SECTION XIV.

THE “THEOSOPHICAL MAHATMAS”:

Are They “Spirits of Light” or “Goblins Damn’d”? 228

The Abuse of Sacred Names and Terms 237

CONCLUSION.

The Future of the Theosophical Society 241

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 text-book 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 enquirer, 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 not of the

language, is due to depth 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 post-mortem

life, and to showing the true nature of Spiritualistic phænomena.

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. B.

THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY.

I. THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

THE MEANING OF THE NAME.

ENQUIRER. Theosophy and its doctrines are often referred to as a

new-fangled religion. Is it a religion?

THEOSOPHIST. It is not. Theosophy is Divine Knowledge or Science.

ENQ. What is the real meaning of the term?

THEO. “Divine Wisdom,” Θεοσοφία (Theosophia) or Wisdom of the gods, as

Θεογονία (theogonia), genealogy of the gods. The word Θεὸς 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.

ENQ. What is the origin of the name?

THEO. It comes to us from the Alexandrian philosophers, called lovers

of truth, Philatheians, from φιλ (phil) “loving,” and ἀλήθεια

(aletheia) “truth.” The name Theosophy dates from the third

century of our era, and began with Ammonius Saccas and his

disciples,[1] who started the Eclectic Theosophical system.

ENQ. What was the object of this system?

THEO. 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.”[2] 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.

ENQ. 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?

THEO. 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.” (Eclect.

Philo.)

THE POLICY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

ENQ. 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?

THEO. By doing that which we again try to do now. The Neo-Platonists

were a large body, and belonged to various religious

philosophies[3]; so do our Theosophists. In those days, the Jew

Aristobulus affirmed that the ethics of Aristotle represented the

_esoteric_ teachings of the Law of Moses; Philo Judæus endeavoured

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 Therapeutæ (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

endeavoured to induce Gentiles and Christians, Jews and Idolators,

to lay aside their contentions and strifes, remembering only

that they were all in possession of the same truth under various

vestments, and were all the children of a common mother.[4] This

is the aim of Theosophy likewise.

ENQ. What are your authorities for saying this of the ancient

Theosophists of Alexandria?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. Was he encouraged and supported by the Church because,

notwithstanding his heresies, Ammonius taught Christianity and was

a Christian?

THEO. 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.” Moreover, as says the _Edinburgh

Encyclopedia_, “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.

ENQ. Since Ammonius never committed anything to writing, how can one

feel sure that such were his teachings?

THEO. 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 (counsellor

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.

ENQ. How have the latter tenets reached our day, since you hold that

what is properly called the WISDOM-RELIGION was esoteric?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. Where and by whom was it so preserved?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. Can you give me some proofs of its esotericism?

THEO. 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

_Mercavah_ (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 ἡ γνῶσις τῶν ὄντων, 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?

“To you,” he says, “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” (Mark iv. 11). “The Essenes of Judea

and Carmel made similar distinctions, dividing their adherents

into neophytes, brethren, and the _perfect_, or those initiated”

(Eclec. Phil.). Examples might be brought from every country to

this effect.

ENQ. Can you attain the “Secret Wisdom” simply by study? Encyclopædias

define _Theosophy_ 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?

THEO. 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 ecstacy. This condition

can hardly be attained, like _hypnotism_, by “physical and

chemical means.”

ENQ. What is your explanation of it?

THEO. Real ecstacy 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 Prof.

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 practised by

the Yogis, who facilitate it physically by the greatest abstinence

in food and drink, and mentally by an incessant endeavour 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.”[5]

ENQ. Theosophy, then, is not, as held by some, a newly devised scheme?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. 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?

THEO. 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

its lies in the fact that real Theosophy has ever been kept secret.

ENQ. You have brought forward proofs that such secrecy has existed; but

what was the real cause for it?

THEO. The causes for it were: _Firstly_, the perversity of average

human nature and its selfishness, always tending to the

gratification of _personal_ desires to the detriment of neighbours

and next of kin. Such people could never be entrusted with

_divine_ secrets. _Secondly_, 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.

ENQ. You are often spoken of as “Esoteric Buddhists.” Are you then all

followers of Gautama Buddha?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. 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?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. But some Orientalists deny that Buddha ever taught any esoteric

doctrine at all?

THEO. 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. Edkins’ _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.

ENQ. But are not the ethics of Theosophy identical with those taught

by Buddha?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. Are there any great points of difference?

THEO. 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

_post-mortem_ 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, philosophical and scientific, even in its

dead-letter, is this teaching than that of any other Church or

religion. Yet Theosophy is not Buddhism.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Also called Analogeticists. As explained by Prof. Alex. Wilder,

F.T.S., in his “Eclectic Philosophy,” 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 Laertius 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.

[2] 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

Kabalists. 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. Boehme 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

ecstacy, 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.—(_Vide Eclectic Philos._, by A. Wilder).

[3] 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 “Eclectic

Philosophy” very pertinently remarks: “The Buddhistic, 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.... Panænus,

Athenagoras, and Clement were thoroughly instructed in Platonic

philosophy, and comprehended its essential unity with the Oriental

systems.”

[4] 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 Encyclopædia_ 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.”

[5] This is what the scholarly author of “The Eclectic Philosophy,”

Prof. A. 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 every-day 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 vapours 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.”

II.

EXOTERIC AND ESOTERIC THEOSOPHY.

WHAT THE MODERN THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IS NOT.

ENQ. Your doctrines, then, are not a revival of Buddhism, nor are they

entirely copied from the Neo-Platonic Theosophy?

THEO. 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., before the last Theosophical Convention, at

Chicago, America (April, 1889). No living theosophist has better

expressed and understood the real essence of Theosophy than our

honoured 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, and forming a practical

guide to the sublimest 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 sceptics

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 honour every truth by use.’

How little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is

understood by the masses of mankind, how seldom its

transcendent importance is recognised, 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 Buddhistic 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.

ENQ. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides

Buddhistic ethics?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. What is the difference?

THEO. 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 Mussulmen,

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 Aryan 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 programme. Otherwise he has no reason for becoming a

“Fellow.” Such are the majority of the exoteric Society, composed

of “attached” and “unattached” members.[6] 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.”

ENQ. This applies to lay members, as I understand. And what of those

who pursue the esoteric study of Theosophy; are they the real

Theosophists?

THEO. 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. 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.

ENQ. Then what is the good of joining the so-called Theosophical

Society in that case? Where is the incentive?

THEO. None, except the advantage of getting esoteric instructions, the

genuine doctrines of the “Wisdom-Religion,” and if the real

programme 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.

ENQ. 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?

THEO. 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 mediæval 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 Kabala, 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 Kabala, 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

_Kabala_ and the Jewish _Zohar_, which each interprets in his

own way according to the dead-letter of the Rabbinical methods.

Others regard Swedenborg or Boehme 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.

ENQ. 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?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. But how is one to know whether the ounce is real gold or only a

counterfeit?

