| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Key to Theosophy - Being A Clear Exposition, In The Form Of Question And - Answer Of The Ethics, Science And Philosophy
Author: Blavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Key to Theosophy - Being A Clear Exposition, In The Form Of Question And - Answer Of The Ethics, Science And Philosophy" ***
book was produced from scanned images of public domain
material from the Google Books project.)
Transcriber's Notes:
Underscores "_" before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
in the original text.
Equal signs "=" before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold=
in the original text.
Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
Typographical errors have been silently corrected but other variations
in spelling and punctuation remain unaltered.
The heading on page 188 was changed from “ON SELF-RELIANCE” to
“ON SELF-SACRIFICE”, to agree with the Table of Contents, and
the subject of the section.
The Key to Theosophy
[Illustration]
THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY
BEING
_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
[Reprinted Verbatim from the Original Edition
first published in 1889.]
THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
1920
_Dedicated_
by
“_H. P. B._”
_To all her Pupils_
_that_
_They may Learn and Teach
in their turn_
CONTENTS
SECTION I.
Page
THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY:
The Meaning of the Name 1
The Policy of the Theosophical Society 3
The Wisdom-Religion Esoteric in all Ages 5
Theosophy is not Buddhism 10
SECTION II.
EXOTERIC AND ESOTERIC THEOSOPHY:
What the Modern Theosophical Society is not 12
Theosophists and Members of the “T.S.” 15
The Difference between Theosophy and Occultism 19
The Difference between Theosophy and Spiritualism 21
Why is Theosophy accepted? 27
SECTION III.
THE WORKING SYSTEM OF THE T.S.:
The Objects of the Society 30
The Common Origin of Man 31
Our other Objects 36
On the Sacredness of the Pledge 37
SECTION IV.
THE RELATIONS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY TO THEOSOPHY:
On Self-Improvement 40
The Abstract and the Concrete 43
SECTION V.
THE FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY:
On God and Prayer 47
Is it Necessary to Pray? 50
Prayer Kills Self-Reliance 55
On the Source of the Human Soul 57
The Buddhist Teachings on the above 59
SECTION VI.
THEOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS AS TO NATURE AND MAN:
The Unity of All in All 64
Evolution and Illusion 65
The Septenary Constitution of our Planet 67
The Septenary Nature of Man 69
The Distinction between Soul and Spirit 72
The Greek Teachings 75
SECTION VII.
ON THE VARIOUS POST-MORTEM STATES:
The Physical and the Spiritual Man 79
Our Eternal Reward and Punishment; and on Nirvana 85
On the Various “Principles” in Man 91
SECTION VIII.
ON RE-INCARNATION OR REBIRTH:
What is Memory according to Theosophical Teaching? 96
Why do we not Remember our Past Lives? 99
On Individuality and Personality 104
On the Reward and Punishment of the Ego 107
SECTION IX.
ON THE KAMA-LOKA AND DEVACHAN:
On the Fate of the Lower “Principles” 112
Why Theosophists do not believe in the Return of Pure “Spirits” 114
A few Words about the Skandhas 120
On Post-mortem and Post-natal Consciousness 123
What is really meant by Annihilation 127
Definite Words for Definite Things 134
SECTION X.
ON THE NATURE OF OUR THINKING PRINCIPLE:
The Mystery of the Ego 139
The Complex Nature of Manas 143
The Doctrine is Taught in St. John’s Gospel 146
SECTION XI.
ON THE MYSTERIES OF RE-INCARNATION:
Periodical Rebirths 155
What is Karma? 158
Who are Those who Know? 170
The Difference between Faith and Knowledge; or,
Blind and Reasoned Faith 172
Has God the Right to Forgive? 176
SECTION XII.
WHAT IS PRACTICAL THEOSOPHY?
Duty 180
The Relations of the T.S. to Political Reforms 183
On Self-Sacrifice 188
On Charity 192
Theosophy for the Masses 194
How Members can Help the Society 196
What a Theosophist ought not to do 197
SECTION XIII.
ON THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY:
Theosophy and Asceticism 204
Theosophy and Marriage 207
Theosophy and Education 208
Why, then, is there so much Prejudice against the T.S? 214
Is the Theosophical Society a Money-making Concern? 221
The Working Staff of the T.S. 225
SECTION XIV.
THE “THEOSOPHICAL MAHATMAS”:
Are They “Spirits of Light” or “Goblins Damn’d”? 228
The Abuse of Sacred Names and Terms 237
CONCLUSION.
The Future of the Theosophical Society 241
PREFACE
The purpose of this book is exactly expressed in its title, “THE
KEY TO THEOSOPHY,” and needs but few words of explanation. It
is not a complete or exhaustive text-book of Theosophy, but only a
key to unlock the door that leads to the deeper study. It traces the
broad outlines of the Wisdom Religion, and explains its fundamental
principles; meeting, at the same time, the various objections raised by
the average Western enquirer, and endeavouring to present unfamiliar
concepts in a form as simple and in language as clear as possible.
That it should succeed in making Theosophy intelligible without mental
effort on the part of the reader, would be too much to expect; but it
is hoped that the obscurity still left is of the thought not of the
language, is due to depth not to confusion. To the mentally lazy or
obtuse, Theosophy must remain a riddle; for in the world mental as in
the world spiritual each man must progress by his own efforts. The
writer cannot do the reader’s thinking for him, nor would the latter
be any the better off if such vicarious thought were possible. The
need for such an exposition as the present has long been felt among
those interested in the Theosophical Society and its work, and it
is hoped that it will supply information, as free as possible from
technicalities, to many whose attention has been awakened, but who, as
yet, are merely puzzled and not convinced.
Some care has been taken in disentangling some part of what is true
from what is false in Spiritualistic teachings as to the post-mortem
life, and to showing the true nature of Spiritualistic phænomena.
Previous explanations of a similar kind have drawn much wrath upon
the writer’s devoted head; the Spiritualists, like too many others,
preferring to believe what is pleasant rather than what is true, and
becoming very angry with anyone who destroys an agreeable delusion. For
the past year Theosophy has been the target for every poisoned arrow
of Spiritualism, as though the possessors of a half truth felt more
antagonism to the possessors of the whole truth than those who had no
share to boast of.
Very hearty thanks are due from the author to many Theosophists who
have sent suggestions and questions, or have otherwise contributed help
during the writing of this book. The work will be the more useful for
their aid, and that will be their best reward.
H. P. B.
THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY.
I. THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
THE MEANING OF THE NAME.
ENQUIRER. Theosophy and its doctrines are often referred to as a
new-fangled religion. Is it a religion?
THEOSOPHIST. It is not. Theosophy is Divine Knowledge or Science.
ENQ. What is the real meaning of the term?
THEO. “Divine Wisdom,” Θεοσοφία (Theosophia) or Wisdom of the gods, as
Θεογονία (theogonia), genealogy of the gods. The word Θεὸς means
a god in Greek, one of the divine beings, certainly not “God” in
the sense attached in our day to the term. Therefore, it is not
“Wisdom of God,” as translated by some, but _Divine Wisdom_ such
as that possessed by the gods. The term is many thousand years old.
ENQ. What is the origin of the name?
THEO. It comes to us from the Alexandrian philosophers, called lovers
of truth, Philatheians, from φιλ (phil) “loving,” and ἀλήθεια
(aletheia) “truth.” The name Theosophy dates from the third
century of our era, and began with Ammonius Saccas and his
disciples,[1] who started the Eclectic Theosophical system.
ENQ. What was the object of this system?
THEO. First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths upon its
disciples, and all those who were “lovers of the truth.” Hence the
motto adopted by the Theosophical Society: “There is no religion
higher than truth.”[2] The chief aim of the Founders of the
Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the three objects of its
modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to reconcile
all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics,
based on eternal verities.
ENQ. What have you to show that this is not an impossible dream; and
that all the world’s religions _are_ based on the one and the same
truth?
THEO. Their comparative study and analysis. The “Wisdom-Religion” was
one in antiquity; and the sameness of primitive religious
philosophy is proven to us by the identical doctrines taught
to the Initiates during the MYSTERIES, an institution once
universally diffused. “All the old worships indicate the existence
of a single Theosophy anterior to them. The key that is to open
one must open all; otherwise it cannot be the right key.” (Eclect.
Philo.)
THE POLICY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
ENQ. In the days of Ammonius there were several ancient great
religions, and numerous were the sects in Egypt and Palestine
alone. How could he reconcile them?
THEO. By doing that which we again try to do now. The Neo-Platonists
were a large body, and belonged to various religious
philosophies[3]; so do our Theosophists. In those days, the Jew
Aristobulus affirmed that the ethics of Aristotle represented the
_esoteric_ teachings of the Law of Moses; Philo Judæus endeavoured
to reconcile the _Pentateuch_ with the Pythagorean and Platonic
philosophy; and Josephus proved that the Essenes of Carmel were
simply the copyists and followers of the Egyptian Therapeutæ (the
healers). So it is in our day. We can show the line of descent of
every Christian religion, as of every, even the smallest, sect.
The latter are the minor twigs or shoots grown on the larger
branches; but shoots and branches spring from the same trunk—the
WISDOM-RELIGION. To prove this was the aim of Ammonius, who
endeavoured to induce Gentiles and Christians, Jews and Idolators,
to lay aside their contentions and strifes, remembering only
that they were all in possession of the same truth under various
vestments, and were all the children of a common mother.[4] This
is the aim of Theosophy likewise.
ENQ. What are your authorities for saying this of the ancient
Theosophists of Alexandria?
THEO. An almost countless number of well-known writers. Mosheim, one of
them, says that:—
“Ammonius taught that the religion of the multitude went
hand-in-hand with philosophy, and with her had shared the fate
of being by degrees corrupted and obscured with mere human
conceits, superstitions, and lies; that it ought, therefore,
to be brought back to its original purity by purging it of
this dross and expounding it upon philosophical principles;
and the whole Christ had in view was to reinstate and restore
to its primitive integrity the wisdom of the ancients; to
reduce within bounds the universally-prevailing dominion
of superstition; and in part to correct, and in part to
exterminate the various errors that had found their way into
the different popular religions.”
This, again, is precisely what the modern Theosophists say. Only
while the great Philaletheian was supported and helped in the
policy he pursued by two Church Fathers, Clement and Athenagoras,
by all the learned Rabbis of the Synagogue, the Academy and the
Groves, and while he taught a common doctrine for all, we, his
followers on the same line, receive no recognition, but, on the
contrary, are abused and persecuted. People 1,500 years ago are
thus shown to have been more tolerant than they are in this
_enlightened_ century.
ENQ. Was he encouraged and supported by the Church because,
notwithstanding his heresies, Ammonius taught Christianity and was
a Christian?
THEO. Not at all. He was born a Christian, but never accepted Church
Christianity. As said of him by the same writer:
“He had but to propound his instructions according to the
ancient pillars of Hermes, which Plato and Pythagoras knew
before, and from them constituted their philosophy. Finding the
same in the prologue of the Gospel according to St. John, he
very properly supposed that the purpose of Jesus was to restore
the great doctrine of wisdom in its primitive integrity.
The narratives of the Bible and the stories of the gods he
considered to be allegories illustrative of the truth, or
else fables to be rejected.” Moreover, as says the _Edinburgh
Encyclopedia_, “he acknowledged that Jesus Christ was an
excellent _man_ and the ‘friend of God,’ but alleged that it
was not his design entirely to abolish the worship of demons
(gods), and that his only intention was to purify the ancient
religion.”
THE WISDOM-RELIGION ESOTERIC IN ALL AGES.
ENQ. Since Ammonius never committed anything to writing, how can one
feel sure that such were his teachings?
THEO. Neither did Buddha, Pythagoras, Confucius, Orpheus, Socrates, or
even Jesus, leave behind them any writings. Yet most of these
are historical personages, and their teachings have all survived.
The disciples of Ammonius (among whom Origen and Herennius)
wrote treatises and explained his ethics. Certainly the latter
are as historical, if not more so, than the Apostolic writings.
Moreover, his pupils—Origen, Plotinus, and Longinus (counsellor
of the famous Queen Zenobia)—have all left voluminous records of
the Philaletheian System—so far, at all events, as their public
profession of faith was known, for the school was divided into
exoteric and _esoteric_ teachings.
ENQ. How have the latter tenets reached our day, since you hold that
what is properly called the WISDOM-RELIGION was esoteric?
THEO. The WISDOM-RELIGION was ever one, and being the last word of
possible human knowledge, was, therefore, carefully preserved. It
preceded by long ages the Alexandrian Theosophists, reached the
modern, and will survive every other religion and philosophy.
ENQ. Where and by whom was it so preserved?
THEO. Among Initiates of every country; among profound seekers after
truth—their disciples; and in those parts of the world where such
topics have always been most valued and pursued: in India, Central
Asia, and Persia.
ENQ. Can you give me some proofs of its esotericism?
THEO. The best proof you can have of the fact is that every ancient
religious, or rather philosophical, cult consisted of an
esoteric or secret teaching, and an exoteric (outward public)
worship. Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the MYSTERIES
of the ancients comprised with every nation the “greater” (secret)
and “Lesser” (public) MYSTERIES—_e.g._, in the celebrated
solemnities called the _Eleusinia_, in Greece. From the
Hierophants of Samothrace, Egypt, and the initiated Brahmins of
the India of old, down to the later Hebrew Rabbis, all preserved,
for fear of profanation, their real _bona fide_ beliefs secret.
The Jewish Rabbis called their secular religious series the
_Mercavah_ (the exterior body), “the vehicle,” or, _the covering
which contains the hidden soul_—_i.e._, their highest secret
knowledge. Not one of the ancient nations ever imparted through
its priests its real philosophical secrets to the masses, but
allotted to the latter only the husks. Northern Buddhism has its
“greater” and its “lesser” vehicle, known as the _Mahayana_, the
esoteric, and the _Hinayana_, the exoteric, Schools. Nor can you
blame them for such secrecy; for surely you would not think of
feeding your flock of sheep on learned dissertations on botany
instead of on grass? Pythagoras called his _Gnosis_ “the knowledge
of things that are,” or ἡ γνῶσις τῶν ὄντων, and preserved that
knowledge for his pledged disciples only: for those who could
digest such mental food and feel satisfied; and he pledged them
to silence and secrecy. Occult alphabets and secret ciphers are
the development of the old Egyptian _hieratic_ writings, the
secret of which was, in the days of old, in the possession only
of the Hierogrammatists, or initiated Egyptian priests. Ammonius
Saccas, as his biographers tell us, bound his pupils by oath not
to divulge _his higher doctrines_ except to those who had already
been instructed in preliminary knowledge, and who were also bound
by a pledge. Finally, do we not find the same even in early
Christianity, among the Gnostics, and even in the teachings of
Christ? Did he not speak to the multitudes in parables which had a
two-fold meaning, and explain his reasons only to his disciples?
“To you,” he says, “it is given to know the mysteries of the
kingdom of heaven; but unto them that are without, all these
things are done in parables” (Mark iv. 11). “The Essenes of Judea
and Carmel made similar distinctions, dividing their adherents
into neophytes, brethren, and the _perfect_, or those initiated”
(Eclec. Phil.). Examples might be brought from every country to
this effect.
ENQ. Can you attain the “Secret Wisdom” simply by study? Encyclopædias
define _Theosophy_ pretty much as Webster’s Dictionary does,
_i.e._, as “_supposed intercourse with God and superior spirits,
and consequent attainment of superhuman knowledge by physical
means and chemical processes_.” Is this so?
THEO. I think not. Nor is there any lexicographer capable of
explaining, whether to himself or others, how _superhuman_
knowledge can be attained by _physical_ or chemical processes.
Had Webster said “by _metaphysical_ and alchemical processes,”
the definition would be approximately correct: as it is, it is
absurd. Ancient Theosophists claimed, and so do the modern, that
the infinite cannot be known by the finite—_i.e._, sensed by the
finite Self—but that the divine essence could be communicated to
the higher Spiritual Self in a state of ecstacy. This condition
can hardly be attained, like _hypnotism_, by “physical and
chemical means.”
ENQ. What is your explanation of it?
THEO. Real ecstacy was defined by Plotinus as “the liberation of the
mind from its finite consciousness, becoming one and identified
with the infinite.” This is the highest condition, says Prof.
Wilder, but not one of permanent duration, and it is reached only
by the very _very_ few. It is, indeed, identical with that state
which is known in India as _Samadhi_. The latter is practised by
the Yogis, who facilitate it physically by the greatest abstinence
in food and drink, and mentally by an incessant endeavour to
purify and elevate the mind. Meditation is silent and _unuttered_
prayer, or, as Plato expressed it, “the ardent turning of the
soul toward the divine; not to ask any particular good (as in the
common meaning of prayer), but for good itself—for the universal
Supreme Good” of which we are a part on earth, and out of the
essence of which we have all emerged. Therefore, adds Plato,
“remain silent in the presence of the _divine ones_, till they
remove the clouds from thy eyes and enable thee to see by the
light which issues from themselves, not what appears as good to
thee, but what is intrinsically good.”[5]
ENQ. Theosophy, then, is not, as held by some, a newly devised scheme?
THEO. Only ignorant people can thus refer to it. It is as old as the
world, in its teachings and ethics, if not in name, as it is also
the broadest and most catholic system among all.
ENQ. How comes it, then, that Theosophy has remained so unknown to the
nations of the Western Hemisphere? Why should it have been a
sealed book to races confessedly the most cultured and advanced?
THEO. We believe there were nations as cultured in days of old and
certainly more spiritually “advanced” than we are. But there are
several reasons for this willing ignorance. One of them was given
by St. Paul to the cultured Athenians—a loss, for long centuries,
of real spiritual insight, and even interest, owing to their too
great devotion to things of sense and their long slavery to the
dead letter of dogma and ritualism. But the strongest reason for
its lies in the fact that real Theosophy has ever been kept secret.
ENQ. You have brought forward proofs that such secrecy has existed; but
what was the real cause for it?
THEO. The causes for it were: _Firstly_, the perversity of average
human nature and its selfishness, always tending to the
gratification of _personal_ desires to the detriment of neighbours
and next of kin. Such people could never be entrusted with
_divine_ secrets. _Secondly_, their unreliability to keep the
sacred and divine knowledge from desecration. It is the latter
that led to the perversion of the most sublime truths and symbols,
and to the gradual transformation of things spiritual into
anthropomorphic, concrete, and gross imagery—in other words, to
the dwarfing of the god-idea and to idolatry.
THEOSOPHY IS NOT BUDDHISM.
ENQ. You are often spoken of as “Esoteric Buddhists.” Are you then all
followers of Gautama Buddha?
THEO. No more than musicians are all followers of Wagner. Some of us
are Buddhists by religion; yet there are far more Hindus and
Brahmins than Buddhists among us, and more Christian-born
Europeans and Americans than _converted_ Buddhists. The mistake
has arisen from a misunderstanding of the real meaning of the
title of Mr. Sinnett’s excellent work, “Esoteric Buddhism,” which
last word ought to have been spelt _with one, instead of two,
d’s_, as then _Budhism_ would have meant what it was intended for,
merely “Wisdom_ism_” (Bodha, bodhi, “intelligence,” “wisdom”)
instead of _Buddhism_, Gautama’s religious philosophy. Theosophy,
as already said, is the WISDOM-RELIGION.
ENQ. What is the difference between Buddhism, the religion founded by
the Prince of Kapilavastu, and _Budhism_, the “Wisdomism” which
you say is synonymous with Theosophy?
THEO. Just the same difference as there is between the secret teachings
of Christ, which are called “the mysteries of the Kingdom of
Heaven,” and the later ritualism and dogmatic theology of the
Churches and Sects. _Buddha_ means the “Enlightened” by _Bodha_,
or understanding, Wisdom. This has passed root and branch into the
_esoteric_ teachings that Gautama imparted to his chosen _Arhats_
only.
ENQ. But some Orientalists deny that Buddha ever taught any esoteric
doctrine at all?
THEO. They may as well deny that Nature has any hidden secrets for the
men of science. Further on I will prove it by Buddha’s
conversation with his disciple Ananda. His esoteric teachings
were simply the _Gupta Vidya_ (secret knowledge) of the ancient
Brahmins, the key to which their modern successors have, with few
exceptions, completely lost. And this _Vidya_ has passed into
what is now known as the _inner_ teachings of the _Mahayana_
school of Northern Buddhism. Those who deny it are simply
ignorant pretenders to Orientalism. I advise you to read the Rev.
Mr. Edkins’ _Chinese Buddhism_—especially the chapters on the
Exoteric and _Esoteric_ schools and teachings—and then compare the
testimony of the whole ancient world upon the subject.
ENQ. But are not the ethics of Theosophy identical with those taught
by Buddha?
THEO. Certainly, because these ethics are the soul of the
Wisdom-Religion, and were once the common property of the
initiates of all nations. But Buddha was the first to embody
these lofty ethics in his public teachings, and to make them
the foundation and the very essence of his public system. It is
herein that lies the immense difference between exoteric Buddhism
and every other religion. For while in other religions ritualism
and dogma hold the first and most important place, in Buddhism
it is the ethics which have always been the most insisted upon.
This accounts for the resemblance, amounting almost to identity,
between the ethics of Theosophy and those of the religion of
Buddha.
ENQ. Are there any great points of difference?
THEO. One great distinction between Theosophy and _exoteric_ Buddhism
is that the latter, represented by the Southern Church, entirely
denies (a) the existence of any Deity, and (b) any conscious
_post-mortem_ life, or even any self-conscious surviving
individuality in man. Such at least is the teaching of the Siamese
sect, now considered as the _purest_ form of exoteric Buddhism.
And it is so, if we refer only to Buddha’s public teachings; the
reason for such reticence on his part I will give further on. But
the schools of the Northern Buddhist Church, established in those
countries to which his initiated Arhats retired after the Master’s
death, teach all that is now called Theosophical doctrines,
because they form part of the knowledge of the initiates—thus
proving how the truth has been sacrificed to the dead-letter by
the too-zealous orthodoxy of Southern Buddhism. But how much
grander and more noble, philosophical and scientific, even in its
dead-letter, is this teaching than that of any other Church or
religion. Yet Theosophy is not Buddhism.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Also called Analogeticists. As explained by Prof. Alex. Wilder,
F.T.S., in his “Eclectic Philosophy,” they were called so because of
their practice of interpreting all sacred legends and narratives, myths
and mysteries, by a rule or principle of analogy and correspondence: so
that events which were related as having occurred in the external world
were regarded as expressing operations and experiences of the human
soul. They were also denominated Neo-Platonists. Though Theosophy,
or the Eclectic Theosophical system, is generally attributed to the
third century, yet, if Diogenes Laertius is to be credited, its origin
is much earlier, as he attributed the system to an Egyptian priest,
Pot-Amun, who lived in the early days of the Ptolemaic dynasty. The
same author tells us that the name is Coptic, and signifies one
consecrated to Amun, the God of Wisdom. Theosophy is the equivalent of
Brahma-Vidya, divine knowledge.
[2] Eclectic Theosophy was divided under three heads: (1) Belief
in one absolute, incomprehensible and supreme Deity, or infinite
essence, which is the root of all nature, and of all that is, visible
and invisible. (2) Belief in man’s eternal immortal nature, because,
being a radiation of the Universal Soul, it is of an identical essence
with it. (3) _Theurgy_, or “divine work,” or _producing a work of
gods_; from _theoi_, “gods,” and _ergein_, “to work.” The term is
very old, but, as it belongs to the vocabulary of the MYSTERIES,
was not in popular use. It was a mystic belief—practically proven
by initiated adepts and priests—that, by making oneself as pure
as the incorporeal beings—_i.e._, by returning to one’s pristine
purity of nature—man could move the gods to impart to him Divine
mysteries, and even cause them to become occasionally visible, either
subjectively or objectively. It was the transcendental aspect of what
is now called Spiritualism; but having been abused and misconceived
by the populace, it had come to be regarded by some as necromancy,
and was generally forbidden. A travestied practice of the theurgy
of Iamblichus lingers still in the ceremonial magic of some modern
Kabalists. Modern Theosophy avoids and rejects both these kinds of
magic and “necromancy” as being very dangerous. Real _divine_ theurgy
requires an almost superhuman purity and holiness of life; otherwise
it degenerates into mediumship or black magic. The immediate disciples
of Ammonius Saccas, who was called _Theodidaktos_, “god-taught”—such
as Plotinus and his follower Porphyry—rejected theurgy at first, but
were finally reconciled to it through Iamblichus, who wrote a work
to that effect entitled “De Mysteriis,” under the name of his own
master, a famous Egyptian priest called Abammon. Ammonius Saccas was
the son of Christian parents, and, having been repelled by dogmatic
spiritualistic Christianity from his childhood, became a Neo-Platonist,
and like J. Boehme and other great seers and mystics, is said to
have had divine wisdom revealed to him in dreams and visions. Hence
his name of _Theodidaktos_. He resolved to reconcile every system of
religion, and by demonstrating their identical origin to establish
one universal creed based on ethics. His life was so blameless
and pure, his learning so profound and vast, that several Church
Fathers were his secret disciples. Clemens Alexandrinus speaks very
highly of him. Plotinus, the “St. John” of Ammonius, was also a man
universally respected and esteemed, and of the most profound learning
and integrity. When thirty-nine years of age he accompanied the Roman
Emperor Gordian and his army to the East, to be instructed by the
sages of Bactria and India. He had a School of Philosophy in Rome.
Porphyry, his disciple, whose real name was Malek (a Hellenized Jew),
collected all the writings of his master. Porphyry was himself a great
author, and gave an allegorical interpretation to some parts of Homer’s
writings. The system of meditation the Philaletheians resorted to was
ecstacy, a system akin to Indian Yoga practice. What is known of the
Eclectic School is due to Origen, Longinus, and Plotinus, the immediate
disciples of Ammonius.—(_Vide Eclectic Philos._, by A. Wilder).
[3] It was under Philadelphus that Judaism established itself in
Alexandria, and forthwith the Hellenic teachers became the dangerous
rivals of the College of Rabbis of Babylon. As the author of “Eclectic
Philosophy” very pertinently remarks: “The Buddhistic, Vedantic, and
Magian systems were expounded along with the philosophies of Greece at
that period. It was not wonderful that thoughtful men supposed that
the strife of words ought to cease, and considered it possible to
extract one harmonious system from these various teachings.... Panænus,
Athenagoras, and Clement were thoroughly instructed in Platonic
philosophy, and comprehended its essential unity with the Oriental
systems.”
[4] Says Mosheim of Ammonius: “Conceiving that not only the
philosophers of Greece, but also all those of the different barbarian
nations, were perfectly in unison with each other with regard to every
essential point, he made it his business so to expound the thousand
tenets of all these various sects as to show they had all originated
from one and the same source, and tended all to one and the same end.”
If the writer on Ammonius in the _Edinburgh Encyclopædia_ knows what
he is talking about, then he describes the modern Theosophists, their
beliefs, and their work, for he says, speaking of the _Theodidaktos_:
“He adopted the doctrines which were received in Egypt (the esoteric
were those of India) concerning the Universe and the Deity, considered
as constituting one great whole; concerning the eternity of the world
... and established a system of moral discipline which allowed the
people in general to live according to the laws of their country and
the dictates of nature, but required the wise to exalt their mind by
contemplation.”
[5] This is what the scholarly author of “The Eclectic Philosophy,”
Prof. A. Wilder, F.T.S., describes as “_spiritual photography_”:
“The soul is the camera in which facts and events, future, past, and
present, are alike fixed; and the mind becomes conscious of them.
Beyond our every-day world of limits all is one day or state—the past
and future comprised in the present.” ... “Death is the last _ecstasis_
on earth. Then the soul is freed from the constraint of the body, and
its nobler part is united to higher nature and becomes partaker in the
wisdom and foreknowledge of the higher beings.” Real Theosophy is, for
the mystics, that state which Apollonius of Tyana was made to describe
thus: “I can see the present and the future as in a clear mirror. The
sage need not wait for the vapours of the earth and the corruption of
the air to foresee events.... The _theoi_, or gods, see the future;
common men the present; sages that which is about to take place.”
“The Theosophy of the Sages” he speaks of is well expressed in the
assertion, “The Kingdom of God is within us.”
II.
EXOTERIC AND ESOTERIC THEOSOPHY.
WHAT THE MODERN THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IS NOT.
ENQ. Your doctrines, then, are not a revival of Buddhism, nor are they
entirely copied from the Neo-Platonic Theosophy?
THEO. They are not. But to these questions I cannot give you a better
answer than by quoting from a paper read on “Theosophy” by Dr.
J. D. Buck, F.T.S., before the last Theosophical Convention, at
Chicago, America (April, 1889). No living theosophist has better
expressed and understood the real essence of Theosophy than our
honoured friend Dr. Buck:—
“The Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose
of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the
promotion of the Theosophic life. The present Theosophical
Society is not the first of its kind. I have a volume
entitled: ‘Theosophical Transactions of the Philadelphian
Society,’ published in London in 1697; and another with the
following title: ‘Introduction to Theosophy, or the Science
of the Mystery of Christ; that is, of Deity, Nature, and
Creature, embracing the philosophy of all the working powers
of life, magical and spiritual, and forming a practical
guide to the sublimest purity, sanctity, and evangelical
perfection; also to the attainment of divine vision, and the
holy angelic arts, potencies, and other prerogatives of the
regeneration,’ published in London in 1855. The following is
the dedication of this volume:
‘To the students of Universities, Colleges, and schools of
Christendom: To Professors of Metaphysical, Mechanical,
and Natural Science in all its forms: To men and women
of Education generally, of fundamental orthodox faith:
To Deists, Arians, Unitarians, Swedenborgians, and other
defective and ungrounded creeds, rationalists, and sceptics
of every kind: To just-minded and enlightened Mohammedans,
Jews, and oriental Patriarch-religionists: but especially
to the gospel minister and missionary, whether to the
barbaric or intellectual peoples, this introduction to
Theosophy, or the science of the ground and mystery of all
things, is most humbly and affectionately dedicated.’
In the following year (1856) another volume was issued,
royal octavo, of 600 pages, diamond type, of ‘Theosophical
Miscellanies.’ Of the last-named work 500 copies only
were issued, for gratuitous distribution to Libraries and
Universities. These earlier movements, of which there were
many, originated within the Church, with persons of great
piety and earnestness, and of unblemished character; and all
of these writings were in orthodox form, using the Christian
expressions, and, like the writings of the eminent Churchman
William Law, would only be distinguished by the ordinary
reader for their great earnestness and piety. These were
one and all but attempts to derive and explain the deeper
meanings and original import of the Christian Scriptures, and
to illustrate and unfold the Theosophic life. These works
were soon forgotten, and are now generally unknown. They
sought to reform the clergy and revive genuine piety, and
were never welcomed. That one word, “Heresy,” was sufficient
to bury them in the limbo of all such Utopias. At the time
of the Reformation John Reuchlin made a similar attempt with
the same result, though he was the intimate and trusted
friend of Luther. Orthodoxy never desired to be informed
and enlightened. These reformers were informed, as was Paul
by Festus, that too much learning had made them mad, and
that it would be dangerous to go farther. Passing by the
verbiage, which was partly a matter of habit and education
with these writers, and partly due to religious restraint
through secular power, and coming to the core of the matter,
these writings were Theosophical in the strictest sense,
and pertain solely to man’s knowledge of his own nature
and the higher life of the soul. The present Theosophical
movement has sometimes been declared to be an attempt to
convert Christendom to Buddhism, which means simply that
the word ‘Heresy’ has lost its terrors and relinquished its
power. Individuals in every age have more or less clearly
apprehended the Theosophical doctrines and wrought them into
the fabric of their lives. These doctrines belong exclusively
to no religion, and are confined to no society or time. They
are the birthright of every human soul. Such a thing as
orthodoxy must be wrought out by each individual according
to his nature and his needs, and according to his varying
experience. This may explain why those who have imagined
Theosophy to be a new religion have hunted in vain for its
creed and its ritual. Its creed is Loyalty to Truth, and its
ritual ‘To honour every truth by use.’
How little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is
understood by the masses of mankind, how seldom its
transcendent importance is recognised, may be seen in the
diversity of opinion and fictitious interpretations regarding
the Theosophical Society. This Society was organized on this
one principle, the essential Brotherhood of Man, as herein
briefly outlined and imperfectly set forth. It has been
assailed as Buddhistic and anti-Christian, as though it could
be both these together, when both Buddhism and Christianity,
as set forth by their inspired founders, make brotherhood the
one essential of doctrine and of life. Theosophy has been
also regarded as something new under the sun, or at best as
old mysticism masquerading under a new name. While it is true
that many Societies founded upon, and united to support,
the principles of altruism, or essential brotherhood, have
borne various names, it is also true that many have also
been called Theosophic, and with principles and aims as the
present society bearing that name. With these societies, one
and all, the essential doctrine has been the same, and all
else has been incidental, though this does not obviate the
fact that many persons are attracted to the incidentals who
overlook or ignore the essentials.”
No better or more explicit answer—by a man who is one of our most
esteemed and earnest Theosophists—could be given to your questions.
ENQ. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics?
THEO. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it
must be stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is
divided into Exoteric and _Esoteric_ Sections.
ENQ. What is the difference?
THEO. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free to
profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if
they so prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to
carry out one or more of the three objects of the Association.
The Society is a philanthropic and scientific body for the
propagation of the idea of brotherhood on _practical_ instead of
_theoretical_ lines. The Fellows may be Christians or Mussulmen,
Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists or
Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be either
a philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and other
old literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help,
if he can, in the carrying out of at least one of the objects
of the programme. Otherwise he has no reason for becoming a
“Fellow.” Such are the majority of the exoteric Society, composed
of “attached” and “unattached” members.[6] These may, or may not,
become Theosophists _de facto_. Members they are, by virtue of
their having joined the Society; but the latter cannot make a
Theosophist of one who has no sense for the _divine_ fitness of
things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his own—if the
expression may be used—_sectarian_ and egotistic way. “Handsome
is, as handsome does” could be paraphrased in this case and be
made to run: “Theosophist is, who Theosophy does.”
THEOSOPHISTS AND MEMBERS OF THE “T.S.”
ENQ. This applies to lay members, as I understand. And what of those
who pursue the esoteric study of Theosophy; are they the real
Theosophists?
THEO. Not necessarily, until they have proven themselves to be such.
They have entered the inner group and pledged themselves to
carry out, as strictly as they can, the rules of the occult
body. This is a difficult undertaking, as the foremost rule of
all is the entire renunciation of one’s personality—_i.e._, a
_pledged_ member has to become a thorough altruist, never to
think of himself, and to forget his own vanity and pride in the
thought of the good of his fellow-creatures, besides that of his
fellow-brothers in the esoteric circle. He has to live, if the
esoteric instructions shall profit him, a life of abstinence in
everything, of self-denial and strict morality, doing his duty by
all men. The few real Theosophists in the T.S. are among these
members. This does not imply that outside of the T.S. and the
inner circle, there are no Theosophists; for there are, and more
than people know of; certainly far more than are found among the
lay members of the T.S.
ENQ. Then what is the good of joining the so-called Theosophical
Society in that case? Where is the incentive?
THEO. None, except the advantage of getting esoteric instructions, the
genuine doctrines of the “Wisdom-Religion,” and if the real
programme is carried out, deriving much help from mutual aid
and sympathy. Union is strength and harmony, and well-regulated
simultaneous efforts produce wonders. This has been the secret of
all associations and communities since mankind existed.
ENQ. But why could not a man of well-balanced mind and singleness of
purpose, one, say, of indomitable energy and perseverance, become
an Occultist and even an Adept if he works alone?
THEO. He may; but there are ten thousand chances against one that he
will fail. For one reason out of many others, no books on
Occultism or Theurgy exist in our day which give out the secrets
of alchemy or mediæval Theosophy in plain language. All are
symbolical or in parables; and as the key to these has been lost
for ages in the West, how can a man learn the correct meaning
of what he is reading and studying? Therein lies the greatest
danger, one that leads to unconscious _black_ magic or the most
helpless mediumship. He who has not an Initiate for a master
had better leave the dangerous study alone. Look around you and
observe. While two-thirds of _civilized_ society ridicule the
mere notion that there is anything in Theosophy, Occultism,
Spiritualism, or in the Kabala, the other third is composed of
the most heterogeneous and opposite elements. Some believe in the
mystical, and even in the _supernatural_ (!), but each believes
in his own way. Others will rush single-handed into the study of
the Kabala, Psychism, Mesmerism, Spiritualism, or some form or
another of Mysticism. Result: no two men think alike, no two are
agreed upon any fundamental occult principles, though many are
those who claim for themselves the _ultima thule_ of knowledge,
and would make outsiders believe that they are full-blown
adepts. Not only is there no scientific and accurate knowledge
of Occultism accessible in the West—not even of true astrology,
the only branch of Occultism which, in its _exoteric_ teachings,
has definite laws and a definite system—but no one has any idea
of what real Occultism means. Some limit ancient wisdom to the
_Kabala_ and the Jewish _Zohar_, which each interprets in his
own way according to the dead-letter of the Rabbinical methods.
