THEO. By those who have misunderstood what was said, yes. At the

time that work was written, re-incarnation was not believed in

by any Spiritualists, either English or American, and what is

said there of _re-incarnation_ was directed against the French

Spiritists, whose theory is as unphilosophical and absurd as

the Eastern teaching is logical and self-evident in its truth.

The Re-incarnationists of the Allan Kardec School believe in an

arbitrary and immediate re-incarnation. With them, the dead father

can incarnate in his own unborn daughter, and so on. They have

neither Devachan, Karma, nor any philosophy that would warrant

or prove the necessity of consecutive rebirths. But how can the

author of “Isis” argue against _Karmic_ re-incarnation, at long

intervals varying between 1,000 and 1,500 years, when it is the

fundamental belief of both Buddhists and Hindus?

ENQ. Then you reject the theories of both the Spiritists and the

Spiritualists, in their entirety?

THEO. Not in their entirety, but only with regard to their respective

fundamental beliefs. Both rely on what their “Spirits” tell them;

and both disagree as much with each other as we Theosophists

disagree with both. Truth is one; and when we hear the French

spooks preaching re-incarnation, and the English spooks denying

and denouncing the doctrine, we say that either the French or

the English “Spirits” do not know what they are talking about.

We believe with the Spiritualists and the Spiritists in the

existence of “Spirits,” or invisible Beings endowed with more

or less intelligence. But, while in our teachings their kinds

and _genera_ are legion, our opponents admit of no other than

human disembodied “Spirits,” which, to our knowledge, are mostly

Kamalokic SHELLS.

ENQ. You seem very bitter against Spirits. As you have given me your

views and your reasons for disbelieving in the materialization

of, and direct communication in _séances_, with the disembodied

spirits—or the “spirits of the dead”—would you mind enlightening

me as to one more fact? Why are some Theosophists never tired of

saying how dangerous is intercourse with spirits, and mediumship?

Have they any particular reason for this?

THEO. We must suppose so. I know I have. Owing to my familiarity for

over half a century with these invisible, yet but too tangible

and undeniable “influences,” from the conscious Elementals,

semi-conscious _shells_, down to the utterly senseless and

nondescript spooks of all kinds, I claim a certain right to my

views.

ENQ. Can you give an instance or instances to show why these practices

should be regarded as dangerous?

THEO. This would require more time than I can give you. Every cause

must be judged by the effects it produces. Go over the history of

Spiritualism for the last fifty years, ever since its reappearance

in this century in America—and judge for yourself whether it has

done its votaries more good or harm. Pray understand me. I do not

speak against real Spiritualism, but against the modern movement

which goes under that name, and the so-called philosophy invented

to explain its phenomena.

ENQ. Don’t you believe in their phenomena at all?

THEO. It is because I believe in them with too good reason, and (save

some cases of deliberate fraud) know them to be as true as that

you and I live, that all my being revolts against them. Once more

I speak only of physical, not mental or even psychic phenomena.

Like attracts like. There are several high-minded, pure, good

men and women, known to me personally, who have passed years

of their lives under the direct guidance and even protection of

high “Spirits,” whether disembodied or planetary. But _these_

Intelligences are not of the type of the John Kings and the

Ernests who figure in _séance_ rooms. These Intelligences guide

and control mortals only in rare and exceptional cases to which

they are attracted and magnetically drawn by the Karmic past of

the individual. It is not enough to sit “for development” in order

to attract them. That only opens the door to a swarm of “spooks,”

good, bad and indifferent, to which the medium becomes a slave for

life. It is against such promiscuous mediumship and intercourse

with goblins that I raise my voice, not against spiritual

mysticism. The latter is ennobling and holy; the former is of just

the same nature as the phenomena of two centuries ago, for which

so many witches and wizards have been made to suffer. Read Glanvil

and other authors on the subject of witchcraft, and you will find

recorded there the parallels of most, if not all, of the physical

phenomena of nineteenth century “Spiritualism.”

ENQ. Do you mean to suggest that it is all witchcraft and nothing more?

THEO. What I mean is that, whether conscious or unconscious, all this

dealing with the dead is _necromancy_, and a most dangerous

practice. For ages before Moses such raising of the dead was

regarded by all the intelligent nations as sinful and cruel,

inasmuch as it disturbs the rest of the souls and interferes with

their evolutionary development into higher states. The collective

wisdom of all past centuries has ever been loud in denouncing such

practices. Finally, I say, what I have never ceased repeating

orally and in print for fifteen years: While some of the so-called

“spirits” do not know what they are talking about, repeating

merely—like poll-parrots—what they find in the mediums’ and other

people’s brains, others are most dangerous, and can only lead one

to evil. These are two self-evident facts. Go into spiritualistic

circles of the Allan Kardec school, and you find “spirits”

asserting re-incarnation and speaking like Roman Catholics born.

Turn to the “dear departed ones” in England and America, and you

will hear them denying re-incarnation through thick and thin,

denouncing those who teach it, and holding to Protestant views.

Your best, your most powerful mediums, have all suffered in health

of body and mind. Think of the sad end of Charles Foster, who

died in an asylum, a raving lunatic; of Slade, an epileptic; of

Eglinton—the best medium now in England—subject to the same. Look

back over the life of D. D. Home, a man whose mind was steeped in

gall and bitterness, who never had a good word to say of anyone

whom he suspected of possessing psychic powers, and who slandered

every other medium to the bitter end. This Calvin of Spiritualism

suffered for years from a terrible spinal disease, brought on by

his intercourse with the “spirits,” and died a perfect wreck.

Think again of the sad fate of poor Washington Irving Bishop. I

knew him in New York, when he was fourteen, and he was undeniably

a medium. It is true that the poor man stole a march on his

“spirits,” and baptized them “unconscious muscular action,” to

the great _gaudium_ of all the corporations of highly learned and

scientific fools, and to the replenishment of his own pocket.

But _de mortuis nil nisi bonum_; his end was a sad one. He had

strenuously concealed his epileptic fits—the first and strongest

symptom of genuine mediumship—and who knows whether he was dead or

in a trance when the _post-mortem_ examination was performed? His

relatives insist that he was alive, if we are to believe Reuter’s

telegrams. Finally, behold the veteran mediums, the founders and

prime movers of modern spiritualism—the Fox sisters. After more

than forty years of intercourse with the “Angels,” the latter

have led them to become incurable sots, who are now denouncing,

in public lectures, their own life-long work and philosophy as a

fraud. What kind of spirits must they be who prompted them, I ask

you?

ENQ. But is your inference a correct one?

THEO. What would you infer if the best pupils of a particular school of

singing broke down from overstrained sore throats? That the method

followed was a bad one. So I think the inference is equally fair

with regard to Spiritualism when we see their best mediums fall a

prey to such a fate. We can only say:—Let those who are interested

in the question judge the tree of Spiritualism by its fruits,

and ponder over the lesson. We Theosophists have always regarded

the Spiritualists as brothers having the same mystic tendency

as ourselves, but they have always regarded us as enemies. We,

being in possession of an older philosophy, have tried to help

and warn them; but they have repaid us by reviling and traducing

us and our motives in every possible way. Nevertheless, the best

English Spiritualists say just as we do, wherever they treat of

their belief seriously. Hear “M.A. Oxon.” confessing this truth:

“Spiritualists are too much inclined to dwell exclusively on the

intervention of external spirits in this world of ours, _and to

ignore the powers of the incarnate_ Spirit.”[54] Why vilify and

abuse us, then, for saying precisely the same? Henceforward, we

will have nothing more to do with Spiritualism. And now let us

return to Re-incarnation.

FOOTNOTES:

[49] Being of “an _asbestos_-like nature,” according to the eloquent

and fiery expression of a modern English Tertullian.

[50] During the _Mysteries_, it is the Hierophant, the “Father,” who

planted the Vine. Every symbol has Seven Keys to it. The discloser of

the _Pleroma_ was always called “Father.”

[51] _Zohar_ XL., 10.

[52] _Codex Nazarœus_, Vol. III., pp. 60, 61.

[53] Ibid., Vol. II., p. 281.

[54] _Second Sight_, “Introduction.”

XI. ON THE MYSTERIES OF RE-INCARNATION.

PERIODICAL REBIRTHS.

ENQ. You mean, then, that we have all lived on earth before, in many

past incarnations, and shall go on so living?

THEO. I do. The life-cycle, or rather the cycle of conscious life,

begins with the separation of the mortal animal-man into sexes,

and will end with the close of the last generation of men, in the

seventh round and seventh race of mankind. Considering we are only

in the fourth round and fifth race, its duration is more easily

imagined than expressed.

ENQ. And we keep on incarnating in new _personalities_ all the time?

THEO. Most assuredly so; because this life-cycle or period of

incarnation may be best compared to human life. As each such life

is composed of days of activity separated by nights of sleep or of

inaction, so, in the incarnation-cycle, an active life is followed

by a Devachanic rest.

ENQ. And it is this succession of births that is generally defined as

re-incarnation?

THEO. Just so. It is only through these births that the perpetual

progress of the countless millions of Egos toward final perfection

and final rest (as long as was the period of activity) can be

achieved.

ENQ. And what is it that regulates the duration, or special qualities

of these incarnations?

THEO. Karma, the universal law of retributive justice.

ENQ. Is it an intelligent law?

THEO. For the Materialist, who calls the law of periodicity which

regulates the marshalling of the several bodies, and all the

other laws in nature, blind forces and mechanical laws, no doubt

Karma would be a law of chance and no more. For us, no adjective

or qualification could describe that which is impersonal and no

entity, but a universal operative law. If you question me about

the causative intelligence in it, I must answer you I do not know.

But if you ask me to define its effects and tell you what these

are in our belief, I may say that the experience of thousands of

ages has shown us that they are absolute and unerring _equity_,

_wisdom_, and _intelligence_. For Karma in its effects, is an

unfailing redresser of human injustice, and of all the failures

of nature; a stern adjuster of wrongs; a retributive law which

rewards and punishes with equal impartiality. It is, in the

strictest sense, “no respecter of persons,” though, on the other

hand, it can neither be propitiated, nor turned aside by prayer.

This is a belief common to Hindus and Buddhists, who both believe

in Karma.

ENQ. In this Christian dogmas contradict both, and I doubt whether any

Christian will accept the teaching.

THEO. No; and Inman gave the reason for it many years ago. As he puts

it, while “the Christians will accept any nonsense, if promulgated

by the Church as a matter of faith ... the Buddhists hold that

nothing which is contradicted by sound reason can be a true

doctrine of Buddha.” They do not believe in any pardon for their

sins, except after an adequate and just punishment for each evil

deed or thought in a future incarnation, and a proportionate

compensation to the parties injured.