THEO. 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 Kabalist, 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 and Surgeons would

call quacks—none have helped with their science Humanity, nor even

a number of men of the same community. Where are the Chaldees of

old, those who wrought marvellous 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 Europe, but none of the

latter—except in Asia, where the secret of the Yogi, “to live in

death,” is still preserved.

ENQ. Is the production of such healing adepts the aim of Theosophy?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. Is help, then, to reach this most important aim, given only to

those who study the esoteric sciences?

THEO. 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 SPIRITUALISM.

ENQ. You speak of Theosophy and Occultism; are they identical?

THEO. By no means. A man may be a very good Theosophist indeed, whether

_in_ or _outside_ of 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.

ENQ. What do you mean?

THEO. 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.

ENQ. Then is an Occultist simply a man who possesses more power than

other people?

THEO. Far more—if he is a _practical_ and really learned Occultist, and

not one only in name. Occult sciences are _not_, as described,

in Encyclopædias, “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 hypnotizer 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 hypnotizer, 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.

ENQ. 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?

THEO. Let me remind you that this remark of yours cuts both ways. The

“most cultured and learned” among you regard also Christianity and

every other religion as a relic of ignorance and superstition.

People begin to believe now, at any rate, in _hypnotism_, and

some—even of the _most cultured_—in Theosophy and phenomena. But

who among them, except preachers and blind fanatics, will confess

to a belief in _Biblical miracles_? And this is where the point

of difference comes in. There are very good and pure Theosophists

who may believe in the supernatural, divine _miracles_ included,

but no Occultist will do so. For an Occultist practices

_scientific_ Theosophy, based on accurate knowledge of Nature’s

secret workings; but a Theosophist, practising the powers called

abnormal, _minus_ the light of Occultism, will simply tend toward

a dangerous form of mediumship, because, although holding to

Theosophy and its highest conceivable code of ethics, he practises

it in the dark, on sincere but _blind_ faith. Anyone, Theosophist

or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of the branches of

Occult science—_e.g._, Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the secrets

of producing physical phenomena, etc.—without the knowledge of the

philosophic _rationale_ of those powers, is like a rudderless boat

launched on a stormy ocean.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.

ENQ. But do you not believe in Spiritualism?

THEO. If by “Spiritualism” you mean the explanation which Spiritualists

give of some abnormal phenomena, then decidedly _we do not_.

They maintain that these manifestations are all produced by the

“spirits” of departed mortals, generally their relatives, who

return to earth, they say, to communicate with those they have

loved or to whom they are attached. We deny this point blank. We

assert that the spirits of the dead cannot return to earth—save

in rare and exceptional cases, of which I may speak later; nor do

they communicate with men except by _entirely subjective means_.

That which does appear objectively, is only the phantom of the

ex-physical man. But in _psychic_, and so to say, “Spiritual”

Spiritualism, we do believe, most decidedly.

ENQ. Do you reject the phenomena also?

THEO. Assuredly not—save cases of conscious fraud.

ENQ. How do you account for them, then?

THEO. In many ways. The causes of such manifestations are by no means

so simple as the Spiritualists would like to believe. Foremost of

all, the _deus ex machinâ_ of the so-called “materializations”

is usually the astral body or “double” of the medium or of some

one present. This _astral_ body is also the producer or operating

force in the manifestations of slate-writing, “Davenport”-like

manifestations, and so on.

ENQ. You say “usually”; then _what_ is it that produces the rest?

THEO. That depends on the nature of the manifestations. Sometimes the

astral remains, the Kamalokic “shells” of the vanished

_personalities_ that were; at other times, Elementals. “Spirit”

is a word of manifold and wide significance. I really do not

know what Spiritualists mean by the term; but what we understand

them to claim is that the physical phenomena are produced by the

reincarnating _Ego_, the _Spiritual_ and immortal “individuality.”

And this hypothesis we entirely reject. The Conscious

_Individuality_ of the disembodied _cannot materialize_, nor can

it return from its own mental Devachanic sphere to the plane of

terrestrial objectivity.

ENQ. But many of the communications received from the “spirits” show

not only intelligence, but a knowledge of facts not known to the

medium, and sometimes even not consciously present to the mind of

the investigator, or any of those who compose the audience.

THEO. This does not necessarily prove that the intelligence and

knowledge you speak of belong to _spirits_, or emanate from

_disembodied_ souls. Somnambulists have been known to compose

music and poetry and to solve mathematical problems while in their

trance state, without having ever learnt music or mathematics.

Others answered intelligently to questions put to them, and even,

in several cases, spoke languages, such as Hebrew and Latin, of

which they were entirely ignorant when awake—all this in a state

of profound sleep. Will you, then, maintain that this was caused

by “spirits”?

ENQ. But how would you explain it?

THEO. We assert that the divine spark in man being one and identical in

its essence with the Universal Spirit, our “spiritual Self” is

practically omniscient, but that it cannot manifest its knowledge

owing to the impediments of matter. Now the more these impediments

are removed, in other words, the more the physical body is

paralyzed, as to its own independent activity and consciousness,

as in deep sleep or deep trance, or, again, in illness, the more

fully can the _inner_ Self manifest on this plane. This is our

explanation of those truly wonderful phenomena of a higher order,

in which undeniable intelligence and knowledge are exhibited. As

to the lower order of manifestations, such as physical phenomena

and the platitudes and common talk of the general “spirit,” to

explain even the most important of the teachings we hold upon the

subject would take up more space and time than can be allotted

to it at present. We have no desire to interfere with the belief

of the Spiritualists any more than with any other belief. The

_onus probandi_ must fall on the believers in “spirits.” And at

the present moment, while still convinced that the higher sort of

manifestations occur through the disembodied souls, their leaders

and the most learned and intelligent among the Spiritualists are

the first to confess that not _all_ the phenomena are produced by

spirits. Gradually they will come to recognize the whole truth;

but meanwhile we have no right nor desire to proselytize them to

our views. The less so, as in the cases of purely _psychic and

spiritual manifestations_ we believe in the intercommunication

of the spirit of the living man with that of disembodied

personalities.[7]

ENQ. This means that you reject the philosophy of Spiritualism _in

toto_?

THEO. If by “philosophy” you mean their crude theories, we do. But they

have no philosophy, in truth. Their best, their most intellectual

and earnest defenders say so. Their fundamental and only

unimpeachable truth, namely, that phenomena occur through mediums

controlled by invisible forces and intelligences—no one, except a

blind materialist of the “Huxley big toe” school, will or _can_

deny. With regard to their philosophy, however, let me read to

you what the able editor of _Light_, than whom the Spiritualists

will find no wiser nor more devoted champion, says of them and

their philosophy. This is what “M.A. Oxon,” one of the very few

_philosophical_ Spiritualists, writes, with respect to their lack

of organization and blind bigotry:—

It is worth while to look steadily at this point, for it is of

vital moment. We have an experience and a knowledge beside which

all other knowledge is comparatively insignificant. The ordinary

Spiritualist waxes wroth if anyone ventures to impugn his assured

knowledge of the future and his absolute certainty of the life to

come. Where other men have stretched forth feeble hands groping

into the dark future, he walks boldly as one who has a chart and

knows his way. Where other men have stopped short at a pious

aspiration or have been content with a hereditary faith, it is his

boast that he knows what they only believe, and that out of his

rich stores he can supplement the fading faiths built only upon

hope. He is magnificent in his dealings with man’s most cherished

expectations. “You hope,” he seems to say, “for that which I can

demonstrate. You have accepted a traditional belief in what I can

experimentally prove according to the strictest scientific method.

