THE THEOSOPHISTS AND THEIR OPPONENTS
From A Modern Panarion
Articles by HPB
I PRAY you to give me, in your Calcutta paper, space enough to reply to the mendacious comments of one of our religious neighbors upon the Theosophical Society. The Indian Christian Herald, in the number of April 4th (which unhappily has just now reached my eye), with a generosity peculiar to religious papers, filled two pages with pious abuse of our Society as a body. I gather from it, moreover, that The Friend of India had previously gone out of its way to vilify the Society, since the former paper observes that:
The Theosophical Society has merited the epithets employed about it by The Friend of India.
To my everlasting confusion be it said, that I am guilty of the crime of not only never reading, but also of never having so much as laid my eyes upon that last named veteran organ. Nor can any of our Theosophists be charged with abusing the precious privilege of reading the missionary journals, a considerable time having elapsed since each of us was weaned, and relinquished milk-and-water pap. Not that we shirk the somniferous task under the spur of necessity. Were not the proof of our present writing itself sufficient, I need only cite the case of the Bombay missionary organ, The Dnyanodaya, which, on the 17th ult., infamously libelled us, and on the 25th was forced by Colonel Olcott's solicitor, Mr. Turner, to write an ample apology, in order to avoid a criminal prosecution for defamation of character. We regret now to see that while the truly good and pious writer of the Herald was able to rise to the level of Billingsgate, he would not (or dared not?) climb to the height of actionable slander. Truly prudence is a great virtue!
Confronted, as we all have so often been, with the intolerant bigotry—religious "zeal" they call it—and puerile anathemas of the clerical "followers of the meek and lowly Jesus," no Theosophist is surprised to find the peas from the Herald-shooter rattling against his armour. It adds to the clatter, but no one is mortally hurt. And, after all, how natural that the poor fellows who try to administer spiritual food to the benighted heathen—much after the fashion of the Strasburg goose-fatteners, who thrust balls of meal down the throats of the captive birds, unmasticated, to swell their livers—should shake at the intrusion of Europeans who are ready to analyze for the heathen these scripture-balls they are asked to grease with blind faith and swallow without chewing! People like us, who would have the effrontery to claim for the "heathen" the same right to analyze the Bible as the Christian clergy claim to analyze and even to revile the sacred Scriptures of other people, must of course be put down. And the very Christian Herald tries his hand. It says:
Let us without any bias or prejudice reflect . . . about the Theosophical Society . . . such a mortal degradation of persons [the Buddhist, Âryan, Jain, Parsî, Hebrew and Mussulman Theosophists, included?] who can see nothing good in the Bible . . . [and who] ought to remember that the Bible is not only a blessed book, but our book [!].
The latter piece of presumptuous conceit cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. Before I answer the preceding invectives mean to demand a clear definition of this last sentence, "our Book." Whose Book? The Herald's? "Our" must mean that; for the seven thick volumes of the Speaker's Commentary on the Old Testament * [Footnote * The Bible, according to the authorized version (A.D. 1611), with an explanatory and critical commentary and a revision of the translation, by bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by F.C. Cook. M.A., Canon of Exeter, Preacher at Lincoln's I Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. Vols. i.-iv. The Old Testament. London, 1871-1876. ] show that the possessive pronoun and the singular noun in question can no longer be used by Christians when speaking of the Bible. So numerous and glaring have been the mistakes and mis-translations detected by the forty divines of the Anglican Church, during their seven years' revision of the Old Testament that the London Quarterly Review (No. 294, April, 1879), the organ of the most extreme orthodoxy, is driven in despair to say:
The time has certainly passed when the whole Bible could be practically esteemed a single Book miraculously communicated in successive portions from heaven, put into writing no doubt by human hands, but at the dictation of the divine spirit.
So we see beyond question that if it is anybody's "Book" it must be The Indian Christian Herald's; for, in fact, its editors add:
We feel it to be no more a collection of books, but the book.
But here is another bitter pill for your contemporary. It says in a pious gush:
The words which had come from the prophets of the despised Israel have been the life-blood of the world's devotion.
But the inexorable quarterly reviewer, after reluctantly abandoning to the analytical scalpels of Canon Cook and Bishop Harold Browne the Mosaic miracles—whose supernatural character is no longer affirmed, but they are allowed to be "natural phenomena"—turns to the pretended Old Testament prophecies of Christ, and sadly says:
In the poetical [psalms and songs] and the prophetical books especially the number of corrections is enormous.
And he shows how the commentators upon Isaiah and the other so-called prophets have reluctantly admitted that the time-worn verses which have been made to serve as predictive of Christ have in truth no such meaning. He says:
It requires an effort to break the association, and to realize how much less they [the prophecies] must have meant at first to the writers themselves. But it is just this that the critical expositor is bound to do . . . for this some courage is required, for the result is apt to seem like a disenchantment for the worse, a descent to an inferior level, a profanation of the paradise in which ardent souls have found spiritual sustenance and delight.
(Such "souls" as the Herald editor's?) What wonder, then, that the explosion of these seven theological torpedoes—as the seven volumes of the Speaker's Commentary may truly be called—should force the reviewer into saying:
To us, we confess, every attempt to place the older Scriptures on the same supreme pinnacle on which the New Testament of later Revelation stands, is doomed to failure.
The Herald is welcome to what is left of its "Book."
How childishly absurd it was then of the Herald to make a whole Society the scapegoat for the sins of one individual! It is now universally known that the Society comprises fellows of many nationalities and many different religious faiths, and that its Council is made up of the representatives of these faiths; yet the Herald endorses the falsehood that the Society's principles are "a strange compound of Paganism and Atheism," and its creed "a creed as comprehensive as it is incomprehensible." What other answer does this calumny require than the fact that our President has publicly declared that it had "no creed to offer for the world's acceptance,"+ [Footnote +. The Theosophical Society and its Aim. Addressed delivered by Colonel H. S. Olcott, at the Framji Cowasji Hall, Bombay, March 23rd, 1879. ] and that in art. viii of the Society's Rules, appended to the printed Address, in an enumeration of the plans of the Society, the first paragraph says that it aims:
To keep alive in man his belief that he has a soul, and the Universe a God.
If this is a "compound of Paganism and Atheism,'' then let the Herald make the most of it.
But the Society is not the real offender; the clerical stones are thrown into my garden. The Herald's quotation of au expression used by me, in commenting upon a passage of Sir John Kay's Sepoy War, making The Friend of India and Co. primarily responsible for that bloody tragedy, shows the whole animus. It was I who said (see Indian Spectator, March 2nd) that:
India owes everything to the British Government and not to Christianity
—i.e., to missionaries. I may have lost my "senses outright," as The Indian Christian Herald politely remarks, but I think I have enough left to see through the inane sophistries which they make do duty for arguments.
We have only to say to the Herald the following: (1) It is just because we do live in "an age of enlightenment and progress," in which there is (or should be) room for every form of belief, that such Augustinian tirades as the Herald's are out of place. (2) We have not a
Mortal hatred for Christianity and its Divine Founder,
—for the tendency of the Society is to emancipate its fellows from all hatred or preference for any one exoteric form of religion—i.e., with more of the human than divine element in it—over another (see rules); neither can we hate a "Founder" whom the majority of us do not believe to have ever existed. (3) To "retain" a "reverence for the Bible" one must at some time have had it, and if our own investigations had not long since convinced us that the Bible was no more the "Word of God" than half a dozen other holy books, the present conclusions of the Anglican divines—at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned—would have removed the last vestige of doubt upon that point. And besides sundry American clergymen and bishops we have among our Fellows a vicar of the Church of England, who is one of its most learned antiquarians. (4) The assertion that the
Pure monotheism of the Vedas is a pure myth
is a pure falsehood, beside being an insult to Max Müller and other Western Orientalists, who have proved the fact; to say nothing of that great Âryan scholar, preacher and reformer, Svamî Dyanand Sarasvati.
"Degraded humanity" that we are, there must be indeed "something radically wrong and corrupt" in our ''moral nature," for, we confess to joy at seeing our Society constantly growing from accessions of some of the most influential laymen of different countries. And it moreover delights us to think that when we reach the bottom of the ditch, we will have as bedfellows half the Christian clergy, if the Speaker's Commentary makes as sad havoc with the divinity of the New Testament as it has with that of the Old. Our Indian Christian Pecksniff in righteous indignation exclaims:
How they managed to sink so low in the scale of moral and spiritual being must be a sadly interesting study for metaphysicians.
Sad, indeed; but sadder still to reflect that unless the editors of The Indian Christian Herald are protected by post-mortem fire-insurance policies, they are in danger themselves of eternal torment.
Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger Of hell fire,
says Lord Jesus, "the Desire of nations," in Matthew, v. 22, unless —dreadful thought!—this verse should be also found a mistranslation.
H. P. BLAVATSKY,
[N.B.—We insert the above letter with great reluctance. The subject matter of the letter is not fit for our columns, and we have no sympathy with those who attack the religious creed of other men. The matter of fact is, a Calcutta paper attacks a body of men, and the latter are thrown at a great disadvantage if they are not allowed an opportunity by another paper of replying to the attack. It is from that feeling alone that we have given place to the above letter.—ED. A. B. Patrika.] From The Amrita Bazar Patrika, June 13th, 1879.
THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM
From H. P. Blavatsky Theosophical Articles, vol. II.
Articles by HPB
A Calcutta correspondent asks:
(a) Is Occultism a science akin to Spiritualism?
(b) What are the principal points in which the Theosophists and the Spiritualists differ?
(c) Can a Spiritualist call himself a Theosophist without altering his faith? and vice versa?
(d) I understand you do not believe in Spiritualism--then how is it that a Spiritualist has been elected President for the Bengal Branch of the Theosophical Society?
To which we answer:--
(a) That Theosophy is a very ancient science, while Spiritualism is a very modern manifestation of psychical phenomena. It has not yet passed the stage of experimental research.
(b) The difference is in our theories to account for the phenomena. We say they are mainly, though not always, due to the action of other influences than that of the disembodied conscious spirits of the dead. The Spiritualists affirm the contrary.
(c) Yes; many excellent persons are both, and none need alter his faith.
(d)We do believe in the phenomena, but not as to their cause--as above remarked. There being no religious or other test--other than that of good moral character and sympathy with the objects of our Society, applied by us to those who seek for admission, the election of the Venerable Babu Peary Chund Mittra, as President of our Bengal Branch, was not only most proper, but very desirable. He is certainly the most spiritual Theosophist and most theosophic Spiritualist we have ever met.
H. P. Blavatsky
Theosophist, August, 1882
THE THOUGHTS OF THE DEAD*
From The Panarion
Articles by HPB
A MAN dies of a contagious disease; months after his death, aye, years—a bit of clothing, an object touched by him during his sickness, may communicate the disease to a person more physiologically sensitive than the persons around him, while having no effect upon the latter. And why should not an idea, a thought exercise the same influence? Thought is no less material nor objective than the imponderable and mysterious germs of various infectious diseases, the causes of which are such a puzzle for science. Since the mind of a living person can so influence another mind that the former can force the latter to think and believe whatever it will—in short, can psychologize that other mind, so can the thought of a person already dead. Once generated and sent out, that thought will live upon its own energy. It has become independent of the brain and mind which gave it birth. So long as its concentrated energy remains undissipated, it can act as a potential influence when brought into contact with the living brain and nervous system of a person susceptibly predisposed. The unhealthy action thus provoked may lead the sensitive into a temporary insanity of self-delusion, that quite clouds the sense of his own individuality. The morbid action thus once set up, the whole floating group of the dead man's thoughts rushes into the sensitive's brain, and he can give what seems test after test of the presence of the deceased and convince the predisposed investigator that the individuality of the "control," "guide," or communicating intelligence is thoroughly established.
-H. P. Blavatsky
The Theosophist, January, 1882
* The above is a Note appended to an article, entitled "Lakshmibai: the Authentic Story of a Bhût," by Piarai Lall Chachondia
THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?
From H. P. Blavatsky Theosophical Articles, Vol. III
Articles by HPB
"Choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites."--JOSHUA, XXIV., 15.
The thirteenth number of Le Lotus, the recognised organ of Theosophy, among many articles of undeniable interest, contains one by Madame Blavatsky in reply to the Abbé Roca. The eminent writer, who is certainly the most learned woman of our acquaintance, 1. [Footnote 1. The humble individual of that name renders thanks to the editor of PARiS: not so much for the flattering opinion expressed as for the rare surprise to find the name of "Blavatsky," for once, neither preceded nor followed by any of the usual abusive epithets and adjectives which the highly cultured English and American newpapers and their gentlemanly editors are so fond of coupling with the said cognomen.--ED. ] discusses the following question: "Has Jesus ever existed?" 2. [Footnote 2. The question is rater: Did the "historical" Jesus ever exist? -ED. ] She destroys the Christian legend, in its details, at least, with irrecusable texts which are not usually consulted by religious historians.
This article is producing a profound sensation in the Catholic and Judeo-Catholic swamp: we are not surprised at this, for the author's arguments are such as it is difficult to break down, even were one accustomed to the Byzantine disputes of theology.--PARIS, Evening paper, of May 12, 1888.
THE series of articles, one of which is referred to in the above quotation from a well-known French evening paper, was originally called forth by an article in Le Lotus by the Abbé Roca, a translation of which was published in the January number of LUCIFER.
These articles, it would seem, have stirred up many slumbering animosities. They appear, in particular, to have touched the Jesuit party in France somewhat nearly. Several correspondents have written calling attention to the danger incurred by Theosophists in raising up against themselves such virulent and powerful foes. Some of our friends would have us keep silent on these topics. Such is not, however, the policy of LUCIFER, nor ever will be. Therefore, the present opportunity is taken to state, once for all, the views which Theosophists and Occultists entertain with regard to the Society of Jesus. At the same time, all those who are pursuing in life's great wilderness of vain evanescent pleasures and empty conventionalities an ideal worth living for, are offered the choice between the two now once more rising powers--the Alpha and the Omega at the two opposite ends of the realm of giddy, idle existence--THEOSOPHY and JESUITISM.
For, in the field of religious and intellectual pursuits, these two are the only luminaries--a good and an evil star, truly--glimmering once more from behind the mists of the Past, and ascending on the horizon of mental activities. They are the only two powers capable in the present day of extricating one thirsty for intellectual life from the clammy slush of the stagnant pool known as Modern Society, so crystallized in its cant, so dreary and monotonous in its squirrel-like motion around the wheel of fashion. Theosophy and Jesuitism are the two opposite poles, one far above, the other far below even that stagnant marsh. Both offer power--one to the spiritual, the other to the psychic and intellectual Ego in man. The former is "the wisdom that is from above . . . pure, peaceable, gentle . . . full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy," while the latter is "the wisdom that descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, DEVILISH." 3 [Footnote 3. James' General Epistle, chpter iii, 15, 17. ] One is the power of Light, the other that of Darkness. . . .
A question will surely be asked: "Why should anyone choose between the two? Cannot one remain in the world, a good Christian of whatever church, without gravitating to either of these poles?" Most undeniably, one can do so, for a few more years to come. But the cycle is rapidly approaching the last limit of its turning point. One out of the three great churches of Christendom is split into atomic sects, whose number increases yearly; and a house divided against itself, as is the Protestant Church--MUST FALL. The third, the Roman Catholic, the only one that has hitherto succeeded in appearing to retain all its integrity, is rapidly decaying from within. It is honeycombed throughout, and is being devoured by the ravenous microbes begotten by Loyola.
It is no better now than a Dead Sea fruit, fair for some to look at, but full of the rottenness of decay and death within. Roman Catholicism is but a name. As a Church it is a phantom of the Past and a mask. It is absolutely and indissolubly bound up with, and fettered by the Society of Ignatius Loyola; for, as rightly expressed by Lord Robert Montagu, "The Roman Catholic Church is (now) the largest Secret Society in the world, beside which Freemasonry is but a pigmy." Protestantism is slowly, insidiously, but as surely, infected with Latinism--the new ritualistic sects of the High Church, and such men among its clergy as Father Rivington, being undeniable evidence of it. In fifty years more at the present rate of success of Latinism among the "upper ten," the English aristocracy will have returned to the faith of King Charles II, and its servile copyist--mixed Society--will have followed suit. And then the Jesuits will begin to reign alone and supreme over the Christian portions of the globe, for they have crept even into the Greek Church.
It is vain to argue and claim a difference between Jesuitism and Roman Catholicism proper, for the latter is now sucked into and inseparably amalgamated with the former. We have public assurance for it in the pastoral of 1876 by the Bishop of Cambrai. "Clericalism, Ultramontanism and Jesuitism are one and the same thing--that is to say, Roman Catholicism--and the distinctions between them have been created by the enemies of religion," says the "Pastoral." "There was a time," adds Monseigneur the Cardinal, "when a certain theological opinion was commonly professed in France concerning the authority of the Pope. . . . It was restricted to our nation, and was of recent origin. The civil power during a century and a half imposed official instruction. Those who professed these opinions were called Gallicans, and those who protested were called Ultramontanes, because they had their doctrinal centre beyond the Alps, at Rome. Today the distinction between the two schools is no longer admissible. Theological Gallicanism can no longer exist, since this opinion has ceased to be tolerated by the Church. It has been solemnly condemned, past all return, by the Œcumenical Council of the Vatican. ONE CANNOT NOW BE A CATHOLIC WITHOUT BEING ULTRAMONTANE--AND JESUIT."
A plain statement; and as cool as it is plain.
The pastoral made a certain noise in France and in the Catholic world, but was soon forgotten. And as two centuries have rolled away since an exposé of the infamous principles of the Jesuits was made (of which we will speak presently), the "Black Militia" of Loyola has had ample time to lie so successfully in denying the just charges, that even now, when the present Pope has brilliantly sanctioned the utterance of the Bishop of Cambrai, the Roman Catholics will hardly confess to such a thing. Strange exhibition of infallibility in the Popes! The "infallible" Pope, Clement XIV (Ganganelli), suppressed the Jesuits on the 23rd of July, 1773, and yet they came to life again; the "infallible" Pope, Pius VII, re-established them on the 7th of August, 1814. The "infallible" Pope, Pius IX, travelled, during the whole of his long Pontificate, between the Scylla and Charybdis of the Jesuit question; his infallibility helping him very little. And now the "infallible" Leo XIII (fatal figures!) raises the Jesuits again to the highest pinnacle of their sinister and graceless glory.