ENQ. Where is it so stated?

THEO. In most of their sacred works. In the “_Wheel of the Law_”

(p. 57) you may find the following Theosophical tenet:—“Buddhists

believe that every act, word or thought has its consequence, which

will appear sooner or later in the present or in the future state.

Evil acts will produce evil consequences, good acts will produce

good consequences: prosperity in this world, or birth in heaven

(Devachan)... in the future state.”

ENQ. Christians believe the same thing, don’t they?

THEO. Oh, no; they believe in the pardon and the remission of all sins.

They are promised that if they only believe in the blood of Christ

(an _innocent_ victim!), in the blood offered by Him for the

expiation of the sins of the whole of mankind, it will atone for

every mortal sin. And we believe neither in vicarious atonement,

nor in the possibility of the remission of the smallest sin by any

god, not even by a “_personal_ Absolute” or “Infinite,” if such

a thing could have any existence. What we believe in, is strict

and impartial justice. Our idea of the unknown Universal Deity,

represented by Karma, is that it is a Power which cannot fail,

and can, therefore, have neither wrath nor mercy, only absolute

Equity, which leaves every cause, great or small, to work out its

inevitable effects. The saying of Jesus: “With what measure you

mete it shall be measured to you again” (Matth. vii., 2), neither

by expression nor implication points to any hope of future mercy

or salvation by proxy. This is why, recognising as we do in our

philosophy the justice of this statement, we cannot recommend

too strongly mercy, charity, and forgiveness of mutual offences.

_Resist not evil_, and _render good for evil_, are Buddhist

precepts, and were first preached in view of the implacability

of Karmic law. For man to take the law into his own hands is

anyhow a sacrilegious presumption. Human Law may use restrictive

not punitive measures; but a man who, believing in Karma, still

revenges himself and refuses to forgive every injury, thereby

rendering good for evil, is a criminal and only hurts himself. As

Karma is sure to punish the man who wronged him, by seeking to

inflict an additional punishment on his enemy, he, who instead

of leaving that punishment to the great Law adds to it his own

mite, only begets thereby a cause for the future reward of his own

enemy and a future punishment for himself. The unfailing Regulator

affects in each incarnation the quality of its successor; and the

sum of the merit or demerit in preceding ones determines it.

ENQ. Are we then to infer a man’s past from his present?

THEO. Only so far as to believe that his present life is what it justly

should be, to atone for the sins of the past life. Of course—seers

and great adepts excepted—we cannot as average mortals know what

those sins were. From our paucity of data, it is impossible for us

even to determine what an old man’s youth must have been; neither

can we, for like reasons, draw final conclusions merely from what

we see in the life of some man, as to what his past life may have

been.

WHAT IS KARMA?

ENQ. But what is Karma?

THEO. As I have said, we consider it as the _Ultimate Law_ of the

Universe, the source, origin and fount of all other laws which

exist throughout Nature. Karma is the unerring law which adjusts

effect to cause, on the physical, mental and spiritual planes of

being. As no cause remains without its due effect from greatest

to least, from a cosmic disturbance down to the movement of your

hand, and as like produces like, _Karma_ is that unseen and

unknown law _which adjusts wisely, intelligently and equitably_

each effect to its cause, tracing the latter back to its producer.

Though itself _unknowable_, its action is perceivable.

ENQ. Then it is the “Absolute,” the “Unknowable” again, and is not of

much value as an explanation of the problems of life?

THEO. On the contrary. For, though we do not know what Karma is _per

se_, and in its essence, we _do_ know _how_ it works, and we can

define and describe its mode of action with accuracy. We only

do _not_ know its ultimate _Cause_, just as modern philosophy

universally admits that the _ultimate_ Cause of anything is

“unknowable.”

ENQ. And what has Theosophy to say in regard to the solution of the

more practical needs of humanity? What is the explanation which

it offers in reference to the awful suffering and dire necessity

prevalent among the so-called “lower classes.”

THEO. To be pointed, according to our teaching all these great social

evils, the distinction of classes in Society, and of the sexes in

the affairs of life, the unequal distribution of capital and of

labour—all are due to what we tersely but truly denominate KARMA.

ENQ. But, surely, all these evils which seem to fall upon the masses

somewhat indiscriminately are not actual merited and INDIVIDUAL

Karma?

THEO. No, they cannot be so strictly defined in their effects as to

show that each individual environment, and the particular

conditions of life in which each person finds himself, are nothing

more than the retributive Karma which the individual generated in

a previous life. We must not lose sight of the fact that every

atom is subject to the general law governing the whole body to

which it belongs, and here we come upon the wider track of the

Karmic law. Do you not perceive that the aggregate of individual

Karma becomes that of the nation to which those individuals

belong, and further, that the sum total of National Karma is that

of the World! The evils that you speak of are not peculiar to the

individual or even to the Nation, they are more or less universal;

and it is upon this broad line of Human interdependence that the

law of Karma finds its legitimate and equable issue.

ENQ. Do I, then, understand that the law of Karma is not necessarily an

individual law?

THEO. That is just what I mean. It is impossible that Karma could

readjust the balance of power in the world’s life and progress,

unless it had a broad and general line of action. It is held as

a truth among Theosophists that the interdependence of Humanity

is the cause of what is called Distributive Karma, and it is this

law which affords the solution to the great question of collective

suffering and its relief. It is an occult law, moreover, that no

man can rise superior to his individual failings, without lifting,

be it ever so little, the whole body of which he is an integral

part. In the same way, no one can sin, nor suffer the effects of

sin, alone. In reality, there is no such thing as “Separateness”;

and the nearest approach to that selfish state, which the laws of

life permit, is in the intent or motive.

ENQ. And are there no means by which the distributive or national Karma

might be concentred or collected, so to speak, and brought to its

natural and legitimate fulfilment without all this protracted

suffering?

THEO. As a general rule, and within certain limits which define the age

to which we belong, the law of Karma cannot be hastened or

retarded in its fulfilment. But of this I am certain, the point

of possibility in either of these directions has never yet been

touched. Listen to the following recital of one phase of national

suffering, and then ask yourself whether, admitting the working

power of individual, relative, and distributive Karma, these evils

are not capable of extensive modification and general relief.

What I am about to read to you is from the pen of a National

Saviour, one who, having overcome Self, and being free to choose,

has elected to serve Humanity, in bearing at least as much as a

woman’s shoulders can possibly bear of National Karma. This is

what she says:—

“Yes, Nature always does speak, don’t you think? only sometimes

we make so much noise that we drown her voice. That is why it

is so restful to go out of the town and nestle awhile in the

Mother’s arms. I am thinking of the evening on Hampstead Heath

when we watched the sun go down; but oh! upon what suffering

and misery that sun had set! A lady brought me yesterday a

big hamper of wild flowers. I thought some of my East-end

family had a better right to it than I, and so I took it down

to a very poor school in Whitechapel this morning. You should

have seen the pallid little faces brighten! Thence I went to

pay for some dinners at a little cookshop for some children.

It was in a back street, narrow, full of jostling people;

stench indescribable, from fish, meat, and other comestibles,

all reeking in a sun that, in Whitechapel, festers instead

of purifying. The cookshop was the quintessence of all the

smells. Indescribable meat-pies at 1d., loathsome lumps of

‘food’ and swarms of flies, a very altar of Beelzebub! All

about, babies on the prowl for scraps, one, with the face of

an angel, gathering up cherrystones as a light and nutritious

form of diet. I came westward with every nerve shuddering and

jarred, wondering whether anything can be done with some

parts of London save swallowing them up in an earthquake and

starting their inhabitants afresh, after a plunge into some

purifying Lethe, out of which not a memory might emerge! And

then I thought of Hampstead Heath, and—pondered. If by any

sacrifice one could win the power to save these people, the

cost would not be worth counting; but, you see, THEY must be

changed—and how can that be wrought? In the condition they now

are, they would not profit by any environment in which they

might be placed; and yet, in their present surroundings they

must continue to putrefy. It breaks my heart, this endless,

hopeless misery, and the brutish degradation that is at once

its outgrowth and its root. It is like the banyan tree; every

branch roots itself and sends out new shoots. What a difference

between these feelings and the peaceful scene at Hampstead!

and yet we, who are the brothers and sisters of these poor

creatures, have only a right to use Hampstead Heaths to

gain strength to save Whitechapels.” (_Signed by a name too

respected and too well known to be given to scoffers._)

ENQ. That is a sad but beautiful letter, and I think it presents with

painful conspicuity the terrible workings of what you have called

“Relative and Distributive Karma.” But alas! there seems no

immediate hope of any relief short of an earthquake, or some such

general ingulfment!

THEO. What right have we to think so while one-half of humanity is in a

position to effect an immediate relief of the privations which are

suffered by their fellows? When every individual has contributed

to the general good what he can of money, of labour, and of

ennobling thought, then, and only then, will the balance of

National Karma be struck, and until then we have no right nor

any reasons for saying that there is more life on the earth than

Nature can support. It is reserved for the heroic souls, the

Saviours of our Race and Nation, to find out the cause of this

unequal pressure of retributive Karma, and by a supreme effort to

readjust the balance of power, and save the people from a moral

ingulfment a thousand times more disastrous and more permanently

evil than the like physical catastrophe, in which you seem to see

the only possible outlet for this accumulated misery.

ENQ. Well, then, tell me generally how you describe this law of Karma?

THEO. We describe Karma as that Law of readjustment which ever tends to

restore disturbed equilibrium in the physical, and broken harmony

in the moral world. We say that Karma does not act in this or that

particular way always; but that it always _does_ act so as to

restore Harmony and preserve the balance of equilibrium, in virtue

of which the Universe exists.

ENQ. Give me an illustration.

THEO. Later on I will give you a full illustration. Think now of a

pond. A stone falls into the water and creates disturbing waves.

These waves oscillate backwards and forwards till at last,

owning to the operation of what physicists call the law of the

dissipation of energy, they are brought to rest, and the water

returns to its condition of calm tranquillity. Similarly _all_

action, on every plane, produces disturbance in the balanced

harmony of the Universe, and the vibrations so produced will

continue to roll backwards and forwards, if its area is limited,

till equilibrium is restored. But since each such disturbance

starts from some particular point, it is clear that equilibrium

and harmony can only be restored by the reconverging _to that

same point_ of all the forces which were set in motion from it.

