Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine. Volume I. September 1887-February 1888.Various
Religion
Lucifer: A Theosophical Magazine. Volume I. September 1887-February 1888.
Various
Theosophy -- Periodicals
Hitherto pessimism, notwithstanding the abundance and brilliancy of
its paradoxes, had a weak point—namely, the absence of any real and
evident basis for it to rest upon. Its followers had no living,
guiding thought to serve them as a beacon and help them to steer
clear of the sandbanks of life—real and imaginary—so profusely sown
by themselves in the shape of denunciations against life and being.
All they could do was to rely upon their representatives, who
occupied their time very ingeniously if not profitably, in tacking
the many and various evils of life to the metaphysical propositions
of great German thinkers, like Schopenhauer and Hartmann, as small
boys tack on coloured tails to the kites of their elders and rejoice
at seeing them launched in the air. But now the programme will be
changed. The Pessimists have found something more solid and
authoritative, if less philosophical, to tack their jeremiads and
dirges to, than the metaphysical _kites_ of Schopenhauer. The day
when they agreed with the views of this philosopher, which pointed
at the Universal WILL as the perpetrator of all the World-evil, is
gone to return no more. Nor will they be any better satisfied with
the hazy “Unconscious” of von Hartmann. They have been seeking
diligently for a more congenial and less metaphysical soil to build
their pessimistic _philosophy_ upon, and they have been rewarded
with success, now that the cause of Universal Suffering has been
discovered by them in the fundamental laws of physical development.
Evil will no longer be allied with the misty and uncertain Phantom
called “WILL,” but with an actual and obvious fact: the Pessimists
will henceforth be towed by the Evolutionists.
The basic argument of their representative has been given in the
opening sentence of this article. The Universe and all on it
appeared in consequence of the “breaking asunder of UNITY into
_Plurality_.” This rather dim rendering of the Indian formula is not
made to refer, as I have shown, in the mind of the Pessimist, to the
one Unity, to the Vedantin abstraction—Parabrahm: otherwise, I
should not certainly have used the words “breaking up.” Nor does it
concern itself much with Mulaprakriti, or the “Veil” of Parabrahm;
nor even with the first manifested primordial matter, except
inferentially, as follows from Dr. Mainländer’s exposition, but
chiefly with terrestrial _protoplasm_. Spirit or deity is entirely
ignored in this case; evidently because of the necessity for showing
the whole as “the lawful domain of physical Science.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account