Lucifer/Vol1/Text: Difference between revisions

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Whats in a Name|What's in a Name?]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Aphorisms|[Occultism is not magic, though magic is one of its tools…]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Aphorisms|[Life is built up by the sacrifice of the individual to the whole…]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Aphorisms|[Occultism is the science of life, the art of living.]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Comments on Light on the Path|Comments on “Light on the Path”]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=14}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - The History of a Planet|The History of a Planet]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - The Blossom and the Fruit|The Blossom and the Fruit]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Keightley A. - A Law of Life|A Law of Life]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=46}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=The Mystery of All Time.}}

What is this mystery, and why is it so veiled, are the burning questions for anyone who has begun to realise its existence. Trouble most often rouses men to the consciousness of it, and forces them to ask these questions when those, whom one has loved better than oneself, are taken away into the formless abyss of the unknown by death, or are changed, by the experiences of life, till they are no longer recognisable as the same; then comes the wild hunger for knowledge. Why is it so? What is it, that surrounds us with a great dim cloud into which all loved things plunge in time and are lost to us, obliterated, utterly taken from us? It is this which makes life so unbearable to the emotional natures, and which developes selfishness in narrow hearts. If there is no certainty and no permanence in life, then it seems to the Egotist, that there is no reasonable course but to attend to one’s own affairs, and be content with the happiness of the first person singular. There are many persons sufficiently generous in temperament to wish others were happy also, and who, if they saw any way to do it, would gladly redress some of the existing ills – the misery of the poor, the social evil, the sufferings of the diseased, the sorrow of those made desolate by death – these things the sentimental philanthropist shudders to think of. He does not act because he can do so little. Shall he take one miserable child and give it comfort when millions will be enduring the same fate when that one is dead? The inexorable cruelty of life continues on its giant course, and those who are born rich and healthy live in pleasant places, afraid to think of the horrors life holds within it. Loss, despair, unutterable pain, comes at last, and the one who has hitherto been fortunate is on a level with those to whom misery has been familiarised by a lifetime of experience. For trouble bites hardest when it springs on a new victim. Of course, there are profoundly selfish natures which do not suffer in this sense, which look only for personal comfort and are content with the small horizon visible to one person’s sight; for these, there is but little trouble in the world, there {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=47}}is none of the passionate pain which exists in sensitive and poetic natures. The born artist is aware of pain as soon as he is aware of pleasure; he recognises sadness as a part of human life before it has touched on his own. He has an innate consciousness of the mystery of the ages, that thing stirring within man’s soul and which enables him to outlive pain and become great, which leads him on the road to the divine life. This gives him enthusiasm, a superb heroism indifferent to calamity; if he is a poet he will write his heart out, even for a generation that has no eyes or ears for him; if he desires to help others personally, he is capable of giving his very life to save one wretched child from out a million of miserable ones. For it is not his puny personal effort in the world that he considers – not his little show of labour done; what he is conscious of is the over-mastering desire to work with the beneficent forces of super-nature, to become one with the divine mystery, and when he can forget time and circumstances, he is face to face with that mystery. Many have fancied they must reach it by death; but none have come back to tell us that this is so. We have no proof that man is not as blind beyond the grave as he is on this side of it. Has he entered the eternal thought? If not, the mystery is a mystery still.

To one who is entering occultism in earnest, all the trouble of the world seems suddenly apparent. There is a point of experience when father and mother, wife and child, become indistinguishable, and when they seem no more familiar or friendly than a company of strangers. The one dearest of all may be close at hand and unchanged, and yet is as far as if death had come between. Then all distinction between pleasure and pain, love and hate, have vanished. A melancholy, keener than that felt by a man in his first fierce experience of grief, overshadows the soul. It is the pain of the struggle to break the shell in which man has prisoned himself. Once broken then there is no more pain; all ties are severed, all personal demands are silenced for ever. The man has forced himself to face the great mystery, which is now a mystery no longer, for he has become part of it. It is essentially the mystery of the ages, and these have no longer any meaning for him to whom time and space and all other limitations are but passing experiences. It has become to him a reality, profound, indeed, because it is bottomless, wide, indeed, because it is limitless. He has touched on the greatness of life, which is sublime in its impartiality and effortless generosity. He is friend and lover to all those living beings that come within his consciousness, not to the one or two chosen ones only – which is indeed only an enlarged selfishness. While a man retains his humanity, it is certain that one or two chosen ones will give him more pleasure by contact, than all the rest of the beings in the Universe and all the heavenly host; but he has to remember and recognise what this preference is. It is not a selfish thing which has to be crushed out, if the love is the love that gives; freedom from attachments is not a meritorious condition {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=48}}in itself. The freedom needed is not from those who cling to you, but from those to whom you cling. The familiar phrase of the lover “I cannot live without you” must be words which cannot be uttered, to the occultist. If he has but one anchor, the great tides will sweep him away into nothingness. But the natural preference which must exist in every man for a few persons is one form of the lessons of Life. By contact with these other souls he has other channels by which to penetrate to the great mystery. For every soul touches it, even the darkest. Solitude is a great teacher, but society is even greater. It is so hard to find and take the highest part of those we love, that in the very difficulty of the search there is a serious education. We realise when making that effort, far more clearly what it is that creates the mystery in which we live, and makes us so ignorant. It is the swaying, vibrating, never-resting desires of the animal soul in man. The life of this part of man’s nature is so vigorous and strongly developed from the ages during which he has dwelt in it, that it is almost impossible to still it so as to obtain contact with the noble spirit. This constant and confusing life, this ceaseless occupation with the trifles of the hour, this readiness in surface emotion, this quickness to be pleased, amused or distressed, is what baffles our sight and dulls our inner senses. Till we can use these the mystery remains in its Sphinx-like silence.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Lane-Fox G. - The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism|The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - The Last of a Good Lama|The Last of a Good Lama]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Levi E. - The Birth of Light|The Birth of Light]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=55}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=A True Theosophist.}}

Still more must it be borne in mind, that members of the Theosophical Society are not necessarily Theosophists, for a very considerable number are attracted merely by the name and through curiosity. They either do not understand what they profess, or if they do, they do not practise it. But this is no attempt to run counter to the proverb, that the tree is known by its fruit, although there is some amount of injustice in it. {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=56}}All that is asserted is that, if this argument is used against a Society with aims and aspirations such as the Theosophical Society has, it can be used with even more terrible effect against ''all'' religions whether Christian, Mohammedan, Buddhist, etc. The real reason why this has come to pass, lies in a few words – the cultivation of the individual; and, as a later result of this, in anthropomorphism. It is only those individuals who can “grasp their whole individuality firmly,” and by the force of their “awakened spiritual will, reach out to the life beyond individuality” – it is only they, who can shake themselves loose from the curse which has gradually spread over the whole world. It is in consequence of this growth of individualism that the “blessings of civilization” have become the curse of mankind, and every religion, originally altruistic, has become inverted, and the reign of anti-Christ and hypocrisy has superseded that of Christ and truth. No sweeping accusation is made against the whole world in this statement. A dim and misty veil has been thrown over the face of Truth, and it is as though we saw everything outside the principal focus of a lens, and consequently, under full faith that we see the real image, perceive the inverted image. In the time of Elizabeth, for instance, men learnt to cultivate the individual within the circle of the race, and to attempt to unite in patriotism for the benefit of that race or empire. But it is a vain attempt, and the dissociating effects of this culture will soon be evident in the impossibility of the attempt. Originally the attempt was to cultivate the individual, but only with a view to the increase of that race and with that object as paramount. That is to say, that an English soldier would cultivate himself to the uttermost in order that the world should see what English soldiers were. But the time came when the egoistic element appeared in overwhelming force, and the cultivation was devoted to the sole aim of making this or that man stronger than any man of his own race, or any other.

And now another aim has been substituted for the paramount one of patriotism. Mammon has superseded the latter, and the strength of the individual is cultivated and devoted to withstanding the pressure of life, and to getting a start in the great race to worship at the feet of the demon of cupidity. But again, while devoting their own lives and worse – the lives of their neighbours – to this worship, they yet professed to be Christians or members of other religions. They tried to worship two gods – Mammon on six days of the week and the other divinity on Sunday, or any day set apart for his service. But still, in most cases, it was not the divine instinct of search for the divine in their hearts, but a fear of wrath to come. It really was a pharisaical idea of “hedging,” to use a term of racing slang, with reference to the race of life. The end of it was that Mammon received the real worship of their hearts, and the other god only lip-service. Thus in the end hypocrisy became almost as paramount as Mammon. Time still passed on, and man almost lost {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=57}}sight of any idea of an offended and avenging deity, and any germ of spirituality was very nearly dead from want of cultivation. The material needs held him in complete sway, and the spread of physical science helped him mightily. Losing sight of all the subtler side of nature, he immersed himself in gross matter, and utilitarianism was the watchword and rallying cry. In all this change the age of mechanical inventions took no small part. Man can hardly be blamed as an individual nor as a whole. It is part of the great law of evolution, and the working out of the law of the survival of the fittest.

