THEOSOPHICAL
ARTICLES AND NOTES
Reprinted from
Original Sources
THE THEOSOPHY Co.
FOREWORD
The articles in this volume come from a variety of sources. They are presented here for their intrinsic worth to students of Theosophy. They are grouped according to the place of first appearance—in the Theosophist, Lucifer, the Path, and other sources. Within these groupings they are arranged chronologically. Internal evidence strongly suggests that some of them have an “adept” origin, and they are so presented. One or two articles unintentionally omitted from Theosophical Articles by H.P.B. and W.Q.J. are included. Other contributions, not identified as to author, are of a quality which makes it appropriate to reprint them here. Thus there are articles, replies and notes which appeared in the Theosophist and Lucifer, also material by Damodar K. Mavalankar, and two articles signed “Murdhna Joti” from the Path. Cicero’s “Vision of Scipio” is included by reason of H.P.B.’s briefly in formative footnotes. Judge’s “Notes on the Bhagavad Gita” is a Path article which was not a part of the book of that name. Finally, there is material taken from A. P. Sinnett’s The Occult World, from the notes of Robert Bowen, a pupil of H.P.B., and also from notes found in the effects of Countess Wachtmeister, apparently taken down from dictation by H.P.B.
The value of the writings here presented will be self-evident to Theosophical students and readers.
The Editors
|
ARTICLES FROM “THE THEOSOPHIST” |
CONTENTS
Castes in India 1
A Reply to our Critics 6
Mediums and Yogees 11
Whence the Name “Lunatics?” 15
Devachan: Reply I—The Real and Unreal 17
Reply II—Dream Life 23
Reply III—Various States of Devachan 29
Projection of the Double 35
Contemplation 39
Correspondence on Contemplation 44
The Metaphysical Basis of “Esoteric Buddhism” 49
Astrology 57
Initiation 60
Le Phare de L’Inconnu (VII) 62
|
NOTES FROM “THE THEOSOPHIST” |
As you can see below a list of titles
for untitled replies and provided links to the sections. The words in the new
titles are from the text
at the beginning of what particular reply is being referenced.
Notes from The Theosophist 73
The Theosophical Society requires no oaths 76
“Conjuror, mesmerist, medium or spiritualist!” 80
Questions by two correspondents 83
FUNERAL RITES AMONG SAVAGE RACES 93
The pale reflections of men and women 98
Conditions of spiritual existence 99
THE FIVE-POINTED STAR 101
To THE EDITOR OF THE THE0S0PHIST: 105
The physical phenomena of “stone showers,” 106
The mysteries of bird-flying 114
The phenomena of Hypnotism 115
The power of the Yogi 116
Human hibernation 119
Do female adepts exist at all? 122
Neither Tibetan nor Hindu Mahatmas meddle with politics 125
The belief in a personal god 127
|
FROM “LUCIFER” |
Thoughts on Theosophy 131
Some Words on Daily Life 133
The Three Desires 137
What Good Has Theosophy Done in India 143
A Master’s Letter 148
Consciousness 150
The Function of Attention in Personal Development 153
The Genesis of Evil in Human Life 159
Thoughts on Karma and Reincarnation 167
The Vision of Scipio 175
India 184
The Great Master’s Letter 189
Notes from Lucifer 194
|
FROM “THE PATH” |
Living the Higher Life 225
The Worship of the Dead 237
Kama Loka—Suicides—Accidental Deaths 240
Notes on Devachan 243
Devachan 248
Notes on The Bhagavad Gita 251
Some Views of an Asiatic 257
A Friend of Old Time and of the Future 261
|
OTHER SOURCES |
The Dwellers on High Mountains 265
The Secret Doctrine and Its Study 270
From The Occult World 276
Notes “From Madame” 298
NO man of sincerity and moral courage can read Mr. G. C. Whitworth’s Profession of Faith, as reviewed in the April Theosophist, without feeling himself challenged to be worthy of the respect of one who professes such honourable sentiments. I, too, am called upon to make my statement of personal belief. It is due to my family and caste-fellows that they should know why I have deliberately abandoned my caste and other worldly considerations. If, henceforth, there is to be a chasm between them and myself, I owe it to myself to declare that this alienation is of my own choosing, and I am not cut off for bad conduct. I would be glad to take with me, if possible, into my new career, the affectionate good wishes of my kinsmen. But, if this cannot be done, I must bear their displeasure, as I may, for I am obeying a paramount conviction of duty.
I was born in the family of the Karháda Maháráshtra caste of Brahmins, as my surname will indicate. My father carefully educated me in the tenets of our religion, and, in addition, gave me every facility for acquiring an English education. From the age of ten until I was about fourteen, I was very much exercised in mind upon the subject of religion and devoted myself with great ardour to our orthodox religious practices. Then my ritualistic observances were crowded aside by my scholastic studies, but, until about nine months ago, my religious thoughts and aspirations were entirely unchanged. At this time, I had the inestimable good fortune to read “Isis Unveiled; a Key to the Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Religion and Science,” and to join the Theosophical Society. It is no exaggeration to say that I have been a really living man only these few months; for between life as it appears to me now and life as I comprehended it before, there is an unfathomable abyss. I feel that now for the first time I have a glimpse of what man and life are the nature and powers of the one, the possibilities, duties, and joys of the other. Before, though ardently ritualistic, I was not really enjoying happiness and peace of mind. I simply practised my religion without understanding it. The world bore just as hard upon me as upon others, and I could get no clear
2
view of the future. The only real thing to me seemed the day’s routine; at best the horizon before me extended only to the rounding of a busy life with the burning of my body and the obsequial ceremonies rendered to me by friends. My aspirations were only for more Zamindáries, social position and the gratification of whims and appetites. But my later reading and thinking have shown me that all these are but the vapours of a dream and that he only is worthy of being called man, who has made caprice his slave and the perfection of his spiritual self a grand object of his efforts. As I could not enjoy these convictions and my freedom of action within my caste, I am stepping outside it.