Others regard Swedenborg or Boehme as the ultimate expressions of
the highest wisdom; while others again see in mesmerism the great
secret of ancient magic. One and all of those who put their theory
into practice are rapidly drifting, through ignorance, into black
magic. Happy are those who escape from it, as they have neither
test nor criterion by which they can distinguish between the true
and the false.
ENQ. Are we to understand that the inner group of the T.S. claims to
learn what it does from real initiates or masters of esoteric
wisdom?
THEO. Not directly. The personal presence of such masters is not
required. Suffice it if they give instructions to some of those
who have studied under their guidance for years, and devoted their
whole lives to their service. Then, in turn, these can give out
the knowledge so imparted to others, who had no such opportunity.
A portion of the true sciences is better than a mass of undigested
and misunderstood learning. An ounce of gold is worth a ton of
dust.
ENQ. But how is one to know whether the ounce is real gold or only a
counterfeit?
THEO. A tree is known by its fruit, a system by its results. When our
opponents are able to prove to us that any solitary student
of Occultism throughout the ages has become a saintly adept
like Ammonius Saccas, or even a Plotinus, or a Theurgist like
Iamblichus, or achieved feats such as are claimed to have been
done by St. Germain, without any master to guide him, and all
this without being a medium, a self-deluded psychic, or a
charlatan—then shall we confess ourselves mistaken. But till
then, Theosophists prefer to follow the proven natural law of
the tradition of the Sacred Science. There are mystics who have
made great discoveries in chemistry and physical sciences, almost
bordering on alchemy and Occultism; others who, by the sole aid of
their genius, have rediscovered portions, if not the whole, of the
lost alphabets of the “Mystery language,” and are, therefore, able
to read correctly Hebrew scrolls; others still, who, being seers,
have caught wonderful _glimpses_ of the hidden secrets of Nature.
But all these are _specialists_. One is a theoretical inventor,
another a Hebrew, _i.e._, a Sectarian Kabalist, a third a
Swedenborg of modern times, denying all and everything outside of
his own particular science or religion. Not one of them can boast
of having produced a universal or even a national benefit thereby,
not even to himself. With the exception of a few healers—of that
class which the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons would
call quacks—none have helped with their science Humanity, nor even
a number of men of the same community. Where are the Chaldees of
old, those who wrought marvellous cures, “not by charms but by
simples”? Where is an Apollonius of Tyana, who healed the sick
and raised the dead under any climate and circumstances? We know
some _specialists_ of the former class in Europe, but none of the
latter—except in Asia, where the secret of the Yogi, “to live in
death,” is still preserved.
ENQ. Is the production of such healing adepts the aim of Theosophy?
THEO. Its aims are several; but the most important of all are those
which are likely to lead to the relief of human suffering under
any or every form, moral as well as physical. And we believe the
former to be far more important than the latter. Theosophy has to
inculcate ethics; it has to purify the soul, if it would relieve
the physical body, whose ailments, save cases of accidents, are
all hereditary. It is not by studying Occultism for selfish ends,
for the gratification of one’s personal ambition, pride, or
vanity, that one can ever reach the true goal: that of helping
suffering mankind. Nor is it by studying one single branch of
the esoteric philosophy that a man becomes an Occultist, but by
studying, if not mastering, them all.
ENQ. Is help, then, to reach this most important aim, given only to
those who study the esoteric sciences?
THEO. Not at all. Every _lay_ member is entitled to general instruction
if he only wants it; but few are willing to become what is
called “working members,” and most prefer to remain the _drones_
of Theosophy. Let it be understood that private research is
encouraged in the T.S., provided it does not infringe the limit
which separates the exoteric from the esoteric, the _blind_ from
the _conscious_ magic.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.
ENQ. You speak of Theosophy and Occultism; are they identical?
THEO. By no means. A man may be a very good Theosophist indeed, whether
_in_ or _outside_ of the Society, without being in any way an
Occultist. But no one can be a true Occultist without being a real
Theosophist; otherwise he is simply a black magician, whether
conscious or unconscious.
ENQ. What do you mean?
THEO. I have said already that a true Theosophist must put in practice
the loftiest moral ideal, must strive to realize his unity with
the whole of humanity, and work ceaselessly for others. Now, if
an Occultist does not do all this, he must act selfishly for his
own personal benefit; and if he has acquired more practical power
than other ordinary men, he becomes forthwith a far more dangerous
enemy to the world and those around him than the average mortal.
This is clear.
ENQ. Then is an Occultist simply a man who possesses more power than
other people?
THEO. Far more—if he is a _practical_ and really learned Occultist, and
not one only in name. Occult sciences are _not_, as described,
in Encyclopædias, “those _imaginary_ sciences of the Middle
Ages which related to the _supposed_ action or influence of
Occult qualities or supernatural powers, as alchemy, magic,
necromancy, and astrology,” for they are real, actual, and very
dangerous sciences. They teach the secret potency of things in
Nature, developing and cultivating the hidden powers “latent in
man,” thus giving him tremendous advantages over more ignorant
mortals. Hypnotism, now become so common and a subject of serious
scientific inquiry, is a good instance in point. _Hypnotic_ power
has been discovered almost by accident, the way to it having been
prepared by mesmerism; and now an able hypnotizer can do almost
anything with it, from forcing a man, unconsciously to himself,
to play the fool, to making him commit a crime—often by proxy for
the hypnotizer, and _for the benefit of the latter_. Is not this a
terrible power if left in the hands of unscrupulous persons? And
please to remember that this is only one of the minor branches of
Occultism.
ENQ. But are not all these Occult sciences, magic, and sorcery,
considered by the most cultured and learned people as relics of
ancient ignorance and superstition?
THEO. Let me remind you that this remark of yours cuts both ways. The
“most cultured and learned” among you regard also Christianity and
every other religion as a relic of ignorance and superstition.
People begin to believe now, at any rate, in _hypnotism_, and
some—even of the _most cultured_—in Theosophy and phenomena. But
who among them, except preachers and blind fanatics, will confess
to a belief in _Biblical miracles_? And this is where the point
of difference comes in. There are very good and pure Theosophists
who may believe in the supernatural, divine _miracles_ included,
but no Occultist will do so. For an Occultist practices
_scientific_ Theosophy, based on accurate knowledge of Nature’s
secret workings; but a Theosophist, practising the powers called
abnormal, _minus_ the light of Occultism, will simply tend toward
a dangerous form of mediumship, because, although holding to
Theosophy and its highest conceivable code of ethics, he practises
it in the dark, on sincere but _blind_ faith. Anyone, Theosophist
or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of the branches of
Occult science—_e.g._, Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the secrets
of producing physical phenomena, etc.—without the knowledge of the
philosophic _rationale_ of those powers, is like a rudderless boat
launched on a stormy ocean.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.
ENQ. But do you not believe in Spiritualism?
THEO. If by “Spiritualism” you mean the explanation which Spiritualists
give of some abnormal phenomena, then decidedly _we do not_.
They maintain that these manifestations are all produced by the
“spirits” of departed mortals, generally their relatives, who
return to earth, they say, to communicate with those they have
loved or to whom they are attached. We deny this point blank. We
assert that the spirits of the dead cannot return to earth—save
in rare and exceptional cases, of which I may speak later; nor do
they communicate with men except by _entirely subjective means_.
That which does appear objectively, is only the phantom of the
ex-physical man. But in _psychic_, and so to say, “Spiritual”
Spiritualism, we do believe, most decidedly.
ENQ. Do you reject the phenomena also?
THEO. Assuredly not—save cases of conscious fraud.
ENQ. How do you account for them, then?
THEO. In many ways. The causes of such manifestations are by no means
so simple as the Spiritualists would like to believe. Foremost of
all, the _deus ex machinâ_ of the so-called “materializations”
is usually the astral body or “double” of the medium or of some
one present. This _astral_ body is also the producer or operating
force in the manifestations of slate-writing, “Davenport”-like
manifestations, and so on.
ENQ. You say “usually”; then _what_ is it that produces the rest?
THEO. That depends on the nature of the manifestations. Sometimes the
astral remains, the Kamalokic “shells” of the vanished
_personalities_ that were; at other times, Elementals. “Spirit”
is a word of manifold and wide significance. I really do not
know what Spiritualists mean by the term; but what we understand
them to claim is that the physical phenomena are produced by the
reincarnating _Ego_, the _Spiritual_ and immortal “individuality.”
And this hypothesis we entirely reject. The Conscious
_Individuality_ of the disembodied _cannot materialize_, nor can
it return from its own mental Devachanic sphere to the plane of
terrestrial objectivity.
ENQ. But many of the communications received from the “spirits” show
not only intelligence, but a knowledge of facts not known to the
medium, and sometimes even not consciously present to the mind of
the investigator, or any of those who compose the audience.
THEO. This does not necessarily prove that the intelligence and
knowledge you speak of belong to _spirits_, or emanate from
_disembodied_ souls. Somnambulists have been known to compose
music and poetry and to solve mathematical problems while in their
trance state, without having ever learnt music or mathematics.
Others answered intelligently to questions put to them, and even,
in several cases, spoke languages, such as Hebrew and Latin, of
which they were entirely ignorant when awake—all this in a state
of profound sleep. Will you, then, maintain that this was caused
by “spirits”?
ENQ. But how would you explain it?
THEO. We assert that the divine spark in man being one and identical in
its essence with the Universal Spirit, our “spiritual Self” is
practically omniscient, but that it cannot manifest its knowledge
owing to the impediments of matter. Now the more these impediments
are removed, in other words, the more the physical body is
paralyzed, as to its own independent activity and consciousness,
as in deep sleep or deep trance, or, again, in illness, the more
fully can the _inner_ Self manifest on this plane. This is our
explanation of those truly wonderful phenomena of a higher order,
in which undeniable intelligence and knowledge are exhibited. As
to the lower order of manifestations, such as physical phenomena
and the platitudes and common talk of the general “spirit,” to
explain even the most important of the teachings we hold upon the
subject would take up more space and time than can be allotted
to it at present. We have no desire to interfere with the belief
of the Spiritualists any more than with any other belief. The
_onus probandi_ must fall on the believers in “spirits.” And at
the present moment, while still convinced that the higher sort of
manifestations occur through the disembodied souls, their leaders
and the most learned and intelligent among the Spiritualists are
the first to confess that not _all_ the phenomena are produced by
spirits. Gradually they will come to recognize the whole truth;
but meanwhile we have no right nor desire to proselytize them to
our views. The less so, as in the cases of purely _psychic and
spiritual manifestations_ we believe in the intercommunication
of the spirit of the living man with that of disembodied
personalities.[7]
ENQ. This means that you reject the philosophy of Spiritualism _in
toto_?
THEO. If by “philosophy” you mean their crude theories, we do. But they
have no philosophy, in truth. Their best, their most intellectual
and earnest defenders say so. Their fundamental and only
unimpeachable truth, namely, that phenomena occur through mediums
controlled by invisible forces and intelligences—no one, except a
blind materialist of the “Huxley big toe” school, will or _can_
deny. With regard to their philosophy, however, let me read to
you what the able editor of _Light_, than whom the Spiritualists
will find no wiser nor more devoted champion, says of them and
their philosophy. This is what “M.A. Oxon,” one of the very few
_philosophical_ Spiritualists, writes, with respect to their lack
of organization and blind bigotry:—
It is worth while to look steadily at this point, for it is of
vital moment. We have an experience and a knowledge beside which
all other knowledge is comparatively insignificant. The ordinary
Spiritualist waxes wroth if anyone ventures to impugn his assured
knowledge of the future and his absolute certainty of the life to
come. Where other men have stretched forth feeble hands groping
into the dark future, he walks boldly as one who has a chart and
knows his way. Where other men have stopped short at a pious
aspiration or have been content with a hereditary faith, it is his
boast that he knows what they only believe, and that out of his
rich stores he can supplement the fading faiths built only upon
hope. He is magnificent in his dealings with man’s most cherished
expectations. “You hope,” he seems to say, “for that which I can
demonstrate. You have accepted a traditional belief in what I can
experimentally prove according to the strictest scientific method.
The old beliefs are fading; come out from them and be separate.
They contain as much falsehood as truth. Only by building on a
sure foundation of demonstrated fact can your superstructure be
stable. All round you old faiths are toppling. Avoid the crash and
get you out.”
When one comes to deal with this magnificent person in a practical
way, what is the result? Very curious and very disappointing. He
is so sure of his ground that he takes no trouble to ascertain
the interpretation which others put upon his facts. The wisdom
of the ages has concerned itself with the explanation of what he
rightly regards as proven; but he does not turn a passing glance
on its researches. He does not even agree altogether with his
brother Spiritualist. It is the story over again of the old Scotch
body who, together with her husband, formed a “kirk.” They had
exclusive keys to Heaven, or, rather, she had, for she was “na
certain aboot Jamie.” So the infinitely divided and subdivided
and resubdivided sects of Spiritualists shake their heads,
and are “na certain aboot” one another. Again, the collective
experience of mankind is solid and unvarying on this point that
union is strength, and disunion a source of weakness and failure.
Shoulder to shoulder, drilled and disciplined, a rabble becomes
an army, each man a match for a hundred of the untrained men that
may be brought against it. Organization in every department of
man’s work means success, saving of time and labour, profit and
development. Want of method, want of plan, haphazard work, fitful
energy, undisciplined effort—these mean bungling failure. The
voice of humanity attests the truth. Does the Spiritualist accept
the verdict and act on the conclusion? Verily, no. He refuses to
organize. He is a law unto himself, and a thorn in the side of his
neighbours.—_Light_, June 22, 1889.
ENQ. I was told that the Theosophical Society was originally founded to
crush Spiritualism and belief in the survival of the individuality
in man?
THEO. You are misinformed. Our beliefs are all founded on that immortal
individuality. But then, like so many others, you confuse
_personality_ with individuality. Your Western psychologists do
not seem to have established any clear distinction between the
two. Yet it is precisely that difference which gives the key-note
to the understanding of Eastern philosophy, and which lies at the
root of the divergence between the Theosophical and Spiritualistic
teachings. And though it may draw upon us still more the hostility
of some Spiritualists, yet I must state here that it is Theosophy
which is the _true_ and unalloyed Spiritualism, while the modern
scheme of that name is, as now practised by the masses, simply
transcendental materialism.
ENQ. Please explain your idea more clearly.
THEO. What I mean is that though our teachings insist upon the identity
of spirit and matter, and though we say that spirit is _potential_
matter, and matter simply crystallized spirit (_e.g._, as ice is
solidified steam), yet since the original and eternal condition
of _all_ is not spirit but _meta_-spirit, so to speak, (visible
and solid matter being simply its periodical manifestation,) we
maintain that the term spirit can only be applied to the _true_
individuality.
ENQ. But what is the distinction between this “true individuality” and
the “I” or “Ego” of which we are all conscious?
THEO. Before I can answer you, we must argue upon what you mean by “I”
or “Ego.” We distinguish between the simple fact of
self-consciousness, the simple feeling that “I am I,” and
the complex thought that “I am Mr. Smith” or “Mrs. Brown.”
Believing as we do in a series of births for the same Ego, or
re-incarnation, this distinction is the fundamental pivot of
the whole idea. You see “Mr. Smith” really means a long series
of daily experiences strung together by the thread of memory,
and forming what Mr. Smith calls “himself.” But none of these
“experiences” are really the “I” or the Ego, nor do they give “Mr.
Smith” the feeling that he is himself, for he forgets the greater
part of his daily experiences, and they produce the feeling of
_Egoity_ in him only while they last. We Theosophists, therefore,
distinguish between this bundle of “experiences,” which we call
the _false_ (because so finite and evanescent) _personality_, and
that element in man to which the feeling of “I am I” is due. It
is this “I am I” which we call the _true_ individuality; and we
say that this “Ego” or individuality plays, like an actor, many
parts on the stage of life.[8] Let us call every new life on earth
of the same _Ego_ a _night_ on the stage of a theatre. One night
the actor, or “Ego,” appears as “Macbeth,” the next as “Shylock,”
the third as “Romeo,” the fourth as “Hamlet” or “King Lear,” and
so on, until he has run through the whole cycle of incarnations.
The Ego begins his life-pilgrimage as a sprite, an “Ariel,” or a
“Puck”; he plays the part of a _super_, is a soldier, a servant,
one of the chorus; rises then to “speaking parts,” plays leading
_rôles_, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally
retires from the stage as “Prospero,” the _magician_.
ENQ. I understand. You say, then, that this true _Ego_ cannot return to
earth after death. But surely the actor is at liberty, if he has
preserved the sense of his individuality, to return if he likes to
the scene of his former actions?
THEO. We say not, simply because such a return to earth would be
incompatible with any state of _unalloyed_ bliss after death, as
I am prepared to prove. We say that man suffers so much unmerited
misery during his life, through the fault of others with whom he
is associated, or because of his environment, that he is surely
entitled to perfect rest and quiet, if not bliss, before taking up
again the burden of life. However, we can discuss this in detail
later.
WHY IS THEOSOPHY ACCEPTED?
ENQ. I understand to a certain extent; but I see that your teachings
are far more complicated and metaphysical than either Spiritualism
or current religious thought. Can you tell me, then, what has
caused this system of Theosophy which you support to arouse so
much interest and so much animosity at the same time?
THEO. There are several reasons for it, I believe; among other causes
that may be mentioned is, _firstly_, the great reaction from the
crassly materialistic theories now prevalent among scientific
teachers. _Secondly_, general dissatisfaction with the artificial
theology of the various Christian Churches, and the number of
daily increasing and conflicting sects. _Thirdly_, an ever-growing
perception of the fact that the creeds which are so obviously
self—and mutually—contradictory _cannot be true_, and that claims
which are unverified _cannot be real_. This natural distrust of
conventional religions is only strengthened by their complete
failure to preserve morals and to purify society and the masses.
_Fourthly_, a conviction on the part of many, and _knowledge_ by
a few, that there must be somewhere a philosophical and religious
system which shall be scientific and not merely speculative.
_Finally_, a belief, perhaps, that such a system must be sought
for in teachings far antedating any modern faith.
ENQ. But how did this system come to be put forward just now?
THEO. Just because the time was found to be ripe, which fact is shown
by the determined effort of so many earnest students to reach
_the truth_, at whatever cost and wherever it may be concealed.
Seeing this, its custodians permitted that some portions at
least of that truth should be proclaimed. Had the formation of
the Theosophical Society been postponed a few years longer, one
half of the civilized nations would have become by this time
rank materialists, and the other half anthropomorphists and
phenomenalists.
ENQ. Are we to regard Theosophy in any way as a revelation?
THEO. In no way whatever—not even in the sense of a new and direct
disclosure from some higher, supernatural, or, at least,
_superhuman beings_; but only in the sense of an “unveiling” of
old, very old, truths to minds hitherto ignorant of them, ignorant
even of the existence and preservation of any such archaic
knowledge.[9]
ENQ. You spoke of “Persecution.” If truth is as represented by
Theosophy, why has it met with such opposition, and with no
general acceptance?
THEO. For many and various reasons again, one of which is the hatred
felt by men for “innovations,” as they call them. Selfishness is
essentially conservative, and hates being disturbed. It prefers
an easy-going, unexacting _lie_ to the greatest truth, if the
latter requires the sacrifice of one’s smallest comfort. The power
of mental inertia is great in anything that does not promise
immediate benefit and reward. Our age is pre-eminently unspiritual
and matter of fact. Moreover, there is the unfamiliar character of
Theosophic teachings; the highly abstruse nature of the doctrines,
some of which contradict flatly many of the human vagaries
cherished by sectarians, which have eaten into the very core of
popular beliefs. If we add to this the personal efforts and great
purity of life exacted of those who would become the disciples
of the _inner_ circle, and the very limited class to which an
entirely unselfish code appeals, it will be easy to perceive the
reason why Theosophy is doomed to such slow, uphill work. It is
essentially the philosophy of those who suffer, and have lost all
hope of being helped out of the mire of life by any other means.
Moreover, the history of any system of belief or morals, newly
introduced into a foreign soil, shows that its beginnings were
impeded by every obstacle that obscurantism and selfishness could
suggest. “The crown of the innovator is a crown of thorns” indeed!
No pulling down of old, worm-eaten buildings can be accomplished
without some danger.
ENQ. All this refers rather to the ethics and philosophy of the T.S.
Can you give me a general idea of the Society itself, its object
and statutes?
THEO. This was never made secret. Ask, and you shall receive accurate
answers.
ENQ. But I heard that you were bound by pledges?
THEO. Only in the _Arcane_ or “Esoteric” Section.
ENQ. And also, that some members after leaving did not regard
themselves bound by them. Are they right?
THEO. This shows that their idea of honour is an imperfect one. How can
they be right? As well said in the _Path_, our theosophical organ
at New York, treating of such a case: “Suppose that a soldier is
tried for infringement of oath and discipline, and is dismissed
from the service. In his rage at the justice he has called down,
and of whose penalties he was distinctly forewarned, the soldier
turns to the enemy with false information,—a spy and traitor—as
a revenge upon his former Chief, and claims that his punishment
has released him from his oath of loyalty to a cause.” Is he
justified, think you? Don’t you think he deserves being called a
dishonourable man, a coward?
ENQ. I believe so; but some think otherwise.
THEO. So much the worse for them. But we will talk on this subject
later, if you please.
FOOTNOTES:
[6] An “attached member” means one who has joined some particular
branch of the T.S. An “unattached,” one who belongs to the Society at
large, has his diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is
connected with no branch or lodge.
[7] We say that in such cases it is not the _spirits_ of the dead
who _descend_ on earth, but the spirits of the living that _ascend_
to the pure Spiritual Souls. In truth there is neither _ascending_
nor _descending_, but a change of _state_ or _condition_ for the
medium. The body of the latter becoming paralyzed, or “entranced,” the
spiritual Ego is free from its trammels, and finds itself on the same
plane of consciousness with the disembodied spirits. Hence, if there
is any spiritual attraction between the two _they can communicate_,
as often occurs in dreams. The difference between a mediumistic and
a non-sensitive nature is this: the liberated spirit of a medium has
the opportunity and facility of influencing the passive organs of its
entranced physical body, to make them act, speak, and write at its
will. The Ego can make it repeat, echo-like, and in the human language,
the thoughts and ideas of the disembodied entity, as well as its own.
But the _non-receptive_ or non-sensitive organism of one who is very
positive cannot be so influenced. Hence, although there is hardly a
human being whose Ego does not hold free intercourse, during the sleep
of his body, with those whom it loved and lost, yet, on account of the
positiveness and non-receptivity of its physical envelope and brain,
no recollection, or a very dim, dream-like remembrance, lingers in the
memory of the person once awake.
[8] _Vide infra_, “On Individuality and Personality.”
[9] It has become “fashionable,” especially of late, to deride the
notion that there ever was, in the _mysteries_ of great and civilized
peoples, such as the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans, anything but
priestly imposture. Even the Rosicrucians were no better than half
lunatics, half knaves. Numerous books have been written on them; and
tyros, who had hardly heard the name a few years before, sallied
out as profound critics and Gnostics on the subject of alchemy, the
fire-philosophers, and mysticism in general. Yet a long series of the
Hierophants of Egypt, India, Chaldea, and Arabia are known, along
with the greatest philosophers and sages of Greece and the West, to
have included under the designation of wisdom and divine science all
knowledge, for they considered the base and origin of every art and
science as _essentially_ divine. Plato regarded the _mysteries_ as
most sacred, and Clemens Alexandrinus, who had been himself initiated
into the Eleusinian mysteries, has declared “that the doctrines taught
therein contained in them the end of all human knowledge.” Were Plato
and Clemens two knaves or two fools, we wonder, or—both?
III. THE WORKING SYSTEM OF THE T.S.[10]
THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY.
ENQ. What are the objects of the “Theosophical Society”?
THEO. They are three, and have been so from the beginning. (1). To form
the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without
distinction of race, colour, or creed. (2). To promote the
study of Aryan and other Scriptures, of the World’s religion
and sciences, and to vindicate the importance of old Asiatic
literature, namely, of the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian
philosophies. (3). To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature
under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers
latent in man especially. These are, broadly stated, the three
chief objects of the Theosophical Society.
ENQ. Can you give me some more detailed information upon these?
THEO. We may divide each of the three objects into as many explanatory
clauses as may be found necessary.
ENQ. Then let us begin with the first. What means would you resort to,
in order to promote such a feeling of brotherhood among races
that are known to be of the most diversified religions, customs,
beliefs, and modes of thought?
THEO. Allow me to add that which you seem unwilling to express. Of
course we know that with the exception of two remnants of
races—the Parsees and the Jews—every nation is divided, not merely
against all other nations, but even against itself. This is found
most prominently among the so-called civilized Christian nations.
Hence your wonder, and the reason why our first object appears to
you a Utopia. Is it not so?
ENQ. Well, yes; but what have you to say against it?
THEO. Nothing against the fact; but much about the necessity of
removing the causes which make Universal Brotherhood a Utopia at
present.
ENQ. What are, in your view, these causes?
THEO. First and foremost, the natural selfishness of human nature. This
selfishness, instead of being eradicated, is daily strengthened
and stimulated into a ferocious and irresistible feeling by the
present religious education, which tends not only to encourage,
but positively to justify it. People’s ideas about right and wrong
have been entirely perverted by the literal acceptance of the
Jewish Bible. All the unselfishness of the altruistic teachings
of Jesus has become merely a theoretical subject for pulpit
oratory; while the precepts of practical selfishness taught in
the Mosaic Bible, against which Christ so vainly preached, have
become ingrained into the innermost life of the Western nations.
“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” has come to be the
first maxim of your law. Now, I state openly and fearlessly, that
the perversity of this doctrine and of so many others _Theosophy
alone_ can eradicate.
THE COMMON ORIGIN OF MAN.
ENQ. How?
THEO. Simply by demonstrating on logical, philosophical, metaphysical,
and even scientific grounds that:—(a) All men have spiritually
and physically the same origin, which is the fundamental teaching
of Theosophy. (b) As mankind is essentially of one and the same
essence, and that essence is one—infinite, uncreate, and eternal,
whether we call it God or Nature—nothing, therefore, can affect
one nation or one man without affecting all other nations and
all other men. This is as certain and as obvious as that a stone
thrown into a pond will, sooner or later, set in motion every
single drop of water therein.
ENQ. But this is not the teaching of Christ, but rather a pantheistic
notion.
THEO. That is where your mistake lies. It is purely _Christian_,
although _not_ Judaic, and therefore, perhaps, your Biblical
nations prefer to ignore it.
ENQ. This is a wholesale and unjust accusation. Where are your proofs
for such a statement?
THEO. They are ready at hand. Christ is alleged to have said: “Love
each other” and “Love your enemies”; for “if ye love them (only)
which love you, what reward (or merit) have ye? Do not even the
_publicans_[11] the same? And if you salute your brethren only,
what do ye more than others? Do not even publicans so?” These
are Christ’s words. But Genesis ix. 25, says “Cursed be Canaan,
a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” And,
therefore, Christian but Biblical people prefer the law of Moses
to Christ’s law of love. They base upon the Old Testament, which
panders to all their passions, their laws of conquest, annexation,
and tyranny over races which they call _inferior_. What crimes
have been committed on the strength of this infernal (if taken in
its dead letter) passage in Genesis, history alone gives us an
idea, however inadequate.[12]
ENQ. I have heard you say that the identity of our physical origin is
proved by science, that of our spiritual origin by the
Wisdom-Religion. Yet we do not find Darwinists exhibiting great
fraternal affection.
THEO. Just so. This is what shows the deficiency of the materialistic
systems, and proves that we Theosophists are in the right. The
identity of our physical origin makes no appeal to our higher and
deeper feelings. Matter, deprived of its soul and spirit, or its
divine essence, cannot speak to the human heart. But the identity
of the soul and spirit, of real, immortal man, as Theosophy
teaches us, once proven and deep-rooted in our hearts, would lead
us far on the road of real charity and brotherly goodwill.
ENQ. But how does Theosophy explain the common origin of man?
THEO. By teaching that the _root_ of all nature, objective and
subjective, and everything else in the universe, visible and
invisible, _is_, _was_, and _ever will be_ one absolute essence,
from which all starts, and into which everything returns. This is
Aryan philosophy, fully represented only by the Vedantins, and
the Buddhist system. With this object in view, it is the duty of
all Theosophists to promote in every practical way, and in all
countries, the spread of _non-sectarian_ education.
ENQ. What do the written statutes of your Society advise its members to
do besides this? On the physical plane, I mean?
THEO. In order to awaken brotherly feeling among nations we have to
assist in the international exchange of useful arts and products,
by advice, information, and co-operation with all worthy
individuals and associations (provided, however, add the statutes,
“that no benefit or percentage shall be taken by the Society or
the ‘Fellows’ for its or their corporate services”). For instance,
to take a practical illustration. The organization of Society,
depicted by Edward Bellamy, in his magnificent work “Looking
Backwards,” admirably represents the Theosophical idea of what
should be the first great step towards the full realization of
universal brotherhood. The state of things he depicts falls short
of perfection, because selfishness still exists and operates in
the hearts of men. But in the main, selfishness and individualism
have been overcome by the feeling of solidarity and mutual
brotherhood; and the scheme of life there described reduces the
causes tending to create and foster selfishness to a minimum.
ENQ. Then as a Theosophist you will take part in an effort to realize
such an ideal?
THEO. Certainly; and we have proved it by action. Have not you heard of
the Nationalist clubs and party which have sprung up in America
since the publication of Bellamy’s book? They are now coming
prominently to the front, and will do so more and more as time
goes on. Well, these clubs and this party were started in the
first instance by Theosophists. One of the first, the Nationalist
Club of Boston, Mass., has Theosophists for President and
Secretary, and the majority of its executive belong to the T.S.
In the constitution of all their clubs, and of the party they are
forming, the influence of Theosophy and of the Society is plain,
for they all take as their basis, their first and fundamental
principle, the Brotherhood of Humanity as taught by Theosophy. In
their declaration of Principles they state:—“The principle of the
Brotherhood of Humanity is one of the eternal truths that govern
the world’s progress on lines which distinguish human nature from
brute nature.” What can be more Theosophical than this? But it is
not enough. What is also needed is to impress men with the idea
that, if the root of mankind is _one_, then there must also be one
truth which finds expression in all the various religions—except
in the Jewish, as you do not find it _expressed_ even in the
Kabala.
ENQ. This refers to the common origin of religions, and you may be
right there. But how does it apply to practical brotherhood on the
physical plane?
THEO. First, because that which is true on the metaphysical plane must
be also true on the physical. Secondly, because there is no more
fertile source of hatred and strife than religious differences.
When one party or another thinks himself the sole possessor of
absolute truth, it becomes only natural that he should think his
neighbour absolutely in the clutches of Error or the Devil. But
once get a man to see that none of them has the _whole_ truth, but
that they are mutually complementary, that the complete truth can
be found only in the combined views of all, after that which is
false in each of them has been sifted out—then true brotherhood
in religion will be established. The same applies in the physical
world.
ENQ. Please explain further.
THEO. Take an instance. A plant consists of a root, a stem, and many
shoots and leaves. As humanity, as a whole, is the stem which
grows from the spiritual root, so is the stem the unity of the
plant. Hurt the stem and it is obvious that every shoot and leaf
will suffer. So it is with mankind.
ENQ. Yes, but if you injure a leaf or a shoot, you do not injure the
whole plant.
THEO. And therefore you think that by injuring _one_ man you do not
injure humanity? But how do _you_ know? Are you aware that even
materialistic science teaches that any injury, however slight,
to a plant will affect the whole course of its future growth and
development? Therefore, you are mistaken, and the analogy is
perfect. If, however, you overlook the fact that a cut in the
finger may often make the whole body suffer, and react on the
whole nervous system, I must all the more remind you that there
may well be other spiritual laws, operating on plants and animals
as well as on mankind, although, as you do not recognize their
action on plants and animals, you may deny their existence.
ENQ. What laws do you mean?
THEO. We call them Karmic laws; but you will not understand the full
meaning of the term unless you study Occultism. However, my
argument did not rest on the assumption of these laws, but really
on the analogy of the plant. Expand the idea, carry it out to
a universal application, and you will soon find that in true
philosophy every physical action has its moral and everlasting
effect. Hurt a man by doing him bodily harm; you may think
that his pain and suffering cannot spread by any means to his
neighbours, least of all to men of other nations. We affirm _that
it will, in good time_. Therefore, we say, that unless every man
is brought to understand and accept _as an axiomatic truth_ that
by wronging one man we wrong not only ourselves but the whole of
humanity in the long run, no brotherly feelings such as preached
by all the great Reformers, pre-eminently by Buddha and Jesus, are
possible on earth.
OUR OTHER OBJECTS.
ENQ. Will you now explain the methods by which you propose to carry out
the second object?
THEO. To collect for the library at our headquarters of Adyar, Madras,
(and by the Fellows of their Branches for their local libraries,)
all the good works upon the world’s religions that we can. To put
into written form correct information upon the various ancient
philosophies, traditions, and legends, and disseminate the same
in such practicable ways as the translation and publication of
original works of value, and extracts from and commentaries upon
the same, or the oral instructions of persons learned in their
respective departments.
ENQ. And what about the third object, to develop in man his latent
spiritual or psychic powers?
THEO. This has to be achieved also by means of publications, in those
places where no lectures and personal teachings are possible.
Our duty is to keep alive in man his spiritual intuitions. To
oppose and counteract—after due investigation and proof of its
irrational nature—bigotry in every form, religious, scientific, or
social, and _cant_ above all, whether as religious sectarianism
or as belief in miracles or anything supernatural. What we have
to do is to seek to obtain _knowledge_ of all the laws of nature,
and to diffuse it. To encourage the study of those laws least
understood by modern people, the so-called Occult Sciences, _based
on the true knowledge of nature_, instead of, as at present,
on _superstitious beliefs based on blind faith and authority_.
Popular folk-lore and traditions, however fanciful at times, when
sifted may lead to the discovery of long-lost, but important,
secrets of nature. The Society, therefore, aims at pursuing this
line of inquiry, in the hope of widening the field of scientific
and philosophical observation.
ON THE SACREDNESS OF THE PLEDGE.
ENQ. Have you any ethical system that you carry out in the Society?
THEO. The ethics are there, ready and clear enough for whomsoever
follow them. They are the essence and cream of the world’s ethics,
gathered from the teachings of all the world’s great reformers.
Therefore, you will find represented therein Confucius and
Zoroaster, Lao-Tze and the Bhagavat-Gita, the precepts of Gautama
Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth, of Hillel and his school, as of
Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and their schools.
ENQ. Do the members of your Society carry out these precepts? I have
heard of great dissensions and quarrels among them.
THEO. Very naturally, since although the reform (in its present shape)
may be called new, the men and women to be reformed are the
same human, sinning natures as of old. As already said, the
earnest _working_ members are few; but many are the sincere and
well-disposed persons, who try their best to live up to the
Society’s and their own ideals. Our duty is to encourage and
assist individual fellows in self-improvement, intellectual,
moral, and spiritual; not to blame or condemn those who fail.
We have, strictly speaking, no right to refuse admission to
anyone—especially in the _Esoteric Section_ of the Society,
wherein “he who enters is as one newly born.” But if any member,
his sacred pledges on his word of honour and immortal _Self_,
notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after that “new birth,”
with the new man, the vices or defects of his old life, and to
indulge in them still in the Society, then, of course, he is more
than likely to be asked to resign and withdraw; or, in case of
his refusal, to be expelled. We have the strictest rules for such
emergencies.
ENQ. Can some of them be mentioned?
