You are in:
Spiritist Review - Journal of Psychological Studies - 1866 > April > Spiritism Without the Spirits
Spiritism Without the Spirits
Lately we have seen a sect trying to establish itself, with the flag of the denial of prayer. It was initially received by a general feeling of reproach and failed. Men and Spirits united to repel a doctrine that was, at the same time, ingratitude, and revolt against the Providence. This was not difficult, for by shocking the intimate feeling of the majority, it carried its own destroying principle. (Spiritist Review, January 1866).
There is now another way that is probing a different terrain. Its motto is: No communication with the Spirits. It is strange to have such an opinion now preconized by some that in the past exalted the importance and sublimity of the Spiritist teachings, and that felt glorified by what they themselves received as mediums. Will it have more chances of success than the preceding one? This is what we are going to examine in a few words.
This doctrine, if we can give such a name to an opinion that is restricted to a few people, is supported by the following data:
“The Spirits that communicate are only ordinary Spirits that so far have not taught us any new truth, demonstrating their lack of capacity, and staying at moral banalities. The criteria that they try to establish with the agreement of their teaching is delusional, given its insufficiency. It is man that must probe the great mysteries of nature, submitting what they say to the control of reason. Since they do not teach us anything in their communications, we ban them from our meetings. We will discuss among ourselves; we will seek and decide about the principles that must be accepted or rejected, in our own wisdom, without resorting to the approval of the Spirits.”
Notice that it is not about denying the fact of the manifestations, but to establish superiority against the Spirits, in the judgement of man, or of some men; in a word, separating Spiritism from the teaching of the Spirits since the instructions of the latter would be inferior to what human intelligence can do.
Such a doctrine leads to a singular consequence, that would not speak highly of human intelligence compared to the logic of the Spirits. Thanks to the latter we know that the Spirits of higher order belonged to the corporeal humanity that was surpassed by them long ago, like the general that surpassed the class of soldier from which he came. Without the Spirits, we would still believe that the angels are a privileged class and that the demons are creatures predestined to evil for the whole of eternity. “No, they will say, because there were men that fought that idea”. Be it, but what were those men if not incarnate Spirits? What was the influence of their isolated opinion upon the belief of the masses? Ask the first one that arrives if they know at least by name of most of those great philosophers! Whereas, by coming from the Spirits and in all corners of Earth, manifesting to the humblest as well as to the most powerful, the truth propagated with the speed of light.
We can divide the Spirits in two large categories: those that, after achieving the highest degree of the scale, left the material worlds for good, and those that, by the law of reincarnation, still belong to the maelstrom of earthly humanity. Let us admit, hypothetically, that it is only the latter ones that have the right to communicate with men: there are, among them, those that were enlightened during their lives, whose opinion has authority, and that we would be pleased to consult with them if they were still alive.
The doctrine above would result that these very superior men would become nullities or mediocre by passing to the world of the Spirits, incapable of giving us a valuable teaching, whereas we would respectfully bow before them if they presented themselves in flesh and blood in the same meetings, where they refuse to listen to them as Spirits. It also follows that Pascal, for example, is no longer a light once he became Spirit, but if he reincarnate in Peter or Paul, necessarily with the same genius, he would be an oracle, given that he had lost nothing. This consequence is so rigorous that the followers of such a system admit the reincarnation as one of their greatest truths.
Finally, it is necessary to conclude that, in good faith as we suppose, place their intelligence so much above that of the Spirits, will become nullities or mediocre themselves, whose opinion will have no value, so that one would have to believe in what they say when alive, and to not believe tomorrow, when dead, even if they came to say the same thing, and even less so if they said that they were mistaken.
I know that they object the great difficulty of verification of identity. This question was abundantly treated so that it is superfluous to return to that. It is certain that we cannot know, by a material proof, if the Spirit that presents oneself by the name of Pascal is truly that of the great Pascal. What does it matter if he says good things? We must weigh the value of his instructions, not by the form of the language, since we know that it is sometimes marked by the inferiority of the instrument, but by the elevation and wisdom of his thoughts. A great Spirit that communicates through a poorly educated medium is like the skillful calligraphist that utilizes a bad pen. The whole of the writing will show his talent, but the details of the execution that do not depend on him, will be imperfect.
