MR. GURNEY: Will Mr. Sinnett be good
enough to describe some phenomena which have come under his notice, and which exclude the
idea of Madame Blavatsky having been concerned in producing them?
MR. SINNETT: With reference to that I
would ask the attention of the Committee to a phenomenon which I have described in
“The Occult World.” Here is the original letter which I shall speak of,
and that may suggest some questions. The phenomenon, though a somewhat small one, is
to me particularly interesting as an illustration of the production of writing by
precipitation, in a closed envelope, and under circumstances which appear to me to defy
the suspicion that any person who was present could have been concerned in it. The
letter is one which I wrote to Koot Hoomi, one afternoon, in my house at Allahabad.
I wrote on the spur of the moment, and I asked the Mahatma a question in regard to
something I had previously written to him about. Having completed the note, I put it
into an envelope, and took it to Madame Blavatsky, who was sitting in the drawing-room
with my wife. I said to her, “Will you get that taken, if you can, and get me
an answer?” She put the letter into her pocket, and rose to go to her
room. All the windows were open, as is usual in India. As she passed out I
walked to the drawing-room door. She was out of my sight for but an instant of time
when she cried out, “Oh, he has taken it from me now.” I will undertake to
say that she was not out of my sight for ten seconds. Having uttered that
exclamation, she returned to the drawing-room, and we then proceeded together to my office
at the back of my house. I went on with what I was doing, and she simply lay on the
sofa in my full view. She remained there, perhaps, for between five or ten minutes,
when, suddenly lifting her head from the pillow, she pointed to it and said, “There
is your letter.” I should mention, as a little fact which may bear upon occult
physics, that the moment before I distinctly heard a peculiar rushing sound through the
air. It was, I think, the only occasion on which I had heard such a sound, and she
asked me afterwards if I had heard it. The letter lay on the pillow, the name which
I had written on the envelope being scratched out, and my own name written immediately
above it. The envelope was unopened, and in precisely the same state, with the
difference I have mentioned, as when I gave it to Madame Blavatsky. I cut the
envelope open, and found inside an answer to the question which I had asked the
Mahatma. I will hand the letter to the Committee for their perusal, though I do not
care that it should be published. (Letter handed in.)
MR. STACK: We are distinctly to
understand that between the time of your giving the letter to Madame Blavatsky and your
getting this answer, Madame Blavatsky was out of your sight for a few seconds only?
MR. SINNETT: Certainly. She was
going into her bedroom to get the letter taken. The attention of the Mahatma had
been already attracted to the thing, and the moment Madame Blavatsky got the letter into
her magnetism he took it. Although it is a small thing in its way, it is, I think,
impossible to conceive an illustration of this particular kind of phenomena that is more
perfect, because there was no interval during which the writing inside the letter could
have been improperly produced. Before we went together to my office, no other person
had entered the room at all. That is a point of some importance, because there are
people who would believe that a letter, dealt with by somebody else, might have been
passed to Madame Blavatsky. But no other person at all came into the room; we were
entirely alone during the whole of the interval.
MR. GURNEY: And the doors shut?
MR. SINNETT: I think not. In India
doors are never shut, for that matter.
MR. GURNEY: But you are certain that
nobody entered?
MR. SINNETT: Absolutely certain.
MR. STACK: Can you give us an account of
the actual delivery of a letter in your presence?
MR. SINNETT: Yes.
MR. STACK: When Madame Blavatsky was not
there?
