I.

The student of Hindu metaphysical religious philosophy, will find most of its important formulations, veiled under a mystical symbolism; to understand which, is a key to the hints in the Upanishads and other esoteric writings.

We propose to give those interested, a series of illustrations from Hindu drawings with descriptions; in the latter, our study of the Kabbalah has been of great assistance.

The figure is a symbolical representation of Brahman (neuter) intwined in Itself.[125] It is the highest deity of the Hindus, the principle of the universe; the representation is, of It, at the immediate instant of Its revealing Itself in the emanation of the universe, and before Its entrance into any kind of matter and before Its self renunciation. It symbolises the God-dawn between the pauses of emanative creation, its preservation, and the dissolution of created forms. Wrapped in Its cloak-sphere, Brahman conducts Its toe into Its mouth, perhaps to make, an eternal circle of Itself, perhaps to signify the union of the linga and yoni, perhaps to indicate the retrogression of Itself into Itself, or may be the eternity and unfathomableness of Its nature, plunged in the contemplation of Its own essence. Compare with this the great figure of Néith or Typhé, the Heaven goddess of the Egyptian Zodiac of Dendera. Brahman (neuter) or Para-brahma, _i. e._, the Great Brahma, as an unrevealed deity, has neither temple or image in India. It is in effect considered in Itself without form or figure, but exteriorly It manifests Itself in many figures and symbols. It is the unit and the multiplied in all, at the same instant, smaller than an atom, it is greater than the whole universe, which cannot contain It, and is ineffable and inexpressible in Its essence. The ancient Hindus say of it in the Vedas:—“Brahman is eternal, the being above all others, revealing Itself in felicity and joy. The universe is Its name, Its image, but that first existence, which contains all in Itself, is the soul really existing. All the phenomena have their cause in Brahman, It is not limited by time or space, is imperishable, is the soul of the world and of each particular existence.” * * * “That universe is Brahman, it comes from Brahman, exists in Brahman, and it will return to Brahman.”

“Brahman, the Being existing in Itself, is the form of all wisdom and of all the worlds without end. All the worlds are made only one with It, because they are through Its Will. That eternal Will is innate in all things. It reveals Itself in the emanation (or creation), in the preservation, and in the destruction (which is also a re-creation), and in the movements and forms, of Time and Space.” The Atharva-Veda says:—“All the gods are in (Brahman) as cows in a cow-house. In the beginning Brahman was this (universe). It created gods. Having created gods, It placed them in these worlds, viz: Agni in this world, Vāyu in the atmosphere, and Surya in the sky.[126] And in the worlds which are yet higher, It placed the gods which are still higher. Then Brahman proceeded to the higher sphere.” This is explained by a commentator to be Satyaloka,[127] the most excellent limit of all the worlds. In the “Taitteriya Brāhmana” it is; “Brahman generated the gods, Brahman (generated or emanated) this entire world. Within It are all these worlds. Within It is the entire universe. It is Brahman who is the greatest of beings. Who can vie with It.” Brahman (neuter) is the only real eternal true essence; when It passes in to actual manifested existence It is called Brahma; when It develops Itself in the universe It is called Vishnu, and when It again dissolves Itself into simple being, It is called Siva; all the other deities are only symbols or manifestations of the eternal neuter Brahman.[128]

The Vishnu Purana says: “Glory to Brahman, who is addressed by that mystic word AUM,[129] who is associated eternally with the triple universe (heaven, sky, earth), and who is one with the four Vedas. Glory to Brahman, who both in the destruction and renovation of the universe is called the great and mysterious cause of the intellectual principle, who is without limit in time or space, and exempt from diminution and decay, etc. To that supreme Brahman be for ever adoration.”

In its highest development, the doctrine of the Vedas is a rational and philosophical pantheism, combined with the most ideal, pure, and absolute monotheism, that the mind can conceive. The doctrines as to Brahman (neuter) in their higher conceptions, are similar in many respects to the exalted ideas as to the Ain Soph or Non Ego, of the Kabbalah.

Brahman, the Eternal, in Itself, Being, goes out of Its profundity in Its eternity, to emanate the universe of all the things, and undeniably establishes that great law of production, through the opposition and yet a harmonious blending, as to which, all nature offers everywhere a similitude, evidence, and image. Its first emanation is the creating energy, force or potentiality, which manifests Itself in Time, the mother and the matrix of the existences, that is the Sakti, Para Sakti or Maya, the first virgin and first female or plasticity, containing all in germ, symbolized by the Yoni. Its spouse, the spiritualizing, the man-type, is symbolized by the Lingam. ISAAC MEYER.

LITERARY NOTES.

BETTY’S VISIONS.—By Rhoda Broughton. (_Geo. Routledge & Sons, London._) The prominence which occultism is acquiring, despite the attacks of so called scientific bodies and the constant sneers of savants and their parrot-like followers, is shown in the fact that such a book as this is published by a firm like Routledge and written by Rhoda Broughton. It is one of the one and sixpenny English books, in cloth. The visions are five—through a long life—each preceding a death in the family.

* * * * *

ESOTERIC CHRISTIANITY, OR MENTAL THERAPEUTICS.—By Dr. W. F. Evans. (_Carter & Karrick, Boston._) Extra cloth, $1.00. This is designed to complete a series of books on the subject of the Mind Cure, commenced some fifteen years ago. It contains twelve lectures intended to instruct in the philosophy of the subject. “To aid the student of Christian Theosophy to explore the inner realm of truth into which his spirit opens is the object of this volume,” and he believes that the principles are “identical with the philosophy of the New Testament and with primitive Christianity.” The book is well written, and is full of excellent arguments, but it covers so much ground that it would be impossible to properly review it in the limits allowable here.

We must disagree with him, however, in his statement: “That this system must ever be kept within the domain of a genuine Christianity,” to be successful. It is well known that hundreds of persons are practising mind cure, are helping many people, and none of these either believe in or talk of Christianity, genuine or otherwise. If mind cure have a real basis, no monopoly of it can be had by either Christian or dissenter.

* * * * *

BUDDHIST DIET BOOK.—A New York publishing house announces this book, prepared by Laura C. Holloway. It is a compilation of dishes used by Buddhists in Europe and the East, interspersed with explanations of the religious convictions of this great Sect regarding foods. The work will be of value to vegetarians—of whom there are many in this country. Mrs. Holloway writes with authority on this subject, having enjoyed in Europe and Prussia the advantages of an unmixed vegetarian diet in the homes of those who eat no meat. The book is a quaint brown-and-white conceit in parchment covers. Price 50 cents. Theosophists who desire to have this vegetarian cook book, can order it through THE PATH.

* * * * *

CAN MATTER THINK.—This number of Prof. Coues’ Biogen Series was noticed in the July PATH, and through a mistaken assumption of the proof reader it was stated that it was a reprint of an article which previously appeared in _The Theosophist_. Prof. Coues assures us that “Can Matter Think,” is a thoroughly original composition and has never been within 10,000 miles of India. The proof reader was thinking of the reprint of an English book under the title “Kuthumi,” in the same series, and also of the fact that the same subject was treated of in _The Theosophist_ some years ago. We hasten, therefore, to correct the statement made in July.

