Theosophical Society,
H P Blavatsky
The
Original Programme of the Theosophical Society
By H P
Blavatsky
{Words within this type of brackets are H.P.B.'s footnotes in the original.} [Words within square
brackets, as well as the italicizing of certain words and sentences, in
passages quoted from the Chatterji-Gebhard Statement,
are H.P.B.'s own, as careful comparison with the text
of the Statement will show. Throughout H.P.B.'s
Pronouncement, both in the main text of it, and in some of the footnotes, the
occurrence of several dots indicates no elision of words, and is apparently
meant to point to the beginning of a new thought which is particularly
emphasized. -- Compiler (Boris de Zirkoff).]
In
order to leave no room for equivocation, the members of the T. S. have to be
reminded of the origin of the Society in 1875. Sent to the U.S. of America in
1873 for the purpose of organizing a group of workers on a psychic plane, two
years later the writer received orders from her Master and Teacher to form the
nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were broadly stated as follows:
1.
Universal Brotherhood;
2.
No distinction to be made by the member between races, creeds, or social
positions, but every member had to be judged and dealt by on his personal
merits;
3.
To study the philosophies of the East -- those of
4.
To oppose materialism and theological dogmatism in every possible way, by
demonstrating the existence of occult forces unknown to science, in nature, and
the presence of psychic and spiritual powers in man; trying, at the same time
to enlarge the views of the Spiritualists by showing them that there are other,
many other agencies at work in the production of phenomena besides the
"Spirits" of the dead. Superstition had to be exposed and avoided;
and occult forces, beneficent and maleficent -- ever surrounding us and
manifesting their presence in various ways -- demonstrated to the best of our
ability.
Such
was the programme in its broad features. The two chief Founders were not told
what they had to do, how they had to bring about and quicken the growth of the
Society and results desired; nor had they any definite ideas given them
concerning its outward organization all this being left entirely with
themselves. Thus, as the undersigned had no capacity for such work as the
mechanical formation and administration of a Society, the management of the
latter was left in the hands of Col. H. S. Olcott, then and there elected by
the primitive founders and members --President for life. But if the two
Founders were not told what they had to do, they were distinctly instructed
about what they should never do, what they had to avoid, and what the Society
should never become. Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were
shown as the future contrasts to our Society.
{A liberal Christian member of the T. S.
having objected to the study of Oriental religions and doubted whether there
was room left for any new Society -- a letter answering his objections and
preference to Christianity was received and the contents copied for him; after
which he denied no longer the advisability of such a Society as the proposed
Theosophical Association. A few extracts from this early letter will show
plainly the nature of the Society as then contemplated, and that we have tried
only to follow, and carry out in the best way we could the intentions of the
true originators of the Society in those days. The pious gentleman having
claimed that he was a theosophist and had a right of judgment over other people
was told . . . "You have no right to such a title. You are only a philo-theosophist; as one who has reached to the full
comprehension of the name and nature of a theosophist will sit in judgment on
no man or action. . . . You claim that your religion is the highest and final
step toward divine Wisdom on this earth, and that it has introduced into the
arteries of the old decaying world new blood and life and verities that had
remained unknown to the heathen? If it were so indeed, then your religion would
have introduced the highest truths into all the social, civil and international
relations of Christendom. Instead of that as anyone can perceive, your social as your private life is not based upon a
common moral solidarity but only on constant mutual counteraction and purely
mechanical equilibrium of individual powers and interests . . . . If you would
be a theosophist you must not do as those around you do who call on a God of
Truth and Love and serve the dark Powers of Might, Greed and Luck. We look in
the midst of your Christian civilization and see the same sad signs of old: the
realities of your daily lives are diametrically opposed to your religious
ideal, but you feel it not; the thought that the very laws that govern your
being whether in the domain of politics or social economy clash painfully with
the origins of your religion -- do not seem to trouble you in the least. But if
the nations of the West are so fully convinced that the ideal can never become
practical and the practical will never reach the ideal -- then, you have to
make your choice: either it is your religion that is impracticable, and in that
case it is no better than a vain-glorious delusion, or it might find a
practical application, but it is you yourselves, who do not care to apply its
ethics to your daily walk in life . . . Hence, before you invite other nations
'to the King's festival table' from which your guests arise more starved than
before, you should, ere you try to bring them to your own way of thinking, look
into the repasts they offer to you . . . Under the dominion and sway of
exoteric creeds, the grotesque and tortured shadows of theosophical realities,
there must ever be the same oppression of the weak and the poor and the same typhonic struggle of the wealthy and the mighty among
themselves . . . It is esoteric philosophy alone, the spiritual and psychic
blending of man with Nature that, by revealing fundamental truths, can bring
that much desired mediate state between the two extremes of human Egotism and
divine Altruism and finally lead to the alleviation of human suffering . .
." (See last page for contin.)}
To
make it clearer: --
(1)
The Founders had to exercise all their influence to oppose selfishness of any
kind, by insisting upon sincere, fraternal feelings among the Members -- at
least outwardly; working for it to bring about a spirit of unity and harmony,
the great diversity of creeds notwithstanding; expecting and demanding from the
Fellows, a great mutual toleration and charity for each other's shortcomings;
mutual help in the research of truths in every domain -- moral or physical --
and even, in daily life.
(2)
They had to oppose in the strongest manner possible anything approaching
dogmatic faith and fanaticism -- belief in the infallibility of the Masters, or
even in the very existence of our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from
the first. On the other hand, as a great respect for the private views and creeds
of every member was demanded, any Fellow criticising
the faith or belief of another Fellow, hurting his feelings, or showing a
reprehensible self-assertion, unasked (mutual friendly advices were a duty
unless declined) -- such a member incurred expulsion. The greatest spirit of
free research untrammelled by anyone or anything, had
to be encouraged.
Thus,
for the first year the Members of the T. Body who representing every class in
Society as every creed and belief -- Christian clergymen, Spiritualists,
Freethinkers, Mystics, Masons and Materialists -- lived and met under these
rules in peace and friendship. There were two or three expulsions for slander
and backbiting. The rules, however imperfect in their tentative character, were
strictly enforced and respected by the members. The original $5, initiation
fee, was soon abolished as inconsistent with the spirit of the Association:
members had enthusiastically promised to support the Parent Society and defray
the expenses of machines for experiments, books, the fees of the Recording
Secretary {Mr. J. S. Cobb}, etc., etc. This was Reform No. I. Three months
after, Mr. H. J. Newton., the Treasurer, a rich gentleman of New York, showed
that no one had paid anything or helped him to defray the current expenses for
the Hall of meetings, stationery, printing, etc., and that he had to carry the
burden of those expenses alone. He went on for a short time longer, then -- he
resigned as Treasurer. It was the President-Founder, Col. H. S. Olcott, who had
to pay henceforth for all. He did so for over 18 months. The "fee"
was re-established, before the Founders left for
Owing
to the rapid increase in the Society in
It
was never denied that the Organization of the Theosophical Society was very
imperfect. Errare humanum est. But, if it can be shown that the President has done
what he could under the circumstances and in the best way he knew how -- no
one, least of all a theosophist, can charge him with the sins of the whole
community as now done. From the founders down to the humblest member, the
Society is composed of imperfect mortal men -- not gods. This was always
claimed by its leaders. "He who feels without sin, let him cast the first
stone." It is the duty of every Member of the Council to offer advice and
to bring for the consideration of the whole body any incorrect proceedings. One
of the plaintiffs is a Councillor. Having never used
his privileges as one, in the matter of the complaints now proffered -- and
thus, having no excuse to give that his just representations were not listened
to, he by bringing out publicly what he had to state first privately -- sins
against Rule XII. The whole paper now reads like a defamatory aspersion, being
full of untheosophical and unbrotherly
insinuations -- which the writers thereof could never have had in view.
This
Rule XIIth was one of the first and the wisest. It is
by neglecting to have it enforced when most needed, that the President-Founder
has brought upon himself the present penalty. {For years the wise rule by which
any member accused of backbiting or slander was expelled from the Society after
sufficient evidence -- has become obsolete. There have been two or three
solitary cases of expulsion for the same in cases of members of no importance.
Europeans of position and name were allowed to cover the Society literally with
mud and slander their Brothers with perfect impunity. This is the President's
Karma -- and it is just.} It is his too great indulgence and unwise
carelessness that have led to all such charges of abuse, of power, love of
authority, show, of vanity, etc., etc. Let us see how far it may have been
deserved.
As
shown for 12 years the Founder has toiled almost alone in the interests of the
Society and the general good -- hence, not his own, and, the only complaint he
was heard to utter was, that he was left no time for self-development and
study. The results of this too just complaint are, that those for whom he toiled,
are the first to fling at him the reproach of being ignorant of certain Hindu
terms, of using one term for another, for instance of having applied the word
"Jivanmukta" to a Hindu chela,
on one occasion! The crime is a terrible one, indeed . . . We know of
"chelas," who being Hindus, are sure never to confuse such well known
terms in their religion; but who, on the other hand, pursue Jivanmuktship
and the highest theosophical Ethics through the royal road of selfish ambition,
lies, slander, ingratitude and backbiting. Every road leads to Rome; this is
evident; and there is such a thing in Nature as "Mahatma"-Dugpas . . . It would be desirable for the cause of
theosophy and truth, however, were all the critics of our President in general,
less learned, yet found reaching more to the level of his all-forgiving good
nature, his thorough sincerity and unselfishness; as the rest of the members
less inclined to lend a willing ear to those, who, like the said "Vicars
of Bray" have developed a hatred for the Founders -- for reasons unknown.
The
above advice is offered to the two Theosophists who have just framed their
"Few Words on the Theosophical Organization." That they are not alone
in their complaints (which, translated from their diplomatic into plain language
look a good deal in the present case like a mere "querelle
d'allemand") and that the said complaints are in
a great measure just, -- is frankly admitted. Hence, the writer must be
permitted to speak in this, her answer, of theosophy and theosophists in
general, instead of limiting the Reply strictly to the complaints uttered.
There is not the slightest desire to be personal; yet, there has accumulated of
late such a mass of incandescent material in the Society, by that eternal
friction of precisely such "selfish personalities," that it is
certainly wise to try to smother the sparks in time, by pointing out to their
true nature.
Demands, and a feeling of necessity for reforms
have not originated with the two complainants. They date from several years,
and there has never been a question of avoiding reforms, but rather a failure
of finding such means as would satisfy all the theosophists. To the present
day, we have yet to find that "wise man" from the East or from the
West, who could not only diagnosticate the disease in
the Theosophical Society, but offer advice and a remedy likewise to cure it. It is easy to write: "It would be out of place to
suggest any specific measures [for such reforms, which do seem more difficult
to suggest than to be vaguely hinted at]. For no one who has any faith in
Brotherhood and in the power of Truth will fail to perceive what is
necessary," -- concludes the critic. One may, perhaps, have such faith and
yet fail to perceive what is most necessary. Two heads are better than one; and
if any practical reforms have suggested themselves to our severe judges their
refusal to give us the benefit of their discovery would be most unbrotherly. So far, however, we have received only most
impracticable suggestions for reforms whenever these came to be specified. The
Founders, and the whole Central Society at the Headquarters, for instance, are
invited to demonstrate their theosophical natures by living like "fowls in
the air and lilies of the field," which neither sow nor
reap, toil not, nor spin and "take no thought for the morrow."
This being found hardly practicable, even in India, where a man may go about in
the garment of an Angel, but has, nevertheless, to pay rent and taxes, another
proposition, then a third one and a fourth -- each less practicable than the
preceding -- were offered . . . the unavoidable rejection of which led finally
to the criticism now under review.
After
carefully reading "A Few Words, etc.," no very acute intellect is
needed to perceive that, although no "specific measures" are offered
in them, the drift of the whole argument tends but to one conclusion, a kind of
syllogism more Hindu than metaphysical. Epitomised,
the remarks therein plainly say: "Destroy the bad results pointed out by
destroying the causes that generate them." Such is the apocalyptic meaning
of the paper, although both causes and results are made painfully and
flagrantly objective and that they may be rendered in this wise: Being shown
that the Society is the result and fruition of a bad President; and the latter
being the outcome of such an "untheosophically"
organized Society -- and, its worse than useless General Council -- "make
away with all these Causes and the results will disappear"; i.e., the
Society will have ceased to exist. Is this the heart-desire, of the two true
and sincere Theosophists?
The
complaints -- "submitted to those interested in the
progress of true Theosophy" -- which seems to mean "theosophy
divorced from the Society" -- may now be noticed in order and answered.
They specify the following objections: --
(I)
To the language of the Rules with regard to the powers
invested in the President-Founder by the General Council. This objection seems
very right. The sentence . . . The duties of the Council "shall consist in
advising the P.F. in regard to all matters referred to them by him" may be
easily construed as implying that on all matters not referred to the Council by
the Pres.-Founder . . . its members will hold their tongues. The Rules are
changed, at any rate they are corrected and altered yearly. This sentence can
be taken out. The harm, so far, is not so terrible.
(II)
It is shown that many members ex-officio whose names are found on the list of
the General Council are not known to the Convention; that they are, very
likely, not even interested in the Society "under their special
care"; a body they had joined at one time, then probably forgotten its
existence in the meanwhile, to withdraw themselves from the Association. The
argument implied is very valid. Why not point it out officially to the Members
residing at, or visiting the Head-Quarters, the impropriety of such a parading
of names? Yet, in what respect can this administrative blunder, or
carelessness, interfere with, or impede "the progress of true
theosophy"? {Furthermore the writer of the complaints in "A Few
Words, etc." is himself a member of the General Council for over two years
(see Rules 1885); why has he not spoken earlier?}
(III)
The members are appointed by the President-Founder . . . it is complained; the
General Council only advises on what is submitted to it" . . . and
"in the meantime that P.F. is empowered to issue special orders and
provisional rules," on behalf of that ("dummy") Council. (Rule IV, p. 20.) Moreover, it is urged that out of a number
of 150 members of the G. Council, a quorum of 5 and even 3 members present,
may, should it be found necessary by the President, decide upon any question of
vital importance, etc., etc., etc.
Such
an "untheosophical" display of authority, is objected to by Messrs. M. M. Chatterji and A. Gebhard, on the
grounds that it leads the Society to Caesarism, to
"tyranny" and papal infallibility, etc., etc. However right the two
complainants may be in principle it is impossible to fail seeing, the absurd
exaggerations of the epithets used; for, having just been accused on one page
of "tyrannical authority," of "centralization of power" and
a "papal institution" (p. 9) -- on page 11, the President-Founder is
shown "issuing special orders" from that "centre of Caesarism" -- which no one is bound to obey unless he
so wishes! "It is well known" remarks the principal writer --
"that not only individuals but even Branches have refused to pay this
[annual] subscription . . . of . . . two shillings" (p. 11); without any
bad effect for themselves, resulting out of it, as appears. Thus it would seem
it is not to a non-existent authority that objections should be made, but
simply to a vain and useless display of power that no one cares for. The policy
of issuing "special orders" with such sorry results is indeed
objectionable; only, not on the ground of a tendency to Caesarism,
but simply because it becomes highly ridiculous. The undersigned for one, has
many a time objected to it, moved however, more by a spirit of worldly pride
and an untheosophical feeling of self-respect than
anything like Yogi humility. It is admitted with
regret that the world of scoffers and non-theosophists might, if they heard of
it, find in it a capital matter for fun. But the real wonder is, how can
certain European theosophists, who have bravely defied the world to make them
wince under any amount of ridicule, once they acted in accordance with the
dictates of their conscience and duty -- make a crime of what is at the worst a
harmless, even if ridiculous, bit of vanity; a desire of giving importance --
not to the Founder, but to his Society for which he is ready to die any day.
One kind of ridicule is worth another. The Western theosophist, who for certain
magnetic reasons wears his hair long and shows otherwise eccentricity in his
dress, will be spared no more than his President, with his "special
orders." Only the latter, remaining as kindly disposed and brotherly to
the "individual theosophist and even a Branch" -- that snub him and
his "order," by refusing to pay what others do -- shows himself
ten-fold more theosophical and true to the principle of Brotherhood, than the
former, who traduces and denounces him in such uncharitable terms, instead of
kindly warning him of the bad effect produced. Unfortunately, it is not those
who speak the loudest of virtue and theosophy, who are the best exemplars of
both. Few of them, if any, have tried to cast out the beam from their own eye,
before they raised their voices against the mote in the eye of a brother.
Furthermore, it seems to have become quite the theosophical rage in these days,
to denounce vehemently, yet never to offer to help pulling out any such motes.
The
Society is bitterly criticized for asking every well-to-do theosophist (the
poor are exempt from it, from the first) to pay annually two shillings to help
defraying the expenses at Head-Quarters. It is denounced as "untheosophical," "unbrotherly,"
and the "admission fee" of £1, is declared no better than a
"sale of Brotherhood." In this our "Brotherhood" may be
shown again on a far higher level than any other association past or present.
The Theosophical Society has never shown the ambitious pretension to outshine
in theosophy and brotherliness, the primitive Brotherhood of Jesus and his
Apostles, {Yet, the Theosophical Brotherhood does seem doomed to outrival the
group of Apostles in the number of its denying Peters, its unbelieving Thomases, and even Iscariots occasionally, ready to sell
their Brotherhood for less than thirty sheckles of
silver!} and that "Organization," besides asking and being
occasionally refused, helped itself without asking, and as a matter of fact in
a real community of Brothers. Nevertheless, such action, that would seem highly
untheosophical and prejudicial in our day of culture
when nations alone are privileged to pocket each other's property and expect to
be honoured for it -- does not seem to have been an
obstacle in the way of deification and sanctification of the said early
"Brotherly" group. Our Society had never certainly any idea of rising
superior to the brotherliness and ethics preached by Christ, but only to those
of the sham Christianity of the Churches -- as originally ordered to, by our
MASTERS. And if we do not worse than the Gospel Brotherhood did, and far better
than any Church, which would expel any member refusing too long to pay his
Church rates, it is really hard to see why our "Organization" should
be ostracized by its own members. At any rate, the pens of the latter ought to
show themselves less acerb, in these days of trouble when every one seems bent
on finding fault with the Society, and few to help it, and that the
President-Founder is alone to work and toil with a few devoted theosophists at
Adyar to assist him.
(IV)
"There is no such institution in existence as the Parent Society" --
we are told (pp. 2 and 3). "It has disappeared from the Rules and . . .
has no legal existence" . . . The Society being unchartered,
it has not -- legally; but no more has any theosophist a legal existence, for
the matter of that. Is there one single member throughout the whole globe who
would be recognised by law or before a Magistrate --
as a theosophist? Why then do the gentlemen "complainants" call
themselves "theosophists" if the latter qualification has no better
legal standing than the said "Parent Society" or the Head-Quarters
itself? But the Parent-body does exist, and will, so long as the last man or
woman of the primitive group of Theosophists-Founders is alive. This -- as a
body; as for its moral characteristics, the Parent-Society means that small
nucleus of theosophists who hold sacredly through storm and blows to the
original programme of the T.S. as established under the direction and orders of
those, whom they recognize -- and will, to their last breath -- as the real
originators of the Movement, their living, Holy MASTERS AND TEACHERS. {The
members of the T.S. know, and those who do not should be told, that the term
"Mahatma," now so subtly analysed and controverted, for some mysterious reasons had never been
applied to our Masters before our arrival in India. For years they were known
as the "Adept-Brothers," the "Masters," etc. It is the
Hindus themselves who began applying the term to the two Teachers. This is no
place for an etymological disquisition and the fitness or unfitness of the
qualification, in the case in hand. As a state, Mahatmaship
is one thing, as a double noun, Maha-atma (Great
Soul), quite another one. Hindus ought to know the value of metaphysical
Sanskrit names used; and it is they the first, who have used it to designate
the MASTERS.}
(V)
The complaints then, that the T.S. "has laws without sanction, a
legislative body without legality, a Parent Society without existence,"
and, worse than all -- "a President-Founder above all rules " -- are
thus shown only partially correct. But even were they all absolutely true, it
would be easy to abolish such rules with one stroke of the pen, or to modify
them. But now comes the curious part of that severe philippic against the T.S.
by our eloquent Demosthenes. After six pages (out of the twelve) had been
filled with the said charges, the writer admits on the 7th, -- that they have
been so modified! -- "The above" we learn (rather late) "was
written under the misapprehension that the Rules bearing date 1885 were the
latest. It has since been found that there is a later version of the Rules
dated 1886, which have modified the older rules on a great many points." So much the better. -- Why recall in such case mistakes in the
past if these exist no longer? But the accusers do not see it in this light.
They are determined to act as a theosophical Nemesis; and in no way daunted by
the discovery, they add that nevertheless "it is necessary to examine the
earlier rules to ascertain the underlying principle which runs through the
present ones as well." This reminds of the fable of "the Wolf and the
Lamb." But -- you see -- "the chief point is that the Convention has
no power to make any rules, as such a power is opposed to the spirit of Theosophy. . . .," etc., etc.
Now
this is the most extraordinary argument that could be made. At this rate no
Brotherhood, no Association, no Society is possible. More than this: no
theosophist, however holy his present life may be, would have the right to call
himself one; for were it always found necessary to examine his earlier life,
"to ascertain the underlying principle" which rules through the
nature of the present man -- ten to one, he would be found unfit to be called a
theosophist! The experiment would hardly be found pleasant to the majority of
those whom association with the T.S. has reformed; and of such there are a good
many.
After
such virulent and severe denunciations one might expect some good, friendly and
theosophically practical advice. Not at all, and none
is offered, since we have been already told (p. 9) that it would be "out
of place to suggest any specific measures. For no one who has any faith in
Brotherhood and in the power of Truth will fail to perceive what is necessary."
The President-Founder, has no faith in either
"Brotherhood," or "the power of Truth" -- apparently. This
is made evident by his having failed to perceive (a) that the Head-Quarters --
opened to all Theosophists of any race or social position, board and lodging
free of charge the whole year round -- was an unbrotherly
Organization; (b) that the "central office at Adyar for keeping records
and concentrating information" with its European and Hindu inmates working
gratuitously and some helping it with their own money whenever they have it --
ought to be carried on, according to the method and principle of George Muller
of Bristol, namely, the numerous household and staff of officers at Adyar
headed by the Prest.-Founder ought to kneel every
morning in prayer for their bread and milk appealing for their meals to
"miracle"; and that finally, and (c) all the good the Society is
doing, is no good whatever but "a spiritual wrong," because it
presumes to call a "limited line of good work [theosophy] Divine Wisdom."
The
undersigned is an ever patient theosophist, who has hitherto laboured under the impression that no amount of subtle
scholasticism and tortured casuistry but could find like the Rosetta stone its Champollion -- some day. The most acute among theosophists
are now invited to make out in "A Few Words" -- what the writers or
writer is driving at -- unless in plain and unvarnished language, it be --
"Down with the Theosophical Society, Prest.-Founder
and its Head-Quarters!" This is the only possible explanation of the
twelve pages of denunciations to which a reply is now attempted. What can
indeed be made out of the following jumble of contradictory statements: --
(a)
The Prest.-Founder having been shown throughout as a
"tyrant," a "would be Caesar," "aiming at papal
power" and a "Venetian Council of Three," and other words to
that effect implied in almost every sentence of the paper under review, it is
confessed in the same breath "that the London Lodge of the Theosophical
Society has completely ignored the Rules [of the Pope Caesar] published by the
Headquarters at Adyar"! (p. 4). And yet, the "L.L. of the T.S."
still lives and breathes and one has heard of no anathema pronounced against
it, so far . . . (b) Rule XIV stating that the Society has "to deal only
with scientific and philosophical subjects," hence, "it is quite
evident [?] that the power and position claimed in the
Rules for the Prest.-Founder, the General Council and
the Convention are opposed to the spirit of the declared objects. . ."
It
might have been as well perhaps to quote the entire paragraph
in which these words appear,
{"XIV. The
Society having to deal only with scientific and philosophical subjects, and
having Branches in different parts of the world under various forms of
Government, does not permit its members, as such, to interfere with politics,
and repudiates any attempt on the part of anyone to commit it in favor or
against any political party or measure. Violation of this rule will meet with. Expulsion."
This rather alters the complexion put on the
charge, which seems conveniently to forget that "scientific and
philosophical subjects" are not the only declared objects of the Society.
Let us not leave room for a doubt that there is more animus
underlying the charges than would be strictly theosophical.}
once that hairs are split about the possibly faulty
reaction of the Rules? Is it not self-evident, that the words brought forward
"only with scientific and philosophical subjects" are inserted as a
necessary caution to true theosophists, who by dealing with politics within any
Branch Society might bring disgrace and ruin on the whole body, -- in India to
begin with? Has the Society or has it not over 140 Societies scattered through
four parts of the World to take care of? As in the case of "Mahatmas"
and the "Mahatmaship" -- active work of the
Theosophical Society is confused -- willingly or otherwise it is not for the
writer to decide -- with Theosophy. No need of entering here upon the
difference between the jar that contains a liquid and the nature of, or that
liquid itself. "Theosophy teaches self-culture and not control," we
are told. Theosophy teaches mutual-culture before self-culture to begin with.
Union is strength. It is by gathering many theosophists of the same way of
thinking into one or more groups, and making them closely united by the same
magnetic bond of fraternal unity and sympathy that the objects of mutual
development and progress in Theosophical thought may be best achieved.
"Self-culture" is for isolated Hatha Yogis,
independent of any Society and having to avoid association with human beings;
and this is a triply distilled SELFISHNESS. For real moral advancement --
"where two or three are gathered" in the name of the SPIRIT OF TRUTH
-- there that Spirit of Theosophy will be in the midst of them. To say that
theosophy has no need of a Society -- a vehicle and centre thereof, -- is like
affirming that the Wisdom of the Ages collected in thousands of volumes at the
British Museum has no need of either the edifice that contains it, nor the
works in which it is found. Why not advise the British Govt. on its lack of
discrimination and its worldliness in not destroying Museum and all its
vehicles of Wisdom? Why spend such sums of money and pay so many officers to
watch over its treasures, the more so, since many of its guardians may be quite
out of keeping with, and opposed to the Spirit of that Wisdom? The Directors of
such Museums may or may not be very perfect men, and some of their assistants may
have never opened a philosophical work: yet, it is they who take care of the
library and preserving it for future generations are indirectly entitled to
their thanks. How much more gratitude is due to those who like our
self-sacrificing theosophists at Adyar, devote their lives to, and give their
services gratuitously to the good of Humanity!
Diplomas,
and Charters are objected to, and chiefly the "admission fee." The
latter is a "taxation," and therefore "inconsistent with the
principle of Brotherhood" . . . A "forced gift is unbrotherly,"
etc., etc. It would be curious to see where the T.S. would be led to, were the
Pt.-F. to religiously follow the proffered advices.
"Initiation" on admission, has been made away with already in Europe,
and has led to that which will very soon become known: no use mentioning it at
present. Now the "Charters" and diplomas would follow. Hence no
document to show for any group, and no diploma to
prove that one is affiliated to the Society. Hence also perfect liberty to any
one to either call himself a theosophist, or deny he is one. The
"admission fee"? Indeed, it has to be regarded as a terrible
and unbrotherly "extortion," and a
"forced gift," in the face of those thousands of Masonic Lodges, of
Clubs, Associations, Societies, Leagues, and even the "Salvation
Army." The former, extort yearly fortunes from their Members; the latter
-- throttle in the name of Jesus the masses and appealing to voluntary
contributions make the converts pay, and pay in their turn every one of their
"officers," none of whom will serve the "Army" for nothing.
Yet it would be well, perchance, were our members to follow the example of the
Masons in their solidarity of thought and action and at least outward Union,
notwithstanding that receiving a thousand times more from their members they
give them in return still less than we do, whether spiritually or morally. This
solitary single guinea expected from every new member is spent in less than one
week, as was calculated, on postage and correspondence with theosophists. Or
are we to understand that all correspondence with members -- now left to
"self-culture" -- is also to cease and has to follow diplomas,
Charters and the rest? Then truly, the Head-Quarters and Office have better be
closed. A simple Query -- however: Have the £1. -- the
yearly contribution to the L.L. of the T.S., and the further sum of 2/6d. to the Oriental Group been abolished as "acts of unbrotherly extortion," and how long, if so, have they
begun to be regarded as "a sale of Brotherhood"?
To
continue: the charges wind up with the following remarks, so profound, that it
requires a deeper head than ours to fathom all that underlies the words
contained in them. "Is the Theosophical Society a Brotherhood, or
not?" queries the plaintiff -- if the former, is it possible to have any
centre of arbitrary power? {It is the first time since the T.S. exists that
such an accusation of arbitrary power, is brought forward. Not many will be
found of this way of thinking.} To hold that there is a necessity for such a
centre is only a round-about way of saying that no Brotherhood is possible, {No
need taking a roundabout way, to say that no Brotherhood would ever be possible
if many theosophists shared the very original views of the writer.} but in
point of fact that necessity itself is by no means proved [!
?]. There have been no doubt Brotherhoods under single Masters [there
"have been" and still are. H. P. B.], but in such cases the Masters
were never elected for geographical or other considerations [?]. The natural
leader of men was always recognized by his embodying the spirit of Humanity. To
institute comparisons would be little short of blasphemy. The greatest among
men is always the readiest to serve and yet is unconscious of the Service.
"Let
us pause before finally tying the millstone of worldliness round the neck of
Theosophy. Let us not forget that Theosophy does not grow in our midst by force
and control, but by the sunshine of brotherliness and the dew of self-oblivion.
If we do not believe in Brotherhood and Truth, let us put ashes on our head and
weep in sackcloth and not rejoice in the purple of authority and in the festive
garments of pride and worldliness. Better it is by far that the name of
Theosophy should never be heard than that it should be used as the motto of a
papal institution."
Who,
upon reading this, and being ignorant that the above
piece of rhetorical flowers of speech is directed against the luckless Prest.-Founder -- would not have in his "mind's
eye" -- an Alexander Borgia, a Caligula, or to
say the least -- General Booth in his latest metamorphosis! When, how, or by
doing what, has our good natured, unselfish, ever kind President merited such a
Ciceronian tirade? The state of things denounced exists now for almost twelve
years, and our accuser knew of it and even took an active part in its
organization, Conventions, Councils, Rules, etc., etc., at Bombay, and at
Adyar. This virulent sortie is no doubt due to "SELF-CULTURE"? The critic has outgrown the movement and turned his face from the
original programme; hence his severity. But where is the true
theosophical charity, the tolerance and the "sunshine of
brotherliness" just spoken of, and so insisted upon? Verily -- it is easy
to preach the "dew of self-oblivion" when one has nothing to think
about except to evolve such finely rounded phrases; were every theosophist at
Adyar to have his daily wants and even comforts, his board, lodging and all,
attended to by a wealthier theosophist; and were the same "sunshine of
brotherliness" to be poured upon him, as it is upon the critic who found
for himself an endless brotherly care, a fraternal and self-sacrificing
devotion in two other noble minded members, then -- would there be little need
for the President-Founder to call upon and humble himself before our
theosophists. For, if he has to beg for 2 annual shillings -- it is, in order
that those -- Europeans and Hindus -- who work night and day at Adyar, giving
their services free and receiving little thanks or honour for it, should have
at least one meal a day. The fresh "dew of self-oblivion" must not be
permitted to chill one's heart, and turn into the lethal mold of forgetfulness
to such an extent as that. The severe critic seems to have lost sight of the fact
that for months, during the last crisis, the whole staff of our devoted Adyar
officers, from the President down to the youngest brother in the office , have lived on 5d. a day
each, having reduced their meals to the minimum. And it is this mite, the
proceeds of the "2 shill. contribution,"
conscientiously paid by some, that is now called extortion, a desire to live
"in the purple of authority and in the festive garments of pride and
worldliness"!
Our
"Brother" is right. Let us "weep in sackcloth and ashes on our
head" if the T.S. has many more such unbrotherly
criticisms to bear. Truly it would be far better" that the name of
Theosophy should never be heard than that it should be used as the motto " -- not of papal authority which exists nowhere
at Adyar outside the critic's imagination -- but as a motto of a
"self-developed fanaticism." All the great services otherwise
rendered to the Society, all the noble work done by the complainant will pale
and vanish before such an appearance of cold-heartedness. Surely he cannot
desire the annihilation of the Society? And if he did it would be useless: the
T.S. cannot be destroyed as a body. It is not in the power of either Founders
or their critics; and neither friend nor enemy can ruin that which is doomed to
exist, all the blunders of its leaders notwithstanding. That
which was generated through and founded by the "High Masters" and
under their authority if not their instruction -- MUST AND WILL LIVE.
Each of us and all will receive his or her Karma in it, but the vehicle of
Theosophy will stand indestructible and undestroyed by the hand of whether man
or fiend. No; "truth does not depend on show of hands"; but in the
case of the much-abused President-Founder it must depend on the show of facts.
Thorny and full of pitfalls was the steep path he had to climb up alone and
unaided for the first years. Terrible was the opposition outside the Society he
had to build -- sickening and disheartening the treachery he often encountered
within the Head-Quarters. Enemies gnashing their teeth in his
face around, those whom he regarded as his staunchest friends and co-workers
betraying him and the Cause on the slightest provocation. Still, where
hundreds in his place would have collapsed and given up the whole undertaking
in despair, he, unmoved and unmovable, went on climbing up and toiling as
before, unrelenting and undismayed, supported by that one thought and
conviction that he was doing his duty. What other inducement has the Founder
ever had, but his theosophical pledge and the sense of his duty toward THOSE he
had promised to serve to the end of his life? There was but one beacon for him
-- the hand that had first pointed to him his way up: the hand of the MASTER he
loves and reveres so well, and serves so devotedly though occasionally perhaps,
unwisely. President elected for life, he has nevertheless offered more than
once to resign in favour of any one found worthier
than him, but was never permitted to do so by the majority -- not of "show
of hands" but show of hearts, literally, -- as few are more beloved than
he is even by most of those, who may criticise
occasionally his actions. And this is only natural: for cleverer in
administrative capacities, more learned in philosophy, subtler in casuistry, in
metaphysics or daily life policy, there may be many around him; but the whole
globe may be searched through and through and no one found stauncher to his
friends, truer to his word, or more devoted to real, practical theosophy --
than the President-Founder; and these are the chief requisites in a leader of
such a movement -- one that aims to become a Brotherhood of men. The Society
needs no Loyolas; it has to shun anything approaching
casuistry; nor ought we to tolerate too subtle casuists. There, where every
individual has to work out his own Karma, the judgment of a casuist who takes
upon himself the duty of pronouncing upon the state of a brother's soul, or
guide his conscience is of no use, and may become positively injurious. The
Founder claims no more rights than everyone else in the Society: the right of
private judgment, which, whenever it is found to disagree with Branches or
individuals are quietly set aside and ignored -- as shown by the complainants
themselves. This then, is the sole crime of the would-be culprit, and no worse
than this can be laid at his door. And yet what is the reward of that kind man?
He, who has never refused a service, outside what he considers his official
duties -- to any living being; he who has redeemed dozens of men, young and old
from dissipated, often immoral lives and saved others from terrible scrapes by
giving them a safe refuge in the Society; he, who has placed others again, on
the pinnacle of Saintship through their status in
that Society, when otherwise they would have indeed found themselves now in the
meshes of "worldliness" and perhaps worse; -- he, that true friend of
every theosophist, and verily "the readiest to serve and as unconscious of
the service" -- he is now taken to task for what? -- for
insignificant blunders, for useless "special, orders," a childish,
rather than untheosophical love of display, out of
pure devotion to his Society. Is then human nature to be viewed so uncharitably
by us, as to call untheosophical, worldly and sinful
the natural impulse of a mother to dress up her child and parade it to the best
advantages? The comparison may be laughed at, but if it is, it will be only by
him who would, like the fanatical Christian of old, or the naked, dishevelled Yogi of India -- have no more charity for the
smallest human weakness. Yet, the simile is quite correct, since the Society is
the child, the beloved creation of the Founder; he may be well forgiven for
this too exaggerated love for that for which he has suffered and toiled more
than all other theosophists put together. He is called "worldly,"
"ambitious of power" and untheosophical for
it. Very well; let then any impartial judge compare the life of the Founder
with those of most of his critics, and see which was the most theosophical ever
since the Society sprang into existence. If no better results have been
achieved, it is not the President who ought to be taken to task for it, but the
Members themselves, as he has been ever trying to promote its growth, and the
majority of "Fellows" have either done nothing, or created obstacles
in the way of its progress through sins of omission as of commission. Better
unwise activity, than an overdose of too wise inactivity, apathy or
indifference which are always the death of an
undertaking.