He then set forth clearly, eloquently, and with more feeling than he had yet shown, the views with regard to man’s duty as a member of society which are contained in his {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=58}}book entitled “My Religion,” and which are further explained and illustrated in a number of his recently published tracts for the people. He laid particular stress upon the doctrine of non-resistance to evil, which, he said, is in accordance with both the teachings of Christ and the results of human experience. He declared that violence, as a means of redressing wrongs, is not only futile, but an aggravation of the original evil, since it is the nature of violence to multiply and reproduce itself in all directions. “The Revolutionists,” he said, “whom you have seen in Siberia, undertook to resist evil by violence, and what has been the result? Bitterness, and misery, and hatred, and bloodshed! The evils against which they took up arms still exist, and to them has been added a mass of previously non-existent human suffering. It is not in that way that the kingdom of God is to be realised on earth.”

He was silent. Finally, ignoring my direct question as to what he personally would have done in such a case, Count Tolstoi said, “Even under such circumstances violence would not be justifiable. Let us analyse that situation carefully. I will grant, for the sake of argument, that the local governor who ordered the act of violence was an ignorant man, a cruel man, a brutal man – what you will; but he probably had an idea {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=59}}that he was doing his duty; he probably believed that he was enforcing a law of the Government to which he owed obedience and service. You suddenly appear and set yourself up as a judge in the case; you assume that he is not doing his duty – that he is committing an act of unjustifiable violence – and then, with strange inconsistency, you proceed to aggravate and complicate the evil by yourself committing another act of unjustifiable violence. One wrong added to another wrong does not make a right; it merely extends the area of wrong. Furthermore, your resistance, in order to be effective – in order to accomplish anything – must be directed against the soldiers who are committing the assault. But those soldiers are not free agents; they are subject to military discipline and are acting under orders which they dare not disobey. To prevent the execution of the orders you must kill or maim two or three of the soldiers – that is, kill or wound the only parties to the transaction who are certainly innocent, who are manifestly acting without malice and without evil intention. Is that just? Is it rational? But go a step further: suppose that you do kill or wound two or three of the soldiers; you may or may not thus succeed in preventing the completion of the act against which your violence is a protest; but one thing you certainly will do, and that is, extend the area of enmity, injustice, and misery. Every one of the soldiers whom you kill or maim has a family, and upon every such family you bring grief and suffering which would not have come to it but for your act. In the hearts of perhaps a score of people you rouse the anti-Christian and anti-social emotions of hatred and revenge, and thus sow broadcast the seeds of further violence and strife. At the time when you interposed there was only one centre of evil and suffering. By your violent interference you have created half-a-dozen such centres. It does not seem to me, Mr. Kennan, that that is the way to bring about the reign of peace and good-will on earth.”

“The whole history of the world,” replied the Count, “is a history of violence, and {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=60}}you can of course cite violence in support of violence; but do you not see that there is in human society an endless variety of opinions as to what constitutes wrong and oppression, and that if you once concede the right of any man to resort to violence to resist what he regards as wrong, he being the judge, you authorise every other man to enforce his opinions in the same way, and you have a universal reign of violence?”

“People say to me, ‘Well, Lef Nikolaivitch, as far as preaching goes, you preach; but how about your practice?’ The question is a perfectly natural one; it is always put to me, and it always shuts my mouth. ‘You preach,’ it is said, ‘but how do you live?’ I can only reply that I do not preach – passionately as I desire to do so. I might preach through my actions, but my actions are bad. That which I say is not preaching; it is only an attempt to find out the meaning and the significance of life. People often say to me, ‘If you think that there is no reasonable life outside the teachings of Christ, and if you love a reasonable life, why do you not fulfill the Christian precepts?’ I am guilty and blameworthy and contemptible because I do not fulfill them; but at the same time I say – not in justification, but in explanation, of my inconsistency – Compare my previous life with the life I am now living, and you will see that I am trying to fulfill. I have not, it is true, fulfilled one eighty-{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=61}}thousandth part, and I am to blame for it; but it is not because I do not wish to fulfill all, but because I am unable. Teach me how to extricate myself from the meshes of temptation in which I am entangled – help me – and I will fulfill all. I wish and hope to do it even without help. Condemn me if you choose – I do that myself – but condemn ''me'', and not the path which I am following, and which I point out to those who ask me where, in my opinion, the path is. If I know the road home, and if I go along it drunk, and staggering from side to side, does that prove that the road is not the right one? If it is not the right one, show me another. If I stagger and wander, come to my help, and support and guide me in the right path. Do not yourselves confuse and mislead me, and then rejoice over it and cry, ‘Look at him! He says he is going home, and he is floundering into the swamp!’ You are not evil spirits from the swamp; you are also human beings, and you also are going home. You know that I am alone – you know that I cannot wish or intend to go into the swamp – then help me! My heart is breaking with despair because we have all lost the road; and while I struggle with all my strength to find it and keep in it, you, instead of pitying me when I go astray, cry triumphantly, ‘See! He is in the swamp with us!’”

It is quite possible to recognise what an extraordinary effect Count Tolstoi’s principle of non-resistance to evil would have. Still it is a strictly Christian one. Christ went further, and ordained that the other cheek should be offered to the man who smites. It might be argued that this would result in a tacit acquiescence in evil. But if it be so, the whole of the Count’s life is a contradiction to this, and a standing protest against the existence of those who create, or rather perpetuate, this evil. Every reform, this included, is a protest against doing at Rome what Romans do, or the ''laisser aller'', which is the indolent curse of human progress. Count Tolstoi desires to see the reign of Christ on Earth, and in this accords well with the Theosophists who desire “Universal Brotherhood.” But neither of these can be effected save by the cultivation of the inner {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=62}}and spiritual man, so that it shall shine through and form the guide to the outer and physical man. But unfortunately the welfare of the latter is taken as the standard at present and humanity, without the spiritual man as a guide, is left to flounder in the ditch into which it has fallen.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=63}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=A Ghost’s Revenge}}

Sir Selwyn was alone in his room one evening when Gaston, who was reading in a room immediately beneath, heard sounds overhead which at once sent him upstairs to learn the cause. He had fancied that his father was speaking in a tone of troubled remonstrance to some unwelcome visitor, though he felt persuaded that no one, unless a servant of the house, could be with him at that hour. Hastening to his father’s room, his footsteps were arrested on the threshold by the {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=64}}spectacle which the half-opened door revealed to him. Sir Selwyn sat motionless and rigid in his chair; his face was colourless, and all the features stiff, while the eyes, dilated and staring, seemed, though they were fixed on space, to hold within their vision some object not perceptible to Gaston. This was the more remarkable that Gaston stood directly in his father’s line of sight, though it was certain that Sir Selwyn neither looked at him nor saw him. In a word, it was the gaze of a man who sees, or believes that he sees, an apparition.

He began to question him in the direct matter-of-fact style of a doctor {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=65}}with his patient, inquiring into the particular nature of the vision, how often and in what circumstances it presented itself, whether his father were able to connect it with any event of his life, or whether it seemed to be causeless, a mere fabric of the imagination.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=66}}At breakfast the next day, Sir Selwyn assured his son that he had slept well, and both in speech and look he was more cheerful than Gaston had seen him during a considerable period. It seemed, in short, as though the effect of their conversation the previous night had already begun to bear out the son’s prediction; nor, at the end of a week, did this good effect appear to have been in any degree dissipated. “I have not seen it once,” said Sir Selwyn, in answer to a question from Gaston. Another week passed, and a third, and the baronet declared that there had been no recurrence of the visions. He became very reticent upon the subject, and it was evident that he now shrank from any allusion to it. Gaston, on his side, was only too willing to avoid its mention.

Gaston was desolate at home, and at the end of ten days or so he went to Paris, intending to stay a week there and return to England; {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=67}}but the weather was pleasant, and from Paris he began to wander, in leasurely fashion, southwards; and before he had quite made up his mind as to where he wanted to go, he found himself in Rome. Rome was chilly, and he had lighted on a bad hotel, so he remained but a few days, and went on to Naples. He would wait to see Rome, he said, until his father was with him.

Strolling one day in a slumbrous corner of the town, where cypress trees stood sentinels at rusty iron gates, and the air smelled of lemon groves and roses, he was struck by the aspect of a tenantless and apparently deserted villa, walled within a garden, which, untended as it was, retained a certain monastic trimness. A weather-stained board over the iron gate, which was of fine workmanship, announced that the villa was to let. Gaston tried the gate, but it was locked. A broad-hatted priest who was passing at the moment, observing Gaston’s interest in the villa, stopped, took a pinch of snuff, and said that if the signor desired to have particulars of the place, he might obtain them from such {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=68}}a person in a street close at hand, which he indicated. Gaston thanked the father for his courtesy, and went to inquire if he could see the villa, with a view to hiring it for a short time.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=69}}“It has remained a mystery from that day to this,” replied the baron. “A year or two after the death of Verga, his brother went to live in the Villa, changing its name to that of a property of his own in Calabria, the name which it still bears. But he could not stay in it, for he said that he saw the spirit of his brother walking in the garden in the evenings, on the path where the body was found. Since he left it, the house has never been occupied. As to the ghost, many stories are told, but the favourite one is that it haunts the place seeking someone to avenge the murder. That is a strange notion, don’t you think, Herr Fox?”

