“The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a somewhat intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of their science. It is offered to such as are willing to accept truth wherever it may be found, and to defend it. * * * It is meant to do even justice, and to speak the truth alike without malice or prejudice. But it shows neither mercy for enthroned error, nor reverence for usurped authority. * * * It calls for a restitution of borrowed robes, and the vindication of calumniated but glorious reputations. Toward no form of worship, no religious faith, no scientific hypothesis has its criticism been directed in any other spirit. Men and parties, sects and schools are but the mere ephemera of the world’s day. TRUTH, high seated upon its rock of adamant, is alone eternal and supreme. * * * Our work, then, is a plea for the recognition of the anciently universal Wisdom-Religion, as the only possible key to the Absolute in science and theology.”
—H. P. Blavatsky: Preface to Isis Unveiled
The foregoing words written by Madame Blavatsky in September, 1877, seem eminently appropriate to repeat here, as a text for what follows; for if She was a Messenger of TRUTH, “alone eternal and supreme,” Her message is as vital today as it ever was; while on the other hand, if She belonged but to the “ephemera of the world’s day,” there should be none so poor as to do Her reverence.
In the July, 1913, number of the American Theosophist, the leading article is by the Editor, and is entitled, “Theosophy Versus Theosophical Orthodoxy.” As the American Theosophist is published by the American Section of “The Theosophical Society” of which Mrs. Annie Besant is president, and as Mr. A. P. Warrington, the editor of the magazine, is the General Secretary of the American Section, an official sanction goes with the article and makes it dangerous for the uninformed.
The society named has the largest and most widely disseminated membership of any of the now numerous organizations which arrogate to themselves the title of “The Theosophical Society,” each with its own claim to pre-eminence, each with its own “leader” and “successor” to Madame Blavatsky, each with its own emission of “messages from the Masters,” each with its own “Initiates,” its own special band of followers—but all alike in this: that each ignores all the others; each has substituted in study and in practice its own special “revelations” and “teachers;” each makes of its own organization its fetish, and sees no incongruity between its own attitude and actions and the “First Object” of that Theosophical Society which it professes to be.
It cannot be permitted, in duty to our fellow-students of all organizations and of none, and in vindication of a calumniated but glorious reputation, that usurped authority and enthroned error should go unchallenged. Mr. Warrington’s article betrays:
(a) gross ignorance of Theosophical teaching and history;
(b) perversion of fact that can only be deliberate or irresponsible;
(c) absurd logical fallacies.
(a) Has Mr. Warrington ever even read, let alone studied, Isis Unveiled? If not, what has he to say in extenuation of one who assumes to speak ex cathedra as a Theosophist, who says that her—H. P. B.’s—“place was that of the first herald of our great movement,” and that “we accepted her message as true?” If, however, Mr. Warrington will say that he has even so much as read Isis, will he write another leading article for his magazine and give his understanding of the meaning and implication of the Preface to Isis; of the First Chapter of Volume I; of the Twelfth Chapter of Volume II; of the numerous and approving references to, comments on and citations from Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, and almost numberless Eastern and Western Sages and philosophers, all of whom were believers in and teachers of reincarnation?
Yet Mr. Warrington’s article says:
“When Isis Unveiled was written, if she knew anything about reincarnation she showed considerable self-control in not mentioning it. Colonel Olcott thought she knew nothing of it.”
From the internal evidence of Isis, as any student may know who will study the work for himself at first hand, H. P. B. did know about reincarnation and many other matters—some of which she wrote of clearly and plainly, others guardedly, others with fertile hints, and of others she spoke not at all, if we may “accept as true” her own definite statement. (S. D., I, Introductory, xvii, cf.) If the students could not see that which she showed plainly, it cannot be wondered at, however the judicious may grieve, that these students should be guilty of “wild and fanciful speculations” in which “many Theosophists and students of mysticism have indulged during the last few years.” (Ibid., Preface, viii.)
But the quotation given from Mr. Warrington’s article shows the source of his statement. That source is H. S. Olcott, not any knowledge either on Colonel Olcott’s part or Mr. Warrington’s, of what H. P. B. knew, or taught, or any but jaundiced knowledge of theosophical history. It is merely their opinion, and their powers of deduction are not such as would encourage any student of H. P. B.’s writings to view them otherwise than with compassionate tolerance.