THEO. They can. To begin with, no Fellow in the Society, whether
exoteric or esoteric, has a right to force his personal opinions
upon another Fellow. “It is not lawful for _any officer of
the Parent Society_ to express in public, by word or act, any
hostility to, or preference for, any one section,[13] religious
or philosophical, more than another. All have an equal right
to have the essential features of their religious belief laid
before the tribunal of an impartial world. And no officer of the
Society, in his capacity as an officer, has the right to preach
his own sectarian views and beliefs to members assembled, except
when the meeting consists of his co-religionists. After due
warning, violation of this rule shall be punished by suspension
or expulsion.” This is one of the offenses in the Society at
large. As regards the inner section, now called the _Esoteric_,
the following rules have been laid down and adopted, so far back
as 1880. “No Fellow shall put to his selfish use any knowledge
communicated to him by any member of the first section (now
a higher ‘degree’); violation of the rule being punished by
expulsion.” Now, however, before any such knowledge can be
imparted, the applicant has to bind himself by a solemn oath not
to use it for selfish purposes, nor to reveal anything said except
by permission.
ENQ. But is a man expelled, or resigning, from the section free to
reveal anything he may have learned, or to break any clause of the
pledge he has taken?
THEO. Certainly not. His expulsion or resignation only relieves him
from the obligation of obedience to the teacher, and from that of
taking an active part in the work of the Society, but surely not
from the sacred pledge of secrecy.
ENQ. But is this reasonable and just?
THEO. Most assuredly. To any man or woman with the slightest honourable
feeling a pledge of secrecy taken even on one’s _word of honour_,
much more to one’s Higher Self—the God within—is binding till
death. And though he may leave the Section and the Society, no man
or woman of honour will think of attacking or injuring a body to
which he or she has been so pledged.
ENQ. But is not this going rather far?
THEO. Perhaps so, according to the low standard of the present time and
morality. But if it does not bind as far as this, what use is
a _pledge_ at all? How can anyone expect to be taught secret
knowledge, if he is to be at liberty to free himself from all the
obligations he had taken, whenever he pleases? What security,
confidence, or trust would ever exist among them, if pledges such
as this were to have no really binding force at all? Believe
me, the law of retribution (Karma) would very soon overtake one
who so broke his pledge, and perhaps as soon as the contempt of
every honourable man would, even on this physical plane. As well
expressed in the N. Y. “Path” just cited on this subject, “_A
pledge once taken, is for ever binding in both the moral and the
occult worlds._ If we break it once and are punished, that does
not justify us in breaking it again, and so long as we do, so long
will the mighty lever of the Law (of Karma) react upon us.” (The
_Path_, July, 1889.)
FOOTNOTES:
[10] _Vide_ (at the end) the official rules of the T.S., Appendix A.
_Nota bene_, “T.S.” is an abbreviation for “Theosophical Society.”
[11] Publicans—regarded as so many thieves and pickpockets in those
days. Among the Jews the name and profession of a publican was the
most odious thing in the world. They were not allowed to enter the
Temple, and Matthew (xviii. 17) speaks of a heathen and a publican
as identical. Yet they were only Roman tax-gatherers occupying the
same position as the British officials in India and other conquered
countries.
[12] “At the close of the Middle Ages slavery, under the power of
moral forces, had mainly disappeared from Europe; but two momentous
events occurred which overbore the moral power working in European
society and let loose a swarm of curses upon the earth such as mankind
had scarcely ever known. One of these events was the first voyaging
to a populated and barbarous coast where human beings were a familiar
article of traffic; and the other the discovery of a new world, where
mines of glittering wealth were open, provided labour could be imported
to work them. For four hundred years men and women and children were
torn from all whom they knew and loved, and were sold on the coast of
Africa to foreign traders; they were chained below decks—the dead often
with the living—during the horrible ‘middle passage,’ and, according to
Bancroft, an impartial historian, two hundred and fifty thousand out
of three and a quarter millions were thrown into the sea on that fatal
passage, while the remainder were consigned to nameless misery in the
mines, or under the lash in the cane and rice fields. The guilt of this
great crime rests on the Christian Church. ‘In the name of the most
Holy Trinity’ the Spanish Government (Roman Catholic) concluded more
than ten treaties authorising the sale of five hundred thousand human
beings; in 1562 Sir John Hawkins sailed on his diabolical errand of
buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the West Indies in a ship
which bore the sacred name of Jesus; while Elizabeth, the Protestant
Queen, rewarded him for his success in this first adventure of
Englishmen in that inhuman traffic by allowing him to wear as his crest
‘a demi-Moor in his proper colour, bound with a cord, or, in other
words, a manacled negro slave.’”—_Conquests of the Cross_ (quoted from
the _Agnostic Journal_).
[13] A “branch,” or lodge, composed solely of co-religionists, or a
branch _in partibus_, as they are now somewhat bombastically called.
IV. THE RELATIONS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY TO THEOSOPHY.
ON SELF-IMPROVEMENT.
ENQ. Is moral elevation, then, the principal thing insisted upon in
your Society?
THEO. Undoubtedly! He who would be a true Theosophist must bring
himself to live as one.
ENQ. If so, then, as I remarked before, the behaviour of some members
strangely belies this fundamental rule.
THEO. Indeed it does. But this cannot be helped among us, any more than
amongst those who call themselves Christians and act like fiends.
This is no fault of our statutes and rules, but that of human
nature. Even in some exoteric public branches, the members pledge
themselves on their “Higher Self” to live _the_ life prescribed by
Theosophy. They have to bring their _Divine Self_ to guide their
every thought and action, every day and at every moment of their
lives. A true Theosophist ought “to deal justly and walk humbly.”
ENQ. What do you mean by this?
THEO. Simply this: the one self has to forget itself for the many
selves. Let me answer you in the words of a true Philaletheian,
an F.T.S., who has beautifully expressed it in the _Theosophist_:
“What every man needs first is to find himself, and then take
an honest inventory of his subjective possessions, and, bad or
bankrupt as it may be, it is not beyond redemption if we set about
it in earnest.” But how many do? All are willing to work for their
own development and progress; very few for those of others. To
quote the same writer again: “Men have been deceived and deluded
long enough; they must break their idols, put away their shams,
and go to work for themselves—nay, there is one little word too
much or too many, for he who works for himself had better not work
at all; rather let him work himself for others, for all. For every
flower of love and charity he plants in his neighbour’s garden,
a loathsome weed will disappear from his own, and so this garden
of the gods—Humanity—shall blossom as a rose. In all Bibles,
all religions, this is plainly set forth—but designing men have
at first misinterpreted and finally emasculated, materialized,
besotted them. It does not require a new revelation. Let every man
be a revelation unto himself. Let once man’s immortal spirit take
possession of the temple of his body, drive out the money-changers
and every unclean thing, and his own divine humanity will redeem
him, for when he is thus at one with himself if he will know the
‘builder of the Temple.’”
ENQ. This is pure Altruism, I confess.
THEO. It is. And if only one Fellow of the T.S. out of ten would
practise it ours would be a body of elect indeed. But there are
those among the outsiders who will always refuse to see the
essential difference between Theosophy and the Theosophical
Society, the idea and its imperfect embodiment. Such would visit
every sin and shortcoming of the vehicle, the human body, on the
pure spirit which sheds thereon its divine light. Is this just to
either? They throw stones at an association that tries to work up
to, and for the propagation of, its ideal with most tremendous
odds against it. Some vilify the Theosophical Society only because
it presumes to attempt to do that in which other systems—Church
and State Christianity pre-eminently—have failed most egregiously;
others because they would fain preserve the existing state
of things: Pharisees and Sadducees in the seat of Moses, and
publicans and sinners revelling in high places, as under the
Roman Empire during its decadence. Fair-minded people, at any
rate, ought to remember that the man who does all he can, does as
much as he who has achieved the most, in this world of relative
possibilities. This is a simple truism, an axiom supported for
believers in the Gospels by the parable of the talents given by
their Master; the servant who doubled his two talents was rewarded
as much as that other fellow-servant who had received _five_. To
every man it is given “according to his several ability.”
ENQ. Yet it is rather difficult to draw the line of demarcation between
the abstract and the concrete in this case, as we have only the
latter to our judgment by.
THEO. Then why make an exception for the T.S.? Justice, like charity,
ought to begin at home. Will you revile and scoff at the “Sermon
on the Mount” because your social, political and even religious
laws have, so far, not only failed to carry out its precepts in
their spirit, but even in their dead letter? Abolish the oath in
Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and do as the Quakers
do, if you _will_ call yourselves Christians. Abolish the Courts
themselves, for if you would follow the Commandments of Christ,
you have to give away your coat to him who deprives you of your
cloak, and turn your left cheek to the bully who smites you on
the right. “Resist not evil, love your enemies, bless them that
curse you, do good to them that hate you,” for “whosoever shall
break one of the least of these Commandments and shall teach men
so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven,” and
“whosoever shall say ‘Thou fool’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”
And why should you judge, if you would not be judged in your turn?
Insist that between Theosophy and the Theosophical Society there
is no difference, and forthwith you lay the system of Christianity
and its very essence open to the same charges, only in a more
serious form.
ENQ. Why _more_ serious?
THEO. Because, while the leaders of the Theosophical movement,
recognising fully their shortcomings, try all they can do to amend
their ways and uproot the evil existing in the Society; and while
their rules and by-laws are framed in the spirit of Theosophy, the
Legislators and the Churches of nations and countries which call
themselves Christian do the reverse. Our members, even the worst
among them, are no worse than the average Christian. Moreover,
if the Western Theosophists experience so much difficulty in
leading the true Theosophical life, it is because they are all the
children of their generation. Every one of them was a Christian,
bred and brought up in the sophistry of his Church, his social
customs, and even his paradoxical laws. He was this before he
became a Theosophist, or rather, a member of the Society of that
name, as it cannot be too often repeated that between the abstract
ideal and its vehicle there is a most important difference.
THE ABSTRACT AND THE CONCRETE.
ENQ. Please elucidate this difference a little more.
THEO. The Society is a great body of men and women, composed of the
most heterogeneous elements. Theosophy, in its abstract meaning,
is Divine Wisdom, or the aggregate of the knowledge and wisdom
that underlie the Universe—the homogeneity of eternal GOOD; and in
its concrete sense it is the sum total of the same as allotted to
man by nature, on this earth, and no more. Some members earnestly
endeavour to realize and, so to speak, to objectivize Theosophy in
their lives; while others desire only to know of, not to practise
it; and others still may have joined the Society merely out of
curiosity, or a passing interest, or perhaps, again, because some
of their friends belong to it. How, then, can the system be judged
by the standard of those who would assume the name without any
right to it? Is poetry or its muse to be measured only by those
would-be poets who afflict our ears? The Society can be regarded
as the embodiment of Theosophy only in its abstract motives; it
can never presume to call itself its concrete vehicle so long as
human imperfections and weaknesses are all represented in its
body; otherwise the Society would be only repeating the great
error and the outflowing sacrileges of the so-called Churches of
Christ. If Eastern comparisons may be permitted, Theosophy is the
shoreless ocean of universal truth, love, and wisdom, reflecting
its radiance on the earth, while the Theosophical Society is
only a visible bubble on that reflection. Theosophy is divine
nature, visible and invisible, and its Society human nature
trying to ascend to its divine parent. Theosophy, finally, is the
fixed eternal sun, and its Society the evanescent comet trying
to settle in an orbit to become a planet, ever revolving within
the attraction of the sun of truth. It was formed to assist in
showing to men that such a thing as Theosophy exists, and to help
them to ascend towards it by studying and assimilating its eternal
verities.
ENQ. I thought you said you had no tenets or doctrines of your own?
THEO. No more we have. The Society has no wisdom of its own to support
or teach. It is simply the storehouse of all the truths uttered
by the great seers, initiates, and prophets of historic and even
pre-historic ages; at least, as many as it can get. Therefore, it
is merely the channel through which more or less of truth, found
in the accumulated utterances of humanity’s great teachers, is
poured out into the world.
ENQ. But is such truth unreachable outside of the Society? Does not
every Church claim the same?
THEO. Not at all. The undeniable existence of great initiates—true
“Sons of God”—shows that such wisdom was often reached by isolated
individuals, never, however, without the guidance of a master
at first. But most of the followers of such, when they became
masters in their turn, have dwarfed the catholicism of these
teachings into the narrow groove of their own sectarian dogmas.
The commandments of _a_ chosen master alone were then adopted and
followed, to the exclusion of all others—if followed at all, note
well, as in the case of the Sermon on the Mount. Each religion is
thus a bit of the divine truth, made to focus a vast panorama of
human fancy which claimed to represent and replace that truth.
ENQ. But Theosophy, you say, is not a religion?
THEO. Most assuredly it is not, since it is the essence of all religion
and of absolute truth, a drop of which only underlies every creed.
To resort once more to metaphor. Theosophy, on earth, is like
the white ray of the spectrum, and every religion only one of the
seven prismatic colours. Ignoring all the others, and cursing them
as false, every special coloured ray claims not only priority,
but to be _that white ray_ itself, and anathematizes even its
own tints from light to dark, as heresies. Yet, as the sun of
truth rises higher and higher on the horizon of man’s perception,
and each coloured ray gradually fades out until it is finally
reabsorbed in its turn, humanity will at last be cursed no longer
with artificial polarizations, but will find itself bathing in
the pure colourless sunlight of eternal truth. And this will be
_Theosophia_.
ENQ. Your claim is, then, that all the great religions are derived from
Theosophy, and that it is by assimilating it that the world will
be finally saved from the curse of its great illusions and errors?
THEO. Precisely so. And we add that our Theosophical Society is the
humble seed which, if watered and left to live, will finally
produce the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which is grafted on
the Tree of Life Eternal. For it is only by studying the various
great religions and philosophies of humanity, by comparing them
dispassionately and with an unbiased mind, that men can hope to
arrive at the truth. It is especially by finding out and noting
their various points of agreement that we may achieve this result.
For no sooner do we arrive—either by study, or by being taught by
someone who knows—at their inner meaning, than we find, almost in
every case, that it expresses some great truth in Nature.
ENQ. We have heard of a Golden Age that was, and what you describe
would be a Golden Age to be realised at some future day. When
shall it be?
THEO. Not before humanity, as a whole, feels the need of it. A maxim in
the Persian “Javidan Khirad” says: “Truth is of two kinds—one
manifest and self-evident; the other demanding incessantly new
demonstrations and proofs.” It is only when this latter kind
of truth becomes as universally obvious as it is now dim, and
therefore liable to be distorted by sophistry and casuistry; it is
only when the two kinds will have become once more one, that all
people will be brought to see alike.
ENQ. But surely those few who have felt the need of such truths must
have made up their minds to believe in something definite? You
tell me that, the Society having no doctrines of its own, every
member may believe as he chooses and accept what he pleases. This
looks as if the Theosophical Society was bent upon reviving the
confusion of languages and beliefs of the Tower of Babel of old.
Have you no beliefs in common?
THEO. What is meant by the Society having no tenets or doctrines of its
own is, that no special doctrines or beliefs are _obligatory_ on
its members; but, of course, this applies only to the body as a
whole. The Society, as you were told, is divided into an outer and
an inner body. Those who belong to the latter have, of course, a
philosophy, or—if you so prefer it— a religious system of their
own.
ENQ. May we be told what it is?
THEO. We make no secret of it. It was outlined a few years ago in the
_Theosophist_ and “Esoteric Buddhism,” and may be found still
more elaborated in the “Secret Doctrine.” It is based on the
oldest philosophy in the world, called the Wisdom-Religion or the
Archaic Doctrine. If you like, you may ask questions and have them
explained.
V. THE FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY.
ON GOD AND PRAYER.
ENQ. Do you believe in God?
THEO. That depends what you mean by the term.
ENQ. I mean the God of the Christians, the Father of Jesus, and the
Creator: the Biblical God of Moses, in short.
THEO. In such a God we do not believe. We reject the idea of a
personal, or an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God, who is
but the gigantic shadow of _man_, and not of man at his best,
either. The God of theology, we say—and prove it—is a bundle of
contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore, we will
have nothing to do with him.
ENQ. State your reasons, if you please.
THEO. They are many, and cannot all receive attention. But here are a
few. This God is called by his devotees infinite and absolute, is
he not?
ENQ. I believe he is.
THEO. Then, if infinite—_i.e._, limitless—and especially if absolute,
how can he have a form, and be a creator of anything? Form implies
limitation, and a beginning as well as an end; and, in order
to create, a Being must think and plan. How can the ABSOLUTE
be supposed to think—_i.e._, to have any relation whatever
to that which is limited, finite, and conditioned? This is a
philosophical and a logical absurdity. Even the Hebrew Kabala
rejects such an idea, and therefore makes of the one and the
Absolute Deific Principle an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph.[14]
In order to create, the Creator has to become active; and as
this is impossible for ABSOLUTENESS, the infinite principle had
to be shown becoming the cause of evolution (not creation) in an
indirect way—_i.e._, through the emanation from itself (another
absurdity, due this time to the translators of the Kabala)[15] of
the Sephiroth.
ENQ. How about those Kabalists, who, while being such, still believe in
Jehovah, or the _Tetragrammaton_?
THEO. They are at liberty to believe in what they please, as their
belief or disbelief can hardly affect a self-evident fact.
The Jesuits tell us that two and two are not always four to a
certainty, since it depends on the will of God to make 2 x 2 = 5.
Shall we accept their sophistry for all that?
ENQ. Then you are Atheists?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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 παν,
“all,” and θεος, “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 etymologise the word Pantheism
esoterically, and as we do.
ENQ. What is, then your definition of it?
THEO. Let me ask you a question in my turn. What do you understand by
Pan or Nature?
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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
cyclopædias?
ENQ. Yes, I believe so.
THEO. Well, we neither take into consideration this objective and
material nature, which we call an evanescent illusion, nor do
we mean by παν 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.
ENQ. Stop! Omniscience is the prerogative of something that thinks, and
you deny to your Absoluteness the power of thought.
THEO. 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_.
ENQ. Then your Absolute thinks?
THEO. 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 Kabalistic 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,” etc., etc. 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_.
ENQ. I once heard one of your members remarking that Universal Deity,
being everywhere, was in vessels of dishonour, as in those of
honour, and, therefore, was present in every atom of my cigar ash!
Is this not rank blasphemy?
THEO. 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?
ENQ. Do you believe in prayer, and do you ever pray?
THEO. We do not. We _act_, instead of _talking_.
ENQ. You do not offer prayers even to the Absolute Principle?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Do you not believe at all in the efficacy of prayer?
THEO. 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 popularised by
the Pharisees.
ENQ. Is there any other kind of prayer?
THEO. Most decidedly; we call it WILL-PRAYER, and it is rather an
internal command than a petition.
ENQ. To whom, then, do you pray when you do so?
THEO. To “our Father in heaven”—in its esoteric meaning.
ENQ. Is that different from the one given to it in theology?
THEO. Entirely so. An Occultist or a Theosophist addresses his prayer
to _his Father which is in secret_ (read, and try to understand,
ch. vi. v. 6, Matthew), not to an extra-cosmic and therefore
finite God; and that “Father” is in man himself.
ENQ. Then you make of man a God?
THEO. 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 great spirit of that the
spirit of (the absolute) God dwelleth in you?”[16] Yet, let no
man anthropomorphise 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-power” becomes the active or creative force,
producing effects according to our desire.
ENQ. Do you mean to say that prayer is an occult process bringing about
physical results?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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.”
ENQ. But how do you explain the universal fact that all nations and
peoples have prayed to, and worshipped 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.
THEO. 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 memoralists 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 centre, 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.
ENQ. Christians would call it pride and blasphemy. Are they wrong?
THEO. 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 recognise 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.
ENQ. But did not Christ himself pray and recommend prayer?
THEO. 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!
ENQ. 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.”
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Perhaps so, yet it is the idea of trusting in a personal Saviour
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.
THEO. Nor is there any more doubt, that some patients of “Christian”
and “Mental Scientists”—the great “_Deniers_”[17]—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?
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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,
Mussulmen, Hindoos, 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. (Vide LUCIFER for April, 1888, p.
147, Art. Christian Lectures on Buddhism.) No Orientalist, no
historian of any note, or traveller in Buddhist land, 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?”
ENQ. Then they are truly Atheists.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Does not the Buddhist priesthood do the same?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. How, then, do you account for man being endowed with a Spirit and
Soul? Whence these?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. So you reject the teaching that Soul is given, or breathed into
man, by God?
THEO. We are obliged to. The “Soul” spoken of in ch. ii. of Genesis
(v. 7) 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_.
ENQ. Well, let us put it otherwise: is it God who endows man with a
human _rational_ Soul and immortal Spirit?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. What do you mean? What difficulties?
THEO. I am thinking of an unanswerable argument offered once in my
presence by a Cingalese 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 for ever
memorable discussion second best, as usual.
ENQ. I should be glad to learn in what way.
THEO. Simply this: the Buddhist priest premised by asking the _padri_
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.
ENQ. You forget that all such inexplicable cases are mysteries, and
that we are forbidden by our religion to pry into the mysteries of
God.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. What does Buddhism teach with regard to the Soul?
THEO. 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 re-birth 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 re-birth, 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.
ENQ. Is not something like this spoken of in _Esoteric Buddhism_?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. But we are distinctly told that most of the Buddhists do not
believe in the Soul’s immortality?
THEO. 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 hell-fire, 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.
ENQ. Do you mean to suggest that neither the teachings of Buddha nor
those of Christ have been heretofore rightly understood?
THEO. 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 labour 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!
ENQ. But surely Buddha must have repudiated the soul’s immortality, if
all the Orientalists and his own Priests say so!
THEO. 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.
ENQ. But why, in that case, do Buddhism and Christianity represent the
two opposite poles of such belief?
THEO. 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”
(Matt. xiii. 11)—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.”[18]
ENQ. This refers to Gautama, but in what way does it touch the Gospels?
THEO. 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 Saviour 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[14] Ain-Soph, אין סיף = τὸ πάγ = ἔπειρος Nature, the non-existent
which IS, but is not _a_ Being.
[15] How can the non-active eternal principle emanate or emit? The
Parabrahm of the Vedantins does nothing of the kind; nor does the
Ain-Soph of the Chaldean Kabala. 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.
[16] One often finds in Theosophical writings conflicting statements
about the Christos principle in man. Some call it the sixth principle
(_Buddhi_), others the seventh (_Atman_). 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 _Bhagavatgita_ we find Krishna calling himself
indifferently Atman, the abstract Spirit, Kshetragna, 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.
[17] The new sect of healers, who, by disavowing the existence of
anything but spirit, which spirit can neither suffer nor be ill, claim
to cure all and every disease, provided the patient has faith that what
he denies can have no existence. A new form of self-hypnotism.
[18] Buddha gives to Ananda, his _initiated_ disciple, who enquires
for the reason of this silence, a plain and unequivocal answer in the
dialogue translated by Oldenburg from the _Samyuttaka 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 Brahmanas, 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.
VI. THEOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS AS TO NATURE AND MAN.
THE UNITY OF ALL IN ALL.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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 sometime back. We believe in no
_creation_, but in the periodical and consecutive appearances of
the universe from the subjective on to the objective plane of
being, at regular intervals of time, covering periods of immense
duration.
ENQ. Can you elaborate the subject?
THEO. 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 6 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 Hindoos call
such alternations the “Days and Nights of Brahma,” 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.
ENQ. But who is it that creates each time the Universe?
THEO. 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_.
ENQ. At that rate, you and I are also illusions.
THEO. As flitting personalities, to-day one person, to-morrow
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.
ENQ. 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_.
THEO. It is _unconsciousness_ only to our finite consciousness. Verily
may we paraphrase verse v, in the 1st chapter of 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 on to 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.
ENQ. What do you mean by _sui generis_?
THEO. 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 programme of manifestations differing
from the respective programmes 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
jelly-fish 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!
ENQ. But what are your data for this assertion?
THEO. 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 untrammeled 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.
ENQ. And therefore you have implicit faith in them?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Is it on such data that you came to accept the strange theories we
find in _Esoteric Buddhism_?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. I understand that you describe our earth as forming part of a
chain of earths?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Is that on account of the great distance?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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 dream-life, 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.
ENQ. You do not accept, then, the well-known explanations of biology
and physiology to account for the dream state?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. How do you explain these?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Is it what we call Spirit and Soul, and the man of flesh?
THEO. 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 (iii. 15) corroborates the
same by saying that the “wisdom” (of our lower soul) descendeth
not from the above, but is terrestrial (“psychical,” “demoniacal,”
_vide_ 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
{ SANSCRIT TERMS. | EXOTERIC MEANING.| EXPLANATORY.
{------------------------------------------------------------------
L { | |
o {(_a_) Rupa, or |(_a_) Physical |(_a_) Is the vehicle of
w { Sthula-Sarira. | body. | all the other
e { | | “principles” during
r { | | life.
{(_b_) Pranâ. |(_b_) Life, or |(_b_) Necessary only to
{ | Vital principle.| _a_, _c_, _d_, and
Q { | | the functions of the
u { | | lower _Manas_, which
a { | | embrace all those
t { | | limited to the
e { | | (_physical_) brain.
r {(_c_) Linga Sharira.|(_c_) Astral Body.|(_c_) The _Double_, the
n { | | phantom body.
a {(_d_) Kama rupa. |(_d_) The seat of |(_d_) This is the centre
r { | animal desires| of the animal man,
y { | and passions. | wherelies the line
. { | | of demarcation which
{ | | separates the mortal
{ | | man from the
{ | | immortal entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
{ | |
{ SANSCRIT TERMS. | EXOTERIC MEANING. | EXPLANATORY.
{ | |
T {-------------------------------------------------------------------
H {(_e_) _Manas_—a |(_e_) Mind, Intelligence:|(_e_) The future state
E { dual principle| which is the higher | and the Karmic
{ in its | human mind, whose | destiny of man
U { functions. | light, or radiation, | depend on whether
P { | links the MONAD, for | Manas gravitates
P { | the lifetime, to the | more downward to
E { | mortal man. | Kama rupa, the
R { | | seat of the animal
{ | | passions, or
I { | | upwards to_Buddhi_,
M { | | Spiritual _Ego_. In
P { | | the latter case,
E { | | the higher
R { | | consciousness of
I { | | the individual
S { | | Spiritual
H { | | aspirations of
A { | | _mind_ (Manas),
B { | | assimilating
L { | | Buddhi, are
E { | | absorbed by it
{ | | and form the _Ego_,
T { | | which goes into
R { | | Devachanic bliss.[19]
I {(_f_) Buddhi. |(_f_) The Spiritual |(_f_) The vehicle of
A { | Soul. | pure universal
D { | | spirit.
. {(_g_) Atma. |(_g_) Spirit. |(_g_) One with the
{ | | Absolute, as its
{ | | radiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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_ (_vide_ Table). He explains that when
the Soul, _psuche_, “allies herself to the Nous (divine spirit
or substance[20]), 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 _Kama rupa_, 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.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOUL AND SPIRIT.
ENQ. Do you really teach, as you are accused of doing by some
Spiritualists and French Spiritists, the annihilation of every
personality?
THEO. 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 “materialised spirit,” which
we deny as already explained, our opponents have started the
nonsensical charge.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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 sempiternal? 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.
ENQ. Then you also reject _resurrection in the flesh_?
THEO. 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?
ENQ. The Egyptians revered Nature-Spirits, and deified even onions:
your Hindus are _idolaters_, to this day; the Zoroastrians
worshipped, and do still worship, the Sun; and the best Greek
philosophers were either dreamers or materialists—witness Plato
and Democritus. How can you compare?
THEO. 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,
Νους αυτοχρατης, “the Mind or Spirit Self-Potent,” the αρχητης
χινηδεως, 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 recognise
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 for ever. 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_?
ENQ. 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.
THEO. And I support the view. Besides Plato, there is Pythagoras, who
also followed the same idea.[21] He 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 Kabalists) which three correspond to our
“Atma-Buddhi,” (higher Spirit-Soul), to _Manas_ (The EGO), and
to _Kama-rupa_ 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 _Kama-rupa_ (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_ (Kama-rupa
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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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: “Man,”
says Plutarch, “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 (ψυχη) with the
understanding (νοῦς) 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[22]; 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, τελειν, resembled that given to death, τελευταν.
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 Kama-loka; and a threefold
_Ego_, Spirit-Soul, and consciousness in _Devachan_. This
separation, first in “the Meadows of Hades,” as Plutarch calls
the _Kama-loka_, 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 Proserpina mildly and in a
long time disjoins the understanding from the soul.[23] 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 (_Kama-loka_).[24] For those that
have been unjust and dissolute suffer then the punishment due
to their offences; 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 for ever invisible
and unknowable, be not that which, though it eludes for ever 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.
ENQ. But what is _Devachan_?
THEO. 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[19] 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 6th and 7th). 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 5th) which dominates the rest;
in others the Animal Soul (Kama-rupa) that reigns supreme, exhibiting
the most bestial instincts, etc.
[20] Paul calls Plato’s _Nous_ “Spirit”; but as this spirit is
“substance,” then, of course, _Buddhi_ and not _Atma_ is meant, as
the latter cannot philosophically be called “substance” under any
circumstance. We include Atma among the human “principles” in order not
to create additional confusion. In reality it is no “human” but the
universal _absolute_ principle of which Buddhi, the Soul-Spirit, is the
carrier.
[21] “Plato and Pythagoras,” says Plutarch, “distribute the soul into
two parts, the rational (noetic) and irrational (agnoia); that 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?
[22] The Kabalists who know the relation of Jehovah, the life and
children-giver, to the Moon, and the influence of the latter on
generation, will again see the point as much as some astrologers will.
[23] Proserpina, or Persephone, stands here for post mortem 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 Kama-loka, from the higher compound _Ego_,
which goes into the state of Devachan, or bliss.
[24] Until the separation of the higher, spiritual “principle” takes
place from the lower ones, which remain in the Kama-loka until
disintegrated.
VII. ON THE VARIOUS POST MORTEM STATES.
THE PHYSICAL AND THE SPIRITUAL MAN.
ENQ. I am glad to hear you believe in the immortality of the Soul.
THEO. Not of “the Soul,” but of the divine Spirit; or rather in the
immortality of the reincarnating Ego.
ENQ. What is the difference?
THEO. A very great one in our philosophy, but this is too abstruse and
difficult a question to touch lightly upon. We shall have to
analyse them separately, and then in conjunction. We may begin
with Spirit.
We say that the Spirit (the “Father in secret” of Jesus), or _Atman_,
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”[25] never entered wholly
into the man, but only overshadowed him more or less through the
_irrational_ spiritual Soul or Buddhi.[26]
ENQ. I laboured under the impression that the “Animal Soul” alone was
irrational, not the Divine.
THEO. 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.”
ENQ. 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 mediæval Kabalists, though they do agree in some
particulars.
THEO. 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 Kabalists 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 Kabalists still maintain
the same, as they are unable to break quite loose from their
anthropomorphic and Biblical doctrines.
ENQ. And what do you say?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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 re-become men on this one. Yet all these will live again in
the next and far higher Mahamanvantara, 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_.[27] Do you understand now the difference?
ENQ. Yes; but this specialisation has been in all ages the
stumbling-block of metaphysicians.
THEO. It was. The whole esotericism of the Buddhistic 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.
ENQ. If the “Spirit,” or the divine portion of the soul, is
pre-existent 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?
THEO. 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 pre-existent. But, while
the former exists as a distinct entity, an individualization,
the soul exists as pre-existing breath, an unscient portion
of an intelligent whole. Both were originally formed from the
Eternal Ocean of light; but as the Fire-Philosophers, the
mediæval 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, νους and the other, the
animal soul, ψυχη. According to these philosophers, the reasoning
soul comes from _within_ the universal soul, and the other from
_without_.
ENQ. Would you call the Soul, _i.e._, the human thinking Soul, or what
you call the Ego—matter?
THEO. 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 co-eternal 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?
ENQ. Then why should you not believe in God as such an Entity?
THEO. 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 _Mahamanvantara_; 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_ (vol. iii., p. 616), “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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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 (Gen. ch. ii.), as
the _immortal_ soul. Here are some instances:—“And God created ...
every _nephesh_ (life) that moveth” (Gen i. 21), meaning animals;
and (Gen. ii. 7) 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”
(Gen. ix. 5), “Escape for _nephesh_” (escape for thy _life_, it
is translated), (Gen. xix. 17). “Let us not kill him,” reads
the English version (Gen. xxxvii. 21). “Let us not kill his
_nephesh_” is the Hebrew text. “_Nephesh_ for _nephesh_,” says
Leviticus (xvii. 8). “He that killeth any man shall surely be put
to death,” literally “He that smiteth the _nephesh_ of a man”
(Lev. xxiv. 17); 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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 proportion’d 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?
ENQ. Have you any other reasons for rejecting this dogma?
THEO. Our chief reason for it lies in the fact of re-incarnation. 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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. (_Vide infra_, “On
the Punishment of the Ego.”) Why, even the Jewish philosophers,
believers in the Mosaic Bible (esoterically, of course), have
never entertained such an idea; and, moreover, they believed in
re-incarnation, as we do.
ENQ. Can you give me some instances as a proof of this?
THEO. Most decidedly I can. Philo Judæus says (in “De Somniis,” p.
455): “The air is full of them (of souls); those which are nearest
the earth, descending to be tied to mortal bodies, παλινδρομοῦσιν
αὖθις _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 pollutions.”[28] 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.”[29] 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,” היבל אחכה; 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.
ENQ. Yet there is no re-incarnation spoken of in all this.
THEO. A soul which pleads to be allowed to remain where she is, _must
be pre-existent_, and not have been created for the occasion. In
the _Zohar_ (vol. iii., p. 61), 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 Atman, or _Atma-Buddhi_.
ENQ. 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!
THEO. Taken literally, with regard to the personality and
differentiated matter, not otherwise. These ideas on
re-incarnation 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 for ever 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 ψυχικος 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 Dhyâna. 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 Buddhistic
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 for ever. When the Spiritual _entity_ breaks loose for ever
from every particle of matter, substance, or form, and re-becomes
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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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 Buddhistic 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.
ENQ. I do not quite seize the idea yet, and would be thankful to have
you explain this to me by some illustrations.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Do you mean the Vedantins, as an instance? Don’t they divide your
seven “principles” into five only?
THEO. 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-Tze, in his _Tao-te-King_, 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 Rajà Yogà_ School. Its teaching recognises only three
“principles” in fact; but then, in reality, their _Sthulopadi_,
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.[30] They are
welcome to hold to their division; we hold to ours.
ENQ. Then it seems almost the same as the division made by the mystic
Christians: body, soul and spirit?
THEO. Just the same. We could easily make of the body the vehicle of
the “vital Double”; of the latter the vehicle of Life or _Pranâ_;
of _Kama-rupa_, 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
qualificative 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.
ENQ. It is just that which it is so difficult to understand.
THEO. 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 on to the _Human_ Soul, _Manas_ or _mens_, every one 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.
ENQ. But why should not man be represented by two “principles” or two
aspects, rather?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. But what is it that reincarnates, in your belief?
THEO. 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 Atman 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 5th and 6th 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 Re-incarnation.
ENQ. You will do well, as it is against this doctrine that your enemies
fight the most ferociously.
THEO. 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!
FOOTNOTES:
[25] In its generic sense, the word “rational” meaning something
emanating from the Eternal Wisdom.
[26] _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.
[27] _Vide_ “_Secret Doctrine_,” Vol. II., stanzas.
[28] “_Zohar_,” Vol. II., p. 96.
[29] “_Mishna_,” “Aboth,” Vol. IV., p. 29.
[30] See “Secret Doctrine” for a clearer explanation. Vol. I., p. 157.
VIII. ON RE-INCARNATION OR REBIRTH.
WHAT IS MEMORY ACCORDING TO THEOSOPHICAL TEACHING?
ENQ. 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 scepticism. First of all, you have against this theory of
re-incarnation, 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.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. I would like to hear your arguments.
THEO. 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 _primâ facie_ and circumstantial evidence
more than anything else. Now what is “memory” in your conception,
pray?
ENQ. That which is generally accepted: the faculty in our mind of
remembering and of retaining the knowledge of previous thoughts,
deeds and events.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Yet, all these are only synonyms.
THEO. 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_ and _recollection_ 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 characterises _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 endeavour 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_ the _memory 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.”
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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 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 (pre-existence) affects us has its
secret source in materialistic or semi-materialistic prejudices.”
Besides which we maintain that memory, as Olympiodorus called it,
is simply _phantasy_, and the most unreliable thing in us.[31]
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 Cæsar once
lived? Why should not the same testimony of the psychic senses of
the masses be taken into consideration?
ENQ. But don’t you think that these are too fine distinctions to be
accepted by the majority of mortals?
