Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00281)

Perry Coles wrote:

>The drawings in Hodgson's book `The Kingdom of the gods' of "devas"
>seem to be quite anthropomorphic with human type features, fairies
>with wings and gnomes sporting little jackets and boots ect.

I don't think that is a problem. It is us who put jackets and boots, 
thats true...
but not all 'spirits' seem human...
and
I remember when i was 8 years old i was playing around the fire and 
saw clearly three salamandras 'dancing'... i had seen before other 
kinds of 'spirits'... but only knew pictures of them by child books 
(the ones with boots and stuff) Two days latter, at home, my mother 
was reading 'the kingdom of the gods' and she called me, and showed 
me the pictures of the book. I remember being perplexed... "This 
salamandra in the book is just like the ones I saw!!!" i told my 
mom... so for me, at least, i guess the pictures on the "kingdom of 
gods" cannot be that wrong... they match...

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Feb 6 2005
> 
> Dear M and friends:
> 
> I think the following article by HPB will helping this matter of the
> elementals or nature "spirits" in the astral light and 
their "powers"
> 
> DTB
> 
> =================
> 
> THOUGHTS ON THE ELEMENTALS
> H. P. Blavatsky
> YEARS have been devoted by the writer to the study of those 
invisible
> Beings--conscious, semi-conscious and entirely senseless--called by 
a number
> of names in every country under the sun, and known under the 
generic name of
> "Spirits." The nomenclature applied to these denizens of spheres 
good or bad
> in the Roman Catholic Church, alone, is--endless. The great 
kyriology of
> their symbolic names--is a study. Open any account of creation in 
the first
> Purâna that comes to hand, and see the variety of appellations 
bestowed upon
> these divine and semi-divine creatures (the product of the two 
kinds of
> creation--the Prakrita and the Vaikrita or Padma, the primary and 
the
> secondary) all evolved from the body of Brahmâ. The Urdhwasrota 
only, of
> the third creation, embrace a variety of beings with 
characteristics and
> idiosyncrasies sufficient for a life-study. 
> The same in the Egyptian, Chaldean, Greek, Phoenician or any other 
account.
> The hosts of those creatures are numberless. The old Pagans, 
however, and
> especially the Neo-Platonists of Alexandria knew what they 
believed, and
> discriminated between the orders. None regarded them from such a 
sectarian
> stand-point as do the Christian Churches. They dealt with them far 
more
> wisely, on the contrary, as they made a better and a greater 
discrimination
> between the natures of these beings than the Fathers of the Church 
did.
> According to the policy of the latter, all those Angels that were 
not
> recognised as the attendants upon the Jewish Jehovah--were 
proclaimed
> Devils. 
> The effects of this belief, afterwards erected into a dogma, we find
> asserting themselves now in the Karma of the many millions of 
Spiritualists,
> brought up and bred in the respective beliefs of their Churches. 
Though a
> Spiritualist may have divorced himself for years from theological 
and
> clerical beliefs; though he be a liberal or an illiberal Christian, 
a Deist
> or an Atheist, having rejected very wisely belief in devils, and, 
too
> reasonable to regard his visitors as pure angels, has accepted what 
he
> thinks a reasonable mean ground--still he will acknowledge no other 
Spirits
> save those of the dead. 
> This is his Karma, and also that of the Churches collectively. In 
the latter
> such a stubborn fanaticism, such parti pris is only natural; it is 
their
> policy. In free Spiritualism, it is unpardonable. There cannot be 
two
> opinions upon this subject. It is either belief in, or a full 
rejection of
> the existence of any "Spirits." If a man is a sceptic and an 
unbeliever, we
> have nothing to say. Once he believes in Spooks and Spirits at all--
the
> question changes. Where is that man or woman free from prejudice and
> preconceptions, who can believe that in an infinite universe of 
life and
> being--let us say in our solar system alone--that in all this 
boundless
> space in which the Spiritualist locates his "Summer-land"--there 
are only
> two orders of conscious beings--men and their spirits; embodied 
mortals and
> disembodied Immortals. 
> The future has in store for Humanity strange surprises, and 
Theosophy, or
> rather its adherents, will be vindicated fully in no very distant 
days. No
> use arguing upon a question that has been so fully discussed by 
Theosophists
> and brought only opprobrium, persecution, and enmity on the writers.