The recent Brevet of the Pope (hardly two years old) dated July 13th (the same fatal figure), 1886, is an event, the importance of which can never be overvalued. It begins with the words Dolemus inter alia, and reinstalls the Jesuits in all the rights of the Order that had ever been cancelled. It was a manifesto and a loud defiant insult to all the Christian nations of the New and the Old worlds. From an article by Louis Lambert in the Gaulois (August 18th, 1886) we learn that "In 1750 there were 40,000 Jesuits all over the world. In 1800, officially they were reckoned at about 1,000 men, only. In 1886, they numbered between 7 and 8,000." This last modest number can well be doubted. For, verily now--"Where you meet a man believing in the salutary nature of falsehoods, or the divine authority of things doubtful, and fancying that to serve the good cause he must call the devil to his aid, there is a follower of Unsaint Ignatius," says Carlyle, and adds of that black militia of Ignatius that: "They have given a new substantive to modern languages. The word Jesuitism now, in all countries, expresses an idea for which there was in nature no prototype before. Not till these last centuries had the human soul generated that abomination, or needed to name it. Truly they have achieved great things in the world, and a general result that we may call stupendous."
And now since their reinstallment in Germany and elsewhere, they will achieve still grander and more stupendous results. For the future can be best read by the past. Unfortunately in this year of the Pope's jubilee the civilized portions of humanity--even the Protestant ones--seem to have entirely forgotten that past. Let then those who profess to despise Theosophy, the fair child of early Aryan thought and Alexandrian Neo-Platonism, bow before the monstrous Fiend of the Age, but let them not forget at the same time its history.
It is curious to observe, how persistently the Order has assailed everything like Occultism from the earliest times, and Theosophy since the foundation of its last Society, which is ours. The Moors and the Jews of Spain felt the weight of the oppressive hand of Obscurantism no less than did the Kabalists and Alchemists of the Middle Ages. One would think Esoteric philosophy and especially the Occult Arts, or Magic, were an abomination to these good holy fathers? And so indeed they would have the world believe. But when one studies history and the works of their own authors published with the imprimatur of the Order, what does one find? That the Jesuits have practised not only Occultism, but BLACK MAGIC in its worst form, 4 [Footnote 4. Mesmerism or HYPNOTISM is a prominent factor in Occultism. It is magic. The Jesuits were acquainted with and practised it ages before Mesmer and Charcot. --ED. ]more than any other body of men; and that to it they owe in large measure their power and influence!
To refresh the memory of our readers and all those whom it may concern, a short summary of the doings and actings of our good friends, may be once more attempted. For those who are inclined to laugh, and deny the subterranean and truly infernal means used by "Ignatius' black militia," we may state facts.
In "Isis Unveiled" it was said of this holy Fraternity that--
"though established only in 1535 to 1540--in 1555 there was already a general outcry raised against them." And now once more--
"That crafty, learned, conscienceless, terrible soul of Jesuitism, within the body of Romanism, is slowly but surely possessing itself of the whole prestige and spiritual power that clings to it. . . . Throughout antiquity, where, in what land, can we find anything like this Order or anything even approaching it? . . . The cry of an outraged public morality was raised against it from its very birth. Barely fifteen years had elapsed after the bull approving its constitution was promulgated, when its members began to be driven away from one place to the other. Portugal and the Low Countries got rid of them, in 1578; France in 1594; Venice in 1606; Naples in 1622. From St. Petersburg they were expelled in 1815, and from all Russia in 1820."
The writer begs to remark to the readers, that this, which was written in 1875, applies admirably and with still more force in 1888. Also that the statements that follow in quotation marks may be all verified. And thirdly, that the principles (principii) the Jesuits that are now brought forward, are extracted from authenticated MSS. or folios printed by Various members them selves of this very distinguished body. Therefore, they can be checked and verified in the "British Museum" and Bodleian Library with still more ease than in our works.
Many are copied from the large Quarto 5 [Footnote 5. Extracts from this "Arrêt" were compoled into a work in 4 vols. 12 mo., whick appeared at Paris, in 1762, and was knows as "Extraits des Assertions, etc." In a work entitled "Respose aux Assertion," an attempt was made by the Jesuits to throw discredit upon the facts collected by the Commissioners of the French Parliament in 1762, as for the most part malicious fabrications. "To ascertain the validity of this impeachment," says the author of "The Principles of the Jesuits," the libraries of the two Universsities of the British Museum and of Sion College have been searched for the authors cited; and in every instance where the volume was found, the correctness of the citation was established." ] published by the authority of, and verified and collated by, the Commissioners of the French Parliament. The statements therein were collected and presented to the King, in order that, as the "Arrêt du Parlement du 5 Mars, 1762," expresses it, "the elder son of the Church might he made aware of the perversity of this doctrine. . . . A doctrine authorizing Theft, Lying, Perjury, Impurity, every Passion and Crime; teaching Homicide, Parricide, and Regicide, overthrowing religion in order to substitute for it superstition, by favoring Sorcery, Blasphemy, Irreligion, and Idolatry . . . etc." Let us then examine the ideas on magic of the Jesuits, that magic which they are pleased to call devilish and Satanic when studied by the Theosophists. Writing on this subject in his secret instructions, Anthony Escobar 6 [Footnote 6. "theologiæ Moralis", Tomus iv. Lugduni, 1663 ]says:
"IT IS LAWFUL . . . TO MAKE USE OF THE SCIENCE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE DEVIL, PROVIDED THE PRESERVATION AND USE OF THAT KNOWLEDGE DO NOT DEPEND UPON THE DEVIL, FOR THE KNOWLEDGE IS GOOD IN ITSELF, AND THE SIN BY WHICH IT WAS ACQUIRED HAS GONE BY." 7 [Footnote 7. Tom iv., lib. xxviii, sect. I, de Præcept I, c.20, n. 184. ]
True: why should not a Jesuit cheat the Devil as well as cheats every layman?
"Astrologers and soothsayers are either bound, or are not bound, to restore the reward of their divination, if the event does not come to pass. I own," remarks the good Father Escobar, "that the former opinion does not at all please me, because, when the astrologer or diviner has exerted all the diligence in the diabolical art which is essential to his purpose, he has fulfilled his duty, whatever may be the result. As the physician . . . is not bound to restore his fee . . . if his patient should die; so neither is the astrologer bound to restore his charge . . . except where he has used no effort, or was ignorant of his diabolic art; because, when he has used his endeavors he has not deceived." 8 [Footnote 8. Ibid., sect. 2, de Præcept 1, Probl. 113, n. 586 ]
Busembaum and Lacroix, in "Theologia Moralis," 9 [Footnote 9. "Theologia Moralis nunc pluribus partibus aucta, a R. P. Claudio Lacroix, Societatis Jesu." Coloniae, 1757 (Ed. Mus. Brit.). Translation -Editor "Morale Theology now many parts have increased ] say,
"PALMISTRY MAY BE CONSIDERED LAWFUL, IF FROM THE LINES AND DIVISIONS OF THE HANDS IT CAN ASCERTAIN THE DISPOSITION OF THE BODY, AND CONJECTURE, WITH PROBABILITY,THE PROPENSITIES AND AFFECTIONS OF THE SOUL." 10 [Footnote 10. Tom, ii, lib. Iii., Pars. I, Fr. I, c. i. dub 2 resol. Vii What a pity that the counsel for the defence had not bethought them to cite this orthodox legalization of "cheating by palmistry or otherwise," at the recent religio-scientific prosecution of the medium Slade, in London. ]
This noble fraternity, which many preachers have of late so vehemently denied to have ever been a secret one, has been sufficiently proved to be such. Its constitutions were translated into Latin by the Jesuit Polancus, and printed in the college of the Society at Rome, in 1558. "They were jealously kept secret, the greater part of the Jesuits themselves knowing only extracts from them. 11 [Footnote 11. Niccolini "History of the Jesuits." ]They were never produced to light until 1761,when they were published by order of the French Parliament in 1761, 1762, in the famous process of Father Lavalette." The Jesuits reckon it among the greatest achievements of their Order that Loyola supported, by a special memorial to the Pope, a petition for the reorganization of that abominable and abhorred instrument of wholesale butchery--the infamous tribunal of the Inquisition.
This Order of Jesuits is now all-powerful in Rome. They have been reinstalled in the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, in the Department of the Secretary of the State, and in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Pontifical Government was for years previous to Victor Emanuel's occupation of Rome entirely in their hands. . . . --Isis, vol. II,p. 355, et seq. 1876.
