You will find in the forth-coming number, two articles which you must read, I need not tell you why, as I leave it with your intuitions. As usual, it is an indiscretion, which however, I have allowed to remain as there are few, if any, who will understand the hint contained — but you. There are more than one such hint though; hence your attention is asked to the "Elixir of Life" and W. Oxley's "Philosophy of Spirit." The former contains references and explanations, the haziness of which may remind you of a man who stealthily approaching one gives him a hit upon his back, and then runs away; as they most undeniably belong to the genus of those "Fortunes" that come to one like the thief by night and during one's sleep, and go back, finding no one to respond to the offer — of which you complain in your letter to Brother. This time, you are warned, good friend, so complain no more. Article No. 2, is penned by the Manchester Seer — Oxley. Having received no reply to his summons to K.H., he criticises — mildly so far — the utterances of that "Internal Power" — for which new title I feel rather obliged to him. At the sight of the gentle rebuke, our blunderbuss Editor failed not to explode. Nor would she be soothed, until Djual-Khul, with whom the famous review was concocted — (one by-the-bye, which seen by, ought to have never been permitted to see the day by you) — was authorized, under the safe nom-de-plume of "Reviewer" to answer (by correcting some of his blunders) the Seer, in a few innocent foot-notes.Yet, I must say, that of all the present English "prophets," W. Oxley is the only one who has an inkling of truth; hence the only one calculated to effectually help our movement. The man runs constantly in and out of the straight road, deviating from it every time he thinks he perceives a new path; but finding himself in a cul-de-sac as invariably returns to the right direction. I must admit, there is much sound philosophy here and there in what he writes; and, though his story of "Busiris" in its anthropomorphic presentation is ridiculous nonsense, and his rendering of Sanskrit names is mostly wrong; and though he seems to have but very hazy notions about what he calls the "astro-masonic basis of Bhagavad Gita" and Mahabharata to both of which he evidently attributes the same author — yet he is positively and absolutely the only one whose general comprehension of Spirit, and its capabilities and functions after the first separation, we call death, are on the whole if not quite correct, at least approximating very nearly Truth. Read it, when it comes out, especially Par. 3, Col. I, page 152 et seq, where you will find them. You may then understand, why, instead of answering your direct question I go into a subject, so far, perfectly indifferent to you. Follow, for instance his definition of the term "Angel" (it will be on line 30,) and try to follow and comprehend his thought, so clumsily yet withal so correctly expressed and then, compare it with the Tibetan teaching. Poor, poor Humanity, when shalt thou have the whole and unadulterated Truth! Behold, each of the "privileged" ones saying: "I alone am right! There is no lacuna. . . ." No; none: — not on that one special page opened before him, and which he alone is reading in the endless volume of "Spirit Revelation," called Seership. But why such stubborn oblivion of the important fact that there are other and innumerable pages before and after that one solitary page that each of the "Seers" has so far hardly learnt to decipher? Why is it, that every one of those "Seers" believes himself the Alpha and the Omega of Truth? Thus — S.M. is taught that there are no such "Beings" as Brothers, and to reject the doctrine of frequent annihilation and that of the Elementary and of the non-human Spirits. Maitland and Mrs. K.116 have revealed to them — by Jesus and GOD themselves (that alone would beat + ) that many of the supposed "Spirits" which control mediums and converse with visitors — Spiritualists, are no "disembodied" spirits at all, but only "flames," and the reliquiae of dogs, cats and pigs, helped to communicate with mortals by the spirits of "trees," vegetables and minerals. Though more hazy than the human, cautious discourses of the alleged + those teachings are nearer to the mark than anything uttered so far by the mediums, and I will tell you why. When the "Seeress" is made to reveal that "immortality is by no means a matter of course for all". . . that "souls shrink away and expire," it being "the nature of them to burn out and expend themselves". . . etc., she is delivering herself of actual, incontrovertible facts. And why? Because both Maitland and herself as well as their circle — are strict vegetarians, while S.M. is a flesh-eater and a wine and liquor drinker. Never will the Spiritualists find reliable, trustworthy mediums and Seers (not even to a degree) so long as the latter and their "circle" will saturate themselves with animal blood, and the millions of infusoria of the fermented fluids. Since my return I found it impossible for me to breathe — even in the atmosphere of the Headquarters! M. had to interfere, and to force the whole household to give up meat; and they had, all of them, to be purified and thoroughly cleansed with various disinfecting drugs before I could even help myself to my letters. And I am not, as you may imagine, half as sensitive to the loathsome emanations as a tolerably respectable disembodied shell would be, — leaving out of question a real PRESENCE, though but a "projecting" one. In a year or so, perchance earlier, I may find myself hardened again. At present I find it impossible — do what I may.