And here you have proof that the consequences of a man’s deeds,

thoughts, etc., must all react upon _himself_ with the same force

with which they were set in motion.

ENQ. But I see nothing of a moral character about this law. It looks to

me like the simple physical law that action and reaction are equal

and opposite.

THEO. I am not surprised to hear you say that. Europeans have got so

much into the ingrained habit of considering right and wrong,

good and evil, as matters of an arbitrary code of law laid

down either by men, or imposed upon them by a Personal God. We

Theosophists, however, say that “Good” and “Harmony,” and “Evil”

and “Dis-harmony,” are synonymous. Further we maintain that all

pain and suffering are results of want of Harmony, and that the

one terrible and only cause of the disturbance of Harmony is

selfishness in some form or another. Hence Karma gives back to

every man the _actual consequences_ of his own actions, without

any regard to their moral character; but since he receives his due

for _all_, it is obvious that he will be made to atone for all

sufferings which he has caused, just as he will reap in joy and

gladness the fruits of all the happiness and harmony he had helped

to produce. I can do no better than quote for your benefit certain

passages from books and articles written by our Theosophists—those

who have a correct idea of Karma.

ENQ. I wish you would, as your literature seems to be very sparing on

this subject?

THEO. Because it is _the_ most difficult of all our tenets. Some short

time ago there appeared the following objection from a Christian

pen:—

“Granting that the teaching in regard to Theosophy is correct,

and that ‘man must be his own saviour, must overcome self and

conquer the evil that is in his dual nature, to obtain the

emancipation of his soul,’ what is man to do after he has

been awakened and converted to a certain extent from evil or

wickedness? How is he to get emancipation, or pardon, or the

blotting out of the evil or wickedness he has already done?”

To this Mr. J. H. Connelly replies very pertinently that no one

can hope to “make the theosophical engine run on the theological

track.” As he has it:—

“The possibility of shirking individual responsibility is not

among the concepts of Theosophy. In this faith there is no such

thing as pardoning, or ‘blotting out of evil or wickedness

already done,’ otherwise than by the adequate punishment

therefor of the wrong-doer and the restoration of the harmony

in the universe that had been disturbed by his wrongful act.

The evil has been his own, and while others must suffer its

consequences, atonement can be made by nobody but himself.

“The condition contemplated ... in which a man shall have

been ‘awakened and converted to a certain extent from evil

or wickedness,’ is that in which a man shall have realized

that his deeds are evil and deserving of punishment. In that

realization a sense of personal responsibility is inevitable,

and just in proportion to the extent of his awakening or

‘converting’ must be the sense of that awful responsibility.

While it is strong upon him is the time when he is urged to

accept the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

“He is told that he must also repent, but nothing is easier

than that. It is an amiable weakness of human nature that

we are quite prone to regret the evil we have done when our

attention is called, and we have either suffered from it

ourselves or enjoyed its fruits. Possibly, close analysis of

the feeling would show us that that which we regret is rather

the necessity that seemed to require the evil as a means of

attainment of our selfish ends than the evil itself.

“Attractive as this prospect of casting our burden of sins

‘at the foot of the cross’ may be to the ordinary mind, it

does not commend itself to the Theosophic student. He does not

apprehend why the sinner by attaining knowledge of his evil

can thereby merit any pardon for or the blotting out of his

past wickedness; or why repentance and future right living

entitle him to a suspension in his favour of the universal law

of relation between cause and effect. The results of his evil

deeds continue to exist; the suffering caused to others by his

wickedness is not blotted out. The Theosophical student takes

the result of wickedness upon the innocent into his problem. He

considers not only the guilty person, but his victims.

“Evil is an infraction of the laws of harmony governing the

universe, and the penalty thereof must fall upon the violator

of that law himself. Christ uttered the warning, ‘Sin no more,

lest a worse thing come upon thee,’ and St. Paul said, ‘Work

out your own salvation. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he

also reap.’ That, by the way, is a fine metaphoric rendering of

the sentence of the Puranas far antedating him—that ‘every man

reaps the consequences of his own acts.’

“This is the principle of the law of Karma which is taught by

Theosophy. Sinnett, in his ‘Esoteric Buddhism,’ rendered Karma

as ‘the law of ethical causation.’ ‘The law of retribution,’ as

Mdme. Blavatsky translates its meaning, is better. It is the

power which

Just though mysterious, leads us on unerring

Through ways unmarked from guilt to punishment.

“But it is more. It rewards merit as unerringly and amply as it

punishes demerit. It is the outcome of every act, of thought,

word and deed, and by it men mould themselves, their lives and

happenings. Eastern philosophy rejects the idea of a newly

created soul for every baby born. It believes in a limited

number of monads, evolving and growing more and more perfect

through their assimilation of many successive personalities.

Those personalities are the product of Karma and it is by Karma

and re-incarnation that the human monad in time returns to its

source—absolute deity.”

E. D. Walker, in his “Re-incarnation,” offers the following

explanation:—

“Briefly, the doctrine of Karma is that we have made ourselves

what we are by former actions, and are building our future

eternity by present actions. There is no destiny but what we

ourselves determine. There is no salvation or condemnation

except what we ourselves bring about.... Because it offers

no shelter for culpable actions and necessitates a sterling

manliness, it is less welcome to weak natures than the easy

religious tenets of vicarious atonement, intercession,

forgiveness and death-bed conversions.... In the domain of

eternal justice the offence and the punishment are inseparably

connected as the same event, because there is no real

distinction between the action and its outcome.... It is Karma,

or our old acts, that draws us back into earthly life. The

spirit’s abode changes according to its Karma, and this Karma

forbids any long continuance in one condition, because _it_ is

always changing. So long as action is governed by material and

selfish motives, just so long must the effect of that action be

manifested in physical rebirths. Only the perfectly selfless

man can elude the gravitation of material life. Few have

attained this, but it is the goal of mankind.”

And then the writer quotes from the _Secret Doctrine_:

“Those who believe in Karma have to believe in destiny, which,

from birth to death, every man is weaving, thread by thread,

around himself, as a spider does his cobweb, and this destiny

is guided either by the heavenly voice of the invisible

prototype outside of us, or by our more intimate astral or

inner man, who is but too often the evil genius of the embodied

entity called man. Both these lead on the outward man, but

one of them must prevail; and from the very beginning of the

invisible affray the stern and implacable law of compensation

steps in and takes its course, faithfully following the

fluctuations. When the last strand is woven, and man is

seemingly enwrapped in the network of his own doing, then he

finds himself completely under the empire of this self-made

destiny.... An Occultist or a philosopher will not speak of the

goodness or cruelty of Providence; but, identifying it with

Karma-Nemesis, he will teach that, nevertheless, it guards

the good and watches over them in this as in future lives;

and that it punishes the evil-doer—aye, even to his seventh

re-birth—so long, in short, as the effect of his having thrown

into perturbation even the smallest atom in the infinite world

of harmony has not been finally readjusted. For the only decree

of Karma—an eternal and immutable decree—is absolute harmony

in the world of matter as it is in the world of spirit. It is

not, therefore, Karma that rewards or punishes, but it is we

who reward or punish ourselves according to whether we work

with, through and along with nature, abiding by the laws on

which that harmony depends, or—break them. Nor would the ways

of Karma be inscrutable were men to work in union and harmony,

instead of disunion and strife. For our ignorance of those

ways—which one portion of mankind calls the ways of Providence,

dark and intricate; while another sees in them the action of

blind fatalism; and a third simple chance, with neither gods

nor devils to guide them—would surely disappear if we would

but attribute all these to their correct cause.... We stand

bewildered before the mystery of our own making and the riddles

of life that we will not solve, and then accuse the great

Sphinx of devouring us. But verily there is not an accident of

our lives, not a misshapen day, or a misfortune, that could

not be traced back to our own doings in this or in another

life.... The law of Karma is inextricably interwoven with that

of re-incarnation.... It is only this doctrine that can explain

to us the mysterious problem of good and evil, and reconcile

man to the terrible and apparent injustice of life. Nothing

but such certainty can quiet our revolted sense of justice.

For, when one unacquainted with the noble doctrine looks around

him and observes the inequalities of birth and fortune, of

intellect and capacities; when one sees honour paid to fools

and profligates, on whom fortune has heaped her favours by

mere privilege of birth, and their nearest neighbour, with

all his intellect and noble virtues—far more deserving in

every way—perishing for want and for lack of sympathy—when one

sees all this and has to turn away, helpless to relieve the

undeserved suffering, one’s ears ringing and heart aching

with the cries of pain around him—that blessed knowledge of

Karma alone prevents him from cursing life and men as well

as their supposed Creator.... This law, whether conscious or

unconscious, predestines nothing and no one. It exists from

and in eternity truly, for it is eternity itself; and as such,

since no act can be coequal with eternity, it cannot be said

to act, for it is action itself. It is not the wave which

drowns the man, but the personal action of the wretch who goes

deliberately and places himself under the impersonal action

of the laws that govern the ocean’s motion. Karma creates

nothing, nor does it design. It is man who plants and creates

causes, and Karmic law adjusts the effects, which adjustment is

not an act but universal harmony, tending ever to resume its

original position, like a bough, which, bent down too forcibly,

rebounds with corresponding vigour. If it happen to dislocate

the arm that tried to bend it out of its natural position,

shall we say it is the bough which broke our arm or that our

own folly has brought us to grief? Karma has never sought to

destroy intellectual and individual liberty, like the god

invented by the Monotheists. It has not involved its decrees

in darkness purposely to perplex man, nor shall it punish him

who dares to scrutinize its mysteries. On the contrary, he who

unveils through study and meditation its intricate paths, and

throws light on those dark ways, in the windings of which so

many men perish owing to their ignorance of the labyrinth of

life, is working for the good of his fellow-men. Karma is an

absolute and eternal law in the world of manifestation; and as

there can only be one Absolute, as one Eternal, ever-present

Cause, believers in Karma cannot be regarded as atheists or

materialists, still less as fatalists, for Karma is one with

the Unknowable, of which it is an aspect, in its effects in the

phenomenal world.”