> Therefore we will not go out of our way to say much more. The 
Elementals and
> the Elementaries of the Kabalists, and Theosophists were 
sufficiently
> ridiculed. From Porphyry down to the demonologists of the past 
centuries,
> fact after fact was given, and proofs heaped upon proofs, but with 
as little
> effect as might be had from a fairy tale told in some nursery room. 
> A queer book that of the old Count de Gabalis, immortalized by the 
Abbé de
> Villars, and now translated and published in Bath. Those humorously 
inclined
> are advised to read it, and to ponder over it. This advice is 
offered with
> the object of making a parallel. The writer read it years ago, and 
has read
> it now again with as much, and much more attention than formerly. 
Her humble
> opinion as regards the work is--if any one cares to hear it--that 
one may
> search for months and never find the demarcation in it between 
the "Spirits"
> of the Séance rooms and the Sylphs and Undines of the French 
satire. 
> There is a sinister ring in the merry quips and jests of its 
writer, who
> while pointing the finger of ridicule at that which he believed, had
> probably a presentiment of his own speedy Karma in the shape of
> assassination. 
> The way he introduces the Count de Gabalis is worthy of attention. 
> "I was astonished one Remarkable Day, when I saw a man come in of a 
most
> exalted mien; who, saluting me gravely, said to me in the French 
Tongue but,
> in the accent of a Foreigner, 'Adore my son; adore the most great 
God of the
> Sages; and let not thy self be puffed up with Pride, that he sends 
to thee
> one of the children of Wisdom, to constitute thee a Fellow of their 
Society,
> and make thee partaker of the wonders of Omnipotency." 
> There is only one answer to be made to those who, taking advantage 
of such
> works, laugh at Occultism. "Servitissimo" gives it himself in his 
own
> chaffing way in his introductory "Letter to my Lord" in the above-
named
> work. "I would have persuaded him (the author of Gabalis) to have 
changed
> the whole form of his work," he writes, "for this drolling way of 
carrying
> it thus on does not to me seem proper to his subject. These 
mysteries of the
> Cabal are serious matters, which many of my friends do seriously 
study . . .
> the which are certainly most dangerous to jest with." Verbum sat 
sapienti. 
> They are "dangerous," most undeniably. But since history began to 
record
> thoughts and facts, one-half of Humanity has ever been sneering as 
the other
> half and ridiculing its most cherished beliefs. This, however, 
cannot change
> a fact into a fiction, nor can it destroy the Sylphs, Undines, and 
Gnomes,
> if any, in Nature; for, in league with Salamanders, the latter are 
more
> likely to destroy the unbelievers and damage Insurance companies,
> notwithstanding that these believe still less in revengeful 
Salamanders than
> in fires produced by chance and accident. 
> Theosophists believe in Spirits no less than Spiritualists do, but, 
as
> dissimilar in their variety as are the feathered tribes in the air. 
There
> are bloodthirsty hawks and vampire bats among them, as there are 
doves and
> nightingales. They believe in "Angels," for many have seen them 
> 
> . . . . . by the sick one's pillow--
> Whose was the soft tone and the soundless tread!
> Where smitten hearts were drooping like the willow,
> They stood between the living and the dead.
> 
> But these were not the three-toed materialization of the modern 
medium. And
> if our doctrines were all piece-mealed by the "drolleries" of a de 
Villars,
> they would and could not interfere with the claims of the 
Occultists that
> their teachings are historical and scientific facts, whatever the 
garb they
> are presented in to the profane. Since the first kings began 
reigning "by
> the grace of God," countless generations of buffoons appointed to 
amuse
> Majesties and Highnesses have passed away; and most of these 
graceless
> individuals had more wisdom at the bottoms of their hunches and at 
their
> fingers' ends, than all their royal masters put together had in 
their
> brainless heads. They alone had the inestimable privilege of 
speaking truth
> at the Courts, and those truths have always been laughed 
at . . . . . . 