In making this profession, let it be understood that I have taken this step, not because I am a Theosophist, but because in studying Theosophy I have learnt and heard of the ancient splendour and glory of my country—the highly esteemed land of Aryávarta. Joining the Theosophical Society does not interfere with the social, political, or religious relations of any person. All have an equal right in the Society to hold their opinions. So far from persuading me to do what I have, Mme. Blavatsky and Col. Olcott have strongly urged me to wait until some future time, when I might have had ampler time to reflect. But the glimpse I have got into the former greatness of my country makes me feel sadly for her degeneration. I feel it, therefore, my bounden duty to devote all my humble powers to her restoration. Besides, his stories of various nations furnish to us many examples of young persons having given up everything for the sake of their country and having ultimately succeeded in gaining their aims. Without patriots, no country can rise. This feeling of patriotism by degrees grew so strong in me that it has now prepared my mind to stamp every personal consideration under my feet for the sake of my motherland. In this, I am neither a revolutionist nor a politician, but simply an advocate of good morals and principles as practised in ancient times. The study of Theosophy has thrown a light over me in regard to my country, my religion, my duty. I have be come a better Aryan than I ever was. I have similarly heard my Parsi brothers say that they have been better Zoroastrians since they joined the Theosophical Society. I have also seen the Buddhists write often to the Society that the study of Theosophy has enabled them to appreciate their religion the more. And thus this study makes every man respect his religion the more. It fur-
3
nishes to him a sight that can pierce through the dead letter and see clearly the spirit. He can read all his religious books between the lines. If we view all the religions in their popular sense, they appear strongly antagonistic to each other in various details. None agrees with the other. And yet representatives of those faiths say that the study of Theosophy explains to them all that has been said in their religion and makes them feel a greater respect for it. There must, therefore, be one common ground on which all the religious systems are built. And this ground, which lies at the bottom of all, is truth. There can be but one absolute truth, but different persons have different perceptions of that truth. And this truth is morality. If we separate the dogmas that cling to the principles set forth in any religion, we shall find that morality is preached in every one of them. By religion I do not mean all the minor sects that prevail to an innumerable extent all over the world, but the principal ones from which have sprung up these different sects. It is, therefore, proper for every person to abide by the principles of morality. And, according to them, I consider it every man’s duty to do what he can to make the world better and happier. This can proceed from a love for humanity. But how can a man love the whole of humanity if he has no love for his country men? Can he love the whole, who does not love a part? If I, there fore, wish to place my humble services at the disposal of the world, I must first begin by working for my country. And this I could not do by remaining in my caste. I found that, instead of a love for his countrymen, the observance of caste distinction leads one to hate even his neighbour, because he happens to be of another caste. I could not bear this injustice. What fault is it of any one that he is born in a particular caste? I respect a man for his qualities and not for his birth. That is to say, that man is superior in my eyes, whose inner man has been developed or is in the state of development. This body, wealth, friends, relations and all other worldly enjoyments, that men hold near and dear to their hearts. are to pass away sooner or later. But the record of our actions is ever to remain to be handed down from generation to generation. Our actions must, therefore, be such as will make us worthy of our existence in this world, as long as we are here as well as after death. I could not do this by observing the customs of caste. It made me selfish and unmindful of the requirements of my fellow brothers. I weighed all these circumstances in my mind, and
4
found that I believed in caste as a religious necessity no more than in the palm-tree yielding mangoes. I saw that, if it were not for this distinction, India would not have been so degraded, for this distinction engendered hatred among her sons. It made them hate and quarrel with one another. The peace of the land was disturbed. People could not unite with one another for good purposes. They waged war with one another, instead of devoting all their combined energies to the cause of ameliorating the condition of the country. The foundation of immorality was thus laid, until it has reached now so low a point that, unless this mischief is stopped, the tottering pillars of India will soon give way. I do not by this mean to blame my ancestors who originally instituted this system. To me their object seems to be quite a different one. It was based in my opinion on the qualities of every person. The caste was not then hereditary as it is now. This will be seen from the various ancient sacred books which are full of instances in which Kshatriyas and even Máhárs and Chámbhárs, who are considered the lowest of all, were not only made and regarded as Brahmins, but almost worshipped as demi-gods simply for their qualities. If such is the case, why should we still stick to that custom which we now find not only impracticable but injurious? I again saw that, if I were to observe outwardly what I did not really believe inwardly, I was practising hypocrisy. I found that I was thus making myself a slave, by not enjoying the freedom of conscience. I was thus acting immorally. But Theosophy had taught me that to enjoy peace of mind and self-respect, I must be honest, candid, peaceful and regard all men as equally my brothers, irrespective of caste, colour, race or creed. This, I see, is an essential part of religion. I must try to put these theoretical problems into practice. These are the convictions that finally hurried me out of my caste.
I would at the same time ask my fellow countrymen, who are of my opinion, to come out boldly for their country. I understand the apparent sacrifices one is required to make in adopting such a course, for I myself had to make them, but these are sacrifices only in the eyes of one who has regard for this world of matter. When a man has once extricated himself from this regard and when the sense of the duty he owes to his country and to himself reigns paramount in his heart, these are no sacrifices at all for him. Let us, therefore, leave off this distinction which separates us from one
5
another, join in one common accord, and combine all our energies for the good of our country. Let us feel that we are Aryans, and prove ourselves worthy of our ancestors. I may be told that I am making a foolish and useless sacrifice; that I cut myself off from all social intercourse and even risk losing the decent disposal of my body by those upon whom our customs impose that duty; and that none but a visionary would imagine that he, even though chiefest among Brahmins, could restore his country’s greatness and the enlightenment of a whole nation, so great as ours. But these are the arguments of selfishness and moral cowardice. Single men have saved nations before, and though my vanity does not make me even dream that so glorious a result is within my humble grasp, yet a good example is never valueless, and it can be set even by the most insignificant. Certain it is that, without examples and self-sacrifices, there can be no reform. The world, as I see it, imposes on me a duty, and I think the most powerful and the only permanent cause of happiness is the consciousness that I am trying to do that duty.
I wish it understood—in case what has preceded has not made this perfectly clear—that I have neither become a Materialist nor a Christian. I am an Aryan in religion as all else, follow the Ved, and believe it to be the parent of all religions among men. As Theosophy explains the secondary human religions, so does it make plain the meaning of the Ved. The teachings of the Rishis acquire a new splendour and majesty, and I revere them a hundred times more than ever before.
DAMODAR K. MAVALANKAR
Theosophist, May, 1880
(Our final answer to several objections.)
IN the ordinary run of daily life speech may be silver, while “silence is gold.” With the editors of periodicals devoted to some special object “silence” in certain cases amounts to cowardice and false pretences. Such shall not be our case.
We are perfectly aware of the fact that the simple presence of the word “Spiritualism” on the title-page of our journal, “causes it to lose in the eyes of materialist and sceptic 50 per cent of its value”—for we are repeatedly told so by many of our best friends, some of whom promise us more popularity, hence—an increase of subscribers, would we but take out the “contemptible” term and replace it by some other synonymous in meaning, but less obnoxious phonetically to the general public. That would be acting under false pretences. The undisturbed presence of the unpopular word will indicate our reply.
That we did not include “Spiritualism” among the other subjects to which our journal is devoted “in the hopes that it should do us good service among the Spiritualists” is proved by the following fact:—From the first issue of our Prospectus to the present day, subscribers from “Spiritual” quarters have not amounted to four per cent on our subscription list. Yet, to our merriment, we are repeatedly spoken of as “Spiritualists” by the press and—our opponents. Whether really ignorant of, or purposely ignoring our views, they tax us with belief in Spirits. Not that we would at all object to the appellation—too many far worthier and wiser persons than we, firmly believing in “Spirits”—but that would be acting under “false pretences” again. And so, we are called a “Spiritualist” by persons who foolishly regard the term as a “brand,” while the orthodox Spiritualists, who are well aware that we attribute their phenomena to quite another agency than Spirits, resent our peculiar opinions as an insult to their belief, and in their turn ridicule and oppose us.
This fact alone ought to prove, if anything ever will, that our journal pursues an honest policy. That established for the one and
7
sole object, namely
for the illumination of truth, however un popular—it
has remained throughout, true to its first principle—that
of absolute impartiality. And that as fully answers another charge, viz., that
of publishing views of our correspondents with which we often do not concur
ourselves. “Your journal teems with articles upholding ridiculous superstitions
and absurd ghost-stories,”
is the complaint in one letter. “You neglect laying a sufficient stress in your
editorials upon the necessity of discrimination between facts and error, and in
the selection of the matter furnished by your contributors,” says another. A
third one accuses us of not sufficiently rising “from supposed facts, to
principles, which would prove to our readers in every case the former no better
than fictions.” In other words—as
we understand it—we
are accused of neglecting scientific induction? Our critics may be right, but
neither are we altogether wrong. In the face of the many crucial and strictly
scientific experiments made by our most eminent savants it would take a wiser
sage than King Solomon himself, to decide now between fact and fiction. The
query: “What is Truth?” is more difficult to answer in the nineteenth than in
the first century of our era. The appearance of his “evil genius” to Brutus in
the shape of a monstrous human form, which, entering his tent in the darkness
and silence of night promised to meet him in the plains of Philippi—was
a fact to the Roman tyrannicide; it was but a dream—to
his slaves who neither saw nor heard any thing on that night. The existence of
an antipodal continent and the heliocentric system were facts to Columbus and
Galileo years before they could actually demonstrate them; yet the existence of
America as that of our present solar system was as fiercely denied several
centuries back as the phenomena of spiritualism are now. Facts existed in the
“pre-scientific past,” and errors are as thick as berries in our scientific
present. With whom then, is the criterion of truth to be left? Are we to abandon
it to the mercy and judgment of a prejudiced society constantly caught trying to
subvert that which it does not understand; ever seeking to transform sham and
hypocrisy into synonyms of “propriety” and “respectability?” Or shall we blindly
leave it to modern exact Science so called? But Science has neither said her
last word, nor can her various branches of knowledge rejoice in their
qualification of exact, but so long as the hypotheses of yesterday are not upset
by the discoveries of to-day. “Science is atheistic, phantasmagorical, and
always in labor with conjecture.
