Theosophy - The Key to Theosophy- by H.P.Blavatsky
The
Key to Theosophy
A Clear
Exposition in the Form of Question
and Answer
of the
Ethics, Science, and Philosophy for
the Study of Which
The Theosophical
Society has been Founded.
by
H.P. Blavatsky
Dedicated
by “H.P.B.”To all her Pupils,That
They may Learn and Teach in their turn.
Preface
The purpose of this book is exactly
expressed in its title, The Key to Theosophy, and needs but few words of explanation.
It is not a complete or exhaustive textbook of Theosophy, but only a key to
unlock the door that leads to the deeper study. It traces the broad outlines
of the Wisdom-Religion, and explains its fundamental principles; meeting, at
the same time, the various objections raised by the average Western inquirer,
and endeavouring to present unfamiliar concepts in a form as simple and in language
as clear as possible. That it should succeed in making Theosophy intelligible
without mental effort on the part of the reader, would be too much to expect;
but it is hoped that the obscurity still left is of the thought and not of the
language, is due to depth and not to confusion. To the mentally lazy or obtuse,
Theosophy must remain a riddle; for in the world mental as in the world spiritual
each man must progress by his own efforts. The writer cannot do the reader's
thinking for him, nor would the latter be any the better off if such vicarious
thought were possible. The need for such an exposition as the present has long
been felt among those interested in the Theosophical Society and its work, and
it is hoped that it will supply information, as free as possible from technicalities,
to many whose attention has been awakened, but who, as yet, are merely puzzled
and not convinced.
Some care has been taken in disentangling
some part of what is true from what is false in Spiritualistic teachings as
to the postmortem life, and to showing the true nature of Spiritualistic phenomena.
Previous explanations of a similar kind have drawn much wrath upon the writer's
devoted head; the Spiritualists, like too many others, preferring to believe
what is pleasant rather than what is true, and becoming very angry with anyone
who destroys an agreeable delusion. For the past year Theosophy has been the
target for every poisoned arrow of Spiritualism, as though the possessors of
a half truth felt more antagonism to the possessors of the whole truth than
those who had no share to boast of.
Very hearty thanks are due from the
author to many Theosophists who have sent suggestions and questions, or have
otherwise contributed help during the writing of this book. The work will be
the more useful for their aid, and that will be their best reward.
Q. Theosophy and its doctrines
are often referred to as a newfangled religion. Is it a religion?
A.
It is not. Theosophy is Divine Knowledge or Science.
Q. What is the real meaning
of the term?
A.
“Divine Wisdom“, (Theosophia) or Wisdom of the
gods, as (theogonia), genealogy of the gods. The word 'theos'
means a god in Greek, one of the divine beings, certainly
not “God” in the sense attached in our day to the term.
Therefore, it is not “Wisdom of God”, as translated
by some, but Divine
Wisdom such
as that possessed by the gods. The term is many thousand
years old.
Q. What is the origin of the
name?
A.
It comes to us from the Alexandrian philosophers, called
lovers of truth, Philaletheians, from (phil) “loving”, and
(aletheia) “truth”. The name Theosophy dates from
the third century of our era, and began with Ammonius
Saccas and his disciples, also called Analogeticists,
who started the Eclectic Theosophical system.
As explained by Professor Wilder,
they were called so because of their practice of interpreting all sacred legends
and narratives, myths and mysteries, by a rule or principle of analogy and correspondence:
so that events which were related as having occurred in the external world were
regarded as expressing operations and experiences of the human soul. They were
also denominated Neo-Platonists. Though Theosophy, or the Eclectic Theosophical
system, is generally attributed to the third century, yet, if Diogenes Laërtius
is to be credited, its origin is much earlier, as he attributed the system to
an Egyptian priest, Pot-Amun, who lived in the early days of the Ptolemaic dynasty.
The same author tells us that the name is Coptic, and signifies one consecrated
to Amun, the God of Wisdom. Theosophy is the equivalent of Brahma-Vidya , divine
knowledge.
Q. What was the object of
this system?
A.
First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths upon
its disciples, and all those who were “lovers of
the truth”. Hence the motto adopted by the Theosophical
Society: “There is no religion higher than truth”.
Eclectic Theosophy was divided under
three heads:
1. Belief in one absolute, incomprehensible
and supreme Deity, or infinite essence, which is the root of all nature, and
of all that is, visible and invisible.
2. Belief in man's eternal immortal
nature, because, being a radiation of the Universal Soul, it is of an identical
essence with it.
3. Theurgy, or “divine
work”,
or producing a work of gods; from theoi, “gods”, and ergein,
“to work”.
The term is very
old, but, as it belongs to the vocabulary of the mysteries,
was not in popular use. It was a mystic belief — practically
proven by initiated adepts and priests — that, by
making oneself as pure as the incorporeal beings — i.e., by
returning to one's pristine purity of nature-man could
move the gods to impart to him Divine mysteries, and
even cause them to become occasionally visible, either
subjectively or objectively. It was the transcendental
aspect of what is now called Spiritualism; but having
been abused and misconceived by the populace, it had
come to be regarded by some as necromancy, and was generally
forbidden. A travestied practice of the theurgy of Iamblichus
lingers still in the ceremonial magic of some modern Cabalists.
Modern Theosophy avoids and rejects both these kinds
of magic and “necromancy” as being very dangerous. Real divine theurgy requires
an almost superhuman purity and holiness of life; otherwise
it degenerates into mediumship or black magic. The immediate
disciples of Ammonius Saccas, who was called Theodidaktos,
“god-taught” — such as Plotinus and his follower Porphyry — rejected
theurgy at first, but were finally reconciled to it through
Iamblichus, who wrote a work to that effect entitled De
Mysteriis, under the name of his own master,
a famous Egyptian priest called Abammon. Ammonius Saccas
was the son of Christian parents, and, having been repelled
by dogmatic Spiritualistic Christianity from his childhood,
became a Neo-Platonist, and like J. Boëhme and other
great seers and mystics, is said to have had divine wisdom
revealed to him in dreams and visions. Hence his name of
Theodidaktos. He resolved to reconcile every system of religion,
and by demonstrating their identical origin to establish
one universal creed based on ethics. His life was so blameless
and pure, his learning so profound and vast, that several
Church Fathers were his secret disciples. Clemens Alexandrinus
speaks very highly of him. Plotinus, the “St. John” of
Ammonius, was also a man universally respected and esteemed,
and of the most profound learning and integrity. When thirty-nine
years of age he accompanied the Roman Emperor Gordian and
his army to the East, to be instructed by the sages of Bactria
and India. He had a School of Philosophy in Rome. Porphyry,
his disciple, whose real name was Malek (a Hellenized Jew),
collected all the writings of his master. Porphyry was himself
a great author, and gave an allegorical interpretation to
some parts of Homer's writings. The system of meditation
the Philaletheians resorted to was ecstasy, a system akin
to Indian Yoga practice. What is known of the Eclectic School
is due to Origen, Longinus, and Plotinus, the immediate
disciples of Ammonius.
The chief aim of the Founders of
the Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the three objects of its modern
successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to reconcile all religions, sects,
and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities.
Q. What have you to show that
this is not an impossible dream; and that all the world's religions are
based on the one and the same truth?
A.
Their comparative study and analysis. The “Wisdom-Religion” was one in antiquity;
and the sameness of primitive religious philosophy is proven to us by the identical
doctrines taught to the Initiates during the mysteries, an institution once
universally diffused.
All the old worships indicate the
existence of a single Theosophy anterior to them. The key that is to open one
must open all; otherwise it cannot be the right key.
The
Policy of the Theosophical Society
Q. In the days of Ammonius
there were several ancient great religions, and numerous were the sects in Egypt
and Palestine alone. How could he reconcile them?
A.
By doing that which we again try to do now. The Neo-Platonists were a large
body, and belonged to various religious philosophies; so do our Theosophists.
It was under Philadelphus that Judaism
established itself in Alexandria, and forthwith the Hellenic teachers became
the dangerous rivals of the College of Rabbis of Babylon. As the author of The
Eclectic Philosophy very pertinently remarks:
The Buddhist, Vedantic, and Magian
systems were expounded along with the philosophies of Greece at that period.
It was not wonderful that thoughtful men supposed that the strife of words ought
to cease, and considered it possible to extract one harmonious system from these
various teachings … Panaetius, Athenagoras, and Clement were thoroughly
instructed in Platonic philosophy, and comprehended its essential unity with
the Oriental systems.
In those days,
the Jew Aristobulus affirmed that the ethics of Aristotle
represented the esoteric teachings
of the Law of Moses; Philo Judaeus endeavored to reconcile the
pentateuch
with the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy; and Josephus
proved that the Essenes of Carmel were simply the copyists
and followers of the Egyptian Therapeutae (the healers).
So it is in our day. We can show the line of descent of every
Christian religion, as of every, even the smallest, sect.
The latter are the minor twigs or shoots grown on the larger
branches; but shoots and branches spring from the same trunk — the
wisdom-religion. To prove this was the aim of Ammonius,
who endeavored to induce Gentiles and Christians, Jews and
Idolaters, to lay aside their contention and strife, remembering
only that they were all in possession of the same truth
under various vestments, and were all the children of a
common mother. This is the aim of Theosophy likewise.
Says Mosheim of Ammonius:
Conceiving that not only the philosophers
of Greece, but also all those of the different barbarian nations, were perfectly
in unison with each other with regard to every essential point, he made it his
business so to expound the thousand tenets of all these various sects as to
show they had all originated from one and the same source, and tended all to
one and the same end.
If the writer on Ammonius in the
Edinburgh Encyclopedia knows what he is talking about, then he describes
the modern Theosophists, their beliefs, and their work, for he says, speaking
of the Theodidaktos:
He adopted the doctrines which were
received in Egypt (the esoteric were those of India) concerning the Universe
and the Deity, considered as constituting one great whole; concerning the eternity
of the world … and established a system of moral discipline which allowed
the people in general to live according to the laws of their country and the
dictates of nature, but required the wise to exalt their mind by contemplation.
Q. What is your authority
for saying this of the ancient Theosophists of Alexandria?
A.
An almost countless number of well-known writers. Mosheim, one of them, says
that:
Ammonius taught that the religion
of the multitude went hand-in-hand with philosophy, and with her had shared
the fate of being by degrees corrupted and obscured with mere human conceits,
superstitions, and lies; that it ought, therefore, to be brought back to its
original purity by purging it of this dross and expounding it upon philosophical
principles; and the whole Christ had in view was to reinstate and restore to
its primitive integrity the wisdom of the ancients; to reduce within bounds
the universally-prevailing dominion of superstition; and in part to correct,
and in part to exterminate the various errors that had found their way into
the different popular religions.
This, again, is precisely what the
modern Theosophists say. Only while the great Philaletheian was supported and
helped in the policy he pursued by two Church Fathers, Clement and Athenagoras,
by all the learned Rabbis of the Synagogue, the Academy and the Groves, and
while he taught a common doctrine for all, we, his followers on the same line,
receive no recognition, but, on the contrary, are abused and persecuted. People
1,500 years ago are thus shown to have been more tolerant than they are in this
enlightened century.
Q. Was he encouraged and supported
by the Church because, notwithstanding his heresies, Ammonius taught Christianity
and was a Christian?
A.
Not at all. He was born a Christian, but never accepted Church Christianity.
As said of him by the same writer:
He had but to propound his instructions
according to the ancient pillars of Hermes, which Plato and Pythagoras knew
before, and from them constituted their philosophy. Finding the same in the
prologue of the Gospel according to St. John, he very properly supposed that
the purpose of Jesus was to restore the great doctrine of wisdom in its primitive
integrity. The narratives of the Bible and the stories of the gods he considered
to be allegories illustrative of the truth, or else fables to be rejected. As
says the Edinburgh Encyclopedia:
Moreover, he acknowledged
that Jesus Christ was an excellent man and the “friend
of God”, but alleged that
it was not his design entirely to abolish the worship of
demons (gods), and that his only intention was to purify
the ancient religion.
The
Wisdom-Religion, Esoteric in All Ages
Q. Since Ammonius never committed
anything to writing, how can one feel sure that such were his teachings?
A.
Neither did Buddha, Pythagoras, Confucius, Orpheus, Socrates,
or even Jesus, leave behind them any writings. Yet most
of these are historical personages, and their teachings
have all survived. The disciples of Ammonius (among whom
Origen and Herennius) wrote treatises and explained his
ethics. Certainly the latter are as historical, if not
more so, than the Apostolic writings. Moreover, his pupils — Origen,
Plotinus, and Longinus (counselor of the famous Queen Zenobia)
— have all left voluminous records of the Philaletheian
System — so far, at all events, as their public profession
of faith was known, for the school was divided into exoteric
and esoteric teachings.
Q. How have the latter tenets
reached our day, since you hold that what is properly called the wisdom-religion
was esoteric?
A. The wisdom-religion was ever one,
and being the last word of possible human knowledge, was, therefore, carefully
preserved. It preceded by long ages the Alexandrian Theosophists, reached the
modern, and will survive every other religion and philosophy.
Q. Where and by whom was it
so preserved?
A. Among Initiates
of every country; among profound seekers after truth — their
disciples; and in those parts of the world where such
topics have always been most valued and pursued: in India,
Central Asia, and Persia.
Q. Can you give me some proofs
of its esotericism?
A. The best proof
you can have of the fact is that every ancient religious,
or rather philosophical, cult consisted of an esoteric
or secret teaching, and an exoteric (outward public) worship.
Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the mysteries
of the ancients comprised with every nation the “greater” (secret)
and “Lesser” (public) mysteries — e.g.,
in the celebrated solemnities called the Eleusinia, in
Greece. From the Hierophants of Samothrace, Egypt, and the
initiated Brahmins of the India of old, down to the later
Hebrew Rabbis, all preserved, for fear of profanation, their
real bona fide beliefs secret. The Jewish Rabbis called
their secular religious series the Merkabah(the exterior
body), “the vehicle”, or,
the covering which contains the hidden soul — i.e., their
highest secret knowledge. Not one of the ancient nations
ever imparted through its priests its real philosophical
secrets to the masses, but allotted to the latter only the
husks. Northern Buddhism has its “greater” and its “lesser” vehicle,
known as the Mahayana, the esoteric, and the Hinayana,
the exoteric, Schools. Nor can you blame them for such secrecy;
for surely you would not think of feeding your flock of
sheep on learned dissertations on botany instead of on grass?
Pythagoras called his Gnosis “the knowledge
of things that are”, or [translit.
Greek] “he gnosis ton onton” and preserved that knowledge
for his pledged disciples only: for those who could digest
such mental food and feel satisfied; and he pledged them
to silence and secrecy. Occult alphabets and secret ciphers
are the development of the old Egyptian hieratic writings,
the secret of which was, in the days of old, in the possession
only of the Hierogrammatists, or initiated Egyptian priests.
Ammonius Saccas, as his biographers tell us, bound his pupils
by oath not to divulge his higher doctrines except
to those who had already been instructed in preliminary
knowledge, and who were also bound by a pledge. Finally,
do we not find the same even in early Christianity, among
the Gnostics, and even in the teachings of Christ? Did he
not speak to the multitudes in parables which had a two-fold
meaning, and explain his reasons only to his disciples?
He says:
To you it is given to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven; but unto them that are without, all these things are
done in parables
The Essenes of Judea and Carmel made
similar distinctions, dividing their adherents into neophytes, brethren, and
the perfect, or those initiated.
Examples might be brought from every
country to this effect.
Q. Can you attain the “Secret
Wisdom” simply by study? Encyclopedias define Theosophy pretty much as
Webster's Dictionary does, i.e.,as
… supposed intercourse with
God and superior spirits, and consequent attainment of superhuman knowledge
by physical means and chemical processes.
Is this so?
A. I think not.
Nor is there any lexicographer capable of explaining,
whether to himself or others, how superhuman
knowledge can be attained by physical or chemical
processes. Had Webster said “by metaphysical and
alchemical processes”, the definition would
be approximately correct: as it is, it is absurd. Ancient
Theosophists claimed, and so do the modern, that the infinite
cannot be known by the finite —i.e.,
sensed by the finite Self — but that the divine essence
could be communicated to the higher Spiritual Self in a state
of ecstasy. This condition can hardly be attained, like hypnotism, by “physical
and chemical means”.
Q. What is your explanation
of it?
A. Real ecstasy
was defined by Plotinus as “the liberation of the
mind from its finite consciousness, becoming one and identified
with the infinite”. This is the highest condition, says
Professor Wilder, but not one of permanent duration, and
it is reached only by the very,
very few. It is, indeed, identical with that state which
is known in India as Samadhi. The latter is practiced
by the Yogis, who facilitate it physically by the greatest
abstinence in food and drink, and mentally by an incessant
endeavor to purify and elevate the mind. Meditation is silent
and unuttered prayer, or, as Plato expressed it,
… the ardent
turning of the soul toward the divine; not to ask any
particular good (as in the common meaning of prayer),
but for good itself — for the universal Supreme Good …— of
which we are a part on earth, and out of the essence of
which we have all emerged. Therefore, adds Plato,
Remain silent in the presence of
the divine ones, till they remove the clouds from thy eyes and enable
thee to see by the light which issues from themselves, not what appears as good
to thee, but what is intrinsically good.
This is what the scholarly author
of The Eclectic Philosophy, Professor Alexander Wilder, F.T.S., describes
as “spiritual photography”:
The soul is the
camera in which facts and events, future, past, and present,
are alike fixed; and the mind becomes conscious of them.
Beyond our everyday world of limits all is one day or state — the
past and future comprised in the present. … Death
is the last ecstasies
on earth. Then the soul is freed from the constraint of the
body, and its nobler part is united to higher nature and
becomes partaker in the wisdom and foreknowledge of the
higher beings.
Real Theosophy is, for the mystics,
that state which Apollonius of Tyana was made to describe thus:
I can see the
present and the future as in a clear mirror. The sage need
not wait for the vapours of the earth and the corruption
of the air to foresee events … The theoi, or gods,
see the future; common men the present, sages that which is about to take place.
“The Theosophy
of the Sages” he speaks
of is well expressed in the assertion, “The Kingdom
of God is within us”.
Q. Theosophy, then, is not,
as held by some, a newly devised scheme?
A. Only ignorant people can thus
refer to it. It is as old as the world, in its teachings and ethics, if not
in name, as it is also the broadest and most catholic system among all.
Q. How comes it, then, that
Theosophy has remained so unknown to the nations of the Western Hemisphere?
Why should it have been a sealed book to races confessedly the most cultured
and advanced?
A. We believe
there were nations as cultured in days of old and certainly
more spiritually “advanced” than we
are. But there are several reasons for this willing ignorance.
One of them was given by St. Paul to the cultured Athenians — a
loss, for long centuries, of real spiritual insight, and
even interest, owing to their too great devotion to things
of sense and their long slavery to the dead letter of
dogma and ritualism. But the strongest reason for it lies
in the fact that real Theosophy has ever been kept secret.
Q. You have brought forward
proofs that such secrecy has existed; but what was the real cause for it?
A. The causes for it were:
1. The perversity of average human
nature and its selfishness, always tending to the gratification of personal
desires to the detriment of neighbors arid next of kin. Such people could never
be entrusted with divine secrets.
2. Their unreliability
to keep the sacred and divine knowledge from desecration.
It is the latter that led to the perversion of the most
sublime truths and symbols, and to the gradual transformation
of things spiritual into anthropomorphic, concrete, and
gross imagery — in other
words, to the dwarfing of the god-idea and to idolatry.
Theosophy
is Not Buddhism
Q. You
are often spoken of as “Esoteric Buddhists”. Are
you then all followers of Gautama Buddha?
A. No more than
musicians are all followers of Wagner. Some of us are
Buddhists by religion; yet there are far more Hindus and
Brahmins than Buddhists among us, and more Christian-born
Europeans and Americans than converted Buddhists. The
mistake has arisen from a misunderstanding of the real
meaning of the title of Mr. Sinnett's excellent work, Esoteric
Buddhism, which last word ought to have been spelt with
one, instead of two, d's, as then Budhism would
have meant what it was intended for, merely “Wisdom — ism” (Bodha,
bodhi,
“intelligence”, “wisdom”) instead of Buddhism, Gautama's
religious philosophy. Theosophy, as already said, is the
wisdom-religion.
Q. What is the difference
between Buddhism, the religion founded by the Prince of Kapilavastu, and Budhism,
the “Wisdomism” which you say is synonymous with Theosophy?
A. Just the same
difference as there is between the secret teachings of
Christ, which are called “the mysteries of
the Kingdom of Heaven”, and the later ritualism and dogmatic
theology of the Churches and Sects. Buddha means
the “Enlightened” by Bodha, or
understanding, Wisdom. This has passed root and branch into
the esoteric
teachings that Gautama imparted to his chosen Arhats only.
Q. But some Orientalists deny
that Buddha ever taught any esoteric doctrine at all?
A. They may as
well deny that Nature has any hidden secrets for the men
of science. Further on I will prove it by Buddha's conversation
with his disciple Ananda. His esoteric teachings were
simply the Gupta-Vidya(secret knowledge) of the
ancient Brahmins, the key to which their modern successors
have, with few exceptions, completely lost. And this Vidya has
passed into what is now known as the inner
teachings of the Mahayana school of Northern Buddhism.
Those who deny it are simply ignorant pretenders to Orientalism.
I advise you to read the Rev. Mr. Edkin's Chinese Buddhism — especially
the chapters on the Exoteric and Esoteric schools and teachings — and
then compare the testimony of the whole ancient world upon
the subject.
Q. But are not the ethics
of Theosophy identical with those taught by Buddha?
A. Certainly, because these ethics
are the soul of the Wisdom-Religion, and were once the common property of the
initiates of all nations. But Buddha was the first to embody these lofty ethics
in his public teachings, and to make them the foundation and the very essence
of his public system. It is herein that lies the immense difference between
exoteric Buddhism and every other religion. For while in other religions ritualism
and dogma hold the first and most important place, in Buddhism it is the ethics
which have always been the most insisted upon. This accounts for the resemblance,
amounting almost to identity, between the ethics of Theosophy and those of the
religion of Buddha.
Q. Are there any great points
of difference?
A. One great distinction
between Theosophy and exoteric Buddhism is that
the latter, represented by the Southern Church, entirely
denies (a) the existence of any Deity, and (b) any conscious postmortem life,
or even any self-conscious surviving individuality in
man. Such at least is the teaching of the Siamese sect,
now considered as
the purest form of exoteric Buddhism. And it is so,
if we refer only to Buddha's public teachings; the reason
for such reticence on his part I will give further on. But
the schools of the Northern Buddhist Church, established
in those countries to which his initiated Arhats retired
after the Master's death, teach all that is now called Theosophical
doctrines, because they form part of the knowledge of the
initiates — thus proving how the truth has been sacrificed
to the dead-letter by the too-zealous orthodoxy of Southern
Buddhism. But how much grander and more noble, more philosophical
and scientific, even in its dead-letter, is this teaching
than that of any other Church or religion. Yet Theosophy
is not Buddhism.
Exoteric
and Esoteric Theosophy
What
the Modern Theosophical Society is Not
Q. Your doctrines, then, are
not a revival of Buddhism, nor are they entirely copied from the Neo-Platonic
Theosophy?
A. They are not. But to these questions
I cannot give you a better answer than by quoting from a paper read on “Theosophy” by Dr. J.D. Buck, F.T.S., No living Theosophist has better expressed and understood
the real essence of Theosophy than our honored friend Dr. Buck:
The Theosophical Society was organized
for the purpose of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the promotion
of the Theosophic life. The present Theosophical Society is not the first of
its kind. I have a volume entitled: Theosophical Transactions of the Philadelphian
Society, published in London in 1697; and another with the following title:
Introduction to Theosophy, or the
Science of the Mystery of Christ; that is, of Deity, Nature, and Creature, embracing
the philosophy of all the working powers of life, magical and spiritual, ant
forming a practical guide to the most sublime purity, sanctity, and evangelical
perfection; also to the attainment of divine vision, and the holy angelic arts,
potencies, and other prerogatives of the regeneration.
— published
in London in 1855. The following is the dedication of
this volume:
To the students
of Universities, Colleges, and schools of Christendom:
To Professors of Metaphysical, Mechanical, and Natural
Science in all its forms: To men and women of Education
generally, of fundamental orthodox faith: To Deists, Arians,
Unitarians, Swedenborgians, and other defective and ungrounded
creeds, rationalists, and skeptics of every kind: To just-minded
and enlightened Mohammedans, Jews, and oriental Patriarch-religionists:
but especially to the gospel minister and missionary,
whether to the barbaric or intellectual peoples, this
introduction to Theosophy, or the science of the ground
and mystery of all things, is most humbly and affectionately
dedicated. In the following year (1856) another volume
was issued, royal octavo, of 600 pages, diamond type,
of Theosophical Miscellanies. Of the last-named
work 500 copies only were issued, for gratuitous distribution
to Libraries and Universities. These earlier movements,
of which there were many, originated within the Church,
with persons of great piety and earnestness, and of unblemished
character; and all of these writings were in orthodox
form, using the Christian expressions, and, like the writings
of the eminent Churchman William Law, would only be distinguished
by the ordinary reader for their great earnestness and
piety. These were one and all but attempts to derive and
explain the deeper meanings and original import of the
Christian Scriptures, and to illustrate and unfold the
Theosophic life. These works were soon forgotten, and are
now generally unknown. They sought to reform the clergy
and revive genuine piety, and were never welcomed. That
one word, Heresy, was sufficient to bury
them in the limbo of all such Utopias. At the time of the
Reformation John Reuchlin made a similar attempt with
the same result, though he was the intimate and trusted
friend of Luther. Orthodoxy never desired to be informed
and enlightened. These reformers were informed, as was
Paul by Festus, that too much learning had made them mad,
and that it would be dangerous to go farther. Passing by
the verbiage, which was partly a matter of habit and education
with these writers, and partly due to religious restraint
through secular power, and coming to the core of the matter,
these writings were Theosophical in the strictest sense,
and pertain solely to man's knowledge of his own nature
and the higher life of the soul. The present Theosophical
Movement has sometimes been declared to be an attempt
to convert Christendom to Buddhism, which means simply
that the word Heresy has lost its terrors and relinquished
its power. Individuals in every age have more or less
clearly apprehended the Theosophical doctrines and wrought
them into the fabric of their lives. These doctrines belong
exclusively to no religion, and are confined to no society
or time. They are the birthright of every human soul.
Such a thing as orthodoxy must be wrought out by each individual
according to his nature and his needs, and according to
his varying experience. This may explain why those who
have imagined Theosophy to be a new religion have hunted
in vain for its creed and its ritual. Its creed is Loyalty
to Truth, and its ritual “To honor every truth by
use”.
How little this principle of Universal
Brotherhood is understood by the masses of mankind, how seldom its transcendent
importance is recognized, may be seen in the diversity of opinion and fictitious
interpretations regarding the Theosophical Society. This Society was organized
on this one principle, the essential Brotherhood of Man, as herein briefly outlined
and imperfectly set forth. It has been assailed as Buddhist and anti-Christian,
as though it could be both these together, when both Buddhism and Christianity,
as set forth by their inspired founders, make brotherhood the one essential
of doctrine and of life. Theosophy has been also regarded as something new under
the sun, or, at best as old mysticism masquerading under a new name. While it
is true that many Societies founded upon, and united to support, the principles
of altruism, or essential brotherhood, have borne various names, it is also
true that many have also been called Theosophic, and with principles and aims
as the present society bearing that name. With these societies, one and all,
the essential doctrine has been the same, and all else has been incidental,
though this does not obviate the fact that many persons are attracted to the
incidentals who overlook or ignore the essentials.
No better or more
explicit answer — by
a man who is one of our most esteemed and earnest Theosophists — could
be given to your questions.
Q. Which system do you prefer
or follow, in that case, besides Buddhist ethics?
A. None, and all. We hold to no religion,
as to no philosophy in particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here,
again, it must be stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is
divided into Exoteric and Esoteric Sections.
Q. What is the difference?
A. The members
of the Theosophical Society at large are free to profess
whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if
they so prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and
ready to carry out one or more of the three objects of
the Association. The Society is a philanthropic and scientific
body for the propagation of the idea of brotherhood on practical instead
of theoretical lines. The Fellows may be
Christians or Muslims, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins,
Spiritualists or Materialists, it does not matter; but
every member must be either a philanthropist, or a scholar,
a searcher into ryan and other old literature, or a psychic
student. In short, he has to help, if he can, in the carrying
out of at least one of the objects of the program. Otherwise
he has no reason for becoming a “Fellow”.
Such are the majority of the exoteric Society, composed of “attached” and “unattached” members. These may, or may not, become Theosophists de facto.
Members they are, by virtue of their having joined the Society;
but the latter cannot make a Theosophist of one who has
no sense for the divine fitness of
things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his own — if
the expression may be used — sectarian and egotistic
way. “Handsome
is, as handsome does” could be
paraphrased in this case and be made to run: “Theosophist
is, who Theosophy does”.
Theosophists
and Members of the T.S.
Q. This applies to lay members,
as I understand. And what of those who pursue the esoteric study of Theosophy;
are they the real Theosophists?
A. Not necessarily,
until they have proven themselves to be such. They have
entered the inner group and pledged themselves to carry
out, as strictly as they can, the rules of the occult body.
This is a difficult undertaking, as the foremost rule
of all is the entire renunciation of one's personality — i.e., a pledged member
has to become a thorough altruist, never to think of himself,
and to forget his own vanity and pride in the thought
of the good of his fellow-creatures, besides that of his
fellow-brothers in the esoteric circle. He has to live,
if the esoteric instructions shall profit him, a life
of abstinence in everything, of self-denial and strict
morality, doing his duty by all men. The few real Theosophists
in the T.S. are among these members.
A. This does not imply that outside
of the T.S. and the inner circle, there are no Theosophists; for there are,
and more than people know of; certainly far more than are found among the lay
members of the T.S.
Q. Then what is the good of
joining the so-called Theosophical Society in that case? Where is the incentive?
A. None, except
the advantage of getting esoteric instructions, the genuine
doctrines of the “Wisdom-Religion”,
and if the real program is carried out, deriving much help
from mutual aid and sympathy. Union is strength and harmony,
and well-regulated simultaneous efforts produce wonders.
This has been the secret of all associations and communities
since mankind existed.
Q. But why could not a man
of well-balanced mind and singleness of purpose, one, say, of indomitable energy
and perseverance, become an Occultist and even an Adept if he works alone?
A. He may; but
there are ten thousand chances against one that he will
fail. For one reason out of many others, no books on Occultism
or Theurgy exist in our day which give out the secrets
of alchemy or medieval Theosophy in plain language. All
are symbolical or in parables; and as the key to these
has been lost for ages in the West, how can a man learn
the correct meaning of what he is reading and studying?
Therein lies the greatest danger, one that leads to unconscious
black magic or the most helpless
mediumship. He who has not an Initiate for a master had better
leave the dangerous study alone. Look around you and observe.
While two-thirds of civilized society ridicule the mere
notion that there is anything in Theosophy, Occultism,
Spiritualism, or in the Cabala, the other third is composed
of the most heterogeneous and opposite elements. Some
believe in the mystical, and even in the supernatural
(!), but each believes in his own way. Others will rush single-handed
into the study of the Cabala, Psychism, Mesmerism, Spiritualism,
or some form or another of Mysticism. Result: no two men
think alike, no two are agreed upon any fundamental occult
principles, though many are those who claim for themselves
the ultima
thule of knowledge, and would make outsiders believe
that they are full-blown adepts. Not only is there no scientific
and accurate knowledge of Occultism accessible in the West — not
even of true astrology, the only branch of Occultism which,
in its exoteric teachings, has definite laws and a
definite system — but no one has any idea of what
real Occultism means. Some limit ancient wisdom to the
cabala and
the Jewish Zohar, which each interprets in his
own way according to the dead-letter of the Rabbinical methods.
Others regard Swedenborg or Boëhme as the ultimate
expressions of the highest wisdom; while others again see
in mesmerism the great secret of ancient magic. One and
all of those who put their theory into practice are rapidly
drifting, through ignorance, into black magic. Happy are
those who escape from it, as they have neither test nor
criterion by which they can distinguish between the true
and the false.
Q. Are we to understand that
the inner group of the T.S. claims to learn what it does from real initiates
or masters of esoteric wisdom?
A. Not directly. The personal presence
of such masters is not required. Suffice it if they give instructions to some
of those who have studied under their guidance for years, and devoted their
whole lives to their service. Then, in turn, these can give out the knowledge
so imparted to others, who had no such opportunity. A portion of the true sciences
is better than a mass of undigested and misunderstood learning. An ounce of
gold is worth a ton of dust.
Q. But how is one to know
whether the ounce is real gold or only a counterfeit?
A. A tree is known
by its fruit, a system by its results. When our opponents
are able to prove to us that any solitary student of Occultism
throughout the ages has become a saintly adept like Ammonius
Saccas, or even a Plotinus, or a Theurgist like Iamblichus,
or achieved feats such as are claimed to have been done
by St. Germain, without any master to guide him, and all
this without being a medium, a self-deluded psychic, or
a charlatan — then shall we confess ourselves mistaken.
But till then, Theosophists prefer to follow the proven
natural law of the tradition of the Sacred Science. There
are mystics who have made great discoveries in chemistry
and physical sciences, almost bordering on alchemy and
Occultism; others who, by the sole aid of their genius,
have rediscovered portions, if not the whole, of the lost
alphabets of the “Mystery language”, and are, therefore,
able to read correctly Hebrew scrolls; others still, who,
being seers, have caught wonderful glimpses of the hidden
secrets of Nature. But all these are specialists. One
is a theoretical inventor, another a Hebrew, i.e.,a
Sectarian Cabalist, a third a Swedenborg of modern times,
denying all and everything outside of his own particular
science or religion. Not one of them can boast of having
produced a universal or even a national benefit thereby,
not even to himself. With the exception of a few healers — of
that class which the Royal College of Physicians or Surgeons
would call quacks — none have helped with their science
Humanity, nor even a number of men of the same community.
Where are the Chaldeans of old, those who wrought marvelous
cures, “not by charms but by simples”? Where
is an Apollonius of Tyana, who healed the sick and raised
the dead under any climate and circumstances? We know
some specialists of the former class
in Europe, but none of the latter — except in Asia,
where the secret of the Yogi,
“to live in death”, is still preserved.
Q. Is the production of such
healing adepts the aim of Theosophy?
A. Its aims are several; but the
most important of all are those which are likely to lead to the relief of human
suffering under any or every form, moral as well as physical. And we believe
the former to be far more important than the latter. Theosophy has to inculcate
ethics; it has to purify the soul, if it would relieve the physical body, whose
ailments, save cases of accidents, are all hereditary. It is not by studying
Occultism for selfish ends, for the gratification of one's personal ambition,
pride, or vanity, that one can ever reach the true goal: that of helping suffering
mankind. Nor is it by studying one single branch of the esoteric philosophy
that a man becomes an Occultist, but by studying, if not mastering, them all.
Q. Is help, then, to reach
this most important aim, given only to those who study the esoteric sciences?
A. Not at all.
Every lay member is entitled to general instruction if
he only wants it; but few are willing to become what is
called “working members”, and most prefer to remain
the drones
of Theosophy. Let it be understood that private research
is encouraged in the T.S., provided it does not infringe
the limit which separates the exoteric from the esoteric,
the blind from the conscious magic.
The
Difference Between Theosophy and Occultism
Q. You speak of Theosophy
and Occultism; are they identical?
A. By no means. A man may be a very
good Theosophist indeed, whether in or outside
of the Society,
without being in any way an Occultist. But no one can be a true Occultist without
being a real Theosophist; otherwise he is simply a black magician, whether conscious
or unconscious.
Q. What do you mean?
A. I have said already that a true
Theosophist must put in practice the loftiest moral ideal, must strive to realize
his unity with the whole of humanity, and work ceaselessly for others. Now,
if an Occultist does not do all this, he must act selfishly for his own personal
benefit; and if he has acquired more practical power than other ordinary men,
he becomes forthwith a far more dangerous enemy to the world and those around
him than the average mortal. This is clear.
Q. Then is an Occultist simply
a man who possesses more power than other people?
A. Far more — if
he is a practical
and really learned Occultist, and not one only in name. Occult
sciences are
not, as described in Encyclopedias, …
those imaginary sciences
of the Middle Ages which related to the supposed action
or influence of Occult qualities or supernatural powers,
as alchemy, magic, necromancy, and astrology …— for
they are real, actual, and very dangerous sciences. They
teach the secret potency of things in Nature, developing
and cultivating the hidden powers “latent in man”, thus
giving him tremendous advantages over more ignorant mortals.
Hypnotism, now become so common and a subject of serious
scientific inquiry, is a good instance in point. Hypnotic
power has been discovered almost by accident, the way to
it having been prepared by mesmerism; and now an able hypnotist
can do almost anything with it, from forcing a man, unconsciously
to himself, to play the fool, to making him commit a crime — often
by proxy for the hypnotist, and for the benefit of the
latter.
Is not this a terrible power if left in the hands of unscrupulous
persons? And please to remember that this is only one of
the minor branches of Occultism.
Q. But are not all these Occult
sciences, magic, and sorcery, considered by the most cultured and learned people
as relics of ancient ignorance and superstition?
A. Let me remind
you that this remark of yours cuts both ways. The “most
cultured and learned” among you regard also
Christianity and every other religion as a relic of ignorance
and superstition. People begin to believe now, at any
rate, in hypnotism, and some — even
of the most cultured — in Theosophy and phenomena.
But who among them, except preachers and blind fanatics,
will confess to a belief in Biblical
miracles? And this is where the point of difference comes
in. There are very good and pure Theosophists who may believe
in the supernatural, divine
miracles included, but no Occultist will do so. For
an Occultist practices
scientific Theosophy, based on accurate knowledge of
Nature's secret workings; but a Theosophist, practicing
the powers called abnormal, minus the light
of Occultism, will simply tend toward a dangerous form of
mediumship, because, although holding to Theosophy and its
highest conceivable code of ethics, he practices it in the
dark, on sincere but blind faith. Anyone, Theosophist
or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of the branches
of Occult science — e.g.,Hypnotism,
Mesmerism, or even the secrets of producing physical phenomena,
etc. — without the knowledge of the philosophic rationale
of those powers, is like a rudderless boat launched on a
stormy ocean.
The
Difference Between Theosophy and Spiritualism
Q. But do you not believe
in Spiritualism?
A. If by “Spiritualism” you
mean the explanation which Spiritualists give of some
abnormal phenomena, then decidedly
we do not. They maintain that these manifestations
are all produced by the “spirits” of departed mortals, generally
their relatives, who return to earth, they say, to communicate
with those they have loved or to whom they are attached.
We deny this point blank. We assert that the spirits of the
dead cannot return to earth — save in rare and exceptional
cases, of which I may speak later; nor do they communicate
with men except by entirely subjective means.
That which does appear objectively, is only the phantom of
the ex-physical man. But in psychic, and so to say, “Spiritual” Spiritualism,
we do believe, most decidedly.
Q. Do you reject the phenomena
also?
A. Assuredly not — save
cases of conscious fraud.
Q. How do you account for
them, then?
A. In many ways. The causes of such
manifestations are by no means so simple as the Spiritualists would like to
believe. Foremost of all, the deus ex machina of the so-called “materializations” is usually the astral body or “double” of the medium or of someone present.
This astral body is also the producer or operating force in the manifestations
of slate-writing, “Davenport”-like manifestations, and so on.
Q. You
say usually — then
what is it that produces the rest?
A. That depends
on the nature of the manifestations. Sometimes the astral
remains, the Kamalokic “shells” of the vanished personalities that were; at other times,
Elementals. Spirit
is a word of manifold and wide significance. I really do
not know what Spiritualists mean by the term; but what we
understand them to claim is that the physical phenomena
are produced by the reincarnating Ego, the Spiritual
and immortal “individuality”. And this hypothesis we
entirely reject. The Conscious Individuality of the disembodied cannot
materialize, nor can it return
from its own mental Devachanic sphere to the plane of terrestrial
objectivity.
Q. But many of the communications
received from the “spirits” show not only intelligence, but a knowledge of facts
not known to the medium, and sometimes even not consciously present to the mind
of the investigator, or any of those who compose the audience.
A. This does not
necessarily prove that the intelligence and knowledge
you speak of belong to spirits, or
emanate from disembodied souls. Somnambulists have
been known to compose music and poetry and to solve mathematical
problems while in their trance state, without having ever
learnt music or mathematics. Others, answered intelligently
to questions put to them, and even, in several cases, spoke
languages, such as Hebrew and Latin, of which they were
entirely ignorant when awake — all this
in a state of profound sleep. Will you, then, maintain that
this was caused by “spirits”?
Q. But how would you explain
it?
A. We assert that
the divine spark in man being one and identical in its
essence with the Universal Spirit, our
“spiritual Self” is practically omniscient, but that
it cannot manifest its knowledge owing to the impediments
of matter. Now the more these impediments are removed, in
other words, the more the physical body is paralyzed, as
to its own independent activity and consciousness, as in
deep sleep or deep trance, or, again, in illness, the more
fully can the inner Self manifest on
this plane. This is our explanation of those truly wonderful
phenomena of a higher order, in which undeniable intelligence
and knowledge are exhibited. As to the lower order of manifestations,
such as physical phenomena and the platitudes and common
talk of the general “spirit”, to explain even the most
important of the teachings we hold upon the subject would
take up more space and time than can be allotted to it at
present. We have no desire to interfere with the belief
of the Spiritualists any more than with any other belief.
The responsibility must fall on the believers in “spirits”. And
at the present moment, while still convinced that the higher
sort of manifestations occur through the disembodied souls,
their leaders and the most learned and intelligent among
the Spiritualists are the first to confess that not all the
phenomena are produced by spirits. Gradually they will
come to recognize the whole truth; but meanwhile we have
no right nor desire to proselytise them to our views. The
less so, as in the cases of purely psychic and spiritual
manifestations
we believe in the intercommunication of the spirit of the
living man with that of disembodied personalities.
We say that in
such cases it is not the spirits of the dead who descend on
earth, but the spirits of the living that ascend to
the pure spiritual Souls. In truth there is neither ascending nor descending, but
a change of state
or condition for the medium. The body of the latter
becoming paralyzed, or “entranced”, the spiritual
Ego is free from its trammels, and finds itself on the same
plane of consciousness with the disembodied spirits. Hence,
if there is any spiritual attraction between the two they
can communicate, as
often occurs in dreams. The difference between a mediumistic
and a non-sensitive nature is this: the liberated spirit
of a medium has the opportunity and facility of influencing
the passive organs of its entranced physical body, to make
them act, speak, and write at its will. The Ego can make
it repeat, echo-like, and in the human language, the thoughts
and ideas of the disembodied entity, as well as its own.
