“Within the sanctuary, behind the altar, we saw the fragments of amarble cathedra, upon the back of which we found the following inscription, exactly as it is here written, no part of it having been injured or obliterated, affording perhaps the only instance known of a sepulchral inscription upon a monument of thisremarkableremarkableform.”
“Within the sanctuary, behind the altar, we saw the fragments of amarble cathedra, upon the back of which we found the following inscription, exactly as it is here written, no part of it having been injured or obliterated, affording perhaps the only instance known of a sepulchral inscription upon a monument of thisremarkableremarkableform.”
The inscription ran thus: ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣ ΠΡΩΤΟΥ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΣ ΛΑΡΙΣΣΑΙΟΣ ΠΕΛΑΣΓΙΟΤΗΣ ΕΤΩΝ ΙΗ or, “Chrestos, the first, a Thessalonian from Larissa, Pelasgiot 18 years old Hero,” Chrestos thefirst(protoo), why? Read literally the inscription has little sense; interpreted esoterically, it is pregnant with meaning. As Dr. Clarke shows, the word Chrestos is found on the epitaphs of almost all the ancient Larissians; but it is preceded always by a proper name. Had the adjective Chrestos stood after a name, it would only mean “a good man,” a posthumous compliment paid to the defunct, the same being often found on our own modern tumular epitaphs. But the word Chrestos, standing alone and the other word, “protoo,” following it, gives it quite another meaning, especially when the deceased is specified as a “hero.” To the mind of an Occultist, the defunct was a neophyte, who had died in his 18th yearof neophytism,[98]and stood in the first or highest class of discipleship, having passed his preliminary trials as a “hero;” but had died before the last mystery, which would have made of him a “Christos,” ananointed, one with the spirit of Christos or Truth in him. He had not reached the end of the “Way,” though he had heroically conquered the horrors of the preliminary theurgic trials.
We are quite warranted in reading it in this manner, after learning the place where Dr. Clarke discovered the tablet, which was, as Godfrey Higgins remarks, there, where “I should expect to find it, at Delphi, in the temple of the God IE.,” who, with the Christians became Jah, or Jehovah, one with Christ Jesus. It was at the foot of Parnassus, in a gymnasium, “adjoining the Castalian fountain, which flowed by the ruins of Crisa, probably the town called Crestona,” etc. And again. “In the first part of its course from the (Castalian) fountain, it (the river) separates the remains of the gymnasium ... from the valley of Castro,” as it probably did from the old city of Delphi—the seat of the great oracle of Apollo, of the town of Krisa (or Kreusa) the great centre of initiations and of theChrestoiof the decrees of the oracles, where the candidates for the lastlabourwere anointed with sacred oils[99]before being plunged into their last trance of forty-nine hours’ duration (as to this day, in the East), from which they arose as glorified adepts orChristoi.”
“In the Clementine Recognitions it is announced that the father anointed his son with‘oil‘oilthat was taken from the wood of the Tree of Life, and from this anointing he is called theChrist:’Christ:’whence the Christian name. This again is Egyptian. Horus was the anointed son of the father. The mode of anointing him from the Tree of Life, portrayed on the monuments, is very primitive indeed; and the Horus of Egypt was continued in the Gnostic Christ, who is reproduced upon the Gnostic stones as the intermediate link betwixt theKarestand the Christ, also as the Horus of bothsexes.”sexes.”(“The name and nature of the Christ.”—Gerald Massey.)
“In the Clementine Recognitions it is announced that the father anointed his son with‘oil‘oilthat was taken from the wood of the Tree of Life, and from this anointing he is called theChrist:’Christ:’whence the Christian name. This again is Egyptian. Horus was the anointed son of the father. The mode of anointing him from the Tree of Life, portrayed on the monuments, is very primitive indeed; and the Horus of Egypt was continued in the Gnostic Christ, who is reproduced upon the Gnostic stones as the intermediate link betwixt theKarestand the Christ, also as the Horus of bothsexes.”sexes.”(“The name and nature of the Christ.”—Gerald Massey.)
Mr. G. Massey connects the Greek Christos or Christ with the EgyptianKarest, the “mummy type of immortality,” and proves it very thoroughly. He begins by saying that in Egyptian the “Word of Truth” isMa-Kheru, and that it is the title of Horus. Thus, as he shows, Horus preceded Christ as the Messenger of the Word of Truth, the Logos or the manifestor of the divine nature in humanity. In the same paper he writes as follows:
The Gnosis had three phases—astronomical, spiritual, and doctrinal, and all three can be identified with the Christ of Egypt. In the astronomical phase the constellation Orion is called theSahuormummy. The soul of Horus was represented as rising from the dead and ascending to heaven in the stars of Orion. The mummy-image was the preserved one, the saved, therefore a portrait of the Saviour, as a type of immortality. This was the figure of a dead man, which, as Plutarch and Herodotus tell us, was carried round at an Egyptian banquet, when the guests were invited to look on it and eat and drink and be happy, because, when they died, they would become what the image symbolised—that is, they also would be immortal! This type of immortality was called theKarest, orKarust, and itwasthe Egyptian Christ. ToKaresmeans to embalm, anoint, to make the Mummy as a type of the eternal; and, when made, it was called theKarest; so that this is not merely a matter of name for name, theKarestfor theChrist.This image of theKarestwas bound up in a woof without a seam, the proper vesture of the Christ! No matter what the length of the bandage might be, and some of the mummy-swathes have been unwound that were 1,000 yards in length, the woof was from beginning to end without a seam.... Now, this seamless robe of the EgyptianKarestis a very tell-tale type of the mystical Christ, who becomes historic in the Gospels as the wearer of a coat or chiton, made without a seam, which neither the Greek nor the Hebrew fully explains, but which is explained by the EgyptianKetufor the woof, and by the seamless robe or swathing without seam that was made for eternal wear, and worn by the Mummy-Christ, the image of immortality in the tombs of Egypt.Further, Jesus is put to death in accordance with the instructions given for making theKarest. Not a bone must be broken. The trueKarestmust be perfect in every member. “This is he who comes out sound; whom men know not is his name.”In the Gospels Jesus rises again with every member sound, like the perfectly-preservedKarest, to demonstrate the physical resurrection of the mummy. But, in the Egyptian original, the mummy transforms. The deceased says: “I am spiritualised. I am become a soul. I rise as a God.” This transformation into the spiritual image, theKa, has been omitted in the Gospel.This spelling of the name as Chrest or Chrést in Latin is supremely important, because it enables me to prove the identity with the EgyptianKarestorKarust, the name of the Christ as theembalmedembalmedmummy, which was the image of the resurrection in Egyptian tombs, the type of immortality, the likeness of the Horus, who rose again and made the pathway out of the sepulchre for those who were his disciples or followers.Moreover, this type of the Karest or Mummy-Christ is reproduced in the Catacombs of Rome.No representation of the supposed historic resurrection of Jesus has been found on any of the early Christian monuments. But, instead of the missing fact, we find the scene of Lazarus being raised from the dead. This is depicted over and over again as the typical resurrection where there is no real one! The scene is not exactly in accordance with the rising from the grave in the Gospel. It is purely Egyptian, and Lazarus is an Egyptian mummy! Thus Lazarus, in each representation,isthe mummy-type of the resurrection; Lazarusisthe Karest, who was the Egyptian Christ, and who is reproduced by Gnostic art in the Catacombs of Rome as a form of the Gnostic Christ, whowas not and could not become an historical character.Further, as the thing is Egyptian, it is probable that the name is derived from Egyptian. If so, Laz (equal to Ras) means to be raised up, whilearu isthe mummy by name. With the Greekterminalterminalsthis becomes Lazarus. In the course of humanising the mythos the typical representation of the resurrection found in the tombs of Rome and Egypt would become the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead. This Karast type of the Christ in the Catacombs is not limited to Lazarus.By means of theKaresttype the Christ and the Christians can both be traced in the ancient tombs of Egypt. The mummy was made in this likeness of the Christ. It was the Christ by name, identical with theChrestoiof the Greek Inscriptions. Thus the honoured dead, who rose again as the followers of Horus-Makheru, the Word of Truth, are found to be the Christians οι χρηστοι, on the Egyptian monuments.Ma-Kheruis the term that is always applied to the faithful ones who win the crown of life and wear it at the festival which is designated ‘Come thou to me’—an invitation by Horus the Justifier to those who are the ‘Blessed ones of his father, Osiris’—they who, having made the Word of Truth the law of their lives, were the Justified—οι χρηστοι, the Christians, on earth.In a fifth century representation of the Madonna and child from the cemetery of St. Valentinus, the new-born babe lying in a box or cribisalso theKarest, or mummy-type, further identified as the divine babe of the solar mythos by the disk of the sun and the cross of the equinox at the back of the infant’s head. Thus the child-Christ of the historic faith is born, and visibly begins in theKarestimage of the dead Christ, which was the mummy-type of the resurrection in Egypt for thousands of years before the Christian era. This doubles the proof that the Christ of the Christian Catacombs was a survival of theKarestof Egypt.Moreover, as Didron shows, there was a portrait of the Christ who had his bodypainted red![100]It was a popular tradition that the Christwasof a red complexion. This, too, may be explained as a survival of the Mummy-Christ. It was an aboriginal mode of rendering thingstapuby colouring them red. The dead corpse was coated with red ochre—a very primitive mode of making the mummy, or the anointed one. Thus the God Ptah tells Rameses II. that he has “re-fashioned his flesh in vermilion.” This anointing with red ochre is calledKuraby the Maori, who likewise made the Karest or Christ.We see the mummy-image continued on another line of descent when we learn that among other pernicious heresies and deadly sins with which the Knights Templars were charged, was the impious custom of adoring a Mummy that had red eyes. Their Idol, called Baphomet, is also thought to have been a mummy.... The Mummy was the earliest human image of the Christ.I do not doubt that the ancient Roman festivals called theCharistiawere connected in their origin with theKarestand theEucharistas a celebration in honour of the manes of their departed kith and kin, for whose sakes they became reconciled at the friendly gathering once a year.... It is here, then, we have to seek the essential connection between the Egyptian Christ, the Christians, and the Roman Catacombs. These Christian Mysteries, ignorantly explained to be inexplicable, can be explained by Gnosticism and Mythology, but in no other way. It is not that they are insoluble by human reason, as their incompetent, howsoever highly paid, expounders now-a-days pretend. That is but the puerile apology of the unqualified for their own helpless ignorance—they who have never been in possession of the gnosis or science of the Mysteries by which alone these things can be explained in accordance with their natural genesis. In Egypt only can we read the matter to the root, or identify the origin of the Christ by nature and by name, to find at last that the Christ was the Mummy-type, and that our Christology is mummifiedmythology.mythology.—(Agnostic Annual.)