Nevertheless,
it is the members who now seek to sit in Solomon's seat; and they tell us that
the Society is useless, its President positively
mischievous, and that the Head-Quarters ought to be done away with, as
"the organization called Theosophical presents many features seriously
obstructive to the progress of Theosophy." Trees, however, have to be
judged by their fruits. It was just shown that no "special orders"
issuing from the "Centre of Power" called Adyar, could affect in any
way whatever either Branch or individual; and therefore any theosophist bent on
"self-culture," "self-involution" or any kind of selfness,
is at liberty to do so; and if, instead of using his rights he will apply his
brain-power to criticize other people's actions then it is he who becomes the
obstructionist and not at all the "Organization called Theosophical."
For, if theosophy is anywhere practised on this
globe, it is at Adyar, at the Head-Quarters. Let "those interested in the
progress of true theosophy" appealed to by the writers look around them
and judge. See the Branch Societies and compare them with the group that works
in that "Centre of Power." Admire the "progress of
theosophy" at
At
Adyar alone, at the Head-Quarters of the Theosophical Society, the Theosophists
are that which they ought to be everywhere else: true theosophists and not
merely philosophers and Sophists. In that centre alone are now grouped together
the few solitary, practically working Members, who labor and toil, quietly and
uninterruptedly, while those Brothers for whose sake they are working, sit in
the dolce far niente of the West and criticise them. Is this "true theosophical and
brotherly work," to advise to put down and disestablish the only
"centre" where real brotherly, humanitarian work is being
accomplished?
"Theosophy first and organization
after."
Golden words, these. But where would Theosophy be heard of now, had not its
Society been organized before its Spirit and a desire for it had permeated the
whole world? And would Vedanta and other Hindu philosophies have been ever
taught and studied in
Belief
in the Masters was never made an article of faith in the T.S. But for its
Founders, the commands received from Them when it was
established have ever been sacred. And this is what one of them wrote in a
letter preserved to this day:
"Theosophy must not represent merely a
collection of moral verities, a bundle of metaphysical Ethics epitomized in
theoretical dissertations. Theosophy must be made practical, and has, therefore, to be disencumbered of useless discussion .
. . It has to find objective expression in an all-embracing code of life
thoroughly impregnated with its spirit -- the spirit of mutual tolerance,
charity and love. Its followers have to set the example of a firmly outlined
and as firmly applied morality before they get the right to point out, even in
a spirit of kindness, the absence of a like ethic Unity and singleness of
purpose in other associations and individuals. As said before -- no Theosophist
should blame a brother whether within or outside of the association, throw slur
upon his actions or denounce him {It is in consequence
of this letter that Art. XII was adopted in Rules and a fear of lacking the
charity prescribed, that led so often to neglect its enforcement.} lest he should himself lose the right of being considered a
theosophist. Ever turn away your gaze from the imperfections of your neighbour and centre rather your attention upon your own
shortcomings in order to correct them and become wiser . . . Show not the
disparity between claim and action in another man but -- whether he be brother
or neighbour -- rather help him in his arduous walk
in life . . . The problem of true theosophy and its great mission is the
working out of clear, unequivocal conceptions of ethic ideas and duties which
would satisfy most and best the altruistic and right feeling in us; and the modelling of these conceptions for their adaptation into
such forms of daily life where they may be applied with most equitableness . .
. . Such is the common work in view for all who are willing to act on these
principles. It is a laborious task and will require strenuous and persevering
exertion, but it must lead you insensibly to progress and leave no room for any
selfish aspirations outside the limits traced . . . . . Do not indulge in unbrotherly comparisons between the task accomplished by
yourself and the work left undone by your neighbour
or brother, in the field of Theosophy, as none is held to weed out a larger
plot of ground than his strength and capacity will permit him . . . Do not be
too severe on the merits or demerits of one who seeks admission among your
ranks, as the truth about the actual state of the inner man can only be known
to, and dealt with justly by KARMA alone. Even the simple presence amidst you
of a well-intentioned and sympathising individual may
help you magnetically . . . You are the Free-workers on the Domain of Truth,
and as such, must leave no obstructions on the paths leading to it." . . .
[The letter closes with the following lines which have now become quite plain,
as they give the key to the whole situation] . . . "The degrees of success
or failure are the landmark we shall have to follow, as they will constitute
the barriers placed with your own hands between yourselves and those whom you
have asked to be your teachers. The nearer your approach to the goal
contemplated the shorter the distance between the student and the Master. . .
."
A
complete answer is thus found in the above lines to the paper framed by the two
Theosophists. Those who are now inclined to repudiate the Hand that traced it
and feel ready to turn their backs upon the whole Past and the original
programme of the T.S. are at liberty to do so. The Theosophical body is neither
a Church nor a Sect and every individual opinion is entitled to a hearing. A
Theosophist may progress and develop, and his views may outgrow those of the
Founders, grow larger and broader in every direction, without for all that
abandoning the fundamental soil upon which they were born and nurtured. It is
only he who changes diametrically his opinions from one day to another and
shifts his devotional views from white to black -- who can be hardly trusted in
his remarks and actions. But surely, this can never be the case of the two
Theosophists who have now been answered . . .
Meanwhile, peace and fraternal good-will to
all.
H. P. BLAVATSKY,
Corres. Secty T.S.
Ostende, Oct. 3rd., 1886.
(From H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings 7:145-171)
Theosophical Society,