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=70}}“''Ecco il padre, signor!''” (There’s the father), said the driver, pointing to the Capucin, who bowed to Gaston with a courteous indication of readiness to receive him.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Literary Jottings|Literary Jottings]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=75}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=1|p=76}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Correspondence}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Theosophical and Mystic Publications|Theosophical and Mystic Publications]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - From the Note Book of an Unpopular Philosopher|From the Note-Book of an Unpopular Philosopher]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Massey G. - The Lady of Light|The Lady of Light]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - The Signs of the Times|The Signs of the Times]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Self-Knowledge|Self-Knowledge]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Comments on Light on the Path|Comments on “Light on the Path”]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Will and Desire|Will and Desire]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Keightley A. - A Law of Life|A Law of Life]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Keightley J.W. - The great watch-word|[The great watch-word…]]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=102}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=A Ghost’s Revenge.}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=103}}Above the line of coffins, on both sides of the chamber, hundreds of clothed and hooded creatures – skeletons in all except the face, which for the most part retained its covering of dried and tarnished skin – were suspended from the walls. Each had a ticket pinned to its dress, bearing the name and the date of death.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=104}}This then was the hero and the victim of that old tragedy; this was the end of him! But for his punctured skull, he might have changed places with any of the least repulsive of his skeleton companions. But his little bullet-hole marked him out from all of them. Curiously, the hood had slipped off from the left side of the skull, and as this was the side next to the spectator, the bullet-hole compelled attention to itself at once.

This question uttered itself again and again; it grew importunate. One evening in particular it became a kind of clamour in his ears; {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=105}}when, walking by moonlight in the garden of the villa, he was suddenly conscious that a presence other than his own was with him. Turning about, he beheld vividly, at a distance from him of twelve or fifteen paces, the figure of a young and elegant man. The view of this figure which his eyes took in, and the impression which it made upon his mind, were so distinct, that, but for a single circumstance, he would have suspected nothing abnormal in the appearance. The features were those of Udalrico Verga.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=106}}All that night, the story swam in his brain, and rising early next morning, he resolved – or rather was impelled – to commence writing it immediately. He did so, and in the full light of day the wraith of Udalrico Verga stood beside him, and he plainly saw it, during the whole time his pen was at work. But the vision had no longer any weakening or retarding effect upon his brain; rather its effects were quickening and coercive; and these effects increased, till it became a certainty to him that from the visible presence of the spirit of Verga he drew the main strength of his inspiration. The story grew under his pen to an elaborate romance, upon which, sustained throughout by an elation of mind that allowed little repose to the body, he was at work during many weeks.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=107}}So remote from the ordinary had been the conditions under which the story was composed, and so small (it had seemed to Gaston) was the share of its inspiration which his own brain could claim, that now, within a few weeks of its composition, he read it almost as the work of another.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=108}}“Thank you, Gaston. You know how dear your fame is to me.”

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - The Origin of Evil|The Origin of Evil]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Keightley J.W. - Man will regain his lost Eden|[Man will regain his lost Eden…]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - The Great Paradox|The Great Paradox]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=122}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - The Blossom and the Fruit|The Blossom and the Fruit]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Keightley J.W. - Spirituality is not what we understand by the words virtue or goodness|[Spirituality is not what we understand by the words ‘virtue’ or ‘goodness’…]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Keightley J.W. - The discovery and right use of the true essence of Being|[The discovery and right use of the true essence of Being…]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Desire Made Pure|Desire Made Pure]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=134}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Thoughts on Theosophy.}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Correspondence}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Massey G. - Are the Teachings Ascribed to Jesus Contradictory|Are the Teachings Ascribed to Jesus Contradictory?]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Wyld G. - Letter on the teachings of Jesus|[Letter on the teachings of Jesus]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Massey G. - Are the Teachings Ascribed to Jesus Contradictory|Are the Teachings Ascribed to Jesus Contradictory? – continued]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=138}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=To the Author of “Light on the Path.”}}

{{Style P-Quote|1=<span style="font-variant:small-caps">There</span> is a sentence in your “Comments” which has haunted me with a sense of irritation: “To obtain knowledge by experiment is too tedious a method for those who aspire to do real work,” &amp;c. Have we any knowledge, of whatever sort, that has been of use in the world, which has been obtained otherwise than experimentally? By patient and persistent toil of sifting and testing, we have obtained the little knowledge that is of service to us. Is there such a {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=139}}thing as “certain intuition”? Has intuitive knowledge, if such there be, been accepted as positive knowledge until it has been submitted to the test of experiment? Would it be right that it should be? Your illustration of the “determined workman” brings the question down (as I think the question should be brought) to the plane of practice. Is there any workman who can know his tools until he has tried them? Is not the history of knowledge the history of intuitions put to the test of practice? Intuitions, or what we call such, seem to me quite as apt and likely to deceive us as anything in the world; we only know them for good when we have tried them.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Reply to To the Author of Light on the Path by Interrogator|[Reply to “To the Author of Light on the Path” by Interrogator]]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=140}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Reviews.}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Westcott W.W. - The Kabbalah Unveiled|The Kabbalah Unveiled]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - An Adventure Among the Rosicrucians (review)|“An Adventure Among the Rosicrucians”]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=149}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=Tabula Bembina Sive Mensa Isiaca. The Isiac Tablet of Cardinal Bembo. Its History and Occult Significance.}}

After mentioning Æneas De Vico and Pignorius, Dr. Westcott gives us an extensive digest of the views of Athanasius Kircher, from whose plate in the {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=150}}“Œdipus Ægyptiacus” the photogravure at the commencement is taken. Kircher undoubtedly more nearly grasped the esoteric design of the tablet than any one except Eliphas Levi, and his attempted explanation marks him alike as a profound scholar and an advanced mystic, notwithstanding the great disadvantages with which he had to contend in the utter ignorance of Egyptology as it is now understood, which prevailed at the date at which he wrote.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=151}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=Earth’s Earliest Ages <br /> and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy.}}

The author, moreover, is sure to meet with scant sympathy even from the materialists to whom he is most nearly allied in thought. For he accepts, ''en bloc'', the phenomena and wonders of spiritualism as of occultism, and never attempts even to question their reality. Meanwhile, he believes in the {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=152}}resurrection of the ''physical body'' after death, in a physical kingdom of Christ upon earth, and so on. Indeed, his views are the most remarkable compound of pure materialism and wholesale acceptance of the psychic and so-called supernatural that have ever appeared in print.

Theosophy, says Mr. Pember, will become the creed of the intellectual and the educated, while Spiritualism influences the masses of mankind. And he traces the influences of Theosophy and Buddhism in “Broad-Churchism, Universalism, Comtism, Secularism, and Quietism.” Nay, even under the Temperance movement he spies the lurking serpent of esoteric teaching and guidance, and he cites letters from Christian friends complaining that these and other {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=153}}philanthropic movements are being swamped, and their periodicals occupied by Theosophists, who work on Buddhist principles.

“It would seem that the attack of the Madras Christian College upon Madame Blavatsky has by no means checked the movement in which she has been so conspicuous an actor, and, apparently, the failure is nowhere more manifest than in Madras itself. It was confidently predicted that the High Priestess of Theosophy and Buddhism would not dare to show her face again in that city. Nevertheless she did so, and ... received a warm welcome, not merely from the members of the Theosophical societies, but also from the members of the various colleges and from many other {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=154}}persons. She was conducted in procession from the shore to the Pancheappa Hall, and was there presented by the students with an address of sympathy and admiration, to which, among other signatures, were appended those of more than three hundred members of the very Christian College whose professors had assailed her.”

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=Isaure and Other Poems.}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=155}}must have the power to sense the keener air of the subtle life and grasp its glorious promise.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Theosophical and Mystic Publications (1)|Theosophical and Mystic Publications]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=158}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Correspondence}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=2|p=159}}There is an old tradition (''Esoteric Science in Human History'', p. 180) that there are 12 principal planets in our solar system; this leaves 4 more to be discovered. It will be seen at a glance that these 4 will fill up the vacant signs, two planets ruling each sign, one by night and the other by day. The only alteration which will then have to be made will be to consider ☉︎ to rule ♌︎ by day only, and ☽︎ to rule ♋︎ by night only; this, however, will be only in accordance with nature: moreover, the fact that the ancients assigned only one house each to ☉︎ and ☽︎, and two to each of the other planets, denotes some essential astrological difference between them.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - From the Note Book of an Unpopular Philosopher (1)|From the Note Book of an Unpopular Philosopher]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Let Every Man Prove His Own Work|"Let Every Man Prove His Own Work"]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=161}}

|1=“What a grand chance is now open in this country, to the exponents of a noble and advanced religion (if such this Theosophy be<ref name="nf32">“This” Theosophy is not a religion, but rather ''the'' <span style="font-variant:small-caps">religion</span> – if one. So far, we prefer to call it a philosophy; one, moreover, which contains every religion, as it is the essence and the foundation of all. Rule III. of the Theos. Body says: “The Society represents no particular religious creed, is entirely ''unsectarian'', and includes professors of all faiths.”</ref>) for proving its strength, righteousness and verity to the Western world, by {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=162}}throwing a penetrating and illuminating ray of its declared light upon the terribly harrowing and perplexing practical problems of our age.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Let Every Man Prove His Own Work|"Let Every Man Prove His Own Work" – continued]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - The Demand of the Neophyte|The Demand of the Neophyte]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - The Esoteric Character of the Gospels|The Esoteric Character of the Gospels]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Kingsford A. - The Square in the Hand|The “Square” in the Hand]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=185}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Sinnett A.P. - The Invisible World|The Invisible World]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=192}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - The Blossom and the Fruit|The Blossom and the Fruit]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - The Science of Life|The Science of Life]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Sin Against Life|Sin Against Life]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Harbottle T.B. - Brotherhood|Brotherhood]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=215}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Pythagoric Sentences of Demophilus.}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Massey G. - Blood-Covenanting|Blood-Covenanting]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=226}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Correspondence.}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path.”}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply I]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=227}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply II]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=227|item=2}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply III.1]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=227|item=3}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply III.2]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=227|item=4}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply III.3]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=227|item=5}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply III.4]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=227|item=6}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply III.5]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=228}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply III.6]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=228|item=2}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply IV]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=228|item=3}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply V]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=229}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Correspondence Addressed to the Author of Light on the Path|Correspondence Addressed to the Author of “Light on the Path” – reply VI]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=229|item=2}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=“Esoteric Buddhism.”}}