It can never become knowledge per se. Not to
8
know is its climax,” says Professor A. Wilder, our New York Vice-President, certainly more of a man of Science himself than many a scientist better known than he is to the world. Moreover, the learned representatives of the Royal Society have as many cherished hobbies, and are as little free of prejudice and preconception as any other mortals. It is perhaps, to religion and her handmaid theology, with her “seventy times seven” sects, each claiming and none proving its right to the claim of truth, that, in our search for it, we ought to humbly turn? One of our severe Christian Areopagites actually expresses the fear that “even some of the absurd stories of the Puranas have found favour with the Theosophist.” But let him tell us; has the Bible any less of “absurd ghost-stories” and “ridiculous miracles” in it than the Hindu Puranas, the Buddhist Maha Jataka, or even one of the most “shamefully superstitious publications” of the Spiritualists? (We quote from his letter). We are afraid in all and one it is but:
“Faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast
To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last . .
and—we decline accepting anything on faith. In common with most of the periodicals we remind our readers in every number of the THEOSOPHIST that its “Editors disclaim responsibility for opinions expressed by contributors” with some of which they (we) do not agree. And that is all we can do. We never started out in our paper as Teachers but rather as humble and faithful recorders of the innumerable beliefs, creeds, scientific hypotheses, and— even “superstitions” current in the past ages and now more than lingering yet in our own. Never having been a sectarian—i.e. an interested party—we maintain that in the face of the present situation, during that incessant warfare, in which old creeds and new doctrines, conflicting schools and authorities, revivals of blind faith and incessant scientific discoveries running a race as though for the survival of the fittest, swallow up and mutually destroy and annihilate each other—daring, indeed, were that man who would assume the task of deciding between them! Who, we ask, in the presence of those most wonderful and most unexpected achievements of our great physicists and chemists would risk to draw the line of demarcation between the possible and the impossible? Where is the honest man who conversant at all with the latest conclusions of arch philology, paleography, and especially Assyriology, would undertake to prove the superiority
9
of the religious “superstitions” of the civilized Europeans over those of the “heathen,” and even of the fetish-worshipping savages?
Having said so much, we have made clear, we hope, the reason why, believing no mortal man infallible, nor claiming that privilege for ourselves, we open our columns to the discussion of every view and opinion, provided it is not proved absolutely supernatural. Besides, whenever we make room to “unscientific” contributions it is when these treat upon subjects which lie entirely out of the province of physical science. Generally upon questions that the average and dogmatic scientist rejects a priori and without examination; but which, the real man of science finds not only possible but after investigation very often fearlessly proclaims the disputed question as an undeniable fact. In respect to most transcendental subjects the sceptic can no more disprove than the believer prove his point. FACT is the only tribunal we submit to and recognise it without appeal. And before that tribunal a Tyndall and an ignoramus stand on a perfect par. Alive to the truism that every path may eventually lead to the highway as every river to the ocean, we never reject a contribution simply because we do not believe in the subject it treats upon, or disagree with its conclusions. Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision. Dum vitant stulti vitia in contraria—is our motto; and we seek to prudently walk between the many ditches without rushing into either. For one man to demand from another that he shall believe like himself, whether in a question of religion or science is supremely unjust and despotic. Besides, it is absurd. For it amounts to exacting that the brains of the convert, his organs of perception, his whole organization, in short, be reconstructed precisely on the model of that of his teacher, and, that he shall have the same temperament and mental faculties as the other has. And why not his nose and eyes, in such a case? Mental slavery is the worst of all slaveries. It is a state over which brutal force having no real power, it always denotes either an abject cowardice or a great intellectual weakness. . .
Among many other charges, we are accused of not sufficiently exercising our editorial right of selection. We beg to differ and contradict the imputation. As every other person blessed with brains instead of calf’s feet-jelly in his head, we certainly have
10
our opinions upon things in general, and things occult especially, to some of which we hold very firmly. But these being our personal views, and though we have as good a right to them as any, we have none whatever to force them for recognition upon others. We do not believe in the activity of “departed spirits”—others and among these, many of the Fellows of the Theosophical Society do—and we are bound to respect their opinions, so long as they respect ours. To follow every article from a contributor with an Editor’s Note correcting “his erroneous ideas” would amount to turning our strictly impartial journal into a sectarian organ. We decline such an office of “Sir Oracle.”
The THEOSOPIHST is a journal of our Society. Each of its Fellows being left absolutely untrammeled in his opinions, and the body representing collectively nearly every creed, nationality and school of philosophy, every member has a right to claim room in the organ of his Society for the defence of his own particular creed and views. Our Society being an absolute and an uncompromising Republic of Conscience, preconception and narrow—mindedness in science and philosophy have no room in it. They are as hateful and as much denounced by us as dogmatism and bigotry in theology; and this we have repeated ad nauseam usque.
Having explained our position, we will close with the following parting words to our sectarian friends and critics. The materialists and sceptics who upbraid us in the name of modern Science—the Dame who always shakes her head and finger in scorn at everything she has not yet fathomed—we would remind of the suggestive but too mild words of the great Arago: “He is a rash man, who outside of pure mathematics pronounces the word ‘impossible’.” And to theology, which under her many orthodox masks throws mud at us from behind every secure corner we retort by Victor Hugo’s celebrated paradox: “In the name of RELIGION, we protest against all and every religion!”
Theosophist, July, 1881
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO?
BY * * *
YOGEE is a man who has prepared himself by a long discipline of body and spirit, and is thereby rendered capable of dealing with phenomena, and receiving occult communications at will, the theory being that he, so to say, paralyzes his phys- ical brain and reduces his mind to complete passivity by one of the numerous modes at his command, one of which is the magnetization of the second set of faculties pertaining to and exercised by the spiritual or inner man. The soul is inducted by the body, and, in its turn, is used to liberate the spirit, which is thus placed into direct rapport with the object desired. For example:—A telegraph line at stations A, B, C, D, E, in ordinary cases, sends messages from A to B, B to C and so on; but, when the several stations are connected, the message may be received direct at E from A without the intermediate stations being made aware of it. In the same manner, the nerves becoming passive, the “Yog” power controls the other faculties, and finally enables the spirit to receive a communication, which, in the other case, it cannot, because it must act through several mediums.