THEOSOPHICAL ACTIVITIES.

JOSHEE.—Bro. Gopal Vinayak Joshee and his wife Anandabai, who graduated in Medicine at Philadelphia, return to India in October.

* * * * *

RAMABAI.—Pandita Ramabai, who has been some time in America, accompanies Bro. Joshee and his wife to India.

* * * * *

PHILADELPHIA.—The charter for a new Branch here has been received and probably soon the organization will be complete.

* * * * *

SECRECY IN THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.—The question is frequently asked: “Is the Society a secret body; and how can a person enter it?” The reply can be found in the proceedings of the general Council last year, when it was resolved, that from thenceforth any person of good moral character, upon being recommended by two active members, and paying the usual fee, could become a member upon signing the application in which the declaration is made that the signer is in sympathy with the objects of the Society.

The old obligation is retained merely for those Branches desiring to use it in giving the signs and passwords of the Society, which are the only points about which the new member is pledged to secrecy, it being left to his own discretion and sense of propriety, not to make public matters which do not concern the public. For that matter, however, there is nothing in the teachings or practices of the lower section of the Society requiring secrecy.

* * * * *

NEW YORK.—The New York Branch has issued its third number of the _Abridgements of Discussions_ on Theosophical subjects. The object of these leaflets is to increase interest among all Theosophists, and to strengthen the feeling of union. Col. H. S. Olcott, the President in India, has written to say, that he thinks the idea of the Abridgements is excellent. All Branches ought to co-operate in this movement, either by contributing questions and answers to New York, or by starting leaflets of their own and exchanging and distributing them.

* * * * *

CINCINNATI.—The Branch here has held its first fall meeting, and has arranged for a series of essays of an interesting character, and also for meetings, to which strangers are to be invited by members.

* * * * *

OLCOTT.—It may be interesting to Theosophists to know that a statue was offered to Col. Olcott in Ceylon some months ago, but was refused by him on the ground that his work was not yet done, and no one could say whether he would deserve a statue until his death.

* * * * *

There is a limit beyond which the sun, moon and the planets cannot rise, and when they reach their point of climax, they come down again. But the souls that have attained to perfection never come down again.—_Jain Precept._

OM!

FOOTNOTES:

[120] Intell. Obs. Vol. 7.

[121] Notes on Mohammedanism.

[122] The Zikrs will be described in next number of THE PATH.

[123] Those words are continually giving rise to misunderstandings and misinterpretations, because nearly every one has a different opinion of what is “Good.”

[124] See Bagavad-Gita, c. 6.

[125] Taken from the Glauben, Wissen und Kunst der alten Hindus, etc., von Niklas Müller. Erster Band, Mainz, 1822.

[126] Fire, Æther, Light.

[127] _Satya-Loka_, the place, world, or region of Truth.—[ED.]

[128] See Indian Wisdom by Monier Williams, p. 12.

[129] This occurs at the beginning of prayers, etc., as our word AMeN occurs at the end. It is so sacred that none must hear it pronounced. Originally its three letters typified the three Vedas, afterwards it became a mystical symbol of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva in unity; see further as to AUM _supra_.

AUM

Sri Krishna is the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings; his unthinkable glory irradiates all that is manifest and all that is unmanifest. This infinite universe, its life and its beauty, and its joy, rest but on his foot, from which flows the sacred stream of the Ganges, whose mortal aspect alone is known on this earth. Krishna reveals his infinity of attributes to his beloved worshipper, and yet he is devoid of attributes.

It is the crown of devotion to have these mysteries revealed to the inner gaze. May all his lovers reach that goal.—_Vaishnara Scriptures._

Inquire about him by prostration, by question, and by service, and the wise men who know the truth, will give you the knowledge.—_Bagavad-Gita._

THE PATH.

VOL. I. NOVEMBER, 1886. NO. 8.

_The Theosophical Society, as such, is not responsible for any opinion or declaration in this magazine, by whomsoever expressed, unless contained in an official document._

Where any article, or statement, has the author’s name attached, he alone is responsible, and for those which are unsigned, the Editor will be accountable.

THE COMMON SENSE OF THEOSOPHY.

[REPRINTED FROM THE _Dublin University Review_, MAY, 1886, BY PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR.]

It is difficult to break down the Chinese wall of misconceptions with which all new movements of thought become more or less completely surrounded. The assimilation by the public mind of ideas which lie outside its mechanically-regulated every-day life is a slow process, which the vigour of the constitution does not justify. For all movements, which possess any vitality at all, always provoke to an unusual degree of activity the imaginative faculties of their opponents. More or less fantastic caricatures of the aims and methods of a struggling movement are generated by an unconscious process of invention, fathered upon the movement, and then knocked down with solemn pomposity. At the end of the achievement, when the invader of orthodox indolence and respectable indifference is found to gain ground in the midst of the dust-storm of misrepresentations, a wondering sneer is directed against personalities who have not had the decency and good sense to die at the command of their antagonists. The Theosophical movement has proved no exception to this general rule. Oppositions against it are generally but attempts to remove this disturber of established ease by finding some excuse for ignoring its existence. False issues are raised in every direction, and a candid examination of the truths that Theosophy embodies is evaded in the confusion. It is a profitless task to hunt the brood of Error which, like the giants of Norse folk-lore, sally forth at night to slay and devour, but melt into thin air when surprised by a ray of sunlight. Kicking at nothing is an exhausting process. Unmindful of this, many, in the words of the author of _Religio Medici_, have “rashly charged the troops of Error, and remained as trophies unto the enemies.” It is therefore proposed to set forth a “plain, unvarnished” statement of what Theosophy really is, and of the work in which the Theosophical Society is engaged, and leave the decision to the common sense of the reader. The transcendental metaphysics of Theosophy will be but slightly touched upon here. For fuller information the inquirer is referred to sources indicated by the publications of the Theosophical Society and the writings of the Theosophists of the day.

What, then, is Theosophy? Numberless are the misconceptions to which the word has given rise. Etymology does not throw any great light on it. The interpretation of “God-wisdom” can be spread over a very large area. Without following the history of the word, it may be stated that the chief exponents of the present revival of Theosophy take it to mean Wisdom-religion. Their interpretation, while open to no great philological objection, is sufficiently precise for all literary purposes. Theosophy from this standpoint is synonymous with Truth—the Truth that has been clothed in various garbs of religion; it also implies that this Truth is attainable by a natural development of wisdom, without the intervention of supernatural means. Thus it will be seen that Theosophy does not attach infallibility to any

## particular system of revelation, but maintains that under suitable

conditions Truth reveals itself to every individual. The sun shines equally on all; the crystal reflects it; the clod of earth does not. Yet Theosophy sets great value on all systems of revelation, looking upon them as finger-posts which indicate the direction in which Truth is to be sought, although it declines to accept them as invitations to surrender personal inquiry. This tenet of Theosophy is founded upon the consideration that Truth is the result of real experience, and does not consist in the transfer of intellectual symbols from one person to another. To speak about Truth is one thing, and to perceive it is quite another. It is a fact of common experience that the most accurate and elaborate description of, say, a flower is by no means an efficient substitute for a visual contact with it, although the description has an abundant value of its own. Hence individual consciousness is consistently upheld as the only criterion of Truth, but this consciousness derives material help in its development and expansion by the study of the experiences of others. Thus Theosophy teaches that _personal exertion is the only means by which progress can be achieved_. But in the effort for growth the ultimate unity of consciousness must not be ignored. Individuals are not distinct crystals, placed side by side, but the varied manifestations of one unchanging universal consciousness. As light from one single source produces the appearance of different lights by reflection from a number of surfaces, so this universal consciousness, remaining itself unchanged, produces endless individualities, which in the course of their evolution reach perfection by recognising this essential unity. According to Theosophical thinkers this doctrine forms the fundamental truth upon which all religions are based; it is the final consummation of all philosophical thought and the crowning experience of all practical mysticism.

