THEO. Of such we have had many. No member, whether prominent or

insignificant, has ever left us without becoming our bitter enemy.

ENQ. How do you account for it?

THEO. It is simply this. Having been, in most cases, intensely devoted

to the Society at first, and having lavished upon it the most

exaggerated praises, the only possible excuse such a backslider

can make for his subsequent behaviour and past short-sightedness,

is _to pose as an innocent and deceived victim_, thus casting

the blame from his own shoulders on to those of the Society in

general, and its leaders especially. Such persons remind one of

the old fable about the man with a distorted face, who broke his

looking-glass on the ground that it reflected his countenance

crookedly.

ENQ. But what makes these people turn against the Society?

THEO. Wounded vanity in some form or other, almost in every case.

Generally, because their dicta and advice are not taken as

final and authoritative; or else, because they are of those who

would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. Because, in

short, they cannot bear to stand second to anybody in anything.

So, for instance, one member—a true “Sir Oracle”—criticized,

and almost defamed every member in the T.S. to outsiders as

much as to Theosophists, under the pretext that they were _all

untheosophical_, blaming them precisely for what he was himself

doing all the time. Finally, he left the Society, giving as his

reason a profound conviction that we were all (the Founders

especially)—FRAUDS! Another one, after intriguing in every

possible way to be placed at the head of a large Section of the

Society, finding that the members would not have him, turned

against the Founders of the T. S., and became their bitterest

enemy, denouncing one of them whenever he could, simply

because the latter could not, and would not, _force him_ upon

the Members. This was simply a case of an outrageous wounded

vanity. Still another wanted to, and virtually did, practise

_black-magic_—_i.e._, undue personal psychological influence on

certain Fellows, while pretending devotion and every Theosophical

virtue. When this was put a stop to, the Member broke with

Theosophy, and now slanders and lies against the same hapless

leaders in the most virulent manner, endeavouring to break up the

society by blackening the reputation of those whom that worthy

“Fellow” was unable to deceive.

ENQ. What would you do with such characters?

THEO. Leave them to their Karma. Because one person does evil that is

no reason for others to do so.

ENQ. But, to return to slander, where is the line of demarcation

between backbiting and just criticism to be drawn? Is it not one’s

duty to warn one’s friends and neighbors against those whom one

knows to be dangerous associates?

THEO. If by allowing them to go on unchecked other persons may be

thereby injured, it is certainly our duty to obviate the danger by

warning them privately. But true or false, no accusation against

another person should ever be spread abroad. If true, and the

fault hurts no one but the sinner, then leave him to his Karma.

If false, then you will have avoided adding to the injustice of

the world. Therefore, keep silent about such things with every

one not directly concerned. But if your discretion and silence are

likely to hurt or endanger others, then I add: _Speak the truth

at all costs_, and say, with Annesly, “Consult duty, not events.”

There are cases when one is forced to exclaim, “Perish discretion,

rather than allow it to interfere with duty.”

ENQ. Methinks, if you carry out these maxims, you are likely to reap a

nice crop of troubles!

THEO. And so we do. We have to admit that we are now open to the same

taunt as the early Christians were. “See, how these Theosophists

love one another!” may now be said of us without a shadow of

injustice.

ENQ. Admitting yourself that there is at least as much, if not more,

backbiting, slandering, and quarrelling in the T.S. as in the

Christian Churches, let alone Scientific Societies—What kind of

Brotherhood is this? I may ask.

THEO. A very poor specimen, indeed, as at present, and, until carefully

sifted and reorganized, _no_ better than all others. Remember,

however, that human nature is the same _in_ the Theosophical

Society as _out_ of it. Its members are no saints: they are at

best sinners trying to do better, and liable to fall back owing

to personal weakness. Add to this that our “Brotherhood” is no

“recognised” or established body, and stands, so to speak, outside

of the pale of jurisdiction. Besides which, it is in a chaotic

condition, and as unjustly _unpopular as is no other body_. What

wonder, then, that those members who fail to carry out its ideal

should turn, after leaving the Society, for sympathetic protection

to our enemies, and pour all their gall and bitterness into their

too willing ears! Knowing that they will find support, sympathy,

and ready credence for every accusation, however absurd, that

it may please them to launch against the Theosophical Society,

they hasten to do so, and vent their wrath on the innocent

looking-glass, which reflected too faithfully their faces. _People

never forgive those whom they have wronged._ The sense of kindness

received, and repaid by them with ingratitude, drives them into

a madness of self-justification before the world and their own

consciences. The former is but too ready to believe in anything

said against a society it hates. The latter—but I will say no

more, fearing I have already said too much.

ENQ. Your position does not seem to me a very enviable one.

THEO. It is not. But don’t you think that there must be something very

noble, very exalted, very true, behind the Society and its

philosophy, when the leaders and the founders of the movement

still continue to work for it with all their strength? They

sacrifice to it all comfort, all worldly prosperity, and success,

even to their good name and reputation—aye, even to their

honour—to receive in return incessant and ceaseless obloquy,

relentless persecution, untiring slander, constant ingratitude,

and misunderstanding of their best efforts, blows, and buffets

from all sides—when by simply dropping their work they would

find themselves immediately released from every responsibility,

shielded from every further attack.

ENQ. I confess, such a perseverance seems to me very astounding, and I

wondered why you did all this.

THEO. Believe me for no self-gratification; only in the hope of

training a few individuals to carry on our work for humanity by

its original programme when the Founders are dead and gone. They

have already found a few such noble and devoted souls to replace

them. The coming generations, thanks to these few, will find the

path to peace a little less thorny, and the way a little widened,

and thus all this suffering will have produced good results, and

their self-sacrifice will not have been in vain. At present, the

main, fundamental object of the Society is to sow germs in the

hearts of men, which may in time sprout, and under more propitious

circumstances lead to a healthy reform, conducive of more

happiness _to the masses_ than they have hitherto enjoyed.

XIII. ON THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

THEOSOPHY AND ASCETICISM.

ENQ. I have heard people say that your rules require all members to be

vegetarians, celibates, and rigid ascetics; but you have not told

me anything of the sort yet. Can you tell the truth once for all

about this?

THEO. The truth is that our rules require nothing of the kind. The

Theosophical Society does not even expect, far less require of

_any_ of its members that they should be ascetics in any way,

except—if you call _that_ asceticism—that they should try and

benefit other people and be unselfish in their own lives.

ENQ. But still many of your members are strict vegetarians, and openly

avow their intention of remaining unmarried. This, too, is most

often the case with those who take a prominent part in connection

with the work of your Society.

THEO. That is only natural, because most of our really earnest workers

are members of the Inner Section of the Society, which I told you

about before.

ENQ. Oh! then you do require ascetic practices in that Inner Section?

THEO. No; we do not _require_ or _enjoin_ them even there; but I see

that I had better give you an explanation of our views on the

subject of asceticism in general, and then you will understand

about vegetarianism and so on.

ENQ. Please proceed.

THEO. As I have already told you, most people who become really earnest

students of Theosophy, and active workers in our Society, wish to

do more than study theoretically the truths we teach. They wish

to _know_ the truth by their own direct personal experience, and

to study Occultism with the object of acquiring the wisdom and

power, which they feel that they need in order to help others,

effectually and judiciously, instead of blindly and at haphazard.

Therefore, sooner or later, they join the Inner Section.

ENQ. But you said that “ascetic practices” are not obligatory even in

that Inner Section?

THEO. No more they are; but the first thing which the members learn

there is a true conception of the relation of the body, or

physical sheath, to the inner, the true man. The relation and

mutual interaction between these two aspects of human nature are

explained and demonstrated to them, so that they soon become

imbued with the supreme importance of the inner man over the outer

case or body. They are taught that blind unintelligent asceticism

is mere folly; that such conduct as that of St. Labro which I

spoke of before, or that of the Indian Fakirs and jungle ascetics,

who cut, burn and macerate their bodies in the most cruel and

horrible manner, is simply self-torture for selfish ends, _i.e._,

to develop will-power, but is perfectly useless for the purpose of

assisting true spiritual, or Theosophic, development.

ENQ. I see, you regard only _moral_ asceticism as necessary. It is as a

means to an end, that end being the perfect equilibrium of the

_inner_ nature of man, and the attainment of complete mastery over

the body with all its passions and desires?

THEO. Just so. But these means must be used intelligently and wisely,

not blindly and foolishly; like an athlete who is training and

preparing for a great contest, not like the miser who starves

himself into illness that he may gratify his passion for gold.

ENQ. I understand now your general idea; but let us see how you apply

it in practice. How about vegetarianism, for instance?

THEO. One of the great German scientists has shown that every kind of

animal tissue, however you may cook it, still retains certain

marked characteristics of the animal which it belonged to,

which characteristics can be recognised. And apart from that,

every one knows by the taste what meat he is eating. We go

a step farther, and prove that when the flesh of animals is

assimilated by man as food, it imparts to him, physiologically,

some of the characteristics of the animal it came from.

Moreover, occult science teaches and proves this to its students

by ocular demonstration, showing also that this “coarsening”

or “animalizing” effect on man is greatest from the flesh of

the larger animals, less for birds, still less for fish and

other cold-blooded animals, and least of all when he eats only

vegetables.

ENQ. Then he had better not eat at all?

THEO. If he could live without eating, of course it would. But as the

matter stands, he must eat to live, and so we advise really

earnest students to eat such food as will least clog and weight

their brains and bodies, and will have the smallest effect in

hampering and retarding the development of their intuition, their

inner faculties and powers.

ENQ. Then you do not adopt all the arguments which vegetarians in

general are in the habit of using?

THEO. Certainly not. Some of their arguments are very weak, and often

based on assumptions which are quite false. But, on the other

hand, many of the things they say are quite true. For instance, we

believe that much disease, and especially the great predisposition

to disease which is becoming so marked a feature in our time, is

very largely due to the eating of meat, and especially of tinned

meats. But it would take too long to go thoroughly into this

question of vegetarianism on its merits; so please pass on to

something else.

ENQ. One question more. What are your members of the Inner Section to

do with regard to their food when they are ill?

