CORRESPONDENCE

MR. MOHINI M. CHATTERJI.To the Editors ofLucifer.

MR. MOHINI M. CHATTERJI.

To the Editors ofLucifer.

Will you kindly afford publicity in the pages of Lucifer to the enclosed letter I have just received from Mr. Mohini M. Chatterji who has been staying for a few months at Rome, with English friends, on his way back to India.—Yours very truly,

A. P. Sinnett.

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE LONDON LODGE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

Sir,—I understand that among the members of your Society there is a rumour to the effect that I have joined the Roman Catholic Church, which has caused much annoyance to my friends and also to myself. I beg therefore that you will do me the justice to make it known that the rumour is entirely false and that I have no desire to join any Christian Church.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

Mohini M. Chatterji.

Rome(Italy),January 30th, 1888.

To the Editors ofLucifer.

On behalf of the members of the London Lodge, I beg to state that the rumour referred to in Mr. Mohini’s letter emanated from two acquaintances of his belonging to the Romish Church, who themselves derived their information from the R. C. priesthood. As for the members of the L. L. they never believed in this report.

Bertram Keightley, Hon. Sec.

CORRESPONDENCE

[The editors have received the two following letters—one from the learned Founder of Hylo-Idealism, the other from a gentleman, a casual correspondent, of whom they knowabsolutely nothingexcept his most extraordinary way of expressing his thoughts in words and terms hitherto unheard by ordinary mortals. Both take the editors to task for using their undeniable right of criticism and editorial judgment. AsLucifer, however, is a magazinesui generis, and as its policy is the greatest possible tolerance and fairness to all parties concerned, it will abstain from its legal prerogative of leaving the letters without reply or notice.Luciferhands them over, therefore, to the “Adversary,” to be dealt with according to their respective merits. The editors have never pretended to an “understanding of Hylo-Idealism” nor do they entertain any such rash hope for the future. They belong to that humble class of mortals who labour to their dying day under the belief that 2 × 2 = 4, and can by no means, even hylo-idealistic, make 5. “C. N.”’s letter placed the new “philosophy” in an entirely different light; firstly, because it is written in good English, and because the style of the writer is extremely attractive; and secondly, because at least one point has now been made clear to the editors: “Hylo-Idealism” is, like modern spiritualism, theessence of transcendental materialism. If in Mr. Huxley’s opinion Comte’s Positivism is, in practice, “CatholicismminusChristianity,” in the views of the editors ofLuciferHylo-Idealism is “Metaphysicsminuspsychology and—physics.” Let its apostles explain away its flagrant contradictions, and thenLuciferwill be the first to render justice to it as a philosophy. Meanwhile, it can only acknowledge a number of remarkably profound thoughts that are to be found scattered in independent solitude throughout the letters of Dr. Lewins (Humanismv.Theism) and others, and—no more.]

To the Editors ofLucifer.

Perhaps space may be found in the February or other early issue of yourinteresting and suggestive serial for the present curt communication. In a footnote of your January number I am coupled with Mr. H. Spencer as being more Atheist than Moleschott and Büchner—to say nothing of such compromising and irresolute scientists as Darwin, Huxley, and Co. Now, that atheistic or non-animist standpoint is the pivot on which my whole synthesis revolves; and is, I contend, the burning problem at this epoch—ethical and intellectual—of the human mind—thoroughlyto establish on certain concrete, rational and scientificdata, that is to say—not on the Utopias of Speculation and Metaphysics. My principle is exactly that of Kant (inter alios) when he formulates the “Thing in Itself.” But we have only to study the short and handy “Critique of Kant,” referred to in your columns—by Kuno Fischer, translated by Dr. Hough, to see how fast and loose that “all-shattering” metaphysician played with his all-destructive theme. Not only does he entirely reverse it and its corollaries in his critique of the “Practical Reason,” and of “Judgment,” but also in the second edition of the “Critique of Pure Reason” itself, in which originally, as its corollary, or rather concomitant, he, like myself, only on less sure premises, disposes of God, the Soul (Anima or Vital Principle), and Immortality—that is of another “personal” life after death. I hold with Lucretius, Epicurus, and others in ancient and modern times, of whom Shelley is a typical case, that no greater benefit can be bestowed on humanity than the elimination from sane thought of this ghastly and maddening Triune Spectre. God alone is quite“l’infame”Voltaire dubs the Catholic Church. Looking through Nature “red in tooth and claws” to itspseudoAuthor, we must expect to find aPandemon. For any omnipotent Being who, unconditioned and unfettered in all respects, “willed” such a world of pain and anguish for sentient creatures, must be a Demonworsethan mythology has fabled of Satan, Moloch, Mammon, or other fiends. It must be noted that in the classic Pantheon, the Fates, or Fatal Sisters, are “above” all the Immortals of Olympus, including Jove himself—asaving provision quite inadmissible in modern Monotheism, which endows its Divinity[189]with absolute omnipotence and fore-knowledge.