The search for this truth, and the practical realization of it are not considered as mere gratification of intellectual curiosity, but as the very _summum bonum_ of evolutionary progress. It is the Nirvâna of the Buddhists, the Moksha of the Brahmins, and not very different from the Beatific Vision of the Christians. When this condition, or rather want of condition, is realized in consciousness, pain is for ever extinguished. Nirvâna is by no means the annihilation of consciousness, but its rest in the infinite plenitude of being. Needless to discuss the Nihilist view of Buddhism which some scholars of ability have brought forward; suffice it to say, that the Theosophists on this point share the responsibility of their opinion with many names of great eminence. Nirvâna is the extinction of all pain because, being the ultimate unity of all being, it cannot be the playground of those contending forces which alone produce pain.

Proceeding upon this basis, the essential features of Theosophy can be thrown into relief by determining its relations to Religion and Science. As the Science of Religion, it looks upon the different systems of faith as so many languages seeking to express the truth about man, his origin, nature, and destiny, as well as his relations to the surrounding world of objects. But, as a word or phrase is nothing but a sound in the absence of experience of the object connoted, so the proper comprehension of religious symbology can be acquired only by realizing the truths that underlie it. From the Theosophic standpoint the different systems of religion appear as the various forms evolved by the peculiarities of time, place, and other special causes, to embody the bodiless truth.

It is necessary to guard against a misconception which may arise here. Theosophy is not eclecticism, which is a mosaic, while Wisdom-Religion is an organic whole. Theosophy is like an abstract mathematical formula of which each religion is a particular application. It does not select bits from all religions and piece them together according to some fanciful standard of symmetry. But being the inner truth itself, Theosophy regards religions as various descriptions of that truth. It will no more recognise antagonism between religions than the linguist will condemn the description of the same thing in different languages because of peculiarities of idiom and grammar. Theosophy is not hostile to any religion, but is bound, in the interest of truth, to oppose the tyranny of ecclesiastical forms on individuals. Humanity, in the course of its evolution, produces individuals who outstrip the generality in the realization of truth, and are thus enabled to perceive the capabilities of the truth to be manifested within a certain period of time. To help the masses struggling blindly for the light of truth, these teachers of mankind construct a symbology of words and emblems to represent the truth. But, as acquisition of wisdom is a change in the quality of the consciousness of the acquirer, and not merely a surface expansion of it, the symbology, though eminently useful, is not in itself spiritual knowledge, and can never be converted into it except when “inwardly digested.” The physical process of digestion supplies a striking analogy in this matter. Food, assimilated by different organisms, follows their original differences. Spiritual food, on assimilation, partakes of the peculiarities of the individual, and two individuals cannot be exactly identical, whether physically or otherwise. A contrary supposition would violate the _lex parsimoniæ_ in nature. Consequently, Theosophy is the uncompromising supporter of the freedom of individual conscience. On the other hand, it condemns a selfish desire for self-development as wrong, on account of its violation of the essential unity of being. One of the greatest Theosophists of the world, Gautama Buddha, declared, “Let the sins of the Kali Yuga[130] fall upon me, and let the world be redeemed.” This noble saying found an echo in the Christian Apostle, who would be anathema from Christ if he could save the world thereby.

Nor has Theosophy any antagonism to the scientific spirit. Claiming to be the religion of Truth, it must show itself to be the most exact of all exact sciences. According to it truth cannot be dissociated from real experience; the mere intellectual form of it can never be the truth any more than the word man can be the human being. It opposes the dogmatisms of science which deny independent reality to facts of mental experience because of their eminently unscientific character. If there be no operation of thought matter itself will disappear. The contrary of this—existence of matter without relation to a conscious knower—has never been experienced. Therefore matter and consciousness are both eternal or neither. Further, it rejects the mechanical theory of the universe on account of its unreasonableness. If consciousness is derivable from unconsciousness, a fundamental law of reason becomes stultified. Unconsciousness is the negation of consciousness, and therefore an affirmation of the absence of all relations to consciousness is its essential property. How, then, can it be related to consciousness so as to produce it? If the atoms themselves are considered conscious the difficulty is not removed. For consciousness must be associated with the notion of I, and if this egoism is to be postulated for each atom it is inexplicable how a man, composed of myriads of atoms, possesses yet a single indivisible notion of I. It is clear therefore that there is in nature a principle of consciousness whose units are not atoms but individualities, and as the principle is eternal its units must also be so. For the ocean cannot be salt unless the quality of saltness inhered in every one of its drops. Theosophy for these, among other reasons, holds against materialism that the individuality in man is immortal. In this, however, it does not maintain that the present body, emotion or thought of a man will as such abide for ever, but that the unit of consciousness which is now manifested as the man, will never undergo any change in essence. For change, independent of consciousness, is unthinkable. It is in fact the unchangeableness of consciousness that by comparison renders the conception of change a reality. In ordinary language no doubt such phrases as the “growth and development of consciousness” are in use, but strictly speaking it is the basis in which the consciousness inheres that changes, the phrases in question being of the same character as those which ascribe motion to the sun in relation to the earth. Moreover, if one unit of consciousness were to change in essence, that is, become annihilated, the same liability must attach to all other units, and we shall be driven to hold that the principle of consciousness in nature is destructible, while matter which cannot exist in its absence is indestructible. From the indestructibility of individual consciousness, and its relations to matter, two important deductions follow. First, that this relation, which is perpetually changing, changes according to a definite law. The products of the change are bound each to each in a definite way. What is now is not wholly unrelated to what was before. This is a matter of experience, and in fact experience is based upon it. Without the law of causation experience would be impossible, on whatever plane we take experience—mental or physical. Thus by the application of the law of causation to our being, it follows that the experience of pleasure and pain in the present must be the necessary consequence of causes generated in the past. A contention may here be raised that it is a fact of experience that many sufferings and enjoyments come to us of which we are not conscious of having generated the causes. But it is without any real force. What connection is there between _our_ consciousness of a cause and its power to produce effect? If we receive in the system malarious germs, the disease is not prevented because we were unconscious of the reception. Whatever you sow the same you reap, whether you are conscious of the sowing or not. The law of causation, thus applied to personal experience of suffering and enjoyment, is called by the Brahmins and Buddhists the Law of Karma.

