Spiritism

"I repeat, I do not doubt that souls in contact with us exist, because I consider everything possible that is not proven to be impossible. I only want an answer to these three questions. Titus Tóvölgyi's answer.* Although the three questions addressed are not addressed to man, but to souls, and although I am not only a soul, but also a man, who (according to the doctrine of spiritualism) has a soul, allow me, as a fully convinced adherent of spiritualism and spiritualism, to stand in line against the challenger. Nor did Gárdonyi make it clear whether he was addressing his three questions to souls who, freed from their bodily prisons, were already enjoying freedom in the afterlife, or whether he would accept the answer of a soul who, still carrying its earthly prison, was struggling with the hard work of penance. I, therefore, following the prompting of my soul, enter the line, though I am engaged in a combat with an adversary whom it is difficult to convince with the weapons of capacity, because he has no idea of the object of which he is the enemy (though a very real enemy); but it is certain that he is not alone, and that spiritualists are surrounded by a veritable sea of enemies of this conception. (Is he who asks for light called an enemy by the spirits?) We are enemies, but not from conviction, only from supposition, and that supposition is that what we assert cannot be true, and that our evidence is inadmissible. We are criticized, laughed at, and considered a little foolish, who are above blinkeredness, because we have no wit not to take the irrefutable facts of reality for blinkeredness. What is said about the so-called "séance", I subscribe to most of it, because the amount of deception that is mentioned here is perhaps not even to be found among the Vlach gypsies. It is true that we are still at the beginning in Hungary and that no mediums have yet been developed which could prove authentic, irrefutable facts, but there are as many mediums as there are experimenting families, each of which has an Árpád, King Matthias, Ovidius, Rákóci or Kossuth etc., which makes spiritualism an object of ridicule in an easily graspable way. The doctrine of spiritualism does not consist in summoning souls and dancing tables, but in the more sacred morality which it contains, and which is supported by spiritual phenomena, but not at all by the gossip which they spread about us, and which they serve to raise the veil of our earthly affairs or our future successes, good or bad. But let us come to the point! What is the first question? I. The "first question" is the question of suffering. Why does man suffer on this earth? It is to desire happiness by tasting the kiss of the angel of happiness, which is not present at any moment. (That is, to long for happiness. I am reminded of the shepherd who beats his dog in order to make it happy - when he lets go. The souls' philosophy of life is thus the same as the shepherd's, except that they express themselves poetically.) But that happiness is only a taste of salvation and is not to be found on this earth. Let it be the eternal longing and yearning of a soul bound to the frailties of the flesh and animal instincts; let it chase, pursue, run after it through thorn and bush, shed sweat, feel the prick of thorns in the paths, let it be tormented by desire as thirst to reach the spring that waits for it on the borders of life's deserts and sufferings, with the soft velvet of grassy turf, the soft caress of the flower-scented fingers of cool, dewy breezes; but the cost of accessing that spring is: "'Do not do to your neighbour what you would not wish for yourself'. This earth is the station of spiritual perfection and purification; the garden, the hotbed of the soul's development, which, from geology to psychology, is passed through all the phases of life's variations as through as many filters and retorts, so that when it becomes man it may occupy this place as worthily as possible. It is in this place that he continues his purification through the blackmailers of sufferings and trials. He must know the difference between right and wrong, and, as a tried and tested fighter of struggles, he must be able to be used where he is needed. (But if the soul springs from God, from what does it purify itself? Why should suffering wash that which comes from a place so pure that no macula can be in it? Does the soul of an infant grow from toothache and belly-ache? He who has seen a child choking for days on end with diphtheria cannot accept that the development of the soul should begin in such a 'hot-bed' as this our land. Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? There can be neither good nor evil in the face of perfection. In my article, I explained that if I am good, circumstances have instilled in me the notion of moral goodness and thus I do not deserve it. And if I am bad, for that very reason I am not guilty. Conscience has instilled in me a light of uncertain colour. The wisest papua cooks his enemy's thigh with a calm soul, his conscience does not protest against it. But there must be enough immoral European men who will not kill a fly, because their conscience says: I must not cause suffering even to the animal!) And that in this earthly furnace of perfection and purification, a short human life is not enough in comparison with eternity, is understandable. How many incarnations are necessary from the phase of becoming human to the phase of humanly possible perfection? That is not predetermined. I didn't suck these from my thumb. Spiritualism is a science. I cannot go into further explanation of things here. I recommend for reading the works of spiritualist scholars who refer to the facts of Aksakov, Hellenbach, Du Prel, Friese, Devis, Zöllner, Vallace, Brofferio, etc. One hundred drops of bitterness, one drop of happiness: this is the normal state of human life; to be at peace in this is social wisdom. (I don't want such a drink. Nor such wisdom.) For calm alone is the balm that makes suffering easier to bear. The tranquillity which, by excluding these drugs of self-torture, takes out the poisonous fangs of suffering, and the soul, being placed in its situation, does not vomit, does not fidget, and may even enjoy comfort. (If the Minorite doctor of Eger were to explain this to the toothache sufferers waiting for him on the porch, would they not reply: - It is true, dear reverend, but just pull out the bad bone. Go to the hospital when they operate, and explain the comfort of suffering to the screaming patients.) What kind of family is one born into? Is it a question of living as a human being first? Or is he reincarnated for reward or punishment? (The Szapáry who drew the plough must surely have been reincarnated as a reward. Souls born into royalty undoubtedly gain the greatest reward through reincarnation. What does the history of the world say? The blown up Tsar? The German emperor who died of laryngeal cancer? The Habsburg of Mexico? The Habsburg girl burnt alive? János Orth? Rudolf?) The first life is like a lineup, who gets what turn. What life then awaits him, or what life does he make himself worthy of? That depends on many different influences, and is judged according to them. Time of war! Plague! Misfortune! These are extraordinary conditions. War is the act of human free will, the course of the conflicts of earthly life, and not the fruit of a higher will. Let men therefore reckon with this. Epidemics are also mostly health symptoms. (Thousands and thousands of widows and orphans: after the Indian plague, don't ask God crying, you are only victims of a health symptom!) The advanced humanity of Europe and America can now localise epidemics, can control them. Japan is already following in Europe's footsteps. Why can't China, India, Persia, and the rest! The way is open for them. And if progress were not promoted by means of coercion sometimes from a higher place, if there were not sometimes storms to shake mankind out of its lethargy and thundering out of laziness, would we not be where the other underdeveloped nations of the world are? And death by pestilence is more a means of stirring up the strength of the living than of punishing the dead, for death is no punishment at all. (On this point, it would be well to ask the souls who have been wheeled, skinned alive and impaled by Caraffa.) If death is a punishment, then so is release from prison, which we don't consider it to be, do we? And if death comes to a man before his old age, to whom it comes, it is amnesty. Some misfortunes if they occur? See, they are mostly the outgrowth of man's own causation, the consequences of his carelessness, or of his want of integrity; and if they do not? Human prudence and caution would fail, in other words, human vigilance would fail. (The Reformed priests who were dragged to the galleys, who had iron pears forced into their mouths to stop them from screaming, and who either went mad or died as a result of these bloodcurdling atrocities, could have been more careful! This is a particularly reassuring explanation for the victims of tram transport in Budapest.) The creation can account for all the facts, but people, while on the one hand are lazy to think about it, on the other hand would go so far with their demands that God should take care of everything for them and God should do everything for them. (No one wishes that, since it can be understood from what has been said that suffering is desirable for everything, because it purifies.) God would only have to show a little willingness to do so, and even his divine power would not be able to satisfy the demands of men. What about Nero's cruelties, Atilla's treacherous campaign, the Turkish Tartars' chaining and torture of Erzsébet Báthory's and Caraffa's? God has given man free will, and though there are sometimes miracles in life, that a man may be arrested in the commission of his sins, that miracle is a momentary flash of the sword of the Lord, like a lightning stroke, but in general each man is responsible for his own actions; and if the Lord should arrest every man in his own actions when he is about to do evil? What would be the merit of free will, what would be the merit of doing good, if evil were excluded, made impossible? (But it is not that Nero is responsible for his own actions, but that the venerable souls who willingly perform acrobatic feats for the spiritual edification of well-fed summoners are not defending the innocent who are wrapped in tar-torches or thrown to tigers. Let any man imagine himself in the circus, and the famishing beast opposite him, and let him answer for me the spiritualist theory, whether he will be at rest in it.) Is the punishment of the wicked no more forgotten by heaven than the compensation