But the non-receptive or non-sensitive organism of
one who is very positive cannot be so influenced. Hence,
although there is hardly a human being whose Ego does not
hold free intercourse, during the sleep of his body, with
those whom it loved and lost, yet, on account of the positiveness
and non-receptivity of its physical envelope and brain,
no recollection, or a very dim, dream-like remembrance,
lingers in the memory of the person once awake.
Q. This means that you reject
the philosophy of Spiritualism in toto?
A. If by “philosophy” you
mean their crude theories, we do. But they have no philosophy,
in truth. Their best, their most intellectual and earnest
defenders say so. Their fundamental and only unimpeachable
truth, namely, that phenomena occur through mediums controlled
by invisible forces and intelligences — no one,
except a blind materialist of the “Huxley big
toe” school, will or can deny. With regard to their
philosophy, however, let me read to you what the able editor
of Light, than whom the Spiritualists
will find no wiser nor more devoted champion, says of them
and their philosophy.
This is what “M.A.
Oxon”, one of
the very few philosophical Spiritualists, writes,
with respect to their lack of organization and blind bigotry:
It is worthwhile to look steadily
at this point, for it is of vital moment. We have an experience and a knowledge
beside which all other knowledge is comparatively insignificant. The ordinary
Spiritualist waxes wroth if anyone ventures to impugn his assured knowledge
of the future and his absolute certainty of the life to come. Where other men
have stretched forth feeble hands groping into the dark future, he walks boldly
as one who has a chart and knows his way. Where other men have stopped short
at a pious aspiration or have been content with a hereditary faith, it is his
boast that he knows what they only believe, and that out of his rich stores
he can supplement the fading faiths built only upon hope. He is magnificent
in his dealings with man's most cherished expectations. He seems to say:
You hope for that which I can demonstrate.
You have accepted a traditional belief in what I can experimentally prove according
to the strictest scientific method. The old beliefs are fading; come out from
them and be separate. They contain as much falsehood as truth. Only by building
on a sure foundation of demonstrated fact can your superstructure be stable.
All round you old faiths are toppling. Avoid the crash and get you out.
When one comes
to deal with this magnificent person in a practical way,
what is the result? Very curious and very disappointing.
He is so sure of his ground that he takes no trouble to
ascertain the interpretation which others put upon his
facts. The wisdom of the ages has concerned itself with
the explanation of what he rightly regards as proven;
but he does not turn a passing glance on its researches.
He does not even agree altogether with his brother Spiritualist.
It is the story over again of the old Scotch body who,
together with her husband, formed a “kirk”.
They had exclusive keys to Heaven, or, rather, she had, for
she was “na certain
aboot Jamie”. So the infinitely divided and subdivided and
re-subdivided sects of Spiritualists shake their heads,
and are “na certain aboot” one another.
Again, the collective experience of mankind is solid and
unvarying on this point that union is strength, and disunion
a source of weakness and failure. Shoulder to shoulder,
drilled and disciplined, a rabble becomes an army, each man
a match for a hundred of the untrained men that may be brought
against it. Organization in every department of man's work
means success, saving of time and labor, profit and development.
Want of method, want of plan, haphazard work, fitful energy,
undisciplined effort — these mean bungling failure.
The voice of humanity attests the truth. Does the Spiritualist
accept the verdict and act on the conclusion? Verily, no.
He refuses to organize. He is a law unto himself, and a
thorn in the side of his neighbors.
Q. I was told that the Theosophical
Society was originally founded to crush Spiritualism and belief in the survival
of the individuality in man?
A. You are misinformed. Our beliefs
are all founded on that immortal individuality. But then, like so many others,
you confuse personality with individuality. Your Western psychologists
do not seem to have established any clear distinction between the two. Yet it
is precisely that difference which gives the keynote to the understanding of
Eastern philosophy, and which lies at the root of the divergence between the
Theosophical and Spiritualistic teachings. And though it may draw upon us still
more the hostility of some Spiritualists, yet I must state here that it is Theosophy
which is the true and unalloyed Spiritualism, while the modern scheme of that
name is, as now practiced by the masses, simply transcendental materialism.
Q. Please explain your idea
more clearly.
A. What I mean is that though our
teachings insist upon the identity of spirit and matter, and though we say that
spirit is potential matter, and matter simply crystallized spirit (e.g.,
as ice is solidified steam), yet since the original and eternal condition of
allis not spirit but meta-spirit, so to speak, we maintain that
the term spirit can only be applied to the true individuality.
Q. But what is the distinction
between this “true individuality” and the “I” or “Ego” of which we are all conscious?
A. Before I can
answer you, we must argue upon what you mean by “I” or “Ego”.
We distinguish between the simple fact of self-consciousness,
the simple feeling that “I am I”, and the complex
thought that “I am Mr. Smith” or “Mrs.
Brown”. Believing
as we do in a series of births for the same Ego, or reincarnation,
this distinction is the fundamental pivot of the whole idea.
You see “Mr. Smith” really means a long series
of daily experiences strung together by the thread of memory,
and forming what Mr. Smith calls “himself”. But
none of these “experiences” are
really the “I” or the Ego,
nor do they give “Mr. Smith” the feeling that
he is himself, for he forgets the greater part of his daily
experiences, and they produce the feeling of Egoity
in him only while they last. We Theosophists, therefore,
distinguish between this bundle of “experiences”.
which we call the false (because so finite
and evanescent)personality, and that element in man
to which the feeling of “I am I” is due. It
is this “I
am I” which we call the true individuality;
and we say that this “Ego” or individuality
plays, like an actor, many parts on the stage of life. Let
us call every new life on earth of the same Ego at
night on the stage of a theater. One night the actor,
or “Ego”, appears
as “Macbeth”, the next as “Shylock”,
the third as “Romeo”, the
fourth as “Hamlet” or “King Lear”,
and so on, until he has run through the whole cycle of incarnations.
The Ego begins his life-pilgrimage as a sprite, an “Ariel”,
or a “Puck”; he
plays the part of a super, is a soldier, a servant,
one of the chorus; rises then to “speaking parts”,
plays leading roles, interspersed with
insignificant parts, till he finally retires from the stage
as “Prospero”, the
magician.
Q. I understand. You say,
then, that this true Ego cannot return to earth after death. But surely
the actor is at liberty, if he has preserved the sense of his individuality,
to return if he likes to the scene of his former actions?
A. We say not, simply because such
a return to earth would be incompatible with any state of unalloyed bliss
after death, as I am prepared to prove. We say that man suffers so much unmerited
misery during his life, through the fault of others with whom he is associated,
or because of his environment, that he is surely entitled to perfect rest and
quiet, if not bliss, before taking up again the burden of life. However, we
can discuss this in detail later.
Why
is Theosophy Accepted?
Q. I understand to a certain
extent; but I see that your teachings are far more complicated and metaphysical
than either Spiritualism or current religious thought. Can you tell me, then,
what has caused this system of Theosophy which you support to arouse so much
interest and so much animosity at the same time?
A. There are several reasons for
it, I believe; among other causes that may be mentioned is:
1. The great reaction from the crassly
materialistic theories now prevalent among scientific teachers.
2. General dissatisfaction with the
artificial theology of the various Christian Churches, and the number of daily
increasing and conflicting sects.
3. An ever-growing
perception of the fact that the creeds which are so obviously
self — and mutually-contradictory
cannot be true, and that claims which are unverified cannot
be real.
This natural distrust of conventional religions is only strengthened
by their complete failure to preserve morals and to purify
society and the masses.
4. A conviction on the part of many,
and knowledge by a few, that there must be somewhere a philosophical
and religious system which shall be scientific and not merely speculative.
5. A belief, perhaps, that such a
system must be sought for in teachings far antedating any modern faith.
Q. But how did this system
come to be put forward just now?
A. Just because the time was found
to be ripe, which fact is shown by the determined effort of so many earnest
students to reach the truth, at whatever cost and wherever it may be
concealed. Seeing this, its custodians permitted that some portions at least
of that truth should be proclaimed. Had the formation of the Theosophical Society
been postponed a few years longer, one half of the civilized nations would have
become by this time rank materialists, and the other half anthropomorphists
and phenomenalists.
Q. Are we to regard Theosophy
in any way as a revelation?
A. In no way whatever — not
even in the sense of a new and direct disclosure from
some higher, supernatural, or, at least, superhuman
beings; but only in the sense of an “unveiling” of old, very old, truths to minds hitherto ignorant of them,
ignorant even of the existence and preservation of any such
archaic knowledge.
It has become “fashionable”, especially
of late, to deride the notion that there ever was, in
the mysteries of great and civilized peoples, such as
the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans, anything but priestly
imposture. Even the Rosicrucians were no better than half
lunatics, half knaves. Numerous books have been written
on them; and tyros, who had hardly heard the name a few
years before, sallied out as profound critics and Gnostics
on the subject of alchemy, the fire-philosophers, and
mysticism in general. Yet a long series of the Hierophants
of Egypt, India, Chaldea, and Arabia are known, along
with the greatest philosophers and sages of Greece and
the West, to have included under the designation of wisdom
and divine science all knowledge, for they considered
the base and origin of every art and science as essentially
divine. Plato regarded the mysteries as most sacred,
and Clemens Alexandrinus, who had been himself initiated
into the Eleusinian mysteries, has declared “that
the doctrines taught therein contained in them the end
of all human knowledge”.
Were Plato and Clemens two knaves or two fools, we wonder,
or — both?
Q. You
spoke of “Persecution”.
If truth is as represented by Theosophy, why has it met with
such opposition, and with no general acceptance?
A. For many and
various reasons again, one of which is the hatred felt
by men for “innovations”, as they call them.
Selfishness is essentially conservative, and hates being
disturbed. It prefers an easy-going, unexacting lie to
the greatest truth, if the latter requires the sacrifice
of one's smallest comfort. The power of mental inertia
is great in anything that does not promise immediate benefit
and reward. Our age is preeminently unspiritual and matter
of fact. Moreover, there is the unfamiliar character of
Theosophic teachings; the highly abstruse nature of the
doctrines, some of which contradict flatly many of the
human vagaries cherished by sectarians, which have eaten
into the very core of popular beliefs. If we add to this
the personal efforts and great purity of life exacted
of those who would become the disciples of the inner circle,
and the very limited class to which an entirely unselfish
code appeals, it will be easy to perceive the reason why
Theosophy is doomed to such slow, uphill work. It is essentially
the philosophy of those who suffer, and have lost all
hope of being helped out of the mire of life by any other
means. Moreover, the history of any system of belief or
morals, newly introduced into a foreign soil, shows that
its beginnings were impeded by every obstacle that obscurantism
and selfishness could suggest. “The
crown of the innovator is a crown of thorns” indeed! No pulling
down of old, worm-eaten buildings can be accomplished without
some danger.
Q. All this
refers rather to the ethics and philosophy of the T.S. Can you give me a general
idea of the Society itself, its objects and statutes?
A. This was never made secret. Ask,
and you shall receive accurate answers.
Q. But I heard that you were
bound by pledges?
A. Only in the Arcane or “Esoteric” Section.
Q. And also, that some members
after leaving did not regard themselves bound by them. Are they right?
A. This shows that their idea of
honor is an imperfect one. How can they be right? As well said in The Path,
our theosophical organ at New York, treating of such a case:
Suppose that a
soldier is tried for infringement of oath and discipline,
and is dismissed from the service. In his rage at the
justice he has called down, and of whose penalties he was
distinctly forewarned, the soldier turns to the enemy
with false information — a spy and
traitor — as a revenge upon his former Chief, and claims
that his punishment has released him from his oath of loyalty
to a cause.
Is he justified,
think you? Don't you think he deserves being called a dishonourable
man, a coward?
Q. I believe so; but some
think otherwise.
A. So much the worse for them. But
we will talk on this subject later, if you please.
The Working System of the T.S. *1)
The
Objects of the Society
Q. What are the objects of
the “Theosophical Society”?
A. They are three, and have been
so from the beginning.
1. To form the nucleus of a Universal
Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, color, or creed.
2. To promote the study of Aryan
*2) and other Scriptures, of the World's religions and sciences, and to vindicate
the importance of old Asiatic literature, namely, of the Brahmanical, Buddhist,
and Zoroastrian philosophies.
3. To investigate the hidden mysteries
of Nature under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers
latent in man especially.
These are, broadly stated, the three
chief objects of the Theosophical Society.
*1) See also appendix at the end
of this file
*2) H.P.B. means the original Indo-Germanic
race from Northern India (see H.P.B., The Theosophical Glossary, London, 1892
and also the glossary at the end
of this file)
Q. Can you give me some more
detailed information upon these?
A. We may divide each of the three
objects into as many explanatory clauses as may be found necessary.
Q. Then let us begin with
the first. What means would you resort to, in order to promote such a feeling
of brotherhood among races that are known to be of the most diversified religions,
customs, beliefs, and modes of thought?
A. Allow me to
add that which you seem unwilling to express. Of course
we know that with the exception of two remnants of races — the
Parsees and the Jews — every nation is divided, not
merely against all other nations, but even against itself.
This is found most prominently among the so-called civilized
Christian nations. Hence your wonder, and the reason why
our first object appears to you a Utopia. Is it not so?
Q. Well, yes; but what have
you to say against it?
A. Nothing against the fact; but
much about the necessity of removing the causes which make Universal Brotherhood
a Utopia at present.
Q. What are, in your view,
these causes?
A. First and foremost, the natural
selfishness of human nature. This selfishness, instead of being eradicated,
is daily strengthened and stimulated into a ferocious and irresistible feeling
by the present religious education, which tends not only to encourage, but positively
to justify it. People's ideas about right and wrong have been entirely perverted
by the literal acceptance of the Jewish Bible. All the unselfishness of the
altruistic teachings of Jesus has become merely a theoretical subject for pulpit
oratory; while the precepts of practical selfishness taught in the Mosaic Bible,
against which Christ so vainly preached, have become ingrained into the innermost
life of the Western nations. “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” has
come to be the first maxim of your law. Now, I state openly and fearlessly,
that the perversity of this doctrine and of so many others Theosophy alone
can eradicate.
The
Common Origin of Man
Q. How?
A. Simply by demonstrating
on logical, philosophical, metaphysical, and even scientific
grounds that: (a) All men have spiritually and physically
the same origin, which is the fundamental teaching of
Theosophy. (b) As mankind is essentially of one and the
same essence, and that essence is one — infinite,
uncreate, and eternal, whether we call it God or Nature — nothing,
therefore, can affect one nation or one man without affecting
all other nations and all other men. This is as certain
and as obvious as that a stone thrown into a pond will,
sooner or later, set in motion every single drop of water
therein.
Q. But this is not the teaching
of Christ, but rather a pantheistic notion.
A. That is where your mistake lies.
It is purely Christian, although not Judaic, and therefore, perhaps,
your Biblical nations prefer to ignore it.
Q. This is a wholesale and
unjust accusation. Where are your proofs for such a statement?
A. They are ready
at hand. Christ is alleged to have said: “Love each
other” and “Love your enemies”; for… if
ye love them (only) which love you, what reward (or merit)
have ye? Do not even the publicans the
same? And if you salute your brethren only, what do ye more
than others? Do not even publicans so?
These are Christ's
words. But Genesis says “Cursed be Canaan, a servant
of servants shall he be unto his brethren”.
And, therefore, Christian but Biblical people prefer the
law of Moses to Christ's law of love. They base upon the
Old Testament, which panders to all their passions, their
laws of conquest, annexation, and tyranny over races which
they call inferior.
What crimes have been committed on the strength of this infernal
(if taken in its dead letter) passage in Genesis, history
alone gives us an idea, however inadequate.
At the close of
the Middle Ages slavery, under the power of moral forces,
had mainly disappeared from Europe; but two momentous
events occurred which overbore the moral power working
in European society and let loose a swarm of curses upon
the earth such as mankind had scarcely ever known. One
of these events was the first voyaging to a populated and
barbarous coast where human beings were a familiar article
of traffic; and the other the discovery of a new world,
where mines of glittering wealth were open, provided labor
could be imported to work them. For four hundred years
men and women and children were torn from all whom they
knew and loved, and were sold on the coast of Africa to
foreign traders; they were chained below decks — the
dead often with the living-during the horrible “middle
passage”, and, according to Bancroft,
an impartial historian, two hundred and fifty thousand out
of three and a quarter millions were thrown into the sea
on that fatal passage, while the remainder were consigned
to nameless misery in the mines, or under the lash in the
cane and rice fields. The guilt of this great crime rests
on the Christian Church.
“In the name of the most Holy Trinity” the Spanish Government
(Roman Catholic) concluded more than ten treaties authorizing
the sale of five hundred thousand human beings; in 1562
Sir John Hawkins sailed on his diabolical errand of buying
slaves in Africa and selling them in the West Indies in
a ship which bore the sacred name of Jesus; while Elizabeth,
the Protestant Queen, rewarded him for his success in this
first adventure of Englishmen in that inhuman traffic by
allowing him to wear as his crest “a demi-Moor in his proper
color, bound with a cord, or, in other words, a manacled
Negro slave”.
Q. I have heard you say that
the identity of our physical origin is proved by science, that of our spiritual
origin by the Wisdom-Religion. Yet we do not find Darwinists exhibiting great
fraternal affection.
A. Just so. This is what shows the
deficiency of the materialistic systems, and proves that we Theosophists are
in the right. The identity of our physical origin makes no appeal to our higher
and deeper feelings. Matter, deprived of its soul and spirit, or its divine
essence, cannot speak to the human heart. But the identity of the soul and spirit,
of real, immortal man, as Theosophy teaches us, once proven and deep-rooted
in our hearts, would lead us far on the road of real charity and brotherly goodwill.
Q. But how does Theosophy
explain the common origin of man?
A-1- By teaching
that the root
of all nature, objective and subjective, and everything else
in the universe, visible and invisible, is, was, and ever
will be one absolute
essence, from which all starts, and into which everything
returns. This is Aryan ( See remark on the use of the word
Aryan a while back) philosophy, fully represented only by
the Vedantins, and the Buddhist system. With this object
in view, it is the duty of all Theosophists to promote in
every practical way, and in all countries, the spread of non-sectarian
education.
Q. What do the written statutes
of your Society advise its members to do besides this? On the physical plane,
I mean?
A. In order to awaken brotherly feeling
among nations we have to assist in the international exchange of useful arts
and products, by advice, information, and cooperation with all worthy individuals
and associations (provided, however, add the statutes, “that no benefit or percentage
shall be taken by the Society or the 'Fellows' for its or their corporate services”).
For instance, to take a practical illustration. The organization of Society,
depicted by Edward Bellamy, in his magnificent work Looking Backwards,
admirably represents the Theosophical idea of what should be the first great
step towards the full realization of universal brotherhood. The state of things
he depicts falls short of perfection, because selfishness still exists and operates
in the hearts of men. But in the main, selfishness and individualism have been
overcome by the feeling of solidarity and mutual brotherhood; and the scheme
of life there described reduces the causes tending to create and foster selfishness
to a minimum.
Q. Then as a Theosophist you
will take part in an effort to realize such an ideal?
A. Certainly; and we have proved
it by action. Have not you heard of the Nationalist clubs and party which have
sprung up in America since the publication of Bellamy's book? They are now coming
prominently to the front, and will do so more and more as time goes on. Well,
these clubs and this party were started in the first instance by Theosophists.
One of the first, the Nationalist Club of Boston, Massachusetts, has Theosophists
for President and Secretary, and the majority of its executive belong to the
T.S. In the constitution of all their clubs, and of the party they are forming,
the influence of Theosophy and of the Society is plain, for they all take as
their basis, their first and fundamental principle, the Brotherhood of Humanity
as taught by Theosophy. In their declaration of Principles they state:
The principle of the Brotherhood
of Humanity is one of the eternal truths that govern the world's progress on
lines which distinguish human nature from brute nature.
What can be more Theosophical than
this? But it is not enough. What is also needed is to impress men with the idea
that, if the root of mankind is one, then there must also be one truth
which finds expression in all the various religions-except in the Jewish, as
you do not find it expressed even in the Cabala.
Q. This refers to the common
origin of religions, and you may be right there. But how does it apply to practical
brotherhood on the physical plane?
A. First, because
that which is true on the metaphysical plane must be also
true on the physical. Secondly, because there is no more
fertile source of hatred and strife than religious differences.
When one party or another thinks himself the sole possessor
of absolute truth, it becomes only natural that he should
think his neighbor absolutely in the clutches of Error
or the Devil. But once get a man to see that none of them
has the whole truth, but that they are mutually
complementary, that the complete truth can be found only
in the combined views of all, after that which is false
in each of them has been sifted out — then true
brotherhood in religion will be established. The same
applies in the physical world.
Q. Please explain further.
A. Take an instance. A plant consists
of a root, a stem, and many shoots and leaves. As humanity, as a whole, is the
stem which grows from the spiritual root, so is the stem the unity of the plant.
Hurt the stem and it is obvious that every shoot and leaf will suffer. So it
is with mankind.
Q. Yes, but if you injure
a leaf or a shoot, you do not injure the whole plant.
A. And therefore you think that by
injuring one man you do not injure humanity? But how do you know?
Are you aware that even materialistic science teaches that any injury, however,
slight, to a plant will affect the whole course of its future growth and development?
Therefore, you are mistaken, and the analogy is perfect. If, however, you overlook
the fact that a cut in the finger may often make the whole body suffer, and
react on the whole nervous system, I must all the more remind you that there
may well be other spiritual laws, operating on plants and animals as well as
on mankind, although, as you do not recognize their action on plants and animals,
you may deny their existence.
Q. What laws do you mean?
A. We call them Karmic laws; but
you will not understand the full meaning of the term unless you study Occultism.
However, my argument did not rest on the assumption of these laws, but really
on the analogy of the plant. Expand the idea, carry it out to a universal application,
and you will soon find that in true philosophy every physical action has its
moral and everlasting effect. Hurt a man by doing him bodily harm; you may think
that his pain and suffering cannot spread by any means to his neighbors, least
of all to men of other nations. We affirm that it will, in good time.
Therefore, we say, that unless every man is brought to understand and accept
as an axiomatic truth that by having wronged one man we wrong not only ourselves
but the whole of humanity in the long run, no brotherly feelings such as preached
by all the great Reformers, preeminently by Buddha and Jesus, are possible on
earth.
Our
Other Objects
Q. Will you now explain the
methods by which you propose to carry out the second object?
A. To collect
for the library at our headquarters of Adyar, Madras — and
by the Fellows of their Branches for their local libraries — all
the good works upon the world's religions that we can.
To put into written form correct information upon the
various ancient philosophies, traditions, and legends,
and disseminate the same in such practicable ways as the
translation and publication of original works of value,
and extracts from and commentaries upon the same, or the
oral instructions of persons learned in their respective
departments.
Q. And what about the third
object, to develop in man his latent spiritual or psychic powers?
A. This has to
be achieved also by means of publications, in those places
where no lectures and personal teachings are possible.
Our duty is to keep alive in man his spiritual intuitions.
To oppose and counteract — after due investigation
and proof of its irrational nature — bigotry in
every form, religious, scientific, or social, and cant above
all, whether as religious sectarianism or as belief in
miracles or anything supernatural. What we have to do
is to seek to obtain knowledge of all the laws of
nature, and to diffuse it. To encourage the study of those
laws least understood by modern people, the so-called
Occult Sciences, based on the true knowledge
of nature, instead of, as at present, on superstitious
beliefs based on blind faith and authority. Popular
folklore and traditions, however fanciful at times, when
sifted may lead to the discovery of long-lost, but important,
secrets of nature. The Society, therefore, aims at pursuing
this line of inquiry, in the hope of widening the field
of scientific and philosophical observation.
On
the Sacredness of the Pledge
Q. Have you any ethical system
that you carry out in the Society?
A. The ethics are there, ready and
clear enough for whomsoever would follow them. They are the essence and cream
of the world's ethics, gathered from the teachings of all the world's great
reformers. Therefore, you will find represented therein Confucius and Zoroaster,
Lao-tzu and the Bhagavad-Gita , the precepts of Gautama Buddha and Jesus of
Nazareth, of Hillel and his school, as of Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and their
schools.
Q. Do the members of your
Society carry out these precepts? I have heard of great dissensions and quarrels
among them.
A. Very naturally,
since although the reform (in its present shape) may be
called new, the men and women to be reformed are the same
human, sinning natures as of old. As already said, the
earnest working members are few; but many are the
sincere and well-disposed persons, who try their best
to live up to the Society's and their own ideals. Our
duty is to encourage and assist individual fellows in
self-improvement, intellectual, moral, and spiritual;
not to blame or condemn those who fail. We have, strictly
speaking, no right to refuse admission to anyone — especially
in the Esoteric Section of the Society, wherein “he
who enters is as one newly born”. But if any member,
his sacred pledges on his word of honor and immortal
Self notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after
that “new
birth”, with the new man, the vices or defects of his old
life, and to indulge in them still in the Society, then,
of course, he is more than likely to be asked to resign
and withdraw; or, in case of his refusal, to be expelled.
We have the strictest rules for such emergencies.
Q. Can some of them be mentioned?
A. They can. To begin with, no Fellow
in the Society, whether exoteric or esoteric, has a right to force his personal
opinions upon another Fellow.
It is not lawful for any officer
of the Parent Society to express in public, by word or act, any hostility
to, or preference for, any one section, religious or philosophical, more than
another. All have an equal right to have the essential features of their religious
belief laid before the tribunal of an impartial world. And no officer of the
Society, in his capacity as an officer, has the right to preach his own sectarian
views and beliefs to members assembled, except when the meeting consists of
his co-religionists. After due warning, violation of this rule shall be punished
by suspension or expulsion.
This is one of the offenses in the
Society at large. As regards the inner section, now called the Esoteric, the
following rules have been laid down and adopted, so far back as 1880.
No Fellow shall put to his selfish
use any knowledge communicated to him by any member of the first section (now
a higher “degree”); violation of the rule being punished by expulsion.
Now, however, before any such knowledge
can be imparted, the applicant has to bind himself by a solemn oath not to use
it for selfish purposes, nor to reveal anything said except by permission.
Q. But is a man expelled,
or resigning, from the section free to reveal anything he may have learned,
or to break any clause of the pledge he has taken?
A. Certainly not. His expulsion or
resignation only relieves him from the obligation of obedience to the teacher,
and from that of taking an active part in the work of the Society, but surely
not from the sacred pledge of secrecy.
Q. But is this reasonable
and just?
A. Most assuredly.
To any man or woman with the slightest honourable feeling
a pledge of secrecy taken even on one's word of honor, much
more to one's Higher Self — the God within - is
binding till death. And though he may leave the Section and
the Society, no man or woman of honor will think of attacking
or injuring a body to which he or she has been so pledged.
Q. But is not this going rather
far?
A. Perhaps so, according to the low
standard of the present time and morality. But if it does not bind as far as
this, what use is a pledge at all? How can anyone
expect to be taught secret knowledge, if he is to be at liberty
to free himself from all the obligations he had taken, whenever
he pleases? What security, confidence, or trust would ever
exist among men, if pledges such as this were to have no
really binding force at all? Believe me, the law of retribution
(Karma) would very soon overtake one who so broke his pledge,
and perhaps as soon as the contempt of every honourable man
would, even on this physical plane. As well expressed in
the New York
Path just cited on this subject,
A pledge once taken, is forever
binding in both the moral and the occult worlds. If we break it once and
are punished, that does not justify us in breaking it again, and so long as
we do, so long will the mighty lever of the Law (of Karma) react upon us.
The
Relations of the T.S. to Theosophy
On
Self-Improvement
Q. Is moral elevation, then,
the principal thing insisted upon in your Society?
A. Undoubtedly! He who would be a
true Theosophist must bring himself to live as one.
Q. If so, then, as I remarked
before, the behavior of some members strangely belies this fundamental rule.
A. Indeed it does.
But this cannot be helped among us, any more than amongst
those who call themselves Christians and act like fiends.
This is no fault of our statutes and rules, but that of
human nature. Even in some exoteric public branches, the
members pledge themselves on their “Higher Self” to
live the life prescribed by Theosophy. They
have to bring their Divine Self to guide their every
thought and action, every day and at every moment of their
lives. A true Theosophist ought “to deal
justly and walk humbly”.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. Simply this: the one self has
to forget itself for the many selves. Let me answer you in the words of a true
Philaletheian, an F.T.S., who has beautifully expressed it in The Theosophist:
What every man needs first is to
find himself, and then take an honest inventory of his subjective possessions,
and, bad or bankrupt as it may be, it is not beyond redemption if we set about
it in earnest.
But how many do? All are willing
to work for their own development and progress; very few for those of others.
To quote the same writer again:
Men have been
deceived and deluded long enough; they must break their
idols, put away their shams, and go to work for themselves — nay,
there is one little word too much or too many, for he who
works for himself had better not work at all; rather let
him work himself for others, for all. For every flower
of love and charity he plants in his neighbor's garden,
a loathsome weed will disappear from his own, and so this
garden of the gods — Humanity — shall blossom
as a rose. In all Bibles, all religions, this is plainly
set forth — but designing men have at first misinterpreted
and finally emasculated, materialized, besotted them. It
does not require a new revelation. Let every man be a revelation
unto himself. Let once man's immortal spirit take possession
of the temple of his body, drive out the money-changers
and every unclean thing, and his own divine humanity will
redeem him, for when he is thus at one with himself he
will know the “builder of the Temple”.
Q. This is pure Altruism,
I confess.
A. It is. And
if only one Fellow of the T.S. out of ten would practice
it ours would be a body of elect indeed. But there are
those among the outsiders who will always refuse to see
the essential difference between Theosophy and the Theosophical
Society, the idea and its imperfect embodiment. Such would
visit every sin and shortcoming of the vehicle, the human
body, on the pure spirit which sheds thereon its divine
light. Is this just to either? They throw stones at an
association that tries to work up to, and for the propagation
of, its ideal with most tremendous odds against it. Some
vilify the Theosophical Society only because it presumes
to attempt to do that in which other systems — Church
and State Christianity preeminently — have failed
most egregiously; others because they would fain preserve
the existing state of things: Pharisees and Sadducees in
the seat of Moses, and publicans and sinners reveling
in high places, as under the Roman Empire during its decadence.
Fair-minded people, at any rate, ought to remember that
the man who does all he can, does as much as he who has
achieved the most, in this world of relative possibilities.
This is a simple truism, an axiom supported for believers
in the Gospels by the parable of the talents given by their
Master: the servant who doubled his two talents
was rewarded as much as that other fellow-servant who had received
five. To every man it is given “according to
his several ability”.
Q. Yet it is rather difficult
to draw the line of demarcation between the abstract and the concrete in this
case, as we have only the latter to form our judgment by.
A. Then why make
an exception for the T.S.? Justice, like charity, ought
to begin at home. Will you revile and scoff at the “Sermon
on the Mount” because your social, political and even religious
laws have, so far, not only failed to carry out its precepts
in their spirit, but even in their dead letter? Abolish
the oath in Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and
do as the Quakers do, if you will call yourselves Christians.
Abolish the Courts themselves, for if you would follow
the Commandments of Christ, you have to give away your
coat to him who deprives you of your cloak, and turn your
left cheek to the bully who smites you on the right. “Resist
not evil, love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
do good to them that hate you”,
for “whosoever shall break one of the least of these
Commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the Kingdom of Heaven”, and “whosoever
shall say 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire”. And
why should you judge, if you would not be judged in your
turn? Insist that between Theosophy and the Theosophical
Society there is no difference, and forthwith you lay the
system of Christianity and its very essence open to the
same charges, only in a more serious form.
Q. Why more serious?
A. Because, while the leaders of
the Theosophical Movement, recognizing fully their shortcomings, try all they
can do to amend their ways and uproot the evil existing in the Society; and
while their rules and bylaws are framed in the spirit of Theosophy, the Legislators
and the Churches of nations and countries which call themselves Christian do
the reverse. Our members, even the worst among them, are no worse than the average
Christian. Moreover, if the Western Theosophists experience so much difficulty
in leading the true Theosophical life, it is because they are all the children
of their generation. Every one of them was a Christian, bred and brought up
in the sophistry of his Church, his social customs, and even his paradoxical
laws. He was this before he became a Theosophist, or rather, a member of the
Society of that name, as it cannot be too often repeated that between the abstract
ideal and its vehicle there is a most important difference.
The
Abstract and the Concrete
Q. Please elucidate this difference
a little more.
A. The Society
is a great body of men and women, composed of the most
heterogeneous elements. Theosophy, in its abstract meaning,
is Divine Wisdom, or the aggregate of the knowledge and
wisdom that underlie the Universe — the homogeneity
of eternal good; and in its concrete sense it is the sum
total of the same as allotted to man by nature, on this
earth, and no more. Some members earnestly endeavor to
realize and, so to speak, to objectivize Theosophy in
their lives; while others desire only to know of, not
to practice it; and others still may have joined the Society
merely out of curiosity, or a passing interest, or perhaps,
again, because some of their friends belong to it. How,
then, can the system be judged by the standard of those
who would assume the name without any right to it? Is poetry
or its muse to be measured only by those would-be poets
who afflict our ears? The Society can be regarded as the
embodiment of Theosophy only in its abstract motives;
it can never presume to call itself its concrete vehicle
so long as human imperfections and weaknesses are all
represented in its body; otherwise the Society would be
only repeating the great error and the outflowing sacrilege
of the so-called Churches of Christ. If Eastern comparisons
may be permitted, Theosophy is the shoreless ocean of
universal truth, love, and wisdom, reflecting its radiance
on the earth, while the Theosophical Society is only a
visible bubble on that reflection. Theosophy is divine
nature, visible and invisible, and its Society human nature
trying to ascend to its divine parent. Theosophy, finally,
is the fixed eternal sun, and its Society the evanescent
comet trying to settle in an orbit to become a planet,
ever revolving within the attraction of the sun of truth.
It was formed to assist in showing to men that such a thing
as Theosophy exists, and to help them to ascend towards
it by studying and assimilating its eternal verities.
Q. I thought you said you
had no tenets or doctrines of your own?
A. No more we have. The Society has
no wisdom of its own to support or teach. It is simply the storehouse of all
the truths uttered by the great seers, initiates, and prophets of historic and
even prehistoric ages; at least, as many as it can get. Therefore, it is merely
the channel through which more or less of truth, found in the accumulated utterances
of humanity's great teachers, is poured out into the world.
Q. But is such truth unreachable
outside of the society? Does not every Church claim the same?
A. Not at all.
The undeniable existence of great initiates — true “Sons
of God” — shows that such wisdom was often reached
by isolated individuals, never, however, without the guidance
of a master at first. But most of the followers of such,
when they became masters in their turn, have dwarfed the
Catholicism of these teachings into the narrow groove
of their own sectarian dogmas. The commandments of a chosen
master alone were then adopted and followed, to the exclusion
of all others — if followed at all, note well, as
in the case of the Sermon on the Mount. Each religion is
thus a bit of the divine truth, made to focus a vast panorama
of human fancy which claimed to represent and replace
that truth.
Q. But Theosophy, you say,
is not a religion?
A. Most assuredly it is not, since
it is the essence of all religion and of absolute truth, a drop of which only
underlies every creed. To resort once more to metaphor. Theosophy, on earth,
is like the white ray of the spectrum, and every religion only one of the seven
prismatic colors. Ignoring all the others, and cursing them as false, every
special colored ray claims not only priority, but to be that white ray
itself, and anathematizes even its own tints from light to dark, as heresies.
Yet, as the sun of truth rises higher and higher on the horizon of man's perception,
and each colored ray gradually fades out until it is finally reabsorbed in its
turn, humanity will at last be cursed no longer with artificial polarizations,
but will find itself bathing in the pure colorless sunlight of eternal truth.
And this will be Theosophia.
Q. Your claim is, then, that
all the great religions are derived from Theosophy, and that it is by assimilating
it that the world will be finally saved from the curse of its great illusions
and errors?
A. Precisely so.
And we add that our Theosophical Society is the humble
seed which, if watered and left to live, will finally
produce the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which is
grafted on the Tree of Life Eternal. For it is only by
studying the various great religions and philosophies
of humanity, by comparing them dispassionately and with
an unbiased mind, that men can hope to arrive at the truth.
It is especially by finding out and noting their various
points of agreement that we may achieve this result. For
no sooner do we arrive — either by study, or by being
taught by someone who knows — at their inner meaning,
than we find, almost in every case, that it expresses some
great truth in Nature.
Q. We have heard of a Golden
Age that was, and what you describe would be a Golden Age to be realized at
some future day. When shall it be?
A. Not before humanity, as a whole,
feels the need of it. A maxim in the Persian Javidan Khirad says:
Truth is of two
kinds — one manifest
and self-evident; the other demanding incessantly new demonstrations
and proofs.
It is only when this latter kind
of truth becomes as universally obvious as it is now dim, and therefore liable
to be distorted by sophistry and casuistry; it is only when the two kinds will
have become once more one, that all people will be brought to see alike.
Q. But surely those few who
have felt the need of such truths must have made up their minds to believe in
something definite? You tell me that, the Society having no doctrines of its
own, every member may believe as he chooses and accept what he pleases. This
looks as if the Theosophical Society was bent upon reviving the confusion of
languages and beliefs of the Tower of Babel of old. Have you no beliefs in common?
A. What is meant
by the Society having no tenets or doctrines of its own
is, that no special doctrines or beliefs are
obligatory on its members; but, of course, this applies
only to the body as a whole. The Society, as you were told,
is divided into an outer and an inner body. Those who belong
to the latter have, of course, a philosophy, or — if
you so prefer it — a religious system of their own.
Q. May we be told what it
is?
A. We make no secret of it. It was
outlined a few years ago in The Theosophist and Esoteric Buddhism,
and may be found still more elaborated in The Secret Doctrine. It is
based on the oldest philosophy of the world, called the Wisdom-Religion or the
Archaic Doctrine. If you like, you may ask questions and have them explained.
The
Fundamental Teachings of Theosophy
On
God and Prayer
Q. Do you believe in God?
A. That depends what you mean by
the term.
Q. I mean the God of the Christians,
the Father of Jesus, and the Creator: the Biblical God of Moses, in short.
A. In such a God
we do not believe. We reject the idea of a personal, or
an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God, who is but the
gigantic shadow of man, and not of man at his best,
either. The God of theology, we say — and prove
it — is a bundle of contradictions and a logical
impossibility. Therefore, we will have nothing to do with
him.
Q. State your reasons, if
you please.
A. They are many, and cannot all
receive attention. But here are a few. This God is called by his devotees infinite
and absolute, is he not?
Q. I believe he is.
A. Then, if infinite — i.e.,limitless — and
especially if absolute, how can he have a form, and be
a creator of anything? Form implies limitation, and a
beginning as well as an end; and, in order to create,
a Being must think and plan. How can the absolute be supposed
to think — i.e.,to
have any relation whatever to that which is limited, finite,
and conditioned? This is a philosophical, and a logical
absurdity. Even the Hebrew Cabala rejects such an idea,
and therefore, makes of the one and the Absolute Deific
Principle an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph (Ain-Soph
(Greek: toh pan, epeiros), the boundless or limitless,
in and of nature, the non-existing that IS, but that is
not a Being)
In order to create,
the Creator has to become active; and as this is impossible
for absoluteness, the infinite principle had to be shown
becoming the cause of evolution (not creation) in an indirect
way — i.e., through the emanation from itself
(another absurdity, due this time to the translators
of the Cabala) of the Sephiroth.
How can the non-active
eternal principle emanate or emit? The Parabrahman of
the Vedantins does nothing of the kind; nor does the Ain-Soph
of the Chaldean Cabala. It is an eternal and periodical
law which causes an active and creative force (the logos)
to emanate from the ever-concealed and incomprehensible
one principle at the beginning of every Maha -Manvantara,
or new cycle of life.
Q. How about those Cabalists,
who, while being such, still believe in Jehovah, or the Tetragrammaton?
A. They are at liberty to believe
in what they please, as their belief or disbelief can hardly affect a self-evident
fact. The Jesuits tell us that two and two are not always four to a certainty,
since it depends on the will of God to make 2 × 2 = 5. Shall we accept
their sophistry for all that?
Q. Then you are Atheists?
A. Not that we know of, and not unless
the epithet of “Atheist” is to be applied to those who disbelieve in an anthropomorphic
God. We believe in a Universal Divine Principle, the root of all, from which
all proceeds, and within which all shall be absorbed at the end of the great
cycle of Being.
Q. This is the old, old claim
of Pantheism. If you are Pantheists, you cannot be Deists; and if you are not
Deists, then you have to answer to the name of Atheists.
A. Not necessarily
so. The term Pantheism
is again one of the many abused terms, whose real and primitive
meaning has been distorted by blind prejudice and a one-sided
view of it. If you accept the Christian etymology of this
compound word, and form it of pan , “all”,
and theos , “god”, and then imagine and teach
that this means that every stone and every tree in Nature
is a God or the one God, then, of course, you will be right,
and make of Pantheists fetish-worshippers, in addition to
their legitimate name. But you will hardly be as successful
if you etymologize the word Pantheism esoterically,
and as we do.
Q. What is, then, your definition
of it?
A. Let me ask you a question in my
turn. What do you understand by Pan, or Nature?
Q. Nature is, I suppose, the
sum total of things existing around us; the aggregate of causes and effects
in the world of matter, the creation or universe.
A. Hence the personified
sum and order of known causes and effects; the total of
all finite agencies and forces, as utterly disconnected
from an intelligent Creator or Creators, and perhaps
“conceived of as a single and separate force” — as
in your encyclopedias?
Q. Yes, I believe so.
A. Well, we neither
take into consideration this objective and material nature,
which we call an evanescent illusion, nor do we mean by
Nature, in the sense of its accepted derivation from the
Latin
Natura (becoming, from nasci, to be born).
When we speak of the Deity and make it identical, hence
coeval, with Nature, the eternal and uncreate nature is
meant, and not your aggregate of flitting shadows and finite
unrealities. We leave it to the hymn-makers to call the
visible sky or heaven, God's Throne, and our earth of mud
His footstool. Our deity is neither in a paradise, nor in
a particular tree, building, or mountain: it is everywhere,
in every atom of the visible as of the invisible Cosmos,
in, over, and around every invisible atom and divisible
molecule; for it is the mysterious power of evolution and
involution, the omnipresent, omnipotent, and even omniscient
creative potentiality.
Q. Stop! Omniscience is the
prerogative of something that thinks, and you deny to your Absoluteness the
power of thought.
A. We deny it to the absolute, since
thought is something limited and conditioned. But you evidently forget that
in philosophy absolute unconsciousness is also absolute consciousness, as otherwise
it would not be absolute.