THEO. 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?
ENQ. 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?
THEO. Very easily. Since those “principles” which we call physical, and
none of which is denied by science, though it calls them by other
names,[32] 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 re-incarnation of the EGO. Re-incarnation 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?
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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 re-incarnation and past lives, one must put oneself in
_rapport_ with one’s real permanent Ego, not one’s evanescent
memory.
ENQ. But how can people believe in that which they _do not know_, nor
have ever seen, far less put themselves in _rapport_ with it?
THEO. 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?
ENQ. What is, finally, this mysterious eternal principle? Can you
explain its nature so as to make it comprehensible to all?
THEO. 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.[33]
ENQ. What do you mean by _Skandhas_?
THEO. 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”[34] 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 _Jhana_ 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.
ENQ. Do you mean to infer that 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?
THEO. 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.[35] (See On _post mortem_ and _post natal_ Consciousness.)
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.
ENQ. Then how does it happen that the real or Spiritual man does not
impress his new personal “I” with this knowledge?
THEO. How is it that the servant-girls in a poor farm-house could speak
Hebrew and play the violin in their trance or somnambulic 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
paralysed. 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.
ENQ. Still there ought to be exceptions, and some ought to remember.
THEO. 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, pre-eminently
“Re-incarnation, 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 formulæ; 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.
ENQ. You just said that the SPIRITUAL EGO was omniscient. Where, then,
is that vaunted omniscience during his Devachanic life, as you call
it?
THEO. 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 re-becomes _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 paralysed, the individuality
manifested itself. Pray do not confuse the two.
ON INDIVIDUALITY AND PERSONALITY.[36]
ENQ. But what is the difference between the two? 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.
THEO. 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:—
I. 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.
II. _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, then 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,
III. _Manas_,[37] the derivation or product in a reflected form of
_Ahamkara_, “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_. 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—the evanescent
masks which hide the true Individual through the long series of
rebirths.
ENQ. But is this just? Why should this EGO receive punishment as the
result of deeds which it has forgotten?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. But are there no modes of communication between the Spiritual and
human consciousness or memory?
THEO. Of course there are; but they have never been recognised 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.
ENQ. 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 _post-mortem_ punishment.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. What do you mean?
THEO. 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 Jerusalems with streets paved with sapphires and
diamonds. What we believe in is a _post-mortem 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[38] 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. 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 men, 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 a _sempiternity_
of 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.
ENQ. Then am I to understand that the murderer, the transgressor of law
divine and human in every shape, is allowed to go unpunished?
THEO. 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.[39] We believe in an
unerring law of Retribution, called KARMA, which asserts itself in
a natural concatenation of causes and their unavoidable results.
ENQ. And how, or where, does it act?
THEO. 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_ re-emerges 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 re-birth which is ready
for _it_, a re-birth 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 on to 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. Re-incarnation 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 ...
ENQ. But where is the equity you speak of, since these _new_
“personalities” are not aware of having sinned or been sinned
against?
THEO. Has the coat torn to shreds from the back of the man who stole
it, by another man who was robbed of it and recognises 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, colour, 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 re-incarnation. 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[31] “The phantasy,” says Olympiodorus (in Platonis Phæd.) “is an
impediment to our intellectual conceptions; and hence, when we are
agitated by the inspiring influence of the Divinity, if the phantasy
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 energise without the phantasy, we reply, that its perception
of universals proves that it is able. It has perceptions, therefore,
independent of the phantasy; at the same time, however, the phantasy
attends in its energies, just as a storm pursues him who sails on the
sea.”
[32] 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 sarira_, _Pranâ_, _Kama rupa_, and _Linga
sarira_ (_vide supra_).
[33] 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.”
[34] By H. S. Olcott, President and Founder of the Theosophical
Society. The accuracy of the teaching is sanctioned by the Rev. H.
Sumangala, High Priest of the Sripada and Galle, and Principal of the
_Widyodaya Parivena_ (College) at Colombo, as being in agreement with
the Canon of the Southern Buddhist Church.
[35] 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.
[36] Even in his _Buddhist Cathechism_, 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 reason 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 æther 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’ (_Buddhism_, p. 101) if we regarded the life-undulation as
individuality, and each of its series of natal manifestations as a
separate personality? The perfect individual, Buddhistically 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,’
Fausboll and Rhys-Davids’ BUDDHIST BIRTH STORIES, p. 13) 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?” (_Bud. Cat., Appendix_ A. 137.)
[37] MAHAT or the “Universal Mind” is the source of Manas. The latter
is Mahat, _i.e._, mind, in man. Manas is also called _Kshetrajna_,
“embodied Spirit,” because it is, according to our philosophy, the
_Manasa-putras_, 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.
[38] 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
(_Manasa-putras_) 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 (Vide Stanzas VIII. and IX.
in the “Slokas of Dzyan,” Vol. II. Secret Doctrine, pp. 19 and 20),
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.
[39] “Verily, I say unto you, that whosoever looketh at a woman to lust
after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
(Matt. v., 28.)
IX. ON THE KAMA-LOKA AND DEVACHAN.
ON THE FATE OF THE LOWER “PRINCIPLES.”
ENQ. You spoke of _Kama-loka_, what is it?
THEO. When the man dies, his lower three principles leave him for ever;
_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
_Kama-rupa_, with what it has assimilated from the lower Manas,
and the higher triad find themselves in _Kama-loka_. 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.
ENQ. And what happens after this?
THEO. Then the _Kama-rupic_ 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.
ENQ. In what way?
THEO. 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.”
ENQ. And is it _this_ nonentity which we find materializing in Séance
rooms with Mediums?
THEO. 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 Kama-rupa, 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 re-incarnation.
ENQ. What of the latter? How long does the incarnating _Ego_ remain in
the Devachanic state?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. I do not understand you. What is selfish?
THEO. 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 going on 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.”
ENQ. What do you mean? Why should this interfere with their bliss?
THEO. 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 _post-mortem_
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 _nolens volens_, 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!
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. What are your reasons for it?
THEO. 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, colour, 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 fulfilment 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.
ENQ. But this is more than simple delusion, it is an existence of
insane hallucinations!
THEO. 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
jeweller’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 “Summer land”—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.
ENQ. There is something in your argument. I confess to having never
seen it in this light.
THEO. 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_ protections
and escapes, 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.
ENQ. In no case, then, do you admit the possibility of the
communication of the living with the _disembodied_ spirit?
THEO. 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—(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)—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.” The second
exception is found in the _Nirmanakayas_.
ENQ. What about them? And what does the name mean for you?
THEO. It is the name given to those who, though they have won the right
to Nirvana and cyclic rest—(_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)—have out of pity for mankind
and those they left on earth renounced the Nirvanic state. 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.
ENQ. 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 Buddhistic teachings.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. And what good can they do on earth?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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” (_Spirit
Identity_, p. 69).
ENQ. But “M.A. Oxon” is a Spiritualist?
THEO. 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.”[40] 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.
ENQ. What are these propositions?
THEO.
“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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. What becomes of the other, the lower Skandhas of the personality,
after the death of the body? Are they quite destroyed?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. This really passes my comprehension, and is very difficult to
understand.
THEO. 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 Re-incarnation 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 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 Saviour in
each world and incarnation.
ENQ. But Christianity teaches the same. It also preaches progression.
THEO. Yes, only with the addition of something else. It tells us of the
_impossibility_ of attaining Salvation without the aid of a
miraculous Saviour, 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 endeavouring to elevate oneself to the
Christos, or Buddhi state.
ENQ. By teaching the annihilation of consciousness in case of failure,
however, don’t you think that it amounts to the annihilation of
_Self_, in the opinion of the non-metaphysical?
THEO. 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 Puranic 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. But if in Devachan the Spirit is free from matter, why should it
not possess all knowledge?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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 bye-product of organic
action, which will evaporate like steam. Is not theirs a strange
state of mind?
THEO. 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 POST-MORTEM AND POST-NATAL CONSCIOUSNESS.[41]
ENQ. But if human self-consciousness survives death as a rule, why
should there be exceptions?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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
_post-mortem_ 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 _post-mortem_ 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.
ENQ. But since you have just said that the fundamental laws of the
after death state admit of no exceptions, how can this be?
THEO. 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
Vedanta-Sara 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 Iswara and Pragna[42] 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.
ENQ. But, as I understand it, Buddhi represents in this simile the
forest, and Manas-taijasi[43] the trees. And if Buddhi is
immortal, how can that which is similar to it, _i.e._,
Manas-taijasi, entirely lose its consciousness till the day of its
new incarnation? I cannot understand it.
THEO. 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
qualificative attribute 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 recognise its existence. You can hardly apply this axiom to the
attributes and qualifications 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.
ENQ. Do I understand you to say that we must not mix in our minds the
noumenon with the phenomenon, the cause with its effect?
THEO. I do say so, and repeat that, limited to Manas or the human soul
alone, the radiance of Taijasi 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. Our philosophy teaches that Karmic punishment reaches Ego only in
its next incarnation. After death it receives only the reward for
the unmerited sufferings endured during its past incarnation.[44]
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 _post-mortem_ 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.
ENQ. Then the personal man must always go on suffering _blindly_ the
Karmic penalties which the Ego has incurred?
THEO. Not quite so. At the solemn moment of death every man, even when
death is sudden, sees the whole of his past life marshalled 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 claim 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.
ENQ. Does this happen to everyone?
THEO. 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 recognise the law of Karma in
all its majesty and justice.
ENQ. Is there anything corresponding to this before re-birth?
THEO. 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
on to 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 re-birth that the
_Ego_ regains his full _manasic_ consciousness, and re-becomes 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.
ENQ. I have heard some Theosophists speak of a golden thread on which
their lives were strung. What do they mean by this?
THEO. In the Hindu Sacred books it is said that that which undergoes
periodical incarnation is the _Sutratma_, 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. But we ordinary mortals who have not reached Samma-Sambuddha, how
are we to understand this simile?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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 _post-mortem_ 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 _post-mortem_
dreams? I repeat it: _death is sleep_. After death, before the
spiritual eyes of the soul, begins a performance according to
a programme 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 Mussulman a Mussulman, at least for some time—in
a perfect fool’s paradise of each man’s creation and making. These
are the _post-mortem_ 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 colour to that fact in its application to each of these
entities. Now do you begin to understand it?
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Well, and the flower, the terrestrial “I”?
THEO. The flower, as all past and future flowers which have blossomed
and will have to blossom on the mother bough, the _Sutratma_,
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-Sutratma, but
Sutratma-Buddhi.
ENQ. 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 _post-mortem_ life has
limits, however much wider they may be than those of terrestrial
life.
THEO. 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 _post-mortem_
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 Sutratma 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 Dhyan
Chohan. So much the worse for those terrestrial personalities
from which it could collect nothing. Such personalities cannot
assuredly outlive consciously their terrestrial existence.
ENQ. Thus, then, it seems that, for the terrestrial personality,
immortality is still conditional. Is, then, immortality itself
_not_ unconditional?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. But why in such a case call sleep the reality, and waking the
illusion?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. No one ever said such a thing. No materialist, however
unbelieving, can die for ever in the fulness 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.
ENQ. But surely this is annihilation?
THEO. 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 programme we spoke of, a
programme 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 for ever.
This personality having no tendrils of sympathy for the world
around and hence nothing to hook on to Sutratma, it follows that
with the last breath every connection between the two is broken.
There being no Devachan for such a materialist, the Sutratma 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.
ENQ. Still, would it not be more correct to say that death is birth
into a new life, or a return once more into eternity?
THEO. 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 _post-mortem_ 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 Summer-land. 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.
ENQ. 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”?
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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.”[45] 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,[46] 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 pre-ordained; 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 Kamaloca—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 Kamaloca to the Devachanic stage of this progression would
necessarily be gradual[47]; 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 superphysical 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 _Atman_ 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 Atman,
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_ or _Buddhi_ (of course in
conjunction with Manas, as without such union there would be no
_thinking_ principle or element in the spiritual soul); 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,[48] 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 criticise the whole thing as incorrect.
To avoid henceforth such misrepresentations, I propose to
translate literally from the Occult Eastern terms their
equivalents in English, and offer these for future use.
{ Atma, the inseparable ray of the Universal
THE HIGHER { and ONE SELF. It is the God _above_, more
SELF is { than within, us. Happy the man who succeeds
{ in saturating his _inner Ego_ with it!
THE SPIRITUAL { the Spiritual soul or _Buddhi_, in close union
_divine_ { with _Manas_, the mind-principle, without
EGO is { which it is no EGO at all, but only the Atmic
{ _Vehicle_.
{ _Manas_, the “Fifth” Principle, so called,
{ independently of Buddhi. The Mind-Principle
THE INNER, { is only the Spiritual Ego when merged
or HIGHER { _into one_ with Buddhi,—no materialist being
“Ego” is { supposed to have in him _such_ an Ego, however
{ great his intellectual capacities. It is
{ the permanent _Individuality_ or the “Reincarnating
{ Ego.”
{ the physical man in conjunction with his
{ _lower_ Self, _i.e._, animal instincts, passions,
THE LOWER, { desires, etc. It is called the “false personality,”
or PERSONAL { and consists of the _lower Manas_ combined
“Ego” is { with Kama-rupa, and operating
{ through the Physical body and its phantom
{ or “double.”
The remaining “Principle” “_Pranâ_,” 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. Pranâ 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
machinâ_ of the living man.
ENQ. This division being so much simplified in its combinations will
answer better, I believe. The other is much too metaphysical.
THEO. If outsiders as well as Theosophists would agree to it, it would
certainly make matters much more comprehensible.
FOOTNOTES:
[40] “Some things that I _do_ know of Spiritualism and some that I do
_not_.”
[41] A few portions of this chapter and of the preceding were
published in _Lucifer_ in the shape of a “Dialogue on the Mysteries of
After Life,” in the January number, 1889. The article was unsigned,
as if it were written by the editor, but it came from the pen of the
author of the present volume.
[42] Iswara is the collective consciousness of the manifested deity,
Brahma, _i.e._, the collective consciousness of the Host of Dhyan
Chohans (_vide_ SECRET DOCTRINE); and Pragna is their individual wisdom.
[43] _Taijasi_ means the radiant in consequence of its union with
Buddhi; _i.e._, Manas, the human soul, illuminated by the radiance
of the divine soul. Therefore, Manas-taijasi may be described as
radiant mind; the _human_ reason lit by the light of the spirit; and
Buddhi-Manas is the revelation of the divine _plus_ human intellect and
self-consciousness.
[44] 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, criticised 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.
[45] _Vide_ Transactions of the LONDON LODGE _of the Theos. Soc._, No.
7, Oct., 1885.
[46] The “reincarnating Ego,” or “Human Soul,” as he called it, the
_Causal Body_ with the Hindus.
[47] The length of this “transfer” depends, however, on the degree of
spirituality in the ex-personality of the disembodied Ego. For those
whose lives were very spiritual this transfer, though gradual, is very
rapid. The time becomes longer with the materialistically inclined.
[48] “Shifting of _Metaphysical terms_” applies here only to the
shifting of their translated equivalents from the Eastern expressions;
for to this day there never existed any such terms in English, every
Theosophist having to coin his own terms to render his thought. It is
nigh time then to settle on some definite nomenclature.
X. ON THE NATURE OF OUR THINKING PRINCIPLE.
THE MYSTERY OF THE EGO.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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
spiritualised _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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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?
ENQ. How would _you_ name them, and especially how would you explain
the permanence of one and the evanescence of the other?
THEO. 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 for ever, and may,
therefore, be regarded as immortal. Everything else belongs to
passing illusions.
ENQ. What do you really understand by illusion in this case?
THEO. 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 plans 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.
ENQ. What do you mean by the root dwelling in eternity?
THEO. 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,” (Kama-rupa 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 paralysed, 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. 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 _Avatar_, no divine principle can be
otherwise than cramped and paralysed 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.
ENQ. And is it this Ego of ours which is our God?
THEO. 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 your more fully by repeating what is said of
the INNER MAN in ISIS UNVEILED (Vol. II. 593):—
“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 fluctuations of the conflict. 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. 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.
ENQ. 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?
THEO. It is this nature, mysterious, Protean, beyond any grasp, and
almost shadowy in its correlations with the other principles, that
is most difficult to realise, 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 realise 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.
ENQ. Say on.
THEO. 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 so 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 _Manasa
putra_, “the Sons of the (Universal) mind.” This _individualised_
“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, rationalised 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.
ENQ. Is this “child” the “personality”?
THEO. 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 _rôle_ 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.
ENQ. But how is it that this doctrine, which you say is as old as
thinking men, has found no room, say, in Christian theology?
THEO. 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,[49] 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 fulfil
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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. Does Christ teach anything of the sort?
THEO. He does; and every well-informed Occultist and even Kabalist will
tell you so. Christ, or the fourth Gospel at any rate, teaches
re-incarnation as also the annihilation of the personality, if
you but forget the dead letter and hold to the esoteric Spirit.
Remember verses 1 and 2 in chapter xv. of 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 hell-fires
which theology discovers as underlying the threat to the
_branches_, we say that the “Husbandman” means Atma, the Symbol
for the infinite, impersonal Principle,[50] while the Vine stands
for the Spiritual Soul, _Christos_, and each “branch” represents a
new incarnation.
ENQ. But what proofs have you to support such an arbitrary
interpretation?
THEO. 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 _Kabala_, 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.[51] And King _Messiah_ is the EGO purified _by washing his
garments_ (_i.e._, his personalities in re-birth), in the _wine
from_ above, or BUDDHI. Adam, or A-Dam, is “blood.” The Life of
the flesh is in the blood (nephesh—soul), _Leviticus_ xvii. And
Adam-Kadmon is the Only-Begotten. Noah also plants a vineyard—the
allegorical hot-bed 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 Saviours or _Buddhas_—which
spring from Iukabar Zivo, and Ferho (or Parcha) Raba waters
them.[52] When the blessed will ascend among the creatures of
Light, they shall see Iavar-Xivo, _Lord of_ LIFE, and the FIRST
VINE.[53] These kabalistic metaphors are thus naturally repeated
in the _Gospel according to St. John_ (xv., 1).
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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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.
ENQ. 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.
THEO. 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 (_vide 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 centre
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 re-birth 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 _Kama rupa_ and _Mayavi rupa_), 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 _Kama-loka_ 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
_Kama rupa_, following its earthly attractions, is drawn into
and remains in Hades, which we call the _Kama-loka_. 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_, it is these
two classes of “Spirits,” the _shells_ and the _Elementaries_,
which are the leading “Stars” on the great spiritual stage of
“materialisations.” 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 re-incarnation, misleading thereby the
Spiritualists.
ENQ. But does not the author of “_Isis Unveiled_” stand accused of
having preached against re-incarnation?
THEO. By those who have misunderstood what was said, yes. At the
time that work was written, re-incarnation was not believed in
by any Spiritualists, either English or American, and what is
said there of _re-incarnation_ was directed against the French
Spiritists, whose theory is as unphilosophical and absurd as
the Eastern teaching is logical and self-evident in its truth.
The Re-incarnationists of the Allan Kardec School believe in an
arbitrary and immediate re-incarnation. With them, the dead father
can incarnate in his own unborn daughter, and so on. They have
neither Devachan, Karma, nor any philosophy that would warrant
or prove the necessity of consecutive rebirths. But how can the
author of “Isis” argue against _Karmic_ re-incarnation, at long
intervals varying between 1,000 and 1,500 years, when it is the
fundamental belief of both Buddhists and Hindus?
ENQ. Then you reject the theories of both the Spiritists and the
Spiritualists, in their entirety?
THEO. Not in their entirety, but only with regard to their respective
fundamental beliefs. Both rely on what their “Spirits” tell them;
and both disagree as much with each other as we Theosophists
disagree with both. Truth is one; and when we hear the French
spooks preaching re-incarnation, and the English spooks denying
and denouncing the doctrine, we say that either the French or
the English “Spirits” do not know what they are talking about.
We believe with the Spiritualists and the Spiritists in the
existence of “Spirits,” or invisible Beings endowed with more
or less intelligence. But, while in our teachings their kinds
and _genera_ are legion, our opponents admit of no other than
human disembodied “Spirits,” which, to our knowledge, are mostly
Kamalokic SHELLS.
ENQ. You seem very bitter against Spirits. As you have given me your
views and your reasons for disbelieving in the materialization
of, and direct communication in _séances_, with the disembodied
spirits—or the “spirits of the dead”—would you mind enlightening
me as to one more fact? Why are some Theosophists never tired of
saying how dangerous is intercourse with spirits, and mediumship?
Have they any particular reason for this?
THEO. We must suppose so. I know I have. Owing to my familiarity for
over half a century with these invisible, yet but too tangible
and undeniable “influences,” from the conscious Elementals,
semi-conscious _shells_, down to the utterly senseless and
nondescript spooks of all kinds, I claim a certain right to my
views.
ENQ. Can you give an instance or instances to show why these practices
should be regarded as dangerous?
THEO. This would require more time than I can give you. Every cause
must be judged by the effects it produces. Go over the history of
Spiritualism for the last fifty years, ever since its reappearance
in this century in America—and judge for yourself whether it has
done its votaries more good or harm. Pray understand me. I do not
speak against real Spiritualism, but against the modern movement
which goes under that name, and the so-called philosophy invented
to explain its phenomena.
ENQ. Don’t you believe in their phenomena at all?
THEO. It is because I believe in them with too good reason, and (save
some cases of deliberate fraud) know them to be as true as that
you and I live, that all my being revolts against them. Once more
I speak only of physical, not mental or even psychic phenomena.
Like attracts like. There are several high-minded, pure, good
men and women, known to me personally, who have passed years
of their lives under the direct guidance and even protection of
high “Spirits,” whether disembodied or planetary. But _these_
Intelligences are not of the type of the John Kings and the
Ernests who figure in _séance_ rooms. These Intelligences guide
and control mortals only in rare and exceptional cases to which
they are attracted and magnetically drawn by the Karmic past of
the individual. It is not enough to sit “for development” in order
to attract them. That only opens the door to a swarm of “spooks,”
good, bad and indifferent, to which the medium becomes a slave for
life. It is against such promiscuous mediumship and intercourse
with goblins that I raise my voice, not against spiritual
mysticism. The latter is ennobling and holy; the former is of just
the same nature as the phenomena of two centuries ago, for which
so many witches and wizards have been made to suffer. Read Glanvil
and other authors on the subject of witchcraft, and you will find
recorded there the parallels of most, if not all, of the physical
phenomena of nineteenth century “Spiritualism.”
ENQ. Do you mean to suggest that it is all witchcraft and nothing more?
THEO. What I mean is that, whether conscious or unconscious, all this
dealing with the dead is _necromancy_, and a most dangerous
practice. For ages before Moses such raising of the dead was
regarded by all the intelligent nations as sinful and cruel,
inasmuch as it disturbs the rest of the souls and interferes with
their evolutionary development into higher states. The collective
wisdom of all past centuries has ever been loud in denouncing such
practices. Finally, I say, what I have never ceased repeating
orally and in print for fifteen years: While some of the so-called
“spirits” do not know what they are talking about, repeating
merely—like poll-parrots—what they find in the mediums’ and other
people’s brains, others are most dangerous, and can only lead one
to evil. These are two self-evident facts. Go into spiritualistic
circles of the Allan Kardec school, and you find “spirits”
asserting re-incarnation and speaking like Roman Catholics born.
Turn to the “dear departed ones” in England and America, and you
will hear them denying re-incarnation through thick and thin,
denouncing those who teach it, and holding to Protestant views.
Your best, your most powerful mediums, have all suffered in health
of body and mind. Think of the sad end of Charles Foster, who
died in an asylum, a raving lunatic; of Slade, an epileptic; of
Eglinton—the best medium now in England—subject to the same. Look
back over the life of D. D. Home, a man whose mind was steeped in
gall and bitterness, who never had a good word to say of anyone
whom he suspected of possessing psychic powers, and who slandered
every other medium to the bitter end. This Calvin of Spiritualism
suffered for years from a terrible spinal disease, brought on by
his intercourse with the “spirits,” and died a perfect wreck.
Think again of the sad fate of poor Washington Irving Bishop. I
knew him in New York, when he was fourteen, and he was undeniably
a medium. It is true that the poor man stole a march on his
“spirits,” and baptized them “unconscious muscular action,” to
the great _gaudium_ of all the corporations of highly learned and
scientific fools, and to the replenishment of his own pocket.
But _de mortuis nil nisi bonum_; his end was a sad one. He had
strenuously concealed his epileptic fits—the first and strongest
symptom of genuine mediumship—and who knows whether he was dead or
in a trance when the _post-mortem_ examination was performed? His
relatives insist that he was alive, if we are to believe Reuter’s
telegrams. Finally, behold the veteran mediums, the founders and
prime movers of modern spiritualism—the Fox sisters. After more
than forty years of intercourse with the “Angels,” the latter
have led them to become incurable sots, who are now denouncing,
in public lectures, their own life-long work and philosophy as a
fraud. What kind of spirits must they be who prompted them, I ask
you?
ENQ. But is your inference a correct one?
THEO. What would you infer if the best pupils of a particular school of
singing broke down from overstrained sore throats? That the method
followed was a bad one. So I think the inference is equally fair
with regard to Spiritualism when we see their best mediums fall a
prey to such a fate. We can only say:—Let those who are interested
in the question judge the tree of Spiritualism by its fruits,
and ponder over the lesson. We Theosophists have always regarded
the Spiritualists as brothers having the same mystic tendency
as ourselves, but they have always regarded us as enemies. We,
being in possession of an older philosophy, have tried to help
and warn them; but they have repaid us by reviling and traducing
us and our motives in every possible way. Nevertheless, the best
English Spiritualists say just as we do, wherever they treat of
their belief seriously. Hear “M.A. Oxon.” confessing this truth:
“Spiritualists are too much inclined to dwell exclusively on the
intervention of external spirits in this world of ours, _and to
ignore the powers of the incarnate_ Spirit.”[54] Why vilify and
abuse us, then, for saying precisely the same? Henceforward, we
will have nothing more to do with Spiritualism. And now let us
return to Re-incarnation.
FOOTNOTES:
[49] Being of “an _asbestos_-like nature,” according to the eloquent
and fiery expression of a modern English Tertullian.
[50] During the _Mysteries_, it is the Hierophant, the “Father,” who
planted the Vine. Every symbol has Seven Keys to it. The discloser of
the _Pleroma_ was always called “Father.”
[51] _Zohar_ XL., 10.
[52] _Codex Nazarœus_, Vol. III., pp. 60, 61.
[53] Ibid., Vol. II., p. 281.
[54] _Second Sight_, “Introduction.”
XI. ON THE MYSTERIES OF RE-INCARNATION.
PERIODICAL REBIRTHS.
ENQ. You mean, then, that we have all lived on earth before, in many
past incarnations, and shall go on so living?
THEO. I do. The life-cycle, or rather the cycle of conscious life,
begins with the separation of the mortal animal-man into sexes,
and will end with the close of the last generation of men, in the
seventh round and seventh race of mankind. Considering we are only
in the fourth round and fifth race, its duration is more easily
imagined than expressed.
ENQ. And we keep on incarnating in new _personalities_ all the time?
THEO. Most assuredly so; because this life-cycle or period of
incarnation may be best compared to human life. As each such life
is composed of days of activity separated by nights of sleep or of
inaction, so, in the incarnation-cycle, an active life is followed
by a Devachanic rest.
ENQ. And it is this succession of births that is generally defined as
re-incarnation?
THEO. Just so. It is only through these births that the perpetual
progress of the countless millions of Egos toward final perfection
and final rest (as long as was the period of activity) can be
achieved.
ENQ. And what is it that regulates the duration, or special qualities
of these incarnations?
THEO. Karma, the universal law of retributive justice.
ENQ. Is it an intelligent law?
THEO. For the Materialist, who calls the law of periodicity which
regulates the marshalling of the several bodies, and all the
other laws in nature, blind forces and mechanical laws, no doubt
Karma would be a law of chance and no more. For us, no adjective
or qualification could describe that which is impersonal and no
entity, but a universal operative law. If you question me about
the causative intelligence in it, I must answer you I do not know.
But if you ask me to define its effects and tell you what these
are in our belief, I may say that the experience of thousands of
ages has shown us that they are absolute and unerring _equity_,
_wisdom_, and _intelligence_. For Karma in its effects, is an
unfailing redresser of human injustice, and of all the failures
of nature; a stern adjuster of wrongs; a retributive law which
rewards and punishes with equal impartiality. It is, in the
strictest sense, “no respecter of persons,” though, on the other
hand, it can neither be propitiated, nor turned aside by prayer.
This is a belief common to Hindus and Buddhists, who both believe
in Karma.
ENQ. In this Christian dogmas contradict both, and I doubt whether any
Christian will accept the teaching.
THEO. No; and Inman gave the reason for it many years ago. As he puts
it, while “the Christians will accept any nonsense, if promulgated
by the Church as a matter of faith ... the Buddhists hold that
nothing which is contradicted by sound reason can be a true
doctrine of Buddha.” They do not believe in any pardon for their
sins, except after an adequate and just punishment for each evil
deed or thought in a future incarnation, and a proportionate
compensation to the parties injured.
ENQ. Where is it so stated?
THEO. In most of their sacred works. In the “_Wheel of the Law_”
(p. 57) you may find the following Theosophical tenet:—“Buddhists
believe that every act, word or thought has its consequence, which
will appear sooner or later in the present or in the future state.
Evil acts will produce evil consequences, good acts will produce
good consequences: prosperity in this world, or birth in heaven
(Devachan)... in the future state.”
ENQ. Christians believe the same thing, don’t they?
THEO. Oh, no; they believe in the pardon and the remission of all sins.
They are promised that if they only believe in the blood of Christ
(an _innocent_ victim!), in the blood offered by Him for the
expiation of the sins of the whole of mankind, it will atone for
every mortal sin. And we believe neither in vicarious atonement,
nor in the possibility of the remission of the smallest sin by any
god, not even by a “_personal_ Absolute” or “Infinite,” if such
a thing could have any existence. What we believe in, is strict
and impartial justice. Our idea of the unknown Universal Deity,
represented by Karma, is that it is a Power which cannot fail,
and can, therefore, have neither wrath nor mercy, only absolute
Equity, which leaves every cause, great or small, to work out its
inevitable effects. The saying of Jesus: “With what measure you
mete it shall be measured to you again” (Matth. vii., 2), neither
by expression nor implication points to any hope of future mercy
or salvation by proxy. This is why, recognising as we do in our
philosophy the justice of this statement, we cannot recommend
too strongly mercy, charity, and forgiveness of mutual offences.
_Resist not evil_, and _render good for evil_, are Buddhist
precepts, and were first preached in view of the implacability
of Karmic law. For man to take the law into his own hands is
anyhow a sacrilegious presumption. Human Law may use restrictive
not punitive measures; but a man who, believing in Karma, still
revenges himself and refuses to forgive every injury, thereby
rendering good for evil, is a criminal and only hurts himself. As
Karma is sure to punish the man who wronged him, by seeking to
inflict an additional punishment on his enemy, he, who instead
of leaving that punishment to the great Law adds to it his own
mite, only begets thereby a cause for the future reward of his own
enemy and a future punishment for himself. The unfailing Regulator
affects in each incarnation the quality of its successor; and the
sum of the merit or demerit in preceding ones determines it.
ENQ. Are we then to infer a man’s past from his present?
THEO. Only so far as to believe that his present life is what it justly
should be, to atone for the sins of the past life. Of course—seers
and great adepts excepted—we cannot as average mortals know what
those sins were. From our paucity of data, it is impossible for us
even to determine what an old man’s youth must have been; neither
can we, for like reasons, draw final conclusions merely from what
we see in the life of some man, as to what his past life may have
been.
WHAT IS KARMA?
ENQ. But what is Karma?
THEO. As I have said, we consider it as the _Ultimate Law_ of the
Universe, the source, origin and fount of all other laws which
exist throughout Nature. Karma is the unerring law which adjusts
effect to cause, on the physical, mental and spiritual planes of
being. As no cause remains without its due effect from greatest
to least, from a cosmic disturbance down to the movement of your
hand, and as like produces like, _Karma_ is that unseen and
unknown law _which adjusts wisely, intelligently and equitably_
each effect to its cause, tracing the latter back to its producer.
Though itself _unknowable_, its action is perceivable.
ENQ. Then it is the “Absolute,” the “Unknowable” again, and is not of
much value as an explanation of the problems of life?
THEO. On the contrary. For, though we do not know what Karma is _per
se_, and in its essence, we _do_ know _how_ it works, and we can
define and describe its mode of action with accuracy. We only
do _not_ know its ultimate _Cause_, just as modern philosophy
universally admits that the _ultimate_ Cause of anything is
“unknowable.”
ENQ. And what has Theosophy to say in regard to the solution of the
more practical needs of humanity? What is the explanation which
it offers in reference to the awful suffering and dire necessity
prevalent among the so-called “lower classes.”
THEO. To be pointed, according to our teaching all these great social
evils, the distinction of classes in Society, and of the sexes in
the affairs of life, the unequal distribution of capital and of
labour—all are due to what we tersely but truly denominate KARMA.
ENQ. But, surely, all these evils which seem to fall upon the masses
somewhat indiscriminately are not actual merited and INDIVIDUAL
Karma?
THEO. No, they cannot be so strictly defined in their effects as to
show that each individual environment, and the particular
conditions of life in which each person finds himself, are nothing
more than the retributive Karma which the individual generated in
a previous life. We must not lose sight of the fact that every
atom is subject to the general law governing the whole body to
which it belongs, and here we come upon the wider track of the
Karmic law. Do you not perceive that the aggregate of individual
Karma becomes that of the nation to which those individuals
belong, and further, that the sum total of National Karma is that
of the World! The evils that you speak of are not peculiar to the
individual or even to the Nation, they are more or less universal;
and it is upon this broad line of Human interdependence that the
law of Karma finds its legitimate and equable issue.
ENQ. Do I, then, understand that the law of Karma is not necessarily an
individual law?
THEO. That is just what I mean. It is impossible that Karma could
readjust the balance of power in the world’s life and progress,
unless it had a broad and general line of action. It is held as
a truth among Theosophists that the interdependence of Humanity
is the cause of what is called Distributive Karma, and it is this
law which affords the solution to the great question of collective
suffering and its relief. It is an occult law, moreover, that no
man can rise superior to his individual failings, without lifting,
be it ever so little, the whole body of which he is an integral
part. In the same way, no one can sin, nor suffer the effects of
sin, alone. In reality, there is no such thing as “Separateness”;
and the nearest approach to that selfish state, which the laws of
life permit, is in the intent or motive.
ENQ. And are there no means by which the distributive or national Karma
might be concentred or collected, so to speak, and brought to its
natural and legitimate fulfilment without all this protracted
suffering?
THEO. As a general rule, and within certain limits which define the age
to which we belong, the law of Karma cannot be hastened or
retarded in its fulfilment. But of this I am certain, the point
of possibility in either of these directions has never yet been
touched. Listen to the following recital of one phase of national
suffering, and then ask yourself whether, admitting the working
power of individual, relative, and distributive Karma, these evils
are not capable of extensive modification and general relief.
What I am about to read to you is from the pen of a National
Saviour, one who, having overcome Self, and being free to choose,
has elected to serve Humanity, in bearing at least as much as a
woman’s shoulders can possibly bear of National Karma. This is
what she says:—
“Yes, Nature always does speak, don’t you think? only sometimes
we make so much noise that we drown her voice. That is why it
is so restful to go out of the town and nestle awhile in the
Mother’s arms. I am thinking of the evening on Hampstead Heath
when we watched the sun go down; but oh! upon what suffering
and misery that sun had set! A lady brought me yesterday a
big hamper of wild flowers. I thought some of my East-end
family had a better right to it than I, and so I took it down
to a very poor school in Whitechapel this morning. You should
have seen the pallid little faces brighten! Thence I went to
pay for some dinners at a little cookshop for some children.
