 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1879-1880 pages in vol.: 577 |
Something like a medium
The Pioneer, of Allahabad, contains the following remarkable narrative. Mr. Sinnett, who was among the witnesses, is the editor of The Pioneer, which is one of the best journals in India. Mrs. Gordon, another witness, was the first to thoroughly and efficiently call the attention of residents in India to Spiritualism, by means of the public press, and a long poem by her was printed a year or two ago in this journal. In fact, all the witnesses are well-known and responsible people:—
“On Sunday the 3rd of October, at Mr. Hume’s house at Simla, there were present at dinner Mr. and Mrs. Hume, Mr. and Mrs. Sinnett, Mrs. Gordon, Mr. F. Hogg, Captain P. J. Maitland, Mr. Beatson, Mr. Davison, Colonel Olcott, and Madame Blavatsky. Most of the persons present having recently seen many remarkable occurrences in Madame Blavatsky’s presence, conversation turned on occult phenomena, and in the course of this Madame Blavatsky asked Mrs. Hume if there was anything she particularly wished for. Mrs. Hume at first hesitated, but in a short time said that there was something she would particularly like to have brought to her, namely, a small article of jewellery that she had formerly possessed, but had given away to persons who had allowed it to pass out of their possession. Madame Blavatsky then said if she would fix the image of the article in question very definitely in her mind, she (Madame Blavatsky) would endeavour to procure it. Mrs. Hume then said that she vividly remembered the article, and described it as an old-fashioned breast brooch set round with pearls, with glass at the front and the back made to contain hair. She then, on being asked, drew a rough sketch of the brooch. Madame Blavatsky then wrapped up a coin attached to her watch-chain in two cigarette papers and put it in her dress, and said that she hoped the brooch might be obtained in the course of the evening. At the close of dinner she said to Mrs. Hume that the paper in which the coin had been wrapped was gone. A little later, in the drawing-room, she said that the brooch would not be brought into the house, but that it must be looked for in the garden, and then, as the party went out accompanying her she said she had clairvoyantly seen the brooch fall into a star-shaped bed of flowers. Mrs. Hume led the way to such a bed in a distant part of the garden. A prolonged and careful search was made with lanterns, and eventually a small paper packet consisting of two cigarette papers, was found amongst the leaves by Mrs. Sinnett. This being opened on the spot was found to contain a brooch exactly corresponding to the previous description, and which Mrs. Hume identified as that which she had originally lost. None of the party, except Mr. and Mrs. Hume, had ever seen or heard of the brooch. Mr. Hume had not thought of it for years. Mrs. Hume had never spoken of it to any one since she had parted with it, nor had she for long even thought of it. She herself stated, after it was found, that it was only when madame asked her whether there was anything she would like to have that the remembrance of this brooch, the gift of her mother, flashed across her mind. Mrs. Hume is not a Spiritualist, and up to the time of the occurrence described was no believer in occult phenomena or in Madame Blavatsky’s powers. The conviction of all present was that the occurrence was of an absolutely unimpeachable character as an evidence of the truth of the possibility of occult phenomena. The brooch is unquestionably the one Mrs. Hume lost. Even supposing, which is practically impossible, that the article, lost months before Mrs. Hume ever heard of Madame Blavatsky, and bearing no letters or other indication of original ownership, could have passed in a natural way into Madame Blavatsky’s possession, even then she could not possibly have foreseen that it would be asked for, as Mrs. Hume herself had not given it a thought for months. This narrative, read over to the party, is signed by A. O. Hume, M. A. Hume, Fred. R. Hogg, A. P. Sinnett, Patience Sinnett, Alice Gordon, P. J. Maitland, W. Davison, and Stuart Beatson.”
A few experiences of a veteran
If the laws of nature be general laws, as held by the materialists and others, then, to prove the identity of but one single spirit returning to us after death, is sufficient to demonstrate to every one of us now living that we also shall live after death. To prove incontrovertibly but one single case, is sufficient to overthrow all the arguments of the materialists against a future life, even by their own hypothesis. Thus, any new effort in this direction can never be a vain one, for they will not believe old stories of the same kind.
It is not, however, only the materialists pure and simple who doubt the identity of spirits who come among us, but there are those nearer ourselves who profess to believe in anything rather than that spirits other than those in the flesh are present at seances or come to us in private. To borrow the words of a leading member of a particular phase of Theosophism: “Inasmuch,” he says, “as we, as spirits, know that we are present, but have no absolute proof that the spirits of the departed are present, the presumption is that our own spirits, known to be present, are the operators.” This authority adds that, “the medium is the chief operator.” This particular phase of Theosophy, we see, does not even take “elementals” or “elementaries” into account.
Let me draw a comparison. If a person gifted with sight, whom I have formerly known, should meet me in the street while walking with a mutual friend, he would not want our mutual friend to act as medium, to nudge him and say, “This is Mr. So-and-So,” but he would know me by the use of his own eyes. This very obvious common-place remark seems quite as applicable to spirits out of the flesh who have formerly lived in the flesh, which I do not doubt, as to those in the flesh.
Now, it had struck me that I could not get a much better test of the identity of a spirit, than by applying the above same rule to a spirit that I would to a man. Keeping in mind that, inasmuch as a person in the flesh who had never seen me before could not tell who I might be, unless prompted by another, such would be the case with a spirit out of the flesh; but that, on the contrary, if his identity had met me before, he ought no more to require either our mutual friend to hint to him who I was, or any other person, than a man in the flesh would.
<... continues on page 10-539 >
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 428, November 5, 1880, pp. 222-23
-
London Spiritualist, No. 420, September 10, 1880, pp. 122-24