Twenty-One years ago, the last message from Madame Blavatsky was written to the American Theosophists. At that time there was but one Theosophical Society;—one head, one heart, one privilege, recognized and esteemed the world over, and which alone made united effort possible among diverse peoples. There was no “lo here” or “lo there” then: no question as to the fountain through which knowledge flowed to the world.
It was H. P. Blavatsky who called attention to the fact of the existence of Masters of Wisdom; who supplied the necessary evidence of that existence, and who was declared by Them in unmistakable terms to be Their “direct agent.”
Theosophy—as she gave it—is the rational explanation of things; its self-evident truth establishes her unique position.
With this in mind, there can be no question in regard to the importance of all She has written in relation to Theosophy, the Theosophical Society, or to Theosophists in general. As the direct agent of the Masters, it must be granted that She was in a position to know not only the then present, but the future of the Movement and of the Theosophical Society.
Her messages to the American Theosophists, if read in this light, will show a remarkable knowledge of what was and was to be, as judged by the past record and the present status.
Attention is called to the Messenger, H. P. Blavatsky, not as a person, but as a fact in nature. This disclaimer and statement has to be made, because there are many minds unable to distinguish between the two distinct positions—The Messenger of the Lodge, and the personality in use by Him in the world; the Being, using a mortal garment in order to contact and help humanity.
The messages referred to have been printed in the pages of this magazine. It may be, because of the many years that have elapsed since they were written, that the average reader may have given them but a passing consideration. There was a purpose, however, in their reproduction, and the present is written to point to and bring forward certain facts which have been lost sight of by theosophical students in general, as their course has shown.
Those who are familiar with the history of the Theosophical Society are aware that there has been a determined and sustained effort by not a few prominent writers on theosophical subjects, to minimize the unique position which H. P. Blavatsky held; to decry Her knowledge; to assume to possess greater knowledge than She; or—as with some—to assert, or allow it to be understood, that they are now obtaining from Her, directions which controvert the lines laid down and methods followed in her lifetime. Can any of these be right? All of these admit and rely upon the existence of Masters. None of them knew of such Beings until informed by H. P. B., and there being indubitable evidence that She was the direct agent of the Masters, it follows that all She has written in regard to Them, to laws, cycles and philosophy are Their statements in fact, must be accepted as such, or the whole system falls to the ground. It is philosophically unthinkable that the Masters of Wisdom, with Their knowledge, and desire to serve humanity, would use a personality so faulty as to vitiate what it was Their desire and purpose to do; yet there are some, who keeping themselves very much in the public eye, have interposed their personalities between the Messenger and the Message of those very Masters, and the innocent but unwary ones who are attracted by as much of that Message as has been allowed to reach them.
It being impossible to disguise the fact that H. P. B. brought Theosophy and a knowledge of Masters to the Western world, it was necessary for these inter-poseurs to belittle H. P. B. in order to assert their own pre-eminence, hence the well known cry “H. P. B. made mistakes.” Did she? If She made one essential error in presenting the Secret Doctrine with all that it entails, all her claims, statements, the Secret Doctrine and Theosophy itself may be set aside by anyone at his pleasure. Those who say that H. P. B. made mistakes are undermining the very foundation upon which they try to build; if She made mistakes, what is to be said, or may be said, of those who assume to follow in the path She pointed out? As Wm. Q. Judge wrote:
“The way for all Western Theosophists is through H. P. Blavatsky. She must be understood as being what she is, or the law of Karma is not understood, or the first laws of occultism. They who undervalue her gift and her creation, have not imbibed the teaching and cannot assimilate its benefits. We cannot ignore the messenger, take the message, and laugh at or give scorn to the one who brought it to us. Woe is set apart—not by Masters’ but by Nature’s laws—for those who, having started in the path with her aid, shall in any way try to belittle her and her work—still as yet not understood, and by many misunderstood.”
Let us regard facts, not claims; the Messenger and Her Message, not successors or alleged subsequent messages, if we would not sell our birthright “to know,” for a mess of pottage of “belief.”
The message of H. P. B. in the November number of this magazine was the first to the American Theosophists. It is addressed to Wm. Q. Judge as “My Dearest Brother and Co-Founder of the Theosophical Society,” and says, “it is to you chiefly, if not entirely, that the Theosophical Society owes its existence in 1888.” Such expressions from H. P. B. to Wm. Q. Judge abound in places and serve to show something of his place in and relation to the Movement.