It was in a back street, narrow, full of jostling people;
stench indescribable, from fish, meat, and other comestibles,
all reeking in a sun that, in Whitechapel, festers instead
of purifying. The cookshop was the quintessence of all the
smells. Indescribable meat-pies at 1d., loathsome lumps of
‘food’ and swarms of flies, a very altar of Beelzebub! All
about, babies on the prowl for scraps, one, with the face of
an angel, gathering up cherrystones as a light and nutritious
form of diet. I came westward with every nerve shuddering and
jarred, wondering whether anything can be done with some
parts of London save swallowing them up in an earthquake and
starting their inhabitants afresh, after a plunge into some
purifying Lethe, out of which not a memory might emerge! And
then I thought of Hampstead Heath, and—pondered. If by any
sacrifice one could win the power to save these people, the
cost would not be worth counting; but, you see, THEY must be
changed—and how can that be wrought? In the condition they now
are, they would not profit by any environment in which they
might be placed; and yet, in their present surroundings they
must continue to putrefy. It breaks my heart, this endless,
hopeless misery, and the brutish degradation that is at once
its outgrowth and its root. It is like the banyan tree; every
branch roots itself and sends out new shoots. What a difference
between these feelings and the peaceful scene at Hampstead!
and yet we, who are the brothers and sisters of these poor
creatures, have only a right to use Hampstead Heaths to
gain strength to save Whitechapels.” (_Signed by a name too
respected and too well known to be given to scoffers._)
ENQ. That is a sad but beautiful letter, and I think it presents with
painful conspicuity the terrible workings of what you have called
“Relative and Distributive Karma.” But alas! there seems no
immediate hope of any relief short of an earthquake, or some such
general ingulfment!
THEO. What right have we to think so while one-half of humanity is in a
position to effect an immediate relief of the privations which are
suffered by their fellows? When every individual has contributed
to the general good what he can of money, of labour, and of
ennobling thought, then, and only then, will the balance of
National Karma be struck, and until then we have no right nor
any reasons for saying that there is more life on the earth than
Nature can support. It is reserved for the heroic souls, the
Saviours of our Race and Nation, to find out the cause of this
unequal pressure of retributive Karma, and by a supreme effort to
readjust the balance of power, and save the people from a moral
ingulfment a thousand times more disastrous and more permanently
evil than the like physical catastrophe, in which you seem to see
the only possible outlet for this accumulated misery.
ENQ. Well, then, tell me generally how you describe this law of Karma?
THEO. We describe Karma as that Law of readjustment which ever tends to
restore disturbed equilibrium in the physical, and broken harmony
in the moral world. We say that Karma does not act in this or that
particular way always; but that it always _does_ act so as to
restore Harmony and preserve the balance of equilibrium, in virtue
of which the Universe exists.
ENQ. Give me an illustration.
THEO. Later on I will give you a full illustration. Think now of a
pond. A stone falls into the water and creates disturbing waves.
These waves oscillate backwards and forwards till at last,
owning to the operation of what physicists call the law of the
dissipation of energy, they are brought to rest, and the water
returns to its condition of calm tranquillity. Similarly _all_
action, on every plane, produces disturbance in the balanced
harmony of the Universe, and the vibrations so produced will
continue to roll backwards and forwards, if its area is limited,
till equilibrium is restored. But since each such disturbance
starts from some particular point, it is clear that equilibrium
and harmony can only be restored by the reconverging _to that
same point_ of all the forces which were set in motion from it.
And here you have proof that the consequences of a man’s deeds,
thoughts, etc., must all react upon _himself_ with the same force
with which they were set in motion.
ENQ. But I see nothing of a moral character about this law. It looks to
me like the simple physical law that action and reaction are equal
and opposite.
THEO. I am not surprised to hear you say that. Europeans have got so
much into the ingrained habit of considering right and wrong,
good and evil, as matters of an arbitrary code of law laid
down either by men, or imposed upon them by a Personal God. We
Theosophists, however, say that “Good” and “Harmony,” and “Evil”
and “Dis-harmony,” are synonymous. Further we maintain that all
pain and suffering are results of want of Harmony, and that the
one terrible and only cause of the disturbance of Harmony is
selfishness in some form or another. Hence Karma gives back to
every man the _actual consequences_ of his own actions, without
any regard to their moral character; but since he receives his due
for _all_, it is obvious that he will be made to atone for all
sufferings which he has caused, just as he will reap in joy and
gladness the fruits of all the happiness and harmony he had helped
to produce. I can do no better than quote for your benefit certain
passages from books and articles written by our Theosophists—those
who have a correct idea of Karma.
ENQ. I wish you would, as your literature seems to be very sparing on
this subject?
THEO. Because it is _the_ most difficult of all our tenets. Some short
time ago there appeared the following objection from a Christian
pen:—
“Granting that the teaching in regard to Theosophy is correct,
and that ‘man must be his own saviour, must overcome self and
conquer the evil that is in his dual nature, to obtain the
emancipation of his soul,’ what is man to do after he has
been awakened and converted to a certain extent from evil or
wickedness? How is he to get emancipation, or pardon, or the
blotting out of the evil or wickedness he has already done?”
To this Mr. J. H. Connelly replies very pertinently that no one
can hope to “make the theosophical engine run on the theological
track.” As he has it:—
“The possibility of shirking individual responsibility is not
among the concepts of Theosophy. In this faith there is no such
thing as pardoning, or ‘blotting out of evil or wickedness
already done,’ otherwise than by the adequate punishment
therefor of the wrong-doer and the restoration of the harmony
in the universe that had been disturbed by his wrongful act.
The evil has been his own, and while others must suffer its
consequences, atonement can be made by nobody but himself.
“The condition contemplated ... in which a man shall have
been ‘awakened and converted to a certain extent from evil
or wickedness,’ is that in which a man shall have realized
that his deeds are evil and deserving of punishment. In that
realization a sense of personal responsibility is inevitable,
and just in proportion to the extent of his awakening or
‘converting’ must be the sense of that awful responsibility.
While it is strong upon him is the time when he is urged to
accept the doctrine of vicarious atonement.
“He is told that he must also repent, but nothing is easier
than that. It is an amiable weakness of human nature that
we are quite prone to regret the evil we have done when our
attention is called, and we have either suffered from it
ourselves or enjoyed its fruits. Possibly, close analysis of
the feeling would show us that that which we regret is rather
the necessity that seemed to require the evil as a means of
attainment of our selfish ends than the evil itself.
“Attractive as this prospect of casting our burden of sins
‘at the foot of the cross’ may be to the ordinary mind, it
does not commend itself to the Theosophic student. He does not
apprehend why the sinner by attaining knowledge of his evil
can thereby merit any pardon for or the blotting out of his
past wickedness; or why repentance and future right living
entitle him to a suspension in his favour of the universal law
of relation between cause and effect. The results of his evil
deeds continue to exist; the suffering caused to others by his
wickedness is not blotted out. The Theosophical student takes
the result of wickedness upon the innocent into his problem. He
considers not only the guilty person, but his victims.
“Evil is an infraction of the laws of harmony governing the
universe, and the penalty thereof must fall upon the violator
of that law himself. Christ uttered the warning, ‘Sin no more,
lest a worse thing come upon thee,’ and St. Paul said, ‘Work
out your own salvation. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he
also reap.’ That, by the way, is a fine metaphoric rendering of
the sentence of the Puranas far antedating him—that ‘every man
reaps the consequences of his own acts.’
“This is the principle of the law of Karma which is taught by
Theosophy. Sinnett, in his ‘Esoteric Buddhism,’ rendered Karma
as ‘the law of ethical causation.’ ‘The law of retribution,’ as
Mdme. Blavatsky translates its meaning, is better. It is the
power which
Just though mysterious, leads us on unerring
Through ways unmarked from guilt to punishment.
“But it is more. It rewards merit as unerringly and amply as it
punishes demerit. It is the outcome of every act, of thought,
word and deed, and by it men mould themselves, their lives and
happenings. Eastern philosophy rejects the idea of a newly
created soul for every baby born. It believes in a limited
number of monads, evolving and growing more and more perfect
through their assimilation of many successive personalities.
Those personalities are the product of Karma and it is by Karma
and re-incarnation that the human monad in time returns to its
source—absolute deity.”
E. D. Walker, in his “Re-incarnation,” offers the following
explanation:—
“Briefly, the doctrine of Karma is that we have made ourselves
what we are by former actions, and are building our future
eternity by present actions. There is no destiny but what we
ourselves determine. There is no salvation or condemnation
except what we ourselves bring about.... Because it offers
no shelter for culpable actions and necessitates a sterling
manliness, it is less welcome to weak natures than the easy
religious tenets of vicarious atonement, intercession,
forgiveness and death-bed conversions.... In the domain of
eternal justice the offence and the punishment are inseparably
connected as the same event, because there is no real
distinction between the action and its outcome.... It is Karma,
or our old acts, that draws us back into earthly life. The
spirit’s abode changes according to its Karma, and this Karma
forbids any long continuance in one condition, because _it_ is
always changing. So long as action is governed by material and
selfish motives, just so long must the effect of that action be
manifested in physical rebirths. Only the perfectly selfless
man can elude the gravitation of material life. Few have
attained this, but it is the goal of mankind.”
And then the writer quotes from the _Secret Doctrine_:
“Those who believe in Karma have to believe in destiny, which,
from birth to death, every man is weaving, thread by thread,
around himself, as a spider does his cobweb, and this destiny
is guided either by the heavenly voice of the invisible
prototype outside of us, or by our more intimate astral or
inner man, who is but too often the evil genius of the embodied
entity called man. Both these lead on the outward man, but
one of them must prevail; and from the very beginning of the
invisible affray the stern and implacable law of compensation
steps in and takes its course, faithfully following the
fluctuations. When the last strand is woven, and man is
seemingly enwrapped in the network of his own doing, then he
finds himself completely under the empire of this self-made
destiny.... An Occultist or a philosopher will not speak of the
goodness or cruelty of Providence; but, identifying it with
Karma-Nemesis, he will teach that, nevertheless, it guards
the good and watches over them in this as in future lives;
and that it punishes the evil-doer—aye, even to his seventh
re-birth—so long, in short, as the effect of his having thrown
into perturbation even the smallest atom in the infinite world
of harmony has not been finally readjusted. For the only decree
of Karma—an eternal and immutable decree—is absolute harmony
in the world of matter as it is in the world of spirit. It is
not, therefore, Karma that rewards or punishes, but it is we
who reward or punish ourselves according to whether we work
with, through and along with nature, abiding by the laws on
which that harmony depends, or—break them. Nor would the ways
of Karma be inscrutable were men to work in union and harmony,
instead of disunion and strife. For our ignorance of those
ways—which one portion of mankind calls the ways of Providence,
dark and intricate; while another sees in them the action of
blind fatalism; and a third simple chance, with neither gods
nor devils to guide them—would surely disappear if we would
but attribute all these to their correct cause.... We stand
bewildered before the mystery of our own making and the riddles
of life that we will not solve, and then accuse the great
Sphinx of devouring us. But verily there is not an accident of
our lives, not a misshapen day, or a misfortune, that could
not be traced back to our own doings in this or in another
life.... The law of Karma is inextricably interwoven with that
of re-incarnation.... It is only this doctrine that can explain
to us the mysterious problem of good and evil, and reconcile
man to the terrible and apparent injustice of life. Nothing
but such certainty can quiet our revolted sense of justice.
For, when one unacquainted with the noble doctrine looks around
him and observes the inequalities of birth and fortune, of
intellect and capacities; when one sees honour paid to fools
and profligates, on whom fortune has heaped her favours by
mere privilege of birth, and their nearest neighbour, with
all his intellect and noble virtues—far more deserving in
every way—perishing for want and for lack of sympathy—when one
sees all this and has to turn away, helpless to relieve the
undeserved suffering, one’s ears ringing and heart aching
with the cries of pain around him—that blessed knowledge of
Karma alone prevents him from cursing life and men as well
as their supposed Creator.... This law, whether conscious or
unconscious, predestines nothing and no one. It exists from
and in eternity truly, for it is eternity itself; and as such,
since no act can be coequal with eternity, it cannot be said
to act, for it is action itself. It is not the wave which
drowns the man, but the personal action of the wretch who goes
deliberately and places himself under the impersonal action
of the laws that govern the ocean’s motion. Karma creates
nothing, nor does it design. It is man who plants and creates
causes, and Karmic law adjusts the effects, which adjustment is
not an act but universal harmony, tending ever to resume its
original position, like a bough, which, bent down too forcibly,
rebounds with corresponding vigour. If it happen to dislocate
the arm that tried to bend it out of its natural position,
shall we say it is the bough which broke our arm or that our
own folly has brought us to grief? Karma has never sought to
destroy intellectual and individual liberty, like the god
invented by the Monotheists. It has not involved its decrees
in darkness purposely to perplex man, nor shall it punish him
who dares to scrutinize its mysteries. On the contrary, he who
unveils through study and meditation its intricate paths, and
throws light on those dark ways, in the windings of which so
many men perish owing to their ignorance of the labyrinth of
life, is working for the good of his fellow-men. Karma is an
absolute and eternal law in the world of manifestation; and as
there can only be one Absolute, as one Eternal, ever-present
Cause, believers in Karma cannot be regarded as atheists or
materialists, still less as fatalists, for Karma is one with
the Unknowable, of which it is an aspect, in its effects in the
phenomenal world.”
Another able Theosophic writer says (_Purpose of Theosophy_, by
Mrs. P. Sinnett):—
“Every individual is making Karma either good or bad in each
action and thought of his daily round, and is at the same
time working out in this life the Karma brought about by the
acts and desires of the last. When we see people afflicted
by congenital ailments it may be safely assumed that these
ailments are the inevitable results of causes started by
themselves in a previous birth. It may be argued that, as
these afflictions are hereditary, they can have nothing to do
with a past incarnation; but it must be remembered that the
Ego, the real man, the individuality, has no spiritual origin
in the parentage by which it is re-embodied, but it is drawn
by the affinities which its previous mode of life attracted
round it into the current that carries it, when the time comes
for re-birth, to the home best fitted for the development of
those tendencies.... This doctrine of Karma, when properly
understood, is well calculated to guide and assist those
who realize its truth to a higher and better mode of life,
for it must not be forgotten that not only our actions but
our thoughts also are most assuredly followed by a crowd of
circumstances that will influence for good or for evil our own
future, and, what is still more important, the future of many
of our fellow-creatures. If sins of omission and commission
could in any case be only self-regarding, the effect on the
sinner’s Karma would be a matter of minor consequence. The fact
that every thought and act through life carries with it for
good or evil a corresponding influence on other members of the
human family renders a strict sense of justice, morality, and
unselfishness so necessary to future happiness or progress. A
crime once committed, an evil thought sent out from the mind,
are past recall—no amount of repentance can wipe out their
results in the future. Repentance, if sincere, will deter a man
from repeating errors; it cannot save him or others from the
effects of those already produced, which will most unerringly
overtake him either in this life or in the next re-birth.”
Mr. J. H. Connelly proceeds—
“The believers in a religion based upon such doctrine are
willing it should be compared with one in which man’s destiny
for eternity is determined by the accidents of a single,
brief earthly existence, during which he is cheered by the
promise that ‘as the tree falls so shall it lie’; in which
his brightest hope, when he wakes up to a knowledge of his
wickedness, is the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and in
which even that is handicapped, according to the Presbyterian
Confession of Faith.
“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and
others foreordained to everlasting death.
“These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are
particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is
so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or
diminished. ... As God hath appointed the elect unto glory....
Neither are any other redeemed by Christ effectually called,
justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
“The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth
or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his
sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by and to ordain
them to dishonour and wrath for their sin to the praise of his
glorious justice.”
This is what the able defender says. Nor can we do any better than
wind up the subject as he does, by a quotation from a magnificent
poem. As he says:—
“The exquisite beauty of Edwin Arnold’s exposition of Karma in
‘The Light of Asia’ tempts to its reproduction here, but it is
too long for quotation in full. Here is a portion of it:—
Karma—all that total of a soul
Which is the things it did, the thoughts it had,
The “self” it wove with woof of viewless time
Crossed on the warp invisible of acts.
* * * * *
Before beginning and without an end,
As space eternal and as surety sure,
Is fixed a Power divine which moves to good,
Only its laws endure.
It will not be contemned of anyone;
Who thwarts it loses, and who serves it gains:
The hidden good it pays with peace and bliss,
The hidden ill with pains.
It seeth everywhere and marketh all;
Do right—it recompenseth! Do one wrong—
The equal retribution must be made,
Though Dharma tarry long.
It knows not wrath nor pardon; utter-true,
Its measures mete, its faultless balance weighs;
Times are as naught, to-morrow it will judge
Or after many days.
* * * * *
Such is the law which moves to righteousness,
Which none at last can turn aside or stay;
The heart of it is love, the end of it
Is peace and consummation sweet. Obey.
And now I advise you to compare our Theosophic views upon Karma,
the law of Retribution, and say whether they are not both more
philosophical and just than this cruel and idiotic dogma which
makes of “God” a senseless fiend; the tenet, namely, that the
“elect only” will be saved, and the rest doomed to eternal
perdition!
ENQ. Yes, I see what you mean generally; but I wish you could give some
concrete example of the action of Karma?
THEO. That I cannot do. We can only feel sure, as I said before, that
our present lives and circumstances are the direct results of our
own deeds and thoughts in lives that are past. But we, who are not
Seers or Initiates, cannot know anything about the details of the
working of the law of Karma.
ENQ. Can anyone, even an Adept or Seer, follow out this Karmic process
of readjustment in detail?
THEO. Certainly: “Those who _know_” can do so by the exercise of powers
which are latent even in all men.
WHO ARE THOSE WHO KNOW?
ENQ. Does this hold equally of ourselves as of others?
THEO. Equally. As just said, the same limited vision exists for all,
save those who have reached in the present incarnation the acme of
spiritual vision and clairvoyance. We can only perceive that, if
things with us ought to have been different, they would have been
different; that we are what we have made ourselves, and have only
what we have earned for ourselves.
ENQ. I am afraid such a conception would only embitter us.
THEO. I believe it is precisely the reverse. It is disbelief in the
just law of retribution that is more likely to awaken every
combative feeling in man. A child, as much as a man, resents a
punishment, or even a reproof he believes to be unmerited, far
more than he does a severer punishment, if he feels that it is
merited. Belief in Karma is the highest reason for reconcilement
to one’s lot in this life, and the very strongest incentive
towards effort to better the succeeding re-birth. Both of these,
indeed, would be destroyed if we supposed that our lot was the
result of anything but strict _Law_, or that destiny was in any
other hands than our own.
ENQ. You have just asserted that this system of Re-incarnation under
Karmic law commended itself to reason, justice, and the moral
sense. But, if so, is it not at some sacrifice of the gentler
qualities of sympathy and pity, and thus a hardening of the finer
instincts of human nature?
THEO. Only apparently, not really. No man can receive more or less than
his deserts without a corresponding injustice or partiality to
others; and a law which could be averted through compassion would
bring about more misery than it saved, more irritation and curses
than thanks. Remember also, that we do not administer the law, if
we do create causes for its effects; it administers itself; and
again, that the most copious provision for the manifestation of
_just_ compassion and mercy is shown in the state of Devachan.
ENQ. You speak of Adepts as being an exception to the rule of our
general ignorance. Do they really know more than we do of
Re-incarnation and after states?
THEO. They do, indeed. By the training of faculties we all possess, but
which they alone have developed to perfection, they have entered
in spirit these various planes and states we have been discussing.
For long ages, one generation of Adepts after another has studied
the mysteries of being, of life, death, and re-birth, and all have
taught in their turn some of the facts so learned.
ENQ. And is the production of Adepts the aim of Theosophy?
THEO. Theosophy considers humanity as an emanation from divinity on its
return path thereto. At an advanced point upon the path, Adeptship
is reached by those who have devoted several incarnations to its
achievement. For, remember well, no man has ever reached Adeptship
in the Secret Sciences in one life; but many incarnations are
necessary for it after the formation of a conscious purpose and
the beginning of the needful training. Many may be the men
and women in the very midst of our Society who have begun this
uphill work toward illumination several incarnations ago, and
who yet, owing to the personal illusions of the present life,
are either ignorant of the fact, or on the road to losing every
chance in this existence of progressing any farther. They feel an
irresistible attraction toward occultism and the _Higher Life_,
and yet are too personal and self-opinionated, too much in love
with the deceptive allurements of mundane life and the world’s
ephemeral pleasures, to give them up; and so lose their chance
in their present birth. But, for ordinary men, for the practical
duties of daily life, such a far-off result is inappropriate as an
aim and quite ineffective as a motive.
ENQ. What, then, may be their object or distinct purpose in joining the
Theosophical Society?
THEO. Many are interested in our doctrines and feel instinctively that
they are truer than those of any dogmatic religion. Others have
formed a fixed resolve to attain the highest ideal of man’s duty.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE; OR, BLIND AND REASONED
FAITH.
ENQ. You say that they accept and believe in the doctrines of
Theosophy. But, as they do not belong to those Adepts you have
just mentioned, then they must accept your teachings on _blind
faith_. In what does this differ from that of conventional
religions?
THEO. As it differs on almost all the other points, so it differs on
this one. What you call “faith,” and that which is _blind
faith_, in reality, and with regard to the dogmas of the
Christian religions, becomes with us “_knowledge_,” the logical
sequence of things _we know_, about _facts_ in nature. Your
Doctrines are based upon interpretation, therefore, upon the
_second-hand_ testimony of Seers; ours upon the invariable and
unvarying testimony of Seers. The ordinary Christian theology for
instance, holds that man is a creature of God, of three component
parts—body, soul, and spirit—all essential to his integrity, and
all, either in the gross form of physical earthly existence or
in the etherealized form of post-resurrection experience, needed
to so constitute him for ever, each man having thus a permanent
existence separate from other men, and from the Divine. Theosophy,
on the other hand, holds that man, being an emanation from the
Unknown, yet ever present and infinite Divine Essence, his body
and everything else is impermanent, hence an illusion; Spirit
alone in him being the one enduring substance, and even that
losing its separated individuality at the moment of its complete
reunion with the _Universal Spirit_.
ENQ. If we lose even our individuality, then it becomes simply
annihilation.
THEO. I say it _does not_, since I speak of _separate_, not of
universal individuality. The latter becomes as a part transformed
into the whole; the _dewdrop_ is not evaporated, but becomes the
sea. Is physical man _annihilated_, when from a fœtus he becomes
an old man? What kind of Satanic pride must be ours if we place
our infinitesimally small consciousness and individuality higher
than the universal and infinite consciousness!
ENQ. It follows, then, that there is, _de facto_, no man, but all is
Spirit?
THEO. You are mistaken. It thus follows that the union of Spirit with
matter is but temporary; or, to put it more clearly, since
Spirit and matter are one, being the two opposite poles of the
_universal_ manifested substance—that Spirit loses its right
to the name so long as the smallest particle and atom of its
manifesting substance still clings to any form, the result of
differentiation. To believe otherwise is _blind faith_.
ENQ. Thus it is on _knowledge_, not on _faith_, that you assert that
the permanent principle, the Spirit, simply makes a transit
through matter?
THEO. I would put it otherwise and say—we assert that the appearance of
the permanent and one principle, Spirit, _as matter_ is transient,
and, therefore, no better than an illusion.
ENQ. Very well; and this, given out on knowledge not faith?
THEO. Just so. But as I see very well what you are driving at, I may
just as well tell you that we hold _faith_, such as you advocate,
to be a mental disease, and real faith, _i.e._, the _pistis_ of
the Greeks, as “_belief based on knowledge_,” whether supplied by
the evidence of physical or _spiritual_ senses.
ENQ. What do you mean?
THEO. I mean, if it is the difference between the two that you want to
know, then I can tell you that between _faith on authority_ and
_faith on one’s spiritual intuition_, there is a very great
difference.
ENQ. What is it?
THEO. One is human credulity and _superstition_, the other human belief
and _intuition_. As Professor Alexander Wilder says in his
“Introduction to the _Eleusinian Mysteries_,” “It is ignorance
which leads to profanation. Men ridicule what they do not properly
understand.... The undercurrent of this world is set towards
one goal; and inside of human credulity ... is a power almost
infinite, a holy faith capable of apprehending the supremest
truths of all existence.” Those who limit that “credulity” to
human authoritative dogmas alone, will never fathom that power
nor even perceive it in their natures. It is stuck fast to the
external plane and is unable to bring forth into play the essence
that rules it; for to do this they have to claim their right of
private judgment, and this they never _dare_ to do.
ENQ. And is it that “intuition” which forces you to reject God as a
personal Father, Ruler and Governor of the Universe?
THEO. Precisely. We believe in an ever unknowable Principle, because
blind aberration alone can make one maintain that the Universe,
thinking man, and all the marvels contained even in the world
of matter, could have grown without some _intelligent powers_
to bring about the extraordinarily wise arrangement of all its
parts. Nature may err, and often does, in its details and the
external manifestations of its materials, never in its inner
causes and results. Ancient pagans held on this question far
more philosophical views than modern philosophers, whether
Agnostics, Materialists or Christians; and no pagan writer has
ever yet advanced the proposition that cruelty and mercy are
not finite feelings, and can therefore be made the attributes of
an _infinite_ god. Their gods, therefore, were all finite. The
Siamese author of the _Wheel of the Law_, expresses the same idea
about your personal god as we do; he says (p. 25):
“A Buddhist might believe in the existence of a god; sublime
above all human qualities and attributes—a perfect god, above
love, and hatred, and jealousy, calmly resting in a quietude
that nothing could disturb, and of such a god he would speak
no disparagement, not from a desire to please him or fear
to offend him, but from natural veneration; but he cannot
understand a god with the attributes and qualities of men, a
god who loves and hates, and shows anger; a Deity who, whether
described as by Christian Missionaries or by Mahometans or
Brahmins,[55] or Jews, falls below his standard of even an
ordinary good man.”
ENQ. Faith for faith, is not the faith of the Christian who believes,
in his human helplessness and humility, that there is a merciful
Father in Heaven who will protect him from temptation, help him in
life, and forgive him his transgressions, better than the cold and
proud, almost fatalistic faith of the Buddhists, Vedantins, and
Theosophists?
THEO. Persist in calling our belief “faith” if you will. But once we
are again on this ever-recurring question, I ask in my turn:
faith for faith, is not the one based on strict logic and reason
better than the one which is based simply on human authority
or—hero-worship? _Our_ “faith” has all the logical force of the
arithmetical truism that 2 and 2 will produce 4. Your faith is
like the logic of some emotional woman, of whom Tourgenyeff said
that for them 2 and 2 were generally 5, and a tallow candle into
the bargain. Yours is a faith, moreover, which clashes not only
with every conceivable view of justice and logic, but which, if
analysed, leads man to his moral perdition, checks the progress of
mankind, and positively making of might, right—transforms every
second man into a Cain to his brother Abel.
ENQ. What do you allude to?
HAS GOD THE RIGHT TO FORGIVE?
THEO. To the Doctrine of Atonement; I allude to that dangerous dogma in
which you believe, and which teaches us that no matter how
enormous our crimes against the laws of God and of man, we have
but to believe in the self-sacrifice of Jesus for the salvation
of mankind, and his blood will wash out every stain. It is twenty
years that I preach against it, and I may now draw your attention
to a paragraph from _Isis Unveiled_, written in 1875. This is what
Christianity teaches, and what we combat:—
“God’s mercy is boundless and unfathomable. It is impossible
to conceive of a human sin so damnable that the price paid
in advance for the redemption of the sinner would not wipe
it out if a thousandfold worse. And furthermore, it is never
too late to repent. Though the offender wait until the last
minute of the last hour of the last day of his mortal life,
before his blanched lips utter the confession of faith, he may
go to Paradise; the dying thief did it, and so may all others
as vile. These are the assumptions of the Church, and of the
Clergy; assumptions banged at the heads of your countrymen by
England’s favourite preachers, right in the ‘light of the XIXth
century,’” this most paradoxical age of all. Now to what does
it lead?
ENQ. Does it not make the Christian happier than the Buddhist or
Brahmin?
THEO. No; not the educated man, at any rate, since the majority of
these have long since virtually lost all belief in this cruel
dogma. But it leads those who still believe in it more _easily to
the threshold of every conceivable crime_, than any other I know
of. Let me quote to you from _Isis_ once more (_vide_ Vol. II.,
pp. 542 and 543)—
“If we step outside the little circle of creed and consider
the universe as a whole balanced by the exquisite adjustment
of parts, how all sound logic, how the faintest glimmering
sense of Justice, revolts against this Vicarious Atonement!
If the criminal sinned only against himself, and wronged no
one but himself; if by sincere repentance he could cause the
obliteration of past events, not only from the memory of man,
but also from that imperishable record, which no deity—not
even the Supremes, of the Supreme—can cause to disappear, then
this dogma might not be incomprehensible. But to maintain that
one may wrong his fellow-man, kill, disturb the equilibrium
of society and the natural order of things, and then—through
cowardice, hope, or compulsion, it matters not—be forgiven by
believing that the spilling of one blood washes out the other
blood spilt—this is preposterous! Can the _results_ of a crime
be obliterated even though the crime itself should be pardoned?
The effects of a cause are never limited to the boundaries of
the cause, nor can the results of crime be confined to the
offender and his victim. Every good as well as evil action has
its effects, as palpably as the stone flung into calm water.
The simile is trite, but it is the best ever conceived, so
let us use it. The eddying circles are greater and swifter as
the disturbing object is greater or smaller, but the smallest
pebble, nay, the tiniest speck, makes its ripples. And this
disturbance is not alone visible and on the surface. Below,
unseen, in every direction—outward and downward—drop pushes
drop until the sides and bottom are touched by the force. More,
the air above the water is agitated, and this disturbance
passes, as the physicists tell us, from stratum to stratum
out into space forever and ever; an impulse has been given to
matter, and that is never lost, can never be recalled!...
“So with crime, and so with its opposite. The action may be
instantaneous, the effects are eternal. When, after the stone
is once flung into the pond, we can recall it to the hand,
roll back the ripples, obliterate the force expended, restore
the etheric waves to their previous state of non-being, and
wipe out every trace of the act of throwing the missile, so
that Time’s record shall not show that it ever happened, then,
_then_ we may patiently hear Christians argue for the efficacy
of this Atonement,”
and—cease to believe in Karmic Law. As it now stands, we call upon
the whole world to decide, which of our two doctrines is the most
appreciative of deific justice, and which is more reasonable, even
on simple human evidence and logic.
ENQ. Yet millions believe in the Christian dogma and are happy.
THEO. Pure sentimentalism overpowering their thinking faculties, which
no true philanthropist or Altruist will ever accept. It is
not even a dream of selfishness, but a nightmare of the human
intellect. Look where it leads to, and tell me the name of that
pagan country where crimes are more easily committed or more
numerous than in Christian lands. Look at the long and ghastly
annual records of crimes committed in European countries; and
behold Protestant and Biblical America. There, _conversions_
effected in prisons are more numerous than those made by public
_revivals_ and preaching. See how the ledger-balance of Christian
justice (!) stands; Red-handed murderers, urged on by the demons
of lust, revenge, cupidity, fanaticism, or mere brutal thirst for
blood, who kill their victims, in most cases, without giving them
time to repent or call on Jesus. These, perhaps, died sinful, and,
of course—consistently with theological logic—met the reward of
their greater or lesser offences. But the murderer, overtaken by
human justice, is imprisoned, wept over by sentimentalists, prayed
with and at, pronounces the charmed words of conversion, and goes
to the scaffold a redeemed child of Jesus! Except for the murder,
he would not have been prayed with, redeemed, pardoned. Clearly
this man did well to murder, for thus he gained eternal happiness!
And how about the victim and his, or her family, relatives,
dependents, social relations; has justice no recompense for them?
Must they suffer in this world and the next, while he who wronged
them sits beside the “holy thief” of Calvary, and is for ever
blessed? On this question the clergy keep a prudent silence.
(_Isis Unveiled._) And now you know why Theosophists—whose
fundamental belief and hope is justice for all, in Heaven as on
earth, and in Karma—reject this dogma.
ENQ. The ultimate destiny of man, then, is not a Heaven presided over
by God, but the gradual transformation of matter into its
primordial element, Spirit?
THEO. It is to that final goal to which all tends in nature.
ENQ. Do not some of you regard this association or “fall of spirit into
matter” as evil, and re-birth as a sorrow?
THEO. Some do, and therefore strive to shorten their period of
probation on earth. It is not an unmixed evil, however, since
it ensures the experience upon which we mount to knowledge and
wisdom. I mean that experience which _teaches_ that the needs of
our spiritual nature can never be met by other than spiritual
happiness. As long as we are in the body, we are subjected to
pain, suffering and all the disappointing incidents occurring
during life. Therefore, and to palliate this, we finally acquire
knowledge which alone can afford us relief and hope of a better
future.
FOOTNOTES:
[55] Sectarian Brahmins are here meant. The Parabrahm of the Vedantins
is the Deity we accept and believe in.
XII. WHAT IS PRACTICAL THEOSOPHY?
DUTY.
ENQ. Why, then, the need for rebirths, since all alike fail to secure a
permanent peace?
THEO. Because the final goal cannot be reached in any way but through
life experiences and because the bulk of these consist in pain and
suffering. It is only through the latter that we can learn. Joys
and pleasures teach us nothing; they are evanescent, and can only
bring in the long run satiety. Moreover, our constant failure to
find any permanent satisfaction in life which would meet the wants
of our higher nature, shows us plainly that those wants can be met
only on their own plane, to-wit—the spiritual.
ENQ. Is the natural result of this a desire to quit life by one means
or another?
THEO. If you mean by such desire “suicide,” then I say, most decidedly
not. Such a result can never be a “natural” one, but is ever
due to a morbid brain disease, or to most decided and strong
materialistic views. It is the worst of crimes and dire in
its results. But if by desire, you mean simply aspiration to
reach spiritual existence, not a wish to quit the earth, then I
would call it a very natural desire indeed. Otherwise voluntary
death would be an abandonment of our present post and of the
duties incumbent on us, as well as an attempt to shirk Karmic
responsibilities, and thus involve the creation of new Karma.
ENQ. But if actions on the material plane are unsatisfying, why should
duties, which are such actions, be imperative?
THEO. First of all, because our philosophy teaches us that the object
of doing our duties to all men and to ourselves the last, is not
the attainment of personal happiness, but of the happiness of
others; the fulfilment of right for the sake of right, not for
what it may bring us. Happiness, or rather contentment, may indeed
follow the performance of duty, but is not and must not be the
motive for it.
ENQ. What do you understand precisely by “duty” in Theosophy? It cannot
be the Christian duties preached by Jesus and his Apostles, since
you recognize neither?
THEO. You are once more mistaken. What you call “Christian duties” were
inculcated by every great moral and religious Reformer ages before
the Christian era. All that was great, generous, heroic, was, in
days of old, not only talked about and preached from pulpits as
in our own time, but _acted upon_ sometimes by whole nations.
The history of the Buddhist reform is full of the most noble and
most heroically unselfish acts. “Be ye all of one mind, having
compassion one of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be
courteous; not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing;
but contrariwise, blessing” was practically carried out by the
followers of Buddha, several centuries before Peter. The Ethics of
Christianity are grand, no doubt; but as undeniably they are not
new, and have originated as “Pagan” duties.
ENQ. And how would you define these duties, or “duty,” in general, as
you understand the term?
THEO. Duty is that which is _due_ to Humanity, to our fellow-men,
neighbours, family, and especially that which we owe to all those
who are poorer and more helpless than we are ourselves. This is
a debt which, if left unpaid during life, leaves us spiritually
insolvent and moral bankrupts in our next incarnation. Theosophy
is the quintessence of _duty_.
ENQ. So is Christianity when rightly understood and carried out.
THEO. No doubt it is; but then, were it not a _lip-religion_ in
practice, Theosophy would have little to do amidst Christians.
Unfortunately it is but such lip-ethics. Those who practise their
duty towards all, and for duty’s own sake, are few; and fewer
still are those who perform that duty, remaining content with the
satisfaction of their own secret consciousness. It is—
“... the public voice
Of praise that honours virtue and rewards it,”
which is ever uppermost in the minds of the “world renowned”
philanthropists. Modern ethics are beautiful to read about and
hear discussed; but what are words unless converted into actions?
Finally: if you ask me how we understand Theosophical duty
practically and in view of Karma, I may answer you that our duty
is to drink without a murmur to the last drop, whatever contents
the cup of life may have in store for us, to pluck the roses of
life only for the fragrance they may shed on _others_, and to be
ourselves content but with the thorns, if that fragrance cannot be
enjoyed without depriving some one else of it.
ENQ. All this is very vague. What do you do more than Christians do?
