HPB-SB-14-94

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 14, p. 94	volume 14, page 94 vol. title: vol. period: 1882 pages in vol.: 174
Legend HPB note HPB highlighted HPB underlined HPB crossed out <Editors note> <Archivist note> Lost or unclear SBT, DT Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

LIGHT.
December 2, 1882.

< Notes by the Way. (continued from page 14-93) >

gaze is an essential gift of the successful mesmeriser. This acquired or developed, he cultivates the power of imagination; consciously projects mental pictures vividly conceived. This conception, as in thought-reading, he directs by power of will on to the mind of his subject, aiding his mental effort by a few communicatory passes. (Just in this way some energetic talkers unconsciously emphasise their words by action of the hand.) By degrees a rapport is established between the two minds, and the subject sees as the mesmeriser imagines and projects his conception. This is the secret, in another sphere of action, of true oratory. When matters have gone so far, sympathetic control is easily established. The subject, excited to laughter or tears, soon becomes unable to control the sources of those emotions, and acts solely according to the suggestion of his mesmeriser until a few reverse passes liberate his subjugated will and restore him to liberty. His very muscular movements are beyond his control, and he can be influenced and governed when beyond the sight of his mesmeriser.

There are various processes of mesmerising. Miss Hunt, besides her own, which is simple and good, enumerates those of various successful adepts in the art—Mesmer, Dr. Keiser, Abbé Faria, Bruno, Deleuze, Billot, Teste, Lafontaine, Dupotet, Puységur, Gruelin, Gassner, Jörden, Hufeland, Kluge, Dr. Gregory, Dr. Darling, Mr. Lewis, Captain James, and others. She alludes also to two processes of Auto-mesmerism, the Hypnotism of Braid, and the Statuvolence of Fahnestock. I may say that the elaborate instructions of Kluge, and the experiments of Dupotet, are worth special attention. The latter are full of danger, and should be studied rather as examples of what to avoid than as models for imitation. I remember the Baron detailing to me with much vivacity how by his arts and practices, which he was willing then to regard as unlicensed and belonging to Black Magic, he had evoked certain spiritual beings of a type so terrible that he fled for his life, and abandoned his black arts ever after.

All experiments of the mesmeric kind are (as I believe) risky, and unless conducted with extreme care, and by properly qualified persons, are in a high degree dangerous. In this belief I am glad to find myself at one with so experienced a person as the writer of this book. One of such dangers is dramatically illustrated in a recent story of Julian Hawthorne’s, published in his “Prince Saroni’s Wife.” The story is called “Constance,” and though somewhat overdrawn, illustrates what may conceivably be the terrible use of this power in the hands of an unscrupulous person. There is, however, a legitimate and beneficent use of it which I have not space to dwell upon—the healing or alleviation of disease. To this the authoress devotes a large amount of attention. This portion of her book is perhaps most worthy of study, and will least bear condensation. In taking leave of her book, I venture to refer my readers to this part of it as a subject of study; and I am glad to express my own obligations to a manual which has amongst other good qualities the merit of clearness and brevity. I should be glad to see it, with some excisions and additions, placed at the command of a wider public.

M.A. (Oxon.)

–––––––

LINES BY A GIRL OF SIXTEEN, DYING OF CONSUMPTION
AT PISA,

On being awakened by her Mother.

Ah, why disturb me from my morning dreams, And call me up to face my fevered day! Full well I know the tenderness which prompts The wakening call, but cannot but repine To exchange my fleeting bliss for hours of pain. Just now methought that Death, that dreaded thing, Made lovely to my sight, on angel wings, Had wrapped me round. I, in his soft embrace, No terror found; but grateful ease was there; Delights surpassing all the joys of health, When early o’er the hills of our* lost home We gaily wandered, tasting all the sweets Which that regretted happy place supplied. One thought alone recalled me back to life, So to compose this form, that when forsaken It might tell her on whom my spirit dotes, Whose tender care supports me, and who soothes The wearied moments of this fading life, How blissful was her child’s departure hence.

