Occult Science in India and Among the Ancients: With an Account of Their Mystic Initiations and the History of Spiritism

by Louis Jacolliot

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: Occult

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1875

About the author

Louis Jacolliot was a French barrister, colonial judge, orientalist, author and lecturer.

He lived several years in Tahiti and India during the period 1865-1869 as a judge, getting in touch with numerous social and religious indian groups.

He has been described as a prolific writer for his time with a great knowledge of indian religion. His works although are not philological accurated and are mostly sensationalistic and made for a bourgeoise public. His most famous book is La Bible dans l'Inde, Vie de Iezeus Christna (The Bible in India, or the Life of Iezeus Christna; 1869) in which he compares the accounts of the life of Bhagavan Krishna with that of Jesus Christ in the Gospels and concludes that it could not have been a coincidence, so similar are the stories in so many details in his opinion. He concludes that the account in the Gospels is a myth based on the mythology of ancient India. Jacolliot does not claim that Jesus was in India as some have claimed. "Christna" is his way of spelling "Krishna" is an evidence and he wrote that Krishna's disciples gave him the name "Iezeus" which means "pure essence" in Sanskrit. However, Sanskrit philologist Max Müller confirmed that it is not a Sanskrit term at all and "it was simply invented" by Jacolliot.

Another succesful Jacolliot's book was Occult science in India, written during the 1860s and published 1875 (English translation 1884). Jacolliot was searching for the "Indian roots of western occultism" and makes reference to an otherwise unknown Sanskrit text he calls Agrouchada-Parikchai, which is apparently Jacolliot's personal invention, a "pastiche" of elements taken from Upanishads, Dharmashastras and "a bit of Freemasonry". Jacolliot also expounds his belief in a lost Pacific continent, and was quoted on this by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled in support of her own Lemuria. However, he relocated this lost continent to the Pacific Ocean and linked it to the Atlantis-myth. Furthermore, his "discovery" of Rutas is somehow similar to the origin of the Mu-Story.

During his time in India he also collected Sanskrit myths, which he popularized later starting in his Histoire des Vierges. Les Peuples et les continents disparus (1874).

Among his works is an essay on his Voyage aux ruines de Golconde and a translation of the Manu Smriti which influenced Friedrich Nietzsche and his concept of Tschandala,

Reviews

[Tiegel · Rating 2 out of 5]

While the text itself some readers may find interesting I would not recommend this, use it as a reference, nor keep the book. I do not know the value this would give a reader that they could not get much more elsewhere. This on top of the problems exhibited in the text. As the text is broken down into three general sections (philosophy, comparison, experience) I'll delve into them as we go through some of the issues.

First, the philosophy section has the author quoting from a supposed book called "Agrouchada-Parikcha". You won't find it because it's probably not real and the only reference to it from anyone is from the author. It seems to combine several latter thought s(ie: post-vedic) whilst attempting to indicate it's some root form of spirituality. In instances where some secret occult book that is referenced/quoted and no one has access to it is upon the authority of the author that a reader would derive their conclusion. Unfortunately, that authority is a mess here and we'll get into it.

Second, the author indicates heavily the need for a guru to elucidate the text. Without that one would assume that we would rely heavily on not summarizing the passages if there was no guru figure there to tell you what would be good to cut. This not only for the text itself, but several points brought up (as it's hard to tell which is quoted from the book and what isn't due to the formatting). Unfortunately, we have heavy redactions:

"We are sorry that we are unable to accompany him as he more fully unfolds his doctrine. Our present space would not suffice. We can only give the substance of his teaching."

"We shall not dwell further upon these various points. The enumeration is alone sufficient to show ho much further they might be developed."

"The guru then performs an evocation to the maritchis, the primordial spirits. The following is a brief summary of his discourse."

"Such is a brief abstract of this dialogue, which covers fifty palm-leaves at least of the Book of the Pitris."
"It would be impossible for us, as may well be imagined, in the present work, which is merely a brief history of descriptions of the practices of those who have been initiated, and in which, in order to accompish the task we have set before us, we are obliged to compress"

"A special part of the Book of the Pitris is devoted to these formulas, which all have cabalistic meaning. We shall make no effort to elucidate this point any further, as we were never able to obtain the key to these various combinations from the Brahmins."

Again, on whose authority are these passages summarized? It seems to clearly indicate the author was the one who took it upon himself what would be proper to transmit or not. Can we trust his authority?