THEO. Follow the best practical advice they can get, of course. Don’t

you grasp yet that we never impose any hard-and-fast obligations

in this respect? Remember once for all that in all such questions

we take a rational, and never a fanatical, view of things. If

from illness or long habit a man cannot go without meat, why, by

all means let him eat it. It is no crime; it will only retard

his progress a little; for after all is said and done, the purely

bodily actions and functions are of far less importance than what

a man _thinks_ and _feels_, what desires he encourages in his

mind, and allows to take root and grow there.

ENQ. Then with regard to the use of wine and spirits, I suppose you do

not advise people to drink them?

THEO. They are worse for his moral and spiritual growth than meat, for

alcohol in all its forms has a direct, marked, and very

deleterious influence on man’s psychic condition. Wine and spirit

drinking is only less destructive to the development of the inner

powers, than the habitual use of hashish, opium, and similar drugs.

THEOSOPHY AND MARRIAGE.

ENQ. Now to another question; must a man marry or remain a celibate?

THEO. It depends on the kind of man you mean. If you refer to one who

intends to live _in_ the world, one who, even though a good,

earnest Theosophist, and an ardent worker for our cause, still has

ties and wishes which bind him to the world, who, in short, does

not feel that he has done for ever with what men call life, and

that he desires one thing and one thing only—to know the truth,

and to be able to help others—then for such a one I say there

is no reason why he should not marry, if he likes to take the

risks of that lottery where there are so many more blanks than

prizes. Surely you cannot believe us so absurd and fanatical as

to preach against marriage altogether? On the contrary, save in a

few exceptional cases of practical Occultism, marriage is the only

remedy against immorality.

ENQ. But why cannot one acquire this knowledge and power when living a

married life?

THEO. My dear sir, I cannot go into physiological questions with you;

but I can give you an obvious and, I think, a sufficient answer,

which will explain to you the moral reasons we give for it. Can

a man serve two masters? No! Then it is equally impossible for

him to divide his attention between the pursuit of Occultism and

a wife. If he tries to, he will assuredly fail in doing either

properly; and, let me remind you, practical Occultism is far too

serious and dangerous a study for a man to take up, unless he is

in the most deadly earnest, and ready to sacrifice _all, himself

first of all_, to gain his end. But this does not apply to the

members of our Inner Section. I am only referring to those who

are determined to tread that path of discipleship which leads to

the highest goal. Most, if not all of those who join our Inner

Section, are only beginners, preparing themselves in this life to

enter in reality upon that path in lives to come.

THEOSOPHY AND EDUCATION.

ENQ. One of your strongest arguments for the inadequacy of the existing

forms of religion in the West, as also to some extent the

materialistic philosophy which is now so popular, but which you

seem to consider as an abomination of desolation, is the large

amount of misery and wretchedness which undeniably exists,

especially in our great cities. But surely you must recognize how

much has been, and is being done to remedy this state of things by

the spread of education and the diffusion of intelligence.

THEO. The future generations will hardly thank you for such a

“diffusion of intelligence,” nor will your present education do

much good to the poor starving masses.

ENQ. Ah! but you must give us time. It is only a few years since we

began to educate the people.

THEO. And what, pray, has your Christian religion been doing ever since

the fifteenth century, once you acknowledge that the education

of the masses has not been attempted till now—the very work,

if ever there could be one, which a _Christian_, _i.e._, a

Christ-following church and people, ought to perform?

ENQ. Well, you may be right; but now—

THEO. Just let us consider this question of education from a broad

standpoint, and I will prove to you that you are doing harm not

good, with many of your boasted improvements. The schools for the

poorer children, though far less useful than they ought to be,

are good in contrast with the vile surroundings to which they

are doomed by your modern Society. The _infusion_ of a little

practical Theosophy would help a hundred times more in life

the poor suffering masses than all this infusion of (useless)

intelligence.

ENQ. But, really——

THEO. Let me finish, please. You have opened a subject on which we

Theosophists feel deeply, and I must have my say. I quite agree

that there is a great advantage to a small child bred in the

slums, having the gutter for playground, and living amid continued

coarseness of gesture and word, in being placed daily in a bright,

clean school-room hung with pictures, and often gay with flowers.

There it is taught to be clean, gentle, orderly; there it learns

to sing and to play; has toys that awaken its intelligence; learns

to use its fingers deftly; is spoken to with a smile instead of

a frown; is gently rebuked or coaxed instead of cursed. All this

humanises the children, arouses their brains, and renders them

susceptible to intellectual and moral influences. The schools are

not all they might be and ought to be; but, compared with the

homes, they are paradises; and they slowly are reacting on the

homes. But while this is true of many of the Board schools, your

system deserves the worst one can say of it.

ENQ. So be it; go on.

THEO. What is the _real_ object of modern education? Is it to cultivate

and develop the mind in the right direction; to teach the

disinherited and hapless people to carry with fortitude the burden

of life (allotted them by Karma); to strengthen their will; to

inculcate in them the love of one’s neighbour and the feeling of

mutual interdependence and brotherhood; and thus to train and form

the character for practical life? Not a bit of it. And yet, these

are undeniably the objects of all true education. No one denies

it; all your educationalists admit it, and talk very big indeed

on the subject. But what is the practical result of their action?

Every young man and boy, nay, every one of the younger generation

of schoolmasters will answer: “The object of modern education is

to pass examinations,” a system not to develop right emulation,

but to generate and breed jealousy, envy, hatred almost, in

young people for one another, and thus train them for a life of

ferocious selfishness and struggle for honours and emoluments

instead of kindly feeling.

ENQ. I must admit you are right there.

THEO. And what are these examinations—the terror of modern boyhood and

youth? They are simply a method of classification by which the

results of your school teaching are tabulated. In other words,

they form the practical application of the modern science methods

to the _genus homo, qua_ intellection. Now “science” teaches

that intellect is a result of the mechanical interaction of the

brain-stuff; therefore it is only logical that modern education

should be almost entirely mechanical—a sort of automatic machine

for the fabrication of intellect by the ton. Very little

experience of examinations is enough to show that the education

they produce is simply a training of the physical memory, and,

sooner or later, all your schools will sink to this level. As to

any real, sound cultivation of the thinking and reasoning power,

it is simply impossible while everything has to be judged by the

results as tested by competitive examinations. Again, school

training is of the very greatest importance in forming character,

especially in its moral bearing. Now, from first to last, your

modern system is based on the so-called scientific revelations:

“The struggle for existence” and the “survival of the fittest.”

All through his early life, every man has these driven into him by

practical example and experience, as well as by direct teaching,

till it is impossible to eradicate from his mind the idea that

“self,” the lower, personal, animal self, is the end-all, and

be-all, of life. Here you get the great source of all the

after-misery, crime, and heartless selfishness, which you admit

as much as I do. Selfishness, as said over and over again, is the

curse of humanity, and the prolific parent of all the evils and

crimes in this life; and it is your schools which are the hotbeds

of such selfishness.

ENQ. That is all very fine as generalities, but I should like a few

facts, and to learn also how this can be remedied.

THEO. Very well, I will try and satisfy you. There are three great

divisions of scholastic establishments, board, middle-class

and public schools, running up the scale from the most grossly

commercial to the idealistic classical, with many permutations

and combinations. The practical commercial begets the modern

side, and the ancient and orthodox classical reflects its heavy

respectability even as far as the School Board pupil teacher’s

establishments. Here we plainly see the scientific and material

commercial supplanting the effete orthodox and classical. Neither

is the reason very far to seek. The objects of this branch of

education are, then, pounds, shillings, and pence, the _summum

bonum_ of the XIXth century. Thus, the energies generated by the

brain molecules of its adherents are all concentrated on one

point, and are, therefore, to some extent, an organized army

of _educated_ and speculative intellects of the minority of

men, trained against the hosts of the ignorant, simple-minded

masses doomed to be vampirised, lived and sat upon by their

intellectually stronger brethren. Such training is not only

_untheosophical_, it is simply UNCHRISTIAN. Result: The direct

outcome of this branch of education is an overflooding of the

market with money-making machines, with heartless selfish

men—animals—who have been most carefully trained to prey on their

fellows and take advantage of the ignorance of their weaker

brethren!

ENQ. Well, but you cannot assert that of our great public schools, at

any rate?

THEO. Not exactly, it is true. But though the _form_ is different, the

animating spirit is the same: _untheosophical_ and _unchristian_,

whether Eton and Harrow turn out scientists or divines and

theologians.

ENQ. Surely you don’t mean to call Eton and Harrow “commercial”?

THEO. No. Of course the Classical system is above all things

_respectable_, and in the present day is productive of some good.

It does still remain the favourite at our great public schools,

where not only an intellectual, but also a social education

is obtainable. It is, therefore, of prime importance that the

dull boys of aristocratic and wealthy parents should go to such

schools to meet the rest of the young life of the “blood” and

money classes. But unfortunately there is a huge competition even

for entrance; for the moneyed classes are increasing, and poor

but clever boys seek to enter the public schools by the rich

scholarships, both at the schools themselves and from them to the

Universities.

ENQ. According to this view, the wealthier “dullards” have to work even

harder than their poorer fellows?

THEO. It is so. But, strange to say, the faithful of the cult of the

“Survival of the fittest” do not practice their creed; for their

whole exertion is to make the naturally unfit supplant the

fit. Thus, by bribes of large sums of money, they allure the

best teachers from their natural pupils to mechanicalise their

naturally unfit progeny into professions which they uselessly

overcrowd.

ENQ. And you attribute all this to what?

THEO. All this is owing to the perniciousness of a system which turns

out goods to order, irrespective of the natural proclivities

and talents of the youth. The poor little candidate for this

progressive paradise of learning, comes almost straight from the

nursery to the treadmill of a preparatory school for sons of

gentlemen. Here he is immediately seized upon by the workmen of

the materio-intellectual factory, and crammed with Latin, French

and Greek Accidence, Dates and Tables, so that if he have any

natural genius it is rapidly squeezed out of him by the rollers of

what Carlyle has so well-called “dead vocables.”

ENQ. But surely he is taught something besides “dead vocables,” and

much of that which may lead him direct to _Theosophy_, if not

entirely into the Theosophical Society?

THEO. Not much. For of history, he will attain only sufficient

knowledge of his own particular nation to fit him with a

steel armour of prejudice against all other peoples, and be

steeped in the foul cess-pools of chronicled national hate and

blood-thirstiness; and surely, you would not call that—_Theosophy_?

ENQ. What are your further objections?