“In his book on ‘Esoteric Buddhism,’ Mr. Sinnett states that souls or spirits pass the long interval between the one incarnation and another in a sort of quiescent, and at least half-unconscious, state, losing enough of their identity to preclude their carrying any recollection of one incarnation on to the next. In his novel, “Karma,” Mr. Sinnett represents one character, Mrs. Lakesby, gifted with more than usual powers, as being very fond, when she has the chance, of allowing her spirit to escape from the trammels of the body and {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=230}}meeting the spirits of departed – that is, dead friends – “and others” on the Astral plane where she holds agreeable converse with them.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Esoteric Buddhism (BCW vol.8)|[Editorial reply to “Esoteric Buddhism” by N. D.]]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=230|item=2}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - Reply to the questions on the soul and the starry spirit by Madame la Marechale Canrobert|[Reply to the questions on the soul and the starry spirit by Madame la Maréchale Canrobert]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Reviews.}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - The Real History of the Rosicrucians (review)|The Real History of the Rosicrucians]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=236}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=“Nineteenth Century Sense.”}}

{{Style P-Quote|1=“The President of the American Branch of the Indian Society of Theosophists (Professor Coues) ... spent an evening with me some time back in conversation on the subject of psychical phenomena. We parted at midnight. {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=237}}At seven o’clock the next morning I suddenly awoke, beholding the astral of the professor standing at my bed-side.”}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=3|p=238}}This is Chapter V.; Chapter VI. deals with Matter in its relation to the Ego, the spirit of the treatment being indicated by the following conclusion:

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - From the Note Book of an Unpopular Philosopher (2)|From the Note Book of an Unpopular Philosopher]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Lucifer to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Greeting|"Lucifer" to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Greeting!]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Johnston C. - Emerson and Occultism|Emerson and Occultism]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - The Blossom and the Fruit|The Blossom and the Fruit]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=266}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=267}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=The Spirit of Healing.}}

<span style="font-variant:small-caps">It</span> is somewhat difficult to say what real or theosophical work is when exactly defined, and, in consequence, it becomes very easy to speak of an effort as untheosophical – that is not sufficiently unselfish in motive. The fact is that the word Theosophy has such a very wide meaning, embracing, as it does, the true spirit of all creeds and religions, and confining itself to none in particular, that no work done in the spirit of truth and wisdom is really untheosophical. Hence, unless the speaker is possessed of more knowledge than ordinary men concerning the causes which underlie our actions, the application of the word untheosophical is incorrect. In fact, if it is once granted that it is possible to work from an impersonal standpoint in favour of a particular creed or religion, that work becomes theosophical in character. Thus it is only work (in the widest sense of the word and on all planes) from the personal standpoint, and which, therefore, militates against Universal Brotherhood, which can really be described as untheosophical. But this by no means presupposes that work which has outwardly the appearance of theosophical genuineness is not really selfish. It is, of course, the old story of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. We do but need one example – the truly-called ''profession'' of Medicine. We constantly hear of the wonderful self-sacrifice of medical men; of men who die at their posts rather than desert a possible case in times of epidemic and cholera; of men who suck tracheotomy tubes with almost certain death by diphtheria staring them in the face; finally we hear, though but seldom, of the honest, earnest devotion of a lifetime in places and districts where the fees are so small that it is barely possible for the doctor to live on his earnings. These are the heroes of the profession. Their work, for the most part, consists of an unselfish devotion to the alleviation of suffering, culminating in a final sacrifice of their personal selves – for death is nothing less than this. But we must turn to the less favourable side of the picture – the struggle not for a living, but for wealth, and work, fired by ambition and the search for fame. Of course, apart from the personal, selfish element in it, the ambitious struggle in other professions than those of the Church or Medicine is of no great or unnatural harm; but in these two cases it is more than harmful, it is a degrading betrayal of trust. It is Simonism with a vengeance; yes, kind friends, it approaches very nearly to the case of Judas, who held the bag, and betrayed his Master with a kiss. It may be asked why this sweeping denunciation is made of the two noblest professions; of those two which, considered from the ethical standpoint, consist of devotion to the service of man? The reason {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=268}}is not very far to seek. The power which true healers possess – healers alike of body and soul, is not one which can be sold for money or bartered for wealth and fame. At least, if the possibility does exist, it bears a suspicious resemblance to the old idea of selling one’s soul to the devil in exchange for power and prosperity. It may be replied to this that there is no harm in bartering knowledge of drugs, of pathology, diagnosis of disease, surgical skill, etc. – in short, all the knowledge acquired by education – for money. I answer No! for it is material given for material, and nothing more. But these are not the sole properties of the true healer, and those who do not possess these other properties I speak of are not healers, and while they may ''profess'' medicine<ref name="nf59">So medicine is, in the Shakespearian use of the word, and also from its Greek derivation, not to give drugs, but to cure or heal.</ref> and may be ''in'' it, are yet not ''of'' it.

As regards the Church and its professors of religion, the case is even worse; they have no material products of education to barter, and for the most part are contented with telling their flock to “do as I bid you, and not as I do.” But among them there are noble examples of unswerving unselfishness and devotion, although for the most part those who enter the Church are too young to understand fully the nature of their high calling. Unfortunately the call in too many cases is not a call to minister and heal souls, but to make a living and heal the souls in the process. But again, it may be asked, what are these wonderful powers which constitute the true healer, and which are not to be bought or sold? The first one which occurs naturally to the mind is the power of sympathy. The old joke in ''Punch'' about “the good bedside manner” has a considerable substratum of truth when divested of its unpleasing folly. The substratum of that manner is that which is given by sympathy; and this is one of the first elements which constitute the power of healing. It gives the power of suffering with the patient and therefore of understanding what the sufferer is enduring. It is beyond diagnosis, although it assists it by being much surer – at least, as to the reality of the suffering. But this power of sympathy only expresses a part of the meaning of the power to heal. Sympathy tends to annihilate the personal distinctions between the healer and the sufferer; it tends to exalt the consciousness of the healer not only to know the remedy for the disease, but to be himself the power of cure, and also it is a vast occult power in virtue of which all the “elder brethren” of the Universal Brotherhood live their lives; in virtue of which the world’s great enlighteners have not only lived their lives but ''lived their death'', in order that they might benefit the sufferers who despised and rejected them. But this power of sympathy and the kindred powers which constitute the true healer, are really secret powers and secret remedies. Therefore they are openly tabooed by the medical profession, although the said professors cannot avoid using them. But secret remedies are to some degree justly avoided. For it is but {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=269}}natural to regard secret remedies with suspicion. At best their use seems like working in the dark and blindly, and, consequently, any results obtained must be empirical. Again, the medical profession seems to plume and feather itself upon possessing a slight leaven of its ideal condition, and, by constituting itself into a kind of trades’ union, declines as a body to have anything to do with any remedy of which the composition is not made fully known. This, at least, is the more charitable view, for, on the other hand, the doctors know only too well how eagerly the public rushes after any new “quack” medicine, and seeks to cure itself without calling in their aid. The doctors reply to this that they will have nothing to do with a medicine whose composition is a secret, and which is therefore devoted, to a great extent, to replenishing the purse of its discoverer, and not to the cure of diseases from a love of man and a hatred of suffering. This is a very high-sounding idea, and a noble one, when it is not what the Americans would call only “high-falutin.” But even when a remedy is made public property, it is not necessarily ''pro bono publico''; in fact, as a rule, it serves only the good of the dispensing chemist. He sees the prescription and notes it, the public does not; and, as a rule, the chemist obtains the drugs cheaply, and compounds them at the same rate as this medicine was originally sold under the patent of its discoverer. Still, with all the dislike of the profession for secret remedies, there is no doubt at all that in the case of the heads of the profession some of the best results are obtained by the use of prescriptions, which practically constitute a secret formula. The especial combination which the particular man has discovered to be of use is his property, and his only until he writes a book, for the various chemists who make it up, and the various patients who drink it, are not to the full aware of its value and use. The difference between this and quack medicine lies merely in the peculiar names and large advertisements, but very often these are balanced by the fame of the particular surgeon or physician. But, in all honour to physicians and surgeons, who do in many cases have and show a large-hearted sympathy for suffering, it must be remembered that many of the greatest and busiest of them give hours of their valuable time to those who are too poor to pay in any other form than that of grateful thanks. There are, again, others who disregard all the rules which govern trades’ union society, and boldly take their stand upon Christ’s dictum, that “the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” In other words, they say that any medicine which they personally find valuable in the alleviation of pain and disease must be used even at the risk of themselves being called “unprofessional.” Again, others will use these so-called secret remedies, and say nothing about it, preferring to pin their faith to the wittily termed eleventh commandment, “Thou shalt not be found out.” At this point it is possible to draw a parallel between the use of the terms “untheosophical” and “unprofessional.” It would seem that both are used {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=270}}in very much the same trades’ union sense. In the case of the word “unprofessional,” it is to be regretted that it is due very largely to a lack of charity and of the spirit of enquiry. In the case of the word “untheosophical” it is often used in consequence of a lack of charity, and further in the spirit of scandal and gossip. Unless a man or woman is a theosophist pure and simple, who carries out in their ''entirety'', the objects of the Theosophical Society, the use of the word untheosophical betrays ''them'' to be untheosophical and to fail in carrying out those objects which they have promised to further to the best of their power.