The old beliefs are fading; come out from them and be separate.

They contain as much falsehood as truth. Only by building on a

sure foundation of demonstrated fact can your superstructure be

stable. All round you old faiths are toppling. Avoid the crash and

get you out.”

When one comes to deal with this magnificent person in a practical

way, what is the result? Very curious and very disappointing. He

is so sure of his ground that he takes no trouble to ascertain

the interpretation which others put upon his facts. The wisdom

of the ages has concerned itself with the explanation of what he

rightly regards as proven; but he does not turn a passing glance

on its researches. He does not even agree altogether with his

brother Spiritualist. It is the story over again of the old Scotch

body who, together with her husband, formed a “kirk.” They had

exclusive keys to Heaven, or, rather, she had, for she was “na

certain aboot Jamie.” So the infinitely divided and subdivided

and resubdivided sects of Spiritualists shake their heads,

and are “na certain aboot” one another. Again, the collective

experience of mankind is solid and unvarying on this point that

union is strength, and disunion a source of weakness and failure.

Shoulder to shoulder, drilled and disciplined, a rabble becomes

an army, each man a match for a hundred of the untrained men that

may be brought against it. Organization in every department of

man’s work means success, saving of time and labour, profit and

development. Want of method, want of plan, haphazard work, fitful

energy, undisciplined effort—these mean bungling failure. The

voice of humanity attests the truth. Does the Spiritualist accept

the verdict and act on the conclusion? Verily, no. He refuses to

organize. He is a law unto himself, and a thorn in the side of his

neighbours.—_Light_, June 22, 1889.

ENQ. I was told that the Theosophical Society was originally founded to

crush Spiritualism and belief in the survival of the individuality

in man?

THEO. You are misinformed. Our beliefs are all founded on that immortal

individuality. But then, like so many others, you confuse

_personality_ with individuality. Your Western psychologists do

not seem to have established any clear distinction between the

two. Yet it is precisely that difference which gives the key-note

to the understanding of Eastern philosophy, and which lies at the

root of the divergence between the Theosophical and Spiritualistic

teachings. And though it may draw upon us still more the hostility

of some Spiritualists, yet I must state here that it is Theosophy

which is the _true_ and unalloyed Spiritualism, while the modern

scheme of that name is, as now practised by the masses, simply

transcendental materialism.

ENQ. Please explain your idea more clearly.

THEO. What I mean is that though our teachings insist upon the identity

of spirit and matter, and though we say that spirit is _potential_

matter, and matter simply crystallized spirit (_e.g._, as ice is

solidified steam), yet since the original and eternal condition

of _all_ is not spirit but _meta_-spirit, so to speak, (visible

and solid matter being simply its periodical manifestation,) we

maintain that the term spirit can only be applied to the _true_

individuality.

ENQ. But what is the distinction between this “true individuality” and

the “I” or “Ego” of which we are all conscious?

THEO. Before I can answer you, we must argue upon what you mean by “I”

or “Ego.” We distinguish between the simple fact of

self-consciousness, the simple feeling that “I am I,” and

the complex thought that “I am Mr. Smith” or “Mrs. Brown.”

Believing as we do in a series of births for the same Ego, or

re-incarnation, this distinction is the fundamental pivot of

the whole idea. You see “Mr. Smith” really means a long series

of daily experiences strung together by the thread of memory,

and forming what Mr. Smith calls “himself.” But none of these

“experiences” are really the “I” or the Ego, nor do they give “Mr.

Smith” the feeling that he is himself, for he forgets the greater

part of his daily experiences, and they produce the feeling of

_Egoity_ in him only while they last. We Theosophists, therefore,

distinguish between this bundle of “experiences,” which we call

the _false_ (because so finite and evanescent) _personality_, and

that element in man to which the feeling of “I am I” is due. It

is this “I am I” which we call the _true_ individuality; and we

say that this “Ego” or individuality plays, like an actor, many

parts on the stage of life.[8] Let us call every new life on earth

of the same _Ego_ a _night_ on the stage of a theatre. One night

the actor, or “Ego,” appears as “Macbeth,” the next as “Shylock,”

the third as “Romeo,” the fourth as “Hamlet” or “King Lear,” and

so on, until he has run through the whole cycle of incarnations.

The Ego begins his life-pilgrimage as a sprite, an “Ariel,” or a

“Puck”; he plays the part of a _super_, is a soldier, a servant,

one of the chorus; rises then to “speaking parts,” plays leading

_rôles_, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally

retires from the stage as “Prospero,” the _magician_.

ENQ. I understand. You say, then, that this true _Ego_ cannot return to

earth after death. But surely the actor is at liberty, if he has

preserved the sense of his individuality, to return if he likes to

the scene of his former actions?

THEO. We say not, simply because such a return to earth would be

incompatible with any state of _unalloyed_ bliss after death, as

I am prepared to prove. We say that man suffers so much unmerited

misery during his life, through the fault of others with whom he

is associated, or because of his environment, that he is surely

entitled to perfect rest and quiet, if not bliss, before taking up

again the burden of life. However, we can discuss this in detail

later.

WHY IS THEOSOPHY ACCEPTED?

ENQ. I understand to a certain extent; but I see that your teachings

are far more complicated and metaphysical than either Spiritualism

or current religious thought. Can you tell me, then, what has

caused this system of Theosophy which you support to arouse so

much interest and so much animosity at the same time?

THEO. There are several reasons for it, I believe; among other causes

that may be mentioned is, _firstly_, the great reaction from the

crassly materialistic theories now prevalent among scientific

teachers. _Secondly_, general dissatisfaction with the artificial

theology of the various Christian Churches, and the number of

daily increasing and conflicting sects. _Thirdly_, an ever-growing

perception of the fact that the creeds which are so obviously

self—and mutually—contradictory _cannot be true_, and that claims

which are unverified _cannot be real_. This natural distrust of

conventional religions is only strengthened by their complete

failure to preserve morals and to purify society and the masses.

_Fourthly_, a conviction on the part of many, and _knowledge_ by

a few, that there must be somewhere a philosophical and religious

system which shall be scientific and not merely speculative.

_Finally_, a belief, perhaps, that such a system must be sought

for in teachings far antedating any modern faith.

ENQ. But how did this system come to be put forward just now?

THEO. Just because the time was found to be ripe, which fact is shown

by the determined effort of so many earnest students to reach

_the truth_, at whatever cost and wherever it may be concealed.

Seeing this, its custodians permitted that some portions at

least of that truth should be proclaimed. Had the formation of

the Theosophical Society been postponed a few years longer, one

half of the civilized nations would have become by this time

rank materialists, and the other half anthropomorphists and

phenomenalists.

ENQ. Are we to regard Theosophy in any way as a revelation?