> This is a digression; but such works as the Count de Gabalis have 
to be
> quietly analyzed and their true character shown, lest they should 
be made to
> serve as a sledge hammer to pulverize those works which do not 
assume a
> humorous tone in speaking of mysterious, if not altogether sacred, 
things,
> and say what they have to. And it is most positively maintained 
that there
> are more truths uttered in the witty railleries and gasconades of 
that
> "satire," full of pre-eminently occult and actual facts, than most 
people,
> and Spiritualists especially, would care to learn. 
> One single fact instanced, and shown to exist now, at the present 
moment
> among the Mediums will be sufficient to prove that we are right. 
> It has been said elsewhere, that white magic differed very little 
from
> practices of sorcery except in effects and results--good or bad 
motive being
> everything. Many of the preliminary rules and conditions to enter 
societies
> of adepts, whether of the Right or the Left Path, are also 
identical in many
> things. Thus Gabalis says to the author: "The Sages will never 
admit you
> into their society if you do not renounce from this very present a 
Thing
> which cannot stand in competition with Wisdom. You must renounce 
all carnal
> Commerce with Women" (p. 27). 
> This is a sine quâ non with practical Occultists--Rosicrucians or 
Yogis,
> Europeans or Asiatics. But it is also one with the Dugpas; and 
Fadoos of
> Bhutan and India one with the Voodoos and Nagals of New Orleans and 
Mexico,
> with an additional clause to it, however, in the statutes of the 
latter. And
> this is to have carnal commerce with male and female Djins, 
Elementals, or
> Demons, call them by whatever names you will. 
> "I am making known nothing to you but the Principles of the Ancient 
Cabal,"
> explains de Gabalis to his pupil. And he informs him that the 
Elementals
> (whom he calls Elementaries), the inhabitants of the four Elements, 
namely,
> the Sylphs, Undines, Salamanders, and Gnomes, live many Ages, but 
that their
> souls are not immortal. "In respect of Eternity . . . . they must 
finally
> resolve into nothing." . . . . "Our Fathers, the philosophers," 
goes on the
> soi-disant Rosicrucian, "speaking to God Face to Face, complained 
to him of
> the Unhappiness of these People (the Elementals), and God, whose 
Mercy is
> without Bounds, revealed to them that it was not impossible to find 
out a
> Remedy for this Evil. He inspired them, that by the same means as 
Man, by
> the Alliance which he contracted with God, has been made Partaker 
of the
> Divinity: the Sylphs, the Gnomes, the Nymphs, and the Salamanders, 
by the
> Alliance which they might Contract with Man, might be made 
Partakers of
> Immortality. So a she-Nymph or a Sylph becomes Immortal and capable 
of the
> Blessing to which we aspire, when they shall be so happy as to be 
married to
> a Sage; a Gnome or a Sylphe ceases to be Mortal from the moment 
that he
> Espouses one of our Daughters." 
> Having delivered himself of this fine piece of advice on practical 
sorcery,
> the "Sage" closes as follows: 
> "No, no! Our Sages have never erred so as to attribute the Fall of 
the first
> Angels to their love of women, no more than they have put Men under 
the
> Power of the Devil. . . . There was nothing criminal in all that. 
They were
> Sylphs which endeavored to become Immortal. Their innocent 
Pursuits, far
> enough from being able to scandalize the Philosophers, have 
appeared so Just
> to us that we are all resolved by common consent utterly to 
Renounce Women;
> and entirely to give ourselves to Immortalizing of the Nymphs and 
Sylphs"
> (p. 33). 
> And so are certain mediums, especially those of America and France, 
who
> boast of Spirit husbands and wives. We know such mediums 
personally, men and
> women, and it is not those of Holland who will deny the fact, with 
a recent
> event among their colleagues and co-religionists fresh in their 
memory,
> concerning some who escaped death and madness only by becoming 
Theosophists.
> It is only by following our advice that they got finally rid of 
their
> spiritual consorts of both sexes. 
> Shall we be told in this case also, that it is a calumny and an 
invention?
> Then let those outsiders who are inclined to see, with the 
Spiritualists,
> nought but a holy, an innocent pastime at any rate, in that nightly 
and
> daily intercourse with the so-called "Spirits of the Dead," watch. 
Let those
> who ridicule our warnings and doctrine and make merry over them--
explain
> after analysing it dispassionately, the mystery and the rationale 
of such
> facts as the existence in the minds of certain Mediums and 
Sensitives of
> their actual marriage with male and female Spirits. 
> Explanations of lunacy and hallucination will never do, when placed 
face to
> face with the undeniable facts of SPIRIT MATERIALIZATIONS. If there 
are
> "Spirits" capable of drinking tea and wine, of eating apples and 
cakes, of
> kissing and touching the visitors of Séance rooms, all of which 
facts have
> been proven as well as the existence of those visitors themselves--
why
> should not those same Spirits perform matrimonial duties as well? 
And who
> are those "Spirits" and what is their nature? Shall we be told by 
the
> Spiritists that the spooks of Mme. de Sévigné or of Delphine _____, 
___ one
> of which authoresses we abstain from naming out of regard to the 
surviving
> relatives--that they are the actual "Spirits" of those two deceased 
ladies;
> and that the latter felt a "Spiritual affinity" for an idiotic, 
old, and
> slovenly Canadian medium and thus became his happy wife as he boasts
> publicly, the result of which union is a herd of "spiritual" 
children bred
> with this holy Spirit? And who is the astral husband--the nightly 
consort of
> a well-known New York lady medium whom the writer knows personally? 
> Let the reader get every information he can about this last 
development of
> Spiritual (?!) intercourse. Let him think seriously over this, and 
then read
> the "Count de Gabalis," especially the Appendix to it, with ; its 
Latin
> portions; and then perchance he will be better able to appreciate 
the full
> gravity of the supposed chaff, in the work in question, and 
understand the
> true value of the raillery in it. He will then see dearly the 
ghastly
> connection there is between the Fauns, Satyrs and Incubi of St. 
Hieronymus,
> the Sylphs and Nymphs of the Count de Gabalis, the "Elementaries" 
of the
> Kabalists--and all those poetical, spiritual "Lillies" of 
the "Harris
> Community," the astral "Napoleons," and other departed Don Juans 
from the
> "Summer-Land," the "spiritual affinities from beyond the grave" of 
the
> modern world of mediums. 
> Notwithstanding this ghastly array of facts, we are told week after 
week in
> the Spiritual journals that, at best, we know not what we are 
talking about.
> "Platon"--(a presumptuous pseudonym to assume, by the bye) a 
dissatisfied
> ex-theosophist, tells the Spiritualists (see Light, Jan. 1, 1887) 
that not
> only is there no re-incarnation--because the astral "spirit" of a 
deceased
> friend told him so (a valuable and trustworthy evidence indeed), 
but that
> all our philosophy is proved worthless by that very fact! Karma, we 
are
> notified, is tom-foolery. "Without Karma re-incarnation cannot 
stand," and,
> since his astral informant "has inquired in the realm of his present
> existence as to the theory of re-incarnation, and he says he cannot 
get one
> fact or a trace of one as to the truth of it . . . ." this "astral"
> informant has to be believed. He cannot lie. For "a man who has 
studied
> chemistry has a right to an opinion, and earned a right to speak 
upon its
> various theories and facts . . . . especially if he, during earth-
life, was
> respected and admired for his researches into the mysteries of 
nature, and
> for his truthfulness." 
> Let us hope that the "astrals" of such eminent chemists as Messrs. 
Crookes
> and Butlerof--when disembodied, will abstain from returning too 
often to
> talk with mortals. For having studied chemistry so much and so 
well, their
> post mortem communications would acquire a reputation for 
infallibility more
> than would be good, perhaps, for the progress of mankind, and the
> development of its intellectual powers. But the proof is 
sufficiently
> convincing, no doubt for the present generation of Spiritualists, 
since the
> name assumed by the "astral control of a friend" was that of a 
truthful and
> honorable man. It thus appears that an experience of over forty 
years with
> Spirits, who lied more than they told truth, and did far more 
mischief than
> good--goes for nought. And thus the "spirit-husbands and wives" 
must be also
> believed when they say they are this or that. Because, as "Platon" 
justly
> argues: "There is no progress without knowledge, and the knowledge 
of truth
> founded upon fact is progress of the highest degree, and if astrals
> progress, as this spirit says they do, the philosophy of Occultism 
in regard
> to re-incarnation is wrong upon this point; and how do we know that 
the many
> other points are correct, as they are without proof?" 
