# The Key to Theosophy *Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-19 — 1 clipping.* --- > Transcriber's Notes: > > Underscores "_" before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_ > in the original text. > Equal signs "=" before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold= > in the original text. > Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals. > Typographical errors have been silently corrected but other variations > in spelling and punctuation remain unaltered. > The heading on page 188 was changed from “ON SELF-RELIANCE” to > “ON SELF-SACRIFICE”, to agree with the Table of Contents, and > the subject of the section. > > The Key to Theosophy > > [Illustration] > > THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY > > BEING > _A CLEAR EXPOSITION, IN THE FORM OF QUESTION AND ANSWER_ > > OF THE > ETHICS, SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY > > FOR THE STUDY OF WHICH THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY HAS > BEEN FOUNDED > > BY > H. P. BLAVATSKY > > [Reprinted Verbatim from the Original Edition > first published in 1889.] > > THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA > 1920 > > _Dedicated_ > > by > “_H. P. B._” > > _To all her Pupils_ > > _that_ > > _They may Learn and Teach > in their turn_ > > CONTENTS > > SECTION I. > Page > THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY: > The Meaning of the Name 1 > The Policy of the Theosophical Society 3 > The Wisdom-Religion Esoteric in all Ages 5 > Theosophy is not Buddhism 10 > > SECTION II. > EXOTERIC AND ESOTERIC THEOSOPHY: > What the Modern Theosophical Society is not 12 > Theosophists and Members of the “T.S.” 15 > The Difference between Theosophy and Occultism 19 > The Difference between Theosophy and Spiritualism 21 > Why is Theosophy accepted? 27 > > SECTION III. > THE WORKING SYSTEM OF THE T.S.: > The Objects of the Society 30 > The Common Origin of Man 31 > Our other Objects 36 > On the Sacredness of the Pledge 37 > > SECTION IV. > THE RELATIONS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY TO THEOSOPHY: > On Self-Improvement 40 > The Abstract and the Concrete 43 > > SECTION V. > THE FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY: > On God and Prayer 47 > Is it Necessary to Pray? 50 > Prayer Kills Self-Reliance 55 > On the Source of the Human Soul 57 > The Buddhist Teachings on the above 59 > > SECTION VI. > THEOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS AS TO NATURE AND MAN: > The Unity of All in All 64 > Evolution and Illusion 65 > The Septenary Constitution of our Planet 67 > The Septenary Nature of Man 69 > The Distinction between Soul and Spirit 72 > The Greek Teachings 75 > > SECTION VII. > ON THE VARIOUS POST-MORTEM STATES: > The Physical and the Spiritual Man 79 > Our Eternal Reward and Punishment; and on Nirvana 85 > On the Various “Principles” in Man 91 > > SECTION VIII. > ON RE-INCARNATION OR REBIRTH: > What is Memory according to Theosophical Teaching? 96 > Why do we not Remember our Past Lives? 99 > On Individuality and Personality 104 > On the Reward and Punishment of the Ego 107 > > SECTION IX. > ON THE KAMA-LOKA AND DEVACHAN: > On the Fate of the Lower “Principles” 112 > Why Theosophists do not believe in the Return of Pure “Spirits” 114 > A few Words about the Skandhas 120 > On Post-mortem and Post-natal Consciousness 123 > What is really meant by Annihilation 127 > Definite Words for Definite Things 134 > > SECTION X. > ON THE NATURE OF OUR THINKING PRINCIPLE: > The Mystery of the Ego 139 > The Complex Nature of Manas 143 > The Doctrine is Taught in St. John’s Gospel 146 > > SECTION XI. > ON THE MYSTERIES OF RE-INCARNATION: > Periodical Rebirths 155 > What is Karma? 158 > Who are Those who Know? 170 > The Difference between Faith and Knowledge; or, > Blind and Reasoned Faith 172 > Has God the Right to Forgive? 176 > > SECTION XII. > WHAT IS PRACTICAL THEOSOPHY? > Duty 180 > The Relations of the T.S. to Political Reforms 183 > On Self-Sacrifice 188 > On Charity 192 > Theosophy for the Masses 194 > How Members can Help the Society 196 > What a Theosophist ought not to do 197 > > SECTION XIII. > ON THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY: > Theosophy and Asceticism 204 > Theosophy and Marriage 207 > Theosophy and Education 208 > Why, then, is there so much Prejudice against the T.S? 214 > Is the Theosophical Society a Money-making Concern? 221 > The Working Staff of the T.S. 225 > > SECTION XIV. > THE “THEOSOPHICAL MAHATMAS”: > Are They “Spirits of Light” or “Goblins Damn’d”? 228 > The Abuse of Sacred Names and Terms 237 > > CONCLUSION. > The Future of the Theosophical Society 241 > > PREFACE > > The purpose of this book is exactly expressed in its title, “THE > KEY TO THEOSOPHY,” and needs but few words of explanation. It > is not a complete or exhaustive text-book of Theosophy, but only a > key to unlock the door that leads to the deeper study. It traces the > broad outlines of the Wisdom Religion, and explains its fundamental > principles; meeting, at the same time, the various objections raised by > the average Western enquirer, and endeavouring to present unfamiliar > concepts in a form as simple and in language as clear as possible. > That it should succeed in making Theosophy intelligible without mental > effort on the part of the reader, would be too much to expect; but it > is hoped that the obscurity still left is of the thought not of the > language, is due to depth not to confusion. To the mentally lazy or > obtuse, Theosophy must remain a riddle; for in the world mental as in > the world spiritual each man must progress by his own efforts. The > writer cannot do the reader’s thinking for him, nor would the latter > be any the better off if such vicarious thought were possible. The > need for such an exposition as the present has long been felt among > those interested in the Theosophical Society and its work, and it > is hoped that it will supply information, as free as possible from > technicalities, to many whose attention has been awakened, but who, as > yet, are merely puzzled and not convinced. > > Some care has been taken in disentangling some part of what is true > from what is false in Spiritualistic teachings as to the post-mortem > life, and to showing the true nature of Spiritualistic phænomena. > Previous explanations of a similar kind have drawn much wrath upon > the writer’s devoted head; the Spiritualists, like too many others, > preferring to believe what is pleasant rather than what is true, and > becoming very angry with anyone who destroys an agreeable delusion. For > the past year Theosophy has been the target for every poisoned arrow > of Spiritualism, as though the possessors of a half truth felt more > antagonism to the possessors of the whole truth than those who had no > share to boast of. > > Very hearty thanks are due from the author to many Theosophists who > have sent suggestions and questions, or have otherwise contributed help > during the writing of this book. The work will be the more useful for > their aid, and that will be their best reward. > > H. P. B. > > THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY. > > I. THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. > > THE MEANING OF THE NAME. > > ENQUIRER. Theosophy and its doctrines are often referred to as a > new-fangled religion. Is it a religion? > > THEOSOPHIST. It is not. Theosophy is Divine Knowledge or Science. > > ENQ. What is the real meaning of the term? > > THEO. “Divine Wisdom,” Θεοσοφία (Theosophia) or Wisdom of the gods, as > Θεογονία (theogonia), genealogy of the gods. The word Θεὸς means > a god in Greek, one of the divine beings, certainly not “God” in > the sense attached in our day to the term. Therefore, it is not > “Wisdom of God,” as translated by some, but _Divine Wisdom_ such > as that possessed by the gods. The term is many thousand years old. > > ENQ. What is the origin of the name? > > THEO. It comes to us from the Alexandrian philosophers, called lovers > of truth, Philatheians, from φιλ (phil) “loving,” and ἀλήθεια > (aletheia) “truth.” The name Theosophy dates from the third > century of our era, and began with Ammonius Saccas and his > disciples,[1] who started the Eclectic Theosophical system. > > ENQ. What was the object of this system? > > THEO. First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths upon its > disciples, and all those who were “lovers of the truth.” Hence the > motto adopted by the Theosophical Society: “There is no religion > higher than truth.”[2] The chief aim of the Founders of the > Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the three objects of its > modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to reconcile > all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, > based on eternal verities. > > ENQ. What have you to show that this is not an impossible dream; and > that all the world’s religions _are_ based on the one and the same > truth? > > THEO. Their comparative study and analysis. The “Wisdom-Religion” was > one in antiquity; and the sameness of primitive religious > philosophy is proven to us by the identical doctrines taught > to the Initiates during the MYSTERIES, an institution once > universally diffused. “All the old worships indicate the existence > of a single Theosophy anterior to them. The key that is to open > one must open all; otherwise it cannot be the right key.” (Eclect. > Philo.) > > THE POLICY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. > > ENQ. In the days of Ammonius there were several ancient great > religions, and numerous were the sects in Egypt and Palestine > alone. How could he reconcile them? > > THEO. By doing that which we again try to do now. The Neo-Platonists > were a large body, and belonged to various religious > philosophies[3]; so do our Theosophists. In those days, the Jew > Aristobulus affirmed that the ethics of Aristotle represented the > _esoteric_ teachings of the Law of Moses; Philo Judæus endeavoured > to reconcile the _Pentateuch_ with the Pythagorean and Platonic > philosophy; and Josephus proved that the Essenes of Carmel were > simply the copyists and followers of the Egyptian Therapeutæ (the > healers). So it is in our day. We can show the line of descent of > every Christian religion, as of every, even the smallest, sect. > The latter are the minor twigs or shoots grown on the larger > branches; but shoots and branches spring from the same trunk—the > WISDOM-RELIGION. To prove this was the aim of Ammonius, who > endeavoured to induce Gentiles and Christians, Jews and Idolators, > to lay aside their contentions and strifes, remembering only > that they were all in possession of the same truth under various > vestments, and were all the children of a common mother.[4] This > is the aim of Theosophy likewise. > > ENQ. What are your authorities for saying this of the ancient > Theosophists of Alexandria? > > THEO. An almost countless number of well-known writers. Mosheim, one of > them, says that:— > > “Ammonius taught that the religion of the multitude went > hand-in-hand with philosophy, and with her had shared the fate > of being by degrees corrupted and obscured with mere human > conceits, superstitions, and lies; that it ought, therefore, > to be brought back to its original purity by purging it of > this dross and expounding it upon philosophical principles; > and the whole Christ had in view was to reinstate and restore > to its primitive integrity the wisdom of the ancients; to > reduce within bounds the universally-prevailing dominion > of superstition; and in part to correct, and in part to > exterminate the various errors that had found their way into > the different popular religions.” > > This, again, is precisely what the modern Theosophists say. Only > while the great Philaletheian was supported and helped in the > policy he pursued by two Church Fathers, Clement and Athenagoras, > by all the learned Rabbis of the Synagogue, the Academy and the > Groves, and while he taught a common doctrine for all, we, his > followers on the same line, receive no recognition, but, on the > contrary, are abused and persecuted. People 1,500 years ago are > thus shown to have been more tolerant than they are in this > _enlightened_ century. > > ENQ. Was he encouraged and supported by the Church because, > notwithstanding his heresies, Ammonius taught Christianity and was > a Christian? > > THEO. Not at all. He was born a Christian, but never accepted Church > Christianity. As said of him by the same writer: > > “He had but to propound his instructions according to the > ancient pillars of Hermes, which Plato and Pythagoras knew > before, and from them constituted their philosophy. Finding the > same in the prologue of the Gospel according to St. John, he > very properly supposed that the purpose of Jesus was to restore > the great doctrine of wisdom in its primitive integrity. > The narratives of the Bible and the stories of the gods he > considered to be allegories illustrative of the truth, or > else fables to be rejected.” Moreover, as says the _Edinburgh > Encyclopedia_, “he acknowledged that Jesus Christ was an > excellent _man_ and the ‘friend of God,’ but alleged that it > was not his design entirely to abolish the worship of demons > (gods), and that his only intention was to purify the ancient > religion.” > > THE WISDOM-RELIGION ESOTERIC IN ALL AGES. > > ENQ. Since Ammonius never committed anything to writing, how can one > feel sure that such were his teachings? > > THEO. Neither did Buddha, Pythagoras, Confucius, Orpheus, Socrates, or > even Jesus, leave behind them any writings. Yet most of these > are historical personages, and their teachings have all survived. > The disciples of Ammonius (among whom Origen and Herennius) > wrote treatises and explained his ethics. Certainly the latter > are as historical, if not more so, than the Apostolic writings. > Moreover, his pupils—Origen, Plotinus, and Longinus (counsellor > of the famous Queen Zenobia)—have all left voluminous records of > the Philaletheian System—so far, at all events, as their public > profession of faith was known, for the school was divided into > exoteric and _esoteric_ teachings. > > ENQ. How have the latter tenets reached our day, since you hold that > what is properly called the WISDOM-RELIGION was esoteric? > > THEO. The WISDOM-RELIGION was ever one, and being the last word of > possible human knowledge, was, therefore, carefully preserved. It > preceded by long ages the Alexandrian Theosophists, reached the > modern, and will survive every other religion and philosophy. > > ENQ. Where and by whom was it so preserved? > > THEO. Among Initiates of every country; among profound seekers after > truth—their disciples; and in those parts of the world where such > topics have always been most valued and pursued: in India, Central > Asia, and Persia. > > ENQ. Can you give me some proofs of its esotericism? > > THEO. The best proof you can have of the fact is that every ancient > religious, or rather philosophical, cult consisted of an > esoteric or secret teaching, and an exoteric (outward public) > worship. Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the MYSTERIES > of the ancients comprised with every nation the “greater” (secret) > and “Lesser” (public) MYSTERIES—_e.g._, in the celebrated > solemnities called the _Eleusinia_, in Greece. From the > Hierophants of Samothrace, Egypt, and the initiated Brahmins of > the India of old, down to the later Hebrew Rabbis, all preserved, > for fear of profanation, their real _bona fide_ beliefs secret. > The Jewish Rabbis called their secular religious series the > _Mercavah_ (the exterior body), “the vehicle,” or, _the covering > which contains the hidden soul_—_i.e._, their highest secret > knowledge. Not one of the ancient nations ever imparted through > its priests its real philosophical secrets to the masses, but > allotted to the latter only the husks. Northern Buddhism has its > “greater” and its “lesser” vehicle, known as the _Mahayana_, the > esoteric, and the _Hinayana_, the exoteric, Schools. Nor can you > blame them for such secrecy; for surely you would not think of > feeding your flock of sheep on learned dissertations on botany > instead of on grass? Pythagoras called his _Gnosis_ “the knowledge > of things that are,” or ἡ γνῶσις τῶν ὄντων, and preserved that > knowledge for his pledged disciples only: for those who could > digest such mental food and feel satisfied; and he pledged them > to silence and secrecy. Occult alphabets and secret ciphers are > the development of the old Egyptian _hieratic_ writings, the > secret of which was, in the days of old, in the possession only > of the Hierogrammatists, or initiated Egyptian priests. Ammonius > Saccas, as his biographers tell us, bound his pupils by oath not > to divulge _his higher doctrines_ except to those who had already > been instructed in preliminary knowledge, and who were also bound > by a pledge. Finally, do we not find the same even in early > Christianity, among the Gnostics, and even in the teachings of > Christ? Did he not speak to the multitudes in parables which had a > two-fold meaning, and explain his reasons only to his disciples? > “To you,” he says, “it is given to know the mysteries of the > kingdom of heaven; but unto them that are without, all these > things are done in parables” (Mark iv. 11). “The Essenes of Judea > and Carmel made similar distinctions, dividing their adherents > into neophytes, brethren, and the _perfect_, or those initiated” > (Eclec. Phil.). Examples might be brought from every country to > this effect. > > ENQ. Can you attain the “Secret Wisdom” simply by study? Encyclopædias > define _Theosophy_ pretty much as Webster’s Dictionary does, > _i.e._, as “_supposed intercourse with God and superior spirits, > and consequent attainment of superhuman knowledge by physical > means and chemical processes_.” Is this so? > > THEO. I think not. Nor is there any lexicographer capable of > explaining, whether to himself or others, how _superhuman_ > knowledge can be attained by _physical_ or chemical processes. > Had Webster said “by _metaphysical_ and alchemical processes,” > the definition would be approximately correct: as it is, it is > absurd. Ancient Theosophists claimed, and so do the modern, that > the infinite cannot be known by the finite—_i.e._, sensed by the > finite Self—but that the divine essence could be communicated to > the higher Spiritual Self in a state of ecstacy. This condition > can hardly be attained, like _hypnotism_, by “physical and > chemical means.” > > ENQ. What is your explanation of it? > > THEO. Real ecstacy was defined by Plotinus as “the liberation of the > mind from its finite consciousness, becoming one and identified > with the infinite.” This is the highest condition, says Prof. > Wilder, but not one of permanent duration, and it is reached only > by the very _very_ few. It is, indeed, identical with that state > which is known in India as _Samadhi_. The latter is practised by > the Yogis, who facilitate it physically by the greatest abstinence > in food and drink, and mentally by an incessant endeavour to > purify and elevate the mind. Meditation is silent and _unuttered_ > prayer, or, as Plato expressed it, “the ardent turning of the > soul toward the divine; not to ask any particular good (as in the > common meaning of prayer), but for good itself—for the universal > Supreme Good” of which we are a part on earth, and out of the > essence of which we have all emerged. Therefore, adds Plato, > “remain silent in the presence of the _divine ones_, till they > remove the clouds from thy eyes and enable thee to see by the > light which issues from themselves, not what appears as good to > thee, but what is intrinsically good.”[5] > > ENQ. Theosophy, then, is not, as held by some, a newly devised scheme? > > THEO. Only ignorant people can thus refer to it. It is as old as the > world, in its teachings and ethics, if not in name, as it is also > the broadest and most catholic system among all. > > ENQ. How comes it, then, that Theosophy has remained so unknown to the > nations of the Western Hemisphere? Why should it have been a > sealed book to races confessedly the most cultured and advanced? > > THEO. We believe there were nations as cultured in days of old and > certainly more spiritually “advanced” than we are. But there are > several reasons for this willing ignorance. One of them was given > by St. Paul to the cultured Athenians—a loss, for long centuries, > of real spiritual insight, and even interest, owing to their too > great devotion to things of sense and their long slavery to the > dead letter of dogma and ritualism. But the strongest reason for > its lies in the fact that real Theosophy has ever been kept secret. > > ENQ. You have brought forward proofs that such secrecy has existed; but > what was the real cause for it? > > THEO. The causes for it were: _Firstly_, the perversity of average > human nature and its selfishness, always tending to the > gratification of _personal_ desires to the detriment of neighbours > and next of kin. Such people could never be entrusted with > _divine_ secrets. _Secondly_, their unreliability to keep the > sacred and divine knowledge from desecration. It is the latter > that led to the perversion of the most sublime truths and symbols, > and to the gradual transformation of things spiritual into > anthropomorphic, concrete, and gross imagery—in other words, to > the dwarfing of the god-idea and to idolatry. > > THEOSOPHY IS NOT BUDDHISM. > > ENQ. You are often spoken of as “Esoteric Buddhists.” Are you then all > followers of Gautama Buddha? > > THEO. No more than musicians are all followers of Wagner. Some of us > are Buddhists by religion; yet there are far more Hindus and > Brahmins than Buddhists among us, and more Christian-born > Europeans and Americans than _converted_ Buddhists. The mistake > has arisen from a misunderstanding of the real meaning of the > title of Mr. Sinnett’s excellent work, “Esoteric Buddhism,” which > last word ought to have been spelt _with one, instead of two, > d’s_, as then _Budhism_ would have meant what it was intended for, > merely “Wisdom_ism_” (Bodha, bodhi, “intelligence,” “wisdom”) > instead of _Buddhism_, Gautama’s religious philosophy. Theosophy, > as already said, is the WISDOM-RELIGION. > > ENQ. What is the difference between Buddhism, the religion founded by > the Prince of Kapilavastu, and _Budhism_, the “Wisdomism” which > you say is synonymous with Theosophy? > > THEO. Just the same difference as there is between the secret teachings > of Christ, which are called “the mysteries of the Kingdom of > Heaven,” and the later ritualism and dogmatic theology of the > Churches and Sects. _Buddha_ means the “Enlightened” by _Bodha_, > or understanding, Wisdom. This has passed root and branch into the > _esoteric_ teachings that Gautama imparted to his chosen _Arhats_ > only. > > ENQ. But some Orientalists deny that Buddha ever taught any esoteric > doctrine at all? > > THEO. They may as well deny that Nature has any hidden secrets for the > men of science. Further on I will prove it by Buddha’s > conversation with his disciple Ananda. His esoteric teachings > were simply the _Gupta Vidya_ (secret knowledge) of the ancient > Brahmins, the key to which their modern successors have, with few > exceptions, completely lost. And this _Vidya_ has passed into > what is now known as the _inner_ teachings of the _Mahayana_ > school of Northern Buddhism. Those who deny it are simply > ignorant pretenders to Orientalism. I advise you to read the Rev. > Mr. Edkins’ _Chinese Buddhism_—especially the chapters on the > Exoteric and _Esoteric_ schools and teachings—and then compare the > testimony of the whole ancient world upon the subject. > > ENQ. But are not the ethics of Theosophy identical with those taught > by Buddha? > > THEO. Certainly, because these ethics are the soul of the > Wisdom-Religion, and were once the common property of the > initiates of all nations. But Buddha was the first to embody > these lofty ethics in his public teachings, and to make them > the foundation and the very essence of his public system. It is > herein that lies the immense difference between exoteric Buddhism > and every other religion. For while in other religions ritualism > and dogma hold the first and most important place, in Buddhism > it is the ethics which have always been the most insisted upon. > This accounts for the resemblance, amounting almost to identity, > between the ethics of Theosophy and those of the religion of > Buddha. > > ENQ. Are there any great points of difference? > > THEO. One great distinction between Theosophy and _exoteric_ Buddhism > is that the latter, represented by the Southern Church, entirely > denies (a) the existence of any Deity, and (b) any conscious > _post-mortem_ life, or even any self-conscious surviving > individuality in man. Such at least is the teaching of the Siamese > sect, now considered as the _purest_ form of exoteric Buddhism. > And it is so, if we refer only to Buddha’s public teachings; the > reason for such reticence on his part I will give further on. But > the schools of the Northern Buddhist Church, established in those > countries to which his initiated Arhats retired after the Master’s > death, teach all that is now called Theosophical doctrines, > because they form part of the knowledge of the initiates—thus > proving how the truth has been sacrificed to the dead-letter by > the too-zealous orthodoxy of Southern Buddhism. But how much > grander and more noble, philosophical and scientific, even in its > dead-letter, is this teaching than that of any other Church or > religion. Yet Theosophy is not Buddhism. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [1] Also called Analogeticists. As explained by Prof. Alex. Wilder, > F.T.S., in his “Eclectic Philosophy,” they were called so because of > their practice of interpreting all sacred legends and narratives, myths > and mysteries, by a rule or principle of analogy and correspondence: so > that events which were related as having occurred in the external world > were regarded as expressing operations and experiences of the human > soul. They were also denominated Neo-Platonists. Though Theosophy, > or the Eclectic Theosophical system, is generally attributed to the > third century, yet, if Diogenes Laertius is to be credited, its origin > is much earlier, as he attributed the system to an Egyptian priest, > Pot-Amun, who lived in the early days of the Ptolemaic dynasty. The > same author tells us that the name is Coptic, and signifies one > consecrated to Amun, the God of Wisdom. Theosophy is the equivalent of > Brahma-Vidya, divine knowledge. > > [2] Eclectic Theosophy was divided under three heads: (1) Belief > in one absolute, incomprehensible and supreme Deity, or infinite > essence, which is the root of all nature, and of all that is, visible > and invisible. (2) Belief in man’s eternal immortal nature, because, > being a radiation of the Universal Soul, it is of an identical essence > with it. (3) _Theurgy_, or “divine work,” or _producing a work of > gods_; from _theoi_, “gods,” and _ergein_, “to work.” The term is > very old, but, as it belongs to the vocabulary of the MYSTERIES, > was not in popular use. It was a mystic belief—practically proven > by initiated adepts and priests—that, by making oneself as pure > as the incorporeal beings—_i.e._, by returning to one’s pristine > purity of nature—man could move the gods to impart to him Divine > mysteries, and even cause them to become occasionally visible, either > subjectively or objectively. It was the transcendental aspect of what > is now called Spiritualism; but having been abused and misconceived > by the populace, it had come to be regarded by some as necromancy, > and was generally forbidden. A travestied practice of the theurgy > of Iamblichus lingers still in the ceremonial magic of some modern > Kabalists. Modern Theosophy avoids and rejects both these kinds of > magic and “necromancy” as being very dangerous. Real _divine_ theurgy > requires an almost superhuman purity and holiness of life; otherwise > it degenerates into mediumship or black magic. The immediate disciples > of Ammonius Saccas, who was called _Theodidaktos_, “god-taught”—such > as Plotinus and his follower Porphyry—rejected theurgy at first, but > were finally reconciled to it through Iamblichus, who wrote a work > to that effect entitled “De Mysteriis,” under the name of his own > master, a famous Egyptian priest called Abammon. Ammonius Saccas was > the son of Christian parents, and, having been repelled by dogmatic > spiritualistic Christianity from his childhood, became a Neo-Platonist, > and like J. Boehme and other great seers and mystics, is said to > have had divine wisdom revealed to him in dreams and visions. Hence > his name of _Theodidaktos_. He resolved to reconcile every system of > religion, and by demonstrating their identical origin to establish > one universal creed based on ethics. His life was so blameless > and pure, his learning so profound and vast, that several Church > Fathers were his secret disciples. Clemens Alexandrinus speaks very > highly of him. Plotinus, the “St. John” of Ammonius, was also a man > universally respected and esteemed, and of the most profound learning > and integrity. When thirty-nine years of age he accompanied the Roman > Emperor Gordian and his army to the East, to be instructed by the > sages of Bactria and India. He had a School of Philosophy in Rome. > Porphyry, his disciple, whose real name was Malek (a Hellenized Jew), > collected all the writings of his master. Porphyry was himself a great > author, and gave an allegorical interpretation to some parts of Homer’s > writings. The system of meditation the Philaletheians resorted to was > ecstacy, a system akin to Indian Yoga practice. What is known of the > Eclectic School is due to Origen, Longinus, and Plotinus, the immediate > disciples of Ammonius.—(_Vide Eclectic Philos._, by A. Wilder). > > [3] It was under Philadelphus that Judaism established itself in > Alexandria, and forthwith the Hellenic teachers became the dangerous > rivals of the College of Rabbis of Babylon. As the author of “Eclectic > Philosophy” very pertinently remarks: “The Buddhistic, Vedantic, and > Magian systems were expounded along with the philosophies of Greece at > that period. It was not wonderful that thoughtful men supposed that > the strife of words ought to cease, and considered it possible to > extract one harmonious system from these various teachings.... Panænus, > Athenagoras, and Clement were thoroughly instructed in Platonic > philosophy, and comprehended its essential unity with the Oriental > systems.” > > [4] Says Mosheim of Ammonius: “Conceiving that not only the > philosophers of Greece, but also all those of the different barbarian > nations, were perfectly in unison with each other with regard to every > essential point, he made it his business so to expound the thousand > tenets of all these various sects as to show they had all originated > from one and the same source, and tended all to one and the same end.” > If the writer on Ammonius in the _Edinburgh Encyclopædia_ knows what > he is talking about, then he describes the modern Theosophists, their > beliefs, and their work, for he says, speaking of the _Theodidaktos_: > “He adopted the doctrines which were received in Egypt (the esoteric > were those of India) concerning the Universe and the Deity, considered > as constituting one great whole; concerning the eternity of the world > ... and established a system of moral discipline which allowed the > people in general to live according to the laws of their country and > the dictates of nature, but required the wise to exalt their mind by > contemplation.” > > [5] This is what the scholarly author of “The Eclectic Philosophy,” > Prof. A. Wilder, F.T.S., describes as “_spiritual photography_”: > “The soul is the camera in which facts and events, future, past, and > present, are alike fixed; and the mind becomes conscious of them. > Beyond our every-day world of limits all is one day or state—the past > and future comprised in the present.” ... “Death is the last _ecstasis_ > on earth. Then the soul is freed from the constraint of the body, and > its nobler part is united to higher nature and becomes partaker in the > wisdom and foreknowledge of the higher beings.” Real Theosophy is, for > the mystics, that state which Apollonius of Tyana was made to describe > thus: “I can see the present and the future as in a clear mirror. The > sage need not wait for the vapours of the earth and the corruption of > the air to foresee events.... The _theoi_, or gods, see the future; > common men the present; sages that which is about to take place.” > “The Theosophy of the Sages” he speaks of is well expressed in the > assertion, “The Kingdom of God is within us.” > > II. > > EXOTERIC AND ESOTERIC THEOSOPHY. > > WHAT THE MODERN THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IS NOT. > > ENQ. Your doctrines, then, are not a revival of Buddhism, nor are they > entirely copied from the Neo-Platonic Theosophy? > > THEO. 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 > honoured friend Dr. Buck:— > > “The Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose > of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the > promotion 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 sceptics > 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 dedicated.’ > > 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 earnestness, and of unblemished character; and all > of these writings were in orthodox form, using the Christian > expressions, and, like the writings of the eminent Churchman > 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 Scriptures, and > to illustrate and unfold the Theosophic life. These works > were soon forgotten, and are now generally unknown. They > sought to reform the clergy and revive genuine piety, and > were never welcomed. That one word, “Heresy,” was sufficient > 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 Festus, 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 Theosophical 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 ‘Heresy’ 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 ‘To honour every truth by use.’ > > How little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is > understood by the masses of mankind, how seldom its > transcendent importance is recognised, 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 both 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 brotherhood, 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, though 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. > > ENQ. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides > Buddhistic ethics? > > THEO. 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. > > ENQ. What is the difference? > > THEO. 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, Buddhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists or > Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be either > a philanthropist, 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 programme. Otherwise he has no reason for becoming a > “Fellow.” Such are the majority of the exoteric Society, composed > of “attached” and “unattached” members.[6] 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 the _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.” > > ENQ. This applies to lay members, as I understand. And what of those > who pursue the esoteric study of Theosophy; are they the real > Theosophists? > > THEO. 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. > > ENQ. Then what is the good of joining the so-called Theosophical > Society in that case? Where is the incentive? > > THEO. None, except the advantage of getting esoteric instructions, the > genuine doctrines of the “Wisdom-Religion,” and if the real > programme 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 communities since mankind existed. > > ENQ. 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? > > THEO. 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 mediæval 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 ridicule the > mere notion that there is anything in Theosophy, Occultism, > Spiritualism, or in the Kabala, the other third is composed of > the most heterogeneous 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 its _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 expressions 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. > > ENQ. 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? > > THEO. Not directly. The personal presence of such masters is not > required. Suffice it if they give instructions to some 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. An ounce of gold is worth a ton of > dust. > > ENQ. But how is one to know whether the ounce is real gold or only a > counterfeit? > > THEO. 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 alchemy 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 of > 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 and 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 Apollonius of Tyana, who healed the sick > and raised the dead under any 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. > > ENQ. Is the production of such healing adepts the aim of Theosophy? > > THEO. Its aims are several; but the most important of all are those > which are likely to lead to the relief of human suffering under > any or every form, moral as well as physical. And we believe the > former to be far more important than the latter. Theosophy 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. > > ENQ. Is help, then, to reach this most important aim, given only to > those who study the esoteric sciences? > > THEO. 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 SPIRITUALISM. > > ENQ. You speak of Theosophy and Occultism; are they identical? > > THEO. 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. > > ENQ. What do you mean? > > THEO. 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. > > ENQ. Then is an Occultist simply a man who possesses more power than > other people? > > THEO. Far more—if he is a _practical_ and really learned Occultist, and > not one only in name. Occult sciences are _not_, as described, > in Encyclopædias, “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 > man,” thus giving him tremendous 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. > > ENQ. 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? > > THEO. 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, practising the powers called > abnormal, _minus_ the light of Occultism, will simply tend toward > a dangerous form of mediumship, because, although holding to > Theosophy and its highest conceivable code of ethics, he practises > 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 those powers, is like a rudderless boat > launched on a stormy ocean. > > THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM. > > ENQ. But do you not believe in Spiritualism? > > THEO. 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 the > “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 subjective means_. > That which does appear objectively, is only the phantom of the > ex-physical man. But in _psychic_, and so to say, “Spiritual” > Spiritualism, we do believe, most decidedly. > > ENQ. Do you reject the phenomena also? > > THEO. Assuredly not—save cases of conscious fraud. > > ENQ. How do you account for them, then? > > THEO. 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 machinâ_ of the so-called “materializations” > is usually the astral body or “double” of the medium or of some > one present. This _astral_ body is also the producer or operating > force in the manifestations of slate-writing, “Davenport”-like > manifestations, and so on. > > ENQ. You say “usually”; then _what_ is it that produces the rest? > > THEO. 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 phenomena are produced by the > 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. > > ENQ. 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. > > THEO. 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 intelligently 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”? > > ENQ. But how would you explain it? > > THEO. We assert that the divine spark in man being one and 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. We have no desire to interfere with the belief > of the Spiritualists any more than with any other belief. 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 the most learned and intelligent among the Spiritualists are > the first to confess that not _all_ the 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.[7] > > ENQ. This means that you reject the philosophy of Spiritualism _in > toto_? > > THEO. 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 worth while 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 impugn 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 the dark 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 resubdivided sects of Spiritualists shake their heads, > and are “na certain aboot” 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 of time and labour, profit and > development. Want of method, want of plan, haphazard work, 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 > neighbours.—_Light_, June 22, 1889. > > ENQ. I was told that the Theosophical Society was originally founded to > crush Spiritualism and belief in the survival of the individuality > in man? > > THEO. 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 practised by the masses, simply > transcendental materialism. > > ENQ. Please explain your idea more clearly. > > THEO. 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. > > ENQ. But what is the distinction between this “true individuality” and > the “I” or “Ego” of which we are all conscious? > > THEO. 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 the 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 these > “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.[8] Let us call every new life on earth > of the same _Ego_ a _night_ on the stage of a theatre. One night > the actor, or “Ego,” appears as “Macbeth,” the next as “Shylock,” > the third as “Romeo,” the fourth as “Hamlet” or “King Lear,” and > so on, until he has run through 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 > _rôles_, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally > retires from the stage as “Prospero,” the _magician_. > > ENQ. 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 individuality, to return if he likes to > the scene of his former actions? > > THEO. 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. > > WHY IS THEOSOPHY ACCEPTED? > > ENQ. 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? > > THEO. 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 natural 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. > > ENQ. But how did this system come to be put forward just now? > > THEO. 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. > > ENQ. Are we to regard Theosophy in any way as a revelation? > > THEO. 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.[9] > > ENQ. You spoke of “Persecution.” If truth is as represented by > Theosophy, why has it met with such opposition, and with no > general acceptance? > > THEO. 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 > Theosophic 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, uphill 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. > > ENQ. 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 object > and statutes? > > THEO. This was never made secret. Ask, and you shall receive accurate > answers. > > ENQ. But I heard that you were bound by pledges? > > THEO. Only in the _Arcane_ or “Esoteric” Section. > > ENQ. And also, that some members after leaving did not regard > themselves bound by them. Are they right? > > THEO. This shows that their idea of honour 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 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 > dishonourable man, a coward? > > ENQ. I believe so; but some think otherwise. > > THEO. So much the worse for them. But we will talk on this subject > later, if you please. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [6] 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. > > [7] 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, although 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. > > [8] _Vide infra_, “On Individuality and Personality.” > > [9] 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 > out 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? > > III. THE WORKING SYSTEM OF THE T.S.[10] > > THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. > > ENQ. What are the objects of the “Theosophical Society”? > > THEO. They are three, and have been so from the beginning. (1). To form > the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without > distinction of race, colour, or creed. (2). To promote the > study of Aryan and other Scriptures, of the World’s religion > and sciences, and to vindicate the importance of old Asiatic > literature, namely, of the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian > philosophies. (3). To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature > under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers > latent in man especially. These are, broadly stated, the three > chief objects of the Theosophical Society. > > ENQ. Can you give me some more detailed information upon these? > > THEO. We may divide each of the three objects into as many explanatory > clauses as may be found necessary. > > ENQ. Then let us begin with the first. What means would you resort to, > in order to promote such a feeling of brotherhood among races > that are known to be of the most diversified religions, customs, > beliefs, and modes of thought? > > THEO. Allow me to add that which you seem unwilling to express. Of > course we know that with the exception of two remnants of > races—the Parsees and the Jews—every nation is divided, not merely > against all other nations, but even against itself. This is found > most prominently among the so-called civilized Christian nations. > Hence your wonder, and the reason why our first object appears to > you a Utopia. Is it not so? > > ENQ. Well, yes; but what have you to say against it? > > THEO. Nothing against the fact; but much about the necessity of > removing the causes which make Universal Brotherhood a Utopia at > present. > > ENQ. What are, in your view, these causes? > > THEO. First and foremost, the natural selfishness of human nature. This > selfishness, instead of being eradicated, is daily strengthened > and stimulated into a ferocious and irresistible feeling by the > present religious education, which tends not only to encourage, > but positively to justify it. People’s ideas about right and wrong > have been entirely perverted by the literal acceptance of the > Jewish Bible. All the unselfishness of the altruistic teachings > of Jesus has become merely a theoretical subject for pulpit > oratory; while the precepts of practical selfishness taught in > the Mosaic Bible, against which Christ so vainly preached, have > become ingrained into the innermost life of the Western nations. > “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” has come to be the > first maxim of your law. Now, I state openly and fearlessly, that > the perversity of this doctrine and of so many others _Theosophy > alone_ can eradicate. > > THE COMMON ORIGIN OF MAN. > > ENQ. How? > > THEO. Simply by demonstrating on logical, philosophical, metaphysical, > and even scientific grounds that:—(a) All men have spiritually > and physically the same origin, which is the fundamental teaching > of Theosophy. (b) As mankind is essentially of one and the same > essence, and that essence is one—infinite, uncreate, and eternal, > whether we call it God or Nature—nothing, therefore, can affect > one nation or one man without affecting all other nations and > all other men. This is as certain and as obvious as that a stone > thrown into a pond will, sooner or later, set in motion every > single drop of water therein. > > ENQ. But this is not the teaching of Christ, but rather a pantheistic > notion. > > THEO. That is where your mistake lies. It is purely _Christian_, > although _not_ Judaic, and therefore, perhaps, your Biblical > nations prefer to ignore it. > > ENQ. This is a wholesale and unjust accusation. Where are your proofs > for such a statement? > > THEO. They are ready at hand. Christ is alleged to have said: “Love > each other” and “Love your enemies”; for “if ye love them (only) > which love you, what reward (or merit) have ye? Do not even the > _publicans_[11] the same? And if you salute your brethren only, > what do ye more than others? Do not even publicans so?” These > are Christ’s words. But Genesis ix. 25, says “Cursed be Canaan, > a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” And, > therefore, Christian but Biblical people prefer the law of Moses > to Christ’s law of love. They base upon the Old Testament, which > panders to all their passions, their laws of conquest, annexation, > and tyranny over races which they call _inferior_. What crimes > have been committed on the strength of this infernal (if taken in > its dead letter) passage in Genesis, history alone gives us an > idea, however inadequate.