HPB-SB-11-264: Difference between revisions

Sir,—I have noticed with much regret in some recent numbers, the tone of your remarks about “Occultism,” “Theosophy” and the “Brothers;” but not desiring to enter into controversy, if avoidable, I have refrained hitherto from commenting on, or answering the unfavourable criticisms. However, the mention of my name in your last issue leaves me no other alternative than to enter the arena and defend as far as in me lies, the society of which I am a lowly member, and the “Brothers” whom I believe in and reverence. It is a pity you should, in so great a degree, take up the attitude of the sceptical world towards Spiritualism, when treating of the Theosophical Society and its founders. With so broad a platform to stand on as the acceptation of the phenomena, Spiritualists and Theosophists need not even jostle, much less try to push each other off. Having thoroughly investigated these phenomena and become convinced of their truth, I was, in default of any other explanations of their origin, inclined to accept those given by Spiritualists. I consider those explanations very natural ones, falling in as they do with preconceived beliefs, and supplying an apparently rational cause. But if we reflect we shall see that the very fact that these theories coincide with our preconceived ideas, is really an argument against their being the true ones, as there would be a natural tendency to accept too readily, and on insufficient data any theory which fell in with easily conceived possibilities or probabilities. That all those who have long, with unbiassed minds, investigated these phenomena, become dissatisfied with the accepted theory of causes, points to difficulties and contradictions not seen on a short acquaint­ance with the subject. If then we hear that the true theory of these wonders and a reasonable philosophy of the Universe may be learned, should we not be wrong in refusing to inquire of those who, we are told, can instruct us? and is it not unbecoming in the few who have stepped out from amongst the many to defend an unpopular truth, to assume an attitude of sneering incredulity, when some of their ranks go still further in the path of inquiry? The same candour and courage which have enabled Spiritualists to stand up against the ridicule of the world and declare their convictions, should also lead them to inquire into fresh evidence, if forthcoming, on these subjects. Is it to be supposed that with the utter ignorance prevailing on all matters occult, a few years should have taught us all there is to learn in connection with these phenomena? Believing then, and with good reason, that an ancient order exists which is able and willing to give some knowledge to the world on occult matters, a society is formed, and we sit at the feet of the “Brothers” to learn. When such men as Mr. Hume and Mr. Sinnett are its leading members it can scarcely be supposed by reasonable people that our “Brothers” are quite the mythical persons some of our critics would infer. Now let me answer the few questions you ask in the paper of August the 19th, for as you say the evidence of Col. Gordon and myself would carry great weight, we are bound to give it. You ask whether the natives who signed the letter declaring they had seen and conversed with an adept are in the same position as yourself, who has been visited by one who ''said'' he was an adept. Certainly not; those witnesses had proof that the person they saw ''was'' an adept. You ask whether the lives of these men are such as on the given theory to account for their seeing the “Brothers.” Yes, they are men who are devoting themselves ''entirely'' to the work of the Theosophical Society, and they are water drinkers and vegetarians. Col. Olcott has seen several of the “Brothers,” and I know of no other European on this side of the water except Madame Blavatsky, who could reasonably hope to have the privilege, as yet. Still, we who have been with Madame Blavatsky a good deal have had satisfactory proof of their existence and of their power, and a volume of correspondence is accumulating from Koot Hoomi Lal Sing. I have seen a letter arrive from him by occult means in broad daylight, and so have other Theosophists. We are allowed to consider him as the patron of our Branch Society, just formed for Anglo- Indians. Although I cannot now subscribe myself a Spiritualist in the ordinary acceptation of the term, I am not likely to abuse the ladder by which I mounted, for without my knowledge of the marvellous phenomena of Spiritualism, I could never have been in a position to accept anything I may now learn. But it is not altogether pleasant to step out again into uncertainty, when one had formed a comfortable cut and dry philosophy ready to hand, and were one free to choose, one might be tempted to accept the ignorance which is bliss, rather than seek further knowledge. In these matters I think we are not free, our minds will work on, and the same restless spirit of inquiry which first led us from the faith of our childhood, still asserts itself. Before closing this let me advise, any Spiritualist who wishes to know some of the theories we are learning about the phenomena, to get the October number of ''The Theosophist. ''I have just had the pleasure of reading the MS. of a very able article on the subject, and it answers some of the most pertinent questions which are asked by those who have accepted the Spiritualistic theories.  

Rothney Castle, Simla, September 15th.