> This is high philosophy and logic. "The end of wisdom is 
consultation and
> deliberation"--with "Spirits," Demosthenes might have added, had he 
known
> where to look for them--but all this leaves still the 
question, "who are
> those spirits"--an open one. For, "where doctors disagree," there 
must be
> room for doubt. And besides the ominous fact that Spirits are 
divided in
> their views upon reincarnation--just as Spiritualists and 
Spiritists are,
> "every man is not a proper champion for the truth, nor fit to take 
up the
> gauntlet in the cause of verity," says Sir T. Browne. This is no
> disrespectful cut at "Platon," whoever he may be, but an axiom. An 
eminent
> man of science, Prof. W. Crookes, gave once a very wise definition 
of Truth,
> by showing how necessary it is to draw a distinction between truth 
and
> accuracy. A person may be very truthful--he observed--that is to 
say, may be
> filled with the desire both to receive truth and to teach it; but 
unless
> that person have great natural powers of observation, or have been 
trained
> by scientific study of some kind to observe, note, compare, and 
report
> accurately and in detail, he will not be able to give a trustworthy,
> accurate and therefore true account of his experiences. His 
intentions may
> be honest, but if he have a spark of enthusiasm, he will be always 
apt to
> proceed to generalizations, which may be both false and dangerous. 
In short
> as another eminent man of science, Sir John Herschell, puts 
it, "The grand
> and, indeed, the only character of truth, is its capability of 
enduring the
> test of universal experience, and coming unchanged out of every 
possible
> form of fair discussion." 
> 
> Now very few Spiritualists, if any, unite in themselves the precious
> qualities demanded by Prof. Crookes; in other words their 
truthfulness is
> always tempered by enthusiasm; therefore, it has led them into 
error for the
> last forty years. In answer to this we may be told and with great 
justice,
> it must be confessed, that this scientific definition cuts both 
ways; i.e.,
> that Theosophists are, to say the least, in the same box with the
> Spiritualists; that they are enthusiastic, and therefore also 
credulous. But
> in the present case the situation is changed. The question is not 
what
> either Spiritualists or Theosophists think personally of the nature 
of
> Spirits and their degree of truthfulness; but what the "universal
> experience," demanded by Sir John Herschell, says. Spiritualism is a
> philosophy (if one, which so far we deny) of but yesterday. 
Occultism and
> the philosophy of the East, whether true absolutely, or relatively, 
are
> teachings coming to us from an immense antiquity: and since--
whether in the
> writings and traditions of the East; in the numberless Fragments, 
and MSS.
> left to us by the Neo-Platonic Theosophists; in the life 
observations of
> such philosophers as Porphyry and Iamblichus; in those of the 
mediæval
> Theosophists and so on, ad infinitum,--since we find in all these, 
the same
> identical testimony as to the extremely various, and often 
dangerous nature
> of all those Genii, Demons, Gods, Lares, and "Elementaries," now all
> confused into one heap under the name of "Spirits"; we cannot fail 
to
> recognize in all this something "enduring the test of universal 
experience,
> and "coming unchanged" out of every possible form of observation and
> experience. 
> 
> Theosophists give only the product of an experience hoary with age;
> Spiritualists hold to their own views, born some forty years ago, 
and based
> on their unflinching enthusiasm and emotionalism. But let any 
impartial,
> fair minded witness to the doings of the "Spirits" in America, one 
that is
> neither a Theosophist nor a Spiritualist, be asked: "What may be the
> difference between the vampire-bride from whom Apollonius of Tyana 
is said
> to have delivered a young friend of his, whom the nightly succubus 
was
> slowly killing, and the Spirit-wives and husbands of the mediums?" 
Surely
> none--would be the correct answer. Those who do not shudder at this 
hideous
> revival of mediæval Demonology and Witchcraft, may, at any rate, 
understand
> the reason why of all the numerous enemies of Theosophy--which 
unveils the
> mysteries of the "Spirit World" and unmasks the Spirits 
masquerading under
> eminent names--none are so bitter and so implacable as the 
Spiritualists of
> Protestant, and the Spiritists of Roman Catholic countries. 