The Gnosis had three phases—astronomical, spiritual, and doctrinal, and all three can be identified with the Christ of Egypt. In the astronomical phase the constellation Orion is called theSahuormummy. The soul of Horus was represented as rising from the dead and ascending to heaven in the stars of Orion. The mummy-image was the preserved one, the saved, therefore a portrait of the Saviour, as a type of immortality. This was the figure of a dead man, which, as Plutarch and Herodotus tell us, was carried round at an Egyptian banquet, when the guests were invited to look on it and eat and drink and be happy, because, when they died, they would become what the image symbolised—that is, they also would be immortal! This type of immortality was called theKarest, orKarust, and itwasthe Egyptian Christ. ToKaresmeans to embalm, anoint, to make the Mummy as a type of the eternal; and, when made, it was called theKarest; so that this is not merely a matter of name for name, theKarestfor theChrist.
This image of theKarestwas bound up in a woof without a seam, the proper vesture of the Christ! No matter what the length of the bandage might be, and some of the mummy-swathes have been unwound that were 1,000 yards in length, the woof was from beginning to end without a seam.... Now, this seamless robe of the EgyptianKarestis a very tell-tale type of the mystical Christ, who becomes historic in the Gospels as the wearer of a coat or chiton, made without a seam, which neither the Greek nor the Hebrew fully explains, but which is explained by the EgyptianKetufor the woof, and by the seamless robe or swathing without seam that was made for eternal wear, and worn by the Mummy-Christ, the image of immortality in the tombs of Egypt.
Further, Jesus is put to death in accordance with the instructions given for making theKarest. Not a bone must be broken. The trueKarestmust be perfect in every member. “This is he who comes out sound; whom men know not is his name.”
In the Gospels Jesus rises again with every member sound, like the perfectly-preservedKarest, to demonstrate the physical resurrection of the mummy. But, in the Egyptian original, the mummy transforms. The deceased says: “I am spiritualised. I am become a soul. I rise as a God.” This transformation into the spiritual image, theKa, has been omitted in the Gospel.
This spelling of the name as Chrest or Chrést in Latin is supremely important, because it enables me to prove the identity with the EgyptianKarestorKarust, the name of the Christ as theembalmedembalmedmummy, which was the image of the resurrection in Egyptian tombs, the type of immortality, the likeness of the Horus, who rose again and made the pathway out of the sepulchre for those who were his disciples or followers.Moreover, this type of the Karest or Mummy-Christ is reproduced in the Catacombs of Rome.No representation of the supposed historic resurrection of Jesus has been found on any of the early Christian monuments. But, instead of the missing fact, we find the scene of Lazarus being raised from the dead. This is depicted over and over again as the typical resurrection where there is no real one! The scene is not exactly in accordance with the rising from the grave in the Gospel. It is purely Egyptian, and Lazarus is an Egyptian mummy! Thus Lazarus, in each representation,isthe mummy-type of the resurrection; Lazarusisthe Karest, who was the Egyptian Christ, and who is reproduced by Gnostic art in the Catacombs of Rome as a form of the Gnostic Christ, whowas not and could not become an historical character.
Further, as the thing is Egyptian, it is probable that the name is derived from Egyptian. If so, Laz (equal to Ras) means to be raised up, whilearu isthe mummy by name. With the Greekterminalterminalsthis becomes Lazarus. In the course of humanising the mythos the typical representation of the resurrection found in the tombs of Rome and Egypt would become the story of Lazarus being raised from the dead. This Karast type of the Christ in the Catacombs is not limited to Lazarus.
By means of theKaresttype the Christ and the Christians can both be traced in the ancient tombs of Egypt. The mummy was made in this likeness of the Christ. It was the Christ by name, identical with theChrestoiof the Greek Inscriptions. Thus the honoured dead, who rose again as the followers of Horus-Makheru, the Word of Truth, are found to be the Christians οι χρηστοι, on the Egyptian monuments.Ma-Kheruis the term that is always applied to the faithful ones who win the crown of life and wear it at the festival which is designated ‘Come thou to me’—an invitation by Horus the Justifier to those who are the ‘Blessed ones of his father, Osiris’—they who, having made the Word of Truth the law of their lives, were the Justified—οι χρηστοι, the Christians, on earth.
In a fifth century representation of the Madonna and child from the cemetery of St. Valentinus, the new-born babe lying in a box or cribisalso theKarest, or mummy-type, further identified as the divine babe of the solar mythos by the disk of the sun and the cross of the equinox at the back of the infant’s head. Thus the child-Christ of the historic faith is born, and visibly begins in theKarestimage of the dead Christ, which was the mummy-type of the resurrection in Egypt for thousands of years before the Christian era. This doubles the proof that the Christ of the Christian Catacombs was a survival of theKarestof Egypt.
Moreover, as Didron shows, there was a portrait of the Christ who had his bodypainted red![100]It was a popular tradition that the Christwasof a red complexion. This, too, may be explained as a survival of the Mummy-Christ. It was an aboriginal mode of rendering thingstapuby colouring them red. The dead corpse was coated with red ochre—a very primitive mode of making the mummy, or the anointed one. Thus the God Ptah tells Rameses II. that he has “re-fashioned his flesh in vermilion.” This anointing with red ochre is calledKuraby the Maori, who likewise made the Karest or Christ.
We see the mummy-image continued on another line of descent when we learn that among other pernicious heresies and deadly sins with which the Knights Templars were charged, was the impious custom of adoring a Mummy that had red eyes. Their Idol, called Baphomet, is also thought to have been a mummy.... The Mummy was the earliest human image of the Christ.