What was the origin of that order? It may be stated in a few words. In the year 1534, on August 16th, an ex-officer and "Knight of the Virgin," from the Biscayan Provinces, and the proprietor of the magnificent castle of Casa Solar--Ignatius Loyola, 12 [Footnote 12. Or "St. Inigo the Biscayan, by his true name. ] became the hero of the following incident. In the subterranean chapel of the Church of Montmartre, surrounded by a few priests and students of theology, he received their pledges to devote their whole lives to the spreading of Roman Catholicism by every and all means, whether good or foul; and he was thus enabled to establish a new Order. Loyola proposed to his six chief companions that their Order should be a militant one, in order to fight for the interests of the Holy seat of Roman Catholicism. Two means were adopted to make the object answer; the education of youth, and proselytism (apostolat). This was during the reign of Pope Paul III, who gave his full sympathy to the new scheme. Hence in 1540 was published the famous papal bull--Regimini militantis Ecclesiæ (the regiment of the warring, or militant Church)--after which the Order began increasing rapidly in numbers and power.
At the death of Loyola, the society counted more than one thousand Jesuits, though admission into the ranks was, as alleged,, surrounded with extraordinary difficulties. It was another celebrated and unprecedented bull, issued by Pope Julius the III in 1552, that brought the Order of Jesus to such eminence and helped it towards such rapid increase; for it placed the society outside and beyond the jurisdiction of local ecclesiastical authority, granted the Order its own laws, and permitted it to recognize but one supreme authority--that of its General, whose residence was then at Rome. The results of such an arrangement proved fatal to the Secular Church. High prelates and Cardinals had very often to tremble before a simple subordinate of the Society of Jesus. Its generals always got the upper hand in Rome, and enjoyed the unlimited confidence of the Popes, who thus frequently became tools in the hands of the Order. Naturally enough, in those days when political power was one of the rights of the "Vice-gerents of God"--the strength of the crafty society became simply tremendous. In the name of the Popes, the Jesuits thus granted to themselves unheard-of-privileges, which they enjoyed unstintedly up to the year 1772. In that year, Pope Clement XIV published a new bull, Dominus ac Redemptor (the Lord and Redeemer), abolishing the famous Order. But the Popes proved helpless before this new Frankenstein, the fiend that one of the "Vicars of God" had evoked. The society continued its existence secretly, notwithstanding the persecutions of both Popes and the lay authorities of every country. In 1801, under the new alias of the "Congregation of the Sacrê Coeur de Jêsus," it had already penetrated into and was tolerated in Russia and Sicily.
In 1814, as already said, a new bull of Pius VII resurrected the Order of Jesus, though its late privileges, even those among the lay clergy, were withheld from it. The lay authorities, in France as elsewhere, have found themselves compelled ever since to tolerate and to count with Jesuits. All that they could do was to deny them any special privileges and subject the members of that society to the laws of the country, equally with other ecclesiastics. But, gradually and imperceptibly the Jesuits succeeded in obtaining special favours even from the lay authorities. Napoleon III granted them permission to open seven colleges in Paris only, for the education of the young, the only condition exacted being, that those colleges should be under the authority and supervision of local bishops. But the establishments had hardly been opened when the Jesuits broke that rule. The episode with the Archbishop Darboy is well known. Desiring to visit the Jesuit college in the Rue de la Poste (Paris), he was refused admittance, and the gates were closed against him by order of the Superior. The Bishop lodged a complaint at the Vatican. But the answer was delayed for such a length of time, that the Jesuits remained virtually masters of the situation and outside of every jurisdiction but their own.
And now read what Lord R. Montagu says of their deeds in Protestant England, and judge:
The Jesuit Society--with its Nihilist adherents in Russia, its Socialist allies in Germany, its Fenians and Nationalists in Ireland, its accomplices and slaves in its power, think of that Society which has not scrupled to stir up the most bloody wars between nations, in order to advance its purposes; and yet can stoop to hunting down a single man because he knows their secret and will not be its slave . . . think of a Society which can devise such a diabolical scheme and then boast of it; and say whether a desperate energy is not required in us?. . . If you have been behind the scenes . . . then you would still have before you the labour of unravelling all that is being done by our Government and of tearing off the tissue of lies by which their acts are concealed. Repeated attempts will have taught you that there is not a public man on whom you can lean. Because as England is 'between the upper and nether millstone,' none but adherents or slaves are now advanced; and it stands to reason that the Jesuits, who have got that far, have prepared new millstones for the time when the present ones shall have passed away; and then again, younger millstones to come on after, and wield the power of the nation.--("Recent Events and a Clue to their Solution," Page 76.)
In France the affairs of the sons of Loyola flourished to the day when the ministry of Jules Ferry compelled them to retire from the field of battle. Many are those who still remember the useless strictness of the police measures, and the clever enacting of dramatic scenes by the Jesuits themselves. This only added to their popularity with certain classes. They obtained thereby an aureole of martyrdom, and the sympathy of every pious and foolish woman in the land was secured to them.
And now that Pope Leo XIII has once more restored to the good fathers, the Jesuits, all the privileges and rights that had ever been granted to their predecessors, what can the public at large of Europe and America expect? Judging by the bull, the complete mastery, moral and physical, over every land where there are Roman Catholics, is secured to the Black Militia. For in this bull the Pope confesses that of all the religious congregations now existing, that of the Jesuits is the one dearest to his heart. He lacks words sufficiently expressive to show the ardent love he (Pope Leo) feels for them, etc., etc. Thus they have the certitude of the support of the Vatican in all and everything. And as it is they who guide him, we see his Holiness coquetting and flirting with every great European potentate--from Bismarck down to the crowned heads of Continent and Isle. In view of the ever increasing influence of Leo XIII, moral and political--such a certitude for the Jesuits is of no mean importance.
For minute particulars the reader is referred to such well-known authors as Lord Robert Montagu in England; and on the continent, Edgard Quinet: l'Ultra-montanisme; Michelet: Le prêtre, la Femme et la Famille; Paul Bert: Les Jésuites; Friedrich Nippold: Handbuch der Neuerster Kirchengeschichte und Welche Wege führen nach Rome? etc., etc.
Meanwhile, let us remember the words of warning we received from one of our late Theosophists, Dr. Kenneth Mackenzie, who, speaking of the Jesuits, says that:--
"Their spies are everywhere, of all apparent ranks of society, and they may appear learned and wise, or simple or foolish, as their instructions run. There are Jesuits of both sexes, and all ages, and it is a well-known fact that members of the Order, of high family and delicate nurture, are acting as menial servants in Protestant families, and doing other things of a similar nature in aid of the Society's purposes. We cannot be too much on our guard, for the whole Society, being founded on a law of unhesitating obedience, can bring its force to bear on any given point with unerring and fatal accuracy." 13 [Footnote 13. "Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia," p. 369. ]
The Jesuits maintain that "the Society of Jesus is not of human invention, but it proceeded from him whose name it bears. For Jesus himself described that rule of life which the Society follows, first by his example, and afterwards by his words.'' 14 [Footnote 14. Imago; "Primi Sæculi Societatis Jesu," lib. I, c3, p. 64. ]
Let, then, all pious Christians listen and acquaint themselves with this alleged "rule of life" and precepts of their God, as exemplified by the Jesuits. Peter Alagona (St. Thomæ Aquinatis Summæ Theologiæ Compendium) says: "By the command of God it is lawful to kill an innocent person, to steal, or commit. . . (Ex mandato Dei licet occidere innocentem, furari, fornicari); because he is the Lord of life and death, and all things, and it is due to him thus to fulfill his command" (Ex primâ secundæ, Quæst., 94).
"A man of a religious order, who for a short time lays aside his habit for a sinful purpose, is free from heinous sin, and does not incur the penalty of excommunication." (Lib. iii, sec. 2, Probl. 44, n. 212). 15 [Footnote 15. Anthony Escobar: "Universæ absque lite sententiæ," Theologiae Moralis receptiore, etc., Tomus i, Lugduni, 1652 (Ed. Bibl. Acad. Cant.). "Idem sentio, e breve illud tempus ad unius horæ spatium traho. Religiosus itaque habitum demittens assignato hoc temporis intersititio, non incurrit excommunicationem, etiamsi dimmittat non solum ex causâ turpi, scilicet fornicandi, aut clàm aliqid abripiendi, set etiam ut incognitus ineat lupanar." Probl. 44, n. 213. ] (Isis Unveiled, Vol. II.)
John Baptist Taberna (Synopsis Theologiæ Practicæ (propounds the following question: "Is a judge bound to restore the bribe which he has received from passing sentence?" Answer: "If he has received the bribe for passing an unjust sentence, it is probable that he may keep it . . . This opinion is maintained and defended by fifty-eight doctors" (Jesuits).16 [Footnote 16. Pars. ii Tra. 2, c. 31 ]
We must abstain at present from proceeding further. So disgustingly licentious, hypocritical, and demoralizing are nearly all of these precepts, that it was found impossible to put many of them in print, except in the Latin language. 17 [Footnote 17. See "Principles of the Jesuits developed in a Collection of Extracts from their own authors." London, 1839. ]
But what are we to think of the future of Society if it is to be controlled in word and deed by this villainous Body! What are we to expect from a public, which, knowing the existence of the above mentioned charges, and that they are not exaggerated but pertain to historical fact, still tolerates, when it does not reverence, the Jesuits on meeting them, while it is ever ready to point the finger of contempt at Theosophists and Occultists? Theosophy is persecuted with unmerited slander and ridicule at the instigation of these same Jesuits, and many are those who hardly dare to confess their belief in the Philosophy of Arhatship. Yet no Theosophical Society has ever threatened the public with moral decay and the full and free exercise of the seven capital sins under the mask of holiness and the guidance of Jesus! Nor are their rules secret, but open to all, for they live in the broad daylight of truth and sincerity. And how about the Jesuits in this respect?
