Theosophical Society,
THE
KEY TO THEOSOPHY
BY
H P Blavatsky
Español:- La Clave de la Teosofía
Português:-
A Chave Para Teosofia
Dedicated
by "H.P.B." To all her Pupils, That They may Learn and Teach in their
turn.
The
Key to Theosophy
A
Clear Exposition in the Form of Question and Answer
of
the Ethics, Science, and Philosophy for the Study of Which The Theosophical
Society has been Founded.
Preface
The
purpose of this book is exactly expressed in its title, The Key to
Theosophy,
and needs but few words of explanation. It is not a complete or
exhaustive
textbook of Theosophy, but only a key to unlock the door that leads
to
the deeper study. It traces the broad outlines of the Wisdom-Religion, and
explains
its fundamental principles; meeting, at the same time, the various
objections
raised by the average Western inquirer, and endeavouring to present
unfamiliar
concepts in a form as simple and in language as clear as possible.
That
it should succeed in making Theosophy intelligible without mental effort on
the
part of the reader, would be too much to expect; but it is hoped that the
obscurity
still left is of the thought and not of the language, is due to depth
and
not to confusion. To the mentally lazy or obtuse, Theosophy must remain a
riddle;
for in the world mental as in the world spiritual each man must progress
by
his own efforts. The writer cannot do the reader's thinking for him, nor
would
the latter be any the better off if such vicarious thought were possible.
The
need for such an exposition as the present has long been felt among those
interested
in the Theosophical Society and its work, and it is hoped that it
will
supply information, as free as possible from technicalities, to many whose
attention
has been awakened, but who, as yet, are merely puzzled and not
convinced.
Some
care has been taken in disentangling some part of what is true from what is
false
in Spiritualistic teachings as to the postmortem life, and to showing the
true
nature of Spiritualistic phenomena. Previous explanations of a similar kind
have
drawn much wrath upon the writer's devoted head; the Spiritualists, like
too
many others, preferring to believe what is pleasant rather than what is
true,
and becoming very angry with anyone who destroys an agreeable delusion.
For
the past year Theosophy has been the target for every poisoned arrow of
Spiritualism,
as though the possessors of a half truth felt more antagonism to
the
possessors of the whole truth than those who had no share to boast of.
Very
hearty thanks are due from the author to many Theosophists who have sent
suggestions
and questions, or have otherwise contributed help during the writing
of
this book. The work will be the more useful for their aid, and that will be
their
best reward.
H.P.
Blavatsky
1889
Theosophy and
The Theosophical Society
The Meaning
of the Name
Q.
Theosophy and its doctrines are often referred to as a newfangled religion.
Is
it a religion?
A.
It is not. Theosophy is Divine Knowledge or Science.
Q.
What is the real meaning of the term?
A.
"Divine Wisdom," (Theosophia) or Wisdom of the gods, as (theogonia),
genealogy
of the gods. The word 'theos' means a god in Greek, one of the divine beings,
certainly not "God" in the sense attached in our day to the term.
Therefore,
it is not "Wisdom of God," as translated by some, but Divine Wisdom
such as that possessed by the gods. The term is many thousand years old.
Q.
What is the origin of the name?
A.
It comes to us from the Alexandrian philosophers, called lovers of truth,
Philaletheians,
from (phil) "loving," and (aletheia) "truth." The name
Theosophy
dates
from the third century of our era, and began with Ammonius Saccas and his
disciples, also called Analogeticists, who started the Eclectic Theosophical
system.
As
explained by Professor Wilder, they were called so because of their practice
of
interpreting all sacred legends and narratives, myths and mysteries, by a
rule
or principle of analogy and correspondence: so that events which were
related
as having occurred in the external world were regarded as expressing
operations
and experiences of the human soul. They were also denominated
Neo-Platonists.
Though Theosophy, or the Eclectic Theosophical system, is
generally
attributed to the third century, yet, if Diogenes Laërtius is to be
credited,
its origin is much earlier, as he attributed the system to an Egyptian
priest,
Pot-Amun, who lived in the early days of the Ptolemaic dynasty. The same author
tells us that the name is Coptic, and signifies one consecrated to Amun, the
God of Wisdom. Theosophy is the equivalent of Brahma-Vidya , divine knowledge.
Q.
What was the object of this system?
A.
First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths upon its disciples, and
all
those who were "lovers of the truth." Hence the motto adopted by the
Theosophical
Society: "There is no religion higher than truth."
Eclectic
Theosophy was divided under three heads:
1.
Belief in one absolute, incomprehensible and supreme Deity, or infinite
essence,
which is the root of all nature, and of all that is, visible and
invisible.
2.
Belief in man's eternal immortal nature, because, being a radiation of the
Universal
Soul, it is of an identical essence with it.
3.
Theurgy, or "divine work," or producing a work of gods; from theoi,
"gods,"
and
ergein, "to work."
The
term is very old, but, as it belongs to the vocabulary of the mysteries, was
not
in popular use. It was a mystic belief-practically proven by initiated
adepts
and priests-that, by making oneself as pure as the incorporeal
beings-i.e.,
by returning to one's pristine purity of nature-man could move the
gods
to impart to him Divine mysteries, and even cause them to become
occasionally
visible, either subjectively or objectively. It was the
transcendental
aspect of what is now called Spiritualism; but having been abused
and
misconceived by the populace, it had come to be regarded by some as
necromancy,
and was generally forbidden. A travestied practice of the theurgy of Iamblichus
lingers still in the ceremonial magic of some modern Cabalists.
Modern
Theosophy avoids and rejects both these kinds of magic and
"necromancy" as being very dangerous. Real divine theurgy requires an
almost superhuman purity and holiness of life; otherwise it degenerates into
mediumship or black magic. The immediate disciples of Ammonius Saccas, who was
called Theodidaktos, "god-taught"-such as Plotinus and his follower
Porphyry-rejected theurgy at first, but were finally reconciled to it through
Iamblichus, who wrote a work to that effect entitled De Mysteriis, under the
name of his own master, a famous Egyptian priest called Abammon. Ammonius
Saccas was the son of Christian parents, and, having been repelled by dogmatic
Spiritualistic Christianity from his childhood, became a Neo-Platonist, and
like J. Boëhme and other great seers and mystics, is said to have had divine
wisdom revealed to him in dreams and visions. Hence his name of Theodidaktos.
He resolved to reconcile every system of religion, and by demonstrating their
identical origin to establish one universal creed based on ethics. His life was
so blameless and pure, his learning so profound and vast, that several Church
Fathers were his secret disciples. Clemens Alexandrinus speaks very highly of
him. Plotinus, the "St. John" of Ammonius, was also a man universally
respected and esteemed, and of the most profound learning and integrity. When
thirty-nine years of age he
accompanied
the Roman Emperor Gordian and his army to the East, to be instructed by the
sages of Bactria and India. He had a School of Philosophy in Rome. Porphyry,
his disciple, whose real name was Malek (a Hellenized Jew), collected all the
writings of his master. Porphyry was himself a great author, and gave an
allegorical interpretation to some parts of Homer's writings.
The
system of meditation the Philaletheians resorted to was ecstasy, a system akin
to Indian Yoga practice. What is known of the Eclectic School is due to Origen,
Longinus, and Plotinus, the immediate disciples of Ammonius.
The
chief aim of the Founders of the Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the
three objects of its modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to
reconcile
all religions, sects, and nations under a common system of ethics,
based
on eternal verities.
Q.
What have you to show that this is not an impossible dream; and that all the
world's
religions are based on the one and the same truth?
A.
Their comparative study and analysis. The "Wisdom-Religion" was one
in
antiquity;
and the sameness of primitive religious philosophy is proven to us by
the
identical doctrines taught to the Initiates during the mysteries, an
institution
once universally diffused.
All
the old worships indicate the existence of a single Theosophy anterior to
them.
The key that is to open one must open all; otherwise it cannot be the
right
key.
The Policy of
the Theosophical Society
Q.
In the days of Ammonius there were several ancient great religions, and
numerous
were the sects in Egypt and Palestine alone. How could he reconcile
them?
A.
By doing that which we again try to do now. The Neo-Platonists were a large
body,
and belonged to various religious philosophies; so do our Theosophists.
It
was under Philadelphus that Judaism established itself in Alexandria, and
forthwith
the Hellenic teachers became the dangerous rivals of the College of
Rabbis
of Babylon. As the author of The Eclectic Philosophy very pertinently
remarks:
The
Buddhist, Vedantic, and Magian systems were expounded along with the
philosophies
of Greece at that period. It was not wonderful that thoughtful men
supposed
that the strife of words ought to cease, and considered it possible to
extract
one harmonious system from these various teachings … Panaetius,
Athenagoras,
and Clement were thoroughly instructed in Platonic philosophy, and comprehended
its essential unity with the Oriental systems.
In
those days, the Jew Aristobulus affirmed that the ethics of Aristotle
represented
the esoteric teachings of the Law of Moses; Philo Judaeus endeavored to
reconcile the pentateuch with the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy; and
Josephus proved that the Essenes of Carmel were simply the copyists and
followers of the Egyptian Therapeutae (the healers). So it is in our day.
We
can show the line of descent of every Christian religion, as of every, even the
smallest, sect. The latter are the minor twigs or shoots grown on the larger
branches;
but shoots and branches spring from the same trunk-the
wisdom-religion.
To prove this was the aim of Ammonius, who endeavored to induce Gentiles and
Christians, Jews and Idolaters, to lay aside their contention and strife,
remembering only that they were all in possession of the same truth
under
various vestments, and were all the children of a common mother. This is
the
aim of Theosophy likewise. Says Mosheim of Ammonius:
Conceiving
that not only the philosophers of Greece, but also all those of the
different
barbarian nations, were perfectly in unison with each other with
regard
to every essential point, he made it his business so to expound the
thousand
tenets of all these various sects as to show they had all originated
from
one and the same source, and tended all to one and the same end.
If
the writer on Ammonius in the Edinburgh Encyclopedia knows what he is talking
about, then he describes the modern Theosophists, their beliefs, and their
work, for he says, speaking of the Theodidaktos:
He
adopted the doctrines which were received in Egypt (the esoteric were those
of
India) concerning the Universe and the Deity, considered as constituting one
great
whole; concerning the eternity of the world … and established a system of
moral
discipline which allowed the people in general to live according to the
laws
of their country and the dictates of nature, but required the wise to exalt
their
mind by contemplation.
Q.
What is your authority for saying this of the ancient Theosophists of
Alexandria?
A.
An almost countless number of well-known writers. Mosheim, one of them, says
that:Ammonius taught that the religion of the multitude went hand-in-hand with
philosophy, and with her had shared the fate of being by degrees corrupted and
obscured with mere human conceits, superstitions, and lies; that it ought,
therefore,
to be brought back to its original purity by purging it of this dross
and
expounding it upon philosophical principles; and the whole Christ had in
view
was to reinstate and restore to its primitive integrity the wisdom of the
ancients;
to reduce within bounds the universally-prevailing dominion of
superstition;
and in part to correct, and in part to exterminate the various
errors
that had found their way into the different popular religions.
This,
again, is precisely what the modern Theosophists say. Only while the great
Philaletheian
was supported and helped in the policy he pursued by two Church
Fathers,
Clement and Athenagoras, by all the learned Rabbis of the Synagogue,
the
Academy and the Groves, and while he taught a common doctrine for all, we, his
followers on the same line, receive no recognition, but, on the contrary,
are
abused and persecuted. People 1,500 years ago are thus shown to have been
more
tolerant than they are in this enlightened century.
Q.
Was he encouraged and supported by the Church because, notwithstanding his
heresies, Ammonius taught Christianity and was a Christian?
A.
Not at all. He was born a Christian, but never accepted Church Christianity.
As
said of him by the same writer:
He
had but to propound his instructions according to the ancient pillars of
Hermes,
which Plato and Pythagoras knew before, and from them constituted their
philosophy. Finding the same in the prologue of the Gospel according to St.
John, he very properly supposed that the purpose of Jesus was to restore the
great
doctrine of wisdom in its primitive integrity. The narratives of the Bible
and
the stories of the gods he considered to be allegories illustrative of the
truth,
or else fables to be rejected. As says the Edinburgh Encyclopedia:
Moreover,
he acknowledged that Jesus Christ was an excellent man and the "friend of
God," but alleged that it was not his design entirely to abolish the
worship of demons (gods), and that his only intention was to purify the ancient
religion.
The
Wisdom-Religion, Esoteric in All Ages
Q.
Since Ammonius never committed anything to writing, how can one feel sure
that
such were his teachings?
A.
Neither did Buddha, Pythagoras, Confucius, Orpheus, Socrates, or even Jesus,
leave
behind them any writings. Yet most of these are historical personages, and
their
teachings have all survived. The disciples of Ammonius (among whom Origen and
Herennius) wrote treatises and explained his ethics. Certainly the latter are
as historical, if not more so, than the Apostolic writings. Moreover, his
pupils-Origen,
Plotinus, and Longinus (counselor of the famous Queen
Zenobia)-have
all left voluminous records of the Philaletheian System-so far, at
all
events, as their public profession of faith was known, for the school was
divided
into exoteric and esoteric teachings.
Q.
How have the latter tenets reached our day, since you hold that what is
properly
called the wisdom-religion was esoteric?
A.
The wisdom-religion was ever one, and being the last word of possible human
knowledge, was, therefore, carefully preserved. It preceded by long ages the
Alexandrian Theosophists, reached the modern, and will survive every other
religion
and philosophy.
Q.
Where and by whom was it so preserved?
A.
Among Initiates of every country; among profound seekers after truth-their
disciples;
and in those parts of the world where such topics have always been
most
valued and pursued: in India, Central Asia, and Persia.
Q.
Can you give me some proofs of its esotericism?
A.
The best proof you can have of the fact is that every ancient religious, or
rather
philosophical, cult consisted of an esoteric or secret teaching, and an
exoteric
(outward public) worship. Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the
mysteries
of the ancients comprised with every nation the "greater" (secret)
and
"Lesser"
(public) mysteries-e.g., in the celebrated solemnities called the
Eleusinia,
in Greece. From the Hierophants of Samothrace, Egypt, and the
initiated
Brahmins of the India of old, down to the later Hebrew Rabbis, all
preserved,
for fear of profanation, their real bona fide beliefs secret. The
Jewish
Rabbis called their secular religious series the Merkabah(the exterior
body),
"the vehicle," or, the covering which contains the hidden soul-i.e.,
their
highest secret knowledge. Not one of the ancient nations ever imparted
through
its priests its real philosophical secrets to the masses, but allotted
to
the latter only the husks. Northern Buddhism has its "greater" and
its
"lesser"
vehicle, known as the Mahayana, the esoteric, and the Hinayana, the
exoteric,
Schools. Nor can you blame them for such secrecy; for surely you would not
think of feeding your flock of sheep on learned dissertations on botany instead
of on grass?
Pythagoras
called his Gnosis "the knowledge of things that are," or [translit.
Greek] "he gnosis ton onton" and preserved that knowledge for his
pledged disciples only: for those who could digest such mental food and feel
satisfied; and he pledged them to silence and secrecy. Occult alphabets and
secret ciphers are the development of the old Egyptian hieratic writings, the
secret of which was, in the days of old, in the possession only of the
Hierogrammatists, or initiated Egyptian priests. Ammonius Saccas, as his
biographers tell us, bound his pupils by oath not to divulge his higher doctrines
except to those who had already been instructed in preliminary knowledge, and
who were also bound by a pledge. Finally, do we not find the same even in early
Christianity, among the Gnostics, and even in the teachings of Christ?
Did
he not speak to the multitudes in parables which had a two-fold
meaning,
and explain his reasons only to his disciples? He says:
To
you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; but unto them
that are without, all these things are done in parables The Essenes of Judea
and Carmel made similar distinctions, dividing their adherents into neophytes,
brethren, and the perfect, or those initiated.Examples might be brought from
every country to this effect.
Q.
Can you attain the "Secret Wisdom" simply by study? Encyclopedias
defineTheosophy
pretty much as Webster's Dictionary does, i.e.,as
…
supposed intercourse with God and superior spirits, and consequent attainment
of superhuman knowledge by physical means and chemical processes.Is this so?
A.
I think not. Nor is there any lexicographer capable of explaining, whether to
himself
or others, how superhuman knowledge can be attained by physical or
chemical
processes. Had Webster said "by metaphysical and alchemical
processes," the definition would be approximately correct: as it is, it is
absurd. Ancient Theosophists claimed, and so do the modern, that the infinite
cannot be known by the finite-i.e., sensed by the finite Self-but that the
divine essence could be communicated to the higher Spiritual Self in a state of
ecstasy. This condition can hardly be attained, like hypnotism, by
"physical and chemical means."
Q.
What is your explanation of it?
A.
Real ecstasy was defined by Plotinus as "the liberation of the mind from
its
finite
consciousness, becoming one and identified with the infinite." This is
the
highest condition, says Professor Wilder, but not one of permanent duration,
and
it is reached only by the very, very few. It is, indeed, identical with that
state
which is known in India as Samadhi. The latter is practiced by the Yogis,
who
facilitate it physically by the greatest abstinence in food and drink, and
mentally
by an incessant endeavor to purify and elevate the mind. Meditation is
silent
and unuttered prayer, or, as Plato expressed it,
…
the ardent turning of the soul toward the divine; not to ask any particular
good
(as in the common meaning of prayer), but for good itself-for the universal
Supreme
Good …-of which we are a part on earth, and out of the essence of which we have
all emerged. Therefore, adds Plato, Remain silent in the presence of the divine
ones, till they remove the clouds from thy eyes and enable thee to see by the
light which issues from themselves, not what appears as good to thee, but what
is intrinsically good.
This
is what the scholarly author of The Eclectic Philosophy, Professor
Alexander
Wilder, F.T.S., describes as "spiritual photography":
The
soul is the camera in which facts and events, future, past, and present, are
alike
fixed; and the mind becomes conscious of them. Beyond our everyday world of
limits all is one day or state-the past and future comprised in the present.
…
Death is the last ecstasis on earth. Then the soul is freed from the
constraint
of the body, and its nobler part is united to higher nature and
becomes
partaker in the wisdom and foreknowledge of the higher beings.
Real
Theosophy is, for the mystics, that state which Apollonius of Tyana was
made
to describe thus:
I
can see the present and the future as in a clear mirror. The sage need not
wait
for the vapors of the earth and the corruption of the air to foresee events
…
The theoi, or gods, see the future; common men the present, sages that which is
about to take place.
"The
Theosophy of the Sages" he speaks of is well expressed in the assertion,
"The
Kingdom of God is within us."
Q.
Theosophy, then, is not, as held by some, a newly devised scheme?
A.
Only ignorant people can thus refer to it. It is as old as the world, in its
teachings
and ethics, if not in name, as it is also the broadest and most
catholic
system among all.
Q.
How comes it, then, that Theosophy has remained so unknown to the nations of
the Western Hemisphere? Why should it have been a sealed book to races
confessedly
the most cultured and advanced?
A.
We believe there were nations as cultured in days of old and certainly more
spiritually
"advanced" than we are. But there are several reasons for this
willing
ignorance. One of them was given by St. Paul to the cultured Athenians-a
loss,
for long centuries, of real spiritual insight, and even interest, owing to
their
too great devotion to things of sense and their long slavery to the dead
letter
of dogma and ritualism. But the strongest reason for it lies in the fact
that
real Theosophy has ever been kept secret.
Q.
You have brought forward proofs that such secrecy has existed; but what was the
real cause for it?
A.
The causes for it were:
1.
The perversity of average human nature and its selfishness, always tending to
the
gratification of personal desires to the detriment of neighbors arid next of
kin.
Such people could never be entrusted with divine secrets.
2.
Their unreliability to keep the sacred and divine knowledge from desecration.
It
is the latter that led to the perversion of the most sublime truths and
symbols,
and to the gradual transformation of things spiritual into
anthropomorphic,
concrete, and gross imagery-in other words, to the dwarfing of the god-idea and
to idolatry.
Theosophy is
Not Buddhism
Q.
You are often spoken of as "Esoteric Buddhists." Are you then all
followers
of
Gautama Buddha?
A.
No more than musicians are all followers of Wagner. Some of us are Buddhists by
religion; yet there are far more Hindus and Brahmins than Buddhists among us,
and more Christian-born Europeans and Americans than converted Buddhists. The
mistake has arisen from a misunderstanding of the real meaning of the title of
Mr. Sinnett's excellent work, Esoteric Buddhism, which last word ought to have
been spelt with one, instead of two, d's, as then Budhism would have meant what
it was intended for, merely "Wisdom-ism" (Bodha, bodhi,
"intelligence," "wisdom") instead of Buddhism, Gautama's
religious philosophy. Theosophy, as already said, is the wisdom-religion.