MR. SINNETT: No, but it has so occurred
to others. It was at Bombay, on my return to India, after my visit to England in
1882, I think, or in 1881. I had been expecting a letter from Koot Hoomi, but on my
arrival at Bombay I did not find one awaiting me at the headquarters of the Theosophical
Society there. I had written, asking him several questions. I had got in late
at night, and on the following morning I was walking about the verandah talking to Madame
Blavatsky. We went into a room which I had occupied as a bedroom during the night
--- a big room, with a large table in the middle of it. I sat down while we were
talking, and she occupied another chair at a considerable distance from me. I said,
“Why on earth have I not had a letter in answer to mine?” She replied,
“Perhaps he will send it to you. Try to exercise your will-power; try to appeal
to him. Ask him to send it to you.” I retorted, “No, I will wait his
time; he will send sooner or later, no doubt.” At that moment a packet fell
before me on the table. I was a large envelope containing, at least 30 pages of
manuscript --- heavy draft paper. The packet only came into view a few feet --- two
perhaps --- above the table, though I do not attach much importance to the precise
distance, as in a case of that sort the eye cannot be certain to a foot. The room
was brilliantly light, this being in the morning.
MR. GURNEY: Did Madame Blavatsky know
that you had written a letter and were expecting an answer, before this conversation with
her?
MR. SINNETT: Certainly; but the point to
which I attach importance in this case is that the thing happened in broad daylight in a
room which I had myself occupied the previous night, and which I had been in and out of
during the whole of the morning. Everything occurred fully before my eyes. It
is impossible that Madame Blavatsky could have thrown the letter with her hand. All
the circumstances are incompatible with that. I was not writing at the time, but
talking to her, so that the idea that she could have thrown the letter is simply
preposterous.
MR. STACK: You were talking to her, in
fact, when the letter appeared?
MR. SINNETT: Yes, and she was sitting
fully in my view. Nobody else was in the room, which was a large one. The
occurrences which I have described are merely two out of a great number that have happened
to me. I could go on relating similar examples almost ad nauseam. Here
is another letter, which was dealt with under circumstances somewhat different, but
interesting in every way. This letter is one which Mr. Hume originally sent to me to
be transmitted to the Brothers, but he wished me to read it first. Forwarding it, he
asked me in a private note first to read it, next to seal it up, and then to give it to
Madame Blavatsky. I complied with that request. Besides closing the envelope
with gum, I sealed it. I handed the letter to Madame Blavatsky and received it back
the same day, finding, when I cut it open, many sheets of writing inside.
MR. STACK: You cut the envelope open?
MR. SINNETT: Yes; the fastenings and
seals were absolutely intact. On opening the letter I found several sheets of the
Mahatma’s writing, having reference to the matter to which the letter alluded.
There were also a number of marginal notes on the folded letter itself.
MR. GURNEY: Where had the letter been in
the interval?
MR. SINNETT: That I cannot say. I
gave it to Madame Blavatsky, who was stopping in the house at the time, and it was in her
possession for several hours. This case, as a phenomenon, is less valuable than the
last.
MR. STACK: But, so far as you observed,
the envelope was absolutely intact?
MR. SINNETT: Absolutely.
MR. GURNEY: Still, I am afraid that
people who could suspect Madame Blavatsky would be able to suspect that she might have a fac
simile of your seal.
MR. SINNETT: But still the case has a
certain amount of importance, having regard to the exercise of similar power in other
cases. Here is another case. I enclosed a letter to the Mahatma in an
envelope, and gave it to Madame Blavatsky, and the envelope was afterwards returned to me
with this letter inside. (Letter produced.) As before, the envelope was quite
unopened, but the difference is that the original letter had gone altogether, and a reply
alone returned.
MR. GURNEY: But it is very easy to open
envelopes and close them again as if they had not been opened.
