|Sign up or Logon to Karma E-Mail||Search the Web||Search this Site|
What the Modern Theosophical Society is Not
Your doctrines, then, are not a revival of Buddhism, nor are they entirely copied from the Neo-Platonic Theosophy?
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 honored friend, Dr. Buck:
"The Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the pro- motion 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 skeptics of every kind: To just minded and enlightened Mohammedans, Jews and oriental Patriarch-religionists: but especially to the gospel minister and missionary, whether to the barbaric or intellectual peoples, this introduction to Theosophy, or the science of the ground and mystery of all things, is most humbly and affectionately devoted.'
"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 earn- estness, and of unblemished character; and all of these writings were in orthodox form, using the Christian expressions, and like the writings of the eminent Churchmen, 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 Scrip- tures, and to illustrate and unfold the Theosophic life. These works were soon forgotten, and are now generally unknown. They sought to rreform the clergy and revive genuine piety, and were never welcomed. That one word, 'Heresy,' was suf- ficient 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 Festuss, 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 Theo- sophical 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 'Hersey' 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' and its ritual 'To Honor every truth by use.'
"How little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is understood by the masses of mankind; how seldom its transcendent importance is recognized, may be seen in the diversity of opinion and fictitious interpretations regarding the Theosophical Society. This Society was organized on this one principle, the essential Brotherhood of Man, as herein briefly outlined and imperfectly set forth. It has been assailed as Buddhistic and anti-Christian, as though it could be both these together, when 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 bro- therhood, 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, thought 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.
Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides Buddhistic ethics?
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.
What is the difference?
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, Bud- dhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists or Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be either a philanthro- pist 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 program. Otherwise he has no reason for becoming a "Fellow." Such are the majority of the exoteric Society, composed of "attached" and "unattached" members. [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.] 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 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."
This applies to lay members, as I understand. And what of those who pursue the esoteric study of Theosophy; are they the real Theosophists?
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.
Then what is the good of joining the so-called Theosophical Society in that case? Where is the incentive?
None, except the advantage of getting esoteric instructions, the genuine doctrines of the "Wisdom-Religion," and if the real program is carried out, deriving much help from mutual aid and sympathy. Union is strength and harmony, and well-regulated simultaneous efforts produce wonders. This has been the secret of all associations and commu- nities since mankind existed.
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?
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 mediaeval 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 ridi- cule the mere notion that there is any-
thing in Theosophy, Occultism, Spiritualism, or in the Kabala, the other
third is composed of the most hetero- geneous 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 it 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 expression 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.
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?
Not directly. The personal presence of
such masters is not required. Suffice it if they give instructions
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. And ounce of gold is worth a ton of dust.
But how is one to know whether the ounce is real gold or only a counterfeit?
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 al- chemy 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 his own particular science or religion. Not one of them can boast of having produced a universal or even a national benefit thereby, not even to himself. With the exception
of a few healers --of that class which the Royal College of Physicians or Surgeons would call quacks-- none have helped with their science Humanity, nor even a number of men of the same community.
Where are the Chaldees of old, those who wrought
marvellous cures, "not by charms but by simples?" Where is
an Appolloniusof Tyana, who healed the sick and raised the dead under 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.
Is the production of such healing adepts the aim of Theosophy?
Its aims are several; but the most important
of all are those which are likely to lead to the relief of human suf- fering
under any or every form, moral as well as physical. And we believe
the former to be far more important
than the latter. Theosopy 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.
Is help, then, to reach this most important aim, given only to those who study the esoteric sciences?
Not at all. Every lay member is entitled to general instruction if he only wants it; but few are willing to become what is called "working members," and most prefer to remain the drones of Theosophy. Let it be understood that private research is encouraged in the T. S., provided it does not infringe the limit which separates the exoteric from the esoteric, the blind from the conscious magic.
The Difference Between Theosophy and Occultism
You speak of Theosophy and Occultism; are they identical?
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.
What do you mean?
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.
Then is an Occultist simply a man who possesses more power than other people?
Far more --if he is a practical and really learned Occultist and not one only in name. Occult sciences are not, as described in Encyclopaedias, "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 men," thus giving him trememdous 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.
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?
Let me remind you that this remark of yours cuts both ways. The "most cultured and learned" among you regard also Christianity and every other religion as a relic of ignorance and superstition. People begin to believe now, at any rate, in hypnotism , and some --even of the most cultured-- in Theosophy and phenomena. But who among them, except preachers and blind fanatics, will confess to a belief in Biblical miracles? And this is where the point of difference comes in. There are very good and pure Theosophists who may believe in the supernatural, divine miracles included, but no Occultist will do so. For an Occultist practices scientific Theosophy, based on accurate knowledge of Nature's secret workings; but a Theosophist, practicing the powers called abnormal, minus the light of Occultism, will simply tend toward a dangerous form of mediumship, because, although holding to Theosophy and his highest conceivable code of ethics, he practices it in the dark, on sincere but blind faith. Anyone, Theosophist or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of the branches of Occult science --e.g., Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the secrets of producing physical phenomena, etc.-- without the knowledge of the philosophic rationale of these powers, is like a rudderless boat launched on a stormy ocean.