Third, the author himself seems to have been in India for a few years (1865-1869) in which he, apparently, had some experience with "fakirs". Outside of some phenomena described much latter in the book the experiences are not described. So we don't really have any indication other than what we can source and one of those is:

"he wrote that Krishna's disciples gave him the name "Iezeus" which means "pure essence" in Sanskrit.[3] However, Sanskrit philologist Max Müller confirmed that it is not a Sanskrit term at all and "it was simply invented" by Jacolliot."

We find several points of interest here in which there are problems of words, understanding, and etc. that the author brings to bear. In the latter section he appeals to an authority figure on his idea of phenomena:

"I was made acquanted with an article upon the psychic force, published by William Crookes ... one of the most respectable scientific organs in England." ... "I immediately came to the determination to leave my chapter as I had written it, but to refer the reader to the article in question, as confirmatory of the position I had assumed" ... "If ... I have laid myself open to the reproach of being too credulous, I shall bear the blame cheerfully, in the company of one of the most distinguished of English scientists."

This authority, unfortunately, was known to back a popular fake spiritualist who came out publicly. The prophecy of the last quote above being possibly fullfilled and, again, filling the suspicion of the authority of the author.

Fourth, the author appears to attempt to start at the conclusion that everyone disseminates from Indian spirituality. So much so that things feel twisted to conform to the opinion rather than simply laying out the truth as he sees it. This one is a bit harder to quote directly, but one who is versed in Kaballah or other spirituality can likely see how things feel warped towards that direction. This is not a blameworthy thing as whether it is or is not the root isn't really of consequence, but it feels like a REASON for the text and not an observation. Indeed, if we quote from the wiki:

"Jacolliot was searching for the "Indian roots of western occultism""

------

Fifth, for some reason he decides to take a chunk of the text to compare the Kaballah to this other text. However, he seems to rely on the text speaking for itself (ie: the dating of texts as opposed to what we have with modern information via things like literary analysis). He also appears to be woefully inadequate to talk about the subject, yet he decides to take it upon himself to indicate Indian dissemination plays into Kaballistic practice. As we see:

"Though we may not be able to point out the special practices observed by those who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Jewish Cabala ... owing to the silence of their traditions and written works upon that subject, still we have reason to think, at any rate, that as in India there were three degrees of initiation."

"We are free to confess that what we have said about the Cabala is not derived from our own knowledge upon that subject. All of our information about the Hebrews is taken from Mr. Frank of the Institute, and the reader will understand that thereon rests the whole weight of our argument."

So it's not even his argument nor grounded in any of his experience and this is all based on a book by Frank (as there's no useful index and I didn't bookmark that section I forget what book specifically it is). Why even choose to do such and in such an aggressive manner attempting to make this point? Again, this hurts the belief that the author is attempting to be truthful in these pursuits.

------

Finally, the last section is on his direct experiences with some Fakir's and phenomena. Honestly, this section isn't bad. Whether you believe in it or not is up to you. There is some known fakes, some references to known fakes, and a very unscientific approach. For example the author says he tests the person on the phenomena they do, yet fails to indicate what these are. Tons of experiments over several days testing the phenomena and none of it is written? How are we to trust or come to our own conclusion when the author fails to provide the data even he has a hard time agreeing with? What value does that give the reader other than entertainment and/or attempting to drive home that conclusion he started with?

The author also seems to indicate that the Fakir's were completely willing to comply with most demands of the author. Unfortunately, post-Houdini and modern day scientific validation (in which MANY attempts have been made) we have found no such examples scientific rigor can be pointed at. More fakes than anything. This isn't a denouncement of the possibility, but that what the author indicates wasn't an issue became an issue in reproducibility.

As a final mention there is also the "if so; so what?" question that permeates these silly displays of moving objects through some medium with, at least somehow, the power of the Fakir. Most of the examples of the display of power are disappointing at best. It reminds me of the story of walking on water:

"There was a man in Rishikesh who could walk on water. I saw him
there, walking across the Ganga.

I thought, “I want to learn this also. It is very convenient. I have to
cross by the bridge but this man can simply cross wherever he likes.”
So I asked him how he did it.

He answered, “First, I sat down in meditation. Then I meditated, ‘I am
a fish, I am a fish, I am a fish. I am a fish, I am a fish.’”

I thought, “This is not so good. He is going to be reborn next time as
a fish. Even a fish can go over water.”

Then I asked him, “How long did it take you to master this?”

“Forty years,” he told me, very proudly.

”Forty years!” I thought. “Oh, no, no, no. It’s better to take the bridge!”"