Robert Lewins, M.D.

To the Editors ofLucifer.

I have to thank you for your kind insertion of my note on above in January issue of the Magazine.

I have not the slightest desire to quarrel with your prefaced comments on my style of writing. It seems to you to be “turgid,” and you take advantage of some unkind epithets lately dealt out to Theosophy in theSecular Reviewto return the compliment to me with interest added. Be it so. It would seem but fair to, let me say, compliment those, and those only, who have directly complimented you; but I have no wish, as I have just said, to find fault withanycomment on Hylo-Idealism or on the methods of its advocacy.Allcriticism is, I know, received by the excogitator of the system with thanks, and, save that both he and I think your notere “Theobroma”not a little at fault (for explanation I refer you to the well-known Messrs. Epps), I can say the same for myself.

I can see, however, in spite of the raillery with which you honour us, that a right understanding of Hylo-Idealism—I beg pardon,High-lowIdealism—is still very far from being yours. Why, in a recent issue ofLuciferthe old difficulty of, as I call it, the “Coincident assumption of Materiality” is started as if it had never before been thought of. It is, in point of fact, fully dealt with in my “Appendix” to the “Auto-Centricism” pamphlet, which has already passed under your review! It is not worth while to enter once more upon this point; suffice it then to say, in addition, that I explained it also, at full length, to a Theosophical writer—Mr. E. D. Fawcett—in theSecular Review, some months ago. He had started the same venerable objection, but after my reply, he so far honoured me as not to return to the charge. Let him do so now, and then a Theosophical attack and a Hylo-Ideal defence will be before you. But, really, it is no argument against my position to extract some half-dozen lines of my writing from a contemporary and to follow thissoupçonwith three printer’s “shrieks.”

I shall wait with interest the promised letter from “C. N.,” placing Hylo-Idealism in a “new and very different light,” as you say. This is something quite new. Dr. Lewins, C. N., and I have, none of us,been able, hitherto, to find any material difference between our several presentations of the system.

I have the honour to be, Mesdames,Your most obedient servant,G. M. McC.

I have the honour to be, Mesdames,

Your most obedient servant,

G. M. McC.

The several learned gentlemen of the above persuasion, who have honouredLuciferwith their letters and articles, will please to accept the present as a collective Reply. Life is too short to indulge very often in such lengthy explanations. But“une fois n’est pas coutume.”

In “coupling” Dr. Lewins’ name with those he mentions—especially with Mr. Herbert Spencer’s—the Editors had assuredly no intention of saying anything derogatory to the dignity of the founder of Hylo-Idealism. They have called the latter system—its qualification ofIdealisticnotwithstanding——“atheistical,” and to this Dr. Lewins himself does not demur. Quite the contrary. If his protest (against a casual remark made in a footnote of two lines!) means anything at all, it means that he feels hurt to find his name associated with the names of such “compromising and (inatheism) irresolute scientists as Darwin, Huxley, and Co.” What is it that our erudite correspondent demurs to, then? Just that, and nothing more. His prefixed adjectives refer to the half-heartedness of these gentlemen in the matter of atheism and materialism, not surely, to their scientific achievements. Indeed, these illustrious naturalists are timid enough to leave half-opened doors in their speculations for something to enter in which is not quite matter, and yet what it is they do not, ordo not wishto know.