And now, with such a Preface instead of answering I will put you a question. You know S. Moses, and you know Maitland and Mrs. K. personally. And, you have heard of and read about a good many Seers, in the past and present centuries, such as Swedenborg, Boehme, and others. Not one among the number but thoroughly honest, sincere, and as intelligent, as well educated; aye, even learned. Each of them in addition to these qualities, has or had an + of his own; a "Guardian" and a Revelator — under whatever "mystery" and "mystic name" — whose mission it is — or has been to spin out to his spiritual ward — a new system embracing all the details of the world of Spirit. Tell me, my friend, do you know of two that agree? And why, since truth is one, and that putting entirely the question of discrepancies in details aside — we do not find them agreeing even upon the most vital problems — those that have either "to be, or not to be" — and of which there can be no two solutions? Summed up, it comes to the following: — All the "Rosicrucians," all the mediaeval mystics, Swedenborg, P.B. Randolf, Oxley, etc., etc.: "there are secret Brotherhoods of Initiates in the East, especially in Tibet and Tartary; there only can the LOST WORD (which is no Word) be found"; and, there are Spirits of the Elements, and Spirit-Flames, that were never incarnated (in this cycle), and immortality is conditional.
Mediums and clairvoyants, (of the type of S. Moses) [? say] there are no Brothers in Tibet or India, and the 'Lost Word' is in the sole keeping of my 'Guardian' who knows the word but knows of no Brothers. And immortality is for all and unconditional, there being no Spirits but the human and the disembodied, etc., etc." — a system of radical denial of the first one and in complete antagonism with it. While Oxley and Mrs. H. Billing117 are in direct communication with the "Brothers," S.M. rejects the very idea of one. While "Busiris" is an "angel" au pluriel, or the Spirit of a congeries of Spirits (Dhyan Chohans) the + is the soul of a disembodied Sage solo. His teachings are authoritative, yet we always find a ring of uncertainty and hesitation in them: "We are not able to say now". . . "It is doubtful". . . "We do not understand whether it is pretended". . . it "seems that" . . . "we do not feel sure," etc. Thus speaketh a man conditioned and limited in his means of obtaining absolute knowledge; but why should a "Soul within the Universal Soul" a "Spirit Sage" use such a cautious, uncertain phraseology if the truth is known to him? Why not, in answer to her direct, fearless, and challenging remark: "You want objective proof of the Lodge? Have you not + ? and can you not ask him whether I speak the truth?" — why not answer — (if it is + who answers) — either one way or the other, and say: — "the poor wench is hallucinated"; or, (as there cannot be another or a third alternative if S.M. is right) "she lies intentionally, with such and such an object, beware of her!" Why so hazy? — Aye, verily, because "he (+) knows," and "his name be blessed," — but he (S.M.) knoweth not; for, as his "spirits," + he thinks — repeatedly remind him: "You do not appear to have gathered rightly what we said. . ." controversy stirs up your mind and feeling, and in place of a transparent medium gives us one that is turbid. . . we require a passive mind, and cannot act without it". . . (see Light February 4th).