[The
Piece of Plaster Plaque Phenomenon]
MR. SINNETT: Quite so: But the case of
the sealed envelope is quite complete. In none of the cases were the phenomena
performed as tests; the letters were passed forwards and backwards for the sake of the
information they contained. There is another matter which I should like to bring
under the notice of the Committee, because I have here the original document bearing
several signatures. I have referred to it in the second edition of “The Occult
World.” This was done as a phenomenal test, and it is one of the very few
things which the Brothers have done to oblige me, to give me some indication that they can
treat matters in an abnormal way. At Allahabad one evening, at a few minutes before
eight o’clock, I found a note from one of the Mahatmas
with whom I had corresponded. It told me to look about in my library and I should
find something which he had sent me. I looked in the drawer where I generally kept
all the letters relating to occult subjects, and there I found a piece of plaster plaque
--- it was a corner broken off. The Mahatma’s initials were written upon it in
lead pencil. The note which I had found from him led me
to believe that this had to do with some occurrence that had just happened in
Bombay. I telegraphed to Bombay, inquiring if any special phenomenon had recently
occurred there. In the course of the post I got back the following statement, signed
by several people who were present when the phenomenon occurred: ---
At about seven in the evening the following persons: (1) Madame Blavatsky, (2) Tukaram
Tatia, (3) Gula Christna Deb, (4) Mula-varman Nath-varman, (5) Damodar K. Mavalankar, were
seated, at the dining table, at their tea, in Madame Blavatsky’s verandah opposite
the door in the red screen, separating her first writing-room from the long
verandah. The two halves of the door of the writing-room were wide open, and the
dining table being about two feet from the door, we could all see plainly everything in
the room. About five or seven minutes after, Madame Blavatsky gave a start. We
all began to watch. She then looked all around her and said, “What is he going
to do?” and repeated the same twice or thrice without looking at or referring to any
of us. We all suddenly heard a knock, a loud noise as of something falling and
breaking, behind the door of Madame Blavatsky’s writing-room, when there was not a
soul there at the time. A still louder noise was heard and we all rushed in.
The room was empty and silent; but just behind the red cotton door, where we had heard the
noise, we found fallen on the ground a Paris plaster mould representing a portrait, broken
into several pieces. After carefully picking the pieces up, to the smallest
fragments, and examining it, we found the nail on which the mould had hung for nearly 18
months, strong as ever in the wall. The iron wall-loop of the portrait was perfectly
intact and not even bent. Mr. Mula-Varman was sitting in the arm-chair, the portrait
hanging behind his head just two inches by exact measurement. When it fell he was
startled more than the others, as the noise was just behind his back. The only way
in which it could fall was if any one would take it off the nail and throw it violently
down. But there was no one to do this. We spread the pieces on the table, and
tried to arrange them, thinking they could be glued, as Madame Blavatsky seemed very much
annoyed, as the mould was the work of one of her friends in New York. We found that
one piece, nearly square and of about two inches, in the right corner of the mould, was
wanting. We went into the room and searched for it, but could not find it.
Shortly afterwards Madame Blavatsky suddenly arose and went into her room, shutting the
door after her. In a minute she called Mr. Tukeram Tatya in, and showed to him a
small piece of paper. We all saw and read it afterwards. It was in the same
handwriting in which some of us have received previous communications, and the same
familiar initials. It told us that the missing piece was taken by the Brother whom
Mr. Sinnett calls the “Illustrious,” to Allahabad, and that she should collect
and carefully preserve the remaining pieces. We did so. Madame Blavatsky said
he only joked when he said he had taken it to Allahabad, and would not lose his power over
such meaningless trifles and phenomena. She, therefore, made us search again for the
piece. But we all felt certain that the “Maha Sahib” was really bent upon
doing something. To the moment that we rushed into Madame Blavatsky’s room to
see what had fallen, we were alone in that part of the building, M. and Madame Coulomb
being in Poona and the servants all down stairs. Babula came into the writing-room
after we had gone there, as he heard some noise. It was physically impossible for
any one to have been in the room before, nor could any one have remained there without our
seeing him, since the portrait was hung in a corner between a cabinet and the wall, and
there is no place to hide, even for a cat. The portrait bore the name “E.
Wimbridge,” and we find that out of these letters the missing piece must contain the
letters “g” “e.” Madame Blavatsky, on inquiry, ascertained from
the servants that all the furniture had been cleaned and dusted two days before, and the
portrait was intact then, as well as her own which hangs close by.
