Article selections by James A. Campbell | Notes by H.P.B.
From the time when “Theosophy” as a system of faith, or rather of science and morals, was first heard of, I, as an old student of so-called Spiritualism (though transcendental materialism might be a better title), found myself much interested in its fortunes, and have since followed them carefully through good and evil report up to the present moment. The most evil report of all came, of course, from India in 1885, and curiously enough I had the, opportunity given me of hearing at the same time, privately, the opposite versions of the story told in letters from Adyar and from the Free Church College at Madras, before the matter was debated in the newspapers. Suffice it to say that the impression left upon me after it was all over has never varied from then till now. I see in Madame Blavatsky an extremely clever,1 enthusiastic and impressionable woman, surrounded by a crowd of enthusiastic and rather stupid disciples craving for a “proof from miracles” before they could do anything energetic for the cause which she had at heart and for which she had risked life and fortune. . . .
So long as the changing of pens into pen-wipers, the falling of mysterious missiles, the appearance of unexpected visitors and the sudden mending of broken china is generally held to prove either the virtues of a Teacher, or the value of his doctrine, the same sort of appeal will continue to be made by those who consider that in Philosophy and Religion, no less than in prize-fighting, it is important to have a good mob-backing.2 But however reprehensible it may be to become either a miracle-worker or a mountebank for the sake of a philosophical Idea,3 it is assuredly far worse to declare that one has assisted in working miracles for the sake of a living, and afterwards to turn informer, leave the scavengers of society to pick out from the unsavoury heap of mud and magic whatever abominations they shall choose, and assign all blame to those who have befriended us. . . .
Now a word about the good reports of the Society. These have little to do with miracles and deal with far more interesting subjects. The revival in India of an intensely keen interest in ancient Aryan literature, the strengthening of the bond of fellowship between native and European, the renewal of a healthy and hopeful activity in venerable Faiths which had almost ceased to influence conduct, the levelling of the barriers of sect and caste, and the publication of delightfully quaint fragments of ancient tradition, noble poetry, pithy fable and neglected folk-lore, by natives who had passed through no system of foreign culture, and who would have suffered many things rather than open their ancient treasurehouses to the investigations of an ordinary English editor.4 Work of this kind has been the real business of the Theosophical Society, and much of it has been done both honourably and well. Work that remains, as I endeavoured to point out to the S.P.R. unaffected by the actuality or falsehood of those little pieces of alleged Mahatma-performance at Adyar, just as Christianity remains unaffected by the gymnastics of the nearest pulpit . . .
. . .
As regards metaphysical infallibility, it has been claimed so often, by so many people, and for so many systems, that the reiteration of the claim by Theosophists is less striking than they might wish it to be. With caution, the Indian theories as to Reincarnation, the indisputable phenomena of English and American “Spiritualism,” to start with, a little subtle and diligent interweaving by an educated Hindu, or a speculative Scotchman, would bring something very similar to birth in a year.
Let the question of religious and metaphysical perfection be winnowed away then, along with the conjuring, and let us see if we have no strengthening wheat left in the little heap below our flails. Let us look upon Theosophy naturally, as a product of our own time, and not of the aeons or the Absolute, recognizing to the fullest extent how it has come to include within itself the unexhausted tendency of our Puritan breeding towards conflict between soul and body—toward what is called religious asceticism. Then the increasing tendency of unemployed but well-to-do persons towards marvel-hunting. And lastly the tendency of feverish and unhealthy brain-stimulation towards fruitless endeavour to plausibly solve the insoluble. Having done this honestly, we shall find afterwards on looking into each of these tendencies a little more closely, that they have, like every other product of human thought, valuable aspects as well as foolish ones, things to be taken to heart as well as things to be lightly passed over.
Take first of all Asceticism, the assertion of the supremacy of the Spirit and the reiterated advice to have done with the temporary and the fleshly,
Now the sense of larger living in Theosophy being undoubtedly a more complex, though I will not say a more delightful, thing than it is in Catholicism, involves the same kind of rebound from the physical and sensual world. The result being that while making tentative discoveries, which I hope to speak of more particularly presently, in a region of subtle sensation nreviously almost unentered, Theosophy warns us away from absorption in common life, just as fervently as does Buddhism or monkish Christianity.