As the magnetic
power is directed to any particular faculty, so that faculty at once forms a
direct line of communication with the spirit,1
which, receiving the impressions, conveys them back to the physical body.2
——————
1 Sixth principle—spiritual soul.
2 In the normal or natural state, the sensations are transmitted from the lowest physical to the highest spiritual body, i.e., from the first to the 6th principle (the 7th being no organized or conditioned body, but an infinite hence unconditioned principle or state), the faculties of each body having to awaken the faculties of the next higher one to transmit the message in succession, until they reach the last, when, having received the impression, the latter (the spiritual soul) sends it back in an inverse order to the body. Hence, the faculties of some of the “bodies” (we use this word for want of a better term) being less developed, they fail to transmit the message correctly to the highest principle, and thus also fail to produce the right impression upon the physical senses, as a telegram may have started, from the place of its destination, faultless and have been bungled up and misinterpreted by the telegraph operator at some intermediate station. This is why some people, otherwise endowed with great intellectual powers and perceptive faculties, are often utterly unable to appreciate—say, the beauties of nature, or some particular moral quality; as however perfect their physical intellect—unless the original, material or rough physical impression conveyed has passed in a circuit through the sieve of every “principle”—(from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, up to 7, and down again from 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, to No. 1)—and that every sieve” is in good order,—the spiritual perception will always he imperfect. The Yogi, who, by a constant training and incessant watchfulness, keeps his septenary instrument in good tune and whose spirit has obtained a perfect control over all, can, at will, and by paralyzing the functions of the 4 intermediate principles, communicate from body to spirit and vice versa—direct—Ed. Theosophist.
12
The spirit cannot grasp at the communications it desires to receive, unassisted by the physical organization, just as, in the case of a lunatic, the spirit is present, but the faculty of reason is lost, and, therefore, the spirit cannot make the man sane; or, as in the case of a blind man, the spirit and reasoning powers are sound, but the faculty of sight is destroyed; hence the soul of the blind man cannot realize the impressions which would be conveyed to it by the optic nerves and retina.
The spirit is an immortal ether (principle?) which cannot be impaired in any way, and, although it is, to a certain extent, subservient to the body and its faculties during the life-time of the body it is attached to, it can, through their agency, be so liberated in a higher or lesser degree as to be made to act independently of the other principles. This can be achieved by magnetic power or nerve power, if preferred, and thus the spiritual man be enabled to receive communications from other spirits, to traverse space and produce various phenomena, to assume any shape and appear in any form it desires.
The secret of the theory is this, that the Yogee, possessing the power of self-mesmerisation and having a perfect control over all his inner principles, sees whatever he desires to see, rejecting all elementary influences which tend to contaminate his purity.
The medium receives his communications differently. He wishes for “spirits”; they are attracted towards him, their magnetic influences controlling his faculties in proportion to the strength of their respective magnetic powers and the passivity of the subject; the nervous fluid conveys their impressions to the soul or spirit in the same manner, and often the same results are produced as in the case of the Yogee, with this important difference that they are not what the medium or spiritist wishes, but what the spirits (elementary influences) will produce; hence it is that sometimes (in spiritism) a question on one subject is asked, and a reply of a different nature received, irrelevant to the point and more or less after the “Elementary’s” disposition. The spiritist cannot at desire pro duce a fixed result,—the Yogee can. The spiritist runs the risk of evil influences, which impair the faculties the soul has to command, and these faculties—being more prone to evil than good (as every thing having a great percentage of impure matter in it)—are rapidly influenced. The Yogee overcomes this, and his faculties are entirely within his control, the soul acquiring a greater scope for
13
working them and keeping them in check; for, although the soul is their ruler, yet it is subservient to them. I will give a familiar illustration :—A battery generates electricity, the wires convey the cur rent, and the mechanism is put in motion. Just so, the soul is the generator or battery, the nerves the wires, and the faculties the mechanism made to work. The Yogee forms a direct connection between his spiritual soul and any faculty, and, by the power of his trained will, that is by magnetic influence, concentrates all his powers in the soul, which enables him to grasp the subject of his enquiry and convey it back to the physical organs, through the various channels of communication.
If the Yogee desires to see a vision, his optic nerves receive the magnetic fluid; if an answer to a question is wanted, the faculties of thought and perception are charged by him; and so on. If he desires to traverse space in spirit, this is easily done by him by transferring the faculty of will, and, as he may have acquired more or less power, so will he be able to produce greater or minor results.
The soul of the
medium does not become the generator. It is not the battery. It is a Leyden jar,
charged from the magnetic influence of the “spirits.” The faculties are put in
action just as the spirits so—called,
make them work from the jar they have charged with their own currents. These
currents, being magnetic, take after the invisibles’ own good or evil
disposition. The influence of a really good spirit is not left upon the earth
after death, so that, in reality, there are no good spirits, although some may
not be mischievous, while others may be full of real devilry. The question
arises, how the influences of the bad ones are left behind, when the soul exists
no more on earth after death? Well, just as light from the sun illumines an
object, which reflects certain invisible active rays, and these, concentrated in
a camera, produce a latent image on a photographic plate; in like manner the
evil propensities of man are developed and form an atmosphere around him, which
is so impregnated with his magnetic influence that this outer shell (as it were)
retains the latent impressions of good or evil deeds. These, after death, are
attached to certain localities, and travel as quick as thought wherever an
attractive influence is exercised the stronger, they being less dangerous as
less attracted to men in gen-
————————————
1 Or—direct, which is oftener the case, we believe—Ed. Theosophist.
2 From the physical to the Spiritual body and concentrating it there, as we understand it—Ed. Theosophist.
14
eral, but more to spiritists who attract them by the erratic power of their will, i.e., their own ill-governed magnetic power. Have not many experienced coming across a man unknown to them, whose very appearance has been repulsive, and, at the sight of whom, feelings of distrust and dislike spring up in them spontaneously, although they knew nothing of or against him? On the other hand, how often do we meet a man who, at first sight seems to attract us to him, and we feel as if we could make a friend of him, and if, by chance, we become acquainted with that person, how much we appreciate his company. We seem lost in hearing him speak, and a certain sympathy is established between us for which we cannot account. What is this, but our own outer shell coming in contact with his and partaking of the magnetic influences of that shell or establishing a communication between each other.
The medium is also influenced by his own spirit sometimes, the reaction of his nerves magnetizing some faculties accidentally, while the elementary spirits are magnetizing the other senses; or a stray current reaches some faculty which their magnetism has not reached, and this leads to some of those incompre-hensible messages, which are quite irrelevant to what is expected, and a frequent occurrence which has always been the great stumbling block at all séances.
Theosophist, May, 1882
IT is well known that the moon-beams have a very pernicious influence; and recently this question became the subject of a very animated discussion among some men of science in Germany.
Physicians and physiologists begin to perceive at last, that the poets had led them into a trap. They will soon find out, it is to be hoped, that eastern Occultists had more real information about the genuine character of our treacherous satellite than the Western astronomers with all their big telescopes. Indeed—”fair Diana,” the “Queen of Night,” she, who in “clouded majesty”—
“. . . unveils her
peerless light,
and o’er the dark her silver mantle throws .
—is the worst—because secret—enemy of her Suzerain, and that Suzerain’s children, vegetable and animal as well as human. With out touching upon her occult and yet generally unknown attributes and functions, we have but to enumerate those that are known to science and even the profane.