THEO. In no way whatever—not even in the sense of a new and direct

disclosure from some higher, supernatural, or, at least,

_superhuman beings_; but only in the sense of an “unveiling” of

old, very old, truths to minds hitherto ignorant of them, ignorant

even of the existence and preservation of any such archaic

knowledge.[9]

ENQ. You spoke of “Persecution.” If truth is as represented by

Theosophy, why has it met with such opposition, and with no

general acceptance?

THEO. For many and various reasons again, one of which is the hatred

felt by men for “innovations,” as they call them. Selfishness is

essentially conservative, and hates being disturbed. It prefers

an easy-going, unexacting _lie_ to the greatest truth, if the

latter requires the sacrifice of one’s smallest comfort. The power

of mental inertia is great in anything that does not promise

immediate benefit and reward. Our age is pre-eminently unspiritual

and matter of fact. Moreover, there is the unfamiliar character of

Theosophic teachings; the highly abstruse nature of the doctrines,

some of which contradict flatly many of the human vagaries

cherished by sectarians, which have eaten into the very core of

popular beliefs. If we add to this the personal efforts and great

purity of life exacted of those who would become the disciples

of the _inner_ circle, and the very limited class to which an

entirely unselfish code appeals, it will be easy to perceive the

reason why Theosophy is doomed to such slow, uphill work. It is

essentially the philosophy of those who suffer, and have lost all

hope of being helped out of the mire of life by any other means.

Moreover, the history of any system of belief or morals, newly

introduced into a foreign soil, shows that its beginnings were

impeded by every obstacle that obscurantism and selfishness could

suggest. “The crown of the innovator is a crown of thorns” indeed!

No pulling down of old, worm-eaten buildings can be accomplished

without some danger.

ENQ. All this refers rather to the ethics and philosophy of the T.S.

Can you give me a general idea of the Society itself, its object

and statutes?

THEO. This was never made secret. Ask, and you shall receive accurate

answers.

ENQ. But I heard that you were bound by pledges?

THEO. Only in the _Arcane_ or “Esoteric” Section.

ENQ. And also, that some members after leaving did not regard

themselves bound by them. Are they right?

THEO. This shows that their idea of honour is an imperfect one. How can

they be right? As well said in the _Path_, our theosophical organ

at New York, treating of such a case: “Suppose that a soldier is

tried for infringement of oath and discipline, and is dismissed

from the service. In his rage at the justice he has called down,

and of whose penalties he was distinctly forewarned, the soldier

turns to the enemy with false information,—a spy and traitor—as

a revenge upon his former Chief, and claims that his punishment

has released him from his oath of loyalty to a cause.” Is he

justified, think you? Don’t you think he deserves being called a

dishonourable man, a coward?

ENQ. I believe so; but some think otherwise.

THEO. So much the worse for them. But we will talk on this subject

later, if you please.

FOOTNOTES:

[6] An “attached member” means one who has joined some particular

branch of the T.S. An “unattached,” one who belongs to the Society at

large, has his diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is

connected with no branch or lodge.

[7] We say that in such cases it is not the _spirits_ of the dead

who _descend_ on earth, but the spirits of the living that _ascend_

to the pure Spiritual Souls. In truth there is neither _ascending_

nor _descending_, but a change of _state_ or _condition_ for the

medium. The body of the latter becoming paralyzed, or “entranced,” the

spiritual Ego is free from its trammels, and finds itself on the same

plane of consciousness with the disembodied spirits. Hence, if there

is any spiritual attraction between the two _they can communicate_,

as often occurs in dreams. The difference between a mediumistic and

a non-sensitive nature is this: the liberated spirit of a medium has

the opportunity and facility of influencing the passive organs of its

entranced physical body, to make them act, speak, and write at its

will. The Ego can make it repeat, echo-like, and in the human language,

the thoughts and ideas of the disembodied entity, as well as its own.

But the _non-receptive_ or non-sensitive organism of one who is very

positive cannot be so influenced. Hence, although there is hardly a

human being whose Ego does not hold free intercourse, during the sleep

of his body, with those whom it loved and lost, yet, on account of the

positiveness and non-receptivity of its physical envelope and brain,

no recollection, or a very dim, dream-like remembrance, lingers in the

memory of the person once awake.

[8] _Vide infra_, “On Individuality and Personality.”

[9] It has become “fashionable,” especially of late, to deride the

notion that there ever was, in the _mysteries_ of great and civilized

peoples, such as the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans, anything but

priestly imposture. Even the Rosicrucians were no better than half

lunatics, half knaves. Numerous books have been written on them; and

tyros, who had hardly heard the name a few years before, sallied

out as profound critics and Gnostics on the subject of alchemy, the

fire-philosophers, and mysticism in general. Yet a long series of the

Hierophants of Egypt, India, Chaldea, and Arabia are known, along

with the greatest philosophers and sages of Greece and the West, to

have included under the designation of wisdom and divine science all

knowledge, for they considered the base and origin of every art and

science as _essentially_ divine. Plato regarded the _mysteries_ as

most sacred, and Clemens Alexandrinus, who had been himself initiated

into the Eleusinian mysteries, has declared “that the doctrines taught

therein contained in them the end of all human knowledge.” Were Plato

and Clemens two knaves or two fools, we wonder, or—both?

III. THE WORKING SYSTEM OF THE T.S.[10]

THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY.

ENQ. What are the objects of the “Theosophical Society”?

THEO. They are three, and have been so from the beginning. (1). To form

the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without

distinction of race, colour, or creed. (2). To promote the

study of Aryan and other Scriptures, of the World’s religion

and sciences, and to vindicate the importance of old Asiatic

literature, namely, of the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian

philosophies. (3). To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature

under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers

latent in man especially. These are, broadly stated, the three

chief objects of the Theosophical Society.

ENQ. Can you give me some more detailed information upon these?

THEO. We may divide each of the three objects into as many explanatory

clauses as may be found necessary.

ENQ. Then let us begin with the first. What means would you resort to,

in order to promote such a feeling of brotherhood among races

that are known to be of the most diversified religions, customs,

beliefs, and modes of thought?

THEO. Allow me to add that which you seem unwilling to express. Of

course we know that with the exception of two remnants of

races—the Parsees and the Jews—every nation is divided, not merely

against all other nations, but even against itself. This is found

most prominently among the so-called civilized Christian nations.

Hence your wonder, and the reason why our first object appears to

you a Utopia. Is it not so?

ENQ. Well, yes; but what have you to say against it?

THEO. Nothing against the fact; but much about the necessity of

removing the causes which make Universal Brotherhood a Utopia at

present.

ENQ. What are, in your view, these causes?

THEO. First and foremost, the natural selfishness of human nature. This

selfishness, instead of being eradicated, is daily strengthened

and stimulated into a ferocious and irresistible feeling by the

present religious education, which tends not only to encourage,

but positively to justify it. People’s ideas about right and wrong

have been entirely perverted by the literal acceptance of the

Jewish Bible. All the unselfishness of the altruistic teachings

of Jesus has become merely a theoretical subject for pulpit

oratory; while the precepts of practical selfishness taught in

the Mosaic Bible, against which Christ so vainly preached, have

become ingrained into the innermost life of the Western nations.