The second deduction hinges on to the first and forms with it a harmonious whole. If the individual consciousness is immortal, and its experiences are governed by the Law of Karma, then it follows that so long as all causes, capable of producing effects on the present plane of life, are not exhausted, and the generation of similar causes is not stopped, the individual consciousness will remain connected with the experience of earthly existence. Thus the ego successively incarnates itself on this earth until it has collected all experiences that life on this planet can offer. The doctrine of reincarnation is taught by all religions of the world, Christianity not excepted. In the Gospel of St Matthew it is declared in no uncertain tone that John the Baptist was the incarnation of Elias (chap. xvii. 12, 13). It is not intended fully to discuss the scientific and metaphysical bases of the doctrine of reincarnation, as the subject has been adequately dealt with in a recent Theosophical publication.[131] But it will not be out of place to consider the ethical objection which is so frequently brought forward against the doctrine. Is it just that a person should experience pleasure or pain for acts done in a previous life of which no recollection is preserved? The argument thus implied is based upon the confusion of the two different meanings of the word justice as applied to the regulation of human affairs, and to the operation of natural laws. Human beings are admittedly imperfect in knowledge, and it is required for the well-being of society that all its members should feel confident that they are not liable to arbitrary punishment. For this reason it is necessary that before inflicting punishment the grounds for it should be disclosed. But justice, as affecting the operation of natural laws, is a totally different thing. The workings of nature being invariably governed by the law of Causation are not amenable to conditions which depend upon admitted inability to apply that law without failure. The moral amelioration, which it is fancied that a knowledge of the precise cause of our sufferings would produce, is more than compensated for by the numberless incentives to good, which gratitude and other similar motives supply.

The teachings of Theosophy from the standpoint of common sense can be briefly summed up thus:—

1. That there is a principle of consciousness in man which is immortal.

2. That this principle is manifested in successive incarnations on earth.

3. That the experiences of the different incarnations are strictly governed by the law of causation.

4. That as each individual man is the result of a distinct causal necessity in nature, it is not wise for one man to dominate the life and action of another, no matter what their relative development may be. On the other hand it is of paramount importance that each individual should ceaselessly work for the attainment of the highest ideal that he is capable of conceiving. Otherwise, pain will arise from the opposition of the real and the ideal. Be as perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.

5. That for the above reasons it is wise and just to practise the most ungrudging toleration towards all our fellow-creatures.

6. That as absolute unity of all nature subsists for ever, all self-centred actions are bound to end in pain to the actor on account of their opposition to this fact. The foundation of morals must therefore lie in the feeling of Universal Brotherhood of Man.

7. That the harmony of the unit with the whole is the only condition which can remove all pain, and as each individual represents a distinct causal operation of nature, this harmony is attainable only through the individual’s own exertions.

The Theosophical Society is an organization having for its object the study of truth upon the most unsectarian basis, and as a result of such study it believes that the truths enumerated above are, if generally accepted, calculated greatly to benefit the age. It is necessary, however, to add that there are many members in the Society, earnest in the pursuit of truth, who are not prepared to subscribe to all these doctrines without further thought and study; but all are agreed as to the ethical principles involved therein. The chief aim of the Theosophical Society is “to form the nucleus of a universal Brotherhood of mankind without distinction of race, color or creed.” The basis of brotherhood, which the Theosophical Society considers scientific has already been adverted to. The Theosophic brotherhood does not limit the freedom of individual development. It requires nothing from its members but a desire to recognise the unity of the human family as a natural fact which cannot be ignored with impunity, and a living conscious feeling of which is sure to lead to the highest development of the individual.

The Theosophical Society is convinced that the most efficacious means for the study of truth is furnished by the ancient religious and philosophical systems of the world, as they are free from the disturbing influences by which contemporary forms are surrounded. The Society therefore earnestly labours to promote an appreciative study of Eastern philosophy, built up by generations of Theosophists, as affording easy access to the Wisdom-Religion of the world.

Further, the Society seeks to combat materialism by the investigation of abnormal phenomena which afford a practical demonstration of the existence of a Psyche in man and to lead to a proper comprehension of the laws which underlie those phenomena. Theosophists do not believe in supernaturalism, and discard the notion of miracles as involving an unreasonable limitation of the possibilities of nature. The views of the leading Theosophists with regard to this subject are to be found very ably expounded in Madame Blavatsky’s _Isis Unveiled_, and Mr. Sinnett’s _Esoteric Buddhism_. All Theosophists, whether in perfect agreement with these views or not, look upon them as opening immense vistas of thought on subjects which are as important as they are neglected.

In conclusion, it is to be clearly stated that the Theosophical Society is composed of a body of earnest students and inquirers, and not of dogmatic teachers. But naturally a large number of members hold convictions in common on many points. Yet in each case the final authority comes from no external source but from within.

“There is no religion higher than Truth,” is the motto of the Society. MOHINI M. CHATTERJI.

THEORIES: ABOUT REINCARNATION AND SPIRITS.

BY H. P. BLAVATSKY.

Over and over again the abstruse and mooted question of Rebirth or Reincarnation has crept out during the first ten years of the Theosophical Society’s existence. It has been alleged on _prima facie_ evidence, that a notable discrepancy was found between statements made in “_Isis Unveiled_” Vol. I, 351-2, and later teachings from the same pen and under the inspiration of the same master.[132]

In _Isis_, it was held,—reincarnation is denied. An occasional return, only of “depraved spirits” is allowed. “Exclusive of that rare and doubtful possibility, ‘_Isis_’ allows only three cases—abortion, very early death, and idiocy—in which reincarnation on this earth occurs.” (“C. C. M.” in _Light_, 1882.)

The charge was answered then and there as every one who will turn to the _Theosophist_ of August, 1882, can see for himself. Nevertheless, the answer either failed to satisfy some readers or passed unnoticed. Leaving aside the strangeness of the assertion that _reincarnation_—_i. e._, the serial and periodical rebirth of every individual _monad_ from _pralaya_ to _pralaya_[133] is denied in the face of the fact that the doctrine is part and parcel and one of the fundamental features of Hinduism and Buddhism, the charge amounted virtually to this: the writer of the present, a professed admirer and student of Hindu philosophy, and as professed a follower of Buddhism years before _Isis_ was written, by rejecting reincarnation must necessarily reject KARMA likewise! For the latter is the very _corner_-stone of Esoteric philosophy and Eastern religions; it is the grand and one pillar _on which hangs the whole philosophy of rebirths_, and once the latter is denied, the whole doctrine of Karma falls into meaningless verbiage.

Nevertheless, the opponents without stopping to think of the evident “discrepancy” between charge and fact, accused a Buddhist by profession of faith of denying reincarnation hence also by implication—Karma. Adverse to wrangling with one who was a friend and undesirous at the time, to enter upon a defence of details and internal evidence—a loss of time indeed,—the writer answered merely with a few sentences. But it now becomes necessary to well define the doctrine. Other critics have taken the same line, and by misunderstanding the passages to that effect in _Isis_ they have reached the same rather extraordinary conclusions.