THEO. Added to this is a smattering of selected, so-called, Biblical

facts, from the study of which all intellect is eliminated. It is

simply a memory lesson, the “Why” of the teacher being a “Why” of

circumstances and not of reason.

ENQ. Yes; but I have heard you congratulate yourself at the

ever-increasing number of the Agnostics and Atheists in our day,

so that it appears that even people trained in the system you

abuse so heartily _do_ learn to think and reason for themselves.

THEO. Yes; but it is rather owing to a healthy reaction from that

system than due to it. We prefer immeasurably more in our Society

Agnostics, and even rank Atheists, to bigots of whatever religion.

An Agnostic’s mind is ever opened to the truth; whereas the latter

blinds the bigot like the sun does an owl. The best—_i.e._, the

most truth-loving, philanthropic, and honest—of our Fellows were,

and are, Agnostics and Atheists (disbelievers in a _personal_

God). But there are no _free_-thinking boys and girls, and

generally early training will leave its mark behind in the shape

of a cramped and distorted mind. A proper and sane system of

education should produce the most vigorous and liberal mind,

strictly trained in logical and accurate thought, and not in blind

faith. How can you ever expect good results, while you pervert

the reasoning faculty of your children by bidding them believe in

the miracles of the Bible on Sunday, while for the six other days

of the week you teach them that such things are scientifically

impossible?

ENQ. What would you have, then?

THEO. If we had money, we would found schools which would turn out

something else than reading and writing candidates for starvation.

Children should above all be taught self-reliance, love for all

men, altruism, mutual charity, and more than anything else, to

think and reason for themselves. We would reduce the purely

mechanical work of the memory to an absolute minimum, and devote

the time to the development and training of the inner senses,

faculties and latent capacities. We would endeavour to deal with

each child as a unit, and to educate it so as to produce the most

harmonious and equal unfoldment of its powers, in order that its

special aptitudes should find their full natural development. We

should aim at creating _free_ men and women, free intellectually,

free morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and above all things,

_unselfish_. And we believe that much if not all of this could be

obtained by _proper and truly theosophical_ education.

WHY, THEN, IS THERE SO MUCH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE T.S.?

ENQ. If Theosophy is even half of what you say, why should there exist

such a terrible ill-feeling against it? This is even more of a

problem than anything else.

THEO. It is; but you must bear in mind how many powerful adversaries we

have aroused ever since the formation of our Society. As I just

said, if the Theosophical movement were one of those numerous

modern crazes, as harmless at the end as they are evanescent, it

would be simply laughed at—as it is now by those who still do not

understand its real purport—and left severely alone. But it is

nothing of the kind. Intrinsically, Theosophy is the most serious

movement of this age; and one, moreover, which threatens the very

life of most of the time-honoured humbugs, prejudices, and social

evils of the day—those evils which fatten and make happy the upper

ten and their imitators and sycophants, the wealthy dozens of the

middle classes, while they positively crush and starve out of

existence the millions of the poor. Think of this, and you will

easily understand the reason of such a relentless persecution by

those others who, more observant and perspicacious, do see the

true nature of Theosophy, and therefore dread it.

ENQ. Do you mean to tell me that it is because a few have understood

what Theosophy leads to, that they try to crush the movement? But

if Theosophy leads only to good, surely you cannot be prepared to

utter such a terrible accusation of perfidious heartlessness and

treachery even against those few?

THEO. I am so prepared, on the contrary. I do not call the enemies we

have had to battle with during the first nine or ten years of the

Society’s existence either powerful or “dangerous”; but only those

who have arisen against us in the last three or four years. And

these neither speak, write nor preach against Theosophy, but work

in silence and behind the backs of the foolish puppets who act as

their visible _marionnettes_. Yet if _invisible_ to most of the

members of our Society, they are well known to the true “Founders”

and the protectors of our Society. But they must remain for

certain reasons unnamed at present.

ENQ. And are they known to many of you, or to yourself alone?

THEO. I never said _I_ knew them. I may or may not know them—but I know

_of them_, and this is sufficient; and _I defy them to do their

worst_. They may achieve great mischief and throw confusion

into our ranks, especially among the faint-hearted, and those

who can judge only by appearances. _They will not crush the

Society_, do what they may. Apart from these truly dangerous

enemies—“dangerous,” however, only to those Theosophists who

are unworthy of the name, and whose place is rather _outside_

than _within_ the T.S.—the number of our opponents is more than

considerable.

ENQ. Can you name these, at least, if you will not speak of the others?

THEO. Of course I can. We have to contend against (1) the hatred of the

Spiritualists, American, English, and French; (2) the constant

opposition of the clergy of all denominations; (3) especially

the relentless hatred and persecution of the missionaries in

India; (4) this led to the famous and infamous attack on our

Theosophical Society by the Society for Psychical Research, an

attack which was stirred up by a regular conspiracy organized by

the missionaries in India. Lastly, we must count the defection

of various prominent (?) members, for reasons I have already

explained, all of whom have contributed their utmost to increase

the prejudice against us.

ENQ. Cannot you give me more details about these, so that I may know

what to answer when asked—a brief history of the Society, in

short; and why the world believes all this?

THEO. The reason is simple. Most outsiders knew absolutely nothing of

the Society itself, its motives, objects or beliefs. From its very

beginning the world has seen in Theosophy nothing but certain

marvellous phenomena, in which two-thirds of the non-spiritualists

do not believe. Very soon the Society came to be regarded as a

body pretending to the possession of “miraculous” powers. The

world never realised that the Society taught absolute disbelief

in _miracle_ or even the possibility of such; that in the Society

there were only a few people who possessed such psychic powers

and but few who cared for them. Nor did it understand that the

phenomena were never produced publicly, but only privately for

friends, and merely given as an accessory, to prove by direct

demonstration that such things could be produced without dark

rooms, spirits, mediums, or any of the usual paraphernalia.

Unfortunately, this misconception was greatly strengthened and

exaggerated by the first book on the subject which excited much

attention in Europe—Mr. Sinnett’s “_Occult World_.” If this work

did much to bring the Society into prominence, it attracted still

more obloquy, derision and misrepresentation upon the hapless

heroes and heroine thereof. Of this the author was more than

warned in the _Occult World_, but did not pay attention to the

_prophecy_—for such it was, though half-veiled.

ENQ. For what, and since when, do the Spiritualists hate you?

THEO. From the first day of the Society’s existence. No sooner the fact

became known that, as a body, the T.S. did not believe in

communications with the spirits of the dead, but regarded the

so-called “spirits” as, for the most part, astral reflections of

disembodied personalities, shells, etc., than the Spiritualists

conceived a violent hatred to us and especially to the Founders.

This hatred found expression in every kind of slander,

uncharitable personal remarks, and absurd misrepresentations of

the Theosophical teachings in all the American Spiritualistic

organs. For years we were persecuted, denounced and abused. This

began in 1875 and continues to the present day. In 1879, the

headquarters of the T.S. were transferred from New York to Bombay,

India, and then permanently to Madras. When the first branch of

our Society, the British T.S., was founded in London, the English

Spiritualists came out in arms against us, as the Americans had

done; and the French Spiritists followed suit.

ENQ. But why should the clergy be hostile to you, when, after all, the

main tendency of the Theosophical doctrines is opposed to

Materialism, the great enemy of all forms of religion in our day?

THEO. The Clergy opposed us on the general principle that “He who

is not with me is against me.” Since Theosophy does not agree with

any one Sect or Creed, it is considered the enemy of all alike,

because it teaches that they are all, more or less, mistaken. The

missionaries in India hated and tried to crush us because they saw

the flower of the educated Indian youth and the Brahmins, who are

almost inaccessible to them, joining the Society in large numbers.

And yet, apart from this general class hatred, the T.S. counts in

its ranks many clergymen, and even one or two bishops.

ENQ. And what led the S.P.R. to take the field against you? You were

both pursuing the same line of study, in some respects, and

several of the Psychic Researchers belonged to your society.

THEO. First of all we were very good friends with the leaders of the

S.P.R.; but when the attack on the phenomena appeared in the

_Christian College Magazine_, supported by the pretended

revelations of a menial, the S.P.R. found that they had

compromised themselves by publishing in their “Proceedings” too

many of the phenomena which had occurred in connection with the

T.S. Their ambition is to pose as an _authoritative_ and _strictly

scientific_ body; so that they had to choose between retaining

that position by throwing overboard the T.S. and even trying to

destroy it, and seeing themselves merged, in the opinion of the

Sadducees of the _grand monde_, with the “credulous” Theosophists

and Spiritualists. There was no way for them out of it, no two

choices, and they chose to throw us overboard. It was a matter of

dire necessity for them. But so hard pressed were they to find

any apparently reasonable motive for the life of devotion and

ceaseless labour led by the two Founders, and for the complete

absence of any pecuniary profit or other advantage to them, that

our enemies were obliged to resort to the thrice-absurd, eminently

ridiculous, and now famous “Russian spy theory,” to explain this

devotion. But the old saying, “The blood of the martyr is the seed

of the Church,” proved once more correct. After the first shock of

this attack, the T.S. doubled and tripled its numbers, but the bad

impression produced still remains. A French author was right in

saying, “_Calomniez, calomniez toujours et encore, il en restera

toujours quelque chose._” Therefore it is, that unjust prejudices

are current, and that everything connected with the T.S., and

especially with its Founders, is so falsely distorted, because

based on malicious hearsay alone.

ENQ. Yet in the 14 years during which the Society has existed, you must

have had ample time and opportunity to show yourselves and your

work in their true light?