I do not doubt that the ancient Roman festivals called theCharistiawere connected in their origin with theKarestand theEucharistas a celebration in honour of the manes of their departed kith and kin, for whose sakes they became reconciled at the friendly gathering once a year.... It is here, then, we have to seek the essential connection between the Egyptian Christ, the Christians, and the Roman Catacombs. These Christian Mysteries, ignorantly explained to be inexplicable, can be explained by Gnosticism and Mythology, but in no other way. It is not that they are insoluble by human reason, as their incompetent, howsoever highly paid, expounders now-a-days pretend. That is but the puerile apology of the unqualified for their own helpless ignorance—they who have never been in possession of the gnosis or science of the Mysteries by which alone these things can be explained in accordance with their natural genesis. In Egypt only can we read the matter to the root, or identify the origin of the Christ by nature and by name, to find at last that the Christ was the Mummy-type, and that our Christology is mummifiedmythology.mythology.—(Agnostic Annual.)
The above is an explanation on purely scientific evidence, but, perhaps, a little toomaterialistic, just because of that science, notwithstanding that the author is a well-known Spiritualist. Occultism pure and simple finds the same mystic elements in the Christian as in other faiths, though it rejects as emphatically its dogmatic andhistoriccharacter. It is a fact that in the terms Ιησοῦς ὁ χριστος (SeeActsv. 42, ix. 14; 1 Corinth. iii. 17, etc.), the article ὁ designating “Christos,” proves it simply a surname, like that of Phocion, who is referred to as Φωκίων ὁ χρηστός (Plut. v.). Still, the personage (Jesus) so addressed—whenever he lived—was a great Initiate and a “Son of God.”
For, we say it again, the surname Christos is based on, and the story of the Crucifixion derived from, events that preceded it. Everywhere, in India as in Egypt, in Chaldea as in Greece, all these legends were built upon one and the same primitive type; the voluntary sacrifice of thelogoï—theraysof the oneLogos, the direct manifested emanation from the One ever-concealed Infinite and Unknown—whoseraysincarnated in mankind. They consented tofall into matter, and are, therefore, called the “Fallen Ones.” This is one of those great mysteries which can hardly be touched upon in a magazine article, but shall be noticed in a separate work of mine,The Secret Doctrine, very fully.
Having said so much, a few more facts may be added to the etymology of the two terms. Χριστος being the verbal adjective in Greek of χρίω “to be rubbed on,”as ointmentor salve, and the word being finally brought to mean “theAnointed One,” in Christian theology; andKri, in Sanskrit, the first syllable in the name of Krishna, meaning “to pour out, or rub over, to cover with,”[101]among many other things, this may lead one as easily to make of Krishna, “the anointed one.” Christian philologists try to limit the meaning of Krishna’s name to its derivation fromKrish, “black”; but if the analogy and comparison of the Sanskrit with the Greek roots contained in the names of Chrestos, Christos, andChrishna, are analyzed more carefully, it will be found that they are all of the same origin.[102]
“In Bockh’s ‘Christian Inscriptions,’ numbering 1,287, there is no single instance of an earlier date than the third century, wherein the name is not writtenChrestorChreist.” (The Name and Nature of the Christ, by G. Massey, “The Agnostic Annual.”)
Yet none of these names can be unriddled, as some Orientalists imagine, merely with the help of astronomy and the knowledge of zodiacal signs in conjunction with phallic symbols. Because, while the sidereal symbols of the mystic characters or personifications in Puranâs or Bible, fulfil astronomical functions, their spiritual anti-types rule invisibly, but very effectively, the world. They exist as abstractions on the higher plane, as manifested ideas on the astral, and become males, females and androgyne powers on this lower plane of ours.Scorpio, asChrestos-Meshiac, and Leo, asChristos-Messiahantedated by far the Christian era in the trials and triumphs of Initiation during the Mysteries, Scorpio standing as symbol for the latter, Leo for the glorified triumph of the “sun” of truth. The mystic philosophy of the allegory is well understood by the author of the “Source of Measures”; who writes: “One (Chrestos) causing himself to go down into the pit (of Scorpio, or incarnation in the womb) for the salvation of the world; this was the Sun, shorn of hisgolden rays, andcrowned with blackened[103]ones(symbolizing this loss) as the thorns;the otherwas the triumphantMessiah, mounted up to thesummit of the arch of heaven, personated as theLion of the tribe of Judah. In both instances he had the Cross; once inhumiliation (as the son of copulation), and once holding it in his control, as the law of creation, he being Jehovah”—in the scheme of the authors of dogmatic Christianity. For, as the same author shows further, John, Jesus and even Apollonius of Tyana were but epitomizers of the history of the Sun “under differences of aspect or condition.”[104]The explanation, he says, “is simple enough, when it is considered that the namesJesus, Hebrew יש and Apollonius, or Apollo, are alike names of theSun in the heavens, and, necessarily, the history of the one, as to his travels throughthe signs, with the personifications of his sufferings, triumphs and miracles, could be but thehistory of the other, where there was a wide-spread, common method of describing those travels by personification.” The fact that the Secular Church was founded by Constantine, and that it was a part of his decree “that the venerable day of theSunshould be the day set apart for the worship of Jesus Christ asSun-day,” shows that they knew well in that “Secular Church” “that the allegory rested upon an astronomical basis,” as the author affirms. Yet, again, the circumstance that both Purânas and Bible are full of solar and astronomical allegories, does not militate against that other fact that all such scriptures in addition to these two areclosedbooks to the scholars “having authority.”(!) Nor does it affect that other truth, that all those systems arenot the work of mortal man, nor are they his invention in their origin and basis.