[12] > > ENQ. I have heard you say that the identity of our physical origin is > proved by science, that of our spiritual origin by the > Wisdom-Religion. Yet we do not find Darwinists exhibiting great > fraternal affection. > > THEO. Just so. This is what shows the deficiency of the materialistic > systems, and proves that we Theosophists are in the right. The > identity of our physical origin makes no appeal to our higher and > deeper feelings. Matter, deprived of its soul and spirit, or its > divine essence, cannot speak to the human heart. But the identity > of the soul and spirit, of real, immortal man, as Theosophy > teaches us, once proven and deep-rooted in our hearts, would lead > us far on the road of real charity and brotherly goodwill. > > ENQ. But how does Theosophy explain the common origin of man? > > THEO. By teaching that the _root_ of all nature, objective and > subjective, and everything else in the universe, visible and > invisible, _is_, _was_, and _ever will be_ one absolute essence, > from which all starts, and into which everything returns. This is > Aryan philosophy, fully represented only by the Vedantins, and > the Buddhist system. With this object in view, it is the duty of > all Theosophists to promote in every practical way, and in all > countries, the spread of _non-sectarian_ education. > > ENQ. What do the written statutes of your Society advise its members to > do besides this? On the physical plane, I mean? > > THEO. In order to awaken brotherly feeling among nations we have to > assist in the international exchange of useful arts and products, > by advice, information, and co-operation with all worthy > individuals and associations (provided, however, add the statutes, > “that no benefit or percentage shall be taken by the Society or > the ‘Fellows’ for its or their corporate services”). For instance, > to take a practical illustration. The organization of Society, > depicted by Edward Bellamy, in his magnificent work “Looking > Backwards,” admirably represents the Theosophical idea of what > should be the first great step towards the full realization of > universal brotherhood. The state of things he depicts falls short > of perfection, because selfishness still exists and operates in > the hearts of men. But in the main, selfishness and individualism > have been overcome by the feeling of solidarity and mutual > brotherhood; and the scheme of life there described reduces the > causes tending to create and foster selfishness to a minimum. > > ENQ. Then as a Theosophist you will take part in an effort to realize > such an ideal? > > THEO. Certainly; and we have proved it by action. Have not you heard of > the Nationalist clubs and party which have sprung up in America > since the publication of Bellamy’s book? They are now coming > prominently to the front, and will do so more and more as time > goes on. Well, these clubs and this party were started in the > first instance by Theosophists. One of the first, the Nationalist > Club of Boston, Mass., has Theosophists for President and > Secretary, and the majority of its executive belong to the T.S. > In the constitution of all their clubs, and of the party they are > forming, the influence of Theosophy and of the Society is plain, > for they all take as their basis, their first and fundamental > principle, the Brotherhood of Humanity as taught by Theosophy. In > their declaration of Principles they state:—“The principle of the > Brotherhood of Humanity is one of the eternal truths that govern > the world’s progress on lines which distinguish human nature from > brute nature.” What can be more Theosophical than this? But it is > not enough. What is also needed is to impress men with the idea > that, if the root of mankind is _one_, then there must also be one > truth which finds expression in all the various religions—except > in the Jewish, as you do not find it _expressed_ even in the > Kabala. > > ENQ. This refers to the common origin of religions, and you may be > right there. But how does it apply to practical brotherhood on the > physical plane? > > THEO. First, because that which is true on the metaphysical plane must > be also true on the physical. Secondly, because there is no more > fertile source of hatred and strife than religious differences. > When one party or another thinks himself the sole possessor of > absolute truth, it becomes only natural that he should think his > neighbour absolutely in the clutches of Error or the Devil. But > once get a man to see that none of them has the _whole_ truth, but > that they are mutually complementary, that the complete truth can > be found only in the combined views of all, after that which is > false in each of them has been sifted out—then true brotherhood > in religion will be established. The same applies in the physical > world. > > ENQ. Please explain further. > > THEO. Take an instance. A plant consists of a root, a stem, and many > shoots and leaves. As humanity, as a whole, is the stem which > grows from the spiritual root, so is the stem the unity of the > plant. Hurt the stem and it is obvious that every shoot and leaf > will suffer. So it is with mankind. > > ENQ. Yes, but if you injure a leaf or a shoot, you do not injure the > whole plant. > > THEO. And therefore you think that by injuring _one_ man you do not > injure humanity? But how do _you_ know? Are you aware that even > materialistic science teaches that any injury, however slight, > to a plant will affect the whole course of its future growth and > development? Therefore, you are mistaken, and the analogy is > perfect. If, however, you overlook the fact that a cut in the > finger may often make the whole body suffer, and react on the > whole nervous system, I must all the more remind you that there > may well be other spiritual laws, operating on plants and animals > as well as on mankind, although, as you do not recognize their > action on plants and animals, you may deny their existence. > > ENQ. What laws do you mean? > > THEO. We call them Karmic laws; but you will not understand the full > meaning of the term unless you study Occultism. However, my > argument did not rest on the assumption of these laws, but really > on the analogy of the plant. Expand the idea, carry it out to > a universal application, and you will soon find that in true > philosophy every physical action has its moral and everlasting > effect. Hurt a man by doing him bodily harm; you may think > that his pain and suffering cannot spread by any means to his > neighbours, least of all to men of other nations. We affirm _that > it will, in good time_. Therefore, we say, that unless every man > is brought to understand and accept _as an axiomatic truth_ that > by wronging one man we wrong not only ourselves but the whole of > humanity in the long run, no brotherly feelings such as preached > by all the great Reformers, pre-eminently by Buddha and Jesus, are > possible on earth. > > OUR OTHER OBJECTS. > > ENQ. Will you now explain the methods by which you propose to carry out > the second object? > > THEO. To collect for the library at our headquarters of Adyar, Madras, > (and by the Fellows of their Branches for their local libraries,) > all the good works upon the world’s religions that we can. To put > into written form correct information upon the various ancient > philosophies, traditions, and legends, and disseminate the same > in such practicable ways as the translation and publication of > original works of value, and extracts from and commentaries upon > the same, or the oral instructions of persons learned in their > respective departments. > > ENQ. And what about the third object, to develop in man his latent > spiritual or psychic powers? > > THEO. This has to be achieved also by means of publications, in those > places where no lectures and personal teachings are possible. > Our duty is to keep alive in man his spiritual intuitions. To > oppose and counteract—after due investigation and proof of its > irrational nature—bigotry in every form, religious, scientific, or > social, and _cant_ above all, whether as religious sectarianism > or as belief in miracles or anything supernatural. What we have > to do is to seek to obtain _knowledge_ of all the laws of nature, > and to diffuse it. To encourage the study of those laws least > understood by modern people, the so-called Occult Sciences, _based > on the true knowledge of nature_, instead of, as at present, > on _superstitious beliefs based on blind faith and authority_. > Popular folk-lore and traditions, however fanciful at times, when > sifted may lead to the discovery of long-lost, but important, > secrets of nature. The Society, therefore, aims at pursuing this > line of inquiry, in the hope of widening the field of scientific > and philosophical observation. > > ON THE SACREDNESS OF THE PLEDGE. > > ENQ. Have you any ethical system that you carry out in the Society? > > THEO. The ethics are there, ready and clear enough for whomsoever > follow them. They are the essence and cream of the world’s ethics, > gathered from the teachings of all the world’s great reformers. > Therefore, you will find represented therein Confucius and > Zoroaster, Lao-Tze and the Bhagavat-Gita, the precepts of Gautama > Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth, of Hillel and his school, as of > Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and their schools. > > ENQ. Do the members of your Society carry out these precepts? I have > heard of great dissensions and quarrels among them. > > THEO. Very naturally, since although the reform (in its present shape) > may be called new, the men and women to be reformed are the > same human, sinning natures as of old. As already said, the > earnest _working_ members are few; but many are the sincere and > well-disposed persons, who try their best to live up to the > Society’s and their own ideals. Our duty is to encourage and > assist individual fellows in self-improvement, intellectual, > moral, and spiritual; not to blame or condemn those who fail. > We have, strictly speaking, no right to refuse admission to > anyone—especially in the _Esoteric Section_ of the Society, > wherein “he who enters is as one newly born.” But if any member, > his sacred pledges on his word of honour and immortal _Self_, > notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after that “new birth,” > with the new man, the vices or defects of his old life, and to > indulge in them still in the Society, then, of course, he is more > than likely to be asked to resign and withdraw; or, in case of > his refusal, to be expelled. We have the strictest rules for such > emergencies. > > ENQ. Can some of them be mentioned? > > THEO. They can. To begin with, no Fellow in the Society, whether > exoteric or esoteric, has a right to force his personal opinions > upon another Fellow. “It is not lawful for _any officer of > the Parent Society_ to express in public, by word or act, any > hostility to, or preference for, any one section,[13] religious > or philosophical, more than another. All have an equal right > to have the essential features of their religious belief laid > before the tribunal of an impartial world. And no officer of the > Society, in his capacity as an officer, has the right to preach > his own sectarian views and beliefs to members assembled, except > when the meeting consists of his co-religionists. After due > warning, violation of this rule shall be punished by suspension > or expulsion.” This is one of the offenses in the Society at > large. As regards the inner section, now called the _Esoteric_, > the following rules have been laid down and adopted, so far back > as 1880. “No Fellow shall put to his selfish use any knowledge > communicated to him by any member of the first section (now > a higher ‘degree’); violation of the rule being punished by > expulsion.” Now, however, before any such knowledge can be > imparted, the applicant has to bind himself by a solemn oath not > to use it for selfish purposes, nor to reveal anything said except > by permission. > > ENQ. But is a man expelled, or resigning, from the section free to > reveal anything he may have learned, or to break any clause of the > pledge he has taken? > > THEO. Certainly not. His expulsion or resignation only relieves him > from the obligation of obedience to the teacher, and from that of > taking an active part in the work of the Society, but surely not > from the sacred pledge of secrecy. > > ENQ. But is this reasonable and just? > > THEO. Most assuredly. To any man or woman with the slightest honourable > feeling a pledge of secrecy taken even on one’s _word of honour_, > much more to one’s Higher Self—the God within—is binding till > death. And though he may leave the Section and the Society, no man > or woman of honour will think of attacking or injuring a body to > which he or she has been so pledged. > > ENQ. But is not this going rather far? > > THEO. Perhaps so, according to the low standard of the present time and > morality. But if it does not bind as far as this, what use is > a _pledge_ at all? How can anyone expect to be taught secret > knowledge, if he is to be at liberty to free himself from all the > obligations he had taken, whenever he pleases? What security, > confidence, or trust would ever exist among them, if pledges such > as this were to have no really binding force at all? Believe > me, the law of retribution (Karma) would very soon overtake one > who so broke his pledge, and perhaps as soon as the contempt of > every honourable man would, even on this physical plane. As well > expressed in the N. Y. “Path” just cited on this subject, “_A > pledge once taken, is for ever binding in both the moral and the > occult worlds._ If we break it once and are punished, that does > not justify us in breaking it again, and so long as we do, so long > will the mighty lever of the Law (of Karma) react upon us.” (The > _Path_, July, 1889.) > > FOOTNOTES: > > [10] _Vide_ (at the end) the official rules of the T.S., Appendix A. > _Nota bene_, “T.S.” is an abbreviation for “Theosophical Society.” > > [11] Publicans—regarded as so many thieves and pickpockets in those > days. Among the Jews the name and profession of a publican was the > most odious thing in the world. They were not allowed to enter the > Temple, and Matthew (xviii. 17) speaks of a heathen and a publican > as identical. Yet they were only Roman tax-gatherers occupying the > same position as the British officials in India and other conquered > countries. > > [12] “At the close of the Middle Ages slavery, under the power of > moral forces, had mainly disappeared from Europe; but two momentous > events occurred which overbore the moral power working in European > society and let loose a swarm of curses upon the earth such as mankind > had scarcely ever known. One of these events was the first voyaging > to a populated and barbarous coast where human beings were a familiar > article of traffic; and the other the discovery of a new world, where > mines of glittering wealth were open, provided labour could be imported > to work them. For four hundred years men and women and children were > torn from all whom they knew and loved, and were sold on the coast of > Africa to foreign traders; they were chained below decks—the dead often > with the living—during the horrible ‘middle passage,’ and, according to > Bancroft, an impartial historian, two hundred and fifty thousand out > of three and a quarter millions were thrown into the sea on that fatal > passage, while the remainder were consigned to nameless misery in the > mines, or under the lash in the cane and rice fields. The guilt of this > great crime rests on the Christian Church. ‘In the name of the most > Holy Trinity’ the Spanish Government (Roman Catholic) concluded more > than ten treaties authorising the sale of five hundred thousand human > beings; in 1562 Sir John Hawkins sailed on his diabolical errand of > buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the West Indies in a ship > which bore the sacred name of Jesus; while Elizabeth, the Protestant > Queen, rewarded him for his success in this first adventure of > Englishmen in that inhuman traffic by allowing him to wear as his crest > ‘a demi-Moor in his proper colour, bound with a cord, or, in other > words, a manacled negro slave.’”—_Conquests of the Cross_ (quoted from > the _Agnostic Journal_). > > [13] A “branch,” or lodge, composed solely of co-religionists, or a > branch _in partibus_, as they are now somewhat bombastically called. > > IV. THE RELATIONS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY TO THEOSOPHY. > > ON SELF-IMPROVEMENT. > > ENQ. Is moral elevation, then, the principal thing insisted upon in > your Society? > > THEO. Undoubtedly! He who would be a true Theosophist must bring > himself to live as one. > > ENQ. If so, then, as I remarked before, the behaviour of some members > strangely belies this fundamental rule. > > THEO. Indeed it does. But this cannot be helped among us, any more than > amongst those who call themselves Christians and act like fiends. > This is no fault of our statutes and rules, but that of human > nature. Even in some exoteric public branches, the members pledge > themselves on their “Higher Self” to live _the_ life prescribed by > Theosophy. They have to bring their _Divine Self_ to guide their > every thought and action, every day and at every moment of their > lives. A true Theosophist ought “to deal justly and walk humbly.” > > ENQ. What do you mean by this? > > THEO. Simply this: the one self has to forget itself for the many > selves. Let me answer you in the words of a true Philaletheian, > an F.T.S., who has beautifully expressed it in the _Theosophist_: > “What every man needs first is to find himself, and then take > an honest inventory of his subjective possessions, and, bad or > bankrupt as it may be, it is not beyond redemption if we set about > it in earnest.” But how many do? All are willing to work for their > own development and progress; very few for those of others. To > quote the same writer again: “Men have been deceived and deluded > long enough; they must break their idols, put away their shams, > and go to work for themselves—nay, there is one little word too > much or too many, for he who works for himself had better not work > at all; rather let him work himself for others, for all. For every > flower of love and charity he plants in his neighbour’s garden, > a loathsome weed will disappear from his own, and so this garden > of the gods—Humanity—shall blossom as a rose. In all Bibles, > all religions, this is plainly set forth—but designing men have > at first misinterpreted and finally emasculated, materialized, > besotted them. It does not require a new revelation. Let every man > be a revelation unto himself. Let once man’s immortal spirit take > possession of the temple of his body, drive out the money-changers > and every unclean thing, and his own divine humanity will redeem > him, for when he is thus at one with himself if he will know the > ‘builder of the Temple.’” > > ENQ. This is pure Altruism, I confess. > > THEO. It is. And if only one Fellow of the T.S. out of ten would > practise it ours would be a body of elect indeed. But there are > those among the outsiders who will always refuse to see the > essential difference between Theosophy and the Theosophical > Society, the idea and its imperfect embodiment. Such would visit > every sin and shortcoming of the vehicle, the human body, on the > pure spirit which sheds thereon its divine light. Is this just to > either? They throw stones at an association that tries to work up > to, and for the propagation of, its ideal with most tremendous > odds against it. Some vilify the Theosophical Society only because > it presumes to attempt to do that in which other systems—Church > and State Christianity pre-eminently—have failed most egregiously; > others because they would fain preserve the existing state > of things: Pharisees and Sadducees in the seat of Moses, and > publicans and sinners revelling in high places, as under the > Roman Empire during its decadence. Fair-minded people, at any > rate, ought to remember that the man who does all he can, does as > much as he who has achieved the most, in this world of relative > possibilities. This is a simple truism, an axiom supported for > believers in the Gospels by the parable of the talents given by > their Master; the servant who doubled his two talents was rewarded > as much as that other fellow-servant who had received _five_. To > every man it is given “according to his several ability.” > > ENQ. Yet it is rather difficult to draw the line of demarcation between > the abstract and the concrete in this case, as we have only the > latter to our judgment by. > > THEO. Then why make an exception for the T.S.? Justice, like charity, > ought to begin at home. Will you revile and scoff at the “Sermon > on the Mount” because your social, political and even religious > laws have, so far, not only failed to carry out its precepts in > their spirit, but even in their dead letter? Abolish the oath in > Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and do as the Quakers > do, if you _will_ call yourselves Christians. Abolish the Courts > themselves, for if you would follow the Commandments of Christ, > you have to give away your coat to him who deprives you of your > cloak, and turn your left cheek to the bully who smites you on > the right. “Resist not evil, love your enemies, bless them that > curse you, do good to them that hate you,” for “whosoever shall > break one of the least of these Commandments and shall teach men > so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven,” and > “whosoever shall say ‘Thou fool’ shall be in danger of hell fire.” > And why should you judge, if you would not be judged in your turn? > Insist that between Theosophy and the Theosophical Society there > is no difference, and forthwith you lay the system of Christianity > and its very essence open to the same charges, only in a more > serious form. > > ENQ. Why _more_ serious? > > THEO. Because, while the leaders of the Theosophical movement, > recognising fully their shortcomings, try all they can do to amend > their ways and uproot the evil existing in the Society; and while > their rules and by-laws are framed in the spirit of Theosophy, the > Legislators and the Churches of nations and countries which call > themselves Christian do the reverse. Our members, even the worst > among them, are no worse than the average Christian. Moreover, > if the Western Theosophists experience so much difficulty in > leading the true Theosophical life, it is because they are all the > children of their generation. Every one of them was a Christian, > bred and brought up in the sophistry of his Church, his social > customs, and even his paradoxical laws. He was this before he > became a Theosophist, or rather, a member of the Society of that > name, as it cannot be too often repeated that between the abstract > ideal and its vehicle there is a most important difference. > > THE ABSTRACT AND THE CONCRETE. > > ENQ. Please elucidate this difference a little more. > > THEO. The Society is a great body of men and women, composed of the > most heterogeneous elements. Theosophy, in its abstract meaning, > is Divine Wisdom, or the aggregate of the knowledge and wisdom > that underlie the Universe—the homogeneity of eternal GOOD; and in > its concrete sense it is the sum total of the same as allotted to > man by nature, on this earth, and no more. Some members earnestly > endeavour to realize and, so to speak, to objectivize Theosophy in > their lives; while others desire only to know of, not to practise > it; and others still may have joined the Society merely out of > curiosity, or a passing interest, or perhaps, again, because some > of their friends belong to it. How, then, can the system be judged > by the standard of those who would assume the name without any > right to it? Is poetry or its muse to be measured only by those > would-be poets who afflict our ears? The Society can be regarded > as the embodiment of Theosophy only in its abstract motives; it > can never presume to call itself its concrete vehicle so long as > human imperfections and weaknesses are all represented in its > body; otherwise the Society would be only repeating the great > error and the outflowing sacrileges of the so-called Churches of > Christ. If Eastern comparisons may be permitted, Theosophy is the > shoreless ocean of universal truth, love, and wisdom, reflecting > its radiance on the earth, while the Theosophical Society is > only a visible bubble on that reflection. Theosophy is divine > nature, visible and invisible, and its Society human nature > trying to ascend to its divine parent. Theosophy, finally, is the > fixed eternal sun, and its Society the evanescent comet trying > to settle in an orbit to become a planet, ever revolving within > the attraction of the sun of truth. It was formed to assist in > showing to men that such a thing as Theosophy exists, and to help > them to ascend towards it by studying and assimilating its eternal > verities. > > ENQ. I thought you said you had no tenets or doctrines of your own? > > THEO. No more we have. The Society has no wisdom of its own to support > or teach. It is simply the storehouse of all the truths uttered > by the great seers, initiates, and prophets of historic and even > pre-historic ages; at least, as many as it can get. Therefore, it > is merely the channel through which more or less of truth, found > in the accumulated utterances of humanity’s great teachers, is > poured out into the world. > > ENQ. But is such truth unreachable outside of the Society? Does not > every Church claim the same? > > THEO. Not at all. The undeniable existence of great initiates—true > “Sons of God”—shows that such wisdom was often reached by isolated > individuals, never, however, without the guidance of a master > at first. But most of the followers of such, when they became > masters in their turn, have dwarfed the catholicism of these > teachings into the narrow groove of their own sectarian dogmas. > The commandments of _a_ chosen master alone were then adopted and > followed, to the exclusion of all others—if followed at all, note > well, as in the case of the Sermon on the Mount. Each religion is > thus a bit of the divine truth, made to focus a vast panorama of > human fancy which claimed to represent and replace that truth. > > ENQ. But Theosophy, you say, is not a religion? > > THEO. Most assuredly it is not, since it is the essence of all religion > and of absolute truth, a drop of which only underlies every creed. > To resort once more to metaphor. Theosophy, on earth, is like > the white ray of the spectrum, and every religion only one of the > seven prismatic colours. Ignoring all the others, and cursing them > as false, every special coloured ray claims not only priority, > but to be _that white ray_ itself, and anathematizes even its > own tints from light to dark, as heresies. Yet, as the sun of > truth rises higher and higher on the horizon of man’s perception, > and each coloured ray gradually fades out until it is finally > reabsorbed in its turn, humanity will at last be cursed no longer > with artificial polarizations, but will find itself bathing in > the pure colourless sunlight of eternal truth. And this will be > _Theosophia_. > > ENQ. Your claim is, then, that all the great religions are derived from > Theosophy, and that it is by assimilating it that the world will > be finally saved from the curse of its great illusions and errors? > > THEO. Precisely so. And we add that our Theosophical Society is the > humble seed which, if watered and left to live, will finally > produce the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which is grafted on > the Tree of Life Eternal. For it is only by studying the various > great religions and philosophies of humanity, by comparing them > dispassionately and with an unbiased mind, that men can hope to > arrive at the truth. It is especially by finding out and noting > their various points of agreement that we may achieve this result. > For no sooner do we arrive—either by study, or by being taught by > someone who knows—at their inner meaning, than we find, almost in > every case, that it expresses some great truth in Nature. > > ENQ. We have heard of a Golden Age that was, and what you describe > would be a Golden Age to be realised at some future day. When > shall it be? > > THEO. Not before humanity, as a whole, feels the need of it. A maxim in > the Persian “Javidan Khirad” says: “Truth is of two kinds—one > manifest and self-evident; the other demanding incessantly new > demonstrations and proofs.” It is only when this latter kind > of truth becomes as universally obvious as it is now dim, and > therefore liable to be distorted by sophistry and casuistry; it is > only when the two kinds will have become once more one, that all > people will be brought to see alike. > > ENQ. But surely those few who have felt the need of such truths must > have made up their minds to believe in something definite? You > tell me that, the Society having no doctrines of its own, every > member may believe as he chooses and accept what he pleases. This > looks as if the Theosophical Society was bent upon reviving the > confusion of languages and beliefs of the Tower of Babel of old. > Have you no beliefs in common? > > THEO. What is meant by the Society having no tenets or doctrines of its > own is, that no special doctrines or beliefs are _obligatory_ on > its members; but, of course, this applies only to the body as a > whole. The Society, as you were told, is divided into an outer and > an inner body. Those who belong to the latter have, of course, a > philosophy, or—if you so prefer it— a religious system of their > own. > > ENQ. May we be told what it is? > > THEO. We make no secret of it. It was outlined a few years ago in the > _Theosophist_ and “Esoteric Buddhism,” and may be found still > more elaborated in the “Secret Doctrine.” It is based on the > oldest philosophy in the world, called the Wisdom-Religion or the > Archaic Doctrine. If you like, you may ask questions and have them > explained. > > V. THE FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY. > > ON GOD AND PRAYER. > > ENQ. Do you believe in God? > > THEO. That depends what you mean by the term. > > ENQ. I mean the God of the Christians, the Father of Jesus, and the > Creator: the Biblical God of Moses, in short. > > THEO. In such a God we do not believe. We reject the idea of a > personal, or an extra-cosmic and anthropomorphic God, who is > but the gigantic shadow of _man_, and not of man at his best, > either. The God of theology, we say—and prove it—is a bundle of > contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore, we will > have nothing to do with him. > > ENQ. State your reasons, if you please. > > THEO. They are many, and cannot all receive attention. But here are a > few. This God is called by his devotees infinite and absolute, is > he not? > > ENQ. I believe he is. > > THEO. Then, if infinite—_i.e._, limitless—and especially if absolute, > how can he have a form, and be a creator of anything? Form implies > limitation, and a beginning as well as an end; and, in order > to create, a Being must think and plan. How can the ABSOLUTE > be supposed to think—_i.e._, to have any relation whatever > to that which is limited, finite, and conditioned? This is a > philosophical and a logical absurdity. Even the Hebrew Kabala > rejects such an idea, and therefore makes of the one and the > Absolute Deific Principle an infinite Unity called Ain-Soph.[14] > In order to create, the Creator has to become active; and as > this is impossible for ABSOLUTENESS, the infinite principle had > to be shown becoming the cause of evolution (not creation) in an > indirect way—_i.e._, through the emanation from itself (another > absurdity, due this time to the translators of the Kabala)[15] of > the Sephiroth. > > ENQ. How about those Kabalists, who, while being such, still believe in > Jehovah, or the _Tetragrammaton_? > > THEO. They are at liberty to believe in what they please, as their > belief or disbelief can hardly affect a self-evident fact. > The Jesuits tell us that two and two are not always four to a > certainty, since it depends on the will of God to make 2 x 2 = 5. > Shall we accept their sophistry for all that? > > ENQ. Then you are Atheists? > > THEO. Not that we know of, and not unless the epithet of “Atheist” is > to be applied to those who disbelieve in an anthropomorphic God. > We believe in a Universal Divine Principle, the root of ALL, from > which all proceeds, and within which all shall be absorbed at the > end of the great cycle of Being. > > ENQ. This is the old, old claim of Pantheism. If you are Pantheists, > you cannot be Deists; and if you are not Deists, then you have to > answer to the name of Atheists. > > THEO. Not necessarily so. The term “Pantheism” is again one of the many > abused terms, whose real and primitive meaning has been distorted > by blind prejudice and a one-sided view of it. If you accept the > Christian etymology of this compound word, and form it of παν, > “all,” and θεος, “god,” and then imagine and teach that this means > that every stone and every tree in Nature is a God or the ONE > God, then, of course, you will be right, and make of Pantheists > fetish-worshippers, in addition to their legitimate name. But you > will hardly be as successful if you etymologise the word Pantheism > esoterically, and as we do. > > ENQ. What is, then your definition of it? > > THEO. Let me ask you a question in my turn. What do you understand by > Pan or Nature? > > ENQ. Nature is, I suppose, the sum total of things existing around us; > the aggregate of causes and effects in the world of matter, the > creation or universe. > > THEO. Hence the personified sum and order of known causes and effects; > the total of all finite agencies and forces, as utterly > disconnected from an intelligent Creator or Creators, and > perhaps “conceived of as a single and separate force”—as in your > cyclopædias? > > ENQ. Yes, I believe so. > > THEO. Well, we neither take into consideration this objective and > material nature, which we call an evanescent illusion, nor do > we mean by παν Nature, in the sense of its accepted derivation > from the Latin _Natura_ (becoming, from _nasci_, to be born). > When we speak of the Deity and make it identical, hence coeval, > with Nature, the eternal and uncreate nature is meant, and not > your aggregate of flitting shadows and finite unrealities. We > leave it to the hymn-makers to call the visible sky or heaven, > God’s Throne, and our earth of mud His footstool. Our DEITY is > neither in a paradise, nor in a particular tree, building, or > mountain; it is everywhere, in every atom of the visible as of the > invisible Cosmos, in, over, and around every invisible atom and > divisible molecule; for IT is the mysterious power of evolution > and involution, the omnipresent, omnipotent, and even omniscient > creative potentiality. > > ENQ. Stop! Omniscience is the prerogative of something that thinks, and > you deny to your Absoluteness the power of thought. > > THEO. We deny it to the ABSOLUTE, since thought is something limited > and conditioned. But you evidently forget that in philosophy > absolute unconsciousness is also absolute consciousness, as > otherwise it would not be _absolute_. > > ENQ. Then your Absolute thinks? > > THEO. No, IT does not; for the simple reason that it is _Absolute > Thought_ itself. Nor does it exist, for the same reason, as it > is absolute existence, and _Be-ness_, not a Being. Read the > superb Kabalistic poem by Solomon Ben Jehudah Gabirol, in the > Kether-Malchut, and you will understand:—“Thou art one, the root > of all numbers, but not as an element of numeration; for unity > admits not of multiplication, change, or form. Thou art one, and > in the secret of Thy unity the wisest of men are lost, because > they know it not. Thou art one, and Thy unity is never diminished, > never extended, and cannot be changed. Thou art one, and no > thought of mine can fix for Thee a limit, or define Thee. Thou > ART, but not as one existent, for the understanding and vision of > mortals cannot attain to Thy existence, nor determine for Thee the > where, the how and the why,” etc., etc. In short, our Deity is the > eternal, incessantly _evolving_, not _creating_, builder of the > universe; that _universe itself unfolding_ out of its own essence, > not being _made_. It is a sphere, without circumference, in its > symbolism, which has but one ever-acting attribute embracing all > other existing or thinkable attributes—ITSELF. It is the one law, > giving the impulse to manifested, eternal, and immutable laws, > within that never-manifesting, _because_ absolute LAW, which in > its manifesting periods is _The ever-Becoming_. > > ENQ. I once heard one of your members remarking that Universal Deity, > being everywhere, was in vessels of dishonour, as in those of > honour, and, therefore, was present in every atom of my cigar ash! > Is this not rank blasphemy? > > THEO. I do not think so, as simple logic can hardly be regarded as > blasphemy. Were we to exclude the Omnipresent Principle from one > single mathematical point of the universe, or from a particle of > matter occupying any conceivable space, could we still regard it > as infinite? > > IS IT NECESSARY TO PRAY? > > ENQ. Do you believe in prayer, and do you ever pray? > > THEO. We do not. We _act_, instead of _talking_. > > ENQ. You do not offer prayers even to the Absolute Principle? > > THEO. Why should we? Being well-occupied people, we can hardly afford > to lose time in addressing verbal prayers to a pure abstraction. > The Unknowable is capable of relations only in its parts to each > other, but is non-existent as regards any finite relations. The > visible universe depends for its existence and phenomena on its > mutually acting forms and their laws, not on prayer or prayers. > > ENQ. Do you not believe at all in the efficacy of prayer? > > THEO. Not in prayer taught in so many words and repeated externally, if > by prayer you mean the outward petition to an unknown God as the > addressee, which was inaugurated by the Jews and popularised by > the Pharisees. > > ENQ. Is there any other kind of prayer? > > THEO. Most decidedly; we call it WILL-PRAYER, and it is rather an > internal command than a petition. > > ENQ. To whom, then, do you pray when you do so? > > THEO. To “our Father in heaven”—in its esoteric meaning. > > ENQ. Is that different from the one given to it in theology? > > THEO. Entirely so. An Occultist or a Theosophist addresses his prayer > to _his Father which is in secret_ (read, and try to understand, > ch. vi. v. 6, Matthew), not to an extra-cosmic and therefore > finite God; and that “Father” is in man himself. > > ENQ. Then you make of man a God? > > THEO. Please say “God” and not _a_ God. In our sense, the inner man is > the only God we can have cognizance of. And how can this be > otherwise? Grant us our postulate that God is a universally > diffused, infinite principle, and how can man alone escape from > being soaked through _by_, and _in_, the Deity? We call our > “Father in heaven” that deific essence of which we are cognizant > within us, in our heart and spiritual consciousness, and which > has nothing to do with the anthropomorphic conception we may form > of it in our physical brain or its fancy: “Know ye not that ye > are the temple of God, and that the great spirit of that the > spirit of (the absolute) God dwelleth in you?”[16] Yet, let no > man anthropomorphise that essence in us. Let no Theosophist, if > he would hold to divine, not human truth, say that this “God in > secret” listens to, or is distinct from, either finite man or the > infinite essence—for all are one. Nor, as just remarked, that a > prayer is a petition. It is a mystery rather; an occult process > by which finite and conditioned thoughts and desires, unable to > be assimilated by the absolute spirit which is unconditioned, are > translated into spiritual wills and the will; such process being > called “spiritual transmutation.” The intensity of our ardent > aspirations changes prayer into the “philosopher’s stone,” or > that which transmutes lead into pure gold. The only homogeneous > essence, our “will-power” becomes the active or creative force, > producing effects according to our desire. > > ENQ. Do you mean to say that prayer is an occult process bringing about > physical results? > > THEO. I do. _Will-Power_ becomes a living power. But woe unto those > Occultists and Theosophists, who, instead of crushing out the > desires of the lower personal _ego_ or physical man, and saying, > addressing their _Higher_ Spiritual Ego immersed in Atma-Buddhic > light, “Thy will be done, not mine,” etc., send up waves of > will-power for selfish or unholy purposes! For this is black > magic, abomination, and spiritual sorcery. Unfortunately, all > this is the favorite occupation of our Christian statesmen and > generals, especially when the latter are sending two armies to > murder each other. Both indulge before action in a bit of such > sorcery, by offering respectively prayers to the same God of > Hosts, each entreating his help to cut its enemies’ throats. > > ENQ. David prayed to the Lord of Hosts to help him smite the > Philistines and slay the Syrians and the Moabites, and “the Lord > preserved David whithersoever he went.” In that we only follow > what we find in the Bible. > > THEO. Of course you do. But since you delight in calling yourselves > Christians, not Israelites or Jews, as far as we know, why do > you not rather follow that which Christ says? And he distinctly > commands you not to follow “them of old times,” or the Mosaic law, > but bids you do as he tells you, and warns those who would kill > by the sword, that they, too, will perish by the sword. Christ > has given you one prayer of which you have made a lip prayer and > a boast, and which none but the _true_ Occultist understands. In > it you say, in your dead-sense meaning: “Forgive us our debts, as > we forgive our debtors,” which you never do. Again, he told you > to _love your enemies_ and do _good to them that hate you_. It is > surely not the “meek prophet of Nazareth” who taught you to pray > to your “Father” to slay, and give you victory over your enemies! > This is why we reject what you call “prayers.” > > ENQ. But how do you explain the universal fact that all nations and > peoples have prayed to, and worshipped a God or Gods? Some have > adored and propitiated _devils_ and harmful spirits, but this only > proves the universality of the belief in the efficacy of prayer. > > THEO. It is explained by that other fact that prayer has several other > meanings besides that given it by the Christians. It means not > only a pleading or _petition_, but meant, in days of old, far more > an invocation and incantation. The _mantra_, or the rhythmically > chanted prayer of the Hindus, has precisely such a meaning, as the > Brahmins hold themselves higher than the common _devas_ or “Gods.” > A prayer may be an appeal or an incantation for malediction, and > a curse (as in the case of two armies praying simultaneously for > mutual destruction) as much as for blessing. And as the great > majority of people are intensely selfish, and pray only for > themselves, asking to be _given_ their “daily bread” instead of > working for it, and begging God not to lead them “into temptation” > but to deliver them (the memoralists only) from evil, the result > is, that prayer, as now understood, is doubly pernicious: (_a_) > It kills in man self-reliance; (_b_) It develops in him a still > more ferocious selfishness and egotism than he is already endowed > with by nature. I repeat, that we believe in “communion” and > simultaneous action in unison with our “Father in secret”; and > in rare moments of ecstatic bliss, in the mingling of our higher > soul with the universal essence, attracted as it is towards its > origin and centre, a state, called during life _Samadhi_, and > after death, _Nirvana_. We refuse to pray to _created_ finite > beings—_i.e._, gods, saints, angels, etc., because we regard it > as idolatry. We cannot pray to the ABSOLUTE for reasons explained > before; therefore, we try to replace fruitless and useless prayer > by meritorious and good-producing actions. > > ENQ. Christians would call it pride and blasphemy. Are they wrong? > > THEO. Entirely so. It is they, on the contrary, who show Satanic pride > in their belief that the Absolute or the Infinite, even if there > was such a thing as the possibility of any relation between the > unconditioned and the conditioned—will stoop to listen to every > foolish or egotistical prayer. And it is they again, who virtually > blaspheme, in teaching that an Omniscient and Omnipotent God > needs uttered prayers to know what he has to do! This—understood > esoterically—is corroborated by both Buddha and Jesus. The one > says “seek nought from the helpless Gods—pray not! _but rather > act_; for darkness will not brighten. Ask nought from silence, for > it can neither speak nor hear.” And the other—Jesus—recommends: > “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name (that of Christos) that will I > do.” Of course, this quotation, if taken in its _literal_ sense, > goes against our argument. But if we accept it esoterically, with > the full knowledge of the meaning of the term, “Christos,” which > to us represents _Atma-Buddhi-Manas_, the “SELF,” it comes to > this: the only God we must recognise and pray to, or rather act > in unison with, is that spirit of God of which our body is the > temple, and in which it dwelleth. > > PRAYER KILLS SELF RELIANCE. > > ENQ. But did not Christ himself pray and recommend prayer? > > THEO. It is so recorded, but those “prayers” are precisely of that kind > of communion just mentioned with one’s “Father in secret.” > Otherwise, and if we identify Jesus with the universal deity, > there would be something too absurdly illogical in the inevitable > conclusion that he, the “very God himself” _prayed to himself_, > and separated the will of that God from his own! > > ENQ. One argument more; an argument, moreover, much used by some > Christians. They say, “I feel that I am not able to conquer any > passions and weaknesses in my own strength. But when I pray to > Jesus Christ I feel that he gives me strength and that in his > power I am able to conquer.” > > THEO. No wonder. If “Christ Jesus” is God, and one independent and > separate from him who prays, of course everything is, and > _must_ be possible to “a mighty God.” But, then, where’s the > merit, or justice either, of such a conquest? Why should the > pseudo-conqueror be rewarded for something done which has cost > him only prayers? Would you, even a simple mortal man, pay your > labourer a full day’s wage if you did most of his work for him, he > sitting under an apple tree, and praying to you to do so, all the > while? This idea of passing one’s whole life in moral idleness, > and having one’s hardest work and duty done by another—whether God > or man—is most revolting to us, as it is most degrading to human > dignity. > > ENQ. Perhaps so, yet it is the idea of trusting in a personal Saviour > to help and strengthen in the battle of life, which is the > fundamental idea of modern Christianity. And there is no doubt > that, subjectively, such belief is efficacious, _i.e._, that those > who believe _do_ feel themselves helped and strengthened. > > THEO. Nor is there any more doubt, that some patients of “Christian” > and “Mental Scientists”—the great “_Deniers_”[17]—are also > sometimes cured; nor that hypnotism, and suggestion, psychology, > and even mediumship, will produce such results, as often, if not > oftener. You take into consideration, and string on the thread of > your argument, successes alone. And how about ten times the number > of failures? Surely you will not presume to say that failure is > unknown even with a sufficiency of blind faith, among fanatical > Christians? > > ENQ. But how can you explain those cases which are followed by full > success? Where does a Theosophist look to for power to subdue his > passions and selfishness? > > THEO. To his Higher Self, the divine spirit, or the God in him, and to > his _Karma_. How long shall we have to repeat over and over again > that the tree is known by its fruit, the nature of the cause by > its effects? You speak of subduing passions, and becoming good > through and with the help of God or Christ. We ask, where do > you find more virtuous, guiltless people, abstaining from sin > and crime, in Christendom or Buddhism—in Christian countries or > in heathen lands? Statistics are there to give the answer and > corroborate our claims. According to the last census in Ceylon and > India, in the comparative table of crimes committed by Christians, > Mussulmen, Hindoos, Eurasians, Buddhists, etc., etc., on two > millions of population taken at random from each, and covering the > misdemeanours of several years, the proportion of crimes committed > by the Christian stands as 15 to 4 as against those committed > by the Buddhist population. (Vide LUCIFER for April, 1888, p. > 147, Art. Christian Lectures on Buddhism.) No Orientalist, no > historian of any note, or traveller in Buddhist land, from Bishop > Bigandet and Abbé Huc, to Sir William Hunter and every fair-minded > official, will fail to give the palm of virtue to Buddhists before > Christians. Yet the former (not the true Buddhist Siamese sect, > at all events) do not believe in either God or a future reward, > outside of this earth. They do not pray, neither priests nor > laymen. “Pray!” they would exclaim in wonder, “to whom, or what?” > > ENQ. Then they are truly Atheists. > > THEO. Most undeniably, but they are also the most virtue-loving and > virtue-keeping men in the whole world. Buddhism says: Respect the > religions of other men and remain true to your own; but Church > Christianity, denouncing all the gods of other nations as devils, > would doom every _non_-Christian to eternal perdition. > > ENQ. Does not the Buddhist priesthood do the same? > > THEO. Never. They hold too much to the wise precept found in the > DHAMMAPADA to do so, for they know that, “If any man, whether he > be learned or not, consider himself so great as to despise other > men, he is like a blind man holding a candle—blind himself, he > illumines others.” > > ON THE SOURCE OF THE HUMAN SOUL. > > ENQ. How, then, do you account for man being endowed with a Spirit and > Soul? Whence these? > > THEO. From the Universal Soul. Certainly not bestowed by a _personal_ > God. Whence the moist element in the jelly-fish? From the Ocean > which surrounds it, in which it lives and breathes and has its > being, and whither it returns when dissolved. > > ENQ. So you reject the teaching that Soul is given, or breathed into > man, by God? > > THEO. We are obliged to. The “Soul” spoken of in ch. ii. of Genesis > (v. 7) is, as therein stated, the “living Soul” or _Nephesh_ > (the _vital_, animal soul) with which God (we say “nature” and > _immutable law_) endows man like every animal, is not at all the > thinking Soul or mind; least of all is it the _immortal Spirit_. > > ENQ. Well, let us put it otherwise: is it God who endows man with a > human _rational_ Soul and immortal Spirit? > > THEO. Again, in the way you put the question, we must object to it. > Since we believe in no _personal_ God, how can we believe that he > endows man with anything? But granting, for the sake of argument, > a God who takes upon himself the risk of creating a new Soul for > every new-born baby, all that can be said is that such a God > can hardly be regarded as himself endowed with any wisdom or > prevision. Certain other difficulties and the impossibility of > reconciling this with the claims made for the mercy, justice, > equity and omniscience of that God, are so many deadly reefs on > which this theological dogma is daily and hourly broken. > > ENQ. What do you mean? What difficulties? > > THEO. I am thinking of an unanswerable argument offered once in my > presence by a Cingalese Buddhist priest, a famous preacher, to > a Christian missionary—one in no way ignorant or unprepared for > the public discussion during which it was advanced. It was near > Colombo, and the Missionary had challenged the priest Megattivati > to give his reasons why the Christian God should not be accepted > by the “heathen.” Well, the Missionary came out of that for ever > memorable discussion second best, as usual. > > ENQ. I should be glad to learn in what way. > > THEO. Simply this: the Buddhist priest premised by asking the _padri_ > whether his God had given commandments to Moses only for men to > keep, but to be broken by God himself. The missionary denied > the supposition indignantly. Well, said his opponent, “you tell > us that God makes no exceptions to this rule, and that no Soul > can be born without his will. Now God forbids adultery, among > other things, and yet you say in the same breath that it is he > who creates every baby born, and he who endows it with a Soul. > Are we then to understand that the millions of children born in > crime and adultery are your God’s work? That your God forbids and > punishes the breaking of his laws; and that, nevertheless, _he > creates daily and hourly souls for just such children_? According > to the simplest logic, your God is an accomplice in the crime; > since, but for his help and interference, no such children of lust > could be born. Where is the justice of punishing not only the > guilty parents but even the innocent babe for that which is done > by that very God, whom yet you exonerate from any guilt himself?” > The missionary looked at his watch and suddenly found it was > getting too late for further discussion. > > ENQ. You forget that all such inexplicable cases are mysteries, and > that we are forbidden by our religion to pry into the mysteries of > God. > > THEO. No, we do not forget, but simply reject such impossibilities. Nor > do we want you to believe as we do. We only answer the questions > you ask. We have, however, another name for your “mysteries.” > > THE BUDDHIST TEACHINGS ON THE ABOVE. > > ENQ. What does Buddhism teach with regard to the Soul? > > THEO. It depends whether you mean exoteric, popular Buddhism, or its > esoteric teachings. The former explains itself in the _Buddhist > Catechism_ in this wise: “Soul it considers a word used by the > ignorant to express a false idea. If everything is subject to > change, then man is included, and every material part of him > must change. That which is subject to change is not permanent, > so there can be no immortal survival of a changeful thing.” This > seems plain and definite. But when we come to the question that > the new personality in each succeeding re-birth is the aggregate > of “_Skandhas_,” or the attributes, of the _old_ personality, > and ask whether this new aggregation of _Skandhas_ is a _new_ > being likewise, in which nothing has remained of the last, we > read that: “In one sense it is a new being, in another it is > not. During this life the Skandhas are continually changing, > while the man A. B. of forty is identical as regards personality > with the youth A. B. of eighteen, yet by the continual waste and > reparation of his body and change of mind and character, he is > a different being. Nevertheless, the man in his old age justly > reaps the reward or suffering consequent upon his thoughts and > actions at every previous stage of his life. So the new being of > the re-birth, being the _same individuality as before_ (but not > the same personality), with but a changed form, or new aggregation > of _Skandhas_, justly reaps the consequences of his actions and > thoughts in the previous existence.” This is abstruse metaphysics, > and plainly does not express _disbelief_ in Soul by any means. > > ENQ. Is not something like this spoken of in _Esoteric Buddhism_? > > THEO. It is, for this teaching belongs both to Esoteric _Budhism_ or > Secret Wisdom, and to the exoteric Buddhism, or the religious > philosophy of Gautama Buddha. > > ENQ. But we are distinctly told that most of the Buddhists do not > believe in the Soul’s immortality? > > THEO. No more do we, if you mean by Soul the _personal Ego_, or > life-Soul—_Nephesh_. But every learned Buddhist believes in > the individual or _divine Ego_. Those who do not, err in their > judgment. They are as mistaken on this point, as those Christians > who mistake the theological interpolations of the later editors > of the Gospels about damnation and hell-fire, for _verbatim_ > utterances of Jesus. Neither Buddha nor “Christ” ever wrote > anything themselves, but both spoke in allegories and used “dark > sayings,” as all true Initiates did, and will do for a long time > yet to come. Both Scriptures treat of all such metaphysical > questions very cautiously, and both, Buddhist and Christian > records, sin by that excess of exotericism; the dead letter > meaning far overshooting the mark in both cases. > > ENQ. Do you mean to suggest that neither the teachings of Buddha nor > those of Christ have been heretofore rightly understood? > > THEO. What I mean is just as you say. Both Gospels, the Buddhist and > the Christian, were preached with the same object in view. > Both reformers were ardent philanthropists and practical > _altruists—preaching most unmistakably Socialism_ of the noblest > and highest type, self-sacrifice to the bitter end. “Let the sins > of the whole world fall upon me that I may relieve man’s misery > and suffering!” cries Buddha; ... “I would not let one cry whom I > could save!” exclaims the Prince-beggar, clad in the refuse rags > of the burial-grounds. “Come unto me all ye that labour and are > heavy laden and I will give you rest,” is the appeal to the poor > and the disinherited made by the “Man of Sorrows,” who hath not > where to lay his head. The teachings of both are boundless love > for humanity, charity, forgiveness of injury, forgetfulness of > self, and pity for the deluded masses; both show the same contempt > for riches, and make no difference between _meum_ and _tuum_. > Their desire was, without revealing to _all_ the sacred mysteries > of initiation, to give the ignorant and the misled, whose burden > in life was too heavy for them, hope enough and an inkling into > the truth sufficient to support them in their heaviest hours. But > the object of both Reformers was frustrated, owing to excess of > zeal of their later followers. The words of the Masters having > been misunderstood and misinterpreted, behold the consequences! > > ENQ. But surely Buddha must have repudiated the soul’s immortality, if > all the Orientalists and his own Priests say so! > > THEO. The Arhats began by following the policy of their Master and the > majority of the subsequent priests were not initiated, just as in > Christianity; and so, little by little, the great esoteric truths > became almost lost. A proof in point is, that, out of the two > existing sects in Ceylon, the Siamese believes death to be the > absolute annihilation of individuality and personality, and the > other explains Nirvana, as we theosophists do. > > ENQ. But why, in that case, do Buddhism and Christianity represent the > two opposite poles of such belief? > > THEO. Because the conditions under which they were preached were not > the same. In India the Brahmins, jealous of their superior > knowledge, and excluding from it every caste save their own, had > driven millions of men into idolatry and almost fetishism. Buddha > had to give the death-blow to an exuberance of unhealthy fancy > and fanatical superstition resulting from ignorance, such as has > rarely been known before or after. Better a philosophical atheism > than such ignorant worship for those— > > “Who cry upon their gods and are not heard, > Or are not heeded—” > > and who live and die in mental despair. He had to arrest first of > all this muddy torrent of superstition, to uproot _errors_ before > he gave out the truth. And as he could not give out _all_, for > the same good reason as Jesus, who reminds _his_ disciples that > the Mysteries of Heaven are not for the unintelligent masses, but > for the elect alone, and therefore “spake he to them in parables” > (Matt. xiii. 11)—so his caution led Buddha _to conceal too much_. > He even refused to say to the monk Vacchagotta whether there was, > or was not an Ego in man. When pressed to answer, “the Exalted one > maintained silence.”