Indeed, they derive man, his origin and consciousness,onlyfrom the lower forms of animal creation and the brutes, instead of attributing life, mind and intellect—as the followers of the new System do—simply to the pranks played byPrakriti(the great Ignorance and Illusion) on our “diseased nervous centres”—abstract thoughtbeing synonymous withNeuropathyin the teachings of the Hylo-Idealists (seeAuto-Centricism, p. 40). But all this has been already said andbetter saidby Kapila, in hisSankhya, and is very old philosophy indeed; so that Messrs. Darwin and Co. have been, perhaps, wise in their generation to adopt another theory. Our great Darwinists are practical men, and avoid running after the hare and the eagle at the same time, as the hare in such case would be sure torun away, and the eagle to be lost in the clouds. They prefer to ignore the ideas and conceptions of the Universe, as held by such “loose,” and—as philosophically expressed by ouruncompromisingopponent—“all-shattering metaphysicians as Kant was.” Therefore letting all such “metaphysical crack-brained theories” severely alone, they made man and his thinkingEgothe lineal descendant of the revered ancestor of the now tailless baboon, our beloved and esteemed first cousin. This is only logicalfrom the Darwinian standpoint. What is, then, Dr. Lewins’ quarrel with these great men, or with us? They have their theory, the inventor of Hylo-Idealism has his theory, we, Metaphysicians, have our ideas and theories; and, theMoonshining with impartial and equal light on the respective occiputs of Hylo-Idealists, Animalists, and Metaphysicians, she pours material enough for every one concerned to allow each of them to “live and let live.” No man can be at once a Materialist and an Idealist, and remain consistent. Eastern philosophy and occultism are based on theabsolute unityof the Root Substance, and they recognise only one infinite and universalCause. The Occultists areUnitarianspar excellence. But there is such a thing as conventional, time-honoured terms with one and the same meaning attached to them all—at any rate on this plane of illusion. And if we want to understand each other, we are forced to use such terms in their generally-accepted sense, and avoid calling mind matter, and vice versâ. The definition of amaterialised “Spirit”as frozen whiskey is in its place in a humouristic pun: it becomes an absurdity in philosophy. It is Dr. Lewins’ argument that “the very first principle of logic is, that two ‘causes’ are not to be thought of when one is sufficient;” and though the first and the ultimate, the Alpha and the Omega in the existence of the Universe, is one absolute cause, yet, on the plane of manifestations and differentiations, matter, as phenomenon, and Spirit as noumenon, cannot be so loosely confused as to merge the latter into the former, under the pretext that one self-evident natural cause (however secondary in the sight of logic and reason) is “sufficient for our purpose,” and we need not “transcend the proper conditions of thought” and fall back upon the lower level of “lawless and uncertain fancy”—i.e., metaphysics. (Vide“Humanismv.Theism,” pp. 14, 15.)

We have nothing whatever, I say it again, against “Hylo-Idealism” with the exception of its compound and self-contradictory name. Nor do we oppose Dr. Lewins’ earlier thoughts, asembodied in “C. N’s” “HUMANISMversusTHEISM.” That which we permit ourselves to object to and oppose is the later system grown into aBifrontian, Janus-like monster, a hybriddualitynotwithstanding its forced mask of Unity. Surely it is not because Dr. Lewins calls “Spirit—afiction” and attributes Mind, Thought, Genius, Intellect, and all the highest attributes of thinking man to simple effects or functions of Hylo-zoism, that the greatest problem of psychology,the relation of mind to matter, is solved? No one can accuse “The Adversary” of too much tenderness or even regard for the conclusions of such rank materialists as the Darwinians generally are. But surely no impartial man would attribute their constant failure to explain the relations of mind to matter, and the confessions of their ignorance of the ultimate constitution of that matter itself, to timidity and irresoluteness, but rather to the right cause:i.e., theabsolute impossibility of explaining spiritual effects by physical causes, in the first case; and the presence of that in matter which baffles and mocks the efforts of the physical senses to perceive or feel, and therefore to explain it, in the second case. It is not, evidently, a desire tocompromisethat forced Mr. Huxley to confess that “in strictness we (the Scientists) know nothing about the composition of matter,” but thehonestyof a man of science in not speculating upon what he did not believe in, and knew nothing about. Does J. Le Conte insult the majesty of physical science by declaring that the creation or destruction, increase or diminution of matter, “lies beyond the domain of science?”[190]And to whose prejudices does Mr. Tyndall pander, he, who once upon a time shocked the whole world of believers in spiritual existence, by declaring in his Belfast address that in matter alone was “the promise and potency of every form and quality of life” (just what Dr. Lewins does) when he maintains that “the passagefrom the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts ofCONSCIOUSNESSis unthinkable,” and adds:

“Granted that a definite thought and a molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously; we do not possess the intellectual organ nor apparently any rudiments of the organ, which would enable us to pass by a process of reasoning from one to the other. They appear together, butwe do not know why. Were our minds and senses so expanded, strengthened and illuminated, as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the brain; were we capable of following all their motions, all their groupings, all their electric discharges, if such there be; and were we intimately acquainted with the correspondingstates of thought and feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the problem. ‘How are these physical processes connected with the facts of consciousness?’ The chasm between the two classes of phenomena would still remain intellectually impassable.”[191]

To our surprise, however, we find that our learned correspondent—Tyndall, Huxley & Co., notwithstanding—has passed theintellectually impassablechasm by modes of perception, “anti-intellectual,” so to speak. I say this in no impertinent mood; but merely following Dr. Lewins on his own lines of thought. As his expressions seem absolutely antiphrastic in meaning to those generally accepted by the common herd, “anti-intellectual” would mean with the Hylo-Idealists “anti-spiritual” (spirit being afictionwith them). Thus their Founder must have crossed the impassable chasm—say, by a hylo-zoistic process of perception, “starting from the region of rational cogitation” and not from “that lower level of lawless and uncertain fancy,” as Theosophists, Mystics, and otherhoi polloiof thought, do. He has done it to his own “mental satisfaction,” and this is all a Hylo-Idealist will ever aspire to, as Dr. Lewins himself tells us. He “cannot deny that there may bebehind(?) nature a ‘cause of causes,’[192]but if so, it is a god who hides himself, or itself, from mortal thought. Nature is at all events vice-regent plenipotentiary, and withherthought has alone to deal.” Just so, and we say it too, for reasons given in the footnote. “There is a natural solution for everything,” he adds. “Of course, if there be no ‘cause,’ this solution is the arrangement and co-ordination of invariable sequences in our own minds ... rather than an ‘explanation’ or ‘accounting for’ phenomena. Properly speaking we can ‘account for’ nothing.Mental satisfaction—unity between microcosm and macrocosm, not the search after ‘First Causes.’ ... is the true chief end of man.” (Hum.v.Theism, p. 15.)

This seems the backbone of Hylo-Idealistic philosophy, which thus appears as a cross breed between Epicurianism and the “Illusionism” of the Buddhist Yogachâras. This stands proven by the contradictions in his system. Dr. Lewins seems to have achieved that, to do which every mortal scientist has hitherto failed, firstly, by declaring (in Hum.v.Theism, p. 17) the whole objective world—“phenomenalorideal”,[193]and “everything in itspectral” (Auto-Centricism, p. 9), and yetadmitting the reality of matter. More than this. In the teeth of all the scientific luminaries, from Faraday to Huxley, who all confess to knowingNOTHINGof matter, he declares that—“Matter organic and inorganicis now fully known” (Auto-Centricism, p. 40)!!