Tookaram Tatya.
Guala Krishma Deb.
Malavarman Nathavarman.
Damodar K. Mavalankar.
We came in a few minutes later, as Madame Blavatsky was arranging the fragments on the
table, and saw the empty place of the missing piece and found that the letters,
“g” and “e”, were missing with the piece that had disappeared.
K. N. Shroff.
Martundrow
Vagnand.
(Signed)Dorabji H. Bharooka.”
MR. GURNEY: Do we understand that you
received a letter from the Mahatma, telling you about the thing in the drawer?
MR. SINNETT: Yes, a
short note.
MR. GURNEY: How did the note reach you?
MR. SINNETT: It came in an unusual way,
inside a telegram --- a way which, in itself, involved the exercise of the phenomenal
power. As I was editor of a daily newspaper at the time, I found several telegrams
awaiting me when I came home, and inside the envelope of one of them I found the short
note from the Mahatma.
MR. GURNEY: Could the note not have been
pushed inside the envelope?
MR. SINNETT: I do not think so. The
telegrams came from the telegraph office in the usual Government envelopes. Madame
Blavatsky appears to have been in Bombay at the time. The important point connected
with the transaction is that within a very short period indeed of the time when I found
this broken piece of plaster in my drawer at Allahabad, the original plaster cast from
which it was taken was broken at Bombay, in the presence of several people.
MR. STACK: What delay took place in
answering your telegram of inquiry to Bombay?
MR. SINNETT: They answered by
letter. I received the letter in answer to my telegram; that is all I can say.
The course of post to Bombay is about two days from Allahabad. The accuracy of the
statement as to what happened at Bombay is vouched by seven persons, whose names are
appended to the document. I know several of the witnesses; they are natives of
India, and very respectable people.
MR. STACK: It certainly does seem that as
this letter was in answer to a telegram, nobody could, in the course of post, have written
from Allahabad to Bombay and stated what had occurred in your library.
MR. SINNETT: That would have been
impossible, of course.
MR. GURNEY: And then with regard to the
piece which was missed out of the breakage, was it plastered on afterwards?
MR. SINNETT: There was no apparent reason
for the breakage, and when the pieces were collected they would not make a complete cast,
a rough triangular piece, about two inches long, being missing.
MR. GURNEY: But what I ask is whether
that piece was fitted in afterwards?
MR. SINNETT: The pieces were picked up at
the time at Bombay, and sent to me at Allahabad. I had never parted with the piece
at Allahabad, and when the whole thing came I found that my piece fitted in perfectly.
MR. STACK: When the incident happened did
you speak of it at Allahabad?
MR. SINNETT: I spoke of it the same
evening to some people in my house.
MR. STACK: Their names? Their names
would be the means of affording important corroboration.
MR. SINNETT: My wife was present, but I
cannot mention anybody else, because I have no definite recollection.
MR. STACK: It would strengthen the case
in the eyes of the outer world if a document like the one at Bombay had been drawn up at
Allahabad also.
MR. SINNETT: From the side of Allahabad I
have nothing practically to offer, except my own testimony. The thing was performed
for the purpose of conveying a phenomenal test to my mind, and it completely satisfied me;
but I never thought of making any formal record of what occurred at my end.
MR. STACK: As the Brothers are
occasionally willing to perform things by way of satisfactorily testing their powers, can
you give, from your experience, any explanation of why they do not perform them in such a
manner as to leave a complete and satisfactory record for outsiders?