Thus “Christos,” under whatever name, means more thanKarest, a mummy, or even the “anointed” and theelectof theology. Both of the latter apply toChréstos, the man of sorrow and tribulation, in his physical, mental, and psychic conditions, and both relate to the HebrewMashiac(from whence Messiah) condition, as the word is etymologised[105]by Fuerst, and the author of “The Source of Measures,” p. 255. Christos is the crown of glory of the suffering Chréstos of the mysteries, as of the candidate to the finalUNION, of whatever race and creed. To the true follower of theSpirit of Truth, it matters little, therefore, whether Jesus, as man and Chrestos, lived during the era called Christian, or before, or never lived at all. The Adepts, who lived and died for humanity, have existed in many and all the ages, and many were the good and holy men in antiquity who bore the surname or title of Chrestosbefore Jesus of Nazareth, otherwise Jesus (or Jehoshua) Ben Pandira was born.[106]Therefore, one may be permitted to conclude, with good reason, that Jesus, or Jehoshua, was like Socrates, like Phocian, like Theodorus, and so many others surnamedChréstos,i.e., the “good, the excellent,” the gentle, and the holy Initiate, who showed the “way” to the Christos condition, and thus became himself “the Way” in the hearts of his enthusiastic admirers. The Christians, as all the “Hero-worshippers” have tried to throw into the background all the other Chréstoï, who have appeared to them as rivals oftheirMan-God. But if the voice of theMysterieshas become silent for many ages in the West, if Eleusis, Memphis, Antium, Delphi, and Crèsa have long ago been made the tombs of a Science once as colossal in the West as it is yet in the East, there are successors now being prepared for them. We are in 1887 and the nineteenth century is close to its death. The twentieth century has strange developments in store for humanity, and may even be the last of its name.
H. P. B.
(To be continued.)
(To be continued.)
(To be continued.)
decorative separator
It is the business of a musician to harmonize every instrument, but of a well educated man to adapt himself harmoniously to every fortune.
It is necessary that a well educated man should depart from life elegantly, as from a banquet.
It is beautiful to impede an unjust man; but if this be not possible, it is beautiful not to act in conjunction with him.
Sin should be abstained from, not through fear, but, for the sake of the becoming.
Many who have not learnt to argue rationally, still live according to reason.
Vehement desires about any one thing render the soul blind with respect to other things.
The equal is beautiful in everything, but excess and defect to me do not appear to be so.
It is the property of a divine intellect to be always intently thinking about the beautiful.
Correspondence.
[The following letter has been received by the editors, in criticism on Mr. Keightley’s article on “Karma”; and as it raises many rather important points, an attempt has been made to answer them. Mr. Beatty’s letter is somewhat difficult to deal with, for though it asks many questions, they are so inextricably mingled with its author’s thoughts that it would be unfair to disentangle them from the context. It is a pity that Mr. Beatty, in his haste to criticize, did not wait for the conclusion of the article, as he might have saved himself some trouble. If his real desire is to learn, it would be well that he should approach the endeavour in a less flippant spirit and evolve the critic out of the criticaster. In many of his arguments he has, so to say, “given himself away,” but, in the interests of space and of the readers ofLucifer, only those questions and arguments which bear directly on the points at issue have been selected for answer. The point which Mr. Beatty does “not care to discuss,” and which refers to the mystery of Godliness, has been omitted. Perhaps, if Mr. Beatty continues to read, mark, learn,and inwardly digest, he may in somefuture incarnationsolve the mystery.]
In an article inLucifer, under the above heading, Mr. Keightley declares it to be “very difficult, if not well-nigh impossible,” to understand Karma, and I grant him that his essay is a practical demonstration of his allegation. The difficulty (1.) does not, however, hinder him from attempting to define the refractory term. “Karma,” he says, “is the working of the great law which governs reincarnation,” or “a manifestation of the One, Universal, Divine Principle in the phenomenal world,” or again, “the great law of harmony which governs the universe.” Now, waiving altogether the question of reincarnations, I shall proceed to examine whether Mr. Keightley makes good his contention that “harmony,” in his sense of the word, “governs the Universe.” He says, “the man who denies the existence of harmony in the universe has transgressed the law and is experiencing punishment. He does this unconsciously to himself, because the law of harmony forms an unconscious impulse to its readjustment when it has been broken.” Here there are several things to be considered. In the first place, it may be asked: (2.) Does a man, by merely denying the existence of a law of Nature or the universe,transgresstransgressthat law? I think not.[107]Secondly. Can a law of the universe be “broken”? Here again I must reply in the negative; for who is going to contend that the law of gravitation has ever been “broken,”[108]has ever ceased to act, has ever required “re-adjustment”? A mancan break no law of Nature in the sense of bringing that law into abeyance. If then, a law of harmony governs the universe there can be no such thing as discord. (3.) Yet Mr. Keightley admits that thereisdiscord, that the law of harmony has been “broken” and needs “readjustment” This is a surrendering of his position and a patent admission that harmony is not constant or universal. He then proceeds to draw an illustration from music. “In musical chords, the composing notes, if taken by twos and threes, will be found in discord, but, when taken together, produce a harmony.” This is a particularly unfortunate subject of illustration. For does it not show that discord is an element in the universe as well as harmony? Why are discords introduced into music? Simply to make the harmony more effective. The reason for this, however, does not lie in any so-called universal law of harmony, but rather in the constitution of animate existences. Fundamentally, sensation is the consciousness of difference. Where the difference is great the feeling is great. If we wish to have the keenest sensation of sweetness we must first taste something bitter. Thus it is that occasional discords