of the innocent sufferer; and if proved wickedness be punished even on earth, and the noble and good endeavour find recognition even here? How can it not find it where God is the punisher and the rewarder? (I do not wish to punish anybody, only that I may not be punished! What is it to the thirteen martyrs of Arad and their families that Haynau is punished in heaven?) But he who examines everything through his earthly spectacles, and makes the limits of life, punishment and reward, complete at the grave... (I didn't claim anything, I just asked.) ...It is natural that there should be no justice, for the justice which men deliver on this earth leaves much to be desired. He, therefore, who does not believe in the other world, who denies the immortality of the soul, (To deny is to say that something known to be true is not true. The immortality of the soul I consider possible, I really do not know. This is not a denial, but a perception.) ...sees an unfinished half-work before him, which breaks off at the very point where its logical continuation would be most desirable, where all that has not been completed on this earth should follow. Now the doctrine of spiritualism, which is now being practised as a serious science by great minds and scientists, follows this logic with the help of celestial revelations, and has already evidence which irrefutably confirms it: That creation is not aimless and not an unconscious half-work; that God is not a striking labourer who stops his work in the middle; and that, though human reason be finite, though the eye and the earth's limit be found, though our gaze see no further than the grave, yet the universe is infinite and is contained in a system, in which there is no interruption, but there is a goal towards which the world of atoms is directed and strives. (I have yet to see a spark of heavenly revelation in what has been said. The heavenly revelation must come to us in the form of an indisputable truth. It must not show copper instead of gold. So where is the evidence? After all, mankind has been waiting for thousands of years! How cruel of you, Mr. Tóvolgyi, not to produce those proofs.) And can we improve if we do not know the conditions for improvement? Of course we do! Even the most depraved man knows! The conscience of man has such a delicate sense that once we have become conscious, it vibrates, it moves, but we find its vibration and movement very uncomfortable in many respects and do not want to notice it; but when it is too late, when it has rebelled against us and become our torment, we do notice it. But let us notice it first. Observe its vibrations, its movements, apply yourself to it before you do something, and it has such subtle sensory nuances that it will give you a correct answer to everything. But don't mute or ignore his advice, for it is certain that he will be silent before terrorism, until the matter is finally resolved. (I have already answered the question of conscience.) II. Question two: ""What is faith?"" I think we can end this question more briefly. Faith is an extract of conviction. I can believe only what my conviction takes for certain and suggests. Without it, all belief is pretended and false. If I am not convinced of the certainty or thoroughness of something? Power and violence may force me to confess, but cannot force me to believe; and if belief is made strong in me by conviction, can power and violence force me to deny, but cannot force me not to believe. (For I say almost word for word the same thing.) What does the catholic mother church hold and what does she say? That is her business. But do I believe? It is mine. I do not agree with the schoolboy who, when asked by the catechist, ""How must a Christian Catholic believe to be saved?"" instead of saying: ""To be saved, a Christian Catholic must believe what the Christian Catholic Mother Church puts before him, whether it is written or not"". Instead, out of error or confusion, he replied, ""whether they are true or not"". The doctrine of Spiritualism does not demand of anyone to believe without conviction; on the contrary, theosophy differs in that it seeks to produce facts, to convince unbelief with facts, and thus to build faith on a foundation of conviction. (But where? when? how? Because that is what I expect.) Spiritualism and the Mother Church, spiritualism and religion are related only in that they believe in God, but in other respects they are completely different. According to the doctrine of Spiritualism, religion is only a form and an honest well-meaning Mohammedan, Arian, or Baptist is necessarily more pleasing to God than an immoral, wicked Catholic and vice versa. Worship his God in whatever form he will, only seek to keep the purity of his soul from the filthiness of sin. Disbelief is not sin, but wrong doing is sin. Who, in spite of all his efforts, cannot be convinced of the existence of God? This does no harm, but if his unbelief leads him into a whirlpool of sin? He does harm, and will find his punishment. (The chapter on faith in the first answer says against this. How can I be punished if faith does not depend on me?) Faith is an amulet, a shield against sins, even for the most learned man, for faith is an antidote to sin, which human weakness will be tempted to commit by a thousand snares. (I did not say the contrary, I only said in the word of the Church that