MR. SINNETT: I have come to a conclusion
in my own mind as to why they will not do that. It appears to me to be perfectly
intelligible. Their object in infusing some of their knowledge into the world has
nothing to do with the development of physical science. Their purpose is altogether
concerned with the spiritual development of mankind. They believe that the teaching
which they are now enabled to command out of us will greatly help a large number of people
in leading such lives as will conduce to the spiritual welfare of those people
hereafter. When they perform any phenomenon whatever, it is done reluctantly and to
oblige those whom they conceive to be likely to serve the spiritual cause, never for the
sake of proving a physical theory of any kind. They are very desirous to advance the
spiritual knowledge of mankind, but at the same time they are very anxious lest in doing
so they should accidentally betray to mankind facts and secrets of nature which might be
capable of being made a bad use of. Therefore, they have always refused to perform
phenomena of that kind, which would afford an overwhelming proof of their powers, even to
people who have no natural affinity to subjects of the sort. They have given
indirect proofs, because they are willing that people whose natural affinity to spiritual
study will lead them to investigate such things, should be convinced. But they do
not want to put into the hands of even such persons such overwhelming
“sledge-hammer” knowledge, of those things as would break the heads, so to
speak, of the people. They are not anxious to convert the world too fast. They
do not want to convert the world on the physical but on the spiritual plane.
MR. STACK: Still, if they have performed
those things for such persons as Eglinton, why not for others who are just as high?
MR. SINNETT: I do not think that they
have for Eglinton; but they have made use of his mediumship to convey proof to others.
MR. STACK: Then what we call mediumship
in Europe is necessary for performing these things?
MR. SINNETT: That is one way of enabling
Adepts to perform the things they do.
MR. STACK: How do you account, then, for
the immense amount of spiritual phenomena alleged to have occurred in America, and in
Europe, without, so far as we know, any connection with the Mahatmas?
MR. SINNETT: I account for this by the
fortuitous influence on mediumship of the phenomena of the astral world --- that is to
say, of that plane of Nature which is immediately above the spiritual and physical
plane. I do not conceive for a moment that more than a very small portion of the
spiritualistic phenomena is produced by the Brothers. In some rare cases the
phenomenon have been so produced, but in the vast number of cases I should call them
incidents of Nature.
MR. STACK: If several thousands of
“incidents of Nature” have occurred in America and Europe without establishing
the existence of the Brothers, why should the occurrences of such incidents in Asia be
considered clear proof of the existence of the Brothers?
MR. SINNETT: All the phenomena we have
been having in India hinge on the continuous purpose of correspondence. All the
phenomena that have occurred to myself, Colonel Olcott, or any other member of the
Theosophical Society, have had to do with the action of two or three Adepts, whom we know
by name and some personally. The purpose in view has been the propagation of the
philosophy through the Theosophical Society. All the letters that have passed have
borne on that general purpose. There has been continuity of purpose throughout,
although the phenomenal circumstances in relation to dealing with letters, to astral
appearances, or to communications with the voice, have varied widely all over India.
MR. STACK: In America there are mediums
who have sat with men for weeks upon weeks, and have produced phenomena which they profess
to have had dictated from spirit-spheres. Do you consider that the occurrence of
these phenomena proves that the spirit teachings which come through the mediums are true?
MR. SINNETT: No, I would not argue that
at all.
MR. STACK: Then, is not your argument
about the Mahatmas somewhat analogous? You seem to suggest that the incidents which
you have described, and the continuity of them, all prove that what is said about the
Mahatmas is true.
MR. SINNETT: I do not think that the two
things are analogous, because the continuity I spoke of is only one of the factors I have
alluded to. First of all, we recognise that the continuity shows that the phenomena
are not incidents of Nature. The question is how far the intellectual purpose
running through them hinges on to the personal knowledge of certain living men possessed
by some members of the Society. Madame Blavatsky for years lived in Thibet in the
society of Mahatmas, and since leaving them she has been in constant communication with
them. The communications that I have received form part of the continuous
communication she has received. All my experiences are linked up inseparably with
the knowledge possessed by her, Colonel Olcott, and several others of the Mahatmas as
living men.