heighten harmony. But are the discords any less real on that account? Certainly not; for there can no more be harmony without discord, than there can be an up without a down. This, moreover, is only another illustration of the fact that human knowledge is merely relative. Must we, however, admit that the universal law may be harmony while our experience tells us that there are discords without number? Unless ignorance be considered as superior to positive knowledge, I see no room for the admission. If a man’s house tumbles about his ears, does it become any less a fact by trying to persuade himself and his neighbours that it is still standing? This seems to be the method of Mr. Keightley. He has, however, yet another argument “The universe ... is essentially an evidence of harmony; otherwise it could not exist, for it would fall to pieces.” This is a palpable begging of the question, and, besides, very absurd. The universe is a harmony, because a universe must be a harmony! “Otherwise it could not exist.” Now how does our harmonist know whether it could exist or not? Of what other universe has he experience or knowledge? “It would fall to pieces.” Where, I wonder, would it fall to? Perhaps it is even now fast falling to pieces, and who can tell us differently? As far as ordinary people can judge, it seems, as regards the parts we are acquainted with, to be falling into more or less concrete masses, but not many sane people believe it can fall into nothingness. After all this vain contention for universal harmony we find Mr. Keightley settling down like ordinary mortals to the conviction that the world is far from harmonious or perfect. One unfortunate individual who cannot be persuaded that all is harmony, is told that “he is incapable of understanding it because his attention is solely devoted to that which produces discord.” How comes it that the universe does not fall to pieces as a result of this discord? Surely we are in a precarious condition, if every obstinate fool who persists in crying out when he has been hurt, endangers the stability of the universe. Did ever anyone meet with a universe where there is less evidence of harmony? One brute force ever in conflict with another. Infernal forces piling up mountain on the top of mountain; supernal forces blasting, rending, excoriating and tumbling these mountains down again into the valleys; the oak struggling against the inwarping ivy, the fawn attempting vainly to escape from the claws of thetiger, the child agonising whileparasitesparasiteseat slowly and mercilessly into its lungs, liver, or brain; the strong everywhere victorious over the weak; each sect and each party exerting itself ferociously to scoop out the viscera of its rival. Such is the world, such all records declare it to have been, and such it gives ample promise of continuing. But if the world is not really so, and on the contrary is one immensity of joyous harmony, who can tell us why the evidence is so deceptive? Here again, Mr. Keightley introduces to us a most remarkable statement. “The one Divine principle is divided by man’s actions into two opposing forces of good and evil, and man’s progress depends on the exertion of his will to preserve harmony and prevent deviation to one side or the other.” Give us by all means in preference to this for common sense, for rationality and for every other quality that makes it digestible, the childish story of Eve, the apple and the fall.
Beyond doubt, Mr. Keightley has a profound faith in man as a power in the universe and an instrument for evil. By a most singular process of metaphysical alchemy man decomposes the “Divine principle” into “two opposing forces of good and evil.” It seems from this revised version of an old story that man introduced evil into the universe. Why is man so important that a universe should be polluted for his sake? Surely man did not make himself, and whatever powers were in him for evil or for good must have been potential in that from which he sprang. Man can create nothing, neither evil nor good, neither a tendency to do right nor an inclination to do wrong. “Man’s will” is always a tremendous force for good or evil in the hands of theologians and metaphysicians. Did man make his own “will?” If not, how can he be responsible for what he does? Everybody knows that man can act according to his likes or dislikes. But does anybody imagine that he can make his own likes or dislikes? (4.) He can do as he wishes, but he wishes according to his nature, and this he cannot transcend, consequently he is not responsible to the Author of his nature for what his nature inclines him to do. But what are we to understand by the rest of the sentence? Man’s will is “to preserve harmony and prevent deviation to one side or the other.” First the will brings about evil in the “Divine principle,” destroying harmony, then it is to reproduce harmony and at the same time to maintain a balance between good and evil, and “prevent deviation to the one side or the other.” This to Mahatmas and possessors of the “sixth sense” may seem plain logic, but it far surpasses my comprehension.[109]I am, perhaps, as averse to “the pernicious doctrine of reward and punishment after death, in heaven or in hell” as Mr. Keightley can be, but I can by no means deduce from it the results which to him appear so inevitable. “Nothing,” he says, “could have been found more calculated to circumscribe the view of life as a whole, and concentrate man’s attention on temporary matters.... He either rejected the idea of soul as altogether worthless, or else he transferred his interest to the soul’s welfare in heaven—in either case concentrating his attention on what is inevitably transient.” How the idea of never-ending existence in heaven or in hell can have the effect of circumscribing “the view of life as a whole,” and of concentrating “man’s attention ontemporary matters,” is to me an insolvable puzzle. That it should have quite the opposite effect, does not seem to require proof. Why, in the name of mystery, should he “reject the idea of soul as worthless,” and how can transferring “his interest to the soul’s welfare in heaven” be called a concentrating of “his attention on what is inevitably transient?” Truly this Karma is a bewildering subject![110]