Spiritism has never said that one must refrain from personal judgment, and blindly submit to what the Spirits say; it is the Spirits themselves that tell us to process their words through the crucible of logic, while some incarnate say: “Do not believe in what the Spirits say, but only in what we say.” Now, since individual reason is subjected to error, man is very frequently led to take his own reason and ideas by the only expression of truth, and the one that does not hold the proud pretension of considering his opinion infallible, submits it to the appreciation of the majority. Does it mean that he had resigned to his own opinion? Absolutely not. He is perfectly free to believe that he is the only one that is right, against everybody else, but that will not prevent the opinion of the majority to prevail, and definitely have more authority than the opinion of one or some.
Let us now examine the matter from another point of view. Who made Spiritism? Is it a human, personal conception? Everybody knows that it is the opposite. Spiritism is the result of the teachings of the Spirits, so much so that without the Spirits there wouldn’t be Spiritism. If the Spiritist Doctrine were a simple philosophical theory, born out of a human brain, it would only have the value of a personal opinion; coming out of the universality of the opinion of the Spirits, it has the value of a collective work, and that is the very reason why it propagated in such a small time throughout Earth, each one receiving on their side, or through their intimate relationships, identical instructions, and the proof of the reality of the manifestations.
Well then! It is in the presence of such a positive and material result that one tries to convert the inutility of the teachings of the Spirits into a system.
Let us consider the tact that if they did not have the popularity that they reached, they would not be attacked, and that it is the prodigious spread of these ideas that attracts so many adversaries to Spiritism. Don’t those that today reject the communications look like children that neglect their parents? Isn’t that like utilizing what they taught us to fight them; turning against them, their own parents, the weapons that they gave us? Among the Spirits that communicate, isn’t that of a father, a mother, of the dearest creatures, from whom the most touching instructions are received, the ones that go straight to the heart? Don’t we owe them the fact that we were yanked from incredulity, from the tortures of doubt about the future? Is it the time to neglect the helping hand when we enjoy the benefits?
What can we say of those that taking their opinion as if it were that of everybody, seriously affirm that communications are unwelcome everywhere? A strange delusion, that would be dispelled by looking around them. On their side, what would the Spirits think of meetings that discuss the adequacy of giving them the word, if they may be exceptionally heard, to please those that have the weakness of giving importance to their instructions? There are Spirits there, undoubtedly, before whom they would fall on their knees, if they allowed themselves to be seen. Have you thought of the price that they would pay for such ingratitude?
Since the Spirits have the freedom of communication, irrespective of their degree of knowledge, it then follows a great diversity in the value of the communications, like in the writings of a people in which everybody has the freedom to write, and where certainly not every literary production is a master piece. According to the individual quality of the Spirits, there are therefore good communications by the substance and form, and others, finally, that are worthless both in substance and form. It is up to us to choose.
The act of rejecting them all because some are bad is not more rational than proscribing all publications, given the fact that some writers produce vulgarities. Don’t the best writers, the greatest geniuses have weak productions in their works? Don’t we select their best contributions? Let us do the same with respect to the production of the Spirits; let us take advantage of what is good and reject what is bad; but, to remove the weed let us not remove the good grain.
Let us then consider the world of the Spirits as a doble of the corporeal world, as a portion of humanity and let us say that we must not neglect to hear them, now that they are discarnate, for we would not have done that when incarnate. They are always around us, as before; the whole difference is that they are now behind the curtains and not in front of it.
But, some will ask, what is the reach of the teachings of the Spirits, even the good ones, if they do not go beyond what man can know on his own? Is it certain that they do not teach us anything else? Don’t they see what we cannot see, in their spiritual state? Without them, would we know their state, their way of living, their sensations? Would we know, as we do today, this world where we may perhaps be tomorrow? If that world no longer horrifies us, and if we fearlessly face the passage that leads to that world, don’t we owe this to them? Is that world completely explored? Don’t we see a new face of that world revealed every day? Doesn’t the knowledge of knowing where we are going to, and what we can be after leaving here, doesn’t it signify something? Before, we entered that world groping and shaking, like in a bottomless abyss; that abyss now has a shiny light, and we enter it joyfully. And they dare say that Spiritism taught nothing! (Spiritist Review, August 1865: “What Spiritism teaches”).
