Nothing answers questions like Theosophy can!:-The Key to Theosophy

THEOSOPHY

Nothing Answers Questions Like Theosophy Can!

The Key to Theosophy

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

1831 -1891

_______________________

The Key to Theosophy

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

Key to Theosophy Index

The Difference Between

Theosophy and Spiritualism

Q. But do you not believe in Spiritualism?

A. If by "Spiritualism" you mean the explanation which Spiritualists give of

some abnormal phenomena, then decidedly we do not. They maintain that these

manifestations are all produced by the "spirits" of departed mortals, generally

their relatives, who return to earth, they say, to communicate with those they

have loved or to whom they are attached. We deny this point blank. We assert

that the spirits of the dead cannot return to earth-save in rare and exceptional

cases, of which I may speak later; nor do they communicate with men except by

entirely subjective means. That which does appear objectively, is only the

phantom of the ex-physical man. But in psychic, and so to say, "Spiritual"

Spiritualism, we do believe, most decidedly.

Q. Do you reject the phenomena also?

A. Assuredly not-save cases of conscious fraud.

Q. How do you account for them, then?

A. In many ways. The causes of such manifestations are by no means so simple as the Spiritualists would like to believe. Foremost of all, the deus ex machina of

the so-called "materializations" is usually the astral body or "double" of the

medium or of someone present. This astral body is also the producer or operating force in the manifestations of slate-writing, "Davenport"-like manifestations, and so on.

Q. You say usually-then what is it that produces the rest?

A. That depends on the nature of the manifestations. Sometimes the astral

remains, the Kamalokic "shells" of the vanished personalities that were; at

other times, Elementals. Spirit is a word of manifold and wide significance. I

really do not know what Spiritualists mean by the term; but what we understand

them to claim is that the physical phenomena are produced by the reincarnating

Ego, the Spiritual and immortal "individuality." And this hypothesis we entirely

reject. The Conscious Individuality of the disembodied cannot materialize, nor

can it return from its own mental Devachanic sphere to the plane of terrestrial

objectivity.

Q. But many of the communications received from the "spirits" show not only

intelligence, but a knowledge of facts not known to the medium, and sometimes

even not consciously present to the mind of the investigator, or any of those

who compose the audience.

A. This does not necessarily prove that the intelligence and knowledge you speak of belong to spirits, or emanate from disembodied souls. Somnambulists have been known to compose music and poetry and to solve mathematical problems while in their trance state, without having ever learnt music or mathematics. Others, answered intelligently to questions put to them, and even, in several cases, spoke languages, such as Hebrew and Latin, of which they were entirely ignorant when awake-all this in a state of profound sleep. Will you, then, maintain that this was caused by "spirits"?

Q. But how would you explain it?

A. We assert that the divine spark in man being one and identical in its essence

with the Universal Spirit, our "spiritual Self" is practically omniscient, but

that it cannot manifest its knowledge owing to the impediments of matter. Now

the more these impediments are removed, in other words, the more the physical

body is paralyzed, as to its own independent activity and consciousness, as in

deep sleep or deep trance, or, again, in illness, the more fully can the inner

Self manifest on this plane. This is our explanation of those truly wonderful

phenomena of a higher order, in which undeniable intelligence and knowledge are

exhibited. As to the lower order of manifestations, such as physical phenomena

and the platitudes and common talk of the general "spirit," to explain even the

most important of the teachings we hold upon the subject would take up more

space and time than can be allotted to it at present. We have no desire to

interfere with the belief of the Spiritualists any more than with any other

belief. The responsibility must fall on the believers in "spirits." And at the

present moment, while still convinced that the higher sort of manifestations

occur through the disembodied souls, their leaders and the most learned and

intelligent among the Spiritualists are the first to confess that not all the

phenomena are produced by spirits. Gradually they will come to recognize the

whole truth; but meanwhile we have no right nor desire to proselytize them to

our views. The less so, as in the cases of purely psychic and spiritual

manifestations we believe in the intercommunication of the spirit of the living

man with that of disembodied personalities.

We say that in such cases it is not the spirits of the dead who descend on

earth, but the spirits of the living that ascend to the pure spiritual Souls. In

truth there is neither ascending nor descending, but a change of state or

condition for the medium. The body of the latter becoming paralyzed, or

"entranced," the spiritual Ego is free from its trammels, and finds itself on

the same plane of consciousness with the disembodied spirits. Hence, if there is

any spiritual attraction between the two they can communicate, as often occurs

in dreams. The difference between a mediumistic and a non-sensitive nature is

this: the liberated spirit of a medium has the opportunity and facility of

influencing the passive organs of its entranced physical body, to make them act,

speak, and write at its will. The Ego can make it repeat, echo-like, and in the

human language, the thoughts and ideas of the disembodied entity, as well as its

own. But the non-receptive or non-sensitive organism of one who is very positive cannot be so influenced. Hence, although there is hardly a human being whose Ego does not hold free intercourse, during the sleep of his body, with those whom it loved and lost, yet, on account of the positiveness and non-receptivity of its physical envelope and brain, no recollection, or a very dim, dream-like remembrance, lingers in the memory of the person once awake.

Q. This means that you reject the philosophy of Spiritualism in toto?

A. If by "philosophy" you mean their crude theories, we do. But they have no

philosophy, in truth. Their best, their most intellectual and earnest defenders

say so. Their fundamental and only unimpeachable truth, namely, that phenomena occur through mediums controlled by invisible forces and intelligences-no one, except a blind materialist of the "Huxley big toe" school, will or can deny.

With regard to their philosophy, however, let me read to you what the able

editor of Light, than whom the Spiritualists will find no wiser nor more devoted

champion, says of them and their philosophy.

