THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITISM
In ORder to show its essentially modern character and to distinguish it from 'spiritism' understood in its ordinary and properly philosophical, or classical, sense, we have said that Theosophy should to be classified under what is generally called 'neo-spiritualism'. We must now specify that the things that we include under this name because they have enough shared characteristics to be regarded as of the same kind and above all because fundamentally they proceed from a common mentality, are nevertheless distinct. What compels us to insist on this is the fact that these strange unseen aspects of the contemporary world, of which we intend to expose only a small part here, can have the effect of a true phantasmagoria on those unused to them. At first glance it is certainly very difficult to get one's bearings in such chaos, whence arise frequent muddles that are no doubt excusable but that it would be better to avoid as much as possible. Theosophy, spiritism, and the various schools of occultism certainly look alike in some respects and up to a certain point, but they also differ on other points and ought to be carefully distinguished even while trying to establish their connection. [1] Moreover, we have already had the opportunity to see that the leaders of these schools are frequently in conflict and at times abuse each other publicly, although it is also true that this does not prevent them from occasionally becoming allies and finding themselves united in certain Masonic or other groups. In view of this, it
is tempting to wonder whether their quarrels are really serious, or whether they are not meant to conceal an agreement which prudence demands ought to remain outwardly unknown. We do not claim to answer this question here, all the more since it would probably be wrong to generalize what, in such matters, pertains to certain special cases. It may happen, for example, that without ceasing to be enemies or rivals people may nonetheless enter into an agreement to accomplish some specific task; this can be seen daily in politics, for instance. What seems to us most real in the quarrels we are speaking of is the pride-based rivalry between the leaders of different schools, or between those who aspire to be leaders. What happened in Theosophy after Mme Blavatsky's death provides a typical example. In brief, one tries to furnish an admissible pretext by advancing theoretical differences which though quite real are probably of secondary importance to people who seem devoid of steady principles and a well-defined doctrine, and whose primary concerns are surely not of the order of pure intellectuality.
Be that as it may, regarding the relations between Theosophy and spiritism in particular, we have shown how, since the foundation of her Society at least (for it is hard to know what she really thought prior to that), Mme Blavatsky openly opposed spiritist theories-or 'spiritualist' theories, as is said in Anglo-Saxon countries. It would be easy to multiply the texts where this attitude is affirmed, but we will limit ourselves to quoting some further excerpts:
If by 'Spiritualism' you mean the explanation which Spiritualists give of some abnormal phenomena, then decidedly we do not [believe]. 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 for rare and exceptional cases... nor do they communicate with men except by entirely subjective means. [2]
Mme Blavatsky further explains that spiritist phenomena are due either to the 'astral' or 'double' body of the medium or one of the people present, or to 'elementals' or 'shells', that is, 'astral remains' abandoned by the dead as they leave the corresponding 'plane', and which, until they decompose, remain endowed with a certain automatism enabling them to answer questions with a semblance of intelligence. Further on, she says: 'If by "philosophy" you mean their [the Spiritualists'] crude theories, we do [reject them]. But they have no philosophy in truth. Their best, their most intellectual and earnest defenders say so' [p31]. In this connection she reproduces 'what "M.A. Oxon" [Stainton Moses], one of the very few philosophical Spiritualists, writes, with respect to their lack of organization and blind bigotry. [3] Elsewhere, she treats the doctrine of the 'return of the spirits' as 'egoistic and cruel,' because, according to this doctrine,
