I.
I was formerly a member of the Theosophical Society but dropped out many years ago, though I believe in Karma and Reincarnation, and have a great respect for Mme. Blavatsky, Mr. Judge, and their efforts. I believe there are Masters, but it seems to me the effort of the present has failed even more lamentably than former efforts of the Great Lodge. Witness the unseemly squabbles and contradictory teachings of the various “theosophical” leaders and societies, and the harm done to so many by the many cults and schools of occultism.
I endeavor quietly, when I have a chance, to instill Theosophical ideas and teachings, but I never use the word “Theosophy” nor refer to Mme. Blavatsky or Mr. Judge on account of the opprobrium with which the former is covered, and the accusations made against the latter, both in the press and by Theosophists. It seems to me that your magazine would achieve wider usefulness if you ran it more along the lines of “New Thought.”
Well Wisher.
The views expressed by “Well Wisher” are not uncommon among former members of the Theosophical Society, and some of them are held by members of Theosophical societies at the present time. There is no question about the sincerity of the enquirer, nor of those others who may hold some or all of the views expressed. Each speaks from his own viewpoint, so that the only debatable ground is as to whether the viewpoints are soundly based or not.
Those who, like “Well Wisher,” dropped out, should determine clearly why they did so. Blaming someone else for their action is not a reason. If they really believed in Masters, Karma and Reincarnation, they ought to know that but for Masters and those who represented them in the world there would be no message of Theosophy for them. How then can they take the message and reject those who brought it? To reject the Messengers is to deny the knowledge and wisdom of the Masters in selecting them.
Perhaps it was the opprobrium with which one was covered, and the accusations made against the other? If so, what do they know about the facts and the truth of what was said? Absolutely nothing but hearsay. On the other hand the writings of both Mme. Blavatsky and Mr. Judge, and the record of their efforts for the spread of Theosophy pure and simple are facts upon which safe and sane judgment may be based; not until these are studied and applied can any judgment worthy of the name be applied to these personages.
It is a matter of record that the great Teacher of Christianity was reviled, persecuted, and accused of many transgressions. What do these things matter to his followers? They are concerned in his teachings—or ought to be; they know that the work of that Teacher was incompatible with what those deluded contemporaries charged against him. The cases are parallel even if the personages are not so considered.
What have the unseemly squabbles and contradictory teachings of theosophical leaders, societies or schools of occultism to do with Theosophy? These are the children of their generation, with all its faults, follies and lack of true knowledge. Is wisdom to be judged by those of little faith and less understanding? Is it not a fact that no good thing can be done for humanity without opening the door to an equal amount of harm? Every added power for good affords an extended field for the selfish and evilly disposed. Shall those, then, who believe that the Masters of the Great Lodge through Their Messengers gave a body of knowledge to the Western world; who know that those Messengers upheld that body of knowledge under the name of Theosophy, from first to last, from the beginning of Their mission to the day of death; shall they be so faithless, so faint hearted, so cowardly, as to let that standard fall? Theosophy cannot be hurt; but those who misuse it, or who, benefiting by it, fail to uphold it, will meet with the exact results that such action entails.
What about “New Thought?” The title is a misnomer; there is no new thought. Solomon said, “That which was, is, and shall be; there is nothing new under the sun.” The ideas held may be new in the light of what was discarded for them, but this means only that they are different. All times and peoples held ideas, and changed them from time to time; each time they were no doubt called “new;” but of all these is there any record of lasting benefit to the people who held them or for posterity? Theosophy points this out, and contains in itself the evidence of Truth; it is a standard by which all religions, all systems of thought, can be tested. Let those who doubt this, study, apply and know for themselves; there is no other way to know.
Dear Well Wisher: Study the writings of H. P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge if you wish to know Theosophy as delivered to the West; join with those who are of like mind in applying and promulgating what is there learned, and you will soon arrive at a basis and understanding that will put you beyond all doubt and perplexity, and best of all, you will be doing what you can to uphold Theosophy against its conscious and unconscious enemies.