The moon acts perniciously upon the mental and bodily constitution of men in more than one way. No experienced captain will allow his men to sleep on deck during the full moon. Lately it was proved beyond any doubt, by a long and careful series of experiments, that no person—even one with remarkably strong nerves—could sit, lie or sleep for any length of time, in a room lit by moon- light without injury to his health. Every observing housekeeper or butler knows that provisions of any nature will decay and spoil far more rapidly in moon-light than they would in entire darkness. The theory that the cause of this does not lie in the specific perniciousness of the moon-beams but in the well-known fact that all the refrangible and reflected rays will act injuriously—is an exploded one. This hypothesis cannot cover the ground in our case. Thus, in the year 1693, on January 21, during the eclipse of the moon, thrice as many sick people died on that day than on the pre ceding and following days. Lord Bacon used to fall down sense less at the beginning of every lunar eclipse and returned to consciousness but when it was over. Charles the VI, in 1399, became a
16
lunatic at every new moon and at the beginning of the full moon. The origin of a number of nervous diseases was found to coincide with certain phases of the moon, especially epilepsy and neuralgia—the only cure for which is, as we know, the sun. After a discussion of many days, the wise men of Germany came to no better conclusion than the implicit confession that: “Though it is a pretty well established fact that there exists some mysterious and nefast connection between the night luminary and most of the human and even animal and vegetable diseases, yet wherein lies the cause of such connection—we are unable, at present, to determine.”
Of course not. Who of these great physicians and physiologists but knows since his boyhood that there was in old Greece a widely—spread belief that the magicians, and especially the enchanters and sorcerers of Thessaly, had an uncontrollable power over the moon, drawing her down from heaven at will by the mere force of their incantations and producing thereby her eclipses? But that is all they know unless they add to it their conviction that the stupid superstition had nothing at all in it at the bottom. Perhaps, they are right, and ignorance, in their case, may be bliss. But the occultists ought not to forget, at any rate, that Isis of the Egyptians and the Grecian Diana or Luna were identical. That both wear the crescent on their heads or the cow’s horns, the latter the symbol of the new moon. More than one profound mystery of nature is securely shrouded by the “veils” of Isis and Diana, who were both the anthropomorphized symbols—or Goddesses of nature, whose priests were the greatest and most powerful adepts of the lands that worshipped the two. The fact alone, that the temple of Diana in Aricia was served by a priest who had always to murder his predecessor, is more than suggestive to a student of Occultism; for it shows him that in the temples of Diana, the greatest as the most reverenced of all the goddesses of Rome and Greece—from that of Ephesus, one of the seven wonders of the world, down to the said temple of Aricia, the same mysterious initiations took place as in the sacred temples of the Egyptian Isis:—i.e., the initiator having unveiled the Goddess, or shown the neophyte naked truth—had to die.
Theosophist, April, 1883
WESTERN STRICTURE AND EASTERN VERSION
[The sixth installment of the series, “Fragments of Occult Truth,” which appeared in the Theosophist for March, 1883, drew criticism from a British Theosophist who maintained that the account given of the Devachanic condition was either inadequate or described a “cheat” by nature, in that there seemed to be no true intercourse between souls in this after-death state, but only an imagined or “dreamed” relationship. The reader’s comment and objections were provided at some length in a memorandum which H.P.B. printed in the Theosophist for August, 1883, followed by three Replies which, she said, came “from three different sources. “—Eds.]
THE REAL AND THE UNREAL
The perfect consciousness that “I am Brahma”
Removes the false appearances projected
By Ignorance. .
.Know that indeed as Brahma—
Nothing
exists but Brahma, when aught else
Appears to be ‘tis like the mirage false.
—Atma-bodha (Knowledge of Soul)
SANKARACHARYA
THE
“misunderstanding” arises from a natural misconception of the sense in which
certain terms are made use of rather than from any “inconsistent language” used.
The alternative of moving for ever in a vicious circle faces the European
student of Occult philosophy, who begins his study before having made himself
familiar with the technical mode of thought and peculiarity of expression of its
teachers. His first necessity is, to know the esoteric views of the ultimate
nature of Spirit, of Matter, Force and Space; the fundamental and axiomatic
theories as to the Reality and Unreality, Form and the Formless (rupa and
arupa), dream and waking.1
Especially should he master—at
least approximately—the
distinction between the “objective” and the “sub-
———————
1 The Vedanta philosophy teaches as much as Occult philosophy that our monad during its life on earth as a triad (7th, 6th, and 5th principles), has, besides the condition of pure intelligence, three conditions; namely, waking, dreaming, and sushupti—a state of dreamless sleep—from the stand-point of terrestrial conceptions; of real, actual soul-life—from the occult stand-point. While man is either dreamlessly, profoundly asleep or in a trance state, the triad (Spirit, Soul and Mind) enters into perfect union with the Paramatma, the Supreme Universal Soul—Ed.
18
jective” in the living man’s sensuous perceptions and the same as they appear to the psychic perceptions of a disembodied entity (Devachanee). It will not strengthen his case to put forth the objection that “the mode of the intercourse is not such as we can at present recognize from experience”; in other words, that until one becomes a “Devachanee” one cannot enter into sympathy with his feelings or perceptions. For, the disembodied individuality being identical in nature with the higher triad of the living man, when liberated as the result of self evolution effected by the full development of conscious and trained will, the adept can through this triad learn all that concerns the Devachanee; live for the time being his mental life, feel as he feels, and sharing thoroughly in his super- sensuous perceptions, bring back with him on earth the memory of the same, unwarped by mayavic deceptions, hence—not to be gain-said. This, of course, assuming the existence of such lusus naturæ as an “adept,” which may, perhaps, be conceded by the objectors for the sake of argument. And the further concession must be asked that no comparison shall be made to the adept’s detriment between the perceptive powers of his triad, when so freed from the body, and those of the half liberated monad of the entranced somnambule or medium which is having its dazed glimpses into the “celestial arcana.” Still less, is it allowable to gauge them by the reveries of an embodied mind, however cultured and meta physical, which has no data to build upon, save the deductions and inductions which spring from its own normal activity.
However much European students may seem to have outgrown the crude beliefs of their earlier years, yet a special study of Asiatic mental tendencies is indispensable to qualify them to grasp the meaning of Asiatic expressions. In a word, they may have out grown their hereditary ideas only far enough to qualify them as critics of the same; and not sufficiently to determine what is “inconsistent language” or consistent, of Eastern thinkers. Difference in the resources of language is also a most important factor to keep in mind. This is well illustrated in the alleged reply of an Oriental visiting Europe, when asked to contrast Christianity with Buddhism: “It requires an Index or glossary; for it (Christianity) has not the ideas for our words, nor the words for our ideas.” Every attempt to explain the doctrines of Occultism in the meagre terminology of European science and metaphysics to students ignorant of our terms, is likely to result in disastrous misunderstandings
19
despite good intentions on both sides. Unquestionably, such expressions as “life real in a dream” must appear inconsistent to a dualist who affirms the eternity of the individual soul, its independent existence, as distinct from the Supreme Soul or Paramatma, and maintains the actuality of (the personal) God’s nature. What more natural than that the Western thinker, whose inferences are drawn from quite a different line of thought, should feel bewilderment when told that the Devachanic life is “reality”—though a dream, while earthly life is but “a flitting dream”—though imagined an actuality. It is certain that Prof. Balfour Stewart—great physicist though he be—would not comprehend the meaning of our Oriental philosophers, since his hypothesis of an unseen universe, with his premises and conclusions, is built upon the emphatic assumption of the actual existence of a personal God, the personal Creator, and personal moral Governor of the Universe. Nor would the Mussulman philosopher with his two eternities—azl, that eternity which has no beginning, and abd, that other eternity having a beginning but no end; nor the Christian who makes every man’s eternity begin (!) at the moment when the personal God breathes a personal soul into the personal body—comprehend us. Neither of these three representatives of belief could, without the greatest difficulty, concur in the perfect reasonableness of the doctrine of Devachanic life.