Undoubtedly the teaching of the Spirits has limits. One cannot ask for something that cannot be given, what is in their essence, in their providential objective; and it gives a lot to the one that knows what to seek.
But as it is, have we already applied everything? Before asking for more, have we already probed the depth of the horizon that it unveils to us? As for its reach, it is attested by a material, positive, gigantic and unprecedented fact in the archives of history: the fact that even in its birth it already revolutionizes he world and shakes the forces of Earth. What a man would have such a power?
Spiritism tends to the reformation of humanity through charity. It is not, therefore, surprising that the Spirits preach charity incessantly; they will still preach it for as long as necessary to yank out pride and egotism from the heart of man. If some find the communications useless, because they continuously repeat the moral lessons, they must be congratulated for being perfect enough to no longer need them, but they must think that those that are not so much confident in their own merit, and that wish to improve, are not tired of receiving good advices. Do not seek, therefore, to preclude them from such a consolation.
Has such a doctrine a chance to prevail? As we said, the communications of the Spirits provided the foundation of Spiritism. Rejecting them after having them acclaimed is to undermine Spiritism in its basis, subtracting the foundation. That must not be the thought of serious and devoted Spiritists, because it would be absolutely like the one that said Christian and denied the value of the teachings of Jesus, under the pretext that his moral is identical to that of Plato. It was in those communications that the Spiritists found joy, consolation, and hope. It was through them that they understood the need for the good, resignation, submission to the will of God; it is through them that they withstand the vicissitudes of life with courage; it was by them that there is no more true separation between them and the objects of their kindest affections. Isn’t that a mistake to believe that the human heart may renounce to a belief that brings happiness?
We repeat here what we said about the prayer: If Spiritism must gain influence it is through the increase in the sum of moral satisfactions that it provides. May those that believe it to be insufficient as is, endeavor to give more than it does; but it will not be by giving less, by removing what gives its enchantment, its strength and popularity that they will surpass it.
There is now another way that is probing a different terrain. Its motto is: No communication with the Spirits. It is strange to have such an opinion now preconized by some that in the past exalted the importance and sublimity of the Spiritist teachings, and that felt glorified by what they themselves received as mediums. Will it have more chances of success than the preceding one? This is what we are going to examine in a few words.
This doctrine, if we can give such a name to an opinion that is restricted to a few people, is supported by the following data:
“The Spirits that communicate are only ordinary Spirits that so far have not taught us any new truth, demonstrating their lack of capacity, and staying at moral banalities. The criteria that they try to establish with the agreement of their teaching is delusional, given its insufficiency. It is man that must probe the great mysteries of nature, submitting what they say to the control of reason. Since they do not teach us anything in their communications, we ban them from our meetings. We will discuss among ourselves; we will seek and decide about the principles that must be accepted or rejected, in our own wisdom, without resorting to the approval of the Spirits.”
Notice that it is not about denying the fact of the manifestations, but to establish superiority against the Spirits, in the judgement of man, or of some men; in a word, separating Spiritism from the teaching of the Spirits since the instructions of the latter would be inferior to what human intelligence can do.
Such a doctrine leads to a singular consequence, that would not speak highly of human intelligence compared to the logic of the Spirits. Thanks to the latter we know that the Spirits of higher order belonged to the corporeal humanity that was surpassed by them long ago, like the general that surpassed the class of soldier from which he came. Without the Spirits, we would still believe that the angels are a privileged class and that the demons are creatures predestined to evil for the whole of eternity. “No, they will say, because there were men that fought that idea”. Be it, but what were those men if not incarnate Spirits? What was the influence of their isolated opinion upon the belief of the masses? Ask the first one that arrives if they know at least by name of most of those great philosophers! Whereas, by coming from the Spirits and in all corners of Earth, manifesting to the humblest as well as to the most powerful, the truth propagated with the speed of light.