[18] > > ENQ. This refers to Gautama, but in what way does it touch the Gospels? > > THEO. Read history and think over it. At the time the events narrated > in the Gospels are alleged to have happened, there was a similar > intellectual fermentation taking place in the whole civilized > world, only with opposite results in the East and the West. The > old gods were dying out. While the civilized classes drifted > in the train of the unbelieving Sadducees into materialistic > negations and mere dead-letter Mosaic form in Palestine, and > into moral dissolution in Rome, the lowest and poorer classes > ran after sorcery and strange gods, or became hypocrites and > pharisees. Once more the time for a spiritual reform had arrived. > The cruel, anthropomorphic and jealous God of the Jews, with his > sanguinary laws of “an eye for eye and tooth for tooth,” of the > shedding of blood and animal sacrifice, had to be relegated to a > secondary place and replaced by the merciful “Father in Secret.” > The latter had to be shown, not as an extra-Cosmic God, but as a > divine Saviour of the man of flesh, enshrined in his own heart > and soul, in the poor as in the rich. No more here than in India, > could the secrets of initiation be divulged, lest by giving that > which is holy to the dogs, and casting pearls before swine, both > the _Revealer_ and the things revealed should be trodden under > foot. Thus, the reticence of both Buddha and Jesus—whether the > latter lived out the historic period allotted to him or not, and > who equally abstained from revealing plainly the Mysteries of Life > and Death—led in the one case to the blank negations of Southern > Buddhism, and in the other, to the three clashing forms of the > Christian Church and the 300 sects in Protestant England alone. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [14] Ain-Soph, אין סיף = τὸ πάγ = ἔπειρος Nature, the non-existent > which IS, but is not _a_ Being. > > [15] How can the non-active eternal principle emanate or emit? The > Parabrahm of the Vedantins does nothing of the kind; nor does the > Ain-Soph of the Chaldean Kabala. It is an eternal and periodical law > which causes an active and creative force (the logos) to emanate from > the ever-concealed and incomprehensible one principle at the beginning > of every maha-manvantara, or new cycle of life. > > [16] One often finds in Theosophical writings conflicting statements > about the Christos principle in man. Some call it the sixth principle > (_Buddhi_), others the seventh (_Atman_). If Christian Theosophists > wish to make use of such expressions, let them be made philosophically > correct by following the analogy of the old Wisdom-Religion symbols. > We say that Christos is not only one of the three higher principles, > but all the three regarded as a Trinity. This Trinity represents > the Holy Ghost, the Father, and the Son, as it answers to abstract > spirit, differentiated spirit, and embodied spirit. Krishna and Christ > are philosophically the same principle under its triple aspect of > manifestation. In the _Bhagavatgita_ we find Krishna calling himself > indifferently Atman, the abstract Spirit, Kshetragna, the Higher or > reincarnating Ego, and the Universal SELF, all names which, when > transferred from the Universe to man, answer to _Atma_, _Buddhi_ and > _Manas_. The _Anugita_ is full of the same doctrine. > > [17] The new sect of healers, who, by disavowing the existence of > anything but spirit, which spirit can neither suffer nor be ill, claim > to cure all and every disease, provided the patient has faith that what > he denies can have no existence. A new form of self-hypnotism. > > [18] Buddha gives to Ananda, his _initiated_ disciple, who enquires > for the reason of this silence, a plain and unequivocal answer in the > dialogue translated by Oldenburg from the _Samyuttaka Nikaya_:—“If > I, Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me: ‘Is there > the Ego?’ had answered ‘The Ego is,’ then that, Ananda, would have > confirmed the doctrine of the Samanas and Brahmanas, who believed in > permanence. If I, Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked > me, ‘Is there not the Ego?’ had answered, ‘The Ego is not,’ then > that, Ananda, would have confirmed the doctrine of those who believed > in annihilation. If I, Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta > asked me, ‘Is there the Ego?’ had answered, ‘The Ego is,’ would that > have served my end, Ananda, by producing in him the knowledge: all > existences (dhamma) are non-ego? But if I, Ananda, had answered, ‘The > Ego is not,’ then that, Ananda, would only have caused the wandering > monk Vacchagotta to be thrown from one bewilderment to another: > ‘My Ego, did it not exist before? But now it exists no longer!’” > This shows, better than anything, that Gautama Buddha withheld such > difficult metaphysical doctrines from the masses in order not to > perplex them more. What he meant was the difference between the > personal temporary Ego and the Higher Self, which sheds its light on > the imperishable Ego, the spiritual “I” of man. > > VI. THEOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS AS TO NATURE AND MAN. > > THE UNITY OF ALL IN ALL. > > ENQ. Having told me what God, the Soul and Man are _not_, in your > views, can you inform me what they _are_, according to your > teachings? > > THEO. In their origin and in eternity the three, like the universe and > all therein, are one with the absolute Unity, the unknowable > deific essence I spoke about sometime back. We believe in no > _creation_, but in the periodical and consecutive appearances of > the universe from the subjective on to the objective plane of > being, at regular intervals of time, covering periods of immense > duration. > > ENQ. Can you elaborate the subject? > > THEO. Take as a first comparison and a help towards a more correct > conception, the solar year, and as a second, the two halves > of that year, producing each a day and a night of six months’ > duration at the North Pole. Now imagine, if you can, instead of > a Solar year of 365 days, ETERNITY. Let the sun represent the > universe, and the polar days and nights of 6 months each—_days > and nights lasting each 182 trillions and quadrillions of years_, > instead of 182 days each. As the sun arises every morning on our > _objective_ horizon out of its (to us) _subjective_ and antipodal > space, so does the Universe emerge periodically on the plane of > objectivity, issuing from that of subjectivity—the antipodes of > the former. This is the “Cycle of Life.” And as the sun disappears > from our horizon, so does the Universe disappear at regular > periods, when the “Universal night” sets in. The Hindoos call > such alternations the “Days and Nights of Brahma,” or the time of > _Manvantara_ and that of _Pralaya_ (dissolution). The Westerns may > call them Universal Days and Nights if they prefer. During the > latter (the nights) _All is in All_; every atom is resolved into > one Homogeneity. > > EVOLUTION AND ILLUSION. > > ENQ. But who is it that creates each time the Universe? > > THEO. No one creates it. Science would call the process evolution; the > pre-Christian philosophers and the Orientalists called it > emanation: we, Occultists and Theosophists, see in it the only > universal and eternal _reality_ casting a periodical reflection of > _itself_ on the infinite Spatial depths. This reflection, which > you regard as the objective _material_ universe, we consider as a > temporary _illusion_ and nothing else. That alone which is eternal > is _real_. > > ENQ. At that rate, you and I are also illusions. > > THEO. As flitting personalities, to-day one person, to-morrow > another—we are. Would you call the sudden flashes of the _Aurora > borealis_, the Northern lights, a “reality,” though it is as real > as can be while you look at it? Certainly not; it is the cause > that produces it, if permanent and eternal, which is the only > reality, while the other is but a passing illusion. > > ENQ. All this does not explain to me how this illusion called the > universe originates; how the conscious _to be_, proceeds to > manifest itself from the unconsciousness that _is_. > > THEO. It is _unconsciousness_ only to our finite consciousness. Verily > may we paraphrase verse v, in the 1st chapter of St. John, > and say “and (Absolute) light (which is darkness) shineth in > darkness (which is illusionary material light); and the darkness > comprehendeth it not.” This absolute light is also absolute and > immutable law. Whether by radiation or emanation—we need not > quarrel over terms—the universe passes out of its homogeneous > subjectivity on to the first plane of manifestation, of which > planes there are seven, we are taught. With each plane it becomes > more dense and material until it reaches this, our plane, on which > the only world approximately known and understood in its physical > composition by Science, is the planetary or Solar system—one _sui > generis_, we are told. > > ENQ. What do you mean by _sui generis_? > > THEO. I mean that, though the fundamental law and the universal working > of laws of Nature are uniform, still our Solar system (like every > other such system in the millions of others in Cosmos) and even > our Earth, has its own programme of manifestations differing > from the respective programmes of all others. We speak of the > inhabitants of other planets and imagine that if they are _men_, > _i.e._, thinking entities, they must be as we are. The fancy of > poets and painters and sculptors never fails to represent even > the angels as a beautiful copy of man—_plus_ wings. We say that > all this is an error and a delusion; because, if on this little > earth alone one finds such a diversity in its flora, fauna and > mankind—from the seaweed to the cedar of Lebanon, from the > jelly-fish to the elephant, from the Bushman and negro to the > Apollo Belvedere—alter the conditions cosmic and planetary, and > there must be as a result quite a different flora, fauna and > mankind. The same laws will fashion quite a different set of > things and beings even on this our plane, including in it all > our planets. How much more different then must be _external_ > nature in other Solar systems, and how foolish is it to judge of > other _stars_ and worlds and human beings by our own, as physical > science does! > > ENQ. But what are your data for this assertion? > > THEO. What science in general will never accept as proof—the cumulative > testimony of an endless series of Seers who have testified to this > fact. Their spiritual visions, real explorations by, and through, > physical and spiritual senses untrammeled by blind flesh, were > systematically checked and compared one with the other, and their > nature sifted. All that was not corroborated by unanimous and > collective experience was rejected, while that only was recorded > as established truth which, in various ages, under different > climes, and throughout an untold series of incessant observations, > was found to agree and receive constantly further corroboration. > The methods used by our scholars and students of the > psycho-spiritual sciences do not differ from those of students of > the natural and physical sciences, as you may see. Only our fields > of research are on two different planes, and our instruments are > made by no human hands, for which reason perchance they are only > the more reliable. The retorts, accumulators, and microscopes of > the chemist and naturalist may get out of order; the telescope > and the astronomer’s horological instruments may get spoiled; our > recording instruments are beyond the influence of weather or the > elements. > > ENQ. And therefore you have implicit faith in them? > > THEO. Faith is a word not to be found in theosophical dictionaries: we > say _knowledge based on observation and experience_. There is this > difference, however, that while the observation and experience of > physical science lead the Scientists to about as many “working” > hypotheses as there are minds to evolve them, our _knowledge_ > consents to add to its lore only those facts which have become > undeniable, and which are fully and absolutely demonstrated. We > have no two beliefs or hypotheses on the same subject. > > ENQ. Is it on such data that you came to accept the strange theories we > find in _Esoteric Buddhism_? > > THEO. Just so. These theories may be slightly incorrect in their minor > details, and even faulty in their exposition by lay students; they > are _facts_ in nature, nevertheless, and come nearer the truth > than any scientific hypothesis. > > ON THE SEPTENARY CONSTITUTION OF OUR PLANET. > > ENQ. I understand that you describe our earth as forming part of a > chain of earths? > > THEO. We do. But the other six “earths” or globes, are not on the same > plane of objectivity as our earth is; therefore we cannot see them. > > ENQ. Is that on account of the great distance? > > THEO. Not at all, for we see with our naked eye planets and even stars > at immeasurably greater distances; but it is owing to those six > globes being outside our physical means of perception, or plane > of being. It is not only that their material density, weight, or > fabric are entirely different from those of our earth and the > other known planets; but they are (to us) on an entirely different > _layer_ of space, so to speak; a layer not to be perceived or felt > by our physical senses. And when I say “layer,” please do not > allow your fancy to suggest to you layers like strata or beds laid > one over the other, for this would only lead to another absurd > misconception. What I mean by “layer” is that plane of infinite > space which by its nature cannot fall under our ordinary waking > perceptions, whether mental or physical; but which exists in > nature outside of our normal mentality or consciousness, outside > of our three dimensional space, and outside of our division of > time. Each of the seven fundamental planes (or layers) in space—of > course as a whole, as the pure space of Locke’s definition, not as > our finite space—has its own objectivity and subjectivity, its own > space and time, its own consciousness and set of senses. But all > this will be hardly comprehensible to one trained in the modern > ways of thought. > > ENQ. What do you mean by a different set of senses? Is there anything > on our human plane that you could bring as an illustration of what > you say, just to give a clearer idea of what you may mean by this > variety of senses, spaces, and respective perceptions? > > THEO. None; except, perhaps, that which for Science would be rather a > handy peg on which to hang a counter-argument. We have a different > set of senses in dream-life, have we not? We feel, talk, hear, > see, taste and function in general on a different plane; the > change of state of our consciousness being evidenced by the fact > that a series of acts and events embracing years, as we think, > pass ideally through our mind in one instant. Well, that extreme > rapidity of our mental operations in dreams, and the perfect > naturalness, for the time being, of all the other functions, show > us that we are on quite another plane. Our philosophy teaches > us that, as there are seven fundamental forces in nature, and > seven planes of being, so there are seven states of consciousness > in which man can live, think, remember and have his being. To > enumerate these here is impossible, and for this one has to turn > to the study of Eastern metaphysics. But in these two states—the > waking and the dreaming—every ordinary mortal, from a learned > philosopher down to a poor untutored savage, has a good proof that > such states differ. > > ENQ. You do not accept, then, the well-known explanations of biology > and physiology to account for the dream state? > > THEO. We do not. We reject even the hypotheses of your psychologists, > preferring the teachings of Eastern Wisdom. Believing in seven > planes of Kosmic being and states of Consciousness, with regard > to the Universe or the Macrocosm, we stop at the fourth plane, > finding it impossible to go with any degree of certainty beyond. > But with respect to the Microcosm, or man, we speculate freely on > his seven states and principles. > > ENQ. How do you explain these? > > THEO. We find, first of all, two distinct beings in man; the spiritual > and the physical, the man who thinks, and the man who records as > much of these thoughts as he is able to assimilate. Therefore we > divide him into two distinct natures; the upper or the spiritual > being, composed of three “principles” or _aspects_; and the lower > or the physical quaternary, composed of _four_—in all _seven_. > > THE SEPTENARY NATURE OF MAN. > > ENQ. Is it what we call Spirit and Soul, and the man of flesh? > > THEO. It is not. That is the old Platonic division. Plato was an > Initiate, and therefore could not go into forbidden details; but > he who is acquainted with the archaic doctrine finds the seven > in Plato’s various combinations of Soul and Spirit. He regarded > man as constituted of two parts—one eternal, formed of the same > essence as the Absoluteness, the other mortal and corruptible, > deriving its constituent parts from the _minor_ “created” Gods. > Man is composed, he shows, of (1) A mortal body, (2) An immortal > principle, and (3) A “separate mortal kind of Soul.” It is that > which we respectively call the physical man, the Spiritual Soul > or Spirit, and the animal Soul (the _Nous_ and _psuche_). This > is the division adopted by Paul, another Initiate, who maintains > that there is a psychical body which is sown in the corruptible > (astral soul or body), and a _spiritual_ body that is raised in > incorruptible substance. Even James (iii. 15) corroborates the > same by saying that the “wisdom” (of our lower soul) descendeth > not from the above, but is terrestrial (“psychical,” “demoniacal,” > _vide_ Greek text); while the other is heavenly wisdom. Now so > plain is it that Plato and even Pythagoras, while speaking but of > three “principles,” give them seven separate functions, in their > various combinations, that if we contrast our teachings this will > become quite plain. Let us take a cursory view of these seven > aspects by drawing two tables. > > THEOSOPHICAL DIVISION. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > { SANSCRIT TERMS. | EXOTERIC MEANING.| EXPLANATORY. > {------------------------------------------------------------------ > L { | | > o {(_a_) Rupa, or |(_a_) Physical |(_a_) Is the vehicle of > w { Sthula-Sarira. | body. | all the other > e { | | “principles” during > r { | | life. > {(_b_) Pranâ. |(_b_) Life, or |(_b_) Necessary only to > { | Vital principle.| _a_, _c_, _d_, and > Q { | | the functions of the > u { | | lower _Manas_, which > a { | | embrace all those > t { | | limited to the > e { | | (_physical_) brain. > r {(_c_) Linga Sharira.|(_c_) Astral Body.|(_c_) The _Double_, the > n { | | phantom body. > a {(_d_) Kama rupa. |(_d_) The seat of |(_d_) This is the centre > r { | animal desires| of the animal man, > y { | and passions. | wherelies the line > . { | | of demarcation which > { | | separates the mortal > { | | man from the > { | | immortal entity. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > { | | > { SANSCRIT TERMS. | EXOTERIC MEANING. | EXPLANATORY. > { | | > T {------------------------------------------------------------------- > H {(_e_) _Manas_—a |(_e_) Mind, Intelligence:|(_e_) The future state > E { dual principle| which is the higher | and the Karmic > { in its | human mind, whose | destiny of man > U { functions. | light, or radiation, | depend on whether > P { | links the MONAD, for | Manas gravitates > P { | the lifetime, to the | more downward to > E { | mortal man. | Kama rupa, the > R { | | seat of the animal > { | | passions, or > I { | | upwards to_Buddhi_, > M { | | Spiritual _Ego_. In > P { | | the latter case, > E { | | the higher > R { | | consciousness of > I { | | the individual > S { | | Spiritual > H { | | aspirations of > A { | | _mind_ (Manas), > B { | | assimilating > L { | | Buddhi, are > E { | | absorbed by it > { | | and form the _Ego_, > T { | | which goes into > R { | | Devachanic bliss.[19] > I {(_f_) Buddhi. |(_f_) The Spiritual |(_f_) The vehicle of > A { | Soul. | pure universal > D { | | spirit. > . {(_g_) Atma. |(_g_) Spirit. |(_g_) One with the > { | | Absolute, as its > { | | radiation. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Now what does Plato teach? He speaks of the _interior_ man as > constituted of two parts—one immutable and always the same, > formed of the same _substance_ as Deity, and the other mortal and > corruptible. These “two parts” are found in our upper _Triad_, > and the lower _Quaternary_ (_vide_ Table). He explains that when > the Soul, _psuche_, “allies herself to the Nous (divine spirit > or substance[20]), she does everything aright and felicitously”; > but the case is otherwise when she attaches herself to _Anoia_, > (folly, or the irrational animal Soul). Here, then, we have > _Manas_ (or the Soul in general) in its two aspects: when > attaching itself to _Anoia_ (our _Kama rupa_, or the “Animal Soul” > in “Esoteric Buddhism,”) it runs towards entire annihilation, as > far as the personal Ego is concerned; when allying itself to the > _Nous_ (Atma-Buddhi) it merges into the immortal, imperishable > Ego, and then its spiritual consciousness of the personal that > _was_, becomes immortal. > > THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOUL AND SPIRIT. > > ENQ. Do you really teach, as you are accused of doing by some > Spiritualists and French Spiritists, the annihilation of every > personality? > > THEO. We do not. But as this question of the duality—the > _individuality_ of the Divine Ego, and the _personality_ of the > human animal—involves that of the possibility of the real immortal > Ego appearing in _Séance rooms_ as a “materialised spirit,” which > we deny as already explained, our opponents have started the > nonsensical charge. > > ENQ. You have just spoken of _psuche_ running towards its entire > annihilation if it attaches itself to _Anoia_. What did Plato, and > do you mean by this? > > THEO. The _entire_ annihilation of the _personal_ consciousness, as an > exceptional and rare case, I think. The general and almost > invariable rule is the merging of the personal into the individual > or immortal consciousness of the Ego, a transformation or a divine > transfiguration, and the entire annihilation only of the lower > _quaternary_. Would you expect the man of flesh, or the _temporary > personality_, his shadow, the “astral,” his animal instincts > and even physical life, to survive with the “spiritual Ego” and > become sempiternal? Naturally all this ceases to exist, either > at, or soon after corporeal death. It becomes in time entirely > disintegrated and disappears from view, being annihilated as a > whole. > > ENQ. Then you also reject _resurrection in the flesh_? > > THEO. Most decidedly we do! Why should we, who believe in the archaic > esoteric philosophy of the Ancients, accept the unphilosophical > speculations of the later Christian theology, borrowed from the > Egyptian and Greek exoteric Systems of the Gnostics? > > ENQ. The Egyptians revered Nature-Spirits, and deified even onions: > your Hindus are _idolaters_, to this day; the Zoroastrians > worshipped, and do still worship, the Sun; and the best Greek > philosophers were either dreamers or materialists—witness Plato > and Democritus. How can you compare? > > THEO. It may be so in your modern Christian and even Scientific > catechism; it is not so for unbiased minds. The Egyptians > revered the “One-Only-One,” as _Nout_; and it is from this word > that Anaxagoras got his denomination _Nous_, or as he calls it, > Νους αυτοχρατης, “the Mind or Spirit Self-Potent,” the αρχητης > χινηδεως, the leading motor, or _primum-mobile_ of all. With > him the _Nous_ was God, and the _logos_ was man, his emanation. > The _Nous_ is the spirit (whether in Kosmos or in man), and the > _logos_, whether Universe or astral body, the emanation of the > former, the physical body being merely the animal. Our external > powers perceive _phenomena_; our _Nous_ alone is able to recognise > their _noumena_. It is the logos alone, or the _noumenon_, that > survives, because it is immortal in its very nature and essence, > and the _logos_ in man is the Eternal Ego, that which reincarnates > and lasts for ever. But how can the evanescent or external shadow, > the temporary clothing of that divine Emanation which returns > to the source whence it proceeded, be that _which is raised in > incorruptibility_? > > ENQ. Still you can hardly escape the charge of having invented a new > division of man’s spiritual and psychic constituents; for no > philosopher speaks of them, though you believe that Plato does. > > THEO. And I support the view. Besides Plato, there is Pythagoras, who > also followed the same idea.[21] He described the _Soul_ as a > self-moving Unit (_monad_) composed of three elements, the _Nous_ > (Spirit), the _phren_ (mind), and the _thumos_ (life, breath or > the _Nephesh_ of the Kabalists) which three correspond to our > “Atma-Buddhi,” (higher Spirit-Soul), to _Manas_ (The EGO), and > to _Kama-rupa_ in conjunction with the _lower_ reflection of > Manas. That which the Ancient Greek philosophers termed _Soul_, > in general, we call Spirit, or Spiritual _Soul_, _Buddhi_, as the > vehicle of _Atma_ (the _Agathon_, or Plato’s Supreme Deity). The > fact that Pythagoras and others state that _phren_ and _thumos_ > are shared by us with the brutes, proves that in this case the > _lower_ Manasic reflection (instinct) and _Kama-rupa_ (animal > living passions) are meant. And as Socrates and Plato accepted > the clue and followed it, if to these five, namely, _Agathon_ > (Deity or Atma), _Psuche_ (Soul in its collective sense), _Nous_ > (Spirit or Mind), _Phren_ (physical mind), and _Thumos_ (Kama-rupa > or passions) we add the _eidolon_ of the Mysteries, the shadowy > _form_ or the human double, and the _physical body_, it will be > easy to demonstrate that the ideas of both Pythagoras and Plato > were identical with ours. Even the Egyptians held to the Septenary > division. In its exit, they taught, the Soul (EGO) had to pass > through its seven chambers, or principles, those it left behind, > and those it took along with itself. The only difference is that, > ever bearing in mind the penalty of revealing Mystery-doctrines, > which was _death_, they gave out the teaching in a broad outline, > while we elaborate it and explain it in its details. But though > we do give out to the world as much as is lawful, even in our > doctrine more than one important detail is withheld, which those > who study the esoteric philosophy and are pledged to silence, _are > alone entitled to know_. > > THE GREEK TEACHINGS. > > ENQ. We have magnificent Greek and Latin, Sanskrit and Hebrew scholars. > How is it that we find nothing in their translations that would > afford us a clue to what you say? > > THEO. Because your translators, their great learning notwithstanding, > have made of the philosophers, the Greeks especially, _misty_ > instead of mystic writers. Take as an instance Plutarch, and read > what he says of “the principles” of man. That which he describes > was accepted literally and attributed to metaphysical superstition > and ignorance. Let me give you an illustration in point: “Man,” > says Plutarch, “is compound; and they are _mistaken who think him > to be compounded of two parts only_. For they imagine that the > understanding (brain intellect) is a part of the soul (the upper > Triad), but they err in this no less than those who make the soul > to be a part of the body, _i.e._, those who make of the _Triad_ > part of the corruptible mortal _quaternary_. For the understanding > (nous) as far exceeds the soul, as the soul is better and diviner > than the body. Now this composition of the soul (ψυχη) with the > understanding (νοῦς) makes reason; and with the body (or thumos, > the animal soul) passion; of which the one is the beginning or > principle of pleasure and pain, and the other of virtue and > vice. Of these three parts conjoined and compacted together, the > earth has given the body, the moon the soul, and the sun the > understanding to the generation of man.” > > This last sentence is purely allegorical, and will be comprehended > only by those who are versed in the esoteric science of > correspondences and know which planet is _related to every > principle_. Plutarch divides the latter into three groups, and > makes of the body a compound of physical frame, astral shadow, > and breath, or the triple lower part, which “from earth was > taken and to earth returns”; of the middle principle and the > instinctual soul, the second part, derived _from_ and _through_ > and ever influenced by the moon[22]; and only of the higher part > or the _Spiritual Soul_, with the Atmic and Manasic elements in > it does he make a direct emanation of the Sun, who stands here > for _Agathon_ the Supreme Deity. This is proven by what he says > further as follows: > > “Now of the deaths we die, the one makes man two of three and > the other one of (out of) two. The former is in the region > and jurisdiction of Demeter, whence the name given to the > Mysteries, τελειν, resembled that given to death, τελευταν. > The Athenians also heretofore called the deceased sacred to > Demeter. As for the other death, it is in the moon or region of > Persephone.” > > Here you have our doctrine, which shows man a _septenary_ during > life; a _quintile_ just after death, in Kama-loka; and a threefold > _Ego_, Spirit-Soul, and consciousness in _Devachan_. This > separation, first in “the Meadows of Hades,” as Plutarch calls > the _Kama-loka_, then in Devachan, was part and parcel of the > performances during the sacred Mysteries, when the candidates for > initiation enacted the whole drama of death, and the resurrection > as a glorified spirit, by which name we mean _Consciousness_. This > is what Plutarch means when he says:— > > “And as with the one, the terrestrial, so with the other > celestial Hermes doth dwell. This suddenly and with violence > plucks the soul from the body; but Proserpina mildly and in a > long time disjoins the understanding from the soul.[23] For > this reason she is called _Monogenes, only begotten_, or rather > _begetting one alone_; for _the better part of man becomes > alone when it is separated by her_. Now both the one and the > other happens thus according to nature. It is ordained by Fate > (Fatum or Karma) that every soul, whether with or without > understanding (mind), when gone out of the body, should wander > for a time, though not all for the same, in the region lying > between the earth and moon (_Kama-loka_).[24] For those that > have been unjust and dissolute suffer then the punishment due > to their offences; but the good and virtuous are there detained > till they are purified, and have, by expiation, purged out of > them all the infections they might have contracted from the > contagion of the body, as if from foul health, living in the > mildest part of the air, called the Meadows of Hades, where > they must remain for a certain prefixed and appointed time. And > then, as if they were returning from a wandering pilgrimage > or long exile into their country, they have a taste of joy, > such as they principally receive who are initiated into Sacred > Mysteries, mixed with trouble, admiration, and each one’s > proper and peculiar hope.” > > This is Nirvanic bliss, and no Theosophist could describe in > plainer though esoteric language the mental joys of Devachan, > where every man has his paradise around him, erected by his > consciousness. But you must beware of the general error into > which too many even of our Theosophists fall. Do not imagine that > because man is called septenary, then _quintuple_ and a triad, he > is a compound of seven, five, or three _entities_; or, as well > expressed by a Theosophical writer, of skins to be peeled off like > the skins of an onion. The “principles,” as already said, save the > body, the life, and the astral _eidolon_, all of which disperse > at death, are simply _aspects_ and _states of consciousness_. > There is but one _real_ man, enduring through the cycle of life > and immortal in essence, if not in form, and this is _Manas_, the > Mind-man or embodied Consciousness. The objection made by the > materialists, who deny the possibility of mind and consciousness > acting without matter is worthless in our case. We do not deny > the soundness of their argument; but we simply ask our opponents, > “Are you acquainted _with all the states of matter_, you who knew > hitherto but of three? And how do you know whether that which we > refer to as ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS or Deity for ever invisible > and unknowable, be not that which, though it eludes for ever our > human _finite_ conception, is still universal Spirit-matter or > matter-Spirit _in its absolute infinitude_?” It is then one of the > lowest, and in its manvantaric manifestations _fractioned_-aspects > of this Spirit-matter, which is the conscious _Ego_ that creates > its own paradise, a fool’s paradise, it may be, still a state of > bliss. > > ENQ. But what is _Devachan_? > > THEO. The “land of gods” literally; a condition, a state of mental > bliss. Philosophically a mental condition analogous to, but far > more vivid and real than, the most vivid dream. It is the state > after death of most mortals. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [19] In Mr. Sinnett’s “Esoteric Buddhism” _d_, _e_, and _f_, are > respectively called the Animal, the Human, and the Spiritual Souls, > which answers as well. Though the principles in _Esoteric Buddhism_ are > numbered, this is, strictly speaking, useless. The dual _Monad_ alone > (_Atma-Buddhi_) is susceptible of being thought of as the two highest > numbers (the 6th and 7th). As to all others, since _that_ “principle” > only which is predominant in man has to be considered as the first and > foremost, no numeration is possible as a general rule. In some men it > is the higher Intelligence (Manas or the 5th) which dominates the rest; > in others the Animal Soul (Kama-rupa) that reigns supreme, exhibiting > the most bestial instincts, etc. > > [20] Paul calls Plato’s _Nous_ “Spirit”; but as this spirit is > “substance,” then, of course, _Buddhi_ and not _Atma_ is meant, as > the latter cannot philosophically be called “substance” under any > circumstance. We include Atma among the human “principles” in order not > to create additional confusion. In reality it is no “human” but the > universal _absolute_ principle of which Buddhi, the Soul-Spirit, is the > carrier. > > [21] “Plato and Pythagoras,” says Plutarch, “distribute the soul into > two parts, the rational (noetic) and irrational (agnoia); that that > part of the soul of man which is rational is eternal; for though it > be not God, yet it is the product of an eternal deity, but that part > of the soul which is divested of reason (agnoia) dies.” The modern > term _Agnostic_ comes from _Agnosis_, a cognate word. We wonder why > Mr. Huxley, the author of the word, should have connected his great > intellect with “the soul divested of reason” which dies? Is it the > exaggerated humility of the modern materialist? > > [22] The Kabalists who know the relation of Jehovah, the life and > children-giver, to the Moon, and the influence of the latter on > generation, will again see the point as much as some astrologers will. > > [23] Proserpina, or Persephone, stands here for post mortem Karma, > which is said to regulate the separation of the lower from the higher > “principles”: the _Soul_, as _Nephesh_, the breath of animal life, > which remains for a time in Kama-loka, from the higher compound _Ego_, > which goes into the state of Devachan, or bliss. > > [24] Until the separation of the higher, spiritual “principle” takes > place from the lower ones, which remain in the Kama-loka until > disintegrated. > > VII. ON THE VARIOUS POST MORTEM STATES. > > THE PHYSICAL AND THE SPIRITUAL MAN. > > ENQ. I am glad to hear you believe in the immortality of the Soul. > > THEO. Not of “the Soul,” but of the divine Spirit; or rather in the > immortality of the reincarnating Ego. > > ENQ. What is the difference? > > THEO. A very great one in our philosophy, but this is too abstruse and > difficult a question to touch lightly upon. We shall have to > analyse them separately, and then in conjunction. We may begin > with Spirit. > > We say that the Spirit (the “Father in secret” of Jesus), or _Atman_, > is no individual property of any man, but is the Divine essence > which has no body, no form, which is imponderable, invisible and > indivisible, that which does not _exist_ and yet _is_, as the > Buddhists say of Nirvana. It only overshadows the mortal; that > which enters into him and pervades the whole body being only > its omnipresent rays, or light, radiated through _Buddhi_, its > vehicle and direct emanation. This is the secret meaning of the > assertions of almost all the ancient philosophers, when they said > that “the _rational_ part of man’s soul”[25] never entered wholly > into the man, but only overshadowed him more or less through the > _irrational_ spiritual Soul or Buddhi.[26] > > ENQ. I laboured under the impression that the “Animal Soul” alone was > irrational, not the Divine. > > THEO. You have to learn the difference between that which is > negatively, or _passively_ “irrational,” because undifferentiated, > and that which is irrational because too _active_ and positive. > Man is a correlation of spiritual powers, as well as a correlation > of chemical and physical forces, brought into function by what we > call “principles.” > > ENQ. I have read a good deal upon the subject, and it seems to me that > the notions of the older philosophers differed a great deal from > those of the mediæval Kabalists, though they do agree in some > particulars. > > THEO. The most substantial difference between them and us is this. > While we believe with the Neo-Platonists and the Eastern teachings > that the spirit (Atma) never descends hypostatically into the > living man, but only showers more or less its radiance on the > _inner_ man (the psychic and spiritual compound of the _astral_ > principles), the Kabalists maintain that the human Spirit, > detaching itself from the ocean of light and Universal Spirit, > enters man’s Soul, where it remains throughout life imprisoned > in the astral capsule. All Christian Kabalists still maintain > the same, as they are unable to break quite loose from their > anthropomorphic and Biblical doctrines. > > ENQ. And what do you say? > > THEO. We say that we only allow the presence of the radiation of Spirit > (or Atma) in the astral capsule, and so far only as that spiritual > radiancy is concerned. We say that man and Soul have to conquer > their immortality by ascending towards the unity with which, if > successful, they will be finally linked and into which they are > finally, so to speak, absorbed. The individualization of man after > death depends on the spirit, not on his soul and body. Although > the word “personality,” in the sense in which it is usually > understood, is an absurdity if applied literally to our immortal > essence, still the latter is, as our individual Ego, a distinct > entity, immortal and eternal, _per se_. _It is only in the case > of black magicians or of criminals beyond redemption, criminals > who have been such during a long series of lives_—that the shining > thread, which links the spirit to the _personal_ soul from the > moment of the birth of the child, is violently snapped, and the > disembodied entity becomes divorced from the personal soul, the > latter being annihilated without leaving the smallest impression > of itself on the former. If that union between the lower, or > personal Manas, and the individual reincarnating Ego, has not > been effected during life, then the former is left to share the > fate of the lower animals, to gradually dissolve into ether, and > have its personality annihilated. But even then the Ego remains a > distinct being. It (the spiritual Ego) only loses one Devachanic > state—after that special, and in that case indeed useless, > life—as that idealized _Personality_, and is reincarnated, after > enjoying for a short time its freedom as a planetary spirit, > almost immediately. > > ENQ. It is stated in _Isis Unveiled_ that such planetary Spirits or > Angels, “the gods of the Pagans or the Archangels of the > Christians,” will never be men on our planet. > > THEO. Quite right. Not “_such_,” but _some_ classes of higher Planetary > Spirits. They will never be men on this planet, because they are > liberated Spirits from a previous, earlier world, and as such they > cannot re-become men on this one. Yet all these will live again in > the next and far higher Mahamanvantara, after this “great Age,” > and “Brahma _pralaya_,” (a little period of 16 figures or so) is > over. For you must have heard, of course, that Eastern philosophy > teaches us that mankind consists of such “Spirits” imprisoned in > human bodies? The difference between animals and men is this: the > former are ensouled by the “principles” _potentially_, the latter > _actually_.[27] Do you understand now the difference? > > ENQ. Yes; but this specialisation has been in all ages the > stumbling-block of metaphysicians. > > THEO. It was. The whole esotericism of the Buddhistic philosophy is > based on this mysterious teaching, understood by so few persons, > and so totally misrepresented by many of the most learned modern > scholars. Even metaphysicians are too inclined to confound the > effect with the cause. An Ego who has won his immortal life as > spirit will remain the same inner self throughout all his rebirths > on earth; but this does not imply necessarily that he must either > remain the Mr. Smith or Mr. Brown he was on earth, or lose his > individuality. Therefore, the astral soul and the terrestrial > body of man may, in the dark hereafter, be absorbed into the > cosmical ocean of sublimated elements, and cease to feel his last > _personal_ Ego (if it did not deserve to soar higher), and the > _divine_ Ego still remain the same unchanged entity, though this > terrestrial experience of his emanation may be totally obliterated > at the instant of separation from the unworthy vehicle. > > ENQ. If the “Spirit,” or the divine portion of the soul, is > pre-existent as a distinct being from all eternity, as Origen, > Synesius, and other semi-Christians and semi-Platonic philosophers > taught, and if it is the same, and nothing more than the > metaphysically-objective soul, how can it be otherwise than > eternal? And what matters it in such a case, whether man leads a > pure life or an animal, if, do what he may, he can never lose his > individuality? > > THEO. This doctrine, as you have stated it, is just as pernicious in > its consequences as that of vicarious atonement. Had the latter > dogma, in company with the false idea that we are all immortal, > been demonstrated to the world in its true light, humanity would > have been bettered by its propagation. > > Let me repeat to you again. Pythagoras, Plato, Timaeus of Locris, and > the old Alexandrian School, derived the _Soul_ of man (or > his higher “principles” and attributes) from the Universal > World Soul, the latter being, according to their teachings, > _Aether_ (Pater-Zeus). Therefore, neither of these “principles” > can be _unalloyed_ essence of the Pythagorean Monas, or our > _Atma-Buddhi_, because the _Anima Mundi_ is but the effect, the > subjective emanation or rather radiation of the former. Both the > _human_ Spirit (or the individuality), the reincarnating Spiritual > Ego, and Buddhi, the Spiritual soul, are pre-existent. But, while > the former exists as a distinct entity, an individualization, > the soul exists as pre-existing breath, an unscient portion > of an intelligent whole. Both were originally formed from the > Eternal Ocean of light; but as the Fire-Philosophers, the > mediæval Theosophists, expressed it, there is a visible as well > as invisible spirit in fire. They made a difference between the > _anima bruta_ and the _anima divina_. Empedocles firmly believed > all men and animals to possess two souls; and in Aristotle we find > that he calls one the reasoning soul, νους and the other, the > animal soul, ψυχη. According to these philosophers, the reasoning > soul comes from _within_ the universal soul, and the other from > _without_. > > ENQ. Would you call the Soul, _i.e._, the human thinking Soul, or what > you call the Ego—matter? > > THEO. Not matter, but substance assuredly; nor would the word “matter,” > if prefixed with the adjective, _primordial_, be a word to > avoid. That matter, we say, is co-eternal with Spirit, and is > not our visible, tangible, and divisible matter, but its extreme > sublimation. Pure Spirit is but one remove from the _no_-Spirit, > or the absolute _all_. Unless you admit that man was evolved > out of this primordial Spirit-matter, and represents a regular > progressive scale of “principles” from _meta_-Spirit down to the > grossest matter, how can we ever come to regard the _inner_ man as > immortal, and at the same time as a spiritual Entity and a mortal > man? > > ENQ. Then why should you not believe in God as such an Entity? > > THEO. Because that which is infinite and unconditioned can have no > form, and cannot be a being, not in any Eastern philosophy worthy > of the name, at any rate. An “entity” is immortal, but is so only > in its ultimate essence, not in its individual form. When at > the last point of its cycle, it is absorbed into its primordial > nature; and it becomes spirit, when it loses its name of Entity. > > Its immortality as a form is limited only to its life-cycle or > the _Mahamanvantara_; after which it is one and identical with > the Universal Spirit, and no longer a separate Entity. As to the > _personal_ Soul—by which we mean the spark of consciousness that > preserves in the Spiritual Ego the idea of the personal “I” of the > last incarnation—this lasts, as a separate distinct recollection, > only throughout the Devachanic period; after which time it is > added to the series of other innumerable incarnations of the Ego, > like the remembrance in our memory of one of a series of days, > at the end of a year. Will you bind the infinitude you claim for > your God to finite conditions? That alone which is indissolubly > cemented by _Atma_ (_i.e._, Buddhi-Manas) is immortal. The Soul > of man (_i.e._, of the personality) _per se_ is neither immortal, > eternal nor divine. Says the _Zohar_ (vol. iii., p. 616), “the > soul, when sent to this earth, puts on an earthly garment, to > preserve herself here, so she receives above a shining garment, > in order to be able to look without injury into the mirror, whose > light proceeds from the Lord of Light.” Moreover, the _Zohar_ > teaches that the soul cannot reach the abode of bliss, unless she > has received the “holy kiss,” or the reunion of the soul _with the > substance from which she emanated_—spirit. All souls are dual, > and, while the latter is a feminine principle, the spirit is > masculine. While imprisoned in body, man is a trinity, unless his > pollution is such as to have caused his divorce from the spirit. > “Woe to the soul which prefers to her divine husband (spirit) the > earthly wedlock with her terrestrial body,” records a text of the > _Book of the Keys_, a Hermetic work. Woe indeed, for nothing will > remain of that personality to be recorded on the imperishable > tablets of the Ego’s memory. > > ENQ. How can that which, if not breathed by God into man, yet is on > your own confession of an identical substance with the divine, > fail to be immortal? > > THEO. Every atom and speck of matter, not of substance only, is > _imperishable_ in its essence, but not in its _individual > consciousness_. Immortality is but one’s unbroken consciousness; > and the _personal_ consciousness can hardly last longer than > the personality itself, can it? And such consciousness, as I > already told you, survives only throughout Devachan, after which > it is reabsorbed, first, in the _individual_, and then in the > _universal_ consciousness. Better enquire of your theologians how > it is that they have so sorely jumbled up the Jewish Scriptures. > Read the Bible, if you would have a good proof that the writers > of the _Pentateuch_, and _Genesis_ especially, never regarded > _nephesh_, that which God breathes into Adam (Gen. ch. ii.), as > the _immortal_ soul. Here are some instances:—“And God created ... > every _nephesh_ (life) that moveth” (Gen i. 21), meaning animals; > and (Gen. ii. 7) it is said: “And man became a _nephesh_” (living > soul), which shows that the word _nephesh_ was indifferently > applied to _immortal_ man and to _mortal_ beast. “And surely > your blood of your _nepheshim_ (lives) will I require; at the > hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man” > (Gen. ix. 5), “Escape for _nephesh_” (escape for thy _life_, it > is translated), (Gen. xix. 17). “Let us not kill him,” reads > the English version (Gen. xxxvii. 