THEO. It is not what we members of the Theosophical Society do—though
some of us try our best—but how much farther Theosophy leads to
good than modern Christianity does. I say—_action_, enforced
action, instead of mere intention and talk. A man may be what he
likes, the most worldly, selfish and hard-hearted of men, even a
deep-dyed rascal, and it will not prevent him from calling himself
a Christian, or others from so regarding him. But no Theosophist
has the right to this name, unless he is thoroughly imbued with
the correctness of Carlyle’s truism: “The end of man is an
_action_ and not a _thought_, though it were the noblest”—and
unless he sets and models his daily life upon this truth. The
profession of a truth is not yet the enactment of it; and the more
beautiful and grand it sounds, the more loudly virtue or duty is
talked about instead of being acted upon, the more forcibly it
will always remind one of the Dead Sea fruit. _Cant_ is the most
loathsome of all vices; and _cant_ is the most prominent feature
of the greatest Protestant country of this century—England.
ENQ. What do you consider as due to humanity at large?
THEO. Full recognition of equal rights and privileges for all, and
without distinction of race, colour, social position, or birth.
ENQ. When would you consider such due not given?
THEO. When there is the slightest invasion of another’s right—be that
other a man or a nation; when there is any failure to show him the
same justice, kindness, consideration or mercy which we desire for
ourselves. The whole present system of politics is built on the
oblivion of such rights, and the most fierce assertion of national
selfishness. The French say: “Like master, like man”; they ought
to add, “Like national policy, like citizen.”
ENQ. Do you take any part in politics?
THEO. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given
below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have
affected a reform in _human nature, is like putting new wine into
old bottles_. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost
hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old
abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based
on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of
itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed
of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of
the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting
political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at
the head of affairs as of old.
THE RELATIONS OF THE T.S. TO POLITICAL REFORMS.
ENQ. The Theosophical Society is not, then, a political organization?
THEO. Certainly not. It is international in the highest sense in that
its members comprise men and women of all races, creeds, and forms
of thought, who work together for one object, the improvement of
humanity; but as a society it takes absolutely no part in any
national or party politics.
ENQ. Why is this?
THEO. Just for the reasons I have mentioned. Moreover, political action
must necessarily vary with the circumstances of the time and with
the idiosyncracies of individuals. While from the very nature of
their position as Theosophists the members of the T.S. are agreed
on the principles of Theosophy, or they would not belong to the
society at all, it does not thereby follow that they agree on
every other subject. As a society they can only act together in
matters which are common to all—that is, in Theosophy itself; as
individuals, each is left perfectly free to follow out his or
her particular line of political thought and action, so long as
this does not conflict with Theosophical principles, or hurt the
Theosophical Society.
ENQ. But surely the T.S. does not stand altogether aloof from the
social questions which are now so fast coming to the front?
THEO. The very principles of the T.S. are a proof that it does not—or,
rather, that most of its members do not—so stand aloof. If
humanity can only be developed mentally and spiritually by the
enforcement, first of all, of the soundest and most scientific
physiological laws, it is the bounden duty of all who strive
for this development to do their utmost to see that those laws
shall be generally carried out. All Theosophists are only too
sadly aware that, in Occidental countries especially, the social
condition of large masses of the people renders it impossible for
either their bodies or their spirits to be properly trained, so
that the development of both is thereby arrested. As this training
and development is one of the express objects of Theosophy, the
T.S. is in thorough sympathy and harmony with all true efforts in
this direction.
ENQ. But what do you mean by “true efforts”? Each social reformer has
his own panacea, and each believes his to be the one and only
thing which can improve and save humanity?
THEO. Perfectly true, and this is the real reason why so little
satisfactory social work is accomplished. In most of these
panaceas there is no really guiding principle, and there is
certainly no one principle which connects them all. Valuable time
and energy are thus wasted; for men, instead of co-operating,
strive one against the other, often, it is to be feared, for the
sake of fame and reward rather than for the great cause which they
profess to have at heart, and which should be supreme in their
lives.
ENQ. How, then, should Theosophical principles be applied so that
social co-operation may be promoted and true efforts for social
amelioration be carried on?
THEO. Let me briefly remind you what these principles are—universal
Unity and Causation; Human Solidarity; the Law of Karma;
Re-incarnation. These are the four links of the golden chain which
should bind humanity into one family, one universal Brotherhood.
ENQ. How?
THEO. In the present state of society, especially in so-called
civilized countries, we are continually brought face to face with
the fact that large numbers of people are suffering from misery,
poverty and disease. Their physical condition is wretched, and
their mental and spiritual faculties are often almost dormant. On
the other hand, many persons at the opposite end of the social
scale are leading lives of careless indifference, material luxury,
and selfish indulgence. Neither of these forms of existence
is mere chance. Both are the effects of the conditions which
surround those who are subject to them, and the neglect of social
duty on the one side is most closely connected with the stunted
and arrested development on the other. In sociology, as in all
branches of true science, the law of universal causation holds
good. But this causation necessarily implies, as its logical
outcome, that human solidarity on which Theosophy so strongly
insists. If the action of one reacts on the lives of all, and this
is the true scientific idea, then it is only by all men becoming
brothers and all women sisters, and by all practising in their
daily lives true brotherhood and true sisterhood, that the real
human solidarity, which lies at the root of the elevation of the
race, can ever be attained. It is this action and interaction,
this true brotherhood and sisterhood, in which each shall live for
all and all for each, which is one of the fundamental Theosophical
principles that every Theosophist should be bound, not only to
teach, but to carry out in his or her individual life.
ENQ. All this is very well as a general principle, but how would you
apply it in a concrete way?
THEO. Look for a moment at what you would call the concrete facts of
human society. Contrast the lives not only of the masses of the
people, but of many of those who are called the middle and upper
classes, with what they might be under healthier and nobler
conditions, where justice, kindness, and love were paramount,
instead of the selfishness, indifference, and brutality which
now too often seem to reign supreme. All good and evil things in
humanity have their roots in human character, and this character
is, and has been, conditioned by the endless chain of cause and
effect. But this conditioning applies to the future as well as
to the present and the past. Selfishness, indifference, and
brutality can never be the normal state of the race—to believe so
would be to despair of humanity—and that no Theosophist can do.
Progress can be attained, and only attained, by the development
of the nobler qualities. Now, true evolution teaches us that
by altering the surroundings of the organism we can alter and
improve the organism; and in the strictest sense this is true
with regard to man. Every Theosophist, therefore, is bound to do
his utmost to help on, by all the means in his power, every wise
and well-considered social effort which has for its object the
amelioration of the condition of the poor. Such efforts should be
made with a view to their ultimate social emancipation, or the
development of the sense of duty in those who now so often neglect
it in nearly every relation of life.
ENQ. Agreed. But who is to decide whether social efforts are wise or
unwise?
THEO. No one person and no society can lay down a hard-and-fast rule in
this respect. Much must necessarily be left to the individual
judgment. One general test may, however, be given. Will the
proposed action tend to promote that true brotherhood which it is
the aim of Theosophy to bring about? No real Theosophist will
have much difficulty in applying such a test; once he is satisfied
of this, his duty will lie in the direction of forming public
opinion. And this can be attained only by inculcating those higher
and nobler conceptions of public and private duties which lie
at the root of all spiritual and material improvement. In every
conceivable case he himself must be a center of spiritual action,
and from him and his own daily individual life must radiate those
higher spiritual forces which alone can regenerate his fellow-men.
ENQ. But why should he do this? Are not he and all, as you teach,
conditioned by their Karma, and must not Karma necessarily work
itself out on certain lines?
THEO. It is this very law of Karma which gives strength to all that I
have said. The individual cannot separate himself from the race,
nor the race from the individual. The law of Karma applies equally
to all, although all are not equally developed. In helping on the
development of others, the Theosophist believes that he is not
only helping them to fulfil their Karma, but that he is also, in
the strictest sense, fulfilling his own. It is the development of
humanity, of which both he and they are integral parts, that he
has always in view, and he knows that any failure on his part to
respond to the highest within him retards not only himself but
all, in their progressive march. By his actions, he can make it
either more difficult or more easy for humanity to attain the next
higher plane of being.
ENQ. How does this bear on the fourth of the principles you mentioned,
viz., Re-incarnation?
THEO. The connection is most intimate. If our present lives depend upon
the development of certain principles which are a growth from
the germs left by a previous existence, the law holds good as
regards the future. Once grasp the idea that universal causation
is not merely present, but past, present and future, and every
action on our present plane falls naturally and easily into its
true place, and is seen in its true relation to ourselves and to
others. Every mean and selfish action sends us backward and not
forward, while every noble thought and every unselfish deed are
stepping-stones to the higher and more glorious planes of being.
If this life were all, then in many respects it would indeed be
poor and mean; but regarded as a preparation for the next sphere
of existence, it may be used as the golden gate through which
we may pass, not selfishly and alone, but in company with our
fellows, to the palaces which lie beyond.
ON SELF-SACRIFICE.
ENQ. Is equal justice to all and love to every creature the highest
standard of Theosophy?
THEO. No; there is an even far higher one.
ENQ. What can it be?
THEO. The giving to others _more_ than to oneself—_self-sacrifice_.
Such was the standard and abounding measure which marked
so pre-eminently the greatest Teachers and Masters of
Humanity—_e.g._, Gautama Buddha in History, and Jesus of Nazareth
as in the Gospels. This trait alone was enough to secure to them
the perpetual reverence and gratitude of the generations of men
that come after them. We say, however, that self-sacrifice has to
be performed with discrimination; and such a self-abandonment,
if made without justice, or blindly, regardless of subsequent
results, may often prove not only made in vain, but harmful.
One of the fundamental rules of Theosophy is, justice to
oneself—viewed as a unit of collective humanity, not as a personal
self-justice, not more but not less than to others; unless,
indeed, by the sacrifice of the _one_ self we can benefit the many.
ENQ. Could you make your idea clearer by giving an instance?
THEO. There are many instances to illustrate it in history.
Self-sacrifice for practical good to save many, or several people,
Theosophy holds as far higher than self-abnegation for a sectarian
idea, such as that of “saving the heathen from _damnation_,”
for instance. In our opinion, Father Damien, the young man of
thirty who offered his whole life in sacrifice for the benefit
and alleviation of the sufferings of the lepers at Molokai, and
who went to live for eighteen years alone with them, to finally
catch the loathsome disease and die, _has not died in vain_. He
has given relief and relative happiness to thousands of miserable
wretches. He has brought to them consolation, mental and physical.
He threw a streak of light into the black and dreary night of
an existence, the hopelessness of which is unparalleled in the
records of human suffering. He was a _true Theosophist_, and his
memory will live for ever in our annals. In our sight this poor
Belgian priest stands immeasurably higher than—for instance—all
those sincere but vain-glorious fools, the Missionaries who have
sacrificed their lives in the South Sea Islands or China. What
good have they done? They went in one case to those who are not
yet ripe for any truth; and in the other to a nation whose systems
of religious philosophy are as grand as any, if only the men who
have them would live up to the standard of Confucius and their
other sages. And they died victims of irresponsible cannibals and
savages, and of popular fanaticism and hatred. Whereas, by going
to the slums of Whitechapel or some other such locality of those
that stagnate right under the blazing sun of our civilization,
full of Christian savages and mental leprosy, they might have done
real good, and preserved their lives for a better and worthier
cause.
ENQ. But the Christians do not think so?
THEO. Of course not, because they act on an erroneous belief. They
think that by baptising the body of an irresponsible savage they
save his soul from damnation. One church forgets her martyrs,
the other beatifies and raises statues to such men as Labro, who
sacrificed his body for forty years only to benefit the vermin
which it bred. Had we the means to do so, we would raise a statue
to Father Damien, the true, practical saint, and perpetuate his
memory for ever as a living exemplar of Theosophical heroism and
of Buddha- and Christ-like mercy and self-sacrifice.
ENQ. Then you regard self-sacrifice as a duty?
THEO. We do; and explain it by showing that altruism is an integral
part of self-development. But we have to discriminate. A man has
no right to starve himself _to death_ that another man may have
food, unless the life of that man is obviously more useful to the
many than is his own life. But it is his duty to sacrifice his own
comfort, and to work for others if they are unable to work for
themselves. It is his duty to give all that which is wholly his
own and can benefit no one but himself if he selfishly keeps it
from others. Theosophy teaches self-abnegation, but does not teach
rash and useless self-sacrifice, nor does it justify fanaticism.
ENQ. But how are we to reach such an elevated status?
THEO. By the enlightened application of our precepts to practice. By
the use of our higher reason, spiritual intuition and moral sense,
and by following the dictates of what we call “the still small
voice” of our conscience, which is that of our EGO, and which
speaks louder in us than the earthquakes and the thunders of
Jehovah, wherein “the Lord is not.”
ENQ. If such are our duties to humanity at large, what do you
understand by our duties to our immediate surroundings?
THEO. Just the same, plus those that arise from special obligations
with regard to family ties.
ENQ. Then it is not true, as it is said, that no sooner does a man
enter into the Theosophical Society than he begins to be gradually
severed from his wife, children, and family duties?
THEO. It is a groundless calumny, like so many others. The first of the
Theosophical duties is to do one’s duty by _all_ men, and
especially by those to whom one’s _specific_ responsibilities are
due, because one has either voluntarily undertaken them, such as
marriage ties, or because one’s destiny has allied one to them; I
mean those we owe to parents or next of kin.
ENQ. And what may be the duty of a Theosophist to himself?
THEO. To control and conquer, _through the Higher, the lower self_. To
purify himself inwardly and morally; to fear no one, and nought,
save the tribunal of his own conscience. Never to do a thing by
halves; _i.e._, if he thinks it the right thing to do, let him do
it openly and boldly, and if wrong, never touch it at all. It is
the duty of a Theosophist to lighten his burden by thinking of the
wise aphorism of Epictetus, who says: “Be not diverted from your
duty _by any idle reflection the silly world may make upon you_,
for their censures are not in your power, and consequently should
not be any part of your concern.”
ENQ. But suppose a member of your Society should plead inability to
practice altruism by other people, on the ground that “charity
begins at home”; urging that he is too busy, or too poor, to
benefit mankind or even any of its units—what are your rules in
such a case?
THEO. No man has a right to say that he can do nothing for others, on
any pretext whatever. “By doing the proper duty in the proper
place, a man may make the world his debtor,” says an English
writer. A cup of cold water given in time to a thirsty wayfarer is
a nobler duty and more worth, than a dozen of dinners given away,
out of season, to men who can afford to pay for them. No man who
has not got it in him will ever become a _Theosophist_; but he may
remain a member of our Society all the same. We have no rules by
which we could force any man to become a practical Theosophist, if
he does not desire to be one.
ENQ. Then why does he enter the Society at all?
THEO. That is best known to him who does so. For, here again, we have
no right to pre-judge a person, not even if the voice of a whole
community should be against him, and I may tell you why. In our
day, _vox populi_ (so far as regards the voice of the educated,
at any rate) is no longer _vox dei_, but ever that of prejudice,
of selfish motives, and often simply that of unpopularity. Our
duty is to sow seeds broadcast for the future, and see they are
good; not to stop to enquire _why_ we should do so, and how and
wherefore we are obliged to lose our time, since those who will
reap the harvest in days to come will never be ourselves.
ON CHARITY.
ENQ. How do you Theosophists regard the Christian duty of charity?
THEO. What charity do you mean? Charity of mind, or practical charity
in the physical plane?
ENQ. I mean practical charity, as your idea of Universal brotherhood
would include, of course, charity of mind.
THEO. Then you have in your mind the practical carrying out of the
commandments given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount?
ENQ. Precisely so.
THEO. Then why call them “Christian”? Because, although your Saviour
preached and practised them, the last thing the Christians of
to-day think of is to carry them out in their lives.
ENQ. And yet many are those who pass their lives in dispensing charity?
THEO. Yes, out of the surplus of their great fortunes. But point out to
me that Christian, among the most philanthropic, who would give to
the shivering and starving thief, who would steal his coat, his
cloak also; or offer his right cheek to him who smote him on the
left, and never think of resenting it!
ENQ. Ah, but you must remember that these precepts have not to be taken
literally. Times and circumstances have changed since Christ’s
day. Moreover, He spoke in Parables.
THEO. Then why don’t your Churches teach that the doctrine of damnation
and hell-fire is to be understood as a _parable_ too? Why do
some of your most popular preachers, while virtually allowing
these “parables” to be understood as you take them, insist on the
literal meaning of the fires of Hell and the _physical_ tortures
of an “Asbestos-like” soul? If one is a “parable,” then the other
is. If Hell-fire is a literal truth, then Christ’s commandments
in the Sermon on the Mount have to be obeyed to the very letter.
And I tell you that many who do not believe in the Divinity of
Christ—like Count Leo Tolstoi and more than one Theosophist—do
carry out these noble, because universal, precepts literally; and
many more good men and women would do so, were they not more than
certain that such a walk in life would very probably land them in
a lunatic asylum—so _Christian are your laws_!
ENQ. But surely every one knows that millions and millions are spent
annually on private and public charities?
THEO. Oh, yes; half of which sticks to the hands it passes through
before getting to the needy; while a good portion or remainder
gets into the hands of professional beggars, those who are too
lazy to work, thus doing no good whatever to those who are really
in misery and suffering. Haven’t you heard that the first result
of the great outflow of charity towards the East-end of London was
to raise the rents in _Whitechapel_ by some 20 per cent.?
ENQ. What would you do, then?
THEO. Act individually and not collectively; follow the Northern
Buddhist precepts: “Never put food into the mouth of the hungry by
the hand of another”; “Never let the shadow of thy neighbour (_a
third person_) come between thyself and the object of thy bounty”;
“Never give to the Sun time to dry a tear before thou hast wiped
it.” Again “Never give money to the needy, or food to the priest,
who begs at thy door, _through thy servants_, lest thy money
should diminish gratitude, and thy food turn to gall.”
ENQ. But how can this be applied practically?
THEO. The Theosophical ideas of charity mean _personal_ exertion for
others; _personal_ mercy and kindness; _personal_ interest in the
welfare of those who suffer; _personal_ sympathy, forethought
and assistance in their troubles or needs. We Theosophists do
not believe in giving money (N.B., if we had it) through other
people’s hands or organizations. We believe in giving to the
money a thousandfold greater power and effectiveness by our
personal contact and sympathy with those who need it. We believe
in relieving the starvation of the soul, as much if not more than
the emptiness of the stomach; for gratitude does more good to
the man who feels it, than to him for whom it is felt. Where’s
the gratitude which your “millions of pounds” should have called
forth, or the good feelings provoked by them? Is it shown in
the hatred of the East-End poor for the rich? in the growth of
the party of anarchy and disorder? or by those thousands of
unfortunate working girls, victims to the “sweating” system,
driven daily to eke out a living by going on the streets? Do
your helpless old men and women thank you for the workhouses; or
your poor for the poisonously unhealthy dwellings in which they
are allowed to breed new generations of diseased, scrofulous
and rickety children, only to put money into the pockets of the
insatiable Shylocks who own houses? Therefore it is that every
sovereign of all those “millions,” contributed by good and
would-be charitable people, falls like a burning curse instead
of a blessing on the poor whom it should relieve. We call this
_generating national Karma_, and terrible will be its results on
the day of reckoning.
THEOSOPHY FOR THE MASSES.
ENQ. And you think that Theosophy would, by stepping in, help to remove
these evils, under the practical and adverse conditions of our
modern life?
THEO. Had we more money, and had not most of the Theosophists to work
for their daily bread, I firmly believe we could.
ENQ. How? Do you expect that your doctrines could ever take hold of the
uneducated masses, when they are so abstruse and difficult that
well-educated people can hardly understand them?
THEO. You forget one thing, which is that your much-boasted modern
education is precisely that which makes it difficult for you
to understand Theosophy. Your mind is so full of intellectual
subtleties and preconceptions that your natural intuition
and perception of the truth cannot act. It does not require
metaphysics or education to make a man understand the broad
truths of Karma and Re-incarnation. Look at the millions of
poor and uneducated Buddhists and Hindoos, to whom Karma and
re-incarnation are solid realities, simply because their minds
have never been cramped and distorted by being forced into an
unnatural groove. They have never had the innate human sense of
justice perverted in them by being told to believe that their
sins would be forgiven because another man had been put to death
for their sakes. And the Buddhists, note well, live up to their
beliefs without a murmur against Karma, or what they regard as a
just punishment, whereas, the Christian populace neither lives
up it to its moral ideal, nor accepts its lot contentedly. Hence
murmuring and dissatisfaction, and the intensity of the struggle
for existence in Western lands.
ENQ. But this contentedness, which you praise so much, would do away
with all motive for exertion and bring progress to a stand-still.
THEO. And we, Theosophists, say that your vaunted progress and
civilization are no better than a host of will-o’-the-wisps,
flickering over a marsh which exhales a poisonous and deadly
miasma. This, because we see selfishness, crime, immorality,
and all the evils imaginable, pouncing upon unfortunate mankind
from this Pandora’s box which you call an age of progress,
and increasing _pari passu_ with the growth of your material
civilization. At such a price, better the inertia and inactivity
of Buddhist countries, which have arisen only as a consequence of
ages of political slavery.
ENQ. Then is all this metaphysics and mysticism with which you occupy
yourself so much, of no importance?
THEO. To the masses, who need only practical guidance and support, they
are not of much consequence; but for the educated, the natural
leaders of the masses, those whose modes of thought and action
will sooner or later be adopted by those masses, they are of the
greatest importance. It is only by means of the philosophy that an
intelligent and educated man can avoid the intellectual suicide
of believing on blind faith; and it is only by assimilating the
strict continuity and logical coherence of the Eastern, if not
esoteric, doctrines, that he can realize their truth. Conviction
breeds enthusiasm, and “Enthusiasm,” says Bulwer Lytton, “is the
genius of sincerity, and truth accomplishes no victories without
it”; while Emerson most truly remarks that “every great and
commanding movement in the annals of the world is the triumph of
enthusiasm.” And what is more calculated to produce such a feeling
than a philosophy so grand, so consistent, so logical, and so
all-embracing as our Eastern Doctrines?
ENQ. And yet its enemies are very numerous, and every day Theosophy
acquires new opponents.
THEO. And this is precisely that which proves its intrinsic excellence
and value. People hate only the things they fear, and no one goes
out of his way to overthrow that which neither threatens nor rises
beyond mediocrity.
ENQ. Do you hope to impart this enthusiasm, one day, to the masses?
THEO. Why not? since history tells us that the masses adopted Buddhism
with enthusiasm, while, as said before, the practical effect upon
them of this philosophy of ethics is still shown by the smallness
of the percentage of crime amongst Buddhist populations as
compared with every other religion. The chief point is, to uproot
that most fertile source of all crime and immorality—the belief
that it is possible for them to escape the consequences of their
own actions. Once teach them that greatest of all laws, _Karma_
and _Re-incarnation_, and besides feeling in themselves the true
dignity of human nature, they will turn from evil and eschew it as
they would a physical danger.
HOW MEMBERS CAN HELP THE SOCIETY.
ENQ. How do you expect the Fellows of your Society to help in the work?
THEO. First by studying and comprehending the theosophical doctrines,
so that they may teach others, especially the young people.
Secondly, by taking every opportunity of talking to others and
explaining to them what Theosophy is, and what it is not; by
removing misconceptions and spreading an interest in the subject.
Thirdly, by assisting in circulating our literature, by buying
books when they have the means, by lending and giving them and
by inducing their friends to do so. Fourthly, by defending
the Society from the unjust aspersions cast upon it, by every
legitimate device in their power. Fifth, and most important of
all, by the example of their own lives.
ENQ. But all this literature, to the spread of which you attach so much
importance, does not seem to me of much practical use in helping
mankind. This is not practical charity.
THEO. We think otherwise. We hold that a good book which gives people
food for thought, which strengthens and clears their minds, and
enables them to grasp truths which they have dimly felt but could
not formulate—we hold that such a book does a real, substantial
good. As to what you call practical deeds of charity, to benefit
the bodies of our fellow-men, we do what little we can; but, as
I have already told you, most of us are poor, whilst the Society
itself has not even the money to pay a staff of workers. All of us
who toil for it, give our labour gratis, and in most cases money
as well. The few who have the means of doing what are usually
called charitable actions, follow the Buddhist precepts and do
their work themselves, not by proxy or by subscribing publicly to
charitable funds. What the Theosophist has to do above all is to
forget his personality.
WHAT A THEOSOPHIST OUGHT NOT TO DO.
ENQ. Have you any prohibitory laws or clauses for Theosophists in your
Society?
THEO. Many, but, alas! none of them are enforced. They express the
ideal of our organization,—but the practical application of such
things we are compelled to leave to the discretion of the Fellows
themselves. Unfortunately, the state of men’s minds in the present
century is such that, unless we allow these clauses to remain, so
to speak, obsolete, no man or woman would dare to risk joining the
Theosophical Society. This is precisely why I feel forced to lay
such a stress on the difference between true Theosophy and its
hard-struggling and well-intentioned, but still unworthy vehicle,
the Theosophical Society.
ENQ. May I be told what are these perilous reefs in the open sea of
Theosophy?
THEO. Well may you call them reefs, as more than one otherwise sincere
and well-meaning F.T.S. has had his Theosophical canoe shattered
into splinters on them! And yet to avoid certain things seems the
easiest thing in the world to do. For instance, here is a series
of such negatives, screening positive Theosophical duties:—
No Theosophist should be silent when he hears evil reports or slanders
spread about the Society, or innocent persons, whether they be his
colleagues or outsiders.
ENQ. But suppose what one hears is the truth, or may be true without
one knowing it?
THEO. Then you must demand good proofs of the assertion, and hear both
sides impartially before you permit the accusation to go
uncontradicted. You have no right to believe in evil, until you
get undeniable proof of the correctness of the statement.
ENQ. And what should you do then?
THEO. Pity and forbearance, charity and long-suffering, ought to be
always there to prompt us to excuse our sinning brethren, and
to pass the gentlest sentence possible upon those who err. A
Theosophist ought never to forget what is due to the shortcomings
and infirmities of human nature.
ENQ. Ought he to forgive entirely in such cases?
THEO. In every case, especially he who is sinned against.
ENQ. But if by so doing, he risks to injure, or allow others to be
injured? What ought he to do then?
THEO. His duty; that which his conscience and higher nature suggests to
him; but only after mature deliberation. Justice consists in doing
no injury to any living being; but justice commands us also never
to allow injury to be done to the many, or even to one innocent
person, by allowing the guilty one to go unchecked.
ENQ. What are the other negative clauses?
THEO. No Theosophist ought to be contented with an idle or frivolous
life, doing no real good to himself and still less to others. He
should work for the benefit of the few who need his help if he is
unable to toil for Humanity, and thus work for the advancement of
the Theosophical cause.
ENQ. This demands an exceptional nature, and would come rather hard
upon some persons.
THEO. Then they had better remain outside the T. S. instead of sailing
under false colours. No one is asked to give more than he can
afford, whether in devotion, time, work or money.
ENQ. What comes next?
THEO. No working member should set too great value on his personal
progress or proficiency in Theosophic studies; but must be
prepared rather to do as much altruistic work as lies in his
power. He should not leave the whole of the heavy burden and
responsibility of the Theosophical movement on the shoulders of
the few devoted workers. Each member ought to feel it his duty to
take what share he can in the common work, and help it by every
means in his power.
ENQ. This is but just. What comes next?
THEO. No Theosophist should place his personal vanity, or feelings,
above those of his Society as a body. He who sacrifices the
latter, or other people’s reputations on the altar of his personal
vanity, worldly benefit, or pride, ought not to be allowed to
remain a member. One cancerous limb diseases the whole body.
ENQ. Is it the duty of every member to teach others and preach
Theosophy?
THEO. It is indeed. No fellow has a right to remain idle, on the excuse
that he knows too little to teach. For he may always be sure that
he will find others who know still less than himself. And also
it is not until a man begins to try to teach others, that he
discovers his own ignorance and tries to remove it. But this is a
minor clause.
ENQ. What do you consider, then, to be the chief of these negative
Theosophical duties?
THEO. To be ever prepared to recognize and confess one’s faults. To
rather sin through exaggerated praise than through too little
appreciation of one’s neighbour’s efforts. Never to back-bite or
slander another person. Always to say openly and direct to his
face anything you have against him. Never to make yourself the
echo of anything you may hear against another, nor harbour revenge
against those who happen to injure you.
ENQ. But it is often dangerous to tell people the truth to their faces.
Don’t you think so? I know of one of your members who was bitterly
offended, left the Society, and became its greatest enemy, only
because he was told some unpleasant truths to his face, and was
blamed for them.
THEO. Of such we have had many. No member, whether prominent or
insignificant, has ever left us without becoming our bitter enemy.
ENQ. How do you account for it?
THEO. It is simply this. Having been, in most cases, intensely devoted
to the Society at first, and having lavished upon it the most
exaggerated praises, the only possible excuse such a backslider
can make for his subsequent behaviour and past short-sightedness,
is _to pose as an innocent and deceived victim_, thus casting
the blame from his own shoulders on to those of the Society in
general, and its leaders especially. Such persons remind one of
the old fable about the man with a distorted face, who broke his
looking-glass on the ground that it reflected his countenance
crookedly.
ENQ. But what makes these people turn against the Society?
THEO. Wounded vanity in some form or other, almost in every case.
Generally, because their dicta and advice are not taken as
final and authoritative; or else, because they are of those who
would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. Because, in
short, they cannot bear to stand second to anybody in anything.
So, for instance, one member—a true “Sir Oracle”—criticized,
and almost defamed every member in the T.S. to outsiders as
much as to Theosophists, under the pretext that they were _all
untheosophical_, blaming them precisely for what he was himself
doing all the time. Finally, he left the Society, giving as his
reason a profound conviction that we were all (the Founders
especially)—FRAUDS! Another one, after intriguing in every
possible way to be placed at the head of a large Section of the
Society, finding that the members would not have him, turned
against the Founders of the T. S., and became their bitterest
enemy, denouncing one of them whenever he could, simply
because the latter could not, and would not, _force him_ upon
the Members. This was simply a case of an outrageous wounded
vanity. Still another wanted to, and virtually did, practise
_black-magic_—_i.e._, undue personal psychological influence on
certain Fellows, while pretending devotion and every Theosophical
virtue. When this was put a stop to, the Member broke with
Theosophy, and now slanders and lies against the same hapless
leaders in the most virulent manner, endeavouring to break up the
society by blackening the reputation of those whom that worthy
“Fellow” was unable to deceive.
ENQ. What would you do with such characters?
THEO. Leave them to their Karma. Because one person does evil that is
no reason for others to do so.
ENQ. But, to return to slander, where is the line of demarcation
between backbiting and just criticism to be drawn? Is it not one’s
duty to warn one’s friends and neighbors against those whom one
knows to be dangerous associates?
THEO. If by allowing them to go on unchecked other persons may be
thereby injured, it is certainly our duty to obviate the danger by
warning them privately. But true or false, no accusation against
another person should ever be spread abroad. If true, and the
fault hurts no one but the sinner, then leave him to his Karma.
If false, then you will have avoided adding to the injustice of
the world. Therefore, keep silent about such things with every
one not directly concerned. But if your discretion and silence are
likely to hurt or endanger others, then I add: _Speak the truth
at all costs_, and say, with Annesly, “Consult duty, not events.”
There are cases when one is forced to exclaim, “Perish discretion,
rather than allow it to interfere with duty.”
ENQ. Methinks, if you carry out these maxims, you are likely to reap a
nice crop of troubles!
THEO. And so we do. We have to admit that we are now open to the same
taunt as the early Christians were. “See, how these Theosophists
love one another!” may now be said of us without a shadow of
injustice.
ENQ. Admitting yourself that there is at least as much, if not more,
backbiting, slandering, and quarrelling in the T.S. as in the
Christian Churches, let alone Scientific Societies—What kind of
Brotherhood is this? I may ask.
THEO. A very poor specimen, indeed, as at present, and, until carefully
sifted and reorganized, _no_ better than all others. Remember,
however, that human nature is the same _in_ the Theosophical
Society as _out_ of it. Its members are no saints: they are at
best sinners trying to do better, and liable to fall back owing
to personal weakness. Add to this that our “Brotherhood” is no
“recognised” or established body, and stands, so to speak, outside
of the pale of jurisdiction. Besides which, it is in a chaotic
condition, and as unjustly _unpopular as is no other body_. What
wonder, then, that those members who fail to carry out its ideal
should turn, after leaving the Society, for sympathetic protection
to our enemies, and pour all their gall and bitterness into their
too willing ears! Knowing that they will find support, sympathy,
and ready credence for every accusation, however absurd, that
it may please them to launch against the Theosophical Society,
they hasten to do so, and vent their wrath on the innocent
looking-glass, which reflected too faithfully their faces. _People
never forgive those whom they have wronged._ The sense of kindness
received, and repaid by them with ingratitude, drives them into
a madness of self-justification before the world and their own
consciences. The former is but too ready to believe in anything
said against a society it hates. The latter—but I will say no
more, fearing I have already said too much.
ENQ. Your position does not seem to me a very enviable one.
THEO. It is not. But don’t you think that there must be something very
noble, very exalted, very true, behind the Society and its
philosophy, when the leaders and the founders of the movement
still continue to work for it with all their strength? They
sacrifice to it all comfort, all worldly prosperity, and success,
even to their good name and reputation—aye, even to their
honour—to receive in return incessant and ceaseless obloquy,
relentless persecution, untiring slander, constant ingratitude,
and misunderstanding of their best efforts, blows, and buffets
from all sides—when by simply dropping their work they would
find themselves immediately released from every responsibility,
shielded from every further attack.
ENQ. I confess, such a perseverance seems to me very astounding, and I
wondered why you did all this.
THEO. Believe me for no self-gratification; only in the hope of
training a few individuals to carry on our work for humanity by
its original programme when the Founders are dead and gone. They
have already found a few such noble and devoted souls to replace
them. The coming generations, thanks to these few, will find the
path to peace a little less thorny, and the way a little widened,
and thus all this suffering will have produced good results, and
their self-sacrifice will not have been in vain. At present, the
main, fundamental object of the Society is to sow germs in the
hearts of men, which may in time sprout, and under more propitious
circumstances lead to a healthy reform, conducive of more
happiness _to the masses_ than they have hitherto enjoyed.
XIII. ON THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
THEOSOPHY AND ASCETICISM.
ENQ. I have heard people say that your rules require all members to be
vegetarians, celibates, and rigid ascetics; but you have not told
me anything of the sort yet. Can you tell the truth once for all
about this?
THEO. The truth is that our rules require nothing of the kind. The
Theosophical Society does not even expect, far less require of
_any_ of its members that they should be ascetics in any way,
except—if you call _that_ asceticism—that they should try and
benefit other people and be unselfish in their own lives.
ENQ. But still many of your members are strict vegetarians, and openly
avow their intention of remaining unmarried. This, too, is most
often the case with those who take a prominent part in connection
with the work of your Society.
THEO. That is only natural, because most of our really earnest workers
are members of the Inner Section of the Society, which I told you
about before.
ENQ. Oh! then you do require ascetic practices in that Inner Section?
THEO. No; we do not _require_ or _enjoin_ them even there; but I see
that I had better give you an explanation of our views on the
subject of asceticism in general, and then you will understand
about vegetarianism and so on.
ENQ. Please proceed.
THEO. As I have already told you, most people who become really earnest
students of Theosophy, and active workers in our Society, wish to
do more than study theoretically the truths we teach. They wish
to _know_ the truth by their own direct personal experience, and
to study Occultism with the object of acquiring the wisdom and
power, which they feel that they need in order to help others,
effectually and judiciously, instead of blindly and at haphazard.
Therefore, sooner or later, they join the Inner Section.
ENQ. But you said that “ascetic practices” are not obligatory even in
that Inner Section?
THEO. No more they are; but the first thing which the members learn
there is a true conception of the relation of the body, or
physical sheath, to the inner, the true man. The relation and
mutual interaction between these two aspects of human nature are
explained and demonstrated to them, so that they soon become
imbued with the supreme importance of the inner man over the outer
case or body. They are taught that blind unintelligent asceticism
is mere folly; that such conduct as that of St. Labro which I
spoke of before, or that of the Indian Fakirs and jungle ascetics,
who cut, burn and macerate their bodies in the most cruel and
horrible manner, is simply self-torture for selfish ends, _i.e._,
to develop will-power, but is perfectly useless for the purpose of
assisting true spiritual, or Theosophic, development.
ENQ. I see, you regard only _moral_ asceticism as necessary. It is as a
means to an end, that end being the perfect equilibrium of the
_inner_ nature of man, and the attainment of complete mastery over
the body with all its passions and desires?