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” has come to be the

first maxim of your law. Now, I state openly and fearlessly, that

the perversity of this doctrine and of so many others _Theosophy

alone_ can eradicate.

THE COMMON ORIGIN OF MAN.

ENQ. How?

THEO. Simply by demonstrating on logical, philosophical, metaphysical,

and even scientific grounds that:—(a) All men have spiritually

and physically the same origin, which is the fundamental teaching

of Theosophy. (b) As mankind is essentially of one and the same

essence, and that essence is one—infinite, uncreate, and eternal,

whether we call it God or Nature—nothing, therefore, can affect

one nation or one man without affecting all other nations and

all other men. This is as certain and as obvious as that a stone

thrown into a pond will, sooner or later, set in motion every

single drop of water therein.

ENQ. But this is not the teaching of Christ, but rather a pantheistic

notion.

THEO. That is where your mistake lies. It is purely _Christian_,

although _not_ Judaic, and therefore, perhaps, your Biblical

nations prefer to ignore it.

ENQ. This is a wholesale and unjust accusation. Where are your proofs

for such a statement?

THEO. They are ready at hand. Christ is alleged to have said: “Love

each other” and “Love your enemies”; for “if ye love them (only)

which love you, what reward (or merit) have ye? Do not even the

_publicans_[11] the same? And if you salute your brethren only,

what do ye more than others? Do not even publicans so?” These

are Christ’s words. But Genesis ix. 25, says “Cursed be Canaan,

a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” And,

therefore, Christian but Biblical people prefer the law of Moses

to Christ’s law of love. They base upon the Old Testament, which

panders to all their passions, their laws of conquest, annexation,

and tyranny over races which they call _inferior_. What crimes

have been committed on the strength of this infernal (if taken in

its dead letter) passage in Genesis, history alone gives us an

idea, however inadequate.[12]

ENQ. I have heard you say that the identity of our physical origin is

proved by science, that of our spiritual origin by the

Wisdom-Religion. Yet we do not find Darwinists exhibiting great

fraternal affection.

THEO. Just so. This is what shows the deficiency of the materialistic

systems, and proves that we Theosophists are in the right. The

identity of our physical origin makes no appeal to our higher and

deeper feelings. Matter, deprived of its soul and spirit, or its

divine essence, cannot speak to the human heart. But the identity

of the soul and spirit, of real, immortal man, as Theosophy

teaches us, once proven and deep-rooted in our hearts, would lead

us far on the road of real charity and brotherly goodwill.

ENQ. But how does Theosophy explain the common origin of man?

THEO. By teaching that the _root_ of all nature, objective and

subjective, and everything else in the universe, visible and

invisible, _is_, _was_, and _ever will be_ one absolute essence,

from which all starts, and into which everything returns. This is

Aryan philosophy, fully represented only by the Vedantins, and

the Buddhist system. With this object in view, it is the duty of

all Theosophists to promote in every practical way, and in all

countries, the spread of _non-sectarian_ education.

ENQ. What do the written statutes of your Society advise its members to

do besides this? On the physical plane, I mean?

THEO. In order to awaken brotherly feeling among nations we have to

assist in the international exchange of useful arts and products,

by advice, information, and co-operation with all worthy

individuals and associations (provided, however, add the statutes,

“that no benefit or percentage shall be taken by the Society or

the ‘Fellows’ for its or their corporate services”). For instance,

to take a practical illustration. The organization of Society,

depicted by Edward Bellamy, in his magnificent work “Looking

Backwards,” admirably represents the Theosophical idea of what

should be the first great step towards the full realization of

universal brotherhood. The state of things he depicts falls short

of perfection, because selfishness still exists and operates in

the hearts of men. But in the main, selfishness and individualism

have been overcome by the feeling of solidarity and mutual

brotherhood; and the scheme of life there described reduces the

causes tending to create and foster selfishness to a minimum.

ENQ. Then as a Theosophist you will take part in an effort to realize

such an ideal?

THEO. Certainly; and we have proved it by action. Have not you heard of

the Nationalist clubs and party which have sprung up in America

since the publication of Bellamy’s book? They are now coming

prominently to the front, and will do so more and more as time

goes on. Well, these clubs and this party were started in the

first instance by Theosophists. One of the first, the Nationalist

Club of Boston, Mass., has Theosophists for President and

Secretary, and the majority of its executive belong to the T.S.

In the constitution of all their clubs, and of the party they are

forming, the influence of Theosophy and of the Society is plain,

for they all take as their basis, their first and fundamental

principle, the Brotherhood of Humanity as taught by Theosophy. In

their declaration of Principles they state:—“The principle of the

Brotherhood of Humanity is one of the eternal truths that govern

the world’s progress on lines which distinguish human nature from

brute nature.” What can be more Theosophical than this? But it is

not enough. What is also needed is to impress men with the idea

that, if the root of mankind is _one_, then there must also be one

truth which finds expression in all the various religions—except

in the Jewish, as you do not find it _expressed_ even in the

Kabala.

ENQ. This refers to the common origin of religions, and you may be

right there. But how does it apply to practical brotherhood on the

physical plane?

THEO. First, because that which is true on the metaphysical plane must

be also true on the physical. Secondly, because there is no more

fertile source of hatred and strife than religious differences.

When one party or another thinks himself the sole possessor of

absolute truth, it becomes only natural that he should think his

neighbour absolutely in the clutches of Error or the Devil. But

once get a man to see that none of them has the _whole_ truth, but

that they are mutually complementary, that the complete truth can

be found only in the combined views of all, after that which is

false in each of them has been sifted out—then true brotherhood

in religion will be established. The same applies in the physical

world.

ENQ. Please explain further.

THEO. Take an instance. A plant consists of a root, a stem, and many

shoots and leaves. As humanity, as a whole, is the stem which

grows from the spiritual root, so is the stem the unity of the

plant. Hurt the stem and it is obvious that every shoot and leaf

will suffer. So it is with mankind.

ENQ. Yes, but if you injure a leaf or a shoot, you do not injure the

whole plant.

THEO. And therefore you think that by injuring _one_ man you do not

injure humanity? But how do _you_ know? Are you aware that even

materialistic science teaches that any injury, however slight,

to a plant will affect the whole course of its future growth and

development? Therefore, you are mistaken, and the analogy is

perfect. If, however, you overlook the fact that a cut in the

finger may often make the whole body suffer, and react on the

whole nervous system, I must all the more remind you that there

may well be other spiritual laws, operating on plants and animals

as well as on mankind, although, as you do not recognize their

action on plants and animals, you may deny their existence.

ENQ. What laws do you mean?

THEO. We call them Karmic laws; but you will not understand the full

meaning of the term unless you study Occultism. However, my

argument did not rest on the assumption of these laws, but really

on the analogy of the plant. Expand the idea, carry it out to

a universal application, and you will soon find that in true

philosophy every physical action has its moral and everlasting

effect. Hurt a man by doing him bodily harm; you may think

that his pain and suffering cannot spread by any means to his

neighbours, least of all to men of other nations. We affirm _that

it will, in good time_. Therefore, we say, that unless every man

is brought to understand and accept _as an axiomatic truth_ that

by wronging one man we wrong not only ourselves but the whole of

humanity in the long run, no brotherly feelings such as preached

by all the great Reformers, pre-eminently by Buddha and Jesus, are

possible on earth.

OUR OTHER OBJECTS.

ENQ. Will you now explain the methods by which you propose to carry out

the second object?

THEO. To collect for the library at our headquarters of Adyar, Madras,

(and by the Fellows of their Branches for their local libraries,)

all the good works upon the world’s religions that we can. To put

into written form correct information upon the various ancient

philosophies, traditions, and legends, and disseminate the same

in such practicable ways as the translation and publication of

original works of value, and extracts from and commentaries upon

the same, or the oral instructions of persons learned in their

respective departments.

ENQ. And what about the third object, to develop in man his latent

spiritual or psychic powers?

THEO. This has to be achieved also by means of publications, in those

places where no lectures and personal teachings are possible.

Our duty is to keep alive in man his spiritual intuitions. To

oppose and counteract—after due investigation and proof of its

irrational nature—bigotry in every form, religious, scientific, or

social, and _cant_ above all, whether as religious sectarianism

or as belief in miracles or anything supernatural. What we have

to do is to seek to obtain _knowledge_ of all the laws of nature,

and to diffuse it. To encourage the study of those laws least

understood by modern people, the so-called Occult Sciences, _based

on the true knowledge of nature_, instead of, as at present,

on _superstitious beliefs based on blind faith and authority_.

Popular folk-lore and traditions, however fanciful at times, when

sifted may lead to the discovery of long-lost, but important,

secrets of nature. The Society, therefore, aims at pursuing this

line of inquiry, in the hope of widening the field of scientific

and philosophical observation.

ON THE SACREDNESS OF THE PLEDGE.

ENQ. Have you any ethical system that you carry out in the Society?

THEO. The ethics are there, ready and clear enough for whomsoever

follow them. They are the essence and cream of the world’s ethics,

gathered from the teachings of all the world’s great reformers.

Therefore, you will find represented therein Confucius and

Zoroaster, Lao-Tze and the Bhagavat-Gita, the precepts of Gautama

Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth, of Hillel and his school, as of

Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and their schools.

ENQ. Do the members of your Society carry out these precepts? I have

heard of great dissensions and quarrels among them.

THEO. Very naturally, since although the reform (in its present shape)

may be called new, the men and women to be reformed are the

same human, sinning natures as of old. As already said, the

earnest _working_ members are few; but many are the sincere and

well-disposed persons, who try their best to live up to the

Society’s and their own ideals. Our duty is to encourage and

assist individual fellows in self-improvement, intellectual,

moral, and spiritual; not to blame or condemn those who fail.

We have, strictly speaking, no right to refuse admission to

anyone—especially in the _Esoteric Section_ of the Society,

wherein “he who enters is as one newly born.” But if any member,

his sacred pledges on his word of honour and immortal _Self_,

notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after that “new birth,”

with the new man, the vices or defects of his old life, and to

indulge in them still in the Society, then, of course, he is more

than likely to be asked to resign and withdraw; or, in case of

his refusal, to be expelled. We have the strictest rules for such

emergencies.

ENQ. Can some of them be mentioned?

THEO. They can. To begin with, no Fellow in the Society, whether

exoteric or esoteric, has a right to force his personal opinions

upon another Fellow. “It is not lawful for _any officer of

the Parent Society_ to express in public, by word or act, any

hostility to, or preference for, any one section,[13] religious

or philosophical, more than another. All have an equal right

to have the essential features of their religious belief laid

before the tribunal of an impartial world. And no officer of the

Society, in his capacity as an officer, has the right to preach

his own sectarian views and beliefs to members assembled, except

when the meeting consists of his co-religionists. After due

warning, violation of this rule shall be punished by suspension

or expulsion.” This is one of the offenses in the Society at

large. As regards the inner section, now called the _Esoteric_,

the following rules have been laid down and adopted, so far back

as 1880. “No Fellow shall put to his selfish use any knowledge

communicated to him by any member of the first section (now

a higher ‘degree’); violation of the rule being punished by

expulsion.” Now, however, before any such knowledge can be

imparted, the applicant has to bind himself by a solemn oath not

to use it for selfish purposes, nor to reveal anything said except

by permission.

ENQ. But is a man expelled, or resigning, from the section free to

reveal anything he may have learned, or to break any clause of the

pledge he has taken?

THEO. Certainly not. His expulsion or resignation only relieves him

from the obligation of obedience to the teacher, and from that of

taking an active part in the work of the Society, but surely not

from the sacred pledge of secrecy.

ENQ. But is this reasonable and just?

THEO. Most assuredly. To any man or woman with the slightest honourable

feeling a pledge of secrecy taken even on one’s _word of honour_,

much more to one’s Higher Self—the God within—is binding till

death. And though he may leave the Section and the Society, no man

or woman of honour will think of attacking or injuring a body to

which he or she has been so pledged.

ENQ. But is not this going rather far?

THEO. Perhaps so, according to the low standard of the present time and

morality. But if it does not bind as far as this, what use is

a _pledge_ at all? How can anyone expect to be taught secret

knowledge, if he is to be at liberty to free himself from all the

obligations he had taken, whenever he pleases? What security,

confidence, or trust would ever exist among them, if pledges such

as this were to have no really binding force at all? Believe

me, the law of retribution (Karma) would very soon overtake one

who so broke his pledge, and perhaps as soon as the contempt of

every honourable man would, even on this physical plane. As well

expressed in the N. Y. “Path” just cited on this subject, “_A

pledge once taken, is for ever binding in both the moral and the

occult worlds._ If we break it once and are punished, that does

not justify us in breaking it again, and so long as we do, so long

will the mighty lever of the Law (of Karma) react upon us.” (The

_Path_, July, 1889.)

FOOTNOTES:

[10] _Vide_ (at the end) the official rules of the T.S., Appendix A.

_Nota bene_, “T.S.” is an abbreviation for “Theosophical Society.”

[11] Publicans—regarded as so many thieves and pickpockets in those

days. Among the Jews the name and profession of a publican was the

most odious thing in the world. They were not allowed to enter the

Temple, and Matthew (xviii. 17) speaks of a heathen and a publican

as identical. Yet they were only Roman tax-gatherers occupying the

same position as the British officials in India and other conquered

countries.

[12] “At the close of the Middle Ages slavery, under the power of

moral forces, had mainly disappeared from Europe; but two momentous

events occurred which overbore the moral power working in European

society and let loose a swarm of curses upon the earth such as mankind

had scarcely ever known. One of these events was the first voyaging

to a populated and barbarous coast where human beings were a familiar

article of traffic; and the other the discovery of a new world, where

mines of glittering wealth were open, provided labour could be imported

to work them. For four hundred years men and women and children were

torn from all whom they knew and loved, and were sold on the coast of

Africa to foreign traders; they were chained below decks—the dead often

with the living—during the horrible ‘middle passage,’ and, according to

Bancroft, an impartial historian, two hundred and fifty thousand out

of three and a quarter millions were thrown into the sea on that fatal

passage, while the remainder were consigned to nameless misery in the

mines, or under the lash in the cane and rice fields. The guilt of this

great crime rests on the Christian Church. ‘In the name of the most

Holy Trinity’ the Spanish Government (Roman Catholic) concluded more

than ten treaties authorising the sale of five hundred thousand human

beings; in 1562 Sir John Hawkins sailed on his diabolical errand of

buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the West Indies in a ship

which bore the sacred name of Jesus; while Elizabeth, the Protestant

Queen, rewarded him for his success in this first adventure of

Englishmen in that inhuman traffic by allowing him to wear as his crest

‘a demi-Moor in his proper colour, bound with a cord, or, in other

words, a manacled negro slave.’”—_Conquests of the Cross_ (quoted from

the _Agnostic Journal_).

[13] A “branch,” or lodge, composed solely of co-religionists, or a

branch _in partibus_, as they are now somewhat bombastically called.

IV. THE RELATIONS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY TO THEOSOPHY.

ON SELF-IMPROVEMENT.

ENQ. Is moral elevation, then, the principal thing insisted upon in

your Society?

THEO. Undoubtedly! He who would be a true Theosophist must bring

himself to live as one.

ENQ. If so, then, as I remarked before, the behaviour of some members

strangely belies this fundamental rule.

THEO. Indeed it does. But this cannot be helped among us, any more than

amongst those who call themselves Christians and act like fiends.

This is no fault of our statutes and rules, but that of human

nature. Even in some exoteric public branches, the members pledge

themselves on their “Higher Self” to live _the_ life prescribed by

Theosophy. They have to bring their _Divine Self_ to guide their

every thought and action, every day and at every moment of their

lives. A true Theosophist ought “to deal justly and walk humbly.”

ENQ. What do you mean by this?

THEO. Simply this: the one self has to forget itself for the many

selves. Let me answer you in the words of a true Philaletheian,

an F.T.S., who has beautifully expressed it in the _Theosophist_:

“What every man needs first is to find himself, and then take

an honest inventory of his subjective possessions, and, bad or

bankrupt as it may be, it is not beyond redemption if we set about

it in earnest.” But how many do? All are willing to work for their

own development and progress; very few for those of others. To

quote the same writer again: “Men have been deceived and deluded

long enough; they must break their idols, put away their shams,

and go to work for themselves—nay, there is one little word too

much or too many, for he who works for himself had better not work

at all; rather let him work himself for others, for all. For every

flower of love and charity he plants in his neighbour’s garden,

a loathsome weed will disappear from his own, and so this garden

of the gods—Humanity—shall blossom as a rose. In all Bibles,

all religions, this is plainly set forth—but designing men have

at first misinterpreted and finally emasculated, materialized,

besotted them. It does not require a new revelation. Let every man

be a revelation unto himself. Let once man’s immortal spirit take

possession of the temple of his body, drive out the money-changers

and every unclean thing, and his own divine humanity will redeem

him, for when he is thus at one with himself if he will know the

‘builder of the Temple.’”

ENQ. This is pure Altruism, I confess.

THEO. It is. And if only one Fellow of the T.S. out of ten would

practise it ours would be a body of elect indeed. But there are

those among the outsiders who will always refuse to see the

essential difference between Theosophy and the Theosophical

Society, the idea and its imperfect embodiment. Such would visit

every sin and shortcoming of the vehicle, the human body, on the

pure spirit which sheds thereon its divine light. Is this just to

either? They throw stones at an association that tries to work up

to, and for the propagation of, its ideal with most tremendous

odds against it. Some vilify the Theosophical Society only because

it presumes to attempt to do that in which other systems—Church

and State Christianity pre-eminently—have failed most egregiously;

others because they would fain preserve the existing state

of things: Pharisees and Sadducees in the seat of Moses, and

publicans and sinners revelling in high places, as under the

Roman Empire during its decadence. Fair-minded people, at any

rate, ought to remember that the man who does all he can, does as

much as he who has achieved the most, in this world of relative

possibilities. This is a simple truism, an axiom supported for

believers in the Gospels by the parable of the talents given by

their Master; the servant who doubled his two talents was rewarded

as much as that other fellow-servant who had received _five_. To

every man it is given “according to his several ability.”

ENQ. Yet it is rather difficult to draw the line of demarcation between

the abstract and the concrete in this case, as we have only the

latter to our judgment by.

THEO. Then why make an exception for the T.S.? Justice, like charity,

ought to begin at home. Will you revile and scoff at the “Sermon

on the Mount” because your social, political and even religious

laws have, so far, not only failed to carry out its precepts in

their spirit, but even in their dead letter? Abolish the oath in

Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and do as the Quakers

do, if you _will_ call yourselves Christians. Abolish the Courts

themselves, for if you would follow the Commandments of Christ,

you have to give away your coat to him who deprives you of your

cloak, and turn your left cheek to the bully who smites you on

the right. “Resist not evil, love your enemies, bless them that

curse you, do good to them that hate you,” for “whosoever shall

break one of the least of these Commandments and shall teach men

so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven,” and

“whosoever shall say ‘Thou fool’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”

And why should you judge, if you would not be judged in your turn?

Insist that between Theosophy and the Theosophical Society there

is no difference, and forthwith you lay the system of Christianity

and its very essence open to the same charges, only in a more

serious form.

ENQ. Why _more_ serious?

THEO. Because, while the leaders of the Theosophical movement,

recognising fully their shortcomings, try all they can do to amend

their ways and uproot the evil existing in the Society; and while

their rules and by-laws are framed in the spirit of Theosophy, the

Legislators and the Churches of nations and countries which call

themselves Christian do the reverse. Our members, even the worst

among them, are no worse than the average Christian. Moreover,

if the Western Theosophists experience so much difficulty in

leading the true Theosophical life, it is because they are all the

children of their generation. Every one of them was a Christian,

bred and brought up in the sophistry of his Church, his social

customs, and even his paradoxical laws. He was this before he

became a Theosophist, or rather, a member of the Society of that

name, as it cannot be too often repeated that between the abstract

ideal and its vehicle there is a most important difference.

THE ABSTRACT AND THE CONCRETE.

ENQ. Please elucidate this difference a little more.

