Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
17,091
edits
незначительные правки
(незначительные правки) |
(незначительные правки) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| notes = | | notes = | ||
}} | }} | ||
<div>{{Style P-Align center|1=LIGHT.<br>November 11, 1882.}}</div> | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 27: | Line 29: | ||
{{Style P-Title|MR. RODEN NOEL “ON SOME THEOSOPHIC DOCTRINES.”}} | {{Style P-Title|MR. RODEN NOEL “ON SOME THEOSOPHIC DOCTRINES.”}} | ||
{{Style P-Align center|1=''To the Editor of'' “{{Style S-Small capitals|Light.}}”}} | |||
{{Style S-Small capitals|Sir,}}—I am waiting for the completion of Mr. Noel’s attack before attempting a reply which, unless the concluding part is more unanswerable than those already published, I believe I shall be able to offer to it. In the meanwhile, however, I will ask you to let me at once call attention to what I cannot but regard as a very strange and prejudicial misjudgment in a note to the second part of the criticism. Controversy on the main questions (which I shall endeavour accurately to define) would be much embarrassed by the necessity for verbal explanations. If, however, Mr. Noel really thinks that the doctrines in question affirm the limitation of consciousness to this brain-life, pray let him say so. I am sure that he intends to deal fairly with these expositions; but to base that contention expressly on such passages as the following, taken out of their context, a{{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|n}}d<ref name="editor-restoration-40">The damaged letter in “and” is restored from Light, 11 November 1882, p. 502.</ref> even then not quite completely, is not to do so. I give the first with Mr. Noel’s italics and notes of interjection. “''The spirit'', of course, for all its comparative ethereality and incorporeality, ''a space occupying and material entity'', is borne about by magnetic currents, swayed here and there like dead leaves!!!” “Surely,” says Mr. Noel thereupon, “the writer is a very decided, one might say very gross materialist.” Now he has omitted the important words after “spirit”: “sunk in its ''post-mortem'' trance,” in the original; important, because it was the very object of the writer to shew that in the particular case under consideration (an apparition described by Mr. Terry) it was ''not'' a conscious, intentional visit by the true spirit, but that this being in the first stage after death had not yet emerged from its astral integument, with which it was therefore for the moment identified, and so spoken of. How any one can have read these “Fragments” with common care, and then stumbling on such a passage as the above, can have supposed the writer to mean that the true spiritual Ego is “borne about by magnetic currents, and swayed here and there like dead leaves,” is to me incomprehensible. On the other hand that sentence is strictly applicable to what, when quitted by the Ego, the writer calls the “shell,” and which, even before that, would be subject to just the same laws, the control of the Ego being in abeyance during the “''post-mortem'' trance.” It is called “the spirit” in this place merely to distinguish it from the empty shell, as I submit should have been perfectly apparent from the context. | {{Style S-Small capitals|Sir,}}—I am waiting for the completion of Mr. Noel’s attack before attempting a reply which, unless the concluding part is more unanswerable than those already published, I believe I shall be able to offer to it. In the meanwhile, however, I will ask you to let me at once call attention to what I cannot but regard as a very strange and prejudicial misjudgment in a note to the second part of the criticism. Controversy on the main questions (which I shall endeavour accurately to define) would be much embarrassed by the necessity for verbal explanations. If, however, Mr. Noel really thinks that the doctrines in question affirm the limitation of consciousness to this brain-life, pray let him say so. I am sure that he intends to deal fairly with these expositions; but to base that contention expressly on such passages as the following, taken out of their context, a{{Style S-HPB SB. Restored|n}}d<ref name="editor-restoration-40">The damaged letter in “and” is restored from Light, 11 November 1882, p. 502.</ref> even then not quite completely, is not to do so. I give the first with Mr. Noel’s italics and notes of interjection. “''The spirit'', of course, for all its comparative ethereality and incorporeality, ''a space occupying and material entity'', is borne about by magnetic currents, swayed here and there like dead leaves!!!” “Surely,” says Mr. Noel thereupon, “the writer is a very decided, one might say very gross materialist.” Now he has omitted the important words after “spirit”: “sunk in its ''post-mortem'' trance,” in the original; important, because it was the very object of the writer to shew that in the particular case under consideration (an apparition described by Mr. Terry) it was ''not'' a conscious, intentional visit by the true spirit, but that this being in the first stage after death had not yet emerged from its astral integument, with which it was therefore for the moment identified, and so spoken of. How any one can have read these “Fragments” with common care, and then stumbling on such a passage as the above, can have supposed the writer to mean that the true spiritual Ego is “borne about by magnetic currents, and swayed here and there like dead leaves,” is to me incomprehensible. On the other hand that sentence is strictly applicable to what, when quitted by the Ego, the writer calls the “shell,” and which, even before that, would be subject to just the same laws, the control of the Ego being in abeyance during the “''post-mortem'' trance.” It is called “the spirit” in this place merely to distinguish it from the empty shell, as I submit should have been perfectly apparent from the context. | ||