This is what "M.A. Oxon," one of the very few philosophical Spiritualists,

writes, with respect to their lack of organization and blind bigotry:

It is worthwhile to look steadily at this point, for it is of vital moment. We

have an experience and a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is

comparatively insignificant. The ordinary Spiritualist waxes wroth if anyone

ventures to impugn his assured knowledge of the future and his absolute

certainty of the life to come. Where other men have stretched forth feeble hands

groping into the dark future, he walks boldly as one who has a chart and knows

his way. Where other men have stopped short at a pious aspiration or have been

content with a hereditary faith, it is his boast that he knows what they only

believe, and that out of his rich stores he can supplement the fading faiths

built only upon hope. He is magnificent in his dealings with man's most

cherished expectations. He seems to say:

You hope for that which I can demonstrate. You have accepted a traditional

belief in what I can experimentally prove according to the strictest scientific

method. The old beliefs are fading; come out from them and be separate. They

contain as much falsehood as truth. Only by building on a sure foundation of

demonstrated fact can your superstructure be stable. All round you old faiths

are toppling. Avoid the crash and get you out.

When one comes to deal with this magnificent person in a practical way, what is

the result? Very curious and very disappointing. He is so sure of his ground

that he takes no trouble to ascertain the interpretation which others put upon

his facts. The wisdom of the ages has concerned itself with the explanation of

what he rightly regards as proven; but he does not turn a passing glance on its

researches. He does not even agree altogether with his brother Spiritualist. It

is the story over again of the old Scotch body who, together with her husband,

formed a "kirk." They had exclusive keys to Heaven, or, rather, she had, for she

was "na certain aboot Jamie." So the infinitely divided and subdivided and

re-subdivided sects of Spiritualists shake their heads, and are "na certain

aboot" one another. Again, the collective experience of mankind is solid and

unvarying on this point that union is strength, and disunion a source of

weakness and failure. Shoulder to shoulder, drilled and disciplined, a rabble

becomes an army, each man a match for a hundred of the untrained men that may be brought against it. Organization in every department of man's work means success, saving of time and labor, profit and development. Want of method, want of plan, haphazard work, fitful energy, undisciplined effort-these mean bungling failure. The voice of humanity attests the truth. Does the Spiritualist accept the verdict and act on the conclusion? Verily, no. He refuses to organize. He is a law unto himself, and a thorn in the side of his neighbors.

Q. I was told that the Theosophical Society was originally founded to crush

Spiritualism and belief in the survival of the individuality in man?

A. You are misinformed. Our beliefs are all founded on that immortal

individuality. But then, like so many others, you confuse personality with

individuality. Your Western psychologists do not seem to have established any

clear distinction between the two. Yet it is precisely that difference which

gives the keynote to the understanding of Eastern philosophy, and which lies at

the root of the divergence between the Theosophical and Spiritualistic

teachings. And though it may draw upon us still more the hostility of some

Spiritualists, yet I must state here that it is Theosophy which is the true and

unalloyed Spiritualism, while the modern scheme of that name is, as now

practiced by the masses, simply transcendental materialism.

Q. Please explain your idea more clearly.

A. What I mean is that though our teachings insist upon the identity of spirit

and matter, and though we say that spirit is potential matter, and matter simply

crystallized spirit (e.g., as ice is solidified steam), yet since the original

and eternal condition of allis not spirit but meta-spirit, so to speak, we

maintain that the term spirit can only be applied to the true individuality.

Q. But what is the distinction between this "true individuality" and the "I" or

"Ego" of which we are all conscious?

A. Before I can answer you, we must argue upon what you mean by "I" or "Ego." We distinguish between the simple fact of self-consciousness, the simple feeling that "I am I," and the complex thought that "I am Mr. Smith" or "Mrs. Brown." Believing as we do in a series of births for the same Ego, or reincarnation, this distinction is the fundamental pivot of the whole idea. You see "Mr. Smith" really means a long series of daily experiences strung together by the thread of memory, and forming what Mr. Smith calls "himself." But none of these "experiences" are really the "I" or the Ego, nor do they give "Mr. Smith" the feeling that he is himself, for he forgets the greater part of his daily

experiences, and they produce the feeling of Egoity in him only while they last.

We Theosophists, therefore, distinguish between this bundle of "experiences,"

which we call the false (because so finite and evanescent)personality, and that

element in man to which the feeling of "I am I" is due. It is this "I am I"

which we call the true individuality; and we say that this "Ego" or

individuality plays, like an actor, many parts on the stage of life. Let us call

every new life on earth of the same Egoa night on the stage of a theater. One

night the actor, or "Ego," appears as "Macbeth," the next as "Shylock," the

third as "Romeo," the fourth as "Hamlet" or "King Lear," and so on, until he has

run through the whole cycle of incarnations. The Ego begins his life-pilgrimage

as a sprite, an "Ariel," or a "Puck"; he plays the part of a super, is a

soldier, a servant, one of the chorus; rises then to "speaking parts," plays

leading roles, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally retires

from the stage as "Prospero," the magician.

Q. I understand. You say, then, that this true Ego cannot return to earth after

death. But surely the actor is at liberty, if he has preserved the sense of his

individuality, to return if he likes to the scene of his former actions?

A. We say not, simply because such a return to earth would be incompatible with any state of unalloyed bliss after death, as I am prepared to prove. We say that man suffers so much unmerited misery during his life, through the fault of

others with whom he is associated, or because of his environment, that he is

surely entitled to perfect rest and quiet, if not bliss, before taking up again

the burden of life. However, we can discuss this in detail later.

Key to Theosophy Index

__________________________