The object of the following paper is to submit certain questions which
have occurred to some English readers of "Esoteric Buddhism." We have
had the great advantage of hearing Mr. Sinnett himself explain many
points which perplexed us; and it is with his sanction that we now
venture to ask that such light as is permissible may be thrown upon some
difficulties which, so far as we can discover, remain as yet unsolved.
We have refrained from asking questions on subjects on which we
understand that the Adepts forbid inquiry, and we respectfully hope
that, as we approach the subject with a genuine wish to arrive at all
the truth possible to us, our perplexities may be thought worthy of an
authorized solution.
We begin, then, with some obvious scientific difficulties.
1. Is the Nebular Theory, as generally held, denied by the Adepts? It
seems hard to conceive of the alternate evolution from the sun's central
mass of planets, some of them visible and heavy, others invisible,--and
apparently without weight, as they have no influence on the movements of
the visible planets.
2. And, further, the time necessary for the manvantara even of one
planetary chain, much more of all seven, seems largely to exceed the
probable time during which the sun can retain heat, if it is merely a
cooling mass, which derives no important accession of heat from without.
Is some other view as regards the maintenance of the sun's heat held by
the Adepts?
3. The different races which succeed each other on the earth are said
to be separated by catastrophes, among which continental subsidences
occupy a prominent place. Is it meant that these subsidences are so
sudden and unforeseen as to sweep away great nations in an hour? Or, if
not, how is it that no appreciable trace is left of such high
civilizations as are described in the past? Is it supposed that our
present European civilization, with its offshoots all over the globe,
can be destroyed by any inundation or conflagration which leaves life
still existing on the earth? Are our existing arts and languages doomed
to perish? or was it only the earlier races who were thus profoundly
disjoined from one another?
4. The moon is said to be the scene of a life even more immersed in
matter than the life on earth. Are there then material organizations
living there? If so, how do they dispense with air and water, and how
is it that our telescopes discern no trace of their works? We should
much like a fuller account of the Adepts' view of the moon, as so much
is already known of her material conditions that further knowledge could
be more easily adjusted than in the case (for instance) of planets
wholly invisible.
5. Is the expression "a mineral monad" authorized by the Adepts? If so,
what relation does the monad bear to the atom, or the molecule, of
ordinary scientific hypothesis? And does each mineral monad eventually
become a vegetable monad, and then at last a human being? Turning now
to some historical difficulties, we would ask as follows:--
6. Is there not some confusion in the letter quoted on p. 62 of
"Esoteric Buddhism," where "the old Greeks and Romans" are said to have
been Atlanteans? The Greeks and Romans were surely Aryans, like the
Adepts and ourselves: their language being, as one may say,
intermediate between Sanscrit and modern European dialects.
7. Buddha's birth is placed (on p. 141) in the year 643 B.C.. Is this
date given by the Adepts as undoubtedly correct? Have they any view as
to the new inscriptions of Asoka (as given by General A. Cunningham,
"Corpus Inscriptionum Indicanum," vol. I. pp. 20-23), on the strength of
which Buddha's Nirvana is placed by Barth ("Religions of India," p.
106), &c., about 476 B.C., and his birth therefore at about 556 B.C.?
It would be exceedingly interesting if the Adepts would give a sketch
however brief of the history of India in those centuries with authentic
dates.
8. Sankaracharya's date is variously given by Orientalists, but always
after Christ. Barth, for instance, places him about 788 A.D. In
"Esoteric Buddhism" he is made to succeed Buddha almost immediately (p.
149). Can this discrepancy be explained? Has not Sankaracharya been
usually classed as Vishnuite in his teaching? And similarly has not
Gaudapada been accounted a Sivite? and placed much later than "Esoteric
Buddhism" (p.147) places him? We would willingly pursue this line of
inquiry, but think it best to wait and see to what extent the Adepts may
be willing to clear up some of the problems in Indian religious history
on which, as it would seem, they must surely possess knowledge which
might be communicated to lay students without indiscretion.
We pass on to some points beyond the ordinary range of science or
history on which we should be very glad to hear more, if possible.
9. We should like to understand more clearly the nature of the
subjective intercourse with beloved souls enjoyed in Devachan. Say, for
instance, that I die and leave on earth some young children. Are these
children present to my consciousness in Devachan still as children? Do
I imagine that they have died when I died? or do I merely imagine them
as adult without knowing their life-history? or do I miss them from
Devachan until they do actually die, and then hear from them their
life-history as it has proceeded between my death and theirs?
10. We do not quite understand the amount of reminiscence attained at
various points in the soul's progress. Do the Adepts, who, we presume,
are equivalent to sixth rounders, recollect their previous incarnations?
Do all souls which live on into the sixth round attain this power of
remembrance? or does the Devachan, at the end of each round bring a
recollection of all the Devachans, or of all the incarnations, which
have formed a part of that particular round? And does reminiscence
carry with it the power of so arranging future incarnations as still to
remain in company with some chosen soul or group of souls?
We have many more questions to ask, but we scruple to intrude further.
And I will conclude here by repeating the remark with which we are most
often met when we speak of the Adepts to English friends. We find that
our friends do not often ask for so-called miracles or marvels to prove
the genuineness of the Adepts' powers. But they ask why the Adepts will
not give some proof--not necessarily that they are far beyond us, but
that their knowledge does at least equal our own in the familiar and
definite tracks which Western science has worn for itself. A few
pregnant remarks on Chemistry,--the announcement of a new electrical
law, capable of experimental verification--some such communication as
this (our interlocutors say), would arrest attention, command respect,
and give a weight and prestige to the higher teaching which, so long as
it remains in a region wholly unverifiable, it can scarcely acquire.
We gratefully recognize the very acceptable choice which the Adepts have
made in selecting Mr. Sinnett as the intermediary between us and them.
They could hardly have chosen any one more congenial to our Western
minds:--whether we consider the clearness of his written style, the
urbanity of his verbal expositions, or the earnest sincerity of his
convictions. Since they have thus far met our peculiar needs with such
considerate judgment, we cannot but hope that they may find themselves
able yet further to adapt their modes of teaching to the requirements of
Occidental thought.
--An English F.T.S.
London, July 1883.