"Jesuits who belong to the highest category," says again Louis Lambert, "have full and absolute liberty of action--even to murder and arson. On the other hand, those Jesuits who are found guilty of the slightest attempt to endanger or compromise the Society of Jesus--are punished mercilessly. They are allowed to write the most heretical books, provided they do not expose the secrets of the Order."
And these "secrets" are undeniably of a most terrible and dangerous nature. Compare a few of these Christian precepts and rules for entering this Society of "divine origin," as claimed for it, with the laws that regulated admissions to the secret societies (temple mysteries) of the Pagans.
" A brother Jesuit has the right to kill anyone that may prove dangerous to Jesuitism."
"Christian and Catholic sons," says Stephen Fagundez, "may accuse their fathers of the crime of heresy if they wish to turn them from the faith, although they may know that their parents will be burned with fire, and put to death for it, as Tolet teaches . . . And not only may they refuse them food, . . . but they may also justly kill them." 18 [Footnote 18. In "Præcepta Decaloga" (Ed. of Sion Library), Tom. i, lib. iv, c2, n. 7, 8. ]
It is well known that Nero, the Emperor, had never dared seek initiation into the pagan Mysteries on account of the murder of Agrippina!
Under Section XIV of the Principles of the Jesuits, we find on Homicide the following Christian ethics inculcated by Father Henry Henriquez, in Summæ Theologiæ Moralis, Tomus I, Venetiis, 1600 (Ed. Coll. Sion): "If an adulterer, even though he should be an ecclesiastic . . . being attacked by the husband, kills his aggressor . . . he is not considered irregular: nonridetur irregularis (Lib. XIV, de Irregularite, c. 10, § 3).
"If a father were obnoxious to the State (being in banishment), and to the society at large, and there were no other means of averting such an injury, then I should approve of this" (for a son to kill his father), says Sec. XV, on Parricide and Homicide. 19 [Footnote 19. Opinion of John Dicastille, Sect. xv, "De Justitia et Jure," etc., cens. pp. 319, 320. ]
"It will be lawful for an ecclesiastic, or one of the religious order, to kill a calumniator who threatens to spread atrocious accusations against himself or his religion," 20 [Footnote 20. "Cursus Theologici," Tomus v, Duaci, 1642, Disp. 36, Sect. 5, n. 118 ] is the rule set forth by the Jesuit Francis Amicus.
One of the most unconquerable obstacles to initiation, with the Egyptians as with the Greeks, was any degree of murder, or even of simple unchastity.
It is these "enemies of the Human Race," as they are called, that have once more obtained their old privileges of working in the dark, and inveigling and destroying every obstacle they find in their way--with absolute impunity. But--"forewarned, forearmed.'' Students of Occultism should know that, while the Jesuits have, by their devices, contrived to make the world in general, and Englishmen in particular, think there is no such thing as MAGIC, these astute and wily schemers themselves hold magnetic circles, and form magnetic chains by the concentration of their collective will when they have any special object to affect, or any particular and important person to influence. Again, they use their riches lavishly to help them in any project. Their wealth is enormous. When recently expelled from France, they brought so much money with them, some part of which they converted into English Funds, that immediately the latter were raised to par, which the Daily Telegraph pointed out at the time.
They have succeeded. The Church is henceforth an inert tool, and the Pope a poor weak instrument in the hands of this Order. But for how long? The day may come when their wealth will be violently taken from them, and they themselves mercilessly destroyed amidst the general execrations and applause of all nations and peoples. There is a Nemesis--KARMA, though often it allows Evil and Sin to go on successfully for ages. It is also a vain attempt on their part to threaten the Theosophists--their implacable enemies. For the latter are, perhaps, the only body in the whole world who need not fear them. They may try, and perhaps succeed, in crushing individual members. They would vainly try their hand, strong and powerful as it may be, in an attack on the Society. Theosophists are as well protected, and better, than themselves. To the man of modern science, to all those who know nothing, and who do not believe what they hear of WHITE and BLACK magic, the above will read like nonsense. Let it be, though Europe will very soon experience, and is already so experiencing, the heavy hand of the latter.
Theosophists are slandered and reviled by the Jesuits and their adherents everywhere. They are charged with idolatry and superstition; and yet we read in the same "Principles" of the Father Jesuits:--
"The more true opinion is, that all inanimate and irrational things may be legitimately worshipped," says Father Gabriel Vasquez, treating of Idolatry. "If the doctrine which we have established be rightly understood, not only may a painted image and every holy thing, set forth by public authority, be properly adored with God as the image of Himself, but also any other thing of this world, whether it be inanimate and irrational, or in its nature rational." 21 [Footnote 21. De Cultu "Adorationis, Libri Tres," Lib. iii. Disp. i, c. 2. ]
This is Roman Catholicism, identical and henceforth one with Jesuitism--as shown by the pastoral of the Cardinal Bishop of Cambrai, and Pope Leo. A precept this, which, whether or not doing honour to the Christian Church, may at least be profitably quoted by any Hindu, Japanese, or any other "heathen" Theosophist, who has not yet given up the belief of his childhood.
But we must close. There is a prophecy in the heathen East about the Christian West, which, when rendered into comprehensible English, reads thus: "When the conquerors of all the ancient nations are in their turn conquered by an army of black dragons begotten by their sins and born of decay, then the hour of liberation for the former will strike." Easy to see who are the "black dragons." And these will in their turn see their power arrested and forcibly put to an end by the liberated legions. Then, perhaps, there will be a new invasion of an Atilla from the far East. One day the millions of China and Mongolia, heathen and Mussulman, furnished with every murderous weapon invented by civilization, and forced upon the Celestial of the East, by the infernal spirit of trade and love of lucre of the West, drilled, moreover, to perfection by Christian man-slayers--will pour into and invade decaying Europe like an irrepressible torrent. This will be the result of the work of the Jesuits, who will be its first victims, let us hope.
--H. P. BLAVATSKY
Lucifer, June, 1888
THOUGHTS ON THE ELEMENTALS
From H. P. Blavatsky Theosophical Articles, Vol. II
Articles by HPB
YEARS have been devoted by the writer to the study of those invisible Beings--conscious, semi-conscious and entirely senseless--called by a number of names in every country under the sun, and known under the generic name of "Spirits." The nomenclature applied to these denizens of spheres good or bad in the Roman Catholic Church, alone, is--endless. The great kyriology of their symbolic names--is a study. Open any account of creation in the first Purâna that comes to hand, and see the variety of appellations bestowed upon these divine and semi-divine creatures (the product of the two kinds of creation--the Prakrita and the Vaikrita or Padma, the primary and the secondary) all evolved from the body of Brahmâ. The Urdhwasrota only, 1 [Footnote: 1. The Urdhwasrota, the Gods, so called because the bare sigt of ailment stands to them, in place of eating; "for there is satisfaction from the mere beholding of ambrosia," says the commentator of the Vishnu Purana. ] of the third creation, embrace a variety of beings with characteristics and idiosyncrasies sufficient for a life-study.
The same in the Egyptian, Chaldean, Greek, Phoenician or any other account. The hosts of those creatures are numberless. The old Pagans, however, and especially the Neo-Platonists of Alexandria knew what they believed, and discriminated between the orders. None regarded them from such a sectarian stand-point as do the Christian Churches. They dealt with them far more wisely, on the contrary, as they made a better and a greater discrimination between the natures of these beings than the Fathers of the Church did. According to the policy of the latter, all those Angels that were not recognised as the attendants upon the Jewish Jehovah--were proclaimed Devils.
The effects of this belief, afterwards erected into a dogma, we find asserting themselves now in the Karma of the many millions of Spiritualists, brought up and bred in the respective beliefs of their Churches. Though a Spiritualist may have divorced himself for years from theological and clerical beliefs; though he be a liberal or an illiberal Christian, a Deist or an Atheist, having rejected very wisely belief in devils, and, too reasonable to regard his visitors as pure angels, has accepted what he thinks a reasonable mean ground--still he will acknowledge no other Spirits save those of the dead.
This is his Karma, and also that of the Churches collectively. In the latter such a stubborn fanaticism, such parti pris [Translation: having decided -Editors] is only natural; it is their policy. In free Spiritualism, it is unpardonable. There cannot be two opinions upon this subject. It is either belief in, or a full rejection of the existence of any "Spirits." If a man is a sceptic and an unbeliever, we have nothing to say. Once he believes in Spooks and Spirits at all--the question changes. Where is that man or woman free from prejudice and preconceptions, who can believe that in an infinite universe of life and being--let us say in our solar system alone--that in all this boundless space in which the Spiritualist locates his "Summer-land"--there are only two orders of conscious beings--men and their spirits; embodied mortals and disembodied Immortals.