In the light of the foregoing it is now possible to examine the manner in which Count Mattei’s remedies have been received. The Count himself is a member of a noble family of Bologna, he has travelled much, but returned there in 1847, and took part in the movement which led to the liberation of Italy. In early life he much wished to study medicine, but was prevented from doing so by his father’s wish. Still his desire for knowledge was not quenched, and he attempted to follow the bent of his own mind. He rightly concluded that the instincts of the lower animals would lead them to search for herbs and plants which would cure their ailments, and that careful observation of these instincts might disclose medicines of the greatest value to human sufferers. Thus he adopted the habit of taking walks in the company of a number of dogs which were suffering from various diseases, and carefully watched their proceedings. Gradually the new pharmacopœia assumed shape, and the instinct of the dogs showed that particular diseases were met by particular remedies. These observations were made more than sixty years ago, and were not forgotten amid the occupations of a busy life. Indeed, when those occupations became less, Count Mattei returned with ardour to his earlier studies. He became a deputy in the Roman Parliament, but retired into private life after finding that his political views were not those of the men by whom he was surrounded. After this retirement the Count devoted himself to the study of medicine, in order that he might fit himself to apply certain principles which he believed he had discovered to be valuable for sick and suffering humanity. By his own account and the testimony of his patients he was not deceived, and the present remedies which bear his name are the result of twenty-five years’ unceasing labour and experiment. He rapidly acquired an enormous practice, and during the early years of it his advice and his medicines were entirely gratis. But an unfortunate combination of circumstances, as well as the expense entailed by the preparation of the remedies, rendered it necessary for the Count to demand some small remuneration for his services. Then he learned that his bounty was abused, and that certain doctors, who had asked and obtained the remedies from him, departed from Bologna and retailed the remedies at extravagantly exorbitant prices. To such an extent was this carried that there exist authentic cases where a thaler was demanded for a single globule, and for the {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=271}}globules (20-30) necessary to give a bath, 1,000 francs were asked in New York. Some idea of the extortion may be given when Count Mattei refers to the thaler price as being 1,350 times the price at Bologna. This would be enough to justify any amount of secrecy on Count Mattei’s part, more especially as that secrecy entirely prevents the adulteration of the medicines which would inevitably follow, were they to become commercial property.

We have only too familiar an example in the ranks of the medical profession. Many of his confrères have been appealed to for the support of a physician, named Warburg. At this date it seems hardly possible to believe that this gentleman was the happy discoverer of Warburg’s Fever Tincture. Perhaps in this country the value of the compound was not so highly appreciated as in India. But it is impossible to open any treatise on either surgery or medicine which is about twenty years old and not find the use of Warburg’s tincture specially urged in all cases of high fever, and especially in cases of malarial fever and pyæmia. The compound had an enormous sale, and yielded a very substantial income to its discoverer, but as soon as he yielded to the pressure of professional opinion, and consented to publish his formula so that it might obtain an extended use, he obtained the reward of such philanthropy. Every chemist now prepares the prescription and sells it at very nearly the original price, and what is more, never refunds a fraction of a farthing in the shape of a royalty to the discoverer. Consequently, we have before us the edifying spectacle of the learned discoverer compelled to exist on the charity of his professional confrères. Count Mattei has, at all events, protected himself against this, for although he states that in the event of his death he has provided against the loss of his secret to the world, and intends to leave it carefully as a legacy to suffering humanity, there is not the slightest doubt that he alone is the possessor of his own secret. That it is possible to obtain wealth from using this system is very evident. Certain among the chief of his followers are in the habit of visiting London at intervals, and the number of those who consult them is really wonderful. I am assured by an eye-witness that the crowd is far beyond that which besieges the door of the most fashionable physician of the day. When one reads the literature of the subject, one becomes more and more astonished at its simplicity. All diseases resolve themselves into three main forms, and constitutions vary accordingly. There are sanguine and lymphatic constitutions, and the various combinations of these two; there are also febrile disturbances and diseases of the liver and spleen. Consequently there are three chief medicines, which are used in an extraordinary state of dilution. It is no use, here at least, to discuss the value of these infinitesimal doses, so that may be left for future discussion. To a professional mind the most extraordinary claim on Count Mattei’s part will be that of curing cancer by {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=272}}internal and external medicines, and wholly without the use of the knife. He claims positively to cure every case in which the cancer has not ulcerated, and to cure a large proportion even of those which have already done so. Even of those which have been neglected, and have remained long in the ulcerated state, he claims to restore a certain proportion (though not a large one) to health. Of course, to any man who has seen the difficulty which attends the early diagnosis of cancer, these claims are very high-sounding indeed – almost to absurdity. The difficulties which attend diagnosis, even almost to the time when the knife ''has been'' used, and the tissue submitted to the microscope, are very great. But in Count Mattei’s second division there is no such difficulty. It is then possible by certain indications, as well as by the use of the microscope, to be sure of the nature of the disease. Here Mattei steps in and claims that, by the use of one of his medicines, which exerts an ''electric'' influence on cancer, and by one of what he terms his vegetable electricities, he can restore the sufferer to health. Surely ''conservative'' surgery, if it be worthy of the name, will investigate such a claim. Of the vegetable electricities there is no doubt whatever. Cases of neuralgia and sciatica and articular rheumatic pain have been seen to yield to them as to magic; consequently, even in the last stages of cancer, when there is no refuge save the grave left to the sufferer, I have reason to believe Count Mattei, to some extent, when he claims to enable the said sufferer to sink gently away in full consciousness, and without the use of morphia.

To those who know anything of the occult uses and powers of plants, the fact that Count Mattei gathers his herbs at particular phases of the moon, will convey a good deal of meaning. Further, they will feel an additional assurance as to their value, and will no longer wonder, on one side at least, that Count Mattei chooses to keep his secret. It would seem probable to some extent that Count Mattei is one of the “elder brethren” of the race, although how far he is consciously so may be a matter for speculation, which could only be set at rest by Mattei himself and his compeers and superiors. What is definitely certain is that his system of medicine in its theories, if not in its practice, is a distinct step in advance in the healing art. Mattei is one of those pioneers of advance who spend the greater part of their lives in introducing for public use a secret of which they have become possessed. Mr. Keeley of Philadelphia,<ref name="nf60">The discoverer of the new power now known as the Keeley-motor and inter-etheric force.</ref> appears to be another of those pioneers who are in advance of their times. But Mr. Keeley, in his work, resembles Friar Bacon, who blessed (?) the world with gunpowder. No doubt civilization has been enormously extended by its aid; but however much use it may have been to man in adapting the face of nature to his service, it has at any rate subserved the gratification of his passions. Count Mattei appears {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=273}}to have none of these “defects of his qualities,” and to have endeavoured to bless the world without giving to it attendant curses. Still it is always possible that when his secret shall become known it will draw attention to plants which have just as destructive and poisonous an influence as the plants and herbs he uses have of healing power. At all events, at present his secret is of use to the world, and so far as may be seen he makes a just and “brotherly” use of it. Has enough been said above to show that the fact that his medicines are “secret” compounds should be no barrier to their use? What is still more important is that true theosophists should recognise that Count Mattei has done what they endeavour to do, and devoted his life to Real Work.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Olcott H.S. - Theosophical Societys Convention of 1887|Theosophical Society's Convention of 1887]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Wachtmeister C. - A Remarkable Christmas Eve|A Remarkable Christmas Eve]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=281}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=282}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Theosophy and Modern Socialism.}}

But neither Socialists nor Socialism, “as preached in this nineteenth century,” do anything of the kind. By “Materialistic” Socialism, I presume “T.B.H.” implies (if he has really ''studied'' Socialism at all, which I venture to doubt) so much of it as can be urged upon purely worldly grounds, such as the better feeding, housing, &amp;c., of those who do the active work of society, technical instruction, such general education as fits a man for the domestic and secular duties of life, and the reorganisation of society with these objects upon a {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=283}}“co-operative” basis,<ref name="nf61">Co-operative, that is to say, in the sense that the various sections and individual members of society shall ''willingly'' co-operate, being fully conscious of their interdependance. {{Style P-Signature in capitals|St. George Lane Fox.}}</ref> in which public salaried officers, elected by their fellows, will take the place of capitalists and landlords, and in which the production and distribution of wealth will be more systematically regulated. This system, of course, takes no account of the law of Karma.