To put an end to such useless controversies, it is proposed to explain the doctrine more clearly.

Although, in view of the later more minute renderings of the esoteric doctrines, it is quite immaterial what may have been written in “_Isis_”—an encyclopedia of occult subjects in which each of these is _hardly sketched_—let it be known at once, that the writer maintains the correctness of every word given out upon the subject in my earlier volumes. What was said in the _Theosophist_ of August, 1882, may now be repeated here. The passage quoted from it may be, and is, most likely “incomplete, chaotic, vague, perhaps clumsy, as are many more passages in that work the first literary production of a foreigner who even now can hardly boast of her knowledge of the English language.” Nevertheless it is quite correct so far as that collateral feature of reincarnation is therein concerned.

I will now give extracts from _Isis_ and proceed to explain every passage criticised, wherein it was said that “a few _fragments_ of this mysterious doctrine of reincarnation as _distinct from_ metempsychosis”—would be then presented. Sentences now explained are in italics.

“Reincarnation _i. e._ the appearance of the same individual, _or rather of his astral monad, twice on the same planet_ is not a rule in nature, it is an exception, like the teratological phenomenon of a two-headed infant. It is preceded by a _violation of the laws of harmony of nature_, and happens only when the latter _seeking_ to _restore_ its _disturbed equilibrium, violently throws back into earth-life the astral monad which had been tossed out of the circle of necessity by crime or accident_. Thus in cases of abortion, of infants dying before a certain age, and of congenital and incurable idiocy, nature’s original design to produce a perfect human being, has been interrupted. Therefore, while the gross matter of each of these several entities is suffered to disperse itself at death, through the vast realm of being, _the immortal spirit and astral monad of the individual—the latter having been set apart_ to animate a frame and the former to shed its divine light on the corporeal organization—_must try a second time to carry out the purpose of the creative intelligence_.” (Vol. 1. p. 351.)

Here the “astral monad” or body of the deceased personality—say of John or Thomas—is meant. It is that which, in the teachings of the Esoteric philosophy of Hinduism, is known under its name of _bhoot_; in the Greek philosophy is called the _simulacrum_ or _umbra_, and in all other philosophies worthy of the name is said, as taught in the former, to disappear after a certain period more or less prolonged in _Kama-loka_—the Limbus of the Roman Catholics, or _Hades_ of the the Greeks.[134] It is “a violation of the laws of harmony of nature,” though it be so decreed by those of _Karma_—every time that the astral monad, or the _simulacrum_ of the personality—of John or Thomas—instead of running down to the end of its natural period of time in a body—finds itself (a) violently thrown out of it by whether early death or accident; or (b) is compelled in consequence of its unfinished task to reappear, (_i. e. the same astral body wedded to the same immortal monad_) on earth again, in order to complete the unfinished task. Thus “it must try a second time to carry out the purpose of creative intelligence” or _law_.

If reason has been so far developed as to become active and discriminative there is no[135] (_immediate_) _reincarnation_ on this earth, for the three parts of the triune man have been united together, and he is capable of running the race. But when the new being has not passed beyond the condition of Monad, or when, as in the idiot, the trinity has not been completed on earth and therefore cannot be so after death, the immortal spark which illuminates it, has to re-enter on the earthly plane as it was frustrated in its first attempt. Otherwise, the mortal or astral, and the immortal or divine souls, _could not progress in unison and pass onward to the sphere above_[136] (_Devachan_). Spirit follows a line parallel with that of matter; and the spiritual evolution goes hand in hand with the physical.

The Occult Doctrine teaches that:—

(1) There is no _immediate_ reincarnation on Earth for the Monad, as falsely taught by the Reincarnationists Spiritists; nor is there any second incarnation at all for the “_personal_” or _false_ Ego—the _perisprit_—save the exceptional cases mentioned. But that (_a_) there are rebirths, or periodical reincarnations for the immortal Ego—(“Ego” during the cycle of rebirths, and _non_-Ego, in Nirvana or Moksha when it becomes _impersonal_ and _absolute_); for that Ego is the root of every new incarnation, the string on which are threaded, one after the other, the false personalities or illusive bodies called men, in which the Monad-Ego incarnates itself during the cycle of births; and (_b_) that such reincarnations take place not before 1,500, 2,000, and even 3,000 years of Devachanic life.

(2) That _Manas_—the seat of _Jiv_, that spark which runs the round of the cycle of birth and rebirths with the Monad, from the beginning to the end of a Manvantara,—is the real _Ego_. That (_a_) the _Jiv_ follows the divine monad that gives it spiritual life and immortality into Devachan,—that therefore, it can neither be reborn before its appointed period, nor reappear on Earth _visibly_ or _invisibly_ in the _interim_; and (_b_) that, unless the fruition, the spiritual aroma of the Manas—or all these highest aspirations and spiritual qualities and attributes that constitute the higher SELF of man become united to its monad, the latter becomes as _Non_ existent; since it is _in esse_ “impersonal” and _per se_ Ego-less, so to say, and gets its spiritual colouring or flavour of Egotism only from each _Manas_ during incarnation and after it is disembodied, and separated from all its lower principles.

(3) That the remaining four principles, or rather the—2½—as they are composed of the terrestrial portion of _Manas_ of its Vehicle _Kama~Rupa_ and _Lingha Sarira_,—the body dissolving immediately, and _prana_ or the life principle along with it,—that these principles having belonged to the _false_ personality are unfit for Devachan. The latter is the state of Bliss, the reward for all the undeserved miseries of life,[137] and that which prompted man to sin, namely his terrestrial passionate nature can have no room in it.

Therefore the reincarnating principles are left behind in _Kama-loka_, firstly as a material residue, then later on as a reflection on the mirror of Astral light. Endowed with _illusive_ action, to the day when having gradually faded out they disappear, what is it but the Greek _Eidolon_ and the _simulacrum_ of the Greek and Latin poets and classics?

“What reward or punishment can there be in that sphere of disembodied human entities for a _fœtus_ or a human embryo which had not even time to breathe on this earth, still less an opportunity to exercise the divine faculties of its spirit? Or, for an irresponsible infant, whose senseless monad remaining dormant within the astral and physical casket, could as little prevent him from burning himself as any other person to death? Or again for one idiotic from birth, the number of whose cerebral circumvolutions is only from twenty to thirty per cent. of those of sane persons, and who therefore is irresponsible for either his disposition, acts, or for the imperfections of his vagrant, half-developed intellect.” (_Isis_, vol. 1, p. 352.)

These are then, the “exceptions” spoken of in _Isis_, and the doctrine is maintained now as it was then. Moreover, there is no “discrepancy” but only _incompleteness_—hence, misconceptions arising from later teachings. Then again, there are several important mistakes in _Isis_ which, as the plates of the work had been _stereotyped_ were not corrected in subsequent editions.

One of such is on page 346, and another in connection with it and as a sequence on page 347.

The discrepancy between the first portion of the statement and the last, ought to have suggested the idea of an evident mistake. It is addressed to the spiritists, _reincarnationists_ who take the more than ambiguous words of Apuleius as a passage that corroborates their claims for their “spirits” and reincarnation. Let the reader judge[138] whether Apuleius does not justify rather _our_ assertions. We are charged with denying reincarnation and this is what we said there and then in _Isis_!