Another able Theosophic writer says (_Purpose of Theosophy_, by

Mrs. P. Sinnett):—

“Every individual is making Karma either good or bad in each

action and thought of his daily round, and is at the same

time working out in this life the Karma brought about by the

acts and desires of the last. When we see people afflicted

by congenital ailments it may be safely assumed that these

ailments are the inevitable results of causes started by

themselves in a previous birth. It may be argued that, as

these afflictions are hereditary, they can have nothing to do

with a past incarnation; but it must be remembered that the

Ego, the real man, the individuality, has no spiritual origin

in the parentage by which it is re-embodied, but it is drawn

by the affinities which its previous mode of life attracted

round it into the current that carries it, when the time comes

for re-birth, to the home best fitted for the development of

those tendencies.... This doctrine of Karma, when properly

understood, is well calculated to guide and assist those

who realize its truth to a higher and better mode of life,

for it must not be forgotten that not only our actions but

our thoughts also are most assuredly followed by a crowd of

circumstances that will influence for good or for evil our own

future, and, what is still more important, the future of many

of our fellow-creatures. If sins of omission and commission

could in any case be only self-regarding, the effect on the

sinner’s Karma would be a matter of minor consequence. The fact

that every thought and act through life carries with it for

good or evil a corresponding influence on other members of the

human family renders a strict sense of justice, morality, and

unselfishness so necessary to future happiness or progress. A

crime once committed, an evil thought sent out from the mind,

are past recall—no amount of repentance can wipe out their

results in the future. Repentance, if sincere, will deter a man

from repeating errors; it cannot save him or others from the

effects of those already produced, which will most unerringly

overtake him either in this life or in the next re-birth.”

Mr. J. H. Connelly proceeds—

“The believers in a religion based upon such doctrine are

willing it should be compared with one in which man’s destiny

for eternity is determined by the accidents of a single,

brief earthly existence, during which he is cheered by the

promise that ‘as the tree falls so shall it lie’; in which

his brightest hope, when he wakes up to a knowledge of his

wickedness, is the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and in

which even that is handicapped, according to the Presbyterian

Confession of Faith.

“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some

men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and

others foreordained to everlasting death.

“These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are

particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is

so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or

diminished. ... As God hath appointed the elect unto glory....

Neither are any other redeemed by Christ effectually called,

justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

“The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the

unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth

or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his

sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by and to ordain

them to dishonour and wrath for their sin to the praise of his

glorious justice.”

This is what the able defender says. Nor can we do any better than

wind up the subject as he does, by a quotation from a magnificent

poem. As he says:—

“The exquisite beauty of Edwin Arnold’s exposition of Karma in

‘The Light of Asia’ tempts to its reproduction here, but it is

too long for quotation in full. Here is a portion of it:—

Karma—all that total of a soul

Which is the things it did, the thoughts it had,

The “self” it wove with woof of viewless time

Crossed on the warp invisible of acts.

* * * * *

Before beginning and without an end,

As space eternal and as surety sure,

Is fixed a Power divine which moves to good,

Only its laws endure.

It will not be contemned of anyone;

Who thwarts it loses, and who serves it gains:

The hidden good it pays with peace and bliss,

The hidden ill with pains.

It seeth everywhere and marketh all;

Do right—it recompenseth! Do one wrong—

The equal retribution must be made,

Though Dharma tarry long.

It knows not wrath nor pardon; utter-true,

Its measures mete, its faultless balance weighs;

Times are as naught, to-morrow it will judge

Or after many days.

* * * * *

Such is the law which moves to righteousness,

Which none at last can turn aside or stay;

The heart of it is love, the end of it

Is peace and consummation sweet. Obey.

And now I advise you to compare our Theosophic views upon Karma,

the law of Retribution, and say whether they are not both more

philosophical and just than this cruel and idiotic dogma which

makes of “God” a senseless fiend; the tenet, namely, that the

“elect only” will be saved, and the rest doomed to eternal

perdition!

ENQ. Yes, I see what you mean generally; but I wish you could give some

concrete example of the action of Karma?

THEO. That I cannot do. We can only feel sure, as I said before, that

our present lives and circumstances are the direct results of our

own deeds and thoughts in lives that are past. But we, who are not

Seers or Initiates, cannot know anything about the details of the

working of the law of Karma.

ENQ. Can anyone, even an Adept or Seer, follow out this Karmic process

of readjustment in detail?

THEO. Certainly: “Those who _know_” can do so by the exercise of powers

which are latent even in all men.

WHO ARE THOSE WHO KNOW?

ENQ. Does this hold equally of ourselves as of others?

THEO. Equally. As just said, the same limited vision exists for all,

save those who have reached in the present incarnation the acme of

spiritual vision and clairvoyance. We can only perceive that, if

things with us ought to have been different, they would have been

different; that we are what we have made ourselves, and have only

what we have earned for ourselves.

ENQ. I am afraid such a conception would only embitter us.

THEO. I believe it is precisely the reverse. It is disbelief in the

just law of retribution that is more likely to awaken every

combative feeling in man. A child, as much as a man, resents a

punishment, or even a reproof he believes to be unmerited, far

more than he does a severer punishment, if he feels that it is

merited. Belief in Karma is the highest reason for reconcilement

to one’s lot in this life, and the very strongest incentive

towards effort to better the succeeding re-birth. Both of these,

indeed, would be destroyed if we supposed that our lot was the

result of anything but strict _Law_, or that destiny was in any

other hands than our own.

ENQ. You have just asserted that this system of Re-incarnation under

Karmic law commended itself to reason, justice, and the moral

sense. But, if so, is it not at some sacrifice of the gentler

qualities of sympathy and pity, and thus a hardening of the finer

instincts of human nature?

THEO. Only apparently, not really. No man can receive more or less than

his deserts without a corresponding injustice or partiality to

others; and a law which could be averted through compassion would

bring about more misery than it saved, more irritation and curses

than thanks. Remember also, that we do not administer the law, if

we do create causes for its effects; it administers itself; and

again, that the most copious provision for the manifestation of

_just_ compassion and mercy is shown in the state of Devachan.

ENQ. You speak of Adepts as being an exception to the rule of our

general ignorance. Do they really know more than we do of

Re-incarnation and after states?

THEO. They do, indeed. By the training of faculties we all possess, but

which they alone have developed to perfection, they have entered

in spirit these various planes and states we have been discussing.

For long ages, one generation of Adepts after another has studied

the mysteries of being, of life, death, and re-birth, and all have

taught in their turn some of the facts so learned.

ENQ. And is the production of Adepts the aim of Theosophy?

THEO. Theosophy considers humanity as an emanation from divinity on its

return path thereto. At an advanced point upon the path, Adeptship

is reached by those who have devoted several incarnations to its

achievement. For, remember well, no man has ever reached Adeptship

in the Secret Sciences in one life; but many incarnations are

necessary for it after the formation of a conscious purpose and

the beginning of the needful training. Many may be the men

and women in the very midst of our Society who have begun this

uphill work toward illumination several incarnations ago, and

who yet, owing to the personal illusions of the present life,

are either ignorant of the fact, or on the road to losing every

chance in this existence of progressing any farther. They feel an

irresistible attraction toward occultism and the _Higher Life_,

and yet are too personal and self-opinionated, too much in love

with the deceptive allurements of mundane life and the world’s

ephemeral pleasures, to give them up; and so lose their chance

in their present birth. But, for ordinary men, for the practical

duties of daily life, such a far-off result is inappropriate as an

aim and quite ineffective as a motive.

ENQ. What, then, may be their object or distinct purpose in joining the

Theosophical Society?

THEO. Many are interested in our doctrines and feel instinctively that

they are truer than those of any dogmatic religion. Others have

formed a fixed resolve to attain the highest ideal of man’s duty.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE; OR, BLIND AND REASONED

FAITH.

ENQ. You say that they accept and believe in the doctrines of

Theosophy. But, as they do not belong to those Adepts you have

just mentioned, then they must accept your teachings on _blind

faith_. In what does this differ from that of conventional

religions?

THEO. As it differs on almost all the other points, so it differs on

this one. What you call “faith,” and that which is _blind

faith_, in reality, and with regard to the dogmas of the

Christian religions, becomes with us “_knowledge_,” the logical

sequence of things _we know_, about _facts_ in nature. Your

Doctrines are based upon interpretation, therefore, upon the

_second-hand_ testimony of Seers; ours upon the invariable and

unvarying testimony of Seers. The ordinary Christian theology for

instance, holds that man is a creature of God, of three component

parts—body, soul, and spirit—all essential to his integrity, and

all, either in the gross form of physical earthly existence or

in the etherealized form of post-resurrection experience, needed

to so constitute him for ever, each man having thus a permanent

existence separate from other men, and from the Divine. Theosophy,

on the other hand, holds that man, being an emanation from the

Unknown, yet ever present and infinite Divine Essence, his body

and everything else is impermanent, hence an illusion; Spirit

alone in him being the one enduring substance, and even that

losing its separated individuality at the moment of its complete

reunion with the _Universal Spirit_.

ENQ. If we lose even our individuality, then it becomes simply

annihilation.

THEO. I say it _does not_, since I speak of _separate_, not of

universal individuality. The latter becomes as a part transformed

into the whole; the _dewdrop_ is not evaporated, but becomes the

sea. Is physical man _annihilated_, when from a fœtus he becomes

an old man? What kind of Satanic pride must be ours if we place

our infinitesimally small consciousness and individuality higher

than the universal and infinite consciousness!

ENQ. It follows, then, that there is, _de facto_, no man, but all is

Spirit?

THEO. You are mistaken. It thus follows that the union of Spirit with

matter is but temporary; or, to put it more clearly, since

Spirit and matter are one, being the two opposite poles of the

_universal_ manifested substance—that Spirit loses its right

to the name so long as the smallest particle and atom of its

manifesting substance still clings to any form, the result of

differentiation. To believe otherwise is _blind faith_.

ENQ. Thus it is on _knowledge_, not on _faith_, that you assert that

the permanent principle, the Spirit, simply makes a transit

through matter?

THEO. I would put it otherwise and say—we assert that the appearance of

the permanent and one principle, Spirit, _as matter_ is transient,

and, therefore, no better than an illusion.

ENQ. Very well; and this, given out on knowledge not faith?

THEO. Just so. But as I see very well what you are driving at, I may

just as well tell you that we hold _faith_, such as you advocate,

to be a mental disease, and real faith, _i.e._, the _pistis_ of

the Greeks, as “_belief based on knowledge_,” whether supplied by

the evidence of physical or _spiritual_ senses.

ENQ. What do you mean?

THEO. I mean, if it is the difference between the two that you want to

know, then I can tell you that between _faith on authority_ and

_faith on one’s spiritual intuition_, there is a very great

difference.

ENQ. What is it?