. . .
1. We demur to the epithet “clever,” which is too elastic to be passed over without a few words of comment. “Clever” may mean talented, clever in speech and daily life, but it may also convey the sense of being dexterous, skilful, and a clever trickster. To the former we object, because if Mme. Blavatsky had been endowed with average common-sense, not to say cleverness, she would never have taken on board the Theosophical ship, almost without scrutiny, a lot of cabin and deck passengers, ready to bore holes in the bottom and scuttle the vessel, when not watched. As to the second definition, the only necessary reply is, that posterity will justly judge whether the public have been cheated by Mme. Blavatsky or her pretended exposers.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
2. And the changing of water into wine: was this no more dignified a “miracle,” also for “mob-backing”? For simple, honest folk, elementary phenomena; for the Gamaliels, philosophy.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
3. No true theosophist—the accused party least of all—believes in miracles, though every true theosophist ought to believe in the existence of` abnormal powers in man; “abnormal” because, so far, either misunderstood or denied. All such objective physical phenomena, however, are simply psychological “glamour,” i.e., if not witchery, at least “a charm on the eyes and senses.” This, people may call brutally “trick,” but since they are psychic, they cannot be physical; hence, no conjuring or “sleight of hand.” As well call “tricksters” the grave medical celebrities, who hypnotize their subjects to see things which have no reality! “Theosophical phenomena” differ from these in this: that while hypnotic hallucinations are suggested by the operator’s idle fancy, occult manifestations are produced by the will of the Occultist, that one or a hundred men should see realities, generally hidden from the profane, e.g., certain things and persons thousands of miles away, whose astral images are brought within the view of the audience. Thus a cup may never have been broken in reality, and yet people are made to see it shattered in atoms and then made whole. Is this a juggler’s trick? Occult phenomena are then simply a hundred-fold intensified hypnotism, and between the hypnotic hallucinations at the Salpêtrière and the magic of the East there is chiefly a question of degree.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
4. Why omit that branch of our work, which many deem the noblest, the founding of an Oriental Library which may become the most valuable in India, if present appearances are not deceptive; the opening of many Sanskrit schools; the publication of the Vedas in the original tongue? And why not mention our several charitable dispensaries, where from 10,000 to 15,000 poor patients are annually treated free of any charge?—Ed. [H.P.B.]
5. Then why has no one of them done so, before us? Moreover, no one, as far as we know, has ever claimed metaphysical infallibility—not even the Masters who do not demand from the Europeans even their due—a simple recognition of their wisdom.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
6. Our esteemed correspondent speaks like a materialist, even if a “transcendental” one. We occupy two different standing points, and therefore see things in different lights.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
7. To subordinate, rather, to assign the lower rank to the temporary, the higher to the eternal. See next foot-note, however.—Ed. [H.P.B.]
8. So does it, also, warn us against ascetic retirement, save in those very rare and exceptional cases where the individual has brought over from his last preceding birth an irrepressible attraction for the life of the Spirit and repugnance for the life of the flesh. The normal man is in normal sympathetic relation with his fellow men at each successive stage of human development. But under the law of psychical differentiation, there are in each epoch beings ahead of the average of the race at that time. From their number develop the teachers, seers and saviours of mankind.
Respecting the whole tenor of the above, we have only to thank our esteemed contributor for the doubts expressed in his article. In these days of wholesale slander:—
“. . . . that worst of poisons (which) ever finds
An easy entrance to ignoble minds,”
—as Juvenal says, even an honest and cautious doubt must be gratefully received. Moreover, there is a line of demarcation beyond which one ought rather to feel proud of being slandered, than otherwise. For Swift’s remark: “the worthiest people are the most injured by slander, as we usually find that to be the best fruit which the birds have been pecking at”—may serve as a consolation.—Ed. [H.P.B.]