Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00418)

Hallo Dallas,
Nice to see that you are working for the next New Year-.2005




-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@e...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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