When the word “subjective” is used in connection with the state of isolation of the Devachanee, it does not stand for the ultimate possible concept of subjectivity, but only for that degree of the same thinkable by the Western non-Oriental mind. To the latter everything is subjective without distinction which evades all sensuous perceptions. But the Occultist postulates an ascending scale of subjectivity which grows continually more real as it gets farther and farther from illusionary earthly objectivity: its ultimate, Reality—Parabrahm.
But Devachan being
“but a dream,” we should agree upon a definition of the phenomena of dreams. Has
memory anything to do with them? We are told by some physiologists it has. That
the dream-fancies being based upon dormant memory,2
are determined and developed in most cases by the functional activity of some
———————
2 One of the paradoxes of modern physiology seems to be that the more sure and perfect memory becomes, the more unconscious it becomes.” (See Body and Mind, by H. Maudsley, M.D.)
20
internal organ, “the irritation of which awakens into activity that part of the brain with which the organ is in specific sympathy.”
To this, bowing reverentially to modern science, the Occultist replies that there are dreams and dreams. That there is a difference between a dream produced by outward physiological causes, and the one which reacts and becomes in its turn the producer of super-sensuous perceptions and feelings. That he divides dream into the phenomenal and the noumenal, and distinguishes between the two; and that, moreover, the physiologist is entirely unfit to comprehend the ultimate constitution of a disembodied Ego—hence the nature of its “dreams.” This, he does for several reasons, of which one may be particularly noticed: the physiologist rejects a priori WILL, the chief and indispensable factor of the inner man. He refuses to recognize it apart from particular acts of volition, and declares that he knows only the latter, viewed by him simply as a reaction or desire of determination of energy outward, after the complex interworking and combination of ideas in the hemispheral ganglia.” Hence the physiologist would have to reject at once the possibility of consciousness—minus memory; and the Devachanee having no organs, no sensory ganglia, no “educated” nor even “idiotic centres,”3 nor nerve-cells, cannot naturally have that, what the physiologists would regard and de fine as memory. Unfettered from the personal sensations of the manas, the devachanic consciousness would certainly have to be come universal or absolute consciousness, with no past as with no future, the two merging into one eternal PRESENT—but for the trammels of the personal Ego. But even the latter, once severed from its bodily organs, can have no such memory as defined by Professor Huxley, who fathers it upon the “sensigenous molecules” of the brain—those molecules, which, begotten by sensation, re main behind when it has passed away, and that constitute, we are told, the physical foundation of memory; hence also the foundation of all dreams. What can these molecules have to do with the ethereal atoms that act in the spiritual consciousness of the monad, during its bliss wholly based and depending upon the degree of its connection with only the essence of the personal Ego!
What may then be the
nature of the Devachanic dream? we are asked—and how does the occultist define
the dream of the still embodied man? To Western science a dream is a series of
——————
3 Professor Maudstey’s expressions.
21
thoughts, of connected acts or rather “states,” which are only imagined to be real. The uninitiated metaphysician, on the other hand, describes it in his exoteric way, as the passage of sense from darkness into light—the awakening of spiritual consciousness. But the occultist, who knows that the spiritual sense pertaining to the immutable can never sleep or even be dormant per Se, and is always in the “Light” of reality, says that during the state of sleep, Manas (the seat of the physical and personal intelligence) becomes able—its containing vehicle Kama, the WILL, being allowed the full freedom of its conscious action owing to volition being rendered passive, and unconscious by the temporary inactivity of the sensory centres—to perceive that reality in the subjective world which was hidden from it in waking hours. That reality does not become less real, because upon awakening the “sensigenous molecules,” and “uneducated centres” throw and toss in the mayavic light of actual life the recollection and even the remembrance of it into confusion. But the participation of the manas in the Devachanic bliss, does not add to, but on the contrary takes away from, the reality that would fall to the lot of the monad were it altogether free from its presence. Its bliss is an outcome of Sakkayaditthi, the delusion or “heresy of individuality,” which heresy, together with the attavadic chain of causes, is necessary for the monad’s future birth. It is all this that leads the occultist to regard the association or “intercourse” between two disembodied entities in the Devachan—however more real than life it may be—as an illusion, and from his stand point still “a dream,” so to speak of it; while that which his critics would fain call—however regretfully—dreams—”the interludes which fancy makes”—is in the knowledge of the former simply glimpses of the Reality.
Let us take an instance: a son loses a much beloved father. In his dreams he may see and converse with him, and for the time it lasts feel as happy and unconscious of his death as though the father had never left this earth. This upon awakening, he will regard with sorrow as a mere dream that could not last. Is he right to so regard it? The occultist says that he is wrong. He is simply ignorant of the fact that his spirit being of the same essence and nature as that of his father,—as all spirits are—and the inherent property of mutual attraction and assimilation being in their special case strengthened by the paternal and filial love
22
of their personal Egos—that they have, in fact, never separated from each other, death itself being powerless to sever psychic association there, where pure spiritual love links the two. The “dream” was in this instance the reality; the latter a maya, a false appearance due to avidya (false notions). Thus it becomes more correct and proper to call the son’s ignorance during his waking hours a “dream” and “a delusion,” than to so characterize the real intercourse. For what has happened? A Spiritualist would say: “the spirit of the father descended upon earth to hold communion with his son’s spirit, during the quiet hours of sleep.” The Occultist replies; “Not so; neither the father’s spirit descended, nor has the son’s triad ascended (strictly and correctly speaking).” The centre of Devachanic activity cannot be localized: it is again avidya. Monads during that time even when connected with their five finite Kosas (sheaths or principles) know neither space nor time, but are diffused throughout the former, are omnipresent and ubiquitous. Manas in its higher aspect is dravya—an eternal “substance” as well as the Buddhi, the spiritual soul—when this aspect is developed; and united with the Soul Manas becomes spiritual self-consciousness, which is a Vikara (a production) of its original “producer” Buddhi.4 Unless made utterly unfit, by its having become hopelessly mixed with, and linked to, its lower Tanmatras, to become one with Buddhi, it is inseparable from it. Thus the higher human triad, drawn by its affinity to those triads it loved most, with Manas in its highest aspect of self consciousness—(which is entirely disconnected with, and has no need as a channel of the internal organ of physical sense called antah-karana)5 it is ever associated with, and enjoys the presence of all those it loves—in death, as much as it did in life. The intercourse is real and genuine.
The critic doubts
whether such an intercourse can be called a “veritable one.” He wants to know
“whether the two disembodied entities are really and truly affected the one by
the other,” or, “is it merely that one imagines the presence of the
other,” such intercourse corresponding with no fact “of which the other person-
———————
4It is only when Ego becomes Ego-ism deluded into a notion of independent existence as the producer in its turn of the five Tanmatras that Manas is considered Maha-bhutic and finite in the sense of being connected with Ahancara, the personal “I-creating” faculty. Hence Manas is both eternal and non-eternal: eternal in its atomic nature (paramanu rupa), finite (Or karya-rupa) when linked as a duad—with Kama (Volition), a lower production.—Ed.
5 Anta-karana is the path of communication between soul and body, entirely disconnected with the former: existing with, belonging to, and dying with the body—Ed.
23
ality (either
embodied or disembodied) could take cognizance”; and while doubting, he denies
that he is “postulating an incongruity” in objecting that such an intercourse is
not real, is a “mere dream,” for he says, “he can conceive a real intercourse—conscious
on both sides and truly acting and reacting which does not apply only to the
mutual relationship of physical existence.” If he really can, then where is the
difficulty complained of? The real meaning attached by the occultist to such
words as dream, reality, and unreality, having been explained, what further
trouble is there to comprehend this specific tenet? The critic may also be
asked, how he can conceive of a real conscious intercourse on both sides, unless
he understands the peculiar, and—to him as yet unknown—intellectual
reaction and inter-relation between the two.