Q. Then your Absolute thinks?
A. No, it does not; for the simple
reason that it is Absolute Thought itself. Nor does it exist, for the
same reason, as it is absolute existence, and Be-ness, not a Being. Read
the superb Cabalistic poem by Solomon Ben Jehudah Gabirol, in the Kether-Malchut,
and you will understand:
Thou art one, the root of all numbers,
but not as an element of numeration; for unity admits not of multiplication,
change, or form.
Thou art one, and in the secret of
Thy unity the wisest of men are lost, because they know it not.
Thou art one, and Thy unity is never
diminished, never extended, and cannot be changed.
Thou art one, and no thought of mine
can fix for Thee a limit, or define Thee.
Thou art, but not as one existent,
for the understanding and vision of mortals cannot attain to Thy existence,
nor determine for Thee the where, the how and the why …
In short, our
Deity is the eternal, incessantly evolving, not creating, builder
of the universe; that universe
itself unfolding out of its own essence, not being made. It
is a sphere, without circumference, in its symbolism, which
has but one ever-acting attribute embracing all other existing
or thinkable attributes — itself. It is
the one law, giving the impulse to manifested, eternal, and
immutable laws, within that never-manifesting, because absolute
law, which in its manifesting periods is The ever-Becoming.
Q. I once
heard one of your members remarking that Universal Deity,
being everywhere, was in vessels of dishonour, as in those
of honor, and, therefore, was present in every atom of
my cigar ash! Is this not rank blasphemy?
A. I do not think so, as simple logic
can hardly be regarded as blasphemy. Were we to exclude the Omnipresent Principle
from one single mathematical point of the universe, or from a particle of matter
occupying any conceivable space, could we still regard it as infinite?
Is
it Necessary to Pray?
Q. Do you believe in prayer,
and do you ever pray?
A. We do not. We act, instead
of talking.
Q. You do not offer prayers
even to the Absolute Principle?
A. Why should we? Being well-occupied
people, we can hardly afford to lose time in addressing verbal prayers to a
pure abstraction. The Unknowable is capable of relations only in its parts to
each other, but is non-existent as regards any finite relations. The visible
universe depends for its existence and phenomena on its mutually acting forms
and their laws, not on prayer or prayers.
Q. Do you not believe at all
in the efficacy of prayer?
A. Not in prayer taught in so many
words and repeated externally, if by prayer you mean the outward petition to
an unknown God as the addressee, which was inaugurated by the Jews and popularized
by the Pharisees.
Q. Is there any other kind
of prayer?
A. Most decidedly; we call it will-prayer,
and it is rather an internal command than a petition.
Q. To whom, then, do you
pray when you do so?
A. To “our Father
in heaven” — in its
esoteric meaning.
Q. Is that different from
the one given to it in theology?
A. Entirely so. An Occultist or a
Theosophist addresses his prayer to his Father which is in secret, not
to an extra-cosmic and therefore finite God; and that “Father” is in man himself.
Q. Then you make of man a
God?
A. Please say “God” and not a
God. In our sense, the inner man is the only God we can have cognizance of.
And how can this be otherwise? Grant us our postulate that God is a universally
diffused, infinite principle, and how can man alone escape from being soaked
through by, and in, the Deity? We call our “Father in heaven” that deific essence of which we are cognizant within us, in our heart and spiritual
consciousness, and which has nothing to do with the anthropomorphic conception
we may form of it in our physical brain or its fancy: “Know ye not that ye are
the temple of God, and that the spirit of (the absolute) God dwelleth in you?”
One often finds in Theosophical writings
conflicting statements about the Christos principle in man. Some call it the
sixth principle (Buddhi), others the seventh (Atma). If Christian
Theosophists wish to make use of such expressions, let them be made philosophically
correct by following the analogy of the old Wisdom-Religion symbols. We say
that Christos is not only one of the three higher principles, but all
the three regarded as a Trinity. This Trinity represents the Holy Ghost, the
Father, and the Son, as it answers to abstract spirit, differentiated spirit,
and embodied spirit. Krishna and Christ are philosophically the same principle
under its triple aspect of manifestation. In the Bhagavad-Gita we find
Krishna calling himself indifferently Atma, the abstract Spirit, Kshetrajña,
the Higher or reincarnating Ego, and the Universal Self, all names which, when
transferred from the Universe to man, answer to Atma, Buddhi, and Manas.
The Anugita is full of the same doctrine.
Yet, let no man
anthropomorphize that essence in us. Let no Theosophist,
if he would hold to divine, not human truth, say that
this “God in secret” listens to, or is distinct from,
either finite man or the infinite essence — for all
are one. Nor, as just remarked, that a prayer is a petition.
It is a mystery rather; an occult process by which finite
and conditioned thoughts and desires, unable to be assimilated
by the absolute spirit which is unconditioned, are translated
into spiritual wills and the will; such process being
called “spiritual transmutation”. The intensity
of our ardent aspirations changes prayer into the “philosopher's
stone”, or that which transmutes
lead into pure gold. The only homogeneous essence, our “will-prayer” becomes
the active or creative force, producing effects according
to our desire.
Q. Do you mean to say that
prayer is an occult process bringing about physical results?
A. I do. Will-Power
becomes a living power. But woe unto those Occultists
and Theosophists, who, instead of crushing out the desires
of the lower personal ego or physical man,
and saying, addressing their Higher Spiritual Ego
immersed in Atma-Buddhic light, “Thy will be done,
not mine”, etc., send up waves of will-power for selfish
or unholy purposes! For this is black magic, abomination,
and spiritual sorcery. Unfortunately, all this is the favorite
occupation of our Christian statesmen and generals, especially
when the latter are sending two armies to murder each other.
Both indulge before action in a bit of such sorcery, by offering
respectively prayers to the same God of Hosts, each entreating
his help to cut its enemies' throats.
Q. David
prayed to the Lord of Hosts to help him smite the Philistines
and slay the Syrians and the Moabites, and “the
Lord preserved David whithersoever he went”. In that we
only follow what we find in the Bible.
A. Of course you
do. But since you delight in calling yourselves Christians,
not Israelites or Jews, as far as we know, why do you
not rather follow that which Christ says? And he distinctly
commands you not to follow “them of old times”, or
the Mosaic law, but bids you do as he tells you, and
warns those who would kill by the sword, that they, too,
will perish by the sword. Christ has given you one prayer
of which you have made a lip prayer and a boast, and
which none but the true Occultist
understands. In it you say, in your dead-sense meaning: “Forgive
us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”, which you never
do. Again, he told you to love
your enemies and do good to them that hate you. It
is surely not the “meek prophet of Nazareth” who taught
you to pray to your “Father” to slay,
and give you victory over your enemies! This is why we reject
what you call
“prayers”.
Q. But how do you explain
the universal fact that all nations and peoples have prayed to, and worshiped
a God or Gods? Some have adored and propitiated devils and harmful spirits,
but this only proves the universality of the belief in the efficacy of prayer.
A. It is explained
by that other fact that prayer has several other meanings
besides that given it by the Christians. It means not
only a pleading or petition, but meant, in days
of old, far more an invocation and incantation. The mantra, or
the rhythmically chanted prayer of the Hindus, has precisely
such a meaning, as the Brahmins hold themselves higher
than the common devas or “Gods”. A prayer
may be an appeal or an incantation for malediction, and
a curse (as in the case of two armies praying simultaneously
for mutual destruction) as much as for blessing. And as
the great majority of people are intensely selfish, and
pray only for themselves, asking to be given their “daily
bread” instead of
working for it, and begging God not to lead them “into temptation” but
to deliver them (the memorialists only) from evil, the result
is, that prayer, as now understood, is doubly pernicious:
(a) It kills in man self-reliance; (b) It develops in him
a still more ferocious selfishness and egotism than he is
already endowed with by nature. I repeat, that we believe
in “communion” and simultaneous action
in unison with our “Father in secret”; and in rare moments
of ecstatic bliss, in the mingling of our higher soul with
the universal essence, attracted as it is towards its origin
and center, a state, called during life Samadhi,
and after death, Nirvana. We refuse to pray to created finite
beings — i.e., gods, saints, angels, etc.,
because we regard it as idolatry. We cannot pray to the
absolute for reasons explained before; therefore, we try
to replace fruitless and useless prayer by meritorious and
good-producing actions.
Q. Christians would call it
pride and blasphemy. Are they wrong?
A. Entirely so.
It is they, on the contrary, who show Satanic pride in
their belief that the Absolute or the Infinite, even if
there was such a thing as the possibility of any relation
between the unconditioned and the conditioned-will stoop
to listen to every foolish or egotistical prayer. And
it is they again, who virtually blaspheme, in teaching
that an Omniscient and Omnipotent God needs uttered prayers
to know what he has to do! This — understood
esoterically — is corroborated by both Buddha and Jesus.
The one says:
Seek nought from the helpless Gods-pray
not! but rather act; for darkness will not brighten. Ask nought from
silence, for it can neither speak nor hear.
And the other — Jesus — recommends: “Whatsoever
ye shall ask in my name (that of Christos) that will I
do”. Of course, this
quotation, if taken in its literal sense, goes against
our argument. But if we accept it esoterically, with the
full knowledge of the meaning of the term Christos which
to us represents Atma-Buddhi-Manas, the
“self”, it comes to this: the only God we must recognize
and pray to, or rather act in unison with, is that spirit
of God of which our body is the temple, and in which it
dwelleth.
Prayer
Kills Self-Reliance
Q. But did not Christ himself
pray and recommend prayer?
A. It is so recorded,
but those “prayers” are precisely of that kind of communion just mentioned with
one's “Father in
secret”. Otherwise, and if we identify Jesus with the universal
deity, there would be something too absurdly illogical in
the inevitable conclusion that he, the “very God himself” prayed
to himself, and separated the will
of that God from his own!
Q. One argument more; an argument,
moreover, much used by some Christians. They say,
I feel that I am not able to conquer
any passions and weaknesses in my own strength. But when I pray to Jesus Christ
I feel that he gives me strength and that in His power I am able to conquer.
A. No wonder.
If “Christ Jesus” is
God, and one independent and separate from him who prays,
of course everything is, and must be possible to “a
mighty God”. But, then, where's the merit,
or justice either, of such a conquest? Why should the pseudo-conqueror
be rewarded for something done which has cost him only
prayers? Would you, even a simple mortal man, pay your
labourer a full day's wage if you did most of his work
for him, he sitting under an apple tree, and praying to
you to do so, all the while? This idea of passing one's
whole life in moral idleness, and having one's hardest
work and duty done by another — whether God or man — is
most revolting to us, as it is most degrading to human
dignity.
Q. Perhaps so, yet it is the
idea of trusting in a personal Savior to help and strengthen in the battle of
life, which is the fundamental idea of modern Christianity. And there is no
doubt that, subjectively, such belief is efficacious; i.e., that those
who believe do feel themselves helped and strengthened.
A. Nor is there
any more doubt, that some patients of “Christian” and “Mental
Scientists” — the great “Deniers”— are
also sometimes cured; nor that hypnotism, and suggestion,
psychology, and even mediumship, will produce such results,
as often, if not oftener. You take into consideration,
and string on the thread of your argument, successes alone.
And how about ten times the number of failures? Surely
you will not presume to say that failure is unknown even
with a sufficiency of blind faith, among fanatical Christians?
Q. But how can you explain
those cases which are followed by full success? Where does a Theosophist look
to for power to subdue his passions and selfishness?
A. To his Higher
Self, the divine spirit, or the God in him, and to his Karma. How
long shall we have to repeat over and over again that
the tree is known by its fruit, the nature of the cause
by its effects? You speak of subduing passions, and becoming
good through and with the help of God or Christ. We ask,
where do you find more virtuous, guiltless people, abstaining
from sin and crime, in Christendom or Buddhism — in
Christian countries or in heathen lands? Statistics are
there to give the answer and corroborate our claims. According
to the last census in Ceylon and India, in the comparative
table of crimes committed by Christians, Muslims, Hindus,
Eurasians, Buddhists, etc., etc., on two millions of population
taken at random from each, and covering the misdemeanours
of several years, the proportion of crimes committed by
the Christian stands as 15 to 4 as against those committed
by the Buddhist population. No Orientalist, no historian
of any note, or traveler in Buddhist lands, from Bishop
Bigandet and Abbé Huc, to Sir William
Hunter and every fair-minded official, will fail to give
the palm of virtue to Buddhists before Christians. Yet
the former (not the true Buddhist Siamese sect, at all
events) do not believe in either God or a future reward,
outside of this earth. They do not pray, neither priests
nor laymen. “Pray!” they would
exclaim in wonder, “to whom, or what?”
Q. Then they are truly Atheists.
A. Most undeniably, but they are
also the most virtue-loving and virtue-keeping men in the whole world. Buddhism
says: Respect the religions of other men and remain true to your own; but Church
Christianity, denouncing all the gods of other nations as devils, would doom
every non-Christian to eternal perdition.
Q. Does not the Buddhist priesthood
do the same?
A. Never. They hold too much to the
wise precept found in the Dhammapada to do so, for they know that,
If any man, whether he be learned
or not, consider himself so great as to despise other men, he is like a blind
man holding a candle-blind himself, he illumines others.
On
the Source of the Human Soul
Q. How, then, do you account
for man being endowed with a Spirit and Soul? Whence these?
A. From the Universal Soul. Certainly
not bestowed by a personal God. Whence the moist element in the jelly-fish?
From the Ocean which surrounds it, in which it lives and breathes and has its
being, and whither it returns when dissolved.
Q. So you reject the teaching
that Soul is given, or breathed into man, by God?
A. We are obliged to. The “Soul” spoken of in Genesis is, as therein stated, the “living Soul” or Nephesh
(the vital,animal soul) with which God (we say “nature” and immutable
law) endows man like every animal. Is not at all the thinking soul or mind;
least of all is it the immortal Spirit.
Q. Well, let us put it otherwise:
is it God who endows man with a human rational Soul and immortal Spirit?
A. Again, in the
way you put the question, we must object to it. Since we
believe in no personal God, how
can we believe that he endows man with anything? But granting, for the sake
of argument, a God who takes upon himself the risk of creating a new Soul for
every new-born baby, all that can be said is that such a God can hardly be regarded
as himself endowed with any wisdom or prevision. Certain other difficulties
and the impossibility of reconciling this with the claims made for the mercy,
justice, equity and omniscience of that God, are so many deadly reefs on which
this theological dogma is daily and hourly broken.
Q. What do you mean? What
difficulties?
A. I am thinking
of an unanswerable argument offered once in my presence
by a Singhalese Buddhist priest, a famous preacher, to
a Christian missionary — one in no way ignorant or
unprepared for the public discussion during which it was
advanced. It was near Colombo, and the Missionary had
challenged the priest Megattivati to give his reasons why
the Christian God should not be accepted by the “heathen”. Well,
the Missionary came out of that forever memorable discussion
second best, as usual.
Q. I should be glad to learn
in what way.
A.
Simply this: the Buddhist priest premised by asking the padre whether
his God had given commandments to Moses only for men to keep, but to be broken
by God himself. The missionary denied the supposition indignantly. Well, said
his opponent,
… you tell us that God makes
no exceptions to this rule, and that no Soul can be born without his will. Now
God forbids adultery, among other things, and yet you say in the same breath
that it is he who creates every baby born, and he who endows it with a Soul.
Are we then to understand that the millions of children born in crime and adultery
are your God's work? That your God forbids and punishes the breaking of his
laws; and that, nevertheless, he creates daily and hourly souls for just
such children? According to the simplest logic, your God is an accomplice
in the crime; since, but for his help and interference, no such children of
lust could be born. Where is the justice of punishing not only the guilty parents
but even the innocent babe for that which is done by that very God, whom yet
you exonerate from any guilt himself?
The missionary looked at his watch
and suddenly found it was getting too late for further discussion.
Q. You forget that all such
inexplicable cases are mysteries, and that we are forbidden by our religion
to pry into the mysteries of God.
A. No, we do not
forget, but simply reject such impossibilities. Nor do
we want you to believe as we do. We only answer the questions
you ask. We have, however, another name for your “mysteries”.
The
Buddhist Teachings on the Above
Q. What does Buddhism teach
with regard to the Soul?
A. It depends whether you mean exoteric,
popular Buddhism, or its esoteric teachings. The former explains itself in The
Buddhist Catechism in this wise:
Soul it considers a word used by
the ignorant to express a false idea. If everything is subject to change, then
man is included, and every material part of him must change. That which is subject
to change is not permanent, so there can be no immortal survival of a changeful
thing.
This seems plain
and definite. But when we come to the question that the
new personality in each succeeding rebirth is the aggregate
of “Skandhas”, or the attributes, of the old
personality, and ask whether this new aggregation of Skandhas is
a new
being likewise, in which nothing has remained of the last,
we read that:
In one sense it is a new being, in
another it is not. During this life the Skandhas are continually changing, while
the man A.B. of forty is identical as regards personality with the youth A.B.
of eighteen, yet by the continual waste and reparation of his body and change
of mind and character, he is a different being. Nevertheless, the man in his
old age justly reaps the reward or suffering consequent upon his thoughts and
actions at every previous stage of his life. So the new being of the rebirth,
being the same individuality as before (but not the same personality),
with but a changed form, or new aggregation of Skandhas,justly reaps
the consequences of his actions and thoughts in the previous existence.
This is abstruse metaphysics, and
plainly does not express disbelief in Soul by any means.
Q. Is not something like this
spoken of in Esoteric Buddhism?
A. It is, for this teaching belongs
both to Esoteric Budhism or Secret Wisdom, and to the exoteric Buddhism, or
the religious philosophy of Gautama Buddha.
Q. But we are distinctly told
that most of the Buddhists do not believe in the Soul's immortality?
A. No more do
we, if you mean by Soul the personal Ego, or life — Soul — Nephesh.But
every learned Buddhist believes in the individual or divine
Ego. Those who do not,
err in their judgment. They are as mistaken on this point,
as those Christians who mistake the theological interpolations
of the later editors of the Gospels about damnation and
hellfire, for verbatim utterances of Jesus. Neither
Buddha nor “Christ” ever wrote anything themselves,
but both spoke in allegories and used “dark sayings”, as
all true Initiates did, and will do for a long time yet
to come. Both Scriptures treat of all such metaphysical
questions very cautiously, and both, Buddhist and Christian
records, sin by that excess of exotericism; the dead
letter meaning far overshooting the mark in both cases.
Q. Do you mean to suggest
that neither the teachings of Buddha nor those of Christ have been heretofore
rightly understood?
A. What I mean
is just as you say. Both Gospels, the Buddhist and the
Christian, were preached with the same object in view.
Both reformers were ardent philanthropists and practical altruists — preaching
most unmistakably Socialism of the noblest and highest
type, self-sacrifice to the bitter end. “Let the
sins of the whole world fall upon me that I may relieve
man's misery and suffering!” cries Buddha. “I would
not let one cry whom I could save!” exclaims the Prince-beggar,
clad in the refuse rags of the burial-grounds. “Come
unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will
give you rest”, is the appeal to the poor and the disinherited
made by the “Man
of Sorrows”, who hath not where to lay his head. The teachings
of both are boundless love for humanity, charity, forgiveness
of injury, forgetfulness of self, and pity for the deluded
masses; both show the same contempt for riches, and make
no difference between meum and tuum. Their
desire was, without revealing to all the sacred
mysteries of initiation, to give the ignorant and the misled,
whose burden in life was too heavy for them, hope enough
and an inkling into the truth sufficient to support them
in their heaviest hours. But the object of both Reformers
was frustrated, owing to excess of zeal of their later
followers. The words of the Masters having been misunderstood
and misinterpreted, behold the consequences!
Q. But surely Buddha must
have repudiated the soul's immortality, if all the Orientalists and his own
Priests say so!
A. The Arhats began by following
the policy of their Master and the majority of the subsequent priests were not
initiated, just as in Christianity; and so, little by little, the great esoteric
truths became almost lost. A proof in point is, that, out of the two existing
sects in Ceylon, the Siamese believes death to be the absolute annihilation
of individuality and personality, and the other explains Nirvana, as we Theosophists
do.
Q. But why, in that case,
do Buddhism and Christianity represent the two opposite poles of such belief?
A. Because the conditions under which
they were preached were not the same. In India the Brahmins, jealous of their
superior knowledge, and excluding from it every caste save their own, had driven
millions of men into idolatry and almost fetishism. Buddha had to give the death-blow
to an exuberance of unhealthy fancy and fanatical superstition resulting from
ignorance, such as has rarely been known before or after. Better a philosophical
atheism than such ignorant worship for those:
Who cry upon their gods and are not
heard,
Or are not heeded … — and
who live and die in mental despair. He had to arrest first
of all this muddy torrent of superstition, to uproot errors
before he gave out the truth. And as he could not give out all, for
the same good reason as Jesus, who reminds his disciples
that the Mysteries of Heaven are not for the unintelligent
masses, but for the elect alone, and therefore “spake
he to them in parables” — so his caution led
Buddha to
conceal too much. He even refused to say to the monk
Vacchagotta whether there was, or was not an Ego in man.
When pressed to answer, “the Exalted one maintained
silence”.
Buddha gives to Ananda, his initiated
disciple, who inquires for the reason of this silence, a plain and unequivocal
answer in the dialogue translated by Oldenburg from the Samyutta-Nikaya:
If I, Ananda,
when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me: “Is
there the Ego?” had answered “The Ego is”, then
that, Ananda, would have confirmed the doctrine of the
Samanas and Brahmans, who believed in permanence. If I,
Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me, “Is
there not the Ego?” had answered, “The Ego is not”, then
that, Ananda, would have confirmed the doctrine of those
who believed in annihilation. If I, Ananda, when the wandering
monk Vacchagotta asked me, “Is there the Ego?” had answered, “The Ego is”, would that have served
my end, Ananda, by producing in him the knowledge: all existences
(dhamma) are non-ego? But if I, Ananda, had answered, “The
Ego is not”, then that, Ananda, would only have caused the
wandering monk Vacchagotta to be thrown from one bewilderment
to another: “My
Ego, did it not exist before? But now it exists no longer!”
This shows, better than anything,
that Gautama Buddha withheld such difficult metaphysical doctrines from the
masses in order not to perplex them more. What he meant was the difference between
the personal temporary Ego and the Higher Self, which sheds its light on the
imperishable Ego, the spiritual “I” of man.
Q. This refers to Gautama,
but in what way does it touch the Gospels?
A. Read history
and think over it. At the time the events narrated in
the Gospels are alleged to have happened, there was a
similar intellectual fermentation taking place in the whole
civilized world, only with opposite results in the East
and the West. The old gods were dying out. While the civilized
classes drifted in the train of the unbelieving Sadducees
into materialistic negations and mere dead-letter Mosaic
form in Palestine, and into moral dissolution in Rome,
the lowest and poorer classes ran after sorcery and strange
gods, or became hypocrites and Pharisees. Once more the
time for a spiritual reform had arrived. The cruel, anthropomorphic
and jealous God of the Jews, with his sanguinary laws
of “an eye for eye and tooth for tooth”,
of the shedding of blood and animal sacrifice, had to be
relegated to a secondary place and replaced by the merciful “Father
in Secret”. The latter had to be
shown, not as an extra-Cosmic God, but as a divine Savior
of the man of flesh, enshrined in his own heart and soul,
in the poor as in the rich. No more here than in India,
could the secrets of initiation be divulged, lest by giving
that which is holy to the dogs, and casting pearls before
swine, both the Revealer
and the things revealed should be trodden under foot. Thus,
the reticence of both Buddha and Jesus — whether the
latter lived out the historic period allotted to him or
not, and who equally abstained from revealing plainly the
Mysteries of Life and Death-led in the one case to the blank
negations of Southern Buddhism, and in the other, to the
three clashing forms of the Christian Church and the 300
sects in Protestant England alone.
Theosophical
Teachings as to Nature and Man
The
Unity of All in All
Q. Having told me what God,
the Soul and Man are not, in your views, can you inform me what they
are, according to your teachings?
A. In their origin and in eternity
the three, like the universe and all therein, are one with the absolute Unity,
the unknowable deific essence I spoke about some time back. We believe in no
creation, but in the periodical and consecutive appearances of the universe
from the subjective onto the objective plane of being, at regular intervals
of time, covering periods of immense duration.
Q. Can you elaborate the subject?
A. Take as a first
comparison and a help towards a more correct conception,
the solar year, and as a second, the two halves of that
year, producing each a day and a night of six months' duration
at the North Pole. Now imagine, if you can, instead of
a Solar year of 365 days, eternity. Let the sun represent
the universe, and the polar days and nights of six months
each — days and nights lasting each 182 trillions
and quadrillions of years, instead of 182 days each.
As the sun arises every morning on our
objective horizon out of its (to us) subjective and
antipodal space, so does the Universe emerge periodically
on the plane of objectivity, issuing from that of subjectivity — the
antipodes of the former. This is the “Cycle
of Life”. And as the sun disappears from our horizon, so
does the Universe disappear at regular periods, when the “Universal
night” sets in. The Hindus call such
alternations the “Days and Nights of Brahm” , or the
time of Manvantara
and that of Pralaya (dissolution). The Westerns may
call them Universal Days and Nights if they prefer. During
the latter (the nights) All is in
All; every atom is resolved into one Homogeneity.
Evolution
and Illusion
Q. But who is it that creates
each time the Universe?
A. No one creates it. Science would
call the process evolution; the pre-Christian philosophers and the Orientalists
called it emanation: we, Occultists and Theosophists, see in it the only universal
and eternal reality casting a periodical reflection of itself
on the infinite Spatial depths. This reflection, which you regard as the objective
material universe, we consider as a temporary illusion and nothing
else. That alone which is eternal is real.
Q. At that rate, you and I
are also illusions.
A. As flitting
personalities, today one person, tomorrow another — we
are. Would you call the sudden flashes of the
aurora borealis, the Northern lights, a “reality” , though
it is as real as can be while you look at it? Certainly
not; it is the cause that produces it, if permanent and
eternal, which is the only reality, while the other is but
a passing illusion.
Q. All this does not explain
to me how this illusion called the universe originates; how the conscious to
be, proceeds to manifest itself from the unconsciousness that is.
A. It is unconsciousness
only
to our finite consciousness. Verily may we paraphrase St. John and say:
… and (Absolute) light (which
is darkness) shineth in darkness (which is illusionary material light); and
the darkness comprehendeth it not.
This absolute
light is also absolute and immutable law. Whether by radiation
or emanation — we need not quarrel over
terms — the universe passes out of its homogeneous
subjectivity onto the first plane of manifestation, of which
planes there are seven, we are taught. With each plane it
becomes more dense and material until it reaches this, our
plane, on which the only world approximately known and understood
in its physical composition by Science, is the planetary
or Solar system — one sui generis,we are told.
Q. What
do you mean by sui
generis?
A. I mean that,
though the fundamental law and the universal working of
laws of Nature are uniform, still our Solar system (like
every other such system in the millions of others in Cosmos)
and even our Earth, has its own program of manifestations
differing from the respective programs of all others.
We speak of the inhabitants of other planets and imagine
that if they are men,i.e., thinking entities,
they must be as we are. The fancy of poets and painters
and sculptors never fails to represent even the angels
as a beautiful copy of man — plus wings.
We say that all this is an error and a delusion; because,
if on this little earth alone one finds such a diversity
in its flora, fauna, and mankind — from the seaweed
to the cedar of Lebanon, from the jellyfish to the elephant,
from the Bushman and negro to the Apollo Belvedere — alter
the conditions cosmic and planetary, and there must be
as a result quite a different flora, fauna, and mankind.
The same laws will fashion quite a different set of things
and beings even on this our plane, including in it all
our planets. How much more different then must be
external nature in other Solar systems, and how foolish
is it to judge of other stars and worlds and human
beings by our own, as physical science does!
Q. But what are your data
for this assertion?
A. What science
in general will never accept as proof — the cumulative
testimony of an endless series of Seers who have testified
to this fact. Their spiritual visions, real explorations
by, and through, physical and spiritual senses untrammelled
by blind flesh, were systematically checked and compared
one with the other, and their nature sifted. All that was
not corroborated by unanimous and collective experience
was rejected, while that only was recorded as established
truth which, in various ages, under different climes,
and throughout an untold series of incessant observations,
was found to agree and receive constantly further corroboration.
The methods used by our scholars and students of the psycho-spiritual
sciences do not differ from those of students of the natural
and physical sciences, as you may see. Only our fields
of research are on two different planes, and our instruments
are made by no human hands, for which reason perchance
they are only the more reliable. The retorts, accumulators,
and microscopes of the chemist and naturalist may get
out of order; the telescope and the astronomer's horological
instruments may get spoiled; our recording instruments
are beyond the influence of weather or the elements.
Q. And therefore you have
implicit faith in them?
A. Faith is a
word not to be found in theosophical dictionaries: we
say knowledge based, on observation and
experience. There is this difference, however, that while
the observation and experience of physical science lead
the Scientists to about as many “working” hypotheses
as there are minds to evolve them, our knowledge consents
to add to its lore only those facts which have become undeniable,
and which are fully and absolutely demonstrated. We have
no two beliefs or hypotheses on the same subject.
Q. Is it on such
data that you came to accept the strange theories we find in Esoteric
Buddhism?
A. Just so. These theories may be
slightly incorrect in their minor details, and even faulty in their exposition
by lay students; they are facts in nature, nevertheless, and come nearer
the truth than any scientific hypothesis.
On
The Septenary Constitution of Our Planet
Q. I understand that you describe
our earth as forming part of a chain of earths?
A. We do. But the other six “earths” or globes, are not on the same plane of objectivity as our earth is; therefore
we cannot see them.
Q. Is that on account of the
great distance?
A. Not at all,
for we see with our naked eye planets and even stars at
immeasurably greater distances; but it is owing to those
six globes being outside our physical means of perception,
or plane of being. It is not only that their material
density, weight, or fabric are entirely different from
those of our earth and the other known planets; but they
are (to us) on an entirely different layer of space,
so to speak; a layer not to be perceived or felt by our
physical senses. And when I say “layer”,
please do not allow your fancy to suggest to you layers like
strata or beds laid one over the other, for this would only
lead to another absurd misconception. What I mean by “layer” is
that plane of infinite space which by its nature cannot
fall under our ordinary waking perceptions, whether mental
or physical; but which exists in nature outside of our normal
mentality or consciousness, outside of our three-dimensional
space, and outside of our division of time. Each of the
seven fundamental planes (or layers) in space — of
course as a whole, as the pure space of Locke's definition,
not as our finite space — has its own objectivity and
subjectivity, its own space and time, its own consciousness
and set of senses. But all this will be hardly comprehensible
to one trained in the modern ways of thought.
Q. What do you mean by a different
set of senses? Is there anything on our human plane that you could bring as
an illustration of what you say, just to give a clearer idea of what you may
mean by this variety of senses, spaces, and respective perceptions?
A. None; except,
perhaps, that which for Science would be rather a handy
peg on which to hang a counter argument. We have a different
set of senses in dreamlife, have we not? We feel, talk,
hear, see, taste and function in general on a different
plane; the change of state of our consciousness being
evidenced by the fact that a series of acts and events
embracing years, as we think, pass ideally through our
mind in one instant. Well, that extreme rapidity of our
mental operations in dreams, and the perfect naturalness,
for the time being, of all the other functions, show us
that we are on quite another plane. Our philosophy teaches
us that, as there are seven fundamental forces in nature,
and seven planes of being, so there are seven states of
consciousness in which man can live, think, remember and
have his being. To enumerate these here is impossible,
and for this one has to turn to the study of Eastern metaphysics.
But in these two states — the waking
and the dreaming — every ordinary mortal, from a learned
philosopher down to a poor untutored savage, has a good proof
that such states differ.
Q. You do not accept, then,
the well-known explanations of biology and physiology to account for the dream
state?
A. We do not. We reject even the
hypotheses of your psychologists, preferring the teachings of Eastern Wisdom.
Believing in seven planes of Kosmic being and states of Consciousness, with
regard to the Universe or the Macrocosm, we stop at the fourth plane, finding
it impossible to go with any degree of certainty beyond. But with respect to
the Microcosm, or man, we speculate freely on his seven states and principles.
Q. How do you explain these?
A. We find, first
of all, two distinct beings in man; the spiritual and
the physical, the man who thinks, and the man who records
as much of these thoughts as he is able to assimilate.
Therefore we divide him into two distinct natures; the
upper or the spiritual being, composed of three principles
or aspects; and the lower or the physical quaternary,
composed of four — in all seven.
The
Septenary Nature of Man
Q. Is it what we call Spirit
and Soul, and the man of flesh?
A. It is not.
That is the old Platonic division. Plato was an Initiate,
and therefore could not go into forbidden details; but
he who is acquainted with the archaic doctrine finds the
seven in Plato's various combinations of Soul and Spirit.
He regarded man as constituted of two parts — one
eternal, formed of the same essence as the Absoluteness,
the other mortal and corruptible, deriving its constituent
parts from the minor
“created” Gods. Man is composed, he shows, of (1) A
mortal body, (2) An immortal principle, and (3) A “separate
mortal kind of Soul”. It is that which we respectively
call the physical man, the Spiritual Soul or Spirit, and
the animal Soul (the
Nous and psuche). This is the division adopted
by Paul, another Initiate, who maintains that there is a
psychical body which is sown in the corruptible (astral
soul or body), and a spiritual body that is raised
in incorruptible substance. Even James corroborates the
same by saying that the “wisdom” (of our lower soul)
descendeth not from the above, but is terrestrial (“psychical”, “demoniacal”, see
the Greek text) while the other is heavenly wisdom. Now
so plain is it that Plato and even Pythagoras, while speaking
but of three principles, give them seven separate functions,
in their various combinations, that if we contrast our teachings
this will become quite plain. Let us take a cursory view
of these seven aspects by drawing two tables.
Theosophical Division of the Lower
Quaternary
Sanskrit Term Exoteric Meaning Explanation
1.Rupa, or Sthula-sarira Physical
body Is the vehicle of all the
other principles during life.
1.Prana Life, or Vital principle
Necessary only to a, c,
d, and the functions of the
lower Manas, which
embrace all those limited to the
(physical) brain.
(c) Linga-sarira
Astral Body The
Double,the phantom body.
(d) Kamarupa The seat of animal desires
and passions This is the center of the animal man, where lies the line of demarcation
which separates the mortal man from the immortal entity.
Theosophical Division of the Upper
Imperishable Triad
Sanskrit Term Exoteric Meaning Explanation
(e) Manas — a
dual principle in its functions. Mind, Intelligence: which
is the higher human mind, whose light, or radiation links
the Monad, for the lifetime, to the mortal man. The future
state and the Karmic destiny of man depend on whether Manas
gravitates more downward to Kamarupa, the seat of the
animal passions, or upwards to Buddhi,
the Spiritual Ego. In the later case, the higher consciousness
of the individual Spiritual aspirations of mind (Manas),
assimilating Buddhi, are absorbed by it and form the Ego, which
goes into Devachanic bliss.
(f) Buddhi The Spiritual Soul The
vehicle of pure universal spirit.
(g) Atma Spirit One with the Absolute,
as its radiation.
In Mr. Sinnett's Esoteric Buddhism
d, e, and f, are respectively called the Animal, the Human, and the Spiritual
Souls, which answers as well. Though the principles in Esoteric Buddhism
are numbered, this is, strictly speaking, useless. The dual Monad alone
( Atma-Buddhi) is susceptible of being thought of as the two highest
numbers (the sixth and seventh). As to all others, since that principle
only which is predominant in man has to be considered as the first and foremost,
no numeration is possible as a general rule. In some men it is the higher Intelligence
(Manas or the fifth) which dominates the rest; in others the Animal Soul (Kamarupa)
that reigns supreme, exhibiting the most bestial instincts, etc.
Now what
does Plato teach? He speaks of the interior man as
constituted of two parts — one immutable
and always the same, formed of the same substance as
Deity, and the other mortal and corruptible. These “two
parts” are found in our upper Triad,
and the lower Quaternary (see table above, ). He explains
that when the Soul, psuche, “allies herself
to the Nous (divine
spirit or substance ), she does everything aright and
felicitously”, but the case is otherwise
when she attaches herself to Anoia, (folly, or the
irrational animal Soul). Here, then, we have Manas (or
the Soul in general) in its two aspects: when attaching
itself to Anoia (our Kamarupa, or the “Animal
Soul” in Esoteric Buddhism) it runs towards
entire annihilation, as far as the personal Ego is concerned;
when allying itself to the Nous ( Atma-Buddhi)
it merges into the immortal, imperishable Ego, and then its
spiritual consciousness of the personal that was, becomes
immortal.
*) St. Paul calls Plato's nous
'spirit';but since this spirit is 'substance', Buddhi is
meant then and not Atma;
philosophically speaking this (Atma) cannot be called 'substance'. We count
Atma as a human 'principle' in order to not create yet more confusion. In reality
it is not a 'human' but the universal absolute principle of which buddhi,
the soul-spirit, is the vehicle. [reversely translated note
from Dutch translation — editor]
The
Distinction Between Soul and Spirit
Q. Do you really teach, as
you are accused of doing by some Spiritualists and French Spiritists, the annihilation
of every personality?
A. We do not.
But as this question of the duality — the individuality of
the Divine Ego, and the personality
of the human animal — involves that of the possibility
of the real immortal Ego appearing in Séance rooms as
a “materialized
spirit”, which we deny as
already explained, our opponents have started the nonsensical
charge.
Q. You have just spoken of
psuche running towards its entire annihilation if it attaches itself
to Anoia. What did Plato, and do you mean by this?
A. The entire annihilation
of the personal consciousness, as an exceptional
and rare case, I think. The general and almost invariable
rule is the merging of the personal into the individual
or immortal consciousness of the Ego, a transformation
or a divine transfiguration, and the entire annihilation
only of the lower quaternary.
Would you expect the man of flesh, or the temporary personality,his
shadow, the “astral”, his animal instincts and even
physical life, to survive with the
“spiritual Ego” and become everlasting, eternal? Naturally
all this ceases to exist, either at, or soon after corporeal
death. It becomes in time entirely disintegrated and disappears
from view, being annihilated as a whole.
Q. Then
you also reject resurrection
in the flesh?
A. Most decidedly we do! Why should
we, who believe in the archaic esoteric philosophy of the Ancients, accept the
unphilosophical speculations of the later Christian theology, borrowed from
the Egyptian and Greek exoteric Systems of the Gnostics?
Q. The
Egyptians revered Nature-Spirits, and deified even onions:
your Hindus are idolaters,to this day; the Zoroastrians
worshiped, and do still worship, the Sun; and the best
Greek philosophers were either dreamers or materialists — witness
Plato and Democritus. How can you compare!
A. It may be so
in your modern Christian and even Scientific catechism;
it is not so for unbiased minds. The Egyptians revered
the “One-Only-One”, as Nout; and it
is from this word that Anaxagoras got his denomination Nous, or
as he calls it, nous autokrates, “the
Mind or Spirit Self-potent”, the archetes kinedeos , the
leading motor, or primum-mobile
of all. With him the Nous was God, and the logos was
man, his emanation. The Nous is the spirit (whether
in Kosmos or in man), and the logos, whether Universe
or astral body, the emanation of the former, the physical
body being merely the animal. Our external powers perceive phenomena;
our Nous alone is able to recognize their noumena. It
is the logos alone, or the noumenon, that survives,
because it is immortal in its very nature and essence, and
the logos in man is the Eternal Ego, that
which reincarnates and lasts forever. But how can the evanescent
or external shadow, the temporary clothing of that divine
Emanation which returns to the source whence it proceeded,
be that which is raised in incorruptibility?
Q. Still you can hardly escape
the charge of having invented a new division of man's spiritual and psychic
constituents; for no philosopher speaks of them, though you believe that Plato
does.
A. And I support the view. Besides
Plato, there is Pythagoras, who also followed the same idea.
Says Plutarch:
Plato and Pythagoras distribute the
soul into two parts, the rational (noetic) and irrational (agnoia); that part
of the soul of man which is rational is eternal; for though it be not God, yet
it is the product of an eternal deity, but that part of the soul which is divested
of reason (agnoia) dies.
The modern term Agnostic comes
from Agnosis,a cognate word. We wonder why Mr. Huxley, the author of
the word, should have connected his great intellect with “the soul divested
of reason” which dies? Is it the exaggerated humility of the modern materialist?
Pythagoras described
the Soul
as a self-moving Unit (monad) composed of three elements,
the Nous(Spirit),
the phren (mind), and the thumos (life, breath
or the Nephesh
of the Cabalists) which three correspond to our “Atma-buddhi”,
(higher Spirit-Soul), to Manas (the Ego), and to Kamarupa in
conjunction with the lower reflection
of Manas. That which the Ancient Greek philosophers termed Soul, in
general, we call Spirit, or Spiritual Soul, Buddhi, as
the vehicle of Atma
(the Agathon,or Plato's Supreme Deity). The fact that
Pythagoras and others state that phren and thumos are
shared by us with the brutes, proves that in this case the lower Manasic
reflection (instinct) and
Kamarupa (animal living passions) are meant. And as
Socrates and Plato accepted the clue and followed it, if
to these five, namely, Agathon
(Deity or Atma),Psuche (Soul in its collective sense), Nous (Spirit
or Mind), Phren (physical mind), and Thumos (Kamarupa
or passions) we add the eidolon of the Mysteries,
the shadowy form or the human
double, and the physical body,it will be easy to demonstrate
that the ideas of both Pythagoras and Plato were identical
with ours. Even the Egyptians held to the Septenary division.
In its exit, they taught, the Soul (Ego) had to pass through
its seven chambers, or principles, those it left behind,
and those it took along with itself. The only difference
is that, ever bearing in mind the penalty of revealing Mystery-doctrines,
which was death, they
gave out the teaching in a broad outline, while we elaborate
it and explain it in its details. But though we do give
out to the world as much as is lawful, even in our doctrine
more than one important detail is withheld, which those
who study the esoteric philosophy and are pledged to silence,are
alone entitled to know.
The
Greek Teachings
Q. We have magnificent Greek
and Latin, Sanskrit and Hebrew scholars. How is it that we find nothing in their
translations that would afford us a clue to what you say?
A. Because your translators, their
great learning notwithstanding, have made of the philosophers, the Greeks especially,
misty instead of mystic writers. Take as an instance Plutarch, and read
what he says of “the principles” of man. That which he describes was accepted
literally and attributed to metaphysical superstition and ignorance. Let me
give you an illustration in point. Says Plutarch:
Man is compound; and they are mistaken
who think him to be compounded of two parts only. For they imagine that
the understanding (brain intellect) is a part of the soul (the upper Triad),
but they err in this no less than those who make the soul to be a part of the
body, i.e., those who make of the Triad part of the corruptible
mortal quaternary.For the understanding (nous) as far exceeds the soul,
as the soul is better and diviner than the body. Now this composition of the
soul ( psuche) with the understanding (nous) makes reason; and with the body
(or thumos, the animal soul) passion; of which the one is the beginning or principle
of pleasure and pain, and the other of virtue and vice. Of these three parts
conjoined and compacted together, the earth has given the body, the moon the
soul, and the sun the understanding to the generation of man.