unfortunate man is not liberated even by death from the sorrows of this life. Not a drop from the life-cup of pain and sufferings will miss his lips; and, nolens volens, since he sees everything now [after death], shall he drink it to the bitter dregs.... Is such a state of knowledge [of the sufferings of those he left behind on the earth] consistent with bliss? Then 'bliss' stands in such a case for the greatest curse, and orthodox damnation must be a relief in comparison with it! [4]
To this spiritist doctrine, she contrasts the conception of the 'Devachan', in which,
as to the ordinary mortal, his bliss in it is complete. It is an absolute oblivion of all that gave it pain or sorrow in the past incarnation, and even oblivion of the fact that such things as pain and sorrow exist at all. [5]
Mme Blavatsky admitted only 'the possibility of communications between the living and the disembodied spirits' in cases that she
considered to be quite exceptional, such as the following:
The first exception is during the few days that follow immediately the death of a person and before the Ego passes into the Devachanic state. Whether any living mortal... has derived much benefit from the return of the spirit into the objective plane is another question.... The second exception is found in the Nirmanakayas, [that is], those who, though they have won the right to Nirvana and cyclic rest . . . have out of pity for mankind and those they left on earth renounced the Nirvanic state. [6]
However rare it may be, the first of these two exceptions is nonetheless a serious concession that opens the gate to all sorts of compromises, for once the least possibility of communicating with the dead through material means is admitted, it is difficult to know where it will stop. [7] In fact, there are Theosophists who adopted a much less uncompromising attitude than did Mme Blavatsky, and who, like certain occultists, ended by admitting that 'spirits' actually do manifest themselves-and quite frequently-during spiritist séances. It is true that they add that these 'spirits' are 'elementaries', that is, human beings of the lowest order with whom it is rather dangerous to communicate, but we very much doubt that concessions of this kind will be able to attract the favors of spiritist hard-liners, who will never bring themselves to consider them true 'believers'.
In practice, Theosophist leaders have always advised against indulging in spiritist experiments, often trying to highlight the dangers. In her last years, forgetting or pretending to forget her original beliefs, Mme Blavatsky wrote:
It is because I believe in [these phenomena] . . . that all my being revolts against them.... That only opens the door to a swarm of 'spooks', good, bad and indifferent, to which the medium becomes a slave for life. It is against such promiscuous mediumship and intercourse with goblins that I raise my voice, not
against spiritual mysticism. The latter is ennobling and holy; the former is of just the same nature as the phenomena of two centuries ago for which so many witches and wizards have been made to suffer. . . What I mean is that, whether conscious or unconscious, all this dealing with the dead is necromancy, and a most dangerous practice. . . . The collective wisdom of all past centuries has ever been loud in denouncing such practices. Finally, I say, what I have never ceased repeating orally and in print for fifteen years: While some of the so-called 'spirits' do not know what they are talking about, repeating merely-like poll-parrots-what they find in the mediums' and other people's brains, others are most dangerous, and can only lead one to evil. [8]
As proof of the first case she cites the fact of reincarnationist 'communications' in France and anti-reincarnationist 'communications' in England and America. As for the second, she asserts that 'your best, your most powerful mediums, have all suffered in health of body and mind,' [p195] giving as examples some who were epileptic and others who died of lunacy. And finally:
Behold the veteran mediums, the founders and prime movers of modern spiritualism-the Fox sisters. After more than forty years of intercourse with the 'Angels', the latter have led them to become incurable sots who are now denouncing, in public lectures, their own life-long work and philosophy as a fraud. What kind of spirits must they be who prompted them, I ask you? [9]