It can only be an assumption to say that the present effort has failed. Many who essayed to avail themselves of the opportunity may have done so; but what was given, still is, and the door is always open. It is early yet to judge of the effort; some in this generation and perhaps many in another generation may tell a different story. It is the parable of the sower, with a new application. Let every man prove his own work.
———
To Zadok:
I quote you two ideas advanced in the last number of your magazine, as follows:
“Through the spread of the idea of Universal Brotherhood, the truth in all things may be discovered.”
“The very first step in true mysticism and true occultism is to try to apprehend the meaning of Universal Brotherhood, without which the very highest progress in the practice of magic turns to ashes in the mouth.”
I am not a follower of any cult, religious, scientific or otherwise, but I do believe life has some higher purpose than ease, enjoyment, and selfish seeking for one’s own special safety here or hereafter. Much in your magazine appeals to me, but I can’t see what lies behind the dicta I have quoted, justifying the statements. Will you elucidate?
A Man in the Street
The understanding of the quotations undoubtedly lies in the meaning attached to the words Universal Brotherhood. The average mind considers the term as related to human beings only, to physical mankind at that; whereas in the occult philosophy it means all beings of every grade. In this wider meaning, there is presented One Source or Principle common to all and from which all differentiations proceed; upon which all rest. The evolutionary law, inherent in the whole, and expressed in each being, rules and guides the progress of each, in relation to every other.
If we thus look at all beings as the same in kind, and differing only in degree, we have a real and permanent basis of a Brotherhood which is Universal; a Unity, from and in which all segregations ebb and flow. This Unity is the basis of all law and all being. The observed operations of law in what we call beings, or in any of the kingdoms or elements of nature, are but our conditioned perceptions of the workings of the One Law. In this conception, there is an inter-relation and interaction between all beings, entailing a responsibility, whether realized or not; all separative action is destructive; the higher the consciousness, the more destructive. The woes of the world exist because of “the heresy of separateness,” and the selfish use of acquired powers, so that “the very first step . . . is to try to apprehend the meaning of Universal Brotherhood,” if real knowledge and progress is to be obtained.
Consider such an idea of Universal Brotherhood in relation to races of men, civilizations, religions, sciences, and movements of every kind, and the reason for the fall and failure in the past, and for the evidences of the same in the present can be discerned.
In a complete apprehension of Universal Brotherhood must lie the knowledge of all powers and forces, together with the wisdom that will only use these for the good of all beings.
II.
Zadok, care of Theosophy:
Will you give some ideas, as simply and clearly put as possible, on the Antaskarana? I find myself puzzled on the subject, which I should gather to be one of great importance. Perhaps others have had the same difficulty.
Student.
Answer: Occultists explain Antaskarana as the path or bridge between the Higher and the Lower Manas—that is the Divine Ego, and the personal Soul of man. It serves as a medium of communication between the two, and conveys from the Lower to the Higher Ego all those personal impressions and thoughts of men which can, by their nature, be assimilated and stored by the undying Entity, and be thus made immortal with it, these being the only elements of the evanescent Personality that survive death and time. Antaskarana is formed by Thought. The object of Theosophy is to give us a right basis for thinking; a true conception of what we are. As we think and act in accordance with this true conception, our thoughts form a channel or path between Higher and Lower Manas; the effort from the Lower sets up a corresponding influence in the Higher towards it, tending to union between.
Karana means Cause. If we take Antaskarana to mean “between causes,” we can consider the Higher Ego as primary cause, and Lower as secondary cause, the latter being a transitory aspect of the former. The Lower can and does set up causes which are wholly related to physical existence, the effects of which have to be experienced on that plane, and of a nature which cannot be assimilated by the Higher; it can by right thought, selflessness and action form “the bridge” which unites it to the Higher.
———
To Zadok:
I have long been a member of the Theosophical Society, which I esteem to be the spiritual organ of humanity, while at the same time retaining an active membership in the Christian Church. Having read the first two numbers of your magazine, I am amazed at the hostility, both open and covert, displayed in many of the articles, in reference to Christianity. How you can reconcile this with the non-sectarian attitude of the Society, and with the good work of the Churches, I cannot understand.