Q.
What is the difference between Buddhism, the religion founded by the Prince
of
Kapilavastu, and Budhism, the "Wisdomism" which you say is synonymous
with Theosophy?
A.
Just the same difference as there is between the secret teachings of Christ,
which
are called "the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven," and the later
ritualism
and dogmatic theology of the Churches and Sects. Buddha means the
"Enlightened"
by Bodha, or understanding, Wisdom. This has passed root and
branch
into the esoteric teachings that Gautama imparted to his chosen Arhats
only.
Q.
But some Orientalists deny that Buddha ever taught any esoteric doctrine at
all?
A.
They may as well deny that Nature has any hidden secrets for the men of
science.
Further on I will prove it by Buddha's conversation with his disciple
Ananda.
His esoteric teachings were simply the Gupta-Vidya(secret knowledge) of the
ancient Brahmins, the key to which their modern successors have, with few
exceptions, completely lost. And this Vidya has passed into what is now known
as the inner teachings of the Mahayana school of Northern Buddhism. Those who
deny it are simply ignorant pretenders to Orientalism. I advise you to read the
Rev. Mr. Edkin's Chinese Buddhism-especially the chapters on the Exoteric and
Esoteric schools and teachings-and then compare the testimony of the whole
ancient world upon the subject.
Q.
But are not the ethics of Theosophy identical with those taught by Buddha?
A.
Certainly, because these ethics are the soul of the Wisdom-Religion, and were
once the common property of the initiates of all nations. But Buddha was the
first to embody these lofty ethics in his public teachings, and to make them
the foundation and the very essence of his public system. It is herein that
lies the
immense
difference between exoteric Buddhism and every other religion. For while in
other religions ritualism and dogma hold the first and most important place, in
Buddhism it is the ethics which have always been the most insisted upon. This
accounts for the resemblance, amounting almost to identity, between the ethics
of Theosophy and those of the religion of Buddha.
Q.
Are there any great points of difference?
A.
One great distinction between Theosophy and exoteric Buddhism is that the
latter,
represented by the Southern Church, entirely denies (a) the existence of
any
Deity, and (b) any conscious postmortem life, or even any self-conscious
surviving
individuality in man. Such at least is the teaching of the Siamese
sect,
now considered as the purest form of exoteric Buddhism. And it is so, if
we
refer only to Buddha's public teachings; the reason for such reticence on his
part
I will give further on. But the schools of the Northern Buddhist Church,
established
in those countries to which his initiated Arhats retired after the
Master's
death, teach all that is now called Theosophical doctrines, because
they
form part of the knowledge of the initiates-thus proving how the truth has
been
sacrificed to the dead-letter by the too-zealous orthodoxy of Southern
Buddhism.
But how much grander and more noble, more philosophical and
scientific,
even in its dead-letter, is this teaching than that of any other
Church
or religion. Yet Theosophy is not Buddhism.
Exoteric and Esoteric
Theosophy
What the
Modern Theosophical Society is Not
Q.
Your doctrines, then, are not a revival of Buddhism, nor are they entirely
copied
from the Neo-Platonic Theosophy?
A.
They are not. But to these questions I cannot give you a better answer than
by
quoting from a paper read on "Theosophy" by Dr. J.D. Buck, F.T.S., No
living Theosophist has better expressed and understood the real essence of
Theosophy than our honored friend Dr. Buck:
The
Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose of promulgating the
Theosophical
doctrines, and for the promotion of the Theosophic life. The
present
Theosophical Society is not the first of its kind. I have a volume
entitled:
Theosophical Transactions of the Philadelphian Society, published in
London
in 1697; and another with the following title: Introduction to Theosophy, or
the Science of the Mystery of Christ; that is, of Deity, Nature, and Creature,
embracing the philosophy of all the working powers of life, magical and
spiritual, ant forming a practical guide to the most sublime purity, sanctity,
and evangelical perfection; also to the attainment of divine vision, and the
holy angelic arts, potencies, and other prerogatives of the regeneration.
-published
in London in 1855. The following is the dedication of this volume:
To
the students of Universities, Colleges, and schools of Christendom: To
Professors
of Metaphysical, Mechanical, and Natural Science in all its forms: To
men
and women of Education generally, of fundamental orthodox faith: To Deists,
Arians, Unitarians, Swedenborgians, and other defective and ungrounded creeds,
rationalists, and skeptics of every kind: To just-minded and enlightened
Mohammedans,
Jews, and oriental Patriarch-religionists: but especially to the
gospel
minister and missionary, whether to the barbaric or intellectual peoples,
this
introduction to Theosophy, or the science of the ground and mystery of all
things,
is most humbly and affectionately dedicated. In the following year
(1856)
another volume was issued, royal octavo, of 600 pages, diamond type, of
Theosophical
Miscellanies. Of the last-named work 500 copies only were issued, for
gratuitous distribution to Libraries and Universities. These earlier
movements,
of which there were many, originated within the Church, with persons of great
piety and earnestness, and of unblemished character; and all of these writings
were in orthodox form, using the Christian expressions, and, like the writings
of the eminent Churchman William Law, would only be distinguished by the
ordinary reader for their great earnestness and piety. These were one and all
but attempts to derive and explain the deeper meanings and original import of
the Christian Scriptures, and to illustrate and unfold the Theosophic life.
These
works were soon forgotten, and are now generally unknown. They sought to reform
the clergy and revive genuine piety, and were never welcomed. That one word,
Heresy, was sufficient to bury them in the limbo of all such Utopias.
At
the time of the Reformation John Reuchlin made a similar attempt with the same
result, though he was the intimate and trusted friend of Luther. Orthodoxy
never desired to be informed and enlightened. These reformers were informed, as
was Paul by Festus, that too much learning had made them mad, and that it would
be dangerous to go farther. Passing by the verbiage, which was partly a matter
of habit and education with these
writers, and partly due to religious restraint through secular power, and
coming to the core of the matter, these writings were Theosophical in the
strictest sense, and pertain solely to man's knowledge of his own nature and
the higher life of the soul. The present Theosophical Movement has sometimes
been declared to be an attempt to convert Christendom to Buddhism, which means
simply that the word Heresy has lost its terrors and relinquished its power.
Individuals in every age have more or less clearly apprehended the Theosophical
doctrines and wrought them into the fabric of their lives. These doctrines
belong exclusively to no religion, and are confined to no society or time. They
are the birthright of every human soul.
Such
a thing as orthodoxy must be wrought out by each individual according to his
nature and his needs, and according to his varying experience. This may explain
why those who have imagined Theosophy to be a new religion have hunted in vain
for its creed and its ritual. Its creed is Loyalty to Truth, and its ritual
"To honor every truth by use."
How
little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is understood by the masses
of
mankind, how seldom its transcendent importance is recognized, may be seen in
the diversity of opinion and fictitious interpretations regarding the
Theosophical
Society. This Society was organized on this one principle, the
essential
Brotherhood of Man, as herein briefly outlined and imperfectly set
forth.
It has been assailed as Buddhist and anti-Christian, as though it could
be
both these together, when both Buddhism and Christianity, as set forth by
their
inspired founders, make brotherhood the one essential of doctrine and of
life.
Theosophy has been also regarded as something new under the sun, or, at
best
as old mysticism masquerading under a new name.
While
it is true that many Societies founded upon, and united to support, the
principles of altruism, or essential brotherhood, have borne various names, it
is also true that many have also been called Theosophic, and with principles
and aims as the present society bearing that name. With these societies, one and
all, the essential doctrine has been the same, and all else has been
incidental, though this does not obviate the fact that many persons are
attracted to the incidentals who overlook or ignore the essentials.
No
better or more explicit answer-by a man who is one of our most esteemed and
earnest Theosophists-could be given to your questions.
Q.
Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides Buddhist ethics?
A.
None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in particular: we
cull
the good we find in each. But here, again, it must be stated that, like all
other
ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into Exoteric and Esoteric Sections.
Q.
What is the difference?
A.
The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free to profess whatever
religion or philosophy they like, or none if they so prefer, provided they are
in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one or more of the three objects of
the Association. The Society is a philanthropic and scientific body for the
propagation of the idea of brotherhood on practical instead of theoretical
lines.
The Fellows may be Christians or Muslims, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or
Brahmins,
Spiritualists or Materialists, it does not matter; but every member
must
be either a philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into ryan and other
old
literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help, if he can, in
the
carrying out of at least one of the objects of the program. Otherwise he has
no
reason for becoming a "Fellow." Such are the majority of the exoteric
Society,
composed of "attached" and "unattached" members. These may,
or may not, become Theosophists de facto. Members they are, by virtue of their
having joined the Society; but the latter cannot make a Theosophist of one who
has no sense for the divine fitness of things, or of him who understands
Theosophy in his own-if the expression may be used-sectarian and egotistic way.
"Handsome is, as handsome does" could be paraphrased in this case and
be made to run: "Theosophist is, who Theosophy does."
Theosophists
and Members of the T.S.
Q.
This applies to lay members, as I understand. And what of those who pursue
the
esoteric study of Theosophy; are they the real Theosophists?
A.
Not necessarily, until they have proven themselves to be such. They have
entered
the inner group and pledged themselves to carry out, as strictly as they
can,
the rules of the occult body. This is a difficult undertaking, as the
foremost
rule of all is the entire renunciation of one's personality-i.e., a
pledged
member has to become a thorough altruist, never to think of himself, and to
forget his own vanity and pride in the thought of the good of his
fellow-creatures,
besides that of his fellow-brothers in the esoteric circle. He
has
to live, if the esoteric instructions shall profit him, a life of abstinence
in
everything, of self-denial and strict morality, doing his duty by all men.
The
few real Theosophists in the T.S. are among these members.
A.
This does not imply that outside of the T.S. and the inner circle, there are
no
Theosophists; for there are, and more than people know of; certainly far more
than are found among the lay members of the T.S.
Q.
Then what is the good of joining the so-called Theosophical Society in that
case?
Where is the incentive?
A.
None, except the advantage of getting esoteric instructions, the genuine
doctrines
of the "Wisdom-Religion," and if the real program is carried out,
deriving
much help from mutual aid and sympathy. Union is strength and harmony, and
well-regulated simultaneous efforts produce wonders. This has been the secret
of all associations and communities since mankind existed.
Q.
But why could not a man of well-balanced mind and singleness of purpose, one,
say, of indomitable energy and perseverance, become an Occultist and even an
Adept if he works alone?
A.
He may; but there are ten thousand chances against one that he will fail. For
one
reason out of many others, no books on Occultism or Theurgy exist in our day
which give out the secrets of alchemy or medieval Theosophy in plain language.
All
are symbolical or in parables; and as the key to these has been lost for
ages
in the West, how can a man learn the correct meaning of what he is reading
and
studying? Therein lies the greatest danger, one that leads to unconscious
black
magic or the most helpless mediumship. He who has not an Initiate for a
master
had better leave the dangerous study alone. Look around you and observe.
While
two-thirds of civilized society ridicule the mere notion that there is
anything
in Theosophy, Occultism, Spiritualism, or in the Cabala, the other
third
is composed of the most heterogeneous and opposite elements. Some believe in
the mystical, and even in the supernatural (!), but each believes in his own
way. Others will rush single-handed into the study of the Cabala, Psychism,
Mesmerism,
Spiritualism, or some form or another of Mysticism. Result: no two
men
think alike, no two are agreed upon any fundamental occult principles,
though
many are those who claim for themselves the ultima thule of knowledge,
and
would make outsiders believe that they are full-blown adepts. Not only is
there
no scientific and accurate knowledge of Occultism accessible in the
West-not
even of true astrology, the only branch of Occultism which, in its
exoteric
teachings, has definite laws and a definite system-but no one has any
idea
of what real Occultism means. Some limit ancient wisdom to the cabala and
the
Jewish Zohar, which each interprets in his own way according to the
dead-letter
of the Rabbinical methods. Others regard Swedenborg or Boëhme as the ultimate
expressions of the highest wisdom; while others again see in mesmerism the
great secret of ancient magic. One and all of those who put their theory into
practice are rapidly drifting, through ignorance, into black magic. Happy are
those who escape from it, as they have neither test nor criterion by which they
can distinguish between the true and the false.
Q.
Are we to understand that the inner group of the T.S. claims to learn what it
does
from real initiates or masters of esoteric wisdom?
A.
Not directly. The personal presence of such masters is not required. Suffice
it
if they give instructions to some of those who have studied under their
guidance
for years, and devoted their whole lives to their service. Then, in
turn,
these can give out the knowledge so imparted to others, who had no such
opportunity.
A portion of the true sciences is better than a mass of undigested
and
misunderstood learning. An ounce of gold is worth a ton of dust.
Q.
But how is one to know whether the ounce is real gold or only a counterfeit?
A.
A tree is known by its fruit, a system by its results. When our opponents are
able
to prove to us that any solitary student of Occultism throughout the ages
has
become a saintly adept like Ammonius Saccas, or even a Plotinus, or a
Theurgist
like Iamblichus, or achieved feats such as are claimed to have been
done
by St. Germain, without any master to guide him, and all this without being
a
medium, a self-deluded psychic, or a charlatan-then shall we confess ourselves
mistaken.
But till then, Theosophists prefer to follow the proven natural law of
the
tradition of the Sacred Science. There are mystics who have made great
discoveries
in chemistry and physical sciences, almost bordering on alchemy and Occultism;
others who, by the sole aid of their genius, have rediscovered
portions,
if not the whole, of the lost alphabets of the "Mystery language,"
and
are,
therefore, able to read correctly Hebrew scrolls; others still, who, being
seers,
have caught wonderful glimpses of the hidden secrets of Nature. But all
these
are specialists. One is a theoretical inventor, another a Hebrew, i.e.,a
Sectarian
Cabalist, a third a Swedenborg of modern times, denying all and
everything
outside of his own particular science or religion. Not one of them
can
boast of having produced a universal or even a national benefit thereby, not
even
to himself. With the exception of a few healers-of that class which the
Royal
College of Physicians or Surgeons would call quacks-none have helped with their
science Humanity, nor even a number of men of the same community.
Where
are the Chaldeans of old, those who wrought marvelous cures, "not by
charms but by simples"? Where is an Apollonius of Tyana, who healed the
sick and raised the dead under any climate and circumstances? We know some
specialists of the former class in
Q.
Is the production of such healing adepts the aim of Theosophy?
A.
Its aims are several; but the most important of all are those which are
likely
to lead to the relief of human suffering under any or every form, moral
as
well as physical. And we believe the former to be far more important than the
latter.
Theosophy has to inculcate ethics; it has to purify the soul, if it
would
relieve the physical body, whose ailments, save cases of accidents, are
all
hereditary. It is not by studying Occultism for selfish ends, for the
gratification
of one's personal ambition, pride, or vanity, that one can ever
reach
the true goal: that of helping suffering mankind. Nor is it by studying
one
single branch of the esoteric philosophy that a man becomes an Occultist,
but
by studying, if not mastering, them all.
Q.
Is help, then, to reach this most important aim, given only to those who
study
the esoteric sciences?
A.
Not at all. Every lay member is entitled to general instruction if he only
wants
it; but few are willing to become what is called "working members,"
and
most
prefer to remain the drones of Theosophy. Let it be understood that private research
is encouraged in the T.S., provided it does not infringe the limit
which
separates the exoteric from the esoteric, the blind from the conscious
magic.
The
Difference Between Theosophy and Occultism
Q.
You speak of Theosophy and Occultism; are they identical?
A.
By no means. A man may be a very good Theosophist indeed, whether in or
outsideof
the Society, without being in any way an Occultist. But no one can be
a
true Occultist without being a real Theosophist; otherwise he is simply a
black
magician, whether conscious or unconscious.
Q.
What do you mean?
A.
I have said already that a true Theosophist must put in practice the loftiest
moral
ideal, must strive to realize his unity with the whole of humanity, and
work
ceaselessly for others. Now, if an Occultist does not do all this, he must
act
selfishly for his own personal benefit; and if he has acquired more
practical
power than other ordinary men, he becomes forthwith a far more
dangerous
enemy to the world and those around him than the average mortal. This is clear.
Q.
Then is an Occultist simply a man who possesses more power than other people?
A.
Far more-if he is a practical and really learned Occultist, and not one only
in
name. Occult sciences are not, as described in Encyclopedias, …
those
imaginary sciences of the Middle Ages which related to the supposed action or
influence of Occult qualities or supernatural powers, as alchemy, magic,
necromancy, and astrology …
-for
they are real, actual, and very dangerous sciences. They teach the secret
potency
of things in Nature, developing and cultivating the hidden powers
"latent
in man," thus giving him tremendous advantages over more ignorant
mortals.
Hypnotism, now become so common and a subject of serious scientific
inquiry,
is a good instance in point. Hypnotic power has been discovered almost
by
accident, the way to it having been prepared by mesmerism; and now an able
hypnotist
can do almost anything with it, from forcing a man, unconsciously to
himself,
to play the fool, to making him commit a crime-often by proxy for the
hypnotist,
and for the benefit of the latter. Is not this a terrible power if
left
in the hands of unscrupulous persons? And please to remember that this is
only
one of the minor branches of Occultism.
Q.
But are not all these Occult sciences, magic, and sorcery, considered by the
most
cultured and learned people as relics of ancient ignorance and
superstition?
A.
Let me remind you that this remark of yours cuts both ways. The "most
cultured
and learned" among you regard also Christianity and every other
religion
as a relic of ignorance and superstition. People begin to believe now,
at
any rate, in hypnotism, and some-even of the most cultured-in Theosophy and
phenomena.
But who among them, except preachers and blind fanatics, will confess to a
belief in Biblical miracles? And this is where the point of difference
comes
in. There are very good and pure Theosophists who may believe in the
supernatural,
divine miracles included, but no Occultist will do so.
For
an Occultist practices scientificTheosophy, based on accurate knowledge of
Nature's secret workings; but a Theosophist, practicing the powers called
abnormal, minus the light of Occultism, will simply tend toward a dangerous
form of mediumship, because, although holding to Theosophy and its highest
conceivable code of ethics, he practices it in the dark, on sincere but blind
faith.
Anyone,
Theosophist or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of the branches of
Occult science-e.g.,Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the secrets of producing
physical phenomena, etc.-without the knowledge of the philosophic rationale of
those powers, is like a rudderless boat launched on a stormy ocean.
The
Difference Between Theosophy and Spiritualism
Q.
But do you not believe in Spiritualism?
A.
If by "Spiritualism" you mean the explanation which Spiritualists
give of
some
abnormal phenomena, then decidedly we do not. They maintain that these
manifestations
are all produced by the "spirits" of departed mortals, generally
their
relatives, who return to earth, they say, to communicate with those they
have
loved or to whom they are attached. We deny this point blank. We assert
that
the spirits of the dead cannot return to earth-save in rare and exceptional
cases,
of which I may speak later; nor do they communicate with men except by
entirely
subjective means. That which does appear objectively, is only the
phantom
of the ex-physical man. But in psychic, and so to say, "Spiritual"
Spiritualism,
we do believe, most decidedly.
Q.
Do you reject the phenomena also?
A.
Assuredly not-save cases of conscious fraud.
Q.
How do you account for them, then?
A.
In many ways. The causes of such manifestations are by no means so simple as the
Spiritualists would like to believe. Foremost of all, the deus ex machina of
the
so-called "materializations" is usually the astral body or
"double" of the
medium
or of someone present. This astral body is also the producer or operating force
in the manifestations of slate-writing, "Davenport"-like
manifestations, and so on.
Q.
You say usually-then what is it that produces the rest?
A.
That depends on the nature of the manifestations. Sometimes the astral
remains,
the Kamalokic "shells" of the vanished personalities that were; at
other
times, Elementals. Spirit is a word of manifold and wide significance. I
really
do not know what Spiritualists mean by the term; but what we understand
them
to claim is that the physical phenomena are produced by the reincarnating
Ego,
the Spiritual and immortal "individuality." And this hypothesis we
entirely
reject.
The Conscious Individuality of the disembodied cannot materialize, nor
can
it return from its own mental Devachanic sphere to the plane of terrestrial
objectivity.
Q.
But many of the communications received from the "spirits" show not
only
intelligence,
but a knowledge of facts not known to the medium, and sometimes
even
not consciously present to the mind of the investigator, or any of those
who
compose the audience.
A.
This does not necessarily prove that the intelligence and knowledge you speak
of belong to spirits, or emanate from disembodied souls. Somnambulists have
been known to compose music and poetry and to solve mathematical problems while
in their trance state, without having ever learnt music or mathematics. Others,
answered intelligently to questions put to them, and even, in several cases,
spoke languages, such as Hebrew and Latin, of which they were entirely ignorant
when awake-all this in a state of profound sleep. Will you, then, maintain that
this was caused by "spirits"?
Q.
But how would you explain it?
A.
We assert that the divine spark in man being one and identical in its essence
with
the Universal Spirit, our "spiritual Self" is practically omniscient,
but
that
it cannot manifest its knowledge owing to the impediments of matter. Now
the
more these impediments are removed, in other words, the more the physical
body
is paralyzed, as to its own independent activity and consciousness, as in
deep
sleep or deep trance, or, again, in illness, the more fully can the inner
Self
manifest on this plane. This is our explanation of those truly wonderful
phenomena
of a higher order, in which undeniable intelligence and knowledge are
exhibited.
As to the lower order of manifestations, such as physical phenomena
and
the platitudes and common talk of the general "spirit," to explain
even the
most
important of the teachings we hold upon the subject would take up more
space
and time than can be allotted to it at present. We have no desire to
interfere
with the belief of the Spiritualists any more than with any other
belief.
The responsibility must fall on the believers in "spirits." And at
the
present
moment, while still convinced that the higher sort of manifestations
occur
through the disembodied souls, their leaders and the most learned and
intelligent
among the Spiritualists are the first to confess that not all the
phenomena
are produced by spirits. Gradually they will come to recognize the
whole
truth; but meanwhile we have no right nor desire to proselytize them to
our
views. The less so, as in the cases of purely psychic and spiritual
manifestations
we believe in the intercommunication of the spirit of the living
man
with that of disembodied personalities.
We
say that in such cases it is not the spirits of the dead who descend on
earth,
but the spirits of the living that ascend to the pure spiritual Souls. In
truth
there is neither ascending nor descending, but a change of state or
condition
for the medium. The body of the latter becoming paralyzed, or
"entranced,"
the spiritual Ego is free from its trammels, and finds itself on
the
same plane of consciousness with the disembodied spirits. Hence, if there is
any
spiritual attraction between the two they can communicate, as often occurs
in
dreams. The difference between a mediumistic and a non-sensitive nature is
this:
the liberated spirit of a medium has the opportunity and facility of
influencing
the passive organs of its entranced physical body, to make them act,
speak,
and write at its will. The Ego can make it repeat, echo-like, and in the
human
language, the thoughts and ideas of the disembodied entity, as well as its
own.
But the non-receptive or non-sensitive organism of one who is very positive
cannot be so influenced. Hence, although there is hardly a human being whose
Ego does not hold free intercourse, during the sleep of his body, with those
whom it loved and lost, yet, on account of the positiveness and non-receptivity
of its physical envelope and brain, no recollection, or a very dim, dream-like
remembrance, lingers in the memory of the person once awake.
Q.
This means that you reject the philosophy of Spiritualism in toto?
A.
If by "philosophy" you mean their crude theories, we do. But they
have no
philosophy,
in truth. Their best, their most intellectual and earnest defenders
say
so. Their fundamental and only unimpeachable truth, namely, that phenomena
occur through mediums controlled by invisible forces and intelligences-no one,
except a blind materialist of the "Huxley big toe" school, will or
can deny.
With
regard to their philosophy, however, let me read to you what the able
editor
of Light, than whom the Spiritualists will find no wiser nor more devoted
champion,
says of them and their philosophy.
This
is what "M.A. Oxon," one of the very few philosophical Spiritualists,
writes,
with respect to their lack of organization and blind bigotry:
It
is worthwhile to look steadily at this point, for it is of vital moment. We
have
an experience and a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is
comparatively
insignificant. The ordinary Spiritualist waxes wroth if anyone
ventures
to impugn his assured knowledge of the future and his absolute
certainty
of the life to come. Where other men have stretched forth feeble hands
groping
into the dark future, he walks boldly as one who has a chart and knows
his
way. Where other men have stopped short at a pious aspiration or have been
content
with a hereditary faith, it is his boast that he knows what they only
believe,
and that out of his rich stores he can supplement the fading faiths
built
only upon hope. He is magnificent in his dealings with man's most
cherished
expectations. He seems to say:
You
hope for that which I can demonstrate. You have accepted a traditional
belief
in what I can experimentally prove according to the strictest scientific
method.
The old beliefs are fading; come out from them and be separate. They
contain
as much falsehood as truth. Only by building on a sure foundation of
demonstrated
fact can your superstructure be stable. All round you old faiths
are
toppling. Avoid the crash and get you out.
When
one comes to deal with this magnificent person in a practical way, what is
the
result? Very curious and very disappointing. He is so sure of his ground
that
he takes no trouble to ascertain the interpretation which others put upon
his
facts. The wisdom of the ages has concerned itself with the explanation of
what
he rightly regards as proven; but he does not turn a passing glance on its
researches.
He does not even agree altogether with his brother Spiritualist. It
is
the story over again of the old Scotch body who, together with her husband,
formed
a "kirk." They had exclusive keys to Heaven, or, rather, she had, for
she
was
"na certain aboot Jamie." So the infinitely divided and subdivided
and
re-subdivided
sects of Spiritualists shake their heads, and are "na certain
aboot"
one another. Again, the collective experience of mankind is solid and
unvarying
on this point that union is strength, and disunion a source of
weakness
and failure. Shoulder to shoulder, drilled and disciplined, a rabble
becomes
an army, each man a match for a hundred of the untrained men that may be
brought against it. Organization in every department of man's work means
success, saving of time and labor, profit and development. Want of method, want
of plan, haphazard work, fitful energy, undisciplined effort-these mean
bungling failure. The voice of humanity attests the truth. Does the
Spiritualist accept the verdict and act on the conclusion? Verily, no. He
refuses to organize. He is a law unto himself, and a thorn in the side of his
neighbors.
Q.
I was told that the Theosophical Society was originally founded to crush
Spiritualism
and belief in the survival of the individuality in man?
A.
You are misinformed. Our beliefs are all founded on that immortal
individuality.
But then, like so many others, you confuse personality with
individuality.
Your Western psychologists do not seem to have established any
clear
distinction between the two. Yet it is precisely that difference which
gives
the keynote to the understanding of Eastern philosophy, and which lies at
the
root of the divergence between the Theosophical and Spiritualistic
teachings.
And though it may draw upon us still more the hostility of some
Spiritualists,
yet I must state here that it is Theosophy which is the true and
unalloyed
Spiritualism, while the modern scheme of that name is, as now
practiced
by the masses, simply transcendental materialism.
Q.
Please explain your idea more clearly.
A.
What I mean is that though our teachings insist upon the identity of spirit
and
matter, and though we say that spirit is potential matter, and matter simply
crystallized
spirit (e.g., as ice is solidified steam), yet since the original
and
eternal condition of allis not spirit but meta-spirit, so to speak, we
maintain
that the term spirit can only be applied to the true individuality.
Q.
But what is the distinction between this "true individuality" and the
"I" or
"Ego"
of which we are all conscious?
A.
Before I can answer you, we must argue upon what you mean by "I" or
"Ego." We distinguish between the simple fact of self-consciousness,
the simple feeling that "I am I," and the complex thought that
"I am Mr. Smith" or "Mrs. Brown." Believing as we do in a
series of births for the same Ego, or reincarnation, this distinction is the
fundamental pivot of the whole idea. You see "Mr. Smith" really means
a long series of daily experiences strung together by the thread of memory, and
forming what Mr. Smith calls "himself." But none of these
"experiences" are really the "I" or the Ego, nor do they
give "Mr. Smith" the feeling that he is himself, for he forgets the
greater part of his daily
experiences,
and they produce the feeling of Egoity in him only while they last.
We
Theosophists, therefore, distinguish between this bundle of
"experiences,"
which
we call the false (because so finite and evanescent)personality, and that
element
in man to which the feeling of "I am I" is due. It is this "I am
I"
which
we call the true individuality; and we say that this "Ego" or
individuality
plays, like an actor, many parts on the stage of life. Let us call
every
new life on earth of the same Egoa night on the stage of a theater. One
night
the actor, or "Ego," appears as "Macbeth," the next as
"Shylock," the
third
as "Romeo," the fourth as "Hamlet" or "King
Lear," and so on, until he has
run
through the whole cycle of incarnations. The Ego begins his life-pilgrimage
as
a sprite, an "Ariel," or a "Puck"; he plays the part of a
super, is a
soldier,
a servant, one of the chorus; rises then to "speaking parts," plays
leading
roles, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally retires
from
the stage as "Prospero," the magician.
Q.
I understand. You say, then, that this true Ego cannot return to earth after
death.
But surely the actor is at liberty, if he has preserved the sense of his
individuality,
to return if he likes to the scene of his former actions?
A.
We say not, simply because such a return to earth would be incompatible with
any state of unalloyed bliss after death, as I am prepared to prove. We say
that man suffers so much unmerited misery during his life, through the fault of
others
with whom he is associated, or because of his environment, that he is
surely
entitled to perfect rest and quiet, if not bliss, before taking up again
the
burden of life. However, we can discuss this in detail later.
Why is
Theosophy Accepted?
Q.
I understand to a certain extent; but I see that your teachings are far more
complicated
and metaphysical than either Spiritualism or current religious
thought.
Can you tell me, then, what has caused this system of Theosophy which you
support to arouse so much interest and so much animosity at the same time?
A.
There are several reasons for it, I believe; among other causes that may be
mentioned
is:
1.
The great reaction from the crassly materialistic theories now prevalent
among
scientific teachers.
2.
General dissatisfaction with the artificial theology of the various Christian
Churches,
and the number of daily increasing and conflicting sects.
3.
An ever-growing perception of the fact that the creeds which are so obviously
self-and
mutually-contradictory cannot be true, and that claims which are
unverified
cannot be real. This natural distrust of conventional religions is
only
strengthened by their complete failure to preserve morals and to purify
society
and the masses.
4.
A conviction on the part of many, and knowledge by a few, that there must be
somewhere
a philosophical and religious system which shall be scientific and not
merely
speculative.
5.
A belief, perhaps, that such a system must be sought for in teachings far
antedating
any modern faith.
Q.
But how did this system come to be put forward just now?
A.
Just because the time was found to be ripe, which fact is shown by the
determined
effort of so many earnest students to reach the truth, at whatever
cost
and wherever it may be concealed. Seeing this, its custodians permitted
that
some portions at least of that truth should be proclaimed. Had the
formation
of the Theosophical Society been postponed a few years longer, one
half
of the civilized nations would have become by this time rank materialists,
and
the other half anthropomorphists and phenomenalists.
Q.
Are we to regard Theosophy in any way as a revelation?
A.
In no way whatever-not even in the sense of a new and direct disclosure from
some
higher, supernatural, or, at least, superhuman beings; but only in the
sense
of an "unveiling" of old, very old, truths to minds hitherto ignorant
of
them,
ignorant even of the existence and preservation of any such archaic
knowledge.
It
has become "fashionable," especially of late, to deride the notion
that there
ever
was, in the mysteries of great and civilized peoples, such as the
Egyptians,
Greeks, or Romans, anything but priestly imposture. Even the
Rosicrucians
were no better than half lunatics, half knaves. Numerous books have been written
on them; and tyros, who had hardly heard the name a few years before, sallied
out as profound critics and Gnostics on the subject of alchemy, the
fire-philosophers, and mysticism in general. Yet a long series of the
Hierophants
of Egypt, India, Chaldea, and Arabia are known, along with the
greatest
philosophers and sages of Greece and the West, to have included under
the
designation of wisdom and divine science all knowledge, for they considered
the
base and origin of every art and science as essentially divine. Plato
regarded
the mysteries as most sacred, and Clemens Alexandrinus, who had been himself
initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries, has declared "that the
doctrines
taught therein contained in them the end of all human knowledge." Were
Plato and Clemens two knaves or two fools, we wonder, or-both?
Q.
You spoke of "Persecution." If truth is as represented by Theosophy,
why has it met with such opposition, and with no general acceptance?
A.
For many and various reasons again, one of which is the hatred felt by men
for
"innovations," as they call them. Selfishness is essentially
conservative,
and
hates being disturbed. It prefers an easy-going, unexacting lie to the
greatest
truth, if the latter requires the sacrifice of one's smallest comfort.
The
power of mental inertia is great in anything that does not promise immediate
benefit
and reward. Our age is preeminently unspiritual and matter of fact.
Moreover,
there is the unfamiliar character of Theosophic teachings; the highly
abstruse
nature of the doctrines, some of which contradict flatly many of the
human
vagaries cherished by sectarians, which have eaten into the very core of
popular
beliefs. If we add to this the personal efforts and great purity of life
exacted
of those who would become the disciples of the inner circle, and the
very
limited class to which an entirely unselfish code appeals, it will be easy
to
perceive the reason why Theosophy is doomed to such slow, uphill work. It is
essentially the philosophy of those who suffer, and have lost all hope of being
helped
out of the mire of life by any other means. Moreover, the history of any
system
of belief or morals, newly introduced into a foreign soil, shows that its
beginnings
were impeded by every obstacle that obscurantism and selfishness
could
suggest. "The crown of the innovator is a crown of thorns" indeed! No
pulling
down of old, worm-eaten buildings can be accomplished without some
danger.
Q.
All this refers rather to the ethics and philosophy of the T.S. Can you give
me
a general idea of the Society itself, its objects and statutes?
A.
This was never made secret. Ask, and you shall receive accurate answers.
Q.
But I heard that you were bound by pledges?
A.
Only in the Arcane or "Esoteric" Section.
Q.
And also, that some members after leaving did not regard themselves bound by
them. Are they right?
A.
This shows that their idea of honor is an imperfect one. How can they be
right?
As well said in The Path, our theosophical organ at New York, treating of
such
a case:
Suppose
that a soldier is tried for infringement of oath and discipline, and is
dismissed
from the service. In his rage at the justice he has called down, and
of
whose penalties he was distinctly forewarned, the soldier turns to the enemy
with
false information-a spy and traitor-as a revenge upon his former Chief, and
claims
that his punishment has released him from his oath of loyalty to a cause.
Is
he justified, think you? Don't you think he deserves being called a
dishonorable
man, a coward?
Q.
I believe so; but some think otherwise.
A.
So much the worse for them. But we will talk on this subject later, if you
please.
The
Working System of the T.S. *1)
The Objects
of the Society
Q.
What are the objects of the "Theosophical Society"?
A.
They are three, and have been so from the beginning.
1.
To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without
distinction
of race, color, or creed.
2.
To promote the study of Aryan *2) and other Scriptures, of the World's
religions
and sciences, and to vindicate the importance of old Asiatic
literature,
namely, of the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian philosophies.
3.
To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible,
and
the psychic and spiritual powers latent in man especially.
These
are, broadly stated, the three chief objects of the Theosophical Society.
*1)
See also appendix at the end of this file
*2)
H.P.B. means the original Indo-Germanic race from Northern India (see
H.P.B.,
The Theosophical Glossary, London, 1892
and
also the glossary at the end of this file)
Q.
Can you give me some more detailed information upon these?
A.
We may divide each of the three objects into as many explanatory clauses as
may
be found necessary.
Q.
Then let us begin with the first. What means would you resort to, in order to
promote
such a feeling of brotherhood among races that are known to be of the
most
diversified religions, customs, beliefs, and modes of thought?
A.
Allow me to add that which you seem unwilling to express. Of course we know
that with the exception of two remnants of races-the Parsees and the Jews-every
nation is divided, not merely against all other nations, but even against
itself.
This is found most prominently among the so-called civilized Christian
nations.
Hence your wonder, and the reason why our first object appears to you a Utopia.
Is it not so?
Q.
Well, yes; but what have you to say against it?
A.
Nothing against the fact; but much about the necessity of removing the causes
which make Universal Brotherhood a Utopia at present.
Q.
What are, in your view, these causes?
A.
First and foremost, the natural selfishness of human nature. This
selfishness,
instead of being eradicated, is daily strengthened and stimulated
into
a ferocious and irresistible feeling by the present religious education,
which
tends not only to encourage, but positively to justify it. People's ideas
about
right and wrong have been entirely perverted by the literal acceptance of
the
Jewish Bible. All the unselfishness of the altruistic teachings of Jesus has
become
merely a theoretical subject for pulpit oratory; while the precepts of
practical
selfishness taught in the Mosaic Bible, against which Christ so vainly
preached,
have become ingrained into the innermost life of the Western nations.
"An
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" has come to be the first maxim of
your
law. Now, I state openly and fearlessly, that the perversity of this
doctrine
and of so many others Theosophy alone can eradicate.
The Common
Origin of Man
Q.
How?
A.
Simply by demonstrating on logical, philosophical, metaphysical, and even
scientific
grounds that: (a) All men have spiritually and physically the same
origin,
which is the fundamental teaching of Theosophy. (b) As mankind is
essentially
of one and the same essence, and that essence is one-infinite,
uncreate,
and eternal, whether we call it God or Nature-nothing, therefore, can
affect
one nation or one man without affecting all other nations and all other
men.
This is as certain and as obvious as that a stone thrown into a pond will,
sooner
or later, set in motion every single drop of water therein.
Q.
But this is not the teaching of Christ, but rather a pantheistic notion.
A.
That is where your mistake lies. It is purely Christian, although not Judaic,
and
therefore, perhaps, your Biblical nations prefer to ignore it.
Q.
This is a wholesale and unjust accusation. Where are your proofs for such a
statement?
A.
They are ready at hand. Christ is alleged to have said: "Love each
other" and
"Love
your enemies;" for
…
if ye love them (only) which love you, what reward (or merit) have ye? Do not
even
the publicans the same? And if you salute your brethren only, what do ye
more
than others? Do not even publicans so?
These
are Christ's words. But Genesis says "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of
servants
shall he be unto his brethren." And, therefore, Christian but Biblical
people
prefer the law of Moses to Christ's law of love. They base upon the Old
Testament,
which panders to all their passions, their laws of conquest,
annexation,
and tyranny over races which they call inferior. What crimes have
been
committed on the strength of this infernal (if taken in its dead letter)
passage
in Genesis, history alone gives us an idea, however inadequate.
At
the close of the Middle Ages slavery, under the power of moral forces, had
mainly
disappeared from
For
four hundred years men and women and children were torn from all whom they knew
and loved, and were sold on the coast of Africa to foreign traders; they were
chained below decks-the dead often with the living-during the horrible
"middle passage," and, according to Bancroft, an impartial historian,
two hundred and fifty thousand out of three and a quarter millions were thrown
into the sea on that fatal passage, while the remainder were consigned to
nameless misery in the mines, or under the lash in the cane and rice fields.
The guilt of this great crime rests on the Christian Church. "In the name
of the most Holy Trinity" the Spanish Government (Roman Catholic)
concluded more than ten treaties authorizing the sale of five hundred thousand
human beings; in 1562 Sir John Hawkins sailed on his diabolical errand of buying
slaves in Africa and
selling
them in the West Indies in a ship which bore the sacred name of Jesus;
while
Elizabeth, the Protestant Queen, rewarded him for his success in this
first
adventure of Englishmen in that inhuman traffic by allowing him to wear as
his
crest "a demi-Moor in his proper color, bound with a cord, or, in other
words,
a manacled Negro slave."
Q.
I have heard you say that the identity of our physical origin is proved by
science,
that of our spiritual origin by the Wisdom-Religion. Yet we do not find
Darwinists
exhibiting great fraternal affection.
A.
Just so. This is what shows the deficiency of the materialistic systems, and
proves
that we Theosophists are in the right. The identity of our physical
origin
makes no appeal to our higher and deeper feelings. Matter, deprived of
its
soul and spirit, or its divine essence, cannot speak to the human heart. But
the
identity of the soul and spirit, of real, immortal man, as Theosophy teaches
us,
once proven and deep-rooted in our hearts, would lead us far on the road of
real
charity and brotherly goodwill.
Q.
But how does Theosophy explain the common origin of man?
A-1.By
teaching that the root of all nature, objective and subjective, and
everything
else in the universe, visible and invisible, is, was, and ever will
be
one absolute essence, from which all starts, and into which everything
returns.
This is Aryan ( See remark on the use of the word Aryan a while back)
philosophy,
fully represented only by the Vedantins, and the Buddhist system.
With
this object in view, it is the duty of all Theosophists to promote in every
practical
way, and in all countries, the spread of non-sectarian education.
Q.
What do the written statutes of your Society advise its members to do besides
this? On the physical plane, I mean?
A.
In order to awaken brotherly feeling among nations we have to assist in the
international
exchange of useful arts and products, by advice, information, and
cooperation
with all worthy individuals and associations (provided, however, add the
statutes, "that no benefit or percentage shall be taken by the Society or
the
'Fellows' for its or their corporate services"). For instance, to take a
practical
illustration. The organization of Society, depicted by Edward Bellamy,
in
his magnificent work Looking Backwards, admirably represents the Theosophical
idea of what should be the first great step towards the full realization of
universal brotherhood. The state of things he depicts falls short of
perfection, because selfishness still exists and operates in the hearts of men.
But in the main, selfishness and individualism have been overcome by the
feeling of
solidarity
and mutual brotherhood; and the scheme of life there described
reduces
the causes tending to create and foster selfishness to a minimum.
Q.
Then as a Theosophist you will take part in an effort to realize such an
ideal?
A.
Certainly; and we have proved it by action. Have not you heard of the
Nationalist
clubs and party which have sprung up in America since the
publication
of Bellamy's book? They are now coming prominently to the front, and will do so
more and more as time goes on. Well, these clubs and this party were started in
the first instance by Theosophists. One of the first, the Nationalist Club of
Boston, Massachusetts, has Theosophists for President and Secretary, and the
majority of its executive belong to the T.S. In the constitution of all their
clubs, and of the party they are forming, the influence of Theosophy and of the
Society is plain, for they all take as their basis, their first and
fundamental
principle, the Brotherhood of Humanity as taught by Theosophy. In
their
declaration of Principles they state:
The
principle of the Brotherhood of Humanity is one of the eternal truths that
govern
the world's progress on lines which distinguish human nature from brute
nature.
What
can be more Theosophical than this? But it is not enough. What is also
needed
is to impress men with the idea that, if the root of mankind is one, then
there
must also be one truth which finds expression in all the various
religions-except
in the Jewish, as you do not find it expressed even in the
Cabala.
Q.
This refers to the common origin of religions, and you may be right there.
But
how does it apply to practical brotherhood on the physical plane?
A.
First, because that which is true on the metaphysical plane must be also true
on
the physical. Secondly, because there is no more fertile source of hatred and
strife
than religious differences. When one party or another thinks himself the
sole
possessor of absolute truth, it becomes only natural that he should think
his
neighbor absolutely in the clutches of Error or the Devil. But once get a
man
to see that none of them has the whole truth, but that they are mutually
complementary,
that the complete truth can be found only in the combined views of all, after
that which is false in each of them has been sifted out-then true
brotherhood
in religion will be established. The same applies in the physical
world.
Q.
Please explain further.
A.
Take an instance. A plant consists of a root, a stem, and many shoots and
leaves.
As humanity, as a whole, is the stem which grows from the spiritual
root,
so is the stem the unity of the plant. Hurt the stem and it is obvious
that
every shoot and leaf will suffer. So it is with mankind.
Q.
Yes, but if you injure a leaf or a shoot, you do not injure the whole plant.
A.
And therefore you think that by injuring one man you do not injure humanity?
But
how do you know? Are you aware that even materialistic science teaches that any
injury, however, slight, to a plant will affect the whole course of its
future
growth and development? Therefore, you are mistaken, and the analogy is
perfect.
If, however, you overlook the fact that a cut in the finger may often
make
the whole body suffer, and react on the whole nervous system, I must all
the
more remind you that there may well be other spiritual laws, operating on
plants
and animals as well as on mankind, although, as you do not recognize
their
action on plants and animals, you may deny their existence.
Q.
What laws do you mean?
A.
We call them Karmic laws; but you will not understand the full meaning of the
term
unless you study Occultism. However, my argument did not rest on the
assumption
of these laws, but really on the analogy of the plant. Expand the
idea,
carry it out to a universal application, and you will soon find that in
true
philosophy every physical action has its moral and everlasting effect. Hurt
a
man by doing him bodily harm; you may think that his pain and suffering cannot
spread by any means to his neighbors, least of all to men of other nations.
We
affirm that it will, in good time. Therefore, we say, that unless every man is
brought
to understand and accept as an axiomatic truth that by having wronged
one
man we wrong not only ourselves but the whole of humanity in the long run,
no
brotherly feelings such as preached by all the great Reformers, preeminently
by
Buddha and Jesus, are possible on earth.
Our Other
Objects
Q.
Will you now explain the methods by which you propose to carry out the second
object?
A.
To collect for the library at our headquarters of Adyar, Madras-and by the
Fellows
of their Branches for their local libraries-all the good works upon the
world's
religions that we can. To put into written form correct information upon
the
various ancient philosophies, traditions, and legends, and disseminate the
same
in such practicable ways as the translation and publication of original
works
of value, and extracts from and commentaries upon the same, or the oral
instructions
of persons learned in their respective departments.
Q.
And what about the third object, to develop in man his latent spiritual or
psychic
powers?
A.
This has to be achieved also by means of publications, in those places where
no
lectures and personal teachings are possible. Our duty is to keep alive in
man
his spiritual intuitions. To oppose and counteract-after due investigation
and
proof of its irrational nature-bigotry in every form, religious, scientific,
or
social, and cant above all, whether as religious sectarianism or as belief in
miracles
or anything supernatural. What we have to do is to seek to obtain
knowledge
of all the laws of nature, and to diffuse it. To encourage the study
of
those laws least understood by modern people, the so-called Occult Sciences,
based on the true knowledge of nature, instead of, as at present, on
superstitious
beliefs based on blind faith and authority. Popular folklore and
traditions,
however fanciful at times, when sifted may lead to the discovery of
long-lost,
but important, secrets of nature. The Society, therefore, aims at
pursuing
this line of inquiry, in the hope of widening the field of scientific
and
philosophical observation.
On the
Sacredness of the Pledge
Q.
Have you any ethical system that you carry out in the Society?
A.
The ethics are there, ready and clear enough for whomsoever would follow
them.
They are the essence and cream of the world's ethics, gathered from the
teachings
of all the world's great reformers. Therefore, you will find
represented
therein Confucius and Zoroaster, Lao-tzu and the Bhagavad-Gita , the precepts
of Gautama Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth, of Hillel and his school, as of
Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and their schools.
Q.
Do the members of your Society carry out these precepts? I have heard of
great
dissensions and quarrels among them.
A.
Very naturally, since although the reform (in its present shape) may be
called
new, the men and women to be reformed are the same human, sinning natures as of
old. As already said, the earnest working members are few; but many are the
sincere and well-disposed persons, who try their best to live up to the
Society's and their own ideals. Our duty is to encourage and assist individual
fellows
in self-improvement, intellectual, moral, and spiritual; not to blame or
condemn
those who fail. We have, strictly speaking, no right to refuse admission
to
anyone-especially in the Esoteric Section of the Society, wherein "he who
enters
is as one newly born." But if any member, his sacred pledges on his word
of
honor and immortal Self notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after that
"new birth," with the new man, the vices or defects of his old life,
and to indulge
in
them still in the Society, then, of course, he is more than likely to be
asked
to resign and withdraw; or, in case of his refusal, to be expelled. We
have
the strictest rules for such emergencies.
Q.
Can some of them be mentioned?
A.
They can. To begin with, no Fellow in the Society, whether exoteric or
esoteric,
has a right to force his personal opinions upon another Fellow.
It
is not lawful for any officer of the Parent Society to express in public, by
word
or act, any hostility to, or preference for, any one section, religious or
philosophical,
more than another. All have an equal right to have the essential
features
of their religious belief laid before the tribunal of an impartial
world.
And no officer of the Society, in his capacity as an officer, has the
right
to preach his own sectarian views and beliefs to members assembled, except when
the meeting consists of his co-religionists. After due warning, violation of
this rule shall be punished by suspension or expulsion.
This
is one of the offenses in the Society at large. As regards the inner
section,
now called the Esoteric, the following rules have been laid down and
adopted,
so far back as 1880.
No
Fellow shall put to his selfish use any knowledge communicated to him by any
member of the first section (now a higher "degree"); violation of the
rule being punished by expulsion.
Now,
however, before any such knowledge can be imparted, the applicant has to bind
himself by a solemn oath not to use it for selfish purposes, nor to reveal
anything
said except by permission.
Q.
But is a man expelled, or resigning, from the section free to reveal anything
he
may have learned, or to break any clause of the pledge he has taken?
A.
Certainly not. His expulsion or resignation only relieves him from the
obligation
of obedience to the teacher, and from that of taking an active part
in
the work of the Society, but surely not from the sacred pledge of secrecy.
Q.
But is this reasonable and just?
A.
Most assuredly. To any man or woman with the slightest honorable feeling a
pledge
of secrecy taken even on one's word of honor, much more to one's Higher
Self-the God within-is binding till death. And though he may leave the Section
and the Society, no man or woman of honor will think of attacking or injuring a
body to which he or she has been so pledged.
Q.
But is not this going rather far?
A.
Perhaps so, according to the low standard of the present time and morality.
But
if it does not bind as far as this, what use is a pledge at all? How can
anyone
expect to be taught secret knowledge, if he is to be at liberty to free
himself
from all the obligations he had taken, whenever he pleases? What
security,
confidence, or trust would ever exist among men, if pledges such as
this
were to have no really binding force at all? Believe me, the law of
retribution
(Karma) would very soon overtake one who so broke his pledge, and
perhaps
as soon as the contempt of every honorable man would, even on this
physical
plane. As well expressed in the New York Path just cited on this
subject,A
pledge once taken, is forever binding in both the moral and the occult worlds.
If
we break it once and are punished, that does not justify us in breaking it
again,
and so long as we do, so long will the mighty lever of the Law (of Karma)
react
upon us.
The Relations
of the T.S. to Theosophy
On
Self-Improvement
Q.
Is moral elevation, then, the principal thing insisted upon in your Society?
A.
Undoubtedly! He who would be a true Theosophist must bring himself to live as
one.
Q.
If so, then, as I remarked before, the behavior of some members strangely
belies
this fundamental rule.
A.
Indeed it does. But this cannot be helped among us, any more than amongst
those
who call themselves Christians and act like fiends. This is no fault of
our
statutes and rules, but that of human nature. Even in some exoteric public
branches,
the members pledge themselves on their "Higher Self" to live the life
prescribed
by Theosophy. They have to bring their Divine Self to guide their
every
thought and action, every day and at every moment of their lives. A true
Theosophist
ought "to deal justly and walk humbly."
Q.
What do you mean by this?
A.
Simply this: the one self has to forget itself for the many selves. Let me
answer
you in the words of a true Philaletheian, an F.T.S., who has beautifully
expressed
it in The Theosophist:
What
every man needs first is to find himself, and then take an honest inventory
of
his subjective possessions, and, bad or bankrupt as it may be, it is not
beyond
redemption if we set about it in earnest.
But
how many do? All are willing to work for their own development and progress;
very few for those of others. To quote the same writer again:
Men
have been deceived and deluded long enough; they must break their idols, put
away their shams, and go to work for themselves-nay, there is one little word
too
much or too many, for he who works for himself had better not work at all;
rather
let him work himself for others, for all. For every flower of love and
charity
he plants in his neighbor's garden, a loathsome weed will disappear from
his
own, and so this garden of the gods-Humanity-shall blossom as a rose. In all
Bibles,
all religions, this is plainly set forth-but designing men have at first
misinterpreted
and finally emasculated, materialized, besotted them. It does not
require
a new revelation. Let every man be a revelation unto himself. Let once
man's
immortal spirit take possession of the temple of his body, drive out the
money-changers
and every unclean thing, and his own divine humanity will redeem him, for when
he is thus at one with himself he will know the "builder of the
Q.
This is pure Altruism, I confess.
A.
It is. And if only one Fellow of the T.S. out of ten would practice it ours
would
be a body of elect indeed. But there are those among the outsiders who
will
always refuse to see the essential difference between Theosophy and the
Theosophical
Society, the idea and its imperfect embodiment. Such would visit
every
sin and shortcoming of the vehicle, the human body, on the pure spirit
which
sheds thereon its divine light. Is this just to either? They throw stones
at
an association that tries to work up to, and for the propagation of, its
ideal
with most tremendous odds against it. Some vilify the Theosophical Society only
because it presumes to attempt to do that in which other systems-Church and
State Christianity preeminently-have failed most egregiously; others because
they would fain preserve the existing state of things: Pharisees and Sadducees
in the seat of Moses, and publicans and sinners revelling in high places, as
under the Roman Empire during its decadence. Fair-minded people, at any rate,
ought to remember that the man who does all he can, does as much as he who has
achieved the most, in this world of relative possibilities. This is a simple
truism, an axiom supported for believers in the Gospels by the parable of the
talents given by their Master: the servant who doubled his two talents was
rewarded
as much as that other fellow-servant who had received five. To every
man
it is given "according to his several ability."
Q.
Yet it is rather difficult to draw the line of demarcation between the
abstract
and the concrete in this case, as we have only the latter to form our
judgment
by.
A.
Then why make an exception for the T.S.? Justice, like charity, ought to
begin
at home. Will you revile and scoff at the "Sermon on the Mount"
because
your
social, political and even religious laws have, so far, not only failed to
carry
out its precepts in their spirit, but even in their dead letter? Abolish
the
oath in Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and do as the Quakers do,
if
you will call yourselves Christians. Abolish the Courts themselves, for if
you
would follow the Commandments of Christ, you have to give away your coat to him
who deprives you of your cloak, and turn your left cheek to the bully who
smites you on the right. "Resist not evil, love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you," for "whosoever shall
break one of the least of these Commandments and shall teach men so, he shall
be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven," and "whosoever shall
say 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire." And why should you
judge, if you would not be judged in your turn? Insist that between Theosophy
and the Theosophical Society there is no difference, and forthwith you lay the
system of Christianity and its very essence open to the same charges, only in a
more serious form.
Q.
Why more serious?
A.
Because, while the leaders of the Theosophical Movement, recognizing fully
their
shortcomings, try all they can do to amend their ways and uproot the evil
existing
in the Society; and while their rules and bylaws are framed in the
spirit
of Theosophy, the Legislators and the Churches of nations and countries
which
call themselves Christian do the reverse. Our members, even the worst
among
them, are no worse than the average Christian. Moreover, if the Western
Theosophists
experience so much difficulty in leading the true Theosophical
life,
it is because they are all the children of their generation. Every one of
them
was a Christian, bred and brought up in the sophistry of his Church, his
social
customs, and even his paradoxical laws. He was this before he became a
Theosophist,
or rather, a member of the Society of that name, as it cannot be
too
often repeated that between the abstract ideal and its vehicle there is a
most
important difference.
The Abstract
and the Concrete
Q.
Please elucidate this difference a little more.
A.
The Society is a great body of men and women, composed of the most
heterogeneous
elements. Theosophy, in its abstract meaning, is Divine Wisdom, or the aggregate
of the knowledge and wisdom that underlie the Universe-the
homogeneity
of eternal good; and in its concrete sense it is the sum total of
the
same as allotted to man by nature, on this earth, and no more. Some members
earnestly endeavor to realize and, so to speak, to objectivize Theosophy in
their lives; while others desire only to know of, not to practice it; and
others still may have joined the Society merely out of curiosity, or a passing
interest,
or perhaps, again, because some of their friends belong to it. How,
then,
can the system be judged by the standard of those who would assume the
name
without any right to it? Is poetry or its muse to be measured only by those
would-be
poets who afflict our ears? The Society can be regarded as the
embodiment
of Theosophy only in its abstract motives; it can never presume to
call
itself its concrete vehicle so long as human imperfections and weaknesses
are
all represented in its body; otherwise the Society would be only repeating
the
great error and the outflowing sacrilege of the so-called Churches of
Christ.
If Eastern comparisons may be permitted, Theosophy is the shoreless
ocean
of universal truth, love, and wisdom, reflecting its radiance on the
earth,
while the Theosophical Society is only a visible bubble on that
reflection.
Theosophy is divine nature, visible and invisible, and its Society
human
nature trying to ascend to its divine parent. Theosophy, finally, is the
fixed
eternal sun, and its Society the evanescent comet trying to settle in an
orbit
to become a planet, ever revolving within the attraction of the sun of
truth.
It was formed to assist in showing to men that such a thing as Theosophy
exists,
and to help them to ascend towards it by studying and assimilating its
eternal
verities.
Q.
I thought you said you had no tenets or doctrines of your own?
A.
No more we have. The Society has no wisdom of its own to support or teach. It
is simply the storehouse of all the truths uttered by the great seers,
initiates,
and prophets of historic and even prehistoric ages; at least, as many
as
it can get. Therefore, it is merely the channel through which more or less of
truth,
found in the accumulated utterances of humanity's great teachers, is
poured
out into the world.
Q.
But is such truth unreachable outside of the society? Does not every Church
claim
the same?
A.
Not at all. The undeniable existence of great initiates-true "Sons of
God"-shows
that such wisdom was often reached by isolated individuals, never,
however,
without the guidance of a master at first. But most of the followers of
such,
when they became masters in their turn, have dwarfed the Catholicism of
these
teachings into the narrow groove of their own sectarian dogmas. The
commandments
of a chosen master alone were then adopted and followed, to the exclusion of
all others-if followed at all, note well, as in the case of the
Sermon
on the Mount. Each religion is thus a bit of the divine truth, made to
focus
a vast panorama of human fancy which claimed to represent and replace that
truth.
Q.
But Theosophy, you say, is not a religion?
A.
Most assuredly it is not, since it is the essence of all religion and of
absolute
truth, a drop of which only underlies every creed. To resort once more
to
metaphor. Theosophy, on earth, is like the white ray of the spectrum, and
every
religion only one of the seven prismatic colors. Ignoring all the others,
and
cursing them as false, every special colored ray claims not only priority,
but
to be that white ray itself, and anathematizes even its own tints from light
to
dark, as heresies. Yet, as the sun of truth rises higher and higher on the
horizon
of man's perception, and each colored ray gradually fades out until it
is
finally reabsorbed in its turn, humanity will at last be cursed no longer
with
artificial polarizations, but will find itself bathing in the pure
colorless
sunlight of eternal truth. And this will be Theosophia.
Q.
Your claim is, then, that all the great religions are derived from Theosophy,
and
that it is by assimilating it that the world will be finally saved from the
curse
of its great illusions and errors?
A.
Precisely so. And we add that our Theosophical Society is the humble seed
which,
if watered and left to live, will finally produce the Tree of Knowledge
of
Good and Evil which is grafted on the Tree of Life Eternal. For it is only by
studying
the various great religions and philosophies of humanity, by comparing
them
dispassionately and with an unbiased mind, that men can hope to arrive at
the
truth. It is especially by finding out and noting their various points of
agreement
that we may achieve this result. For no sooner do we arrive-either by
study,
or by being taught by someone who knows-at their inner meaning, than we find,
almost in every case, that it expresses some great truth in Nature.
Q.
We have heard of a Golden Age that was, and what you describe would be a
Golden
Age to be realized at some future day. When shall it be?
A.
Not before humanity, as a whole, feels the need of it. A maxim in the Persian
Javidan
Khirad says:
Truth
is of two kinds-one manifest and self-evident; the other demanding
incessantly
new demonstrations and proofs.
It
is only when this latter kind of truth becomes as universally obvious as it
is
now dim, and therefore liable to be distorted by sophistry and casuistry; it
is
only when the two kinds will have become once more one, that all people will
be
brought to see alike.
Q.
But surely those few who have felt the need of such truths must have made up
their minds to believe in something definite? You tell me that, the Society
having
no doctrines of its own, every member may believe as he chooses and
accept
what he pleases. This looks as if the Theosophical Society was bent upon
reviving the confusion of languages and beliefs of the
A.
What is meant by the Society having no tenets or doctrines of its own is,
that
no special doctrines or beliefs are obligatory on its members; but, of
course,
this applies only to the body as a whole. The Society, as you were told,
is
divided into an outer and an inner body. Those who belong to the latter have,
of
course, a philosophy, or-if you so prefer it-a religious system of their own.
Q.
May we be told what it is?
A.
We make no secret of it. It was outlined a few years ago in The Theosophist
and
Esoteric Buddhism, and may be found still more elaborated in The Secret
Doctrine.
It is based on the oldest philosophy of the world, called the
Wisdom-Religion
or the Archaic Doctrine. If you like, you may ask questions and have them
explained.
The
Fundamental Teachings of Theosophy
On God and
Prayer
Q.
Do you believe in God?
A.
That depends what you mean by the term.
Q.
I mean the God of the Christians, the Father of Jesus, and the Creator: the
Biblical
God of Moses, in short.
A.
In such a God we do not believe. We reject the idea of a personal, or an
extra-cosmic
and anthropomorphic God, who is but the gigantic shadow of man, and not of man
at his best, either. The God of theology, we say-and prove it-is a bundle of
contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore, we will have nothing to
do with him.
Q.
State your reasons, if you please.
A.
They are many, and cannot all receive attention. But here are a few. This God
is
called by his devotees infinite and absolute, is he not?
Q.
I believe he is.
A.
Then, if infinite-i.e.,limitless-and especially if absolute, how can he have
a
form, and be a creator of anything? Form implies limitation, and a beginning
as
well as an end; and, in order to create, a Being must think and plan. How can
the
absolute be supposed to think-i.e.,to have any relation whatever to that
which
is limited, finite, and conditioned? This is a philosophical, and a
logical
absurdity. Even the Hebrew Cabala rejects such an idea, and therefore,
makes
of the one and the Absolute Deific Principle an infinite Unity called
Ain-Soph
*)
*)Ain-Soph
(Greek: toh pan, epeiros), the boundless or limitless, in and of
nature,
the non-existing that IS, but that is not a Being.
In
order to create, the Creator has to become active; and as this is impossible
for
absoluteness, the infinite principle had to be shown becoming the cause of
evolution
(not creation) in an indirect way-i.e., through the emanation from
itself
(another absurdity, due this time to the translators of the Cabala) of
the
Sephiroth.
How
can the non-active eternal principle emanate or emit? The Parabrahman of the
Vedantins does nothing of the kind; nor does the Ain-Soph of the Chaldean
Cabala.
It is an eternal and periodical law which causes an active and creative
force
(the logos) to emanate from the ever-concealed and incomprehensible one
principle
at the beginning of every Mah -Manvantara, or new cycle of life.
Q.
How about those Cabalists, who, while being such, still believe in Jehovah,
or
the Tetragrammaton?
A.
They are at liberty to believe in what they please, as their belief or
disbelief
can hardly affect a self-evident fact. The Jesuits tell us that two
and
two are not always four to a certainty, since it depends on the will of God
to
make 2 × 2 = 5. Shall we accept their sophistry for all that?
Q.
Then you are Atheists?
A.
Not that we know of, and not unless the epithet of "Atheist" is to be
applied
to
those who disbelieve in an anthropomorphic God. We believe in a Universal
Divine
Principle, the root of all, from which all proceeds, and within which all
shall
be absorbed at the end of the great cycle of Being.
Q.
This is the old, old claim of Pantheism. If you are Pantheists, you cannot be
Deists;
and if you are not Deists, then you have to answer to the name of
Atheists.
A.
Not necessarily so. The term Pantheism is again one of the many abused terms,
whose real and primitive meaning has been distorted by blind prejudice and a
one-sided view of it. If you accept the Christian etymology of this compound
word, and form it of pan , "all," and theos , "god," and then
imagine and teach that this means that every stone and every tree in Nature is
a God or the one God, then, of course, you will be right, and make of
Pantheists
fetish-worshippers,
in addition to their legitimate name. But you will hardly be
as
successful if you etymologize the word Pantheism esoterically, and as we do.
Q.
What is, then, your definition of it?
A.
Let me ask you a question in my turn. What do you understand by Pan, or
Nature?
Q.
Nature is, I suppose, the sum total of things existing around us; the
aggregate
of causes and effects in the world of matter, the creation or
universe.
A.
Hence the personified sum and order of known causes and effects; the total of
all finite agencies and forces, as utterly disconnected from an intelligent
Creator
or Creators, and perhaps "conceived of as a single and separate
force"-as
in your encyclopedias?
Q.
Yes, I believe so.
A.
Well, we neither take into consideration this objective and material nature,
which
we call an evanescent illusion, nor do we mean by Nature, in the sense of
its
accepted derivation from the Latin Natura(becoming, from nasci, to be born).
When
we speak of the Deity and make it identical, hence coeval, with Nature, the
eternal
and uncreate nature is meant, and not your aggregate of flitting shadows
and
finite unrealities. We leave it to the hymn-makers to call the visible sky
or
heaven, God's Throne, and our earth of mud His footstool. Our deity is
neither
in a paradise, nor in a particular tree, building, or mountain: it is
everywhere,
in every atom of the visible as of the invisible Cosmos, in, over,
and
around every invisible atom and divisible molecule; for it is the mysterious
power
of evolution and involution, the omnipresent, omnipotent, and even
omniscient
creative potentiality.
Q.
Stop! Omniscience is the prerogative of something that thinks, and you deny
to
your Absoluteness the power of thought.
A.
We deny it to the absolute, since thought is something limited and
conditioned.
But you evidently forget that in philosophy absolute
unconsciousness
is also absolute consciousness, as otherwise it would not be
absolute.
Q.
Then your Absolute thinks?
A.
No, it does not; for the simple reason that it is Absolute Thought itself.
Nor
does it exist, for the same reason, as it is absolute existence, and
Be-ness,
not a Being. Read the superb Cabalistic poem by Solomon Ben Jehudah Gabirol, in
the Kether-Malchut, and you will understand:
Thou
art one, the root of all numbers, but not as an element of numeration; for
unity
admits not of multiplication, change, or form.
Thou
art one, and in the secret of Thy unity the wisest of men are lost, because
they
know it not.
Thou
art one, and Thy unity is never diminished, never extended, and cannot be
changed.
Thou
art one, and no thought of mine can fix for Thee a limit, or define Thee.
Thou
art, but not as one existent, for the understanding and vision of mortals
cannot
attain to Thy existence, nor determine for Thee the where, the how and
the
why …
In
short, our Deity is the eternal, incessantly evolving, not creating, builder
of
the universe; that universe itself unfolding out of its own essence, not
being
made. It is a sphere, without circumference, in its symbolism, which has
but
one ever-acting attribute embracing all other existing or thinkable
attributes-itself.
It is the one law, giving the impulse to manifested, eternal,
and
immutable laws, within that never-manifesting, because absolute law, which
in
its manifesting periods is The ever-Becoming.
Q.
I once heard one of your members remarking that Universal Deity, being
everywhere,
was in vessels of dishonor, as in those of honor, and, therefore,
was
present in every atom of my cigar ash! Is this not rank blasphemy?
A.
I do not think so, as simple logic can hardly be regarded as blasphemy. Were
we
to exclude the Omnipresent Principle from one single mathematical point of
the
universe, or from a particle of matter occupying any conceivable space,
could
we still regard it as infinite?
Is it
Necessary to Pray?
Q.
Do you believe in prayer, and do you ever pray?
A.
We do not. We act, instead of talking.
Q.
You do not offer prayers even to the Absolute Principle?
A.
Why should we? Being well-occupied people, we can hardly afford to lose time in
addressing verbal prayers to a pure abstraction. The Unknowable is capable of
relations only in its parts to each other, but is non-existent as regards any
finite relations. The visible universe depends for its existence and phenomena
on its mutually acting forms and their laws, not on prayer or prayers.
Q.
Do you not believe at all in the efficacy of prayer?
A.
Not in prayer taught in so many words and repeated externally, if by prayer
you
mean the outward petition to an unknown God as the addressee, which was
inaugurated
by the Jews and popularized by the Pharisees.
Q.
Is there any other kind of prayer?
A.
Most decidedly; we call it will-prayer, and it is rather an internal command
than
a petition.
Q.
To whom, then, do you pray when you do so?
A.
To "our Father in heaven"-in its esoteric meaning.
Q.
Is that different from the one given to it in theology?
A.
Entirely so. An Occultist or a Theosophist addresses his prayer to his Father
which
is in secret, not to an extra-cosmic and therefore finite God; and that
"Father"
is in man himself.
Q.
Then you make of man a God?
A.
Please say "God" and not a God. In our sense, the inner man is the
only God
we
can have cognizance of. And how can this be otherwise? Grant us our postulate
that God is a universally diffused, infinite principle, and how can man alone
escape from being soaked through by, and in, the Deity? We call our
"Father in heaven" that deific essence of which we are cognizant
within us, in our heart and spiritual consciousness, and which has nothing to
do with the
anthropomorphic
conception we may form of it in our physical brain or its fancy:
"Know
ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of (the
absolute)
God dwelleth in you?"
One
often finds in Theosophical writings conflicting statements about the
Christos
principle in man. Some call it the sixth principle (Buddhi), others the
seventh
(Atma).
If
Christian Theosophists wish to make use of such expressions,
let
them be made philosophically correct by following the analogy of the old
Wisdom-Religion
symbols. We say that Christos is not only one of the three
higher
principles, but all the three regarded as a Trinity. This Trinity
represents
the Holy Ghost, the Father, and the Son, as it answers to abstract
spirit,
differentiated spirit, and embodied spirit. Krishna and Christ are
philosophically
the same principle under its triple aspect of manifestation. In
the
Bhagavad-Gita we find Krishna calling himself indifferently Atma, the
abstract
Spirit, Kshetrajña, the Higher or reincarnating Ego, and the Universal
Self,
all names which, when transferred from the Universe to man, answer to
Atma,
Buddhi, and Manas. The Anugita is full of the same doctrine.
Yet,
let no man anthropomorphize that essence in us. Let no Theosophist, if he
would
hold to divine, not human truth, say that this "God in secret"
listens to,
or
is distinct from, either finite man or the infinite essence-for all are one.
Nor,
as just remarked, that a prayer is a petition. It is a mystery rather; an
occult
process by which finite and conditioned thoughts and desires, unable to
be
assimilated by the absolute spirit which is unconditioned, are translated
into
spiritual wills and the will; such process being called "spiritual
transmutation."
The intensity of our ardent aspirations changes prayer into the
"philosopher's
stone," or that which transmutes lead into pure gold. The only
homogeneous
essence, our "will-prayer" becomes the active or creative force,
producing
effects according to our desire.
Q.
Do you mean to say that prayer is an occult process bringing about physical
results?
A.
I do. Will-Power becomes a living power. But woe unto those Occultists and
Theosophists,
who, instead of crushing out the desires of the lower personal ego or physical
man, and saying, addressing their Higher Spiritual Ego immersed in Atma-Buddhic
light, "Thy will be done, not mine," etc., send up waves of
will-power
for selfish or unholy purposes! For this is black magic, abomination,
and
spiritual sorcery. Unfortunately, all this is the favorite occupation of our
Christian
statesmen and generals, especially when the latter are sending two
armies
to murder each other. Both indulge before action in a bit of such
sorcery,
by offering respectively prayers to the same God of Hosts, each
entreating
his help to cut its enemies' throats.
Q.
David prayed to the Lord of Hosts to help him smite the Philistines and slay
the
Syrians and the Moabites, and "the Lord preserved David whithersoever he
went."
In that we only follow what we find in the Bible.
A.
Of course you do. But since you delight in calling yourselves Christians, not
Israelites
or Jews, as far as we know, why do you not rather follow that which
Christ
says? And he distinctly commands you not to follow "them of old
times,"
or
the Mosaic law, but bids you do as he tells you, and warns those who would
kill
by the sword, that they, too, will perish by the sword. Christ has given
you
one prayer of which you have made a lip prayer and a boast, and which none but
the true Occultist understands. In it you say, in your dead-sense meaning:
"Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors," which you never
do. Again, he told you to love your enemies and do good to them that hate you.
It
is surely not the "meek prophet of
Q.
But how do you explain the universal fact that all nations and peoples have
prayed
to, and worshiped a God or Gods? Some have adored and propitiated devils and
harmful spirits, but this only proves the universality of the belief in the
efficacy
of prayer.
A.
It is explained by that other fact that prayer has several other meanings
besides
that given it by the Christians. It means not only a pleading or
petition,
but meant, in days of old, far more an invocation and incantation. The
mantra,
or the rhythmically chanted prayer of the Hindus, has precisely such a
meaning,
as the Brahmins hold themselves higher than the common devas or
"Gods."
A
prayer may be an appeal or an incantation for malediction, and a curse (as in
the
case of two armies praying simultaneously for mutual destruction) as much as
for blessing. And as the great majority of people are intensely selfish, and
pray
only for themselves, asking to be given their "daily bread" instead
of
working
for it, and begging God not to lead them "into temptation" but to
deliver
them (the memorialists only) from evil, the result is, that prayer, as
now
understood, is doubly pernicious: (a) It kills in man self-reliance; (b) It
develops
in him a still more ferocious selfishness and egotism than he is
already
endowed with by nature. I repeat, that we believe in "communion" and
simultaneous
action in unison with our "Father in secret"; and in rare moments
of
ecstatic bliss, in the mingling of our higher soul with the universal
essence,
attracted as it is towards its origin and center, a state, called
during
life Samadhi, and after death, Nirvana. We refuse to pray to created
finite
beings-i.e., gods, saints, angels, etc., because we regard it as
idolatry.
We cannot pray to the absolute for reasons explained before;
therefore,
we try to replace fruitless and useless prayer by meritorious and
good-producing
actions.
Q.
Christians would call it pride and blasphemy. Are they wrong?
A.
Entirely so. It is they, on the contrary, who show Satanic pride in their
belief
that the Absolute or the Infinite, even if there was such a thing as the
possibility
of any relation between the unconditioned and the conditioned-will
stoop
to listen to every foolish or egotistical prayer. And it is they again,
who
virtually blaspheme, in teaching that an Omniscient and Omnipotent God needs
uttered prayers to know what he has to do! This-understood esoterically-is
corroborated by both Buddha and Jesus. The one says:
Seek
nought from the helpless Gods-pray not! but rather act; for darkness will
not
brighten. Ask nought from silence, for it can neither speak nor hear.
And
the other-Jesus-recommends:
"Whatsoever
ye shall ask in my name (that of
Christos)
that will I do."
Of
course, this quotation, if taken in its literal sense, goes against our
argument. But if we accept it esoterically, with the full knowledge of the meaning
of the term Christos which to us represents Atma-Buddhi-Manas, the
"self," it comes to this: the only God we must recognize and pray to,
or rather act in unison with, is that spirit of God of which our body is the
temple, and in which it dwelleth.
Prayer Kills
Self-Reliance
Q.
But did not Christ himself pray and recommend prayer?
A.
It is so recorded, but those "prayers" are precisely of that kind of
communion
just mentioned with one's "Father in secret." Otherwise, and if we
identify
Jesus with the universal deity, there would be something too absurdly
illogical
in the inevitable conclusion that he, the "very God himself" prayed
to
himself,
and separated the will of that God from his own!
Q.
One argument more; an argument, moreover, much used by some Christians. They
say,
I
feel that I am not able to conquer any passions and weaknesses in my own
strength.
But when I pray to Jesus Christ I feel that he gives me strength and
that
in His power I am able to conquer.
A.
No wonder. If "Christ Jesus" is God, and one independent and separate
from
him
who prays, of course everything is, and must be possible to "a mighty
God." But, then, where's the merit, or justice either, of such a conquest?
Why should the pseudo-conqueror be rewarded for something done which has cost
him only prayers? Would you, even a simple mortal man, pay your laborer a full
day's wage if you did most of his work for him, he sitting under an apple tree,
and praying to you to do so, all the while? This idea of passing one's whole
life in moral idleness, and having one's hardest work and duty done by
another-whether God or man-is most revolting to us, as it is most degrading to
human dignity.
Q.
Perhaps so, yet it is the idea of trusting in a personal Savior to help and
strengthen
in the battle of life, which is the fundamental idea of modern
Christianity.
And there is no doubt that, subjectively, such belief is
efficacious;
i.e., that those who believe do feel themselves helped and
strengthened.
A.
Nor is there any more doubt, that some patients of "Christian" and
"Mental
Scientists"-the
great "Deniers"-are also sometimes cured; nor that hypnotism,
and
suggestion, psychology, and even mediumship, will produce such results, as
often,
if not oftener. You take into consideration, and string on the thread of
your
argument, successes alone. And how about ten times the number of failures?
Surely
you will not presume to say that failure is unknown even with a
sufficiency
of blind faith, among fanatical Christians?
Q.
But how can you explain those cases which are followed by full success? Where
does a Theosophist look to for power to subdue his passions and selfishness?
A.
To his Higher Self, the divine spirit, or the God in him, and to his Karma.
How
long shall we have to repeat over and over again that the tree is known by
its
fruit, the nature of the cause by its effects? You speak of subduing
passions,
and becoming good through and with the help of God or Christ. We ask, where do
you find more virtuous, guiltless people, abstaining from sin and
crime,
in Christendom or Buddhism-in Christian countries or in heathen lands?
Statistics
are there to give the answer and corroborate our claims. According to
the
last census in
committed
by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Eurasians, Buddhists, etc., etc., on
two
millions of population taken at random from each, and covering the
misdemeanors
of several years, the proportion of crimes committed by the
Christian
stands as 15 to 4 as against those committed by the Buddhist
population.
No Orientalist, no historian of any note, or traveler in Buddhist
lands,
from Bishop Bigandet and Abbé Huc, to Sir William Hunter and every
fair-minded
official, will fail to give the palm of virtue to Buddhists before
Christians.
Yet the former (not the true Buddhist Siamese sect, at all events)
do
not believe in either God or a future reward, outside of this earth. They do
not
pray, neither priests nor laymen. "Pray!" they would exclaim in
wonder, "to
whom,
or what?"
Q.
Then they are truly Atheists.
A.
Most undeniably, but they are also the most virtue-loving and virtue-keeping
men
in the whole world. Buddhism says: Respect the religions of other men and
remain
true to your own; but Church Christianity, denouncing all the gods of
other
nations as devils, would doom every non-Christian to eternal perdition.
Q.
Does not the Buddhist priesthood do the same?
A.
Never. They hold too much to the wise precept found in the Dhammapada to do so,
for they know that,
If
any man, whether he be learned or not, consider himself so great as to
despise
other men, he is like a blind man holding a candle-blind himself, he
illumines
others.
On the Source
of the Human Soul
Q.
How, then, do you account for man being endowed with a Spirit and Soul?
Whence
these?
A.
From the Universal Soul. Certainly not bestowed by a personal God. Whence the
moist element in the jelly-fish? From the Ocean which surrounds it, in which it
lives and breathes and has its being, and whither it returns when dissolved.
Q.
So you reject the teaching that Soul is given, or breathed into man, by God?
A.
We are obliged to. The "Soul" spoken of in Genesis is, as therein
stated, the
"living
Soul" or Nephesh (the vital,animal soul) with which God (we say
"nature"
and
immutable law) endows man like every animal. Is not at all the thinking soul
or
mind; least of all is it the immortal Spirit.
Q.
Well, let us put it otherwise: is it God who endows man with a human rational
Soul
and immortal Spirit?
A.
Again, in the way you put the question, we must object to it. Since we
believe
in nopersonal God, how can we believe that he endows man with anything?
But
granting, for the sake of argument, a God who takes upon himself the risk of
creating
a new Soul for every new-born baby, all that can be said is that such a
God
can hardly be regarded as himself endowed with any wisdom or prevision.
Certain
other difficulties and the impossibility of reconciling this with the
claims
made for the mercy, justice, equity and omniscience of that God, are so
many
deadly reefs on which this theological dogma is daily and hourly broken.
Q.
What do you mean? What difficulties?
A.
I am thinking of an unanswerable argument offered once in my presence by a
Singhalese
Buddhist priest, a famous preacher, to a Christian missionary-one in
no
way ignorant or unprepared for the public discussion during which it was
advanced.
It was near
Megattivati
to give his reasons why the Christian God should not be accepted by
the
"heathen." Well, the Missionary came out of that forever memorable
discussion
second best, as usual.
Q.
I should be glad to learn in what way.
A.
Simply this: the Buddhist priest premised by asking the padre whether his God
had given commandments to Moses only for men to keep, but to be broken by God
himself. The missionary denied the supposition indignantly. Well, said his
opponent,
…
you tell us that God makes no exceptions to this rule, and that no Soul can be
born without his will. Now God forbids adultery, among other things, and yet
you say in the same breath that it is he who creates every baby born, and he
who
endows
it with a Soul. Are we then to understand that the millions of children
born
in crime and adultery are your God's work? That your God forbids and
punishes
the breaking of his laws; and that, nevertheless, he creates daily and
hourly
souls for just such children? According to the simplest logic, your God
is
an accomplice in the crime; since, but for his help and interference, no such
children
of lust could be born. Where is the justice of punishing not only the
guilty
parents but even the innocent babe for that which is done by that very
God,
whom yet you exonerate from any guilt himself?
The
missionary looked at his watch and suddenly found it was getting too late
for
further discussion.
Q.
You forget that all such inexplicable cases are mysteries, and that we are
forbidden
by our religion to pry into the mysteries of God.
A.
No, we do not forget, but simply reject such impossibilities. Nor do we want
you
to believe as we do. We only answer the questions you ask. We have, however,
another name for your "mysteries."
The Buddhist
Teachings on the Above
Q.
What does Buddhism teach with regard to the Soul?
A.
It depends whether you mean exoteric, popular Buddhism, or its esoteric
teachings.
The former explains itself in The Buddhist Catechism in this wise:
Soul
it considers a word used by the ignorant to express a false idea. If
everything
is subject to change, then man is included, and every material part
of
him must change. That which is subject to change is not permanent, so there
can
be no immortal survival of a changeful thing.
This
seems plain and definite. But when we come to the question that the new
personality
in each succeeding rebirth is the aggregate of "Skandhas," or the
attributes,
of the old personality, and ask whether this new aggregation of
Skandhas
is a new being likewise, in which nothing has remained of the last, we
read
that:
In
one sense it is a new being, in another it is not. During this life the
Skandhas
are continually changing, while the man A.B. of forty is identical as
regards
personality with the youth A.B. of eighteen, yet by the continual waste
and
reparation of his body and change of mind and character, he is a different
being.
Nevertheless, the man in his old age justly reaps the reward or suffering
consequent
upon his thoughts and actions at every previous stage of his life. So
the
new being of the rebirth, being the same individuality as before (but not
the
same personality), with but a changed form, or new aggregation of
Skandhas,justly
reaps the consequences of his actions and thoughts in the
previous
existence.
This
is abstruse metaphysics, and plainly does not express disbelief in Soul by
any
means.
Q.
Is not something like this spoken of in Esoteric Buddhism?
A.
It is, for this teaching belongs both to Esoteric Budhism or Secret Wisdom,
and
to the exoteric Buddhism, or the religious philosophy of Gautama Buddha.
Q.
But we are distinctly told that most of the Buddhists do not believe in the
Soul's
immortality?
A.No
more do we, if you mean by Soul the personal Ego, or life-Soul-Nephesh.But
every learned Buddhist believes in the individual or divine Ego.
Those
who do not, err in their judgment. They are as mistaken on this point, as those
Christians who mistake the theological interpolations of the later editors of
the
Gospels about damnation and hellfire, for verbatim utterances of Jesus.
Neither
Buddha nor "Christ" ever wrote anything themselves, but both spoke in
allegories
and used "dark sayings," as all true Initiates did, and will do for a
long
time yet to come. Both Scriptures treat of all such metaphysical questions
very
cautiously, and both, Buddhist and Christian records, sin by that excess of
exotericism;
the dead letter meaning far overshooting the mark in both cases.
Q.
Do you mean to suggest that neither the teachings of Buddha nor those of
Christ
have been heretofore rightly understood?
A.
What I mean is just as you say. Both Gospels, the Buddhist and the Christian,
were preached with the same object in view. Both reformers were ardent
philanthropists and practical altruists-preaching most unmistakably Socialism
of the noblest and highest type, self-sacrifice to the bitter end. "Let
the sins of the whole world fall upon me that I may relieve man's misery and
suffering!" cries Buddha. "I would not let one cry whom I could
save!" exclaims the Prince-beggar, clad in the refuse rags of the
burial-grounds. "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I
will give you rest," is the appeal to
the
poor and the disinherited made by the "Man of Sorrows," who hath not
where to lay his head. The teachings of both are boundless love for humanity,
charity, forgiveness of injury, forgetfulness of self, and pity for the deluded
masses; both show the same contempt for riches, and make no difference between
meum and tuum.
Their
desire was, without revealing to all the sacred mysteries of
initiation,
to give the ignorant and the misled, whose burden in life was too
heavy
for them, hope enough and an inkling into the truth sufficient to support
them
in their heaviest hours. But the object of both Reformers was frustrated,
owing
to excess of zeal of their later followers. The words of the Masters
having
been misunderstood and misinterpreted, behold the consequences!
Q.
But surely Buddha must have repudiated the soul's immortality, if all the
Orientalists
and his own Priests say so!
A.
The Arhats began by following the policy of their Master and the majority of
the
subsequent priests were not initiated, just as in Christianity; and so,
little
by little, the great esoteric truths became almost lost. A proof in point
is,
that, out of the two existing sects in
be
the absolute annihilation of individuality and personality, and the other
explains
Nirvana, as we Theosophists do.
Q.
But why, in that case, do Buddhism and Christianity represent the two
opposite
poles of such belief?
A.
Because the conditions under which they were preached were not the same. In
every
caste save their own, had driven millions of men into idolatry and almost
fetishism.
Buddha had to give the death-blow to an exuberance of unhealthy fancy and
fanatical superstition resulting from ignorance, such as has rarely been
known
before or after. Better a philosophical atheism than such ignorant worship
for
those: Who cry upon their gods and are not heard,
Or
are not heeded …
-and
who live and die in mental despair. He had to arrest first of all this
muddy
torrent of superstition, to uprooterrors before he gave out the truth. And
as
he could not give out all, for the same good reason as Jesus, who remindshis
disciples
that the Mysteries of Heaven are not for the unintelligent masses, but
for
the elect alone, and therefore "spake he to them in parables"-so his
caution
led
Buddhato conceal too much. He even refused to say to the monk Vacchagotta
whether there was, or was not an Ego in man. When pressed to answer, "the
Exalted one maintained silence."
Buddha
gives to Ananda, his initiated disciple, who inquires for the reason of
this
silence, a plain and unequivocal answer in the dialogue translated by
If
I, Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me: "Is there the
Ego?" had answered "The Ego is," then that, Ananda, would have
confirmed the doctrine of the Samanas and Brahmans, who believed in permanence.
If I, Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me, "Is there not
the Ego?" had answered, "The Ego is not," then that, Ananda,
would have confirmed the doctrine of those who believed in annihilation. If I,
Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me, "Is there the
Ego?" had answered, "The Ego is," would that have served my end,
Ananda, by producing in him the knowledge: all existences (dhamma) are non-ego?
But if I, Ananda, had answered, "The Ego is not," then that, Ananda,
would only have caused the wandering monk Vacchagotta to be thrown from one
bewilderment to another: "My Ego, did it not exist before? But now it
exists no longer!"
This
shows, better than anything, that Gautama Buddha withheld such difficult
metaphysical
doctrines from the masses in order not to perplex them more. What he meant was
the difference between the personal temporary Ego and the Higher Self, which
sheds its light on the imperishable Ego, the spiritual "I" of man.
Q.
This refers to Gautama, but in what way does it touch the Gospels?
A.
Read history and think over it. At the time the events narrated in the
Gospels
are alleged to have happened, there was a similar intellectual
fermentation
taking place in the whole civilized world, only with opposite
results
in the East and the West. The old gods were dying out. While the
civilized
classes drifted in the train of the unbelieving Sadducees into
materialistic
negations and mere dead-letter Mosaic form in
moral
dissolution in
strange
gods, or became hypocrites and Pharisees. Once more the time for a
spiritual
reform had arrived. The cruel, anthropomorphic and jealous God of the
Jews,
with his sanguinary laws of "an eye for eye and tooth for tooth," of
the
shedding
of blood and animal sacrifice, had to be relegated to a secondary place
and
replaced by the merciful "Father in Secret." The latter had to be
shown, not
as
an extra-Cosmic God, but as a divine Savior of the man of flesh, enshrined in
his
own heart and soul, in the poor as in the rich. No more here than in India,
could
the secrets of initiation be divulged, lest by giving that which is holy
to
the dogs, and casting pearls before swine, both the Revealer and the things
revealed
should be trodden under foot. Thus, the reticence of both Buddha and
Jesus-whether
the latter lived out the historic period allotted to him or not,
and
who equally abstained from revealing plainly the Mysteries of Life and
Death-led
in the one case to the blank negations of Southern Buddhism, and in
the
other, to the three clashing forms of the Christian Church and the 300 sects
in
Protestant England alone.
Theosophical Teachings
as to Nature and Man
The Unity of
All in All
Q.
Having told me what God, the Soul and Man are not, in your views, can you
inform
me what they are, according to your teachings?
A.
In their origin and in eternity the three, like the universe and all therein,
are
one with the absolute Unity, the unknowable deific essence I spoke about
some
time back. We believe in no creation, but in the periodical and consecutive
appearances
of the universe from the subjective onto the objective plane of
being,
at regular intervals of time, covering periods of immense duration.
Q.
Can you elaborate the subject?
A.
Take as a first comparison and a help towards a more correct conception, the
solar year, and as a second, the two halves of that year, producing each a day
and a night of six months' duration at the North Pole. Now imagine, if you can,
instead of a Solar year of 365 days, eternity. Let the sun represent the
universe,
and the polar days and nights of six months each-days and nights
lasting
each 182 trillions and quadrillions of years, instead of 182 days each.
As
the sun arises every morning on our objective horizon out of its (to us)
subjective
and antipodal space, so does the Universe emerge periodically on the
plane
of objectivity, issuing from that of subjectivity-the antipodes of the
former.
This is the "Cycle of Life." And as the sun disappears from our
horizon,
so
does the Universe disappear at regular periods, when the "Universal
night"
sets
in. The Hindus call such alternations the "Days and Nights of Brahm
," or
the
time of Manvantara and that of Pralaya (dissolution). The Westerns may call
them
Universal Days and Nights if they prefer. During the latter (the nights)
All
is in All; every atom is resolved into one Homogeneity.
Evolution and
Illusion
Q.
But who is it that creates each time the Universe?
A.
No one creates it. Science would call the process evolution; the
pre-Christian
philosophers and the Orientalists called it emanation: we,
Occultists
and Theosophists, see in it the only universal and eternal reality
casting
a periodical reflection of itself on the infinite Spatial depths. This
reflection,
which you regard as the objective materialuniverse, we consider as a
temporary
illusion and nothing else. That alone which is eternal is real.
Q.
At that rate, you and I are also illusions.
A.
As flitting personalities, today one person, tomorrow another-we are. Would
you
call the sudden flashes of the aurora borealis, the Northern lights, a
"reality,"
though it is as real as can be while you look at it? Certainly not;
it
is the cause that produces it, if permanent and eternal, which is the only
reality,
while the other is but a passing illusion.
Q.
All this does not explain to me how this illusion called the universe
originates;
how the conscious to be, proceeds to manifest itself from the
unconsciousness
that is.
A.
It is unconsciousnessonly to our finite consciousness. Verily may we
paraphrase
…
and (Absolute) light (which is darkness) shineth in darkness (which is
illusionary
material light); and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
This
absolute light is also absolute and immutable law. Whether by radiation or
emanation-we
need not quarrel over terms-the universe passes out of its
homogeneous
subjectivity onto the first plane of manifestation, of which planes
there
are seven, we are taught. With each plane it becomes more dense and
material
until it reaches this, our plane, on which the only world approximately
known
and understood in its physical composition by Science, is the planetary or
Solar system-one sui generis,we are told.
Q.
What do you mean bysui generis?
A.
I mean that, though the fundamental law and the universal working of laws of
Nature
are uniform, still our Solar system (like every other such system in the
millions
of others in Cosmos) and even our Earth, has its own program of
manifestations
differing from the respective programs of all others. We speak of
the
inhabitants of other planets and imagine that if they are men, i.e.,
thinking
entities, they must be as we are. The fancy of poets and painters and
sculptors
never fails to represent even the angels as a beautiful copy of
man-plus
wings. We say that all this is an error and a delusion; because, if on
this
little earth alone one finds such a diversity in its flora, fauna, and
mankind-from
the seaweed to the cedar of Lebanon, from the jellyfish to the
elephant,
from the Bushman and negro to the Apollo Belvedere-alter the
conditions
cosmic and planetary, and there must be as a result quite a different
flora,
fauna, and mankind. The same laws will fashion quite a different set of
things
and beings even on this our plane, including in it all our planets. How
much
more different then must be externalnature in other Solar systems, and how
foolish is it to judge of other stars and worlds and human beings by our own,
as physical science does!
Q.
But what are your data for this assertion?
A.
What science in general will never accept as proof-the cumulative testimony
of
an endless series of Seers who have testified to this fact. Their spiritual
visions,
real explorations by, and through, physical and spiritual senses
untrammeled
by blind flesh, were systematically checked and compared one with the other, and
their nature sifted. All that was not corroborated by unanimous and collective
experience was rejected, while that only was recorded as established truth
which, in various ages, under different climes, and throughout an untold series
of incessant observations, was found to agree and receive constantly further
corroboration. The methods used by our scholars and students of the
psycho-spiritual sciences do not differ from those of students of the natural
and physical sciences, as you may see. Only our fields of research are on two
different planes, and our instruments are made by no human hands, for which
reason perchance they are only the more reliable. The retorts,
accumulators,
and microscopes of the chemist and naturalist may get out of
order;
the telescope and the astronomer's horological instruments may get
spoiled;
our recording instruments are beyond the influence of weather or the
elements.
Q.
And therefore you have implicit faith in them?
A.
Faith is a word not to be found in theosophical dictionaries: we say
knowledge
based, on observation and experience. There is this difference,
however,
that while the observation and experience of physical science lead the
Scientists
to about as many "working" hypotheses as there are minds to evolve
them,
our knowledgeconsents to add to its lore only those facts which have
become
undeniable, and which are fully and absolutely demonstrated. We have no two
beliefs or hypotheses on the same subject.
Q.
Is it on such data that you came to accept the strange theories we find in
Esoteric
Buddhism?
A.
Just so. These theories may be slightly incorrect in their minor details, and
even
faulty in their exposition by lay students; they are facts in nature,
nevertheless,
and come nearer the truth than any scientific hypothesis.
On The
Septenary Constitution of Our Planet
Q.
I understand that you describe our earth as forming part of a chain of
earths?
A.
We do. But the other six "earths" or globes, are not on the same
plane of
objectivity
as our earth is; therefore we cannot see them.
Q.
Is that on account of the great distance?
A.
Not at all, for we see with our naked eye planets and even stars at
immeasurably
greater distances; but it is owing to those six globes being
outside
our physical means of perception, or plane of being. It is not only that
their
material density, weight, or fabric are entirely different from those of
our
earth and the other known planets; but they are (to us) on an entirely
different
layer of space, so to speak; a layer not to be perceived or felt by
our
physical senses. And when I say "layer," please do not allow your
fancy to
suggest
to you layers like strata or beds laid one over the other, for this
would
only lead to another absurd misconception. What I mean by "layer" is
that plane of infinite space which by its nature cannot fall under our ordinary
waking
perceptions, whether mental or physical; but which exists in nature
outside
of our normal mentality or consciousness, outside of our
three-dimensional
space, and outside of our division of time. Each of the seven
fundamental
planes (or layers) in space-of course as a whole, as the pure space
of
Locke's definition, not as our finite space-has its own objectivity and
subjectivity,
its own space and time, its own consciousness and set of senses.
But
all this will be hardly comprehensible to one trained in the modern ways of
thought.
Q.
What do you mean by a different set of senses? Is there anything on our human
plane that you could bring as an illustration of what you say, just to give a
clearer
idea of what you may mean by this variety of senses, spaces, and
respective
perceptions?
A.
None; except, perhaps, that which for Science would be rather a handy peg on
which to hang a counter argument. We have a different set of senses in
dreamlife,
have we not? We feel, talk, hear, see, taste and function in general
on
a different plane; the change of state of our consciousness being evidenced
by
the fact that a series of acts and events embracing years, as we think, pass
ideally
through our mind in one instant. Well, that extreme rapidity of our
mental
operations in dreams, and the perfect naturalness, for the time being, of
all
the other functions, show us that we are on quite another plane. Our
philosophy
teaches us that, as there are seven fundamental forces in nature, and
seven
planes of being, so there are seven states of consciousness in which man
can
live, think, remember and have his being. To enumerate these here is
impossible,
and for this one has to turn to the study of Eastern metaphysics.
But
in these two states-the waking and the dreaming-every ordinary mortal, from
a
learned philosopher down to a poor untutored savage, has a good proof that
such
states differ.
Q.
You do not accept, then, the well-known explanations of biology and
physiology
to account for the dream state?
A.
We do not. We reject even the hypotheses of your psychologists, preferring
the
teachings of Eastern Wisdom. Believing in seven planes of Kosmic being and
states of Consciousness, with regard to the Universe or the Macrocosm, we stop
at the fourth plane, finding it impossible to go with any degree of certainty
beyond.
But with respect to the Microcosm, or man, we speculate freely on his
seven
states and principles.
Q.
How do you explain these?
A.
We find, first of all, two distinct beings in man; the spiritual and the
physical,
the man who thinks, and the man who records as much of these thoughts as he is
able to assimilate. Therefore we divide him into two distinct natures; the
upper or the spiritual being, composed of three principles or aspects; and the
lower or the physical quaternary, composed of four-in all seven.
The Septenary
Nature of Man
Q.
Is it what we call Spirit and Soul, and the man of flesh?
A.
It is not. That is the old Platonic division. Plato was an Initiate, and
therefore
could not go into forbidden details; but he who is acquainted with the
archaic
doctrine finds the seven in Plato's various combinations of Soul and
Spirit.
He regarded man as constituted of two parts-one eternal, formed of the
same
essence as the Absoluteness, the other mortal and corruptible, deriving its
constituent
parts from theminor "created" Gods. Man is composed, he shows, of
(1)
A mortal body,
(2)
An immortal principle,
(3)
A "separate mortal kind of Soul." It is that which we respectively
call the physical man, the Spiritual Soul or Spirit, and the animal Soul (the
Nous and psuche).
This
is the division adopted by Paul, another Initiate, who maintains that there is
a psychical body which is sown in the corruptible (astral soul or body), and a
spiritual body that is raised in incorruptible substance. Even James
corroborates the same by saying that the "wisdom" (of our lower soul)
descendeth not from the above, but is terrestrial ("psychical,"
"demoniacal," see the Greek text) while the other is heavenly wisdom.
Now so plain is it that Plato and even Pythagoras, while speaking but of three
principles, give them seven separate functions, in their various combinations,
that if we contrast our teachings this will become quite plain. Let us take a
cursory view of these seven aspects by drawing two tables.
Theosophical
Division of the Lower Quaternary
Sanskrit
Term Exoteric Meaning Explanation
1.Rupa,
or Sthula-sarira Physical body Is the vehicle of all the
other
principles during life.
1.Prana
Life, or Vital principle Necessary only to a, c,
d,
and the functions of the lower Manas, which
embrace
all those limited to the (physical) brain.
(c)
Linga- sarira Astral Body The Double,the phantom body.
(d)
Kamarupa The seat of animal desires and passions This is the center of the
animal
man, where lies the line of demarcation which separates the mortal man
from
the immortal entity.
Theosophical
Division of the Upper Imperishable Triad
Sanskrit
Term Exoteric Meaning Explanation
(e)
Manas-a dual principle in its functions. Mind, Intelligence: which is the
higher
human mind, whose light, or radiation links the Monad, for the lifetime,
to
the mortal man. The future state and the Karmic destiny of man depend on
whether
Manas gravitates more downward to Kamarupa, the seat of the animal
passions,
or upwards to Buddhi, the SpiritualEgo. In the later case, the higher
consciousness
of the individual Spiritual aspirations of mind (Manas),
assimilating
Buddhi, are absorbed by it and form the Ego, which goes into
Devachanic
bliss.
(f)
Buddhi The Spiritual Soul The vehicle of pure universal spirit.
(g)
Atma Spirit One with the Absolute, as its radiation.
In
Mr. Sinnett's Esoteric Buddhism d, e, and f, are respectively called the
Animal,
the Human, and the Spiritual Souls, which answers as well. Though the
principles
in Esoteric Buddhism are numbered, this is, strictly speaking,
useless.
The dual Monad alone ( Atma-Buddhi) is susceptible of being thought of as the
two highest numbers (the sixth and seventh). As to all others, since that
principle
only which is predominant in man has to be considered as the first and
foremost,
no numeration is possible as a general rule. In some men it is the
higher
Intelligence (Manas or the fifth) which dominates the rest; in others the
Animal
Soul (Kamarupa) that reigns supreme, exhibiting the most bestial
instincts,
etc.
Now
what does Plato teach? He speaks of the interiorman as constituted of two
parts-one
immutable and always the same, formed of the same substance as Deity, and the
other mortal and corruptible. These "two parts" are found in our
upper Triad, and the lower Quaternary (see table above, ). He explains that
when the Soul, psuche, "allies herself to the Nous (divine spirit or
substance *)), she
does
everything aright and felicitously;" but the case is otherwise when she
attaches
herself to Anoia, (folly, or the irrational animal Soul). Here, then,
we
have Manas(or the Soul in general) in its two aspects: when attaching itself
to
Anoia (our Kamarupa, or the "Animal Soul" in Esoteric Buddhism) it
runs
towards
entire annihilation, as far as the personal Ego is concerned; when
allying
itself to the Nous ( Atma-Buddhi) it merges into the immortal,
imperishable
Ego, and then its spiritual consciousness of the personal thatwas,
becomes
immortal.
*)
Buddhi
is meant then and notAtma; philosophically speaking this (Atma) cannot be
called 'substance'. We count Atma as a human 'principle' in order to not create
yet more confusion. In reality it is not a 'human' but the universal absolute
principle
of which buddhi, the soul-spirit, is the vehicle. [reversely
translated
note from Dutch translation - editor]
The
Distinction Between Soul and Spirit
Q.
Do you really teach, as you are accused of doing by some Spiritualists and
French
Spiritists, the annihilation of every personality?
A.
We do not. But as this question of the duality-the individuality of the
Divine
Ego, and the personality of the human animal-involves that of the
possibility
of the real immortal Ego appearing in Seance rooms as a
"materialized
spirit," which we deny as already explained, our opponents have
started
the nonsensical charge.
Q.
You have just spoken of psuche running towards its entire annihilation if it
attaches
itself to Anoia. What did Plato, and do you mean by this?
A.
The entire annihilation of the personal consciousness, as an exceptional and
rare
case, I think. The general and almost invariable rule is the merging of the
personal
into the individual or immortal consciousness of the Ego, a
transformation
or a divine transfiguration, and the entire annihilation only of
the
lower quaternary. Would you expect the man of flesh, or the temporary
personality,his
shadow, the "astral," his animal instincts and even physical
life,
to survive with the "spiritual Ego" and become everlasting, eternal?
Naturally
all this ceases to exist, either at, or soon after corporeal death. It
becomes
in time entirely disintegrated and disappears from view, being
annihilated
as a whole.
Q.
Then you also rejectresurrection in the flesh?
A.
Most decidedly we do! Why should we, who believe in the archaic esoteric
philosophy
of the Ancients, accept the unphilosophical speculations of the later
Christian
theology, borrowed from the Egyptian and Greek exoteric Systems of the
Gnostics?
Q.
The Egyptians revered Nature-Spirits, and deified even onions: your Hindus
are
idolaters,to this day; the Zoroastrians worshiped, and do still worship, the
Sun;
and the best Greek philosophers were either dreamers or
materialists-witness
Plato and Democritus. How can you compare!
A.
It may be so in your modern Christian and even Scientific catechism; it is
not
so for unbiased minds. The Egyptians revered the "One-Only-One," as
Nout; and it is from this word that Anaxagoras got his denomination Nous, or as
he calls it, nous autokrates , "the Mind or Spirit Self-potent", the
archetes
kinedeos
, the leading motor, or primum-mobile of all. With him the Nous was
God,
and the logos was man, his emanation. The Nous is the spirit (whether in
Kosmos
or in man), and the logos, whether Universe or astral body, the emanation of
the former, the physical body being merely the animal. Our external powers
perceive phenomena; our Nous alone is able to recognize their noumena.
It
is the logos alone, or the noumenon, that survives, because it is immortal in
its very nature and essence, and the logos in man is the Eternal Ego, that
which
reincarnates
and lasts forever. But how can the evanescent or external shadow,
the
temporary clothing of that divine Emanation which returns to the source
whence
it proceeded, be that which is raised in incorruptibility?
Q.
Still you can hardly escape the charge of having invented a new division of
man's
spiritual and psychic constituents; for no philosopher speaks of them,
though
you believe that Plato does.
A.
And I support the view. Besides Plato, there is Pythagoras, who also followed
the same idea.Says Plutarch:
Plato
and Pythagoras distribute the soul into two parts, the rational (noetic)
and
irrational (agnoia); that part of the soul of man which is rational is
eternal;
for though it be not God, yet it is the product of an eternal deity,
but
that part of the soul which is divested of reason (agnoia) dies.
The
modern term Agnostic comes from Agnosis,a cognate word. We wonder why Mr.
Huxley, the author of the word, should have connected his great intellect with
"the soul divested of reason" which dies? Is it the exaggerated
humility of the modern materialist?
Pythagoras
described the Soul as a self-moving Unit (monad) composed of three elements,
the Nous(Spirit), the phren (mind), and the thumos (life, breath or the Nephesh
of the Cabalists) which three correspond to our " Atma-buddhi,"
(higher
Spirit-Soul), to Manas(the Ego), and to Kamarupa in conjunction with the lower
reflection of Manas. That which the Ancient Greek philosophers termed Soul, in
general, we call Spirit, or Spiritual Soul, Buddhi, as the vehicle of Atma (the
Agathon,or Plato's Supreme Deity). The fact that Pythagoras and others state
that phren and thumos are shared by us with the brutes, proves that in this
case the lower Manasic reflection (instinct) and Kamarupa (animal living
passions)
are meant. And as Socrates and Plato accepted the clue and followed
it,
if to these five, namely, Agathon (Deity or Atma),Psuche (Soul in its
collective
sense), Nous (Spirit or Mind), Phren (physical mind), and Thumos
(Kamarupa
or passions) we add the eidolon of the Mysteries, the shadowyform or the human
double, and the physical body,it will be easy to demonstrate that the ideas of
both Pythagoras and Plato were identical with ours. Even the Egyptians held to
the Septenary division. In its exit, they taught, the Soul (Ego) had to pass
through its seven chambers, or principles, those it left behind, and those it
took along with itself. The only difference is that, ever bearing in mind the
penalty of revealing Mystery-doctrines, which was death, they gave out the
teaching
in a broad outline, while we elaborate it and explain it in its
details.
But though we do give out to the world as much as is lawful, even in
our
doctrine more than one important detail is withheld, which those who study
the
esoteric philosophy and are pledged to silence, are alone entitled to know.
The Greek
Teachings
Q.
We have magnificent Greek and Latin, Sanskrit and Hebrew scholars. How is it
that we find nothing in their translations that would afford us a clue to what
you
say?
A.
Because your translators, their great learning notwithstanding, have made of
the
philosophers, the Greeks especially, misty instead of mystic writers. Take
as
an instance Plutarch, and read what he says of "the principles" of
man. That
which
he describes was accepted literally and attributed to metaphysical
superstition
and ignorance. Let me give you an illustration in point. Says
Plutarch:
Man
is compound; and they are mistaken who think him to be compounded of two parts
only. For they imagine that the understanding (brain intellect) is a part
of
the soul (the upper Triad), but they err in this no less than those who make
the
soul to be a part of the body, i.e., those who make of the Triad part of the
corruptible
mortal quaternary.For the understanding (nous) as far exceeds the
soul,
as the soul is better and diviner than the body. Now this composition of
the
soul ( psuche) with the understanding (nous) makes reason; and with the body
(or thumos, the animal soul) passion; of which the one is the beginning or
principle
of pleasure and pain, and the other of virtue and vice. Of these three
parts
conjoined and compacted together, the earth has given the body, the moon
the
soul, and the sun the understanding to the generation of man.
This
last sentence is purely allegorical, and will be comprehended only by those
who
are versed in the esoteric science of correspondences and know which planet is
related to every principle. Plutarch divides the latter into three groups,
and
makes of the body a compound of physical frame, astral shadow, and breath, or
the triple lower part, which "from earth was taken and to earth
returns"; of the middle principle and the instinctual soul, the second
part, derived from and through and ever influenced by the moon; and only of the
higher part or the Spiritual Soul, with the tmic and Manasic elements in it
does he make a direct emanation of the Sun, who stands here for Agathon the
Supreme Deity.
This
is proven by what he says further as follows:
Now
of the deaths we die, the one makes man two of three and the other one of
(out
of) two. The former is in the region and jurisdiction of Demeter, whence
the
name given to the Mysteries, telein , resembled that given to death,
teleutan.
The Athenians also heretofore called the deceased sacred to Demeter.
As
for the other death, it is in the moon or region of Persephone.
Here
you have our doctrine, which shows man a septenary during life; a quintile
just
after death, in Kamaloka; and a threefold Ego, Spirit-Soul, and
consciousness
inDevachan. This separation, first in "the Meadows of Hades," as
Plutarch calls the Kamaloka, then in Devachan, was part and parcel of the
performances
during the sacred Mysteries, when the candidates for initiation
enacted
the whole drama of death, and the resurrection as a glorified spirit, by
which
name we mean Consciousness. This is what Plutarch means when he says:
And
as with the one, the terrestrial, so with the other celestial Hermes doth
dwell.
This suddenly and with violence plucks the soul from the body; but
Prospina
mildly and in a long time disjoins the understanding from the soul.
(Proserpina,
or Persephone, stands here for postmortem Karma, which is said to
regulate
the separation of the lower from the higher principles: the Soul, as
Nephesh,
the breath of animal life, which remains for a time in Kamaloka, from
the
higher compound Ego, which goes into the state of Devachan, or bliss.)
For
this reason she is called Monogenes, only begotten, or rather begetting one
alone;
for the better part of man becomes alone when it is separated by her.Now
both
the one and the other happens thus according to nature. It is ordained by
Fate
(Fatum or Karma) that every soul, whether with or without understanding
(mind),
when gone out of the body, should wander for a time, though not all for
the
same, in the region lying between the earth and moon (Kamaloka). For those
that
have been unjust and dissolute suffer then the punishment due to their
offenses;
but the good and virtuous are there detained till they are purified,
and
have, by expiation, purged out of them all the infections they might have
contracted
from the contagion of the body, as if from foul health, living in the
mildest
part of the air, called the Meadows of Hades, where they must remain for a
certain prefixed and appointed time. And then, as if they were returning from a
wandering pilgrimage or long exile into their country, they have a taste of
joy,
such as they principally receive who are initiated into Sacred Mysteries,
mixed
with trouble, admiration, and each one's proper and peculiar hope.
This
is Nirvanic bliss, and no Theosophist could describe in plainer though
esoteric
language the mental joys of Devachan, where every man has his paradise
around
him, erected by his consciousness. But you must beware of the general
error
into which too many even of our Theosophists fall. Do not imagine that
because
man is called septenary, then quintuple and a triad, he is a compound of
seven,
five, or three entities;or, as well expressed by a Theosophical writer,
of
skins to be peeled off like the skins of an onion. The principles, as already
said,
save the body, the life, and the astral eidolon,all of which disperse at
death,
are simply aspects andstates of consciousness. There is but one real man,
enduring
through the cycle of life and immortal in essence, if not in form, and
this
is Manas, the Mind-man or embodied Consciousness. The objection made by the
materialists, who deny the possibility of mind and consciousness acting without
matter is worthless in our case. We do not deny the soundness of their
argument; but we simply ask our opponents,
Are
you acquainted with all the states of matter,you who knew hitherto but of
three?
And how do you know whether that which we refer to as absolute
consciousness
or Deity forever invisible and unknowable, be not that which,
though
it eludes forever our human finite conception, is still universal
Spirit-matter
or matter-Spirit in its absolute infinitude?
It
is then one of the lowest, and in its manvantaric manifestations
fractioned-aspects
of this Spirit-matter, which is the conscious Ego that
creates
its own paradise, a fool's paradise, it may be, still a state of bliss.
Q.
But what is Devachan?
A.
The "land of gods" literally; a condition, a state of mental bliss.
Philosophically
a mental condition analogous to, but far more vivid and real
than,
the most vivid dream. It is the state after death of most mortals.
On the
Various Postmortem States
The Physical
and the Spiritual Man
Q.
I am glad to hear you believe in the immortality of the Soul.
A.
Not of "the Soul," but of the divine Spirit; or rather in the
immortality of
the
reincarnating Ego.
Q.
What is the difference?
A.
A very great one in our philosophy, but this is too abstruse and difficult a
question
to touch lightly upon. We shall have to analyze them separately, and
then
in conjunction. We may begin with Spirit.
We
say that the Spirit (the "Father in secret" of Jesus), or Atma, is no
individual
property of any man, but is the Divine essence which has no body, no
form,
which is imponderable, invisible and indivisible, that which does not
existand
yet is, as the Buddhists say of Nirvana. It only overshadows the
mortal;
that which enters into him and pervades the whole body being only its
omnipresent
rays, or light, radiated throughBuddhi, its vehicle and direct
emanation.
This is the secret meaning of the assertions of almost all the
ancient
philosophers, when they said that "the rational part of man's soul"
never
entered wholly into the man, but only overshadowed him more or less
through
the irrational spiritual Soul or Buddhi.
Buddhi
is irrational in the sense that as a pure emanation of the Universal mind
it
can have no individual reason of its own on this plane of matter, but like
the
Moon, who borrows her light from the Sun and her life from the Earth, so
Buddhi,
receiving its light of Wisdom from Atma,gets its rational qualities from
Manas.
Per se,as something homogeneous, it is devoid of attributes.
Q.
I labored under the impression that the "Animal Soul" alone was
irrational,
not
the Divine.
A.
You have to learn the difference between that which is negatively, or
passively"irrational,"
because undifferentiated, and that which is irrational
because
too active and positive. Man is a correlation of spiritual powers, as
well
as a correlation of chemical and physical forces, brought into function by
what
we call principles.
Q.I
have read a good deal upon the subject, and it seems to me that the notions of
the older philosophers differed a great deal from those of the medieval
Cabalists,
though they do agree in some particulars.
A.
The most substantial difference between them and us is this. While we believe
with
the Neo-Platonists and the Eastern teachings that the spirit ( Atma) never
descends
hypostatically into the living man, but only showers more or less its
radiance
on the inner man (the psychic and spiritual compound of the astral
principles),
the Cabalists maintain that the human Spirit, detaching itself from
the
ocean of light and Universal Spirit, enters man's Soul, where it remains
throughout
life imprisoned in the astral capsule. All Christian Cabalists still
maintain
the same, as they are unable to break quite loose from their
anthropomorphic
and Biblical doctrines.
Q.
And what do you say?
A.
We say that we only allow the presence of the radiation of Spirit (or Atma)
in
the astral capsule, and so far only as that spiritual radiancy is concerned.
We
say that man and Soul have to conquer their immortality by ascending towards
the unity with which, if successful, they will be finally linked and into which
they are finally, so to speak, absorbed. The individualization of man after
death
depends on the spirit, not on his soul and body. Although the word
personality,in
the sense in which it is usually understood, is an absurdity if
applied
literally to our immortal essence, still the latter is, as our
individual
Ego, a distinct entity, immortal and eternal,per se. It is only in
the
case of black magicians or of criminals beyond redemption, criminals who
have
been such during a long series of lives-that the shining thread, which
links
the spirit to the personal soul from the moment of the birth of the child,
is
violently snapped, and the disembodied entity becomes divorced from the
personal
soul, the latter being annihilated without leaving the smallest
impression
of itself on the former. If that union between the lower, or personal
Manas,
and the individual reincarnating Ego, has not been effected during life,
then
the former is left to share the fate of the lower animals, to gradually
dissolve
into ether, and have its personality annihilated. But even then the Ego
remains
a distinct being. It (the spiritual Ego) only loses one Devachanic
state-after
that special, and in that case indeed useless, life-as that
idealized
Personality,and is reincarnated, after enjoying for a short time its
freedom
as a planetary spirit almost immediately.
Q.
It is stated in Isis Unveiled that such planetary Spirits or Angels, "the
gods
of the Pagans or the Archangels of the Christians," will never be men on
our
planet.
A.
Quite right. Not "such," but some classes of higher Planetary
Spirits. They
will
never be men on this planet, because they are liberated Spirits from a
previous,
earlier world, and as such they cannot rebecome men on this one. Yet
all
these will live again in the next and far higher Maha-Manvantara, after this
"great
Age," and "Brahma pralaya," (a little period of 16 figures or
so) is
over.
For you must have heard, of course, that Eastern philosophy teaches us
that
mankind consists of such "Spirits" imprisoned in human bodies? The
difference
between animals and men is this: the former are ensouled by the
principles
potentially,the latter actually. Do you understand now the
difference?
Q.
Yes; but this specialization has been in all ages the stumbling-block of
metaphysicians.
A.
It was. The whole esotericism of the Buddhist philosophy is based on this
mysterious
teaching, understood by so few persons, and so totally misrepresented by many
of the most learned modern scholars.
Even
metaphysicians are too inclined to confound the effect with the cause. An Ego
who has won his immortal life as spirit will remain the same inner self
throughout all his rebirths on earth; but this does not imply necessarily that
he must either remain the Mr. Smith or Mr. Brown he was on earth, or lose his
individuality. Therefore, the astral soul and the terrestrial body of man may,
in the dark hereafter, be absorbed into the cosmical ocean of sublimated
elements, and cease to feel his last personal Ego (if it did not deserve to
soar higher), and the divine Ego still remain the same unchanged entity, though
this terrestrial experience of his emanation may be totally obliterated at the
instant of separation from the unworthy vehicle.
Q.
If the "Spirit," or the divine portion of the soul, is preexistent as
a
distinct
being from all eternity, as Origen, Synesius, and other semi-Christians
and
semi-Platonic philosophers taught, and if it is the same, and nothing more
than
the metaphysically-objective soul, how can it be otherwise than eternal?
And
what matters it in such a case, whether man leads a pure life or an animal,
if,
do what he may, he can never lose his individuality?
A.
This doctrine, as you have stated it, is just as pernicious in its
consequences
as that of vicarious atonement. Had the latter dogma, in company
with
the false idea that we are all immortal, been demonstrated to the world in
its
true light, humanity would have been bettered by its propagation.
Let
me repeat to you again. Pythagoras, Plato, Timaeus of Locris, and the old
Alexandrian
School, derived the Soulof man (or his higher principles and
attributes)
from the Universal World Soul, the latter being, according to their
teachings,
Aether(Pater-Zeus). Therefore, neither of these principles can be
unalloyedessence
of the Pythagorean Monas, or our Atma-Buddhi,because the Anima Mundi is but the
effect, the subjective emanation or rather radiation of the
former.
Both the humanSpirit (or the individuality), the reincarnating Spiritual
Ego,
and Buddhi, the Spiritual soul, are preexistent. But, while the former
exists
as a distinct entity, an individualization, the soul exists as
preexisting
breath, an unscient [lacking in knowledge] portion of an intelligent
whole.
Both were originally formed from the Eternal Ocean of light; but as the
Fire-Philosophers,
the medieval Theosophists, expressed it, there is a visible
as
well as invisible spirit in fire. They made a difference between theanima
bruta
and the anima divina. Empedocles firmly believed all men and animals to
possess
two souls; and in Aristotle we find that he calls one the reasoning
soul,nous
, and the other, the animal soul, psuche . According to these
philosophers,
the reasoning soul comes from within the universal soul, and the
other
from without.
Q.
Would you call the Soul, i.e., the human thinking Soul, or what you call the
Ego-matter?
A.
Not matter, but substanceassuredly; nor would the word matter, if prefixed
with
the adjective, primordial, be a word to avoid. That matter, we say, is
coeternal
with Spirit, and is not our visible, tangible, and divisible matter,
but
its extreme sublimation. Pure Spirit is but one remove from the no-Spirit,
or
the absolute all.Unless you admit that man was evolved out of this primordial
Spirit-matter,
and represents a regular progressive scale of principles
frommeta-Spirit
down to the grossest matter, how can we ever come to regard the inner man as
immortal, and at the same time as a spiritual Entity and a mortal
man?
Q.
Then why should you not believe in God as such an Entity?
A.
Because that which is infinite and unconditioned can have no form, and cannot
be a being, not in any Eastern philosophy worthy of the name, at any rate. An
"entity" is immortal, but is so only in its ultimate essence, not in
its
individual
form. When at the last point of its cycle, it is absorbed into its
primordial
nature; and it becomes spirit, when it loses its name of Entity.
Its
immortality as a form is limited only to its life cycle or the Maha
-Manvantara;
after which it is one and identical with the Universal Spirit, and
no
longer a separate Entity. As to the personal Soul-by which we mean the spark
of
consciousness that preserves in the Spiritual Ego the idea of the personal
"I"
of the last incarnation-this lasts, as a separate distinct recollection,
only
throughout the Devachanic period; after which time it is added to the
series
of other innumerable incarnations of the Ego, like the remembrance in our
memory
of one of a series of days, at the end of a year. Will you bind the
infinitude
you claim for your God to finite conditions? That alone which is
indissolubly
cemented by Atma (i.e., Buddhi-Manas) is immortal. The Soul of man
(i.e.,
of the personality)per se is neither immortal, eternal nor divine. Says
The
Zohar:
The
soul, when sent to this earth, puts on an earthly garment, to preserve
herself
here, so she receives above a shining garment, in order to be able to
look
without injury into the mirror, whose light proceeds from the Lord of
Light.
Moreover,
The Zohar teaches that the soul cannot reach the abode of bliss,
unless
she has received the "holy kiss," or the reunion of the soul with the
substance
from which she emanated-spirit. All souls are dual, and, while the
latter
is a feminine principle, the spirit is masculine. While imprisoned in
body,
man is a trinity, unless his pollution is such as to have caused his
divorce
from the spirit. "Woe to the soul which prefers to her divine husband
(spirit)
the earthly wedlock with her terrestrial body," records a text of The
Book
of the Keys, a Hermetic work. Woe indeed, for nothing will remain of that
personality
to be recorded on the imperishable tablets of the Ego's memory.
Q.
How can that which, if not breathed by God into man, yet is on your own
confession
of an identical substance with the divine, fail to be immortal?
A.
Every atom and speck of matter, not of substance only, is imperishable in its
essence,
but not in its individual consciousness. Immortality is but one's
unbroken
consciousness; and the personal consciousness can hardly last longer
than
the personality itself, can it? And such consciousness, as I already told
you,
survives only throughout Devachan, after which it is reabsorbed, first, in
the
individual,and then in the universal consciousness. Better enquire of your
theologians
how it is that they have so sorely jumbled up the Jewish Scriptures.
Read
the Bible, if you would have a good proof that the writers of the
Pentateuch,
and Genesisespecially, never regarded nephesh, that which God
breathes
into Adam, as the immortal soul. Here are some instances: "And God
created
… every nephesh (life) that moveth," meaning animals; and it is said:
"And
man became a nephesh" (living soul), which shows that the wordnephesh was
indifferently applied to immortal man and to mortal beast. "And surely
your
blood
of yournepheshim (lives) will I require; at the hand of every beast will I
require
it, and at the hand of man," "Escape for nephesh" (escape for
thy life,
it
is translated). "Let us not kill him," reads the English version.
"Let us not
kill
his nephesh," is the Hebrew text. "Nepheshfor nephesh," says
Leviticus. "He
that
killeth any man shall surely be put to death," literally "He that
smiteth
the
nephesh of a man;" and from verse 18 and following it reads: "And he
that
killeth
a beast (nephesh) shall make it good … Beast for beast," whereas the
original
text has it "nephesh for nephesh." How could man killthat which is
immortal?
And this explains also why the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, as
it also affords another proof that very probably the Mosaic Jews-the
uninitiated
at any rate-never believed in the soul's survival at all.
On Eternal
Reward and Punishment, and on Nirvana
Q.
It is hardly necessary, I suppose, to ask you whether you believe in the
Christian
dogmas of
taught
by the Orthodox churches?
A.
As described in your catechisms, we reject them absolutely; least of all
would
we accept their eternity. But we believe firmly in what we call the Law of
Retribution,
and in the absolute justice and wisdom guiding this Law, or Karma.
Hence
we positively refuse to accept the cruel and unphilosophical belief in
eternal
reward or eternal punishment.
We
say with Horace:
Let
rules be fixed that may our rage contain,
And
punish faults with a proportioned pain;
But
do not flay him who deserves alone
A
whipping for the fault that he has done.
This
is a rule for all men, and a just one. Have we to believe that God, of whom
you
make the embodiment of wisdom, love and mercy, is less entitled to these
attributes
than mortal man?
Q.
Have you any other reasons for rejecting this dogma?
A.
Our chief reason for it lies in the fact of reincarnation. As already stated,
we
reject the idea of a new soul created for every newly-born babe. We believe
that
every human being is the bearer, or Vehicle, of anEgo coeval with every
other
Ego; because all Egos are of the same essence and belong to the primeval
emanation
from one universal infinite Ego. Plato calls the latter thelogos (or
the
second manifested God); and we, the manifested divine principle, which is
one
with the universal mind or soul, not the anthropomorphic, extra-cosmic and
personal
God in which so many Theists believe. Pray do not confuse.
Q.
But where is the difficulty, once you accept a manifested principle, in
believing
that the soul of every new mortal is created by that Principle, as all
the
Souls before it have been so created?
A.
Because that which is impersonal can hardly create, plan and think, at its
own
sweet will and pleasure. Being a universal Law, immutable in its periodical
manifestations,
those of radiating and manifesting its own essence at the
beginning
of every new cycle of life, it is not supposed to create men, only to
repent
a few years later of having created them. If we have to believe in a
divine
principle at all, it must be in one which is as absolute harmony, logic,
and
justice, as it is absolute love, wisdom, and impartiality; and a God who
would
create every soul for the space ofone brief span of life, regardless of
the
fact whether it has to animate the body of a wealthy, happy man, or that of
a
poor suffering wretch, hapless from birth to death though he has done nothing
to
deserve his cruel fate-would be rather a senselessfiend than a God. Why, even
the
Jewish philosophers, believers in the Mosaic Bible (esoterically, of
course),
have never entertained such an idea; and, moreover, they believed in
reincarnation,
as we do.
Q.
Can you give me some instances as a proof of this?
A.
Most decidedly I can. Philo Judaeus says:
The
air is full of them (of souls); those which are nearest the earth,
descending
to be tied to mortal bodies, palindromousi authis , return to other
bodies,
being desirous to live in them.
In
The Zohar, the soul is made to plead her freedom before God:
Lord
of the Universe! I am happy in this world, and do not wish to go into
another
world, where I shall be a handmaid, and be exposed to all kinds of
pollution.
The
doctrine of fatal necessity, the everlasting immutable law, is asserted in
the
answer of the Deity: "Against thy will thou becomest an embryo, and
against
thy
will thou art born." Light would be incomprehensible without darkness to
make
it manifest by contrast; good would be no longer good without evil to show the
priceless nature of the boon; and so personal virtue could claim no merit,
unless it had passed through the furnace of temptation. Nothing is eternal and
unchangeable, save the concealed Deity. Nothing that is finite-whether because
it had a beginning, or must have an end-can remain stationary. It must either
progress or recede; and a soul which thirsts after a reunion with its spirit,
which
alone confers upon it immortality, must purify itself through cyclic
transmigrations
onward toward the only land of bliss and eternal rest, called in
The
Zohar,"The Palace of Love," ; in the Hindu religion,
"Moksha"; among the
Gnostics,
"The Pleroma of Eternal Light"; and by the Buddhists,
"Nirvana." And all these states are temporary, not eternal.
Q.
Yet there is no reincarnation spoken of in all this.
A.
A soul which pleads to be allowed to remain where she is, must be
pre
existent,and not have been created for the occasion. In The Zohar,however,
there
is a still better proof. Speaking of the reincarnatingEgos (the rational
souls),
those whose last personality has to fade out entirely, it is said:
All
souls which have alienated themselves in heaven from the Holy One-blessed be
His Name-have thrown themselves into an abyss at their very existence, and have
anticipated the time when they are to descend once more on earth.
"The
Holy One" means here, esoterically, the Atma, or Atma-Buddhi.
Q.
Moreover, it is very strange to find Nirvana spoken of as something
synonymous
with the
A.
Taken literally, with regard to the personality and differentiated matter,
not
otherwise. These ideas on reincarnation and the trinity of man were held by
many
of the early Christian Fathers. It is the jumble made by the translators of
the
New Testament and ancient philosophical treatises between soul and spirit,
that
has occasioned the many misunderstandings. It is also one of the many
reasons
why Buddha, Plotinus, and so many other Initiates are now accused of
having
longed for the total extinction of their souls-"absorption unto the
Deity,"
or "reunion with the universal soul," meaning, according to modern
ideas,
annihilation. The personal soul must, of course, be disintegrated into
its
particles, before it is able to link its purer essence forever with the
immortal
spirit. But the translators of both the Acts and the Epistles,who laid
the
foundation of the
Buddhist
Sutra of the Foundation of the
On
the other hand, the interpreters of Buddha have failed to understand the
meaning and object of the Buddhist four degrees of Dhyana. Ask the
Pythagoreans, "Can that spirit, which gives life and motion and partakes
of the nature of light, be reduced to nonentity?" "Can even that
sensitive spirit in brutes which exercises memory, one of the rational
faculties, die and become nothing?" observe the Occultists. In Buddhist
philosophyannihilation means only a dispersion of matter, in whatever form or
semblance of form it may be, for everything that has form is temporary, and is,
therefore, really an illusion. For in eternity the longest periods of time are
as a wink of the eye. So with form. Before we have time to realize that we have
seen it, it is gone like an instantaneous flash of lightning, and passed
forever. When the Spiritual entity breaks loose forever from every particle of
matter, substance, or form, and rebecomes a Spiritual breath: then only does it
enter upon the eternal and unchangeable Nirvana, lasting as long as the cycle
of life has lasted-an eternity, truly. And then that Breath, existing in
Spirit, is nothing because it is all;as a form, a semblance, a shape, it is
completely annihilated; as absolute Spirit it still
is,
for it has become Be-nessitself. The very word used, "absorbed in the
universal
essence," when spoken of the "Soul" as Spirit, means "union
with." It
can
never mean annihilation, as that would mean eternal separation.
Q.
Do you not lay yourself open to the accusation of preaching annihilation by
the
language you yourself use? You have just spoken of the Soul of man returning to
its primordial elements.
A.
But you forget that I have given you the differences between the various
meanings
of the word Soul, and shown the loose way in which the term Spirit has been
hitherto translated. We speak of ananimal, a human, and a spiritual, Soul, and
distinguish between them. Plato, for instance, calls "rational Soul"
that
which
we call Buddhi, adding to it the adjective of "spiritual," however;
but
that
which we call the reincarnating Ego, Manas, he calls Spirit, Nous,etc.,
whereas
we apply the term Spirit, when standing alone and without any
qualification,
to Atma alone. Pythagoras repeats our archaic doctrine when
stating
that the Ego (Nous) is eternal with Deity; that the soul only passed
through
various stages to arrive at divine excellence; while thumos returned to
the
earth, and even the phren, the lower Manas,was eliminated. Again, Plato
defines
Soul (Buddhi) as "the motion that is able to move itself."
"Soul," he
adds
(Laws X.), "is the most ancient of all things, and the commencement of
motion,"
thus calling Atma-Buddhi "Soul," and Manas "Spirit," which
we do not.
Soul
was generated prior to body, and body is posterior and secondary, as being
according to nature, ruled over by the ruling soul. The soul which administers
all things that are moved in every way, administers likewise the heavens.Soul
then leads everything in heaven, and on earth, and in the sea, by its
movements-the
names of which are, to will, to consider to take care of, to
consult.
to form opinions true and false, to be in a state of joy, sorrow,
confidence,
fear, hate, love, together with all such primary movements as are
allied
to these … Being a goddess herself, she ever takes as an ally Nous, a
god,
and disciplines all things correctly and happily; but when with Annoia-not
nous-it
works out everything the contrary.
In
this language, as in the Buddhist texts, the negative is treated as essential
existence.
Annihilation comes under a similar exegesis. The positive state is
essential
being, but no manifestation as such. When the spirit, in Buddhist
parlance,
enters Nirvana, it loses objective existence, but retains subjective
being.
To objective minds this is becoming absolute "nothing"; to
subjective,
No-thing,
nothing to be displayed to sense. Thus, their Nirvana means the
certitude
of individual immortality in Spirit, not in Soul, which, though "the
most
ancient of all things," is still-along with all the other Gods-a finite
emanation,
in forms and individuality, if not in substance.
Q.
I do not quite seize the idea yet, and would be thankful to have you explain
this
to me by some illustrations.
A.
No doubt it is very difficult to understand, especially to one brought up in
the
regular orthodox ideas of the Christian Church. Moreover, I must tell you
one.
thing; and this is that unless you have studied thoroughly well the
separate
functions assigned to all the human principles and the state of all
these
after death, you will hardly realize our Eastern philosophy.
On the
Various Principles in Man
Q.
I have heard a good deal about this constitution of the "inner man"
as you
call
it, but could never make "head or tail on't" as Gabalis expresses it.
A.
Of course, it is most difficult, and, as you say, "puzzling" to
understand
correctly
and distinguish between the various aspects,called by us the
principles
of the real Ego. It is the more so as there exists a notable
difference
in the numbering of those principles by various Eastern schools,
though
at the bottom there is the same identical substratum of teaching.
Q.
Do you mean the Vedantins, as an instance? Don't they divide your seven
principles
into five only?
A.They
do; but though I would not presume to dispute the point with a learned
Vedantin,
I may yet state as my private opinion that they have an obvious reason
for
it. With them it is only that compound spiritual aggregate which consists of
various
mental aspects that is called Man at all, the physical body being in
their
view something beneath contempt, and merely an illusion. Nor is the
Vedanta
the only philosophy to reckon in this manner. Lao-tzu, in his Tao Te
Ching,
mentions only five principles, because he, like the Vedantins, omits to
include
two principles, namely, the spirit ( Atma) and the physical body, the
latter
of which, moreover, he calls "the cadaver." Then there is the Taraka
then,
in reality, their Sthulopadhi, or the physical body, in its waking
conscious
state, their Sukshmopadhi, the same body in Svapna,or the dreaming
state,
and their Karanopadhi or "causal body," or that which passes from one
incarnation
to another, are all dual in their aspects, and thus make six. Add to
this
Atma, the impersonal divine principle or the immortal element in Man,
undistinguished
from the Universal Spirit, and you have the same seven again.
They
are welcome to hold to their division; we hold to ours.
[See
'Secret Doctrine', part 1, p. 182 for a clearer exposition]
Q.
Then it seems almost the same as the division made by the mystic Christians:
body,
soul, and spirit?
A.
Just the same. We could easily make of the body the vehicle of the "vital
Double";
of the latter the vehicle of Life or Prana; of Kamarupa,or (animal)
soul,
the vehicle of the higher and the lowermind, and make of this six
principles,
crowning the whole with the one immortal spirit. In Occultism every
qualitative
change in the state of our consciousness gives to man a new aspect,
and
if it prevails and becomes part of the living and acting Ego, it must be
(and
is) given a special name, to distinguish the man in that particular state
from
the man he is when he places himself in another state.
Q.
It is just that which it is so difficult to understand.
A.
It seems to me very easy, on the contrary, once that you have seized the main
idea,i.e.,
that man acts on this or another plane of consciousness, in strict
accordance
with his mental and spiritual condition. But such is the materialism
of
the age that the more we explain the less people seem capable of
understanding
what we say. Divide the terrestrial being called man into three
chief
aspects, if you like, and unless you make of him a pure animal you cannot
do
less. Take his objective body; the thinking principle in him-which is only a
little
higher than the instinctualelement in the animal-or the vital conscious
soul;
and that which places him so immeasurably beyond and higher than the
animal-i.e.,his
reasoning soul or "spirit." Well, if we take these three groups
or
representative entities, and subdivide them, according to the occult
teaching,
what do we get?
First
of all, Spirit (in the sense of the Absolute, and therefore, indivisible
All),
or Atma. As this can neither be located nor limited in philosophy, being
simply
that which is in Eternity, and which cannot be absent from even the
tiniest
geometrical or mathematical point of the universe of matter or
substance,
it ought not to be called, in truth, a "human" principle at all.
Rather,
and at best, it is in Metaphysics, that point in space which the human
Monad
and its vehicle man occupy for the period of every life. Now that point is
as
imaginary as man himself, and in reality is an illusion, a Maya ; but then
for
ourselves, as for other personal Egos, we are a reality during that fit of
illusion
called life, and we have to take ourselves into account, in our own
fancy
at any rate, if no one else does. To make it more conceivable to the human
intellect,
when first attempting the study of Occultism, and to solve the a-b-c
of
the mystery of man, Occultism calls this seventh principle the synthesis of
the
sixth, and gives it for vehicle the SpiritualSoul, Buddhi. Now the latter
conceals
a mystery, which is never given to any one, with the exception of
irrevocably
pledgedChelas, or those, at any rate, who can be safely trusted. Of
course,
there would be less confusion, could it only be told; but, as this is
directly
concerned with the power of projecting one's double consciously and at
will,
and as this gift, like the "ring of Gyges," would prove very fatal to
man
at
large and to the possessor of that faculty in particular, it is carefully
guarded.
But let us proceed with the principles. This divine soul, or Buddhi,
then,
is the vehicle of the Spirit. In conjunction, these two are one,
impersonal
and without any attributes (on this plane, of course), and make two
spiritual
principles. If we pass onto the Human Soul, Manas or mens, everyone
will
agree that the intelligence of man is dual to say the least: e.g., the
high-minded
man can hardly become low-minded; the very intellectual and
spiritual-minded
man is separated by an abyss from the obtuse, dull, and
material,
if not animal-minded man.
Q.
But why should not man be represented by two principles or two aspects,
rather?
A.
Every man has these two principles in him, one more active than the other,
and
in rare cases, one of these is entirely stunted in its growth, so to say, or
paralysed
by the strength and predominance of the otheraspect, in whatever
direction.
These, then, are what we call the two principles or aspects of Manas,
the
higher and the lower; the former, the higher Manas, or the thinking,
conscious
Ego gravitating toward the spiritual Soul (Buddhi); and the latter, or
its
instinctual principle, attracted to Kama,the seat of animal desires and
passions
in man. Thus, we havefour principles justified; the last three being
(1)
the "Double," which we have agreed to call Protean, or Plastic Soul;
the
vehicle
of (2) the life principle; and (3) the physical body. Of course no
physiologist
or biologist will accept these principles, nor can he make head or
tail
of them. And this is why, perhaps, none of them understand to this day
either
the functions of the spleen, the physical vehicle of the Protean Double,
or
those of a certain organ on the right side of man, the seat of the
above-mentioned
desires, nor yet does he know anything of the pineal gland,
which
he describes as a horny gland with a little sand in it, which gland is in
truth
the very seat of the highest and divinest consciousness in man, his
omniscient,
spiritual and all-embracing mind. And this shows to you still more
plainly
that we have neither invented these seven principles, nor are they new
in
the world of philosophy, as we can easily prove.
Q.
But what is it that reincarnates, in your belief?
A.
The Spiritual thinking Ego, the permanent principle in man, or that which is
the
seat of Manas. It is not Atma, or even Atma-Buddhi, regarded as the dual
Monad,
which is the individual, or divineman, but Manas; for Atma is the
Universal
All, and becomes the Higher-Self of man only in conjunction with
Buddhi,
its vehicle, which links it to the individuality (or divine man). For it
is
the Buddhi-Manas which is called the Causal body,(the United fifth and sixth
Principles)
and which is Consciousness,that connects it with every personality
it
inhabits on earth. Therefore, Soul being a generic term, there are in men
three
aspectsof Soul-the terrestrial, or animal; the Human Soul; and the
Spiritual
Soul; these, strictly speaking, are one Soul in its three aspects. Now
of
the first aspect, nothing remains after death; of the second (nous or Manas)
only
its divine essence if left unsoiledsurvives, while the third in addition to
being
immortal becomesconsciously divine, by the assimilation of the higher
Manas.
But to make it clear, we have to say a few words first of all about
Reincarnation.
Q.
You will do well, as it is against this doctrine that your enemies fight the
most
ferociously.
A.
You mean the Spiritualists? I know; and many are the absurd objections
laboriously
spun by them over the pages of Light. So obtuse and malicious are
some
of them, that they will stop at nothing. One of them found recently a
contradiction,
which he gravely discusses in a letter to that journal, in two
statements
picked out of Mr. Sinnett's lectures. He discovers that grave
contradiction
in these two sentences: "Premature returns to earth-life in the
cases
when they occur may be due to Karmic complication … "; and "there is
no accident in the supreme act of divine justice guiding evolution." So
profound a thinker would surely see a contradiction of the law of gravitation
if a man
stretched
out his hand to stop a falling stone from crushing the head of a
child!
On
Reincarnation or Rebirth
What is
Memory According to Theosophical Teaching?
Q.
The most difficult thing for you to do, will be to explain and give
reasonable
grounds for such a belief. No Theosophist has ever yet succeeded in
bringing
forward a single valid proof to shake my skepticism. First of all, you
have
against this theory of reincarnation, the fact that no single man has yet
been
found to remember that he has lived, least of all who he was, during his
previous
life.
A.
Your argument, I see, tends to the same old objection; the loss of memory in
each
of us of our previous incarnation. You think it invalidates our doctrine?
My
answer is that it does not, and that at any rate such an objection cannot be
final.
Q.
I would like to hear your arguments.
A.
They are short and few. Yet when you take into consideration (a) the utter
inability
of the best modern psychologists to explain to the world the nature of
mind;
and (b) their complete ignorance of its potentialities, and higher states,
you
have to admit that this objection is based on an a priori conclusion drawn
from
prima facieand circumstantial evidence more than anything else. Now what is
"memory" in your conception, pray?
Q.
That which is generally accepted: the faculty in our mind of remembering and
of
retaining the knowledge of previous thoughts, deeds, and events.
A.
Please add to it that there is a great difference between the three accepted
forms
of memory. Besides memory in general you have Remembrance,
Recollection,and
Reminiscence, have you not? Have you ever thought over the
difference?
Memory, remember, is a generic name.
Q.
Yet, all these are only synonyms.
A.
Indeed, they are not-not in philosophy, at all events. Memory is simply an
innate
power in thinking beings, and even in animals, of reproducing past
impressions
by an association of ideas principally suggested by objective things
or
by some action on our external sensory organs. Memory is a faculty depending
entirely on the more or less healthy and normal functioning of our physical
brain; and remembranceand recollection are the attributes and handmaidens of
that memory. But reminiscence is an entirely different thing.
Reminiscence
is defined by the modern psychologist as something intermediate between
remembrance and recollection,or "a conscious process of recalling past
occurrences, but without that full and varied reference to particular things
which