All the same, this last line seems to call for a conclusion which is lacking, because Mme Blavatsky professes not to believe in the Devil; it is no less true that there are some very sound things here, although some of them might be turned against the woman who wrote them: were her own 'phenomena'-insofar as their reality is admitted-so very different from those that she likens purely and simply to sorcery? It also seems that she is faced with the following dilemma: either she was only a fake medium at the time of her
'miracles clubs' or else she was a sick person. Does she not go so far as to say that epilepsy is 'the first and strongest symptom of genuine mediumship'? [p195] In any case, we also think that a medium is always a more or less abnormal and unbalanced being (which explains certain facts of unconscious fraud); this is in sum what Sinnett expressed in the following terms:
A medium ... is a person whose principles are loosely united and susceptible of being borrowed by other beings, or floating principles, having an attraction for some of them or some part of them [and constantly seeking to live as parasites of the man so badly constituted as to be unable to resist them], [10]
whence numerous cases of obsession. According to the author, these 'floating principles' are above all 'astral shells', but in reality they could actually be something entirely different: the true nature of the 'powers of the air' should be clear enough. Let us now see what Leadbeater, one of those who nevertheless made the most concessions to spiritism, says:
Physical mediumship [that of materialization séances] is the crudest and the most injurious for health. In my opinion, the fact of speaking and giving communications in a state of trance is not so harmful for the physical body, although if one considers the minimal value of most of these communications, one is tempted to believe that they weaken intelligence...! Of the mediums with whom I sat in séances thirty years ago, one is now blind, another an inveterate drunkard, and a third, threatened with apoplexy and paralysis, saved his life only by giving up spiritism completely. [11]
The leaders of Theosophy are certainly absolutely right to denounce the dangers of mediumship in this way, and we can only agree with them, but unfortunately they are very little qualified for such a role, since the dangers they point out to their disciples are scarcely more
to be feared than those of the 'psychic training' they themselves impose, in either case, the most obvious result is to unbalance a good number of feeble-minded people.
It should be added that warnings such as the above are not always listened to in spite of the authority which those who issue them usually exert upon their followers. Among the majority of both Theosophists and occultists we meet many people who also practice spiritism without being too concerned as to how these things can be reconciled, and perhaps without even wondering if they can be. This is not too surprising, given the many contradictions within Theosophy itself, which neither stop these people nor seem to embarrass them or make them think. Since they are basically far more sentimental than intellectual, they appear to be attracted indifferently toward anything that appears capable of satisfying their vague pseudo-mystical aspirations. This restless and misguided religiosity is one of the most striking characteristics of many of our contemporaries, and it is especially in America that its most varied and extraordinary manifestations can be seen, although Europe is far from immune to it. This same tendency has also contributed greatly to the success of certain philosophical doctrines, such as Bergsonism, whose affinities with 'neo-spiritualism' we mentioned previously. The pragmatism of William James, with his theory of 'religious experience' and his appeal to the 'subconscious' as a means for the human being to communicate with the Divine (which seems to us a true case of unconscious satanism), also proceeds from this source. In this connection it is useful to recall the degree of the eagerness with which such theories were adopted and used by the majority of modernists, whose mental make up is quite similar to that of the people presently under discussion. Moreover, the modernist mentality and the Protestant mentality differ only in nuance, even if they are not basically identical, and 'neo-spiritualism' in general is very close to Protestantism. As regards Theosophy in particular, the second part of its history will enable the reader to understand this point.
In spite of all the similarities that can be established, it is to be noted that generally speaking Theosophists hold spiritists in a certain contempt, an attitude motivated by their claims to esoterism.