Theosophist.
Answer: “Theosophist” is evidently unaware that there are at least two societies calling themselves “The Theosophical Society,” and that each ignores the other. No doubt each one esteems itself “the spiritual organ of humanity,” but this is the same old sectarianism that arises from exclusiveness, and is a claim, like that of the Catholic church and many others. It is safe to say that claims indicate lack of merit; merit wins recognition without making claims.
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. If Theosophy is true, and shows itself to be so, there can be no hostility in a comparison of truth with error; comparison is not condemnation.
Becoming a member of any theosophical society does not confer any knowledge. To be a Theosophist, one must study and apply Theosophy.
If Theosophy embodies truth and non-sectarianism, why does “Theosophist” uphold a sect which is at variance with other sects and with Theosophy? Does he hope to theosophize the church? He can only do so by substituting Theosophy for the present basis held, in which case “church” would disappear. But “no man putteth new wine in old bottles, lest the bottles burst and the wine be lost.” No doubt the founder of Christianity was importuned to adapt his teachings to the forms then in vogue, and condemned for not doing so; if he had done so, we would not have had even such forms of Christianity as exist.
The function of Theosophists is to open men’s hearts and understandings to charity, justice and generosity, attributes which belong specifically to the human kingdom; when people have learned to think and feel as truly human beings should feel and think, they will act humanely, and works of charity, justice and generosity will be done spontaneously by all. Theosophists are of necessity the friends of all movements in the world, whether intellectual or simply practical, for the amelioration of the condition of mankind; as individuals they may engage in these works, but in their quality of Theosophists they have a larger, more important, and much more difficult work to do; a part of which is to convince those inclined to good works, whether in or out of churches, that misery and suffering result from false ideals of life; that a knowledge of the real nature of man and his purpose in life—true ideals in fact—is necessary to produce ideal conditions. It is a noteworthy fact that good people in all religions and at all times have performed good works in amelioration, without reducing the sum of human misery to any appreciable extent, nor preventing its recurrence. Theosophy clearly shows the cause of all sin, sorrow and suffering, and presents the fundamental bases for right thought and action. It is of vital importance that this knowledge should be spread broadcast by all who are fortunate enough to become possessed of it, and this without failing in any momentary “good work.” Sincerity, devotion and charity are noble traits, but without knowledge to guide their expressions they more often do harm than good.
———
Dear Zadok:
On page 52, December number, of Theosophy, the writer uses the following words:
“Some Theosophists are looking and longing for a ‘coming Christ,’ though how they can do so in the face of the teachings of Theosophy is a mystery.”
I see no “mystery” about it. There have been Teachers, national, racial, and world. The world certainly needs all the help it can get. Conditions are ripe for something, since all is in a state of flux; then why not the Event which so many hope and expect, and whence springs this sudden, yet fervent and wide-spread feeling?
Star of the East.
Answer: The writer of the above quotation evidently was considering the question from the point of view of the teachings of Theosophy. By Theosophy is meant that body of knowledge which was given to the world by H. P. Blavatsky, in regard to which she wrote that “it is all that can be given out to the world in this century. It will be centuries before much more is given.” There is nothing in that body of knowledge that points to any such term as “coming Christ,” nor to any possibility of such an advent in the near future. On the contrary she did say and write that Those who sent her would neither come Themselves, nor send any Messenger until the year 1975. No doubt the writer, being a student of Theosophy pure and simple, does not consider the speculations of students and followers as worthy of the name, so it should not be difficult to see his standpoint.
There have always been “teachers,” the world is full of them now; they find a fertile field among men who are unable to distinguish between “teachers” and “true teaching.”
The world certainly needs help, but was there ever a time when it was willing to take the help that was freely offered? It never was, and is not now. No past, coming or present Christ could or can change this world attitude of mind. Men must desire to know and learn the true purpose of life before conditions will change for the better; conditions are as they are because of the false ideals of life held by the great majority of mankind and their direct production. Right ideals would bring about right conditions; they cannot be produced in any other way.