[sympathetic reaction is no fanciful hypothesis but a scientific fact known and
taught at initiations, though unknown to modern science and but hazily perceived
by some metaphysicians—spiritualists.]6
Or is it that, alternatively, he anthropomorphises Spirit—in
the spiritualistic mistaken sense? Our critic has just told us that “the mode of
the intercourse is not such as we (he) can at present recognize from
experience.” What kind of intercourse is it then that he can conceive of?
——————
6 It is demonstrated to Occultists by the fact that two adepts separated by hundreds of miles, leaving their bodies at their respective habitations and their astral bodies (the lower manas and volition kama) to watch over them, can still meet at some distant place and hold converse and even perceive and sense each other for hours as though they were both personally and bodily together, whereas, even their lower mayavi-rupas are absent.
REPLY II
The Appendix referred to in the Fragments No. VI, in the Theosophist for March, is in no way inconsistent. When properly understood in the light of our doctrines, App. C. (p. 136) gives what it professes to explain and leaves nothing doubtful, while the Fragments itself has perhaps a few expressions that may be misleading: though exclusively so to those who have not paid sufficient attention to that which preceded. For instance: “Love, the creative force, has placed their (the associates’) living image before the personal soul which craves for their presence, and that image will never fly away.” It is incorrect to use the term “personal soul” in connection with the monad. “The personal or animal soul” is, as already said, the 5th principle, and cannot be in Deva-
24
chan, the highest state permitted to it on earth being samadhi. It is only its essence that has followed the monad into Devachan, to serve it there as its ground-tone, or as the background against which its future dream—life and developments will move; its entity, or the reliquiæ? is the “shell,” the dross that remains behind as an elementary to fade away and in time disappear. That which is in Devachan is no more the personæ—the mask, than the smell of a rose is the flower itself. The rose decays and becomes a pinch of dust: its aroma will never die, and may be recalled and resurrected ages thence. Correctly expressed, the sentence would have to read:
. . the living image
before the Spiritual Soul, which being now saturated with the essence of
the personality, has thus ceased to be Arupa (formless or rather devoid of all
substance) for its Devachanic duration, and craves for their presence, etc.” The
gestation period is over, it has won the day, been reborn as a new out of the
old ego, and before it is ushered again into a new personality’, it will reap
the effects of the causes sown in its precedent birth in one of the Devachanic
or Avitchian states, as the case may be, though the latter are found wide apart.
Avas’yam eva bhoktavyam kritam karma Shubhashubam.1
The Devachanic condition in all its aspects is no doubt similar to a dreamy
state when considered from the standpoint of our present objective
consciousness when we are in our waking condition. Nevertheless, it is real
to the Devachanee himself as our waking state is to us. Therefore, when it is
asked “Whether Devachan is a state corresponding to our waking life here or to
our sleep with dreams,”—the
answer given is that it is not similar to either of these conditions; but it is
similar to the dreamy condition of a man who has no waking state at all, if such
a being can be supposed to exist. A monad in Devachan has but one state of
consciousness, and the contrast between a waking state and a dreamy state is
never presented to it so long as it is in that condition. Another objection
urged is, that if a Devachanee were to think of an object or person as if the
object or person were present before him when they are not so (when judged from
the common ideas of objective perception) then the Devachanee is “cheated by
nature.” If such is really the case, he is indeed always “cheated by nature,”
and the suggestion contained in the foregoing letter as to the possible mode of
communication between a Devachanee and one living on earth will not save him
from delusion. Leaving aside
——————
I The fruit of the tree of action, whether good or bad, must unavoidably be eaten.
25
for a moment the nature of a Devachanee’s communication with another monad either in or out of Devachan, let the nature of his ideas be examined so far as they are connected with objects; and then the truth of the above mentioned statement will be easily perceived. Suppose, for instance, Galileo in Devachan, subjectively engaged his favourite intellectual pursuit. It is natural to suppose that his telescope often comes within the range of his Devachanic consciousness, and that the Devachanee subjectively directs it towards some planet. It is quite clear that according to the general ideas of objectivity, Galileo has no telescope before him, and it cannot be contended that his train of ideas in any way actually affects the telescope which he left behind him in this world. If the objector’s reasoning is correct, Galileo is “being cheated by nature,” and the suggestion above referred to will in no way help him in this case.
Thus, the inference that it is neither correct nor philosophical to speak of a Devachanee as being “cheated by nature” becomes once more unavoidable. Such words as cheating, delusion, reality are always relative. It is only by contrast that a particular state of consciousness can be called real or illusionary; and these words cease to have any significance whatever, when the said state of consciousness cannot be compared with any other state. Supposing one is justified in looking upon Devachanic experience as delusion from his present stand-point as a human being living on this earth, what then? We fail to see how any one means to make use of this inference. Of course from the foregoing remarks the reader is not to suppose that a Devachanee’s consciousness can never affect or influence the state of consciousness of another monad either in or out of Devachan. Whether such is the case or not, the reality or the unreality of devachanic experience, so far as a Devachanee is concerned, does not depend upon any such communicative influence.
In some cases it is evident that the state of consciousness of one monad whether in Devachan or yet on earth, may blend with, as it were, and influence the ideation of another monad also in Devachan. Such will be the case where there is strong, affectionate sympathy between the two egos arising from participation in the same higher feelings or emotions, or from similar intellectual pursuits of spiritual aspirations. Just as the thoughts of a mesmerizer standing at a distance are communicated to his subject by the
26
emanation of a current of magnetic energy attracted readily to wards the subject, the train of ideas of a Devachanee are communicated by a current of magnetic or electric force attracted towards another Devachanee by reason of the strong sympathy existing between the two monads, especially when the said ideas relate to things which are subjectively associated with the Devachanee in question. It is not to be inferred, however, that in other cases when there is no such action or reaction, a Devachanee becomes conscious of the fact that his subjective experience is a mere delusion, for it is not so. It was already shown that the question of reality or unreality does not depend upon any such communication or transmission of intellectual energy.
We are asked, “if some of those (the Devachanee loved) are not themselves fit for Devachan, how then?” We answer: “Even in the case of a man still living on earth, or even of one suffering in Avitchi, the ideation of a monad in Devachan may still affect his monad if there is strong sympathy between the two as indicated above,2 Yet the Devachanee will remain ignorant of the mental suffering of the other.”
If this generous
provision of nature that never punishes the innocent outside this our world of
delusion, be still called “a cheating of nature,” and objected to, on the ground
that it is not an “honest symbol” of the other personality’s presence, then the
most reasonable course would be to leave the occult doctrines and Devachan
alone. The noble truths, the grandest goal in soul—life,
will remain for ever a closed book to such minds. Devachan instead of appearing
what it is—a
blissful rest, a heavenly oasis during the laborious journey of the Monad toward
a higher evolution, will indeed present itself as the culmination, the very
essence of death itself. One has to sense intuitionally its logical necessity;
to perceive in it, untaught and unguided, the outcome and perpetuation of that
strictest justice absolutely consonant with the harmony of the universal law, if
one would not lose time over its deep significance. We do not mean it in any
unkind spirit, yet with such an opposition to the very exposition (since no one
is pressed for its acceptance) of our doctrine by some western minds, we feel
bound to remind our opponents that they have the freedom of choice. Among the
later great world philosophies there
——————
2 The reader is reminded in this connection that neither Devachan nor Avitchi is a locality, but a slate which affects directly the being in it and all others only by reaction—Ed.
