H.P. Blavatsky Collected Writings Vol. 3 Page 219

FOOTNOTES TO “THE FIVE-POINTED STAR”

[The Theosophist, Vol. II, No. 10, July, 1881, pp. 216-217]

[In a letter to H. P. Blavatsky, C. H. Van der Linden seeks an explanation of certain unusual experiences that had befallen him and encloses a letter written by him to Col. Bundy of the Religio-Philosophical Journal, on the same subject. He says in part: Some will call me insane, others a dreamer, the majority of humanity an impostor.” To this H. P. B. replies:]

Most undoubtedly they will; and every member of the Theosophical Society—unless he keeps all such occult and psychological personal experience to himself and strictly secret—must be prepared for it. A public (including the best society)—ready at any day to turn round upon its idols and authorities and, dashing them to pieces, to pelt them with stones and trample into the mud such eminent men of science as Professors Hare and Zöllner, Messrs. Wallace and Crookes, for no better reason than that they found themselves compelled to recognize certain phenomena as facts and to honestly proclaim them as such—is not likely to show itself more lenient towards such humble individuals as we are.

[In telling of his experiences he says: “A few days ago my wife had agonizing cramps in the abdomen. I magnetized her, making unintentionally in my motions, the figure of the five-pointed star over the suffering parts and lo! the cramp disappeared as by enchantment. . . . Has this sign anything to do with it?”
His letter to Col. Bundy tells of his lying at midnight “dozing but conscious. . . .” He noticed near his bed a “person in ancient garb” who spoke to him saying: “Unknowingly you used a secret to relieve your wife’s pains a few days ago, which secret, when

Page 220

generally known, would change the practice of medicine to a very great extent. . . . I will teach you how to apply it personally . . . only one promise I demand in return . . . never reveal the secret of it to anyone outside your own family. . . .” In conclusion the writer says: “Science itself becomes corrupt for it refuses to either accept or investigate facts.” To this H. P. B. remarks:]

Many men of science do, on the contrary. But it requires a man of no ordinary moral courage to face the storm of criticism which the avowal of such investigations—especially when successful—brings upon the experimenter. See Professor Zöllner’s Transcendental Physics, and Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism, by Wm. Crookes, F.R.S., and Judge for yourself.

[Editor’s Closing Note.]

Such visitations by “Orientals” as the one with which our Brother, Mr. Van der Linden was favoured, become rather frequent in our days. We have several letters to the same effect. No explanation, however, we venture to say, would do any good, unless preceded by a long study and a thorough understanding of the occult laws of “magnetic correspondences” so-called. First let us see whether by the accumulation of testimony for identical results, we have a right to include this mysterious influence among facts. It is premature for us to speak of such things when even the scientific hypothesis of Professor Zöllner’s fourth dimension of space finds so little favour in the eyes of the materialist. Meanwhile, we append to this contribution another letter upon the same subject from a Parsee gentleman, an F.T.S., a full-blown sceptic but yesterday, but whose scepticism was a little staggered by the same results.

[The letter appended to the above is from Darasha Doshabhoy. Besides relating an experience similar to the one of C. H. Van der Linden, with regard to the effects of the pentagram, he writes of having been much impressed by a story of Reincarnation written by a Kshatriya lady, and published in The Theosophist, (Vol. II,

 

Page 221

May, 1881). He says: “I now find that the lady’s story confirms my suspicions as it stands to reason that as nothing increases or decreases in this perishable world of matter, the atma of one as soon as it leaves the frame or body enters into another. . . I am still half sceptical about what it is or what it should be. . . .”]

What it is or “should be” is incapable of scientific demonstration. What it is not and cannot be is pretty well verified though. It is neither “harp” nor “wings” on a bodiless head with nothing but its ears to sit upon—and that alone is a comfort.