* She was the daughter of a Devonshire clergyman who had died a few years previous.

–––––––

THE ASTRAL LIGHT AND THE OBJECTIVITY
OF THOUGHT.

Some words in explanation of what I find stated in a possibly misleading manner in my last article. The spiritual Ego may seem to be there represented as the result of a process of religious conversion, and thus not essential to humanity as we know it. That is certainly not what I intended to convey. Man is man by virtue of this principle of consciousness, which is indeed the capacity of the highest spiritual attainment, but is manifest only in the recognition of an universal reason and will superior to the individual. It is, in fact, this very universal come to individual consciousness, but the individual does not recognise it as such at first, but sees in it a law upon him, external to him, at variance with his own will. This is his conscience. And because it is the Absolute Reason in him also, it is his nous, in the great Greek sense, which signifies so much more than the discursive, analytic faculty we moderns take for reason. What these teachings aim at shewing is that the Divine Spirit is not a mere adornment, so to speak, of an already immortal soul, but is itself the principle of that soul, which, by accretion or organic substantiation, becomes the basis of objective immortality. But personality, in any but an empty subjective sense, is not therefore likewise immortal. It is a phenomenal experience. It depends on external conditions, and is the objectivity of the Ego under those conditions. The complex of the latter is what we call a world. The personality is a manifestation of the Ego in such a world, and thus itself phenomenal. Now relatively to spirit the Ego is itself objective and phenomenal; it may be said to be an organic mode of spirit. It is the consciousness of this mode, in and through personal experience. And at death, when the Ego enters the state of Devachan, or comparative subjectivity, its consciousness is the net result or income of this past experience. That is its Karma; and with a good Karma this state is “Heaven.” But since that is not Nirvana, i.e., perfect identification with the impersonal, universal consciousness of spirit, this does not last for ever,* but there is re-manifestation, or re-birth into another objective world, or “world of causes,” where new Karma is generated. In the personal lives, there is no self-identification by the Ego, and for this reason. What took place in Devachan was the gradual indrawing of its past life experience till it ceased to be objective unconsciousness and became the subjective basis of another external life or personality. That is the character of the new person. Our character is thus the result of our former lives, the quintessential product of these, but to us, of course, is not an objective memory. It will become so, however, when we get behind our present character, that is, into the still more internal condition to which all past results are objective. And then, also, there will be an unfoldment of these results into their causes and elements, and the whole vast field of phenomenal experience will be displayed to our view.

But to come to the proper subject of this article. To suppose that there is no objective world besides that which is manifest, or possibly manifest, to our present senses, can only arise from the latent, unconscious materialism which secretly thinks that after all there is something essential in “material” phenomena as we know them. That idealism gives to the elements of every objective world an explanation in accordance with its principles is pre-supposed; it requires that they should be recognised as phenomenal, but certainly not that they should be ignored. To infer philosophical ignorance from the use of phenomenal language in the description of phenomena is as unwarrantable as it would be to impute such ignorance to a scientific physicist who did not preface his lectures with allusions to Berkeley and Kant. Mr. Noel disclaims that position, yet he objects to speaking of the astral light, of Akasa, or ether, and of “pictures” therein, because every form of matter, and all its representations must be phenomena of consciousness. The Occultists don’t say this; so every “candid person” is to infer that they don’t know it. They do say it, by-the-by, Eliphas Levi speaking of the astral light as “cet être phénoménal,” and others sometimes describing it as the sensorium of the world soul. But why should they speak of a picture in the astral light as in consciousness, any more than a botanist should speak of a plant as in consciousness? This visible world is phenomenal and contains plants. The astral light or ether is no less phenomenal (though, indefinitely more vitalised, that is<... continues on page 14-95 >

* “Last for ever” would, of course, not be a phrase applicable to Nirvana, which is the state of Eternity, above time altogether.

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  Light, v. 2, No. 100, December 2, 1882, pp. 538-539