Note.—The admirable letter which we have printed above from the able pen of the author of Esoteric Buddhism is a good instance of the truth that there are many ways of arriving at the same goal, and incidentally it also illustrates how difficult it is for those who look at any subject by the light of their own “ray” to appreciate the view taken of it by one whose mental constitution is different. Both Murdhna Joti and Mr. Sinnett are right from their own points of view, and as they understand themselves. Both seem to us to be wrong as they probably understand each other. Patriotism and family attachments as understood by Mr. Sinnett are good things, for he characterises them by the adjectives “healthy” “ennobling” “generous.” It cannot be supposed from either a critical or casual reading of “The Higher Life” that Murdhna Joti advocates the elimination of any statement to which these terms would apply. But patriotism and family attachments may be narrow, bigoted, and founded upon an ignorance of other countries and other families, and upon an inability to perceive in other nations and persons the very qualities that make us feel warmly toward those we are acquainted with, intensified by a corresponding blindness to faults we have become habituated to and perhaps partake of ourselves. It is the “provincialism” of patriotism which breeds the prejudice in favor of things which are a part of our “larger selves,” and which is bad; and this narrowness in the case of family attachment (a different thing from personal affection), makes us fancy that our family geese are more beautiful than our neighbor’s swans. It is in this sense, it seems to us, that the family defects in question are held by Murdhna Joti as things to get rid of, and may be said to enter into that practical conception “the Dweller on the Threshold;” and it is in this sense that a Mahatma may be supposed to lose them. As we rise to a higher level we perceive in clearer distinction the lights and shades in our own country and family, and we see also that much the same lights and shades exist elsewhere and everywhere; we lose at the same time the personal prejudice which made lights and shades of a particular tint more agreeable to us than others; and thus we are brought to view all countries and families in their true light and in their real proportions. But the process by which this is accomplished is more of the nature of a levelling up than of a levelling down. The attachment of a villager is at first confined to his village; as his mind expands, his interests extend themselves progressively to the country, the state, and the nation. This last entails an expenditure of “generous feeling” which is exhaustive for most men; but a Mahatma has enough left to stretch out over the whole of humanity. Anything smaller would not be “ennobling” or “generous” in his case.
We cannot agree, however, with Mr. Sinnett, in his criticism of Murdhna Joti’s article, as to its presenting a false view of “Theosophic morals.” The fact, at which the learned author of the Occult World hints, that a certain Mahatma has “specific attachments” to relatives, does not prove that He still has “family defects.” Perhaps the writer of “Living the Higher Life” might have been better understood by Mr. Sinnett if he had in his first paper, intimated that while family defects were to be got rid of, the noble qualities of the family, were to be strengthened; but this seems to be plainly inferred, and is actually to be found in the paper, (p. 153, 3d paragraph); and all through the first paper, it is strenuously insisted, that the only theosophic morality, is that one which compels us to unselfishly perform our duty in our family where we are placed by inevitable Karma.
Not only has a Mahatma said He “still had patriotism,” but He has also stated more emphatically, that “in external Buddhism is the road to truth.” He cannot therefore agree with Mr. Sinnett in the objection that exoteric Indian thought and religion led to error. In complete knowledge of this second declaration of the Mahatma, we read and printed Murdhna Joti’s paper, as we have “Theosophic Morals.” We see in the paper criticised high aspiration and excellent precepts.
There are many modes of life; there are lower and higher planes. No man in one short article can write away all possible future misconceptions; both sides must be presented, and they shall be in this Magazine. We need therefore here warn readers, that Mr. Sinnett does not by any means desire them to understand that in saying that the Mahatma quoted has “certain specific attachments,” he would convey the impression that such a great Being has to struggle with the limitations of a family, or that he has given up one legitimate set of ties only to assume others similar. Far from that. The nature of the attachment referred to, is quite as undefinable at Mr. Sinnett’s hands as it is at those of the readers, and we think it would be wise for the critic to state with clearness what the attachment is, in order that all readers may for themselves be able to judge of the full meaning, extent and connection of Mr. Sinnett’s reference, and what use can properly be made of it for comparison or analysis.
The Mahatma studies the Bagavad-Gita in its higher sense, and all through that book the “passionless ascetic” is lauded. What does it mean? Neglect of life and family? Never! But sometimes one gets out of family defects quite naturally. Yet the world says that Bagavad-Gita inculcates stony hearted selfishness, even as they carp at Light on the Path when it says “the eyes must be incapable of tears; ambition and desires must be killed out.” These are hard sayings. Theosophy is full of difficult sayings, just as Jesus of the Christians said his parables were. But Bagavad-Gita is the divine colloquy; and it is asserted that a Mahatma dictated Light on the Path.—[Ed.]
Hermes Trismegistus.
THE FOURTH STATE OF MATTER DESCRIBED IN THE SMARAGDINE TABLET.
That a tablet, now called the Smaragdine, was found there is no doubt. Its discovery is attributed by tradition to an isarim or initiate, who it is said, took it from the dead body of Hermes—this could not have been the Egyptian god Thoth—which was buried at Hebron, in an obscure ditch. The tablet was held between the hands of the corpse. Some authors say that it was of emerald, which I do not believe; it probably was of green strass or paste, an imitation of emerald, in the manufacture of which the Egyptians excelled. Be it as it may, the contents evidently refer to that subtile body, called by the great scientist Sir William Thompson, “the luminiferous æther,”—to that mysterious, invisible to us, something, in which the matter-atoms float, the azoth of the Hermetic philosophers, the astral light of the occultists, the akasa of the Hindus; which physical science attempts to grasp, comprehend and sometimes use, under the name of electricity, magnetism, heat, light, etc; which is experimentally made visible, in one of its forms, by means of Professor Crookes “radiant matter” and which he terms the fourth state of matter. It permeates all things, going through flesh and blood, and steel and glass, the diamond and sapphire, with the facility of water through a net. A translation of this tablet is:[111]