Col. Olcott’s statements in regard to H. P. B.’s knowledge of reincarnation at the time Isis was written—1875–1877—may be found in the article, “Old Diary Leaves,” in The Theosophist of Adyar for August, 1893. There, Colonel Olcott does not merely indicate his precious opinion that H. P. B. knew nothing of reincarnation during that period, but that the Mahatma who visited him at that time knew nothing of it also! In the same article Col. Olcott affirms on one page that reincarnation was not to be found in the first two volumes of The Theosophist, but only appears in the third, and on the very next page naïvely states that “H. P. B.’s first published declaration that Re-incarnation was an element in Theosophical belief occurs in the leading article of the first number ever issued of The Theosophist (‘What is Theosophy?’ Vol. I, p. 3, October, 1879).” Incredible as this may appear, it is the fact, and all students may prove it for themselves. The entire article, the whole series of “Old Diary Leaves,” in fact, teems with evidences of a wealth of opportunity to learn, and an almost entire lack of ability to assimilate, on the part of Colonel Olcott. It is the explanation of the absurd incongruities in his statements of fact and in his deductions therefrom, as well as of the pitiable shoals of action and idea on which he so often stranded. His devotion earned him a great reward; his vanity led him and others far afield. H. P. B. warned of this very thing in her Letter to the American Convention of 1891—a letter read to the Convention by Annie Besant, by the way—in these words:
“Self-watchfulness is never more necessary than when a personal wish to lead, and wounded vanity, dress themselves in the peacock’s feathers of devotion and altruistic work.”
And Colonel Olcott himself received his warnings in a Letter to him from the Master K. H., some extracts from which are reprinted in this number of Theosophy. This letter was written in the early fall of 1888. It serves to define the status of H. P. B., as well as a laying down of lines for us all in many ways. Colonel Olcott never published the text of this Letter in his “Old Diary Leaves” and passes it with scant reference, while his life and his writings show how he failed to profit by the admonitions from the Master, and his long association with H. P. B.
Mr. Warrington’s article shows the same trend of effort, the same mental and moral ineptitude manifested in the writings of A. P. Sinnett and Mrs. Annie Besant—to speak for the present only of the particular “The Theosophical Society” to which they all belong, and to which their devotion runs, rather than to Theosophy or its Messengers.
The Sinnett type of sophistry was discussed by Mr. Judge in an article entitled, “H. P. B. was not deserted by Masters,” which was reprinted in the May number of Theosophy. Mrs. Besant’s tangency can be easily seen on comparing her article, “The Theosophical Society and H. P. B.,” written in 1890, and reprinted in the July number of Theosophy with her numerous later pronunciamentos. Mr. Warrington’s article under comment follows the same path of divagation.
This question of H. P. B.’s knowledge of and position regarding reincarnation was first raised more than 30 years ago, in Light of July 8, 1882, based on a quotation from an article in The Theosophist for June, 1882, entitled “Seeming Discrepancies.” H. P. B. replied to the Light article in The Theosophist for August, 1882, under the caption, “‘Isis Unveiled’ and the ‘Theosophist’ on Reincarnation.”
The same question was later raised in America, and in The Path for November, 1886, under the heading, “Theories about Reincarnation and Spirits,” Madame Blavatsky went over the whole ground in a way that should have settled the question for all time to come for all who might read it and attach any credibility whatever to her truthfulness.
Finally, in May, 1891—the month of her passing—H. P. B., in an article in Lucifer, entitled, “My Books,” discusses Isis amongst others of her writings. We quote one sentence:
“Save the direct quotations and the many misprints, errors and misquotations, and the general make-up of Isis Unveiled, for which I am in no way responsible, (a) every word of information found in this work or in my later writings, comes from the teachings of our Eastern Masters; and (b) that many a passage in these works has been written by me under their dictation.”
In the light of Isis itself, as well as of the several articles above cited, Mr. Warrington’s belittling statements in regard to H. P. B. show an ignorance of Theosophical teaching and history so gross as almost to be incredible.
(b) Mr. Warrington’s article goes on to say:
“her place was that of the first herald of our great movement, and we accepted her message as true. Mrs. Besant’s is that of the second, having been directly appointed by H. P. B. as her successor, and as long as she holds the position of leader her message is entitled to the same respectful acceptance. A part of H. P. B.’s message was in reality the announcement of the coming of an Avatar and she clearly felt that her work was the beginning of a campaign of education that would constitute a preparation for His advent. Although she may have believed from philosophic reasoning or other cause that He would not appear until the latter part of this century, certainly none but the literalist would see in this anything to make him believe that H. P. B., if she were living, would not now be advocating an earlier date.”
