Article selections by H. T. Patterson | Introductory Note and Footnotes by H.P.B.
I gladly give room to the protest which follows. It is wise and timely, and may, perhaps, ward off worse than “petty criticisms of H.P.B.” Needless to say that Mrs. Besant’s article would not have appeared had I seen it before publication. But I may point out to Mr. Patterson that much of his protest, however true, is not exactly aimed at what Mrs. Besant wrote. She did not say that the T. S. taught any particular doctrines, but merely expressed her own view that the position of one who belonged to the T. S. and ungenerously carped at the pioneer who founded it was illogical. This is clearly a matter of opinion, and Mr. Patterson puts the opposing view. One has but to read the new “Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society” for 1891 (in the Supplement of the January Theosophist), to find in Article xiii. 2, that “no Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrine as being that advanced or advocated by the Society”; and, whatever we do, we have to abide by the Rules of the T. S. Mrs. Besant would have done more wisely to have called her article “Comments on the E. S. of the Theosophical Society and H.P.B.”, she would then have been on the safe side; for a member of the E.S. who receives instructions emanating from the Masters of the Occult Philosophy, and doubts at the same time the genuineness of the source, or the honesty of the humble transmitter of the old esoteric doctrines—lies to his own soul, and is untrue to his pledge. He cannot be honest and remain in the E.S., in such a case. But then, the Esoteric Section, its qualification “of the T.S.” notwithstanding, does not represent the latter, and in future it will drop the additional words altogether. From the very beginning its second rule stated, that the “Esoteric Section has no official or corporate connection with the Exoteric Society” (see Lucifer of October, 1886). Henceforth it will be called “the Esoteric School of Theosophy”, simply. Meanwhile, I thank our brother, Mr. Patterson, for giving me this opportunity of expressing my feelings.—H.P.B.
. . . why speak of the Society as an absurdity without Masters? Are its objects, especially the first, nothing? If those objects were even partially lived up to, and again let us say “especially the first”, would no good come of it? Most certainly, and it is perhaps this good which the Masters are seeking, rather than the acceptance of any philosophy, or any recognition of themselves.1
1. Our Brother, Mr. Patterson, is quite correct.—[H.P.B.]
. . . In the article referred to in this paper it is said that H.P.B., is “willing to efface herself if thereby her mission might the better prosper”. And would she not say: “First Humanity and then the Theosophical Society, and last myself”.2
2. Most decidedly so; such has been always my principle, and I hope it is that of my friend and colleague, Col. H. S. Olcott, our President.—[H.P.B.]
We must try to understand that we are now to learn to be true shepherds when our time comes, and while being schooled must bear in mind that it is the lost sheep we are to save. The honest materialist, the honest agnostic, the honest spiritualist, the honest christian-scientist, the honest dogmatic Christian, may be an honest disbeliever in H.P.B. and the Masters, and an honest member of the Theosophical Society too, provided he is enlisted in the cause of humanity.3
3. I have repeated these words for years: it is my stereotyped answer to enquirers who ask me whether belief in the Masters is obligatory in joining the T.S.—[H.P.B.]