It is surely true, even now, to speak of a collective, ''e.g.'', a national or municipal Karma, as we do of a national conscience. We speak of reward or retribution to nations and cities as if they had distinct personalities – are these mere “figures of speech”? But what is more important is that Socialists may prepare the way for a revelation of the noble truths of Theosophy to the multitude; they may help to raise the intellectual and instinctive moral standard of the whole community to such an extent that all will, in the next generation following after the Social Revolution,<ref name="nf63">This word, of course, is employed in the general sense, without any reference to the physical character which the revolution may assume. It may be attended with violence, or it may be as peaceful as, for instance, the religious revolution accomplished by Constantine in the fourth century. All I am postulating is a more or less sudden transformation of the existing social order, effected by one of those impulses with which evolution seems to complete its periods, and of which Theosophy may some day afford the explanation.</ref> be amenable to those truths. In this way Socialism would not, indeed, interfere with the results of the law of Karma, but {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=284}}would, as the precursor of Theosophy, be the indirect means of enabling multitudes to rise and free themselves from its bonds.

Finally on this point, if to advocate such changes as Socialists advocate, the substitution of social co-operation for competition; of production with a view to use, for production with view to profit; of peace between nations, classes, and individuals, for war; of harmonious organisation to the advantage of all, for ''laissez faire'', and chaos for the advantage (or supposed advantage) of a few. If I say, to advocate such changes be to advocate interference with the results of the law of Karma, so is every proposal for the amelioration of the physical or intellectual welfare of our fellows. And if participation in this and other movements, which may with equal justice be called “materialistic,” be prohibited to Theosophists, they may as well, for all good their Universal Brotherhood will do to the mass of those at present outside it, stay at home and content themselves with communing with the select few who alone will ever be in a position to appreciate them. If, for one reason or other, they do not care to co-operate with Socialists, let them, at least, recognise that the latter are preparing their way for them, doing the dirty (?) and laborious work, without which Theosophy can never descend from the serene heights in which it now dwells, to replenish, spiritually, this sadly benighted world. For, apart from a healthier physical and psychical atmosphere than “civilised” life engenders in either rich or poor (collective Karmic effects), a fair amount of leisure and freedom from sordid care are indispensable in most human beings for the higher development of the perceptive or gnostic faculties. At present this minimum of leisure and economic independence is probably unattainable by nineteen-twentieths of the population. Yet this self-same society, with its scientific learning and experience, its machinery, and its business organisation, contains within it all the germs of such a reconstruction of the physical environment as shall very {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=285}}shortly place the means of spiritual and psychical regeneration within the reach of all.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=286}}But such faults, although by all human prevision necessary incidents in the movement, are by no means inherent in Socialism. Even the purely “materialistic” socialism of Karl Marx, to which “T. B. H.” seems (although I think not with any clear picture of it in his mind) to refer, aims simply at securing the decencies and ordinary comforts of life to all, as a recompense for more evenly distributed social labour. The very conditions of life under a co-operative commonwealth such as Hyndman, Grönlund, and other followers of the late Karl Marx’s economic ideal, have in view – above all the obligation (virtual, at any rate) under which every able-bodied member of the community would find himself or herself, to do a few hours of useful work of one kind or another every day, and the elimination of the commercial and speculative element, with the wretched insecurity and dangerous temptations which it involves, – would preclude inordinate luxury. A healthy simplicity of life would become, first, “fashionable,” then usual.<ref name="nf65">I do not, of course, mean to predict that “sin” (or its Theosophical equivalent) would die out. It is, after all, a relative matter to the capacities and potentialities of the individual and his surroundings. Under Socialism, sensuality, social or plutocratic pride, and other sins fostered by the present order, would simply give way to ambition (to obtain popular distinction, ''e.g.'', as an artist or inventor) and perhaps to magic and other at present unfashionable vices.</ref> Communism, of course, goes further than economic socialism, as it implies not only the claim of the individual upon the community for the means of ''labour'' and the enjoyment of its fruits or their equivalent, but his claim for ''subsistence'', irrespective of the amount and social value of the labour which he is able to perform. It would abolish, therefore, not only individual property in the means of production, but in the products themselves. The practicability of Communism, the motto of which is, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” obviously depends upon the prevalence of more generous motives, of a higher sense of duty both to work and to give – a more perfect development, in fact, of the sense of human solidarity. It is for this very reason more commendable than mere economic socialism, as an ideal, to the attention of Theosophists; although its application, on the national or universal scale, cannot yet be said to have entered “the sphere of practical politics.”

Communism, which may be either Collectivist or Anarchist, leads me to add a few words about Anarchism. I refer, of course, to the social ideal philosophically denoted by this name, and not to the means advocated by some of its supporters for putting an end to the present society. Anarchism involves Communism, as well as extreme decentralisation; more than this, it involves the abolition of all permanent machinery of law and order, such as “the State” is supposed to provide, and the abolition of physical force as a method of suasion, even for criminals and lunatics. As a protest against political domination of all kinds, and an antidote to the excessive centralisation advocated by some state-Socialists, Anarchism may be of some use, but it is obviously further even than Communism (of the Collectivist variety) from becoming a school of “practical” politics. It could only become so after society at large, all the world over, had grown sufficiently homogeneous and ''solidaire'' for its {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=287}}members to co-operate spontaneously and automatically for all necessary purposes, grouping themselves into large or small organizations (limbs and organs) as required, and forming a complete ''body-social'', or Mesocosm, if I may be allowed to coin a word for the purpose.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Scott-Elliot W. - The Great Quest|The Great Quest]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - God Speaks for Law and Order|[Introduction to “God Speaks for Law and Order” by W. Eldon Serjeant]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - An interpetretation of the vision, by Serjeant|An Interpretation of the Vision, by Serjeant]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Ellis W.A. - An Infant Genius|An Infant Genius]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=298}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - The Esoteric Character of the Gospels|The Esoteric Character of the Gospels]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=310}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Similitudes of Demophilus.}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Golden Sentences of Democritus.}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=311|item=2}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Correspondence.}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=A Law of Life: Karma.}}

{{Style P-Quote|1=In an article in <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Lucifer</span>, under the above heading, Mr. Keightley declares it to be “very difficult, if not well-nigh impossible,” to understand Karma, and I grant him that his essay is a practical demonstration of his allegation. The difficulty (1.) does not, however, hinder him from attempting to define the refractory term. “Karma,” he says, “is the working of the great law which governs reincarnation,” or “a manifestation of the One, Universal, Divine Principle in the phenomenal world,” or again, “the great law of harmony which governs the universe.” Now, waiving altogether the question of reincarnations, I shall proceed to examine whether Mr. Keightley makes good his contention that “harmony,” in his sense of the word, “governs the Universe.” He says, “the man who denies the existence of harmony in the universe has transgressed the law and is experiencing punishment. He does this unconsciously to himself, because the law of harmony forms an unconscious impulse to its readjustment when it has been broken.” Here there are several things to be considered. In the first place, it may be asked: (2.) Does a man, by merely denying the existence of a law of Nature or the universe, transgress that law? I think not.<ref name="nf107">Mr. Keightley’s meaning (and it is difficult for the words to bear any other interpretation) was that the denial of harmony is evidence that, at some previous time, the man who denies has set himself in opposition to the law, in virtue of those very desires and instincts of his animal personality to which Mr. Beatty alludes later on. In this sense, Mr. Beatty is right in saying that a law of the universe cannot be broken; but its limits may be transgressed, and consequently an attempt made by man to make himself into a small, but rival universe. It is the old story of the china pot and the iron kettle, and the fact that china gets the worst of it is conclusive that the china is struggling ''against'' Nature.</ref> Secondly. Can a law of the universe be “broken”? Here again I must reply in the negative; for who is going to contend that the law of gravitation has ever been “broken,”<ref name="nf108">Will Mr. Beatty explain the phenomenon of a comet flirting its tail round the sun in defiance of the “''law'' of gravitation”?</ref> has ever ceased to act, has ever required “re-adjustment”? A man {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=312}}can break no law of Nature in the sense of bringing that law into abeyance. If then, a law of harmony governs the universe there can be no such thing as discord. (3.) Yet Mr. Keightley admits that there ''is'' discord, that the law of harmony has been “broken” and needs “readjustment.” This is a surrendering of his position and a patent admission that harmony is not constant or universal. He then proceeds to draw an illustration from music. “In musical chords, the composing notes, if taken by twos and threes, will be found in discord, but, when taken together, produce a harmony.” This is a particularly unfortunate subject of illustration. For does it not show that discord is an element in the universe as well as harmony? Why are discords introduced into music? Simply to make the harmony more effective. The reason for this, however, does not lie in any so-called universal law of harmony, but rather in the constitution of animate existences. Fundamentally, sensation is the consciousness of difference. Where the difference is great the feeling is great. If we wish to have the keenest sensation of sweetness we must first taste something bitter. Thus it is that occasional discords heighten harmony. But are the discords any less real on that account? Certainly not; for there can no more be harmony without discord, than there can be an up without a down. This, moreover, is only another illustration of the fact that human knowledge is merely relative. Must we, however, admit that the universal law may be harmony while our experience tells us that there are discords without number? Unless ignorance be considered as superior to positive knowledge, I see no room for the admission. If a man’s house tumbles about his ears, does it become any less a fact by trying to persuade himself and his neighbours that it is still standing? This seems to be the method of Mr. Keightley. He has, however, yet another argument. “The universe ... is essentially an evidence of harmony; otherwise it could not exist, for it would fall to pieces.” This is a palpable begging of the question, and, besides, very absurd. The universe is a harmony, because a universe must be a harmony! “Otherwise it could not exist.” Now how does our harmonist know whether it could exist or not? Of what other universe has he experience or knowledge? “It would fall to pieces.” Where, I wonder, would it fall to? Perhaps it is even now fast falling to pieces, and who can tell us differently? As far as ordinary people can judge, it seems, as regards the parts we are acquainted with, to be falling into more or less concrete masses, but not many sane people believe it can fall into nothingness. After all this vain contention for universal harmony we find Mr. Keightley settling down like ordinary mortals to the conviction that the world is far from harmonious or perfect. One unfortunate individual who cannot be persuaded that all is harmony, is told that “he is incapable of understanding it because his attention is solely devoted to that which produces discord.” How comes it that the universe does not fall to pieces as a result of this discord? Surely we are in a precarious condition, if every obstinate fool who persists in crying out when he has been hurt, endangers the stability of the universe. Did ever anyone meet with a universe where there is less evidence of harmony? One brute force ever in conflict with another. Infernal forces piling up mountain on the top of mountain; supernal forces blasting, rending, excoriating and tumbling these mountains down again into the valleys; the oak struggling against the inwarping ivy, the fawn attempting vainly to escape from the claws of the {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=313}}tiger, the child agonising while parasites eat slowly and mercilessly into its lungs, liver, or brain; the strong everywhere victorious over the weak; each sect and each party exerting itself ferociously to scoop out the viscera of its rival. Such is the world, such all records declare it to have been, and such it gives ample promise of continuing. But if the world is not really so, and on the contrary is one immensity of joyous harmony, who can tell us why the evidence is so deceptive? Here again, Mr. Keightley introduces to us a most remarkable statement. “The one Divine principle is divided by man’s actions into two opposing forces of good and evil, and man’s progress depends on the exertion of his will to preserve harmony and prevent deviation to one side or the other.” Give us by all means in preference to this for common sense, for rationality and for every other quality that makes it digestible, the childish story of Eve, the apple and the fall.