“The _philosophy_ teaches that nature _never leaves her work unfinished; if baffled at the first attempt, she tries again_. When she evolves a human embryo, the intention is that a man shall be perfected—physically, intellectually, and spiritually. His body is to grow, mature, wear out, and die; his mind unfold, ripen, and be harmoniously balanced; his divine spirit illuminate and blend easily with the inner man. No human being completes its grand cycle, or the “circle of necessity,” until all these are accomplished. As the laggards in a race struggle and plod in their first quarter while the victor darts past the goal, so, in the race of immortality, some souls outspeed all the rest and reach the end, while their myriad competitors are toiling under the load of matter, close to the starting point. Some unfortunates fall out entirely and lose all chance of the prize; some retrace their steps and begin again.“

Clear enough this, one should say. Nature baffled _tries again_. No one can pass out of this world, (our earth) without becoming perfected ”_physically_, _morally_ and _spiritually_.” How can this be done, unless there _is a series of rebirths_ required for the necessary perfection in each department—to evolute in the “circle of necessity,” can surely never be found in one human life? and yet this sentence is followed without any break by the following parenthetical statement: “This is what the Hindu dreads above all things—_transmigration_ and _reincarnation_; only on other and inferior planets, never on this one!!!”

The last “sentence” is a fatal mistake and one to which the writer pleads “_not guilty_.” It is evidently the blunder of some “reader” who had no idea of Hindu philosophy and who was led into a subsequent mistake on the next page, wherein the unfortunate word “planet” is put for _cycle_. “_Isis_” was hardly, if ever, looked into after its publication by its writer, who had other work to do; otherwise there would have been an apology and a page pointing to the _errata_ and the sentence made to run: “The Hindu dreads transmigration in other _inferior_ forms, on this planet.”

This would have dove-tailed with the preceding sentence, and would show a fact, as the Hindu _exoteric_ views allow him to believe and fear the possibility of reincarnation—human and animal in turn by jumps, from man to beast and even a plant—and _vice versa_; whereas _esoteric_ philosophy teaches that nature never proceeding backward in her evolutionary progress, once that man has evoluted from every kind of lower forms—the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms—into the human form, he can never become an animal except morally, hence—_metaphorically_. Human incarnation is a cyclic necessity, and law; and no Hindu dreads it—however much he may deplore the necessity. And this law and the periodical recurrence of man’s rebirth is shown on the same page (346) and in the same unbroken paragraph, where it is closed by saying that:

“But there is a way to avoid it. Buddha taught it in his doctrine of poverty, restriction of the senses, perfect indifference to the objects of this earthly vale of tears, freedom from passion, and frequent intercommunication with the Atma—soul-contemplation. _The cause of reincarnation is ignorance[139] of our senses, and the idea that there is any reality in the world, anything except abstract existence._ From the organs of sense comes the “hallucination” we call contact; “from contact, desire; from desire, sensation (which also is a deception of our body,) from sensation, the cleaving to existing bodies; from this cleaving, reproduction; and from reproduction, disease, decay, and death.”

This ought to settle the question and show there must have been some carelessly unnoticed mistake and if this is not sufficient, there is something else to demonstrate it, for it is further on:

“Thus, like the revolutions of a wheel, _there is a regular succession of death and birth_, the moral cause of which is the cleaving to existing objects, while the instrumental cause is _Karma_ (the power which controls the universe, prompting it to activity,) merit and demerit. It is therefore, the great desire of all beings who would be released _from the sorrows of successive birth_, to seek the destruction of the moral cause the cleaving to existing objects, or evil desire.”

“They in whom evil desire is entirely destroyed are called _Arhats_. Freedom from evil desire insures the possession of a _miraculous_ power. At his death, the Arhat is never reincarnated; he invariably attains nirvana—a word, by the by, falsely interpreted by the Christian scholar and skeptical commentators. Nirvana is the world of _cause_, in which all deceptive effects or delusions of our senses disappear. Nirvana is the highest attainable sphere. The _pitris_ (the pre-Adamic spirits) are considered as reincarnated by the Buddhistic philosopher, though in a degree far superior to that of the man of earth. Do they not die in their turn? Do not their astral bodies suffer and rejoice, and feel the same curse of illusionary feelings as when embodied?”

And just after this we are again made to say of Buddha and his Doctrine of “Merit and Demerit,” or Karma:

“But this _former life_ believed in by the Buddhists, is not a life on _this planet_ for, more than any other people, the Buddhistical philosopher appreciated the great doctrine of cycles.”

Correct “life on this planet” by “_life in the same cycle_,” and you will have the correct reading: for what would have appreciation of “the great doctrine of cycles” to do with Buddha’s philosophy, had the great sage believed but in one short life on this Earth and in the same cycle. But to return to the real theory of reincarnation as in the esoteric teaching and its unlucky rendering in _Isis_.

Thus, what was really meant therein, was that, the principle which _does not reincarnate_—save the exceptions pointed out—is the _false_ personality, the illusive human Entity defined and individualized during this short life of ours, under some specific form and name; but that which _does_ and has to reincarnate _nolens volens_ under the unflinching, stern rule of Karmic law—is the real EGO. This confusing of the real immortal Ego in man, with the false and ephemeral _personalities_ it inhabits during its Manvantaric progress, lies at the root of every such misunderstanding. Now what is the one, and what is the other? The first group is—

1. The immortal Spirit—sexless, formless (arupa) an emanation from the One universal BREATH.

2. Its Vehicle—the _divine_ Soul—called the “Immortal Ego,” the “Divine monad,” etc. etc., which by accretions from _Manas_ in which burns the ever existing _Jiv_—the undying spark—adds to itself at the close of each incarnation the essence of that individuality _that was_, the aroma of the culled flower that is no more.

What is the _false_ personality? It is that bundle of desires, aspirations, affection and hatred, in short of _action_, manifested by a human being on this earth during one incarnation and under the form of one personality.[140] Certainly it is not all _this_, which as a fact for us, the deluded, material, and and materially thinking lot—is Mr. So and So, or Mrs. somebody else—that remains immortal, or is ever reborn.

All that bundle of _Egotism_ that apparent and evanescent “_I_” disappears after death, as the costume of the part he played disappears from the actor’s body, after he leaves the theatre and goes to bed. That actor re-becomes at once the same “John Smith” or Gray, he was from his birth and is no longer the Othello or Hamlet that he had represented for a few hours. Nothing remains now of that “bundle” to go to the next incarnation, except _the seed for future Karma_ that _Manas_ may have united to its immortal group, to form with it—the disembodied _Higher Self_ in “Devachan.” As to the four lower principles, that which becomes of them is found in most classics, from which we mean to quote at length for our defence. The doctrine of the _perisprit_ the “false personality,” or the remains of the deceased under their astral form—fading out to disappear in time, is terribly distasteful to the spiritualists, who insist upon confusing the temporary with the immortal EGO.