THEO. One is human credulity and _superstition_, the other human belief

and _intuition_. As Professor Alexander Wilder says in his

“Introduction to the _Eleusinian Mysteries_,” “It is ignorance

which leads to profanation. Men ridicule what they do not properly

understand.... The undercurrent of this world is set towards

one goal; and inside of human credulity ... is a power almost

infinite, a holy faith capable of apprehending the supremest

truths of all existence.” Those who limit that “credulity” to

human authoritative dogmas alone, will never fathom that power

nor even perceive it in their natures. It is stuck fast to the

external plane and is unable to bring forth into play the essence

that rules it; for to do this they have to claim their right of

private judgment, and this they never _dare_ to do.

ENQ. And is it that “intuition” which forces you to reject God as a

personal Father, Ruler and Governor of the Universe?

THEO. Precisely. We believe in an ever unknowable Principle, because

blind aberration alone can make one maintain that the Universe,

thinking man, and all the marvels contained even in the world

of matter, could have grown without some _intelligent powers_

to bring about the extraordinarily wise arrangement of all its

parts. Nature may err, and often does, in its details and the

external manifestations of its materials, never in its inner

causes and results. Ancient pagans held on this question far

more philosophical views than modern philosophers, whether

Agnostics, Materialists or Christians; and no pagan writer has

ever yet advanced the proposition that cruelty and mercy are

not finite feelings, and can therefore be made the attributes of

an _infinite_ god. Their gods, therefore, were all finite. The

Siamese author of the _Wheel of the Law_, expresses the same idea

about your personal god as we do; he says (p. 25):

“A Buddhist might believe in the existence of a god; sublime

above all human qualities and attributes—a perfect god, above

love, and hatred, and jealousy, calmly resting in a quietude

that nothing could disturb, and of such a god he would speak

no disparagement, not from a desire to please him or fear

to offend him, but from natural veneration; but he cannot

understand a god with the attributes and qualities of men, a

god who loves and hates, and shows anger; a Deity who, whether

described as by Christian Missionaries or by Mahometans or

Brahmins,[55] or Jews, falls below his standard of even an

ordinary good man.”

ENQ. Faith for faith, is not the faith of the Christian who believes,

in his human helplessness and humility, that there is a merciful

Father in Heaven who will protect him from temptation, help him in

life, and forgive him his transgressions, better than the cold and

proud, almost fatalistic faith of the Buddhists, Vedantins, and

Theosophists?

THEO. Persist in calling our belief “faith” if you will. But once we

are again on this ever-recurring question, I ask in my turn:

faith for faith, is not the one based on strict logic and reason

better than the one which is based simply on human authority

or—hero-worship? _Our_ “faith” has all the logical force of the

arithmetical truism that 2 and 2 will produce 4. Your faith is

like the logic of some emotional woman, of whom Tourgenyeff said

that for them 2 and 2 were generally 5, and a tallow candle into

the bargain. Yours is a faith, moreover, which clashes not only

with every conceivable view of justice and logic, but which, if

analysed, leads man to his moral perdition, checks the progress of

mankind, and positively making of might, right—transforms every

second man into a Cain to his brother Abel.

ENQ. What do you allude to?

HAS GOD THE RIGHT TO FORGIVE?

THEO. To the Doctrine of Atonement; I allude to that dangerous dogma in

which you believe, and which teaches us that no matter how

enormous our crimes against the laws of God and of man, we have

but to believe in the self-sacrifice of Jesus for the salvation

of mankind, and his blood will wash out every stain. It is twenty

years that I preach against it, and I may now draw your attention

to a paragraph from _Isis Unveiled_, written in 1875. This is what

Christianity teaches, and what we combat:—

“God’s mercy is boundless and unfathomable. It is impossible

to conceive of a human sin so damnable that the price paid

in advance for the redemption of the sinner would not wipe

it out if a thousandfold worse. And furthermore, it is never

too late to repent. Though the offender wait until the last

minute of the last hour of the last day of his mortal life,

before his blanched lips utter the confession of faith, he may

go to Paradise; the dying thief did it, and so may all others

as vile. These are the assumptions of the Church, and of the

Clergy; assumptions banged at the heads of your countrymen by

England’s favourite preachers, right in the ‘light of the XIXth

century,’” this most paradoxical age of all. Now to what does

it lead?

ENQ. Does it not make the Christian happier than the Buddhist or

Brahmin?

THEO. No; not the educated man, at any rate, since the majority of

these have long since virtually lost all belief in this cruel

dogma. But it leads those who still believe in it more _easily to

the threshold of every conceivable crime_, than any other I know

of. Let me quote to you from _Isis_ once more (_vide_ Vol. II.,

pp. 542 and 543)—

“If we step outside the little circle of creed and consider

the universe as a whole balanced by the exquisite adjustment

of parts, how all sound logic, how the faintest glimmering

sense of Justice, revolts against this Vicarious Atonement!

If the criminal sinned only against himself, and wronged no

one but himself; if by sincere repentance he could cause the

obliteration of past events, not only from the memory of man,

but also from that imperishable record, which no deity—not

even the Supremes, of the Supreme—can cause to disappear, then

this dogma might not be incomprehensible. But to maintain that

one may wrong his fellow-man, kill, disturb the equilibrium

of society and the natural order of things, and then—through

cowardice, hope, or compulsion, it matters not—be forgiven by

believing that the spilling of one blood washes out the other

blood spilt—this is preposterous! Can the _results_ of a crime

be obliterated even though the crime itself should be pardoned?

The effects of a cause are never limited to the boundaries of

the cause, nor can the results of crime be confined to the

offender and his victim. Every good as well as evil action has

its effects, as palpably as the stone flung into calm water.

The simile is trite, but it is the best ever conceived, so

let us use it. The eddying circles are greater and swifter as

the disturbing object is greater or smaller, but the smallest

pebble, nay, the tiniest speck, makes its ripples. And this

disturbance is not alone visible and on the surface. Below,

unseen, in every direction—outward and downward—drop pushes

drop until the sides and bottom are touched by the force. More,

the air above the water is agitated, and this disturbance

passes, as the physicists tell us, from stratum to stratum

out into space forever and ever; an impulse has been given to

matter, and that is never lost, can never be recalled!...

“So with crime, and so with its opposite. The action may be

instantaneous, the effects are eternal. When, after the stone

is once flung into the pond, we can recall it to the hand,

roll back the ripples, obliterate the force expended, restore

the etheric waves to their previous state of non-being, and

wipe out every trace of the act of throwing the missile, so

that Time’s record shall not show that it ever happened, then,

_then_ we may patiently hear Christians argue for the efficacy

of this Atonement,”

and—cease to believe in Karmic Law. As it now stands, we call upon

the whole world to decide, which of our two doctrines is the most

appreciative of deific justice, and which is more reasonable, even

on simple human evidence and logic.

ENQ. Yet millions believe in the Christian dogma and are happy.

THEO. Pure sentimentalism overpowering their thinking faculties, which

no true philanthropist or Altruist will ever accept. It is

not even a dream of selfishness, but a nightmare of the human

intellect. Look where it leads to, and tell me the name of that

pagan country where crimes are more easily committed or more

numerous than in Christian lands. Look at the long and ghastly

annual records of crimes committed in European countries; and

behold Protestant and Biblical America. There, _conversions_

effected in prisons are more numerous than those made by public

_revivals_ and preaching. See how the ledger-balance of Christian

justice (!) stands; Red-handed murderers, urged on by the demons

of lust, revenge, cupidity, fanaticism, or mere brutal thirst for

blood, who kill their victims, in most cases, without giving them

time to repent or call on Jesus. These, perhaps, died sinful, and,

of course—consistently with theological logic—met the reward of

their greater or lesser offences. But the murderer, overtaken by

human justice, is imprisoned, wept over by sentimentalists, prayed

with and at, pronounces the charmed words of conversion, and goes

to the scaffold a redeemed child of Jesus! Except for the murder,

he would not have been prayed with, redeemed, pardoned. Clearly

this man did well to murder, for thus he gained eternal happiness!

And how about the victim and his, or her family, relatives,

dependents, social relations; has justice no recompense for them?

Must they suffer in this world and the next, while he who wronged

them sits beside the “holy thief” of Calvary, and is for ever

blessed? On this question the clergy keep a prudent silence.

(_Isis Unveiled._) And now you know why Theosophists—whose

fundamental belief and hope is justice for all, in Heaven as on

earth, and in Karma—reject this dogma.

ENQ. The ultimate destiny of man, then, is not a Heaven presided over

by God, but the gradual transformation of matter into its

primordial element, Spirit?

THEO. It is to that final goal to which all tends in nature.

ENQ. Do not some of you regard this association or “fall of spirit into

matter” as evil, and re-birth as a sorrow?

THEO. Some do, and therefore strive to shorten their period of

probation on earth. It is not an unmixed evil, however, since

it ensures the experience upon which we mount to knowledge and

wisdom. I mean that experience which _teaches_ that the needs of

our spiritual nature can never be met by other than spiritual

happiness. As long as we are in the body, we are subjected to

pain, suffering and all the disappointing incidents occurring

during life. Therefore, and to palliate this, we finally acquire

knowledge which alone can afford us relief and hope of a better

future.

FOOTNOTES:

[55] Sectarian Brahmins are here meant. The Parabrahm of the Vedantins

is the Deity we accept and believe in.

XII. WHAT IS PRACTICAL THEOSOPHY?

DUTY.

ENQ. Why, then, the need for rebirths, since all alike fail to secure a

permanent peace?

THEO. Because the final goal cannot be reached in any way but through

life experiences and because the bulk of these consist in pain and

suffering. It is only through the latter that we can learn. Joys

and pleasures teach us nothing; they are evanescent, and can only

bring in the long run satiety. Moreover, our constant failure to

find any permanent satisfaction in life which would meet the wants

of our higher nature, shows us plainly that those wants can be met

only on their own plane, to-wit—the spiritual.

ENQ. Is the natural result of this a desire to quit life by one means

or another?

THEO. If you mean by such desire “suicide,” then I say, most decidedly

not. Such a result can never be a “natural” one, but is ever

due to a morbid brain disease, or to most decided and strong

materialistic views. It is the worst of crimes and dire in

its results. But if by desire, you mean simply aspiration to

reach spiritual existence, not a wish to quit the earth, then I

would call it a very natural desire indeed. Otherwise voluntary

death would be an abandonment of our present post and of the

duties incumbent on us, as well as an attempt to shirk Karmic

responsibilities, and thus involve the creation of new Karma.

ENQ. But if actions on the material plane are unsatisfying, why should

duties, which are such actions, be imperative?