THEO. How, or when, have we been given such an opportunity? Our most

prominent members had an aversion to anything that looked like

publicly justifying themselves. Their policy has ever been: “We

must live it down”; and “What does it matter what the newspapers

say, or people think?” The Society was too poor to send out

public lecturers, and therefore the expositions of our views

and doctrines were confined to a few Theosophical works that

met with success, but which people often misunderstood, or

only knew of through hearsay. Our journals were, and still are,

boycotted; our literary works ignored; and to this day no one

seems even to feel quite certain whether the Theosophists are

a kind of Serpent-and-Devil worshippers, or simply “Esoteric

Buddhists”—whatever that may mean. It was useless for us to go

on denying, day after day and year after year, every kind of

inconceivable cock-and-bull stories about us; for, no sooner was

one disposed of, than another, a still more absurd and malicious

one, was born out of the ashes of the first. Unfortunately,

human nature is so constituted that any good said of a person

is immediately forgotten and never repeated. But one has only

to utter a calumny, or to start a story—no matter how absurd,

false or incredible it may be, if only it is connected with some

unpopular character—for it to be successful and forthwith accepted

as a historical fact. Like _Don Basilio’s_ “CALUMNIA,” the rumour

springs up, at first, as a soft gentle breeze hardly stirring the

grass under your feet, and arising no one knows whence; then, in

the shortest space of time, it is transformed into a strong wind,

begins to blow a gale, and forthwith becomes a roaring storm! A

calumny among news, is what an octopus is among fishes; it sucks

into one’s mind, fastens upon our memory, which feeds upon it,

leaving indelible marks even after the calumny has been bodily

destroyed. A calumnious lie is the only master-key that will open

any and every brain. It is sure to receive welcome and hospitality

in every human mind, the highest as the lowest, if only a little

prejudiced, and no matter from however base a quarter and motive

it has started.

ENQ. Don’t you think your assertion altogether too sweeping? The

Englishman has never been over-ready to believe in anything said,

and our nation is proverbially known for its love of fair play. A

lie has no legs to stand upon for long, and—

THEO. The Englishman is as ready to believe evil as a man of any other

nation; for it is human nature, and not a national feature. As

to lies, if they have no legs to stand upon, according to the

proverb, they have exceedingly rapid wings; and they can and do

fly farther and wider than any other kind of news, in England

as elsewhere. Remember lies and calumny are the only kind of

literature we can always get gratis, and without paying any

subscription. We can make the experiment if you like. Will you,

who are so interested in Theosophical matters, and have heard

so much about us, will you put me questions on as many of these

rumours and “hearsays” as you can think of? I will answer you

the truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the strictest

verification.

ENQ. Before we change the subject, let us have the whole truth on this

one. Now, some writers have called your teachings “immoral

and pernicious”; others, on the ground that many so-called

“authorities” and Orientalists find in the Indian religions

nothing but sex-worship in its many forms, accuse you of teaching

nothing better than Phallic worship. They say that since modern

Theosophy is so closely allied with Eastern, and particularly

Indian, thought, it cannot be free from this taint. Occasionally,

even, they go so far as to accuse European Theosophists of

reviving the practices connected with this cult. How about this?

THEO. I have heard and read about this before, and I answer that no

more utterly baseless and lying calumny has ever been invented

and circulated. “Silly people can see but silly dreams,” says

a Russian proverb. It makes one’s blood boil to hear such vile

accusations made without the slightest foundation, and on the

strength of mere inferences. Ask the hundreds of honourable

English men and women who have been members of the Theosophical

Society for years whether an _immoral_ precept or a _pernicious_

doctrine was ever taught to them. Open the _Secret Doctrine_,

and you will find page after page denouncing the Jews and other

nations precisely on account of this devotion to Phallic rites,

due to the dead letter interpretation of nature symbolism, and

the grossly materialistic conceptions of her dualism in all the

_exoteric_ creeds. Such ceaseless and malicious misrepresentation

of our teachings and beliefs is really disgraceful.

ENQ. But you cannot deny that the Phallic element _does_ exist in the

religions of the East?

THEO. Nor do I deny it; only I maintain that this proves no more than

does its presence in Christianity, the religion of the West. Read

Hargrave Jenning’s _Rosicrucians_, if you would assure yourself of

it. In the East, the Phallic symbolism is, perhaps, more crude,

because more true to nature, or I would rather say, more _naïve_

and sincere than in the West. But it is not more licentious,

nor does it suggest to the Oriental mind the same gross and

coarse ideas as to the Western, with, perhaps, one or two

exceptions, such as the shameful sect known as the “Maharajah,” or

_Vallabhachârya_ sect.

ENQ. A writer in the _Agnostic_ journal—one of your accusers—has just

hinted that the followers of this disgraceful sect are

Theosophists, and “claim true Theosophic insight.”

THEO. He wrote a falsehood, and that’s all. There never was, nor is

there at present, one single Vallabhachârya in our Society. As to

their having, or claiming Theosophic insight, that is another fib,

based on crass ignorance about the Indian Sects. Their “Maharajah”

only claims a right to the money, wives and daughters of his

foolish followers and no more. This sect is despised by all the

other Hindus.

But you will find the whole subject dealt with at length in the _Secret

Doctrine_, to which I must again refer you for detailed

explanations. To conclude, the very soul of Theosophy is dead

against Phallic worship; and its occult or esoteric section more

so even than the exoteric teachings. There never was a more lying

statement made than the above. And now ask me some other questions.

IS THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY A MONEY-MAKING CONCERN?

ENQ. Agreed. Well, have either of the Founders, Colonel H. S. Olcott or

H. P. Blavatsky, ever made any money, profit, or derived any

worldly benefit from the T.S., as some papers say?

THEO. Not one penny. The papers lie. On the contrary, they have both

given all they had, and literally beggared themselves. As for

“worldly benefits,” think of the calumnies and vilification they

have been subjected to, and then ask the question!

ENQ. Yet I have read in a good many missionary organs that the entrance

fees and subscriptions much more than covered all expenses; and

one said that the Founders were making twenty thousand pounds a

year!

THEO. This is a fib, like many others. In the published accounts of

January, 1889, you will find an exact statement of _all_ the money

ever received from any source since 1879. The total received from

all sources (entrance fees, donations, etc., etc.) during these

ten years is under six thousand pounds, and of this a large part

was contributed by the Founders themselves from the proceeds of

their private resources and their literary work. All this has been

openly and officially admitted, even by our enemies, the Psychic

Research Society. And now both the Founders are penniless; one,

too old and ill to work as she did before, unable to spare time

for outside literary work to help the Society in money, can only

write for the Theosophical cause; the other keeps labouring for it

as before, and receives as little thanks for it.

ENQ. But surely they need money to live?

THEO. Not at all. So long as they have food and lodging, even though

they owe it to the devotion of a few friends, they need little

more.

ENQ. But could not Madame Blavatsky, especially, make more than enough

to live upon by her writings?

THEO. When in India she received on the average some thousand rupees a

year for articles contributed to Russian and other papers, but

gave it all away to the Society.

ENQ. Political articles?

THEO. Never. Everything she has written throughout the seven years of

her stay in India is all there in print. It deals only with

the religions, ethnology, and customs of India, and with

Theosophy—never with politics, of which she knows nothing and

cares less. Again, two years ago she refused several contracts

amounting together to about 1,200 roubles in gold per month; for

she could not accept them without abandoning her work for the

Society, which needed all her time and strength. She has documents

to prove it.

ENQ. But why could not both she and Colonel Olcott do as others—notably

many Theosophists—do; follow out their respective professions and

devote the surplus of their time to the work of the Society?

THEO. Because by serving two masters, either the professional or the

philanthropic work would have had to suffer. Every true

Theosophist is morally bound to sacrifice the personal to the

impersonal, his own _present_ good to the _future_ benefit of

other people. If the Founders do not set the example, who will?

ENQ. And are there many who follow it?

THEO. I am bound to answer you the truth. In Europe about half-a-dozen

in all, out of more than that number of Branches.

ENQ. Then it is not true that the Theosophical Society has a large

capital or endowment of its own?

THEO. It is false, for it has none at all. Now that the entrance fee of

£1 and the small annual due have been abolished, it is even a

doubtful question whether the staff at the headquarters in India

will not soon be starved to death.

ENQ. Then why not raise subscriptions?

THEO. We are not the Salvation Army; we _cannot_ and _have never_

begged; nor have we ever followed the example of the Churches and

sects and “taken up collections.” That which is occasionally sent

for the support of the Society, the small sums contributed by some

devoted Fellows, are all voluntary donations.

ENQ. But I have heard of large sums of money given to Mdme. Blavatsky.

It was said four years ago that she got £5,000 from one rich,

young “Fellow,” who went out to join them in India and £10,000

from another wealthy and well-known American gentleman, one of

your members who died in Europe four years ago.

THEO. Say to those who told you this, that they either themselves

utter, or repeat, a gross falsehood. _Never has_ “Madame

Blavatsky” _asked or received_ ONE PENNY from the two above-named

gentlemen, nor anything like that from anyone else, since the

Theosophical Society was founded. Let any man living try to

substantiate this calumny, and it will be easier for him to

prove that the Bank of England is a bankrupt than that the said

“Founder” has ever made any money out of Theosophy. These two

calumnies have been started by two high-born ladies, belonging

to the London aristocracy, and have been immediately traced

and disproved. They are the dead bodies, the carcases of two

inventions, which, after having been buried in the sea of

oblivion, are once more raised on the surface of the stagnant

waters of slander.

ENQ. Then I have been told of several large _legacies_ left to the T.S.

One—some £8,000—was left to it by some eccentric Englishman,

who did not even belong to the Society. The other—£3,000 or

£4,000—were testated by an Australian F.T.S. Is this true?

THEO. I heard of the first; and I also know that, whether legally left

or not, the T.S. has never profited by it, nor have the Founders

ever been officially notified of it. For, as our Society was not

then a chartered body, and thus had no legal existence, the Judge

at the Court of Probate, as we were told, paid no attention to

such legacy and turned over the sum to the heirs. So much for the

first. As for the second, it is quite true. The testator was one

of our devoted Fellows, and willed all he had to the T.S. But when

the President, Colonel Olcott, came to look into the matter, he

found that the testator had children whom he had disinherited for

some family reasons. Therefore, he called a council, and it was

decided that the legacy should be refused, and the moneys passed

to the legal heirs. The Theosophical Society would be untrue to

its name were it to profit by money to which others are entitled

virtually, at any rate on Theosophical principles, if not legally.

ENQ. Again, and I say this on the authority of your own Journal, the

_Theosophist_, there’s a Rajah of India who donated to the Society

25,000 rupees. Have you not thanked him for his great bounty in

the January _Theosophist_ for 1888?

THEO. We have, in these words, “That the thanks of the Convention be

conveyed to H. H. the Maharajah ... for his _promised munificent

gift_ of Rupees 25,000 to the Society’s Fund.” The thanks were

duly conveyed, but the money is still a “promise,” and has never

reached the Headquarters.

