The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1892-12-17

good souls enjoy God, but where their
individuality" mot their g lersonality y
enjoys itself, in sort of egotism OF mex
pressible selfworship. 4. God is not a
Person, but an impersonal entity; to
conceive of whom may be possible to a
Theoeophist, but it is impossible to any
ordinarily intelligent being. 5. Having
no personal existence, God cannot be
adored: indeed, if alteration were SO
much as even possible, it could be rem
dered only to mans own private merits;
since all human existence, under each
and all OF the re-incarnations, Is only
what each man can produce by his own
working; so that each man is the sole
cause OF his own effects, and must, there
fore, adore his self.made exeelleuce, if
he adore anything. 6. Whatever is
supern atural, or is supposed to be SO, is
not really supernatural at all; all wonders
being due to purely natural causes; and
these causes being set to work by few
wonderfully superior beings, wins possess
a knowledge Of natures laws, and can
make use of them which is beyond the
ken of whole nations of normal mortals.
z. The denial Of personality in the fu~
ture state of perfection, while the "indi-
viduality" is asserted to be retained, is
the assumption of simple blank impos-
sibllity; for individuality must be one in
it's own self; nor can intelligence or will
be SO much as conceived Of without the
retention of the individual personality.
8. The Kingdom of God, 7 OF which the
Theosophist vainly talks, is, kingdom
with no king and no God; it is hier-
archy which is supposed to exist without
head; it is, indeed, jast:such a place or
such state as is we'll adapted for beings
who have always worshipped their own
selves, and have never admitted their OBJ
legations to a personal God. Even the
highest purit, and the highest asceticism
being built on pride, the ador tion OF the
All in All would be out of the question.
So that perhaps the Theosophists have
done we'll to get rid of God. %. The
prospect of reiterated incarnat tion affords
no motive which would be adequate to
restrain sins; for it is simply nonsense to
suppose that. man would not try to
enjoy the present moment, because he
might suffer for it in some possibly in
ferior re-incarnation, from which again
he would emerge into some new one. 10.
Finally, the Brotherhood of the Theo-
sophists is not rema1 kable for any sort of
superior virtne; the Brotherhood being
as painfully human in policy greed and
recrimination as are most of us who have
never conversed with Mahatmas.
+. What is the difference between Theo-
sophlst and a Splritualist
The answer may clear our minds OF
much 'smysticism." The "facts'' in re-
gard to Spiritualism, like the "facts" in
regard to Theosophy, are not expllcable
by any known natural laws. The "me-
dium' in the one case, like the medium
in the other cases, see or knows what none
other sees or knows. The difference is
that the Spiritualist is conscious Of a
spirit which he believes to be the spirit
of departed friend; the Theosophist is
conscious of the "astral BODY Of one Of
the Brotherhood, which is projected, per-
haps from 1hibet or from India, to the
Western home or immediate chamber of
the medium. All sorts of mighty won
ders have been witnessed, and to deny
them would be to repudiate sound evil
dence. Facts are facts, and credible
witnesses must be always believed upon
their oath. Occu]tism is as fairly en-
titled as is Spiritualism to urge substan-
TALLY proved marvels on its. belief.
What then? Are such wonders sufi.
Gent proof of a 'true religion?" If this
be so, then we must allow that all mani
festations, no matter what their form or
eccentricity, provided they be Ruarar,-
teed as genuine, are proofs of Divinely
sanctioned new religion. But no Chris
tian would admit such q profanity SO
plainly forbidden by both the Old and
New Testament. What then is the suf-
fcient explanation? That explanation,
however painful, must be hazarded; and
ii is that such wonders are preternatural
81 evil, the working Of ''the prince Of the
nower Of the air. And we shall justify
THE inference in the case Of the new
Theosophy, BY speaking for q moment Of
it's I'M pieties.,
It iis impions, to begin with, 70 cay that
1od is impt rsonal;; that he is not the
living Omnipo Ruler Of His creation,
Is Is impiou, to deny the Divinity 4 Of & the. e
aon ! l,,, sc God; to CLASS Him with Buddha
s. 81 Oonfucius, % 4 more theosop oph1iio' adept
prs 81 Mahatnaa. And, moreover, the whole 9
nvstam of confessed Nescience, in regard
s. s tie past and the .lture, and in regard
u ~ the5 profo enorance Of the human
nee ~ in itself an utation on the e.
IN ~ 94,i n 31SIf s