THEO. First of all, because our philosophy teaches us that the object

of doing our duties to all men and to ourselves the last, is not

the attainment of personal happiness, but of the happiness of

others; the fulfilment of right for the sake of right, not for

what it may bring us. Happiness, or rather contentment, may indeed

follow the performance of duty, but is not and must not be the

motive for it.

ENQ. What do you understand precisely by “duty” in Theosophy? It cannot

be the Christian duties preached by Jesus and his Apostles, since

you recognize neither?

THEO. You are once more mistaken. What you call “Christian duties” were

inculcated by every great moral and religious Reformer ages before

the Christian era. All that was great, generous, heroic, was, in

days of old, not only talked about and preached from pulpits as

in our own time, but _acted upon_ sometimes by whole nations.

The history of the Buddhist reform is full of the most noble and

most heroically unselfish acts. “Be ye all of one mind, having

compassion one of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be

courteous; not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing;

but contrariwise, blessing” was practically carried out by the

followers of Buddha, several centuries before Peter. The Ethics of

Christianity are grand, no doubt; but as undeniably they are not

new, and have originated as “Pagan” duties.

ENQ. And how would you define these duties, or “duty,” in general, as

you understand the term?

THEO. Duty is that which is _due_ to Humanity, to our fellow-men,

neighbours, family, and especially that which we owe to all those

who are poorer and more helpless than we are ourselves. This is

a debt which, if left unpaid during life, leaves us spiritually

insolvent and moral bankrupts in our next incarnation. Theosophy

is the quintessence of _duty_.

ENQ. So is Christianity when rightly understood and carried out.

THEO. No doubt it is; but then, were it not a _lip-religion_ in

practice, Theosophy would have little to do amidst Christians.

Unfortunately it is but such lip-ethics. Those who practise their

duty towards all, and for duty’s own sake, are few; and fewer

still are those who perform that duty, remaining content with the

satisfaction of their own secret consciousness. It is—

“... the public voice

Of praise that honours virtue and rewards it,”

which is ever uppermost in the minds of the “world renowned”

philanthropists. Modern ethics are beautiful to read about and

hear discussed; but what are words unless converted into actions?

Finally: if you ask me how we understand Theosophical duty

practically and in view of Karma, I may answer you that our duty

is to drink without a murmur to the last drop, whatever contents

the cup of life may have in store for us, to pluck the roses of

life only for the fragrance they may shed on _others_, and to be

ourselves content but with the thorns, if that fragrance cannot be

enjoyed without depriving some one else of it.

ENQ. All this is very vague. What do you do more than Christians do?

THEO. It is not what we members of the Theosophical Society do—though

some of us try our best—but how much farther Theosophy leads to

good than modern Christianity does. I say—_action_, enforced

action, instead of mere intention and talk. A man may be what he

likes, the most worldly, selfish and hard-hearted of men, even a

deep-dyed rascal, and it will not prevent him from calling himself

a Christian, or others from so regarding him. But no Theosophist

has the right to this name, unless he is thoroughly imbued with

the correctness of Carlyle’s truism: “The end of man is an

_action_ and not a _thought_, though it were the noblest”—and

unless he sets and models his daily life upon this truth. The

profession of a truth is not yet the enactment of it; and the more

beautiful and grand it sounds, the more loudly virtue or duty is

talked about instead of being acted upon, the more forcibly it

will always remind one of the Dead Sea fruit. _Cant_ is the most

loathsome of all vices; and _cant_ is the most prominent feature

of the greatest Protestant country of this century—England.

ENQ. What do you consider as due to humanity at large?

THEO. Full recognition of equal rights and privileges for all, and

without distinction of race, colour, social position, or birth.

ENQ. When would you consider such due not given?

THEO. When there is the slightest invasion of another’s right—be that

other a man or a nation; when there is any failure to show him the

same justice, kindness, consideration or mercy which we desire for

ourselves. The whole present system of politics is built on the

oblivion of such rights, and the most fierce assertion of national

selfishness. The French say: “Like master, like man”; they ought

to add, “Like national policy, like citizen.”

ENQ. Do you take any part in politics?

THEO. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given

below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have

affected a reform in _human nature, is like putting new wine into

old bottles_. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost

hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old

abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based

on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of

itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed

of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of

the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting

political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at

the head of affairs as of old.

THE RELATIONS OF THE T.S. TO POLITICAL REFORMS.

ENQ. The Theosophical Society is not, then, a political organization?

THEO. Certainly not. It is international in the highest sense in that

its members comprise men and women of all races, creeds, and forms

of thought, who work together for one object, the improvement of

humanity; but as a society it takes absolutely no part in any

national or party politics.

ENQ. Why is this?

THEO. Just for the reasons I have mentioned. Moreover, political action

must necessarily vary with the circumstances of the time and with

the idiosyncracies of individuals. While from the very nature of

their position as Theosophists the members of the T.S. are agreed

on the principles of Theosophy, or they would not belong to the

society at all, it does not thereby follow that they agree on

every other subject. As a society they can only act together in

matters which are common to all—that is, in Theosophy itself; as

individuals, each is left perfectly free to follow out his or

her particular line of political thought and action, so long as

this does not conflict with Theosophical principles, or hurt the

Theosophical Society.

ENQ. But surely the T.S. does not stand altogether aloof from the

social questions which are now so fast coming to the front?

THEO. The very principles of the T.S. are a proof that it does not—or,

rather, that most of its members do not—so stand aloof. If

humanity can only be developed mentally and spiritually by the

enforcement, first of all, of the soundest and most scientific

physiological laws, it is the bounden duty of all who strive

for this development to do their utmost to see that those laws

shall be generally carried out. All Theosophists are only too

sadly aware that, in Occidental countries especially, the social

condition of large masses of the people renders it impossible for

either their bodies or their spirits to be properly trained, so

that the development of both is thereby arrested. As this training

and development is one of the express objects of Theosophy, the

T.S. is in thorough sympathy and harmony with all true efforts in

this direction.

ENQ. But what do you mean by “true efforts”? Each social reformer has

his own panacea, and each believes his to be the one and only

thing which can improve and save humanity?

THEO. Perfectly true, and this is the real reason why so little

satisfactory social work is accomplished. In most of these

panaceas there is no really guiding principle, and there is

certainly no one principle which connects them all. Valuable time

and energy are thus wasted; for men, instead of co-operating,

strive one against the other, often, it is to be feared, for the

sake of fame and reward rather than for the great cause which they

profess to have at heart, and which should be supreme in their

lives.

ENQ. How, then, should Theosophical principles be applied so that

social co-operation may be promoted and true efforts for social

amelioration be carried on?

THEO. Let me briefly remind you what these principles are—universal

Unity and Causation; Human Solidarity; the Law of Karma;

Re-incarnation. These are the four links of the golden chain which

should bind humanity into one family, one universal Brotherhood.

ENQ. How?

THEO. In the present state of society, especially in so-called

civilized countries, we are continually brought face to face with

the fact that large numbers of people are suffering from misery,

poverty and disease. Their physical condition is wretched, and

their mental and spiritual faculties are often almost dormant. On

the other hand, many persons at the opposite end of the social

scale are leading lives of careless indifference, material luxury,

and selfish indulgence. Neither of these forms of existence

is mere chance. Both are the effects of the conditions which

surround those who are subject to them, and the neglect of social

duty on the one side is most closely connected with the stunted

and arrested development on the other. In sociology, as in all

branches of true science, the law of universal causation holds

good. But this causation necessarily implies, as its logical

outcome, that human solidarity on which Theosophy so strongly

insists. If the action of one reacts on the lives of all, and this

is the true scientific idea, then it is only by all men becoming

brothers and all women sisters, and by all practising in their

daily lives true brotherhood and true sisterhood, that the real

human solidarity, which lies at the root of the elevation of the

race, can ever be attained. It is this action and interaction,

this true brotherhood and sisterhood, in which each shall live for

all and all for each, which is one of the fundamental Theosophical

principles that every Theosophist should be bound, not only to

teach, but to carry out in his or her individual life.

ENQ. All this is very well as a general principle, but how would you

apply it in a concrete way?

THEO. Look for a moment at what you would call the concrete facts of

human society. Contrast the lives not only of the masses of the

people, but of many of those who are called the middle and upper

classes, with what they might be under healthier and nobler

conditions, where justice, kindness, and love were paramount,

instead of the selfishness, indifference, and brutality which

now too often seem to reign supreme. All good and evil things in

humanity have their roots in human character, and this character

is, and has been, conditioned by the endless chain of cause and

effect. But this conditioning applies to the future as well as

to the present and the past. Selfishness, indifference, and

brutality can never be the normal state of the race—to believe so

would be to despair of humanity—and that no Theosophist can do.

Progress can be attained, and only attained, by the development

of the nobler qualities. Now, true evolution teaches us that

by altering the surroundings of the organism we can alter and

improve the organism; and in the strictest sense this is true

with regard to man. Every Theosophist, therefore, is bound to do

his utmost to help on, by all the means in his power, every wise

and well-considered social effort which has for its object the

amelioration of the condition of the poor. Such efforts should be

made with a view to their ultimate social emancipation, or the

development of the sense of duty in those who now so often neglect

it in nearly every relation of life.

ENQ. Agreed. But who is to decide whether social efforts are wise or

unwise?

THEO. No one person and no society can lay down a hard-and-fast rule in

this respect. Much must necessarily be left to the individual

judgment. One general test may, however, be given. Will the

proposed action tend to promote that true brotherhood which it is

the aim of Theosophy to bring about? No real Theosophist will

have much difficulty in applying such a test; once he is satisfied

of this, his duty will lie in the direction of forming public

opinion. And this can be attained only by inculcating those higher

and nobler conceptions of public and private duties which lie

at the root of all spiritual and material improvement. In every

conceivable case he himself must be a center of spiritual action,

and from him and his own daily individual life must radiate those

higher spiritual forces which alone can regenerate his fellow-men.

ENQ. But why should he do this? Are not he and all, as you teach,

conditioned by their Karma, and must not Karma necessarily work

itself out on certain lines?

THEO. It is this very law of Karma which gives strength to all that I

have said. The individual cannot separate himself from the race,

nor the race from the individual. The law of Karma applies equally

to all, although all are not equally developed. In helping on the

development of others, the Theosophist believes that he is not

only helping them to fulfil their Karma, but that he is also, in

the strictest sense, fulfilling his own. It is the development of

humanity, of which both he and they are integral parts, that he

has always in view, and he knows that any failure on his part to

respond to the highest within him retards not only himself but

all, in their progressive march. By his actions, he can make it

either more difficult or more easy for humanity to attain the next

higher plane of being.