ENQ. But surely, if the Maharajah promised and received thanks for his

gift publicly and in print, he will be as good as his promise?

THEO. He may, though the promise is 18 months old. I speak of the

present and not of the future.

ENQ. Then how do you propose to go on?

THEO. So long as the T.S. has a few devoted members willing to work for

it without reward and thanks, so long as a few good Theosophists

support it with occasional donations, so long will it exist, and

nothing can crush it.

ENQ. I have heard many Theosophists speak of a “power behind the

Society” and of certain “Mahatmas,” mentioned also in Mr.

Sinnett’s works, that are said to have founded the Society, to

watch over and protect it.

THEO. You may laugh, but it is so.

THE WORKING STAFF OF THE T.S.

ENQ. These men, I have heard, are great Adepts, Alchemists, and what

not. If, then, they can change lead into gold and make as much

money as they like, besides doing all kinds of miracles at will,

as related in Mr. Sinnett’s “Occult World,” why do not they find

you money, and support the Founders and the Society in comfort?

THEO. Because they did not found a “miracle club.” Because the Society

is intended to help men to develop the powers latent in them

through their own exertions and merit. Because whatever they may

or may not produce in the way of phenomena, they are not _false

coiners_; nor would they throw an additional and very strong

temptation on the path of members and candidates: _Theosophy is

not to be bought_. Hitherto, for the past 14 years, not a single

working member has ever received pay or salary from either the

Masters or the Society.

ENQ. Then are none of your workers paid at all?

THEO. Till now, not one. But as every one has to eat, drink, and clothe

himself, all those who are without any means of their own, and

devote their whole time to the work of the society, are provided

with the necessaries of life at the Headquarters at Madras, India,

though these “necessaries” are humble enough, in truth! (See

Rules at the end.) But now that the Society’s work has increased

so greatly and still goes on in increasing (N.B., _owing to

slanders_) in Europe, we need more working hands. We hope to have

a few members who will henceforth be remunerated—if the word _can_

be used in the cases in question. For every one of these Fellows,

who are preparing to give _all_ their time to the Society, are

quitting good official situations with excellent prospects, to

work for us at _less than half their former salary_.

ENQ. And who will provide the funds for this?

THEO. Some of our Fellows who are just a little richer than the rest.

The man who would speculate or make money on Theosophy would be

unworthy to remain in our ranks.

ENQ. But you must surely make money by your books, magazines, and other

publications?

THEO. The _Theosophist_ of Madras, alone among the magazines, pays a

profit, and this has regularly been turned over to the Society,

year by year, as the published accounts show. _Lucifer_ is

slowly but steadily ingulfing money, never yet having paid

expenses—thanks to its being boycotted by the pious booksellers

and railway stalls. The _Lotus_, in France—started on the private

and not very large means of a Theosophist, who has devoted to it

his whole time and labour—has ceased to exist, owing to the same

causes, alas! Nor does the New York _Path_ pay its way, while the

_Revue Théosophique_ of Paris has only just been started, also

from the private means of a lady-member. Moreover, whenever any of

the works issued by the Theosophical Publishing Company in London

do pay, the proceeds will be devoted to the service of the Society.

ENQ. And now please tell me all you can about the Mahatmas. So many

absurd and contradictory things are said about them, that one does

not know what to believe, and all sorts of ridiculous stories

become current.

THEO. Well may you call them “ridiculous!”

XIV. THE “THEOSOPHICAL MAHATMAS.”

ARE THEY “SPIRITS OF LIGHT” OR “GOBLINS DAMN’D”?

ENQ. Who are they, finally, those whom you call your “Masters”? Some

say they are “Spirits,” or some other kind of supernatural beings,

while others call them “myths.”

THEO. They are neither. I once heard one outsider say to another that

they were a sort of _male mermaids_, whatever such a creature may

be. But if you listen to what people say, you will never have a

true conception of them. In the first place they are _living men_,

born as we are born, and doomed to die like every other mortal.

ENQ. Yes, but it is rumoured that some of them are a thousand years

old. Is this true?

THEO. As true as the miraculous growth of hair on the head of

Meredith’s Shagpat. Truly, like the “Identical,” no Theosophical

shaving has hitherto been able to crop it. The more we deny them,

the more we try to set people right, the more absurd do the

inventions become. I have heard of Methuselah being 969 years

old; but, not being forced to believe in it, have laughed at

the statement, for which I was forthwith regarded by many as a

blasphemous heretic.

ENQ. Seriously, though, do they outlive the ordinary age of men?

THEO. What do you call the ordinary age? I remember reading in the

_Lancet_ of a Mexican who was almost 190 years old; but I have

never heard of mortal man, layman, or Adept, who could live even

half the years allotted to Methuselah. Some Adepts do exceed, by

a good deal, what you would call the ordinary age; yet there is

nothing miraculous in it, and very few of them care to live very

long.

ENQ. But what does the word “Mahatma” really mean?

THEO. Simply a “great soul,” great through moral elevation and

intellectual attainment. If the title of great is given to a

drunken soldier like Alexander, why should we not call those

“Great” who have achieved far greater conquests in Nature’s

secrets, than Alexander ever did on the field of battle? Besides,

the term is an Indian and a very old word.

ENQ. And why do you call them “Masters”?

THEO. We call them “Masters” because they are our teachers; and because

from them we have derived all the Theosophical truths, however

inadequately some of us may have expressed, and others understood,

them. They are men of great learning, whom we term Initiates,

and still greater holiness of life. They are not ascetics in

the ordinary sense, though they certainly remain apart from the

turmoil and strife of your western world.

ENQ. But is it not selfish thus to isolate themselves?

THEO. Where is the selfishness? Does not the fate of the Theosophical

Society sufficiently prove that the world is neither ready to

recognise them nor to profit by their teaching? Of what use

would Professor Clerk Maxwell have been to instruct a class of

little boys in their multiplication-table? Besides, they isolate

themselves only from the West. In their own country they go about

as publicly as other people do.

ENQ. Don’t you ascribe to them supernatural powers?

THEO. We believe in nothing supernatural, as I have told you already.

Had Edison lived and invented his phonograph two hundred years

ago, he would most probably have been burnt along with it, and the

whole attributed to the devil. The powers which they exercise are

simply the development of potencies lying latent in every man and

woman, and the existence of which even official science begins to

recognise.

ENQ. Is it true that these men _inspire_ some of your writers, and that

many, if not all, of your Theosophical works were written under

their dictation?

THEO. Some have. There are passages entirely dictated by them and

_verbatim_, but in most cases they only inspire the ideas and

leave the literary form to the writers.

ENQ. But this in itself is miraculous; is, in fact, a _miracle_. How

can they do it?

THEO. My dear Sir, you are labouring under a great mistake, and it is

science itself that will refute your arguments at no distant

day. Why should it be a “miracle,” as you call it? A miracle is

supposed to mean some operation which is supernatural, whereas

there is really nothing above or beyond NATURE and Nature’s laws.

Among the many forms of the “miracle” which have come under modern

scientific recognition, there is Hypnotism, and one phase of its

power is known as “Suggestion,” a form of thought transference,

which has been successfully used in combating particular physical

diseases, etc. The time is not far distant when the World of

Science will be forced to acknowledge that there exists as much

interaction between one mind and another, no matter at what

distance, as between one body and another in closest contact.

When two minds are sympathetically related, and the instruments

through which they function are tuned to respond magnetically and

electrically to one another, there is nothing which will prevent

the transmission of thoughts from one to the other, at will;

for since the mind is not of a tangible nature, that distance

can divide it from the subject of its contemplation, it follows

that the only difference that can exist between two minds is a

difference of STATE. So if this latter hindrance is overcome,

where is the “miracle” of _thought transference_, at whatever

distance?

ENQ. But you will admit that Hypnotism does nothing so miraculous or

wonderful as that?

THEO. On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that a Hypnotist

can affect the brain of his subject so far as to produce an

expression of his own thoughts, and even his words, through the

organism of his subject; and although the phenomena attaching to

this method of actual thought transference are as yet few in

number, no one, I presume, will undertake to say how far their

action may extend in the future, when the laws that govern their

production are more scientifically established. And so, if such

results can be produced by the knowledge of the mere rudiments of

Hypnotism, what can prevent the Adept in Psychic and Spiritual

powers from producing results which, with your present limited

knowledge of their laws, you are inclined to call “miraculous”?

ENQ. Then why do not our physicians experiment and try if they could

not do as much?[56]

THEO. Because, first of all, they are not Adepts with a thorough

understanding of the secrets and laws of psychic and spiritual

realms, but materialists, afraid to step outside the narrow groove

of matter; and, secondly, because they _must fail_ at present, and

indeed until they are brought to acknowledge that such powers are

attainable.

ENQ. And could they be taught?

THEO. Not unless they were first of all prepared, by having the

materialistic dross they have accumulated in their brains swept

away to the very last atom.

ENQ. This is very interesting. Tell me, have the Adepts thus inspired

or dictated to many of your Theosophists?

THEO. No, on the contrary, to very few. Such operations require special

conditions. An unscrupulous but skilled Adept of the Black

Brotherhood (“Brothers of the Shadow,” and Dugpas, we call

them) has far less difficulties to labour under. For, having no

laws of the Spiritual kind to trammel his actions, such a Dugpa

“sorcerer” will most unceremoniously obtain control over any

mind, and subject it entirely to his evil powers. But our Masters

will never do that. They have no right, except by falling into

Black Magic, to obtain full mastery over anyone’s immortal Ego,

and can therefore act only on the physical and psychic nature of

the subject, leaving thereby the free will of the latter wholly

undisturbed. Hence, unless a person has been brought into psychic

relationship with the Masters, and is assisted by virtue of his

full faith in, and devotion to, his Teachers, the latter, whenever

transmitting their thoughts to one with whom these conditions

are not fulfilled, experience great difficulties in penetrating

into the cloudy chaos of that person’s sphere. But this is no

place to treat of a subject of this nature. Suffice it to say,

that if the power exists, then there are Intelligences (embodied

or disembodied) which guide this power, and living conscious

instruments through whom it is transmitted and by whom it is

received. We have only to beware of _black_ magic.

ENQ. But what do you really mean by “black magic”?