> 
> "Monstrum horrendum informe cui lumen ademptum" . . . . is the 
fittest
> epithet to be applied to most of the "Lillies" and "Joes" of the 
Spirit
> World. But we do not mean at all--following in this the example of
> Spiritualists, who are determined to believe in no other "Spirits" 
than
> those of the "dear departed" ones--to maintain that save Nature 
Spirits or
> Elementals, Shells, or Elementaries, and "Gods" and genii, there 
are no
> other Spirits from the invisible realms; or no really holy and grand
> Spirits--who communicate with mortals. For it is not so. What the 
Occultists
> and Kabalists said all along, and the Theosophists now repeat, is, 
that holy
> Spirits will not visit promiscuous séance-rooms, nor will they 
intermarry
> with living men and women. 
> 
> Belief in the existence of invisible but too often present 
visitants from
> better and worse worlds than our own, is too deeply rooted in men's 
hearts
> to be easily torn out by the cold hand of Materialism, or even of 
Science.
> Charges of superstition, coupled with ridicule, have at best served 
to breed
> additional hypocrisy and social cant, among the educated classes. 
For there
> are few men, if any, at the bottom of whose souls belief in such 
superhuman
> and supersensous creatures does not lie latent, to awaken into 
existence at
> the first good opportunity. Many are those Men of Science who, 
having
> abandoned with their nursery pinafores belief in Kings of Elves and 
Fairy
> Queens, and who would blush at being accused of believing in 
witchcraft,
> have, nevertheless, fallen victims to the wiles of "Joes," 
and "Daisies,"
> and other spooks and "controls." And once they have crossed the 
Rubicon,
> they fear ridicule no longer. These Scientists defend as 
desperately the
> reality of materialized and other Spirits, as if these were a 
mathematical
> law. Those soul-aspirations that seem innate in human nature, and 
that
> slumber only to awaken to intensified activity; those yearnings to 
cross the
> boundary of matter that make many a hardened sceptic turn into a 
rabid
> believer at the first appearance of that which to him is undeniable
> proof--all these complete psychological phenomena of human 
temperament--have
> our modern physiologists found a key to them? Will the verdict 
remain "non
> compos mentis" or "victim to fraud and psychology"? &c., &c. When 
we say
> with regard to unbelievers that they are "a handful" the statement 
is no
> undervaluation; for it is not those who shout the loudest against 
degrading
> superstitions, the "Occult craze" and so on, who are the strongest 
in their
> scepticism. At the first opportunity, they will be foremost amongst 
those
> who fall and surrender. And when one counts seriously the ever-
increasing
> millions of the Spiritualists, Occultists, and Mystics in Europe and
> America, one may well refuse to lament with Carrington over 
the "Departure
> of the Fairies." They are gone, says the poet: 
> . . .
> They are flown,
> 
> Beautiful fictions of our fathers, wove
> In Superstition's web when Time was young,
> And fondly loved and cherished--they are flown,
> Before the Wand of Science! . . . .
> 
> We maintain that they have done nothing of the kind; and that on the
> contrary it is these "Fairies"--the beautiful, far more than the
> hideous--who are seriously threatening under their new masks and 
names to
> disarm Science and break its "Wand." 
> 
> Belief in "Spirits" is legitimate, because it rests on the 
authority of
> experiment and observation, it vindicates, moreover, another 
belief, also
> regarded as a superstition: namely, Polytheism. The latter is based 
upon a
> fact in nature: Spirits mistaken for Gods, have been seen in every 
age by
> men--hence, belief in many and various Gods. Monotheism, on the 
other hand,
> rests upon a pure abstraction. Who has seen GOD--that God we mean, 
the
> Infinite and the Omnipotent, the one about whom Monotheists talk so 
much?
> Polytheism--once man claims the right of divine interference on his
> behalf--is logical and consistent with the philosophies of the 
East, all of
> which, whether Pantheistic or Deistic, proclaim the ONE an infinite
> abstraction, an absolute Something which utterly transcends the 
conception
> of the finite. Surely such a creed is more philosophical than that 
religion,
> whose theology, proclaiming in one place God, a mysterious and even
> Incomprehensible Being, whom "no man shall see and live" (Exodus 
xxxiii.
> 20), shows him at the same time so human and so petty a God as to 
concern
> himself with the breeches8 of his chosen people, while neglecting 
to say
> anything definite about the immortality of their souls, or their 
survival
> after death! 