“Hoping and expecting” any event is evidence of unrest and dissatisfaction, but neither of them provide any basis for realization. Much of this attitude—if not all—springs from the desire to get something for nothing—to reap where we have not sown, whereas we are all familiar with the scripture which says “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Is this feeling that such an Event should come about “sudden?” In the Old Testament there is record that prophets and redeemers were hoped for and probably expected; history records similar expectations by different peoples and sects; and in the memory of the writer from boyhood’s days there have been such expectations and even elaborate preparations. There is no record anywhere of men in general recognizing a “Christ” when he came. Perhaps He has been here and gone, after leaving His teaching for the few to profit by and perpetuate for future generations. Such things have happened, and are therefore most likely; besides which there is much evidence of the fact.
III.
To Zadok:
I venture to submit the following questions which may be of interest to others as well as myself, and would be glad to learn your views:
(a) Why do you lay such stress upon H. P. B. and W. Q. J. in your publication, as if they were differently to be regarded from any other students or exponents of Theosophy?
(b) How can a man seriously study Occultism or Theosophy and continue to mix with the world in daily life—serve two masters, in short?
(c) I would like to work for Theosophy, but have to support myself and family, which leaves me little time and no money. I have a good education and could write, or give lectures. What would you suggest?—Student.
Answer: (a) If the magazine “Theosophy,” of which you speak had been read with any attention at all, there would have been no need on your part for this question. Would therefore recommend that you buy or borrow the various numbers; there are only four of them so far. As to the question, however, a brief reply is made:
Theosophy is not a development of modern thought; it was given to the world by some person or persons; these persons knew Theosophy, or they could not communicate it; as knowers of the philosophy, they must be of necessity the teachers of it; as persons they had names; those names are H. P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge. All others are students, for from one or the other, or both of these teachers, was had all that should go by the name of Theosophy in these days. The words “should go” are used advisedly, for the name “Theosophy” is given to much that is pure speculation and useless, nay harmful. Hence the very cogent and urgent reason why students should be directed to the true source.
(b) It is only when a man knows why he is in the world that he is able to really study Theosophy or Occultism. His place and condition in the world are the results achieved by himself under law—a reaping of what he has sown. He must reap what he has sown, but there is no restriction in the way of sowing better seeds for future harvests. The fact that he has to mix with the world shows that his duty lies there; let him do that fully and faithfully, accepting as just and right whatever comes. When he has paid his debt, other conditions may confront him; let him meet them in the same way. As it is law that rules, the time must come when the question he asks will answer itself, for the world is the field of harvests, and he is the husbandman and Master. “He serves himself best, who serves all.”
(c) You have little time and no money, but would like to work for Theosophy. Writing and lecturing for Theosophy would be working for it; but before teaching, it is necessary to learn. If you can write a suitable paper, you might send it to this magazine. If you can lecture acceptably there are many lodges who would welcome your assistance. If you can do neither of these, you can attach yourself to some lodge of Associates; there will always be found something to do, if one is really anxious to help.
IV.
To Zadok:
Referring to the article entitled “Lodges of Magic” in the March number, the phrase is used: “They all stand or fall together,” in reference to the Messages from the Masters, who are generally accredited among Theosophical students as being the real Founders of the Theosophical Society.
No doubt you are aware that since the departure of Madame Blavatsky and of W. Q. Judge, numerous persons have claimed to be in communication with the Masters and to have received messages and instructions, both for themselves and for others. The messages in question and the statements in regard to them emanate from persons in the positions of leaders in the various Theosophical Societies: persons who occupy the same relative positions today that H. P. B. and W. Q. J. held in their time. Some of these “messages” seem to me trite, trivial, and wanting in that dignity and impersonality that one would associate with the idea of Masters. But all are attested and evidenced and undoubtedly accepted as genuine by many sincere students. How are we to tell, or is there no guide? Must we blindly accept all or reject all idea of Masters because some messages seem—latter-day ones particularly—wholly out of line with the earlier messages?