Unfortunately for them and happily for us, it is not the modern Occultists who have invented the doctrine. They are on their defense. And they prove what they say, _i.e._, that no “_personality_” has ever yet been “reincarnated” “on the same planet” (_our earth_, this once there is _no_ mistake) save in the three exceptional cases above cited. Adding to these a fourth case, _which is the deliberate, conscious act of adeptship_; and that such an _astral_ body belongs _neither to the body nor the soul_ still less to the immortal spirit of man, the following is brought forward and proofs cited.

Before one brings out on the strength of undeniable manifestations, theories as to _what_ produces them and claims at once on _prima facie_ evidence that it is the _spirits_ of the departed mortals that re-visit us, it behooves one to first study what antiquity has declared upon the subject. Ghosts and apparitions, materialized and semi-material “SPIRITS” have not originated with Allan Kardec, nor at Rochester. If those beings whose invariable habit it is to give themselves out for _souls_ and the phantoms of the dead, choose to do so and succeed, it is only because the cautious philosophy of old is now replaced by an _a priori_ conceit, and unproven assumptions. The first question is to be settled—“Have spirits any kind of substance to cloth themselves with?” _Answer_: That which is now called _perisprit_ in France, and a “materialized Form” in England and America, was called in days of old _peri-psyche_, and _peri-nous_, hence was well known to the old Greeks. Have they _a body_ whether gaseous, fluidic, etherial, material or semi-material? No; we say this on the authority of the occult teachings the world over. For with the Hindus _atma or spirit_ is _Arupa_ (bodiless,) and with the Greeks also. Even in the Roman Catholic Church the angels of Light as those of Darkness _are absolutely incorporeal_: “_meri spiritus, omnes corporis expertes_,” and in the words of the “SECRET DOCTRINE,” _primordial_. Emanations of the undifferentiated Principle, the Dhyan Chohans of the ONE (First) category or pure Spiritual Essence, are formed of the _Spirit of the one Element_; the second category of the second Emanation of the Soul of the Elements; the third have a “_mind_ body” to which they are not subject, but that they can assume and govern as a body, subject _to them_, pliant to their will in form and substance. Parting from this (third) category, they (the spirits, angels, Devas or Dhyan Chohans) have BODIES the first _rupa_ group of which is composed of one element _Ether_; the second, of two—ether and fire; the third, of three—Ether, fire and water; the fourth of four—Ether, air, fire and water. Then comes man, who, besides the four elements, has the fifth that predominates in him—Earth: therefore he suffers. Of the Angels, as said by St. Augustine and Peter Lombard, their bodies are made _to act_ not to suffer. It is earth and water, _humor et humus_, that gives an aptitude for suffering and passivity, _ad patientiam_, and _Ether_ and _Fire_ for action. The spirits or human _monads_, belonging to the first, or indifferentiated essence are thus incorporeal; but their third principle (or the human Fifth—_Manas_) can in conjunction with its vehicle become _Kama rupa_ and _Mayavi rupa_—body of desire or “illusion body.” After death, the best, noblest, purest qualities of _Manas_ or the _human_ soul ascending along with the divine Monad into Devachan whence no one emerges from or returns, except at the time of reincarnation—what is that then which appears under the double mask of the spiritual _Ego_ or soul of the departed individual? _The Kama rupa element with the help of elementals._ For we are taught that those spiritual beings that can assume a form at will and appear, _i.e._, make themselves objective and even tangible—are the angels alone (the Dhyan Chohans) and the _nirmanakaya_[141] of the adepts, whose spirits are clothed in sublime matter. The astral bodies—_the remnants_ and _dregs_ of a mortal being which has been disembodied, when they do appear, are not the individuals they claim to be, but only their simulachres. And such was the belief of the whole of antiquity, from Homer to Swedenborg; from the _third_ race down to our own day.

More than one devoted spiritualist has hitherto quoted Paul as corroborating his claim that spirits do and can appear. “There is a natural and there is a spiritual body,” etc., etc., (1 Cor. xv, 44); but one has only to study closer the verses preceding and following the one quoted, to perceive that what St. Paul meant was quite different from the sense claimed for it. Surely there is a _spiritual_ body, but it is not identical with the _astral_ form contained in the “natural” man. The “spiritual” is formed only by our individuality _unclothed_ and _transformed after death_; for the apostle takes care to explain in Verses 51 and 52, “_Immut abimur sed non omnes_.” Behold, I tell you _a mystery_: we shall _not all sleep_ but we _shall all be changed_. This corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.

But this is no proof except for the Christians. Let us see what the old Egyptians and the Neo-Platonists—both “_theurgists_” _par excellence_, thought on the subject: They divided man into three principal groups subdivided into principles as we do: pure immortal spirit; the “Spectral Soul” (_a luminous phantom_) and the gross material body. Apart from the latter which was considered as the terrestrial shell, these groups were divided into six principles; (1) _Kha_ “vital body”; (2) _Khaba_ “astral form,” or shadow, (3) _Khou_ “animal soul” (4) _Akh_ “terrestrial intelligence;” (5) _Sa_ “the divine soul” (_or Buddhi_;) and (6) _Sah_ or mummy, the functions of which began after death. _Osiris_ was the highest uncreated spirit, for it was, in one sense a generic name, every man becoming after his translation _Osirified_, _i. e._, absorbed into _Osiris_—_Sun_ or into the glorious divine state. It was _Khou_, with the lower portions of _Akh_ or _Kama rupa_ with the addition of the dregs of _Manas_ remaining all behind in the astral light of our atmosphere—that formed the counterparts of the terrible and so much dreaded _bhoots_ of the Hindus (our “elementaries.”) This is seen in the rendering made of the so-called “Harris. Papyrus on magic.” (_papyrus magique_, translated by Chabas) who calls them _Kouey_ or _Khou_, and explains that according to the hieroglyphics they were called _Khou_ or the “revivified dead,” the “resurrected shadows.”

When it was said of a person that he “_had a Khou_” it meant that he was possessed by a “Spirit.” There were two kinds of _Khous_—the justified ones,—who after living for a short time _a second life_ (_nam onh_) faded out, disappeared; and those _Khous_ who were condemned to wandering without rest in darkness _after dying for a second time_—_mut, em, nam_—and who were called the _H’ou-mêtr_ (“second time dead”) which did not prevent them from clinging to a vicarious life after the manner of Vampires. How dreaded they were is explained in our Appendices on Egyptian Magic and “Chinese Spirits” (_Secret Doctrine_.) They were exorcised by Egyptian priests as the evil spirit is exorcised by the Roman Catholic _curé_; or again the Chinese _houen_, identical with the _Khou_ and the “Elementary,” as also with the _lares_ or _larvæ_—a word derived from the former by _Festus_, the grammarian; who explains that they were “the shadows of the dead _who gave no rest in the house they were in_ either to the Masters or the servants.” These creatures when evoked during theurgic, and especially _necromantic_ rites, were regarded, and are so regarded still, in China—as neither the Spirit, Soul nor any thing belonging to the deceased personality they represented, but simply, as his reflection—_simmulacrum_.