I humbly beg Dr. Lewins’ pardon for the rude question; but does he really mean to say what he does say? Does he want his readers to believe that up to his appearance in this world of matter, thinking men did not know what they were talking about, and that among all the “Ego Brains” of this globe his brain is the one omniscientreality, while all others are empty phantasms,orspectralballoons? Besides which, matter cannot surely berealandunrealat the same time. Ifunreal—and he maintains it—then all Science can know about it is that it knowsnothing, and this is precisely what Science confesses. And ifreal—and Dr. Lewins, as shown, declares it likewise—then hisIdealismgoes upside down, andHyloalone remains to mock him and his philosophy. These may be trifling considerations in the consciousness of anEgoof Dr. Lewins’ power, but they are very serious contradictions, and also impediments in the way of such humble thinkers as Vedantins, Logicians, and Theosophists, toward recognising, let alone appreciating, “Hylo-Idealism.” Our learned correspondent pooh-poohs Metaphysics, and at the same time not only travels on purely metaphysical grounds, but adopts and sets forth the most metaphysical tenets, the very gist of thePARA-metaphysical Vedanta philosophy, tenets held also by the Buddhist “Illusionists”—theYogachârasandMadhyamikas. Both schools maintain that all is void (sarva sûnya), or that which Dr. Lewins calls spectral and phantasmal. Except internal sensation or intelligence (vijnâna) the Yogachâras regard everything else as illusion. Nothing that is material can have any but aspectralexistence with them. So far, our “Bauddhas” are at one withtheHylo-Idealists, but they part at the crucial moment. The New School teaches that the Brain (the originator of consciousness) is the only factor and Creator of the visible Universe; that initalone all our ideas of external things are born, and that, apart from it, nothing has real existence, everything being illusion. Now what has that Brain, or rather the material its particles and cells are composed of, distinct in it from other matter that it should be rendered such honours?Physically, it differs very little indeed from the brain stuff and cranium of any anthropoid ape. Unless we divorce consciousness, or theEGO, from matter, one materialistic philosophy is as good as the other, and none is worth living for. What his Brain-Egois, Dr. Lewins does not show anywhere. He urges that his “atheistic ornon-animist(soulless) standpoint is thepivot” on which his “whole synthesis revolves.” But as that “pivot” is no higher than the physical brain with its hallucinations, then it must be a broken reed indeed. A philosophy that goes no further than superficial Agnosticism, and says that “what Tennyson says of Deitymaybe true, but it is not in the region of natural cogitation; for it transcends the logicalEncheiresis naturæ“ (Hum.v.Theism)—is no philosophy, but simplyunqualified negation. And one who teaches that ”savants, or specialists, are the last to reach thesumma scientiæ, for the constantsearchafter knowledge must ever prevent itsfruition” (ibid), cuts the ground himself under his feet, and thus loses the right, not only to be considered a man of science, but likewise his claim to the title of philosopher, for he rejects all knowledge. Dr. Lewins, quoting Schiller, “to the effect that truth can never be reached while the mind is in its analytic throes,” shows the poet-philosopher saying that:—“To capture the fleeting phantom he (the analyst) must fetter it by rules, must anatomatise its fair body into concepts, and imprisonits living spiritinto a bare skeleton of words”—and thus brings this as a prop and proof of his own arguments that we need not trouble ourselves with the “cause of causes.” But Schiller believed in spirit and immortality, while the Hylo-Idealists deny themin toto. What he says above is accepted by every Occultist and Theosophist, simply becausehe refers to the purely intellectual(not Spiritual)analysison the physical plane, and according to the present scientific methods. Such analysis, of course, will never help man to reach the realinnersoul-knowledge, but must ever leave him stranded in the bogs of fruitless speculation.

The truth is, that Hylo-Idealism is at bestQUIETISM—only on the purely material plane. “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,” seems its motto. Dr. Lewins tells us that he holds his views with Epicurus. I beg leave to contradict again. Epicurus insisted upon the necessity of making away with an unphilosophical, anthropomorphic deity— a bundle of contradictions—and so do we, the Theosophists. But Epicurus believed in gods, finite and conditioned in spaceand time, stilldivinewhen compared to objective ephemeral man: again, just as we, Theosophists, believe in them.

We feel sorry to have to say unpleasant truths. The Founder of Hylo-Idealism is evidently a marvellously well-read man, his learning is great and undeniable; and, we have always had an instinctive respect for, and sympathy with, thinkers of his calibre. But, we have been sent pamphlets and books on Hylo-Idealism for review, and one would be truant to his duty to conceal one’s honest and sincere views on anything. Therefore, we say that, contradictions and inconsistencies in the Hylo-Idealistic system apart, we find in it a mass of ideas andargumentswhich come forcibly home to us, because they are part and parcel of the Eastern Idealism. Our premises and propositions seem to be almost identical in some respects, but the conclusions we come to disagree in every point, the most important of which is the true nature of matter. This, which “has beenfabledas ‘Spirit,’” writes Dr. Lewins in 1878, “is really merely the ‘vis insita’ of matter or ‘nature’—the latter a misnomer if creation or birth is a delusion, as it must be on the hypothesis of the eternity of matter.”

Here the Doctor speaks evidently of “Spirit” from the Christian stand-point, and criticises it from this aspect. And from this stand-point and aspect he is perfectly right; but as wrong from those of Eastern philosophy. Did he but view Spirit,as one with eternal matter, which, though eternalin esseis but finite and conditioned during its periodical manifestations, he would not so materialise itsvis insita—which isvis vitæbut when applied to individual manifestations, the living subjects of illusion, or animated bodies. But this would lead us too far, and we must close the subject with one more protest. There is a casual remark in “Humanismv.Theisms” to the effect (on the authority of Ueberweg) that “the early Greek thinkers and Sages were Hylo-Zoists.” Aye, learned Doctor; but the early Greek thinkers understood Hylo-Zoism (from “Hyle”primordialmatter, or what the greatest chemist in England, Mr. Crookes, has called “protyle”undifferentiated matter, and “Zoe,” life) in a way very different from yours. So are we, Theosophists and Eastern Occultists, “Hylo-Zoists”; but it is because with us “life” is the synonym both of Spirit and Matter, or theOneeternal and infiniteLifewhether manifested or otherwise. ThatLifeis both the eternalIdeaand its periodicalLogos. He who has grasped and mastered this doctrine completelyhas thereby solved the mystery ofBeing.

“The Adversary.”

P.S.—We have in type a very excellent article by Mr. L. Courtney, which could not find room in this present number, but will appear in March. In it, the writer says all that hecanpossibly say in favour of Hylo-Idealism, and that is all one can do. Thus,Luciferwill give one fair chance more to the new System; after which it will have gained a certain right to neither answer at such length, nor accept any article on Hylo-Idealism that will go beyond a page or so.—“A.”

INTERESTING TO ASTROLOGERS.

ASTROLOGICAL NOTES—No. 4.To the Editor ofLucifer.

ASTROLOGICAL NOTES—No. 4.

To the Editor ofLucifer.

Question, at London, 1887, March 2nd, 6.8 p.m. What will be the duration of quesited’s life?

Though the preceding figure showed that my relative would recover from his illness,[194]yet it was obvious that the end could not be far distant; and I drew the present figure for the minute of the impression, to interrogate the stars.

The following are the elements of the figure:—

Cusp of 10th house 14 ♊.— 11th house 21 ♋.— 12th house 22 ♌.— 1st house 17° 45’ ♍.— 2nd house 10 ♎.— 3rd house 9 ♏.

Cusp of 10th house 14 ♊.

— 11th house 21 ♋.

— 12th house 22 ♌.

— 1st house 17° 45’ ♍.

— 2nd house 10 ♎.

— 3rd house 9 ♏.

Planets’ places are:♆ 25. 13. 15 ♉.♅ 11. 37. 30 R. ♎.♄ 15. 46. 30 R ♋.♃ 5. 41. 30 R ♏.♂ 23. 50. 45 ♓.☉ 11. 52. 19 ♓.♀ 3. 10. 30 ♈.☿ 29. 36. 15 ♓.☽ 8. 28. 15 ♊.Caput Draconis 27. 21. 38 ♌.⨁ 14. 20. 56 I.

Planets’ places are:

♆ 25. 13. 15 ♉.

♅ 11. 37. 30 R. ♎.

♄ 15. 46. 30 R ♋.

♃ 5. 41. 30 R ♏.

♂ 23. 50. 45 ♓.

☉ 11. 52. 19 ♓.

♀ 3. 10. 30 ♈.

☿ 29. 36. 15 ♓.

☽ 8. 28. 15 ♊.

Caput Draconis 27. 21. 38 ♌.

⨁ 14. 20. 56 I.

As in the previous figure the 6th house is the quesited’s 1st, and the 1st house is his 8th. As the time of the question was after sunset, ☿ ruling ♏ by night was lord of his 8th, and ♅ ruling ♒ by night was lord of his 1st. The aspect of the significators is ☿ 167° 58’ 45” ♅, separating from the Quincunx and applying to the Opposition. The Quincunx is, like the Conjunction and Parallel, convertible in nature, being good with benefics and evil with malefics, and when a benefic and malefic are thus joined, the stronger rules. It was therefore in this case doubly evil, as the significators were separating from one evil aspect and applying to anotherthough not within orbs of either. As ☿, the applying planet, was in a common sign, and is an angle of the figure, each degree signified a week; and as 12° 1′ 15´´ were wanted to complete the opposition, the critical period was shown to be a fraction over 12 weeks, or May 25th.