This last sentence is purely allegorical,
and will be comprehended only by those who are versed in the esoteric science
of correspondences and know which planet is related to every principle.
Plutarch divides the latter into three groups, and makes of the body a compound
of physical frame, astral shadow, and breath, or the triple lower part, which
“from earth was taken and to earth returns”; of the middle principle and the
instinctual soul, the second part, derived from and
through and
ever influenced by the moon; and only of the higher part or the Spiritual
Soul, with the Atmic and Manasic
elements in it does he make a direct emanation of the Sun,
who stands here for Agathon the Supreme Deity. This
is proven by what he says further as follows:
Now of the deaths we die, the one
makes man two of three and the other one of (out of) two. The former is in the
region and jurisdiction of Demeter, whence the name given to the Mysteries,
telein , resembled that given to death, teleutan. The Athenians also heretofore
called the deceased sacred to Demeter. As for the other death, it is in the
moon or region of Persephone.
Here you have
our doctrine, which shows man a septenary during
life; a quintile just after death,
in Kamaloka; and a threefold Ego, Spirit-Soul, and
consciousness in Devachan.
This separation, first in “the Meadows of Hades”, as
Plutarch calls the Kamaloka,
then in Devachan, was part and parcel of the performances
during the sacred Mysteries, when the candidates for initiation
enacted the whole drama of death, and the resurrection as
a glorified spirit, by which name we mean Consciousness.
This is what Plutarch means when he says:
And as with the one, the terrestrial,
so with the other celestial Hermes doth dwell. This suddenly and with violence
plucks the soul from the body; but Prospina mildly and in a long time disjoins
the understanding from the soul.
(Proserpina, or Persephone, stands
here for postmortem Karma, which is said to regulate the separation of the lower
from the higher principles: the Soul, as Nephesh, the breath of
animal life, which remains for a time in Kamaloka, from the higher compound
Ego, which goes into the state of Devachan, or bliss.)
For this reason she is called Monogenes,
only begotten, or rather begetting one alone; for the better part
of man becomes alone when it is separated by her.Now both the one and the
other happens thus according to nature. It is ordained by Fate (Fatum or Karma)
that every soul, whether with or without understanding (mind), when gone out
of the body, should wander for a time, though not all for the same, in the region
lying between the earth and moon (Kamaloka). For those that have been
unjust and dissolute suffer then the punishment due to their offenses; but the
good and virtuous are there detained till they are purified, and have, by expiation,
purged out of them all the infections they might have contracted from the contagion
of the body, as if from foul health, living in the mildest part of the air,
called the Meadows of Hades, where they must remain for a certain prefixed and
appointed time. And then, as if they were returning from a wandering pilgrimage
or long exile into their country, they have a taste of joy, such as they principally
receive who are initiated into Sacred Mysteries, mixed with trouble, admiration,
and each one's proper and peculiar hope.
This is Nirvanic bliss, and no Theosophist
could describe in plainer though esoteric language the mental joys of Devachan,
where every man has his paradise around him, erected by his consciousness. But
you must beware of the general error into which too many even of our Theosophists
fall. Do not imagine that because man is called septenary, then quintuple
and a triad, he is a compound of seven, five, or three entities;or, as
well expressed by a Theosophical writer, of skins to be peeled off like the
skins of an onion. The principles, as already said, save the body, the life,
and the astral eidolon,all of which disperse at death, are simply aspects
and states of consciousness. There is but one real man, enduring
through the cycle of life and immortal in essence, if not in form, and this
is Manas, the Mind-man or embodied Consciousness. The objection made
by the materialists, who deny the possibility of mind and consciousness acting
without matter is worthless in our case. We do not deny the soundness of their
argument; but we simply ask our opponents,
Are you acquainted with all the
states of matter,you who knew hitherto but of three? And how do you know
whether that which we refer to as absolute consciousness or Deity forever invisible
and unknowable, be not that which, though it eludes forever our human finite
conception, is still universal Spirit-matter or matter-Spirit in its absolute
infinitude?
It is then one of the lowest, and
in its manvantaric manifestations fractioned-aspects of this Spirit-matter,
which is the conscious Ego that creates its own paradise, a fool's paradise,
it may be, still a state of bliss.
Q. But what is Devachan?
A. The “land of gods” literally;
a condition, a state of mental bliss. Philosophically a mental condition analogous
to, but far more vivid and real than, the most vivid dream. It is the state
after death of most mortals.
On
the Various Postmortem States
The
Physical and the Spiritual Man
Q. I am glad to hear you believe
in the immortality of the Soul.
A. Not of “the
Soul”, but of the
divine Spirit; or rather in the immortality of the reincarnating
Ego.
Q. What is the difference?
A. A very great one in our philosophy,
but this is too abstruse and difficult a question to touch lightly upon. We
shall have to analyze them separately, and then in conjunction. We may begin
with Spirit.
We say that the Spirit (the “Father
in secret” of Jesus), or Atma, is no individual property of any man,
but is the Divine essence which has no body, no form, which is imponderable,
invisible and indivisible, that which does not exist and yet is,
as the Buddhists say of Nirvana. It only overshadows the
mortal; that which enters into him and pervades the whole
body being only its omnipresent rays, or light, radiated
through Buddhi, its vehicle and direct emanation. This
is the secret meaning of the assertions of almost all the ancient philosophers,
when they said that “the rational part of man's soul” never entered wholly
into the man, but only overshadowed him more or less through the irrational
spiritual Soul or Buddhi.
Buddhi is irrational in the
sense that as a pure emanation of the Universal mind it can have no individual
reason of its own on this plane of matter, but like the Moon, who borrows her
light from the Sun and her life from the Earth, so Buddhi, receiving
its light of Wisdom from Atma,gets its rational qualities from Manas.Per se,as something homogeneous, it is devoid of attributes.
Q. I laboured
under the impression that the “Animal Soul” alone was irrational, not the Divine.
A. You have to
learn the difference between that which is negatively,
or passively “irrational”, because undifferentiated,
and that which is irrational because too active and
positive. Man is a correlation of spiritual powers, as
well as a correlation of chemical and physical forces,
brought into function by what we call principles.
I have read a good deal upon the
subject, and it seems to me that the notions of the older philosophers differed
a great deal from those of the medieval Cabalists, though they do agree in some
particulars.
A. The most substantial difference
between them and us is this. While we believe with the Neo-Platonists and the
Eastern teachings that the spirit ( Atma) never descends hypostatically into
the living man, but only showers more or less its radiance on the inner
man (the psychic and spiritual compound of the astral principles), the
Cabalists maintain that the human Spirit, detaching itself from the ocean of
light and Universal Spirit, enters man's Soul, where it remains throughout life
imprisoned in the astral capsule. All Christian Cabalists still maintain the
same, as they are unable to break quite loose from their anthropomorphic and
Biblical doctrines.
Q. And what do you say?
A. We say that
we only allow the presence of the radiation of Spirit
(or Atma) in the astral capsule, and so far only as that
spiritual radiancy is concerned. We say that man and Soul
have to conquer their immortality by ascending towards
the unity with which, if successful, they will be finally
linked and into which they are finally, so to speak, absorbed.
The individualization of man after death depends on the
spirit, not on his soul and body. Although the word personality,in
the sense in which it is usually understood, is an absurdity
if applied literally to our immortal essence, still the
latter is, as our individual Ego, a distinct entity, immortal
and eternal,per
se. It is only in the case of black magicians or of criminals
beyond redemption, criminals who have been such during
a long series of lives — that the shining
thread, which links the spirit to the personal soul
from the moment of the birth of the child, is violently
snapped, and the disembodied entity becomes divorced from
the personal soul, the latter being annihilated without leaving
the smallest impression of itself on the former. If that
union between the lower, or personal Manas, and the individual
reincarnating Ego, has not been effected during life, then
the former is left to share the fate of the lower animals,
to gradually dissolve into ether, and have its personality
annihilated. But even then the Ego remains a distinct being.
It (the spiritual Ego) only loses one Devachanic state — after
that special, and in that case indeed useless, life — as
that idealized Personality,and is reincarnated, after
enjoying for a short time its freedom as a planetary spirit
almost immediately.
Q. It is
stated in Isis
Unveiled that such planetary Spirits or Angels, “the
gods of the Pagans or the Archangels of the Christians”, will
never be men on our planet.
A. Quite right.
Not “such”,
but some classes of higher Planetary Spirits. They
will never be men on this planet, because they are liberated
Spirits from a previous, earlier world, and as such they
cannot rebecome men on this one. Yet all these will live
again in the next and far higher Maha-Manvantara, after this “great
Age”,
and “Brahma pralaya”, (a little period of 16
figures or so) is over. For you must have heard, of course,
that Eastern philosophy teaches us that mankind consists
of such “Spirits” imprisoned
in human bodies? The difference between animals and men
is this: the former are ensouled by the principles potentially,the
latter actually. Do you understand now the difference?
Q. Yes; but this specialization
has been in all ages the stumbling-block of metaphysicians.
A. It was. The whole esotericism
of the Buddhist philosophy is based on this mysterious teaching, understood
by so few persons, and so totally misrepresented by many of the most learned
modern scholars. Even metaphysicians are too inclined to confound the effect
with the cause. An Ego who has won his immortal life as spirit will remain the
same inner self throughout all his rebirths on earth; but this does not imply
necessarily that he must either remain the Mr. Smith or Mr. Brown he was on
earth, or lose his individuality. Therefore, the astral soul and the terrestrial
body of man may, in the dark hereafter, be absorbed into the cosmical ocean
of sublimated elements, and cease to feel his last personal Ego (if it
did not deserve to soar higher), and the divine Ego still remain the
same unchanged entity, though this terrestrial experience of his emanation may
be totally obliterated at the instant of separation from the unworthy vehicle.
Q. If the “Spirit”, or
the divine portion of the soul, is preexistent as a distinct
being from all eternity, as Origen, Synesius, and other
semi-Christians and semi-Platonic philosophers taught,
and if it is the same, and nothing more than the metaphysically-objective
soul, how can it be otherwise than eternal? And what matters
it in such a case, whether man leads a pure life or an
animal, if, do what he may, he can never lose his individuality?
A. This doctrine, as you have stated
it, is just as pernicious in its consequences as that of vicarious atonement.
Had the latter dogma, in company with the false idea that we are all immortal,
been demonstrated to the world in its true light, humanity would have been bettered
by its propagation.
Let me repeat to you again. Pythagoras,
Plato, Timaeus of Locris, and the old Alexandrian School, derived the Soul
of
man (or his higher principles and attributes) from the Universal World Soul,
the latter being, according to their teachings, Aether(Pater-Zeus). Therefore,
neither of these principles can be unalloyed essence of the Pythagorean
Monas, or our Atma-Buddhi,because the Anima Mundi is but
the effect, the subjective emanation or rather radiation of the former. Both
the human Spirit (or the individuality), the reincarnating
Spiritual Ego, and Buddhi, the Spiritual soul, are preexistent.
But, while the former exists as a distinct entity, an individualization,
the soul exists as preexisting breath, an unscient [lacking
in knowledge] portion of an intelligent whole. Both were
originally formed from the Eternal Ocean of light; but as
the Fire-Philosophers, the medieval Theosophists, expressed
it, there is a visible as well as invisible spirit in fire.
They made a difference between the anima bruta and the
anima divina. Empedocles firmly believed all men and animals to possess
two souls; and in Aristotle we find that he calls one the reasoning soul,nous
, and the other, the animal soul, psuche . According to these philosophers,
the reasoning soul comes from within the universal soul, and the other
from without.
Q. Would you call the Soul,
i.e., the human thinking Soul, or what you call the Ego-matter?
A. Not matter,
but substance assuredly;
nor would the word matter, if prefixed with the adjective, primordial,
be a word to avoid. That matter, we say, is coeternal with
Spirit, and is not our visible, tangible, and divisible
matter, but its extreme sublimation. Pure Spirit is but
one remove from the no-Spirit, or the absolute all
.Unless
you admit that man was evolved out of this primordial Spirit-matter,
and represents a regular progressive scale of principles
from meta-Spirit down to the
grossest matter, how can we ever come to regard the inner man
as immortal, and at the same time as a spiritual Entity
and a mortal man?
Q. Then why should you not
believe in God as such an Entity?
A. Because that which is infinite
and unconditioned can have no form, and cannot be a being, not in any Eastern
philosophy worthy of the name, at any rate. An “entity” is immortal, but is
so only in its ultimate essence, not in its individual form. When at the last
point of its cycle, it is absorbed into its primordial nature; and it becomes
spirit, when it loses its name of Entity.
Its immortality
as a form is limited only to its life cycle or the Maha-Manvantara; after
which it is one and identical with the Universal Spirit,
and no longer a separate Entity. As to the personal Soul — by
which we mean the spark of consciousness that preserves
in the Spiritual Ego the idea of the personal “I” of the
last incarnation — this lasts, as a separate distinct
recollection, only throughout the Devachanic period; after
which time it is added to the series of other innumerable
incarnations of the Ego, like the remembrance in our memory
of one of a series of days, at the end of a year. Will
you bind the infinitude you claim for your God to finite
conditions? That alone which is indissolubly cemented by Atma (i.e.,
Buddhi-Manas) is immortal. The Soul of man (i.e., of
the personality)per
se is neither immortal, eternal nor divine. Says The
Zohar:
The soul, when sent to this earth,
puts on an earthly garment, to preserve herself here, so she receives above
a shining garment, in order to be able to look without injury into the mirror,
whose light proceeds from the Lord of Light.
Moreover, The
Zohar teaches
that the soul cannot reach the abode of bliss, unless she
has received the “holy
kiss”, or the reunion of the soul with the substance from
which she emanated — spirit.
All souls are dual, and, while the latter is a feminine principle,
the spirit is masculine. While imprisoned in body, man is
a trinity, unless his pollution is such as to have caused
his divorce from the spirit. “Woe to the soul which
prefers to her divine husband (spirit) the earthly wedlock
with her terrestrial body”, records a text of The Book
of the Keys, a Hermetic work. Woe indeed,
for nothing will remain of that personality to be recorded
on the imperishable tablets of the Ego's memory.
Q. How can that which, if
not breathed by God into man, yet is on your own confession of an identical
substance with the divine, fail to be immortal?
A. Every atom
and speck of matter, not of substance only, is imperishable in
its essence, but not in its
individual consciousness. Immortality is but one's
unbroken consciousness; and the personal consciousness
can hardly last longer than the personality itself, can
it? And such consciousness, as I already told you, survives
only throughout Devachan, after which it is reabsorbed,
first, in the individual,and
then in the universal consciousness. Better enquire
of your theologians how it is that they have so sorely jumbled
up the Jewish Scriptures. Read the Bible, if you would have
a good proof that the writers of the Pentateuch,
and Genesis especially, never regarded nephesh, that
which God breathes into Adam, as the immortal soul.
Here are some instances: “And
God created … every nephesh (life) that moveth”,
meaning animals; and it is said: “And man became a nephesh” (living
soul), which shows that the word nephesh was indifferently
applied to immortal man
and to mortal beast. “And surely your blood
of your nepheshim (lives)
will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require
it, and at the hand of man”, “Escape for nephesh” (escape
for thy life, it is translated).
“Let us not kill him”, reads the English version. “Let
us not kill his nephesh”,
is the Hebrew text. “Nephesh for nephesh”, says
Leviticus. “He
that killeth any man shall surely be put to death”,
literally “He
that smiteth the nephesh of a man”; and from
verse 18 and following it reads: “And
he that killeth a beast (nephesh) shall make it good … Beast
for beast”, whereas the original text has it “nephesh
for nephesh”. How could man
kill that which is immortal? And this explains also
why the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, as
it also affords another proof that very probably the Mosaic
Jews — the uninitiated at any rate — never believed
in the soul's survival at all.
On
Eternal Reward and Punishment, and on Nirvana
Q. It is hardly necessary,
I suppose, to ask you whether you believe in the Christian dogmas of Paradise
and Hell, or in future rewards and punishments as taught by the Orthodox churches?
A. As described in your catechisms,
we reject them absolutely; least of all would we accept their eternity. But
we believe firmly in what we call the Law of Retribution, and in the
absolute justice and wisdom guiding this Law, or Karma. Hence we positively
refuse to accept the cruel and unphilosophical belief in eternal reward or eternal
punishment. We say with Horace:
Let rules be fixed that may our rage
contain,
And punish faults with a proportioned
pain;
But do not flay him who deserves
alone
A whipping for the fault that he
has done.
This is a rule for all men, and a
just one. Have we to believe that God, of whom you make the embodiment of wisdom,
love and mercy, is less entitled to these attributes than mortal man?
Q. Have you any other reasons
for rejecting this dogma?
A. Our chief reason for it lies in
the fact of reincarnation. As already stated, we reject the idea of a new soul
created for every newly-born babe. We believe that every human being is the
bearer, or Vehicle, of an Ego coeval with every other Ego; because
all Egos are of the same essence and belong to the primeval emanation
from one universal infinite Ego. Plato calls the latter
the logos
(or the second manifested God); and we, the manifested divine principle, which
is one with the universal mind or soul, not the anthropomorphic, extra-cosmic
and personal God in which so many Theists believe. Pray do not confuse.
Q. But where is the difficulty,
once you accept a manifested principle, in believing that the soul of every
new mortal is created by that Principle, as all the Souls before it have
been so created?
A. Because that
which is impersonal
can hardly create, plan and think, at its own sweet will
and pleasure. Being a universal Law, immutable in
its periodical manifestations, those of radiating and manifesting
its own essence at the beginning of every new cycle of life,
it is not supposed to create men, only to repent a few years
later of having created them. If we have to believe in a
divine principle at all, it must be in one which is as absolute
harmony, logic, and justice, as it is absolute love, wisdom,
and impartiality; and a God who would create every
soul for the space of one brief span of life, regardless
of the fact whether it has to animate the body of a wealthy,
happy man, or that of a poor suffering wretch, hapless
from birth to death though he has done nothing to deserve
his cruel fate — would be rather a senseless fiend than
a God. Why, even the Jewish philosophers, believers in
the Mosaic Bible (esoterically, of course), have never
entertained such an idea; and, moreover, they believed in
reincarnation, as we do.
Q. Can you give me some instances
as a proof of this?
A. Most decidedly I can. Philo Judaeus
says:
The air is full of them (of souls);
those which are nearest the earth, descending to be tied to mortal bodies, palindromousi
authis , return to other bodies, being desirous to live in them.
In The Zohar, the soul is
made to plead her freedom before God:
Lord of the Universe! I am happy
in this world, and do not wish to go into another world, where I shall be a
handmaid, and be exposed to all kinds of pollution.
The doctrine of
fatal necessity, the everlasting immutable law, is asserted
in the answer of the Deity: “Against
thy will thou becomest an embryo, and against thy will thou
art born”. Light
would be incomprehensible without darkness to make it manifest
by contrast; good would be no longer good without evil
to show the priceless nature of the boon; and so personal
virtue could claim no merit, unless it had passed through
the furnace of temptation. Nothing is eternal and unchangeable,
save the concealed Deity. Nothing that is finite — whether
because it had a beginning, or must have an end — can
remain stationary. It must either progress or recede; and
a soul which thirsts after a reunion with its spirit, which
alone confers upon it immortality, must purify itself through
cyclic transmigrations onward toward the only land of
bliss and eternal rest, called in The Zohar,“The
Palace of Love” ; in the Hindu religion, “Moksha”; among the Gnostics, “The
Pleroma of Eternal Light”; and by the Buddhists, “Nirvana”. And
all these states are temporary, not eternal.
Q. Yet there is no reincarnation
spoken of in all this.
A. A soul which pleads to be allowed
to remain where she is, must be preexistent,and not have been created
for the occasion. In The Zohar,however, there is a
still better proof. Speaking of the reincarnating Egos (the rational souls), those
whose last personality has to fade out entirely, it is said:
All souls which
have alienated themselves in heaven from the Holy One — blessed
be His Name — have thrown themselves into an abyss
at their very existence, and have anticipated the time
when they are to descend once more on earth.
“The Holy One” means here, esoterically,
the Atma, or Atma-Buddhi.
Q. Moreover, it is very strange
to find Nirvana spoken of as something synonymous with the Kingdom of
Heaven, or the Paradise, since according to every Orientalist of note Nirvana
is a synonym of annihilation!
A. Taken literally,
with regard to the personality and differentiated matter,
not otherwise. These ideas on reincarnation and the trinity
of man were held by many of the early Christian Fathers.
It is the jumble made by the translators of the New Testament
and ancient philosophical treatises between soul and spirit,
that has occasioned the many misunderstandings. It is
also one of the many reasons why Buddha, Plotinus, and
so many other Initiates are now accused of having longed
for the total extinction of their souls — “absorption
unto the Deity”, or “reunion with the universal
soul”, meaning,
according to modern ideas, annihilation. The personal
soul must, of course, be disintegrated into its particles,
before it is able to link its purer essence forever with
the immortal spirit. But the translators of both the Acts and
the Epistles,who
laid the foundation of the Kingdom of Heaven, and
the modern commentators on the Buddhist Sutra of the
Foundation of the Kingdom of Righteousness,
have muddled the sense of the great apostle of Christianity
as of the great reformer of India. The former have smothered
the word psuchikos , so that no reader imagines it to have
any relation with soul; and with this confusion of
soul and spirit together, Bible readers
get only a perverted sense of anything on the subject. On
the other hand, the interpreters of Buddha have failed to
understand the meaning and object of the Buddhist four degrees
of Dhyana. Ask the Pythagoreans, “Can that spirit,
which gives life and motion and partakes of the nature of
light, be reduced to nonentity?”. “Can even that
sensitive spirit in brutes which exercises memory, one of
the rational faculties, die and become nothing?” observe
the Occultists. In Buddhist philosophy annihilation
means only a dispersion of matter, in whatever form or semblance of
form it may be, for everything that has form is temporary,
and is, therefore, really an illusion. For in eternity the
longest periods of time are as a wink of the eye. So with
form. Before we have time to realize that we have seen it,
it is gone like an instantaneous flash of lightning, and
passed forever. When the Spiritual entity breaks
loose forever from every particle of matter, substance,
or form, and rebecomes a Spiritual breath: then only does
it enter upon the eternal and unchangeable Nirvana, lasting
as long as the cycle of life has lasted — an eternity,
truly. And then that Breath, existing in
Spirit, is nothing because it is all;as
a form, a semblance, a shape, it is completely annihilated;
as absolute Spirit it still is,
for it has become Be-ness itself. The very word used, “absorbed
in the universal essence”, when spoken of the “Soul” as
Spirit, means “union with”.
It can never mean annihilation, as that would mean eternal
separation.
Q. Do you not lay yourself
open to the accusation of preaching annihilation by the language you yourself
use? You have just spoken of the Soul of man returning to its primordial elements.
A. But you forget
that I have given you the differences between the various
meanings of the word Soul, and
shown the loose way in which the term Spirit has been
hitherto translated. We speak of an animal, a human, and
a spiritual, Soul, and
distinguish between them. Plato, for instance, calls “rational
Soul” that which
we call Buddhi, adding to it the adjective of “spiritual”, however;
but that which we call the reincarnating Ego, Manas, he
calls Spirit, Nous,etc.,
whereas we apply the term Spirit, when standing alone
and without any qualification, to Atma alone. Pythagoras
repeats our archaic doctrine when stating that the Ego (Nous)
is eternal with Deity; that the soul only passed through
various stages to arrive at divine excellence; while thumos
returned to the earth, and even the phren, the lower Manas,was
eliminated. Again, Plato defines Soul (Buddhi) as “the
motion that is able to move itself”. “Soul”, he adds
(Laws X.), “is the most ancient of all
things, and the commencement of motion”, thus calling Atma-Buddhi “Soul”,
and
Manas “Spirit”, which we do not.
Soul was generated prior to body,
and body is posterior and secondary, as being according to nature, ruled over
by the ruling soul. The soul which administers all things that are moved in
every way, administers likewise the heavens.
Soul then leads
everything in heaven, and on earth, and in the sea, by
its movements — the names of which are, to will,
to consider to take care of, to consult. to form opinions
true and false, to be in a state of joy, sorrow, confidence,
fear, hate, love, together with all such primary movements
as are allied to these … Being a goddess herself,
she ever takes as an ally Nous, a god, and disciplines
all things correctly and happily; but when with Annoia — not nous — it
works out everything the contrary.
In this language,
as in the Buddhist texts, the negative is treated as essential
existence. Annihilation comes
under a similar exegesis. The positive state is essential
being, but no manifestation as such. When the spirit,
in Buddhist parlance, enters Nirvana, it loses
objective existence, but retains subjective being. To objective
minds this is becoming absolute “nothing”; to subjective,
No-thing, nothing to be displayed to sense. Thus, their
Nirvana means the certitude of individual immortality
in Spirit, not in Soul, which, though “the most ancient
of all things”,
is still — along with all the other Gods — a
finite emanation, in forms
and individuality, if not in substance.
Q. I do not quite seize the
idea yet, and would be thankful to have you explain this to me by some illustrations.
A. No doubt it is very difficult
to understand, especially to one brought up in the regular orthodox ideas of
the Christian Church. Moreover, I must tell you one. thing; and this is that
unless you have studied thoroughly well the separate functions assigned to all
the human principles and the state of all these after death, you will
hardly realize our Eastern philosophy.
On
the Various Principles in Man
Q. I have heard a good deal
about this constitution of the “inner man” as you call it, but could never make
“head or tail on't” as Gabalis expresses it.
A. Of course, it is most difficult,
and, as you say, “puzzling” to understand correctly and distinguish between
the various aspects,called by us the principles of the real Ego. It is
the more so as there exists a notable difference in the numbering of those principles
by various Eastern schools, though at the bottom there is the same identical
substratum of teaching.
Q. Do you mean the Vedantins,
as an instance? Don't they divide your seven principles into five only?
1.They do; but
though I would not presume to dispute the point with a
learned Vedantin, I may yet state as my private opinion
that they have an obvious reason for it. With them it is
only that compound spiritual aggregate which consists
of various mental aspects that is called Man at
all, the physical body being in their view something beneath
contempt, and merely an illusion. Nor is the Vedanta
the only philosophy to reckon in this manner. Lao-tzu,
in his Tao Te Ching, mentions
only five principles, because he, like the Vedantins, omits
to include two principles, namely, the spirit ( Atma)
and the physical body, the latter of which, moreover,
he calls “the cadaver”. Then there is the Taraka
Raja-Yoga School. Its
teaching recognizes only three principles in fact; but then,
in reality, their
Sthulopadhi, or the physical body, in its waking conscious
state, their
Sukshmopadhi, the same body in Svapna,or the
dreaming state, and their Karanopadhi or “causal
body”, or that which passes from one incarnation
to another, are all dual in their aspects, and thus make
six. Add to this Atma, the impersonal divine principle or
the immortal element in Man, undistinguished from the Universal
Spirit, and you have the same seven again. They are welcome
to hold to their division; we hold to ours.
[See 'Secret Doctrine', part 1, p.
182 for a clearer exposition]
Q. Then it seems almost the
same as the division made by the mystic Christians: body, soul, and spirit?
A. Just the same. We could easily
make of the body the vehicle of the “vital Double”; of the latter the vehicle
of Life or Prana; of Kamarupa,or (animal) soul, the vehicle of
the higher and the lower mind, and make of this six principles,
crowning the whole with the one immortal spirit. In Occultism every qualitative
change in the state of our consciousness gives to man a new aspect, and if it
prevails and becomes part of the living and acting Ego, it must be (and is)
given a special name, to distinguish the man in that particular state from the
man he is when he places himself in another state.
Q. It is just that which it
is so difficult to understand.
A. It seems to
me very easy, on the contrary, once that you have seized
the main idea,i.e., that man acts
on this or another plane of consciousness, in strict accordance
with his mental and spiritual condition. But such is the
materialism of the age that the more we explain the less
people seem capable of understanding what we say. Divide
the terrestrial being called man into three chief aspects,
if you like, and unless you make of him a pure animal
you cannot do less. Take his objective
body; the thinking principle in him — which
is only a little higher than the instinctual element
in the animal — or the vital conscious soul; and that
which places him so immeasurably beyond and higher than the
animal — i.e.,his
reasoning soul or “spirit”. Well, if we take these
three groups or representative entities, and subdivide them,
according to the occult teaching, what do we get?
First of all,
Spirit (in the sense of the Absolute, and therefore, indivisible
All), or Atma. As this can neither be located nor limited
in philosophy, being simply that which is in Eternity,
and which cannot be absent from even the tiniest geometrical
or mathematical point of the universe of matter or substance,
it ought not to be called, in truth, a “human” principle
at all. Rather, and at best, it is in Metaphysics, that
point in space which the human Monad and its vehicle man
occupy for the period of every life. Now that point is
as imaginary as man himself, and in reality is an illusion,
a Maya ; but then for ourselves, as for other
personal Egos, we are a reality during that fit of illusion
called life, and we have to take ourselves into account,
in our own fancy at any rate, if no one else does. To
make it more conceivable to the human intellect, when first
attempting the study of Occultism, and to solve the a-b-c
of the mystery of man, Occultism calls this seventh principle
the synthesis of the sixth, and gives it for vehicle the Spiritual
Soul, Buddhi. Now
the latter conceals a mystery, which is never given to
any one, with the exception of irrevocably pledged Chelas, or
those, at any rate, who can be safely trusted. Of course,
there would be less confusion, could it only be told;
but, as this is directly concerned with the power of projecting
one's double consciously and at will, and as this gift,
like the “ring of Gyges”, would prove very fatal
to man at large and to the possessor of that faculty in
particular, it is carefully guarded. But let us proceed
with the principles. This divine soul, or Buddhi, then,
is the vehicle of the Spirit. In conjunction, these two
are one, impersonal and without any attributes (on this
plane, of course), and make two spiritual principles.
If we pass onto the Human Soul, Manas or mens, everyone
will agree that the intelligence of man is dual to
say the least: e.g.,
the high-minded man can hardly become low-minded; the very
intellectual and spiritual-minded man is separated by an
abyss from the obtuse, dull, and material, if not animal-minded
man.
Q. But why should not man
be represented by two principles or two aspects, rather?
A. Every man has
these two principles in him, one more active than the
other, and in rare cases, one of these is entirely stunted
in its growth, so to say, or paralysed by the strength
and predominance of the other aspect, in whatever
direction. These, then, are what we call the two principles
or aspects of Manas, the higher and the lower; the
former, the higher Manas, or the thinking, conscious Ego
gravitating toward the spiritual Soul (Buddhi); and the
latter, or its instinctual principle, attracted to Kama,the
seat of animal desires and passions in man. Thus, we have
four
principles justified; the last three being (1) the “Double”, which
we have agreed to call Protean, or Plastic Soul; the vehicle
of (2) the life principle;
and (3) the physical body. Of course no physiologist or biologist
will accept these principles, nor can he make head or tail
of them. And this is why, perhaps, none of them understand
to this day either the functions of the spleen, the physical
vehicle of the Protean Double, or those of a certain organ
on the right side of man, the seat of the above-mentioned
desires, nor yet does he know anything of the pineal gland,
which he describes as a horny gland with a little sand in
it, which gland is in truth the very seat of the highest
and divinest consciousness in man, his omniscient, spiritual
and all-embracing mind. And this shows to you still more
plainly that we have neither invented these seven principles,
nor are they new in the world of philosophy, as we can easily
prove.
Q. But what is it that reincarnates,
in your belief?
A. The Spiritual
thinking Ego, the permanent principle in man, or that
which is the seat of Manas. It is
not Atma, or even Atma-Buddhi, regarded as the dual Monad, which
is the
individual, or divine man, but Manas; for Atma
is the Universal All, and becomes the Higher-Self of man
only in conjunction with Buddhi,
its vehicle, which links it to the individuality (or divine
man). For it is the Buddhi-Manas which is called the Causal
body,(the United fifth and
sixth Principles) and which is Consciousness,that
connects it with every personality it inhabits on earth.
Therefore, Soul being a generic term, there are in men three aspects
of
Soul — the terrestrial, or animal; the Human
Soul; and the Spiritual Soul; these, strictly speaking, are
one Soul in its three aspects. Now of the first aspect,
nothing remains after death; of the second (nous or
Manas) only its divine essence if left unsoiled survives,
while the third in addition to being immortal becomes consciously divine,
by the assimilation of the higher Manas. But to make it
clear, we have to say a few words first of all about Reincarnation.
Q. You will do well, as it
is against this doctrine that your enemies fight the most ferociously.
A. You mean the
Spiritualists? I know; and many are the absurd objections
laboriously spun by them over the pages of Light. So
obtuse and malicious are some of them, that they will stop
at nothing. One of them found recently a contradiction,
which he gravely discusses in a letter to that journal,
in two statements picked out of Mr. Sinnett's lectures.
He discovers that grave contradiction in these two sentences: “Premature
returns to earth-life in the cases when they occur may
be due to Karmic complication
… ”; and “there is no accident in the
supreme act of divine justice guiding evolution. .So profound
a thinker would surely see a contradiction of the law of
gravitation if a man stretched out his hand to stop a falling
stone from crushing the head of a child!
On
Reincarnation or Rebirth
What
is Memory According to Theosophical Teaching?
Q. The most difficult thing
for you to do, will be to explain and give reasonable grounds for such a belief.
No Theosophist has ever yet succeeded in bringing forward a single valid proof
to shake my skepticism. First of all, you have against this theory of reincarnation,
the fact that no single man has yet been found to remember that he has lived,
least of all who he was, during his previous life.
A. Your argument, I see, tends to
the same old objection; the loss of memory in each of us of our previous incarnation.
You think it invalidates our doctrine? My answer is that it does not, and that
at any rate such an objection cannot be final.
Q. I would like to hear your
arguments.
A. They are short
and few. Yet when you take into consideration (a) the
utter inability of the best modern psychologists to explain
to the world the nature of mind; and (b) their complete
ignorance of its potentialities, and higher states, you
have to admit that this objection is based on an a
priori conclusion drawn from prima facie and
circumstantial evidence more than anything else. Now what
is “memory” in your conception, pray?
Q. That which is generally
accepted: the faculty in our mind of remembering and of retaining the knowledge
of previous thoughts, deeds, and events.
A. Please add to it that there is
a great difference between the three accepted forms of memory. Besides memory
in general you have Remembrance, Recollection,and Reminiscence,
have you not? Have you ever thought over the difference? Memory, remember, is
a generic name.
Q. Yet, all these are only
synonyms.
A. Indeed, they
are not — not in philosophy,
at all events. Memory is simply an innate power in thinking
beings, and even in animals, of reproducing past impressions
by an association of ideas principally suggested by objective
things or by some action on our external sensory organs.
Memory is a faculty depending entirely on the more or
less healthy and normal functioning of our physical brain;
and remembrance andrecollection
are the attributes and handmaidens of that memory. But reminiscence is
an entirely different thing. Reminiscence is defined
by the modern psychologist as something intermediate between remembrance and recollection,or
“a conscious process of recalling past occurrences,
but without
that full and varied reference to particular things
which characterizes recollection”.
Locke, speaking of recollection and remembrance, says:
When an idea again recurs
without the operation of the like object on the external sensory, it is remembrance;if
it be sought after by the mind, and with pain and endeavor found and brought
again into view, it is recollection.
But even Locke
leaves reminiscence
without any clear definition, because it is no faculty or
attribute of our physical
memory, but an intuitional perception apart from and outside
our physical brain; a perception which, covering as it does
(being called into action by the ever-present knowledge
of our spiritual Ego) all those visions in man which are
regarded as abnormal — from the pictures suggested
by genius to the ravings
of fever and even madness — are classed by science
as having no existence
outside of our fancy. Occultism and Theosophy, however, regard reminiscence
in an entirely different light. For us, while memory is
physical and evanescent and depends on the physiological
conditions of the brain — a fundamental proposition
with all teachers of mnemonics, who have the researches of
modern scientific psychologists to back them — we call reminiscence
thememory
of the soul. And it is this memory which gives
the assurance to almost every human being, whether he
understands it or not, of his having lived before and
having to live again. Indeed, as Wordsworth has it:
Our birth is but a sleep and a
forgetting,
The soul that rises with
us, our life's star,
Hath elsewhere had its setting,
And cometh from afar.
Q. If it
is on this kind of memory — poetry and abnormal
fancies, on your own confession — that you base your
doctrine, then you will convince very few, I am afraid.
A. I did not “confess” it was a fancy.
I simply said that physiologists and scientists in general regard such reminiscences
as hallucinations and fancy, to which learned conclusion they are welcome.
We do not deny that such visions of the past and glimpses far back into the
corridors of time, are not abnormal, as contrasted with our normal daily life
experience and physical memory. But we do maintain with Professor W. Knight,
that: The absence of memory of any action done in a previous state cannot be
a conclusive argument against our having lived through it.
And every fair-minded opponent must
agree with what is said in Butler's Lectures on Platonic Philosophy:
That the feeling of extravagance
with which it (preexistence) affects us has its secret source in materialistic
or semi-materialistic prejudices.
Besides which we maintain that memory,
as Olympiodorus called it, is simply fantasy, and the most unreliable
thing in us.
Say Olympiodorus, in Platonis
Phaed.:
The fantasy is an impediment to our
intellectual conceptions; and hence, when we are agitated by the inspiring influence
of the Divinity, if the fantasy intervenes, the enthusiastic energy ceases:
for enthusiasm and the ecstasy are contrary to each other. Should it be asked
whether the soul is able to energize without the fantasy, we reply, that its
perception of universals proves that it is able. It has perceptions, therefore,
independent of the fantasy; at the same time, however, the fantasy attends in
its energies, just as a storm pursues him who sails on the sea.
Ammonius Saccas asserted that the
only faculty in man directly opposed to prognostication, or looking into futurity,
is memory. Furthermore, remember that memory is one thing and mind or
thought is another; one is a recording machine, a register which very
easily gets out of order; the other (thoughts) are eternal and imperishable.
Would you refuse to believe in the existence of certain things or men only because
your physical eyes have not seen them? Would not the collective testimony of
past generations who have seen him be a sufficient guarantee that Julius Caesar
once lived? Why should not the same testimony of the psychic senses of the masses
be taken into consideration ?
Q. But don't you think that
these are too fine distinctions to be accepted by the majority of mortals?
A. Say rather by the majority of
materialists. And to them we say, behold: even in the short span of ordinary
existence, memory is too weak to register all the events of a lifetime. How
frequently do even most important events lie dormant in our memory until awakened
by some association of ideas, or aroused to function and activity by some other
link. This is especially the case with people of advanced age, who are always
found suffering from feebleness of recollection. When, therefore, we remember
that which we know about the physical and the spiritual principles in man, it
is not the fact that our memory has failed to record our precedent life and
lives that ought to surprise us, but the contrary, were it to happen.
Why
Do We Not Remember Our Past Lives?
Q. You have given me a bird's
eye view of the seven principles; now how do they account for our complete loss
of any recollection of having lived before?
A. Very easily.
Since those principles which we call physical, and none
of which is denied by science, though it calls them by
other names — namely, the body, life, passional and
animal instincts, and the astral eidolon of every man
(whether perceived in thought or our mind's eye, or objectively
and separate from the physical body), which principles
we call Sthula-sharira, Prana, Kamarupa, and Linga-sharira (see
above).
[Those principles] are disintegrated
after death with their constituent elements, memory along with its brain,
this vanished memory of a vanished personality, can neither remember nor record
anything in the subsequent reincarnation of the Ego. Reincarnation means that
this Ego will be furnished with a new body, a new brain, and a
new memory. Therefore it would be as absurd to expect this memory
to remember that which it has never recorded as it would be idle to examine
under a microscope a shirt never worn by a murderer, and seek on it for the
stains of blood which are to be found only on the clothes he wore. It is not
the clean shirt that we have to question, but the clothes worn during the perpetration
of the crime; and if these are burnt and destroyed, how can you get at them?
Q. Aye! How can you get at
the certainty that the crime was ever committed at all, or that the “man in
the clean shirt” ever lived before?
A. Not by physical processes, most
assuredly; nor by relying on the testimony of that which exists no longer. But
there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence, since our wise laws accept
it, more, perhaps, even than they should. To get convinced of the fact of reincarnation
and past lives, one must put oneself in rapport with one's real permanent
Ego, not one's evanescent memory.
Q. But how can people believe
in that which they do not know, nor have ever seen, far less put themselves
in rapport with it?
A. If people,
and the most learned, will believe in the Gravity, Ether,
Force, and what not of Science, abstractions
“and working hypotheses”, which they have neither seen,
touched, smelt, heard, nor tasted — why should not
other people believe, on the same principle, in one's permanent
Ego, a far more logical and important “working hypothesis” than
any other?
Q. What is, finally, this
mysterious eternal principle? Can you explain its nature so as to make it comprehensible
to all?
A. The Ego which
reincarnates, the
individual and immortal — not personal —“I”;
the vehicle, in short, of the Atma-Buddhic Monad, that which
is rewarded in Devachan and punished on earth, and that,
finally, to which the reflection only of the Skandhas, or
attributes, of every incarnation attaches itself.
There are five Skandhas or
attributes in the Buddhist teachings: Rupa (form or body), material qualities;Vedana
, sensation; Sanna , abstract ideas; Samkhara,tendencies of
mind; Vinnana, mental powers. Of these we are formed, by them we are
conscious of existence; and through them communicate with the world about us.
Q. What do you mean by
Skandhas?
A. Just what I
said: “attributes”,
among which is memory, all of which perish like a
flower, leaving behind them only a feeble perfume. Here
is another paragraph from H.S. Olcott's Buddhist
Catechism which bears directly upon the subject. It deals
with the question as follows:
The aged man remembers
the incidents of his youth, despite his being physically
and mentally changed. Why, then, is not the recollection
of past lives brought over by us from our last birth into
the present birth? Because memory is included within the
Skandhas, and the Skandhas having changed with the new
existence, a memory, the record of that particular existence,
develops. Yet the record or reflection of all the past
lives must survive, for when Prince Siddhartha became Buddha,
the full sequence of His previous births were seen by
Him … and any one who attains
to the state of Jñana can thus retrospectively
trace the line of his lives.
This proves to
you that while the undying qualities of the personality — such
as love, goodness, charity, etc.— attach themselves
to the immortal Ego, photographing on it, so to speak,
a permanent image of the divine aspect of the man who was,
his material Skandhas (those which generate the most marked
Karmic effects) are as evanescent as a flash of lightning,
and cannot impress the new brain of the new personality;
yet their failing to do so impairs in no way the identity
of the reincarnating Ego.