faith is a gift of God.) Strong faith also makes the soul strong and resistant to all the plagues of immorality. It makes him strong in patience, in perseverance, in charity, weak in hatred: for when he asks God to forgive him his sins, he thinks that he is called to forgive those who sin against him. Faith, therefore, is not a promissory note, the value of which, if I do not believe, is executed on me, but a protective palladium, a share in a company which is worth most when it is perfectly clean and has nothing written on it, and which may be the certificate of the members of that company. And though it is possible to enter through the gates of heaven without it, it is better to enter by it, because I can keep my soul more purely under its shield than if I were to fight with a naked soul in the midst of the struggles of life, mixed with all the dirt and trials of life. So faith is not indispensable, but it is necessary. It cannot be forced on any man, but let him who can obtain it do so, for in him he will find a companion on the journey of his life who will be a strong support and guide in the midst of his trials and missteps. III. Question three, On ""the appearance of souls"". What is reincarnation or rebirth for? I have given a cursory answer in Chapter I. At least I have answered it well enough to give the reader an idea. To thoroughly satisfy it?... Why? Who will believe it? That I could talk to someone about music, let alone higher music? At the very least, you should know sheet music. Spiritualism belongs to higher music. To understand and comprehend it, a little initiation is absolutely necessary, and that, even today, is hardly to be expected among the ranks of the reading public. So let us stick to the solution of that question: Is appearance a sin for souls? Or freedom dependent on their pleasure? Or is it a duty? Well, it is not a sin. It may be supposed that sinful souls, in whom it would not matter whether they were more or less sinful by a few sins, would appear, even if it were a sin, but pure souls, already under the grace of God, would not appear under any pretense, although such souls do appear, and, in answer to questions put to them, they have equally declared, in America, London, Paris, or Dusseldorf, that their appearance for the information of mankind is not only a freedom, but a duty. And to the question, ""How can it be explained that the deceased mother does not come to the aid of a starving, destitute, burning in fire, attacked by a wild beast, or subjected to brutality, but is happy to appear after tea in the drawing-rooms, and there to push furniture and lift tables for the so-called believers?"" etc., I reply: ""You are very much mistaken as to the possibility and purpose of the appearance of souls. In the first place, spirits are not earthly beings to interfere in earthly things, and indeed all earthly interference on their part is forbidden. (It has just been said that their appearance in America, London, Paris, etc., is a duty.) What if the spirits were to protect man from all danger, who would then fear danger? Who would then take care of himself? (So, the reason why the spirits do not come to the aid of children trapped in a burning house is that they do not take care of themselves!) How many would just jump out of the window, or into the Danube, or hide in the lion's den? And then this earthly peril is not so great a peril in the sight of heaven; (For the man on the gallows, this explanation may be a good consolation.) ...the greatest would be the deadly, and that would lead the earthly beloved into the arms of heaven. If parents were free to interfere, they would still more exhort their children, 'Jump, my son, into the Danube. ""Jump! Fear nothing. Here I am, and I'll hold you up with my arms. And that they appear in the salons pushing tables? Yes, where there is a medium, and where they can draw strength from the medium for this appearance, so their appearance does not depend on where the child is, but on where the medium is. (In the case of misfortunes, therefore, we should not then cry out: - Help! But rather: - Medium! Where is the medium?) Besides, they are not everywhere where they are supposed to be, and although it is true that sometimes, and most often, inferior spirits send their toys to the experimenters and appear instead of Homer, Shakespeare, Julius Caesar and Victor Hugo, it is even truer that sometimes no spirits appear. But I do not think that anyone, and indeed the great majority of people, would wish me to elaborate on this, for having tried their patience so much. But, as a true and zealous spiritualist, whose faith is based on conviction, and whether I am scolded, ridiculed, laughed at, or condemned to death, I still believe; I could not help taking up the gloves thrown to spiritualism by Géza Gárdonyi, and answering, though not to me, his questions, according to my best convictions. (In any case, I am indebted to you for your answer. For if they do not answer the three questions I have asked, they make it clear how much light philosophy has received from the spirits in heaven. Tóvölgyi is the most knowledgeable Hungarian spiritualist. He knows the whole spiritual literature. But for the spiritual salvation and enlightenment of the table-dancers, let him answer my three questions as an interpreter of souls. And also for your enlightenment, my sons.)"