Beyond doubt, Mr. Keightley has a profound faith in man as a power in the universe and an instrument for evil. By a most singular process of metaphysical alchemy man decomposes the “Divine principle” into “two opposing forces of good and evil.” It seems from this revised version of an old story that man introduced evil into the universe. Why is man so important that a universe should be polluted for his sake? Surely man did not make himself, and whatever powers were in him for evil or for good must have been potential in that from which he sprang. Man can create nothing, neither evil nor good, neither a tendency to do right nor an inclination to do wrong. “Man’s will” is always a tremendous force for good or evil in the hands of theologians and metaphysicians. Did man make his own “will?” If not, how can he be responsible for what he does? Everybody knows that man can act according to his likes or dislikes. But does anybody imagine that he can make his own likes or dislikes? (4.) He can do as he wishes, but he wishes according to his nature, and this he cannot transcend, consequently he is not responsible to the Author of his nature for what his nature inclines him to do. But what are we to understand by the rest of the sentence? Man’s will is “to preserve harmony and prevent deviation to one side or the other.” First the will brings about evil in the “Divine principle,” destroying harmony, then it is to reproduce harmony and at the same time to maintain a balance between good and evil, and “prevent deviation to the one side or the other.” This to Mahatmas and possessors of the “sixth sense” may seem plain logic, but it far surpasses my comprehension.<ref name="nf109">Very little doubt that it does. Mankind is only very gradually developing its fifth sense on the intellectual plane. Intuition might have carried our critic over the difficulty, but in some parts of his criticism he seems hardly to have begun to evolute the intellectual sense.</ref> I am, perhaps, as averse to “the pernicious doctrine of reward and punishment after death, in heaven or in hell” as Mr. Keightley can be, but I can by no means deduce from it the results which to him appear so inevitable. “Nothing,” he says, “could have been found more calculated to circumscribe the view of life as a whole, and concentrate man’s attention on temporary matters.... He either rejected the idea of soul as altogether worthless, or else he transferred his interest to the soul’s welfare in heaven – in either case concentrating his attention on what is inevitably transient.” How the idea of never-ending existence in heaven or in hell can have the effect of circumscribing “the view of life as a whole,” and of concentrating “man’s attention on {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=314}}temporary matters,” is to me an insolvable puzzle. That it should have quite the opposite effect, does not seem to require proof. Why, in the name of mystery, should he “reject the idea of soul as worthless,” and how can transferring “his interest to the soul’s welfare in heaven” be called a concentrating of “his attention on what is inevitably transient?” Truly this Karma is a bewildering subject!<ref name="nf110">“This Karma,” as Mr. Beatty expresses it, would not be quite so bewildering a subject if critics would bear in mind the context and not fall foul of a detached expression – not even a sentence. The “interest of the soul’s welfare in heaven” is concentrated by John Smith on John Smith as John Smith in heaven, and in order that the said John Smith may go on enjoying the things he loved on earth. As his earth life has ended, John Smith has changed and is “transient.” If he were not transient a very natural inference would follow, that progress, evolution, &amp;c., on whatever plane of being does not prevail.</ref>

Do plants and animals come under the law of Karma? is the next question discussed by Mr. Keightley. An extract from the ''Theosophist'' seems to discountenance such a thing. But are its arguments really conclusive against it? I do not think so. It says, “A piece of iron is attracted to a magnet without having any desire in the matter.” Now, in the first place, this is pure assumption, and has its origin in vainglorious human egotism.<ref name="nf111">Mr. Beatty hardly maintains his position of consistent materialism here; and it is at least as vainglorious to deny as to assert.</ref> It is evident that from objective data alone we cannot decide what is the subjective state of the molecules of the attracted iron. In the second place, we are only acquainted with the iron as a cause producing changes in us. No matter how we interpret these changes, they cannot even tell us the real nature of iron, merely considered objectively. Again the extract proceeds: “An animal usually follows the instincts of its nature without any merit or demerit for so doing; a child or an idiot may smilingly kick over a lamp, which may set a whole city on fire.... A person can only be held responsible according to his ability to perceive justice, and to distinguish between good and evil.” According to this doctrine, man is not an “animal,” and does not follow his instincts. To those who are acquainted, even slightly, with the method and regularity of Nature, this contention will appear, on the face of it, untenable. For why should there be an exception in the case of man?<ref name="nf112">Man has the “animal” in him of course, but he has also the power of judgment or discrimination. Mr. Beatty’s wish to be critically pessimistic seems here to run away with his power of discrimination.</ref> Has man instincts, desires, and inclinations, or has he not? If he has, why should he have them if he is not to follow them? And if in any case he does not follow them, is it not with him as with the “animals”? Is it not because he is deterred by influences from without, or hereditary influences from within? And of all these instincts, desires and influences, how is he to know which to obey, to know which is of Divine sanction? He has conscience, of course, but conscience is a very variable quantity, and indeed, it might not be too much to say that there is hardly a crime in the world that has not, at one time or another, been commended by conscience. Conscience is only one phase of the man’s mental activity, and was no more created by him than was his power of vision. We talk of “children and idiots,” and their being irresponsible, but are not untamed savages also irresponsible? And if we admit that there may be beings as much {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=315}}higher than we, as we are higher than children, idiots, and savages, will they not, with reason and justice, regard us as irresponsible? The truth is, there never was a greater chimera conjured up by unreasoning fancy than that one of man’s responsibility to a Supreme Power. Man is responsible only to man, and man’s conduct is without merit except from a human view-point. We are good or bad by reason of all the forces that act on and through us.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Keightley A. - Reply to A Law of Life Karma by J. H. Beatty|[Reply to “A Law of Life: Karma” by J. H. Beatty]]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=318}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=“The Latest Attack on Christianity.”}}

So that if the teaching of the Church is not the teaching of Christ, then Mr. Morrison in attacking the supposed Christianity of the Church is not really {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=319}}attacking Christianity, but only attacking the spurious doctrine of the Church, which has passed current as Christianity; ''ex gr.'', Isaiah, Jeremiah and Elijah, in denouncing the religion of the priests, did not attack true religion (as the priests would assert), but only their adulterated and spurious religion.

But we are told, by the great Bishop Butler, in his “Analogy of Religion” (and whom the ''Quarterly Review'' admits to be an authority of the very highest class), that the doctrine of Atonement is positively immoral, excepting for the supposed divine authority; and the Bishop himself looked forward to the day, {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=320}}when the progress of liberty and education should throw greater light upon this doctrine of the Church, and indisputably determine whether or no it has the divine authority, it was then supposed or asserted to have.

And if we believe that the Holy Spirit of God could speak without the aid of a material body, composed of flesh, blood, and bones, in a still small voice to the conscience or soul of Moses and Elijah (1 Kings xix., 12); and if we believe that the same Holy Spirit is ''present'' even now (where two or three are gathered together – Matt. xvii., 23), why should not the presence of the still {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=321}}small voice of the Holy Spirit, speaking to the conscience or soul of the Apostles, be of itself deemed sufficient, without needing the aid of a material body?

Isaiah says, “Open ye the gates that the truth may enter in” (xxvi., 2). But instead of reverencing the just and righteous “Son of Man,” the chief priests and rulers of the Ancient Church condemned “the Just One,” to be slain as a blasphemer, whose blood ought to be shed for an Atonement. And the chief priests of our Church have combined that this doctrine should not be {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=322}}touched, so that by their practice they make their statement of the ''Quarterly Review'' utterly untrue. For if there is one clergyman, <span style="font-variant:small-caps">A.D.</span> 1887, who will support the ''Quarterly Review’s'' statement, and open his pulpit for explaining the truth of “Christ crucified” and proclaiming Christian truth, as taught by Christ – Where is he? and who is he?