THEO. Simply _abuse of psychic powers_, or of any _secret of nature_;

the fact of applying to selfish and sinful ends the powers of

Occultism. A hypnotiser, who, taking advantage of his powers of

“suggestion,” forces a subject to steal or murder, would be called

a _black magician_ by us. The famous “rejuvenating system” of Dr.

Brown-Sequard, of Paris, through a loathsome _animal injection_

into human blood—a discovery all the medical papers of Europe are

now discussing—if true, is _unconscious black magic_.

ENQ. But this is mediæval belief in witchcraft and sorcery! Even Law

itself has ceased to believe in such things?

THEO. So much the worse for law, as it has been led, through such a

lack of discrimination, into committing more than one judiciary

mistake and crime. It is the term alone that frightens you with

its “superstitious” ring in it. Would not law punish an abuse of

hypnotic powers, as I just mentioned? Nay, it has so punished it

already in France and Germany; yet it would indignantly deny that

it applied punishment to a crime of evident _sorcery_. You cannot

believe in the efficacy and reality of the _powers of suggestion_

by physicians and mesmerisers (or hypnotisers), and then refuse to

believe in the same powers when used for evil motives. And if you

do, then you believe in _Sorcery_. Yon cannot believe in good and

disbelieve in evil, accept genuine money and refuse to credit such

a thing as false coin. Nothing can exist without its contrast, and

no day, no light, no good could have any representation as such

in your consciousness, were there no night, darkness nor evil to

offset and contrast them.

ENQ. Indeed, I have known men, who, while thoroughly believing in that

which you call great psychic, or magic powers, laughed at the very

mention of Witchcraft and Sorcery.

THEO. What does it prove? Simply that they are illogical. So much the

worse for them, again. And we, knowing as we do of the existence

of good and holy Adepts, believe as thoroughly in the existence of

bad and unholy Adepts, or—Dugpas.

ENQ. But if the Masters exist, why don’t they come out before all men

and refute once for all the many charges which are made against

Mdme. Blavatsky and the Society?

THEO. What charges?

ENQ. That _they_ do not exist, and that she has invented them. That

they are men of straw, “Mahatmas of muslin and bladders.” Does not

all this injure her reputation?

THEO. In what way can such an accusation injure her in reality? Did she

ever make money on their presumed existence, or derive benefit,

or fame, therefrom? I answer that she has gained only insults,

abuse, and calumnies, which would have been very painful had she

not learned long ago to remain perfectly indifferent to such

false charges. For what does it amount to, after all? Why, to an

_implied compliment_, which, if the fools, her accusers, were not

carried away by their blind hatred, they would have thought twice

before uttering. To say that she has invented the Masters comes

to this: She must have invented every bit of philosophy that has

ever been given out in Theosophical literature. She must be the

author of the letters from which “Esoteric Buddhism” was written;

the sole inventor of every tenet found in the “Secret Doctrine,”

which, if the world were just, would be recognised as supplying

many of the missing links of science, as will be discovered a

hundred years hence. By saying what they do, they are also giving

her the credit of being far cleverer than the hundreds of men,

(many _very_ clever and not a few scientific men,) who believe in

what she says—inasmuch as she must have fooled them all! If they

speak the truth, then she must be several Mahatmas rolled into one

like a nest of Chinese boxes; since among the so-called “Mahatma

letters” are many in totally different and distinct styles, all of

which her accusers declare that she has written.

ENQ. It is just what they say. But is it not very painful to her to be

publicly denounced as “the most accomplished impostor of the age,

whose name deserves to pass to posterity,” as is done in the

Report of the “Society for Psychical Research”?

THEO. It might be painful if it were true, or came from people less

rabidly materialistic and prejudiced. As it is, personally she

treats the whole matter with contempt, while the Mahatmas simply

laugh at it. In truth, it is the greatest compliment that could be

paid to her. I say so, again.

ENQ. But her enemies claim to have proved their case.

THEO. Aye, it is easy enough to make such a claim when you have

constituted yourself judge, jury, and prosecuting counsel at

once, as they did. But who, except their direct followers and our

enemies, believe in it?

ENQ. But they sent a representative to India to investigate the matter,

didn’t they?

THEO. They did, and their final conclusion rests entirely on the

unchecked statements and unverified assertions of this young

gentleman. A lawyer who read through his report told a friend

of mine that in all his experience he had never seen “such a

_ridiculous_ and self-condemnatory document.” It was found to be

full of suppositions and “_working_ hypotheses” which mutually

destroy each other. Is this a serious charge?

ENQ. Yet it has done the Society great harm. Why, then, did she not

vindicate her own character, at least, before a Court of Law?

THEO. Firstly, because as a Theosophist, it is her duty to leave

unheeded all personal insults. Secondly, because neither the

Society nor Mdme. Blavatsky had any money to waste over such a

law-suit. And lastly, because it would have been ridiculous for

both to be untrue to their principles, because of an attack made

on them by a flock of stupid old British wethers, who had been led

to butt at them by an over frolicksome lambkin from Australia.

ENQ. This is complimentary. But do you not think that it would have

done real good to the cause of Theosophy, if she had

authoritatively disproved the whole thing once for all?

THEO. Perhaps. But do you believe that any English jury or judge would

have ever admitted the reality of psychic phenomena, even if

entirely unprejudiced beforehand? And when you remember that

they would have been set against us already by the “Russian Spy”

scare, the charge of _Atheism and infidelity_, and all the other

calumnies that have been circulated against us, you cannot fail to

see that such an attempt to obtain justice in a Court of Law would

have been worse than fruitless! All this the Psychic Researchers

knew well, and they took a base and mean advantage of their

position to raise themselves above our heads and save themselves

at our expense.

ENQ. The S.P.R. now denies completely the existence of the Mahatmas.

They say that from beginning to end they were a romance which

Madame Blavatsky has woven from her own brain?

THEO. Well, she might have done many things less clever than this. At

any rate, we have not the slightest objection to this theory. As

she always says now, she almost prefers that people should not

believe in the Masters. She declares openly that she would rather

people should seriously think that the only Mahatmaland is the

grey matter of her brain, and that, in short, she has evolved them

out of the depths of her own inner consciousness, than that their

names and grand ideal should be so infamously desecrated as they

are at present. At first she used to protest indignantly against

any doubts as to their existence. Now she never goes out of her

way to prove or disprove it. Let people think what they like.

ENQ. But, of course, these Masters _do_ exist?

THEO. We affirm _they do_. Nevertheless, this does not help much. Many

people, even some Theosophists and ex-Theosophists, say that

they have never had any proof of their existence. Very well;

then Mme. Blavatsky replies with this alternative:—If she has

invented them, then she has also invented their philosophy and

the practical knowledge which some few have acquired; and if

so, what does it matter whether they do exist or not, since she

herself is here, and _her own existence_, at any rate, can hardly

be denied? If the knowledge supposed to have been imparted by

them is good intrinsically, and it is accepted as such by many

persons of more than average intelligence, why should there be

such a _hullabaloo_ made over that question? The fact of her

being an impostor _has never been proved_, and will always remain

_sub judice_; whereas it is a certain and undeniable fact that,

by whomsoever invented, the philosophy preached by the “Masters”

is one of the grandest and most beneficent philosophies once it

is properly understood. Thus the slanderers, while moved by the

lowest and meanest feelings—those of hatred, revenge, malice,

wounded vanity, or disappointed ambition,—seem quite unaware

that they are paying the greatest tribute to her intellectual

powers. So be it, if the poor fools will have it so. Really, Mme.

Blavatsky has not the slightest objection to being represented by

her enemies as a _triple_ Adept, and a “Mahatma” to boot. It is

only her unwillingness to pose in her own sight as a crow parading

in peacock’s feathers that compels her to this day to insist upon

the truth.

ENQ. But if you have such wise and good men to guide the Society, how

is it that so many mistakes have been made?

THEO. The Masters do _not_ guide the Society, not even the Founders;

and no one has ever asserted that they did: they only watch

over and protect it. This is amply proved by the fact that no

mistakes have been able to cripple it, and no scandals from

within, nor the most damaging attacks from without, have been

able to overthrow it. The Masters look at the future, not at the

present, and every mistake is so much more accumulated wisdom for

days to come. That other “Master” who sent the man with the five

talents did not tell him how to double them, nor did he prevent

the foolish servant from burying his one talent in the earth.

Each must acquire wisdom by his own experience and merits. The

Christian Churches, who claim a far higher “Master,” the very

Holy Ghost itself, have ever been and are still guilty not only

of “mistakes,” but of a series of bloody crimes throughout the

ages. Yet, no Christian would deny, for all that, his belief in

_that_ “Master,” I suppose? although his existence is far more

_hypothetical_ than that of the Mahatmas; as no one has ever seen

the Holy Ghost, and _his_ guidance of the Church, moreover, their

own ecclesiastical history distinctly contradicts. _Errare humanum

est._ Let us return to our subject.

THE ABUSE OF SACRED NAMES AND TERMS.

ENQ. Then, what I have heard, namely, that many of your Theosophical

writers claim to have been inspired by these Masters, or to have

seen and conversed with them, is not true?

THEO. It may or it may not be true. How can I tell? The burden of proof

rests with them. Some of them, a few—very few, indeed—have

distinctly either _lied_ or were hallucinated when boasting of

such inspiration; others were truly inspired by great Adepts.

The tree is known by its fruits; and as all Theosophists have to

be judged by their deeds and not by what they write or say, so

_all_ Theosophical books must be accepted on their merits, and not

according to any claim to authority which they may put forward.

ENQ. But would Mdme. Blavatsky apply this to her own works—the _Secret

Doctrine_, for instance?

THEO. Certainly; she says expressly in the PREFACE that she gives out

the doctrines that she has learnt from the Masters, but claims no

inspiration whatever for what she has lately written. As for our

best Theosophists, they would also in this case far rather that

the names of the Masters had never been mixed up with our books

in any way. With few exceptions, most of such works are not only

imperfect, but positively erroneous and misleading. Great are

the desecrations to which the names of two of the Masters have

been subjected. There is hardly a medium who has not claimed to

have seen them. Every bogus swindling Society, for commercial

purposes, now claims to be guided and directed by “Masters,” often

supposed to be far higher than ours! Many and heavy are the sins

of those who advanced these claims, prompted either by desire for

lucre, vanity, or irresponsible mediumship. Many persons have been

plundered of their money by such societies, which offer to sell

the secrets of power, knowledge, and spiritual truth for worthless

gold. Worst of all, the sacred names of Occultism and the holy

keepers thereof have been dragged in this filthy mire, polluted

by being associated with sordid motives and immoral practices,

while thousands of men have been held back from the path of truth

and light through the discredit and evil report which such shams,

swindles, and frauds have brought upon the whole subject. I say

again, every earnest Theosophist regrets to-day, from the bottom

of his heart, that these sacred names and things have ever been

mentioned before the public, and fervently wishes that they had

been kept secret within a small circle of trusted and devoted

friends.