Danger to life was also shown byCauda Draconisin quesited’s 1st house; by ☉ in quesited’s 1st afflicted by a very close Quincunx of ♅ lord of his 1st, ♅ moreover receiving ☉ in his Detriment, and ☉ receiving ♅ in his Fall; and by ☽, lady of quesited’s 6th, posited in his 4th, and afflicted by a rather close Quartile of ☉ posited in his 1st, ☉ moreover receiving ☽ in his Anti-triplicity (sit venia verbo). Nevertheless, as the significators were not actually in any evil aspect, ☿ moreover receiving ♅ in his Triplicity, and being almost out of ♓ his Fall and Detriment, and the Detriment of ♅; ☽, lady of his 6th, and posited in his 4th, applying to a Trine of ♅ lord of his 1st; and ☿ lord of his 8th applying to Conjunction with ♀ lady of his 4th, ♀ moreover receiving ☿ in her exaltation;—all this denoted that May 25th would be the time, not indeed of certain death, but of imminent danger, the beginning of the end.

⨁ being in the 4th house of the figure, almost on the cusp, denoted a legacy to my father.

The actual result was as follows: After having been for some time in fair health, considering his age and recent illness,he was suddenly taken ill and in great danger on the night of May 27th, and on the morning of May 31st was in articulo mortis, and given up by his two physicians. From this, however, he rallied; relapsed on the night of July 6th; rallied again; butdied on July 19that 8.30 a.m., after a sudden seizure of only 15 minutes’ duration,and my father received a legacy under his will.

The quesited suffered much in his last illness from cough and dyspnœa. The certificate of death was—“Primary: emphysema, morbus cordis.Secondary: thrombus, syncope.” With this may be compared ♄ in ♋, having dignity in quesited’s 8th house, and afflicting ♅ lord of quesited’s 1st. ♄ in ♋ denotes “phthisis, ulceration in lungs, obstructions and bruises in breast, ague, scurvy, cancer, and cough.”

Nemo.

146. Jesus says to the “Twelve”—“Unto you is given the mystery of the Kingdom of God; butunto them that are without, all things are done in parables,“ etc. (Mark iv.II.)

147.e.g., to the little article “Autocentricism”—on the same “philosophy,” or again, to the apex of the Hylo-Idealist pyramid in this Number. It is a letter of protest by the learned Founder of the School in question, against amistakeof ours. He complains of our “coupling” his name with those of Mr. Herbert Spencer, Darwin, Huxley, and others, on the question of atheism and materialism, as the said lights in the psychological and physical sciences are considered by Dr. Lewins too flickering, too “compromising” and weak, to deserve the honourable appellation of Atheists or even Agnostics. See “Correspondence” in Double Column, and the reply by “The Adversary.”

148. Jehovah, of course, in his own national character of Baal, Moloch, Typhon, etc. The final and conclusive identification of the “Lord God” of Israel with Moloch, we find in the last chapter ofLeviticus, concerningthings devoted not to be redeemed.... “A man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath,both of manand beast.... None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed,but shall surely be put to death... for it ismost holy unto the Lord.” (See Leviticus xxvii., 28, 29, 30.)“Notwithstanding the numerous proofs that the Israelites worshipped a variety of gods, and even offered human sacrifices until a far later period than their Pagan neighbours, they have contrived to blind posterity in regard to truth. They sacrificed human life as late as 169B.C.(Vide“Joseph. contra Apion,” 11, 8—what Antiochus Epiphanius found in the Temple), and theBiblecontains a number of such records. At a time when the Pagans had long abandoned the abominable practice, and had replaced the sacrificial man by the animal, and the ox of Dionysius was sacrificed at the Bacchic Mysteries (“Anthon,” p. 365), Jephthah is represented sacrificing his own daughter to the‘Lord’‘Lord’for a burnt-offering.”Isis Unveiled, vol ii., pp. 524, 525.

“Notwithstanding the numerous proofs that the Israelites worshipped a variety of gods, and even offered human sacrifices until a far later period than their Pagan neighbours, they have contrived to blind posterity in regard to truth. They sacrificed human life as late as 169B.C.(Vide“Joseph. contra Apion,” 11, 8—what Antiochus Epiphanius found in the Temple), and theBiblecontains a number of such records. At a time when the Pagans had long abandoned the abominable practice, and had replaced the sacrificial man by the animal, and the ox of Dionysius was sacrificed at the Bacchic Mysteries (“Anthon,” p. 365), Jephthah is represented sacrificing his own daughter to the‘Lord’‘Lord’for a burnt-offering.”Isis Unveiled, vol ii., pp. 524, 525.

