a question of degree between the murder of an ox and that of a man. (Isa. lxvi., 3.)
In the insinuation that we claim to give “higher teachings than those of Jesus Christ,” “R. J. S.” simply repeats Dr. Wyld’s curious misapprehension already amply exposed. For, as we have said, far from making any such claim, our whole endeavour has been to interpret those very teachings in the Spirit of Christ, and to restore their meaning perverted by superstition and ignorance.
Against the use of wine we have said nothing; on this subject we leave “R. J. S.” to make peace between Paul and the Nazarenes, to whose number Jesus, John the Baptist, and many a saint and hero of the Old Testament, belonged.
With regard to the letter signed “The Author of ‘Life Beyond the Grave,’” as his quarrel is really not with us or with “The Perfect Way” at all, but with the writer who has misled him by imputing to the book a statement not contained in it and wholly foreign to its doctrine—we leave it to him to make the amend due, and forbear further remark save only to express a hope that for the future critics will save their time and ours, as well as valuable space, by reading the book before they criticise it, and by quoting it correctly when they have read it. If these simple rules had been followed, probably no controversy would have arisen on the subject. How far the author of the last letter referred to is from having even a remote conception of the nature of the book he is so ready to denounce, is shewn by the fact that he seems to regard its teachings as the product of table-rapping.
In answer to the desire expressed for a “proof” of our doctrine, in the shape of “miracles,” we would point to Lecture 1, pars. 24-5, in exposition of the fallacy underlying such a thought. Spiritual truths cannot be demonstrated by physical phenomena. According to the Gospels, few of those who witnessed the miracles of Jesus were persuaded by them to accept his doctrine. And of the events described as miracles, the chief are but parables relating to the Mysteries, and thus recorded in order to insure their concealment from the uninitiate. Moreover, physical miracles can be performed by agents other than divine, and as they are also liable to be simulated they involve more than one element of uncertainty.
The only really satisfactory “miracles” are those which are intellectual, solving problems of man’s nature and history hitherto regarded as inscrutable, and reconciling difficulties, the failure of the orthodox Church to interpret which, has been long a prolific source of unbelief. Such miracles as these, at least, cannot be simulated, nor can they proceed from intelligences other than divine in their origin.
It is possible that some of the extravagant charges so<... continues on page 14-66 >
Sources
-
Light, v. 2, No. 97, November 11, 1882, p. 509