H. P. B. made no claims for herself, but she did say, “It is above everything important to keep in mind that no Theosophical book acquires the least additional value from pretended authority.” (S. D., I, Introductory, xix, note.)
Does Mr. Warrington accept H. P. B. as “herald” because of her message, or does he “accept her message as true” because she was the “herald?” If the latter, does the “place of herald” go by appointment, and if so, who “appointed” H. P. B., and how does he know it? If, however, he accepts H. P. B. as herald because of her Message, why does he speak of Mrs. Besant as having been “directly appointed by H. P. B. as her successor?” and why does he say that Mrs. Besant’s message is “entitled to the same respectful acceptance”—“as long as she holds the position of leader?”
We have heard the story of this “appointment” before. Its origin is with Annie Besant herself. If she will deny it over her signature we will print her denial and the evidence to the contrary to refresh her memory, which sadly needs stimulus. Is Mr. Warrington aware of any evidence from H. P. B. herself to support his statement? If so, why not give it? If otherwise, why make the statement? Is Mr. Warrington also ignorant of that certain circular issued from 19, Avenue Road, Regent’s Park, London, N. W., England, on May 27, 1891, and bearing the signature of Annie Besant herself along with fourteen others, wherein, among other matters, is the statement that “Bro. (W. Q.) Judge attended as the representative of H. P. B.,” and Annie Besant is mentioned as having been “appointed” by H. P. B. as “Chief Secretary * * * and Recorder of the Teachings” on April 1, 1891? As H. P. B. died between the dates of April 1, 1891, when this “appointment” was made, and May 27, 1891, when the meeting mentioned took place, what becomes of this “successor” legend, along with numerous other apocrypha?—of which more anon. If Mr. Warrington is ignorant of the above circular, we can assure him that Annie Besant is not.
And where is the evidence, from H. P. B., that “a part of her work was in reality the announcement of the coming of an Avatar,” etc.? To the contrary, there are numerous consistent references through H. P. B.’s writings to Cyclic Law and Cyclic Effort in the last quarter of each century. In addition to these, in a certain Preliminary Memorandum issued by H. P. B. she makes the specific statement:
“No Master of Wisdom from the East will himself appear or send anyone to Europe or America * * * until the year 1975.”
When one considers the facts of record, and contrasts them with the quoted statements from Mr. Warrington’s article and their implications, the only question that can arise is as to whether these and similar statements and implications of A. P. Sinnett, H. S. Olcott, Annie Besant, and others, are due to deliberate perversion or the mental irresponsibility of the catechumen.
(c) The May number of the American Theosophist contains on its front cover page a portrait of Madame Blavatsky, with this inscription beneath:
THE GREAT INITIATE OF
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
Students ought to weigh well the absurd logical fallacies involved in statements of the character of Mr. Warrington’s article, as well as in so much of the writings of Mr. Sinnett, Colonel Olcott, Mrs. Besant and others—one-time students, who later posed as teachers and authorities. Thus we have H. P. B. presented as “the great Initiate of the nineteenth Century”—and ignorant of Reincarnation! H. P. B., the “first herald of our great movement,” making a specific statement as to the time of the coming of the next “messenger”—but “nothing to make one believe” she would not now advocate “an earlier date if she were living!” H. P. B.’s message “accepted as true” and Mrs. Besant’s flatly contradictory “message” also “entitled to the same respectful acceptance”—“as long as she holds the position of leader!”
———
What is the explanation of the mental and moral decadence into which have fallen so many one-time promising students of Theosophy? The answer is clear to any thoughtful and loyal student at all familiar with the record and writings of H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge and with the history of the Theosophical Movement for the last thirty years.
The wanderers have forgotten the Source, have “spit back in the face of the Teacher,” have departed from the “lines laid down,” and are themselves the chief victims of their own mental and moral melanism. H. P. B. knew the small old path and the pitfalls of the students. Let students ponder Her Letters to the Several American Conventions; Her articles entitled “Practical Occultism,” “Occultism Versus the Occult Arts,” “The Theosophical Mahatmas,” “The Future of the Theosophical Society,” “Is Theosophy a Religion,” and “Some Words on Daily Life.” All these, and others, have been reprinted in former numbers of Theosophy. Students will thereby be able to detect the counterfeits, avoid the dangers and be in a position well and truly to help and teach others.