27
are two,—the more modern the outgrowth of the older,—whose “after states” are clearly and plainly defined, and the acceptance of either of which, moreover, would be welcomed: one—by millions of spiritualists, the other—by the most respectable portion of humanity, viz., civilized Western society. Nothing equivocal, or like cheating of nature in the latter: her Devachanees, the faithful and the true, are plainly and charitably promised the in effable rapture of seeing during an eternity those whom they may have loved best on earth suffering the tortures of the damned in the depths of Gehenna. We are, and do feel willing to give out some of our facts. Only occult philosophy and Buddhism having both failed as yet to produce a Tertullian to strike for us the key-note of an orthodox hell,3 we cannot undertake to furnish fictions to suit every taste and fancy.
There is no such
place of torture for the innocent, no such state in which under the plea of
reward and a necessity for “honest symbols,” the guileless should be made
witness to, or even aware of, the sufferings of those they loved. Were it
otherwise, the active bliss of the Dhyan Chohans themselves would turn into a
shoreless ocean of gall at such a sight. And He who
willed—“Let
all the sins and evils flowing from the corruption of Kaliyug, this
degenerate age of ours fall upon me, but let the world be redeemed”—would
have so willed in vain, and might have given preference to the awes of the
visible to those of the invisible world. To suppose that a “Soul” escaping from
this evil-girdled planet where the innocent weep while the wicked rejoice,
should have a like fate in store for it even within the peaceful haven of
Devachan, would be the most maddening, the dreadful thought of all! But we say,
it is not so. The bliss of a Devachanee is complete, and nature secures
it even at the risk of being accused of cheating by the pessimists of this world
unable to distinguish between Vastu—the
one reality and Vishaya—the
“mayas” of our senses. It is fetching rather too far the presumption that our
objective and subjective shall be the true standards for the
realities and unrealities of the rest of the universe; that our criterion of
truth and honesty is to stand as the only universal land-mark of the same. Had
——————
3 Reference is probably made here to the soul-inspiring monologue that is found in Tertullian’s Despectæ, Chapter XXX, Falling into a wild ecstasy of joy over the bare prospect of seeing some day all the philosophers “who have persecuted the name of Christ burn in a most cruel fire in hell this saintly Patristic character, a Father of the Christian Church, exclaims: “Oh what shall be the magnitude of that scene. How I shall laugh! How I shall rejoice! How I shall triumph” etc—Ed.
28
we to proceed upon such principles, we would have to accuse nature of cheating incessantly not only her human but also her animal offspring. Who, of our objectors, when treating of facts of natural history and the phenomena of vision and colour, would ever hazard the remark that because ants are utterly unable to see and distinguish colours as human beings do, (the red, for instance, having no existence for them) therefore, are they also “cheated by nature.” Neither personality nor objectivity as known to us, have any being in the conceptions of a monad; and could, by any miracle, any living human creature come within the range of the Devachanic vision, it would be as little perceived by the Devachanee as the elementals that throng the air around us are perceived with our natural eyes.
One more error of the critic. He seems to be labouring under the impression that if one has some conception of Devachanic state of subjective consciousness while in this life, he will know that such experience is illusionary when he is actually there; and then Devachanic beatitudes will have lost all their reality so far as he is concerned. There is no reason to apprehend any such catastrophe. It is not very difficult to perceive the fallacy that underlies this argument. Suppose, for instance, A, now living at Lahore, knows that his friend B is at Calcutta. He dreams that they are both at Bombay engaged in various transactions. Does he know at the time he is dreaming that the whole dream is illusionary? How can the consciousness that his friend is really at Calcutta, which is only realized when he is in his waking condition, help him in ascertaining the delusive nature of his dream when he is actually dreaming? Even after experiencing dreams several times during his life and knowing that dreams are generally illusionary, A will not know that he is dreaming when he is actually in that condition.
Similarly, a man may experience the devachanic condition while yet alive, and call it delusion, if he pleases, when he comes back to his ordinary state of objective consciousness and compares it to the said condition. Nevertheless, he will not know that it is a dream either when he experiences it a second time (for the time being) while still living, or when he dies and goes to Devachan.
The above is sufficient to cover the case were even the state under discussion indeed “a dream” in the sense our opponents
29
hold it in. But it
is neither a “dream” nor in any way “cheating.” It may be
so from the stand-point of Johnson’s dictionary; from that of fact independent
of all human definition, and the stand point of him who knows something of the
laws that govern the worlds invisible, the intercourse between the monads is
real, mutual, and as actual in the world of subjectivity, as it is in this our
world of deceptive reality. It is the old story of Zöllner’s man from the
two-dimensional region disputing the reality of the phenomena taking place in
the three-dimensional world.
THE VARIOUS STATES OF DEVACHAN
REPLY III
The foremost question that presents itself to the mind of the occultist of Asiatic birth, upon seeing the multifarious difficulties which beset the European students of Esotericism, as regards Devachan: how to account for their weird fancies with regard to the after states! It is natural for one to measure other persons’ intellectual operations by his own; not without an effort can he put himself in his neighbour’s place and try to see things from his stand-point. As regards Devachan, for example, nothing would apparently be clearer than the esoteric doctrine, incompletely as it may have been expressed by “Lay Chela”; yet it is evidently not comprehended, and the fact must be ascribed, I think, rather to the habitual differences in our respective ways of looking at things than to the mechanical defects in the vehicle of expression. It would be very hard for an Asiatic Occultist to even conjure up such a fancy as that of Swedenborg, who makes the angels our post-mortem “inquisitors,” obliged to estimate a soul’s accumulated merits and demerits by physical inspection of its body, beginning at the tips of the fingers and toes and tracing thence to centres! Equally baffling would be the attempt to bring ourselves to the point of seriously tracing a denizen of the American Summer-Land of Spirits through the nurseries, debating clubs, and legislative assemblies of that optimistic Arcadian Eden. A warp of anthropomorphism seems to run through the entire woof of European metaphysics. The heavy hand of a personal deity and his personal ministers seems to compress the brain of almost every Western thinker. If the influence does not show itself in one form, it does in an other. Is it a question about God? A metaphysical slide is inserted, and the stereopticon flashes before us a picture of a gold-paved,
30
pearly-doored New Jerusalem, with its Durbar Hall, peacock throne, Maharajah, Dewans, courtiers, trumpeters, scribes, and general train. Is the intercourse between disembodied spirits under discussion? The Western constitutional bias of mind can conceive of no such intercourse without some degree of mutual conscious ness of an objective presence of the corporeal kind: a sort of psychic chit-chat. I hope I do not wrong our Western correspondents, but it is impossible, for myself at least, to draw any other conclusions from the whole tenor of the British Theosophist’s memorandum. Vapoury and etherealized as his concept may be it is yet materialistic at the core. As we would say, the germ-point of metaphysical evolution is of Biblical derivation: and through its opalescent vapour sparkle the turrets of the “New Jerusalem.”
There is much fanciful exotericism to be sure, in Asiatic systems. Quite as much and more perhaps than in the Western; and our philosophies have many a harlequin cloak. But we are not concerned now with externals: our critic comes upon metaphysical ground and deals with esotericism. His difficulty is to reconcile “isolation,” as he understands it, with “intercourse” as we understand it. Though the monad is not like a seed dropped from a tree, but in its nature is ubiquitous, all-pervading, omnipresent; though in the subjective state time, space and locality are not factors in its experiences; though, in short, all mundane conditions are reversed; and the now thinkable becomes the then unthinkable and vice-versâ