MR. STACK: The Mahatmas, as living men,
may be established as well as the phenomena; but why should the world accept their
teachings simply because they have the power of appearing occasionally in the astral body?
MR. SINNETT: Some of the phenomenal
performances which I have been able to deal with show that the Mahatmas have the power of
cognizing events by other faculties than the senses. They have the power, certainly,
of living in sentient form outside their bodies altogether. Do not these
circumstances form reasons for listening to their teachings, if we come to the conclusion
that the men themselves are of high character and trustworthy in their statements?
Of course, they pass into a region of knowledge in which uninitiated persons cannot follow
them. But then, we find that their Chelas concur in justifying their statements, so
far as their own knowledge goes. If you ask any Chela, provided you can get him
emancipated from the restrictions which generally seal his lips, you will find that his
personal development enables him, step by step, to verify the information he receives from
the Brothers. For myself, I have simply been receiving teaching in the intellectual
plane, and that is due to the fact that I am not attempting at present to become a
Chela. But Chelas are taught to verify the teaching which they obtain, and in that
way all of us who have a general knowledge of their statements are led to believe that the
body of information given by the Brothers is trustworthy. I think that occult
science is a science in the truest sense of the term. It is a body of knowledge
derived, in the first instance, from observations carried on over a considerable period of
time by a great number of people, and codified by persons engaged in their
investigation. It appears to me to be justified in the highest sense as a science.
MR. STACK: Still, it is simply a body of
belief entertained by a number of persons, who do not, as in the case of other scientific
persons, offer facilities for the verification of their experiments. So why should
this be called a science more than the belief of persons, say, in the Mahdi of the Soudan
should be called a science?
MR. SINNETT: They do offer opportunities
of verification to persons who are ready to take the extraordinary amount of trouble
necessary.
MR. STACK: But that distinguishes it from
ordinary science.
MR. SINNETT: I do not think it does.
Supposing an astronomer is questioned as to the justice of his conclusions with regard,
say, to the marking of a particular planet. You ask how you can verify them, and he
will say only by your getting instruments like those with which he has made his
observations. They are costly, but if you obtain them and direct them, say, to Mars,
you will find the same things that he observed.
MR. STACK: But the astronomer would
probably lend his instruments.
MR. SINNETT: But in our case the
instruments, being of a higher kind, cannot be used by another person.
MR. STACK: Then I do not see how it can
be called a science.
MR. SINNETT: The difference is, that
physical science is on one plane of nature, and psychic science on another. Our
instruments cannot be used by others, because it is necessary that certain faculties
should be developed first, but those faculties can be developed.
MR. STACK: If the detection of untruth is
guarded by 20 years or more of novitiate, you are perfectly safe from refutation.
MR. GURNEY: I can easily imagine a
science in which a professor would say, “You can look through my instruments, but you
will be none the wiser for having done so.” Years might be necessary to train
the faculties before you would be on a level with the professor.
MR. STACK: Still it seems to me that it
is not a science until other persons have verified it.
MR. SINNETT: It appears to me that the
science of mathematics affords an example in favour of the position I am assuming.
MR. STACK: Nobody throws any doubt upon
the truth of mathematical theorems, although inferior mathematicians might say that they
had not tested them. But in this case one has prima facie doubt on account of
its novelty.
MR. SINNETT: My answer to that is, that
the Mahatmas have given out some teachings which will stand or fall on their merits.
Their phenomena are advanced as collateral guarantees, and show that the inquiry is well
worth following. As regards Adepts, their policy has been to make no efforts to
convince the world, but simply to offer to it the information upon which they themselves
are satisfied as to the truth, waiting to see if the mind of the present generation will
be so perceptive as to recognise its power.
MR. STACK: I regard the Theosophist
exactly as I regard the Spiritualists. They have (as is alleged) proved tremendous
physical phenomena entirely beyond the domain of ordinary science; but if I reject the
spirit teaching of the immense mass of books I have read, why should I not reject the
spirit teaching of the Mahatmas?
