"The houen can neither be buried underground nor drowned;
he travels above the ground and prefers keeping at home."
In the province of Ho-nan the teaching varies. Delaplace,
a bishop in China5, tells of the "heathen
Chinee" most extraordinary stories with regard to this subject.
"Every man, they say, has three houens in
him. At death one of the houens incarnates in a
body he selects for himself; the other remains in,
and with, the family, and becomes the lar;
and the third watches the tomb of its corpse. Papers
and incense are burnt in honour of the latter, as a sacrifice
to the manes; the domestic houen takes his
abode in the family record-tablets amidst engraved characters,
and sacrifice is also offered to him, hiangs (sticks
made of incense) are burnt in his honour, and funeral repasts
are prepared for him; in which case the two houens will
keep quiet" if they are those of adults, nota
bene.
Then follows a series of ghastly stories. If we read the
whole literature of magic from Homer down to Dupotet we shall
find everywhere the same assertion: Man is a triple,
and esoterically a septenary, compound of mind,
of reason, and of an eidolon, and these three are
(during life) one. "I call the soul's idol that
power which vivifies and governs the body, whence are derived
the senses, and through which the soul displays the strength
of the senses and FEEDS A BODY WITHIN ANOTHER
BODY" (Magie Dévoilée, Dupotet, p. 250).
"Triplex unicuique homini dæmon, bonus est proprius
custos," said Cornelius Agrippa, from whom
Dupotet had the idea about the "soul's idol."
For Cornelius says: "Anima humana constat mente,
ratione et idolo. Mens illuminat rationem;
ratio fluit in idolum; idolum autem animæ est supra
naturam quæ corporis et animæ quodam modo nodus
est. Dico autem animæ idolum, potentiam
illam VIVICATIVAM et rectricem corporis
sensuum originem, per quam . . .
alit in corpore corpus" (De Occulta Philos., pp.
357, 358).
This is the houen of China, once we divest him of
the excrescence of popular superstition and fancy. Nevertheless
the remark of a Brahman made in the review of "A Fallen Idol"
(Theosophist, Sept., 1886, p.
793) whether meant seriously or otherwise by the writer that
"if the rules [or mathematical proportions and measurements]
are not accurately followed in every detail, an idol
is liable to be taken possession of by some powerful evil
spirit" is quite true. And as a moral law of nature a
counterpart to the mathematical if the rules of harmony in the
world of causes and effects are not observed during life,
then our inner idol is as liable to turn out a maleficent
demon (a bhoot) and to be taken possession of by other
"evil" spirits, which are called by us "Elementaries"
though treated almost as gods by sentimental ignoramuses.
Between these and those who, like Des Mousseaux and De
Mirville, write volumes a whole library! to prove that
with the exception of a few Biblical apparitions and those that
have favoured Christian saints and good Catholics, there
never was a phantom, ghost, spirit, or "god,"
that had appeared that was not a ferouer, an impostor,
a usurpator Satan, in short, in one
of his masquerades there is a long way and a wide margin for
him who would study Occult laws and Esoteric philosophy.
"A god who eats and drinks and receives sacrifice
and honour can be but an evil spirit" argues De Mirville.
"The bodies of the evil spirits who were angels have deteriorated
by their fall and partake of the qualities of a more condensed
air" [ether?], teaches Des Mousseaux (Le Monde
magique, p. 287). "And this
is the reason of their appetite when they devour the funeral repasts
the Chinese serve before them to propitiate them; they
are demons."
Well, if we go back to the supposed origin of Judaism and
the Israelite nation, we find angels of light doing
just the same if "good appetite" be a sign of Satanic
nature. And it is the same Des Mousseaux who, unconsciously,
lays, for himself and his religion, a trap.
"See," he exclaims, "the angels of
God descend under the green trees near Abraham's tent.
They eat with appetite the bread and meat, the butter
and the milk prepared for them by the patriarch" (Gen.
xviii, 2, et seq). Abraham dressed
a whole "calf tender and good" and "they did eat"
(v. 7 and 8); and baked cakes and milk and butter
besides. Was their "appetite" any more divine
than that of a "John King" drinking tea with rum
and eating toast in the room of an English medium, or than
the appetite of a Chinese houen?
The Church has the power of discernment, we are assured;
she knows the difference between the three, and judges
by their bodies. Let us see. "These [the Biblical]
are real, genuine spirits"! Angels, beyond
any doubt (certes), argues Des Mousseaux.
"Theirs are bodies which, no doubt, in dilating
could, in virtue of the extreme tenuity of the substance,
become transparent, then melt away, dissolve,
lose their colour, become less and less visible,
and finally disappear from our sight" (p. 388).
So can a "John King" we are assured, and a Pekin
houen no doubt. Who or what then can teach us the
difference if we fail to study the uninterrupted evidence of the
classics and the Theurgists, and neglect the Occult sciences?
Lucifer, November, 1891
H. P. Blavatsky
1 The spiritual portion of the ling becomes
chen (divine and saintly), after death, to
become hien an absolute saint (a Nirvanee when joined
entirely with the Dragon of Wisdom ).