The Difference Between Theosophy and Spiritualism
But do you believe in Spiritualism?
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 "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 subject means. That which does appear objectivelyl, is only the phantom of the ex-physical man. But in psychic, and so to say, "Spiritual Spiritualism, we do believe, most decidedly.
Do you reject the phenomena also?
Assuredly not --save cases of conscious fraud.
How do you account for them, then?
In many ways. The causes of such manifestations are by no means so simple as the Spiritualists would like to believe. Foremost of all, the deus ex machina of the so-called "materializations" is usually the astral body or "double" of the medium or some one present. This astral body is also the producer or operating force in the mani- festations of slate-writing "Davenport"-like manifestations, and so on.
You say "usually;" then what is it that produces the rest?
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 phenomenal are produced by 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.
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.
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 intelli- gently 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?"
But how would you explain it?
We assert that the divine spark in man being one 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. 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 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.
"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, 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.
This means that you reject the philosophy of Spiritualism in toto?
If by "philosophy" you mean their crude theories, we do. But they have no philosophy, in truth. Their best, their most intellectual and earnest defenders say so. Their fundamental and only unimpeachable truth, namely, that phenomena occur through mediums controlled by invisible forces and intelligences --no one, except a blind materialist of the "Huxley big toe" school, will or can deny. With regard to their philosophy, however, let me read to you what the able editor of Light , than whom the Spiritualists will find no wiser nor more devoted champion, says of them and their philosophy. This is what "M. A. Oxon," one of the very few philosophical Spiritualists, writes with respect to their lack of organization and blind bigotry:
It is worthwhile to look steadily at this point, for it is of vital moment. We have an experience and a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is comparatively insignificant. The ordinary Spiritualist waxes wroth if anyone ventures to umpugn 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 thedark 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 re-subdivided sects of Spiritualists shake their heads, and are 'na certain about' 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 fitful energy, undisciplined effort --these mean bungling failure. The voice of humanity attests the truth. Does the Spiritualist accept the verdict and act on the conclusion? Verily, no. He refuses to organize. He is a law unto himself, and a thorn in the side of his neighbors." --Light, June 22, 1889
I was told that the Theosophical Society was
originally founded to crush Spiritualism and belief in the survival of
the inviduality in man. [ Is that true?]
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 practiced by the masses, simply transcendental materialism.
Please explain your idea more clearly.
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.
But what is the distinction between this "true individuality" and the "I" or "Ego" of which we are all conscious?
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 th 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 the "experiences" are really the "I" or the Ego, nor do they give "Mr. Smith" the feeling that he is himself, for he forgets the greater part of his daily experiences, and they produce the feeling of Egoity in him only while they last. We Theosophists, therefore, distinguish between this bundle of "experiences." which we call the false (because so finite and evanescent) personality, and that element in man to which the feeling of "I am I" is due.
It is this "I am I" which we call the true individuality; and we say that this "Ego" or individuality plays, like an actor, many parts on the stage of life. Let us call every new life on earth of the same Ego a night on the stage of a theater. One night the actor, or "Ego," appears as "Macbeth," the next as "Shylock," the third as "Romeo," the fouth as "Hamlet" or "King Lear," and so on, until he has run the whole cycle of incarnations. The Ego begins his life-pilgrimage as a sprite, an "Ariel," or a "Puck"; he plays the part of a super, is a soldier, a servant, one of the chorus; rises then to "speaking parts," plays leading roles, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally retires from the stage as "Prospero," the magician.
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 indivicuality, to return if he likes to the scene of his former actions?
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.
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?
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 national 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.
But how did this system come to be put forward just now?
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.
Are we to regard Theosophy in any way a revelation?
In no way whatever --not even in the sense of a new and direct disclosure from some higher, supernatural, or at least, superhuman beings; but only in the sense of an "unveiling" of old, very old, truths to minds hitherto ignorant of them, ignorant even of the existence and preservation of any such archaic knowledge.
"It has become "fashionable," --especially of late, to deride the notion that there ever was in the mysteries of great and civilized peoples, such as the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans, anything but priestly imposture. Even the Rosicrucians were no better than half lunatics, half knaves. Numerous books have been written on them; and tyros, who had hardly heard the name a few years before,sallied forth 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?"
You spoke of "persecution." If truth is as represented by Theosophy, why has it met with such opposition, and with no general acceptance?
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 Theososphic 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, up-hill 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.
All this refers rather to the ethics and philosophy of the T. S. Can you give me a general idea of the Society itself, its objects and statutes?
This was never made a secret. Ask, and you shall receive accurate answers.
But I heard that you were bound by pledges.
Only in the Arcane or "Esoteric" Section.
And also, that some members after leaving did not regard themselves bound by them. Are they right?
This shows that their idea of honor is an imperfect one. How can they be right? As well said in the Path, our theosophical organ at New York, treating of such a case: "Suppose that a soldier is tried for infringement of oath and discipline, and is dismissed from the service. In his rage at the justice he has called down, and of whose penalties he was distinctly forewarned, the soldier turns to the enemy with false information, --a spy and a 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 dishonorable man, a coward?
I believe so; but some think otherwise.
So much the worse for them. But we will talk on this subject later, if you please.