MR. SINNETT: Because I would judge the
latter intrinsically. I cannot, at the same time, refrain from asking anyone who
really studies it in any way with sympathy to attach weight to the considerations which to
me have given it more than an intrinsic value.
MR. STACK: But if you ask that it be
accepted intrinsically, you immediately disconnect it from phenomena.
MR. SINNETT: But not from the higher
phenomena of which I have heard from people whose credibility is supported by such
phenomena as I have described this afternoon. All I know about Madame Blavatsky has
convinced me that the teaching of the Brothers is trustworthy.
MR. STACK: Going back to the astronomical
and geological branch of the subject, if the world in which your phenomena occurred ages
ago happens to have passed away it is impossible to verify them.
MR. SINNETT: It is impossible to say that
any world has passed away. Cataclasms have occurred and altered the formation of
land and water, but nothing has been actually destroyed.
MR. STACK: Geology, in the ordinary sense
of the term, is based upon certain fossil remains, whilst this science would seem to be
based upon something that has disappeared.
MR. SINNETT: It is based upon remains
which, until we seek for them with the view of verifying the theories, we shall not
discover; but I do not think that the traces will entirely disappear. From time to
time, as the world comes to recognise the inherent probability of the theories, more
efforts will be made to discover the traces, and I am firmly convinced that they will be
found.
MR. STACK: If the Mahatmas have a
universal knowledge of science, they knew a thousand years ago what Europe has only known
for the last 100 years.
MR. SINNETT: They certainly knew the
absolute verities, the essential facts of science, though not the minute details of modern
science, which details have rather to do with the modes of observation we employ than with
the science itself. For example, take the spectroscrope. We talk of the lines
of the spectrum. But there are no such things as lines in nature. The lines we
speak of only concern the instrument; they have nothing whatever to do with the eternal
verities of nature. An Adept would not know the details of modern science, which
details, as I say, arise out of our methods of observation. Some people might ask,
did Adepts know from the beginning of time of some specific modern discovery --- for
example, the incandescent electric lamp. But the Swan electric lamp is simply a new
method of applying the facts of nature.
MR. STACK: Dealing with it as simply a
fact of nature, is there any evidence whatever that the Mahatmas knew 1,000 years ago more
astronomy, say, than was known to the outer world?
MR. SINNETT: I believe that in occult
writings of considerable antiquity there is evidence which shows that knowledge of the
kind you refer to was possessed by the persons who wrote the books.
MR. STACK: It would be very interesting
if proof could be found that, even 100 years ago, any Mahatma made an anticipation of a
modern discovery. According to your notion, they ought to have known of the planet
which Herschell discovered, long before he discovered it.
MR. SINNETT: No doubt.
MR. STACK: But you have no proof.
MR. SINNETT: How can we? Though in
their symbolism we can see references to knowledge which we now possess. In
connection with that particular matter, we have been told that we have not yet discovered
all the planets of our own system. That is one physical fact, and others might be
cited. When such facts are alluded to and the Adepts ask for information, they say,
“What is the use of telling you? We cannot prove it, unless you follow our
methods, which are different from yours.”
MR. STACK: But as a test, might they not
anticipate some astronomical discoveries that are sure to be made within the next 20 years
at Washington, or Greenwich, or Paris?
MR. SINNETT: No doubt they might if they
were not restrained by the other considerations which I spoke of before. That would
be a phenomenal proof of their powers, which would be calculated to convince persons
unconnected with their particular line of thought too soon.
MR. STACK: I cannot understand myself why
they should object to a rapid conversion. Even with very plain phenomena, the world
is rather slow to believe.
MR. SINNETT: That is a matter of
policy. Many people agree in condemning the policy on the lines you have sketched
out; but still there it is, and people who, like myself, are convinced of the power of the
Adepts, consider that there is ample justification for it.
The examination then terminated.