ENQ. The names certainly do occur very frequently now-a-days, and I

never remember hearing of such persons as “Masters” till quite

recently.

THEO. It is so; and had we acted on the wise principle of silence,

instead of rushing into notoriety and publishing all we knew and

heard, such desecration would never have occurred. Behold, only

fourteen years ago, before the Theosophical Society was founded,

all the talk was of “Spirits.” They were everywhere, in everyone’s

mouth; and no one by any chance even dreamt of talking about

living “Adepts,” “Mahatmas,” or “Masters.” One hardly heard even

the name of the Rosicrucians, while the existence of such a thing

as “Occultism” was suspected even but by very few. Now all that

is changed. We Theosophists were, unfortunately, the first to

talk of these things, to make the fact of the existence in the

East of “Adepts” and “Masters” and Occult knowledge known; and

now the name has become common property. It is on us, now, that

the Karma, the consequences of the resulting desecration of holy

names and things, has fallen. All that you now find about such

matters in current literature—and there is not a little of it—all

is to be traced back to the impulse given in this direction by

the Theosophical Society and its Founders. Our enemies profit to

this day by our mistake. The most recent book directed against

our teachings is alleged to have been written _by an Adept of

twenty years’ standing_. Now, it is a _palpable lie_. We know the

amanuensis and his _inspirers_ (as he is himself too ignorant to

have written anything of the sort). These “inspirers” are living

persons, revengeful and unscrupulous in proportion to their

intellectual powers; and these _bogus_ Adepts are not one, but

several. The cycle of “Adepts,” used as sledge-hammers to break

the theosophical heads with, began twelve years ago, with Mrs.

Emma Hardinge Britten’s “Louis” of _Art Magic_ and _Ghost-Land_,

and now ends with the “Adept” and “Author” of _The Light of

Egypt_, a work written by Spiritualists against Theosophy and its

teachings. But it is useless to grieve over what is done, and we

can only suffer in the hope that our indiscretions may have made

it a little easier for others to find the way to these Masters,

whose names are now everywhere taken in vain, and under cover of

which so many iniquities have already been perpetrated.

ENQ. Do you reject “Louis” as an Adept?

THEO. We denounce no one, leaving this noble task to our enemies. The

spiritualistic author of _Art Magic_, etc., may or may not have

been acquainted with such an Adept—and saying this, I say far

less than what that lady has said and written about us and

Theosophy for the last several years—that is her own business.

Only when, in a solemn scene of mystic vision, an alleged “Adept”

sees “spirits” presumably at Greenwich, England, through Lord

Rosse’s telescope, which was built in, and never moved from,

Parsonstown, Ireland,[57] I may well be permitted to wonder at the

ignorance of that “Adept” in matters of science. This beats all

the mistakes and blunders committed at times by the _chelas_ of

our Teachers! And it is this “Adept” that is used now to break the

teachings of our Masters!

ENQ. I quite understand your feeling in this matter, and think it only

natural. And now, in view of all that you have said and explained

to me, there is one subject on which I should like to ask you a

few questions.

THEO. If I can answer them I will. What is that?

FOOTNOTES:

[56] Such, for instance, as Prof. Bernheim and Dr. C. Lloyd Tuckey of

England; Professors Beaunis and Liégeois, of Nancy; Delbœuf of Liège;

Burot and Bourru, of Rochefort; Fontain and Sigard, of Bordeaux; Forel,

of Zurich; and Drs. Despine, of Marseilles; Van Renterghem and Van

Eeden, of Amsterdam; Wetterstrand, of Stockholm; Schrenck-Notzing, of

Leipzig, and many other physicians and writers of eminence.

[57] Vide “Ghost Land,” Part I., p. 133, _et seq._

CONCLUSION.

THE FUTURE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

ENQ. Tell me, what do you expect for Theosophy in the future?

THEO. If you speak of THEOSOPHY, I answer that, as it has existed

eternally throughout the endless cycles upon cycles of the Past,

so it will ever exist throughout the infinitudes of the Future,

because Theosophy is synonymous with EVERLASTING TRUTH.

ENQ. Pardon me; I meant to ask you rather about the prospects of the

Theosophical Society.

THEO. Its future will depend almost entirely upon the degree of

selflessness, earnestness, devotion, and last, but not least, on

the amount of knowledge and wisdom possessed by those members on

whom it will fall to carry on the work, and to direct the Society

after the death of the Founders.

ENQ. I quite see the importance of their being selfless and devoted,

but I do not quite grasp how their _knowledge_ can be as vital

a factor in the question as these other qualities. Surely the

literature which already exists, and to which constant additions

are still being made, ought to be sufficient?

THEO. I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric doctrine,

though that is most important; I spoke rather of the great

need which our successors in the guidance of the Society will

have of unbiased and clear judgment. Every such attempt as the

Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in failure, because,

sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set up

hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible

degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You

must remember that all our members have been bred and born in some

creed or religion, that all are more or less of their generation

both physically and mentally, and consequently that their

judgment is but too likely to be warped and unconsciously biased

by some or all of these influences. If, then, they cannot be

freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to recognise it

instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only

be that the Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought

or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die.

ENQ. But if this danger be averted?

THEO. Then the Society will live on into and through the twentieth

century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of

thinking and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble

ideas of Religion, Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely

it will burst asunder the iron fetters of creeds and dogmas,

of social and caste prejudices; it will break down racial and

national antipathies and barriers, and will open the way to the

practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men. Through its

teaching, through the philosophy which it has rendered accessible

and intelligible to the modern mind, the West will learn to

understand and appreciate the East at its true value. Further, the

development of the psychic powers and faculties, the premonitory

symptoms of which are already visible in America, will proceed

healthily and normally. Mankind will be saved from the terrible

dangers, both mental and bodily, which are inevitable when that

unfolding takes place, as it threatens to do, in a hot-bed of

selfishness and all evil passions. Man’s mental and psychic

growth will proceed in harmony with his moral improvement, while

his material surroundings will reflect the peace and fraternal

goodwill which will reign in his mind, instead of the discord and

strife which is everywhere apparent around us to-day.

ENQ. A truly delightful picture! But tell me, do you really expect all

this to be accomplished in one short century?

THEO. Scarcely. But I must tell you that during the last quarter of

every hundred years an attempt is made by those “Masters,” of

whom I have spoken, to help on the spiritual progress of Humanity

in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century

you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of

spirituality—or call it mysticism if you prefer—has taken place.

Some one or more persons have appeared in the world as their

agents, and a greater or less amount of occult knowledge and

teaching has been given out. If you care to do so, you can trace

these movements back, century by century, as far as our detailed

historical records extend.

ENQ. But how does this bear on the future of the Theosophical Society?

THEO. If the present attempt, in the form of our Society, succeeds

better than its predecessors have done, then it will be in

existence as an organized, living and healthy body when the time

comes for the effort of the XXth century. The general condition

of men’s minds and hearts will have been improved and purified

by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have said, their

prejudices and dogmatic illusions will have been, to some extent

at least, removed. Not only so, but besides a large and accessible

literature ready to men’s hands, the next impulse will find a

numerous and _united_ body of people ready to welcome the new

torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of men prepared for

his message, a language ready for him in which to clothe the new

truths he brings, an organization awaiting his arrival, which will

remove the merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties

from his path. Think how much one, to whom such an opportunity is

given, could accomplish. Measure it by comparison with what the

Theosophical Society actually _has_ achieved in the last fourteen

years, without _any_ of these advantages and surrounded by hosts

of hindrances which would not hamper the new leader. Consider

all this, and then tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say

that if the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to

its mission, to its original impulses through the next hundred

years—tell me, I say, if I go too far in asserting that earth will

be a heaven in the twenty-first century in comparison with what it

is now!

FINIS.

The United Lodge of Theosophists

DECLARATION

The policy of this Lodge is independent devotion to the cause

of Theosophy, without professing attachment to any Theosophical

organization. It is loyal to the great Founders of the Theosophical

Movement, but does not concern itself with dissensions or differences

of individual opinion.

The work it has on hand and the end it keeps in view are too absorbing

and too lofty to leave it the time or inclination to take part in side

issues. That work and that end is the dissemination of the Fundamental

Principles of the philosophy of Theosophy, and the exemplification

in practice of those principles, through a truer realization of the

SELF; a profounder conviction of Universal Brotherhood.

It holds that the unassailable _Basis for Union_ among Theosophists,

wherever and however situated, is “_similarity of aim, purpose and

teaching_,” and therefore has neither Constitution, By-laws nor

Officers, the sole bond between its Associates being that _basis_. And

it aims to disseminate this idea among Theosophists in the furtherance

of Unity.

It regards as Theosophists all who are engaged in the true service

of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or

organization, and

It welcomes to its association all those who are in accord with its

declared purposes and who desire to fit themselves, by study and

otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach others.

“_The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each

and all._”

* * * * *

Being in sympathy with the purposes of this Lodge, as set

forth in its “Declaration,” I hereby record my desire to

be enrolled as an Associate; it being understood that such

association calls for no obligation on my part other than

that which I, myself, determine.

The foregoing is the Form signed by Associates of the United Lodge of

Theosophists.

Inquiries are invited from all persons to whom this Movement may

appeal. Cards for signature will be sent upon request, and every

possible assistance furnished Associates in their studies and in

efforts to form local Lodges. There are no dues of any kind, and no

formalities to be complied with.

_Correspondence should be addressed to_

General Registrar, United Lodge of Theosophists

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street

“_To Spread Broadcast the Teachings of Theosophy, as Recorded

in the Writings of H. P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge._”

THEOSOPHY

_A Magazine Devoted to the Theosophical Movement, the Brotherhood

of Humanity, the Study of Occult Science and Philosophy, and Aryan

Literature._

THEOSOPHY is a Monthly Magazine devoted to the promulgation of

Theosophy as it was given by those who brought it. Established in

1912 by the United Lodge of Theosophists, the magazine is now in the

front rank of Theosophical publications and its circulation extends

to every civilized country. The first eight volumes of the magazine

contain reprints of the numerous original articles written by H. P.