Q. Do you mean to infer that
which survives is only the Soul-memory, as you call it, that Soul or Ego being
one and the same, while nothing of the personality remains?
A. Not quite; something of each personality,
unless the latter was an absolute materialist with not even a chink in
his nature for a spiritual ray to pass through, must survive, as it leaves its
eternal impress on the incarnating permanent Self or Spiritual Ego. (Or the
Spiritual,in contradistinction to the personal Self. The student
must not confuse this Spiritual Ego with the “higher self” which is Atma,
the God within us, and inseparable from the Universal Spirit.)
The personality
with its Skandhas is ever changing with every new birth.
It is, as said before, only the part played by the actor
(the true Ego) for one night. This is why we preserve no
memory on the physical plane of our past lives, though
the real “Ego” has lived them over and knows them all.
Q. Then how does it happen
that the real or Spiritual man does not impress his new personal “I” with this
knowledge?
A. How is it that the servant-girls
in a poor farmhouse could speak Hebrew and play the violin in their trance or
somnambular state, and knew neither when in their normal condition? Because,
as every genuine psychologist of the old, not your modern, school, will tell
you, the Spiritual Ego can act only when the personal Ego is paralyzed. The
Spiritual “I” in man is omniscient and has every knowledge innate in it; while
the personal self is the creature of its environment and the slave of the physical
memory. Could the former manifest itself uninterruptedly, and without impediment,
there would be no longer men on earth, but we should all be gods.
Q. Still there ought to be
exceptions, and some ought to remember.
A. And so there
are. But who believes in their report? Such sensitives
are generally regarded as hallucinated hysteriacs, as
crack-brained enthusiasts, or humbugs, by modern materialism.
Let them read, however, works on this subject, preeminently Reincarnation,
a Study of Forgotten Truth by E.D. Walker, F.T.S.,
and see in it the mass of proofs which the able author
brings to bear on this vexed question. One speaks to people
of soul, and some ask “What is Soul?”. “Have
you ever proved its existence?” Of course
it is useless to argue with those who are materialists. But
even to them I would put the question:
Can you remember what you were or
did when a baby? Have you preserved the smallest recollection of your life,
thoughts, or deeds, or that you lived at all during the first eighteen months
or two years of your existence? Then why not deny that you have ever lived as
a babe, on the same principle?
When to all this we add that the
reincarnating Ego, or individuality, retains during the Devachanic period
merely the essence of the experience of its past earth-life or personality,
the whole physical experience involving into a state of in potentia,
or being, so to speak, translated into spiritual formulae; when we remember
further that the term between two rebirths is said to extend from ten to fifteen
centuries, during which time the physical consciousness is totally and absolutely
inactive, having no organs to act through, and therefore no existence,
the reason for the absence of all remembrance in the purely physical memory
is apparent.
Q. You just said that the
Spiritual Ego was omniscient. Where, then, is that vaunted omniscience during
his Devachanic life, as you call it?
A. During that time it is latent
and potential, because, first of all, the Spiritual Ego (the compound of Buddhi-Manas)
is not the Higher Self, which being one with the Universal Soul or Mind
is alone omniscient; and, secondly, because Devachan is the idealized continuation
of the terrestrial life just left behind, a period of retributive adjustment,
and a reward for unmerited wrongs and sufferings undergone in that special life.
It is omniscient only potentially in Devachan, and de facto exclusively
in Nirvana, when the Ego is merged in the Universal Mind-Soul.
Yet it rebecomes quasi
omniscient during those hours on earth when certain abnormal conditions and
physiological changes in the body make the Ego free from the trammels
of matter. Thus the examples cited above of somnambulists, a poor servant speaking
Hebrew, and another playing the violin, give you an illustration of the case
in point. This does not mean that the explanations of these two facts offered
us by medical science have no truth in them, for one girl had, years before,
heard her master, a clergyman, read Hebrew works aloud, and the other had heard
an artist playing a violin at their farm. But neither could have done so as
perfectly as they did had they not been ensouled by that which, owing to the
sameness of its nature with the Universal Mind, is omniscient. Here the higher
principle acted on the Skandhas and moved them; in the other, the personality
being paralyzed, the individuality manifested itself. Pray do not confuse the
two.
On
Individuality and Personality
Q. But what is the difference
between the two?
A. Even Col. Olcott, forced to it
by the logic of Esoteric philosophy, found himself obliged to correct the mistakes
of previous Orientalists who made no such distinction, and gives the reader
his reasons for it. Thus he says:
The successive
appearances upon the earth, or “descents into generation”,
of the tanhaically coherent parts
(Skandhas) of a certain being, are a succession of personalities.
In each birth the personality differs from that
of a previous or next succeeding birth. Karma, the deus
ex machina, masks (or shall we say reflects?) itself
now in the personality of a sage, again as an artisan,
and so on throughout the string of births. But though
personalities ever shift, the one line of life along which
they are strung, like beads, runs unbroken; it is ever
that particular
line, never any other. It is therefore individual, an
individual vital undulation, which began in Nirvana, or
the subjective side of nature, as the light or heat undulation
through aether, began at its dynamic source; is careering
through the objective side of nature under the impulse of
Karma and the creative direction of Tanha (the unsatisfied
desire for existence); and leads through many cyclic changes
back to Nirvana. Mr. Rhys-Davids calls that which passes
from personality to personality along the individual chain character, or doing. Since
character is not a mere metaphysical abstraction,
but the sum of one's mental qualities and moral propensities,
would it not help to dispel what Mr. Rhys-Davids calls “the
desperate expedient of a mystery” if we regarded the
life-undulation as individuality, and each of its series
of natal manifestations as a separate personality? The perfect
individual, Buddhist speaking, is a Buddha, I should say;
for Buddha is but the rare flower of humanity, without the
least supernatural admixture. And as countless generations
(“four asankheyyas
and a hundred thousand cycles”) are required to develop
a man into a
Buddha, and the iron will to become one runs throughout
all the successive births, what shall we call that which
thus wills and perseveres? Character? One's individuality:
an individuality but partly manifested in any one birth,
but built up of fragments from all the births?
Q. I confess that I am still
in the dark. Indeed it is just that difference, then, that you cannot impress
too much on our minds.
A. I try to; but alas, it is harder
with some than to make them feel a reverence for childish impossibilities, only
because they are orthodox,and because orthodoxy is respectable. To understand
the idea well, you have to first study the dual sets of principles: the spiritual,or
those which belong to the imperishable Ego; and the material,or those
principles which make up the ever-changing bodies or the series of personalities
of that Ego. Let us fix permanent names to these, and say that:
1. Atma, the “Higher
Self”,
is neither your Spirit nor mine, but like sunlight shines
on all. It is the universally diffused “divine
principle”, and
is inseparable from its one and absolute Meta-Spirit,
as the sunbeam is inseparable from sunlight.
2. Buddhi (the spiritual soul)
is only its vehicle. Neither each separately, nor the two collectively, are
of any more use to the body of man, than sunlight and its beams are for a mass
of granite buried in the earth, unless the divine Duad is assimilated by,
and reflected in, some consciousness .Neither Atma nor Buddhi are
ever reached by Karma, because the former is the highest aspect of Karma, its
working agent of itself in one aspect, and the other is unconscious on
this plane. This consciousness or mind is,
3. Manas, the
derivation or product in a reflected form of Ahankara, “the
conception of I”, or Ego-ship.
It is, therefore, when inseparably united to the first two,
called the Spiritual Ego, and Taijasi (the radiant).
This is the real Individuality, or the divine man. It
is this Ego which — having originally incarnated
in the senseless
human form animated by, but unconscious (since it had no
consciousness) of, the presence in itself of the dual monad — made
of that human-like form a real
man.
Mahat or the “Universal
Mind” is
the source of Manas. The latter is Mahat, i.e., mind,
in man. Manas is also called Kshetrajña, “embodied
Spirit”, because it is, according
to our philosophy, the Manasaputras,or “Sons
of the Universal Mind”,
who created,or rather produced, the thinking man, “manu”,
by incarnating in the third Race mankind in our Round.
It is Manas, therefore, which is the real incarnating and
permanent Spiritual Ego, the individuality,
and our various and numberless personalities only its external
masks.
It is that Ego,
that “Causal Body”,
which overshadows every personality Karma forces it to incarnate
into; and this Ego which is held responsible for all the
sins committed through, and in, every new body or personality — he
evanescent masks which hide the true Individual through
the long series of rebirths.
Q. But is this just? Why should
this Ego receive punishment as the result of deeds which it has forgotten?
A. It has not forgotten them; it
knows and remembers its misdeeds as well as you remember what you have done
yesterday. Is it because the memory of that bundle of physical compounds called
“body” does not recollect what its predecessor (the personality that was)
did, that you imagine that the real Ego has forgotten them? As well say it is
unjust that the new boots on the feet of a boy, who is flogged for stealing
apples, should be punished for that which they know nothing of.
Q. But are there no modes
of communication between the Spiritual and human consciousness or memory?
A. Of course there
are; but they have never been recognized by your scientific
modern psychologists. To what do you attribute intuition,
the “voice of the conscience”, premonitions, vague
undefined reminiscences, etc., etc., if not to such communications?
Would that the majority of educated men, at least, had
the fine spiritual perceptions of Coleridge, who shows
how intuitional he is in some of his comments. Hear what
he says with respect to the probability that “all
thoughts are in themselves imperishable”.
If the intelligent faculty (sudden
'revivals' of memory) should be rendered more comprehensive, it would require
only a different and appropriate organization, the body
celestial instead
of the body terrestrial, to bring before every human soul the collective
experience of its whole past existence(existences, rather).
And this body celestial is
our Manasic Ego.
On
the Reward and Punishment of the Ego
Q. I have heard you say that
the Ego, whatever the life of the person he incarnated in may have been on Earth,
is never visited with postmortem punishment.
A. Never, save in very exceptional
and rare cases of which we will not speak here, as the nature of the “punishment” in no way approaches any of your theological conceptions of damnation.
Q. But if it is punished in
this life for the misdeeds committed in a previous one, then it is this Ego
that ought to be rewarded also, whether here, or when disincarnated.
A. And so it is. If we do not admit
of any punishment outside of this earth, it is because the only state the Spiritual
Self knows of, hereafter, is that of unalloyed bliss.
Q. What do you mean?
A. Simply this: crimes and sins
committed on a plane of objectivity and in a world of matter, cannot receive
punishment in a world of pure subjectivity.We believe
in no hell or paradise as localities; in no objective hell
fires and worms that never die, nor in any Jerusalem with
streets paved with sapphires and diamonds. What we believe
in is a postmortem state or mental condition, such as we are in during a
vivid dream. We believe in an immutable law of absolute Love, Justice, and Mercy.
And believing in it, we say: Whatever the sin and dire results of the original
Karmic transgression of the now incarnated Egos no man (or the outer material
and periodical form of the Spiritual Entity) can be held, with any degree of
justice, responsible for the consequences of his birth. He does not ask to be
born, nor can he choose the parents that will give him life. In every respect
he is a victim to his environment, the child of circumstances over which he
has no control; and if each of his transgressions were impartially investigated,
there would be found nine out of every ten cases when he was the one sinned
against, rather than the sinner.
It is on this transgression that
the cruel and illogical dogma of the Fallen Angels has been built. It is explained
in Vol. II of The Secret Doctrine. All our “Egos” are thinking and rational
entities (Manasaputas) who had lived, whether under human or other forms,
in the precedent life cycle (Manvantara), and whose Karma it was to incarnate
in the man of this one. It was taught in the Mysteries that, having delayed
to comply with this law (or having “refused to create” as Hinduism says of the
Kumaras and Christian legend of the Archangel Michael), i.e.,
having failed to incarnate in due time, the bodies predestined for them got
defiled, hence the original sin of the senseless forms and the punishment of
the Egos. That which is meant by the rebellious angels being hurled down
into Hell is simply explained by these pure Spirits or Egos being imprisoned
in bodies of unclean matter, flesh.
Life is at best a heartless play,
a stormy sea to cross, and a heavy burden often too difficult to bear. The greatest
philosophers have tried in vain to fathom and find out its raison d'être,
and have all failed except those who had the key to it, namely, the Eastern
sages. Life is, as Shakespeare describes it:
… but a
walking shadow — a poor
player,
That struts and frets his hour upon
the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is
a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury,
Signifying nothing.
Nothing in its
separate parts, yet of the greatest importance in its
collectivity or series of lives. At any rate, almost every
individual life is, in its full development, a sorrow.
And are we to believe that poor, helpless man, after being
tossed about like a piece of rotten timber on the angry
billows of life, is, if he proves too weak to resist them,
to be punished by never-ending damnation, or even a temporary
punishment? Never! Whether a great or an average sinner,
good or bad, guilty or innocent, once delivered of the
burden of physical life, the tired and worn-out Manu (“thinking
Ego”) has won the right to a period of absolute rest and
bliss. The same unerringly wise and just rather than
merciful Law, which inflicts upon the incarnated Ego
the Karmic punishment for every sin committed during the
preceding life on Earth, provided for the now disembodied
Entity a long lease of mental rest, i.e.,
the entire oblivion of every sad event, aye, to the smallest
painful thought, that took place in its last life as a personality,
leaving in the soul-memory but the reminiscence of that
which was bliss, or led to happiness. Plotinus, who said
that our body was the true river of Lethe, for “souls
plunged into it forget all”, meant more than he said. For,
as our terrestrial body is like Lethe, so is our celestial
body in
Devachan, and much more.
Q. Then am I to understand
that the murderer, the transgressor of law divine and human in every shape,
is allowed to go unpunished?
A. Who ever said that? Our philosophy
has a doctrine of punishment as stern as that of the most rigid Calvinist, only
far more philosophical and consistent with absolute justice. No deed, not even
a sinful thought, will go unpunished; the latter more severely even than the
former, as a thought is far more potential in creating evil results than even
a deed.
Verily I say unto you, that whosoever
looketh at a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already
in his heart.
We believe in an unerring law of
Retribution, called Karma, which asserts itself in a natural concatenation of
causes and their unavoidable results.
Q. And how, or where, does
it act?
A. Every labourer
is worthy of his hire, saith Wisdom in the Gospel; every
action, good or bad, is a prolific parent, saith the Wisdom
of the Ages. Put the two together, and you will find the “why”.
After allowing the Soul, escaped from the pangs of personal
life, a sufficient, aye, a hundredfold compensation, Karma,
with its army of Skandhas, waits at the threshold of Devachan,
whence the Ego reemerges to assume a new incarnation.
It is at this moment that the future destiny of the now-rested
Ego trembles in the scales of just Retribution, as it now
falls once again under the sway of active Karmic law. It
is in this rebirth which is ready for it,
a rebirth selected and prepared by this mysterious, inexorable,
but in the equity and wisdom of its decrees infallible law,
that the sins of the previous life of the Ego are punished.
Only it is into no imaginary Hell, with theatrical flames
and ridiculous tailed and horned devils, that the Ego is
cast, but verily onto this earth, the plane and region of
his sins, where he will have to atone for every bad thought
and deed. As he has sown, so will he reap. Reincarnation
will gather around him all those other Egos who have suffered,
whether directly or indirectly, at the hands, or even through
the unconscious instrumentality, of the past personality. They
will be thrown by Nemesis in the way of the new man,
concealing the old, the eternal Ego, and …
Q. But where is the equity
you speak of, since these new “personalities” are not aware of having
sinned or been sinned against?
A. Has the coat
torn to shreds from the back of the man who stole it,
by another man who was robbed of it and recognizes his
property, to be regarded as fairly dealt with? The new “personality” is
no better than a fresh suit of clothes with its specific
characteristics, color, form, and qualities; but the real man
who wears it is the same culprit as of old. It is the individuality
who
suffers through his “personality”.
And it is this, and this alone, that can account for the
terrible, still only apparent,
injustice in the distribution of lots in life to man. When
your modern philosophers will have succeeded in showing
to us a good reason, why so many apparently innocent and
good men are born only to suffer during a whole lifetime;
why so many are born poor unto starvation in the slums of
great cities, abandoned by fate and men; why, while these
are born in the gutter, others open their eyes to light
in palaces; while a noble birth and fortune seem often given
to the worst of men and only rarely to the worthy; while
there are beggars whose inner
selves are peers to the highest and noblest of men; when
this, and much more, is satisfactorily explained by either
your philosophers or theologians, then only, but not till
then, you will have the right to reject the theory of reincarnation.
The highest and grandest of poets have dimly perceived this
truth of truths. Shelley believed in it, Shakespeare must
have thought of it when writing on the worthlessness of
Birth. Remember his words:
Why should my birth keep down my
mounting spirit?
Are not all creatures subject unto
time?
There's legions now of beggars on
the earth,
That their original did spring from
Kings,
And many monarchs now, whose fathers
were
The riff-raff of their age …
Alter the word fathers into
Egos — and you will have the truth.
On
the Kamaloka and Devachan
On
the Fate of the Lower Principles
Q. You spoke of Kamaloka,what
is it?
A. When the man
dies, his lower three principles leave him forever; i.e., body,
life, and the vehicle of the latter, the astral body or
the double of the living man. And then, his
four principles — the central or middle principle,
the animal soul or Kamarupa,
with what it has assimilated from the lower Manas, and the
higher triad find themselves in Kamaloka. The latter
is an astral locality, the limbus
of scholastic theology, the Hades of the ancients,
and, strictly speaking, a locality only in a relative
sense. It has neither a definite area nor boundary, but
exists within subjective space; i.e., is beyond
our sensuous perceptions. Still it exists, and it is there
that the astral eidolons
of all the beings that have lived, animals included, await
their second death.
For the animals it comes with the disintegration and the
entire fading out of their astral particles to the
last. For the human eidolon it begins
when the Atma-Buddhi-Manasic triad is said to “separate” itself
from its lower principles, or the reflection of the ex-personality, by
falling into the Devachanic state.
Q. And what happens after
this?
A. Then the Kamarupic phantom,
remaining bereft of its informing thinking principle,
the higher Manas,
and the lower aspect of the latter, the animal intelligence,
no longer receiving light from the higher mind, and no longer
having a physical brain to work through, collapses.
Q. In what way?
A. Well, it falls
into the state of the frog when certain portions of its
brain are taken out by the vivisector. It can think no
more, even on the lowest animal plane. Henceforth it is
no longer even the lower Manas, since this “lower” is
nothing without the “higher”.
Q. And
is it this nonentity
which we find materializing in Séance rooms with Mediums?
A. It is this
nonentity. A true nonentity, however, only as to reasoning
or cogitating powers, still an Entity,
however astral and fluidic, as shown in certain cases when,
having been magnetically and unconsciously drawn toward
a medium, it is revived for a time and lives in him by proxy, so
to speak. This “spook”, or the Kamarupa, may be compared
with the jelly-fish, which has an ethereal gelatinous
appearance so long as it is in its own element, or water
(the medium's specific aura), but
which, no sooner is it thrown out of it, than it dissolves
in the hand or on the sand, especially in sunlight. In
the medium's Aura, it lives a kind of vicarious life and
reasons and speaks either through the medium's brain or
those of other persons present. But this would lead us
too far, and upon other people's grounds, whereon I have
no desire to trespass. Let us keep to the subject of reincarnation.
Q. What of the latter? How
long does the incarnating Ego remain in the Devachanic state?
A. This, we are taught, depends on
the degree of spirituality and the merit or demerit of the last incarnation.
The average time is from ten to fifteen centuries, as I already told you.
Q. But why could not this
Ego manifest and communicate with mortals as Spiritualists will have it? What
is there to prevent a mother from communicating with the children she left on
earth, a husband with his wife, and so on? It is a most consoling belief, I
must confess; nor do I wonder that those who believe in it are so averse to
give it up.
A. Nor are they
forced to, unless they happen to prefer truth to fiction,
however “consoling”. Uncongenial our
doctrines may be to Spiritualists; yet, nothing of what we
believe in and teach is half as selfish and cruel as what
they preach.
Q. I do not understand you.
What is selfish?
A. Their doctrine
of the return of Spirits, the real “personalities” as
they say; and I will tell you why. If Devachan — call
it “paradise” if you like, a “place of bliss and of supreme
felicity”. if it
is anything — is such a place (or say state),
logic tells us that no sorrow or even a shade of pain can
be experienced therein. “God shall wipe away all
the tears from the eyes” of those in paradise, we read in
the book of many promises. And if the “Spirits of the dead” are
enabled to return and see all that is happening on earth,
and especially in their homes, what kind of bliss
can be in store for them?
Why
Theosophists Do Not Believe in the Return of Pure “Spirits”
Q. What do you mean? Why should
this interfere with their bliss?
A. Simply this;
and here is an instance. A mother dies, leaving behind
her little helpless children — orphans whom she
adores — perhaps a beloved husband also. We say that
her “Spirit” or Ego — that
individuality which is now all impregnated, for the entire
Devachanic period, with the noblest feelings held by its
late personality,i.e., love for
her children, pity for those who suffer, and so on — we
say that it is now entirely separated from the “vale
of tears”, that
its future bliss consists in that blessed ignorance of all
the woes it left behind. Spiritualists say, on the contrary,
that it is as vividly aware of them, and more so than
before, for “Spirits
see more than mortals in the flesh do”. We say that the bliss
of the Devachanee consists
in its complete conviction that it has never left the earth,
and that there is no such thing as death at all; that the
postmortem spiritual consciousness
of the mother will represent to her that she lives surrounded
by her children and all those whom she loved; that no gap,
no link, will be missing to make her disembodied state the
most perfect and absolute happiness. The Spiritualists deny
this point blank. According to their doctrine, unfortunate
man is not liberated even by death from the sorrows of this
life. Not a drop from the life-cup of pain and suffering
will miss his lips; and whether willing or unwilling, since
he sees everything now, shall he drink it to the bitter
dregs. Thus, the loving wife, who during her lifetime was
ready to save her husband sorrow at the price of her heart's
blood, is now doomed to see, in utter helplessness, his despair,
and to register every hot tear he sheds for her loss. Worse
than that, she may see the tears dry too soon, and another
beloved face shine on him, the father of her children; find
another woman replacing her in his affections; doomed to
hear her orphans giving the holy name of “mother” to
one indifferent to them, and to see those little children
neglected, if not ill-treated. According to this doctrine
the “gentle
wafting to immortal life” becomes without any transition
the way into a new path of mental suffering! And yet, the
columns of the Banner
of Light, the veteran journal of the American Spiritualists,
are filled with messages from the dead, the “dear
departed ones”, who all write to say
how very happy they are! Is such a state of knowledge
consistent with bliss? Then bliss stands in such
a case for the greatest curse, and orthodox damnation must
be a relief in comparison to it!
Q. But how does your theory
avoid this? How can you reconcile the theory of Soul's omniscience with its
blindness to that which is taking place on earth?
A. Because such
is the law of love and mercy. During every Devachanic
period the Ego, omniscient as it is per
se, clothes itself, so to say, with the reflection of
the “personality” that was. I have just told you that the ideal efflorescence
of all the abstract, therefore undying and eternal qualities
or attributes, such as love and mercy, the love of the good,
the true and the beautiful, that ever spoke in the heart
of the living “personality”, clung after death to the
Ego, and therefore followed it to Devachan. For the time
being, then, the Ego becomes the ideal reflection of the
human being it was when last on earth, and that
is not omniscient. Were it that, it would never be in the
state we call Devachan at all.
Q. What are your reasons for
it?
A. If you want
an answer on the strict lines of our philosophy, then
I will say that it is because everything is illusion
(Maya ) outside of eternal truth, which has neither
form, color, nor limitation. He who has placed himself beyond
the veil of Maya — and such are
the highest Adepts and Initiates — can have no Devachan.
As to the ordinary mortal, his bliss in it is complete. It
is an absolute oblivion of all that gave
it pain or sorrow in the past incarnation, and even oblivion
of the fact that such things as pain or sorrow exist at
all. The Devachanee lives its
intermediate cycle between two incarnations surrounded by
everything it had aspired to in vain, and in the companionship
of everyone it loved on earth. It has reached the fulfillment
of all its soul-yearnings. And thus it lives throughout
long centuries an existence of unalloyed happiness,
which is the reward for its sufferings in earth-life. In
short, it bathes in a sea of uninterrupted felicity spanned
only by events of still greater felicity in degree.
Q. But this is more than simple
delusion, it is an existence of insane hallucinations!
A. From your standpoint
it may be, not so from that of philosophy. Besides which,
is not our whole terrestrial life filled with such delusions?
Have you never met men and women living for years in a
fool's paradise? And because you should happen to learn
that the husband of a wife, whom she adores and believes
herself as beloved by him, is untrue to her, would you
go and break her heart and beautiful dream by rudely awakening
her to the reality? I think not. I say it again, such oblivion
and
hallucination — if you call it so — are
only a merciful law of nature and strict justice. At any
rate, it is a far more fascinating prospect than the orthodox
golden harp with a pair of wings. The assurance that
The soul that lives ascends frequently
and runs familiarly through the streets of the heavenly Jerusalem, visiting
the patriarchs and prophets, saluting the apostles, and admiring the army of
martyrs.
— may seem
of a more pious character to some. Nevertheless, it is
a hallucination of a far more delusive character, since
mothers love their children with an immortal love, we all
know, while the personages mentioned in the “heavenly
Jerusalem” are still of a rather doubtful
nature. But I would, still, rather accept the “new
Jerusalem”, with
its streets paved like the show windows of a jeweler's shop,
than find consolation in the heartless doctrine of the Spiritualists.
The idea alone that the intellectual
conscious souls of one's father, mother, daughter, or
brother find their bliss in a “Summerland” — only
a little more natural, but just as ridiculous as the “New
Jerusalem” in
its description — would be enough to make one lose
every respect for one's “departed ones. To believe that
a pure spirit can feel happy while doomed to witness the
sins, mistakes, treachery, and, above all, the sufferings
of those from whom it is severed by death and whom it loves
best, without being able to help them, would be a maddening
thought.
Q. There is something in your
argument. I confess to having never seen it in this light.
A. Just so, and
one must be selfish to the core and utterly devoid of
the sense of retributive justice, to have ever imagined
such a thing. We are with those whom we have lost in material
form, and far, far nearer to them now, than when they
were alive. And it is not only in the fancy of the Devachanee, as
some may imagine, but in reality. For pure divine love
is not merely the blossom of a human heart, but has its
roots in eternity. Spiritual holy love is immortal, and
Karma brings sooner or later all those who loved each
other with such a spiritual affection to incarnate once
more in the same family group. Again we say that love beyond
the grave, illusion though you may call it, has a magic
and divine potency which reacts on the living. A mother's Ego filled
with love for the imaginary children it sees near itself,
living a life of happiness, as real to it
as when on earth — that love will always be felt by
the children in flesh. It will manifest in their dreams,
and often in various events — in providential
protection and escape, for love is a strong shield, and is
not limited by space or time. As with this Devachanic “mother, so
with the rest of human relationships and attachments, save
the purely selfish or material. Analogy will suggest to
you the rest.
Q. In no case, then, do you
admit the possibility of the communication of the living with the disembodied
spirit?
A. Yes, there is a case, and even
two exceptions to the rule.
The first exception
is during the few days that follow immediately the death
of a person and before the Ego
passes into the Devachanic state. Whether any living mortal,
save a few exceptional cases has derived much benefit from
the return of the spirit into the objective
plane is another question. The spirit is dazed after death
and falls very soon into what we call “pre-devachanic unconsciousness. When
the intensity of the desire in the dying person to return
for some purpose forced the higher consciousness to remain
awake,and therefore it was really the individuality,
the “Spirit that communicated.
The second exception is found in
the Nirmanakayas.
Q. What about them? And what
does the name mean for you?
A. It is the name
given to those who, though they have won the right to
Nirvana and cyclic rest have out of pity for mankind and
those they left on earth renounced the Nirvanic state.
This is
not “Devachan, as the latter is an illusion
of our consciousness, a happy dream, and as those who are
fit for Nirvana must have lost entirely every desire or
possibility of the world's illusions.
Such an adept, or Saint, or whatever
you may call him, believing it a selfish act to rest in bliss while mankind
groans under the burden of misery produced by ignorance, renounces Nirvana,
and determines to remain invisible in spirit on this earth. They have
no material body, as they have left it behind; but otherwise they remain with
all their principles even in astral life in our sphere. And such can
and do communicate with a few elect ones, only surely not with ordinary
mediums.
Q. I have put you the question
about Nirmanakayas because I read in some German and other works that
it was the name given to the terrestrial appearances or bodies assumed by Buddhas
in the Northern Buddhist teachings.
A. So they are, only the Orientalists
have confused this terrestrial body by understanding it to be objective
and physical instead of purely astral and subjective.
Q. And what good can they
do on earth?
A. Not much, as regards individuals,
as they have no right to interfere with Karma, and can only advise and inspire
mortals for the general good. Yet they do more beneficent actions than you imagine.
Q. To this Science would never
subscribe, not even modern psychology. For them, no portion of intelligence
can survive the physical brain. What would you answer them?
A. I would not
even go to the trouble of answering, but would simply
say, in the words given to “M.A. Oxon,
Intelligence is perpetuated
after the body is dead. Though it is not a question of the brain only …
It is reasonable to propound the indestructibility of the human spirit from
what we know.
Q. But “M.A. Oxon is a Spiritualist?
A. Quite so, and the only true
Spiritualist I know of, though we may still disagree with him on many a minor
question. Apart from this, no Spiritualist comes nearer to the occult truths
than he does. Like any one of us he speaks incessantly
… of the surface dangers that
beset the ill-equipped, feather-headed muddler with the occult, who crosses
the threshold without counting the cost. Some things that I do know of
Spiritualism and some that I do not.
Our only disagreement
rests in the question of “Spirit Identity. Otherwise,
I, for one, coincide almost entirely with him, and accept
the three propositions he embodied in his address of July,
1884. It is this eminent Spiritualist, rather, who disagrees
with us, not we with him.
Q. What are these propositions?
A. They are:
1. That there is a life coincident
with, and independent of the physical life of the body.
2. That, as a necessary corollary,
this life extends beyond the life of the body. We say it extends throughout
Devachan.
3. That there is communication between
the denizens of that state of existence and those of the world in which we now
live.
All depend, you
see, on the minor and secondary aspects of these fundamental
propositions. Everything depends on the views we take
of Spirit and Soul, or Individuality and Personality.
Spiritualists
confuse the two “into one. We separate them, and
say that, with the exceptions above enumerated, no Spirit
will
revisit the earth, though the animal Soul may. But let
us return once more to our direct subject, the Skandhas.
Q. I begin to understand better
now. It is the Spirit, so to say, of those Skandhas which are the most ennobling,
which, attaching themselves to the incarnating Ego, survive, and are added to
the stock of its angelic experiences. And it is the attributes connected with
the material Skandhas, with selfish and personal motives. which, disappearing
from the field of action between two incarnations, reappear at the subsequent
incarnation as Karmic results to be atoned for; and therefore the Spirit will
not leave Devachan. Is it so?
A. Very nearly so. If you add to
this that the law of retribution, or Karma, rewarding the highest and most spiritual
in Devachan, never fails to reward them again on earth by giving them a further
development, and furnishing the Ego with a body fitted for it, then you will
be quite correct.
A
Few Words About the Skandhas
Q. What becomes of the other,
the lower Skandhas of the personality, after the death of the body? Are they
quite destroyed?
A. They are and
yet they are not — a
fresh metaphysical and occult mystery for you. They are
destroyed as the working stock in hand of the personality;
they remain as Karmic effects, as germs, hanging
in the atmosphere of the terrestrial plane, ready to
come to life, as so many avenging fiends, to attach themselves
to the new personality of the Ego when it reincarnates.
Q. This really passes my comprehension,
and is very difficult to understand.
A. Not once that you have assimilated
all the details. For then you will see that for logic, consistency, profound
philosophy, divine mercy and equity, this doctrine of Reincarnation has not
its equal on earth. It is a belief in a perpetual progress for each incarnating
Ego, or divine soul, in an evolution from the outward into the inward, from
the material to the Spiritual, arriving at the end of each stage at absolute
unity with the divine Principle. From strength to strength, from the beauty
and perfection of one plane to the greater beauty and perfection of another,
with accessions of new glory, of fresh knowledge and power in each cycle, such
is the destiny of every Ego, which thus becomes its own Savior in each world
and incarnation.
Q. But Christianity teaches
the same. It also preaches progression.
A. Yes, only with the addition of
something else. It tells us of the impossibility of attaining Salvation
without the aid of a miraculous Savior, and therefore dooms to perdition all
those who will not accept the dogma. This is just the difference between Christian
theology and Theosophy. The former enforces belief in the Descent of the Spiritual
Ego into the Lower Self; the latter inculcates the necessity of endeavoring
to elevate oneself to the Christos, or Buddhi state.
Q. By teaching the annihilation
of consciousness in case of failure, however, don't you think that it amounts
to the annihilation of Self, a in the opinion of the non-metaphysical?
A. From the standpoint
of those who believe in the resurrection of the body literally,and
insist that every bone, every artery and atom of flesh
will be raised bodily on the Judgment Day — of
course it does. If you still insist that it is the perishable
form and finite qualities that make up immortal man,
then we shall hardly understand each other. And if you
do not understand that, by limiting the existence of every
Ego to one life on earth, you make of Deity an ever-drunken
Indra of the Puric dead letter, a cruel Moloch, a god
who makes an inextricable mess on Earth, and yet claims
thanks for it, then the sooner we drop the conversation
the better.
Q. But
let us return, now that the subject of the Skandhas is
disposed of, to the question of the consciousness which
survives death. This is the point which interests most
people. Do we possess more knowledge in Devachan than we
do in earth life?
A. In one sense, we can acquire more
knowledge; that is, we can develop further any faculty which we loved and strove
after during life, provided it is concerned with abstract and ideal things,
such as music, painting, poetry, etc., since Devachan is merely an idealized
and subjective continuation of earth-life.
Q. But if in Devachan the
Spirit is free from matter, why should it not possess all knowledge?
A. Because, as I told you, the Ego
is, so to say, wedded to the memory of its last incarnation. Thus, if you think
over what I have said, and string all the facts together, you will realize that
the Devachanic state is not one of omniscience, but a transcendental continuation
of the personal life just terminated. It is the rest of the soul from the toils
of life.
Q. But the scientific materialists
assert that after the death of man nothing remains; that the human body simply
disintegrates into its component elements; and that what we call soul is merely
a temporary self-consciousness produced as a byproduct of organic action, which
will evaporate like steam. Is not theirs a strange state of mind?
A. Not strange at all, that I see.
If they say that self-consciousness ceases with the body, then in their case
they simply utter an unconscious prophecy, for once they are firmly convinced
of what they assert, no conscious after-life is possible for them. For there
are exceptions to every rule.
On Postmortem and Postnatal
Consciousness
Q. But if human self-consciousness
survives death as a rule, why should there be exceptions?
A. In the fundamental principles
of the spiritual world no exception is possible. But there are rules for those
who see, and rules for those who prefer to remain blind.
Q. Quite so, I understand.
This is but an aberration of the blind man, who denies the existence of the
sun because he does not see it. But after death his spiritual eyes will certainly
compel him to see. Is this what you mean?
A. He will not
be compelled, nor will he see anything. Having persistently
denied during life the continuance of existence after
death, he will be unable to see it, because his spiritual
capacity having been stunted in life, it cannot develop
after death, and he will remain blind. By insisting that
he must see it, you evidently mean
one thing and I another. You speak of the spirit from the
spirit, or the flame from the flame — of Atma, in
short — and you confuse it with the human soul-Manas
… You do not understand me; let me try to make it clear.
The whole gist of your question is to know whether, in the
case of a downright materialist, the complete loss of self-consciousness
and self-perception after death is possible? Isn't it so?
I answer, it is possible. Because, believing firmly in our
Esoteric Doctrine, which refers to the postmortem period,
or the interval between two lives or births, as merely a
transitory state, I say, whether that interval between two
acts of the illusionary drama of life lasts one year or a
million, that postmortem state may, without any breach
of the fundamental law, prove to be just the same state
as that of a man who is in a dead faint.
Q. But since you have just
said that the fundamental laws of the after-death state admit of no exceptions,
how can this be?
A. Nor do I say
that it does admit of an exception. But the spiritual
law of continuity applies only to things which are truly
real. To one who has read and understood Mundakya Upanishad
and Vedantasara all this becomes very clear. I will say
more: it is sufficient to understand what we mean by Buddhi
and the duality of Manas to gain a clear perception why
the materialist may fail to have a self-conscious survival
after death. Since Manas, in its lower aspect, is the
seat of the terrestrial mind, it can, therefore, give
only that perception of the Universe which is based on
the evidence of that mind; it cannot give spiritual vision.
It is said in the Eastern school, that between Buddhi
and Manas (the Ego), or Isvara
and Prajña [ Isvara is the collective consciousness
of the manifested godhead, Brahma, i.e. the collective consciousness
of the host of Dhyan Chohans (see Secret Doctrine); Prajña
is their individual wisdom ] there is in reality
no more difference than between
a forest and its trees, a lake and its waters,as the
Mundakya teaches. One or hundreds of trees dead from loss
of vitality, or uprooted, are yet incapable of preventing
the forest from being still a forest.
Q. But,
as I understand it, Buddhi represents in this simile the
forest, and Manas-Taijasi 2] the trees. And if Buddhi is
immortal, how can that which is similar to it, i.e.,Manas-Taijasi
[Taijasi means the 'radiant', as a consequence of
its union with Buddhi, i.e. Manas, the human soul, enlightened
by the rays of the divine soul. Hence Manas-Taijasi can
be described as radiant intellect, the human reason
enlightened by the light of the spirit; and Buddhi-Manas
is the revelation of the divine plus the human intellect
and self-consciousness ] , entirely lose its consciousness till the day
of its new incarnation? I cannot understand it.
A. You cannot,
because you will mix up an abstract representation of
the whole with its casual changes of form. Remember that
if it can be said of Buddhi-Manas that it is unconditionally
immortal, the same cannot be said of the lower Manas,
still less of Taijasi , which is merely an attribute.
Neither of these, neither Manas nor Taijasi , can exist
apart from Buddhi, the divine soul, because the first
(Manas) is, in
its lower aspect, a quality of the terrestrial personality,
and the second (Taijasi
) is identical with the first, because it is the same
Manas only with the light of Buddhi reflected on it. In
its turn, Buddhi would remain only an impersonal spirit
without this element which it borrows from the human soul,
which conditions and makes of it, in this illusive Universe, as
it were something separate
from the universal soul for the whole period of the cycle
of incarnation. Say rather that Buddhi-Manas can
neither die nor lose its compound self-consciousness in Eternity,
nor the recollection of its previous incarnations in which
the two — i.e., the spiritual and the human
soul — had been closely linked together. But it is
not so in the case of a materialist, whose human soul not
only receives nothing from the divine soul, but even refuses
to recognize its existence. You can hardly apply this axiom
to the attributes and qualities of the human soul, for it
would be like saying that because your divine soul is immortal,
therefore the bloom on your cheek must also be immortal;
whereas this bloom, like Taijasi , is simply a transitory
phenomenon.
Q. Do I understand you to
say that we must not mix in our minds the noumenon with the phenomenon, the
cause with its effect?
A. I do say so, and repeat that,
limited to Manas or the human soul alone, the radiance of Taijas itself becomes
a mere question of time; because both immortality and consciousness after death
become, for the terrestrial personality of man, simply conditioned attributes,
as they depend entirely on conditions and beliefs created by the human soul
itself during the life of its body. Karma acts incessantly: we reap in our
after-life only the fruit of that which we have ourselves sown in this.
Q. But if my Ego can, after
the destruction of my body, become plunged in a state of entire unconsciousness,
then where can be the punishment for the sins of my past life?
A. Our philosophy teaches that Karmic
punishment reaches the Ego only in its next incarnation. After death it receives
only the reward for the unmerited sufferings endured during its past incarnation.
(Some Theosophists
have taken exception to this phrase, but the words are
those of Master, and the meaning attached to the word unmerited is
that given above. In the T.P.S. pamphlet No. 6, a phrase,
criticized subsequently in Lucifer, was used which
was intended to convey the same idea. In form, however,
it was awkward and open to the criticism directed against
it; but the essential idea was that men often suffer from
the effects of the actions done by others, effects which
thus do not strictly belong to their own Karma — and
for these sufferings they of course deserve compensation.)
The whole punishment after death,
even for the materialist, consists, therefore, in the absence of any reward,
and the utter loss of the consciousness of one's bliss and rest. Karma is the
child of the terrestrial Ego, the fruit of the actions of the tree which is
the objective personality visible to all, as much as the fruit of all the thoughts
and even motives of the spiritual “I; but Karma is also the tender mother,
who heals the wounds inflicted by her during the preceding life, before she
will begin to torture this Ego by inflicting upon him new ones. If it may be
said that there is not a mental or physical suffering in the life of a mortal
which is not the direct fruit and consequence of some sin in a preceding existence;
on the other hand, since he does not preserve the slightest recollection of
it in his actual life, and feels himself not deserving of such punishment, and
therefore thinks he suffers for no guilt of his own, this alone is sufficient
to entitle the human soul to the fullest consolation, rest, and bliss in his
postmortem existence. Death comes to our spiritual selves ever as a deliverer
and friend. For the materialist who, notwithstanding his materialism, was not
a bad man, the interval between the two lives will be like the unbroken and
placid sleep of a child, either entirely dreamless, or filled with pictures
of which he will have no definite perception; while for the average mortal it
will be a dream as vivid as life, and full of realistic bliss and visions.
Q. Then the personal man must
always go on suffering blindly the Karmic penalties which the Ego has
incurred?
A. Not quite so. At the solemn moment
of death every man, even when death is sudden, sees the whole of his past life
marshaled before him, in its minutest details. For one short instant the personal
becomes one with the individual and all-knowing Ego. But this
instant is enough to show to him the whole chain of causes which have been at
work during his life. He sees and now understands himself as he is, unadorned
by flattery or self-deception. He reads his life, remaining as a spectator looking
down into the arena he is quitting; he feels and knows the justice of all the
suffering that has overtaken him.
Q. Does this happen to everyone?
A. Without any exception. Very good
and holy men see, we are taught, not only the life they are leaving, but even
several preceding lives in which were produced the causes that made them what
they were in the life just closing. They recognize the law of Karma in all its
majesty and justice.
Q. Is there anything corresponding
to this before rebirth?
A. There is. As the man at the moment
of death has a retrospective insight into the life he has led, so, at the moment
he is reborn onto earth, the Ego,awaking from the state of Devachan,
has a prospective vision of the life which awaits him, and realizes all the
causes that have led to it. He realizes them and sees futurity, because it is
between Devachan and rebirth that the Ego regains his full manasic
consciousness,
and rebecomes for a short time the god he was, before, in compliance with Karmic
law, he first descended into matter and incarnated in the first man of flesh.