Do plants and animals come under the law of Karma? is the next question discussed by Mr. Keightley. An extract from theTheosophistseems to discountenance such a thing. But are its arguments really conclusive against it? I do not think so. It says, “A piece of iron is attracted to a magnet without having any desire in the matter.” Now, in the first place, this is pure assumption, and has its origin in vainglorious human egotism.[111]It is evident that from objective data alone we cannot decide what is the subjective state of the molecules of the attracted iron. In the second place, we are only acquainted with the iron as a cause producing changes in us. No matter how we interpret these changes, they cannot even tell us the real nature of iron, merely considered objectively. Again the extract proceeds: “An animal usually follows the instincts of its nature without any merit or demerit for so doing; a child or an idiot may smilingly kick over a lamp, which may set a whole city on fire.... A person can only be held responsible according to his ability to perceive justice, and to distinguish between good and evil.” According to this doctrine, man is not an “animal,” and does not follow his instincts. To those who are acquainted, even slightly, with the method and regularity of Nature, this contention will appear, on the face of it, untenable. For why should there be an exception in the case of man?[112]Has man instincts, desires, and inclinations, or has he not? If he has, why should he have them if he is not to follow them? And if in any case he does not follow them, is it not with him as with the “animals”? Is it not because he is deterred by influences from without, or hereditary influences from within? And of all these instincts, desires and influences, how is he to know which to obey, to know which is of Divine sanction? He has conscience, of course, but conscience is a very variable quantity, and indeed, it might not be too much to say that there is hardly a crime in the world that has not, at one time or another, been commended by conscience. Conscience is only one phase of the man’s mental activity, and was no more created by him than was his power of vision. We talk of “children and idiots,” and their being irresponsible, but are not untamed savages also irresponsible? And if we admit that there may be beings as muchhigher than we, as we are higher than children, idiots, and savages, will they not, with reason and justice, regard us as irresponsible? The truth is, there never was a greater chimera conjured up by unreasoning fancy than that one of man’s responsibility to a Supreme Power. Man is responsible only to man, and man’s conduct is without merit except from a human view-point. We are good or bad by reason of all the forces that act on and through us.
My object in writing what I have written is to show to Theosophists the dense darkness in which I wander. Will some God-illumined mind not take pity upon, and draw me up from the labyrinthian gloom, where illusions mislead me at every step? My “sixth sense” seems wholly dormant, and Nirvana, that haven of rest, seems distant, by many a weary league of rocky path and burning desert. Pity me.
5, Christie Street, Paisley.J. H. Beatty.>
5, Christie Street, Paisley.
J. H. Beatty.>
(1.) The difficulty experienced in fathoming the mysteries of Karmic Law arises from the conditions of our present intellectual environment and general evolutionary status. It has been, also, frequently stated that acompletecomprehension of its workings is reserved for the Initiate who has transcended the domain of terrestrial activity—viz., the necessity for soul-evolution through successive births. But, passing over this consideration, it is evident that, in the process of bringing down fragments of the Divine Truth on to the plane of mere intellectual interpretation, an inevitable distortion must ensue. The rays of spiritual light will be split up and refracted as they pass through the prism of the brain. Mr. Beatty will recognise this fact more clearly owing to his belief “thathumanknowledge ismerely relative.” Surely, when that most familiar fact of our experience, the “perception of matter,” is, metaphysically speaking, an illusion, the relativity ofmentalconceptions of spiritual truths would appear to be a necessity. According to Huxley, Spencer, Du Bois Reymond, and all leading thinkers, we know nothing of things as they are even on this plane, which to the materialist is “All in all.” The essence of the thing “perceived” escapes us; all we really grasp is its presentation in consciousness. It is, therefore, clear that in interpreting realities on the superphysical plane, we cannot advance beyond word-symbols and adumbrations. The intuition of the individual must effect the rest.
Such considerations, however, in no way militate against the successful defence of Esoteric philosophy on purely intellectual lines. Translated into terms of human thought, its metaphysics must be shown to blend intimately with thefactsof science and psychology, and its ability to solve the enigmas of life demonstrated. “Philosophy is chaos,” remarks the author of “Absolute Relativism,” referring to modern thought. If we are to avoid the spectacle of a future “moral chaos,” also, as the fruit of the materialistic Upas tree, some fresh impulse must be infused into the dry bones of Western metaphysics—someraison d’êtreassigned to life, and an ideal worthy of man’s noblest efforts presented to the multitude oflaissez-fairepessimists. Such is an aspect of the work now before us.
(2.) A man may certainly injure himself[113]by shutting his eyes to a spiritualinterpretation of the Universe and its workings. The only acquisition he can carry with him after physical death is thearomaof the vast aggregate of mental states generated in one incarnation. Thepersonalityor brain-consciousness of the physical man is, after all, a mere feeler projected into this objective plane to harvest experience for its individual Self. It does not at all follow that any experience may be acquired which the Monad is enabled to assimilate. Abstract thinking, religious aspirations, scientific lore; poetry, the nobler emotions, and all such efflorescences of human consciousness, furnish the “material” which go to build up thetranscendental individualityof the Ego progressing towards the Nirvana. The materialist presents a frequent instance of soul-death—so far as the fruitage of the personality is concerned. His knowledge may be enormous, but being unspiritualised, a mere creature of the physical brain, it cannot blossom into luxuriance in the Devachanic interim between successive births. Consequently, as the True Self—the “transcendental subject” of the neo-Kantian German school—only assimilates experience suitable to its own exalted nature, it becomes evident that, ideals apart, the philosophy of a man is of very great importance. At the same time, it need not be said that sectarian “religion” is almost more pernicious than materialism, inasmuch as it combines the two factors of crass ignorance and spiritual torpor.