THEO. Just so. But these means must be used intelligently and wisely,
not blindly and foolishly; like an athlete who is training and
preparing for a great contest, not like the miser who starves
himself into illness that he may gratify his passion for gold.
ENQ. I understand now your general idea; but let us see how you apply
it in practice. How about vegetarianism, for instance?
THEO. One of the great German scientists has shown that every kind of
animal tissue, however you may cook it, still retains certain
marked characteristics of the animal which it belonged to,
which characteristics can be recognised. And apart from that,
every one knows by the taste what meat he is eating. We go
a step farther, and prove that when the flesh of animals is
assimilated by man as food, it imparts to him, physiologically,
some of the characteristics of the animal it came from.
Moreover, occult science teaches and proves this to its students
by ocular demonstration, showing also that this “coarsening”
or “animalizing” effect on man is greatest from the flesh of
the larger animals, less for birds, still less for fish and
other cold-blooded animals, and least of all when he eats only
vegetables.
ENQ. Then he had better not eat at all?
THEO. If he could live without eating, of course it would. But as the
matter stands, he must eat to live, and so we advise really
earnest students to eat such food as will least clog and weight
their brains and bodies, and will have the smallest effect in
hampering and retarding the development of their intuition, their
inner faculties and powers.
ENQ. Then you do not adopt all the arguments which vegetarians in
general are in the habit of using?
THEO. Certainly not. Some of their arguments are very weak, and often
based on assumptions which are quite false. But, on the other
hand, many of the things they say are quite true. For instance, we
believe that much disease, and especially the great predisposition
to disease which is becoming so marked a feature in our time, is
very largely due to the eating of meat, and especially of tinned
meats. But it would take too long to go thoroughly into this
question of vegetarianism on its merits; so please pass on to
something else.
ENQ. One question more. What are your members of the Inner Section to
do with regard to their food when they are ill?
THEO. Follow the best practical advice they can get, of course. Don’t
you grasp yet that we never impose any hard-and-fast obligations
in this respect? Remember once for all that in all such questions
we take a rational, and never a fanatical, view of things. If
from illness or long habit a man cannot go without meat, why, by
all means let him eat it. It is no crime; it will only retard
his progress a little; for after all is said and done, the purely
bodily actions and functions are of far less importance than what
a man _thinks_ and _feels_, what desires he encourages in his
mind, and allows to take root and grow there.
ENQ. Then with regard to the use of wine and spirits, I suppose you do
not advise people to drink them?
THEO. They are worse for his moral and spiritual growth than meat, for
alcohol in all its forms has a direct, marked, and very
deleterious influence on man’s psychic condition. Wine and spirit
drinking is only less destructive to the development of the inner
powers, than the habitual use of hashish, opium, and similar drugs.
THEOSOPHY AND MARRIAGE.
ENQ. Now to another question; must a man marry or remain a celibate?
THEO. It depends on the kind of man you mean. If you refer to one who
intends to live _in_ the world, one who, even though a good,
earnest Theosophist, and an ardent worker for our cause, still has
ties and wishes which bind him to the world, who, in short, does
not feel that he has done for ever with what men call life, and
that he desires one thing and one thing only—to know the truth,
and to be able to help others—then for such a one I say there
is no reason why he should not marry, if he likes to take the
risks of that lottery where there are so many more blanks than
prizes. Surely you cannot believe us so absurd and fanatical as
to preach against marriage altogether? On the contrary, save in a
few exceptional cases of practical Occultism, marriage is the only
remedy against immorality.
ENQ. But why cannot one acquire this knowledge and power when living a
married life?
THEO. My dear sir, I cannot go into physiological questions with you;
but I can give you an obvious and, I think, a sufficient answer,
which will explain to you the moral reasons we give for it. Can
a man serve two masters? No! Then it is equally impossible for
him to divide his attention between the pursuit of Occultism and
a wife. If he tries to, he will assuredly fail in doing either
properly; and, let me remind you, practical Occultism is far too
serious and dangerous a study for a man to take up, unless he is
in the most deadly earnest, and ready to sacrifice _all, himself
first of all_, to gain his end. But this does not apply to the
members of our Inner Section. I am only referring to those who
are determined to tread that path of discipleship which leads to
the highest goal. Most, if not all of those who join our Inner
Section, are only beginners, preparing themselves in this life to
enter in reality upon that path in lives to come.
THEOSOPHY AND EDUCATION.
ENQ. One of your strongest arguments for the inadequacy of the existing
forms of religion in the West, as also to some extent the
materialistic philosophy which is now so popular, but which you
seem to consider as an abomination of desolation, is the large
amount of misery and wretchedness which undeniably exists,
especially in our great cities. But surely you must recognize how
much has been, and is being done to remedy this state of things by
the spread of education and the diffusion of intelligence.
THEO. The future generations will hardly thank you for such a
“diffusion of intelligence,” nor will your present education do
much good to the poor starving masses.
ENQ. Ah! but you must give us time. It is only a few years since we
began to educate the people.
THEO. And what, pray, has your Christian religion been doing ever since
the fifteenth century, once you acknowledge that the education
of the masses has not been attempted till now—the very work,
if ever there could be one, which a _Christian_, _i.e._, a
Christ-following church and people, ought to perform?
ENQ. Well, you may be right; but now—
THEO. Just let us consider this question of education from a broad
standpoint, and I will prove to you that you are doing harm not
good, with many of your boasted improvements. The schools for the
poorer children, though far less useful than they ought to be,
are good in contrast with the vile surroundings to which they
are doomed by your modern Society. The _infusion_ of a little
practical Theosophy would help a hundred times more in life
the poor suffering masses than all this infusion of (useless)
intelligence.
ENQ. But, really——
THEO. Let me finish, please. You have opened a subject on which we
Theosophists feel deeply, and I must have my say. I quite agree
that there is a great advantage to a small child bred in the
slums, having the gutter for playground, and living amid continued
coarseness of gesture and word, in being placed daily in a bright,
clean school-room hung with pictures, and often gay with flowers.
There it is taught to be clean, gentle, orderly; there it learns
to sing and to play; has toys that awaken its intelligence; learns
to use its fingers deftly; is spoken to with a smile instead of
a frown; is gently rebuked or coaxed instead of cursed. All this
humanises the children, arouses their brains, and renders them
susceptible to intellectual and moral influences. The schools are
not all they might be and ought to be; but, compared with the
homes, they are paradises; and they slowly are reacting on the
homes. But while this is true of many of the Board schools, your
system deserves the worst one can say of it.
ENQ. So be it; go on.
THEO. What is the _real_ object of modern education? Is it to cultivate
and develop the mind in the right direction; to teach the
disinherited and hapless people to carry with fortitude the burden
of life (allotted them by Karma); to strengthen their will; to
inculcate in them the love of one’s neighbour and the feeling of
mutual interdependence and brotherhood; and thus to train and form
the character for practical life? Not a bit of it. And yet, these
are undeniably the objects of all true education. No one denies
it; all your educationalists admit it, and talk very big indeed
on the subject. But what is the practical result of their action?
Every young man and boy, nay, every one of the younger generation
of schoolmasters will answer: “The object of modern education is
to pass examinations,” a system not to develop right emulation,
but to generate and breed jealousy, envy, hatred almost, in
young people for one another, and thus train them for a life of
ferocious selfishness and struggle for honours and emoluments
instead of kindly feeling.
ENQ. I must admit you are right there.
THEO. And what are these examinations—the terror of modern boyhood and
youth? They are simply a method of classification by which the
results of your school teaching are tabulated. In other words,
they form the practical application of the modern science methods
to the _genus homo, qua_ intellection. Now “science” teaches
that intellect is a result of the mechanical interaction of the
brain-stuff; therefore it is only logical that modern education
should be almost entirely mechanical—a sort of automatic machine
for the fabrication of intellect by the ton. Very little
experience of examinations is enough to show that the education
they produce is simply a training of the physical memory, and,
sooner or later, all your schools will sink to this level. As to
any real, sound cultivation of the thinking and reasoning power,
it is simply impossible while everything has to be judged by the
results as tested by competitive examinations. Again, school
training is of the very greatest importance in forming character,
especially in its moral bearing. Now, from first to last, your
modern system is based on the so-called scientific revelations:
“The struggle for existence” and the “survival of the fittest.”
All through his early life, every man has these driven into him by
practical example and experience, as well as by direct teaching,
till it is impossible to eradicate from his mind the idea that
“self,” the lower, personal, animal self, is the end-all, and
be-all, of life. Here you get the great source of all the
after-misery, crime, and heartless selfishness, which you admit
as much as I do. Selfishness, as said over and over again, is the
curse of humanity, and the prolific parent of all the evils and
crimes in this life; and it is your schools which are the hotbeds
of such selfishness.
ENQ. That is all very fine as generalities, but I should like a few
facts, and to learn also how this can be remedied.
THEO. Very well, I will try and satisfy you. There are three great
divisions of scholastic establishments, board, middle-class
and public schools, running up the scale from the most grossly
commercial to the idealistic classical, with many permutations
and combinations. The practical commercial begets the modern
side, and the ancient and orthodox classical reflects its heavy
respectability even as far as the School Board pupil teacher’s
establishments. Here we plainly see the scientific and material
commercial supplanting the effete orthodox and classical. Neither
is the reason very far to seek. The objects of this branch of
education are, then, pounds, shillings, and pence, the _summum
bonum_ of the XIXth century. Thus, the energies generated by the
brain molecules of its adherents are all concentrated on one
point, and are, therefore, to some extent, an organized army
of _educated_ and speculative intellects of the minority of
men, trained against the hosts of the ignorant, simple-minded
masses doomed to be vampirised, lived and sat upon by their
intellectually stronger brethren. Such training is not only
_untheosophical_, it is simply UNCHRISTIAN. Result: The direct
outcome of this branch of education is an overflooding of the
market with money-making machines, with heartless selfish
men—animals—who have been most carefully trained to prey on their
fellows and take advantage of the ignorance of their weaker
brethren!
ENQ. Well, but you cannot assert that of our great public schools, at
any rate?
THEO. Not exactly, it is true. But though the _form_ is different, the
animating spirit is the same: _untheosophical_ and _unchristian_,
whether Eton and Harrow turn out scientists or divines and
theologians.
ENQ. Surely you don’t mean to call Eton and Harrow “commercial”?
THEO. No. Of course the Classical system is above all things
_respectable_, and in the present day is productive of some good.
It does still remain the favourite at our great public schools,
where not only an intellectual, but also a social education
is obtainable. It is, therefore, of prime importance that the
dull boys of aristocratic and wealthy parents should go to such
schools to meet the rest of the young life of the “blood” and
money classes. But unfortunately there is a huge competition even
for entrance; for the moneyed classes are increasing, and poor
but clever boys seek to enter the public schools by the rich
scholarships, both at the schools themselves and from them to the
Universities.
ENQ. According to this view, the wealthier “dullards” have to work even
harder than their poorer fellows?
THEO. It is so. But, strange to say, the faithful of the cult of the
“Survival of the fittest” do not practice their creed; for their
whole exertion is to make the naturally unfit supplant the
fit. Thus, by bribes of large sums of money, they allure the
best teachers from their natural pupils to mechanicalise their
naturally unfit progeny into professions which they uselessly
overcrowd.
ENQ. And you attribute all this to what?
THEO. All this is owing to the perniciousness of a system which turns
out goods to order, irrespective of the natural proclivities
and talents of the youth. The poor little candidate for this
progressive paradise of learning, comes almost straight from the
nursery to the treadmill of a preparatory school for sons of
gentlemen. Here he is immediately seized upon by the workmen of
the materio-intellectual factory, and crammed with Latin, French
and Greek Accidence, Dates and Tables, so that if he have any
natural genius it is rapidly squeezed out of him by the rollers of
what Carlyle has so well-called “dead vocables.”
ENQ. But surely he is taught something besides “dead vocables,” and
much of that which may lead him direct to _Theosophy_, if not
entirely into the Theosophical Society?
THEO. Not much. For of history, he will attain only sufficient
knowledge of his own particular nation to fit him with a
steel armour of prejudice against all other peoples, and be
steeped in the foul cess-pools of chronicled national hate and
blood-thirstiness; and surely, you would not call that—_Theosophy_?
ENQ. What are your further objections?
THEO. Added to this is a smattering of selected, so-called, Biblical
facts, from the study of which all intellect is eliminated. It is
simply a memory lesson, the “Why” of the teacher being a “Why” of
circumstances and not of reason.
ENQ. Yes; but I have heard you congratulate yourself at the
ever-increasing number of the Agnostics and Atheists in our day,
so that it appears that even people trained in the system you
abuse so heartily _do_ learn to think and reason for themselves.
THEO. Yes; but it is rather owing to a healthy reaction from that
system than due to it. We prefer immeasurably more in our Society
Agnostics, and even rank Atheists, to bigots of whatever religion.
An Agnostic’s mind is ever opened to the truth; whereas the latter
blinds the bigot like the sun does an owl. The best—_i.e._, the
most truth-loving, philanthropic, and honest—of our Fellows were,
and are, Agnostics and Atheists (disbelievers in a _personal_
God). But there are no _free_-thinking boys and girls, and
generally early training will leave its mark behind in the shape
of a cramped and distorted mind. A proper and sane system of
education should produce the most vigorous and liberal mind,
strictly trained in logical and accurate thought, and not in blind
faith. How can you ever expect good results, while you pervert
the reasoning faculty of your children by bidding them believe in
the miracles of the Bible on Sunday, while for the six other days
of the week you teach them that such things are scientifically
impossible?
ENQ. What would you have, then?
THEO. If we had money, we would found schools which would turn out
something else than reading and writing candidates for starvation.
Children should above all be taught self-reliance, love for all
men, altruism, mutual charity, and more than anything else, to
think and reason for themselves. We would reduce the purely
mechanical work of the memory to an absolute minimum, and devote
the time to the development and training of the inner senses,
faculties and latent capacities. We would endeavour to deal with
each child as a unit, and to educate it so as to produce the most
harmonious and equal unfoldment of its powers, in order that its
special aptitudes should find their full natural development. We
should aim at creating _free_ men and women, free intellectually,
free morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and above all things,
_unselfish_. And we believe that much if not all of this could be
obtained by _proper and truly theosophical_ education.
WHY, THEN, IS THERE SO MUCH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE T.S.?
ENQ. If Theosophy is even half of what you say, why should there exist
such a terrible ill-feeling against it? This is even more of a
problem than anything else.
THEO. It is; but you must bear in mind how many powerful adversaries we
have aroused ever since the formation of our Society. As I just
said, if the Theosophical movement were one of those numerous
modern crazes, as harmless at the end as they are evanescent, it
would be simply laughed at—as it is now by those who still do not
understand its real purport—and left severely alone. But it is
nothing of the kind. Intrinsically, Theosophy is the most serious
movement of this age; and one, moreover, which threatens the very
life of most of the time-honoured humbugs, prejudices, and social
evils of the day—those evils which fatten and make happy the upper
ten and their imitators and sycophants, the wealthy dozens of the
middle classes, while they positively crush and starve out of
existence the millions of the poor. Think of this, and you will
easily understand the reason of such a relentless persecution by
those others who, more observant and perspicacious, do see the
true nature of Theosophy, and therefore dread it.
ENQ. Do you mean to tell me that it is because a few have understood
what Theosophy leads to, that they try to crush the movement? But
if Theosophy leads only to good, surely you cannot be prepared to
utter such a terrible accusation of perfidious heartlessness and
treachery even against those few?
THEO. I am so prepared, on the contrary. I do not call the enemies we
have had to battle with during the first nine or ten years of the
Society’s existence either powerful or “dangerous”; but only those
who have arisen against us in the last three or four years. And
these neither speak, write nor preach against Theosophy, but work
in silence and behind the backs of the foolish puppets who act as
their visible _marionnettes_. Yet if _invisible_ to most of the
members of our Society, they are well known to the true “Founders”
and the protectors of our Society. But they must remain for
certain reasons unnamed at present.
ENQ. And are they known to many of you, or to yourself alone?
THEO. I never said _I_ knew them. I may or may not know them—but I know
_of them_, and this is sufficient; and _I defy them to do their
worst_. They may achieve great mischief and throw confusion
into our ranks, especially among the faint-hearted, and those
who can judge only by appearances. _They will not crush the
Society_, do what they may. Apart from these truly dangerous
enemies—“dangerous,” however, only to those Theosophists who
are unworthy of the name, and whose place is rather _outside_
than _within_ the T.S.—the number of our opponents is more than
considerable.
ENQ. Can you name these, at least, if you will not speak of the others?
THEO. Of course I can. We have to contend against (1) the hatred of the
Spiritualists, American, English, and French; (2) the constant
opposition of the clergy of all denominations; (3) especially
the relentless hatred and persecution of the missionaries in
India; (4) this led to the famous and infamous attack on our
Theosophical Society by the Society for Psychical Research, an
attack which was stirred up by a regular conspiracy organized by
the missionaries in India. Lastly, we must count the defection
of various prominent (?) members, for reasons I have already
explained, all of whom have contributed their utmost to increase
the prejudice against us.
ENQ. Cannot you give me more details about these, so that I may know
what to answer when asked—a brief history of the Society, in
short; and why the world believes all this?
THEO. The reason is simple. Most outsiders knew absolutely nothing of
the Society itself, its motives, objects or beliefs. From its very
beginning the world has seen in Theosophy nothing but certain
marvellous phenomena, in which two-thirds of the non-spiritualists
do not believe. Very soon the Society came to be regarded as a
body pretending to the possession of “miraculous” powers. The
world never realised that the Society taught absolute disbelief
in _miracle_ or even the possibility of such; that in the Society
there were only a few people who possessed such psychic powers
and but few who cared for them. Nor did it understand that the
phenomena were never produced publicly, but only privately for
friends, and merely given as an accessory, to prove by direct
demonstration that such things could be produced without dark
rooms, spirits, mediums, or any of the usual paraphernalia.
Unfortunately, this misconception was greatly strengthened and
exaggerated by the first book on the subject which excited much
attention in Europe—Mr. Sinnett’s “_Occult World_.” If this work
did much to bring the Society into prominence, it attracted still
more obloquy, derision and misrepresentation upon the hapless
heroes and heroine thereof. Of this the author was more than
warned in the _Occult World_, but did not pay attention to the
_prophecy_—for such it was, though half-veiled.
ENQ. For what, and since when, do the Spiritualists hate you?
THEO. From the first day of the Society’s existence. No sooner the fact
became known that, as a body, the T.S. did not believe in
communications with the spirits of the dead, but regarded the
so-called “spirits” as, for the most part, astral reflections of
disembodied personalities, shells, etc., than the Spiritualists
conceived a violent hatred to us and especially to the Founders.
This hatred found expression in every kind of slander,
uncharitable personal remarks, and absurd misrepresentations of
the Theosophical teachings in all the American Spiritualistic
organs. For years we were persecuted, denounced and abused. This
began in 1875 and continues to the present day. In 1879, the
headquarters of the T.S. were transferred from New York to Bombay,
India, and then permanently to Madras. When the first branch of
our Society, the British T.S., was founded in London, the English
Spiritualists came out in arms against us, as the Americans had
done; and the French Spiritists followed suit.
ENQ. But why should the clergy be hostile to you, when, after all, the
main tendency of the Theosophical doctrines is opposed to
Materialism, the great enemy of all forms of religion in our day?
THEO. The Clergy opposed us on the general principle that “He who
is not with me is against me.” Since Theosophy does not agree with
any one Sect or Creed, it is considered the enemy of all alike,
because it teaches that they are all, more or less, mistaken. The
missionaries in India hated and tried to crush us because they saw
the flower of the educated Indian youth and the Brahmins, who are
almost inaccessible to them, joining the Society in large numbers.
And yet, apart from this general class hatred, the T.S. counts in
its ranks many clergymen, and even one or two bishops.
ENQ. And what led the S.P.R. to take the field against you? You were
both pursuing the same line of study, in some respects, and
several of the Psychic Researchers belonged to your society.
THEO. First of all we were very good friends with the leaders of the
S.P.R.; but when the attack on the phenomena appeared in the
_Christian College Magazine_, supported by the pretended
revelations of a menial, the S.P.R. found that they had
compromised themselves by publishing in their “Proceedings” too
many of the phenomena which had occurred in connection with the
T.S. Their ambition is to pose as an _authoritative_ and _strictly
scientific_ body; so that they had to choose between retaining
that position by throwing overboard the T.S. and even trying to
destroy it, and seeing themselves merged, in the opinion of the
Sadducees of the _grand monde_, with the “credulous” Theosophists
and Spiritualists. There was no way for them out of it, no two
choices, and they chose to throw us overboard. It was a matter of
dire necessity for them. But so hard pressed were they to find
any apparently reasonable motive for the life of devotion and
ceaseless labour led by the two Founders, and for the complete
absence of any pecuniary profit or other advantage to them, that
our enemies were obliged to resort to the thrice-absurd, eminently
ridiculous, and now famous “Russian spy theory,” to explain this
devotion. But the old saying, “The blood of the martyr is the seed
of the Church,” proved once more correct. After the first shock of
this attack, the T.S. doubled and tripled its numbers, but the bad
impression produced still remains. A French author was right in
saying, “_Calomniez, calomniez toujours et encore, il en restera
toujours quelque chose._” Therefore it is, that unjust prejudices
are current, and that everything connected with the T.S., and
especially with its Founders, is so falsely distorted, because
based on malicious hearsay alone.
ENQ. Yet in the 14 years during which the Society has existed, you must
have had ample time and opportunity to show yourselves and your
work in their true light?
THEO. How, or when, have we been given such an opportunity? Our most
prominent members had an aversion to anything that looked like
publicly justifying themselves. Their policy has ever been: “We
must live it down”; and “What does it matter what the newspapers
say, or people think?” The Society was too poor to send out
public lecturers, and therefore the expositions of our views
and doctrines were confined to a few Theosophical works that
met with success, but which people often misunderstood, or
only knew of through hearsay. Our journals were, and still are,
boycotted; our literary works ignored; and to this day no one
seems even to feel quite certain whether the Theosophists are
a kind of Serpent-and-Devil worshippers, or simply “Esoteric
Buddhists”—whatever that may mean. It was useless for us to go
on denying, day after day and year after year, every kind of
inconceivable cock-and-bull stories about us; for, no sooner was
one disposed of, than another, a still more absurd and malicious
one, was born out of the ashes of the first. Unfortunately,
human nature is so constituted that any good said of a person
is immediately forgotten and never repeated. But one has only
to utter a calumny, or to start a story—no matter how absurd,
false or incredible it may be, if only it is connected with some
unpopular character—for it to be successful and forthwith accepted
as a historical fact. Like _Don Basilio’s_ “CALUMNIA,” the rumour
springs up, at first, as a soft gentle breeze hardly stirring the
grass under your feet, and arising no one knows whence; then, in
the shortest space of time, it is transformed into a strong wind,
begins to blow a gale, and forthwith becomes a roaring storm! A
calumny among news, is what an octopus is among fishes; it sucks
into one’s mind, fastens upon our memory, which feeds upon it,
leaving indelible marks even after the calumny has been bodily
destroyed. A calumnious lie is the only master-key that will open
any and every brain. It is sure to receive welcome and hospitality
in every human mind, the highest as the lowest, if only a little
prejudiced, and no matter from however base a quarter and motive
it has started.
ENQ. Don’t you think your assertion altogether too sweeping? The
Englishman has never been over-ready to believe in anything said,
and our nation is proverbially known for its love of fair play. A
lie has no legs to stand upon for long, and—
THEO. The Englishman is as ready to believe evil as a man of any other
nation; for it is human nature, and not a national feature. As
to lies, if they have no legs to stand upon, according to the
proverb, they have exceedingly rapid wings; and they can and do
fly farther and wider than any other kind of news, in England
as elsewhere. Remember lies and calumny are the only kind of
literature we can always get gratis, and without paying any
subscription. We can make the experiment if you like. Will you,
who are so interested in Theosophical matters, and have heard
so much about us, will you put me questions on as many of these
rumours and “hearsays” as you can think of? I will answer you
the truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the strictest
verification.
ENQ. Before we change the subject, let us have the whole truth on this
one. Now, some writers have called your teachings “immoral
and pernicious”; others, on the ground that many so-called
“authorities” and Orientalists find in the Indian religions
nothing but sex-worship in its many forms, accuse you of teaching
nothing better than Phallic worship. They say that since modern
Theosophy is so closely allied with Eastern, and particularly
Indian, thought, it cannot be free from this taint. Occasionally,
even, they go so far as to accuse European Theosophists of
reviving the practices connected with this cult. How about this?
THEO. I have heard and read about this before, and I answer that no
more utterly baseless and lying calumny has ever been invented
and circulated. “Silly people can see but silly dreams,” says
a Russian proverb. It makes one’s blood boil to hear such vile
accusations made without the slightest foundation, and on the
strength of mere inferences. Ask the hundreds of honourable
English men and women who have been members of the Theosophical
Society for years whether an _immoral_ precept or a _pernicious_
doctrine was ever taught to them. Open the _Secret Doctrine_,
and you will find page after page denouncing the Jews and other
nations precisely on account of this devotion to Phallic rites,
due to the dead letter interpretation of nature symbolism, and
the grossly materialistic conceptions of her dualism in all the
_exoteric_ creeds. Such ceaseless and malicious misrepresentation
of our teachings and beliefs is really disgraceful.
ENQ. But you cannot deny that the Phallic element _does_ exist in the
religions of the East?
THEO. Nor do I deny it; only I maintain that this proves no more than
does its presence in Christianity, the religion of the West. Read
Hargrave Jenning’s _Rosicrucians_, if you would assure yourself of
it. In the East, the Phallic symbolism is, perhaps, more crude,
because more true to nature, or I would rather say, more _naïve_
and sincere than in the West. But it is not more licentious,
nor does it suggest to the Oriental mind the same gross and
coarse ideas as to the Western, with, perhaps, one or two
exceptions, such as the shameful sect known as the “Maharajah,” or
_Vallabhachârya_ sect.
ENQ. A writer in the _Agnostic_ journal—one of your accusers—has just
hinted that the followers of this disgraceful sect are
Theosophists, and “claim true Theosophic insight.”
THEO. He wrote a falsehood, and that’s all. There never was, nor is
there at present, one single Vallabhachârya in our Society. As to
their having, or claiming Theosophic insight, that is another fib,
based on crass ignorance about the Indian Sects. Their “Maharajah”
only claims a right to the money, wives and daughters of his
foolish followers and no more. This sect is despised by all the
other Hindus.
But you will find the whole subject dealt with at length in the _Secret
Doctrine_, to which I must again refer you for detailed
explanations. To conclude, the very soul of Theosophy is dead
against Phallic worship; and its occult or esoteric section more
so even than the exoteric teachings. There never was a more lying
statement made than the above. And now ask me some other questions.
IS THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY A MONEY-MAKING CONCERN?
ENQ. Agreed. Well, have either of the Founders, Colonel H. S. Olcott or
H. P. Blavatsky, ever made any money, profit, or derived any
worldly benefit from the T.S., as some papers say?
THEO. Not one penny. The papers lie. On the contrary, they have both
given all they had, and literally beggared themselves. As for
“worldly benefits,” think of the calumnies and vilification they
have been subjected to, and then ask the question!
ENQ. Yet I have read in a good many missionary organs that the entrance
fees and subscriptions much more than covered all expenses; and
one said that the Founders were making twenty thousand pounds a
year!
THEO. This is a fib, like many others. In the published accounts of
January, 1889, you will find an exact statement of _all_ the money
ever received from any source since 1879. The total received from
all sources (entrance fees, donations, etc., etc.) during these
ten years is under six thousand pounds, and of this a large part
was contributed by the Founders themselves from the proceeds of
their private resources and their literary work. All this has been
openly and officially admitted, even by our enemies, the Psychic
Research Society. And now both the Founders are penniless; one,
too old and ill to work as she did before, unable to spare time
for outside literary work to help the Society in money, can only
write for the Theosophical cause; the other keeps labouring for it
as before, and receives as little thanks for it.
ENQ. But surely they need money to live?
THEO. Not at all. So long as they have food and lodging, even though
they owe it to the devotion of a few friends, they need little
more.
ENQ. But could not Madame Blavatsky, especially, make more than enough
to live upon by her writings?
THEO. When in India she received on the average some thousand rupees a
year for articles contributed to Russian and other papers, but
gave it all away to the Society.
ENQ. Political articles?
THEO. Never. Everything she has written throughout the seven years of
her stay in India is all there in print. It deals only with
the religions, ethnology, and customs of India, and with
Theosophy—never with politics, of which she knows nothing and
cares less. Again, two years ago she refused several contracts
amounting together to about 1,200 roubles in gold per month; for
she could not accept them without abandoning her work for the
Society, which needed all her time and strength. She has documents
to prove it.
ENQ. But why could not both she and Colonel Olcott do as others—notably
many Theosophists—do; follow out their respective professions and
devote the surplus of their time to the work of the Society?
THEO. Because by serving two masters, either the professional or the
philanthropic work would have had to suffer. Every true
Theosophist is morally bound to sacrifice the personal to the
impersonal, his own _present_ good to the _future_ benefit of
other people. If the Founders do not set the example, who will?
ENQ. And are there many who follow it?
THEO. I am bound to answer you the truth. In Europe about half-a-dozen
in all, out of more than that number of Branches.
ENQ. Then it is not true that the Theosophical Society has a large
capital or endowment of its own?
THEO. It is false, for it has none at all. Now that the entrance fee of
£1 and the small annual due have been abolished, it is even a
doubtful question whether the staff at the headquarters in India
will not soon be starved to death.
ENQ. Then why not raise subscriptions?
THEO. We are not the Salvation Army; we _cannot_ and _have never_
begged; nor have we ever followed the example of the Churches and
sects and “taken up collections.” That which is occasionally sent
for the support of the Society, the small sums contributed by some
devoted Fellows, are all voluntary donations.
ENQ. But I have heard of large sums of money given to Mdme. Blavatsky.
It was said four years ago that she got £5,000 from one rich,
young “Fellow,” who went out to join them in India and £10,000
from another wealthy and well-known American gentleman, one of
your members who died in Europe four years ago.
THEO. Say to those who told you this, that they either themselves
utter, or repeat, a gross falsehood. _Never has_ “Madame
Blavatsky” _asked or received_ ONE PENNY from the two above-named
gentlemen, nor anything like that from anyone else, since the
Theosophical Society was founded. Let any man living try to
substantiate this calumny, and it will be easier for him to
prove that the Bank of England is a bankrupt than that the said
“Founder” has ever made any money out of Theosophy. These two
calumnies have been started by two high-born ladies, belonging
to the London aristocracy, and have been immediately traced
and disproved. They are the dead bodies, the carcases of two
inventions, which, after having been buried in the sea of
oblivion, are once more raised on the surface of the stagnant
waters of slander.
ENQ. Then I have been told of several large _legacies_ left to the T.S.
One—some £8,000—was left to it by some eccentric Englishman,
who did not even belong to the Society. The other—£3,000 or
£4,000—were testated by an Australian F.T.S. Is this true?
THEO. I heard of the first; and I also know that, whether legally left
or not, the T.S. has never profited by it, nor have the Founders
ever been officially notified of it. For, as our Society was not
then a chartered body, and thus had no legal existence, the Judge
at the Court of Probate, as we were told, paid no attention to
such legacy and turned over the sum to the heirs. So much for the
first. As for the second, it is quite true. The testator was one
of our devoted Fellows, and willed all he had to the T.S. But when
the President, Colonel Olcott, came to look into the matter, he
found that the testator had children whom he had disinherited for
some family reasons. Therefore, he called a council, and it was
decided that the legacy should be refused, and the moneys passed
to the legal heirs. The Theosophical Society would be untrue to
its name were it to profit by money to which others are entitled
virtually, at any rate on Theosophical principles, if not legally.
ENQ. Again, and I say this on the authority of your own Journal, the
_Theosophist_, there’s a Rajah of India who donated to the Society
25,000 rupees. Have you not thanked him for his great bounty in
the January _Theosophist_ for 1888?
THEO. We have, in these words, “That the thanks of the Convention be
conveyed to H. H. the Maharajah ... for his _promised munificent
gift_ of Rupees 25,000 to the Society’s Fund.” The thanks were
duly conveyed, but the money is still a “promise,” and has never
reached the Headquarters.
ENQ. But surely, if the Maharajah promised and received thanks for his
gift publicly and in print, he will be as good as his promise?
THEO. He may, though the promise is 18 months old. I speak of the
present and not of the future.
ENQ. Then how do you propose to go on?
THEO. So long as the T.S. has a few devoted members willing to work for
it without reward and thanks, so long as a few good Theosophists
support it with occasional donations, so long will it exist, and
nothing can crush it.
ENQ. I have heard many Theosophists speak of a “power behind the
Society” and of certain “Mahatmas,” mentioned also in Mr.
Sinnett’s works, that are said to have founded the Society, to
watch over and protect it.
THEO. You may laugh, but it is so.
THE WORKING STAFF OF THE T.S.
ENQ. These men, I have heard, are great Adepts, Alchemists, and what
not. If, then, they can change lead into gold and make as much
money as they like, besides doing all kinds of miracles at will,
as related in Mr. Sinnett’s “Occult World,” why do not they find
you money, and support the Founders and the Society in comfort?
THEO. Because they did not found a “miracle club.” Because the Society
is intended to help men to develop the powers latent in them
through their own exertions and merit. Because whatever they may
or may not produce in the way of phenomena, they are not _false
coiners_; nor would they throw an additional and very strong
temptation on the path of members and candidates: _Theosophy is
not to be bought_. Hitherto, for the past 14 years, not a single
working member has ever received pay or salary from either the
Masters or the Society.
ENQ. Then are none of your workers paid at all?
THEO. Till now, not one. But as every one has to eat, drink, and clothe
himself, all those who are without any means of their own, and
devote their whole time to the work of the society, are provided
with the necessaries of life at the Headquarters at Madras, India,
though these “necessaries” are humble enough, in truth! (See
Rules at the end.) But now that the Society’s work has increased
so greatly and still goes on in increasing (N.B., _owing to
slanders_) in Europe, we need more working hands. We hope to have
a few members who will henceforth be remunerated—if the word _can_
be used in the cases in question. For every one of these Fellows,
who are preparing to give _all_ their time to the Society, are
quitting good official situations with excellent prospects, to
work for us at _less than half their former salary_.
ENQ. And who will provide the funds for this?
THEO. Some of our Fellows who are just a little richer than the rest.
The man who would speculate or make money on Theosophy would be
unworthy to remain in our ranks.
ENQ. But you must surely make money by your books, magazines, and other
publications?
THEO. The _Theosophist_ of Madras, alone among the magazines, pays a
profit, and this has regularly been turned over to the Society,
year by year, as the published accounts show. _Lucifer_ is
slowly but steadily ingulfing money, never yet having paid
expenses—thanks to its being boycotted by the pious booksellers
and railway stalls. The _Lotus_, in France—started on the private
and not very large means of a Theosophist, who has devoted to it
his whole time and labour—has ceased to exist, owing to the same
causes, alas! Nor does the New York _Path_ pay its way, while the
_Revue Théosophique_ of Paris has only just been started, also
from the private means of a lady-member. Moreover, whenever any of
the works issued by the Theosophical Publishing Company in London
do pay, the proceeds will be devoted to the service of the Society.
ENQ. And now please tell me all you can about the Mahatmas. So many
absurd and contradictory things are said about them, that one does
not know what to believe, and all sorts of ridiculous stories
become current.
THEO. Well may you call them “ridiculous!”
XIV. THE “THEOSOPHICAL MAHATMAS.”
ARE THEY “SPIRITS OF LIGHT” OR “GOBLINS DAMN’D”?
ENQ. Who are they, finally, those whom you call your “Masters”? Some
say they are “Spirits,” or some other kind of supernatural beings,
while others call them “myths.”
THEO. They are neither. I once heard one outsider say to another that
they were a sort of _male mermaids_, whatever such a creature may
be. But if you listen to what people say, you will never have a
true conception of them. In the first place they are _living men_,
born as we are born, and doomed to die like every other mortal.
ENQ. Yes, but it is rumoured that some of them are a thousand years
old. Is this true?
THEO. As true as the miraculous growth of hair on the head of
Meredith’s Shagpat. Truly, like the “Identical,” no Theosophical
shaving has hitherto been able to crop it. The more we deny them,
the more we try to set people right, the more absurd do the
inventions become. I have heard of Methuselah being 969 years
old; but, not being forced to believe in it, have laughed at
the statement, for which I was forthwith regarded by many as a
blasphemous heretic.