21). “Let us not kill his > _nephesh_” is the Hebrew text. “_Nephesh_ for _nephesh_,” says > Leviticus (xvii. 8). “He that killeth any man shall surely be put > to death,” literally “He that smiteth the _nephesh_ of a man” > (Lev. xxiv. 17); and from verse 18 and following it reads: “And he > that killeth a beast (_nephesh_) shall make it good ... Beast for > beast,” whereas the original text has it “nephesh for nephesh.” > How could man _kill_ that which is immortal? And this explains > also why the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, as it > also affords another proof that very probably the Mosaic Jews—the > uninitiated at any rate—never believed in the soul’s survival at > all. > > ON ETERNAL REWARD AND PUNISHMENT; AND ON NIRVANA. > > ENQ. It is hardly necessary, I suppose, to ask you whether you believe > in the Christian dogmas of Paradise and Hell, or in future rewards > and punishments as taught by the Orthodox churches? > > THEO. As described in your catechisms, we reject them absolutely; least > of all would we accept their eternity. But we believe firmly in > what we call the _Law of Retribution_, and in the absolute justice > and wisdom guiding this Law, or Karma. Hence we positively refuse > to accept the cruel and unphilosophical belief in eternal reward > or eternal punishment. We say with Horace:— > > “Let rules be fixed that may our rage contain, > And punish faults _with a proportion’d pain_; > But do not flay him who deserves alone > A whipping for the fault that he has done.” > > This is a rule for all men, and a just one. Have we to believe > that God, of whom you make the embodiment of wisdom, love and > mercy, is less entitled to these attributes than mortal man? > > ENQ. Have you any other reasons for rejecting this dogma? > > THEO. Our chief reason for it lies in the fact of re-incarnation. As > already stated, we reject the idea of a new soul created for every > newly-born babe. We believe that every human being is the bearer, > or _Vehicle_, of an _Ego_ coeval with every other Ego; because > all _Egos_ are _of the same essence_ and belong to the primeval > emanation from one universal infinite _Ego_. Plato calls the > latter the _logos_ (or the second manifested God); and we, the > manifested divine principle, which is one with the universal mind > or soul, not the anthropomorphic, extra-cosmic and _personal_ God > in which so many Theists believe. Pray do not confuse. > > ENQ. But where is the difficulty, once you accept a manifested > principle, in believing that the soul of every new mortal is > _created_ by that Principle, as all the Souls before it have been > so created? > > THEO. Because that which is _impersonal_ can hardly create, plan and > think, at its own sweet will and pleasure. Being a universal > _Law_, immutable in its periodical manifestations, those of > radiating and manifesting its own essence at the beginning of > every new cycle of life, IT is not supposed to create men, only > to repent a few years later of having created them. If we have to > believe in a divine principle at all, it must be in one which is > as absolute harmony, logic, and justice, as it is absolute love, > wisdom, and impartiality; and a God who would _create_ every > soul for the space of _one brief span of life_, regardless of > the fact whether it has to animate the body of a wealthy, happy > man, or that of a poor suffering wretch, hapless from birth to > death though he has done nothing to deserve his cruel fate—would > be rather a senseless _fiend_ than a God. (_Vide infra_, “On > the Punishment of the Ego.”) Why, even the Jewish philosophers, > believers in the Mosaic Bible (esoterically, of course), have > never entertained such an idea; and, moreover, they believed in > re-incarnation, as we do. > > ENQ. Can you give me some instances as a proof of this? > > THEO. Most decidedly I can. Philo Judæus says (in “De Somniis,” p. > 455): “The air is full of them (of souls); those which are nearest > the earth, descending to be tied to mortal bodies, παλινδρομοῦσιν > αὖθις _return to other bodies, being desirous to live in them_.” > In the _Zohar_, the soul is made to plead her freedom before > God: “Lord of the Universe! I am happy in this world, and do > not wish to go into another world, where I shall be a handmaid, > and be exposed to all kinds of pollutions.”[28] The doctrine > of fatal necessity, the everlasting immutable law, is asserted > in the answer of the Deity: “Against thy will thou becomest an > embryo, and against thy will thou art born.”[29] Light would be > incomprehensible without darkness to make it manifest by contrast; > good would be no longer good without evil to show the priceless > nature of the boon; and so personal virtue could claim no merit, > unless it had passed through the furnace of temptation. Nothing > is eternal and unchangeable, save the concealed Deity. Nothing > that is finite—whether because it had a beginning, or must have an > end—can remain stationary. It must either progress or recede; and > a soul which thirsts after a reunion with its spirit, which alone > confers upon it immortality, must purify itself through cyclic > transmigrations onward toward the only land of bliss and eternal > rest, called in the _Zohar_, “The Palace of Love,” היבל אחכה; in > the Hindu religion, “Moksha”; among the Gnostics, “The Pleroma of > Eternal Light”; and by the Buddhists, “Nirvana.” And all these > states are temporary, not eternal. > > ENQ. Yet there is no re-incarnation spoken of in all this. > > THEO. A soul which pleads to be allowed to remain where she is, _must > be pre-existent_, and not have been created for the occasion. In > the _Zohar_ (vol. iii., p. 61), however, there is a still better > proof. Speaking of the reincarnating _Egos_ (the _rational_ > souls), those whose last personality has to fade out _entirely_, > it is said: “All souls which have alienated themselves in heaven > from the Holy One—blessed be His name—have thrown themselves into > an abyss at their very existence, and have anticipated the time > when they are to descend once more on earth.” “The Holy One” means > here, esoterically, the Atman, or _Atma-Buddhi_. > > ENQ. Moreover, it is very strange to find _Nirvana_ spoken of as > something synonymous with the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Paradise, > since according to every Orientalist of note Nirvana is a synonym > of annihilation! > > THEO. Taken literally, with regard to the personality and > differentiated matter, not otherwise. These ideas on > re-incarnation and the trinity of man were held by many of the > early Christian Fathers. It is the jumble made by the translators > of the New Testament and ancient philosophical treatises between > soul and spirit, that has occasioned the many misunderstandings. > It is also one of the many reasons why Buddha, Plotinus, and so > many other Initiates are now accused of having longed for the > total extinction of their souls: “absorption unto the Deity,” > or “reunion with the universal soul,” meaning, according to > modern ideas, annihilation. The personal soul must, of course, > be disintegrated into its particles, before it is able to link > its purer essence for ever with the immortal spirit. But the > translators of both the _Acts_ and the _Epistles_, who laid the > foundation of the _Kingdom of Heaven_, and the modern commentators > on the Buddhist _Sutra of the Foundation of the Kingdom of > Righteousness_, have muddled the sense of the great apostle of > Christianity as of the great reformer of India. The former have > smothered the word ψυχικος so that no reader imagines it to have > any relation with _soul_; and with this confusion of _soul_ and > _spirit_ together, _Bible_ readers get only a perverted sense of > anything on the subject. On the other hand, the interpreters of > Buddha have failed to understand the meaning and object of the > Buddhist four degrees of Dhyâna. Ask the Pythagoreans, “Can that > spirit, which gives life and motion and partakes of the nature of > light, be reduced to nonentity?” “Can even that sensitive spirit > in brutes which exercises memory, one of the rational faculties, > die and become nothing?” observe the Occultists. In Buddhistic > philosophy _annihilation_ means only a dispersion of matter, in > whatever form or _semblance_ of form it may be, for everything > that has form is temporary, and is, therefore, really an illusion. > For in eternity the longest periods of time are as a wink of the > eye. So with form. Before we have time to realize that we have > seen it, it is gone like an instantaneous flash of lightning, and > passed for ever. When the Spiritual _entity_ breaks loose for ever > from every particle of matter, substance, or form, and re-becomes > a Spiritual breath: then only does it enter upon the eternal and > unchangeable _Nirvana_, lasting as long as the cycle of life has > lasted—an eternity, truly. And then that Breath, existing _in > Spirit_, is _nothing_ because it is _all_; as a form, a semblance, > a shape, it is completely annihilated; as absolute Spirit it > still is, for it has become _Be-ness_ itself. The very word used, > “absorbed in the universal essence,” when spoken of the “Soul” as > Spirit, means “_union with_.” It can never mean annihilation, as > that would mean eternal separation. > > ENQ. Do you not lay yourself open to the accusation of preaching > annihilation by the language you yourself use? You have just > spoken of the Soul of man returning to its primordial elements. > > THEO. But you forget that I have given you the differences between the > various meanings of the word “Soul,” and shown the loose way in > which the term “Spirit” has been hitherto translated. We speak of > an _animal_, a _human_, and a _spiritual_, Soul, and distinguish > between them. Plato, for instance, calls “rational SOUL” that > which we call _Buddhi_, adding to it the adjective of “spiritual,” > however; but that which we call the reincarnating Ego, _Manas_, he > calls Spirit, _Nous_, etc., whereas we apply the term _Spirit_, > when standing alone and without any qualification, to Atma alone. > Pythagoras repeats our archaic doctrine when stating that the > _Ego_ (_Nous_) is eternal with Deity; that the soul only passed > through various stages to arrive at divine excellence; while > _thumos_ returned to the earth, and even the _phren_, the lower > _Manas_, was eliminated. Again, Plato defines _Soul_ (Buddhi) as > “the motion that is able to move itself.” “Soul,” he adds (Laws > X.), “is the most ancient of all things, and the commencement of > motion,” thus calling Atma-Buddhi “Soul,” and _Manas_ “Spirit,” > which we do not. > > “Soul was generated prior to body, and body is posterior and > secondary, as being according to nature, ruled over by the > ruling soul.” “The soul which administers all things that are > moved in every way, administers likewise the heavens.” > > “Soul then leads everything in heaven, and on earth, and in > the sea, by its movements—the names of which are, to will, > to consider, to take care of, to consult, to form opinions > true and false, to be in a state of joy, sorrow, confidence, > fear, hate, love, together with all such primary movements > as are allied to these.... Being a goddess herself, she ever > takes as an ally _Nous_, a god, and disciplines all things > correctly and happily; but when with _Annoia_—not _nous_—it > works out everything the contrary.” > > In this language, as in the Buddhist texts, the negative is > treated as essential existence. _Annihilation_ comes under a > similar exegesis. The positive state is essential being, but no > manifestation as such. When the spirit, in Buddhistic parlance, > enters _Nirvana_, it loses objective existence, but retains > subjective being. To objective minds this is becoming absolute > “nothing”; to subjective, NO-THING, nothing to be displayed to > sense. Thus, their Nirvana means the certitude of individual > immortality _in Spirit_, not in Soul, which, though “the most > ancient of all things,” is still—along with all the other _Gods_—a > finite emanation, in _forms_ and individuality, if not in > substance. > > ENQ. I do not quite seize the idea yet, and would be thankful to have > you explain this to me by some illustrations. > > THEO. No doubt it is very difficult to understand, especially to one > brought up in the regular orthodox ideas of the Christian Church. > Moreover, I must tell you one thing; and this is that unless you > have studied thoroughly well the separate functions assigned to > all the human “principles” and the state of all these _after > death_, you will hardly realize our Eastern philosophy. > > ON THE VARIOUS “PRINCIPLES” IN MAN. > > ENQ. I have heard a good deal about this constitution of the “inner > man” as you call it, but could never make “head or tail on’t” as > Gabalis expresses it. > > THEO. Of course, it is most difficult, and, as you say, “puzzling” to > understand correctly and distinguish between the various > _aspects_, called by us, the “principles” of the real EGO. It is > the more so as there exists a notable difference in the numbering > of those principles by various Eastern schools, though at the > bottom there is the same identical substratum of teaching. > > ENQ. Do you mean the Vedantins, as an instance? Don’t they divide your > seven “principles” into five only? > > THEO. They do; but though I would not presume to dispute the point with > a learned Vedantin, I may yet state as my private opinion that > they have an obvious reason for it. With them it is only that > compound spiritual aggregate which consists of various mental > aspects that is called _Man_ at all, the physical body being in > their view something beneath contempt, and merely an _illusion_. > Nor is the Vedanta the only philosophy to reckon in this manner. > Lao-Tze, in his _Tao-te-King_, mentions only five principles, > because he, like the Vedantins, omits to include two principles, > namely, the spirit (Atma) and the physical body, the latter of > which, moreover, he calls “the cadaver.” Then there is the > _Taraka Rajà Yogà_ School. Its teaching recognises only three > “principles” in fact; but then, in reality, their _Sthulopadi_, > or the physical body, in its waking conscious state, their > _Sukshmopadhi_, the same body in _Svapna_, or the dreaming state, > and their _Karanopadhi_ or “causal body,” or that which passes > from one incarnation to another, are all dual in their aspects, > and thus make six. Add to this Atma, the impersonal divine > principle or the immortal element in Man, undistinguished from the > Universal Spirit, and you have the same seven again.[30] They are > welcome to hold to their division; we hold to ours. > > ENQ. Then it seems almost the same as the division made by the mystic > Christians: body, soul and spirit? > > THEO. Just the same. We could easily make of the body the vehicle of > the “vital Double”; of the latter the vehicle of Life or _Pranâ_; > of _Kama-rupa_, or (animal) soul, the vehicle of the _higher_ > and the _lower_ mind, and make of this six principles, crowning > the whole with the one immortal spirit. In Occultism every > qualificative change in the state of our consciousness gives to > man a new aspect, and if it prevails and becomes part of the > living and acting Ego, it must be (and is) given a special name, > to distinguish the man in that particular state from the man he is > when he places himself in another state. > > ENQ. It is just that which it is so difficult to understand. > > THEO. It seems to me very easy, on the contrary, once that you have > seized the main idea, _i.e._, that man acts on this or another > plane of consciousness, in strict accordance with his mental and > spiritual condition. But such is the materialism of the age that > the more we explain the less people seem capable of understanding > what we say. Divide the terrestrial being called man into > three chief aspects, if you like, and unless you make of him a > pure animal you cannot do less. Take his objective _body_; the > thinking principle in him—which is only a little higher than the > _instinctual_ element in the animal—or the vital conscious soul; > and that which places him so immeasurably beyond and higher than > the animal—_i.e._, his _reasoning_ soul or “spirit.” Well, if we > take these three groups or representative entities, and subdivide > them, according to the occult teaching, what do we get? > > First of all, Spirit (in the sense of the Absolute, and therefore, > indivisible ALL), or Atma. As this can neither be located nor > limited in philosophy, being simply that which IS in Eternity, > and which cannot be absent from even the tiniest geometrical or > mathematical point of the universe of matter or substance, it > ought not to be called, in truth, a “human” principle at all. > Rather, and at best, it is in Metaphysics, that point in space > which the human Monad and its vehicle man occupy for the period > of every life. Now that point is as imaginary as man himself, > and in reality is an illusion, a _maya_; but then for ourselves, > as for other personal Egos, we are a reality during that fit of > illusion called life, and we have to take ourselves into account, > in our own fancy at any rate, if no one else does. To make it > more conceivable to the human intellect, when first attempting > the study of Occultism, and to solve the A B C of the mystery > of man, Occultism calls this _seventh_ principle the synthesis > of the sixth, and gives it for vehicle the _Spiritual_ Soul, > _Buddhi_. Now the latter conceals a mystery, which is never given > to any one, with the exception of irrevocably pledged _chelas_, > or those, at any rate, who can be safely trusted. Of course, > there would be less confusion, could it only be told; but, as > this is directly concerned with the power of projecting one’s > double consciously and at will, and as this gift, like the “ring > of Gyges,” would prove very fatal to man at large and to the > possessor of that faculty in particular, it is carefully guarded. > But let us proceed with the “principles.” This divine soul, or > Buddhi, then, is the vehicle of the Spirit. In conjunction, these > two are one, impersonal and without any attributes (on this > plane, of course), and make two spiritual “principles.” If we > pass on to the _Human_ Soul, _Manas_ or _mens_, every one will > agree that the intelligence of man is _dual_ to say the least: > _e.g._, the high-minded man can hardly become low-minded; the very > intellectual and spiritual-minded man is separated by an abyss > from the obtuse, dull, and material, if not animal-minded man. > > ENQ. But why should not man be represented by two “principles” or two > aspects, rather? > > THEO. Every man has these two principles in him, one more active than > the other, and in rare cases, one of these is entirely stunted > in its growth, so to say, or paralysed by the strength and > predominance of the other _aspect_, in whatever direction. > These, then, are what we call the two principles or aspects of > _Manas_, the higher and the lower; the former, the higher Manas, > or the thinking, conscious EGO gravitating toward the spiritual > Soul (Buddhi); and the latter, or its instinctual principle, > attracted to _Kama_, the seat of animal desires and passions in > man. Thus, we have _four_ “principles” justified; the last three > being (1) the “Double,” which we have agreed to call Protean, or > Plastic Soul; the vehicle of (2) the life _principle_; and (3) > the physical body. Of course no physiologist or biologist will > accept these principles, nor can he make head or tail of them. > And this is why, perhaps, none of them understand to this day > either the functions of the spleen, the physical vehicle of the > Protean Double, or those of a certain organ on the right side of > man, the seat of the above-mentioned desires, nor yet does he know > anything of the pineal gland, which he describes as a horny gland > with a little sand in it, which gland is in truth the very seat > of the highest and divinest consciousness in man, his omniscient, > spiritual and all-embracing mind. And this shows to you still more > plainly that we have neither invented these seven principles, nor > are they new in the world of philosophy, as we can easily prove. > > ENQ. But what is it that reincarnates, in your belief? > > THEO. The Spiritual thinking Ego, the permanent principle in man, or > that which is the seat of _Manas_. It is not Atma, or even > Atma-Buddhi, regarded as the dual _Monad_, which is the > _individual_, or _divine_ man, but Manas; for Atman is the > Universal ALL, and becomes the HIGHER-SELF of man only in > conjunction with _Buddhi_, its vehicle, which links IT to the > individuality (or divine man). For it is the Buddhi-Manas which is > called the _Causal body_, (the United 5th and 6th Principles) and > which is _Consciousness_, that connects it with every personality > it inhabits on earth. Therefore, Soul being a generic term, there > are in men three _aspects_ of soul—the terrestrial, or animal; the > Human Soul; and the Spiritual Soul; these, strictly speaking, are > one Soul in its three aspects. Now of the first aspect, nothing > remains after death; of the second (_nous_ or Manas) only its > divine essence _if left unsoiled_ survives, while the third in > addition to being immortal becomes _consciously_ divine, by the > assimilation of the higher Manas. But to make it clear, we have to > say a few words first of all about Re-incarnation. > > ENQ. You will do well, as it is against this doctrine that your enemies > fight the most ferociously. > > THEO. You mean the Spiritualists? I know; and many are the absurd > objections laboriously spun by them over the pages of _Light_. > So obtuse and malicious are some of them, that they will stop at > nothing. One of them found recently a contradiction, which he > gravely discusses in a letter to that journal, in two statements > picked out of Mr. Sinnett’s lectures. He discovers that grave > contradiction in these two sentences: “Premature returns to > earth-life in the cases when they occur may be due to Karmic > complication ...”; and “there is no _accident_ in the supreme act > of divine justice guiding evolution.” So profound a thinker would > surely see a contradiction of the law of gravitation if a man > stretched out his hand to stop a falling stone from crushing the > head of a child! > > FOOTNOTES: > > [25] In its generic sense, the word “rational” meaning something > emanating from the Eternal Wisdom. > > [26] _Irrational_ in the sense that as a _pure_ emanation of the > Universal mind it can have no individual reason of its own on this > plane of matter, but like the Moon, who borrows her light from the Sun > and her life from the Earth, so _Buddhi_, receiving its light of Wisdom > from Atma, gets its rational qualities from _Manas_. _Per se_, as > something homogeneous, it is devoid of attributes. > > [27] _Vide_ “_Secret Doctrine_,” Vol. II., stanzas. > > [28] “_Zohar_,” Vol. II., p. 96. > > [29] “_Mishna_,” “Aboth,” Vol. IV., p. 29. > > [30] See “Secret Doctrine” for a clearer explanation. Vol. I., p. 157. > > VIII. ON RE-INCARNATION OR REBIRTH. > > WHAT IS MEMORY ACCORDING TO THEOSOPHICAL TEACHING? > > ENQ. The most difficult thing for you to do, will be to explain and > give reasonable grounds for such a belief. No Theosophist has > ever yet succeeded in bringing forward a single valid proof to > shake my scepticism. First of all, you have against this theory of > re-incarnation, the fact that no single man has yet been found to > remember that he has lived, least of all who he was, during his > previous life. > > THEO. Your argument, I see, tends to the same old objection; the loss > of memory in each of us of our previous incarnation. You think it > invalidates our doctrine? My answer is that it does not, and that > at any rate such an objection cannot be final. > > ENQ. I would like to hear your arguments. > > THEO. They are short and few. Yet when you take into consideration > (_a_) the utter inability of the best modern psychologists to > explain to the world the nature of _mind_; and (_b_) their > complete ignorance of its potentialities, and higher states, > you have to admit that this objection is based on an _a priori_ > conclusion drawn from _primâ facie_ and circumstantial evidence > more than anything else. Now what is “memory” in your conception, > pray? > > ENQ. That which is generally accepted: the faculty in our mind of > remembering and of retaining the knowledge of previous thoughts, > deeds and events. > > THEO. Please add to it that there is a great difference between the > three accepted forms of memory. Besides memory in general you have > _Remembrance_, _Recollection_ and _Reminiscence_, have you not? > Have you ever thought over the difference? Memory, remember, is a > generic name. > > ENQ. Yet, all these are only synonyms. > > THEO. Indeed, they are not—not in philosophy, at all events. Memory is > simply an innate power in thinking beings, and even in animals, > of reproducing past impressions by an association of ideas > principally suggested by objective things or by some action on our > external sensory organs. Memory is a faculty depending entirely on > the more or less healthy and normal functioning of our _physical_ > brain; and _remembrance_ and _recollection_ are the attributes > and handmaidens of that memory. But _reminiscence_ is an entirely > different thing. “Reminiscence” is defined by the modern > psychologist as something intermediate between _remembrance_ > and _recollection_, or “a conscious process of recalling past > occurrences, but _without that full and varied reference_ to > particular things which characterises _recollection_.” Locke, > speaking of recollection and remembrance, says: “When an _idea > again_ recurs without the operation of the like object on the > external sensory, it is _remembrance_; if it be sought after by > the mind, and with pain and endeavour found and brought again into > view, it is _recollection_.” But even Locke leaves _reminiscence_ > without any clear definition, because it is no faculty or > attribute of our _physical_ memory, but an intuitional perception > apart from and outside our physical brain; a perception which, > covering as it does (being called into action by the ever-present > knowledge of our spiritual Ego) all those visions in man which > are regarded as _abnormal_—from the pictures suggested by genius > to the _ravings_ of fever and even madness—are classed by science > as having no _existence_ outside of our fancy. Occultism and > Theosophy, however, regard _reminiscence_ in an entirely different > light. For us, while _memory_ is physical and evanescent and > depends on the physiological conditions of the brain—a fundamental > proposition with all teachers of mnemonics, who have the > researches of modern scientific psychologists to back them—we call > _reminiscence_ the _memory of the soul_. And it is _this_ memory > which gives the assurance to almost every human being, whether he > understands it or not, of his having lived before and having to > live again. Indeed, as Wordsworth has it: > > “Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting, > The soul that rises with us, our life’s star, > Hath elsewhere had its setting, > And cometh from afar.” > > ENQ. If it is on this kind of memory—poetry and abnormal fancies, on > your own confession—that you base your doctrine, then you will > convince very few, I am afraid. > > THEO. I did not “confess” it was a fancy. I simply said that > physiologists and scientists in general regard such reminiscences > as hallucinations and fancy, to which _learned_ conclusion they > are welcome. We do not deny that such visions of the past and > glimpses far back into the corridors of time, are abnormal, as > contrasted with our normal daily life experience and physical > memory. But we do maintain with Professor W. Knight, that “the > absence of memory of any action done in a previous state cannot > be a conclusive argument against our having lived through it.” > And every fair-minded opponent must agree with what is said in > Butler’s _Lectures on Platonic Philosophy_—“that the feeling of > extravagance with which it (pre-existence) affects us has its > secret source in materialistic or semi-materialistic prejudices.” > Besides which we maintain that memory, as Olympiodorus called it, > is simply _phantasy_, and the most unreliable thing in us.[31] > Ammonius Saccas asserted that the only faculty in man directly > opposed to prognostication, or looking into futurity, is _memory_. > Furthermore, remember that memory is one thing and mind or > _thought_ is another; one is a recording machine, a register which > very easily gets out of order; the other (thoughts) are eternal > and imperishable. Would you refuse to believe in the existence of > certain things or men only because your physical eyes have not > seen them? Would not the collective testimony of past generations > who have seen him be a sufficient guarantee that Julius Cæsar once > lived? Why should not the same testimony of the psychic senses of > the masses be taken into consideration? > > ENQ. But don’t you think that these are too fine distinctions to be > accepted by the majority of mortals? > > THEO. Say rather by the majority of materialists. And to them we say, > behold: even in the short span of ordinary existence, memory is > too weak to register all the events of a lifetime. How frequently > do even most important events lie dormant in our memory until > awakened by some association of ideas, or aroused to function > and activity by some other link. This is especially the case > with people of advanced age, who are always found suffering from > feebleness of recollection. When, therefore, we remember that > which we know about the physical and the spiritual principles > in man, it is not the fact that our memory has failed to record > our precedent life and lives that ought to surprise us, but the > contrary, were it to happen. > > WHY DO WE NOT REMEMBER OUR PAST LIVES? > > ENQ. You have given me a bird’s eye view of the seven principles; now > how do they account for our complete loss of any recollection of > having lived before? > > THEO. Very easily. Since those “principles” which we call physical, and > none of which is denied by science, though it calls them by other > names,[32] are disintegrated after death with their constituent > elements, _memory_ along with its brain, this vanished memory of > a vanished personality, can neither remember nor record anything > in the subsequent re-incarnation of the EGO. Re-incarnation means > that this Ego will be furnished with a _new_ body, a _new_ brain, > and a _new_ memory. Therefore it would be as absurd to expect this > _memory_ to remember that which it has never recorded as it would > be idle to examine under a microscope a shirt never worn by a > murderer, and seek on it for the stains of blood which are to be > found only on the clothes he wore. It is not the clean shirt that > we have to question, but the clothes worn during the perpetration > of the crime; and if these are burnt and destroyed, how can you > get at them? > > ENQ. Aye! how can you get at the certainty that the crime was ever > committed at all, or that the “man in the clean shirt” ever lived > before? > > THEO. Not by physical processes, most assuredly; nor by relying on the > testimony of that which exists no longer. But there is such a > thing as circumstantial evidence, since our wise laws accept it, > more, perhaps, even than they should. To get convinced of the > fact of re-incarnation and past lives, one must put oneself in > _rapport_ with one’s real permanent Ego, not one’s evanescent > memory. > > ENQ. But how can people believe in that which they _do not know_, nor > have ever seen, far less put themselves in _rapport_ with it? > > THEO. If people, and the most learned, will believe in the Gravity, > Ether, Force, and what not of Science, abstractions “and working > hypotheses,” which they have neither seen, touched, smelt, > heard, nor tasted—why should not other people believe, on the > same principle, in one’s permanent Ego, a far more logical and > important “working hypothesis” than any other? > > ENQ. What is, finally, this mysterious eternal principle? Can you > explain its nature so as to make it comprehensible to all? > > THEO. The EGO which reincarnates, the _individual_ and > immortal—not personal—“I”; the vehicle, in short, of the > Atma-Buddhic MONAD, that which is rewarded in Devachan and > punished on earth, and that, finally, to which the reflection only > of the _Skandhas_, or attributes, of every incarnation attaches > itself.[33] > > ENQ. What do you mean by _Skandhas_? > > THEO. Just what I said: “attributes,” among which is _memory_, all of > which perish like a flower, leaving behind them only a feeble > perfume. Here is another paragraph from H. S. Olcott’s “Buddhist > Catechism”[34] which bears directly upon the subject. It deals > with the question as follows:—“The aged man remembers the > incidents of his youth, despite his being physically and mentally > changed. Why, then, is not the recollection of past lives brought > over by us from our last birth into the present birth? Because > memory is included within the Skandhas, and the Skandhas having > changed with the new existence, a memory, the record of that > particular existence, develops. Yet the record or reflection > of all the past lives must survive, for when Prince Siddhartha > became Buddha, the full sequence of His previous births were seen > by Him ... and any one who attains to the state of _Jhana_ can > thus retrospectively trace the line of his lives.” This proves to > you that while the undying qualities of the personality—such as > love, goodness, charity, etc.—attach themselves to the immortal > Ego, photographing on it, so to speak, a permanent image of the > divine aspect of the man who was, his material Skandhas (those > which generate the most marked Karmic effects) are as evanescent > as a flash of lightning, and cannot impress the new brain of the > new personality; yet their failing to do so impairs in no way the > identity of the reincarnating Ego. > > ENQ. Do you mean to infer that that which survives is only the > Soul-memory, as you call it, that Soul or Ego being one and the > same, while nothing of the personality remains? > > THEO. Not quite; something of each personality, unless the latter was > an _absolute_ materialist with not even a chink in his nature for > a spiritual ray to pass through, must survive, as it leaves its > eternal impress on the incarnating permanent Self or Spiritual > Ego.[35] (See On _post mortem_ and _post natal_ Consciousness.) > The personality with its Skandhas is ever changing with every new > birth. It is, as said before, only the part played by the actor > (the true Ego) for one night. This is why we preserve no memory on > the physical plane of our past lives, though the _real_ “Ego” has > lived them over and knows them all. > > ENQ. Then how does it happen that the real or Spiritual man does not > impress his new personal “I” with this knowledge? > > THEO. How is it that the servant-girls in a poor farm-house could speak > Hebrew and play the violin in their trance or somnambulic state, > and knew neither when in their normal condition? Because, as every > genuine psychologist of the old, not your modern, school, will > tell you, the Spiritual Ego can act only when the personal Ego is > paralysed. The Spiritual “I” in man is omniscient and has every > knowledge innate in it; while the personal self is the creature of > its environment and the slave of the physical memory. Could the > former manifest itself uninterruptedly, and without impediment, > there would be no longer men on earth, but we should all be gods. > > ENQ. Still there ought to be exceptions, and some ought to remember. > > THEO. And so there are. But who believes in their report? Such > sensitives are generally regarded as hallucinated hysteriacs, as > crack-brained enthusiasts, or humbugs, by modern materialism. > Let them read, however, works on this subject, pre-eminently > “Re-incarnation, a Study of Forgotten Truth” by E. D. Walker, > F.T.S., and see in it the mass of proofs which the able author > brings to bear on this vexed question. One speaks to people of > soul, and some ask “What is Soul?” “Have you ever proved its > existence?” Of course it is useless to argue with those who are > materialists. But even to them I would put the question: “Can you > remember what you were or did when a baby? Have you preserved > the smallest recollection of your life, thoughts, or deeds, or > that you lived at all during the first eighteen months or two > years of your existence? Then why not deny that you have ever > lived as a babe, on the same principle?” When to all this we add > that the reincarnating Ego, or _individuality_, retains during > the Devachanic period merely the essence of the experience of its > past earth-life or personality, the whole physical experience > involving into a state of _in potentia_, or being, so to speak, > translated into spiritual formulæ; when we remember further that > the term between two rebirths is said to extend from ten to > fifteen centuries, during which time the physical consciousness is > totally and absolutely inactive, having no organs to act through > and therefore _no existence_, the reason for the absence of all > remembrance in the purely physical memory is apparent. > > ENQ. You just said that the SPIRITUAL EGO was omniscient. Where, then, > is that vaunted omniscience during his Devachanic life, as you call > it? > > THEO. During that time it is latent and potential, because first of > all, the Spiritual Ego (the compound of Buddhi-Manas) is _not_ the > Higher SELF, which being one with the Universal Soul or Mind is > alone omniscient; and, secondly, because Devachan is the idealized > continuation of the terrestrial life just left behind, a period > of retributive adjustment, and a reward for unmerited wrongs > and sufferings undergone in that special life. It is omniscient > only _potentially_ in Devachan, and _de facto_ exclusively in > Nirvana, when the Ego is merged in the Universal Mind-Soul. Yet > it re-becomes _quasi_ omniscient during those hours on earth when > certain abnormal conditions and physiological changes in the body > make the _Ego_ free from the trammels of matter. Thus the examples > cited above of somnambulists, a poor servant speaking Hebrew, and > another playing the violin, give you an illustration of the case > in point. This does not mean that the explanations of these two > facts offered us by medical science have no truth in them, for > one girl had, years before, heard her master, a clergyman, read > Hebrew works aloud, and the other had heard an artist playing a > violin at their farm. But neither could have done so as perfectly > as they did had they not been ensouled by THAT which, owing to the > sameness of its nature with the Universal Mind, is omniscient. > Here the higher principle acted on the Skandhas and moved them; > in the other, the personality being paralysed, the individuality > manifested itself. Pray do not confuse the two. > > ON INDIVIDUALITY AND PERSONALITY.[36] > > ENQ. But what is the difference between the two? I confess that I am > still in the dark. Indeed it is just that difference, then, that > you cannot impress too much on our minds. > > THEO. I try to; but alas, it is harder with some than to make them feel > a reverence for childish impossibilities, only because they > are _orthodox_, and because orthodoxy is respectable. To > understand the idea well, you have to first study the dual sets > of “principles”; the _spiritual_, or those which belong to the > imperishable Ego; and the _material_, or those principles which > make up the ever-changing bodies or the series of personalities of > that Ego. Let us fix permanent names to these, and say that:— > > I. Atma, the “Higher Self,” is neither your Spirit nor mine, but > like sunlight shines on all. It is the universally diffused > “_divine principle_,” and is inseparable from its one and > absolute _Meta_-Spirit, as the sunbeam is inseparable from > sunlight. > > II. _Buddhi_ (the spiritual soul) is only its vehicle. Neither each > separately, nor the two collectively, are of any more use > to the body of man, then sunlight and its beams are for a > mass of granite buried in the earth, _unless the divine Duad > is assimilated by, and reflected in_, some _consciousness_. > Neither Atma nor Buddhi are ever reached by Karma, because > the former is the highest aspect of Karma, _its working > agent_ of ITSELF in one aspect, and the other is unconscious > _on this plane_. This consciousness or mind is, > > III. _Manas_,[37] the derivation or product in a reflected form of > _Ahamkara_, “the conception of I,” or EGO-SHIP. It is, > therefore, when inseparably united to the first two, called > the SPIRITUAL EGO, and _Taijasi_ (the radiant). > > This is the real Individuality, or the divine man. It is this Ego > which—having originally incarnated in the _senseless_ human form > animated by, but unconscious (since it had no consciousness) of, > the presence in itself of the dual monad—made of that human-like > form _a real man_. It is that Ego, that “Causal Body,” which > overshadows every personality Karma forces it to incarnate into; > and this Ego which is held responsible for all the sins committed > through, and in, every new body or personality—the evanescent > masks which hide the true Individual through the long series of > rebirths. > > ENQ. But is this just? Why should this EGO receive punishment as the > result of deeds which it has forgotten? > > THEO. It has not forgotten them; it knows and remembers its misdeeds as > well as you remember what you have done yesterday. Is it because > the memory of that bundle of physical compounds called “body” does > not recollect what its predecessor (the personality _that was_) > did, that you imagine that the real Ego has forgotten them? As > well say it is unjust that the new boots on the feet of a boy, who > is flogged for stealing apples, should be punished for that which > they know nothing of. > > ENQ. But are there no modes of communication between the Spiritual and > human consciousness or memory? > > THEO. Of course there are; but they have never been recognised by your > scientific modern psychologists. To what do you attribute > intuition, the “voice of the conscience,” premonitions, > vague undefined reminiscences, etc., etc., if not to such > communications? Would that the majority of educated men, at least, > had the fine spiritual perceptions of Coleridge, who shows how > intuitional he is in some of his comments. Hear what he says with > respect to the probability that “all thoughts are in themselves > imperishable.” “If the intelligent faculty (sudden ‘revivals’ > of memory) should be rendered more comprehensive, it would > require only a different and appropriate organization, the _body > celestial_ instead of the _body terrestrial_, to bring before > every human soul _the collective experience of its whole past > existence_ (_existences_, rather).” And this _body celestial_ is > our Manasic EGO. > > ON THE REWARD AND PUNISHMENT OF THE EGO. > > ENQ. I have heard you say that the _Ego_, whatever the life of the > person he incarnated in may have been on Earth, is never visited > with _post-mortem_ punishment. > > THEO. Never, save in very exceptional and rare cases of which we will > not speak here, as the nature of the “punishment” in no way > approaches any of your theological conceptions of damnation. > > ENQ. But if it is punished in this life for the misdeeds committed in a > previous one, then it is this Ego that ought to be rewarded also, > whether here, or when disincarnated. > > THEO. And so it is. If we do not admit of any punishment outside of > this earth, it is because the only state the Spiritual Self knows > of, hereafter, is that of unalloyed bliss. > > ENQ. What do you mean? > > THEO. Simply this: _crimes and sins committed on a plane of objectivity > and in a world of matter, cannot receive punishment in a world > of pure subjectivity_. We believe in no hell or paradise as > localities; in no objective hell-fires and worms that never die, > nor in any Jerusalems with streets paved with sapphires and > diamonds. What we believe in is a _post-mortem state_ or mental > condition, such as we are in during a vivid dream. We believe > in an immutable law of absolute Love, Justice, and Mercy. And > believing in it, we say: “Whatever the sin and dire results of the > original Karmic transgression of the now incarnated Egos[38] no > man (or the outer material and periodical form of the Spiritual > Entity) can be held, with any degree of justice, responsible for > the consequences of his birth. He does not ask to be born, nor can > he choose the parents that will give him life. In every respect he > is a victim to his environment, the child of circumstances over > which he has no control; and if each of his transgressions were > impartially investigated, there would be found nine out of every > ten cases when he was the one sinned against, rather than the > sinner. Life is at best a heartless play, a stormy sea to cross, > and a heavy burden often too difficult to bear. The greatest > philosophers have tried in vain to fathom and find out its _raison > d’être_, and have all failed except those who had the key to it, > namely, the Eastern sages. Life is, as Shakespeare describes it:— > > ... but a walking shadow—a poor player, That struts and frets his > hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told > by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing....” > > Nothing in its separate parts, yet of the greatest importance in > its collectivity or series of lives. At any rate, almost every > individual life is, in its full development, a sorrow. And are we > to believe that poor, helpless men, after being tossed about like > a piece of rotten timber on the angry billows of life, is, if he > proves too weak to resist them, to be punished by a _sempiternity_ > of damnation, or even a temporary punishment? Never! Whether a > great or an average sinner, good or bad, guilty or innocent, once > delivered of the burden of physical life, the tired and worn-out > _Manu_ (“thinking Ego”) has won the right to a period of absolute > rest and bliss. The same unerringly wise and just rather than > merciful Law, which inflicts upon the incarnated Ego the Karmic > punishment for every sin committed during the preceding life on > Earth, provided for the now disembodied Entity a long lease of > mental rest, _i.e._, the entire oblivion of every sad event, aye, > to the smallest painful thought, that took place in its last life > as a personality, leaving in the soul-memory but the reminiscence > of that which was bliss, or led to happiness. Plotinus, who said > that our body was the true river of Lethe, for “souls plunged into > it forget all,” meant more than he said. For, as our terrestrial > body is like Lethe, so is our _celestial body_ in Devachan, and > much more. > > ENQ. Then am I to understand that the murderer, the transgressor of law > divine and human in every shape, is allowed to go unpunished? > > THEO. Who ever said that? Our philosophy has a doctrine of punishment > as stern as that of the most rigid Calvinist, only far more > philosophical and consistent with absolute justice. No deed, > not even a sinful thought, will go unpunished; the latter more > severely even than the former, as a thought is far more potential > in creating evil results than even a deed.