The future has in store for Humanity strange surprises, and Theosophy, or rather its adherents, will be vindicated fully in no very distant days. No use arguing upon a question that has been so fully discussed by Theosophists and brought only opprobrium, persecution, and enmity on the writers. Therefore we will not go out of our way to say much more. The Elementals and the Elementaries of the Kabalists, and Theosophists were sufficiently ridiculed. From Porphyry down to the demonologists of the past centuries, fact after fact was given, and proofs heaped upon proofs, but with as little effect as might be had from a fairy tale told in some nursery room.
A queer book that of the old Count de Gabalis, immortalized by the Abbé de Villars, and now translated and published in Bath. Those humorously inclined are advised to read it, and to ponder over it. This advice is offered with the object of making a parallel. The writer read it years ago, and has read it now again with as much, and much more attention than formerly. Her humble opinion as regards the work is--if any one cares to hear it--that one may search for months and never find the demarcation in it between the "Spirits" of the Séance rooms and the Sylphs and Undines of the French satire. There is a sinister ring in the merry quips and jests of its writer, who while pointing the finger of ridicule at that which he believed, had probably a presentiment of his own speedy Karma2 [Footnote 2. The work was published in Paris in 1670, and in 1675 the author was cruelly murdered on his way t Lyons from Languedoc his native country.] in the shape of assassination.
The way he introduces the Count de Gabalis is worthy of attention.
"I was astonished one Remarkable Day, when I saw a man come in of a most exalted mien; who, saluting me gravely, said to me in the French Tongue but, in the accent of a Foreigner, 'Adore my son; adore the most great God of the Sages; and let not thy self be puffed up with Pride, that he sends to thee one of the children of Wisdom, to constitute thee a Fellow of their Society, and make thee partaker of the wonders of Omnipotency." 3 [Footnote 3. Sub-Mundanes; or the Elementaries of the Cabal: being the History of Spirits, reprinted from the Text of the Abbé De Villars, Physio-Astro-Mystic, wherein it is asserted that there are in existence on earth rational creatures besides Man. 1886: Bath, Robert H. Fryer. ]
There is only one answer to be made to those who, taking advantage of such works, laugh at Occultism. "Servitissimo" gives it himself in his own chaffing way in his introductory "Letter to my Lord" in the above-named work. "I would have persuaded him (the author of Gabalis) to have changed the whole form of his work," he writes, "for this drolling way of carrying it thus on does not to me seem proper to his subject. These mysteries of the Cabal are serious matters, which many of my friends do seriously study . . . the which are certainly most dangerous to jest with." Verbum sat sapienti. [Translation: a word to the wise is sufficient -Editors]
They are "dangerous," most undeniably. But since history began to record thoughts and facts, one-half of Humanity has ever been sneering at the other half and ridiculing its most cherished beliefs. This, however, cannot change a fact into a fiction, nor can it destroy the Sylphs, Undines, and Gnomes, if any, in Nature; for, in league with Salamanders, the latter are more likely to destroy the unbelievers and damage Insurance companies, notwithstanding that these believe still less in revengeful Salamanders than in fires produced by chance and accident.
Theosophists believe in Spirits no less than Spiritualists do, but, as dissimilar in their variety as are the feathered tribes in the air. There are bloodthirsty hawks and vampire bats among them, as there are doves and nightingales. They believe in "Angels," for many have seen them
. . . . . by the sick one's pillow--
But these were not the three-toed materialization of the modern medium. And if our doctrines were all piece-mealed by the "drolleries" of a de Villars, they would and could not interfere with the claims of the Occultists that their teachings are historical and scientific facts, whatever the garb they are presented in to the profane. Since the first kings began reigning "by the grace of God," countless generations of buffoons appointed to amuse Majesties and Highnesses have passed away; and most of these graceless individuals had more wisdom at the bottoms of their hunches and at their fingers' ends, than all their royal masters put together had in their brainless heads. They alone had the inestimable privilege of speaking truth at the Courts, and those truths have always been laughed at . . . . . .
This is a digression; but such works as the Count de Gabalis have to be quietly analyzed and their true character shown, lest they should be made to serve as a sledge hammer to pulverize those works which do not assume a humorous tone in speaking of mysterious, if not altogether sacred, things, and say what they have to. And it is most positively maintained that there are more truths uttered in the witty railleries and gasconades[Translation: playful acts and boasts -Editors] of that "satire," full of pre-eminently occult and actual facts, than most people, and Spiritualists especially, would care to learn.
One single fact instanced, and shown to exist now, at the present moment among the Mediums will be sufficient to prove that we are right.
It has been said elsewhere, that white magic differed very little from practices of sorcery except in effects and results--good or bad motive being everything. Many of the preliminary rules and conditions to enter societies of adepts, whether of the Right or the Left Path, are also identical in many things. Thus Gabalis says to the author: "The Sages will never admit you into their society if you do not renounce from this very present a Thing which cannot stand in competition with Wisdom. You must renounce all carnal Commerce with Women" (p. 27).
This is a sine quâ non[Translation: an essentlial element or codition -Editors] with practical Occultists--Rosicrucians or Yogis, Europeans or Asiatics. But it is also one with the Dugpas; and Fadoos of Bhutan and India one with the Voodoos and Nagals of New Orleans and Mexico, 4. [Footnote 4. We speak here of the well known ancient statues in the Sorcery of the Asiatics as in the Demonology of Europe. The Witch had to renounce her husband, the Wizard his marital rights over his legitimate humane wife, as the Dugpa reounces to this day commerce with living women; and, as the New Orleans; Voodoo does, when in the exercise of his powers. Every Kabalist knows this. ] with an additional clause to it, however, in the statutes of the latter. And this is to have carnal commerce with male and female Djins, Elementals, or Demons, call them by whatever names you will. 5. [Footnote 5. The Jewish Kabalist of Poland and Galicia calls the female Spirit of Nergal, when bent on revenge, to his help and to infuse into him power. The Mussulman Sorcerer a female Djini; a Russian Koldoon a deceased Witch (Vyedma. The Chinese maleficer has a female Houen in his house at his command. The above intercourse is said to give magic powers and Supernal Force.]
"I am making known nothing to you but the Principles of the Ancient Cabal," explains de Gabalis to his pupil. And he informs him that the Elementals (whom he calls Elementaries), the inhabitants of the four Elements, namely, the Sylphs, Undines, Salamanders, and Gnomes, live many Ages, but that their souls are not immortal. "In respect of Eternity . . . . they must finally resolve into nothing." . . . . "Our Fathers, the philosophers," goes on the soi-disant [Translation: so-called -Editors] Rosicrucian, "speaking to God Face to Face, complained to him of the Unhappiness of these People (the Elementals), and God, whose Mercy is without Bounds, revealed to them that it was not impossible to find out a Remedy for this Evil. He inspired them, that by the same means as Man, by the Alliance which he contracted with God, has been made Partaker of the Divinity: the Sylphs, the Gnomes, the Nymphs, and the Salamanders, by the Alliance which they might Contract with Man, might be made Partakers of Immortality. So a she-Nymph or a Sylphide becomes Immortal and capable of the Blessing to which we aspire, when they shall be so happy as to be married to a Sage; a Gnome or a Sylphe ceases to be Mortal from the moment that he Espouses one of our Daughters."
Having delivered himself of this fine piece of advice on practical sorcery, the "Sage" closes as follows:
"No, no! Our Sages have never erred so as to attribute the Fall of the first Angels to their love of women, no more than they have put Men under the Power of the Devil. . . . There was nothing criminal in all that. They were Sylphs which endeavored to become Immortal. Their innocent Pursuits, far enough from being able to scandalize the Philosophers, have appeared so Just to us that we are all resolved by common consent utterly to Renounce Women; and entirely to give ourselves to Immortalizing of the Nymphs and Sylphs" (p. 33).
And so are certain mediums, especially those of America and France, who boast of Spirit husbands and wives. We know such mediums personally, men and women, and it is not those of Holland who will deny the fact, with a recent event among their colleagues and co-religionists fresh in their memory, concerning some who escaped death and madness only by becoming Theosophists. It is only by following our advice that they got finally rid of their spiritual consorts of both sexes.