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=Islam and Christianity.}}

And therefore, whilst the clergy have power to say that “''the doctrine of the Church may not be touched'',” how is the mystery of a Crucified Christ to be explained and translated, so that it may be seen to be “''a light to lighten the Gentiles, and also the glory of Israel'',” instead of being, as it is now, a stumbling block to the Jews, foolishness to the world, and a mystery to the {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=323}}teachers of it, making those who accept it, in India and Africa, worse than they were before?

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Lewins R. - Hylo-Idealism-An Apology|Hylo-Idealism – An Apology]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Courtney H.L. - Hylo-Ideaism|Hylo-Ideaism]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Answers to Queries|Answers to Queries]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=325}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Answers to Queries|Answers to Queries – continued]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - Literary Jottings (1)|Literary Jottings]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=335}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Theosophical <br />

and Mystic Publications}}

Following this is a much needed warning against the dangers of ''Astral Intoxication''. Admirably expressed, it points out the true, and indicates the false, path {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=4|p=336}}with great clearness; and we desire to call the earnest attention of such of our readers as are engaged in ''psychic'' development to its importance.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - 1888|1888]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=339}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Ingersoll R.G. - The faith that you call sacred|[“The faith that you call sacred…”]]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Blavatsky H.P. - To the Readers of Lucifer|“To the Readers of ‘Lucifer.’”]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=343}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Adaptations.}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=344}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Some Words on Daily Life.}}

“Those of you who would know yourselves in the spirit of truth, learn to live alone even amidst the great crowds which may sometimes surround you. Seek communion and intercourse only with the God within your own soul; heed only the praise or blame of that deity which can never be separated from your ''true'' self, ''as it is verily that God itself'': called the <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Higher Consciousness</span>. Put without delay your good intentions into practice, never leaving a single one to remain only an intention – expecting, meanwhile, neither reward nor even acknowledgment for {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=345}}the good you may have done. Reward and acknowledgment are in yourself and inseparable from you, as it is your Inner Self alone which can appreciate them at their true degree and value. For each one of you contains within the precincts of his inner tabernacle the Supreme Court – prosecutor, defence, jury and judge – whose sentence is the only one without appeal; since none can know you better than you do yourself, when once you have learned to judge that Self by the never wavering light of the inner divinity – your higher Consciousness. Let, therefore, the masses, which can never know your true selves, condemn your outer selves according to their own false lights....

“Theosophy can only find objective expression in an all-embracing code of life, thoroughly impregnated with the spirit of mutual tolerance, charity, and brotherly love. Its Society, as a body, has a task before it which, unless performed with the utmost discretion, will cause the world of the indifferent and the selfish to rise up in arms against it. Theosophy has to fight intolerance, prejudice, ignorance, and selfishness, hidden under the mantle of hypocrisy. It has to throw all the light it can from the torch of Truth, with which its servants are entrusted. It must do this without fear or hesitation, dreading neither reproof nor condemnation. Theosophy, through its mouthpiece, the Society, has to tell the <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Truth</span> to the very face of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Lie</span>; to beard the tiger in its den, without thought or fear of evil consequences, and to set at defiance calumny and threats. ''As an Association'', it has not only the right, but the duty to uncloak vice and do its best to redress wrongs, whether through the voice of its chosen lecturers or the printed word of its journals and publications – making its accusations, however, as impersonal {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=346}}as possible. But its Fellows, or Members, have ''individually'' no such right. Its followers have, first of all, to set the example of a firmly outlined and as firmly applied morality, before they obtain the right to point out, even in a spirit of kindness, the absence of a like ethic unity and singleness of purpose in other associations or individuals. No Theosophist should blame a brother, whether within or outside of the association; neither may he throw a slur upon another’s actions or denounce him, lest he himself lose the right to be considered a Theosophist. For, as such, he has to turn away his gaze from the imperfections of his neighbour, and centre rather his attention upon his own shortcomings, in order to correct them and become wiser. Let him not show the disparity between claim and action in another, but, whether in the case of a brother, a neighbour, or simply a fellow man, let him rather ever help one weaker than himself on the arduous walk of life.

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - The Blossom and the Fruit|The Blossom and the Fruit]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=364}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Serjeant W.C.E. - Twilight Visions|Twilight Visions]]}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Abbe Roca - Esotericism of Christian Dogma|Esotericism of the Christian Dogma]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=374}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Scott-Elliot W. - The Great Quest|The Great Quest]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=378}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=[[Collins M. - The Seclusion of the Adept|The Seclusion of the Adept]]}}

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=384}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=The White Monk.}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=4|1=Part I. – Ralph’s Story.}}

“Afterward, had he gone to the damsel’s poor lodging and there, with Heaven knows what direful threats! conjured her to renounce her honest lover and return to himself. The signorina was not like an English girl – she neither stormed nor yielded – she cajoled and blinded him. ‘If he would go, she would consider; perchance she did not love the Briton truly; perchance it was a whim; she knew not. Might she but think? it was a whirl, and her heart, alas! was o’er susceptible; {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=385}}’twould pass; he must leave her now, at least, and she would see. Meantime Pietruccino should wear this pretty crimson ribbon of hers till they met again.’ After even such words, and for a kiss, he left her. But the cunning villain was more than her match, and waited all the next day round the corners, whence he could see her goings out and comings in. He saw her glide to her trysting-place; he followed cautiously; he heard her give a signalling whispered call; he heard it answered by a short, low whistle; young Gilbert de Troyes swung merrily round the corner and fell into his Italian sweetheart’s arms.

“Some time after these events, we find Signor Pietro Rinucci entered into the Monastery of Dominicans at Brescia, a repentant neophyte. He had turned remorseful, no doubt, and in good time! The fellow had ever strong imaginations. He was received in due time as a brother; wore the garb of the Order, and cast his eyes down. {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=386}}Tradition saith he was in great turmoil of soul at this time – judge for yourself, young master, by what followed.

“He came to the equivalent of what would be to us in England an ale-house, but some way out of the village, meet for travellers to pause and rest a moment on their way. Ambrose went in to look about him and ordered drink for himself. He lacked a companion to pledge, but looking round the little room saw no one but a moody man who seemed lost in thought, though enjoying some passing sour wine. Ambrose himself could stomach neither the fare nor the company, so he quickly got him on his way a little further; when, meeting with a simple shrine to the Virgin, the God-fearing soldier took his rosary from under his baldrick, and knelt him down to pray. For something had sore perplexed him; he had seemed to see in the features of that morose comrade at the inn the most exact resemblance of Rinucci. But Rinucci was safe at the Monastery, waiting till his time should come, and {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=387}}the avenger should denounce him. But even as he rose from prayer did Ambrose see a mounted messenger speeding to him, who told him breathlessly the news had just reached Santa Rosa that the Monk Petrus was escaped and roaming at large somewhere in the country.

“After this, there comes a period of Rinucci’s life of which we know but little. He seems to have raced about the country, in hiding always, but doing little harm for him. Italy, however, is debateable ground for one of her own recreant monks, so we find Messer Pietro fleeing Justice and coming over here to England. Whether he had had some of his heart-searchings that he knew so often, I know not, but deem it very likely. Here is the flaw, to my mind, in the foreigners’ constitutions. They {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=388}}recognize their sins as such, not so we English! We say our evil deeds are fate, congenital infirmity, ignorance, negligence, or even virtues; they say their sins are sins, and yet they do them. Had I but half the talent of sinning that Messer Pietro seems to have owned, my faith, I would have gloried in it! So did not he, however; he went to a father confessor, fell on the earth, and implored absolution – for life was still sweet to him, he said, and he would not die yet awhile.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=389}}“They urged her yet once more; she might triumph and convert a soul.

“The rencounter was over, for Pietro dared speak no more. But, {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=390}}according to the custom of that day, Mistress Margaret bent her fair head to receive the blessing of the holy father.

{{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=391}}

{{Style P-Title small caps|level=3|1=Love with an Object.}}

On almost every page of the ''Bhagavad Gita'' we are instructed only to direct our love to that which is eternal in every form, and let the form {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=392}}itself be a matter of secondary consideration.  

What can all this mean, but that love itself is the legitimate object of love? It is a divine, eternal, and infinite power, a light, which reflects itself in every object while it seeks not the object, but merely its own reflection therein. It is an indestructible fire and the brighter it burns, the stronger will be the light and the clearer will its own image appear. Love falls in love with nothing but its own self, it is free from all other attractions. A love which becomes attached to objects of sense, ceases to be free, ceases to be love, and becomes mere desire. Pure and eternal love asks for nothing, but gives freely to all who are willing to take. Earthly love is attracted to persons and things, but Divine spiritual love seeks only that which is divine in everything, and this can be nothing else but love, for love is the supreme power of all. It holds together the worlds in space, it clothes the earth in bright and beautiful colours, it guides the instincts of animals and links together the hearts of human beings. Acting upon the lower planes of existence it causes terrestrial things to cling to each other with fond embrace; but love on the spiritual plane is free. Spiritual love is a goddess, who continually sacrifices herself for herself and who accepts no other sacrifice but her own self, giving for whatever she may receive, herself in return. Therefore the {{Page aside in Lucifer|v=1|n=5|p=393}}''Bhagavad Gita'' says: “Nourish ye the gods by this and let the gods nourish you. Thus nourishing each other ye shall obtain the highest good” (Cap. iii., ii.,); and the Bible says: “To him who has still more shall be given, and from him who has not, even what he has shall be taken away” (Luke xix., 26).