On the contrary, nothing of the sort exists for spiritists, who admit neither initiation nor hierarchy of any kind, and this is why it is sometimes said that with regard to spiritism, Theosophy and occultism are somewhat in the position of aristocracy to democracy. Yet esoterism, which should normally be considered as the prerogative of an elite, seems to fit poorly with propaganda and popularization. However, the extraordinary thing is that Theosophists are almost as much propagandists as are the spiritists, even though in a less direct and more insinuating manner, this being yet another of the contradictions which abound with them, whereas in this respect the spiritists are perfectly logical. Moreover, the Theosophists' disdain of the spiritists has little justification, not only because their socalled esoterism is of the most inferior quality, but also because whether they like it or not many of their ideas were initially borrowed from spiritism: all the modifications they underwent do not succeed in hiding this origin entirely. Moreover, one must not forget that the founders of the Theosophical Society began by professing spiritism (we have enough evidence on the subject not to pay heed to their later denials) and that later other notable Theosophists also had their origins in spiritism, such being Leadbeater's case in particular. He was a former Anglican minister, and in his own words attracted to Theosophy after reading Sinnett's Occult World, which is quite characteristic of his mentality since this work deals exclusively with 'phenomena'. At that time, he assiduously followed the seances of the medium Eglinton. It should be added that following a stay in India in 1882, during which he visited various Theosophists, and while aboard the boat that brought him back to Europe, Eglinton was gratified by an apparition of Koot Hoomi, who presented himself 'through the signs of a Master Mason'; it is true that after initially attesting the reality of this manifestation, he later regained his self-control and declared that he had only witnessed a spiritist 'materialization. [12] Whatever may have been the truth behind this story-where autosuggestion probably played the greatest role-at the time of his contact with Leadbeater, Eglinton was 'controlled' by
a 'spirit' named Ernest, whom Mme Blavatsky had placed on the same level as her former 'guide' John King. As one day this Ernest had proudly boasted that he knew the 'Masters of Wisdom', Leadbeater got the idea of taking him as an intermediary in order to send a letter to Koot Hoomi; it was only after several months and 'not through Ernest' that he received an answer in which the 'Master' told him that he 'had not received his letter and could not do so because of the messenger's nature', advising him to spend some time in Adyar. Thereupon, near the end of 1884, Leadbeater went to meet Mme Blavatsky, who was then in London but on the point of returning to India the next day. During an evening at Mrs Oakley's, Mme Blavatsky 'materialized' a new letter from the 'Master', and following the advice it contained Leadbeater suddenly left his ministry and took a boat a few days later, joining Mme Blavatsky in Egypt and accompanying her to Adyar. By then he had become one of the most zealous members of the Theosophical Society. [13]
In ending this chapter we should add that there was at least one attempt by the Theosophists to forge an alliance with the spiritists, perhaps, we should say, primarily in order to monopolize the spiritist movement for their own benefit. We refer to a lecture given by Mrs Besant on April 7, 1898 at a meeting of the 'Spiritualist Alliance' of London, of which Stainton Moses was formerly President; we are therefore anticipating a little what followed, so as not to be forced to go back over the present topic. In stark contrast with all that we have seen up to now, this speech seems to us a real masterpiece of insincerity. While acknowledging that there had been 'misunderstandings' and that 'hasty words had been uttered on both sides,' Mrs Besant proclaimed that 'in the numerous issues of the journal which she published with Mead, not a single harsh word will be found against the spiritist movement.' This is possible, but what she had not written in this journal, she had said elsewhere. [14] In fact, on
April 20, 1890, at the 'Hall of Science' in London, she declared, word for word, that 'mediumship is dangerous and leads to immorality, insanity and vice,' which is in perfect accordance with the opinion of all the other leaders of Theosophy. But let us cite some of the most interesting passages of her 1898 lecture:
To start out with, I shall address the question of the guiding forces of our two movements, the spiritualist and the Theosophical. I regard these two as part of the same attempt to urge the world to combat materialism and guide human thought in a spiritual direction. This is why I regard them both as originating from those who work for the moral upliftment and progress of
mankind. In short, I believe that these two movements proceed from highly evolved men who though they live on the physical plane have the power to pass at will into the invisible world and thus communicate with the disembodied.... Unlike you, I do not attach too much importance to the fact that some who participate in this movement no longer live in physical bodies, for this question is quite unimportant. When communications are received, we are not concerned about knowing whether they come from souls presently embodied or disembodied. . . . In our view, the spiritualist movement was begun by a Lodge of Adepts (to use the usual term), that is, by highly advanced occultists, men living in a body but whose souls have developed far beyond the present stage of human evolution. . . . They adopted a system of exceptional manifestations, using the souls of the dead and associating them in their efforts to give to the world the full assurance that death does not end man's life and that except for the loss of his physical body man is not changed by passing from life to death.
It is rather strange to see how Mrs Besant here reproduces the doctrine of the 'H B of L' on the origin of spiritism (with the exception that she introduces 'the souls of the dead'), and even stranger that she thought she could convince spiritists to accept it. But let us go on.