Answer: The phrase in regard to Messages from Masters that “They all stand or fall together,” means that all messages coming through the same personage are true messages, or else that none are. Once that the existence of Masters of Wisdom is granted and full evidence is given that a certain personage is Their direct agent, it is not conceivable that either the Masters or Their agent would err in such matters. The ordinary idea of the fallibility of any human agent does not enter in this question at all as regards Mme. Blavatsky. It was She who brought to the world the knowledge of the existence of Masters, who presented to the world Their philosophy; who showed herself to be in the possession of phenomenal powers, and who was consistent throughout in all that concerned her mission. The fact that She was Their agent bespeaks for her a nature, development and intelligence far beyond the ordinary human being, however much concealed within and behind the ordinary routine of physical existence. In fact, it is not difficult to conceive that brain and body as but a mortal instrument directed and used by one or more of the Masters. Wm. Q. Judge, who knew Her best, wrote “In respect to the Teaching, She and the Masters are one and the same;” in another place he wrote, “One may place Her as high as he likes; in any event we must admit that She stands far beyond our power of comprehension.” He understood Her; upheld Her; pointed to Her as Masters’ direct agent. She in Her turn directed attention to the Masters behind Her. Neither of them desired nor would permit a personal following.
Consider these things in relation to claims made by self-styled successors. Are these not all students of the knowledge She imparted? Have any of these added anything of value to what She gave? A diligent search reveals nothing but re-arrangements interspersed with wild and useless speculations; and worse than all else a deliberate attempt to belittle the Teacher from whom they learned, and to divert attention to themselves. Would Masters be so unwise, so ungrateful to Their direct agent as to communicate with or uphold those who hold Her in contempt? Common sense says No; the occult laws made known to us deny the possibility.
Then there are the claimed messages themselves. What knowledge do they confer? To what purpose are they applied? Your question says they, or some of them, are “trite, trivial and wanting in dignity and impersonality;” what more is necessary? Masters do not write such messages. It would be well to apply the same standard to these claimed messages and their source, as was applied to those through H. P. B. Accept them all, or reject them all; there should be no hesitation in coming to a conclusion.
———
“Editors Theosophy.” London, March 2, 1913.
. . . With the exception of reprints in your valuable publication, I find no indices of authorship. Why is this? Nor do I find any mention whatever of the several great living exponents of Theosophy, nor any reference to their work or writing. I have learned that behind all action there is an impelling reason, good or bad. To me there seems to be no good reason for suppressing the names of the writers of the various very interesting, original articles you print, and there seems to me something invidious in an apparently intentional ignoring of the leaders in the Theosophical world of today.
Answer: There are no indices of authorship in the various original articles printed in this magazine, because the writers of those articles desire that these shall be judged on their own merits, and not because of any name that may be attached to them, and because the magazine is devoted to the exposition of Theosophy and not to any personality whatever.
As to living exponents of Theosophy: most of these have publications of their own, whose tone and trend is to direct attention rather to these exponents and their views than to Theosophical Teachings pure and simple. This, to our mind, is subversive of the end in view, because all living exponents of Theosophy are at best but pupil-teachers, each representing what he or she may understand of that philosophy; whereas we hold that the real duty and true appreciation of Theosophy on the part of any pupil-teacher should lead him to direct enquirers to that body of Knowledge known as Theosophy, not to the interpretations, speculations and opinions of students.
H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge were Teachers, not students. They it was who made known the philosophy; from them all students have acquired whatever of knowledge they may possess. Naturally it might be supposed that all pupil-teachers, “great living exponents” or otherwise, would carefully and consistently direct all enquirers to the Source of their own illumination, great or small, but—there is no certainty about it, and there is the sure way—which this magazine prefers to follow.
Is it, then, “invidious” to hold THEOSOPHY above and beyond all personalities, and aspire to be a simple channel through which the waters of the WISDOM-RELIGION, pure and undefiled, may flow to all?
Zadok.