[39] We believe in an > unerring law of Retribution, called KARMA, which asserts itself in > a natural concatenation of causes and their unavoidable results. > > ENQ. And how, or where, does it act? > > THEO. Every labourer is worthy of his hire, saith Wisdom in the Gospel; > every action, good or bad, is a prolific parent, saith the Wisdom > of the Ages. Put the two together, and you will find the “why.” > After allowing the Soul, escaped from the pangs of personal life, > a sufficient, aye, a hundredfold compensation, Karma, with its > army of Skandhas, waits at the threshold of Devachan, whence the > _Ego_ re-emerges to assume a new incarnation. It is at this moment > that the future destiny of the now-rested Ego trembles in the > scales of just Retribution, as _it_ now falls once again under the > sway of active Karmic law. It is in this re-birth which is ready > for _it_, a re-birth selected and prepared by this mysterious, > inexorable, but in the equity and wisdom of its decrees infallible > LAW, that the sins of the previous life of the Ego are punished. > Only it is into no imaginary Hell, with theatrical flames and > ridiculous tailed and horned devils, that the Ego is cast, but > verily on to this earth, the plane and region of his sins, where > he will have to atone for every bad thought and deed. As he > has sown, so will he reap. Re-incarnation will gather around > him all those other Egos who have suffered, whether directly > or indirectly, at the hands, or even through the unconscious > instrumentality, of the past _personality_. They will be thrown > by Nemesis in the way of the _new_ man, concealing the _old_, the > eternal EGO, and ... > > ENQ. But where is the equity you speak of, since these _new_ > “personalities” are not aware of having sinned or been sinned > against? > > THEO. Has the coat torn to shreds from the back of the man who stole > it, by another man who was robbed of it and recognises his > property, to be regarded as fairly dealt with? The new > “personality” is no better than a fresh suit of clothes with its > specific characteristics, colour, form and qualities; but the > _real_ man who wears it is the same culprit as of old. It is the > _individuality_ who suffers through his “personality.” And it is > this, and this alone, that can account for the terrible, still > only _apparent_, injustice in the distribution of lots in life > to man. When your modern philosophers will have succeeded in > showing to us a good reason, why so many apparently innocent and > good men are born only to suffer during a whole lifetime; why so > many are born poor unto starvation in the slums of great cities, > abandoned by fate and men; why, while these are born in the > gutter, others open their eyes to light in palaces; while a noble > birth and fortune seem often given to the worst of men and only > rarely to the worthy; while there are beggars whose _inner_ selves > are peers to the highest and noblest of men; when this, and much > more, is satisfactorily explained by either your philosophers or > theologians, then only, but not till then, you will have the right > to reject the theory of re-incarnation. The highest and grandest > of poets have dimly perceived this truth of truths. Shelley > believed in it, Shakespeare must have thought of it when writing > on the worthlessness of Birth. Remember his words: > > “Why should my birth keep down my mounting spirit? > Are not all creatures subject unto time? > There’s legions now of beggars on the earth, > That their original did spring from Kings, > And many monarchs now, whose fathers were > The riff-raff of their age....” > > Alter the word “fathers” into “Egos”—and you will have the truth. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [31] “The phantasy,” says Olympiodorus (in Platonis Phæd.) “is an > impediment to our intellectual conceptions; and hence, when we are > agitated by the inspiring influence of the Divinity, if the phantasy > intervenes, the enthusiastic energy ceases: for enthusiasm and the > ecstasy are contrary to each other. Should it be asked whether the soul > is able to energise without the phantasy, we reply, that its perception > of universals proves that it is able. It has perceptions, therefore, > independent of the phantasy; at the same time, however, the phantasy > attends in its energies, just as a storm pursues him who sails on the > sea.” > > [32] Namely, the body, life, passional and animal instincts, and the > astral eidolon of every man (whether perceived in thought or our > mind’s eye, or objectively and separate from the physical body), which > principles we call _Sthula sarira_, _Pranâ_, _Kama rupa_, and _Linga > sarira_ (_vide supra_). > > [33] There are five _Skandhas_ or attributes in the Buddhist teachings: > “_Rupa_ (form or body), material qualities; _Vedana_, sensation; > _Sanna_, abstract ideas; _Samkhara_, tendencies of mind; _Vinnana_, > mental powers. Of these we are formed; by them we are conscious of > existence; and through them communicate with the world about us.” > > [34] By H. S. Olcott, President and Founder of the Theosophical > Society. The accuracy of the teaching is sanctioned by the Rev. H. > Sumangala, High Priest of the Sripada and Galle, and Principal of the > _Widyodaya Parivena_ (College) at Colombo, as being in agreement with > the Canon of the Southern Buddhist Church. > > [35] Or the _Spiritual_, in contradistinction to the personal _Self_. > The student must not confuse this Spiritual Ego with the “HIGHER SELF” > which is _Atma_, the God within us, and inseparable from the Universal > Spirit. > > [36] Even in his _Buddhist Cathechism_, Col. Olcott, forced to it by > the logic of Esoteric philosophy, found himself obliged to correct > the mistakes of previous Orientalists who made no such distinction, > and gives the reader his reason for it. Thus he says: “The successive > appearances upon the earth, or ‘descents into generation,’ of the > _tanhaically_ coherent parts (Skandhas) of a certain being are a > succession of personalities. In each birth the PERSONALITY differs > from that of a previous or next succeeding birth. Karma, the DEUS > EX MACHINA, masks (or shall we say reflects?) itself now in the > personality of a sage, again as an artisan, and so on throughout the > string of births. But though personalities ever shift, the one line of > life along which they are strung, like beads, runs unbroken; it is ever > that _particular line_, never any other. It is therefore individual, an > individual vital undulation, which began in Nirvana, or the subjective > side of nature, as the light or heat undulation through æther began > at its dynamic source; is careering through the objective side of > nature under the impulse of Karma and the creative direction of _Tanha_ > (the unsatisfied desire for existence); and leads through many cyclic > changes back to Nirvana. Mr. Rhys-Davids calls that which passes from > personality to personality along the individual chain ‘character,’ or > ‘doing.’ Since ‘character’ is not a mere metaphysical abstraction, but > the sum of one’s mental qualities and moral propensities, would it not > help to dispel what Mr. Rhys-Davids calls ‘the desperate expedient of > a mystery’ (_Buddhism_, p. 101) if we regarded the life-undulation as > individuality, and each of its series of natal manifestations as a > separate personality? The perfect individual, Buddhistically speaking, > is a Buddha, I should say; for Buddha is but the rare flower of > humanity, without the least supernatural admixture. And as countless > generations (‘four _asankheyyas_ and a hundred thousand cycles,’ > Fausboll and Rhys-Davids’ BUDDHIST BIRTH STORIES, p. 13) are required > to develop a _man_ into a Buddha, and _the iron will to become one_ > runs throughout all the successive births, what shall we call that > which thus wills and perseveres? Character? One’s individuality: an > individuality but partly manifested in any one birth, but built up of > fragments from all the births?” (_Bud. Cat., Appendix_ A. 137.) > > [37] MAHAT or the “Universal Mind” is the source of Manas. The latter > is Mahat, _i.e._, mind, in man. Manas is also called _Kshetrajna_, > “embodied Spirit,” because it is, according to our philosophy, the > _Manasa-putras_, or “Sons of the Universal Mind,” who _created_, or > rather produced, the _thinking_ man, “_manu_,” by incarnating in the > _third Race_ mankind in our Round. It is Manas, therefore, which is the > real incarnating and permanent _Spiritual Ego_, the INDIVIDUALITY, and > our various and numberless personalities only its external masks. > > [38] It is on this transgression that the cruel and illogical dogma of > the Fallen Angels has been built. It is explained in Vol. II. of the > _Secret Doctrine_. All our “Egos” are thinking and rational entities > (_Manasa-putras_) who had lived, whether under human or other forms, > in the precedent _life-cycle_ (Manvantara), and whose Karma it was to > incarnate in the _man_ of this one. It was taught in the MYSTERIES > that, having delayed to comply with this law (or having “refused to > create” as Hinduism says of the _Kumaras_ and Christian legend of the > Archangel Michael), _i.e._, having failed to incarnate in due time, the > bodies predestined for them got defiled (Vide Stanzas VIII. and IX. > in the “Slokas of Dzyan,” Vol. II. Secret Doctrine, pp. 19 and 20), > hence the original sin of the senseless forms and the punishment of > the _Egos_. That which is meant by the rebellious angels being hurled > down into Hell is simply explained by these pure Spirits or Egos being > imprisoned in bodies of unclean matter, flesh. > > [39] “Verily, I say unto you, that whosoever looketh at a woman to lust > after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” > (Matt. v., 28.) > > IX. ON THE KAMA-LOKA AND DEVACHAN. > > ON THE FATE OF THE LOWER “PRINCIPLES.” > > ENQ. You spoke of _Kama-loka_, what is it? > > THEO. When the man dies, his lower three principles leave him for ever; > _i.e._, body, life, and the vehicle of the latter, the astral > body or the double of the _living_ man. And then, his four > principles—the central or middle principle, the animal soul or > _Kama-rupa_, with what it has assimilated from the lower Manas, > and the higher triad find themselves in _Kama-loka_. The latter > is an astral locality, the _limbus_ of scholastic theology, the > _Hades_ of the ancients, and, strictly speaking, a _locality_ > only in a relative sense. It has neither a definite area nor > boundary, but exists _within_ subjective space; _i.e._, is beyond > our sensuous perceptions. Still it exists, and it is there > that the astral _eidolons_ of all the beings that have lived, > animals included, await their _second death_. For the animals > it comes with the disintegration and the entire fading out of > their _astral_ particles to the last. For the human _eidolon_ it > begins when the Atma-Buddhi-Manasic triad is said to “separate” > itself from its lower principles, or the reflection of the > _ex-personality_, by falling into the Devachanic state. > > ENQ. And what happens after this? > > THEO. Then the _Kama-rupic_ phantom, remaining bereft of its informing > thinking principle, the higher _Manas_, and the lower aspect of > the latter, the animal intelligence, no longer receiving light > from the higher mind, and no longer having a physical brain to > work through, collapses. > > ENQ. In what way? > > THEO. Well, it falls into the state of the frog when certain portions > of its brain are taken out by the vivisector. It can think no > more, even on the lowest animal plane. Henceforth it is no longer > even the lower Manas, since this “lower” is nothing without the > “higher.” > > ENQ. And is it _this_ nonentity which we find materializing in Séance > rooms with Mediums? > > THEO. It is this nonentity. A true nonentity, however, only as to > reasoning or cogitating powers, still an _Entity_, however > astral and fluidic, as shown in certain cases when, having been > magnetically and unconsciously drawn toward a medium, it is > revived for a time and lives in him by _proxy_, so to speak. This > “spook,” or the Kama-rupa, may be compared with the _jelly-fish_, > which has an ethereal gelatinous appearance so long as it is in > its own element, or water (the _medium’s specific AURA_), but > which, no sooner is it thrown out of it, than it dissolves in the > hand or on the sand, especially in sunlight. In the medium’s Aura, > it lives a kind of vicarious life and reasons and speaks either > through the medium’s brain or those of other persons present. > But this would lead us too far, and upon other people’s grounds, > whereon I have no desire to trespass. Let us keep to the subject > of re-incarnation. > > ENQ. What of the latter? How long does the incarnating _Ego_ remain in > the Devachanic state? > > THEO. This, we are taught, depends on the degree of spirituality and > the merit or demerit of the last incarnation. The average time is > from ten to fifteen centuries, as I already told you. > > ENQ. But why could not this Ego manifest and communicate with mortals > as Spiritualists will have it? What is there to prevent a mother > from communicating with the children she left on earth, a husband > with his wife, and so on? It is a most consoling belief, I must > confess; nor do I wonder that those who believe in it are so > averse to give it up. > > THEO. Nor are they forced to, unless they happen to prefer truth to > fiction, however “consoling.” Uncongenial our doctrines may be to > Spiritualists; yet, nothing of what we believe in and teach is > half as selfish and cruel as what they preach. > > ENQ. I do not understand you. What is selfish? > > THEO. Their doctrine of the return of Spirits, the real “personalities” > as they say; and I will tell you why. If _Devachan_—call it > “paradise” if you like, a “place of bliss and of supreme > felicity,” if it is anything—is such a place (or say _state_), > logic tells us that no sorrow or even a shade of pain can be > experienced therein. “God shall wipe away all the tears from the > eyes” of those in paradise, we read in the book of many promises. > And if the “Spirits of the dead” are enabled to return and see all > that is going on on earth, and especially _in their homes_, what > kind of bliss can be in store for them? > > WHY THEOSOPHISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE RETURN OF PURE “SPIRITS.” > > ENQ. What do you mean? Why should this interfere with their bliss? > > THEO. Simply this; and here is an instance. A mother dies, leaving > behind her little helpless children—orphans whom she > adores—perhaps a beloved husband also. We say that her “_Spirit_” > or _Ego_—that individuality which is now all impregnated, for the > entire Devachanic period, with the noblest feelings held by its > late _personality_, _i.e._, love for her children, pity for those > who suffer, and so on—we say that it is now entirely separated > from the “vale of tears,” that its future bliss consists in that > blessed ignorance of all the woes it left behind. Spiritualists > say, on the contrary, that it is as vividly aware of them, _and > more so than before_, for “Spirits see more than mortals in the > flesh do.” We say that the bliss of the _Devachanee_ consists in > its complete conviction that it has never left the earth, and that > there is no such thing as death at all; that the _post-mortem_ > spiritual _consciousness_ of the mother will represent to her that > she lives surrounded by her children and all those whom she loved; > that no gap, no link, will be missing to make her disembodied > state the most perfect and absolute happiness. The Spiritualists > deny this point blank. According to their doctrine, unfortunate > man is not liberated even by death from the sorrows of this life. > Not a drop from the life-cup of pain and suffering will miss his > lips; and _nolens volens_, since he sees everything now, shall he > drink it to the bitter dregs. Thus, the loving wife, who during > her lifetime was ready to save her husband sorrow at the price of > her heart’s blood, is now doomed to see, in utter helplessness, > his despair, and to register every hot tear he sheds for her > loss. Worse than that, she may see the tears dry too soon, and > another beloved face shine on him, the father of her children; > find another woman replacing her in his affections; doomed to hear > her orphans giving the holy name of “mother” to one indifferent > to them, and to see those little children neglected, if not > ill-treated. According to this doctrine the “gentle wafting to > immortal life” becomes without any transition the way into a new > path of mental suffering! And yet, the columns of the “Banner of > Light,” the veteran journal of the American Spiritualists, are > filled with messages from the dead, the “dear departed ones,” > who all write to say how very _happy_ they are! Is such a state > of knowledge consistent with bliss? Then “bliss” stands in such > a case for the greatest curse, and orthodox damnation must be a > relief in comparison to it! > > ENQ. But how does your theory avoid this? How can you reconcile the > theory of Soul’s omniscience with its blindness to that which is > taking place on earth? > > THEO. Because such is the law of love and mercy. During every > Devachanic period the Ego, omniscient as it is _per se_, clothes > itself, so to say, with the _reflection_ of the “personality” > that was. I have just told you that the _ideal_ efflorescence > of all the abstract, therefore undying and eternal qualities > or attributes, such as love and mercy, the love of the good, > the true and the beautiful, that ever spoke in the heart of the > living “personality,” clung after death to the Ego, and therefore > followed it to Devachan. For the time being, then, the Ego becomes > the ideal reflection of the human being it was when last on earth, > and _that_ is not omniscient. Were it that, it would never be in > the state we call Devachan at all. > > ENQ. What are your reasons for it? > > THEO. If you want an answer on the strict lines of our philosophy, then > I will say that it is because everything is _illusion_ (_Maya_) > outside of eternal truth, which has neither form, colour, nor > limitation. He who has placed himself beyond the veil of maya—and > such are the highest Adepts and Initiates—can have no Devachan. > As to the ordinary mortal, his bliss in it is complete. It is > an _absolute_ oblivion of all that gave it pain or sorrow in > the past incarnation, and even oblivion of the fact that such > things as pain or sorrow exist at all. The _Devachanee_ lives > its intermediate cycle between two incarnations surrounded by > everything it had aspired to in vain, and in the companionship of > everyone it loved on earth. It has reached the fulfilment of all > its soul-yearnings. And thus it lives throughout long centuries > an existence of _unalloyed_ happiness, which is the reward for > its sufferings in earth-life. In short, it bathes in a sea of > uninterrupted felicity spanned only by events of still greater > felicity in degree. > > ENQ. But this is more than simple delusion, it is an existence of > insane hallucinations! > > THEO. From your standpoint it may be, not so from that of philosophy. > Besides which, is not our whole terrestrial life filled with such > delusions? Have you never met men and women living for years in a > fool’s paradise? And because you should happen to learn that the > husband of a wife, whom she adores and believes herself as beloved > by him, is untrue to her, would you go and break her heart and > beautiful dream by rudely awakening her to the reality? I think > not. I say it again, such oblivion and _hallucination_—if you call > it so—are only a merciful law of nature and strict justice. At > any rate, it is a far more fascinating prospect than the orthodox > golden harp with a pair of wings. The assurance that “the soul > that lives ascends frequently and runs familiarly through the > streets of the heavenly Jerusalem, visiting the patriarchs and > prophets, saluting the apostles, and admiring the army of martyrs” > may seem of a more pious character to some. Nevertheless, it is > a hallucination of a far more delusive character, since mothers > love their children with an immortal love, we all know, while the > personages mentioned in the “heavenly Jerusalem” are still of a > rather doubtful nature. But I would, still, rather accept the “new > Jerusalem,” with its streets paved like the show windows of a > jeweller’s shop, than find consolation in the heartless doctrine > of the Spiritualists. The idea alone that the _intellectual > conscious souls_ of one’s father, mother, daughter or brother find > their bliss in a “Summer land”—only a little more natural, but > just as ridiculous as the “New Jerusalem” in its description—would > be enough to make one lose every respect for one’s “departed > ones.” To believe that a pure spirit can feel happy while doomed > to witness the sins, mistakes, treachery, and, above all, the > sufferings of those from whom it is severed by death and whom it > loves best, without being able to help them, would be a maddening > thought. > > ENQ. There is something in your argument. I confess to having never > seen it in this light. > > THEO. Just so, and one must be selfish to the core and utterly devoid > of the sense of retributive justice, to have ever imagined such a > thing. We are with those whom we have lost in material form, and > far, far nearer to them now, than when they were alive. And it is > not only in the fancy of the _Devachanee_, as some may imagine, > but in reality. For pure divine love is not merely the blossom > of a human heart, but has its roots in eternity. Spiritual holy > love is immortal, and Karma brings sooner or later all those who > loved each other with such a spiritual affection to incarnate once > more in the same family group. Again we say that love beyond the > grave, illusion though you may call it, has a magic and divine > potency which reacts on the living. A mother’s _Ego_ filled with > love for the imaginary children it sees near itself, living a life > of happiness, as real to _it_ as when on earth—that love will > always be felt by the children in flesh. It will manifest in their > dreams, and often in various events—in _providential_ protections > and escapes, for love is a strong shield, and is not limited by > space or time. As with this Devachanic “mother,” so with the rest > of human relationships and attachments, save the purely selfish or > material. Analogy will suggest to you the rest. > > ENQ. In no case, then, do you admit the possibility of the > communication of the living with the _disembodied_ spirit? > > THEO. Yes, there is a case, and even two exceptions to the rule. The > first exception is during the few days that follow immediately the > death of a person and before the _Ego_ passes into the Devachanic > state. Whether any living mortal, save a few exceptional > cases—(when the intensity of the desire in the dying person to > return for some purpose forced the higher consciousness _to > remain awake_, and therefore it was really the _individuality_, > the “Spirit” that communicated)—has derived much benefit from > the return of the spirit into the _objective_ plane is another > question. The spirit is dazed after death and falls very soon > into what we call “_pre-devachanic_ unconsciousness.” The second > exception is found in the _Nirmanakayas_. > > ENQ. What about them? And what does the name mean for you? > > THEO. It is the name given to those who, though they have won the right > to Nirvana and cyclic rest—(_not_ “Devachan,” as the latter is > an illusion of our consciousness, a happy dream, and as those > who are fit for Nirvana must have lost entirely every desire or > possibility of the world’s illusions)—have out of pity for mankind > and those they left on earth renounced the Nirvanic state. Such > an adept, or Saint, or whatever you may call him, believing it > a selfish act to rest in bliss while mankind groans under the > burden of misery produced by ignorance, renounces Nirvana, and > determines to remain invisible _in spirit_ on this earth. They > have no material body, as they have left it behind; but otherwise > they remain with all their principles even _in astral life_ in our > sphere. And such can and do communicate with a few elect ones, > only surely not with _ordinary_ mediums. > > ENQ. I have put you the question about _Nirmanakayas_ because I read in > some German and other works that it was the name given to the > terrestrial appearances or bodies assumed by Buddhas in the > Northern Buddhistic teachings. > > THEO. So they are, only the Orientalists have confused this terrestrial > body by understanding it to be _objective_ and _physical_ instead > of purely astral and subjective. > > ENQ. And what good can they do on earth? > > THEO. Not much, as regards individuals, as they have no right to > interfere with Karma, and can only advise and inspire mortals for > the general good. Yet they do more beneficent actions than you > imagine. > > ENQ. To this Science would never subscribe, not even modern psychology. > For them, no portion of intelligence can survive the physical > brain. What would you answer them? > > THEO. I would not even go to the trouble of answering, but would simply > say, in the words given to “M.A. Oxon,” “Intelligence is > perpetuated after the body is dead. Though it is not a question > of the brain only.... It is reasonable to propound the > indestructibility of the human spirit from what we know” (_Spirit > Identity_, p. 69). > > ENQ. But “M.A. Oxon” is a Spiritualist? > > THEO. Quite so, and the only _true_ Spiritualist I know of, though we > may still disagree with him on many a minor question. Apart from > this, no Spiritualist comes nearer to the occult truths than he > does. Like any one of us he speaks incessantly “of the surface > dangers that beset the ill-equipped, feather-headed muddler > with the occult, who crosses the threshold without counting the > cost.”[40] Our only disagreement rests in the question of “Spirit > Identity.” Otherwise, I, for one, coincide almost entirely with > him, and accept the three propositions he embodied in his address > of July, 1884. It is this eminent Spiritualist, rather, who > disagrees with us, not we with him. > > ENQ. What are these propositions? > > THEO. > > “1. That there is a life coincident with, and independent of the > physical life of the body.” > > “2. That, as a necessary corollary, this life extends beyond the > life of the body” (we say it extends throughout Devachan). > > “3. That there is communication between the denizens of that state > of existence and those of the world in which we now live.” > > All depend, you see, on the minor and secondary aspects of these > fundamental propositions. Everything depends on the views we > take of Spirit and Soul, or _Individuality_ and _Personality_. > Spiritualists confuse the two “into one”; we separate them, and > say that, with the exceptions above enumerated, no _Spirit_ will > revisit the earth, though the animal Soul may. But let us return > once more to our direct subject, the Skandhas. > > ENQ. I begin to understand better now. It is the Spirit, so to say, of > those Skandhas which are the most ennobling, which, attaching > themselves to the incarnating Ego, survive, and are added to > the stock of its angelic experiences. And it is the attributes > connected with the material Skandhas, with selfish and personal > motives, which, disappearing from the field of action between two > incarnations, reappear at the subsequent incarnation as Karmic > results to be atoned for; and therefore the Spirit will not leave > Devachan. Is it so? > > THEO. Very nearly so. If you add to this that the law of retribution, > or Karma, rewarding the highest and most spiritual in Devachan, > never fails to reward them again on earth by giving them a further > development, and furnishing the Ego with a body fitted for it, > then you will be quite correct. > > A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE SKANDHAS. > > ENQ. What becomes of the other, the lower Skandhas of the personality, > after the death of the body? Are they quite destroyed? > > THEO. They are and yet they are not—a fresh metaphysical and occult > mystery for you. They are destroyed as the working stock in hand > of the personality; they remain as _Karmic effects_, as germs, > hanging in the atmosphere of the terrestrial plane, ready to come > to life, as so many avenging fiends, to attach themselves to the > new personality of the Ego when it reincarnates. > > ENQ. This really passes my comprehension, and is very difficult to > understand. > > THEO. Not once that you have assimilated all the details. For then you > will see that for logic, consistency, profound philosophy, divine > mercy and equity, this doctrine of Re-incarnation has not its > equal on earth. It is a belief in a perpetual progress for each > incarnating Ego, or divine soul, in an evolution from the outward > into the inward, from the material to the Spiritual, arriving at > the end of each stage at absolute unity with the divine Principle. > From strength to strength, from beauty and perfection of one plane > to the greater beauty and perfection of another, with accessions > of new glory, of fresh knowledge and power in each cycle, such is > the destiny of every Ego, which thus becomes its own Saviour in > each world and incarnation. > > ENQ. But Christianity teaches the same. It also preaches progression. > > THEO. Yes, only with the addition of something else. It tells us of the > _impossibility_ of attaining Salvation without the aid of a > miraculous Saviour, and therefore dooms to perdition all those who > will not accept the dogma. This is just the difference between > Christian theology and Theosophy. The former enforces belief in > the Descent of the Spiritual Ego into the _Lower Self_ the latter > inculcates the necessity of endeavouring to elevate oneself to the > Christos, or Buddhi state. > > ENQ. By teaching the annihilation of consciousness in case of failure, > however, don’t you think that it amounts to the annihilation of > _Self_, in the opinion of the non-metaphysical? > > THEO. From the standpoint of those who believe in the resurrection of > the body _literally_, and insist that every bone, every artery and > atom of flesh will be raised bodily on the Judgment Day—of course > it does. If you still insist that it is the perishable form and > finite qualities that make up _immortal_ man, then we shall hardly > understand each other. And if you do not understand that, by > limiting the existence of every Ego to one life on earth, you make > of Deity an ever-drunken Indra of the Puranic dead letter, a cruel > Moloch, a god who makes an inextricable mess on Earth, and yet > claims thanks for it, then the sooner we drop the conversation the > better. > > ENQ. But let us return, now that the subject of the Skandhas is > disposed of, to the question of the consciousness which survives > death. This is the point which interests most people. Do we > possess more knowledge in Devachan than we do in Earth life? > > THEO. In one sense, we can acquire more knowledge; that is, we can > develop further any faculty which we loved and strove after during > life, provided it is concerned with abstract and ideal things, > such as music, painting, poetry, etc., since Devachan is merely an > idealized and subjective continuation of earth-life. > > ENQ. But if in Devachan the Spirit is free from matter, why should it > not possess all knowledge? > > THEO. Because, as I told you, the Ego is, so to say, wedded to the > memory of its last incarnation. Thus, if you think over what I > have said, and string all the facts together, you will realize > that the Devachanic state is not one of omniscience, but a > transcendental continuation of the personal life just terminated. > It is the rest of the soul from the toils of life. > > ENQ. But the scientific materialists assert that after the death of man > nothing remains; that the human body simply disintegrates into > its component elements; and that what we call soul is merely a > temporary self-consciousness produced as a bye-product of organic > action, which will evaporate like steam. Is not theirs a strange > state of mind? > > THEO. Not strange at all, that I see. If they say that > self-consciousness ceases with the body, then in their case they > simply utter an unconscious prophecy, for once they are firmly > convinced of what they assert, no conscious after-life is possible > for them. For there _are_ exceptions to every rule. > > ON POST-MORTEM AND POST-NATAL CONSCIOUSNESS.[41] > > ENQ. But if human self-consciousness survives death as a rule, why > should there be exceptions? > > THEO. In the fundamental principles of the spiritual world no exception > is possible. But there are rules for those who see, and rules for > those who prefer to remain blind. > > ENQ. Quite so, I understand. This is but an aberration of the blind > man, who denies the existence of the sun because he does not see > it. But after death his spiritual eyes will certainly compel him > to see. Is this what you mean? > > THEO. He will not be compelled, nor will he see anything. Having > persistently denied during life the continuance of existence after > death, he will be unable to see it, because his spiritual capacity > having been stunted in life, it cannot develop after death, and > he will remain blind. By insisting that he _must_ see it, you > evidently mean one thing and I another. You speak of the spirit > from the spirit, or the flame from the flame—of Atma, in short—and > you confuse it with the human soul—Manas.... You do not understand > me; let me try to make it clear. The whole gist of your question > is to know whether, in the case of a downright materialist, the > complete loss of self-consciousness and self-perception after > death is possible? Isn’t it so? I answer, It is possible. Because, > believing firmly in our Esoteric Doctrine, which refers to the > _post-mortem_ period, or the interval between two lives or births > as merely a transitory state, I say, whether that interval between > two acts of the illusionary drama of life lasts one year or a > million, that _post-mortem_ state may, without any breach of the > fundamental law, prove to be just the same state as that of a man > who is in a dead faint. > > ENQ. But since you have just said that the fundamental laws of the > after death state admit of no exceptions, how can this be? > > THEO. Nor do I say that it does admit of an exception. But the > spiritual law of continuity applies only to things which are truly > real. To one who has read and understood Mundakya Upanishad and > Vedanta-Sara all this becomes very clear. I will say more: it is > sufficient to understand what we mean by Buddhi and the duality > of Manas to gain a clear perception why the materialist may fail > to have a self-conscious survival after death. Since Manas, in > its lower aspect, is the seat of the terrestrial mind, it can, > therefore, give only that perception of the Universe which is > based on the evidence of that mind; it cannot give spiritual > vision. It is said in the Eastern school, that between Buddhi and > Manas (the _Ego_), or Iswara and Pragna[42] there is in reality > no more difference than _between a forest and its trees, a lake > and its waters_, as the Mundakya teaches. One or hundreds of trees > dead from loss of vitality, or uprooted, are yet incapable of > preventing the forest from being still a forest. > > ENQ. But, as I understand it, Buddhi represents in this simile the > forest, and Manas-taijasi[43] the trees. And if Buddhi is > immortal, how can that which is similar to it, _i.e._, > Manas-taijasi, entirely lose its consciousness till the day of its > new incarnation? I cannot understand it. > > THEO. You cannot, because you will mix up an abstract representation of > the whole with its casual changes of form. Remember that if it > can be said of Buddhi-Manas that it is unconditionally immortal, > the same cannot be said of the lower Manas, still less of > Taijasi, which is merely an attribute. Neither of these, neither > Manas nor Taijasi, can exist apart from Buddhi, the divine > soul, because the first (_Manas_) is, in its lower aspect, a > qualificative attribute of the terrestrial personality, and the > second (_Taijasi_) is identical with the first, because it is the > same Manas only with the light of Buddhi reflected on it. In its > turn, Buddhi would remain only an impersonal spirit without this > element which it borrows from the human soul, which conditions > and makes of it, in this illusive Universe, _as it were something > separate_ from the universal soul for the whole period of the > cycle of incarnation. Say rather that _Buddhi-Manas_ can neither > die nor lose its compound self-consciousness in Eternity, nor the > recollection of its previous incarnations in which the two—_i.e_, > the spiritual and the human soul—had been closely linked together. > But it is not so in the case of a materialist, whose human soul > not only receives nothing from the divine soul, but even refuses > to recognise its existence. You can hardly apply this axiom to the > attributes and qualifications of the human soul, for it would be > like saying that because your divine soul is immortal, therefore > the bloom on your cheek must also be immortal; whereas this bloom, > like Taijasi, is simply a transitory phenomenon. > > ENQ. Do I understand you to say that we must not mix in our minds the > noumenon with the phenomenon, the cause with its effect? > > THEO. I do say so, and repeat that, limited to Manas or the human soul > alone, the radiance of Taijasi itself becomes a mere question > of time; because both immortality and consciousness after death > become, for the terrestrial personality of man, simply conditioned > attributes, as they depend entirely on conditions and beliefs > created by the human soul itself during the life of its body. > Karma acts incessantly; we reap _in our after-life_ only the fruit > of that which we have ourselves sown in this. > > ENQ. But if my Ego can, after the destruction of my body, become > plunged in a state of entire unconsciousness, then where can be > the punishment for the sins of my past life? > > THEO. Our philosophy teaches that Karmic punishment reaches Ego only in > its next incarnation. After death it receives only the reward for > the unmerited sufferings endured during its past incarnation.[44] > The whole punishment after death, even for the materialist, > consists, therefore, in the absence of any reward, and the utter > loss of the consciousness of one’s bliss and rest. Karma is the > child of the terrestrial Ego, the fruit of the actions of the tree > which is the objective personality visible to all, as much as > the fruit of all the thoughts and even motives of the spiritual > “I”; but Karma is also the tender mother, who heals the wounds > inflicted by her during the preceding life, before she will begin > to torture this Ego by inflicting upon him new ones. If it may > be said that there is not a mental or physical suffering in the > life of a mortal which is not the direct fruit and consequence of > some sin in a preceding existence; on the other hand, since he > does not preserve the slightest recollection of it in his actual > life, and feels himself not deserving of such punishment, and > therefore thinks he suffers for no guilt of his own, this alone is > sufficient to entitle the human soul to the fullest consolation, > rest, and bliss in his _post-mortem_ existence. Death comes to > our spiritual selves ever as a deliverer and friend. For the > materialist, who, notwithstanding his materialism, was not a bad > man, the interval between the two lives will be like the unbroken > and placid sleep of a child, either entirely dreamless, or filled > with pictures of which he will have no definite perception; while > for the average mortal it will be a dream as vivid as life, and > full of realistic bliss and visions. > > ENQ. Then the personal man must always go on suffering _blindly_ the > Karmic penalties which the Ego has incurred? > > THEO. Not quite so. At the solemn moment of death every man, even when > death is sudden, sees the whole of his past life marshalled before > him, in its minutest details. For one short instant the _personal_ > becomes one with the _individual_ and all-knowing _Ego_. But this > instant is enough to show to him the whole claim of causes which > have been at work during his life. He sees and now understands > himself as he is, unadorned by flattery or self-deception. He > reads his life, remaining as a spectator looking down into the > arena he is quitting; he feels and knows the justice of all the > suffering that has overtaken him. > > ENQ. Does this happen to everyone? > > THEO. Without any exception. Very good and holy men see, we are taught, > not only the life they are leaving, but even several preceding > lives in which were produced the causes that made them what they > were in the life just closing. They recognise the law of Karma in > all its majesty and justice. > > ENQ. Is there anything corresponding to this before re-birth? > > THEO. There is. As the man at the moment of death has a retrospective > insight into the life he has led, so, at the moment he is reborn > on to earth, the _Ego_, awaking from the state of Devachan, has > a prospective vision of the life which awaits him, and realizes > all the causes that have led to it. He realizes them and sees > futurity, because it is between Devachan and re-birth that the > _Ego_ regains his full _manasic_ consciousness, and re-becomes for > a short time the god he was, before, in compliance with Karmic > law, he first descended into matter and incarnated in the first > man of flesh. The “golden thread” sees all its “pearls” and misses > not one of them. > > WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY ANNIHILATION. > > ENQ. I have heard some Theosophists speak of a golden thread on which > their lives were strung. What do they mean by this? > > THEO. In the Hindu Sacred books it is said that that which undergoes > periodical incarnation is the _Sutratma_, which means literally > the “Thread Soul.” It is a synonym of the reincarnating Ego—Manas > conjoined with _Buddhi_—which absorbs the Manasic recollections > of all our preceding lives. It is so called, because, like the > pearls on a thread, so is the long series of human lives strung > together on that one thread. In some Upanishad these recurrent > rebirths are likened to the life of a mortal which oscillates > periodically between sleep and waking. > > ENQ. This, I must say, does not seem very clear, and I will tell you > why. For the man who awakes, another day commences, but that man > is the same in soul and body as he was the day before; whereas > at every incarnation a full change takes place not only of the > external envelope, sex, and personality, but even of the mental > and psychic capacities. The simile does not seem to me quite > correct. The man who arises from sleep remembers quite clearly > what he has done yesterday, the day before, and even months and > years ago. But none of us has the slightest recollection of a > preceding life or of any fact or event concerning it.... I may > forget in the morning what I have dreamt during the night, still I > know that I have slept and have the certainty that I lived during > sleep; but what recollection can I have of my past incarnation > until the moment of death? How do you reconcile this? > > THEO. Some people do recollect their past incarnations during life; but > these are Buddhas and Initiates. This is what the Yogis call > Samma-Sambuddha, or the knowledge of the whole series of one’s > past incarnations. > > ENQ. But we ordinary mortals who have not reached Samma-Sambuddha, how > are we to understand this simile? > > THEO. By studying it and trying to understand more correctly the > characteristics and the three kinds of sleep. Sleep is a general > and immutable law for man as for beast, but there are different > kinds of sleep and still more different dreams and visions. > > ENQ. But this takes us to another subject. Let us return to the > materialist who, while not denying dreams, which he could hardly > do, yet denies immortality in general and the survival of his own > individuality. > > THEO. And the materialist, without knowing it, is right. One who has no > inner perception of, and faith in, the immortality of his soul, > in that man the soul can never become Buddhi-taijasi, but will > remain simply Manas, and for Manas alone there is no immortality > possible. In order to live in the world to come a conscious > life, one has to believe first of all in that life during the > terrestrial existence. On these two aphorisms of the Secret > Science all the philosophy about the _post-mortem_ consciousness > and the immortality of the soul is built. The Ego receives always > according to its deserts. After the dissolution of the body, > there commences for it a period of full awakened consciousness, > or a state of chaotic dreams, or an utterly dreamless sleep > undistinguishable from annihilation, and these are the three > kinds of sleep. If our physiologists find the cause of dreams and > visions in an unconscious preparation for them during the waking > hours, why cannot the same be admitted for the _post-mortem_ > dreams? I repeat it: _death is sleep_. After death, before the > spiritual eyes of the soul, begins a performance according to > a programme learnt and very often unconsciously composed by > ourselves: the practical carrying out of _correct_ beliefs or of > illusions which have been created by ourselves. The Methodist will > be Methodist, the Mussulman a Mussulman, at least for some time—in > a perfect fool’s paradise of each man’s creation and making. These > are the _post-mortem_ fruits of the tree of life. Naturally, our > belief or unbelief in the fact of conscious immortality is unable > to influence the unconditioned reality of the fact itself, once > that it exists; but the belief or unbelief in that immortality > as the property of independent or separate entities, cannot fail > to give colour to that fact in its application to each of these > entities. Now do you begin to understand it? > > ENQ. I think I do. The materialist, disbelieving in everything that > cannot be proven to him by his five senses, or by scientific > reasoning, based exclusively on the data furnished by these senses > in spite of their inadequacy, and rejecting every spiritual > manifestation, accepts life as the only conscious existence. > Therefore according to their beliefs so will it be unto them. They > will lose their personal Ego, and will plunge into a dreamless > sleep until a new awakening. Is it so? > > THEO. Almost so. Remember the practically universal teaching of the two > kinds of conscious existence: the terrestrial and the spiritual. > The latter must be considered real from the very fact that it is > inhabited by the eternal, changeless and immortal Monad; whereas > the incarnating Ego dresses itself up in new garments entirely > different from those of its previous incarnations, and in which > all except its spiritual prototype is doomed to a change so > radical as to leave no trace behind. > > ENQ. How so? Can my conscious terrestrial “I” perish not only for a > time, like the consciousness of the materialist, but so entirely > as to leave no trace behind? > > THEO. According to the teaching, it must so perish and in its fullness, > all except the principle which, having united itself with the > Monad, has thereby become a purely spiritual and indestructible > essence, one with it in the Eternity. But in the case of an > out-and-out materialist, in whose personal “I” no Buddhi has ever > reflected itself, how can the latter carry away into the Eternity > one particle of that terrestrial personality? Your spiritual “I” > is immortal; but from your present self it can carry away into > Eternity that only which has become worthy of immortality, namely, > the aroma alone of the flower that has been mown by death. > > ENQ. Well, and the flower, the terrestrial “I”? > > THEO. The flower, as all past and future flowers which have blossomed > and will have to blossom on the mother bough, the _Sutratma_, > all children of one root or Buddhi—will return to dust. Your > present “I,” as you yourself know, is not the body now sitting > before me, nor yet is it what I would call Manas-Sutratma, but > Sutratma-Buddhi. > > ENQ. But this does not explain to me, at all, why you call life after > death immortal, infinite and real, and the terrestrial life a > simple phantom or illusion; since even that _post-mortem_ life has > limits, however much wider they may be than those of terrestrial > life. > > THEO. No doubt. The spiritual Ego of man moves in eternity like a > pendulum between the hours of birth and death. But if these hours, > marking the periods of life terrestrial and life spiritual, are > limited in their duration, and if the very number of such stages > in Eternity between sleep and awakening, illusion and reality, > has its beginning and its end, on the other hand, the spiritual > pilgrim is eternal. Therefore are the hours of his _post-mortem_ > life, when, disembodied, he stands face to face with truth and > not the mirages of his transitory earthly existences, during > the period of that pilgrimage which we call “the cycle of > rebirths”—the only reality in our conception. Such intervals, > their limitation notwithstanding, do not prevent the Ego, while > ever perfecting itself, from following undeviatingly, though > gradually and slowly, the path to its last transformation, when > that Ego, having reached its goal, becomes a divine being. These > intervals and stages help towards this final result instead of > hindering it; and without such limited intervals the divine > Ego could never reach its ultimate goal. I have given you once > already a familiar illustration by comparing the _Ego_, or the > _individuality_, to an actor, and its numerous and various > incarnations to the parts it plays. Will you call these parts or > their costumes the individuality of the actor himself? Like that > actor, the Ego is forced to play during the cycle of necessity, > up to the very threshold of _Paranirvana_, many parts such as > may be unpleasant to it. But as the bee collects its honey from > every flower, leaving the rest as food for the earthly worms, so > does our spiritual individuality, whether we call it Sutratma or > Ego. Collecting from every terrestrial personality, into which > Karma forces it to incarnate, the nectar alone of the spiritual > qualities and self-consciousness, it unites all these into one > whole and emerges from its chrysalis as the glorified Dhyan > Chohan. So much the worse for those terrestrial personalities > from which it could collect nothing. Such personalities cannot > assuredly outlive consciously their terrestrial existence. > > ENQ. Thus, then, it seems that, for the terrestrial personality, > immortality is still conditional. Is, then, immortality itself > _not_ unconditional? > > THEO. Not at all. But immortality cannot touch the _non-existent_: for > all that which exists as SAT, or emanates from SAT, immortality > and Eternity are absolute. Matter is the opposite pole of spirit, > and yet the two are one. The essence of all this, _i.e._, Spirit, > Force and Matter, or the three in one, is as endless as it is > beginningless; but the form acquired by this triple unity during > its incarnations, its externality, is certainly only the illusion > of our personal conceptions. Therefore do we call Nirvana and the > Universal life alone a reality, while relegating the terrestrial > life, its terrestrial personality included, and even its > Devachanic existence, to the phantom realm of illusion. > > ENQ. But why in such a case call sleep the reality, and waking the > illusion? > > THEO. It is simply a comparison made to facilitate the grasping of the > subject, and from the standpoint of terrestrial conceptions it is > a very correct one. > > ENQ. And still I cannot understand, if the life to come is based on > justice and the merited retribution for all our terrestrial > suffering, how in the case of materialists, many of whom are > really honest and charitable men, there should remain of their > personality nothing but the refuse of a faded flower. > > THEO. No one ever said such a thing. No materialist, however > unbelieving, can die for ever in the fulness of his spiritual > individuality. What was said is that consciousness can disappear > either fully or partially in the case of a materialist, so that no > conscious remains of his personality survive. > > ENQ. But surely this is annihilation? > > THEO. Certainly not. One can sleep a dead sleep and miss several > stations during a long railway journey, without the slightest > recollection or consciousness, and awake at another station and > continue the journey past innumerable other halting-places till > the end of the journey or the goal is reached. Three kinds of > sleep were mentioned to you: the dreamless, the chaotic, and > the one which is so real, that to the sleeping man his dreams > become full realities. If you believe in the latter why can’t you > believe in the former; according to the after life a man has > believed in and expected, such is the life he will have. He who > expected no life to come will have an absolute blank, amounting > to annihilation, in the interval between the two rebirths. > This is just the carrying out of the programme we spoke of, a > programme created by the materialists themselves. But there are > various kinds of materialists, as you say. A selfish, wicked > Egoist, one who never shed a tear for anyone but himself, thus > adding entire indifference to the whole world to his unbelief, > must, at the threshold of death, drop his personality for ever. > This personality having no tendrils of sympathy for the world > around and hence nothing to hook on to Sutratma, it follows that > with the last breath every connection between the two is broken. > There being no Devachan for such a materialist, the Sutratma will > reincarnate almost immediately. But those materialists who erred > in nothing but their disbelief will oversleep but one station. And > the time will come when that ex-materialist will perceive himself > in the Eternity and perhaps repent that he lost even one day, one > station, from the life eternal. > > ENQ. Still, would it not be more correct to say that death is birth > into a new life, or a return once more into eternity? > > THEO. You may if you like. Only remember that births differ, and that > there are births of “still-born” beings, which are _failures_ of > nature. Moreover, with your Western fixed ideas about material > life, the words “living” and “being” are quite inapplicable to > the pure subjective state of _post-mortem_ existence. It is just > because, save in a few philosophers who are not read by the many, > and who themselves are too confused to present a distinct picture > of it, it is just because your Western ideas of life and death > have finally become so narrow, that on the one hand they have > led to crass materialism, and on the other, to the still more > material conception of the other life, which the spiritualists > have formulated in their Summer-land. There the souls of men eat, > drink, marry, and live in a paradise quite as sensual as that > of Mohammed, but even less philosophical. Nor are the average > conceptions of the uneducated Christians any better, being if > possible still more material. What between truncated angels, brass > trumpets, golden harps, and material hell-fires, the Christian > heaven seems like a fairy scene at a Christmas pantomime. > > It is because of these narrow conceptions that you find such > difficulty in understanding. It is just because the life of the > disembodied soul, while possessing all the vividness of reality, > as in certain dreams, is devoid of every grossly objective form of > terrestrial life, that the Eastern philosophers have compared it > with visions during sleep. > > DEFINITE WORDS FOR DEFINITE THINGS. > > ENQ. Don’t you think it is because there are no definite and fixed > terms to indicate each “Principle” in man, that such a confusion > of ideas arises in our minds with respect to the respective > functions of these “Principles”? > > THEO. I have thought of it myself. The whole trouble has arisen from > this: we have started our expositions of, and discussion about, > the “Principles” using their Sanskrit names instead of coining > immediately, for the use of Theosophists, their equivalents in > English. We must try and remedy this now. > > ENQ. You will do well, as it may avoid further confusion; no two > theosophical writers, it seems to me, have hitherto agreed to call > the same “Principle” by the same name. > > THEO. The confusion is more apparent than real, however. I have heard > some of our Theosophists express surprise at, and criticize > several essays speaking of these “principles”; but, when examined, > there was no worse mistake in them than that of using the word > “Soul” to cover the three principles without specifying the > distinctions. The first, as positively the clearest of our > Theosophical writers, Mr. A. P. Sinnett, has some comprehensive > and admirably-written passages on the “Higher Self.”