ENQ. How does this bear on the fourth of the principles you mentioned,

viz., Re-incarnation?

THEO. The connection is most intimate. If our present lives depend upon

the development of certain principles which are a growth from

the germs left by a previous existence, the law holds good as

regards the future. Once grasp the idea that universal causation

is not merely present, but past, present and future, and every

action on our present plane falls naturally and easily into its

true place, and is seen in its true relation to ourselves and to

others. Every mean and selfish action sends us backward and not

forward, while every noble thought and every unselfish deed are

stepping-stones to the higher and more glorious planes of being.

If this life were all, then in many respects it would indeed be

poor and mean; but regarded as a preparation for the next sphere

of existence, it may be used as the golden gate through which

we may pass, not selfishly and alone, but in company with our

fellows, to the palaces which lie beyond.

ON SELF-SACRIFICE.

ENQ. Is equal justice to all and love to every creature the highest

standard of Theosophy?

THEO. No; there is an even far higher one.

ENQ. What can it be?

THEO. The giving to others _more_ than to oneself—_self-sacrifice_.

Such was the standard and abounding measure which marked

so pre-eminently the greatest Teachers and Masters of

Humanity—_e.g._, Gautama Buddha in History, and Jesus of Nazareth

as in the Gospels. This trait alone was enough to secure to them

the perpetual reverence and gratitude of the generations of men

that come after them. We say, however, that self-sacrifice has to

be performed with discrimination; and such a self-abandonment,

if made without justice, or blindly, regardless of subsequent

results, may often prove not only made in vain, but harmful.

One of the fundamental rules of Theosophy is, justice to

oneself—viewed as a unit of collective humanity, not as a personal

self-justice, not more but not less than to others; unless,

indeed, by the sacrifice of the _one_ self we can benefit the many.

ENQ. Could you make your idea clearer by giving an instance?

THEO. There are many instances to illustrate it in history.

Self-sacrifice for practical good to save many, or several people,

Theosophy holds as far higher than self-abnegation for a sectarian

idea, such as that of “saving the heathen from _damnation_,”

for instance. In our opinion, Father Damien, the young man of

thirty who offered his whole life in sacrifice for the benefit

and alleviation of the sufferings of the lepers at Molokai, and

who went to live for eighteen years alone with them, to finally

catch the loathsome disease and die, _has not died in vain_. He

has given relief and relative happiness to thousands of miserable

wretches. He has brought to them consolation, mental and physical.

He threw a streak of light into the black and dreary night of

an existence, the hopelessness of which is unparalleled in the

records of human suffering. He was a _true Theosophist_, and his

memory will live for ever in our annals. In our sight this poor

Belgian priest stands immeasurably higher than—for instance—all

those sincere but vain-glorious fools, the Missionaries who have

sacrificed their lives in the South Sea Islands or China. What

good have they done? They went in one case to those who are not

yet ripe for any truth; and in the other to a nation whose systems

of religious philosophy are as grand as any, if only the men who

have them would live up to the standard of Confucius and their

other sages. And they died victims of irresponsible cannibals and

savages, and of popular fanaticism and hatred. Whereas, by going

to the slums of Whitechapel or some other such locality of those

that stagnate right under the blazing sun of our civilization,

full of Christian savages and mental leprosy, they might have done

real good, and preserved their lives for a better and worthier

cause.

ENQ. But the Christians do not think so?

THEO. Of course not, because they act on an erroneous belief. They

think that by baptising the body of an irresponsible savage they

save his soul from damnation. One church forgets her martyrs,

the other beatifies and raises statues to such men as Labro, who

sacrificed his body for forty years only to benefit the vermin

which it bred. Had we the means to do so, we would raise a statue

to Father Damien, the true, practical saint, and perpetuate his

memory for ever as a living exemplar of Theosophical heroism and

of Buddha- and Christ-like mercy and self-sacrifice.

ENQ. Then you regard self-sacrifice as a duty?

THEO. We do; and explain it by showing that altruism is an integral

part of self-development. But we have to discriminate. A man has

no right to starve himself _to death_ that another man may have

food, unless the life of that man is obviously more useful to the

many than is his own life. But it is his duty to sacrifice his own

comfort, and to work for others if they are unable to work for

themselves. It is his duty to give all that which is wholly his

own and can benefit no one but himself if he selfishly keeps it

from others. Theosophy teaches self-abnegation, but does not teach

rash and useless self-sacrifice, nor does it justify fanaticism.

ENQ. But how are we to reach such an elevated status?

THEO. By the enlightened application of our precepts to practice. By

the use of our higher reason, spiritual intuition and moral sense,

and by following the dictates of what we call “the still small

voice” of our conscience, which is that of our EGO, and which

speaks louder in us than the earthquakes and the thunders of

Jehovah, wherein “the Lord is not.”

ENQ. If such are our duties to humanity at large, what do you

understand by our duties to our immediate surroundings?

THEO. Just the same, plus those that arise from special obligations

with regard to family ties.

ENQ. Then it is not true, as it is said, that no sooner does a man

enter into the Theosophical Society than he begins to be gradually

severed from his wife, children, and family duties?

THEO. It is a groundless calumny, like so many others. The first of the

Theosophical duties is to do one’s duty by _all_ men, and

especially by those to whom one’s _specific_ responsibilities are

due, because one has either voluntarily undertaken them, such as

marriage ties, or because one’s destiny has allied one to them; I

mean those we owe to parents or next of kin.

ENQ. And what may be the duty of a Theosophist to himself?

THEO. To control and conquer, _through the Higher, the lower self_. To

purify himself inwardly and morally; to fear no one, and nought,

save the tribunal of his own conscience. Never to do a thing by

halves; _i.e._, if he thinks it the right thing to do, let him do

it openly and boldly, and if wrong, never touch it at all. It is

the duty of a Theosophist to lighten his burden by thinking of the

wise aphorism of Epictetus, who says: “Be not diverted from your

duty _by any idle reflection the silly world may make upon you_,

for their censures are not in your power, and consequently should

not be any part of your concern.”

ENQ. But suppose a member of your Society should plead inability to

practice altruism by other people, on the ground that “charity

begins at home”; urging that he is too busy, or too poor, to

benefit mankind or even any of its units—what are your rules in

such a case?

THEO. No man has a right to say that he can do nothing for others, on

any pretext whatever. “By doing the proper duty in the proper

place, a man may make the world his debtor,” says an English

writer. A cup of cold water given in time to a thirsty wayfarer is

a nobler duty and more worth, than a dozen of dinners given away,

out of season, to men who can afford to pay for them. No man who

has not got it in him will ever become a _Theosophist_; but he may

remain a member of our Society all the same. We have no rules by

which we could force any man to become a practical Theosophist, if

he does not desire to be one.

ENQ. Then why does he enter the Society at all?

THEO. That is best known to him who does so. For, here again, we have

no right to pre-judge a person, not even if the voice of a whole

community should be against him, and I may tell you why. In our

day, _vox populi_ (so far as regards the voice of the educated,

at any rate) is no longer _vox dei_, but ever that of prejudice,

of selfish motives, and often simply that of unpopularity. Our

duty is to sow seeds broadcast for the future, and see they are

good; not to stop to enquire _why_ we should do so, and how and

wherefore we are obliged to lose our time, since those who will

reap the harvest in days to come will never be ourselves.

ON CHARITY.

ENQ. How do you Theosophists regard the Christian duty of charity?

THEO. What charity do you mean? Charity of mind, or practical charity

in the physical plane?

ENQ. I mean practical charity, as your idea of Universal brotherhood

would include, of course, charity of mind.

THEO. Then you have in your mind the practical carrying out of the

commandments given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount?

ENQ. Precisely so.

THEO. Then why call them “Christian”? Because, although your Saviour

preached and practised them, the last thing the Christians of

to-day think of is to carry them out in their lives.

ENQ. And yet many are those who pass their lives in dispensing charity?

THEO. Yes, out of the surplus of their great fortunes. But point out to

me that Christian, among the most philanthropic, who would give to

the shivering and starving thief, who would steal his coat, his

cloak also; or offer his right cheek to him who smote him on the

left, and never think of resenting it!

ENQ. Ah, but you must remember that these precepts have not to be taken

literally. Times and circumstances have changed since Christ’s

day. Moreover, He spoke in Parables.

THEO. Then why don’t your Churches teach that the doctrine of damnation

and hell-fire is to be understood as a _parable_ too? Why do

some of your most popular preachers, while virtually allowing

these “parables” to be understood as you take them, insist on the

literal meaning of the fires of Hell and the _physical_ tortures

of an “Asbestos-like” soul? If one is a “parable,” then the other

is. If Hell-fire is a literal truth, then Christ’s commandments

in the Sermon on the Mount have to be obeyed to the very letter.

And I tell you that many who do not believe in the Divinity of

Christ—like Count Leo Tolstoi and more than one Theosophist—do

carry out these noble, because universal, precepts literally; and

many more good men and women would do so, were they not more than

certain that such a walk in life would very probably land them in

a lunatic asylum—so _Christian are your laws_!

ENQ. But surely every one knows that millions and millions are spent

annually on private and public charities?

THEO. Oh, yes; half of which sticks to the hands it passes through

before getting to the needy; while a good portion or remainder

gets into the hands of professional beggars, those who are too

lazy to work, thus doing no good whatever to those who are really

in misery and suffering. Haven’t you heard that the first result

of the great outflow of charity towards the East-end of London was

to raise the rents in _Whitechapel_ by some 20 per cent.?

ENQ. What would you do, then?

THEO. Act individually and not collectively; follow the Northern

Buddhist precepts: “Never put food into the mouth of the hungry by

the hand of another”; “Never let the shadow of thy neighbour (_a

third person_) come between thyself and the object of thy bounty”;

“Never give to the Sun time to dry a tear before thou hast wiped

it.” Again “Never give money to the needy, or food to the priest,

who begs at thy door, _through thy servants_, lest thy money

should diminish gratitude, and thy food turn to gall.”

ENQ. But how can this be applied practically?