We can divide the Spirits in two large categories: those that, after achieving the highest degree of the scale, left the material worlds for good, and those that, by the law of reincarnation, still belong to the maelstrom of earthly humanity. Let us admit, hypothetically, that it is only the latter ones that have the right to communicate with men: there are, among them, those that were enlightened during their lives, whose opinion has authority, and that we would be pleased to consult with them if they were still alive.
The doctrine above would result that these very superior men would become nullities or mediocre by passing to the world of the Spirits, incapable of giving us a valuable teaching, whereas we would respectfully bow before them if they presented themselves in flesh and blood in the same meetings, where they refuse to listen to them as Spirits. It also follows that Pascal, for example, is no longer a light once he became Spirit, but if he reincarnate in Peter or Paul, necessarily with the same genius, he would be an oracle, given that he had lost nothing. This consequence is so rigorous that the followers of such a system admit the reincarnation as one of their greatest truths.
Finally, it is necessary to conclude that, in good faith as we suppose, place their intelligence so much above that of the Spirits, will become nullities or mediocre themselves, whose opinion will have no value, so that one would have to believe in what they say when alive, and to not believe tomorrow, when dead, even if they came to say the same thing, and even less so if they said that they were mistaken.
I know that they object the great difficulty of verification of identity. This question was abundantly treated so that it is superfluous to return to that. It is certain that we cannot know, by a material proof, if the Spirit that presents oneself by the name of Pascal is truly that of the great Pascal. What does it matter if he says good things? We must weigh the value of his instructions, not by the form of the language, since we know that it is sometimes marked by the inferiority of the instrument, but by the elevation and wisdom of his thoughts. A great Spirit that communicates through a poorly educated medium is like the skillful calligraphist that utilizes a bad pen. The whole of the writing will show his talent, but the details of the execution that do not depend on him, will be imperfect.
Spiritism has never said that one must refrain from personal judgment, and blindly submit to what the Spirits say; it is the Spirits themselves that tell us to process their words through the crucible of logic, while some incarnate say: “Do not believe in what the Spirits say, but only in what we say.” Now, since individual reason is subjected to error, man is very frequently led to take his own reason and ideas by the only expression of truth, and the one that does not hold the proud pretension of considering his opinion infallible, submits it to the appreciation of the majority. Does it mean that he had resigned to his own opinion? Absolutely not. He is perfectly free to believe that he is the only one that is right, against everybody else, but that will not prevent the opinion of the majority to prevail, and definitely have more authority than the opinion of one or some.
Let us now examine the matter from another point of view. Who made Spiritism? Is it a human, personal conception? Everybody knows that it is the opposite. Spiritism is the result of the teachings of the Spirits, so much so that without the Spirits there wouldn’t be Spiritism. If the Spiritist Doctrine were a simple philosophical theory, born out of a human brain, it would only have the value of a personal opinion; coming out of the universality of the opinion of the Spirits, it has the value of a collective work, and that is the very reason why it propagated in such a small time throughout Earth, each one receiving on their side, or through their intimate relationships, identical instructions, and the proof of the reality of the manifestations.
Well then! It is in the presence of such a positive and material result that one tries to convert the inutility of the teachings of the Spirits into a system.
Let us consider the tact that if they did not have the popularity that they reached, they would not be attacked, and that it is the prodigious spread of these ideas that attracts so many adversaries to Spiritism. Don’t those that today reject the communications look like children that neglect their parents? Isn’t that like utilizing what they taught us to fight them; turning against them, their own parents, the weapons that they gave us? Among the Spirits that communicate, isn’t that of a father, a mother, of the dearest creatures, from whom the most touching instructions are received, the ones that go straight to the heart? Don’t we owe them the fact that we were yanked from incredulity, from the tortures of doubt about the future? Is it the time to neglect the helping hand when we enjoy the benefits?
