Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00417)

Jan 26 2005


Dear Friends:


Re: Communicating with the Dead

Here are some further notes on this subject. Hope they will prove of
help as
they give the fundamental teachings of THEOSOPHY thereon.

Best wishes,

Dallas

------------------------------------


"IS IT IDLE TO ARGUE FURTHER?"
 
[Vol. III. No. 4, January, 1882.]


COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DEAD


Says LIGHT, in its "Notes by the Way," edited by "M.A. Oxon.":

The current number of The Theosophist contains an important manifesto,
which establishes and defines the ground finally taken up by that body.
Shortly put, it is one of complete antagonism to Spiritualism. 

The Spiritualist believes that it is possible for spirits of the
departed to communicate with this earth. Whatever divergence of opinion
there may be among us in respect of other matters, we are agreed on
this, the cardinal article of our faith. Our daily experience affirms
its truth. ...


"The Spiritualist believes that it is possible for spirits of the
departed to communicate with this earth," says the writer . . . "and to
this the Theosophist returns the simple answer that we are mistaken." In
this sentence alone, as a kernel in a nut-shell, lies hidden the reason
of that partial antagonism. Had "M.A. Oxon.," slightly modifying the
construction of the above-quoted sentence—written instead that "it is
possible for spirits yet embodied on this earth to communicate with the
spirits of the departed"—then would there have been hardly any
antagonism at all to deplore. 

What we hold and do maintain is that all of the so-called "physical
phenomena," and "materializations" especially, are produced by
something, to which we refuse the name of "spirit." 

In the words of the President of our Berhampore Branch (Babu Nobin
Krishna Banerjee, President of the Adhi Bhautic Bhratru Theosophical
Society): 

"We, Hindus [and along with them the European disciples of Eastern
philosophy] are trying to spiritualize our grosser material selves,
while the American and European Spiritualists are endeavouring in their
séance-rooms to materialize spirits." 

These words of wisdom well show the opposite tendencies of the Eastern
and the Western minds—namely, that while the former are trying to purify
matter, the latter do their best to degrade spirit. 

Therefore what we say is, that ninety-nine times out of one hundred,
"materializations" so-called, when genuine, and whether they be partial
of complete, are produced by what we call "shells," and occasionally,
perhaps, by the living medium’s astral body—but certainly never, in our
humble opinion, by "disembodied" spirits themselves.

While we sincerely regret this divergence of opinions with Light, we
feel inclined to smile at the naïveté of some other Spiritualist
opponents; as, for instance, at that of the editor of the London
Spiritualist, who, in his leading editorial of Nov. 18th, entitled
"Speculation-Spinning," calls the scraps of occult doctrine given in our
"Fragments" "unscientific," reproaching the writer (than whom there is
no abler metaphysician, nor closer or more acute and clever logician
among Anglo-Indian writers) with a want of "scientific method" in the
presentation of his facts! At the same time, the editorial informs us
that by "facts" it does not "necessarily mean physical facts, for there
are demonstrable truths outside the realms of physics." Precisely. And
it is upon just such "facts," the existence of which is based for us
upon evidence which we "have weighed and examined" for ourselves, that
we maintain the demonstrability of the deductions and final conclusions
at which we have arrived. These we preach but to those who really want
to know them. As none, they say, are so blind as they who will not see,
we abstain from offering our doctrines to such as find them
offensive—among whom are some Spiritualists. 

But to the masses of impartial readers whose minds are not yet wedded to
this or that theory, we present our facts and tell them to see, hear and
judge for themselves; and there have been some who have not found our
theories merely "speculation-spinning," based upon hypotheses and the
crass sentimentalism of a faith—welcome, because of its implied promises
of a life hereafter—but theories resting upon the logical and stern
deduction from facts, which constitute in themselves a knowledge. Now,
what are these facts, and what do they show and teach us?


COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DEAD

First of all, and as a rule—the rare exceptions to which but confirm it
the more—we find that the so-called "disembodied spirits," instead of
becoming the wiser for being rid of the physiological impediments and
the restraints of their gross material senses, would seem to have become
far more stupid, far less perspicacious and, in every respect, worse
than they were during their earthly life. 

Secondly, we have to take note of the frequent contradictions and absurd
blunders; of the false information offered, and the remarkable vulgarity
and commonplace exhibited during their interviews with mortals;
in-materializing séances their oral utterances being invariably vulgar
common-place, and their inspirational speeches or second-hand
communication through trance and other mediums frequently so. 

Adding to this the undeniable fact which shows their teachings
reflecting most faithfully the special creed, views, and thoughts of the
sensitive or medium used by them, or of a sitter or sitters, we have
already sufficient proof to show that our theory, that they are "shells"
and not disembodied spirits at all, is far more logical and "scientific"
than that of the Spiritualists.* 

Speaking here in general, we need not take into consideration
exceptional cases, instances of undeniable spiritual identity with which
we are sure to find our arguments met by our spiritual opponents. No one
ever thought of calling "Imperator" a "shell"; but then the latter,
whether a living or a disembodied spirit, neither materializes himself
objectively, nor is it yet proved to the satisfaction of anyone except
"M.A. Oxon." himself that "he" descends to the medium, instead of the
spirit of the latter ascending to meet his instructor.


Thus, we maintain that "spirits" are no more what they claim to be, than
the chrysalis shell is the butterfly which left it. That their
personations of various individuals, whom they sometimes represent, are
mostly due to the accidental contact of an "elementary" or "eidôlon"
(attracted by the medium and the intense magnetic desire of the circle
present) with the personal "aura" of this or that individual. 

The thoughts of the latter, the various acts and scenes in his past
life, the familiar and beloved faces of his departed ones, are then all
drawn out of the all-containing depths of the Astral Light and utilized.


At times this is done successfully, but frequently the thing proves a
total failure. Only while the former are, as a rule, recorded, the
mention of the latter is tacitly avoided; no spiritualistic journal
having ever been edited with that special view. So much for
materialization and physical phenomena. As for the rest, we are at one
with the Spiritualists with but slight variances, more of form than of
substance.
 
* We will not go to the trouble of showing how much, or rather how
little, of "scientific method" is to be generally found in The
Spiritualist. But while speaking of science and its methods, we may
simply remark that though both our theories (theosophical and
spiritualistic) are sure to be viewed by the men of science as
"speculation-spinning" and metaphysical windmills, yet the hypotheses of
Spiritualists—as broadly accepted and whether "scientifically" or
unscientifically stated—are certain to be pronounced by the majority of
men of real science, not merely unscientific, but very unphilosophical
and illogical as well.
 

H P B