It is a relief to turn from these eternal legal quibbles (of my
business) to say a word or two on eternal matters.
Now and then there are underlined sentences occurring in _The Path_.
These ought to be studied. One about one yogee not doing anything not
seen in another yogee's mind will open up a subject. Reticence does not
always mean ignorance: if we dig out the knowledge we drag down at the
same time rocks and debris of other sorts, whereas, if a miner hands us
the nugget, that is all we get at the time. So a slight reticence often
results in our going at the digging ourselves.
In September _Path_ is another. Getting back the memory of other lives
is really the whole of the process, and if some people don't understand
certain things it is either because they have not got to that point in
their other lives or because no glimmer of memory has yet come.
The communion of saints is a reality, and it often happens that those
brought up in the same school speak the same language. While not
being one, such are very like co-scholars no matter when or where.
Furthermore, there are some peculiar natures in this world who, while
they are like mirrors or sponges that reflect and absorb from others
certain information, still retain a very strong individuality of their
own. So it is with this gentleman whose letter you enclose. There is
scarcely any doubt that he, if he tells true tales, sees in the astral
light. The description of things "moving about like fishes in the sea"
is a real description of one of the manners in which many of these
elemental forms are seen. So it may, as premised above, be settled that
he sees in the astral light.
He should know that that astral light exists in all places and
interpenetrates everything, and is not simply in the free air alone.
Further should he know that to be able to see as he sees in the light
is not _all_ of the seeing thus. That is, there are many sorts of
such sight, _e.g._, he may see now certain airy shapes and yet not
see many others which at the same time are as really present there
as those he now sees. So it would seem that there are "layers" or
differences of states in the astral light. Another way to state it is
that elementals are constantly moving in the astral light--that is,
everywhere. They, so to say, show pictures to him who looks, and the
pictures they show will depend in great part upon the seer's thoughts,
motives and development. These differences are very numerous. It
therefore follows that in this study _pride_ must be eliminated. That
pride has disappeared from ordinary life does not prove that it has
done any more than retreat a little further within. So one must be
careful of becoming even inwardly vain of being able to see any such
things; for if that happens it will follow that the one limited plane
in which one may be a seer will be accepted as the whole. That, then,
will be falsity. But if recognized as delusive because partial, then
it remains true--so far as it goes. All true things must be total,
and all totalities exist at once, each in all, while these partial
forms exist partially in those that are total. So it follows that only
those that are total reveal entire truth, and those that partake of
lower nature--or are partial--receive but a limited view of truth. The
elementals are partial forms, while the man's individual soul is total,
and according to the power and purity of that form which it inhabits
"waits upon the Gods."
Now our bodies, and all "false I" powers up to the individual soul, are
"partial forms" in common with the energic centres in astral light. So
that it must follow that no matter how much we and they participate
in each other the resulting view of the one Truth is partial in its
nature because the two partial forms mingling together do not produce
totality. But it intoxicates. And herein lies the danger of the
teaching of such men as P. B. Randolph, who advocates participation
with these partial beings by means of sensual excesses glorified with a
name and gilded with the pretence of a high purpose--_viz._, knowledge:
KNOWLEDGE MUST BE CAREFULLY OBTAINED WITH A PURE MOTIVE.
This motive is the point for this gentleman to study. He says that he
"will know," and that he "desires to escape from present limitations of
this personality, which is all loneliness."
As he did go forward on the path of knowledge, he would find that this
imaginary loneliness of which he speaks is by comparison with the utter
loneliness of that path, a howling mob, a tramping regiment.
As he is fighting alone his own fight let him carefully note his
motive in seeking to know more, and in seeking to escape from his
present "loneliness." Must it not be true that loneliness cannot be
escaped from by abhorrence of it or even by its acceptance, but by its
recognition? What next? Well, this; and perhaps it is too simple. He
ought to assure himself that his motive in knowing and being is that he
may help all creatures. I do not say that this is not now his motive,
but for fear it should not be I refer to it. For as he appears to be on
the borderland of fearful sights and sounds he ought to know the magic
amulet which alone can protect him while he is ignorant. It is that
boundless charity of love which led Buddha to say: "Let the sins of
this dark age fall on me that the world may be saved," and not a desire
for escape or for knowledge. It is expressed in the words: "THE FIRST
STEP IN TRUE MAGIC IS DEVOTION TO THE INTERESTS OF OTHERS." It was
expressed by Krishna when he said: "Near to Renunciation is salvation"
(or the state of a Jivanmukta).
But he naturally will ask if he should cultivate his powers. Well,
of course he should at some time or other; but he ought to begin at
motives and purification of thought. He may, if he chooses, abandon
the ideas of this large-hearted charity and yet make great progress in
"powers," but surely then death and ashes will be the result. That does
not concern me.
Why did he have a "horror" when he merely succeeded in going away from
his body; in being for a moment free? That is an important question.
Its solution may be found in many ways. I will mention one. If the
place, or person he wished to go to was one to which he then ought
not to have gone--or if his motive in desiring to go there was not
pure--then a horror might result that drove him back. But if even with
a bad motive he had attempted to go to a place where a similar motive
existed, then no horror would have come. If he will tell himself, or
me, just where he was wanting to go, I may say why he had a horror. But
I do not want to know.
For it is not necessarily a horror-producing thing to leave the body.
Only lately I know of a friend of mine who went out of his body a
distance of 10,000 miles and had no horror. In that case he desired to
see a friend on a common purpose which had in view the amelioration
of this dark age; and again, who left his body in the country and saw
the surrounding sweeps of wood and vale and had no horror whatever in
either case.
If one is sure of motive, and that is pure, then going out of the body
is not detrimental.
An illustration will show the dangers. Take the case of one who is able
to leave the body and who determines to go to one who is sympathetic.
The second one, however, is protected by high motive and great purity:
the first is mixed in motive in waking life, which, as soon as the
other disengaged state comes on, changes into a mere curiosity to
see the second, and perhaps with more or less sensuality, _e.g._, a
desire to see a woman much admired and to pour into her unwilling ear
pretended or real human love. The elementals (and so on) of the second
protect that soul and hurl vague horrors at the first who, if he is not
a skilled black magician is: