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