Shall we be told in this case also, that it is a calumny and an invention? Then let those outsiders who are inclined to see, with the Spiritualists, nought but a holy, an innocent pastime at any rate, in that nightly and daily intercourse with the so-called "Spirits of the Dead," watch. Let those who ridicule our warnings and doctrine and make merry over them--explain after analysing it dispassionately, the mystery and the rationale of such facts as the existence in the minds of certain Mediums and Sensitives of their actual marriage with male and female Spirits. Explanations of lunacy and hallucination will never do, when placed face to face with the undeniable facts of SPIRIT MATERIALIZATIONS. If there are "Spirits" capable of drinking tea and wine, of eating apples and cakes, of kissing and touching the visitors of Séance rooms, all of which facts have been proven as well as the existence of those visitors themselves--why should not those same Spirits perform matrimonial duties as well? And who are those "Spirits" and what is their nature? Shall we be told by the Spiritists that the spooks of Mme. de Sévigné or of Delphine _____, ___ one of which authoresses we abstain from naming out of regard to the surviving relatives--that they are the actual "Spirits" of those two deceased ladies; and that the latter felt a "Spiritual affinity" for an idiotic, old, and slovenly Canadian medium and thus became his happy wife as he boasts publicly, the result of which union is a herd of "spiritual" children bred with this holy Spirit? And who is the astral husband--the nightly consort of a well-known New York lady medium whom the writer knows personally? Let the reader get every information he can about this last development of Spiritual (?!) intercourse. Let him think seriously over this, and then read the "Count de Gabalis," especially the Appendix to it, with ; its Latin portions; and then perchance he will be better able to appreciate the full gravity of the supposed chaff, in the work in question, 6. [Footnote 6. "Sub-Mundanes; or the Elementaries of the Cabala"; with and illustrative Appendix from the work "Demoniality" or "Incubi and Succubi," by the Rev. Father Sinistrari of Amando. The answer given (p. 133) by an alleged devil, to St. Anthony respecting the corporiety of the Incubi and Succubi would do as well now, perhaps: "The blessed St. Anthony" having inquire who he was, the little dwarf of the woods answered: "I am a mortal, and one of the inhabitants of the Wilderness, whom gentility under its varied delusions, worships under the names of Fauns, Satyrs and Incubi" or "Spirits of the Dead" might have added this Elemental, the vehicle of some Elementary. This is a narrative of St. Hieronymus, who fully believed in it, so do we, with certain amendments. ] and understand the true value of the raillery in it. He will then see dearly the ghastly connection there is between the Fauns, Satyrs and Incubi of St. Hieronymus, the Sylphs and Nymphs of the Count de Gabalis, the "Elementaries" of the Kabalists--and all those poetical, spiritual "Lillies" of the "Harris Community," the astral "Napoleons," and other departed Don Juans from the "Summer-Land," the "spiritual affinities from beyond the grave" of the modern world of mediums.
Notwithstanding this ghastly array of facts, we are told week after week in the Spiritual journals that, at best, we know not what we are talking about. "Platon"--(a presumptuous pseudonym to assume, by the bye) a dissatisfied ex-theosophist, tells the Spiritualists (see Light, Jan. 1, 1887) that not only is there no re-incarnation--because the astral "spirit" of a deceased friend told him so (a valuable and trustworthy evidence indeed), but that all our philosophy is proved worthless by that very fact! Karma, we are notified, is tom-foolery. "Without Karma re-incarnation cannot stand," and, since his astral informant "has inquired in the realm of his present existence as to the theory of re-incarnation, and he says he cannot get one fact or a trace of one as to the truth of it . . . ." this "astral" informant has to be believed. He cannot lie. For "a man who has studied chemistry has a right to an opinion, and earned a right to speak upon its various theories and facts . . . . especially if he, during earth-life, was respected and admired for his researches into the mysteries of nature, and for his truthfulness." 7. [Footnote 7. The arguments and evidence brought to bear against the philosophy of the East are curious. Surely this is a good proof that the Occultists are right in saying that most of those "Spirits" are not even "lying" Spirits, but simply empty, senseless shells talking sense only with the help of the brains of the sitters and the brain of the medium as a connecting link. ]
Let us hope that the "astrals" of such eminent chemists as Messrs. Crookes and Butlerof--when disembodied, will abstain from returning too often to talk with mortals. For having studied chemistry so much and so well, their post mortem communications would acquire a reputation for infallibility more than would be good, perhaps, for the progress of mankind, and the development of its intellectual powers. But the proof is sufficiently convincing, no doubt for the present generation of Spiritualists, since the name assumed by the "astral control of a friend" was that of a truthful and honorable man. It thus appears that an experience of over forty years with Spirits, who lied more than they told truth, and did far more mischief than good--goes for nought. And thus the "spirit-husbands and wives" must be also believed when they say they are this or that. Because, as "Platon" justly argues: "There is no progress without knowledge, and the knowledge of truth founded upon fact is progress of the highest degree, and if astrals progress, as this spirit says they do, the philosophy of Occultism in regard to re-incarnation is wrong upon this point; and how do we know that the many other points are correct, as they are without proof?"
This is high philosophy and logic. "The end of wisdom is consultation and deliberation"--with "Spirits," Demosthenes might have added, had he known where to look for them--but all this leaves still the question, "who are those spirits"--an open one. For, "where doctors disagree," there must be room for doubt. And besides the ominous fact that Spirits are divided in their views upon reincarnation--just as Spiritualists and Spiritists are, "every man is not a proper champion for the truth, nor fit to take up the gauntlet in the cause of verity," says Sir T. Browne. This is no disrespectful cut at "Platon," whoever he may be, but an axiom. An eminent man of science, Prof. W. Crookes, gave once a very wise definition of Truth, by showing how necessary it is to draw a distinction between truth and accuracy. A person may be very truthful--he observed--that is to say, may be filled with the desire both to receive truth and to teach it; but unless that person have great natural powers of observation, or have been trained by scientific study of some kind to observe, note, compare, and report accurately and in detail, he will not be able to give a trustworthy, accurate and therefore true account of his experiences. His intentions may be honest, but if he have a spark of enthusiasm, he will be always apt to proceed to generalizations, which may be both false and dangerous. In short as another eminent man of science, Sir John Herschell, puts it, "The grand and, indeed, the only character of truth, is its capability of enduring the test of universal experience, and coming unchanged out of every possible form of fair discussion."
Now very few Spiritualists, if any, unite in themselves the precious qualities demanded by Prof. Crookes; in other words their truthfulness is always tempered by enthusiasm; therefore, it has led them into error for the last forty years. In answer to this we may be told and with great justice, it must be confessed, that this scientific definition cuts both ways; i.e., that Theosophists are, to say the least, in the same box with the Spiritualists; that they are enthusiastic, and therefore also credulous. But in the present case the situation is changed. The question is not what either Spiritualists or Theosophists think personally of the nature of Spirits and their degree of truthfulness; but what the "universal experience," demanded by Sir John Herschell, says. Spiritualism is a philosophy (if one, which so far we deny) of but yesterday. Occultism and the philosophy of the East, whether true absolutely, or relatively, are teachings coming to us from an immense antiquity: and since--whether in the writings and traditions of the East; in the numberless Fragments, and MSS. left to us by the Neo-Platonic Theosophists; in the life observations of such philosophers as Porphyry and Iamblichus; in those of the mediæval Theosophists and so on, ad infinitum,--since we find in all these, the same identical testimony as to the extremely various, and often dangerous nature of all those Genii, Demons, Gods, Lares, and "Elementaries," now all confused into one heap under the name of "Spirits"; we cannot fail to recognize in all this something "enduring the test of universal experience, and "coming unchanged" out of every possible form of observation and experience.
Theosophists give only the product of an experience hoary with age; Spiritualists hold to their own views, born some forty years ago, and based on their unflinching enthusiasm and emotionalism. But let any impartial, fair minded witness to the doings of the "Spirits" in America, one that is neither a Theosophist nor a Spiritualist, be asked: "What may be the difference between the vampire-bride from whom Apollonius of Tyana is said to have delivered a young friend of his, whom the nightly succubus was slowly killing, and the Spirit-wives and husbands of the mediums?" Surely none--would be the correct answer. Those who do not shudder at this hideous revival of mediæval Demonology and Witchcraft, may, at any rate, understand the reason why of all the numerous enemies of Theosophy--which unveils the mysteries of the "Spirit World" and unmasks the Spirits masquerading under eminent names--none are so bitter and so implacable as the Spiritualists of Protestant, and the Spiritists of Roman Catholic countries.
"Monstrum horrendum informe cui lumen ademptum" . . . . is the fittest epithet to be applied to most of the "Lillies" and "Joes" of the Spirit World. But we do not mean at all--following in this the example of Spiritualists, who are determined to believe in no other "Spirits" than those of the "dear departed" ones--to maintain that save Nature Spirits or Elementals, Shells, or Elementaries, and "Gods" and genii, there are no other Spirits from the invisible realms; or no really holy and grand Spirits--who communicate with mortals. For it is not so. What the Occultists and Kabalists said all along, and the Theosophists now repeat, is, that holy Spirits will not visit promiscuous séance-rooms, nor will they intermarry with living men and women.