As for us, we believe that the present Theosophical movement owes its impetus to a Lodge of great occultists... and that this second impetus was rendered necessary by the very fact that the attention of the upholders of the first movement were too overwhelmingly drawn to a great number of phenomena of trivial character. And we may add that when the foundation of the Theosophical Society was planned it was understood that it should work hand in hand with the Spiritist Society. [15] The spiritists began to break away from Mme Blavatsky when she took a stand against the abuse of phenomena. She asserted that it was
not necessary to believe that the souls of the dead were the only agents of spiritist manifestation; that many other agents could provoke these phenomena; that the most insignificant of them were produced by elementals or nature spirits, entities belonging to the astral world; that only a few of the communications could be the work of the disembodied; that most of these phenomena could be caused by the will-power of a psychically trained man, with or without the help of the souls of the dead or elementals. But when she further claimed that the human soul, in the body as well as out of the body, has the power to provoke many of these conditions, that this power is inherent in it, and that there is no need for it to gain it through death since it can make use of it within its physical body as well as when it has been separated from it, a large number of spiritists protested and refused from then on to have any contact with her.
This is a peculiar way of writing history, and to assess its worth correctly, it is enough to remember Mme Blavatsky's anti-spiritist declarations on the one hand, and on the other the crucial importance attached to 'phenomena' at the beginning of the Theosophical Society. Mrs Besant wanted above all to convince the spiritists that 'the forces guiding the two movements' were basically the same; but this was not enough, and she went on to acknowledge, with only slight reservations, the truth of their fundamental hypothesis:
We must rid the spiritists of the idea that we deny the reality of their phenomena. In the past, too much importance was given to the theory of shells or astral corpses. It is true that you will find a few writers claiming that almost all spiritist phenomena are caused by the action of these shells, but let me tell you that this opinion is shared by only a very small minority of Theosophists. Judge has made a statement that no well informed Theosophist can accept, for he maintains that all spiritist communications are the work of these agents. This is not the opinion of the majority of Theosophists, and certainly not that of educated Theosophists, nor of all those who, since Mme Blavatsky, have some claim to a knowledge of occultism. We have always affirmed that,
while some of these communications could be of this nature, most of them came from the disembodied.
This is a blatant lie. One has only to compare the last sentence with passages from Blavatsky's writings quoted above. But there was no doubt a certain shrewdness in holding Judge, 'then a dissident,' responsible for certain embarrassing assertions, although he was not the only one to have made them. Here, now, is the conclusion:
For some years we have adopted the policy of never saying a single hostile or disdainful word to our spiritist brothers. Why will you not adopt the same attitude, thus meeting us halfway over this bridge we wish to build together? Why can you not treat us in your journals as we treat you? Why make a habit of always saying something harsh, cutting, or bitter when you mention our books and reviews? I am asking you to adopt our politics, because I feel I have the right to ask this of you, having imposed it on myself for so many years. . . I beseech you not to consider us rivals or enemies from now on, but to treat us as brothers whose methods are different from yours but whose goal is identical to yours.... Tonight I have come to you with the goal of making our future union possible, and if it is not possible, then with the goal at least of ridding ourselves of all hostile feelings; and so I hope that our meeting has not been entirely useless.
Mrs Besant's use of the word 'politics' to qualify her attitude is really remarkable. It is indeed the most suitable word, and this politics had as its immediate goal to put an end to the attacks of the spiritists against Theosophy, and as a more distant goal to prepare a real takeover of the 'spiritualist' movement under the pretext of union. As we shall see further on, what happened in other circles leaves no room for doubt on this last point. But we do not believe the spiritists let themselves be outwitted. Mrs Besant's advances could not expunge their memory of so many contradictory statements, and the two parties stood firm on their positions. If we have brought up this subject, it is above all because it provides an excellent example of Theosophist dishonesty.