“The human soul,” says Apuleius, “is an _immortal God_” (Buddhi) which nevertheless has his beginning. When death rids it (the Soul), from its earthly corporeal organism, it is called _lemure_. There are among the latter not a few which are beneficent, and which become the gods or demons of the family, _i. e._, its domestic gods: in which case they are called _lares_. But they are vilified and spoken of as _larvae_ when sentenced by fate to wander about, they spread around them evil and plagues. (_Inane terriculamentum, celerum noxium malis_;) or if their real nature is doubtful they are referred to as simply _manes_ (_Apuleius_. see—_Du Dieu de Socrate_, pp. 143-145. Edit. Niz.) Listen to Yamblichus, Proclus, Porphyry, Psellus and to dozens of other writers on these mystic subjects.

The Magi of Chaldea believed and _taught that the celestial or divine soul_ would participate in the bliss of eternal light, while the animal or _sensuous_ soul would, if good, rapidly dissolve, and if wicked, go on wandering about in the Earth’s sphere. In this case, “it (the soul) assumes at times the forms of various human phantoms and even those of animals.” The same was said of the _Eidôlon_ of the Greeks, and of their _Nephesh_ by the Rabbins: (See _Sciences Occultes_, Count de Resie. V. II) All the _Illuminati_ of the middle ages tell us of our _astral Soul_, the reflection of the dead or his _spectre_. At _Natal_ death (birth) the pure spirit remains attached to the _intermediate_ and _luminous_ body but as soon as its lower form (the physical body) is dead, the former ascends heavenward, and the latter descends into the nether worlds, or the _Kama loka_.

Homer shows us the body of Patroclus—the true image of the terrestrial body lying killed by Hector—rising in its spiritual form, and Lucretius shows old Ennius representing Homer himself, shedding bitter tears, amidst the _shadows and the human simulachres_ on the shores of Acherusia “_where live neither our bodies nor our souls_, but only our images.”

“* * * Esse _Acherusia_ templa, * * * Quo _neque_ permanent _animæ, neque corpora_ nostra, _Sed quædam simulacra_ * *”

Virgil called it _imago_ “image” and in the Odyssey (I. XI) the author refers to it as the type, the model, and at the same time the copy of the body; since Telemachus will not recognize Ulyssus and seeks to drive him off by saying—“No thou are not my father; thou art a demon,—— trying to seduce me!” (_Odys._ I. XVI. _v._ 194.) “Latins do not lack significant proper names to designate the varieties of their demons; and thus they called them in turn, _lares_, _lemures_, _geni_ and _manes_.” Cicero, in translating Plato’s _Timaeus_ translates the word _daimones_ by _lares_; and Festus the grammarian, explains that the inferior or lower gods were the _souls_ of _men_, making a difference between the two as Homer did, and between _anima bruta_ and _anima divina_ (animal and divine souls). Plutarch (in _proble. Rom._) makes the lares preside and inhabit the (haunted) houses, and calls them, cruel, exacting, inquisitive, etc., etc. Festus thinks that there are good and bad ones among the lares. For he calls them at one time _præstites_ as they gave occasionally and watched over things carefully (_direct apports_,) and at another—_hostileos_.[142] “However it may be” says in his queer old French, Leloyer, “they are no better than our devils, who, if they do appear helping sometimes men, and presenting them with property, it is only to hurt them the better and the more later on. _Lemures_ are also devils and _larvæ_ for they appear at night in various human and animal forms, but still more frequently with features that THEY _borrow from dead men_.” (_Livre des Spectres_. V. IV p. 15 and 16).

After this little honour rendered to his Christian preconceptions, that see Satan everywhere, Leloyer speaks like an Occultist, and a very erudite one too.

“It is quite certain that the _genii_ and none other had mission to watch over every newly born man, and that they were called _genii_, as says Censorius, because they had in their charge our race, and not only they _presided_ over every mortal being but over whole generations and tribes, being the _genii of the people_.”

The idea of guardian angels of men, races, localities, cities, and nations, was taken by the Roman Catholics from the prechristian occultists and pagans. Symmachus (Epistol, I. X) writes: “As souls are given to those who are born, so _genii_ are distributed to the nations. Every city had its protecting genius, to whom the people sacrificed.” There is more than one inscription found that reads: _Genio civitates_—“to the genius of the city.”

Only the ancient profane, never seemed sure any more than the modern whether an apparition was the _eidolon_ of a relative or the genius of the locality. Enneus while celebrating the anniversary of the name of his father Anchises, seeing a serpent crawling on his tomb knew not whether that was the _genius_ of his father or the genius of the place (Virgil). “The _manes_[143] were numbered and divided between good and bad; those that were _sinister_, and that Virgil calls _numina larva_, were appeased by sacrifices that they should commit no mischief, such as sending bad dreams to those who despised them, etc:”

Tibullus shows by his line:—

_Ne tibi neglecti mittant insomnia manes._ (Eleg., 1. II.)

“Pagans thought that the _lower Souls_ were transformed after death into _diabolical aerial_ spirits.” (Leloyer p. 22.)

The term _Eteroprosopos_ when divided into its several compound words will yield a whole sentence, “an other than I under the features of my person.”

It is to this terrestrial principle, the _eidolon_, the _larva_, the _bhoot_—call it by whatever name—that reincarnation was refused in _Isis_.[144]

The doctrines of Theosophy are simply the faithful echoes of Antiquity. Man is a _Unity_ only at his origin and at his end. All the Spirits, all the Souls, gods and demons emanate from and have for their root-principle the SOUL OF THE UNIVERSE—says Porphyry (_De Sacrifice_). Not a philosopher of any notoriety who did not believe (1) in reincarnation (metempsychosis), (2) in the plurality of principles in man, or that man had _two_ Souls of separate and quite different natures; one perishable, the _Astral Soul_, the other incorruptible and immortal; and (3) that the former was not the man whom it represented—“neither his spirit nor his body, but his _reflection_, at best.” This was taught by Brahmins, Buddhists, Hebrews, Greeks, Egyptians, and Chaldeans; by the post-diluvian heirs of the prediluvian Wisdom, by Pythagoras and Socrates, Clemens Alexandrinus, Synesius, and Origen. the oldest Greek poets as much as the Gnostics, whom Gibbon shows as the most refined, learned and enlightened men of all ages (“See Decline and Fall,” etc.). But the rabble was the same in every age: superstitious, self-opinionated, materializing every most spiritual and noble idealistic conception and dragging it down to its own low level, and—ever adverse to philosophy.

But all this does not interfere with that fact, that our “fifth Race” man, analyzed esoterically as a septenary creature, was ever _exoterically_ recognized as mundane, sub-mundane, terrestrial and supra mundane, Ovid graphically describing him as—

“Bis duo sunt hominis; _manes_, _caro_, _spiritus_, _umbra_ Quatuor ista loca bis duo suscipiunt. Terra tegit carnem, tumulum circumvolat umbra, Orcus habet manes, spiritus astra petit.”

OSTENDE, _Oct., 1886_.

POETICAL OCCULTISM.

SOME ROUGH STUDIES OF THE OCCULT LEANINGS OF THE POETS.