The “golden thread sees all its “pearls and misses not one of them.
What
is Really Meant by Annihilation
Q. I have heard some Theosophists
speak of a golden thread on which their lives were strung. What do they mean
by this?
A. In the Hindu
Sacred books it is said that the part of us which undergoes
periodical incarnation is the Sutratman,
which means literally the “Thread Soul. It is a synonym
of the reincarnating Ego-Manas conjoined with Buddhi — which
absorbs the Manasic recollections of all our preceding lives.
It is so called, because, like the pearls on a thread, so
is the long series of human lives strung together on that
one thread. In some Upanishad these recurrent rebirths are
likened to the life of a mortal which oscillates periodically
between sleep and waking.
Q. This, I must say, does
not seem very clear, and I will tell you why. For the man who awakes, another
day commences, but that man is the same in soul and body as he was the day before;
whereas at every incarnation a full change takes place not only of the external
envelope, sex, and personality, but even of the mental and psychic capacities.
The simile does not seem to me quite correct. The man who arises from sleep
remembers quite clearly what he has done yesterday, the day before, and even
months and years ago. But none of us has the slightest recollection of a preceding
life or of any fact or event concerning it … I may forget in the morning
what I have dreamt during the night, still I know that I have slept and have
the certainty that I lived during sleep; but what recollection can I have of
my past incarnation until the moment of death? How do you reconcile this?
A. Some people
do recollect their past incarnations during life; but these
are Buddhas and Initiates. This is what the Yogis call
Samma -Sambuddha, or the knowledge of the whole series
of one's past incarnations.
Q. But
we ordinary mortals who have not reached Samma -Sambuddha,
how are we to understand this simile?
A. By studying it and trying to understand
more correctly the characteristics and the three kinds of sleep. Sleep is a
general and immutable law for man as for beast, but there are different kinds
of sleep and still more different dreams and visions.
Q. But this takes us to another
subject. Let us return to the materialist who, while not denying dreams, which
he could hardly do, yet denies immortality in general and the survival of his
own individuality.
A. And the materialist,
without knowing it, is right. One who has no inner perception
of, and faith in, the immortality of his soul, in that
man the soul can never become Buddhi-Taijasi , but will
remain simply Manas, and for Manas alone there is no immortality
possible. In order to live in the world to come a conscious
life, one has to believe first of all in that life during
the terrestrial existence. On these two aphorisms of the
Secret Science all the philosophy about the postmortem consciousness
and the immortality of the soul is built. The Ego receives
always according to its deserts. After the dissolution
of the body, there commences for it a period of full awakened
consciousness, or a state of chaotic dreams, or an utterly
dreamless sleep undistinguishable from annihilation, and
these are the three kinds of sleep. If our physiologists
find the cause of dreams and visions in an unconscious
preparation for them during the waking hours, why cannot
the same be admitted for the postmortem dreams?
I repeat it: death is
sleep. After death, before the spiritual eyes of the soul,
begins a performance according to a program learnt and very
often unconsciously composed by ourselves: the practical
carrying out of correct beliefs or of illusions which
have been created by ourselves. The Methodist will be Methodist,
the Muslim a Muslim, at least for some time — in a
perfect fool's paradise of each man's creation and making.
These are the postmortem fruits of the tree of life.
Naturally, our belief or unbelief in the fact of conscious
immortality is unable to influence the unconditioned reality
of the fact itself, once that it exists; but the belief
or unbelief in that immortality as the property of independent
or separate entities, cannot fail to give color to that
fact in its application to each of these entities. Now do
you begin to understand it?
Q. I think I do. The materialist,
disbelieving in everything that cannot be proven to him by his five senses,
or by scientific reasoning, based exclusively on the data furnished by these
senses in spite of their inadequacy, and rejecting every spiritual manifestation,
accepts life as the only conscious existence. Therefore according to their beliefs
so will it be unto them. They will lose their personal Ego, and will plunge
into a dreamless sleep until a new awakening. Is it so?
A. Almost so. Remember the practically
universal teaching of the two kinds of conscious existence: the terrestrial
and the spiritual. The latter must be considered real from the very fact that
it is inhabited by the eternal, changeless, and immortal Monad; whereas the
incarnating Ego dresses itself up in new garments entirely different from those
of its previous incarnations, and in which all except its spiritual prototype
is doomed to a change so radical as to leave no trace behind.
Q. How so? Can my conscious
terrestrial “I perish not only for a time, like the consciousness of the materialist,
but so entirely as to leave no trace behind?
A. According to the teaching, it
must so perish and in its fullness; all except the principle which, having united
itself with the Monad, has thereby become a purely spiritual and indestructible
essence, one with it in the Eternity. But in the case of an out-and-out materialist,
in whose personal “I no Buddhi has ever reflected itself, how can the latter
carry away into the Eternity one particle of that terrestrial personality? Your
spiritual “I is immortal; but from your present self it can carry away into
Eternity that only which has become worthy of immortality, namely, the aroma
alone of the flower that has been mown by death.
Q. Well, and the flower, the
terrestrial “I?
A. The flower,
as all past and future flowers which have blossomed and
will have to blossom on the mother bough, the
Sutratman, all children of one root or Buddhi — will
return to dust. Your present “I, as you yourself know,
is not the body now sitting before me, nor yet is it what
I would call Manas-Sutratman, but Sutratman-Buddhi.
Q. But this does not explain
to me, at all, why you call life after death immortal, infinite, and real, and
the terrestrial life a simple phantom or illusion; since even that postmortem
life has limits, however much wider they may be than those of terrestrial life.
A. No doubt. The
spiritual Ego of man moves in eternity like a pendulum
between the hours of birth and death. But if these hours,
marking the periods of life terrestrial and life spiritual,
are limited in their duration, and if the very number
of such stages in Eternity between sleep and awakening,
illusion and reality, has its beginning and its end, on
the other hand, the spiritual pilgrim is eternal. Therefore
are the hours of his postmortem life, when, disembodied,
he stands face to face with truth and not the mirages
of his transitory earthly existences, during the period
of that pilgrimage which we call “the cycle of rebirths — the
only reality in our conception. Such intervals, their
limitation notwithstanding, do not prevent the Ego, while
ever perfecting itself, from following undeviatingly,
though gradually and slowly, the path to its last transformation,
when that Ego, having reached its goal, becomes a divine
being. These intervals and stages help towards this final
result instead of hindering it; and without such limited
intervals the divine Ego could never reach its ultimate
goal. I have given you once already a familiar illustration
by comparing the Ego,or the individuality,
to an actor, and its numerous and various incarnations to
the parts it plays. Will you call these parts or their costumes
the individuality of the actor himself? Like that actor,
the Ego is forced to play during the cycle of necessity,
up to the very threshold of ParaNirvana, many parts
such as may be unpleasant to it. But as the bee collects
its honey from every flower, leaving the rest as food for
the earthly worms, so does our spiritual individuality, whether
we call it Sutratman or Ego. Collecting from every terrestrial
personality, into which Karma forces it to incarnate, the
nectar alone of the spiritual qualities and self-consciousness,
it unites all these into one whole and emerges from its
chrysalis as the glorified Dhyani-Chohan. So much the worse
for those terrestrial personalities from which it could
collect nothing. Such personalities cannot assuredly outlive
consciously their terrestrial existence.
Q. Thus, then, it seems that,
for the terrestrial personality, immortality is still conditional. Is, then,
immortality itself not unconditional?
A. Not at all. But immortality cannot
touch the non-existent: for all that which exists as Sat, or emanates
from Sat, immortality and Eternity are absolute. Matter is the opposite pole
of spirit, and yet the two are one. The essence of all this, i.e., Spirit,
Force, and Matter, or the three in one, is as endless as it is beginningless;
but the form acquired by this triple unity during its incarnations, its externality,
is certainly only the illusion of our personal conceptions. Therefore do we
call Nirvana and the Universal life alone a reality, while relegating the terrestrial
life, its terrestrial personality included, and even its Devachanic existence,
to the phantom realm of illusion.
Q. But why in such a case
call sleep the reality, and waking the illusion?
A. It is simply a comparison made
to facilitate the grasping of the subject, and from the standpoint of terrestrial
conceptions it is a very correct one.
Q. And still I cannot understand,
if the life to come is based on justice and the merited retribution for all
our terrestrial suffering, how in the case of materialists, many of whom are
really honest and charitable men, there should remain of their personality nothing
but the refuse of a faded flower.
A. No one ever said such a thing.
No materialist, however unbelieving, can die forever in the fullness of his
spiritual individuality. What was said is that consciousness can disappear either
fully or partially in the case of a materialist, so that no conscious remains
of his personality survive.
Q. But surely this is annihilation?
A. Certainly not. One can sleep a
dead sleep and miss several stations during a long railway journey, without
the slightest recollection or consciousness, and awake at another station and
continue the journey past innumerable other halting-places till the end of the
journey or the goal is reached. Three kinds of sleep were mentioned to you:
the dreamless, the chaotic, and the one which is so real, that to the sleeping
man his dreams become full realities. If you believe in the latter why can't
you believe in the former; according to the after-life a man has believed in
and expected, such is the life he will have. He who expected no life to come
will have an absolute blank, amounting to annihilation, in the interval between
the two rebirths. This is just the carrying out of the program we spoke of,
a program created by the materialists themselves. But there are various kinds
of materialists, as you say. A selfish, wicked Egoist, one who never shed a
tear for anyone but himself, thus adding entire indifference to the whole world
to his unbelief, must, at the threshold of death, drop his personality forever.
This personality having no tendrils of sympathy for the world around and hence
nothing to hook onto Sutratman, it follows that with the last breath every connection
between the two is broken. There being no Devachan for such a materialist, the
Sutratman will reincarnate almost immediately. But those materialists who erred
in nothing but their disbelief will oversleep but one station. And the time
will come when that ex-materialist will perceive himself in the Eternity and
perhaps repent that he lost even one day, one station, from the life eternal.
Q. Still, would it not be
more correct to say that death is birth into a new life, or a return once more
into eternity?
A. You may if you like. Only remember
that births differ, and that there are births of “still-born beings, which
are failures of nature. Moreover, with your Western fixed ideas about
material life, the words living and being are quite inapplicable
to the pure subjective state of postmortem existence.
It is just because, save in a few philosophers who are not
read by the many, and who themselves are too confused to
present a distinct picture of it, it is just because your
Western ideas of life and death have finally become so narrow,
that on the one hand they have led to crass materialism,
and on the other, to the still more material conception of
the other life, which the Spiritualists have formulated in
their Summerland. There the souls of men eat, drink, marry,
and live in a paradise quite as sensual as that of Mohammed,
but even less philosophical. Nor are the average conceptions
of the uneducated Christians any better, being if possible
still more material. What between truncated angels, brass
trumpets, golden harps, and material hell fires, the Christian
heaven seems like a fairy scene at a Christmas pantomime.
It is because of these narrow conceptions
that you find such difficulty in understanding. It is just because the life
of the disembodied soul, while possessing all the vividness of reality, as in
certain dreams, is devoid of every grossly objective form of terrestrial life,
that the Eastern philosophers have compared it with visions during sleep.
Definite
Words for Definite Things
Q. Don't you think it is because
there are no definite and fixed terms to indicate each principle in man, that
such a confusion of ideas arises in our minds with respect to the respective
functions of these principles?
A. I have thought of it myself. The
whole trouble has arisen from this: we have started our expositions of, and
discussion about, the principles, using their Sanskrit names instead of coining
immediately, for the use of Theosophists, their equivalents in English. We must
try and remedy this now.
Q. You will do well, as it
may avoid further confusion; no two theosophical writers, it seems to me, have
hitherto agreed to call the same principle by the same name.
A. The confusion
is more apparent than real, however. I have heard some
of our Theosophists express surprise at, and criticize
several essays speaking of these principles; but, when
examined, there was no worse mistake in them than that
of using the word Soul to
cover the three principles without specifying the distinctions.
The first, as positively the clearest of our Theosophical
writers, Mr. A.P. Sinnett, has some comprehensive and
admirably-written passages on the “Higher Self. His
real idea has also been misconceived by some, owing to
his using the word Soul
in a general sense. Yet here are a few passages which will
show to you how clear and comprehensive is all that he writes
on the subject:
The human soul,
once launched on the streams of evolution as a human individuality,
passes through alternate periods of physical and relatively
spiritual existence. It passes from the one plane, or
stratum, or condition of nature to the other under the
guidance of its Karmic affinities; living in incarnations
the life which its Karma has preordained; modifying its
progress within the limitations of circumstances, and — developing
fresh Karma by its use or abuse of opportunities — it
returns to spiritual existence (Devachan) after each physical
life — through the intervening region of Kamaloka — for
rest and refreshment and for the gradual absorption into
its essence, as so much cosmic progress, of the life's
experience gained “on earth or during physical
existence. This view of the matter will, moreover, have suggested
many collateral inferences to anyone thinking over the
subject; for instance, that the transfer of consciousness
from the Kamaloka to the Devachanic stage of this progression
would necessarily be gradual; that in truth, no hard-and-fast
line separates the varieties of spiritual conditions,
that even the spiritual and physical planes, as psychic
faculties in living people show, are not so hopelessly
walled off from one another as materialistic theories
would suggest; that all states of nature are all around
us simultaneously, and appeal to different perceptive
faculties; and so on … It is clear that during physical
existence people who possess psychic faculties remain
in connection with the planes of super-physical consciousness;
and although most people may not be endowed with such faculties,
we all, as the phenomena of sleep, even, and especially … those
of somnambulism or mesmerism, show, are capable of entering
into conditions of consciousness that the five physical
senses have nothing to do with. We — the souls within
us — are not as it were altogether adrift in the
ocean of matter. We clearly retain some surviving interest
or rights in the shore from which, for a time, we have
floated off. The process of incarnation, therefore, is
not fully described when we speak of an alternate existence
on the physical and spiritual planes, and thus picture
the soul as a complete entity slipping entirely from the
one state of existence to the other. The more correct
definitions of the process would probably represent incarnation
as taking place on this physical plane of nature by reason
of an efflux emanating from the soul. The Spiritual realm
would all the while be the proper habitat of the Soul,
which would never entirely quit it; and
that non-materializable portion of the Soul which abides
permanently on the spiritual plane may fitly, perhaps,
be spoken of as the Higher Self.
This “Higher Self is
Atma, and of course it is “non-materializable, as Mr.
Sinnett says. Even more, it can never be “objective under
any circumstances, even to the highest spiritual perception.
For Atma or the “Higher Self is really Brahma,
the Absolute, and indistinguishable from it. In hours
of Samadhi, the higher spiritual consciousness
of the Initiate is entirely absorbed in the one essence,
which is Atma, and therefore, being one with the whole,
there can be nothing objective for it. Now some of our
Theosophists have got into the habit of using the words Self and
Ego as synonymous, of associating the term Self with
only man's higher individual or even personal “Self or Ego,whereas
this term ought never to be applied except to the One
universal Self. Hence the confusion.
Speaking of Manas, the “causal body, we may call it — when
connecting it with the Buddhic radiance — the “Higher
Ego, never
the “Higher Self. For even Buddhi,
the “Spiritual Soul, is not the Self, but the vehicle only
of Self. All the other “Selves — such as the “Individual self
and “personal self — ought
never to be spoken or written of without their qualifying
and characteristic adjectives.
Thus in this most
excellent essay on the “Higher Self, this term
is applied to the sixth principle orBuddhi;
and has in consequence given rise to just such misunderstandings.
The statement that
A child does not
acquire its sixth
principle — or become a morally responsible being capable
of generating Karma — until seven years old. — proves
what is meant therein by the Higher Self. Therefore, the
able author is quite justified in explaining that after
the “Higher Self has passed into the human being and saturated
the personality — in some of the finer organizations
only — with its consciousness
People with psychic faculties may
indeed perceive this Higher Self through their finer senses from time to time.
But so are those, who limit the term
Higher Self to the Universal Divine Principle, “justified in misunderstanding
him. For, when we read, without being prepared for this shifting of metaphysical
terms, that while
Fully manifesting on the physical
plane … the Higher Self still remains a conscious spiritual Ego on the
corresponding plane of Nature.
We are apt to see in the “Higher
Self of this sentence, Atma, and in the spiritual Ego, Manas,or
rather Buddhi-Manas, and forthwith to criticize the whole thing as incorrect.
To avoid henceforth such misapprehensions,
I propose to translate literally from the Occult Eastern terms their equivalents
in English, and offer these for future use.
[The Self and the Egos ]
The Higher Self is Atma, the inseparable
ray of the Universal and One Self. It is the God above, more than within,
us. Happy the man who succeeds in saturating his inner Ego with it!
The Spiritual divine Ego is
the Spiritual soul or Buddhi, in close union with Manas, the mind-principle,
without which it is no Ego at all, but only the Atmic Vehicle.
The Inner, or
Higher “Ego is Manas, the
“Fifth Principle, so-called, independently of Buddhi.
The Mind-Principle is only the Spiritual Ego when merged into
one with Buddhi — no materialist
being supposed to have in him such an Ego, however
great his intellectual capacities. It is the permanent Individuality or
the “Reincarnating Ego.
The Lower, or
Personal “Ego is the
physical man in conjunction with his lower Self, i.e., animal
instincts, passions, desires, etc. It is called the “false
personality, and
consists of the lower Manas combined with Kamarupa,
and operating through the Physical body and its phantom
or “double.
The remaining
principle Prana,
or Life, is, strictly speaking, the radiating force or Energy
of Atma — as the
Universal Life and the One Self — Its lower or rather
(in its effects) more physical, because manifesting, aspect.
Prana or Life permeates the whole being of the objective
Universe; and is called a principle only because it is an
indispensable factor and the deus ex machina of the
living man.
Q. This division being so
much simplified in its combinations will answer better, I believe. The other
is much too metaphysical.
A. If outsiders as well as Theosophists
would agree to it, it would certainly make matters much more comprehensible.
On
the Nature of Our Thinking Principle
The
Mystery of the Ego
Q. I perceive
in the quotation you brought forward a little while ago
from The Buddhist Catechism a discrepancy
that I would like to hear explained. It is there stated that
the Skandhas — memory
included — change with every new incarnation. And yet,
it is asserted that the reflection of the past lives, which,
we are told, are entirely made up of Skandhas,
“must survive. At the present moment I am not quite
clear in my mind as to what it is precisely that survives,
and I would like to have it explained. What is it? Is it
only that “reflection, or those Skandhas, or always
that same Ego, the Manas?
A. I have just
explained that the reincarnating Principle, or that which
we call the divine man, is indestructible
throughout the life cycle: indestructible as a thinking Entity, and
even as an ethereal form. The “reflection is only the spiritualized remembrance,during
the Devachanic period, of the ex-personality, Mr.
A. or Mrs. B. — with
which the Ego identifies itself during that period.
Since the latter is but the continuation of the earth-life,
so to say, the very acme and pitch, in an unbroken series,
of the few happy moments in that now past existence, the Ego
has
to identify itself with the personal consciousness
of that life, if anything shall remain of it.
Q. This
means that the Ego,
notwithstanding its divine nature, passes every such period between two incarnations
in a state of mental obscuration, or temporary insanity.
A. You may regard
it as you like. Believing that, outside the One Reality,
nothing is better
than a passing illusion — the
whole Universe included — we do not view it as insanity,
but as a very natural sequence or development of the terrestrial
life. What is life? A bundle of the most varied experiences,
of daily changing ideas, emotions, and opinions. In our
youth we are often enthusiastically devoted to an ideal,
to some hero or heroine whom we try to follow and revive;
a few years later, when the freshness of our youthful
feelings has faded out and sobered down, we are the first
to laugh at our fancies. And yet there was a day when
we had so thoroughly identified our own personality with
that of the ideal in our mind — especially if it
was that of a living being — that the former was
entirely merged and lost in the latter. Can it be said
of a man of fifty that he is the same being that he was
at twenty? The inner man
is the same; the outward living personality is completely
transformed and changed. Would you also call these changes
in the human mental states insanity?
Q. How would you
name
them, and especially how would you explain the permanence of one and the evanescence
of the other?
A. We have our
own doctrine ready, and to us it offers no difficulty.
The clue lies in the double consciousness of our mind,
and also, in the dual nature of the mental principle. There
is a spiritual consciousness, the Manasic mind illumined
by the light of Buddhi, that which subjectively perceives
abstractions; and the sentient consciousness (the lower
Manasic light), inseparable from our physical brain and senses.
This latter consciousness is held in subjection by the brain and physical senses,
and, being in its turn equally dependent on them, must of course fade out and
finally die with the disappearance of the brain and physical senses. It is only
the former kind of consciousness, whose root lies in eternity, which survives
and lives forever, and may, therefore, be regarded as immortal. Everything else
belongs to passing illusions.
Q. What do you really understand
by illusion in this case?
A. It is very
well described in the just-mentioned essay on “The
Higher Self. Says its author:
The theory we
are considering (the interchange of ideas between the Higher
Ego and the lower self) harmonizes
very well with the treatment of this world in which we live
as a phenomenal world of illusion, the spiritual plane
of nature being on the other hand the noumenal world or
plane of reality. That region of nature in which, so to
speak, the permanent soul is rooted is more real than
that in which its transitory blossoms appear for a brief
space to wither and fall to pieces, while the plant recovers
energy for sending forth a fresh flower. Supposing flowers
only were perceptible to ordinary senses, and their roots
existed in a state of Nature intangible and invisible
to us, philosophers in such a world who divined that there
were such things as roots in another plane of existence
would be apt to say of the flowers: “These are not
the real plants; they are of no relative importance, merely
illusive phenomena of the moment.
This is what I mean. The world in
which blossom the transitory and evanescent flowers of personal lives is not
the real permanent world; but that one in which we find the root of consciousness,
that root which is beyond illusion and dwells in the eternity.
Q. What do you mean by the
root dwelling in eternity?
A. I mean by this
root the thinking entity, the Ego which incarnates, whether
we regard it as an “Angel, “Spirit,
or a Force. Of that which falls under our sensuous perceptions
only what grows directly from, or is attached to this invisible
root above, can partake of its immortal life. Hence every
noble thought, idea, and aspiration of the personality it
informs, proceeding from and fed by this root, must become
permanent. As to the physical consciousness, as it is a
quality of the sentient but lower principle, (Kamarupa or
animal instinct, illuminated by the lower manasic reflection),
or the human Soul — it must disappear. That which
displays activity, while the body is asleep or paralyzed,
is the higher consciousness, our memory registering but
feebly and inaccurately — because automatically — such
experiences, and often failing to be even slightly impressed
by them.
Q. But
how is it that Manas, although you call it Nous, a “God, is
so weak during its incarnations, as to be actually conquered
and fettered by its body?
A. I might retort with the same question
and ask:
How is it that he, whom you regard
as “the God of Gods and the One living God, is so weak as to allow evil
(or the Devil) to have the best of him as much as of all his creatures,
whether while he remains in Heaven, or during the time he was incarnated on
this earth?
You are sure to
reply again: “This
is a Mystery; and we are forbidden to pry into the mysteries
of God. Not being
forbidden to do so by our religious philosophy, I answer
your question that, unless a God descends as an Avatara,no
divine principle can be otherwise than cramped and paralyzed
by turbulent, animal matter. Heterogeneity will always
have the upper hand over homogeneity, on this plane of
illusions, and the nearer an essence is to its root-principle,
Primordial Homogeneity, the more difficult it is for the
latter to assert itself on earth. Spiritual and divine
powers lie dormant in every human Being; and the wider
the sweep of his spiritual vision the mightier will be
the God within him. But as few men can feel that God, and
since, as an average rule, deity is always bound and limited
in our thought by earlier conceptions, those ideas that
are inculcated in us from childhood, therefore, it is
so difficult for you to understand our philosophy.
Q. And is it this Ego of ours
which is our God?
A. Not at all; “A
God is not the
universal deity, but only a spark from the one ocean of Divine
Fire. Our God
within us, or “our Father in Secret is what
we call the Higher Self,
Atma.Our incarnating Ego was a God in its origin,
as were all the primeval emanations of the One Unknown Principle.
But since its “fall into Matter, having
to incarnate throughout the cycle, in succession, from first
to last, it is no longer a free and happy god, but a poor
pilgrim on his way to regain that which he has lost. I can
answer you more fully by repeating what is said of the Inner
Man:
From the remotest antiquity mankind
as a whole have always been convinced of the existence of a personal spiritual
entity within the personal physical man. This inner entity was more or less
divine, according to its proximity to the crown.The closer the union
the more serene man's destiny, the less dangerous the external conditions. This
belief is neither bigotry nor superstition, only an ever-present, instinctive
feeling of the proximity of another spiritual and invisible world, which, though
it be subjective to the senses of the outward man, is perfectly objective to
the inner ego. Furthermore, they believed that there are external and internal
conditions which affect the determination of our will upon our actions.
They rejected fatalism, for fatalism implies a blind course of some still blinder
power. But they believed in destiny or Karma, which from birth
to death every man is weaving thread by thread around himself, as a spider does
his cobweb; and this destiny is guided by that presence termed by some the guardian
angel, or our more intimate astral inner man, who is but too often the evil
genius of the man of flesh or the personality. Both these lead on Man,
but one of them must prevail; and from the very beginning of the invisible affray
the stern and implacable law of compensation and retribution
steps in
and takes its course, following faithfully the fluctuating of the conflict.
When the last strand is woven, and man is seemingly enwrapped in the net-work
of his own doing, then he finds himself completely under the empire of this
self-made destiny. It then either fixes him like the inert shell against
the immovable rock, or like a feather carries him away in a whirlwind raised
by his own actions.
Such is the destiny
of the Man — the
true Ego, not the Automaton, the shell that goes by
that name. It is for him to become the conqueror over matter.
The
Complex Nature of Manas
Q. But you wanted to tell
me something of the essential nature of Manas, and of the relation in which
the Skandhas of physical man stand to it?
A. It is this
nature, mysterious, Protean, beyond any grasp, and almost
shadowy in its correlations with the other principles,
that is most difficult to realize, and still more so to
explain. Manas is a principle, and yet it is an “Entity and
individuality or Ego. He is a “God, and yet he
is doomed to an endless cycle of incarnations, for each
of which he is made responsible, and for each of which
he has to suffer. All this seems as contradictory as it
is puzzling; nevertheless, there are hundreds of people,
even in Europe, who realize all this perfectly, for they
comprehend the Ego not only in its integrity but in its
many aspects. Finally, if I would make myself comprehensible,
I must begin by the beginning and give you the genealogy
of this Ego in a few lines.
Q. Say on.
A. Try to imagine
a “Spirit, a celestial
Being, whether we call it by one name or another, divine
in its essential nature, yet not pure enough to be one
with the All, and having, in order to achieve
this, to do purify its nature as to finally gain that goal.
It can do so only by passing individually and personally,i.e.,spiritually
and physically, through every experience and feeling that
exists in the manifold or differentiated Universe. It
has, therefore, after having gained such experience in
the lower kingdoms, and having ascended higher and still
higher with every rung on the ladder of being, to pass
through every experience on the human planes. In its very
essence it is thought, and is, therefore, called in its
plurality
Manasaputra, “the Sons of the (Universal) mind. This individualized
“Thought is what we Theosophists call the real human
Ego, the thinking Entity imprisoned in a case of flesh and
bones. This is surely a Spiritual Entity, not Matter, and
such Entities are the incarnating Egos that inform the bundle
of animal matter called mankind, and whose names are Manasa or
“Minds. But once imprisoned, or incarnate, their essence
becomes dual: that is to say, the rays of the eternal
divine Mind, considered as individual entities, assume a
two-fold attribute which is (a) their essential inherent
characteristic, heaven-aspiring mind (higher Manas),
and (b) the human quality of thinking, or animal cogitation,
rationalized owing to the superiority of the human brain,
the Kama-tending or lower Manas. One gravitates toward
Buddhi, the other, tending downward, to the seat of passions
and animal desires. The latter have no room in Devachan,
nor can they associate with the divine triad which ascends
as one into mental bliss. Yet it is the Ego, the Manasic
Entity, which is held responsible for all the sins of the
lower attributes, just as a parent is answerable for the
transgressions of his child, so long as the latter remains
irresponsible.
Q. Is this “child the “personality?
A. It is. When, therefore, it is
stated that the “personality dies with the body it does not state all. The
body, which was only the objective symbol of Mr. A. or Mrs. B., fades away with
all its material Skandhas, which are the visible expressions thereof. But all
that which constituted during life the spiritual bundle of experiences,
the noblest aspirations, undying affections, and unselfish
nature of Mr.
A. or Mrs. B. clings for the time of the Devachanic period to the Ego, which
is identified with the spiritual portion of that terrestrial Entity, now passed
away out of sight. The Actor is so imbued with the role just played by
him that he dreams of it during the whole Devachanic night, which vision
continues
till the hour strikes for him to return to the stage of life to enact another
part.
Q. But how is it that this
doctrine, which you say is as old as thinking men, has found no room, say, in
Christian theology?
A. You are mistaken,
it has; only theology has disfigured it out of all recognition,
as it has many other doctrines. Theology calls the Ego
the Angel that God gives us at the moment of our birth,
to take care of our Soul. Instead of holding that “Angel responsible
for the transgressions of the poor helpless “Soul,
it is the latter which, according to theological logic,
is punished for all the sins of both flesh and mind! It
is the Soul, the immaterial breath of God and his
alleged creation, which, by some most amazing intellectual
jugglery, is doomed to burn in a material hell without
ever being consumed, while the “Angel escapes
scot-free, after folding his white pinions and wetting them
with a few tears. Aye, these are our “ministering
Spirits, the “messengers
of mercy who are
sent, Bishop Mant tells us:
… to fulfill
Good for Salvation's heirs, for us
they still
Grieve when we sin, rejoice when
we repent …
Yet it becomes
evident that if all the Bishops the world over were asked
to define once for all what they mean by Soul and its functions, they would be as unable to do so as to show
us any shadow of logic in the orthodox belief!
The
Doctrine is Taught in St. John's Gospel
Q. To this the adherents to
this belief might answer, that if even the orthodox dogma does promise the impenitent
sinner and materialist a bad time of it in a rather too realistic Inferno, it
gives them, on the other hand, a chance for repentance to the last minute. Nor
do they teach annihilation, or loss of personality, which is all the same.
A. If the Church teaches nothing
of the kind, on the other hand, Jesus does; and that is something to those,
at least, who place Christ higher than Christianity.
Q. Does Christ teach anything
of the sort?
A. He does; and
every well-informed Occultist and even Cabalist will tell
you so. Christ, or the fourth Gospel at any rate, teaches
reincarnation as also the annihilation of the personality,
if you but forget the dead letter and hold to the esoteric
Spirit. Remember the parable spoken of by St. John. What
does the parable speak about if not of the upper triad in
man? Atma is the Husbandman — the Spiritual
Ego or Buddhi (Christos) the Vine, while the animal
and vital Soul, the
personality, is the “branch.
I am the true vine,
and my Father is the Husbandman. Every branch in me that
beareth not fruit he taketh away … As the branch
cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine;
no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the Vine — ye
are the branches. If a man abide not in me he is cast
forth as a branch, and is withered
and cast into the fire and burned.
Now we explain it in this way. Disbelieving
in the hellfire which theology discovers as underlying the threat to the branches,
we say that the “Husbandman means Atma, the Symbol for the infinite, impersonal
Principle, while the Vine stands for the Spiritual Soul, Christos, and
each “branch represents a new incarnation.
Q. But what proofs have you
to support such an arbitrary interpretation?
1.Universal symbology
is a warrant for its correctness and that it is not arbitrary.
Hermas says of “God that
he “planted the Vineyard, i.e., he created
mankind. In the Cabala,
it is shown that the Aged of the Aged, or the “Long
Face, plants
a vineyard, the latter typifying mankind; and a vine, meaning
Life. The Spirit of “King Messiah
is, therefore, shown as washing his garments in the wine from
above, from the creation of the world. [Zohar XL, 10] And
King Messiah is the Ego
purified by washing his garments (i.e., his
personalities in rebirth), in the wine from above,
or Buddhi. Adam, or A-Dam, is “blood. The Life
of the flesh is in the blood (nephesh-soul). And Adam-Kadmon
is the Only-Begotten. Noah also plants a vineyard — the
allegorical hotbed of future humanity. As a consequence of
the adoption of the same allegory, we find it reproduced
in the Nazarene Codex. Seven
vines are procreated — which seven vines are our Seven
Races with their seven Saviors or Buddhas — which
spring from Iukabar Zivo, and Ferho (or Parcha) Raba waters
them.[Codex Nazareus, iii, pp. 60,61] When the blessed will
ascend among the creatures of Light, they shall see Iavar-Xivo,
Lord of Life, and the First Vine.[Cod. Naz., ii, p.281]
These Cabalistic metaphors are thus naturally repeated in
the Gospel according to St. John.
Let us not forget
that in the human system — even according to those
philosophies which ignore our septenary division — the
Ego or thinking man is called the Logos, or
the Son of Soul and Spirit. “Manas is the adopted Son of
King *** and Queen *** (esoteric equivalents
for Atma and Buddhi), says an occult work. He is the “man-god of
Plato, who crucifies himself in Space (or the duration
of the life cycle) for the redemption of Matter. This he
does by incarnating over and over again, thus leading mankind
onward to perfection, and making thereby room for lower forms
to develop into higher. Not for one life does he cease progressing
himself and helping all physical nature to progress; even
the occasional, very rare event of his losing one of his
personalities, in the case of the latter being entirely
devoid of even a spark of spirituality, helps toward his
individual progress.
Q. But
surely, if the Ego
is held responsible for the transgressions of its personalities, it has to answer
also for the loss, or rather the complete annihilation, of one of such.
A. Not at all, unless it has done
nothing to avert this dire fate. But if, all its efforts notwithstanding, its
voice, that of our conscience, was unable to penetrate through the wall
of matter, then the obtuseness of the latter proceeding from the imperfect nature
of the material is classed with other failures of nature. The Ego is sufficiently
punished by the loss of Devachan, and especially by having to incarnate almost
immediately.
Q. This
doctrine of the possibility of losing one's soul — or
personality, do you call it? — militates against
the ideal theories of both Christians and Spiritualists,
though Swedenborg adopts it to a certain extent, in what
he calls Spiritual
death. They will never accept
it.
A. This can in
no way alter a fact in nature, if it be a fact, or prevent
such a thing occasionally taking place. The universe and
everything in it, moral, mental, physical, psychic, or
Spiritual, is built on a perfect law of equilibrium and
harmony. As said before (see Isis
Unveiled), the centripetal force could not manifest itself
without the centrifugal in the harmonious revolutions of
the spheres, and all forms and their progress are the products
of this dual force in nature. Now the Spirit (or Buddhi)
is the centrifugal and the soul (Manas) the centripetal
spiritual energy; and to produce one result they have to
be in perfect union and harmony. Break or damage the centripetal
motion of the earthly soul tending toward the center which
attracts it; arrest its progress by clogging it with a heavier
weight of matter than it can bear, or than is fit for the
Devachanic state, and the harmony of the whole will be
destroyed. Personal life, or perhaps rather its ideal reflection,
can only be continued if sustained by the two-fold force,
that is by the close union of Buddhi and Manas
in
every rebirth or personal life. The least deviation from
harmony damages it; and when it is destroyed beyond redemption
the two forces separate at the moment of death. During
a brief interval the personal form (called indifferently Kamarupa
andMayavirupa), the spiritual efflorescence of which,
attaching itself to the Ego, follows it into Devachan and
gives to the permanent individuality
its personal colouring (pro tem, so to speak),
is carried off to remain in Kamaloka and to be gradually
annihilated. For it is after the death of the utterly depraved,
the unspiritual and the wicked beyond redemption, that arrives
the critical and supreme moment. If during life the ultimate
and desperate effort of the Inner Self (Manas), to
unite something of the personality with itself and the high
glimmering ray of the divine Buddhi, is thwarted; if this
ray is allowed to be more and more shut out from the ever-thickening
crust of physical brain, the Spiritual Ego or Manas, once
freed from the body, remains severed entirely from the ethereal
relic of the personality; and the latter, or Kamarupa, following
its earthly attractions, is drawn into and remains in Hades,which
we call the Kamaloka. These are “the
withered branches mentioned by Jesus as being cut off from
the Vine. Annihilation,
however, is never instantaneous, and may require centuries
sometimes for its accomplishment. But there the personality
remains along with the remnants
of other more fortunate personal Egos, and becomes with them
a shell
and an Elementary.As said in Isis Unveiled, it
is these two classes of “Spirits, the shells and
the Elementaries, which are the leading
“Stars on the great spiritual stage of “materializations. And
you may be sure of it, it is not they who incarnate; and,
therefore, so few of these “dear departed
ones know anything of reincarnation, misleading thereby
the Spiritualists.
Q. But does not the author
of Isis Unveiled stand accused of having preached against reincarnation?
A. By those who have misunderstood
what was said, yes. At the time that work was written, reincarnation was not
believed in by any Spiritualists, either English or American, and what is said
there of reincarnation was directed against the French Spiritists, whose
theory is as unphilosophical and absurd as the Eastern teaching is logical and
self-evident in its truth. The Reincarnationists of the Allan Kardec School
believe in an arbitrary and immediate reincarnation. With them, the dead father
can incarnate in his own unborn daughter, and so on. They have neither Devachan,
Karma, nor any philosophy that would warrant or prove the necessity of consecutive
rebirths. But how can the author of Isis Unveiled argue against Karmic
reincarnation, at long intervals varying between 1,000 and 1,500 years, when
it is the fundamental belief of both Buddhists and Hindus?
Q. Then you reject the theories
of both the Spiritists and the Spiritualists, in their entirety?
A. Not in their
entirety, but only with regard to their respective fundamental
beliefs. Both rely on what their
“Spirits tell them; and both disagree as much with
each other as we Theosophists disagree with both. Truth
is one; and when we hear the French spooks preaching reincarnation,
and the English spooks denying and denouncing the doctrine,
we say that either the French or the English “Spirits do
not know what they are talking about. We believe with the
Spiritualists and the Spiritists in the existence of “Spirits, or
invisible Beings endowed with more or less intelligence.
But, while in our teachings their kinds and genera are
legion, our opponents admit of no other than human disembodied “Spirits, which,
to our knowledge, are mostly Kamalokic Shells.
Q. You
seem very bitter against Spirits. As you have given me
your views and your reasons for disbelieving in the materialization
of, and direct communication in séances, with the
disembodied spirits — or the “spirits of the dead — would
you mind enlightening me as to one more fact? Why are
some Theosophists never tired of saying how dangerous
is intercourse with spirits, and mediumship? Have they
any particular reason for this?
A. We must suppose
so. I know I
have. Owing to my familiarity for over half a century with
these invisible, yet but too tangible and undeniable “influences,
from the conscious Elementals, semi-conscious shells, down
to the utterly senseless and nondescript spooks of all kinds,
I claim a certain right to my views.
Q. Can you give an instance
or instances to show why these practices should be regarded as dangerous?
A. This would
require more time than I can give you. Every cause must
be judged by the effects it produces. Go over the history
of Spiritualism for the last fifty years, ever since its
reappearance in this century in America — and judge
for yourself whether it has done its votaries more good
or harm. Pray understand me. I do not speak against real
Spiritualism, but against the modern movement which goes
under that name, and the so-called philosophy invented
to explain its phenomena.
Q. Don't you believe in their
phenomena at all?
A. It is because
I believe in them with too good reason, and (save some
cases of deliberate fraud) know them to be as true as
that you and I live, that all my being revolts against
them. Once more I speak only of physical, not mental or
even psychic phenomena. Like attracts like. There are
several high-minded, pure, good men and women, known to
me personally, who have passed years of their lives under
the direct guidance and even protection of high “Spirits, whether
disembodied or planetary. But these Intelligences
are not of the type of the John Kings and the Ernests
who figure in séance rooms.
These Intelligences guide and control mortals only in rare
and exceptional cases to which they are attracted and
magnetically drawn by the Karmic past of the individual.
It is not enough to sit “for development in order
to attract them. That only opens the door to a swarm of “spooks, good,
bad, and indifferent, to which the medium becomes a slave
for life. It is against such promiscuous mediumship and
intercourse with goblins that I raise my voice, not against
spiritual mysticism. The latter is ennobling and holy;
the former is of just the same nature as the phenomena
of two centuries ago, for which so many witches and wizards
have been made to suffer. Read Glanvil and other authors
on the subject of witchcraft, and you will find recorded
there the parallels of most, if not all, of the physical
phenomena of nineteenth century “Spiritualism.
Q. Do you mean to suggest
that it is all witchcraft and nothing more?
A. What I mean
is that, whether conscious or unconscious, all this dealing
with the dead is necromancy, and a most
dangerous practice. For ages before Moses such raising of
the dead was regarded by all the intelligent nations as
sinful and cruel, inasmuch as it disturbs the rest of
the souls and interferes with their evolutionary development
into higher states. The collective wisdom of all past
centuries has ever been loud in denouncing such practices.
Finally, I say, what I have never ceased repeating orally
and in print for fifteen years: While some of the so-called “spirits
do not know what they are talking about, repeating merely-like
poll-parrots — what
they find in the mediums' and other people's brains, others
are most dangerous, and can only lead one to evil. These
are two self-evident facts. Go into Spiritualistic circles
of the Allan Kardec school, and you find “spirits asserting
reincarnation and speaking like Roman Catholics born. Turn
to the “dear departed ones in
England and America, and you will hear them denying reincarnation
through thick and thin, denouncing those who teach it, and
holding to Protestant views. Your best, your most powerful
mediums, have all suffered in health of body and mind. Think
of the sad end of Charles Foster, who died in an asylum,
a raving lunatic; of Slade, an epileptic; of Eglinton — the
best medium now in England — subject to the same.
Look back over the life of D.D. Home, a man whose mind was
steeped in gall and bitterness, who never had a good word
to say of anyone whom he suspected of possessing psychic
powers, and who slandered every other medium to the bitter
end. This Calvin of Spiritualism suffered for years from
a terrible spinal disease, brought on by his intercourse
with the “spirits, and
died a perfect wreck. Think again of the sad fate of poor
Washington Irving Bishop. I knew him in New York, when he
was fourteen, and he was undeniably a medium. It is true
that the poor man stole a march on his “spirits, and
baptized them “unconscious
muscular action, to the great gaudium of all the
corporations of highly learned and scientific fools, and
to the replenishment of his own pocket. But
de mortuis nil nisi bonum; his end was a sad one.