Belief in the existence of invisible but too often present visitants from better and worse worlds than our own, is too deeply rooted in men's hearts to be easily torn out by the cold hand of Materialism, or even of Science. Charges of superstition, coupled with ridicule, have at best served to breed additional hypocrisy and social cant, among the educated classes. For there are few men, if any, at the bottom of whose souls belief in such superhuman and supersensous creatures does not lie latent, to awaken into existence at the first good opportunity. Many are those Men of Science who, having abandoned with their nursery pinafores belief in Kings of Elves and Fairy Queens, and who would blush at being accused of believing in witchcraft, have, nevertheless, fallen victims to the wiles of "Joes," and "Daisies," and other spooks and "controls." And once they have crossed the Rubicon, they fear ridicule no longer. These Scientists defend as desperately the reality of materialized and other Spirits, as if these were a mathematical law. Those soul-aspirations that seem innate in human nature, and that slumber only to awaken to intensified activity; those yearnings to cross the boundary of matter that make many a hardened sceptic turn into a rabid believer at the first appearance of that which to him is undeniable proof--all these complete psychological phenomena of human temperament--have our modern physiologists found a key to them? Will the verdict remain "non compos mentis" or "victim to fraud and psychology"?& c., &c. When we say with regard to unbelievers that they are "a handful" the statement is no undervaluation; for it is not those who shout the loudest against degrading superstitions, the "Occult craze" and so on, who are the strongest in their scepticism. At the first opportunity, they will be foremost amongst those who fall and surrender. And when one counts seriously the ever-increasing millions of the Spiritualists, Occultists, and Mystics in Europe and America, one may well refuse to lament with Carrington over the "Departure of the Fairies." They are gone, says the poet:
. . .They are flown,
We maintain that they have done nothing of the kind; and that on the contrary it is these "Fairies"--the beautiful, far more than the hideous--who are seriously threatening under their new masks and names to disarm Science and break its "Wand."
Belief in "Spirits" is legitimate, because it rests on the authority of experiment and observation, it vindicates, moreover, another belief, also regarded as a superstition: namely, Polytheism. The latter is based upon a fact in nature: Spirits mistaken for Gods, have been seen in every age by men--hence, belief in many and various Gods. Monotheism, on the other hand, rests upon a pure abstraction. Who has seen GOD--that God we mean, the Infinite and the Omnipotent, the one about whom Monotheists talk so much? Polytheism--once man claims the right of divine interference on his behalf--is logical and consistent with the philosophies of the East, all of which, whether Pantheistic or Deistic, proclaim the ONE an infinite abstraction, an absolute Something which utterly transcends the conception of the finite. Surely such a creed is more philosophical than that religion, whose theology, proclaiming in one place God, a mysterious and even Incomprehensible Being, whom "no man shall see and live" (Exodus xxxiii. 20), shows him at the same time so human and so petty a God as to concern himself with the breeches 8 [Footnote 8. "And thou shall make them Enen breeches to cover their nakedness, from their loins even Unto their thighs they shall reach" (Exodus xxviii, 42 et seq.).GOD a linen-draper and a tailor!!! ] of his chosen people, while neglecting to say anything definite about the immortality of their souls, or their survival after death!
Thus, belief in a Host and Hosts of Spiritual entities, dwelling on various planes and spheres in the Universe, in conscious intra-Kosmic Beings, in fact, is logical and reasonable, while belief in an extra-Kosmic God is an absurdity. And if Jehovah, who was so jealous about his Jews and commanded that they should have no other God save himself, was generous enough to bestow upon Pharaoh Moses ("See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, and Aaron . . . . . thy prophet" Exodus vii. 7) as the Egyptian monarch's deity, why should not "Pagans" be allowed the choice of their own Gods? Once we believe in the existence of our Egos, we may well believe in Dhyan Chohans. As Hare has it: "man is a mixed being made up of a spiritual and of a fleshly body; the angels are pure Spirits, herein nearer to God, only that they are created and finite in all respects, whereas God is infinite and uncreated." And if God is the latter, then God is not a "Being" but an incorporeal Principle, not to be blasphemously anthropomorphized. The angels or Dhyan Chohans are the "Living Ones"; that Principle the "Self-Existent," the eternal, and all pervading CAUSE of all causes, is only the abstract noumenon of the "River of Life," whose ever rolling waves create angels and men alike, the former being simply "men of a superior kind," as Young intuitionally remarks.
The masses of mankind are thus well justified in believing in a plurality of Gods; nor is it by calling them now, spirits, angels, and demons, that Christian nations are less polytheistic than their Pagan brethren. The twenty or thirty millions of the now existing Spiritualists and Spiritists, minister to their dead as jealously as the modern Chinamen and the Hindus minister to their Houen, 9 [Footnote 9. The Houen in China, is "the second Soul, or human Vitality, the principle, which animates the ghost" as explained by missionaries from China; simply the astral. The Huoen, however, is as distinct from the "Ancestor" as the Bhoots are from the Pitris in India. ] Bhoots, and Pisachas--the Pagan, however, only to keep them quiet from post-mortem mischief.
Although these Gods are said to be "superior to man in some respects," it must not be concluded that the latent potencies of the human spirit are at all inferior to those of the Devas. Their faculties are more expanded than those of ordinary man; but with the ultimate effect of prescribing a limit to their expansion, to which the human spirit is not subjected. This fact has been well symbolized in the Mahâbhârata by the single-handed victory of Arjuna, under the name of Nara (a man) over the whole host of Devas and Deva-yonis (the lower Elementals). And we find reference to the same power in man in the Bible, for St. Paul distinctly says to his audience "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" (I Corinth. vi., 3.,) and speaks of the astral body of man, the soma psychikon, and the spiritual body, soma pneumatikon, which "hath not flesh and bones," but has still an external form.
The order of Beings called the Devas--whose variety is so great that no description of it can be attempted here--is given in some Occult treatises. There are high Devas and lower ones, higher Elementals and those far below man and even animals. But all these have been or will be men, and the former will again be reborn on higher planets and in other manvantaras. One thing may, however, be mentioned. The Pitris, or our "lunar ancestors," and the communication of mortals with them, have been several times mentioned by Spiritualists as an argument that Hindoos do believe in, and even worship "Spirits." This is a great mistake. It is not the Pitris individually that were ever consulted, but their stored wisdom collectively; that wisdom being shown mystically and allegorically on the bright side of the moon.
What the Brahmans invoke are not "the spirits" of the departed ancestors--the full significance of which name will be found in Vol. II. of the "Secret Doctrine," where the genesis of man is given. The most highly developed human spirit will always declare, while leaving its tenement of clay "nacha purarâvarti"--"I shall not come back"--and is thus placed beyond the reach of any living man. But to comprehend fully the nature of the "lunar" ancestors and their connection with the "moon" would necessitate the revelation of occult secrets which are not intended for public hearing. Therefore no more will be given than the few hints that follow.
One of the names of the moon in Sanskrit is Soma, which is also the name, as is well known, of the mystic drink of the Brahmans and shows the connection between the two. A "soma-drinker" attains the power of placing himself in direct rapport with the bright side of the moon, thus deriving inspiration from the concentrated intellectual energy of the blessed ancestors. This "concentration," and the moon being a store-house of that Energy, is the secret, the meaning of which must not be revealed, beyond the mere fact of mentioning the continuous pouring out upon the earth from the bright side of the orb of a certain influence.
This which seems one stream (to the ignorant) is of a dual nature--one giving life and wisdom, the other being lethal. He who can separate the former from the latter, as Kalahamsa separated the milk from the water, which was mixed with it, thus showing great wisdom--will have his reward. The word Pitri does mean, no doubt, the ancestor; but that which is invoked is the lunar wisdom esoterically, and not the "Lunar ancestor." It is this Wisdom that was invoked by Qu-ta-my, the Chaldean, in the "Nabathean Agriculture," who wrote down "the revelations of the Moon." But there is the other side to this. If most of the Brahmanical religious ceremonials are connected with the full moon, so do the dark ceremonials of the sorcerers take place at the new moon and its last quarter. For similarly when the lost human being, or sorcerer, attains the consummation of his depraved career, all the evil Karma, and the evil inspiration, comes down upon him as a dark incubus of iniquity from "the dark side of the moon," which is a terra incognita to Science, but a well explored land to the Adept. The Sorcerer, the Dugpa, who always performs his hellish rites on the day of the new moon, when the benignant influence of the Pitris is at its lowest ebb, crystallizes some of the Satanic energy of his predecessors in evil, and turns it to his own vile ends; while the Brahman, on the other hand, pursues a corresponding benevolent course with the energy bequeathed him by his Pitris . . . . Therefore, this is the true Spiritualism of which the heart and soul have been entirely missed by the modern Spiritualists. When the day of the full revelation comes, it will be seen that the so-called "superstitions" of Brahmanism and the ancient Pagans in general were merely natural and psychical sciences, veiled from the profane eyes of the ignorant multitudes, for fear of desecration and abuse, by allegorical and symbolical disguises that modern science has failed to discover.
We maintain then that no Theosophist has ever believed in, or helped to spread "degrading superstitions," any more than has any other philosophical or scientific Society. The only difference between the "Spirits" of other Societies, Sects and Bodies, and ours lies in their names, and in dogmatic assertions with regard to their natures. In those whom the millions of Spiritualists call the "Spirits of the Dead," and in whom the Roman Church sees the devils of the Host of Satan--we see neither. We call them, Dhyan Chohans, Devas, Pitris, Elementals high and low--and know them as the "Gods" of the Gentiles, imperfect at times, never wholly. Each order has its name, its place, its functions assigned to it in nature; and each host is the complement and crown of its own particular sphere as man is the complement and crown of his globe; hence, a natural and logical necessity in Kosmos.
H. P. Blavatasky
Lucifer, May, 1890