149. It is said in the “Holy Book,” that it was “the Lord (who) was with Judah,” who “could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron,” (Judges i. 19), and not “Judah” at all. This is but natural, according to popular belief and superstition that “the Devil is afraid ofiron.” The strong connection and even identity between Jehovah and the Devil is ably insisted upon by the Rev. Haweis. See his “Key” (p. 22).—Ed.

150. And yet it is this “demoniacal and diabolical religion” that passed part and parcel into Protestantism.—Ed.

151. So “the people and priests” do now. And as the late Rev. Henry Ward Beecher once said in a sermon, “could Jesus come back and behave in the streets of Christian cities as he did in those of Jerusalem, he would be declared an impostor and then confined in prison.”—Ed.

152. Only, as suchtruthandfreedomamounts to the Church committing suicide and burying herself with her own hands, she will never allow such a thing. She will die her natural death the day when there will not exist a man, woman or child to believe any longer in her dogmas. And this beneficent result might be achieved within her own hierarchy, were there many such sincere, brave and honest clergymen who, like the writer of this article, fear not to speak the truth—whatever may come—[Ed.]

153. See Deut. iv.

154. See Rev. xxi.

155. See Rev. xii.

156.i.e., The invisible, universal, and eternal principle which mortals can only conceive of as the sum total of the combined spirits of Truth, Love, and Wisdom, when manifested in that “Son of Man,” orHUMANITY, which is also the “Son of God,” collectively and individually.

157. In the Kabala, the Bride of the “Heavenly Man,”Tetragrammaton, is Malkuth—the foundation or kingdom. It is our earth, which, whenregeneratedand purified (as matter), will be united to her bridegroom (Spirit). But in Esotericism there are two aspects of theLOGOS, or the “Father-Son,” which latter becomes his own father; one is theUNMANIFESTEDEternal, the other the manifested and periodicalLOGOS. The “Bride” of the former is the universe as nature in the abstract. She is also his “MOTHER”; who, “clothed with the bridegroom’s power,” gives birth to the manifested universe (the secondlogos) through her own inherent, mystic power, and is, therefore, the Immaculate Mother; “the woman clothed with the sun, and travailing” in child birth, in Revelation, ch. xii.—Ed.

158. See Psalm lxxxiv., 11.

159.i.e.The Universal Spirit in whom all things exist and have being. That Eternal Principle which fills all Space and Time, and isSpaceand Time (in its abstract sense, as otherwise it would be anextra-CosmicGod), and is perfect in perfection.

160. See Matt. xii., 42.

161. Luke ix., 56.

162.Aanruis the celestial field where the defunct’s soul received wheat and corn, growing thereinseven cubits high. (See “Book of the Dead,” 124et seq.)—Ed.

163.Amrita(immortal) applied to the Soma juice, and called the “Water of Life.”—Ed.

164. This is a doctrine of the Visishtadwaita sect of the Vedantins. TheJiva(spiritual life principle, the livingMonad) of one who attained Moksha or Nirvana,“breaks“breaksthrough the Brahmarandra and goes toSuryamandala(the region of the sun) through the Solar rays. Then it goes, through a dark spot in the Sun, to Paramapeda to which it is directed by the Supreme Wisdom acquired byYoga, and helped thereinto by theDevas(gods) called Archis, the “Flames,” or Fiery Angels, answering to the Christian archangels.—Ed.

165.VideLegend of Jyotishka, mentioned in “Life of Buddha from the Bkah-Hgyur.”

166. A paper read before the Chicago Branch of the Theosophical Society, by its Secretary, M. L. Brainard.

167. “Isis Unveiled,” Vol 1., p. 514.

168. Hence in Kabalistic symbolism thepentacle, or the six-pointed star, is the sign of themanifested“Logos,” or the “Heavenly man,” the Tetragrammaton. “The four-lettered Adni (Adonai, “the Lord”), is theEheieh(the symbol oflifeor existence), is the Lord of the six limbs (6 Sephiroth) and his Bride (Malkuth, or physical nature, also Earth) is his seventh limb.” (Ch.Book of Numbersviii. 3-4.)—Ed.

Back to Index Next