What can we say of those that taking their opinion as if it were that of everybody, seriously affirm that communications are unwelcome everywhere? A strange delusion, that would be dispelled by looking around them. On their side, what would the Spirits think of meetings that discuss the adequacy of giving them the word, if they may be exceptionally heard, to please those that have the weakness of giving importance to their instructions? There are Spirits there, undoubtedly, before whom they would fall on their knees, if they allowed themselves to be seen. Have you thought of the price that they would pay for such ingratitude?
Since the Spirits have the freedom of communication, irrespective of their degree of knowledge, it then follows a great diversity in the value of the communications, like in the writings of a people in which everybody has the freedom to write, and where certainly not every literary production is a master piece. According to the individual quality of the Spirits, there are therefore good communications by the substance and form, and others, finally, that are worthless both in substance and form. It is up to us to choose.
The act of rejecting them all because some are bad is not more rational than proscribing all publications, given the fact that some writers produce vulgarities. Don’t the best writers, the greatest geniuses have weak productions in their works? Don’t we select their best contributions? Let us do the same with respect to the production of the Spirits; let us take advantage of what is good and reject what is bad; but, to remove the weed let us not remove the good grain.
Let us then consider the world of the Spirits as a doble of the corporeal world, as a portion of humanity and let us say that we must not neglect to hear them, now that they are discarnate, for we would not have done that when incarnate. They are always around us, as before; the whole difference is that they are now behind the curtains and not in front of it.
But, some will ask, what is the reach of the teachings of the Spirits, even the good ones, if they do not go beyond what man can know on his own? Is it certain that they do not teach us anything else? Don’t they see what we cannot see, in their spiritual state? Without them, would we know their state, their way of living, their sensations? Would we know, as we do today, this world where we may perhaps be tomorrow? If that world no longer horrifies us, and if we fearlessly face the passage that leads to that world, don’t we owe this to them? Is that world completely explored? Don’t we see a new face of that world revealed every day? Doesn’t the knowledge of knowing where we are going to, and what we can be after leaving here, doesn’t it signify something? Before, we entered that world groping and shaking, like in a bottomless abyss; that abyss now has a shiny light, and we enter it joyfully. And they dare say that Spiritism taught nothing! (Spiritist Review, August 1865: “What Spiritism teaches”).
Undoubtedly the teaching of the Spirits has limits. One cannot ask for something that cannot be given, what is in their essence, in their providential objective; and it gives a lot to the one that knows what to seek.
But as it is, have we already applied everything? Before asking for more, have we already probed the depth of the horizon that it unveils to us? As for its reach, it is attested by a material, positive, gigantic and unprecedented fact in the archives of history: the fact that even in its birth it already revolutionizes he world and shakes the forces of Earth. What a man would have such a power?
Spiritism tends to the reformation of humanity through charity. It is not, therefore, surprising that the Spirits preach charity incessantly; they will still preach it for as long as necessary to yank out pride and egotism from the heart of man. If some find the communications useless, because they continuously repeat the moral lessons, they must be congratulated for being perfect enough to no longer need them, but they must think that those that are not so much confident in their own merit, and that wish to improve, are not tired of receiving good advices. Do not seek, therefore, to preclude them from such a consolation.
Has such a doctrine a chance to prevail? As we said, the communications of the Spirits provided the foundation of Spiritism. Rejecting them after having them acclaimed is to undermine Spiritism in its basis, subtracting the foundation. That must not be the thought of serious and devoted Spiritists, because it would be absolutely like the one that said Christian and denied the value of the teachings of Jesus, under the pretext that his moral is identical to that of Plato. It was in those communications that the Spiritists found joy, consolation, and hope. It was through them that they understood the need for the good, resignation, submission to the will of God; it is through them that they withstand the vicissitudes of life with courage; it was by them that there is no more true separation between them and the objects of their kindest affections. Isn’t that a mistake to believe that the human heart may renounce to a belief that brings happiness?
We repeat here what we said about the prayer: If Spiritism must gain influence it is through the increase in the sum of moral satisfactions that it provides. May those that believe it to be insufficient as is, endeavor to give more than it does; but it will not be by giving less, by removing what gives its enchantment, its strength and popularity that they will surpass it.