THEO. The Society is a great body of men and women, composed of the

most heterogeneous elements. Theosophy, in its abstract meaning,

is Divine Wisdom, or the aggregate of the knowledge and wisdom

that underlie the Universe—the homogeneity of eternal GOOD; and in

its concrete sense it is the sum total of the same as allotted to

man by nature, on this earth, and no more. Some members earnestly

endeavour to realize and, so to speak, to objectivize Theosophy in

their lives; while others desire only to know of, not to practise

it; and others still may have joined the Society merely out of

curiosity, or a passing interest, or perhaps, again, because some

of their friends belong to it. How, then, can the system be judged

by the standard of those who would assume the name without any

right to it? Is poetry or its muse to be measured only by those

would-be poets who afflict our ears? The Society can be regarded

as the embodiment of Theosophy only in its abstract motives; it

can never presume to call itself its concrete vehicle so long as

human imperfections and weaknesses are all represented in its

body; otherwise the Society would be only repeating the great

error and the outflowing sacrileges of the so-called Churches of

Christ. If Eastern comparisons may be permitted, Theosophy is the

shoreless ocean of universal truth, love, and wisdom, reflecting

its radiance on the earth, while the Theosophical Society is

only a visible bubble on that reflection. Theosophy is divine

nature, visible and invisible, and its Society human nature

trying to ascend to its divine parent. Theosophy, finally, is the

fixed eternal sun, and its Society the evanescent comet trying

to settle in an orbit to become a planet, ever revolving within

the attraction of the sun of truth. It was formed to assist in

showing to men that such a thing as Theosophy exists, and to help

them to ascend towards it by studying and assimilating its eternal

verities.

ENQ. I thought you said you had no tenets or doctrines of your own?

THEO. No more we have. The Society has no wisdom of its own to support

or teach. It is simply the storehouse of all the truths uttered

by the great seers, initiates, and prophets of historic and even

pre-historic ages; at least, as many as it can get. Therefore, it

is merely the channel through which more or less of truth, found

in the accumulated utterances of humanity’s great teachers, is

poured out into the world.

ENQ. But is such truth unreachable outside of the Society? Does not

every Church claim the same?

THEO. Not at all. The undeniable existence of great initiates—true

“Sons of God”—shows that such wisdom was often reached by isolated

individuals, never, however, without the guidance of a master

at first. But most of the followers of such, when they became

masters in their turn, have dwarfed the catholicism of these

teachings into the narrow groove of their own sectarian dogmas.

The commandments of _a_ chosen master alone were then adopted and

followed, to the exclusion of all others—if followed at all, note

well, as in the case of the Sermon on the Mount. Each religion is

thus a bit of the divine truth, made to focus a vast panorama of

human fancy which claimed to represent and replace that truth.

ENQ. But Theosophy, you say, is not a religion?

THEO. Most assuredly it is not, since it is the essence of all religion

and of absolute truth, a drop of which only underlies every creed.

To resort once more to metaphor. Theosophy, on earth, is like

the white ray of the spectrum, and every religion only one of the

seven prismatic colours. Ignoring all the others, and cursing them

as false, every special coloured ray claims not only priority,

but to be _that white ray_ itself, and anathematizes even its

own tints from light to dark, as heresies. Yet, as the sun of

truth rises higher and higher on the horizon of man’s perception,

and each coloured ray gradually fades out until it is finally

reabsorbed in its turn, humanity will at last be cursed no longer

with artificial polarizations, but will find itself bathing in

the pure colourless sunlight of eternal truth. And this will be

_Theosophia_.

ENQ. Your claim is, then, that all the great religions are derived from

Theosophy, and that it is by assimilating it that the world will

be finally saved from the curse of its great illusions and errors?

THEO. Precisely so. And we add that our Theosophical Society is the

humble seed which, if watered and left to live, will finally

produce the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which is grafted on

the Tree of Life Eternal. For it is only by studying the various

great religions and philosophies of humanity, by comparing them

dispassionately and with an unbiased mind, that men can hope to

arrive at the truth. It is especially by finding out and noting

their various points of agreement that we may achieve this result.

For no sooner do we arrive—either by study, or by being taught by

someone who knows—at their inner meaning, than we find, almost in

every case, that it expresses some great truth in Nature.

ENQ. We have heard of a Golden Age that was, and what you describe

would be a Golden Age to be realised at some future day. When

shall it be?

THEO. Not before humanity, as a whole, feels the need of it. A maxim in

the Persian “Javidan Khirad” says: “Truth is of two kinds—one

manifest and self-evident; the other demanding incessantly new

demonstrations and proofs.” It is only when this latter kind

of truth becomes as universally obvious as it is now dim, and

therefore liable to be distorted by sophistry and casuistry; it is

only when the two kinds will have become once more one, that all

people will be brought to see alike.

ENQ. But surely those few who have felt the need of such truths must

have made up their minds to believe in something definite? You

tell me that, the Society having no doctrines of its own, every

member may believe as he chooses and accept what he pleases. This

looks as if the Theosophical Society was bent upon reviving the

confusion of languages and beliefs of the Tower of Babel of old.

Have you no beliefs in common?

THEO. What is meant by the Society having no tenets or doctrines of its

own is, that no special doctrines or beliefs are _obligatory_ on

its members; but, of course, this applies only to the body as a

whole. The Society, as you were told, is divided into an outer and

an inner body. Those who belong to the latter have, of course, a

philosophy, or—if you so prefer it— a religious system of their

own.

ENQ. May we be told what it is?

THEO. We make no secret of it. It was outlined a few years ago in the

_Theosophist_ and “Esoteric Buddhism,” and may be found still

more elaborated in the “Secret Doctrine.” It is based on the

oldest philosophy in the world, called the Wisdom-Religion or the

Archaic Doctrine. If you like, you may ask questions and have them

explained.

V. THE FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY.

ON GOD AND PRAYER.

ENQ. Do you believe in God?

THEO. That depends what you mean by the term.

ENQ. I mean the God of the Christians, the Father of Jesus, and the

Creator: the Biblical God of Moses, in short.

THEO. In such a God we do not believe. We reject the idea of a

personal, or an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God, who is

but the gigantic shadow of _man_, and not of man at his best,

either. The God of theology, we say—and prove it—is a bundle of

contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore, we will

have nothing to do with him.

ENQ. State your reasons, if you please.

THEO. They are many, and cannot all receive attention. But here are a

few. This God is called by his devotees infinite and absolute, is

he not?

ENQ. I believe he is.

THEO. Then, if infinite—_i.e._, limitless—and especially if absolute,

how can he have a form, and be a creator of anything? Form implies

limitation, and a beginning as well as an end; and, in order

to create, a Being must think and plan. How can the ABSOLUTE

be supposed to think—_i.e._, to have any relation whatever

to that which is limited, finite, and conditioned? This is a

philosophical and a logical absurdity. Even the Hebrew Kabala

rejects such an idea, and therefore makes of the one and the

Absolute Deific Principle an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph.[14]

In order to create, the Creator has to become active; and as

this is impossible for ABSOLUTENESS, the infinite principle had

to be shown becoming the cause of evolution (not creation) in an

indirect way—_i.e._, through the emanation from itself (another

absurdity, due this time to the translators of the Kabala)[15] of

the Sephiroth.

ENQ. How about those Kabalists, who, while being such, still believe in

Jehovah, or the _Tetragrammaton_?

THEO. They are at liberty to believe in what they please, as their

belief or disbelief can hardly affect a self-evident fact.

The Jesuits tell us that two and two are not always four to a

certainty, since it depends on the will of God to make 2 x 2 = 5.

Shall we accept their sophistry for all that?

ENQ. Then you are Atheists?