She speaks of the fact that Theosophy had lately taken a new start in America, which marked the commencement of a new cycle in the affairs of the Society in the West. This refers to the cycle of W. Q. J.’s public work in America and elsewhere, beginning with his publication of the “Path” magazine in April, 1886. Of this magazine H. P. B. speaks in her message, saying, “It is a teacher and a power,” a fact which many have since realized.
One sentence stands out very forcibly—“But let no man set up a popery instead of Theosophy, as this would be suicidal and has ever ended most fatally. We are all fellow-students, more or less advanced; but no one belonging to the Theosophical Society ought to count himself as more than, at best, a pupil-teacher—one who has no right to dogmatize.”
How sadly this has been disregarded by persons “belonging to the Theosophical Society,” and were “at best” pupil-teachers, is known to all who are acquainted with the history of that Society. That the course has been “suicidal” the present condition and conduct clearly shows.
“Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. It is diversity of opinion, within certain limits, that keeps the Theosophical Society a living and healthy body, its many other ugly features notwithstanding. Were it not, also, for the existence of a large amount of uncertainty in the minds of students of Theosophy, such healthy divergencies would be impossible, and the Society would degenerate into a sect, in which a narrow and stereotyped creed would take the place of the living and breathing spirit of Truth and an ever-growing knowledge.”
Is it not true that there has arisen and exists in more than one quarter, the idea of “Orthodoxy” as applied to the different organizations? The assumption of pre-eminence by each is their distinctive mark; an attitude wholly subversive of, and foreign to, the spirit and genius of Theosophy, and productive of sects “in which a narrow and stereotyped creed” prevails.
“Those who gave us commission to found the Society, foresaw this now rapidly growing wave of transcendental influence following the other wave of mere phenomenalism. . . . The Theosophical Society led the van of this movement; but although Theosophical ideas have entered into every development or form which awakening spirituality has assumed, yet Theosophy pure and simple has still a severe battle to fight for recognition. . . . The fainthearted have asked in all ages for signs and wonders, and when these failed to be granted, they refused to believe. Such are not those who will ever comprehend Theosophy pure and simple. But there are others among us who realize intuitionally that the recognition of pure Theosophy—the philosophy of the rational explanation of things and not the tenets—is of the most vital importance in the Society, inasmuch as it alone can furnish the beacon-light needed to guide humanity on its true path. This should never be forgotten.”
How many Theosophical organizations are to be found who are presenting and drawing attention to “Theosophy pure and simple”—the “philosophy of the rational explanation of things?” How many who excite and pander to psychic cravings in utter disregard of the warnings of the Teacher?
“It must be remembered that the Society was not founded as a nursery for forcing a supply of Occultists—as a factory for the manufactory of Adepts.”
That this was not remembered, and is absolutely ignored by many notable writers on theosophical subjects, and by pupil-teachers, is evident on every hand. Claims of communication with, and direction by, Masters; of being reincarnations of past historical characters; of personal knowledge of Devachanic and other states; all these attract the attention of the ignorant and the unwary, and only serve to mislead and unbalance minds not too steady at the best. Besides, it may be asked, “Why are such claims made?” There is but one sufficient answer: It is to draw attention to the claimants, who evidently expect acceptance of their unsupported statements. No discriminating mind could for a moment accord belief on such grounds. And if believed, what possible benefit could result? What knowledge would thereby be ours which could be applied in that position where our karma has placed us—or furnish the beacon-light needed to guide humanity on its true path? Absolutely none.
Magazine space does not permit of further comment at this time. It is hoped, however, that sufficient has been said to point to some facts and to their bearing. The main facts to be realized and never forgotten are that we are indebted to H. P. Blavatsky for Theosophy; that She was the Teacher; that She took good care that Her Teaching should be a matter of record and accessible to every aspiring and earnest student; that She knew what the then Theosophical Society was, and was to be; that her writings one and all should be studied in the light of the above.
If the course heretofore taken has been one of error owing to misapprehension, it is not too late to undo the errors of the past. It requires but the realization on the part of individuals the world over, and a joining of hands in the effort.