Theosophist, March, 1882
Letter from H. | Editor’s Note by H.P.B. on an article by William Yeats
To the Editor of The Theosophist:
On the last page of No. 4 of Psychic Notes [The Theosophist, Feb., 1882], a correspondent is made to state that he, together with a few friends, “out of mere curiosity and for the fun of the thing,” arranged a series of séances. The first was unsuccessful, but the remaining ones were productive of proofs innumerable. And yet none of the parties present was a “conjurer, mesmerist, medium or spiritualist”!
Is this possible? I always thought that the presence of a medium at seances was a necessary condition of manifestations. Or can it be that some one at the séances in question was—if that were possible—an unconscious medium?
Your opinion will be highly valued by
Yours obediently, H.
Editor’s Note. [H.P.B.]—The possible explanation of such manifestations can be found only in one of the following three hypotheses:
1. The presence of a medium—either conscious or unconscious,
2. The presence of an adept, or his influence; although no adept would trouble himself with such—(what to him are)—trifles. Or—which is the most probable—
3. The combined result of the magnetic aura of the persons present, forming a strong battery. This would be very likely to produce such manifestations, whether there were a medium present or not.
No fourth hypothesis we can think of would answer.