He had strenuously concealed his epileptic fits — the
first and strongest symptom of genuine mediumship — and
who knows whether he was dead or in a trance when the postmortem examination
was performed? His relatives insist that he was alive, if
we are to believe Reuter's telegrams. Finally, behold the
veteran mediums, the founders and prime movers of modern
spiritualism — the Fox sisters. After more than forty
years of intercourse with the “Angels, the latter
have led them to become incurable sots, who are now denouncing,
in public lectures, their own life — long work and
philosophy as a fraud. What kind of spirits must they be
who prompted them, I ask you?
Q. But is your inference a
correct one?
A. What would you infer if the best
pupils of a particular school of singing broke down from overstrained sore throats?
That the method followed was a bad one. So I think the inference is equally
fair with regard to Spiritualism when we see their best mediums fall a prey
to such a fate. We can only say: Let those who are interested in the question
judge the tree of Spiritualism by its fruits, and ponder over the lesson. We
Theosophists have always regarded the Spiritualists as brothers having the same
mystic tendency as ourselves, but they have always regarded us as enemies. We,
being in possession of an older philosophy, have tried to help and warn them;
but they have repaid us by reviling and traducing us and our motives in every
possible way. Nevertheless, the best English Spiritualists say just as we do,
wherever they treat of their belief seriously. Hear “M.A. Oxon confessing this
truth:
Spiritualists are too much inclined
to dwell exclusively on the intervention of external spirits in this world of
ours,and to ignore the powers of the incarnate Spirit.
Why vilify and abuse us, then, for
saying precisely the same? Henceforward, we will have nothing more to do with
Spiritualism. And now let us return to Reincarnation.
On
the Mysteries of Reincarnation
Periodical
Rebirths
Q. You mean, then, that we
have all lived on earth before, in many past incarnations, and shall go on so
living?
A. I do. The life cycle, or rather
the cycle of conscious life, begins with the separation of the mortal animal-man
into sexes, and will end with the close of the last generation of men, in the
seventh round and seventh race of mankind. Considering we are only in the fourth
round and fifth race, its duration is more easily imagined than expressed.
Q. And we keep on incarnating
in new personalities all the time?
A. Most assuredly so; because this
life cycle or period of incarnation may be best compared to human life. As each
such life is composed of days of activity separated by nights of sleep or of
inaction, so, in the incarnation cycle, an active life is followed by a Devachanic
rest.
Q. And it is this succession
of births that is generally defined as reincarnation?
A. Just so. It is only through these
births that the perpetual progress of the countless millions of Egos toward
final perfection and final rest (as long as was the period of activity) can
be achieved.
Q. And what is it that regulates
the duration, or special qualities of these incarnations?
A. Karma, the universal law of retributive
justice.
Q. Is it an intelligent law?
A. For the Materialist,
who calls the law of periodicity which regulates the marshaling
of the several bodies, and all the other laws in nature,
blind forces and mechanical laws, no doubt Karma would
be a law of chance and no more. For us, no adjective or
qualification could describe that which is impersonal
and no entity, but a universal operative law. If you question
me about the causative intelligence in it, I must answer
you I do not know. But if you ask me to define its effects
and tell you what these are in our belief, I may say that
the experience of thousands of ages has shown us that
they are absolute and unerring equity, wisdom, and
intelligence.For Karma in its effects is an unfailing
redresser of human injustice, and of all the failures of
nature; a stern adjuster of wrongs; a retributive law which
rewards and punishes with equal impartiality. It is, in
the strictest sense, “no respecter of persons, though,
on the other hand, it can neither be propitiated, nor turned
aside by prayer. This is a belief common to Hindus and Buddhists,
who both believe in Karma.
Q. In this Christian dogmas
contradict both, and I doubt whether any Christian will accept the teaching.
A. No; and Inman gave the reason
for it many years ago. As he puts it, while
… the Christians will accept
any nonsense, if promulgated by the Church as a matter of faith … the
Buddhists hold that nothing which is contradicted by sound reason can be a true
doctrine of Buddha.
They do not believe in any pardon
for their sins, except after an adequate and just punishment for each evil deed
or thought in a future incarnation, and a proportionate compensation to the
parties injured.
Q. Where is it so stated?
A. In most of their sacred works.
Consider the following Theosophical tenet:
Buddhists believe that every act,
word, or thought has its consequence, which will appear sooner or later in the
present or in the future state. Evil acts will produce evil consequences, good
acts will produce good consequences: prosperity in this world, or birth in heaven
(Devachan) … in the future state.
Q. Christians believe the
same thing, don't they?
A. Oh, no; they
believe in the pardon and the remission of all sins. They
are promised that if they only believe in the blood of
Christ (an innocent victim!), in the blood offered
by Him for the expiation of the sins of the whole of mankind,
it will atone for every mortal sin. And we believe neither
in vicarious atonement, nor in the possibility of the
remission of the smallest sin by any god, not even by a “personal
Absolute or “Infinite, if such a thing could have
any existence. What we believe in, is strict and impartial
justice. Our idea of the unknown Universal Deity, represented
by Karma, is that it is a Power which cannot fail, and can,
therefore, have neither wrath nor mercy, only absolute Equity,
which leaves every cause, great or small, to work out its
inevitable effects. The saying of Jesus: “With
what measure you mete it shall be measured to you again, neither
by expression nor implication points to any hope of future
mercy or salvation by proxy. This is why, recognizing as
we do in our philosophy the justice of this statement, we
cannot recommend too strongly mercy, charity, and forgiveness
of mutual offenses.
Resist not evil, and render good for evil, are
Buddhist precepts, and were first preached in view of the
implacability of Karmic law. For man to take the law into
his own hands is anyhow a sacrilegious presumption. Human
Law may use restrictive not punitive measures; but a man
who, believing in Karma, still revenges himself and refuses
to forgive every injury, thereby rendering good for evil,
is a criminal and only hurts himself. As Karma is sure to
punish the man who wronged him, by seeking to inflict an
additional punishment on his enemy, he, who instead of leaving
that punishment to the great Law adds to it his own mite,
only begets thereby a cause for the future reward of his
own enemy and a future punishment for himself. The unfailing
Regulator affects in each incarnation the quality of its
successor; and the sum of the merit or demerit in preceding
ones determines it.
Q. Are we then to infer a
man's past from his present?
A. Only so far
as to believe that his present life is what it justly
should be, to atone for the sins of the past life. Of
course — seers and great adepts excepted — we
cannot as average mortals know what those sins were. From
our paucity of data, it is impossible for us even to determine
what an old man's youth must have been; neither can we,
for like reasons, draw final conclusions merely from what
we see in the life of some man, as to what his past life
may have been.
What
is Karma?
Q. But what is Karma?
A. As I have said, we consider it
as the Ultimate Law of the Universe, the source, origin, and fount of
all other laws which exist throughout Nature. Karma is the unerring law which
adjusts effect to cause, on the physical, mental, and spiritual planes of being.
As no cause remains without its due effect from greatest to least, from a cosmic
disturbance down to the movement of your hand, and as like produces like,Karma
is that unseen and unknown law which adjusts wisely, intelligently, and equitably
each effect to its cause, tracing the latter back to its producer. Though itself
unknowable,its action is perceivable.
Q. Then
it is the “Absolute,
the “Unknowable again, and is not of much value as an explanation
of the problems of life?
A. On the contrary.
For, though we do not know what Karma is per se, and
in its essence, we do know
how it works, and we can define and describe its mode
of action with accuracy. We only do not know its
ultimate Cause, just
as modern philosophy universally admits that the ultimate Cause
of anything is
“unknowable.
Q. And
what has Theosophy to say in regard to the solution of
the more practical needs of humanity? What is the explanation
which it offers in reference to the awful suffering and
dire necessity prevalent among the so-called “lower classes.
A. To be pointed,
according to our teaching all these great social evils,
the distinction of classes in Society, and of the sexes
in the affairs of life, the unequal distribution of capital
and of labor — all are due to what we tersely but
truly denominate Karma.
Q. But, surely, all these
evils which seem to fall upon the masses somewhat indiscriminately are not actual
merited and individual Karma?
A. No, they cannot
be so strictly defined in their effects as to show that
each individual environment, and the particular conditions
of life in which each person finds himself, are nothing
more than the retributive Karma which the individual generated
in a previous life. We must not lose sight of the fact
that every atom is subject to the general law governing
the whole body to which it belongs, and here we come upon
the wider track of the Karmic law. Do you not perceive
that the aggregate of individual Karma becomes that of
the nation to which those individuals belong, and further,
that the sum total of National Karma is that of the World?
The evils that you speak of are not peculiar to the individual
or even to the Nation, they are more or less universal;
and it is upon this broad line of Human interdependence
that the law of Karma finds its legitimate and equable
issue.
Q. Do I, then, understand
that the law of Karma is not necessarily an individual law?
A. That is just what I mean. It is
impossible that Karma could readjust the balance of power in the world's life
and progress, unless it had a broad and general line of action. It is held as
a truth among Theosophists that the interdependence of Humanity is the cause
of what is called Distributive Karma, and it is this law which affords the solution
to the great question of collective suffering and its relief. It is an occult
law, moreover, that no man can rise superior to his individual failings, without
lifting, be it ever so little, the whole body of which he is an integral part.
In the same way, no one can sin, nor suffer the effects of sin, alone. In reality,
there is no such thing as “Separateness; and the nearest approach to that selfish
state, which the laws of life permit, is in the intent or motive.
Q. And are there no means
by which the distributive or national Karma might be concentrated or collected,
so to speak, and brought to its natural and legitimate fulfillment without all
this protracted suffering?
A. As a general rule, and within
certain limits which define the age to which we belong, the law of Karma cannot
be hastened or retarded in its fulfillment. But of this I am certain, the point
of possibility in either of these directions has never yet been touched. Listen
to the following recital of one phase of national suffering, and then ask yourself
whether, admitting the working power of individual, relative, and distributive
Karma, these evils are not capable of extensive modification and general relief.
What I am about to read to you is from the pen of a National Savior, one who,
having overcome Self, and being free to choose, has elected to serve Humanity,
in bearing at least as much as a woman's shoulders can possibly bear of National
Karma. This is what she says:
Yes, Nature always
does speak, don't you think? only sometimes we make so
much noise that we drown her voice. That is why it is
so restful to go out of the town and nestle awhile in the
Mother's arms. I am thinking of the evening on Hampstead
Heath when we watched the sun go down; but oh! upon what
suffering and misery that sun had set! A lady brought
me yesterday a big hamper of wild flowers. I thought some
of my East — end family
had a better right to it than I, and so I took it down to
a very poor school in Whitechapel this morning. You should
have seen the pallid little faces brighten! Thence I went
to pay for some dinners at a little cook shop for some
children. It was in a back street, narrow, full of jostling
people; stench indescribable, from fish, meat, and other
food, all reeking in a sun that, in Whitechapel, festers
instead of purifying. The cook shop was the quintessence
of all the smells. Indescribable meat-pies at 1d., loathsome
lumps of 'food' and swarms of flies, a very altar of Beelzebub!
All about, babies on the prowl for scraps, one, with the
face of an angel, gathering up cherrystones as a light
and nutritious form of diet. I came westward with every
nerve shuddering and jarred, wondering whether anything
can be done with some parts of London save swallowing them
up in an earthquake and starting their inhabitants afresh,
after a plunge into some purifying Lethe, out of which
not a memory might emerge! And then I thought of Hampstead
Heath, and — pondered. If by any sacrifice one could
win the power to save these people, the cost would not
be worth counting; but, you see,they must
be changed — and how can that be wrought? In the condition
they now are, they would not profit by any environment
in which they might be placed; and yet, in their present
surroundings they must continue to putrefy. It breaks my
heart, this endless, hopeless misery, and the brutish
degradation that is at once its outgrowth and its root.
It is like the banyan tree; every branch roots itself
and sends out new shoots. What a difference between these
feelings and the peaceful scene at Hampstead! and yet
we, who are the brothers and sisters of these poor creatures,
have only a right to use Hampstead Heaths to gain strength
to save Whitechapels.
Q. That
is a sad but beautiful letter, and I think it presents
with painful conspicuity the terrible workings of what
you have called “Relative and Distributive Karma. But
alas! there seems no immediate hope of any relief short
of an earthquake, or some such general engulfment!
A. What right have we to think so
while one-half of humanity is in a position to effect an immediate relief of
the privations which are suffered by their fellows? When every individual has
contributed to the general good what he can of money, of labor, and of ennobling
thought, then, and only then, will the balance of National Karma be struck,
and until then we have no right nor any reasons for saying that there is more
life on the earth than Nature can support. It is reserved for the heroic souls,
the Saviors of our Race and Nation, to find out the cause of this unequal pressure
of retributive Karma, and by a supreme effort to readjust the balance of power,
and save the people from a moral engulfment a thousand times more disastrous
and more permanently evil than the like physical catastrophe, in which you seem
to see the only possible outlet for this accumulated misery.
Q. Well, then, tell me generally
how you describe this law of Karma?
A. We describe Karma as that Law
of readjustment which ever tends to restore disturbed equilibrium in the physical,
and broken harmony in the moral world. We say that Karma does not act in this
or that particular way always; but that it always does act so as to restore
Harmony and preserve the balance of equilibrium, in virtue of which the Universe
exists.
Q. Give me an illustration.
A. Later on I will give you a full
illustration. Think now of a pond. A stone falls into the water and creates
disturbing waves. These waves oscillate backwards and forwards till at last,
owing to the operation of what physicists call the law of the dissipation of
energy, they are brought to rest, and the water returns to its condition of
calm tranquility. Similarly all action, on every plane, produces disturbance
in the balanced harmony of the Universe, and the vibrations so produced will
continue to roll backwards and forwards, if its area is limited, till equilibrium
is restored. But since each such disturbance starts from some particular point,
it is clear that equilibrium and harmony can only be restored by the reconverging
to that same point of all the forces which were set in motion from it.
And here you have proof that the consequences of a man's deeds, thoughts, etc.
must all react upon himself with the same force with which they were
set in motion.
Q. But I see nothing of a
moral character about this law. It looks to me like the simple physical law
that action and reaction are equal and opposite.
A. I am not surprised
to hear you say that. Europeans have got so much into
the ingrained habit of considering right and wrong, good
and evil, as matters of an arbitrary code of law laid
down either by men, or imposed upon them by a Personal
God. We Theosophists, however, say that “Good and “Harmony, and “Evil and “Dis-harmony, are
synonymous. Further we maintain that all pain and suffering
are results of want of Harmony, and that the one terrible
and only cause of the disturbance of Harmony is selfishness
in some form or another. Hence Karma gives back to every
man the actualconsequences of his own actions, without any regard
to their moral character; but since he receives his due
for all, it is obvious that he will be
made to atone for all sufferings which he has caused, just
as he will reap in joy and gladness the fruits of all the
happiness and harmony he had helped to produce. I can do
no better than quote for your benefit certain passages from
books and articles written by our Theosophists — those
who have a correct idea of Karma.
Q. I wish you would, as your
literature seers to be very sparing on this subject?
A. Because it is the
most difficult
of all our tenets. Some short time ago there appeared the following objection
from a Christian pen:
Granting that
the teaching in regard to Theosophy is correct, and that “man
must be his own savior, must overcome self and conquer
the evil that is in his dual nature, to obtain the emancipation
of his soul, what is man to do after he has been awakened
and converted to a certain extent from evil or wickedness?
How is he to get emancipation, or pardon, or the blotting
out of the evil or wickedness he has already done?
To this Mr. J.H.
Conelly replies very pertinently that no one can hope
to “make the theosophical engine run on
the theological track. As he has it:
The possibility
of shirking individual responsibility is not among the
concepts of Theosophy. In this faith there is no such
thing as pardoning, or “blotting out of evil or wickedness
already done,
otherwise than by the adequate punishment therefore of the
wrong-doer and the restoration of the harmony in the universe
that had been disturbed by his wrongful act. The evil has
been his own, and while others must suffer its consequences,
atonement can be made by nobody but himself.
The condition
contemplated …
in which a man shall have been “awakened and converted
to a certain extent from evil or wickedness, is that in
which a man shall have realized that his deeds are evil
and deserving of punishment. In that realization a sense
of personal responsibility is inevitable, and just in proportion
to the extent of his awakening or “converting must be the
sense of that awful responsibility. While it is strong upon
him is the time when he is urged to accept the doctrine of
vicarious atonement.
He is told that he must also repent,
but nothing is easier than that. It is an amiable weakness of human nature that
we are quite prone to regret the evil we have done when our attention is called,
and we have either suffered from it ourselves or enjoyed its fruits. Possibly,
close analysis of the feeling would show us that thing which we regret is rather
the necessity that seemed to require the evil as a means of attainment of our
selfish ends than the evil itself.
Attractive as this prospect of casting
our burden of sins “at the foot of the cross may be to the ordinary mind, it
does not commend itself to the Theosophic student. He does not apprehend why
the sinner by attaining knowledge of his evil can thereby merit any pardon for
or the blotting out of his past wickedness; or why repentance and future right
living entitle him to a suspension in his favor of the universal law of relation
between cause and effect. The results of his evil deeds continue to exist; the
suffering caused to others by his wickedness is not blotted out. The Theosophical
student takes the result of wickedness upon the innocent into his problem. He
considers not only the guilty person, but his victims.
Evil is an infraction
of the laws of harmony governing the universe, and the
penalty thereof must fall upon the violator of that law
himself. Christ uttered the warning, “Sin no more,
lest a worse thing come upon thee, and St. Paul said, “Work
out your own salvation. Whatsoever a man soweth, that
shall he also reap. That, by the way, is a fine
metaphoric rendering of the sentence of the Pur as far antedating
him — that “every
man reaps the consequences of his own acts.
This is the principle
of the law of Karma which is taught by Theosophy. Sinnett,
in his Esoteric Buddhism,rendered
Karma as “the law of ethical causation. “The
law of retribution, as Mme. Blavatsky
translates its meaning, is better. It is the power which
Just though mysterious, leads us
on unerring
Through ways unmarked from guilt
to punishment.
But it is more.
It rewards merit as unerringly and amply as it punishes
demerit. It is the outcome of every act, of thought, word,
and deed, and by it men mould themselves, their lives and
happenings. Eastern philosophy rejects the idea of a newly
created soul for every baby born. It believes in a limited
number of monads, evolving and growing more and more perfect
through their assimilation of many successive personalities.
Those personalities are the product of Karma and it is
by Karma and reincarnation that the human monad in time
returns to its source — absolute deity.
E.D. Walker, in his Reincarnation,
offers the following explanation:
Briefly, the doctrine of Karma is
that we have made ourselves what we are by former actions, and are building
our future eternity by present actions. There is no destiny but what we ourselves
determine. There is no salvation or condemnation except what we ourselves bring
about … Because it offers no shelter for culpable actions and necessitates
a sterling manliness, it is less welcome to weak natures than the easy religious
tenets of vicarious atonement, intercession, forgiveness, and deathbed conversions
… In the domain of eternal justice the offense and the punishment are
inseparably connected as the same event, because there is no real distinction
between the action and its outcome … It is Karma, or our old acts, that
draws us back into earthly life. The spirit's abode changes according to its
Karma, and this Karma forbids any long continuance in one condition, because
it is always changing. So long as action is governed by material and
selfish motives, just so long must the effect of that action be manifested in
physical rebirths. Only the perfectly selfless man can elude the gravitation
of material life. Few have attained this, but it is the goal of mankind.
And then the writer quotes from The
Secret Doctrine:
Those who believe
in Karma have to believe in destiny, which, from birth
to death, every man is weaving, thread by thread, around
himself, as a spider does his cobweb, and this destiny
is guided either by the heavenly voice of the invisible
prototype outside of us, or by our more intimate astral
or inner man, who is but too often the evil genius of
the embodied entity called man. Both these lead on the
outward man, but one of them must prevail; and from the
very beginning of the invisible affray the stern and implacable
law of compensation steps in and takes its course, faithfully
following the fluctuations. When the last strand is woven,
and man is seemingly enwrapped in the network of his own
doing, then he finds himself completely under the empire
of this self-made destiny … An Occultist or a philosopher
will not speak of the goodness or cruelty of Providence;
but, identifying it with Karma-Nemesis, he will teach
that, nevertheless, it guards the good and watches over
them in this as in future lives; and that it punishes the
evil-doer — aye,
even to his seventh rebirth — so long, in short, as
the effect of his having thrown into perturbation even the
smallest atom in the infinite world of harmony has not been
finally readjusted. For the only decree of Karma — an
eternal and immutable decree — is absolute harmony
in the world of matter as it is in the world of spirit. It
is not, therefore, Karma that rewards or punishes, but it
is we who reward or punish ourselves according to whether
we work with, through and along with nature, abiding by the
laws on which that harmony depends, or — break them.
Nor would the ways of Karma be inscrutable were men to work
in union and harmony, instead of disunion and strife. For
our ignorance of those ways — which one portion of
mankind calls the ways of Providence, dark and intricate;
while another sees in them the action of blind fatalism;
and a third simple chance, with neither gods nor devils to
guide them — would surely disappear if we would but
attribute all these to their correct cause … We stand
bewildered before the mystery of our own making and the riddles
of life that we will not solve, and then accuse the great
Sphinx of devouring us. But verily there is not an accident
of our lives, not a misshapen day, or a misfortune, that
could not be traced back to our own doings in this or
in another life … The law of Karma is inextricably
interwoven with that of reincarnation … It is only
this doctrine that can explain to us the mysterious problem
of good and evil, and reconcile man to the terrible and
apparent injustice of life. Nothing but such certainty
can quiet our revolted sense of justice. For, when one
unacquainted with the noble doctrine looks around him
and observes the inequalities of birth and fortune, of
intellect and capacities; when one sees honor paid to
fools and wastrels, on whom fortune has heaped her favours
by mere privilege of birth, and their nearest neighbor,
with all his intellect and noble virtues — far more
deserving in every way — perishing for want and
for lack of sympathy — when one sees all this and
has to turn away, helpless to relieve the undeserved suffering,
one's ears ringing and heart aching with the cries of
pain around him — that blessed knowledge of Karma
alone prevents him from cursing life and men as well as
their supposed Creator … This
law, whether conscious or unconscious, predestines nothing
and no one. It exists from and in eternity truly, for
it is eternity itself; and as such, since no act can
be coequal with eternity, it cannot be said to act, for
it is action itself. It is not the wave which drowns the
man, but the personal action of the wretch who goes deliberately
and places himself under the impersonal action of the
laws that govern the ocean's motion. Karma creates nothing,
nor does it design. It is man who plants and creates causes,
and Karmic law adjusts the effects, which adjustment
is not an act but universal harmony, tending ever to
resume its original position, like a bough, which, bent
down too forcibly, rebounds with corresponding vigor.
If it happen to dislocate the arm that tried to bend
it out of its natural position, shall we say it is the
bough which broke our arm or that our own folly has brought
us to grief? Karma has never sought to destroy intellectual
and individual liberty, like the god invented by the
Monotheists. It has not involved its decrees in darkness
purposely to perplex man, nor shall it punish him who
dares to scrutinize its mysteries. On the contrary, he
who unveils through study and meditation its intricate
paths, and throws light on those dark ways, in the windings
of which so many men perish owing to their ignorance
of the labyrinth of life, is working for the good of
his fellowmen. Karma is an absolute and eternal law in
the world of manifestation; and as there can only be
one Absolute, as one Eternal, ever — present Cause,
believers in Karma cannot be regarded as atheists or materialists,
still less as fatalists, for Karma is one with the Unknowable,
of which it is an aspect, in its effects in the phenomenal
world.
Another able Theosophic writer says:
Every individual
is making Karma either good or bad in each action and
thought of his daily round, and is at the same time working
out in this life the Karma brought about by the acts and
desires of the last. When we see people afflicted by congenital
ailments it may be safely assumed that these ailments
are the inevitable results of causes started by themselves
in a previous birth. It may be argued that, as these afflictions
are hereditary, they can have nothing to do with a past
incarnation; but it must be remembered that the Ego, the
real man, the individuality, has no spiritual origin in
the parentage by which it is re-embodied, but it is drawn
by the affinities which its previous mode of life attracted
round it into the current that carries it, when the time
comes for rebirth, to the home best fitted for the development
of those tendencies … This doctrine of Karma, when
properly understood, is well calculated to guide and
assist those who realize its truth to a higher and better
mode of life, for it must not be forgotten that not only
our actions but our thoughts also are most assuredly
followed by a crowd of circumstances that will influence
for good or for evil our own future, and, what is still
more important, the future of many of our fellow-creatures.
If sins of omission and commission could in any case
be only self-regarding, the fact on the sinner's Karma
would be a matter of minor consequence. The effect that
every thought and act through life carries with it for
good or evil a corresponding influence on other members
of the human family renders a strict sense of justice,
morality, and unselfishness so necessary to future happiness
or progress. A crime once committed, an evil thought
sent out from the mind, are past recall — no amount
of repentance can wipe out their results in the future.
Repentance, if sincere, will deter a man from repeating
errors; it cannot save him or others from the effects
of those already produced, which will most unerringly
overtake him either in this life or in the next rebirth.
Mr. J.H. Conelly
proceeds —
The believers in a religion based
upon such doctrine are willing it should be compared with one in which man's
destiny for eternity is determined by the accidents of a single, brief earthly
existence, during which he is cheered by the promise that “as the tree falls
so shall it lie; in which his brightest hope, when he wakes up to a knowledge
of his wickedness, is the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and in which even
that is handicapped, according to the Presbyterian Confession of Faith.
By the decree of God, for the manifestation
of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and
others foreordained to everlasting death.
These angels and men thus predestinated
and foreordained are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number
is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished
… As God hath appointed the elect unto glory … Neither are any other
redeemed by Christ effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved,
but the elect only.
The rest of mankind
God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel
of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy
as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over
his creatures, to pass by and to ordain them to dishonour
and wrath for their sin to the praise of his glorious justice.
This is what the able defender says.
Nor can we do any better than wind up the subject as he does, by a quotation
from a magnificent poem. As he says:
The exquisite beauty of Edwin Arnold's
exposition of Karma in The Light of Asia tempts to its reproduction here,
but it is too long for quotation in full. Here is a portion of it:
Karma — all
that total of a soul
Which
is the things it did, the thoughts it had,
The “self
it wove with woof of viewless time
Crossed
on the warp invisible of acts.
Before
beginning and without an end,
As space
eternal and as surety sure,
Is fixed
a Power divine which moves to good,
Only its
laws endure.
It will
not be despised of anyone;
Who thwarts
it loses, and who serves it gains;
The hidden
good it pays with peace and bliss,
The hidden
ill with pains.
It seeth
everywhere and marketh all;
Do
right — it
recompenseth! Do one wrong —
The equal
retribution must be made,
Though
Dharma tarry long.
It knows
not wrath nor pardon; utter-true,
Its measures
mete, its faultless balance weighs;
Times
are as naught, tomorrow it will judge
Or after
many days.
* * * * *
Such is
the law which moves to righteousness,
Which
none at last can turn aside or stay;
The heart
of it is love, the end of it
Is peace and consummation sweet.
Obey.
And now I advise you to compare our
Theosophic views upon Karma, the law of Retribution, and say whether they are
not both more philosophical and just than this cruel and idiotic dogma which
makes of “God a senseless fiend; the tenet, namely, that the “elect only will
be saved, and the rest doomed to eternal perdition!
Q. Yes, I see what you mean
generally; but I wish you could give some concrete example of the action of
Karma?
A. That I cannot do. We can only
feel sure, as I said before, that our present lives and circumstances are the
direct results of our own deeds and thoughts in lives that are past. But we,
who are not Seers or Initiates, cannot know anything about the details of the
working of the law of Karma.
Q. Can anyone, even an Adept
or Seer, follow out this Karmic process of readjustment in detail?
A. Certainly: “Those who know
can do so by the exercise of powers which are latent even in all men.
Who
Are Those Who Know?
Q. Does this hold equally
of ourselves as of others?
A. Equally. Aa just said, the same
limited vision exists for all, save those who have reached in the present incarnation
the acme of spiritual vision and clairvoyance. We can only perceive that, if
things with us ought to have been different, they would have been different;
that we are what we have made ourselves, and have only what we have earned for
ourselves.
Q. I am afraid such a conception
would only embitter us.
A. I believe it is precisely the
reverse. It is disbelief in the just law of retribution that is more likely
to awaken every combative feeling in man. A child, as much as a man, resents
a punishment, or even a reproof he believes to be unmerited, far more than he
does a more severe punishment, if he feels that it is merited. Belief in Karma
is the highest reason for reconcilement to one's lot in this life, and the very
strongest incentive towards effort to better the succeeding rebirth. Both of
these, indeed, would be destroyed if we supposed that our lot was the result
of anything but strict Law, or that destiny was in any other hands than
our own.
Q. You have just asserted
that this system of Reincarnation under Karmic law commended itself to reason,
justice, and the moral sense. But, if so, is it not at some sacrifice of the
gentler qualities of sympathy and pity, and thus a hardening of the finer instincts
of human nature?
A. Only apparently, not really. No
man can receive more or less than his deserts without a corresponding injustice
or partiality to others; and a law which could be averted through compassion
would bring about more misery than it saved, more irritation and curses than
thanks. Remember also, that we do not administer the law, if we do create causes
for its effects; it administers itself; and again, that the most copious provision
for the manifestation of just compassion and mercy is shown in the state
of Devachan.
Q. You speak of Adepts as
being an exception to the rule of our general ignorance. Do they really know
more than we do of Reincarnation and after states?
A. They do, indeed. By the training
of faculties we all possess, but which they alone have developed to perfection,
they have entered in spirit these various planes and states we have been discussing.
For long ages, one generation of Adepts after another has studied the mysteries
of being, of life, death, and rebirth, and all have taught in their turn some
of the facts so learned.
Q. And is the production of
Adepts the aim of Theosophy?
A. Theosophy considers humanity as
an emanation from divinity on its return path thereto. At an advanced point
upon the path, Adeptship is reached by those who have devoted several incarnations
to its achievement. For, remember well, no man has ever reached Adeptship in
the Secret Sciences in one life; but many incarnations are necessary for it
after the formation of a conscious purpose and the beginning of the needful
training. Many may be the men and women in the very midst of our Society who
have begun this uphill work toward illumination several incarnations ago, and
who yet, owing to the personal illusions of the present life, are either ignorant
of the fact, or on the road to losing every chance in this existence of progressing
any farther. They feel an irresistible attraction toward occultism and the Higher
Life, and yet are too personal and self-opinionated, too much in love with
the deceptive allurements of mundane life and the world's ephemeral pleasures,
to give them up; and so lose their chance in their present birth. But, for ordinary
men, for the practical duties of daily life, such a far-off result is inappropriate
as an aim and quite ineffective as a motive.
Q. What, then, may be their
object or distinct purpose in joining the Theosophical Society?
A. Many are interested in our doctrines
and feel instinctively that they are truer than those of any dogmatic religion.
Others have formed a fixed resolve to attain the highest ideal of man's duty.
The
Difference Between Faith and Knowledge, Or Blind and Reasoned Faith
Q. You say that they accept
and believe in the doctrines of Theosophy. But, as they do not belong to those
Adepts you have just mentioned, then they must accept your teachings on blind
faith. In what does this differ from that of conventional religions?
A. As it differs
on almost all the other points, so it differs on this
one. What you call “faith, and that which
is blind faith, in reality, and with regard to the
dogmas of the Christian religions, becomes with us “knowledge, the
logical sequence of things
we know, about facts in nature. Your Doctrines
are based upon interpretation, therefore, upon the secondhand
testimony
of Seers; ours upon the invariable and unvarying testimony
of Seers. The ordinary Christian theology, for instance,
holds that man is a creature of God, of three component
parts — body, soul, and spirit — all essential
to his integrity, and all, either in the gross form of physical
earthly existence or in the etherealized form of post-resurrection
experience, needed to so constitute him forever, each man
having thus a permanent existence separate from other men,
and from the Divine. Theosophy, on the other hand, holds
that man, being an emanation from the Unknown, yet ever
present and infinite Divine Essence, his body and everything
else is impermanent, hence an illusion; Spirit alone in
him being the one enduring substance, and even that losing
its separated individuality at the moment of its complete
reunion with the Universal Spirit.
Q. If we lose even our individuality,
then it becomes simply annihilation.
A. I say it does not,since
I speak of separate, not of universal individuality. The latter becomes
as a part transformed into the whole; the dewdrop is not evaporated, but
becomes the sea. Is physical man annihilated,when from a fetus he becomes
an old man? What kind of Satanic pride must be ours if we place our infinitesimally
small consciousness and individuality higher than the universal and infinite
consciousness!
Q. It follows, then, that
there is, de facto, no man, but all is Spirit?
A. You are mistaken.
It thus follows that the union of Spirit with matter is
but temporary; or, to put it more clearly, since Spirit
and matter are one, being the two opposite poles of the universal
manifested substance — that Spirit loses its right
to the name so long as the smallest particle and atom of
its manifesting substance still clings to any form, the result
of differentiation. To believe otherwise is blind faith.
Q. Thus it is on knowledge,not
on faith, that you assert that the permanent principle, the Spirit, simply
makes a transit through matter?
A. I would put
it otherwise and say — we
assert that the appearance of the permanent and one principle,
Spirit,
as matter is transient, and, therefore, no better
than an illusion.
Q. Very well; and this, given
out on knowledge not faith?
A. Just so. But
as I see very well what you are driving at, I may just
as well tell you that we hold faith,
such as you advocate, to be a mental disease, and real faith, i.e., the
pistis of the Greeks, as “belief based on
knowledge, whether
supplied by the evidence of physical or spiritual senses.
Q. What do you mean?
A. I mean, if it is the difference
between the two that you want to know, then I can tell you that between faith
on authority and faith on one's spiritual intuition, there is a very
great difference.
Q. What is it?
A. One is human
credulity and superstition,
the other human belief and intuition.As Professor
Alexander Wilder says in his “Introduction to the Eleusinian
Mysteries,
It is ignorance which leads to profanation.
Men ridicule what they do not properly understand … The undercurrent of
this world is set towards one goal; and inside of human credulity … is
a power almost infinite, a holy faith capable of apprehending the most supreme
truths of all existence.
Those who limit that “credulity
to human authoritative dogmas alone, will never fathom that power nor even perceive
it in their natures. It is stuck fast to the external plane and is unable to
bring forth into play the essence that rules it; for to do this they have to
claim their right of private judgment, and this they never dare to do.
Q. And is it that “intuition
which forces you to reject God as a personal Father, Ruler, and Governor of
the Universe?
A. Precisely. We believe in an ever
unknowable Principle, because blind aberration alone can make one maintain that
the Universe, thinking man, and all the marvels contained even in the world
of matter, could have grown without some intelligent powers to bring
about the extraordinarily wise arrangement of all its parts. Nature may err,
and often does, in its details and the external manifestations of its materials,
never in its inner causes and results. Ancient pagans held on this question
far more philosophical views than modern philosophers, whether Agnostics, Materialists,
or Christians; and no pagan writer has ever yet advanced the proposition that
cruelty and mercy are not finite feelings, and can therefore be made the attributes
of an infinite god. Their gods, therefore, were all finite. The Siamese
author of the Wheel of the Law,expresses the same idea about your personal
god as we do; he says:
A Buddhist might
believe in the existence of a god, sublime above all human
qualities and attributes — a perfect god, above
love, and hatred, and jealousy, calmly resting in a quietude
that nothing could disturb, and of such a god he would
speak no disparagement not from a desire to please him
or fear to offend him, but from natural veneration; but
he cannot understand a god with the attributes and qualities
of men, a god who loves and hates, and shows anger; a
Deity who, whether described as by Christian Missionaries
or by Mohammedans or Brahmins, or Jews, falls below his
standard of even an ordinary good man.
Q. Faith for faith, is not
the faith of the Christian who believes, in his human helplessness and humility,
that there is a merciful Father in Heaven who will protect him from temptation,
help him in life, and forgive him his transgressions, better than the cold and
proud, almost fatalistic faith of the Buddhists, Vedantins, and Theosophists?
A. Persist in
calling our belief
“faith if you will. But once we are again on this ever-recurring
question, I ask in my turn: faith for faith, is not the
one based on strict logic and reason better than the one
which is based simply on human authority or — hero-worship?Our
“faith has all the logical force of the arithmetical truism
that two and two will produce four. Your faith is like the
logic of some emotional women, of whom Tourgenyeff said
that for them two and two were generally five, and a tallow
candle into the bargain. Yours is a faith, moreover, which
clashes not only with every conceivable view of justice
and logic, but which, if analyzed, leads man to his moral
perdition, checks the progress of mankind, and positively
making of might, right — transforms every second man
into a Cain to his brother Abel.
Q. What do you allude to?
Has
God the Right to Forgive?
A. To the Doctrine of Atonement;
I allude to that dangerous dogma in which you believe, and which teaches us
that no matter how enormous our crimes against the laws of God and of man, we
have but to believe in the self-sacrifice of Jesus for the salvation of mankind,
and his blood will wash out every stain. It is twenty years that I preach against
it, and I may now draw your attention to a paragraph from Isis Unveiled,
written in 1875. This is what Christianity teaches, and what we combat:
God's mercy is
boundless and unfathomable. It is impossible to conceive
of a human sin so damnable that the price paid in advance
for the redemption of the sinner would not wipe it out
if a thousandfold worse. And furthermore, it is never
too late to repent. Though the offender wait until the
last minute of the last hour of the last day of his mortal
life, before his blanched lips utter the confession of
faith, he may go to Paradise; the dying thief did it,
and so may all others as vile. These are the assumptions
of the Church, and of the Clergy; assumptions banged at
the heads of your countrymen by England's favorite preachers,
right in the “light of the nineteenth century,
…
— this most
paradoxical age of all. Now to what does it lead?
Q. Does it not make the Christian
happier than the Buddhist or Brahmin?
A. No; not the educated man, at any
rate, since the majority of these have long since virtually lost all belief
in this cruel dogma. But it leads those who still believe in it more easily
to the threshold of every conceivable crime, than any other I know of. Let
me quote to you once more:
If we step outside
the little circle of creed and consider the universe as
a whole balanced by the exquisite adjustment of parts,
how all sound logic, how the faintest glimmering sense
of Justice, revolts against this Vicarious Atonement!
If the criminal sinned only against himself, and wronged
no one but himself; if by sincere repentance he could cause
the obliteration of past events, not only from the memory
of man, but also from that imperishable record, which
no deity — not even the most Supreme of the Supreme — can
cause to disappear, then this dogma might not be incomprehensible.
But to maintain that one may wrong his fellowman, kill,
disturb the equilibrium of society and the natural order
of things, and then — through cowardice, hope, or
compulsion, it matters not — be forgiven by believing
that the spilling of one blood washes out the other blood
spilt — this is preposterous! Can the results
of
a crime be obliterated even though the crime itself should
be pardoned? The effects of a cause are never limited to
the boundaries of the cause, nor can the results of crime
be confined to the offender and his victim. Every good
as well as evil action has its effects, as palpably as
the stone flung into calm water. The simile is trite, but
it is the best ever conceived, so let us use it. The eddying
circles are greater and swifter as the disturbing object
is greater or smaller, but the smallest pebble, nay, the
tiniest speck, makes its ripples. And this disturbance
is not alone visible and on the surface. Below, unseen,
in every direction — outward and downward — drop
pushes drop until the sides and bottom are touched by the
force. More, the air above the water is agitated, and this
disturbance passes, as the physicists tell us, from stratum
to stratum out into space forever and ever; an impulse
has been given to matter, and that is never lost, can never
be recalled! …
So with crime,
and so with its opposite. The action may be instantaneous,
the effects are eternal. When, after the stone is once
flung into the pond, we can recall it to the hand, roll
back the ripples, obliterate the force expended, restore
the etheric waves to their previous state of non-being,
and wipe out every trace of the act of throwing the missile,
so that Time's record shall not show that it ever happened,
then, then we
may patiently hear Christians argue for the efficacy of this
Atonement, — and
cease to believe in Karmic Law. As it now stands, we call
upon the whole world to decide, which of our two doctrines
is the most appreciative of deific justice, and which
is more reasonable, even on simple human evidence and
logic.
Q. Yet millions believe in
the Christian dogma and are happy.
A. Pure sentimentalism
overpowering their thinking faculties, which no true philanthropist
or Altruist will ever accept. It is not even a dream of
selfishness, but a nightmare of the human intellect. Look
where it leads to, and tell me the name of that pagan country
where crimes are more easily committed or more numerous
than in Christian lands. Look at the long and ghastly
annual records of crimes committed in European countries;
and behold Protestant and Biblical America. There, conversions
effected in prisons are more numerous than those made by
public revivals
and preaching. See how the ledger-balance of Christian justice
(!) stands: Red-handed murderers, urged on by the demons
of lust, revene, cupidity, fanaticism, or mere brutal thirst
for blood, who kill their victims, in most cases, without
giving them time to repent or call on Jesus. These, perhaps,
died sinful, and, of course — consistently with theological
logic — met the reward of their greater or lesser
of fences. But the murderer, overtaken by human justice,
is imprisoned, wept over by sentimentalists, prayed with
and at, pronounces the charmed words of conversion, and goes
to the scaffold a redeemed child of Jesus! Except for the
murder, he would not have been prayed with, redeemed, pardoned.
Clearly this man did well to murder, for thus he gained eternal
happiness! And how about the victim, and his, or her family,
relatives, dependents, social relations; has justice no recompense
for them? Must they suffer in this world and the next, while
he who wronged them sits beside the “holy thief of Calvary,
and is forever blessed? On this question the clergy keep
a prudent silence. (Isis Unveiled)
And now you know why Theosophists — whose fundamental
belief and hope is justice for all, in Heaven as on earth,
and in Karma — reject this dogma.
Q. The ultimate destiny of
man, then, is not a Heaven presided over by God, but the gradual transformation
of matter into its primordial element, Spirit?
A. It is to that final goal to which
all tends in nature.
Q. Do not some of you regard
this association or “fall of spirit into matter as evil, and rebirth as a sorrow?
A. Some do, and therefore strive
to shorten their period of probation on earth. It is not an unmixed evil, however,
since it ensures the experience upon which we mount to knowledge and wisdom.
I mean that experience which teaches that the needs of our spiritual
nature can never be met by other than spiritual happiness. As long as we are
in the body, we are subjected to pain, suffering and all the disappointing incidents
occurring during life. Therefore, and to palliate this, we finally acquire knowledge
which alone can afford us relief and hope of a better future.
What
is Practical Theosophy?
Duty
Q. Why, then, the need for
rebirths, since all alike fail to secure a permanent peace?
A. Because the
final goal cannot be reached in any way but through life
experiences, and because the bulk of these consist in
pain and suffering. It is only through the latter that
we can learn. Joys and pleasures teach us nothing; they
are evanescent, and can only bring in the long run satiety.