(3.) Harmonyisessentially the law of the Universe. The contrasted aspects of Nature come into being subsequently to the differentiation of matter from its severalprotylesin the commencement of a cycle of becoming, or Manwantara, and can have no reality except in the experience of conscious Egos.[114]For beneath the surface of the great ocean of cosmic illusion—beneath the clash of apparently clashing forces—lies the Eternal Harmony. The semblance of discord is but a ripple on the stream of Maya, or illusion. One aspect of esoteric solution of apparent evils is dealt with in the last issue ofLucifer(videart., “Origin of Evil”). But Mr. Beatty will not find himself in a position to accept its validity so long as he continues to “waive the question of reincarnation,” the acceptance of that doctrine lying at the root of the real explanation.
The Universe must, at bottom, be a Harmony. Why?[115]The equilibrating action of the forces around us is a sufficient proof of the fact; the apparent discord existing, as argued by Spinoza, solely in the sensations of conscious beings. The matter in reality involves the re-opening of the much debated question as to whether an optimistic or pessimistic pantheism is the creed of the true philosopher. Can we with von Hartmann postulate the strange contradiction of an absolutely wise (though from our standpoint unconscious) causebehind phenomena confronted with a “worthless universe?” Obviously not. Moreover, as pantheists necessarily regard the individual mind as only a rushlight compared with the blazing sun of the Universal Mind, its source, how is a final conclusion as to the “unfathomable folly” of manifested being possible? On the other hand, a non-recognition of the Maya of appearances is a tacit impeachment of the wisdom of the Absolute. The pantheist—and pantheism alone accounts for consciousness itself—is, at least, logically driven into the admission that the “nature of things” is sound and that, probably, apparent flaws in themechanicismmechanicismof the Universe would, if viewed from a wider standpoint than the human, altogether vanish.
If, however, the Spinozistic axiom that evilexists only in us, is true—and it is not for a relativist of our critic’s type to deny the fact—pessimism isrootedrootedin the recognition of the equilibrating action of the law of Karma. The examples cited by Mr. Beatty of brute forces “one in conflict with another;” of the sufferings of animals in the struggle for existence; and more especially of human suffering in no way controvert the views of the “Harmonists.” The first group is representative of those forces which balance one another by oscillating about a common centre of equilibrium, producing harmony by conflict, just as in the case of the so-called centripetal and centrifugal forces, which regulate the earth’s orbital journey. The second group is, undoubtedly, characterised by the infliction of much incidental pain. But in all instances where Nature immolates the individual organism on the altar of natural selection, she does it for the benefit of the species or the “survival of the fittest”—the individuals borne down by violence in the struggle, reaping, one and all, the results of a compensatory Karma. In the domain ofhumansuffering, moral debasement, etc., an entirely new factor supervenes—the equilibrating influence of apositiveKarma, which in biblical language demands “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
(4). “Why,” asks our critic, “is man so important that the Universe was polluted for his sake?” In the first place, Humanity is, by no means, unimportant; the panorama of evolution only existing in order to evolve the Ego from the animal stage up to that of a conscious God. The designation of nature as divided into “good” and “evil” principles, has been taken by Mr. Beatty in its absolute, as opposed to its relative, aspect. Man pollutes only himself and his fellows by “sin”; nature remaining constantper se. “How can he be responsible for what he does?” he continues. He is only so within certain wide limits defined by his previous Karma—the tendencies moral, mental and spiritual, generated in previous lives, continually driving him on to certain lines of action. The “Free Will absolute” of the theologians is as unpsychological and worthless a concept as it is possible to formulate. Not so the doctrine that the Ego is able tomouldits tendencies of thought and emotion within “constitutional limits.” It was the recognition of this fact which led John Stuart Mill to take up a midway position between the equally absurd extremes of Free Will and Necessarianism. The same conviction led the prophet of Materialism, Dr. Louis Büchner, to contradict his whole system by admitting human liberty within a certain area mappedout by “Heredity” and Environment, and Professor Clifford to invest the “conscious, automaton” Man with the power to control his own ideas!! Responsibility varies enormously, and is, perhaps, almost wanting in the savage (who, however, is in all cases the degraded relic of primæval civilisation). In all cases, the human Ego must be held to be the evolver of the group of tendencies which make up the personality of each re-birth. The sensualist is the victim of a “Frankenstein’s monster,” into which he has infused strength through many lives. We really cannot follow Mr. Beatty when he writes: “Has man instincts, desires, and inclinations, or has he not? If he has,why should he have them if he is not to follow them?” He has them because they are the heritage handed down to him from past lives, and also because his Karma as an individual is bound up with that of the race to which he belongs. It rests with him as to how far he chooses tomodifythem “for weal or woe,” for every moment the exhaustion of past Karma runs parallel with the creation of new. It is certainly a strange doctrine here enunciated by Mr. Beatty, that the possession of certain “instincts, etc,” justifies their gratification. Crime, debauchery and cruelty would be difficult to deal with on this hypothesis! It is certainly true—to some extent—that “we are good or bad by reason of all the forces that act on or through us.” These latter are the stimuli to action (subject to the control of the will), but are in their turn the resultant of previous Karma. Judging from the general tone of his criticism, it would appear that his first acquaintance with the esoteric philosophy does not date back to a very remote antiquity.