THEO. The Theosophical ideas of charity mean _personal_ exertion for

others; _personal_ mercy and kindness; _personal_ interest in the

welfare of those who suffer; _personal_ sympathy, forethought

and assistance in their troubles or needs. We Theosophists do

not believe in giving money (N.B., if we had it) through other

people’s hands or organizations. We believe in giving to the

money a thousandfold greater power and effectiveness by our

personal contact and sympathy with those who need it. We believe

in relieving the starvation of the soul, as much if not more than

the emptiness of the stomach; for gratitude does more good to

the man who feels it, than to him for whom it is felt. Where’s

the gratitude which your “millions of pounds” should have called

forth, or the good feelings provoked by them? Is it shown in

the hatred of the East-End poor for the rich? in the growth of

the party of anarchy and disorder? or by those thousands of

unfortunate working girls, victims to the “sweating” system,

driven daily to eke out a living by going on the streets? Do

your helpless old men and women thank you for the workhouses; or

your poor for the poisonously unhealthy dwellings in which they

are allowed to breed new generations of diseased, scrofulous

and rickety children, only to put money into the pockets of the

insatiable Shylocks who own houses? Therefore it is that every

sovereign of all those “millions,” contributed by good and

would-be charitable people, falls like a burning curse instead

of a blessing on the poor whom it should relieve. We call this

_generating national Karma_, and terrible will be its results on

the day of reckoning.

THEOSOPHY FOR THE MASSES.

ENQ. And you think that Theosophy would, by stepping in, help to remove

these evils, under the practical and adverse conditions of our

modern life?

THEO. Had we more money, and had not most of the Theosophists to work

for their daily bread, I firmly believe we could.

ENQ. How? Do you expect that your doctrines could ever take hold of the

uneducated masses, when they are so abstruse and difficult that

well-educated people can hardly understand them?

THEO. You forget one thing, which is that your much-boasted modern

education is precisely that which makes it difficult for you

to understand Theosophy. Your mind is so full of intellectual

subtleties and preconceptions that your natural intuition

and perception of the truth cannot act. It does not require

metaphysics or education to make a man understand the broad

truths of Karma and Re-incarnation. Look at the millions of

poor and uneducated Buddhists and Hindoos, to whom Karma and

re-incarnation are solid realities, simply because their minds

have never been cramped and distorted by being forced into an

unnatural groove. They have never had the innate human sense of

justice perverted in them by being told to believe that their

sins would be forgiven because another man had been put to death

for their sakes. And the Buddhists, note well, live up to their

beliefs without a murmur against Karma, or what they regard as a

just punishment, whereas, the Christian populace neither lives

up it to its moral ideal, nor accepts its lot contentedly. Hence

murmuring and dissatisfaction, and the intensity of the struggle

for existence in Western lands.

ENQ. But this contentedness, which you praise so much, would do away

with all motive for exertion and bring progress to a stand-still.

THEO. And we, Theosophists, say that your vaunted progress and

civilization are no better than a host of will-o’-the-wisps,

flickering over a marsh which exhales a poisonous and deadly

miasma. This, because we see selfishness, crime, immorality,

and all the evils imaginable, pouncing upon unfortunate mankind

from this Pandora’s box which you call an age of progress,

and increasing _pari passu_ with the growth of your material

civilization. At such a price, better the inertia and inactivity

of Buddhist countries, which have arisen only as a consequence of

ages of political slavery.

ENQ. Then is all this metaphysics and mysticism with which you occupy

yourself so much, of no importance?

THEO. To the masses, who need only practical guidance and support, they

are not of much consequence; but for the educated, the natural

leaders of the masses, those whose modes of thought and action

will sooner or later be adopted by those masses, they are of the

greatest importance. It is only by means of the philosophy that an

intelligent and educated man can avoid the intellectual suicide

of believing on blind faith; and it is only by assimilating the

strict continuity and logical coherence of the Eastern, if not

esoteric, doctrines, that he can realize their truth. Conviction

breeds enthusiasm, and “Enthusiasm,” says Bulwer Lytton, “is the

genius of sincerity, and truth accomplishes no victories without

it”; while Emerson most truly remarks that “every great and

commanding movement in the annals of the world is the triumph of

enthusiasm.” And what is more calculated to produce such a feeling

than a philosophy so grand, so consistent, so logical, and so

all-embracing as our Eastern Doctrines?

ENQ. And yet its enemies are very numerous, and every day Theosophy

acquires new opponents.

THEO. And this is precisely that which proves its intrinsic excellence

and value. People hate only the things they fear, and no one goes

out of his way to overthrow that which neither threatens nor rises

beyond mediocrity.

ENQ. Do you hope to impart this enthusiasm, one day, to the masses?

THEO. Why not? since history tells us that the masses adopted Buddhism

with enthusiasm, while, as said before, the practical effect upon

them of this philosophy of ethics is still shown by the smallness

of the percentage of crime amongst Buddhist populations as

compared with every other religion. The chief point is, to uproot

that most fertile source of all crime and immorality—the belief

that it is possible for them to escape the consequences of their

own actions. Once teach them that greatest of all laws, _Karma_

and _Re-incarnation_, and besides feeling in themselves the true

dignity of human nature, they will turn from evil and eschew it as

they would a physical danger.

HOW MEMBERS CAN HELP THE SOCIETY.

ENQ. How do you expect the Fellows of your Society to help in the work?

THEO. First by studying and comprehending the theosophical doctrines,

so that they may teach others, especially the young people.

Secondly, by taking every opportunity of talking to others and

explaining to them what Theosophy is, and what it is not; by

removing misconceptions and spreading an interest in the subject.

Thirdly, by assisting in circulating our literature, by buying

books when they have the means, by lending and giving them and

by inducing their friends to do so. Fourthly, by defending

the Society from the unjust aspersions cast upon it, by every

legitimate device in their power. Fifth, and most important of

all, by the example of their own lives.

ENQ. But all this literature, to the spread of which you attach so much

importance, does not seem to me of much practical use in helping

mankind. This is not practical charity.

THEO. We think otherwise. We hold that a good book which gives people

food for thought, which strengthens and clears their minds, and

enables them to grasp truths which they have dimly felt but could

not formulate—we hold that such a book does a real, substantial

good. As to what you call practical deeds of charity, to benefit

the bodies of our fellow-men, we do what little we can; but, as

I have already told you, most of us are poor, whilst the Society

itself has not even the money to pay a staff of workers. All of us

who toil for it, give our labour gratis, and in most cases money

as well. The few who have the means of doing what are usually

called charitable actions, follow the Buddhist precepts and do

their work themselves, not by proxy or by subscribing publicly to

charitable funds. What the Theosophist has to do above all is to

forget his personality.

WHAT A THEOSOPHIST OUGHT NOT TO DO.

ENQ. Have you any prohibitory laws or clauses for Theosophists in your

Society?

THEO. Many, but, alas! none of them are enforced. They express the

ideal of our organization,—but the practical application of such

things we are compelled to leave to the discretion of the Fellows

themselves. Unfortunately, the state of men’s minds in the present

century is such that, unless we allow these clauses to remain, so

to speak, obsolete, no man or woman would dare to risk joining the

Theosophical Society. This is precisely why I feel forced to lay

such a stress on the difference between true Theosophy and its

hard-struggling and well-intentioned, but still unworthy vehicle,

the Theosophical Society.

ENQ. May I be told what are these perilous reefs in the open sea of

Theosophy?

THEO. Well may you call them reefs, as more than one otherwise sincere

and well-meaning F.T.S. has had his Theosophical canoe shattered

into splinters on them! And yet to avoid certain things seems the

easiest thing in the world to do. For instance, here is a series

of such negatives, screening positive Theosophical duties:—

No Theosophist should be silent when he hears evil reports or slanders

spread about the Society, or innocent persons, whether they be his

colleagues or outsiders.

ENQ. But suppose what one hears is the truth, or may be true without

one knowing it?

THEO. Then you must demand good proofs of the assertion, and hear both

sides impartially before you permit the accusation to go

uncontradicted. You have no right to believe in evil, until you

get undeniable proof of the correctness of the statement.

ENQ. And what should you do then?

THEO. Pity and forbearance, charity and long-suffering, ought to be

always there to prompt us to excuse our sinning brethren, and

to pass the gentlest sentence possible upon those who err. A

Theosophist ought never to forget what is due to the shortcomings

and infirmities of human nature.

ENQ. Ought he to forgive entirely in such cases?

THEO. In every case, especially he who is sinned against.

ENQ. But if by so doing, he risks to injure, or allow others to be

injured? What ought he to do then?

THEO. His duty; that which his conscience and higher nature suggests to

him; but only after mature deliberation. Justice consists in doing

no injury to any living being; but justice commands us also never

to allow injury to be done to the many, or even to one innocent

person, by allowing the guilty one to go unchecked.

ENQ. What are the other negative clauses?

THEO. No Theosophist ought to be contented with an idle or frivolous

life, doing no real good to himself and still less to others. He

should work for the benefit of the few who need his help if he is

unable to toil for Humanity, and thus work for the advancement of

the Theosophical cause.

ENQ. This demands an exceptional nature, and would come rather hard

upon some persons.

THEO. Then they had better remain outside the T. S. instead of sailing

under false colours. No one is asked to give more than he can

afford, whether in devotion, time, work or money.

ENQ. What comes next?

THEO. No working member should set too great value on his personal

progress or proficiency in Theosophic studies; but must be

prepared rather to do as much altruistic work as lies in his

power. He should not leave the whole of the heavy burden and

responsibility of the Theosophical movement on the shoulders of

the few devoted workers. Each member ought to feel it his duty to

take what share he can in the common work, and help it by every

means in his power.

ENQ. This is but just. What comes next?

THEO. No Theosophist should place his personal vanity, or feelings,

above those of his Society as a body. He who sacrifices the

latter, or other people’s reputations on the altar of his personal

vanity, worldly benefit, or pride, ought not to be allowed to

remain a member. One cancerous limb diseases the whole body.

ENQ. Is it the duty of every member to teach others and preach

Theosophy?

THEO. It is indeed. No fellow has a right to remain idle, on the excuse

that he knows too little to teach. For he may always be sure that

he will find others who know still less than himself. And also

it is not until a man begins to try to teach others, that he

discovers his own ignorance and tries to remove it. But this is a

minor clause.

ENQ. What do you consider, then, to be the chief of these negative

Theosophical duties?

THEO. To be ever prepared to recognize and confess one’s faults. To

rather sin through exaggerated praise than through too little

appreciation of one’s neighbour’s efforts. Never to back-bite or

slander another person. Always to say openly and direct to his

face anything you have against him. Never to make yourself the

echo of anything you may hear against another, nor harbour revenge

against those who happen to injure you.

ENQ. But it is often dangerous to tell people the truth to their faces.

Don’t you think so? I know of one of your members who was bitterly

offended, left the Society, and became its greatest enemy, only

because he was told some unpleasant truths to his face, and was

blamed for them.