Moreover, our constant failure to find any permanent satisfaction
in life which would meet the wants of our higher nature,
shows us plainly that those wants can be met only on their
own plane, to wit — the spiritual.
Q. Is the natural result of
this a desire to quit life by one means or another?
A. If you mean
by such desire “suicide,
then I say, most decidedly not. Such a result can never be
a “natural one,
but is ever due to a morbid brain disease, or to most decided
and strong materialistic views. It is the worst of crimes
and dire in its results. But if by desire, you mean simply
aspiration to reach spiritual existence, not a wish to quit
the earth, then I would call it a very natural desire indeed.
Otherwise voluntary death would be an abandonment of our
present post and of the duties incumbent on us, as well
as an attempt to shirk Karmic responsibilities, and thus
involve the creation of new Karma.
Q. But if actions on the material
plane are unsatisfying, why should duties, which are such actions, be imperative?
A. First of all, because our philosophy
teaches us that the object of doing our duties to all men and to ourselves the
last, is not the attainment of personal happiness, but of the happiness of others;
the fulfillment of right for the sake of right, not for what it may bring us.
Happiness, or rather contentment, may indeed follow the performance of duty,
but is not and must not be the motive for it.
Q. What do you understand
precisely by “duty in Theosophy? It cannot be the Christian duties preached
by Jesus and his Apostles, since you recognize neither?
A. You are once more mistaken. What
you call “Christian duties were inculcated by every great moral and religious
Reformer ages before the Christian era. All that was great, generous, heroic,
was, in days of old, not only talked about and preached from pulpits as in our
own time, but acted upon sometimes by whole nations. The history of the
Buddhist reform is full of the most noble and most heroically unselfish acts.
Be ye all of one
mind, having compassion one of another; love as brethren,
be pitiful, be courteous; not rendering evil for evil,
or railing for railing; but contrariwise, blessing …— was
practically carried out by the followers of Buddha, several
centuries before Peter. The Ethics of Christianity are grand,
no doubt; but as undeniably they are not new, and have originated
as “Pagan duties.
Q. And
how would you define these duties, or “duty in
general, as you understand the term?
A. Duty is that
which is due
to Humanity, to our fellowmen, neighbors, family, and especially that which
we owe to all those who are poorer and more helpless than we are ourselves.
This is a debt which, if left unpaid during life, leaves us spiritually insolvent
and morally bankrupt in our next incarnation. Theosophy is the quintessence
of duty.
Q. So is Christianity when
rightly understood and carried out.
A. No doubt it
is; but then, were it not a lip-religion in practice,
Theosophy would have little to do amidst Christians. Unfortunately
it is but such lip-ethics. Those who practice their duty
towards all, and for duty's own sake, are few; and fewer
still are those who perform that duty, remaining content
with the satisfaction of their own secret consciousness.
It is — …
the public voice
Of praise that
honors virtue and rewards it, — which
is ever uppermost in the minds of the “world renowned philanthropists.
Modern ethics are beautiful to read about and hear discussed;
but what are words unless converted into actions? Finally:
if you ask me how we understand Theosophical duty practically
and in view of Karma, I may answer you that our duty is
to drink without a murmur to the last drop, whatever contents
the cup of life may have in store for us, to pluck the
roses of life only for the fragrance they may shed on others,
and to be ourselves content but with the thorns, if that
fragrance cannot be enjoyed without depriving someone else
of it.
Q. All this is very vague.
What do you do more than Christians do?
A. It is not what
we members of the Theosophical Society do — though
some of us try our best — but how much farther Theosophy
leads to good than modern Christianity does. I say — action,
enforced action, instead of mere intention and talk. A man
may be what he likes, the most worldly, selfish and hard-hearted
of men, even a deep-dyed rascal, and it will not prevent
him from calling himself a Christian, or others from so
regarding him. But no Theosophist has the right to this name,
unless he is thoroughly imbued with the correctness of Carlyle's
truism: “The end of man
is an action and not a thought,though it were
the noblest — and
unless he sets and models his daily life upon this truth.
The profession of a truth is not yet the enactment of it;
and the more beautiful and grand it sounds, the more loudly
virtue or duty is talked about instead of being acted upon,
the more forcibly it will always remind one of the Dead Sea
fruit. Cant
is the most loathsome of all vices; and cant is the
most prominent feature of the greatest Protestant country
of this century — England.
Q. What do you consider as
due to humanity at large?
A. Full recognition of equal rights
and privileges for all, and without distinction of race, color, social position,
or birth.
Q. When would you consider
such due not given?
A. When there
is the slightest invasion of another's right — be
that other a man or a nation; when there is any failure
to show him the same justice, kindness, consideration,
or mercy which we desire for ourselves. The whole present
system of politics is built on the oblivion of such rights,
and the most fierce assertion of national selfishness.
The French say: “Like master, like man. They ought
to add, “Like national policy, like
citizen.
Q. Do you take any part in
politics?
A. As a Society, we carefully avoid
them, for the reasons given below. To seek to achieve political reforms before
we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into
old bottles. Make men feel and recognize in their innermost hearts what
is their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every iniquitous
law in the national policy, based on human, social, or political selfishness,
will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flowerbed
of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead
of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved
with the same selfish men at the head of affairs as of old.
The
Relations of the T.S. to Political Reforms
Q. The Theosophical Society
is not, then, a political organization?
A. Certainly not. It is international
in the highest sense in that its members comprise men and women of all races,
creeds, and forms of thought, who work together for one object, the improvement
of humanity; but as a society it takes absolutely no part in any national or
party politics.
Q. Why is this?
A. Just for the
reasons I have mentioned. Moreover, political action must
necessarily vary with the circumstances of the time and
with the idiosyncrasies of individuals. While from the
very nature of their position as Theosophists the members
of the T.S. are agreed on the principles of Theosophy,
or they would not belong to the society at all, it does
not thereby follow that they agree on every other subject.
As a society they can only act together in matters which
are common to all — that is, in Theosophy
itself; as individuals, each is left perfectly free to follow
out his or her particular line of political thought and
action, so long as this does not conflict with Theosophical
principles or hurt the Theosophical Society.
Q. But surely the T.S. does
not stand altogether aloof from the social questions which are now so fast coming
to the front?
A. The very principles
of the T.S. are a proof that it does not — or, rather,
that most of its members do not — so stand aloof.
If humanity can only be developed mentally and spiritually
by the enforcement, first of all, of the soundest and
most scientific physiological laws, it is the bounden duty
of all who strive for this development to do their utmost
to see that those laws shall be generally carried out.
All Theosophists are only too sadly aware that, in Occidental
countries especially, the social condition of large masses
of the people renders it impossible for either their bodies
or their spirits to be properly trained, so that the development
of both is thereby arrested. As this training and development
is one of the express objects of Theosophy, the T.S. is
in thorough sympathy and harmony with all true efforts
in this direction.
Q. But what do you mean by
“true efforts? Each social reformer has his own panacea, and each believes
his to be the one and only thing which can improve and save humanity?
A. Perfectly true, and this is the
real reason why so little satisfactory social work is accomplished. In most
of these panaceas there is no really guiding principle, and there is certainly
no one principle which connects them all. Valuable time and energy are thus
wasted; for men, instead of cooperating, strive one against the other, often,
it is to be feared, for the sake of fame and reward rather than for the great
cause which they profess to have at heart, and which should be supreme in their
lives.
Q. How, then, should Theosophical
principles be applied so that social cooperation may be promoted and true efforts
for social amelioration be carried on?
A. Let me briefly
remind you what these principles are — universal
Unity and Causation; Human Solidarity; the Law of Karma;
Reincarnation. These are the four links of the golden chain
which should bind humanity into one family, one universal
Brotherhood.
Q. How?
A. In the present state of society,
especially in so-called civilized countries, we are continually brought face
to face with the fact that large numbers of people are suffering from misery,
poverty, and disease. Their physical condition is wretched, and their mental
and spiritual faculties are often almost dormant. On the other hand, many persons
at the opposite end of the social scale are leading lives of careless indifference,
material luxury, and selfish indulgence. Neither of these forms of existence
is mere chance. Both are the effects of the conditions which surround those
who are subject to them, and the neglect of social duty on the one side is most
closely connected with the stunted and arrested development on the other. In
sociology, as in all branches of true science, the law of universal causation
holds good. But this causation necessarily implies, as its logical outcome,
that human solidarity on which Theosophy so strongly insists. If the action
of one reacts on the lives of all, and this is the true scientific idea, then
it is only by all men becoming brothers and all women sisters, and by all practicing
in their daily lives true brotherhood and true sisterhood, that the real human
solidarity, which lies at the root of the elevation of the race, can ever be
attained. It is this action and interaction, this true brotherhood and sisterhood,
in which each shall live for all and all for each, which is one of the fundamental
Theosophical principles that every Theosophist should be bound, not only to
teach, but to carry out in his or her individual life.
Q. All this is very well as
a general principle, but how would you apply it in a concrete way?
A. Look for a
moment at what you would call the concrete facts of human
society. Contrast the lives not only of the masses of
the people, but of many of those who are called the middle
and upper classes, with what they might be under healthier
and nobler conditions, where justice, kindness, and love
were paramount, instead of the selfishness, indifference,
and brutality which now too often seem to reign supreme.
All good and evil things in humanity have their roots
in human character, and this character is, and has been,
conditioned by the endless chain of cause and effect. But
this conditioning applies to the future as well as to
the present and the past. Selfishness, indifference, and
brutality can never be the normal state of the race — to
believe so would be to despair of humanity — and
that no Theosophist can do. Progress can be attained, and
only attained, by the development of the nobler qualities.
Now, true evolution teaches us that by altering the surroundings
of the organism we can alter and improve the organism;
and in the strictest sense this is true with regard to
man. Every Theosophist, therefore, is bound to do his
utmost to help on, by all the means in his power, every
wise and well-considered social effort which has for its
object the amelioration of the condition of the poor.
Such efforts should be made with a view to their ultimate
social emancipation, or the development of the sense of
duty in those who now so often neglect it in nearly every
relation of life.
Q. Agreed. But who is to decide
whether social efforts are wise or unwise?
A. No one person and no society can
lay down a hard-and-fast rule in this respect. Much must necessarily be left
to the individual judgment. One general test may, however, be given. Will the
proposed action tend to promote that true brotherhood which it is the aim of
Theosophy to bring about? No real Theosophist will have much difficulty in applying
such a test; once he is satisfied of this, his duty will lie in the direction
of forming public opinion. And this can be attained only by inculcating those
higher and nobler conceptions of public and private duties which lie at the
root of all spiritual and material improvement. In every conceivable case he
himself must be a center of spiritual action, and from him and his own daily
individual life must radiate those higher spiritual forces which alone can regenerate
his fellowmen.
Q. But why should he do this?
Are not he and all, as you teach, conditioned by their Karma, and must not Karma
necessarily work itself out on certain lines?
A. It is this very law of Karma which
gives strength to all that I have said. The individual cannot separate himself
from the race, nor the race from the individual. The law of Karma applies equally
to all, although all are not equally developed. In helping on the development
of others, the Theosophist believes that he is not only helping them to fulfill
their Karma, but that he is also, in the strictest sense, fulfilling his own.
It is the development of humanity, of which both he and they are integral parts,
that he has always in view, and he knows that any failure on his part to respond
to the highest within him retards not only himself but all, in their progressive
march. By his actions, he can make it either more difficult or more easy for
humanity to attain the next higher plane of being.
Q. How does this bear on the
fourth of the principles you mentioned, viz., Reincarnation?
A. The connection is most intimate.
If our present lives depend upon the development of certain principles which
are a growth from the germs left by a previous existence, the law holds good
as regards the future. Once grasp the idea that universal causation is not merely
present, but past, present, and future, and every action on our present plane
falls naturally and easily into its true place, and is seen in its true relation
to ourselves and to others. Every mean and selfish action sends us backward
and not forward, while every noble thought and every unselfish deed are stepping-stones
to the higher and more glorious planes of being. If this life were all, then
in many respects it would indeed be poor and mean; but regarded as a preparation
for the next sphere of existence, it may be used as the golden gate through
which we may pass, not selfishly and alone, but in company with our fellows,
to the palaces which lie beyond.
On
Self-Sacrifice
Q. Is equal justice to all
and love to every creature the highest standard of Theosophy?
A. No; there is an even far higher
one.
Q. What can it be?
A. The giving
to others more
than to oneself — self-sacrifice. Such was the
standard and abounding measure which marked so preeminently
the greatest Teachers and Masters of Humanity — e.g.,
Gautama Buddha in History, and Jesus of Nazareth as in the
Gospels. This trait alone was enough to secure to them the
perpetual reverence and gratitude of the generations of
men that come after them. We say, however, that self-sacrifice
has to be performed with discrimination; and such a self-abandonment,
if made without justice, or blindly, regardless of subsequent
results, may often prove not only made in vain, but harmful.
One of the fundamental rules of Theosophy is, justice to
oneself — viewed as a unit of collective humanity,
not as a personal self-justice, not more but not less than
to others; unless, indeed, by the sacrifice of the oneself
we can benefit the many.
Q. Could you make your idea
clearer by giving an instance?
A. There are many
instances to illustrate it in history. Self-sacrifice
for practical good to save many, or several people, Theosophy
holds as far higher than self-abnegation for a sectarian
idea, such as that of “saving the heathen from damnation, for
instance. In our opinion, Father Damien, the young man
of thirty who offered his whole life in sacrifice for
the benefit and alleviation of the sufferings of the lepers
at Molokai, and who went to live for eighteen years alone
with them, to finally catch the loathsome disease and
die, has not died in vain. He has given
relief and relative happiness to thousands of miserable wretches.
He has brought to them consolation, mental and physical.
He threw a streak of light into the black and dreary night
of an existence, the hopelessness of which is unparalleled
in the records of human suffering. He was a true Theosophist, and
his memory will live forever in our annals. In our sight
this poor Belgian priest stands immeasurably higher than — for
instance — all those sincere but vain-glorious
fools, the Missionaries who have sacrificed their lives
in the South Sea Islands or China. What good have they
done? They went in one case to those who are not yet ripe
for any truth; and in the other to a nation whose systems
of religious philosophy are as grand as any, if only the
men who have them would live up to the standard of Confucius
and their other sages. And they died victims of irresponsible
cannibals and savages, and of popular fanaticism and hatred.
Whereas, by going to the slums of Whitechapel or some
other such locality of those that stagnate right under
the blazing sun of our civilization, full of Christian
savages and mental leprosy, they might have done real
good, and preserved their lives for a better and worthier
cause.
Q. But the Christians do not
think so?
A. Of course not,
because they act on an erroneous belief. They think that
by baptizing the body of an irresponsible savage they
save his soul from damnation. One church forgets her martyrs,
the other beatifies and raises statues to such men as
Labro, who sacrificed his body for forty years only to
benefit the vermin which it bred. Had we the means to
do so, we would raise a statue to Father Damien, the true,
practical saint, and perpetuate his memory forever as
a living exemplar of Theosophical heroism and of Buddha — and
Christ-like mercy and self-sacrifice.
Q. Then you regard self-sacrifice
as a duty?
A. We do; and
explain it by showing that altruism is an integral part
of self-development. But we have to discriminate. A man
has no right to starve himself to death that another
man may have food, unless the life of that man is obviously
more useful to the many than is his own life. But it is
his duty to sacrifice his own comfort, and to work for
others if they are unable to work for themselves. It is
his duty to give all that which is wholly his own and
can benefit no one but himself if he selfishly keeps it
from others. Theosophy teaches self-abnegation, but does
not teach rash and useless self-sacrifice, nor does it
justify fanaticism.
Q. But how are we to reach
such an elevated status?
A. By the enlightened
application of our precepts to practice. By the use of
our higher reason, spiritual intuition, and moral sense,
and by following the dictates of what we call “the
still small voice of our conscience, which is that of
our Ego, and which speaks louder in us than the earthquakes
and the thunders of Jehovah, wherein “the Lord is
not.
Q. If such are our duties
to humanity at large, what do you understand by our duties to our immediate
surroundings?
A. Just the same, plus
those
that arise from special obligations with regard to family ties.
Q. Then it is not true, as
it is said, that no sooner does a man enter into the Theosophical Society than
he begins to be gradually severed from his wife, children, and family duties?
A. It is a groundless slander, like
so many others. The first of the Theosophical duties is to do one's duty by
all men, and especially by those to whom one's specific responsibilities
are due, because one has either voluntarily undertaken them, such as marriage
ties, or because one's destiny has allied one to them; I mean those we owe to
parents or next of kin.
Q. And what may be the duty
of a Theosophist to himself?
A. To control and conquer,through
the Higher, the lower self. To purify himself inwardly and morally; to fear
no one, and nought, save the tribunal of his own conscience. Never to do a thing
by halves; i.e.,if he thinks it the right thing to do, let him do it
openly and boldly, and if wrong, never touch it at all. It is the duty of a
Theosophist to lighten his burden by thinking of the wise aphorism of Epictetus,
who says:
Be not diverted from your duty by
any idle reflection the silly world may make upon you, for their censures
are not in your power, and consequently should not be any part of your concern.
Q. But
suppose a member of your Society should plead inability
to practice altruism by other people, on the ground that “charity
begins at home, urging that he is too busy, or too
poor, to benefit mankind or even any of its units — what
are your rules in such a case?
A. No man has
a right to say that he can do nothing for others, on any
pretext whatever. “By doing the proper
duty in the proper place, a man may make the world his debtor, says
an English writer. A cup of cold water given in time to
a thirsty wayfarer is a nobler duty and more worth, than
a dozen of dinners given away, out of season, to men who
can afford to pay for them. No man who has not got it in
him will ever become a Theosophist; but he may remain
a member of our Society all the same. We have no rules by
which we could force any man to become a practical Theosophist,
if he does not desire to be one.
Q. Then why does he enter
the Society at all?
A. That is best known to him who
does so. For, here again, we have no right to prejudge a person, not even if
the voice of a whole community should be against him, and I may tell you why.
In our day, vox populi(so far as regards the voice of the educated, at
any rate) is no longer vox dei, but ever that of prejudice, of selfish
motives, and often simply that of unpopularity. Our duty is to sow seeds broadcast
for the future, and see they are good; not to stop to enquire why we
should do so, and how and wherefore we are obliged to lose our time, since those
who will reap the harvest in days to come will never be ourselves.
On
Charity
Q. How do you Theosophists
regard the Christian duty of charity?
A. What charity do you mean? Charity
of mind, or practical charity in the physical plane?
Q. I mean practical charity,
as your idea of Universal brotherhood would include, of course, charity of mind.
A. Then you have in your mind the
practical carrying out of the commandments given by Jesus in the Sermon on the
Mount?
Q. Precisely so.
A. Then why call them “Christian?
Because, although your Savior preached and practiced them, the last thing the
Christians of today think of is to carry them out in their lives.
Q. And yet many are those
who pass their lives in dispensing charity?
A. Yes, out of the surplus of their
great fortunes. But point out to me that Christian, among the most philanthropic,
who would give to the shivering and starving thief, who would steal his coat,
his cloak also; or offer his right cheek to him who smote him on the left, and
never think of resenting it?
Q. Ah, but you must remember
that these precepts have not to be taken literally. Times and circumstances
have changed since Christ's day. Moreover, He spoke in Parables.
A. Then why don't
your Churches teach that the doctrine of damnation and
hellfire is to be understood as a parable
too? Why do some of your most popular preachers, while virtually
allowing these
“parables to be understood as you take them, insist
on the literal meaning of the fires of Hell and the physical tortures
of an “Asbestos-like
soul? If one is a “parable, then the other is. If
Hellfire is a literal truth, then Christ's commandments in
the Sermon on the Mount have to be obeyed to the very letter.
And I tell you that many who do not believe in the Divinity
of Christ-like Count Leo Tolstoi and more than one Theosophist — do
carry out these noble, because universal, precepts literally;
and many more good men and women would do so, were they
not more than certain that such a walk in life would very
probably land them in a lunatic asylum — so Christian
are your laws!
Q. But surely everyone knows
that millions and millions are spent annually on private and public charities?
A. Oh, yes; half of which sticks
to the hands it passes through before getting to the needy; while a good portion
or remainder gets into the hands of professional beggars, those who are too
lazy to work, thus doing no good whatever to those who are really in misery
and suffering. Haven't you heard that the first result of the great outflow
of charity towards the East-end of London was to raise the rents in Whitechapel
by
some twenty percent?
Q. What would you do, then?
A. Act individually and not collectively;
follow the Northern Buddhist precepts:
Never put food into the mouth of
the hungry by the hand of another.
Never
let the shadow of thy neighbor (a third person) come between thyself
and the object of thy bounty.
Never give to the Sun time
to dry a tear before thou hast wiped it.
Again
Never give money to the needy, or
food to the priest, who begs at thy door, through thy servants, lest
thy money should diminish gratitude, and thy food turn to gall.
Q. But how can this be applied
practically?
A. The Theosophical
ideas of charity mean personal exertion for others; personal
mercy
and kindness;
personal interest in the welfare of those who suffer; personal
sympathy, forethought and assistance in their troubles or
needs. It is important to note that we Theosophists do not
believe in giving money, if we had it, through other people's
hands or organizations. We believe in giving to the money
a thousandfold greater power and effectiveness by our personal
contact and sympathy with those who need it. We believe
in relieving the starvation of the soul, as much if not
more than the emptiness of the stomach; for gratitude does
more good to the man who feels it, than to him for whom
it is felt. Where's the gratitude which your “millions
of pounds should have called forth, or the good feelings
provoked by them? Is it shown in the hatred of the East-End
poor for the rich? In the growth of the party of anarchy
and disorder? Or by those thousands of unfortunate working
girls, victims to the “sweating system, driven daily
to eke out a living by going on the streets? Do your helpless
old men and women thank you for the workhouses; or your
poor for the poisonously unhealthy dwellings in which they
are allowed to breed new generations of diseased, and rickety
children, only to put money into the pockets of the insatiable
Shylocks who own houses? Therefore it is that every sovereign
of all those “millions, contributed
by good and would-be charitable people, falls like a burning
curse instead of a blessing on the poor whom it should relieve.
We call this generating national
Karma, and terrible will be its results on the day of
reckoning.
Theosophy
for the Masses
Q. And you think that Theosophy
would, by stepping in, help to remove these evils, under the practical and adverse
conditions of our modern life?
A. Had we more money, and had not
most of the Theosophists to work for their daily bread, I firmly believe we
could.
Q. How? Do you expect that
your doctrines could ever take hold of the uneducated masses, when they are
so abstruse and difficult that well-educated people can hardly understand them?
A. You forget one thing, which is
that your much-boasted modern education is precisely that which makes it difficult
for you to understand Theosophy. Your mind is so full of intellectual subtleties
and preconceptions that your natural intuition and perception of the truth cannot
act. It does not require metaphysics or education to make a man understand the
broad truths of Karma and Reincarnation. Look at the millions of poor and uneducated
Buddhists and Hindus, to whom Karma and reincarnation are solid realities, simply
because their minds have never been cramped and distorted by being forced into
an unnatural groove. They have never had the innate human sense of justice perverted
in them by being told to believe that their sins would be forgiven because another
man had been put to death for their sakes. And the Buddhists, note well, live
up to their beliefs without a murmur against Karma, or what they regard as a
just punishment; whereas the Christian populace neither lives up to its moral
ideal, nor accepts its lot contentedly. Hence murmuring and dissatisfaction,
and the intensity of the struggle for existence in Western lands.
Q. But this contentedness,
which you praise so much, would do away with all motive for exertion and bring
progress to a stand-still.
A. And we, Theosophists, say that
your vaunted progress and civilization are no better than a host of will-o'-the-wisps,
flickering over a marsh which exhales a poisonous and deadly miasma. This, because
we see selfishness, crime, immorality, and all the evils imaginable, pouncing
upon unfortunate mankind from this Pandora's box which you call an age of progress,
and increasing pari passu with the growth of your material civilization.
At such a price, better the inertia and inactivity of Buddhist countries, which
have arisen only as a consequence of ages of political slavery.
Q. Then is all this metaphysics
and mysticism with which you occupy yourself so much, of no importance?
A. To the masses,
who need only practical guidance and support, they are
not of much consequence; but for the educated, the natural
leaders of the masses, those whose modes of thought and
action will sooner or later be adopted by those masses,
they are of the greatest importance. It is only by means
of the philosophy that an intelligent and educated man
can avoid the intellectual suicide of believing on blind
faith; and it is only by assimilating the strict continuity
and logical coherence of the Eastern, if not esoteric,
doctrines, that he can realize their truth. Conviction
breeds enthusiasm, and “Enthusiasm, says Bulwer
Lytton, “is the genius of sincerity,
and truth accomplishes no victories without it, while Emerson
most truly remarks that “every great and commanding
movement in the annals of the world is the triumph of enthusiasm. And
what is more calculated to produce such a feeling than a
philosophy so grand, so consistent, so logical, and so all-embracing
as our Eastern Doctrines?
Q. And yet its enemies are
very numerous, and every day Theosophy acquires new opponents.
A. And this is precisely that which
proves its intrinsic excellence and value. People hate only the things they
fear, and no one goes out of his way to overthrow that which neither threatens
nor rises beyond mediocrity.
Q. Do you hope to impart this
enthusiasm, one day, to the masses?
A. Why not? Since
history tells us that the masses adopted Buddhism with
enthusiasm, while, as said before, the practical effect
upon them of this philosophy of ethics is still shown by
the smallness of the percentage of crime amongst Buddhist
populations as compared with every other religion. The
chief point is, to uproot that most fertile source of
all crime and immortality — the belief that it is
possible for them to escape the consequences of their
own actions. Once teach them that greatest of all laws, Karma and Reincarnation,and
besides feeling in themselves the true dignity of human
nature, they will turn from evil and eschew it as they
would a physical danger.
How
Members Can Help the Society
Q. How do you expect the Fellows
of your Society to help in the work?
A. First by studying and comprehending
the theosophical doctrines, so that they may teach others, especially the young
people. Secondly, by taking every opportunity of talking to others and explaining
to them what Theosophy is, and what it is not; by removing misconceptions and
spreading an interest in the subject. Thirdly, by assisting in circulating our
literature, by buying books when they have the means, by lending and giving
them and by inducing their friends to do so. Fourthly, by defending the Society
from the unjust aspersions cast upon it, by every legitimate device in their
power. Fifth, and most important of all, by the example of their own lives.
Q. But all this literature,
to the spread of which you attach so much importance, does not seem to me of
much practical use in helping mankind. This is not practical charity.
A. We think otherwise.
We hold that a good book which gives people food for thought,
which strengthens and clears their minds, and enables
them to grasp truths which they have dimly felt but could
not formulate — we hold that such a book does a real,
substantial good. As to what you call practical deeds
of charity, to benefit the bodies of our fellowmen, we
do what little we can; but, as I have already told you,
most of us are poor, whilst the Society itself has not
even the money to pay a staff of workers. All of us who
toil for it, give our labor gratis, and in most cases
money as well. The few who have the means of doing what
are usually called charitable actions, follow the Buddhist
precepts and do their work themselves, not by proxy or
by subscribing publicly to charitable funds. What the Theosophist
has to do above all is to forget his personality.
What
a Theosophist Ought Not to Do
Q. Have you any prohibitory
laws or clauses for Theosophists in your Society?
A. Many, but — alas! — none
of them are enforced. They express the ideal of our organization,
but the practical application of such things we are compelled
to leave to the discretion of the Fellows themselves.
Unfortunately, the state of men's minds in the present
century is such that, unless we allow these clauses to
remain, so to speak, obsolete, no man or woman would dare
to risk joining the Theosophical Society. This is precisely
why I feel forced to lay such a stress on the difference
between true Theosophy and its hard-struggling and well-intentioned,
but still unworthy vehicle, the Theosophical Society.
Q. May I be told what are
these perilous reefs in the open sea of Theosophy?
A. Well may you call them reefs,
as more than one otherwise sincere and well-meaning F.T.S. has had his Theosophical
canoe shattered into splinters on them! And yet to avoid certain things seems
the easiest thing in the world to do. For instance, here is a series of such
negatives, screening positive Theosophical duties:
No Theosophist should be silent when
he hears evil reports or slanders spread about the Society, or innocent persons,
whether they be his colleagues or outsiders.
Q. But suppose what one hears
is the truth, or may be true without one knowing it?
A. Then you must demand good proofs
of the assertion, and hear both sides impartially before you permit the accusation
to go uncontradicted. You have no right to believe in evil, until you get undeniable
proof of the correctness of the statement.
Q. And what should you do
then?
A. Pity and forbearance, charity
and long-suffering, ought to be always there to prompt us to excuse our sinning
brethren, and to pass the gentlest sentence possible upon those who err. A Theosophist
ought never to forget what is due to the shortcomings and infirmities of human
nature.
Q. Ought he to forgive entirely
in such cases?
A. In every case, especially he who
is sinned against.
Q. But if by so doing, he
risks to injure, or allow others to be injured? What ought he to do then?
A. His duty; that which his conscience
and higher nature suggests to him; but only after mature deliberation. Justice
consists in doing no injury to any living being; but justice commands us also
never to allow injury to be done to the many, or even to one innocent person,
by allowing the guilty one to go unchecked.
Q. What are the other negative
clauses?
A. No Theosophist ought to be contented
with an idle or frivolous life, doing no real good to himself and still less
to others. He should work for the benefit of the few who need his help if he
is unable to toil for Humanity, and thus work for the advancement of the Theosophical
cause.
Q. This demands an exceptional
nature, and would come rather hard upon some persons.
A. Then they had better remain outside
the T.S. instead of sailing under false colors. No one is asked to give more
than he can afford, whether in devotion, time, work, or money.
Q. What comes next?
A. No working member should set too
great value on his personal progress or proficiency in Theosophic studies; but
must be prepared rather to do as much altruistic work as lies in his power.
He should not leave the whole of the heavy burden and responsibility of the
Theosophical Movement on the shoulders of the few devoted workers. Each member
ought to feel it his duty to take what share he can in the common work, and
help it by every means in his power.
Q. This is but just. What
comes next?
A. No Theosophist should place his
personal vanity, or feelings, above those of his Society as a body. He who sacrifices
the latter, or other people's reputations on the altar of his personal vanity,
worldly benefit, or pride, ought not to be allowed to remain a member. One cancerous
limb diseases the whole body.
Q. Is it the duty of every
member to teach others and preach Theosophy?
A. It is indeed. No fellow has a
right to remain idle, on the excuse that he knows too little to teach. For he
may always be sure that he will find others who know still less than himself.
And also it is not until a man begins to try to teach others, that he discovers
his own ignorance and tries to remove it. But this is a minor clause.
Q. What do you consider, then,
to be the chief of these negative Theosophical duties?
A. To be ever prepared to recognize
and confess one's faults. To rather sin through exaggerated praise than through
too little appreciation of one's neighbor's efforts. Never to backbite or slander
another person. Always to say openly and direct to his face anything you have
against him. Never to make yourself the echo of anything you may hear against
another, nor harbor revenge against those who happen to injure you.
Q. But it is often dangerous
to tell people the truth to their faces. Don't you think so? I know one of your
members who was bitterly offended, left the Society, and became its greatest
enemy, only because he was told some unpleasant truths to his face, and was
blamed for them.
A. Of such we have had many. No member,
whether prominent or insignificant, has ever left us without becoming our bitter
enemy.
Q. How do you account for
it?
A. 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 behavior and past short-sightedness, is to pose
as an innocent and deceived victim, thus casting the blame from his own
shoulders onto 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.
Q. But what makes these people
turn against the Society?
A. 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
un-theosophical, 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, practice 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, endeavoring to break up the
society by blackening the reputation of those whom that
worthy “Fellow was unable to deceive.
Q. What would you do with
such characters?
A. Leave them to their Karma. Because
one person does evil that is no reason for others to do so.
Q. 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?
A. 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 in the world. Therefore, keep
silent about such things with everyone 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.
Q. Methinks, if you carry
out these maxims, you are likely to reap a nice crop of troubles!
A. 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.
Q. Admitting
yourself that there is at least as much, if not more,
backbiting, slandering, and quarreling in the T.S. as
in the Christian Churches, let alone Scientific Societies — What
kind of Brotherhood is this? I may ask.
A. 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 “recognized 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.
Q. Your position does not
seem to me a very enviable one.
A. 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 honor — 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.
Q. I confess, such a perseverance
seems to me very astounding, and I wondered why you did all this.
A. 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 program 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.
On
the Misconceptions About the T.S.
Theosophy
and Asceticism
Q. 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 me
the truth once for all about this?
A. 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.
Q. 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.
A. 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.
Q. Oh! Then you do require
ascetic practices in that Inner Section?
A. No; we do not require
orenjoin 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.
Q. Please proceed.
A. 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.
Q. But you said that “ascetic
practices are not obligatory even in that Inner Section?
A. 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.
Q. 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?
A. 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.
Q. I understand now your general
idea; but let us see how you apply it in practice. How about vegetarianism,
for instance?
A. 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 recognized. And apart from that, everyone 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.
Q. Then he had better not
eat at all?
A. 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.
Q. Then you do not adopt all
the arguments which vegetarians in general are in the habit of using?
A. 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
onto something else.
Q. One question more. What
are your members of the Inner Section to do with regard to their food when they
are ill?
A. 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.
Q. Then with regard to the
use of wine and spirits, I suppose you do not advise people to drink them?
A. 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
Q. Now to another question;
must a man marry or remain a celibate?
A. 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 forever 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.
Q. But why cannot one acquire
this knowledge and power when living a married life?
A. 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
Q. 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.
A. 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.
Q. Ah! But you must give us
time. It is only a few years since we began to educate the people.
A. 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?
Q. Well,
you may be right; but now —
A. 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.
Q. But,
really —
A. 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 schoolroom 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 humanizes 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.
Q. So be it; go on.
A. 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 neighbor 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 educators
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 honors and emoluments instead
of kindly feeling.
Q. I must admit you are right
there.
A. 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 method 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.
Q. That is all very fine as
generalities, but I should like a few facts, and to learn also how this can
be remedied.
A. 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 nineteenth 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 vampirized,
lived, and sat upon by their intellectually stronger brethren.
Such training is not only un-theosophical, 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!
Q. Well, but you cannot assert
that of our great public schools, at any rate?
A. Not exactly,
it is true. But though the form is different, the
animating spirit is the same: un-theosophical
and unchristian, whether Eton and Harrow turn out
scientists or divines and theologians.
Q. Surely you don't mean to
call Eton and Harrow “commercial?
A. 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 favorite 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.
Q. According to this view,
the wealthier “dullards have to work even harder than their poorer fellows?
A. 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 mechanicalize their naturally unfit progeny into professions
which they uselessly overcrowd.
Q. And you attribute all this
to what?
A. 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.
Q. 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?
A. Not much. For
of history, he will attain only sufficient knowledge of
his own particular nation to fit him with a steel armor
of prejudice against all other peoples, and be steeped
in the foul cesspools of chronicled national hate and
bloodthirstiness; and surely, you would not call that —Theosophy?
Q. What are your further objections?
A. 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.
Q. 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.
A. 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?
Q. What would you have, then?
A. 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 endeavor 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 freemen
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.?
Q. 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.
A. 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-honored 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 clear-sighted,
do see the true nature of Theosophy, and therefore dread
it.
Q. 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 faithlessness, heartlessness,
and treachery even against those few?
A. 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 marionettes.
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.
Q. And are they known to many
of you, or to yourself alone?
A. 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.
Q. Can you name these, at
least, if you will not speak of the others?
A. 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.
5. 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.
Q. 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?
A. 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 marvelous 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 realized 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 The 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.
Q. For what, and since when,
do the Spiritualists hate you?
A. 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 1819, 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.
Q. 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?
A. 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.
Q. 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.
A. 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
andstrictly 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 labor 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 martyrs 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.
A, 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?
A. 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
worshipers, 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 slander,
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 slander 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 slander has been bodily destroyed. A slanderous
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.
Q. 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 —
A. 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 slander 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 rumors and “hearses as you can
think of? I will answer you the truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to
the strictest verification.
Q. 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?
A. I have heard
and read about this before; and I answer that no more
utterly baseless and lying slander 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.
Q. But you cannot deny that
the Phallic element does exist in the religions of the East?
A. 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 naive 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 “Maharaja,
or
Vallabhacharya sect.
Q. 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.
A. He wrote a falsehood, and that's
all. There never was, nor is there at present, one single Vallabhacharya in
our Society. As to their having, or claiming Theosophic insight, that is another
fib, based on crass ignorance about the Indian Sects. Their “Maharaja 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?
Q. 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?
A. 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 slanders and vilification they
have been subjected to, and then ask the question!
Q. 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!
A. 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 Society for Psychical Research. 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 laboring for it as before, and receives
as little thanks for it.
Q. But surely they need money
to live?
A. 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.
Q. But could not Madame Blavatsky,
especially, make more than enough to live upon by her writings?
A. 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.
Q. Political articles?
A. 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 rubles 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.
Q. 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?
A. 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?
Q. And are there many who
follow it?
A. I am bound to answer you the truth.
In Europe about half-a-dozen in all, out of more than that number of Branches.
Q. Then it is not true that
the Theosophical Society has a large capital or endowment of its own?
A. 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.
Q. Then why not raise subscriptions?
A. 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.
Q. But
I have heard of large sums of money given to Mme. 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.
A. 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 slander, and it will
be easier for him to prove that the Bank of England is bankrupt than that the
said “Founder has ever made any money out of Theosophy. These two slanders
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
carcasses 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.
Q. 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?
A. 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.
Q. Again,
and I say this on the authority of your own Journal, The
Theosophist,there's a Raja 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?
A. We have, in
these words, “That
the thanks of the Convention be conveyed to H.H. the Maharaja … for
his
promised generous 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.
Q. But surely, if the Maharaja
promised and received thanks for his gift publicly and in print, he will be
as good as his promise?
A. He may, though the promise is
18 months old. I speak of the present and not of the future.
Q. Then how do you propose
to go on?
A. 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.
Q. 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.
A. You may laugh, but it is so.
The Working Staff of the
T.S.
Q. 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 The
Occult World, why do not they
find you money, and support the Founders and the Society
in comfort?
A. 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.
Q. Then are none of your workers
paid at all?
A. Till now, not
one. But as everyone 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! But now that the
Society's work has increased so greatly and still goes on
increasing (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.
Q. And who will provide the
funds for this?
A. 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.
Q. But you must surely make
money by your books, magazines, and other publications?
A. 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 engulfing money, never yet having
paid its 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 labor — 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.
Q. 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.
A. Well may you call them “ridiculous!
The
“Theosophical Mahatmas
Are
They “Spirits of Light or “Goblins Damned?
Q. 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.
A. 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.
Q. Yes,
but it is rumoured that some of them are a thousand years
old. Is this true?
A. 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.
Q. Seriously, though, do they
outlive the ordinary age of men?
A. 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.
Q. But
what does the word Mahatma
really mean?
A. 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.
Q. And why do you call them
“Masters?
A. 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.
Q. But is it not selfish thus
to isolate themselves?
A. Where is the selfishness? Does
not the fate of the Theosophical Society sufficiently prove that the world is
neither ready to recognize 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.
Q. Don't you ascribe to them
supernatural powers?
A. 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 recognize.
Q. 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?
A. Some have. There are passages
entirely dictated by them verbatim, but in most cases they only inspire
the ideas and leave the literary form to the writers.
Q. But this in itself is miraculous;
is, in fact, a miracle. How can they do it?
A. My dear Sir,
you are laboring 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?
Q. But you will admit that
Hypnotism does nothing so miraculous or wonderful as that?
A. 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?
Q..Then why do
not our physicians experiment and try if they could not
do as much? (
Like e.g. prof. Bernheim and Dr. C. Lloyd Tuckey in England,
profs. Beaunis and Ligeois in Nancy, Delboeuf in Liège,
Burot en Bourru in Rochefort, Fontain and Sigard in Bordeaux,
Forel in Zurich, and the physicians Despine in Marseille,
Van Renterghem and Van Eeden in Amsterdam, Wetterstrand in
Stockholm, Schrenck-Notzing in Leipzig and many other respected
physicians and writers.)
A. 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.
Q. And could they be taught?
A. 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.
Q. This is very interesting.
Tell me, have the Adepts thus inspired or dictated to many of your Theosophists?
A. 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 labor 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.
Q. But what do you really
mean by “black magic?
A. 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 hypnotist,
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.
Q. But this is medieval belief
in witchcraft and sorcery! Even Law itself has ceased to believe in such things?
A. 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 mesmerizers (or hypnotists),
and then refuse to believe in the same powers when used for evil motives. And
if you do, then you believe in Sorcery. You 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.
Q. 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.
A. 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.
Q. 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 Mme. Blavatsky and the Society?
A. What charges?
Q. 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?
A. 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 slanders, 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 recognized 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.
Q. 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?
A. 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.
Q. But her enemies claim to
have proved their case.
A. 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?
Q. But they sent a representative
to India to investigate the matter, didn't they?
A. 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 destroyed each other. Is this a serious charge?
Q. Yet it has done the Society
great harm. Why, then, did she not vindicate her own character, at least, before
a Court of Law?
A. Because:—
1. As a Theosophist, it is her duty
to leave unheeded all personal insults.
2. Neither the Society nor Mme. Blavatsky
had any money to waste over such a lawsuit.
3. 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-frolicsome lambkin from Australia.
Q. 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?
A. 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 slanders 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.
Q. 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?
A. 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.
Q. But, of course, these Masters
do exist?
A. 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.
Q. But if you have such wise
and good men to guide the Society, how is it that so many mistakes have been
made?
A. 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
Q. 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?
A. 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.
Q. But
would Mme. Blavatsky apply this to her own works —The
Secret Doctrine, for instance?
A. 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 material gain,
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
today, 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.
Q. The names certainly do
occur very frequently now-a-days, and I never remember hearing of such persons
as “Masters till quite recently.
A. 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 Ghostland, 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.
Q. Do you reject “Louis as
an Adept?
A. 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, 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!
Q. 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.
A. If I can answer them I will. What
is that?
Conclusion
The
Future of the Theosophical Society
Q. Tell me, what do you expect
for Theosophy in the future?
A. 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 infinitude of the Future,
because Theosophy is synonymous with everlasting truth.
Q. Pardon me; I meant to ask
you rather about the prospects of the Theosophical Society.
A. 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.
Q. 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?
A. 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 recognize it instantly and so avoid being
led away by it, the result can only be that the Society will drift off onto
some sandbank of thought or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to
molder and die.
Q. But if this danger be averted?
A. 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 realization 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 hotbed 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 today.
Q. A truly delightful picture!
But tell me, do you really expect all this to be accomplished in one short century?
A. 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.
Q. But how does this bear
on the future of the Theosophical Society?
A.
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 twentieth 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!