Blavatsky and William Q. Judge in explanation, exemplification and

application of the philosophy recorded in their published books.

These precious articles, replete with Occult instruction, were first

published in _The Theosophist_, _Lucifer_, and _The Path_, now for

many years out of print, so that their surpassing value was lost and

inaccessible to Students of the present generation. THEOSOPHY has

made them once more available. In addition to these reprints the

magazine contains many original articles written by Robert Crosbie

and other devoted Pupils and Students of the Messengers of the

Theosophical Movement of the nineteenth century. Not the least of

the contents of the magazine are the Studies of the Teachings, the

historical articles relating to the Theosophical Movement, the Parent

Theosophical Society, and the many allied and related organizations

and societies of the present day. The entire contents of the magazine

are universal in scope and application, unbiased in treatment, and

free from sectarian or partisan influence. In order to preserve at

all times the impersonality of its tone, and that readers may form

their judgment from the inherent value perceived in the articles

and not from the names signed to them, the Editors and Contributors

remain anonymous, no living person’s name being mentioned in

connection with the authorship of any article published.

BACK VOLUMES and Back Numbers can be supplied at $5.00 per

Volume and 50 cents per Number.

SUBSCRIPTIONS can begin with any desired Number of the current

Volume. Subscription price, $2.00 per annum; single copies 25 cents

each.

Address all communications and remittances to

=Theosophy, Metropolitan Bldg., Los Angeles, Cal.=

Students interested in obtaining a clear and correct understanding of

the actual Teachings of THEOSOPHY, as recorded in the writings

of the Messengers of the Theosophical Movement of the nineteenth

century or in writings recommended by Them, should have the following

books.

KEY TO THEOSOPHY, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $2.50

An Exposition in the form of question and answer. The

best Manual for daily study and reference. A _verbatim_

reprint of the Original Edition. Large type, durably and

artistically bound in Buckram.

THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, _By_ WILLIAM Q. JUDGE, $1.25

A succinct presentation of the philosophy free from

technical expressions; a perfect condensation of the

Secret Doctrines of Man and Nature. Cloth.

THE OCCULT WORLD

ESOTERIC BUDDHISM _By_ A. P. SINNETT, _Each_, $2.00

The two earliest popular presentations of Theosophical

Teachings, containing extracts from Letters written by

the _Mahatma_ K. H. From the Plates of the Original

American Editions. Cloth.

ISIS UNVEILED, Two Volumes, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $10.00

Volume i, Science; Volume ii, Theology.

A reprint of the Original Edition of 1877. This, the

first great work of H. P. B., contains a vast wealth of

information and instruction not to be had elsewhere.

Cloth.

THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Two Volumes, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $15.00

Volume I, Cosmogenesis; Volume II, Anthropogenesis.

The Original Edition, published in 1888, is now out of

print. This Edition, published in London, contains some

unwarrantable changes, but is in the main accurate and

is the only one available. Written “_for the instruction

of students of Occultism_,” it is _sui generis_ and

absolutely invaluable to the true student of the

mysteries of Life and Being. Cloth.

ABRIDGMENT OF THE SECRET DOCTRINE, _By_ KATHERINE HILLARD, $3.00

A very good condensation of the major teachings of Madame

Blavatsky’s “Secret Doctrine” in the language of the

Author. Cloth.

THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $5.00

A reprint of the Original Edition, containing an

exhaustive and scholarly treatment of the Sanskrit

and other technical terms employed in Theosophical

literature. Cloth.

THOSE who find the Teachings of Theosophy to be comprehensive,

self-explanatory, and a complete solution of all the problems of

Life from a philosophical, logical and scientific standpoint, and

who may desire to follow the Path shown in order to realize in and

for themselves the noble Ideal of Brotherhood exemplified by the

MASTERS OF WISDOM, are urged to read, ponder and assimilate to the

utmost extent possible to them, the following Treatises on the

_Heart Doctrine_:

THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE. Chosen Fragments

from The Book of the Golden Precepts. Translated

and annotated by H. P. Blavatsky. Leather, $1.50

Cloth, 1.25

THE BHAGAVAD-GITA, The Book of Devotion.

Containing the Dialogue between _Krishna_, the Supreme

Master of Devotion, and _Arjuna_, his Disciple.

Rendered into exquisite parallel terms in the English

tongue by William Q. Judge. Leather, 1.50

Cloth, 1.25

NOTES ON THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. Commentaries

of the greatest service to sincere students of to-day.

The first Seven Chapters by W. Q. Judge; the remainder

by his friend and Colleague Robert Crosbie.

Leather, 1.50

YOGA APHORISMS OF PATANJALI. The _Thought_

of this Ancient Master, whose Aphorisms have been

the guide of Disciples in the East for untold thousands

of years. Done into English terms with

Notes, by William Q. Judge. Leather, 1.50

Cloth, 1.25

LIGHT ON THE PATH. A treatise for the personal

use of those who are ignorant of the Eastern Wisdom,

and who desire to enter within its Influence. An exact

reprint of the Original Edition of 1885, together

with the Comments originally published in _Lucifer_.

Written down by M. C.

Leather, 1.50

Cloth, 1.25

LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME. Actual Letters,

by William Q. Judge, embodying Lessons and Guidance of

direct personal value to every Student and Disciple.

Volume I, Cloth, 1.00

Volume II, Cloth, 1.00

The Two Volumes bound in One, Cloth, 1.50

THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, THE BHAGAVAD-GITA,

And PATANJALI’S YOGA APHORISMS,

Bound in One Volume, Leather, 3.00

PARENTS and others interested in the Spiritual and Moral welfare

of Children and averse to the sectarian dogmas and false ideas

prevalent under the name of religious teachings, have long

felt the necessity for literature which should impart true

fundamental conceptions of Nature, of Life and of Duty to the

growing generation. As a portion of its Fraternal activities the

United Lodge of Theosophists has long maintained a _Children’s

School of Theosophy_. To this School come children of all

ages, Theosophists and Non-Theosophists as to Parentage. They

are taught the primary truths common to all religions and

philosophies, dealing with Birth, Life, Death, Law, Action,

and Duty. The Eternal Verities thus inculcated make for clean,

sturdy, wholesome physical, mental, as well as moral and

spiritual happiness and well-being. The experience thus gained

in actual practice has been embodied in two books, wherein the

lessons and instructions found helpful and formative to the

highest character are plainly and clearly outlined, with all

necessary suggestions and directions to enable Parents, Teachers

and others to fit themselves to be the better able to help and

guide the plastic minds of the Children to true perceptions of

Life and Action.

BECAUSE—FOR THE CHILDREN WHO ASK WHY.

Interesting, comprehensible and assimilable, in clear

and reverent fashion this Book presents to Children the

answers to those questions of Self that Parents find it

most difficult to meet, and affords a common basis of

understanding to Parent and Child.

Cloth, $1.25

THE ETERNAL VERITIES. A Series of Lessons in basic

truths and ideas, with complete chart and programme so

that its full value may be availed of in the instruction

of Children of all ages, whether in the School or the

Home. Original Songs, Chants, Music, Allegories and

Tales of Symbolism, in a manner not only to interest but

to carry the Lessons into the Hearts and Minds of the

Learners.

Cloth, $1.50

IN ORDER, further, to afford the maximum possible assistance

to Parents and others interested in the proper education of

Children, The United Lodge of Theosophists maintains a Bureau

of Correspondence to which particular problems connected with

the bringing-up of Children may be addressed. Replies to

enquiries are in all cases by Women Associates of the Lodge who

are themselves Mothers and Teachers and who voluntarily and

gladly give their time and experience to benefit their perplexed

Sisters. There are no fees or charges of any description in

connection with this labor of love, and all Mothers and Teachers

are invited to benefit by it. Address,

=CHILDREN’S SCHOOL OF THEOSOPHY=

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street

NO MORE important work exists for the Theosophical Student than

to be in a position to direct inquirers to channels where they

may inform themselves of the leading Principles of the teachings

of THEOSOPHY in their philosophical, ethical and scientific

bearings. The following are recommended for their exact

accuracy, their simplicity and clarity in the presentation of

the Wisdom-Religion.

ECHOES FROM THE ORIENT, _By_ WILLIAM Q. JUDGE.

A Series of Chapters written in the most admirable

style, giving an outline of Theosophy and the

Theosophical Movement, and treating of the great

Subjects of Masters, Karma, Re-incarnation and

Evolution. Cloth, $0.60

Paper, .35

CONVERSATIONS ON THEOSOPHY. A Pamphlet giving

the fundamental teachings of the Secret Doctrine.

From the writings of H. P. Blavatsky and William Q.

Judge.

Paper, envelope size, .10

In quantities for propaganda purposes, 50 copies for 2.50

KARMA AND RE-INCARNATION. A large and attractively

bound pamphlet, envelope size, containing the famous

_Aphorisms on Karma_, and a notably clear and

comprehensive treatment of the subjects of Karma and

Re-incarnation. .15

In quantities for propaganda purposes, 50 copies for 4.00

CULTURE OF CONCENTRATION, And OF OCCULT POWERS.

Two related Essays by William Q. Judge on subjects

of supreme importance. .10

EXTRACTS FROM A LETTER THAT HAS HELPED ME.

Being a statement of the _Gospel of Hope and

Responsibility_. This Letter has brought consolation

and the comfort of understanding to many regarding

the Great Mystery. .10

THOUGHTS FOR THINKERS. A Pamphlet designed for the

“man in the street,” who is often an open-minded

practical philosopher and thinker of the first rank.

These THOUGHTS are undogmatic, non-argumentative and

very suggestive. .10

The foregoing and other Books advertised in the preceding

pages may all be obtained on order through your local

Bookseller, or orders may be sent direct to the undersigned.

Inquiries are invited regarding any Theosophical Books

and Publications not specifically mentioned herein.

Correspondence and questions are also invited on

Theosophical problems and subjects from all interested.

_Address all orders and inquiries

and make all remittances payable to_

UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street