ENQ. Seriously, though, do they outlive the ordinary age of men?
THEO. What do you call the ordinary age? I remember reading in the
_Lancet_ of a Mexican who was almost 190 years old; but I have
never heard of mortal man, layman, or Adept, who could live even
half the years allotted to Methuselah. Some Adepts do exceed, by
a good deal, what you would call the ordinary age; yet there is
nothing miraculous in it, and very few of them care to live very
long.
ENQ. But what does the word “Mahatma” really mean?
THEO. Simply a “great soul,” great through moral elevation and
intellectual attainment. If the title of great is given to a
drunken soldier like Alexander, why should we not call those
“Great” who have achieved far greater conquests in Nature’s
secrets, than Alexander ever did on the field of battle? Besides,
the term is an Indian and a very old word.
ENQ. And why do you call them “Masters”?
THEO. We call them “Masters” because they are our teachers; and because
from them we have derived all the Theosophical truths, however
inadequately some of us may have expressed, and others understood,
them. They are men of great learning, whom we term Initiates,
and still greater holiness of life. They are not ascetics in
the ordinary sense, though they certainly remain apart from the
turmoil and strife of your western world.
ENQ. But is it not selfish thus to isolate themselves?
THEO. Where is the selfishness? Does not the fate of the Theosophical
Society sufficiently prove that the world is neither ready to
recognise them nor to profit by their teaching? Of what use
would Professor Clerk Maxwell have been to instruct a class of
little boys in their multiplication-table? Besides, they isolate
themselves only from the West. In their own country they go about
as publicly as other people do.
ENQ. Don’t you ascribe to them supernatural powers?
THEO. We believe in nothing supernatural, as I have told you already.
Had Edison lived and invented his phonograph two hundred years
ago, he would most probably have been burnt along with it, and the
whole attributed to the devil. The powers which they exercise are
simply the development of potencies lying latent in every man and
woman, and the existence of which even official science begins to
recognise.
ENQ. Is it true that these men _inspire_ some of your writers, and that
many, if not all, of your Theosophical works were written under
their dictation?
THEO. Some have. There are passages entirely dictated by them and
_verbatim_, but in most cases they only inspire the ideas and
leave the literary form to the writers.
ENQ. But this in itself is miraculous; is, in fact, a _miracle_. How
can they do it?
THEO. My dear Sir, you are labouring under a great mistake, and it is
science itself that will refute your arguments at no distant
day. Why should it be a “miracle,” as you call it? A miracle is
supposed to mean some operation which is supernatural, whereas
there is really nothing above or beyond NATURE and Nature’s laws.
Among the many forms of the “miracle” which have come under modern
scientific recognition, there is Hypnotism, and one phase of its
power is known as “Suggestion,” a form of thought transference,
which has been successfully used in combating particular physical
diseases, etc. The time is not far distant when the World of
Science will be forced to acknowledge that there exists as much
interaction between one mind and another, no matter at what
distance, as between one body and another in closest contact.
When two minds are sympathetically related, and the instruments
through which they function are tuned to respond magnetically and
electrically to one another, there is nothing which will prevent
the transmission of thoughts from one to the other, at will;
for since the mind is not of a tangible nature, that distance
can divide it from the subject of its contemplation, it follows
that the only difference that can exist between two minds is a
difference of STATE. So if this latter hindrance is overcome,
where is the “miracle” of _thought transference_, at whatever
distance?
ENQ. But you will admit that Hypnotism does nothing so miraculous or
wonderful as that?
THEO. On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that a Hypnotist
can affect the brain of his subject so far as to produce an
expression of his own thoughts, and even his words, through the
organism of his subject; and although the phenomena attaching to
this method of actual thought transference are as yet few in
number, no one, I presume, will undertake to say how far their
action may extend in the future, when the laws that govern their
production are more scientifically established. And so, if such
results can be produced by the knowledge of the mere rudiments of
Hypnotism, what can prevent the Adept in Psychic and Spiritual
powers from producing results which, with your present limited
knowledge of their laws, you are inclined to call “miraculous”?
ENQ. Then why do not our physicians experiment and try if they could
not do as much?[56]
THEO. Because, first of all, they are not Adepts with a thorough
understanding of the secrets and laws of psychic and spiritual
realms, but materialists, afraid to step outside the narrow groove
of matter; and, secondly, because they _must fail_ at present, and
indeed until they are brought to acknowledge that such powers are
attainable.
ENQ. And could they be taught?
THEO. Not unless they were first of all prepared, by having the
materialistic dross they have accumulated in their brains swept
away to the very last atom.
ENQ. This is very interesting. Tell me, have the Adepts thus inspired
or dictated to many of your Theosophists?
THEO. No, on the contrary, to very few. Such operations require special
conditions. An unscrupulous but skilled Adept of the Black
Brotherhood (“Brothers of the Shadow,” and Dugpas, we call
them) has far less difficulties to labour under. For, having no
laws of the Spiritual kind to trammel his actions, such a Dugpa
“sorcerer” will most unceremoniously obtain control over any
mind, and subject it entirely to his evil powers. But our Masters
will never do that. They have no right, except by falling into
Black Magic, to obtain full mastery over anyone’s immortal Ego,
and can therefore act only on the physical and psychic nature of
the subject, leaving thereby the free will of the latter wholly
undisturbed. Hence, unless a person has been brought into psychic
relationship with the Masters, and is assisted by virtue of his
full faith in, and devotion to, his Teachers, the latter, whenever
transmitting their thoughts to one with whom these conditions
are not fulfilled, experience great difficulties in penetrating
into the cloudy chaos of that person’s sphere. But this is no
place to treat of a subject of this nature. Suffice it to say,
that if the power exists, then there are Intelligences (embodied
or disembodied) which guide this power, and living conscious
instruments through whom it is transmitted and by whom it is
received. We have only to beware of _black_ magic.
ENQ. But what do you really mean by “black magic”?
THEO. Simply _abuse of psychic powers_, or of any _secret of nature_;
the fact of applying to selfish and sinful ends the powers of
Occultism. A hypnotiser, who, taking advantage of his powers of
“suggestion,” forces a subject to steal or murder, would be called
a _black magician_ by us. The famous “rejuvenating system” of Dr.
Brown-Sequard, of Paris, through a loathsome _animal injection_
into human blood—a discovery all the medical papers of Europe are
now discussing—if true, is _unconscious black magic_.
ENQ. But this is mediæval belief in witchcraft and sorcery! Even Law
itself has ceased to believe in such things?
THEO. So much the worse for law, as it has been led, through such a
lack of discrimination, into committing more than one judiciary
mistake and crime. It is the term alone that frightens you with
its “superstitious” ring in it. Would not law punish an abuse of
hypnotic powers, as I just mentioned? Nay, it has so punished it
already in France and Germany; yet it would indignantly deny that
it applied punishment to a crime of evident _sorcery_. You cannot
believe in the efficacy and reality of the _powers of suggestion_
by physicians and mesmerisers (or hypnotisers), and then refuse to
believe in the same powers when used for evil motives. And if you
do, then you believe in _Sorcery_. Yon cannot believe in good and
disbelieve in evil, accept genuine money and refuse to credit such
a thing as false coin. Nothing can exist without its contrast, and
no day, no light, no good could have any representation as such
in your consciousness, were there no night, darkness nor evil to
offset and contrast them.
ENQ. Indeed, I have known men, who, while thoroughly believing in that
which you call great psychic, or magic powers, laughed at the very
mention of Witchcraft and Sorcery.
THEO. What does it prove? Simply that they are illogical. So much the
worse for them, again. And we, knowing as we do of the existence
of good and holy Adepts, believe as thoroughly in the existence of
bad and unholy Adepts, or—Dugpas.
ENQ. But if the Masters exist, why don’t they come out before all men
and refute once for all the many charges which are made against
Mdme. Blavatsky and the Society?
THEO. What charges?
ENQ. That _they_ do not exist, and that she has invented them. That
they are men of straw, “Mahatmas of muslin and bladders.” Does not
all this injure her reputation?
THEO. In what way can such an accusation injure her in reality? Did she
ever make money on their presumed existence, or derive benefit,
or fame, therefrom? I answer that she has gained only insults,
abuse, and calumnies, which would have been very painful had she
not learned long ago to remain perfectly indifferent to such
false charges. For what does it amount to, after all? Why, to an
_implied compliment_, which, if the fools, her accusers, were not
carried away by their blind hatred, they would have thought twice
before uttering. To say that she has invented the Masters comes
to this: She must have invented every bit of philosophy that has
ever been given out in Theosophical literature. She must be the
author of the letters from which “Esoteric Buddhism” was written;
the sole inventor of every tenet found in the “Secret Doctrine,”
which, if the world were just, would be recognised as supplying
many of the missing links of science, as will be discovered a
hundred years hence. By saying what they do, they are also giving
her the credit of being far cleverer than the hundreds of men,
(many _very_ clever and not a few scientific men,) who believe in
what she says—inasmuch as she must have fooled them all! If they
speak the truth, then she must be several Mahatmas rolled into one
like a nest of Chinese boxes; since among the so-called “Mahatma
letters” are many in totally different and distinct styles, all of
which her accusers declare that she has written.
ENQ. It is just what they say. But is it not very painful to her to be
publicly denounced as “the most accomplished impostor of the age,
whose name deserves to pass to posterity,” as is done in the
Report of the “Society for Psychical Research”?
THEO. It might be painful if it were true, or came from people less
rabidly materialistic and prejudiced. As it is, personally she
treats the whole matter with contempt, while the Mahatmas simply
laugh at it. In truth, it is the greatest compliment that could be
paid to her. I say so, again.
ENQ. But her enemies claim to have proved their case.
THEO. Aye, it is easy enough to make such a claim when you have
constituted yourself judge, jury, and prosecuting counsel at
once, as they did. But who, except their direct followers and our
enemies, believe in it?
ENQ. But they sent a representative to India to investigate the matter,
didn’t they?
THEO. They did, and their final conclusion rests entirely on the
unchecked statements and unverified assertions of this young
gentleman. A lawyer who read through his report told a friend
of mine that in all his experience he had never seen “such a
_ridiculous_ and self-condemnatory document.” It was found to be
full of suppositions and “_working_ hypotheses” which mutually
destroy each other. Is this a serious charge?
ENQ. Yet it has done the Society great harm. Why, then, did she not
vindicate her own character, at least, before a Court of Law?
THEO. Firstly, because as a Theosophist, it is her duty to leave
unheeded all personal insults. Secondly, because neither the
Society nor Mdme. Blavatsky had any money to waste over such a
law-suit. And lastly, because it would have been ridiculous for
both to be untrue to their principles, because of an attack made
on them by a flock of stupid old British wethers, who had been led
to butt at them by an over frolicksome lambkin from Australia.
ENQ. This is complimentary. But do you not think that it would have
done real good to the cause of Theosophy, if she had
authoritatively disproved the whole thing once for all?
THEO. Perhaps. But do you believe that any English jury or judge would
have ever admitted the reality of psychic phenomena, even if
entirely unprejudiced beforehand? And when you remember that
they would have been set against us already by the “Russian Spy”
scare, the charge of _Atheism and infidelity_, and all the other
calumnies that have been circulated against us, you cannot fail to
see that such an attempt to obtain justice in a Court of Law would
have been worse than fruitless! All this the Psychic Researchers
knew well, and they took a base and mean advantage of their
position to raise themselves above our heads and save themselves
at our expense.
ENQ. The S.P.R. now denies completely the existence of the Mahatmas.
They say that from beginning to end they were a romance which
Madame Blavatsky has woven from her own brain?
THEO. Well, she might have done many things less clever than this. At
any rate, we have not the slightest objection to this theory. As
she always says now, she almost prefers that people should not
believe in the Masters. She declares openly that she would rather
people should seriously think that the only Mahatmaland is the
grey matter of her brain, and that, in short, she has evolved them
out of the depths of her own inner consciousness, than that their
names and grand ideal should be so infamously desecrated as they
are at present. At first she used to protest indignantly against
any doubts as to their existence. Now she never goes out of her
way to prove or disprove it. Let people think what they like.
ENQ. But, of course, these Masters _do_ exist?
THEO. We affirm _they do_. Nevertheless, this does not help much. Many
people, even some Theosophists and ex-Theosophists, say that
they have never had any proof of their existence. Very well;
then Mme. Blavatsky replies with this alternative:—If she has
invented them, then she has also invented their philosophy and
the practical knowledge which some few have acquired; and if
so, what does it matter whether they do exist or not, since she
herself is here, and _her own existence_, at any rate, can hardly
be denied? If the knowledge supposed to have been imparted by
them is good intrinsically, and it is accepted as such by many
persons of more than average intelligence, why should there be
such a _hullabaloo_ made over that question? The fact of her
being an impostor _has never been proved_, and will always remain
_sub judice_; whereas it is a certain and undeniable fact that,
by whomsoever invented, the philosophy preached by the “Masters”
is one of the grandest and most beneficent philosophies once it
is properly understood. Thus the slanderers, while moved by the
lowest and meanest feelings—those of hatred, revenge, malice,
wounded vanity, or disappointed ambition,—seem quite unaware
that they are paying the greatest tribute to her intellectual
powers. So be it, if the poor fools will have it so. Really, Mme.
Blavatsky has not the slightest objection to being represented by
her enemies as a _triple_ Adept, and a “Mahatma” to boot. It is
only her unwillingness to pose in her own sight as a crow parading
in peacock’s feathers that compels her to this day to insist upon
the truth.
ENQ. But if you have such wise and good men to guide the Society, how
is it that so many mistakes have been made?
THEO. The Masters do _not_ guide the Society, not even the Founders;
and no one has ever asserted that they did: they only watch
over and protect it. This is amply proved by the fact that no
mistakes have been able to cripple it, and no scandals from
within, nor the most damaging attacks from without, have been
able to overthrow it. The Masters look at the future, not at the
present, and every mistake is so much more accumulated wisdom for
days to come. That other “Master” who sent the man with the five
talents did not tell him how to double them, nor did he prevent
the foolish servant from burying his one talent in the earth.
Each must acquire wisdom by his own experience and merits. The
Christian Churches, who claim a far higher “Master,” the very
Holy Ghost itself, have ever been and are still guilty not only
of “mistakes,” but of a series of bloody crimes throughout the
ages. Yet, no Christian would deny, for all that, his belief in
_that_ “Master,” I suppose? although his existence is far more
_hypothetical_ than that of the Mahatmas; as no one has ever seen
the Holy Ghost, and _his_ guidance of the Church, moreover, their
own ecclesiastical history distinctly contradicts. _Errare humanum
est._ Let us return to our subject.
THE ABUSE OF SACRED NAMES AND TERMS.
ENQ. Then, what I have heard, namely, that many of your Theosophical
writers claim to have been inspired by these Masters, or to have
seen and conversed with them, is not true?
THEO. It may or it may not be true. How can I tell? The burden of proof
rests with them. Some of them, a few—very few, indeed—have
distinctly either _lied_ or were hallucinated when boasting of
such inspiration; others were truly inspired by great Adepts.
The tree is known by its fruits; and as all Theosophists have to
be judged by their deeds and not by what they write or say, so
_all_ Theosophical books must be accepted on their merits, and not
according to any claim to authority which they may put forward.
ENQ. But would Mdme. Blavatsky apply this to her own works—the _Secret
Doctrine_, for instance?
THEO. Certainly; she says expressly in the PREFACE that she gives out
the doctrines that she has learnt from the Masters, but claims no
inspiration whatever for what she has lately written. As for our
best Theosophists, they would also in this case far rather that
the names of the Masters had never been mixed up with our books
in any way. With few exceptions, most of such works are not only
imperfect, but positively erroneous and misleading. Great are
the desecrations to which the names of two of the Masters have
been subjected. There is hardly a medium who has not claimed to
have seen them. Every bogus swindling Society, for commercial
purposes, now claims to be guided and directed by “Masters,” often
supposed to be far higher than ours! Many and heavy are the sins
of those who advanced these claims, prompted either by desire for
lucre, vanity, or irresponsible mediumship. Many persons have been
plundered of their money by such societies, which offer to sell
the secrets of power, knowledge, and spiritual truth for worthless
gold. Worst of all, the sacred names of Occultism and the holy
keepers thereof have been dragged in this filthy mire, polluted
by being associated with sordid motives and immoral practices,
while thousands of men have been held back from the path of truth
and light through the discredit and evil report which such shams,
swindles, and frauds have brought upon the whole subject. I say
again, every earnest Theosophist regrets to-day, from the bottom
of his heart, that these sacred names and things have ever been
mentioned before the public, and fervently wishes that they had
been kept secret within a small circle of trusted and devoted
friends.
ENQ. The names certainly do occur very frequently now-a-days, and I
never remember hearing of such persons as “Masters” till quite
recently.
THEO. It is so; and had we acted on the wise principle of silence,
instead of rushing into notoriety and publishing all we knew and
heard, such desecration would never have occurred. Behold, only
fourteen years ago, before the Theosophical Society was founded,
all the talk was of “Spirits.” They were everywhere, in everyone’s
mouth; and no one by any chance even dreamt of talking about
living “Adepts,” “Mahatmas,” or “Masters.” One hardly heard even
the name of the Rosicrucians, while the existence of such a thing
as “Occultism” was suspected even but by very few. Now all that
is changed. We Theosophists were, unfortunately, the first to
talk of these things, to make the fact of the existence in the
East of “Adepts” and “Masters” and Occult knowledge known; and
now the name has become common property. It is on us, now, that
the Karma, the consequences of the resulting desecration of holy
names and things, has fallen. All that you now find about such
matters in current literature—and there is not a little of it—all
is to be traced back to the impulse given in this direction by
the Theosophical Society and its Founders. Our enemies profit to
this day by our mistake. The most recent book directed against
our teachings is alleged to have been written _by an Adept of
twenty years’ standing_. Now, it is a _palpable lie_. We know the
amanuensis and his _inspirers_ (as he is himself too ignorant to
have written anything of the sort). These “inspirers” are living
persons, revengeful and unscrupulous in proportion to their
intellectual powers; and these _bogus_ Adepts are not one, but
several. The cycle of “Adepts,” used as sledge-hammers to break
the theosophical heads with, began twelve years ago, with Mrs.
Emma Hardinge Britten’s “Louis” of _Art Magic_ and _Ghost-Land_,
and now ends with the “Adept” and “Author” of _The Light of
Egypt_, a work written by Spiritualists against Theosophy and its
teachings. But it is useless to grieve over what is done, and we
can only suffer in the hope that our indiscretions may have made
it a little easier for others to find the way to these Masters,
whose names are now everywhere taken in vain, and under cover of
which so many iniquities have already been perpetrated.
ENQ. Do you reject “Louis” as an Adept?
THEO. We denounce no one, leaving this noble task to our enemies. The
spiritualistic author of _Art Magic_, etc., may or may not have
been acquainted with such an Adept—and saying this, I say far
less than what that lady has said and written about us and
Theosophy for the last several years—that is her own business.
Only when, in a solemn scene of mystic vision, an alleged “Adept”
sees “spirits” presumably at Greenwich, England, through Lord
Rosse’s telescope, which was built in, and never moved from,
Parsonstown, Ireland,[57] I may well be permitted to wonder at the
ignorance of that “Adept” in matters of science. This beats all
the mistakes and blunders committed at times by the _chelas_ of
our Teachers! And it is this “Adept” that is used now to break the
teachings of our Masters!
ENQ. I quite understand your feeling in this matter, and think it only
natural. And now, in view of all that you have said and explained
to me, there is one subject on which I should like to ask you a
few questions.
THEO. If I can answer them I will. What is that?
FOOTNOTES:
[56] Such, for instance, as Prof. Bernheim and Dr. C. Lloyd Tuckey of
England; Professors Beaunis and Liégeois, of Nancy; Delbœuf of Liège;
Burot and Bourru, of Rochefort; Fontain and Sigard, of Bordeaux; Forel,
of Zurich; and Drs. Despine, of Marseilles; Van Renterghem and Van
Eeden, of Amsterdam; Wetterstrand, of Stockholm; Schrenck-Notzing, of
Leipzig, and many other physicians and writers of eminence.
[57] Vide “Ghost Land,” Part I., p. 133, _et seq._
CONCLUSION.
THE FUTURE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
ENQ. Tell me, what do you expect for Theosophy in the future?
THEO. If you speak of THEOSOPHY, I answer that, as it has existed
eternally throughout the endless cycles upon cycles of the Past,
so it will ever exist throughout the infinitudes of the Future,
because Theosophy is synonymous with EVERLASTING TRUTH.
ENQ. Pardon me; I meant to ask you rather about the prospects of the
Theosophical Society.
THEO. Its future will depend almost entirely upon the degree of
selflessness, earnestness, devotion, and last, but not least, on
the amount of knowledge and wisdom possessed by those members on
whom it will fall to carry on the work, and to direct the Society
after the death of the Founders.
ENQ. I quite see the importance of their being selfless and devoted,
but I do not quite grasp how their _knowledge_ can be as vital
a factor in the question as these other qualities. Surely the
literature which already exists, and to which constant additions
are still being made, ought to be sufficient?
THEO. I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric doctrine,
though that is most important; I spoke rather of the great
need which our successors in the guidance of the Society will
have of unbiased and clear judgment. Every such attempt as the
Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in failure, because,
sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set up
hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible
degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You
must remember that all our members have been bred and born in some
creed or religion, that all are more or less of their generation
both physically and mentally, and consequently that their
judgment is but too likely to be warped and unconsciously biased
by some or all of these influences. If, then, they cannot be
freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to recognise it
instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only
be that the Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought
or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die.
ENQ. But if this danger be averted?
THEO. Then the Society will live on into and through the twentieth
century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of
thinking and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble
ideas of Religion, Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely
it will burst asunder the iron fetters of creeds and dogmas,
of social and caste prejudices; it will break down racial and
national antipathies and barriers, and will open the way to the
practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men. Through its
teaching, through the philosophy which it has rendered accessible
and intelligible to the modern mind, the West will learn to
understand and appreciate the East at its true value. Further, the
development of the psychic powers and faculties, the premonitory
symptoms of which are already visible in America, will proceed
healthily and normally. Mankind will be saved from the terrible
dangers, both mental and bodily, which are inevitable when that
unfolding takes place, as it threatens to do, in a hot-bed of
selfishness and all evil passions. Man’s mental and psychic
growth will proceed in harmony with his moral improvement, while
his material surroundings will reflect the peace and fraternal
goodwill which will reign in his mind, instead of the discord and
strife which is everywhere apparent around us to-day.
ENQ. A truly delightful picture! But tell me, do you really expect all
this to be accomplished in one short century?
THEO. Scarcely. But I must tell you that during the last quarter of
every hundred years an attempt is made by those “Masters,” of
whom I have spoken, to help on the spiritual progress of Humanity
in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century
you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of
spirituality—or call it mysticism if you prefer—has taken place.
Some one or more persons have appeared in the world as their
agents, and a greater or less amount of occult knowledge and
teaching has been given out. If you care to do so, you can trace
these movements back, century by century, as far as our detailed
historical records extend.
ENQ. But how does this bear on the future of the Theosophical Society?
THEO. If the present attempt, in the form of our Society, succeeds
better than its predecessors have done, then it will be in
existence as an organized, living and healthy body when the time
comes for the effort of the XXth century. The general condition
of men’s minds and hearts will have been improved and purified
by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have said, their
prejudices and dogmatic illusions will have been, to some extent
at least, removed. Not only so, but besides a large and accessible
literature ready to men’s hands, the next impulse will find a
numerous and _united_ body of people ready to welcome the new
torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of men prepared for
his message, a language ready for him in which to clothe the new
truths he brings, an organization awaiting his arrival, which will
remove the merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties
from his path. Think how much one, to whom such an opportunity is
given, could accomplish. Measure it by comparison with what the
Theosophical Society actually _has_ achieved in the last fourteen
years, without _any_ of these advantages and surrounded by hosts
of hindrances which would not hamper the new leader. Consider
all this, and then tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say
that if the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to
its mission, to its original impulses through the next hundred
years—tell me, I say, if I go too far in asserting that earth will
be a heaven in the twenty-first century in comparison with what it
is now!
FINIS.
The United Lodge of Theosophists
DECLARATION
The policy of this Lodge is independent devotion to the cause
of Theosophy, without professing attachment to any Theosophical
organization. It is loyal to the great Founders of the Theosophical
Movement, but does not concern itself with dissensions or differences
of individual opinion.
The work it has on hand and the end it keeps in view are too absorbing
and too lofty to leave it the time or inclination to take part in side
issues. That work and that end is the dissemination of the Fundamental
Principles of the philosophy of Theosophy, and the exemplification
in practice of those principles, through a truer realization of the
SELF; a profounder conviction of Universal Brotherhood.
It holds that the unassailable _Basis for Union_ among Theosophists,
wherever and however situated, is “_similarity of aim, purpose and
teaching_,” and therefore has neither Constitution, By-laws nor
Officers, the sole bond between its Associates being that _basis_. And
it aims to disseminate this idea among Theosophists in the furtherance
of Unity.
It regards as Theosophists all who are engaged in the true service
of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or
organization, and
It welcomes to its association all those who are in accord with its
declared purposes and who desire to fit themselves, by study and
otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach others.
“_The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each
and all._”
* * * * *
Being in sympathy with the purposes of this Lodge, as set
forth in its “Declaration,” I hereby record my desire to
be enrolled as an Associate; it being understood that such
association calls for no obligation on my part other than
that which I, myself, determine.
The foregoing is the Form signed by Associates of the United Lodge of
Theosophists.
Inquiries are invited from all persons to whom this Movement may
appeal. Cards for signature will be sent upon request, and every
possible assistance furnished Associates in their studies and in
efforts to form local Lodges. There are no dues of any kind, and no
formalities to be complied with.
_Correspondence should be addressed to_
General Registrar, United Lodge of Theosophists
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street
“_To Spread Broadcast the Teachings of Theosophy, as Recorded
in the Writings of H. P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge._”
THEOSOPHY
_A Magazine Devoted to the Theosophical Movement, the Brotherhood
of Humanity, the Study of Occult Science and Philosophy, and Aryan
Literature._
THEOSOPHY is a Monthly Magazine devoted to the promulgation of
Theosophy as it was given by those who brought it. Established in
1912 by the United Lodge of Theosophists, the magazine is now in the
front rank of Theosophical publications and its circulation extends
to every civilized country. The first eight volumes of the magazine
contain reprints of the numerous original articles written by H. P.
Blavatsky and William Q. Judge in explanation, exemplification and
application of the philosophy recorded in their published books.
These precious articles, replete with Occult instruction, were first
published in _The Theosophist_, _Lucifer_, and _The Path_, now for
many years out of print, so that their surpassing value was lost and
inaccessible to Students of the present generation. THEOSOPHY has
made them once more available. In addition to these reprints the
magazine contains many original articles written by Robert Crosbie
and other devoted Pupils and Students of the Messengers of the
Theosophical Movement of the nineteenth century. Not the least of
the contents of the magazine are the Studies of the Teachings, the
historical articles relating to the Theosophical Movement, the Parent
Theosophical Society, and the many allied and related organizations
and societies of the present day. The entire contents of the magazine
are universal in scope and application, unbiased in treatment, and
free from sectarian or partisan influence. In order to preserve at
all times the impersonality of its tone, and that readers may form
their judgment from the inherent value perceived in the articles
and not from the names signed to them, the Editors and Contributors
remain anonymous, no living person’s name being mentioned in
connection with the authorship of any article published.
BACK VOLUMES and Back Numbers can be supplied at $5.00 per
Volume and 50 cents per Number.
SUBSCRIPTIONS can begin with any desired Number of the current
Volume. Subscription price, $2.00 per annum; single copies 25 cents
each.
Address all communications and remittances to
=Theosophy, Metropolitan Bldg., Los Angeles, Cal.=
Students interested in obtaining a clear and correct understanding of
the actual Teachings of THEOSOPHY, as recorded in the writings
of the Messengers of the Theosophical Movement of the nineteenth
century or in writings recommended by Them, should have the following
books.
KEY TO THEOSOPHY, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $2.50
An Exposition in the form of question and answer. The
best Manual for daily study and reference. A _verbatim_
reprint of the Original Edition. Large type, durably and
artistically bound in Buckram.
THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, _By_ WILLIAM Q. JUDGE, $1.25
A succinct presentation of the philosophy free from
technical expressions; a perfect condensation of the
Secret Doctrines of Man and Nature. Cloth.
THE OCCULT WORLD
ESOTERIC BUDDHISM _By_ A. P. SINNETT, _Each_, $2.00
The two earliest popular presentations of Theosophical
Teachings, containing extracts from Letters written by
the _Mahatma_ K. H. From the Plates of the Original
American Editions. Cloth.
ISIS UNVEILED, Two Volumes, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $10.00
Volume i, Science; Volume ii, Theology.
A reprint of the Original Edition of 1877. This, the
first great work of H. P. B., contains a vast wealth of
information and instruction not to be had elsewhere.
Cloth.
THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Two Volumes, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $15.00
Volume I, Cosmogenesis; Volume II, Anthropogenesis.
The Original Edition, published in 1888, is now out of
print. This Edition, published in London, contains some
unwarrantable changes, but is in the main accurate and
is the only one available. Written “_for the instruction
of students of Occultism_,” it is _sui generis_ and
absolutely invaluable to the true student of the
mysteries of Life and Being. Cloth.
ABRIDGMENT OF THE SECRET DOCTRINE, _By_ KATHERINE HILLARD, $3.00
A very good condensation of the major teachings of Madame
Blavatsky’s “Secret Doctrine” in the language of the
Author. Cloth.
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $5.00
A reprint of the Original Edition, containing an
exhaustive and scholarly treatment of the Sanskrit
and other technical terms employed in Theosophical
literature. Cloth.
THOSE who find the Teachings of Theosophy to be comprehensive,
self-explanatory, and a complete solution of all the problems of
Life from a philosophical, logical and scientific standpoint, and
who may desire to follow the Path shown in order to realize in and
for themselves the noble Ideal of Brotherhood exemplified by the
MASTERS OF WISDOM, are urged to read, ponder and assimilate to the
utmost extent possible to them, the following Treatises on the
_Heart Doctrine_:
THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE. Chosen Fragments
from The Book of the Golden Precepts. Translated
and annotated by H. P. Blavatsky. Leather, $1.50
Cloth, 1.25
THE BHAGAVAD-GITA, The Book of Devotion.
Containing the Dialogue between _Krishna_, the Supreme
Master of Devotion, and _Arjuna_, his Disciple.
Rendered into exquisite parallel terms in the English
tongue by William Q. Judge. Leather, 1.50
Cloth, 1.25
NOTES ON THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. Commentaries
of the greatest service to sincere students of to-day.
The first Seven Chapters by W. Q. Judge; the remainder
by his friend and Colleague Robert Crosbie.
Leather, 1.50
YOGA APHORISMS OF PATANJALI. The _Thought_
of this Ancient Master, whose Aphorisms have been
the guide of Disciples in the East for untold thousands
of years. Done into English terms with
Notes, by William Q. Judge. Leather, 1.50
Cloth, 1.25
LIGHT ON THE PATH. A treatise for the personal
use of those who are ignorant of the Eastern Wisdom,
and who desire to enter within its Influence. An exact
reprint of the Original Edition of 1885, together
with the Comments originally published in _Lucifer_.
Written down by M. C.
Leather, 1.50
Cloth, 1.25
LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME. Actual Letters,
by William Q. Judge, embodying Lessons and Guidance of
direct personal value to every Student and Disciple.
Volume I, Cloth, 1.00
Volume II, Cloth, 1.00
The Two Volumes bound in One, Cloth, 1.50
THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, THE BHAGAVAD-GITA,
And PATANJALI’S YOGA APHORISMS,
Bound in One Volume, Leather, 3.00
PARENTS and others interested in the Spiritual and Moral welfare
of Children and averse to the sectarian dogmas and false ideas
prevalent under the name of religious teachings, have long
felt the necessity for literature which should impart true
fundamental conceptions of Nature, of Life and of Duty to the
growing generation. As a portion of its Fraternal activities the
United Lodge of Theosophists has long maintained a _Children’s
School of Theosophy_. To this School come children of all
ages, Theosophists and Non-Theosophists as to Parentage. They
are taught the primary truths common to all religions and
philosophies, dealing with Birth, Life, Death, Law, Action,
and Duty. The Eternal Verities thus inculcated make for clean,
sturdy, wholesome physical, mental, as well as moral and
spiritual happiness and well-being. The experience thus gained
in actual practice has been embodied in two books, wherein the
lessons and instructions found helpful and formative to the
highest character are plainly and clearly outlined, with all
necessary suggestions and directions to enable Parents, Teachers
and others to fit themselves to be the better able to help and
guide the plastic minds of the Children to true perceptions of
Life and Action.
BECAUSE—FOR THE CHILDREN WHO ASK WHY.
Interesting, comprehensible and assimilable, in clear
and reverent fashion this Book presents to Children the
answers to those questions of Self that Parents find it
most difficult to meet, and affords a common basis of
understanding to Parent and Child.
Cloth, $1.25
THE ETERNAL VERITIES. A Series of Lessons in basic
truths and ideas, with complete chart and programme so
that its full value may be availed of in the instruction
of Children of all ages, whether in the School or the
Home. Original Songs, Chants, Music, Allegories and
Tales of Symbolism, in a manner not only to interest but
to carry the Lessons into the Hearts and Minds of the
Learners.
Cloth, $1.50
IN ORDER, further, to afford the maximum possible assistance
to Parents and others interested in the proper education of
Children, The United Lodge of Theosophists maintains a Bureau
of Correspondence to which particular problems connected with
the bringing-up of Children may be addressed. Replies to
enquiries are in all cases by Women Associates of the Lodge who
are themselves Mothers and Teachers and who voluntarily and
gladly give their time and experience to benefit their perplexed
Sisters. There are no fees or charges of any description in
connection with this labor of love, and all Mothers and Teachers
are invited to benefit by it. Address,
=CHILDREN’S SCHOOL OF THEOSOPHY=
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street
NO MORE important work exists for the Theosophical Student than
to be in a position to direct inquirers to channels where they
may inform themselves of the leading Principles of the teachings
of THEOSOPHY in their philosophical, ethical and scientific
bearings. The following are recommended for their exact
accuracy, their simplicity and clarity in the presentation of
the Wisdom-Religion.
ECHOES FROM THE ORIENT, _By_ WILLIAM Q. JUDGE.
A Series of Chapters written in the most admirable
style, giving an outline of Theosophy and the
Theosophical Movement, and treating of the great
Subjects of Masters, Karma, Re-incarnation and
Evolution. Cloth, $0.60
Paper, .35
CONVERSATIONS ON THEOSOPHY. A Pamphlet giving
the fundamental teachings of the Secret Doctrine.
From the writings of H. P. Blavatsky and William Q.
Judge.
Paper, envelope size, .10
In quantities for propaganda purposes, 50 copies for 2.50
KARMA AND RE-INCARNATION. A large and attractively
bound pamphlet, envelope size, containing the famous
_Aphorisms on Karma_, and a notably clear and
comprehensive treatment of the subjects of Karma and
Re-incarnation. .15
In quantities for propaganda purposes, 50 copies for 4.00
CULTURE OF CONCENTRATION, And OF OCCULT POWERS.
Two related Essays by William Q. Judge on subjects
of supreme importance. .10
EXTRACTS FROM A LETTER THAT HAS HELPED ME.
Being a statement of the _Gospel of Hope and
Responsibility_. This Letter has brought consolation
and the comfort of understanding to many regarding
the Great Mystery. .10
THOUGHTS FOR THINKERS. A Pamphlet designed for the
“man in the street,” who is often an open-minded
practical philosopher and thinker of the first rank.
These THOUGHTS are undogmatic, non-argumentative and
very suggestive. .10
The foregoing and other Books advertised in the preceding
pages may all be obtained on order through your local
Bookseller, or orders may be sent direct to the undersigned.
Inquiries are invited regarding any Theosophical Books
and Publications not specifically mentioned herein.
Correspondence and questions are also invited on
Theosophical problems and subjects from all interested.
_Address all orders and inquiries
and make all remittances payable to_
UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Key to Theosophy - Being A Clear Exposition, In The Form Of Question And - Answer Of The Ethics, Science And Philosophy" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.