> 
> Thus, belief in a Host and Hosts of Spiritual entities, dwelling on 
various
> planes and spheres in the Universe, in conscious intra-Kosmic 
Beings, in
> fact, is logical and reasonable, while belief in an extra-Kosmic 
God is an
> absurdity. And if Jehovah, who was so jealous about his Jews and 
commanded
> that they should have no other God save himself, was generous 
enough to
> bestow upon Pharaoh Moses ("See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, 
and Aaron
> . . . . . thy prophet" Exodus vii. 7) as the Egyptian monarch's 
deity, why
> should not "Pagans" be allowed the choice of their own Gods? Once 
we believe
> in the existence of our Egos, we may well believe in Dhyan Chohans. 
As Hare
> has it: "man is a mixed being made up of a spiritual and of a 
fleshly body;
> the angels are pure Spirits, herein nearer to God, only that they 
are
> created and finite in all respects, whereas God is infinite and 
uncreated."
> And if God is the latter, then God is not a "Being" but an 
incorporeal
> Principle, not to be blasphemously anthropomorphized. The angels or 
Dhyan
> Chohans are the "Living Ones"; that Principle the "Self-Existent," 
the
> eternal, and all pervading CAUSE of all causes, is only the abstract
> noumenon of the "River of Life," whose ever rolling waves create 
angels and
> men alike, the former being simply "men of a superior kind," as 
Young
> intuitionally remarks. 
> 
> ------------------------------------ also :
> 
> Student. - But take the case of a man who, being in possession of 
treasure,
> hides it in the earth and goes away and dies, and it is not found. 
In that
> instance the elementals did not hide it. Or when a miser buries his 
gold or
> jewels. How about those?
> 
> Sage. - In all cases where a man buries gold, or jewels, or money, 
or
> precious things, his desires are fastened to that which he hides. 
Many of
> his elementals attach themselves to it, and other classes of them 
also, who
> had nothing to do with him, gather round and keep it hidden. In the 
case of
> the captain of a ship containing treasure the influences are very 
powerful,
> because there the elementals are gathered from all the persons 
connected
> with the treasure, and the officer himself is full of solicitude 
for what is
> committed to his charge. You should also remember that gold and 
silver - or
> metals - have relations with elementals that are of a strong and 
peculiar
> character. 
> 
> They do not work for human law, and natural law does not assign any 
property
> in metals to man, nor recognize in him any peculiar and 
transcendent right
> to retain what he has dug from the earth or acquired to himself.... 
They
> proceed solely according to the law of their being, and, as they 
are without
> the power of making a judgment, they commit no blunders and are not 
to be
> moved by considerations based upon our vested rights or our 
unsatisfied
> wishes. 
> 
> Therefore, the spirits that appertain to metals invariably act as 
the laws
> of their nature prescribe, and one way of doing so is to obscure 
the metals
> from our sight.
> 
> Student. - Can you make any application of all this in the realm of 
ethics?
> 
> Sage. - There is a very important thing you should not overlook. 
Every time
> you harshly and unmercifully criticize the faults of another, you 
produce an
> attraction to yourself of certain quantities of elementals from 
that person.
> They fasten themselves upon you and endeavor to find in you a 
similar state
> or spot or fault that they have left in the other person. It is as 
if they
> left him to serve you at higher wages, so to say.
> 
> Then there is that which I referred to in a preceding conversation, 
about
> the effect of our acts and thoughts upon, not only the portion of 
the astral
> light belonging to each of us with its elementals, but upon the 
whole astral
> world. If men saw the dreadful pictures imprinted there and 
constantly
> throwing down upon us their suggestions to repeat the same acts or 
thoughts,
> a millennium might soon draw near. The astral light is, in this 
sense, the
> same as a photographer's negative plate, and we are the sensitive 
paper
> underneath, on which is being printed the picture. We can see two 
sorts of
> pictures for each act. 
> 
> One is the act itself, and the other is the picture of the thoughts 
and
> feelings animating those engaged in it. You can therefore see that 
you may
> be responsible for many more dreadful pictures than you had 
supposed. For
> actions of a simple outward appearance have behind them, very 
often, the
> worst of thoughts or desires." C on O.
> 
> 
> Dallas