[45] His real > idea has also been misconceived by some, owing to his using the > word “Soul” in a general sense. Yet here are a few passages which > will show to you how clear and comprehensive is all that he writes > on the subject:— > > ... “The human soul, once launched on the streams of evolution > as a human individuality,[46] passes through alternate periods of > physical and relatively spiritual existence. It passes from the > one plane, or stratum, or condition of nature to the other under > the guidance of its Karmic affinities; living in incarnations the > life which its Karma has pre-ordained; modifying its progress > within the limitations of circumstances, and,—developing fresh > Karma by its use or abuse of opportunities,—it returns to > spiritual existence (Devachan) after each physical life,—through > the intervening region of Kamaloca—for rest and refreshment and > for the gradual absorption into its essence, as so much cosmic > progress, of the life’s experience gained ‘on earth’ or during > physical existence. This view of the matter will, moreover, have > suggested many collateral inferences to anyone thinking over the > subject; for instance, that the transfer of consciousness from > the Kamaloca to the Devachanic stage of this progression would > necessarily be gradual[47]; that in truth, no hard-and-fast line > separates the varieties of spiritual conditions; that even the > spiritual and physical planes, as psychic faculties in living > people show, are not so hopelessly walled off from one another > as materialistic theories would suggest; that all states of > nature are all around us simultaneously, and appeal to different > perceptive faculties; and so on.... It is clear that during > physical existence people who possess psychic faculties remain in > connection with the planes of superphysical consciousness; and > although most people may not be endowed with such faculties, we > all, as the phenomena of sleep, even, and especially ... those > of somnambulism or mesmerism, show, are capable of entering into > conditions of consciousness that the five physical senses have > nothing to do with. We—the souls within us—are not as it were > altogether adrift in the ocean of matter. We clearly retain some > surviving interest or rights in the shore from which, for a time, > we have floated off. The process of incarnation, therefore, is > not fully described when we speak of an _alternate_ existence on > the physical and spiritual planes, and thus picture the soul as a > complete entity slipping entirely from the one state of existence > to the other. The more correct definitions of the process would > probably represent incarnation as taking place on this physical > plane of nature by reason of an efflux emanating from the soul. > The Spiritual realm would all the while be the proper habitat > of the Soul, which would never entirely quit it; _and that > non-materializable portion of the Soul which abides permanently > on the spiritual plane may fitly_, perhaps, be spoken of as the > HIGHER SELF.” > > This “Higher Self” is ATMA, and of course it is > “non-materializable,” as Mr. Sinnett says. Even more, it can > never be “objective” under any circumstances, even to the > highest spiritual perception. For _Atman_ or the “Higher Self” > is really Brahma, the ABSOLUTE, and indistinguishable from it. > In hours of _Samadhi_, the higher spiritual consciousness of the > Initiate is entirely absorbed in the ONE essence, which is Atman, > and therefore, being one with the whole, there can be nothing > objective for it. Now some of our Theosophists have got into > the habit of using the words “Self” and “Ego” as synonymous, of > associating the term “Self” with only man’s higher individual > or even personal “Self” or _Ego_, whereas this term ought never > to be applied except _to the One universal Self_. Hence the > confusion. Speaking of Manas, the “causal body,” we may call > it—when connecting it with the Buddhic radiance—the “HIGHER EGO,” > never the “Higher Self.” For even Buddhi, the “Spiritual Soul,” > is not the SELF, but the vehicle only of SELF. All the other > “_Selves_”—such as the “Individual” self and “personal” self—ought > never to be spoken or written of without their qualifying and > characteristic adjectives. > > Thus in this most excellent essay on the “Higher Self,” this term > is applied to the _sixth principle_ or _Buddhi_ (of course in > conjunction with Manas, as without such union there would be no > _thinking_ principle or element in the spiritual soul); and has > in consequence given rise to just such misunderstandings. The > statement that “a child does not acquire its _sixth_ principle—or > become a morally responsible being capable of generating > Karma—until seven years old,” proves what is meant therein by > the HIGHER SELF. Therefore, the able author is quite justified > in explaining that after the “Higher Self” has passed into the > human being and saturated the personality—in some of the finer > organizations only—with its consciousness “people with psychic > faculties may indeed perceive this Higher Self through their finer > senses from time to time.” But so are those, who limit the term > “Higher Self” to the Universal Divine Principle, “justified” in > misunderstanding him. For, when we read, without being prepared > for this shifting of metaphysical terms,[48] that while “fully > manifesting on the physical plane ... the Higher Self still > remains a conscious spiritual Ego on the corresponding plane of > Nature”—we are apt to see in the “Higher Self” of this sentence, > “Atma,” and in the spiritual Ego, “Manas,” or rather Buddhi-Manas, > and forthwith to criticise the whole thing as incorrect. > > To avoid henceforth such misrepresentations, I propose to > translate literally from the Occult Eastern terms their > equivalents in English, and offer these for future use. > > { Atma, the inseparable ray of the Universal > THE HIGHER { and ONE SELF. It is the God _above_, more > SELF is { than within, us. Happy the man who succeeds > { in saturating his _inner Ego_ with it! > > THE SPIRITUAL { the Spiritual soul or _Buddhi_, in close union > _divine_ { with _Manas_, the mind-principle, without > EGO is { which it is no EGO at all, but only the Atmic > { _Vehicle_. > > { _Manas_, the “Fifth” Principle, so called, > { independently of Buddhi. The Mind-Principle > THE INNER, { is only the Spiritual Ego when merged > or HIGHER { _into one_ with Buddhi,—no materialist being > “Ego” is { supposed to have in him _such_ an Ego, however > { great his intellectual capacities. It is > { the permanent _Individuality_ or the “Reincarnating > { Ego.” > > { the physical man in conjunction with his > { _lower_ Self, _i.e._, animal instincts, passions, > THE LOWER, { desires, etc. It is called the “false personality,” > or PERSONAL { and consists of the _lower Manas_ combined > “Ego” is { with Kama-rupa, and operating > { through the Physical body and its phantom > { or “double.” > > The remaining “Principle” “_Pranâ_,” or “Life,” is, strictly > speaking, the radiating force or Energy of Atma—as the Universal > Life and the ONE SELF,—ITS lower or rather (in its effects) more > physical, because manifesting, aspect. Pranâ or Life permeates the > whole being of the objective Universe; and is called a “principle” > only because it is an indispensable factor and the _deus ex > machinâ_ of the living man. > > ENQ. This division being so much simplified in its combinations will > answer better, I believe. The other is much too metaphysical. > > THEO. If outsiders as well as Theosophists would agree to it, it would > certainly make matters much more comprehensible. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [40] “Some things that I _do_ know of Spiritualism and some that I do > _not_.” > > [41] A few portions of this chapter and of the preceding were > published in _Lucifer_ in the shape of a “Dialogue on the Mysteries of > After Life,” in the January number, 1889. The article was unsigned, > as if it were written by the editor, but it came from the pen of the > author of the present volume. > > [42] Iswara is the collective consciousness of the manifested deity, > Brahma, _i.e._, the collective consciousness of the Host of Dhyan > Chohans (_vide_ SECRET DOCTRINE); and Pragna is their individual wisdom. > > [43] _Taijasi_ means the radiant in consequence of its union with > Buddhi; _i.e._, Manas, the human soul, illuminated by the radiance > of the divine soul. Therefore, Manas-taijasi may be described as > radiant mind; the _human_ reason lit by the light of the spirit; and > Buddhi-Manas is the revelation of the divine _plus_ human intellect and > self-consciousness. > > [44] Some Theosophists have taken exception to this phrase, but the > words are those of Master, and the meaning attached to the word > “unmerited” is that given above. In the T.P.S. pamphlet No. 6, a > phrase, criticised subsequently in LUCIFER, was used which was intended > to convey the same idea. In form, however, it was awkward and open to > the criticism directed against it; but the essential idea was that men > often suffer from the effects of the actions done by others, effects > which thus do not strictly belong to their own Karma—and for these > sufferings they of course deserve compensation. > > [45] _Vide_ Transactions of the LONDON LODGE _of the Theos. Soc._, No. > 7, Oct., 1885. > > [46] The “reincarnating Ego,” or “Human Soul,” as he called it, the > _Causal Body_ with the Hindus. > > [47] The length of this “transfer” depends, however, on the degree of > spirituality in the ex-personality of the disembodied Ego. For those > whose lives were very spiritual this transfer, though gradual, is very > rapid. The time becomes longer with the materialistically inclined. > > [48] “Shifting of _Metaphysical terms_” applies here only to the > shifting of their translated equivalents from the Eastern expressions; > for to this day there never existed any such terms in English, every > Theosophist having to coin his own terms to render his thought. It is > nigh time then to settle on some definite nomenclature. > > X. ON THE NATURE OF OUR THINKING PRINCIPLE. > > THE MYSTERY OF THE EGO. > > ENQ. I perceive in the quotation you brought forward a little while ago > from the _Buddhist Catechism_ a discrepancy that I would like > to hear explained. It is there stated that the Skandhas—memory > included—change with every new incarnation. And yet, it is > asserted that the reflection of the past lives, which, we are > told, are entirely made up of Skandhas, “must survive.” At the > present moment I am not quite clear in my mind as to what it is > precisely that survives, and I would like to have it explained. > What is it? Is it only that “reflection,” or those Skandhas, or > always that same Ego, the Manas? > > THEO. I have just explained that the reincarnating Principle, or that > which we call the _divine_ man, is indestructible throughout > the life cycle: indestructible as a thinking _Entity_, and > even as an ethereal form. The “reflection” is only the > spiritualised _remembrance_, during the Devachanic period, of > the _ex-personality_, Mr. A. or Mrs. B.—with which the _Ego_ > identifies itself during that period. Since the latter is but > the continuation of the earth-life, so to say, the very acme and > pitch, in an unbroken series, of the few happy moments in that > now past existence, the _Ego_ has to identify itself with the > _personal_ consciousness of that life, if anything shall remain of > it. > > ENQ. This means that the _Ego_, notwithstanding its divine nature, > passes every such period between two incarnations in a state of > mental obscuration, or temporary insanity. > > THEO. You may regard it as you like. Believing that, outside the ONE > Reality, nothing is better than a passing illusion—the whole > Universe included—we do not view it as insanity, but as a very > natural sequence or development of the terrestrial life. What > is life? A bundle of the most varied experiences, of daily > changing ideas, emotions, and opinions. In our youth we are often > enthusiastically devoted to an ideal, to some hero or heroine whom > we try to follow and revive; a few years later, when the freshness > of our youthful feelings has faded out and sobered down, we are > the first to laugh at our fancies. And yet there was a day when > we had so thoroughly identified our own personality with that > of the ideal in our mind—especially if it was that of a living > being—that the former was entirely merged and lost in the latter. > Can it be said of a man of fifty that he is the same being that > he was at twenty? The _inner_ man is the same; the outward living > personality is completely transformed and changed. Would you also > call these changes in the human mental states insanity? > > ENQ. How would _you_ name them, and especially how would you explain > the permanence of one and the evanescence of the other? > > THEO. We have our own doctrine ready, and to us it offers no > difficulty. The clue lies in the double consciousness of our mind, > and also, in the dual nature of the mental “principle.” There is a > spiritual consciousness, the Manasic mind illumined by the light > of Buddhi, that which subjectively perceives abstractions; and the > sentient consciousness (the lower _Manasic_ light), inseparable > from our physical brain and senses. This latter consciousness is > held in subjection by the brain and physical senses, and, being > in its turn equally dependent on them, must of course fade out > and finally die with the disappearance of the brain and physical > senses. It is only the former kind of consciousness, whose root > lies in eternity, which survives and lives for ever, and may, > therefore, be regarded as immortal. Everything else belongs to > passing illusions. > > ENQ. What do you really understand by illusion in this case? > > THEO. It is very well described in the just-mentioned essay on “The > Higher Self.” Says its author: > > “The theory we are considering (the interchange of ideas > between the _Higher Ego_ and the lower self) harmonizes very > well with the treatment of this world in which we live as a > phenomenal world of illusion, the spiritual plans of nature > being on the other hand the noumenal world or plane of reality. > That region of nature in which, so to speak, the permanent > soul is rooted is more real than that in which its transitory > blossoms appear for a brief space to wither and fall to pieces, > while the plant recovers energy for sending forth a fresh > flower. Supposing flowers only were perceptible to ordinary > senses, and their roots existed in a state of Nature intangible > and invisible to us, philosophers in such a world who divined > that there were such things as roots in another plane of > existence would be apt to say of the flowers, These are not > the real plants; they are of no relative importance, merely > illusive phenomena of the moment.” > > This is what I mean. The world in which blossom the transitory and > evanescent flowers of personal lives is not the real permanent > world; but that one in which we find the root of consciousness, > that root which is beyond illusion and dwells in the eternity. > > ENQ. What do you mean by the root dwelling in eternity? > > THEO. I mean by this root the thinking entity, the Ego which > incarnates, whether we regard it as an “Angel,” “Spirit,” or > a Force. Of that which falls under our sensuous perceptions > only what grows directly from, or is attached to this invisible > root above, can partake of its immortal life. Hence every noble > thought, idea and aspiration of the personality it informs, > proceeding from and fed by this root, must become permanent. As > to the physical consciousness, as it is a quality of the sentient > but lower “principle,” (Kama-rupa or animal instinct, illuminated > by the lower _manasic_ reflection), or the human Soul—it must > disappear. That which displays activity, while the body is > asleep or paralysed, is the higher consciousness, our memory > registering but feebly and inaccurately—because automatically—such > experiences, and often failing to be even slightly impressed by > them. > > ENQ. But how is it that MANAS, although you call it _Nous_, a “God,” is > so weak during its incarnations, as to be actually conquered and > fettered by its body? > > THEO. I might retort with the same question and ask: “How is it that > he, whom you regard as ‘the God of Gods’ and the One living God, > _is so weak_ as to allow evil (or the Devil) to have the best of > _him_ as much as of all his creatures, whether while he remains > in Heaven, or during the time he was incarnated on this earth?” > You are sure to reply again: “This is a Mystery; and we are > forbidden to pry into the mysteries of God.” Not being forbidden > to do so by our religious philosophy, I answer your question that, > unless a God descends as an _Avatar_, no divine principle can be > otherwise than cramped and paralysed by turbulent, animal matter. > Heterogeneity will always have the upper hand over homogeneity, > on this plane of illusions, and the nearer an essence is to its > root-principle, Primordial Homogeneity, the more difficult it is > for the latter to assert itself on earth. Spiritual and divine > powers lie dormant in every human Being; and the wider the sweep > of his spiritual vision the mightier will be the God within him. > But as few men can feel that God, and since, as an average rule, > deity is always bound and limited in our thought by earlier > conceptions, those ideas that are inculcated in us from childhood, > therefore, it is so difficult for you to understand our philosophy. > > ENQ. And is it this Ego of ours which is our God? > > THEO. Not at all; “_A_ God” is not the universal deity, but only a > spark from the one ocean of Divine Fire. Our God _within_ us, or > “our Father in Secret” is what we call the “HIGHER SELF,” _Atma_. > Our incarnating Ego was a God in its origin, as were all the > primeval emanations of the One Unknown Principle. But since its > “fall into Matter,” having to incarnate throughout the cycle, in > succession, from first to last, it is no longer a free and happy > god, but a poor pilgrim on his way to regain that which he has > lost. I can answer your more fully by repeating what is said of > the INNER MAN in ISIS UNVEILED (Vol. II. 593):— > > “From the remotest antiquity _mankind_ as a whole _have > always been convinced of the existence of a personal > spiritual entity within the personal physical man_. This > inner entity was more or less divine, according to its > proximity to the _crown_. The closer the union the more > serene man’s destiny, the less dangerous the external > conditions. This belief is neither bigotry nor superstition, > only an ever-present, instinctive feeling of the proximity > of another spiritual and invisible world, which, though it > be subjective to the senses of the outward man, is perfectly > objective to the inner ego. Furthermore, they believed that > _there are external and internal conditions which affect the > determination of our will upon our actions_. They rejected > fatalism, for fatalism implies a blind course of some still > blinder power. But they believed in _destiny_ or _Karma_, > which from birth to death every man is weaving thread by > thread around himself, as a spider does his cobweb; and > this destiny is guided by that presence termed by some the > guardian angel, or our more intimate astral inner man, who > is but too often the evil genius of the man of flesh or > the _personality_. Both these lead on MAN, but one of them > must prevail; and from the very beginning of the invisible > affray the stern and implacable _law of compensation and > retribution_ steps in and takes its course, following > faithfully the fluctuations of the conflict. When the last > strand is woven, and man is seemingly enwrapped in the > network of his own doing, then he finds himself completely > under the empire of this _self-made_ destiny. It then either > fixes him like the inert shell against the immovable rock, or > like a feather carries him away in a whirlwind raised by his > own actions.” > > Such is the destiny of the MAN—the true Ego, not the Automaton, > the _shell_ that goes by that name. It is for him to become the > conqueror over matter. > > THE COMPLEX NATURE OF MANAS. > > ENQ. But you wanted to tell me something of the essential nature of > Manas, and of the relation in which the Skandhas of physical man > stand to it? > > THEO. It is this nature, mysterious, Protean, beyond any grasp, and > almost shadowy in its correlations with the other principles, that > is most difficult to realise, and still more so to explain. Manas > is a “principle,” and yet it is an “Entity” and individuality or > Ego. He is a “God,” and yet he is doomed to an endless cycle of > incarnations, for each of which he is made responsible, and for > each of which he has to suffer. All this seems as contradictory as > it is puzzling; nevertheless, there are hundreds of people, even > in Europe, who realise all this perfectly, for they comprehend the > Ego not only in its integrity but in its many aspects. Finally, if > I would make myself comprehensible, I must begin by the beginning > and give you the genealogy of this Ego in a few lines. > > ENQ. Say on. > > THEO. Try to imagine a “Spirit,” a celestial Being, whether we call it > by one name or another, divine in its essential nature, yet > not pure enough to be _one with the_ ALL, and having, in order > to achieve this, to so purify its nature as to finally gain > that goal. It can do so only by passing _individually_ and > _personally_, _i.e._, spiritually and physically, through > every experience and feeling that exists in the manifold or > differentiated Universe. It has, therefore, after having gained > such experience in the lower kingdoms, and having ascended higher > and still higher with every rung on the ladder of being, to pass > through every experience on the human planes. In its very essence > it is THOUGHT, and is, therefore, called in its plurality _Manasa > putra_, “the Sons of the (Universal) mind.” This _individualised_ > “Thought” is what we Theosophists call the _real_ human EGO, the > thinking Entity imprisoned in a case of flesh and bones. This > is surely a Spiritual Entity, not _Matter_, and such Entities > are the incarnating EGOS that inform the bundle of animal matter > called mankind, and whose names are _Manasa_ or “Minds.” But > once imprisoned, or incarnate, their essence becomes dual: that > is to say, the _rays_ of the eternal divine Mind, considered as > individual entities, assume a two-fold attribute which is (_a_) > their _essential_ inherent characteristic, heaven-aspiring mind > (higher _Manas_) and (_b_) the human quality of thinking, or > animal cogitation, rationalised owing to the superiority of the > human brain, the Kama-tending or lower Manas. One gravitates > toward Buddhi, the other, tending downward, to the seat of > passions and animal desires. The latter have no room in Devachan, > nor can they associate with the divine triad which ascends as ONE > into mental bliss. Yet it is the Ego, the Manasic Entity, which is > held responsible for all the sins of the lower attributes, just > as a parent is answerable for the transgressions of his child, so > long as the latter remains irresponsible. > > ENQ. Is this “child” the “personality”? > > THEO. It is. When, therefore, it is stated that the “personality” dies > with the body it does not state all. The body, which was only the > objective symbol of Mr. A. or Mrs. B., fades away with all its > material Skandhas, which are the visible expressions thereof. But > all that which constituted during life the _spiritual_ bundle of > experiences, the noblest aspirations, undying affections, and > _unselfish_ nature of Mr. A. or Mrs. B. clings for the time of > the Devachanic period to the EGO, which is identified with the > spiritual portion of that terrestrial Entity, now passed away out > of sight. The ACTOR is so imbued with the _rôle_ just played by > him that he dreams of it during the whole Devachanic night, which > _vision_ continues till the hour strikes for him to return to the > stage of life to enact another part. > > ENQ. But how is it that this doctrine, which you say is as old as > thinking men, has found no room, say, in Christian theology? > > THEO. You are mistaken, it has; only theology has disfigured it out of > all recognition, as it has many other doctrines. Theology calls > the EGO the Angel that God gives us at the moment of our birth, > _to take care of our Soul_. Instead of holding that “Angel” > responsible for the transgressions of the poor helpless “Soul,” it > is the latter which, according to theological logic, is punished > for all the sins of both flesh and mind! It is the Soul, the > immaterial _breath_ of God and his _alleged creation_, which, by > some most amazing intellectual jugglery, is doomed to burn in a > material hell without ever being consumed,[49] while the “Angel” > escapes scot free after folding his white pinions and wetting them > with a few tears. Aye, these are our “ministering Spirits,” the > “messengers of mercy” who are sent, Bishop Mant tells us— > > “.... to fulfil > Good for Salvation’s heirs, for us they still > Grieve when we sin, rejoice when we repent;” > > Yet it becomes evident that if all the Bishops the world over > were asked to define once for all what they mean by _Soul_ and > its functions, they would be as unable to do so as to show us any > shadow of logic in the orthodox belief! > > THE DOCTRINE IS TAUGHT IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL. > > ENQ. To this the adherents to this belief might answer, that if even > the orthodox dogma does promise the impenitent sinner and > materialist a bad time of it in a rather too realistic Inferno, it > gives them, on the other hand, a chance for repentance to the last > minute. Nor do they teach annihilation, or loss of personality, > which is all the same. > > THEO. If the Church teaches nothing of the kind, on the other hand, > Jesus does; and that is something to those, at least, who place > Christ higher than Christianity. > > ENQ. Does Christ teach anything of the sort? > > THEO. He does; and every well-informed Occultist and even Kabalist will > tell you so. Christ, or the fourth Gospel at any rate, teaches > re-incarnation as also the annihilation of the personality, if > you but forget the dead letter and hold to the esoteric Spirit. > Remember verses 1 and 2 in chapter xv. of St. John. What does the > parable speak about if not of the _upper triad_ in man? _Atma_ > is the Husbandman—the Spiritual Ego or _Buddhi_ (Christos) the > Vine, while the animal and vital Soul, the _personality_, is the > “branch.” “I am the _true_ vine, and my Father is the Husbandman. > Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away.... As > the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the > vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the Vine—ye > are the branches. If a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a > branch, and is _withered_ and cast into the fire and burned.” > > Now we explain it in this way. Disbelieving in the hell-fires > which theology discovers as underlying the threat to the > _branches_, we say that the “Husbandman” means Atma, the Symbol > for the infinite, impersonal Principle,[50] while the Vine stands > for the Spiritual Soul, _Christos_, and each “branch” represents a > new incarnation. > > ENQ. But what proofs have you to support such an arbitrary > interpretation? > > THEO. Universal symbology is a warrant for its correctness and that it > is not arbitrary. Hermas says of “God” that he “planted the > Vineyard,” _i.e._, he created mankind. In the _Kabala_, it is > shown that the Aged of the Aged, or the “Long Face,” plants a > vineyard, the latter typifying mankind; and a vine, meaning Life. > The Spirit of “_King_ Messiah” is, therefore, shown as washing > his garments in _the wine_ from above, from the creation of the > world.[51] And King _Messiah_ is the EGO purified _by washing his > garments_ (_i.e._, his personalities in re-birth), in the _wine > from_ above, or BUDDHI. Adam, or A-Dam, is “blood.” The Life of > the flesh is in the blood (nephesh—soul), _Leviticus_ xvii. And > Adam-Kadmon is the Only-Begotten. Noah also plants a vineyard—the > allegorical hot-bed of future humanity. As a consequence of the > adoption of the same allegory, we find it reproduced in the > Nazarene _Codex_. Seven vines are procreated—which seven vines > are our Seven Races with their seven Saviours or _Buddhas_—which > spring from Iukabar Zivo, and Ferho (or Parcha) Raba waters > them.[52] When the blessed will ascend among the creatures of > Light, they shall see Iavar-Xivo, _Lord of_ LIFE, and the FIRST > VINE.[53] These kabalistic metaphors are thus naturally repeated > in the _Gospel according to St. John_ (xv., 1). > > Let us not forget that in the human system—even according to > those philosophies which ignore our septenary division—the EGO > or _thinking man_ is called the _Logos_, or the Son of Soul > and Spirit. “Manas is the adopted Son of King —— and Queen ——” > (esoteric equivalents for Atma and Buddhi), says an occult work. > He is the “man-god” of Plato, who crucifies himself in _Space_ > (or the duration of the life cycle) for the redemption of MATTER. > This he does by incarnating over and over again, thus leading > mankind onward to perfection, and making thereby room for lower > forms to develop into higher. Not for one life does he cease > progressing himself and helping all physical nature to progress; > even the occasional, very rare event of his losing one of his > personalities, in the case of the latter being entirely devoid of > even a spark of spirituality, helps toward his individual progress. > > ENQ. But surely, if the _Ego_ is held responsible for the > transgressions of its personalities, it has to answer also for the > loss, or rather the complete annihilation, of one of such. > > THEO. Not at all, unless it has done nothing to avert this dire fate. > But if, all its efforts notwithstanding, its voice, _that of our > conscience_, was unable to penetrate through the wall of matter, > then the obtuseness of the latter proceeding from the imperfect > nature of the material is classed with other failures of nature. > The Ego is sufficiently punished by the loss of Devachan, and > especially by having to incarnate almost immediately. > > ENQ. This doctrine of the possibility of losing one’s soul—or > personality, do you call it?—militates against the ideal theories > of both Christians and Spiritualists, though Swedenborg adopts it > to a certain extent, in what he calls _Spiritual death_. They will > never accept it. > > THEO. This can in no way alter a fact in nature, if it be a fact, or > prevent such a thing occasionally taking place. The universe and > everything in it, moral, mental, physical, psychic, or Spiritual, > is built on a perfect law of equilibrium and harmony. As said > before (_vide Isis Unveiled_), the centripetal force could not > manifest itself without the centrifugal in the harmonious > revolutions of the spheres, and all forms and their progress > are the products of this dual force in nature. Now the Spirit > (or _Buddhi_) is the centrifugal and the soul (_Manas_) the > centripetal spiritual energy; and to produce one result they > have to be in perfect union and harmony. Break or damage the > centripetal motion of the earthly soul tending toward the centre > which attracts it; arrest its progress by clogging it with a > heavier weight of matter than it can bear, or than is fit for the > Devachanic state, and the harmony of the whole will be destroyed. > Personal life, or perhaps rather its ideal reflection, can only > be continued if sustained by the two-fold force, that is by the > close union of _Buddhi_ and _Manas_ in every re-birth or personal > life. The least deviation from harmony damages it; and when it is > destroyed beyond redemption the two forces separate at the moment > of death. During a brief interval the _personal_ form (called > indifferently _Kama rupa_ and _Mayavi rupa_), the spiritual > efflorescence of which, attaching itself to the Ego, follows it > into Devachan and gives to the permanent _individuality_ its > _personal_ colouring (_pro tem._, so to speak), is carried off > to remain in _Kama-loka_ and to be gradually annihilated. For > it is after the death of the utterly depraved, the unspiritual > and the wicked beyond redemption, that arrives the critical and > supreme moment. If during life the ultimate and desperate effort > of the INNER SELF (_Manas_), to unite something of the personality > with itself and the high glimmering ray of the divine Buddhi is > thwarted; if this ray is allowed to be more and more shut out > from the ever-thickening crust of physical brain, the Spiritual > EGO or Manas, once freed from the body, remains severed entirely > from the ethereal relic of the personality; and the latter, or > _Kama rupa_, following its earthly attractions, is drawn into > and remains in Hades, which we call the _Kama-loka_. These are > “the withered branches” mentioned by Jesus as being cut off > from the _Vine_. Annihilation, however, is never instantaneous, > and may require centuries sometimes for its accomplishment. > But there the personality remains along with the _remnants_ > of other more fortunate personal Egos, and becomes with them > a _shell_ and an _Elementary_. As said in _Isis_, it is these > two classes of “Spirits,” the _shells_ and the _Elementaries_, > which are the leading “Stars” on the great spiritual stage of > “materialisations.” And you may be sure of it, it is not they > who incarnate; and, therefore, so few of these “dear departed > ones” know anything of re-incarnation, misleading thereby the > Spiritualists. > > ENQ. But does not the author of “_Isis Unveiled_” stand accused of > having preached against re-incarnation? > > THEO. By those who have misunderstood what was said, yes. At the > time that work was written, re-incarnation was not believed in > by any Spiritualists, either English or American, and what is > said there of _re-incarnation_ was directed against the French > Spiritists, whose theory is as unphilosophical and absurd as > the Eastern teaching is logical and self-evident in its truth. > The Re-incarnationists of the Allan Kardec School believe in an > arbitrary and immediate re-incarnation. With them, the dead father > can incarnate in his own unborn daughter, and so on. They have > neither Devachan, Karma, nor any philosophy that would warrant > or prove the necessity of consecutive rebirths. But how can the > author of “Isis” argue against _Karmic_ re-incarnation, at long > intervals varying between 1,000 and 1,500 years, when it is the > fundamental belief of both Buddhists and Hindus? > > ENQ. Then you reject the theories of both the Spiritists and the > Spiritualists, in their entirety? > > THEO. Not in their entirety, but only with regard to their respective > fundamental beliefs. Both rely on what their “Spirits” tell them; > and both disagree as much with each other as we Theosophists > disagree with both. Truth is one; and when we hear the French > spooks preaching re-incarnation, and the English spooks denying > and denouncing the doctrine, we say that either the French or > the English “Spirits” do not know what they are talking about. > We believe with the Spiritualists and the Spiritists in the > existence of “Spirits,” or invisible Beings endowed with more > or less intelligence. But, while in our teachings their kinds > and _genera_ are legion, our opponents admit of no other than > human disembodied “Spirits,” which, to our knowledge, are mostly > Kamalokic SHELLS. > > ENQ. You seem very bitter against Spirits. As you have given me your > views and your reasons for disbelieving in the materialization > of, and direct communication in _séances_, with the disembodied > spirits—or the “spirits of the dead”—would you mind enlightening > me as to one more fact? Why are some Theosophists never tired of > saying how dangerous is intercourse with spirits, and mediumship? > Have they any particular reason for this? > > THEO. We must suppose so. I know I have. Owing to my familiarity for > over half a century with these invisible, yet but too tangible > and undeniable “influences,” from the conscious Elementals, > semi-conscious _shells_, down to the utterly senseless and > nondescript spooks of all kinds, I claim a certain right to my > views. > > ENQ. Can you give an instance or instances to show why these practices > should be regarded as dangerous? > > THEO. This would require more time than I can give you. Every cause > must be judged by the effects it produces. Go over the history of > Spiritualism for the last fifty years, ever since its reappearance > in this century in America—and judge for yourself whether it has > done its votaries more good or harm. Pray understand me. I do not > speak against real Spiritualism, but against the modern movement > which goes under that name, and the so-called philosophy invented > to explain its phenomena. > > ENQ. Don’t you believe in their phenomena at all? > > THEO. It is because I believe in them with too good reason, and (save > some cases of deliberate fraud) know them to be as true as that > you and I live, that all my being revolts against them. Once more > I speak only of physical, not mental or even psychic phenomena. > Like attracts like. There are several high-minded, pure, good > men and women, known to me personally, who have passed years > of their lives under the direct guidance and even protection of > high “Spirits,” whether disembodied or planetary. But _these_ > Intelligences are not of the type of the John Kings and the > Ernests who figure in _séance_ rooms. These Intelligences guide > and control mortals only in rare and exceptional cases to which > they are attracted and magnetically drawn by the Karmic past of > the individual. It is not enough to sit “for development” in order > to attract them. That only opens the door to a swarm of “spooks,” > good, bad and indifferent, to which the medium becomes a slave for > life. It is against such promiscuous mediumship and intercourse > with goblins that I raise my voice, not against spiritual > mysticism. The latter is ennobling and holy; the former is of just > the same nature as the phenomena of two centuries ago, for which > so many witches and wizards have been made to suffer. Read Glanvil > and other authors on the subject of witchcraft, and you will find > recorded there the parallels of most, if not all, of the physical > phenomena of nineteenth century “Spiritualism.” > > ENQ. Do you mean to suggest that it is all witchcraft and nothing more? > > THEO. What I mean is that, whether conscious or unconscious, all this > dealing with the dead is _necromancy_, and a most dangerous > practice. For ages before Moses such raising of the dead was > regarded by all the intelligent nations as sinful and cruel, > inasmuch as it disturbs the rest of the souls and interferes with > their evolutionary development into higher states. The collective > wisdom of all past centuries has ever been loud in denouncing such > practices. Finally, I say, what I have never ceased repeating > orally and in print for fifteen years: While some of the so-called > “spirits” do not know what they are talking about, repeating > merely—like poll-parrots—what they find in the mediums’ and other > people’s brains, others are most dangerous, and can only lead one > to evil. These are two self-evident facts. Go into spiritualistic > circles of the Allan Kardec school, and you find “spirits” > asserting re-incarnation and speaking like Roman Catholics born. > Turn to the “dear departed ones” in England and America, and you > will hear them denying re-incarnation through thick and thin, > denouncing those who teach it, and holding to Protestant views. > Your best, your most powerful mediums, have all suffered in health > of body and mind. Think of the sad end of Charles Foster, who > died in an asylum, a raving lunatic; of Slade, an epileptic; of > Eglinton—the best medium now in England—subject to the same. Look > back over the life of D. D. Home, a man whose mind was steeped in > gall and bitterness, who never had a good word to say of anyone > whom he suspected of possessing psychic powers, and who slandered > every other medium to the bitter end. This Calvin of Spiritualism > suffered for years from a terrible spinal disease, brought on by > his intercourse with the “spirits,” and died a perfect wreck. > Think again of the sad fate of poor Washington Irving Bishop. I > knew him in New York, when he was fourteen, and he was undeniably > a medium. It is true that the poor man stole a march on his > “spirits,” and baptized them “unconscious muscular action,” to > the great _gaudium_ of all the corporations of highly learned and > scientific fools, and to the replenishment of his own pocket. > But _de mortuis nil nisi bonum_; his end was a sad one. He had > strenuously concealed his epileptic fits—the first and strongest > symptom of genuine mediumship—and who knows whether he was dead or > in a trance when the _post-mortem_ examination was performed? His > relatives insist that he was alive, if we are to believe Reuter’s > telegrams. Finally, behold the veteran mediums, the founders and > prime movers of modern spiritualism—the Fox sisters. After more > than forty years of intercourse with the “Angels,” the latter > have led them to become incurable sots, who are now denouncing, > in public lectures, their own life-long work and philosophy as a > fraud. What kind of spirits must they be who prompted them, I ask > you? > > ENQ. But is your inference a correct one? > > THEO. What would you infer if the best pupils of a particular school of > singing broke down from overstrained sore throats? That the method > followed was a bad one. So I think the inference is equally fair > with regard to Spiritualism when we see their best mediums fall a > prey to such a fate. We can only say:—Let those who are interested > in the question judge the tree of Spiritualism by its fruits, > and ponder over the lesson. We Theosophists have always regarded > the Spiritualists as brothers having the same mystic tendency > as ourselves, but they have always regarded us as enemies. We, > being in possession of an older philosophy, have tried to help > and warn them; but they have repaid us by reviling and traducing > us and our motives in every possible way. Nevertheless, the best > English Spiritualists say just as we do, wherever they treat of > their belief seriously. Hear “M.A. Oxon.” confessing this truth: > “Spiritualists are too much inclined to dwell exclusively on the > intervention of external spirits in this world of ours, _and to > ignore the powers of the incarnate_ Spirit.”[54] Why vilify and > abuse us, then, for saying precisely the same? Henceforward, we > will have nothing more to do with Spiritualism. And now let us > return to Re-incarnation. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [49] Being of “an _asbestos_-like nature,” according to the eloquent > and fiery expression of a modern English Tertullian. > > [50] During the _Mysteries_, it is the Hierophant, the “Father,” who > planted the Vine. Every symbol has Seven Keys to it. The discloser of > the _Pleroma_ was always called “Father.” > > [51] _Zohar_ XL., 10. > > [52] _Codex Nazarœus_, Vol. III., pp. 60, 61. > > [53] Ibid., Vol. II., p. 281. > > [54] _Second Sight_, “Introduction.” > > XI. ON THE MYSTERIES OF RE-INCARNATION. > > PERIODICAL REBIRTHS. > > ENQ. You mean, then, that we have all lived on earth before, in many > past incarnations, and shall go on so living? > > THEO. I do. The life-cycle, or rather the cycle of conscious life, > begins with the separation of the mortal animal-man into sexes, > and will end with the close of the last generation of men, in the > seventh round and seventh race of mankind. Considering we are only > in the fourth round and fifth race, its duration is more easily > imagined than expressed. > > ENQ. And we keep on incarnating in new _personalities_ all the time? > > THEO. Most assuredly so; because this life-cycle or period of > incarnation may be best compared to human life. As each such life > is composed of days of activity separated by nights of sleep or of > inaction, so, in the incarnation-cycle, an active life is followed > by a Devachanic rest. > > ENQ. And it is this succession of births that is generally defined as > re-incarnation? > > THEO. Just so. It is only through these births that the perpetual > progress of the countless millions of Egos toward final perfection > and final rest (as long as was the period of activity) can be > achieved. > > ENQ. And what is it that regulates the duration, or special qualities > of these incarnations? > > THEO. Karma, the universal law of retributive justice. > > ENQ. Is it an intelligent law? > > THEO. For the Materialist, who calls the law of periodicity which > regulates the marshalling of the several bodies, and all the > other laws in nature, blind forces and mechanical laws, no doubt > Karma would be a law of chance and no more. For us, no adjective > or qualification could describe that which is impersonal and no > entity, but a universal operative law. If you question me about > the causative intelligence in it, I must answer you I do not know. > But if you ask me to define its effects and tell you what these > are in our belief, I may say that the experience of thousands of > ages has shown us that they are absolute and unerring _equity_, > _wisdom_, and _intelligence_. For Karma in its effects, is an > unfailing redresser of human injustice, and of all the failures > of nature; a stern adjuster of wrongs; a retributive law which > rewards and punishes with equal impartiality. It is, in the > strictest sense, “no respecter of persons,” though, on the other > hand, it can neither be propitiated, nor turned aside by prayer. > This is a belief common to Hindus and Buddhists, who both believe > in Karma. > > ENQ. In this Christian dogmas contradict both, and I doubt whether any > Christian will accept the teaching. > > THEO. No; and Inman gave the reason for it many years ago. As he puts > it, while “the Christians will accept any nonsense, if promulgated > by the Church as a matter of faith ... the Buddhists hold that > nothing which is contradicted by sound reason can be a true > doctrine of Buddha.” They do not believe in any pardon for their > sins, except after an adequate and just punishment for each evil > deed or thought in a future incarnation, and a proportionate > compensation to the parties injured. > > ENQ. Where is it so stated? > > THEO. In most of their sacred works. In the “_Wheel of the Law_” > (p. 57) you may find the following Theosophical tenet:—“Buddhists > believe that every act, word or thought has its consequence, which > will appear sooner or later in the present or in the future state. > Evil acts will produce evil consequences, good acts will produce > good consequences: prosperity in this world, or birth in heaven > (Devachan)... in the future state.” > > ENQ. Christians believe the same thing, don’t they? > > THEO. Oh, no; they believe in the pardon and the remission of all sins. > They are promised that if they only believe in the blood of Christ > (an _innocent_ victim!), in the blood offered by Him for the > expiation of the sins of the whole of mankind, it will atone for > every mortal sin. And we believe neither in vicarious atonement, > nor in the possibility of the remission of the smallest sin by any > god, not even by a “_personal_ Absolute” or “Infinite,” if such > a thing could have any existence. What we believe in, is strict > and impartial justice. Our idea of the unknown Universal Deity, > represented by Karma, is that it is a Power which cannot fail, > and can, therefore, have neither wrath nor mercy, only absolute > Equity, which leaves every cause, great or small, to work out its > inevitable effects. The saying of Jesus: “With what measure you > mete it shall be measured to you again” (Matth. vii., 2), neither > by expression nor implication points to any hope of future mercy > or salvation by proxy. This is why, recognising as we do in our > philosophy the justice of this statement, we cannot recommend > too strongly mercy, charity, and forgiveness of mutual offences. > _Resist not evil_, and _render good for evil_, are Buddhist > precepts, and were first preached in view of the implacability > of Karmic law. For man to take the law into his own hands is > anyhow a sacrilegious presumption. Human Law may use restrictive > not punitive measures; but a man who, believing in Karma, still > revenges himself and refuses to forgive every injury, thereby > rendering good for evil, is a criminal and only hurts himself. As > Karma is sure to punish the man who wronged him, by seeking to > inflict an additional punishment on his enemy, he, who instead > of leaving that punishment to the great Law adds to it his own > mite, only begets thereby a cause for the future reward of his own > enemy and a future punishment for himself. The unfailing Regulator > affects in each incarnation the quality of its successor; and the > sum of the merit or demerit in preceding ones determines it. > > ENQ. Are we then to infer a man’s past from his present? > > THEO. Only so far as to believe that his present life is what it justly > should be, to atone for the sins of the past life. Of course—seers > and great adepts excepted—we cannot as average mortals know what > those sins were. From our paucity of data, it is impossible for us > even to determine what an old man’s youth must have been; neither > can we, for like reasons, draw final conclusions merely from what > we see in the life of some man, as to what his past life may have > been. > > WHAT IS KARMA? > > ENQ. But what is Karma? > > THEO. As I have said, we consider it as the _Ultimate Law_ of the > Universe, the source, origin and fount of all other laws which > exist throughout Nature. Karma is the unerring law which adjusts > effect to cause, on the physical, mental and spiritual planes of > being. As no cause remains without its due effect from greatest > to least, from a cosmic disturbance down to the movement of your > hand, and as like produces like, _Karma_ is that unseen and > unknown law _which adjusts wisely, intelligently and equitably_ > each effect to its cause, tracing the latter back to its producer. > Though itself _unknowable_, its action is perceivable. > > ENQ. Then it is the “Absolute,” the “Unknowable” again, and is not of > much value as an explanation of the problems of life? > > THEO. On the contrary. For, though we do not know what Karma is _per > se_, and in its essence, we _do_ know _how_ it works, and we can > define and describe its mode of action with accuracy. We only > do _not_ know its ultimate _Cause_, just as modern philosophy > universally admits that the _ultimate_ Cause of anything is > “unknowable.” > > ENQ. And what has Theosophy to say in regard to the solution of the > more practical needs of humanity? What is the explanation which > it offers in reference to the awful suffering and dire necessity > prevalent among the so-called “lower classes.” > > THEO. To be pointed, according to our teaching all these great social > evils, the distinction of classes in Society, and of the sexes in > the affairs of life, the unequal distribution of capital and of > labour—all are due to what we tersely but truly denominate KARMA. > > ENQ. But, surely, all these evils which seem to fall upon the masses > somewhat indiscriminately are not actual merited and INDIVIDUAL > Karma? > > THEO. No, they cannot be so strictly defined in their effects as to > show that each individual environment, and the particular > conditions of life in which each person finds himself, are nothing > more than the retributive Karma which the individual generated in > a previous life. We must not lose sight of the fact that every > atom is subject to the general law governing the whole body to > which it belongs, and here we come upon the wider track of the > Karmic law. Do you not perceive that the aggregate of individual > Karma becomes that of the nation to which those individuals > belong, and further, that the sum total of National Karma is that > of the World! The evils that you speak of are not peculiar to the > individual or even to the Nation, they are more or less universal; > and it is upon this broad line of Human interdependence that the > law of Karma finds its legitimate and equable issue. > > ENQ. Do I, then, understand that the law of Karma is not necessarily an > individual law? > > THEO. That is just what I mean. It is impossible that Karma could > readjust the balance of power in the world’s life and progress, > unless it had a broad and general line of action. It is held as > a truth among Theosophists that the interdependence of Humanity > is the cause of what is called Distributive Karma, and it is this > law which affords the solution to the great question of collective > suffering and its relief. It is an occult law, moreover, that no > man can rise superior to his individual failings, without lifting, > be it ever so little, the whole body of which he is an integral > part. In the same way, no one can sin, nor suffer the effects of > sin, alone. In reality, there is no such thing as “Separateness”; > and the nearest approach to that selfish state, which the laws of > life permit, is in the intent or motive. > > ENQ. And are there no means by which the distributive or national Karma > might be concentred or collected, so to speak, and brought to its > natural and legitimate fulfilment without all this protracted > suffering? > > THEO. As a general rule, and within certain limits which define the age > to which we belong, the law of Karma cannot be hastened or > retarded in its fulfilment. But of this I am certain, the point > of possibility in either of these directions has never yet been > touched. Listen to the following recital of one phase of national > suffering, and then ask yourself whether, admitting the working > power of individual, relative, and distributive Karma, these evils > are not capable of extensive modification and general relief. > What I am about to read to you is from the pen of a National > Saviour, one who, having overcome Self, and being free to choose, > has elected to serve Humanity, in bearing at least as much as a > woman’s shoulders can possibly bear of National Karma. This is > what she says:— > > “Yes, Nature always does speak, don’t you think? only sometimes > we make so much noise that we drown her voice. That is why it > is so restful to go out of the town and nestle awhile in the > Mother’s arms. I am thinking of the evening on Hampstead Heath > when we watched the sun go down; but oh! upon what suffering > and misery that sun had set! A lady brought me yesterday a > big hamper of wild flowers. I thought some of my East-end > family had a better right to it than I, and so I took it down > to a very poor school in Whitechapel this morning. You should > have seen the pallid little faces brighten! Thence I went to > pay for some dinners at a little cookshop for some children. > It was in a back street, narrow, full of jostling people; > stench indescribable, from fish, meat, and other comestibles, > all reeking in a sun that, in Whitechapel, festers instead > of purifying. The cookshop was the quintessence of all the > smells. Indescribable meat-pies at 1d., loathsome lumps of > ‘food’ and swarms of flies, a very altar of Beelzebub! All > about, babies on the prowl for scraps, one, with the face of > an angel, gathering up cherrystones as a light and nutritious > form of diet. I came westward with every nerve shuddering and > jarred, wondering whether anything can be done with some > parts of London save swallowing them up in an earthquake and > starting their inhabitants afresh, after a plunge into some > purifying Lethe, out of which not a memory might emerge! And > then I thought of Hampstead Heath, and—pondered. If by any > sacrifice one could win the power to save these people, the > cost would not be worth counting; but, you see, THEY must be > changed—and how can that be wrought? In the condition they now > are, they would not profit by any environment in which they > might be placed; and yet, in their present surroundings they > must continue to putrefy. It breaks my heart, this endless, > hopeless misery, and the brutish degradation that is at once > its outgrowth and its root. It is like the banyan tree; every > branch roots itself and sends out new shoots. What a difference > between these feelings and the peaceful scene at Hampstead! > and yet we, who are the brothers and sisters of these poor > creatures, have only a right to use Hampstead Heaths to > gain strength to save Whitechapels.” (_Signed by a name too > respected and too well known to be given to scoffers._) > > ENQ. That is a sad but beautiful letter, and I think it presents with > painful conspicuity the terrible workings of what you have called > “Relative and Distributive Karma.” But alas! there seems no > immediate hope of any relief short of an earthquake, or some such > general ingulfment! > > THEO. What right have we to think so while one-half of humanity is in a > position to effect an immediate relief of the privations which are > suffered by their fellows? When every individual has contributed > to the general good what he can of money, of labour, and of > ennobling thought, then, and only then, will the balance of > National Karma be struck, and until then we have no right nor > any reasons for saying that there is more life on the earth than > Nature can support. It is reserved for the heroic souls, the > Saviours of our Race and Nation, to find out the cause of this > unequal pressure of retributive Karma, and by a supreme effort to > readjust the balance of power, and save the people from a moral > ingulfment a thousand times more disastrous and more permanently > evil than the like physical catastrophe, in which you seem to see > the only possible outlet for this accumulated misery. > > ENQ. Well, then, tell me generally how you describe this law of Karma? > > THEO. We describe Karma as that Law of readjustment which ever tends to > restore disturbed equilibrium in the physical, and broken harmony > in the moral world. We say that Karma does not act in this or that > particular way always; but that it always _does_ act so as to > restore Harmony and preserve the balance of equilibrium, in virtue > of which the Universe exists. > > ENQ. Give me an illustration. > > THEO. Later on I will give you a full illustration. Think now of a > pond. A stone falls into the water and creates disturbing waves. > These waves oscillate backwards and forwards till at last, > owning to the operation of what physicists call the law of the > dissipation of energy, they are brought to rest, and the water > returns to its condition of calm tranquillity. Similarly _all_ > action, on every plane, produces disturbance in the balanced > harmony of the Universe, and the vibrations so produced will > continue to roll backwards and forwards, if its area is limited, > till equilibrium is restored. But since each such disturbance > starts from some particular point, it is clear that equilibrium > and harmony can only be restored by the reconverging _to that > same point_ of all the forces which were set in motion from it. > And here you have proof that the consequences of a man’s deeds, > thoughts, etc., must all react upon _himself_ with the same force > with which they were set in motion. > > ENQ. But I see nothing of a moral character about this law. It looks to > me like the simple physical law that action and reaction are equal > and opposite. > > THEO. I am not surprised to hear you say that. Europeans have got so > much into the ingrained habit of considering right and wrong, > good and evil, as matters of an arbitrary code of law laid > down either by men, or imposed upon them by a Personal God. We > Theosophists, however, say that “Good” and “Harmony,” and “Evil” > and “Dis-harmony,” are synonymous. Further we maintain that all > pain and suffering are results of want of Harmony, and that the > one terrible and only cause of the disturbance of Harmony is > selfishness in some form or another. Hence Karma gives back to > every man the _actual consequences_ of his own actions, without > any regard to their moral character; but since he receives his due > for _all_, it is obvious that he will be made to atone for all > sufferings which he has caused, just as he will reap in joy and > gladness the fruits of all the happiness and harmony he had helped > to produce. I can do no better than quote for your benefit certain > passages from books and articles written by our Theosophists—those > who have a correct idea of Karma. > > ENQ. I wish you would, as your literature seems to be very sparing on > this subject? > > THEO. Because it is _the_ most difficult of all our tenets. Some short > time ago there appeared the following objection from a Christian > pen:— > > “Granting that the teaching in regard to Theosophy is correct, > and that ‘man must be his own saviour, must overcome self and > conquer the evil that is in his dual nature, to obtain the > emancipation of his soul,’ what is man to do after he has > been awakened and converted to a certain extent from evil or > wickedness? How is he to get emancipation, or pardon, or the > blotting out of the evil or wickedness he has already done?” > > To this Mr. J. H. Connelly replies very pertinently that no one > can hope to “make the theosophical engine run on the theological > track.” As he has it:— > > “The possibility of shirking individual responsibility is not > among the concepts of Theosophy. In this faith there is no such > thing as pardoning, or ‘blotting out of evil or wickedness > already done,’ otherwise than by the adequate punishment > therefor of the wrong-doer and the restoration of the harmony > in the universe that had been disturbed by his wrongful act. > The evil has been his own, and while others must suffer its > consequences, atonement can be made by nobody but himself. > > “The condition contemplated ... in which a man shall have > been ‘awakened and converted to a certain extent from evil > or wickedness,’ is that in which a man shall have realized > that his deeds are evil and deserving of punishment. In that > realization a sense of personal responsibility is inevitable, > and just in proportion to the extent of his awakening or > ‘converting’ must be the sense of that awful responsibility. > While it is strong upon him is the time when he is urged to > accept the doctrine of vicarious atonement. > > “He is told that he must also repent, but nothing is easier > than that. It is an amiable weakness of human nature that > we are quite prone to regret the evil we have done when our > attention is called, and we have either suffered from it > ourselves or enjoyed its fruits. Possibly, close analysis of > the feeling would show us that that which we regret is rather > the necessity that seemed to require the evil as a means of > attainment of our selfish ends than the evil itself. > > “Attractive as this prospect of casting our burden of sins > ‘at the foot of the cross’ may be to the ordinary mind, it > does not commend itself to the Theosophic student. He does not > apprehend why the sinner by attaining knowledge of his evil > can thereby merit any pardon for or the blotting out of his > past wickedness; or why repentance and future right living > entitle him to a suspension in his favour of the universal law > of relation between cause and effect. The results of his evil > deeds continue to exist; the suffering caused to others by his > wickedness is not blotted out. The Theosophical student takes > the result of wickedness upon the innocent into his problem. He > considers not only the guilty person, but his victims. > > “Evil is an infraction of the laws of harmony governing the > universe, and the penalty thereof must fall upon the violator > of that law himself. Christ uttered the warning, ‘Sin no more, > lest a worse thing come upon thee,’ and St. Paul said, ‘Work > out your own salvation. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he > also reap.’ That, by the way, is a fine metaphoric rendering of > the sentence of the Puranas far antedating him—that ‘every man > reaps the consequences of his own acts.’ > > “This is the principle of the law of Karma which is taught by > Theosophy. Sinnett, in his ‘Esoteric Buddhism,’ rendered Karma > as ‘the law of ethical causation.’ ‘The law of retribution,’ as > Mdme. Blavatsky translates its meaning, is better. It is the > power which > > Just though mysterious, leads us on unerring > Through ways unmarked from guilt to punishment. > > “But it is more. It rewards merit as unerringly and amply as it > punishes demerit. It is the outcome of every act, of thought, > word and deed, and by it men mould themselves, their lives and > happenings. Eastern philosophy rejects the idea of a newly > created soul for every baby born. It believes in a limited > number of monads, evolving and growing more and more perfect > through their assimilation of many successive personalities. > Those personalities are the product of Karma and it is by Karma > and re-incarnation that the human monad in time returns to its > source—absolute deity.” > > E. D. Walker, in his “Re-incarnation,” offers the following > explanation:— > > “Briefly, the doctrine of Karma is that we have made ourselves > what we are by former actions, and are building our future > eternity by present actions. There is no destiny but what we > ourselves determine. There is no salvation or condemnation > except what we ourselves bring about.... Because it offers > no shelter for culpable actions and necessitates a sterling > manliness, it is less welcome to weak natures than the easy > religious tenets of vicarious atonement, intercession, > forgiveness and death-bed conversions.... In the domain of > eternal justice the offence and the punishment are inseparably > connected as the same event, because there is no real > distinction between the action and its outcome.... It is Karma, > or our old acts, that draws us back into earthly life. The > spirit’s abode changes according to its Karma, and this Karma > forbids any long continuance in one condition, because _it_ is > always changing. So long as action is governed by material and > selfish motives, just so long must the effect of that action be > manifested in physical rebirths. Only the perfectly selfless > man can elude the gravitation of material life. Few have > attained this, but it is the goal of mankind.” > > And then the writer quotes from the _Secret Doctrine_: > > “Those who believe in Karma have to believe in destiny, which, > from birth to death, every man is weaving, thread by thread, > around himself, as a spider does his cobweb, and this destiny > is guided either by the heavenly voice of the invisible > prototype outside of us, or by our more intimate astral or > inner man, who is but too often the evil genius of the embodied > entity called man. Both these lead on the outward man, but > one of them must prevail; and from the very beginning of the > invisible affray the stern and implacable law of compensation > steps in and takes its course, faithfully following the > fluctuations. When the last strand is woven, and man is > seemingly enwrapped in the network of his own doing, then he > finds himself completely under the empire of this self-made > destiny.... An Occultist or a philosopher will not speak of the > goodness or cruelty of Providence; but, identifying it with > Karma-Nemesis, he will teach that, nevertheless, it guards > the good and watches over them in this as in future lives; > and that it punishes the evil-doer—aye, even to his seventh > re-birth—so long, in short, as the effect of his having thrown > into perturbation even the smallest atom in the infinite world > of harmony has not been finally readjusted. For the only decree > of Karma—an eternal and immutable decree—is absolute harmony > in the world of matter as it is in the world of spirit. It is > not, therefore, Karma that rewards or punishes, but it is we > who reward or punish ourselves according to whether we work > with, through and along with nature, abiding by the laws on > which that harmony depends, or—break them. Nor would the ways > of Karma be inscrutable were men to work in union and harmony, > instead of disunion and strife. For our ignorance of those > ways—which one portion of mankind calls the ways of Providence, > dark and intricate; while another sees in them the action of > blind fatalism; and a third simple chance, with neither gods > nor devils to guide them—would surely disappear if we would > but attribute all these to their correct cause.... We stand > bewildered before the mystery of our own making and the riddles > of life that we will not solve, and then accuse the great > Sphinx of devouring us. But verily there is not an accident of > our lives, not a misshapen day, or a misfortune, that could > not be traced back to our own doings in this or in another > life.... The law of Karma is inextricably interwoven with that > of re-incarnation.... It is only this doctrine that can explain > to us the mysterious problem of good and evil, and reconcile > man to the terrible and apparent injustice of life. Nothing > but such certainty can quiet our revolted sense of justice. > For, when one unacquainted with the noble doctrine looks around > him and observes the inequalities of birth and fortune, of > intellect and capacities; when one sees honour paid to fools > and profligates, on whom fortune has heaped her favours by > mere privilege of birth, and their nearest neighbour, with > all his intellect and noble virtues—far more deserving in > every way—perishing for want and for lack of sympathy—when one > sees all this and has to turn away, helpless to relieve the > undeserved suffering, one’s ears ringing and heart aching > with the cries of pain around him—that blessed knowledge of > Karma alone prevents him from cursing life and men as well > as their supposed Creator.... This law, whether conscious or > unconscious, predestines nothing and no one. It exists from > and in eternity truly, for it is eternity itself; and as such, > since no act can be coequal with eternity, it cannot be said > to act, for it is action itself. It is not the wave which > drowns the man, but the personal action of the wretch who goes > deliberately and places himself under the impersonal action > of the laws that govern the ocean’s motion. Karma creates > nothing, nor does it design. It is man who plants and creates > causes, and Karmic law adjusts the effects, which adjustment is > not an act but universal harmony, tending ever to resume its > original position, like a bough, which, bent down too forcibly, > rebounds with corresponding vigour. If it happen to dislocate > the arm that tried to bend it out of its natural position, > shall we say it is the bough which broke our arm or that our > own folly has brought us to grief? Karma has never sought to > destroy intellectual and individual liberty, like the god > invented by the Monotheists. It has not involved its decrees > in darkness purposely to perplex man, nor shall it punish him > who dares to scrutinize its mysteries. On the contrary, he who > unveils through study and meditation its intricate paths, and > throws light on those dark ways, in the windings of which so > many men perish owing to their ignorance of the labyrinth of > life, is working for the good of his fellow-men. Karma is an > absolute and eternal law in the world of manifestation; and as > there can only be one Absolute, as one Eternal, ever-present > Cause, believers in Karma cannot be regarded as atheists or > materialists, still less as fatalists, for Karma is one with > the Unknowable, of which it is an aspect, in its effects in the > phenomenal world.” > > Another able Theosophic writer says (_Purpose of Theosophy_, by > Mrs. P. Sinnett):— > > “Every individual is making Karma either good or bad in each > action and thought of his daily round, and is at the same > time working out in this life the Karma brought about by the > acts and desires of the last. When we see people afflicted > by congenital ailments it may be safely assumed that these > ailments are the inevitable results of causes started by > themselves in a previous birth. It may be argued that, as > these afflictions are hereditary, they can have nothing to do > with a past incarnation; but it must be remembered that the > Ego, the real man, the individuality, has no spiritual origin > in the parentage by which it is re-embodied, but it is drawn > by the affinities which its previous mode of life attracted > round it into the current that carries it, when the time comes > for re-birth, to the home best fitted for the development of > those tendencies.... This doctrine of Karma, when properly > understood, is well calculated to guide and assist those > who realize its truth to a higher and better mode of life, > for it must not be forgotten that not only our actions but > our thoughts also are most assuredly followed by a crowd of > circumstances that will influence for good or for evil our own > future, and, what is still more important, the future of many > of our fellow-creatures. If sins of omission and commission > could in any case be only self-regarding, the effect on the > sinner’s Karma would be a matter of minor consequence. The fact > that every thought and act through life carries with it for > good or evil a corresponding influence on other members of the > human family renders a strict sense of justice, morality, and > unselfishness so necessary to future happiness or progress. A > crime once committed, an evil thought sent out from the mind, > are past recall—no amount of repentance can wipe out their > results in the future. Repentance, if sincere, will deter a man > from repeating errors; it cannot save him or others from the > effects of those already produced, which will most unerringly > overtake him either in this life or in the next re-birth.” > > Mr. J. H. Connelly proceeds— > > “The believers in a religion based upon such doctrine are > willing it should be compared with one in which man’s destiny > for eternity is determined by the accidents of a single, > brief earthly existence, during which he is cheered by the > promise that ‘as the tree falls so shall it lie’; in which > his brightest hope, when he wakes up to a knowledge of his > wickedness, is the doctrine of vicarious atonement, and in > which even that is handicapped, according to the Presbyterian > Confession of Faith. > > “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some > men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and > others foreordained to everlasting death. > > “These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are > particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is > so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or > diminished. ... As God hath appointed the elect unto glory.... > Neither are any other redeemed by Christ effectually called, > justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. > > “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the > unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth > or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his > sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by and to ordain > them to dishonour and wrath for their sin to the praise of his > glorious justice.” > > This is what the able defender says. Nor can we do any better than > wind up the subject as he does, by a quotation from a magnificent > poem. As he says:— > > “The exquisite beauty of Edwin Arnold’s exposition of Karma in > ‘The Light of Asia’ tempts to its reproduction here, but it is > too long for quotation in full. Here is a portion of it:— > > Karma—all that total of a soul > Which is the things it did, the thoughts it had, > The “self” it wove with woof of viewless time > Crossed on the warp invisible of acts. > > * * * * * > > Before beginning and without an end, > As space eternal and as surety sure, > Is fixed a Power divine which moves to good, > Only its laws endure. > > It will not be contemned of anyone; > Who thwarts it loses, and who serves it gains: > The hidden good it pays with peace and bliss, > The hidden ill with pains. > > It seeth everywhere and marketh all; > Do right—it recompenseth! Do one wrong— > The equal retribution must be made, > Though Dharma tarry long. > > It knows not wrath nor pardon; utter-true, > Its measures mete, its faultless balance weighs; > Times are as naught, to-morrow it will judge > Or after many days. > > * * * * * > > Such is the law which moves to righteousness, > Which none at last can turn aside or stay; > The heart of it is love, the end of it > Is peace and consummation sweet. Obey. > > And now I advise you to compare our Theosophic views upon Karma, > the law of Retribution, and say whether they are not both more > philosophical and just than this cruel and idiotic dogma which > makes of “God” a senseless fiend; the tenet, namely, that the > “elect only” will be saved, and the rest doomed to eternal > perdition! > > ENQ. Yes, I see what you mean generally; but I wish you could give some > concrete example of the action of Karma? > > THEO. That I cannot do. We can only feel sure, as I said before, that > our present lives and circumstances are the direct results of our > own deeds and thoughts in lives that are past. But we, who are not > Seers or Initiates, cannot know anything about the details of the > working of the law of Karma. > > ENQ. Can anyone, even an Adept or Seer, follow out this Karmic process > of readjustment in detail? > > THEO. Certainly: “Those who _know_” can do so by the exercise of powers > which are latent even in all men. > > WHO ARE THOSE WHO KNOW? > > ENQ. Does this hold equally of ourselves as of others? > > THEO. Equally. As just said, the same limited vision exists for all, > save those who have reached in the present incarnation the acme of > spiritual vision and clairvoyance. We can only perceive that, if > things with us ought to have been different, they would have been > different; that we are what we have made ourselves, and have only > what we have earned for ourselves. > > ENQ. I am afraid such a conception would only embitter us. > > THEO. I believe it is precisely the reverse. It is disbelief in the > just law of retribution that is more likely to awaken every > combative feeling in man. A child, as much as a man, resents a > punishment, or even a reproof he believes to be unmerited, far > more than he does a severer punishment, if he feels that it is > merited. Belief in Karma is the highest reason for reconcilement > to one’s lot in this life, and the very strongest incentive > towards effort to better the succeeding re-birth. Both of these, > indeed, would be destroyed if we supposed that our lot was the > result of anything but strict _Law_, or that destiny was in any > other hands than our own. > > ENQ. You have just asserted that this system of Re-incarnation under > Karmic law commended itself to reason, justice, and the moral > sense. But, if so, is it not at some sacrifice of the gentler > qualities of sympathy and pity, and thus a hardening of the finer > instincts of human nature? > > THEO. Only apparently, not really. No man can receive more or less than > his deserts without a corresponding injustice or partiality to > others; and a law which could be averted through compassion would > bring about more misery than it saved, more irritation and curses > than thanks. Remember also, that we do not administer the law, if > we do create causes for its effects; it administers itself; and > again, that the most copious provision for the manifestation of > _just_ compassion and mercy is shown in the state of Devachan. > > ENQ. You speak of Adepts as being an exception to the rule of our > general ignorance. Do they really know more than we do of > Re-incarnation and after states? > > THEO. They do, indeed. By the training of faculties we all possess, but > which they alone have developed to perfection, they have entered > in spirit these various planes and states we have been discussing. > For long ages, one generation of Adepts after another has studied > the mysteries of being, of life, death, and re-birth, and all have > taught in their turn some of the facts so learned. > > ENQ. And is the production of Adepts the aim of Theosophy? > > THEO. Theosophy considers humanity as an emanation from divinity on its > return path thereto. At an advanced point upon the path, Adeptship > is reached by those who have devoted several incarnations to its > achievement. For, remember well, no man has ever reached Adeptship > in the Secret Sciences in one life; but many incarnations are > necessary for it after the formation of a conscious purpose and > the beginning of the needful training. Many may be the men > and women in the very midst of our Society who have begun this > uphill work toward illumination several incarnations ago, and > who yet, owing to the personal illusions of the present life, > are either ignorant of the fact, or on the road to losing every > chance in this existence of progressing any farther. They feel an > irresistible attraction toward occultism and the _Higher Life_, > and yet are too personal and self-opinionated, too much in love > with the deceptive allurements of mundane life and the world’s > ephemeral pleasures, to give them up; and so lose their chance > in their present birth. But, for ordinary men, for the practical > duties of daily life, such a far-off result is inappropriate as an > aim and quite ineffective as a motive. > > ENQ. What, then, may be their object or distinct purpose in joining the > Theosophical Society? > > THEO. Many are interested in our doctrines and feel instinctively that > they are truer than those of any dogmatic religion. Others have > formed a fixed resolve to attain the highest ideal of man’s duty. > > THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE; OR, BLIND AND REASONED > FAITH. > > ENQ. You say that they accept and believe in the doctrines of > Theosophy. But, as they do not belong to those Adepts you have > just mentioned, then they must accept your teachings on _blind > faith_. In what does this differ from that of conventional > religions? > > THEO. As it differs on almost all the other points, so it differs on > this one. What you call “faith,” and that which is _blind > faith_, in reality, and with regard to the dogmas of the > Christian religions, becomes with us “_knowledge_,” the logical > sequence of things _we know_, about _facts_ in nature. Your > Doctrines are based upon interpretation, therefore, upon the > _second-hand_ testimony of Seers; ours upon the invariable and > unvarying testimony of Seers. The ordinary Christian theology for > instance, holds that man is a creature of God, of three component > parts—body, soul, and spirit—all essential to his integrity, and > all, either in the gross form of physical earthly existence or > in the etherealized form of post-resurrection experience, needed > to so constitute him for ever, each man having thus a permanent > existence separate from other men, and from the Divine. Theosophy, > on the other hand, holds that man, being an emanation from the > Unknown, yet ever present and infinite Divine Essence, his body > and everything else is impermanent, hence an illusion; Spirit > alone in him being the one enduring substance, and even that > losing its separated individuality at the moment of its complete > reunion with the _Universal Spirit_. > > ENQ. If we lose even our individuality, then it becomes simply > annihilation. > > THEO. I say it _does not_, since I speak of _separate_, not of > universal individuality. The latter becomes as a part transformed > into the whole; the _dewdrop_ is not evaporated, but becomes the > sea. Is physical man _annihilated_, when from a fœtus he becomes > an old man? What kind of Satanic pride must be ours if we place > our infinitesimally small consciousness and individuality higher > than the universal and infinite consciousness! > > ENQ. It follows, then, that there is, _de facto_, no man, but all is > Spirit? > > THEO. You are mistaken. It thus follows that the union of Spirit with > matter is but temporary; or, to put it more clearly, since > Spirit and matter are one, being the two opposite poles of the > _universal_ manifested substance—that Spirit loses its right > to the name so long as the smallest particle and atom of its > manifesting substance still clings to any form, the result of > differentiation. To believe otherwise is _blind faith_. > > ENQ. Thus it is on _knowledge_, not on _faith_, that you assert that > the permanent principle, the Spirit, simply makes a transit > through matter? > > THEO. I would put it otherwise and say—we assert that the appearance of > the permanent and one principle, Spirit, _as matter_ is transient, > and, therefore, no better than an illusion. > > ENQ. Very well; and this, given out on knowledge not faith? > > THEO. Just so. But as I see very well what you are driving at, I may > just as well tell you that we hold _faith_, such as you advocate, > to be a mental disease, and real faith, _i.e._, the _pistis_ of > the Greeks, as “_belief based on knowledge_,” whether supplied by > the evidence of physical or _spiritual_ senses. > > ENQ. What do you mean? > > THEO. I mean, if it is the difference between the two that you want to > know, then I can tell you that between _faith on authority_ and > _faith on one’s spiritual intuition_, there is a very great > difference. > > ENQ. What is it? > > THEO. One is human credulity and _superstition_, the other human belief > and _intuition_. As Professor Alexander Wilder says in his > “Introduction to the _Eleusinian Mysteries_,” “It is ignorance > which leads to profanation. Men ridicule what they do not properly > understand.... The undercurrent of this world is set towards > one goal; and inside of human credulity ... is a power almost > infinite, a holy faith capable of apprehending the supremest > truths of all existence.” Those who limit that “credulity” to > human authoritative dogmas alone, will never fathom that power > nor even perceive it in their natures. It is stuck fast to the > external plane and is unable to bring forth into play the essence > that rules it; for to do this they have to claim their right of > private judgment, and this they never _dare_ to do. > > ENQ. And is it that “intuition” which forces you to reject God as a > personal Father, Ruler and Governor of the Universe? > > THEO. Precisely. We believe in an ever unknowable Principle, because > blind aberration alone can make one maintain that the Universe, > thinking man, and all the marvels contained even in the world > of matter, could have grown without some _intelligent powers_ > to bring about the extraordinarily wise arrangement of all its > parts. Nature may err, and often does, in its details and the > external manifestations of its materials, never in its inner > causes and results. Ancient pagans held on this question far > more philosophical views than modern philosophers, whether > Agnostics, Materialists or Christians; and no pagan writer has > ever yet advanced the proposition that cruelty and mercy are > not finite feelings, and can therefore be made the attributes of > an _infinite_ god. Their gods, therefore, were all finite. The > Siamese author of the _Wheel of the Law_, expresses the same idea > about your personal god as we do; he says (p. 25): > > “A Buddhist might believe in the existence of a god; sublime > above all human qualities and attributes—a perfect god, above > love, and hatred, and jealousy, calmly resting in a quietude > that nothing could disturb, and of such a god he would speak > no disparagement, not from a desire to please him or fear > to offend him, but from natural veneration; but he cannot > understand a god with the attributes and qualities of men, a > god who loves and hates, and shows anger; a Deity who, whether > described as by Christian Missionaries or by Mahometans or > Brahmins,[55] or Jews, falls below his standard of even an > ordinary good man.” > > ENQ. Faith for faith, is not the faith of the Christian who believes, > in his human helplessness and humility, that there is a merciful > Father in Heaven who will protect him from temptation, help him in > life, and forgive him his transgressions, better than the cold and > proud, almost fatalistic faith of the Buddhists, Vedantins, and > Theosophists? > > THEO. Persist in calling our belief “faith” if you will. But once we > are again on this ever-recurring question, I ask in my turn: > faith for faith, is not the one based on strict logic and reason > better than the one which is based simply on human authority > or—hero-worship? _Our_ “faith” has all the logical force of the > arithmetical truism that 2 and 2 will produce 4. Your faith is > like the logic of some emotional woman, of whom Tourgenyeff said > that for them 2 and 2 were generally 5, and a tallow candle into > the bargain. Yours is a faith, moreover, which clashes not only > with every conceivable view of justice and logic, but which, if > analysed, leads man to his moral perdition, checks the progress of > mankind, and positively making of might, right—transforms every > second man into a Cain to his brother Abel. > > ENQ. What do you allude to? > > HAS GOD THE RIGHT TO FORGIVE? > > THEO. To the Doctrine of Atonement; I allude to that dangerous dogma in > which you believe, and which teaches us that no matter how > enormous our crimes against the laws of God and of man, we have > but to believe in the self-sacrifice of Jesus for the salvation > of mankind, and his blood will wash out every stain. It is twenty > years that I preach against it, and I may now draw your attention > to a paragraph from _Isis Unveiled_, written in 1875. This is what > Christianity teaches, and what we combat:— > > “God’s mercy is boundless and unfathomable. It is impossible > to conceive of a human sin so damnable that the price paid > in advance for the redemption of the sinner would not wipe > it out if a thousandfold worse. And furthermore, it is never > too late to repent. Though the offender wait until the last > minute of the last hour of the last day of his mortal life, > before his blanched lips utter the confession of faith, he may > go to Paradise; the dying thief did it, and so may all others > as vile. These are the assumptions of the Church, and of the > Clergy; assumptions banged at the heads of your countrymen by > England’s favourite preachers, right in the ‘light of the XIXth > century,’” this most paradoxical age of all. Now to what does > it lead? > > ENQ. Does it not make the Christian happier than the Buddhist or > Brahmin? > > THEO. No; not the educated man, at any rate, since the majority of > these have long since virtually lost all belief in this cruel > dogma. But it leads those who still believe in it more _easily to > the threshold of every conceivable crime_, than any other I know > of. Let me quote to you from _Isis_ once more (_vide_ Vol. II., > pp. 542 and 543)— > > “If we step outside the little circle of creed and consider > the universe as a whole balanced by the exquisite adjustment > of parts, how all sound logic, how the faintest glimmering > sense of Justice, revolts against this Vicarious Atonement! > If the criminal sinned only against himself, and wronged no > one but himself; if by sincere repentance he could cause the > obliteration of past events, not only from the memory of man, > but also from that imperishable record, which no deity—not > even the Supremes, of the Supreme—can cause to disappear, then > this dogma might not be incomprehensible. But to maintain that > one may wrong his fellow-man, kill, disturb the equilibrium > of society and the natural order of things, and then—through > cowardice, hope, or compulsion, it matters not—be forgiven by > believing that the spilling of one blood washes out the other > blood spilt—this is preposterous! Can the _results_ of a crime > be obliterated even though the crime itself should be pardoned? > The effects of a cause are never limited to the boundaries of > the cause, nor can the results of crime be confined to the > offender and his victim. Every good as well as evil action has > its effects, as palpably as the stone flung into calm water. > The simile is trite, but it is the best ever conceived, so > let us use it. The eddying circles are greater and swifter as > the disturbing object is greater or smaller, but the smallest > pebble, nay, the tiniest speck, makes its ripples. And this > disturbance is not alone visible and on the surface. Below, > unseen, in every direction—outward and downward—drop pushes > drop until the sides and bottom are touched by the force. More, > the air above the water is agitated, and this disturbance > passes, as the physicists tell us, from stratum to stratum > out into space forever and ever; an impulse has been given to > matter, and that is never lost, can never be recalled!... > > “So with crime, and so with its opposite. The action may be > instantaneous, the effects are eternal. When, after the stone > is once flung into the pond, we can recall it to the hand, > roll back the ripples, obliterate the force expended, restore > the etheric waves to their previous state of non-being, and > wipe out every trace of the act of throwing the missile, so > that Time’s record shall not show that it ever happened, then, > _then_ we may patiently hear Christians argue for the efficacy > of this Atonement,” > > and—cease to believe in Karmic Law. As it now stands, we call upon > the whole world to decide, which of our two doctrines is the most > appreciative of deific justice, and which is more reasonable, even > on simple human evidence and logic. > > ENQ. Yet millions believe in the Christian dogma and are happy. > > THEO. Pure sentimentalism overpowering their thinking faculties, which > no true philanthropist or Altruist will ever accept. It is > not even a dream of selfishness, but a nightmare of the human > intellect. Look where it leads to, and tell me the name of that > pagan country where crimes are more easily committed or more > numerous than in Christian lands. Look at the long and ghastly > annual records of crimes committed in European countries; and > behold Protestant and Biblical America. There, _conversions_ > effected in prisons are more numerous than those made by public > _revivals_ and preaching. See how the ledger-balance of Christian > justice (!) stands; Red-handed murderers, urged on by the demons > of lust, revenge, cupidity, fanaticism, or mere brutal thirst for > blood, who kill their victims, in most cases, without giving them > time to repent or call on Jesus. These, perhaps, died sinful, and, > of course—consistently with theological logic—met the reward of > their greater or lesser offences. But the murderer, overtaken by > human justice, is imprisoned, wept over by sentimentalists, prayed > with and at, pronounces the charmed words of conversion, and goes > to the scaffold a redeemed child of Jesus! Except for the murder, > he would not have been prayed with, redeemed, pardoned. Clearly > this man did well to murder, for thus he gained eternal happiness! > And how about the victim and his, or her family, relatives, > dependents, social relations; has justice no recompense for them? > Must they suffer in this world and the next, while he who wronged > them sits beside the “holy thief” of Calvary, and is for ever > blessed? On this question the clergy keep a prudent silence. > (_Isis Unveiled._) And now you know why Theosophists—whose > fundamental belief and hope is justice for all, in Heaven as on > earth, and in Karma—reject this dogma. > > ENQ. The ultimate destiny of man, then, is not a Heaven presided over > by God, but the gradual transformation of matter into its > primordial element, Spirit? > > THEO. It is to that final goal to which all tends in nature. > > ENQ. Do not some of you regard this association or “fall of spirit into > matter” as evil, and re-birth as a sorrow? > > THEO. Some do, and therefore strive to shorten their period of > probation on earth. It is not an unmixed evil, however, since > it ensures the experience upon which we mount to knowledge and > wisdom. I mean that experience which _teaches_ that the needs of > our spiritual nature can never be met by other than spiritual > happiness. As long as we are in the body, we are subjected to > pain, suffering and all the disappointing incidents occurring > during life. Therefore, and to palliate this, we finally acquire > knowledge which alone can afford us relief and hope of a better > future. > > FOOTNOTES: > > [55] Sectarian Brahmins are here meant. The Parabrahm of the Vedantins > is the Deity we accept and believe in. > > XII. WHAT IS PRACTICAL THEOSOPHY? > > DUTY. > > ENQ. Why, then, the need for rebirths, since all alike fail to secure a > permanent peace? > > THEO. Because the final goal cannot be reached in any way but through > life experiences and because the bulk of these consist in pain and > suffering. It is only through the latter that we can learn. Joys > and pleasures teach us nothing; they are evanescent, and can only > bring in the long run satiety. Moreover, our constant failure to > find any permanent satisfaction in life which would meet the wants > of our higher nature, shows us plainly that those wants can be met > only on their own plane, to-wit—the spiritual. > > ENQ. Is the natural result of this a desire to quit life by one means > or another? > > THEO. If you mean by such desire “suicide,” then I say, most decidedly > not. Such a result can never be a “natural” one, but is ever > due to a morbid brain disease, or to most decided and strong > materialistic views. It is the worst of crimes and dire in > its results. But if by desire, you mean simply aspiration to > reach spiritual existence, not a wish to quit the earth, then I > would call it a very natural desire indeed. Otherwise voluntary > death would be an abandonment of our present post and of the > duties incumbent on us, as well as an attempt to shirk Karmic > responsibilities, and thus involve the creation of new Karma. > > ENQ. But if actions on the material plane are unsatisfying, why should > duties, which are such actions, be imperative? > > THEO. First of all, because our philosophy teaches us that the object > of doing our duties to all men and to ourselves the last, is not > the attainment of personal happiness, but of the happiness of > others; the fulfilment of right for the sake of right, not for > what it may bring us. Happiness, or rather contentment, may indeed > follow the performance of duty, but is not and must not be the > motive for it. > > ENQ. What do you understand precisely by “duty” in Theosophy? It cannot > be the Christian duties preached by Jesus and his Apostles, since > you recognize neither? > > THEO. You are once more mistaken. What you call “Christian duties” were > inculcated by every great moral and religious Reformer ages before > the Christian era. All that was great, generous, heroic, was, in > days of old, not only talked about and preached from pulpits as > in our own time, but _acted upon_ sometimes by whole nations. > The history of the Buddhist reform is full of the most noble and > most heroically unselfish acts. “Be ye all of one mind, having > compassion one of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be > courteous; not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing; > but contrariwise, blessing” was practically carried out by the > followers of Buddha, several centuries before Peter. The Ethics of > Christianity are grand, no doubt; but as undeniably they are not > new, and have originated as “Pagan” duties. > > ENQ. And how would you define these duties, or “duty,” in general, as > you understand the term? > > THEO. Duty is that which is _due_ to Humanity, to our fellow-men, > neighbours, family, and especially that which we owe to all those > who are poorer and more helpless than we are ourselves. This is > a debt which, if left unpaid during life, leaves us spiritually > insolvent and moral bankrupts in our next incarnation. Theosophy > is the quintessence of _duty_. > > ENQ. So is Christianity when rightly understood and carried out. > > THEO. No doubt it is; but then, were it not a _lip-religion_ in > practice, Theosophy would have little to do amidst Christians. > Unfortunately it is but such lip-ethics. Those who practise their > duty towards all, and for duty’s own sake, are few; and fewer > still are those who perform that duty, remaining content with the > satisfaction of their own secret consciousness. It is— > > “... the public voice > Of praise that honours virtue and rewards it,” > > which is ever uppermost in the minds of the “world renowned” > philanthropists. Modern ethics are beautiful to read about and > hear discussed; but what are words unless converted into actions? > Finally: if you ask me how we understand Theosophical duty > practically and in view of Karma, I may answer you that our duty > is to drink without a murmur to the last drop, whatever contents > the cup of life may have in store for us, to pluck the roses of > life only for the fragrance they may shed on _others_, and to be > ourselves content but with the thorns, if that fragrance cannot be > enjoyed without depriving some one else of it. > > ENQ. All this is very vague. What do you do more than Christians do? > > THEO. It is not what we members of the Theosophical Society do—though > some of us try our best—but how much farther Theosophy leads to > good than modern Christianity does. I say—_action_, enforced > action, instead of mere intention and talk. A man may be what he > likes, the most worldly, selfish and hard-hearted of men, even a > deep-dyed rascal, and it will not prevent him from calling himself > a Christian, or others from so regarding him. But no Theosophist > has the right to this name, unless he is thoroughly imbued with > the correctness of Carlyle’s truism: “The end of man is an > _action_ and not a _thought_, though it were the noblest”—and > unless he sets and models his daily life upon this truth. The > profession of a truth is not yet the enactment of it; and the more > beautiful and grand it sounds, the more loudly virtue or duty is > talked about instead of being acted upon, the more forcibly it > will always remind one of the Dead Sea fruit. _Cant_ is the most > loathsome of all vices; and _cant_ is the most prominent feature > of the greatest Protestant country of this century—England. > > ENQ. What do you consider as due to humanity at large? > > THEO. Full recognition of equal rights and privileges for all, and > without distinction of race, colour, social position, or birth. > > ENQ. When would you consider such due not given? > > THEO. When there is the slightest invasion of another’s right—be that > other a man or a nation; when there is any failure to show him the > same justice, kindness, consideration or mercy which we desire for > ourselves. The whole present system of politics is built on the > oblivion of such rights, and the most fierce assertion of national > selfishness. The French say: “Like master, like man”; they ought > to add, “Like national policy, like citizen.” > > ENQ. Do you take any part in politics? > > THEO. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given > below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have > affected a reform in _human nature, is like putting new wine into > old bottles_. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost > hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old > abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based > on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of > itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed > of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of > the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting > political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at > the head of affairs as of old. > > THE RELATIONS OF THE T.S. TO POLITICAL REFORMS. > > ENQ. The Theosophical Society is not, then, a political organization? > > THEO. Certainly not. It is international in the highest sense in that > its members comprise men and women of all races, creeds, and forms > of thought, who work together for one object, the improvement of > humanity; but as a society it takes absolutely no part in any > national or party politics. > > ENQ. Why is this? > > THEO. Just for the reasons I have mentioned. Moreover, political action > must necessarily vary with the circumstances of the time and with > the idiosyncracies of individuals. While from the very nature of > their position as Theosophists the members of the T.S. are agreed > on the principles of Theosophy, or they would not belong to the > society at all, it does not thereby follow that they agree on > every other subject. As a society they can only act together in > matters which are common to all—that is, in Theosophy itself; as > individuals, each is left perfectly free to follow out his or > her particular line of political thought and action, so long as > this does not conflict with Theosophical principles, or hurt the > Theosophical Society. > > ENQ. But surely the T.S. does not stand altogether aloof from the > social questions which are now so fast coming to the front? > > THEO. The very principles of the T.S. are a proof that it does not—or, > rather, that most of its members do not—so stand aloof. If > humanity can only be developed mentally and spiritually by the > enforcement, first of all, of the soundest and most scientific > physiological laws, it is the bounden duty of all who strive > for this development to do their utmost to see that those laws > shall be generally carried out. All Theosophists are only too > sadly aware that, in Occidental countries especially, the social > condition of large masses of the people renders it impossible for > either their bodies or their spirits to be properly trained, so > that the development of both is thereby arrested. As this training > and development is one of the express objects of Theosophy, the > T.S. is in thorough sympathy and harmony with all true efforts in > this direction. > > ENQ. But what do you mean by “true efforts”? Each social reformer has > his own panacea, and each believes his to be the one and only > thing which can improve and save humanity? > > THEO. Perfectly true, and this is the real reason why so little > satisfactory social work is accomplished. In most of these > panaceas there is no really guiding principle, and there is > certainly no one principle which connects them all. Valuable time > and energy are thus wasted; for men, instead of co-operating, > strive one against the other, often, it is to be feared, for the > sake of fame and reward rather than for the great cause which they > profess to have at heart, and which should be supreme in their > lives. > > ENQ. How, then, should Theosophical principles be applied so that > social co-operation may be promoted and true efforts for social > amelioration be carried on? > > THEO. Let me briefly remind you what these principles are—universal > Unity and Causation; Human Solidarity; the Law of Karma; > Re-incarnation. These are the four links of the golden chain which > should bind humanity into one family, one universal Brotherhood. > > ENQ. How? > > THEO. In the present state of society, especially in so-called > civilized countries, we are continually brought face to face with > the fact that large numbers of people are suffering from misery, > poverty and disease. Their physical condition is wretched, and > their mental and spiritual faculties are often almost dormant. On > the other hand, many persons at the opposite end of the social > scale are leading lives of careless indifference, material luxury, > and selfish indulgence. Neither of these forms of existence > is mere chance. Both are the effects of the conditions which > surround those who are subject to them, and the neglect of social > duty on the one side is most closely connected with the stunted > and arrested development on the other. In sociology, as in all > branches of true science, the law of universal causation holds > good. But this causation necessarily implies, as its logical > outcome, that human solidarity on which Theosophy so strongly > insists. If the action of one reacts on the lives of all, and this > is the true scientific idea, then it is only by all men becoming > brothers and all women sisters, and by all practising in their > daily lives true brotherhood and true sisterhood, that the real > human solidarity, which lies at the root of the elevation of the > race, can ever be attained. It is this action and interaction, > this true brotherhood and sisterhood, in which each shall live for > all and all for each, which is one of the fundamental Theosophical > principles that every Theosophist should be bound, not only to > teach, but to carry out in his or her individual life. > > ENQ. All this is very well as a general principle, but how would you > apply it in a concrete way? > > THEO. Look for a moment at what you would call the concrete facts of > human society. Contrast the lives not only of the masses of the > people, but of many of those who are called the middle and upper > classes, with what they might be under healthier and nobler > conditions, where justice, kindness, and love were paramount, > instead of the selfishness, indifference, and brutality which > now too often seem to reign supreme. All good and evil things in > humanity have their roots in human character, and this character > is, and has been, conditioned by the endless chain of cause and > effect. But this conditioning applies to the future as well as > to the present and the past. Selfishness, indifference, and > brutality can never be the normal state of the race—to believe so > would be to despair of humanity—and that no Theosophist can do. > Progress can be attained, and only attained, by the development > of the nobler qualities. Now, true evolution teaches us that > by altering the surroundings of the organism we can alter and > improve the organism; and in the strictest sense this is true > with regard to man. Every Theosophist, therefore, is bound to do > his utmost to help on, by all the means in his power, every wise > and well-considered social effort which has for its object the > amelioration of the condition of the poor. Such efforts should be > made with a view to their ultimate social emancipation, or the > development of the sense of duty in those who now so often neglect > it in nearly every relation of life. > > ENQ. Agreed. But who is to decide whether social efforts are wise or > unwise? > > THEO. No one person and no society can lay down a hard-and-fast rule in > this respect. Much must necessarily be left to the individual > judgment. One general test may, however, be given. Will the > proposed action tend to promote that true brotherhood which it is > the aim of Theosophy to bring about? No real Theosophist will > have much difficulty in applying such a test; once he is satisfied > of this, his duty will lie in the direction of forming public > opinion. And this can be attained only by inculcating those higher > and nobler conceptions of public and private duties which lie > at the root of all spiritual and material improvement. In every > conceivable case he himself must be a center of spiritual action, > and from him and his own daily individual life must radiate those > higher spiritual forces which alone can regenerate his fellow-men. > > ENQ. But why should he do this? Are not he and all, as you teach, > conditioned by their Karma, and must not Karma necessarily work > itself out on certain lines? > > THEO. It is this very law of Karma which gives strength to all that I > have said. The individual cannot separate himself from the race, > nor the race from the individual. The law of Karma applies equally > to all, although all are not equally developed. In helping on the > development of others, the Theosophist believes that he is not > only helping them to fulfil their Karma, but that he is also, in > the strictest sense, fulfilling his own. It is the development of > humanity, of which both he and they are integral parts, that he > has always in view, and he knows that any failure on his part to > respond to the highest within him retards not only himself but > all, in their progressive march. By his actions, he can make it > either more difficult or more easy for humanity to attain the next > higher plane of being. > > ENQ. How does this bear on the fourth of the principles you mentioned, > viz., Re-incarnation? > > THEO. The connection is most intimate. If our present lives depend upon > the development of certain principles which are a growth from > the germs left by a previous existence, the law holds good as > regards the future. Once grasp the idea that universal causation > is not merely present, but past, present and future, and every > action on our present plane falls naturally and easily into its > true place, and is seen in its true relation to ourselves and to > others. Every mean and selfish action sends us backward and not > forward, while every noble thought and every unselfish deed are > stepping-stones to the higher and more glorious planes of being. > If this life were all, then in many respects it would indeed be > poor and mean; but regarded as a preparation for the next sphere > of existence, it may be used as the golden gate through which > we may pass, not selfishly and alone, but in company with our > fellows, to the palaces which lie beyond. > > ON SELF-SACRIFICE. > > ENQ. Is equal justice to all and love to every creature the highest > standard of Theosophy? > > THEO. No; there is an even far higher one. > > ENQ. What can it be? > > THEO. The giving to others _more_ than to oneself—_self-sacrifice_. > Such was the standard and abounding measure which marked > so pre-eminently the greatest Teachers and Masters of > Humanity—_e.g._, Gautama Buddha in History, and Jesus of Nazareth > as in the Gospels. This trait alone was enough to secure to them > the perpetual reverence and gratitude of the generations of men > that come after them. We say, however, that self-sacrifice has to > be performed with discrimination; and such a self-abandonment, > if made without justice, or blindly, regardless of subsequent > results, may often prove not only made in vain, but harmful. > One of the fundamental rules of Theosophy is, justice to > oneself—viewed as a unit of collective humanity, not as a personal > self-justice, not more but not less than to others; unless, > indeed, by the sacrifice of the _one_ self we can benefit the many. > > ENQ. Could you make your idea clearer by giving an instance? > > THEO. There are many instances to illustrate it in history. > Self-sacrifice for practical good to save many, or several people, > Theosophy holds as far higher than self-abnegation for a sectarian > idea, such as that of “saving the heathen from _damnation_,” > for instance. In our opinion, Father Damien, the young man of > thirty who offered his whole life in sacrifice for the benefit > and alleviation of the sufferings of the lepers at Molokai, and > who went to live for eighteen years alone with them, to finally > catch the loathsome disease and die, _has not died in vain_. He > has given relief and relative happiness to thousands of miserable > wretches. He has brought to them consolation, mental and physical. > He threw a streak of light into the black and dreary night of > an existence, the hopelessness of which is unparalleled in the > records of human suffering. He was a _true Theosophist_, and his > memory will live for ever in our annals. In our sight this poor > Belgian priest stands immeasurably higher than—for instance—all > those sincere but vain-glorious fools, the Missionaries who have > sacrificed their lives in the South Sea Islands or China. What > good have they done? They went in one case to those who are not > yet ripe for any truth; and in the other to a nation whose systems > of religious philosophy are as grand as any, if only the men who > have them would live up to the standard of Confucius and their > other sages. And they died victims of irresponsible cannibals and > savages, and of popular fanaticism and hatred. Whereas, by going > to the slums of Whitechapel or some other such locality of those > that stagnate right under the blazing sun of our civilization, > full of Christian savages and mental leprosy, they might have done > real good, and preserved their lives for a better and worthier > cause. > > ENQ. But the Christians do not think so? > > THEO. Of course not, because they act on an erroneous belief. They > think that by baptising the body of an irresponsible savage they > save his soul from damnation. One church forgets her martyrs, > the other beatifies and raises statues to such men as Labro, who > sacrificed his body for forty years only to benefit the vermin > which it bred. Had we the means to do so, we would raise a statue > to Father Damien, the true, practical saint, and perpetuate his > memory for ever as a living exemplar of Theosophical heroism and > of Buddha- and Christ-like mercy and self-sacrifice. > > ENQ. Then you regard self-sacrifice as a duty? > > THEO. We do; and explain it by showing that altruism is an integral > part of self-development. But we have to discriminate. A man has > no right to starve himself _to death_ that another man may have > food, unless the life of that man is obviously more useful to the > many than is his own life. But it is his duty to sacrifice his own > comfort, and to work for others if they are unable to work for > themselves. It is his duty to give all that which is wholly his > own and can benefit no one but himself if he selfishly keeps it > from others. Theosophy teaches self-abnegation, but does not teach > rash and useless self-sacrifice, nor does it justify fanaticism. > > ENQ. But how are we to reach such an elevated status? > > THEO. By the enlightened application of our precepts to practice. By > the use of our higher reason, spiritual intuition and moral sense, > and by following the dictates of what we call “the still small > voice” of our conscience, which is that of our EGO, and which > speaks louder in us than the earthquakes and the thunders of > Jehovah, wherein “the Lord is not.” > > ENQ. If such are our duties to humanity at large, what do you > understand by our duties to our immediate surroundings? > > THEO. Just the same, plus those that arise from special obligations > with regard to family ties. > > ENQ. Then it is not true, as it is said, that no sooner does a man > enter into the Theosophical Society than he begins to be gradually > severed from his wife, children, and family duties? > > THEO. It is a groundless calumny, like so many others. The first of the > Theosophical duties is to do one’s duty by _all_ men, and > especially by those to whom one’s _specific_ responsibilities are > due, because one has either voluntarily undertaken them, such as > marriage ties, or because one’s destiny has allied one to them; I > mean those we owe to parents or next of kin. > > ENQ. And what may be the duty of a Theosophist to himself? > > THEO. To control and conquer, _through the Higher, the lower self_. To > purify himself inwardly and morally; to fear no one, and nought, > save the tribunal of his own conscience. Never to do a thing by > halves; _i.e._, if he thinks it the right thing to do, let him do > it openly and boldly, and if wrong, never touch it at all. It is > the duty of a Theosophist to lighten his burden by thinking of the > wise aphorism of Epictetus, who says: “Be not diverted from your > duty _by any idle reflection the silly world may make upon you_, > for their censures are not in your power, and consequently should > not be any part of your concern.” > > ENQ. But suppose a member of your Society should plead inability to > practice altruism by other people, on the ground that “charity > begins at home”; urging that he is too busy, or too poor, to > benefit mankind or even any of its units—what are your rules in > such a case? > > THEO. No man has a right to say that he can do nothing for others, on > any pretext whatever. “By doing the proper duty in the proper > place, a man may make the world his debtor,” says an English > writer. A cup of cold water given in time to a thirsty wayfarer is > a nobler duty and more worth, than a dozen of dinners given away, > out of season, to men who can afford to pay for them. No man who > has not got it in him will ever become a _Theosophist_; but he may > remain a member of our Society all the same. We have no rules by > which we could force any man to become a practical Theosophist, if > he does not desire to be one. > > ENQ. Then why does he enter the Society at all? > > THEO. That is best known to him who does so. For, here again, we have > no right to pre-judge a person, not even if the voice of a whole > community should be against him, and I may tell you why. In our > day, _vox populi_ (so far as regards the voice of the educated, > at any rate) is no longer _vox dei_, but ever that of prejudice, > of selfish motives, and often simply that of unpopularity. Our > duty is to sow seeds broadcast for the future, and see they are > good; not to stop to enquire _why_ we should do so, and how and > wherefore we are obliged to lose our time, since those who will > reap the harvest in days to come will never be ourselves. > > ON CHARITY. > > ENQ. How do you Theosophists regard the Christian duty of charity? > > THEO. What charity do you mean? Charity of mind, or practical charity > in the physical plane? > > ENQ. I mean practical charity, as your idea of Universal brotherhood > would include, of course, charity of mind. > > THEO. Then you have in your mind the practical carrying out of the > commandments given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount? > > ENQ. Precisely so. > > THEO. Then why call them “Christian”? Because, although your Saviour > preached and practised them, the last thing the Christians of > to-day think of is to carry them out in their lives. > > ENQ. And yet many are those who pass their lives in dispensing charity? > > THEO. Yes, out of the surplus of their great fortunes. But point out to > me that Christian, among the most philanthropic, who would give to > the shivering and starving thief, who would steal his coat, his > cloak also; or offer his right cheek to him who smote him on the > left, and never think of resenting it! > > ENQ. Ah, but you must remember that these precepts have not to be taken > literally. Times and circumstances have changed since Christ’s > day. Moreover, He spoke in Parables. > > THEO. Then why don’t your Churches teach that the doctrine of damnation > and hell-fire is to be understood as a _parable_ too? Why do > some of your most popular preachers, while virtually allowing > these “parables” to be understood as you take them, insist on the > literal meaning of the fires of Hell and the _physical_ tortures > of an “Asbestos-like” soul? If one is a “parable,” then the other > is. If Hell-fire is a literal truth, then Christ’s commandments > in the Sermon on the Mount have to be obeyed to the very letter. > And I tell you that many who do not believe in the Divinity of > Christ—like Count Leo Tolstoi and more than one Theosophist—do > carry out these noble, because universal, precepts literally; and > many more good men and women would do so, were they not more than > certain that such a walk in life would very probably land them in > a lunatic asylum—so _Christian are your laws_! > > ENQ. But surely every one knows that millions and millions are spent > annually on private and public charities? > > THEO. Oh, yes; half of which sticks to the hands it passes through > before getting to the needy; while a good portion or remainder > gets into the hands of professional beggars, those who are too > lazy to work, thus doing no good whatever to those who are really > in misery and suffering. Haven’t you heard that the first result > of the great outflow of charity towards the East-end of London was > to raise the rents in _Whitechapel_ by some 20 per cent.? > > ENQ. What would you do, then? > > THEO. Act individually and not collectively; follow the Northern > Buddhist precepts: “Never put food into the mouth of the hungry by > the hand of another”; “Never let the shadow of thy neighbour (_a > third person_) come between thyself and the object of thy bounty”; > “Never give to the Sun time to dry a tear before thou hast wiped > it.” Again “Never give money to the needy, or food to the priest, > who begs at thy door, _through thy servants_, lest thy money > should diminish gratitude, and thy food turn to gall.” > > ENQ. But how can this be applied practically? > > THEO. The Theosophical ideas of charity mean _personal_ exertion for > others; _personal_ mercy and kindness; _personal_ interest in the > welfare of those who suffer; _personal_ sympathy, forethought > and assistance in their troubles or needs. We Theosophists do > not believe in giving money (N.B., if we had it) through other > people’s hands or organizations. We believe in giving to the > money a thousandfold greater power and effectiveness by our > personal contact and sympathy with those who need it. We believe > in relieving the starvation of the soul, as much if not more than > the emptiness of the stomach; for gratitude does more good to > the man who feels it, than to him for whom it is felt. Where’s > the gratitude which your “millions of pounds” should have called > forth, or the good feelings provoked by them? Is it shown in > the hatred of the East-End poor for the rich? in the growth of > the party of anarchy and disorder? or by those thousands of > unfortunate working girls, victims to the “sweating” system, > driven daily to eke out a living by going on the streets? Do > your helpless old men and women thank you for the workhouses; or > your poor for the poisonously unhealthy dwellings in which they > are allowed to breed new generations of diseased, scrofulous > and rickety children, only to put money into the pockets of the > insatiable Shylocks who own houses? Therefore it is that every > sovereign of all those “millions,” contributed by good and > would-be charitable people, falls like a burning curse instead > of a blessing on the poor whom it should relieve. We call this > _generating national Karma_, and terrible will be its results on > the day of reckoning. > > THEOSOPHY FOR THE MASSES. > > ENQ. And you think that Theosophy would, by stepping in, help to remove > these evils, under the practical and adverse conditions of our > modern life? > > THEO. Had we more money, and had not most of the Theosophists to work > for their daily bread, I firmly believe we could. > > ENQ. How? Do you expect that your doctrines could ever take hold of the > uneducated masses, when they are so abstruse and difficult that > well-educated people can hardly understand them? > > THEO. You forget one thing, which is that your much-boasted modern > education is precisely that which makes it difficult for you > to understand Theosophy. Your mind is so full of intellectual > subtleties and preconceptions that your natural intuition > and perception of the truth cannot act. It does not require > metaphysics or education to make a man understand the broad > truths of Karma and Re-incarnation. Look at the millions of > poor and uneducated Buddhists and Hindoos, to whom Karma and > re-incarnation are solid realities, simply because their minds > have never been cramped and distorted by being forced into an > unnatural groove. They have never had the innate human sense of > justice perverted in them by being told to believe that their > sins would be forgiven because another man had been put to death > for their sakes. And the Buddhists, note well, live up to their > beliefs without a murmur against Karma, or what they regard as a > just punishment, whereas, the Christian populace neither lives > up it to its moral ideal, nor accepts its lot contentedly. Hence > murmuring and dissatisfaction, and the intensity of the struggle > for existence in Western lands. > > ENQ. But this contentedness, which you praise so much, would do away > with all motive for exertion and bring progress to a stand-still. > > THEO. And we, Theosophists, say that your vaunted progress and > civilization are no better than a host of will-o’-the-wisps, > flickering over a marsh which exhales a poisonous and deadly > miasma. This, because we see selfishness, crime, immorality, > and all the evils imaginable, pouncing upon unfortunate mankind > from this Pandora’s box which you call an age of progress, > and increasing _pari passu_ with the growth of your material > civilization. At such a price, better the inertia and inactivity > of Buddhist countries, which have arisen only as a consequence of > ages of political slavery. > > ENQ. Then is all this metaphysics and mysticism with which you occupy > yourself so much, of no importance? > > THEO. To the masses, who need only practical guidance and support, they > are not of much consequence; but for the educated, the natural > leaders of the masses, those whose modes of thought and action > will sooner or later be adopted by those masses, they are of the > greatest importance. It is only by means of the philosophy that an > intelligent and educated man can avoid the intellectual suicide > of believing on blind faith; and it is only by assimilating the > strict continuity and logical coherence of the Eastern, if not > esoteric, doctrines, that he can realize their truth. Conviction > breeds enthusiasm, and “Enthusiasm,” says Bulwer Lytton, “is the > genius of sincerity, and truth accomplishes no victories without > it”; while Emerson most truly remarks that “every great and > commanding movement in the annals of the world is the triumph of > enthusiasm.” And what is more calculated to produce such a feeling > than a philosophy so grand, so consistent, so logical, and so > all-embracing as our Eastern Doctrines? > > ENQ. And yet its enemies are very numerous, and every day Theosophy > acquires new opponents. > > THEO. And this is precisely that which proves its intrinsic excellence > and value. People hate only the things they fear, and no one goes > out of his way to overthrow that which neither threatens nor rises > beyond mediocrity. > > ENQ. Do you hope to impart this enthusiasm, one day, to the masses? > > THEO. Why not? since history tells us that the masses adopted Buddhism > with enthusiasm, while, as said before, the practical effect upon > them of this philosophy of ethics is still shown by the smallness > of the percentage of crime amongst Buddhist populations as > compared with every other religion. The chief point is, to uproot > that most fertile source of all crime and immorality—the belief > that it is possible for them to escape the consequences of their > own actions. Once teach them that greatest of all laws, _Karma_ > and _Re-incarnation_, and besides feeling in themselves the true > dignity of human nature, they will turn from evil and eschew it as > they would a physical danger. > > HOW MEMBERS CAN HELP THE SOCIETY. > > ENQ. How do you expect the Fellows of your Society to help in the work? > > THEO. First by studying and comprehending the theosophical doctrines, > so that they may teach others, especially the young people. > Secondly, by taking every opportunity of talking to others and > explaining to them what Theosophy is, and what it is not; by > removing misconceptions and spreading an interest in the subject. > Thirdly, by assisting in circulating our literature, by buying > books when they have the means, by lending and giving them and > by inducing their friends to do so. Fourthly, by defending > the Society from the unjust aspersions cast upon it, by every > legitimate device in their power. Fifth, and most important of > all, by the example of their own lives. > > ENQ. But all this literature, to the spread of which you attach so much > importance, does not seem to me of much practical use in helping > mankind. This is not practical charity. > > THEO. We think otherwise. We hold that a good book which gives people > food for thought, which strengthens and clears their minds, and > enables them to grasp truths which they have dimly felt but could > not formulate—we hold that such a book does a real, substantial > good. As to what you call practical deeds of charity, to benefit > the bodies of our fellow-men, we do what little we can; but, as > I have already told you, most of us are poor, whilst the Society > itself has not even the money to pay a staff of workers. All of us > who toil for it, give our labour gratis, and in most cases money > as well. The few who have the means of doing what are usually > called charitable actions, follow the Buddhist precepts and do > their work themselves, not by proxy or by subscribing publicly to > charitable funds. What the Theosophist has to do above all is to > forget his personality. > > WHAT A THEOSOPHIST OUGHT NOT TO DO. > > ENQ. Have you any prohibitory laws or clauses for Theosophists in your > Society? > > THEO. Many, but, alas! none of them are enforced. They express the > ideal of our organization,—but the practical application of such > things we are compelled to leave to the discretion of the Fellows > themselves. Unfortunately, the state of men’s minds in the present > century is such that, unless we allow these clauses to remain, so > to speak, obsolete, no man or woman would dare to risk joining the > Theosophical Society. This is precisely why I feel forced to lay > such a stress on the difference between true Theosophy and its > hard-struggling and well-intentioned, but still unworthy vehicle, > the Theosophical Society. > > ENQ. May I be told what are these perilous reefs in the open sea of > Theosophy? > > THEO. Well may you call them reefs, as more than one otherwise sincere > and well-meaning F.T.S. has had his Theosophical canoe shattered > into splinters on them! And yet to avoid certain things seems the > easiest thing in the world to do. For instance, here is a series > of such negatives, screening positive Theosophical duties:— > > No Theosophist should be silent when he hears evil reports or slanders > spread about the Society, or innocent persons, whether they be his > colleagues or outsiders. > > ENQ. But suppose what one hears is the truth, or may be true without > one knowing it? > > THEO. Then you must demand good proofs of the assertion, and hear both > sides impartially before you permit the accusation to go > uncontradicted. You have no right to believe in evil, until you > get undeniable proof of the correctness of the statement. > > ENQ. And what should you do then? > > THEO. Pity and forbearance, charity and long-suffering, ought to be > always there to prompt us to excuse our sinning brethren, and > to pass the gentlest sentence possible upon those who err. A > Theosophist ought never to forget what is due to the shortcomings > and infirmities of human nature. > > ENQ. Ought he to forgive entirely in such cases? > > THEO. In every case, especially he who is sinned against. > > ENQ. But if by so doing, he risks to injure, or allow others to be > injured? What ought he to do then? > > THEO. His duty; that which his conscience and higher nature suggests to > him; but only after mature deliberation. Justice consists in doing > no injury to any living being; but justice commands us also never > to allow injury to be done to the many, or even to one innocent > person, by allowing the guilty one to go unchecked. > > ENQ. What are the other negative clauses? > > THEO. No Theosophist ought to be contented with an idle or frivolous > life, doing no real good to himself and still less to others. He > should work for the benefit of the few who need his help if he is > unable to toil for Humanity, and thus work for the advancement of > the Theosophical cause. > > ENQ. This demands an exceptional nature, and would come rather hard > upon some persons. > > THEO. Then they had better remain outside the T. S. instead of sailing > under false colours. No one is asked to give more than he can > afford, whether in devotion, time, work or money. > > ENQ. What comes next? > > THEO. No working member should set too great value on his personal > progress or proficiency in Theosophic studies; but must be > prepared rather to do as much altruistic work as lies in his > power. He should not leave the whole of the heavy burden and > responsibility of the Theosophical movement on the shoulders of > the few devoted workers. Each member ought to feel it his duty to > take what share he can in the common work, and help it by every > means in his power. > > ENQ. This is but just. What comes next? > > THEO. No Theosophist should place his personal vanity, or feelings, > above those of his Society as a body. He who sacrifices the > latter, or other people’s reputations on the altar of his personal > vanity, worldly benefit, or pride, ought not to be allowed to > remain a member. One cancerous limb diseases the whole body. > > ENQ. Is it the duty of every member to teach others and preach > Theosophy? > > THEO. It is indeed. No fellow has a right to remain idle, on the excuse > that he knows too little to teach. For he may always be sure that > he will find others who know still less than himself. And also > it is not until a man begins to try to teach others, that he > discovers his own ignorance and tries to remove it. But this is a > minor clause. > > ENQ. What do you consider, then, to be the chief of these negative > Theosophical duties? > > THEO. To be ever prepared to recognize and confess one’s faults. To > rather sin through exaggerated praise than through too little > appreciation of one’s neighbour’s efforts. Never to back-bite or > slander another person. Always to say openly and direct to his > face anything you have against him. Never to make yourself the > echo of anything you may hear against another, nor harbour revenge > against those who happen to injure you. > > ENQ. But it is often dangerous to tell people the truth to their faces. > Don’t you think so? I know of one of your members who was bitterly > offended, left the Society, and became its greatest enemy, only > because he was told some unpleasant truths to his face, and was > blamed for them. > > THEO. Of such we have had many. No member, whether prominent or > insignificant, has ever left us without becoming our bitter enemy. > > ENQ. How do you account for it? > > THEO. It is simply this. Having been, in most cases, intensely devoted > to the Society at first, and having lavished upon it the most > exaggerated praises, the only possible excuse such a backslider > can make for his subsequent behaviour and past short-sightedness, > is _to pose as an innocent and deceived victim_, thus casting > the blame from his own shoulders on to those of the Society in > general, and its leaders especially. Such persons remind one of > the old fable about the man with a distorted face, who broke his > looking-glass on the ground that it reflected his countenance > crookedly. > > ENQ. But what makes these people turn against the Society? > > THEO. Wounded vanity in some form or other, almost in every case. > Generally, because their dicta and advice are not taken as > final and authoritative; or else, because they are of those who > would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. Because, in > short, they cannot bear to stand second to anybody in anything. > So, for instance, one member—a true “Sir Oracle”—criticized, > and almost defamed every member in the T.S. to outsiders as > much as to Theosophists, under the pretext that they were _all > untheosophical_, blaming them precisely for what he was himself > doing all the time. Finally, he left the Society, giving as his > reason a profound conviction that we were all (the Founders > especially)—FRAUDS! Another one, after intriguing in every > possible way to be placed at the head of a large Section of the > Society, finding that the members would not have him, turned > against the Founders of the T. S., and became their bitterest > enemy, denouncing one of them whenever he could, simply > because the latter could not, and would not, _force him_ upon > the Members. This was simply a case of an outrageous wounded > vanity. Still another wanted to, and virtually did, practise > _black-magic_—_i.e._, undue personal psychological influence on > certain Fellows, while pretending devotion and every Theosophical > virtue. When this was put a stop to, the Member broke with > Theosophy, and now slanders and lies against the same hapless > leaders in the most virulent manner, endeavouring to break up the > society by blackening the reputation of those whom that worthy > “Fellow” was unable to deceive. > > ENQ. What would you do with such characters? > > THEO. Leave them to their Karma. Because one person does evil that is > no reason for others to do so. > > ENQ. But, to return to slander, where is the line of demarcation > between backbiting and just criticism to be drawn? Is it not one’s > duty to warn one’s friends and neighbors against those whom one > knows to be dangerous associates? > > THEO. If by allowing them to go on unchecked other persons may be > thereby injured, it is certainly our duty to obviate the danger by > warning them privately. But true or false, no accusation against > another person should ever be spread abroad. If true, and the > fault hurts no one but the sinner, then leave him to his Karma. > If false, then you will have avoided adding to the injustice of > the world. Therefore, keep silent about such things with every > one not directly concerned. But if your discretion and silence are > likely to hurt or endanger others, then I add: _Speak the truth > at all costs_, and say, with Annesly, “Consult duty, not events.” > There are cases when one is forced to exclaim, “Perish discretion, > rather than allow it to interfere with duty.” > > ENQ. Methinks, if you carry out these maxims, you are likely to reap a > nice crop of troubles! > > THEO. And so we do. We have to admit that we are now open to the same > taunt as the early Christians were. “See, how these Theosophists > love one another!” may now be said of us without a shadow of > injustice. > > ENQ. Admitting yourself that there is at least as much, if not more, > backbiting, slandering, and quarrelling in the T.S. as in the > Christian Churches, let alone Scientific Societies—What kind of > Brotherhood is this? I may ask. > > THEO. A very poor specimen, indeed, as at present, and, until carefully > sifted and reorganized, _no_ better than all others. Remember, > however, that human nature is the same _in_ the Theosophical > Society as _out_ of it. Its members are no saints: they are at > best sinners trying to do better, and liable to fall back owing > to personal weakness. Add to this that our “Brotherhood” is no > “recognised” or established body, and stands, so to speak, outside > of the pale of jurisdiction. Besides which, it is in a chaotic > condition, and as unjustly _unpopular as is no other body_. What > wonder, then, that those members who fail to carry out its ideal > should turn, after leaving the Society, for sympathetic protection > to our enemies, and pour all their gall and bitterness into their > too willing ears! Knowing that they will find support, sympathy, > and ready credence for every accusation, however absurd, that > it may please them to launch against the Theosophical Society, > they hasten to do so, and vent their wrath on the innocent > looking-glass, which reflected too faithfully their faces. _People > never forgive those whom they have wronged._ The sense of kindness > received, and repaid by them with ingratitude, drives them into > a madness of self-justification before the world and their own > consciences. The former is but too ready to believe in anything > said against a society it hates. The latter—but I will say no > more, fearing I have already said too much. > > ENQ. Your position does not seem to me a very enviable one. > > THEO. It is not. But don’t you think that there must be something very > noble, very exalted, very true, behind the Society and its > philosophy, when the leaders and the founders of the movement > still continue to work for it with all their strength? They > sacrifice to it all comfort, all worldly prosperity, and success, > even to their good name and reputation—aye, even to their > honour—to receive in return incessant and ceaseless obloquy, > relentless persecution, untiring slander, constant ingratitude, > and misunderstanding of their best efforts, blows, and buffets > from all sides—when by simply dropping their work they would > find themselves immediately released from every responsibility, > shielded from every further attack. > > ENQ. I confess, such a perseverance seems to me very astounding, and I > wondered why you did all this. > > THEO. Believe me for no self-gratification; only in the hope of > training a few individuals to carry on our work for humanity by > its original programme when the Founders are dead and gone. They > have already found a few such noble and devoted souls to replace > them. The coming generations, thanks to these few, will find the > path to peace a little less thorny, and the way a little widened, > and thus all this suffering will have produced good results, and > their self-sacrifice will not have been in vain. At present, the > main, fundamental object of the Society is to sow germs in the > hearts of men, which may in time sprout, and under more propitious > circumstances lead to a healthy reform, conducive of more > happiness _to the masses_ than they have hitherto enjoyed. > > XIII. ON THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. > > THEOSOPHY AND ASCETICISM. > > ENQ. I have heard people say that your rules require all members to be > vegetarians, celibates, and rigid ascetics; but you have not told > me anything of the sort yet. Can you tell the truth once for all > about this? > > THEO. The truth is that our rules require nothing of the kind. The > Theosophical Society does not even expect, far less require of > _any_ of its members that they should be ascetics in any way, > except—if you call _that_ asceticism—that they should try and > benefit other people and be unselfish in their own lives. > > ENQ. But still many of your members are strict vegetarians, and openly > avow their intention of remaining unmarried. This, too, is most > often the case with those who take a prominent part in connection > with the work of your Society. > > THEO. That is only natural, because most of our really earnest workers > are members of the Inner Section of the Society, which I told you > about before. > > ENQ. Oh! then you do require ascetic practices in that Inner Section? > > THEO. No; we do not _require_ or _enjoin_ them even there; but I see > that I had better give you an explanation of our views on the > subject of asceticism in general, and then you will understand > about vegetarianism and so on. > > ENQ. Please proceed. > > THEO. As I have already told you, most people who become really earnest > students of Theosophy, and active workers in our Society, wish to > do more than study theoretically the truths we teach. They wish > to _know_ the truth by their own direct personal experience, and > to study Occultism with the object of acquiring the wisdom and > power, which they feel that they need in order to help others, > effectually and judiciously, instead of blindly and at haphazard. > Therefore, sooner or later, they join the Inner Section. > > ENQ. But you said that “ascetic practices” are not obligatory even in > that Inner Section? > > THEO. No more they are; but the first thing which the members learn > there is a true conception of the relation of the body, or > physical sheath, to the inner, the true man. The relation and > mutual interaction between these two aspects of human nature are > explained and demonstrated to them, so that they soon become > imbued with the supreme importance of the inner man over the outer > case or body. They are taught that blind unintelligent asceticism > is mere folly; that such conduct as that of St. Labro which I > spoke of before, or that of the Indian Fakirs and jungle ascetics, > who cut, burn and macerate their bodies in the most cruel and > horrible manner, is simply self-torture for selfish ends, _i.e._, > to develop will-power, but is perfectly useless for the purpose of > assisting true spiritual, or Theosophic, development. > > ENQ. I see, you regard only _moral_ asceticism as necessary. It is as a > means to an end, that end being the perfect equilibrium of the > _inner_ nature of man, and the attainment of complete mastery over > the body with all its passions and desires? > > THEO. Just so. But these means must be used intelligently and wisely, > not blindly and foolishly; like an athlete who is training and > preparing for a great contest, not like the miser who starves > himself into illness that he may gratify his passion for gold. > > ENQ. I understand now your general idea; but let us see how you apply > it in practice. How about vegetarianism, for instance? > > THEO. One of the great German scientists has shown that every kind of > animal tissue, however you may cook it, still retains certain > marked characteristics of the animal which it belonged to, > which characteristics can be recognised. And apart from that, > every one knows by the taste what meat he is eating. We go > a step farther, and prove that when the flesh of animals is > assimilated by man as food, it imparts to him, physiologically, > some of the characteristics of the animal it came from. > Moreover, occult science teaches and proves this to its students > by ocular demonstration, showing also that this “coarsening” > or “animalizing” effect on man is greatest from the flesh of > the larger animals, less for birds, still less for fish and > other cold-blooded animals, and least of all when he eats only > vegetables. > > ENQ. Then he had better not eat at all? > > THEO. If he could live without eating, of course it would. But as the > matter stands, he must eat to live, and so we advise really > earnest students to eat such food as will least clog and weight > their brains and bodies, and will have the smallest effect in > hampering and retarding the development of their intuition, their > inner faculties and powers. > > ENQ. Then you do not adopt all the arguments which vegetarians in > general are in the habit of using? > > THEO. Certainly not. Some of their arguments are very weak, and often > based on assumptions which are quite false. But, on the other > hand, many of the things they say are quite true. For instance, we > believe that much disease, and especially the great predisposition > to disease which is becoming so marked a feature in our time, is > very largely due to the eating of meat, and especially of tinned > meats. But it would take too long to go thoroughly into this > question of vegetarianism on its merits; so please pass on to > something else. > > ENQ. One question more. What are your members of the Inner Section to > do with regard to their food when they are ill? > > THEO. Follow the best practical advice they can get, of course. Don’t > you grasp yet that we never impose any hard-and-fast obligations > in this respect? Remember once for all that in all such questions > we take a rational, and never a fanatical, view of things. If > from illness or long habit a man cannot go without meat, why, by > all means let him eat it. It is no crime; it will only retard > his progress a little; for after all is said and done, the purely > bodily actions and functions are of far less importance than what > a man _thinks_ and _feels_, what desires he encourages in his > mind, and allows to take root and grow there. > > ENQ. Then with regard to the use of wine and spirits, I suppose you do > not advise people to drink them? > > THEO. They are worse for his moral and spiritual growth than meat, for > alcohol in all its forms has a direct, marked, and very > deleterious influence on man’s psychic condition. Wine and spirit > drinking is only less destructive to the development of the inner > powers, than the habitual use of hashish, opium, and similar drugs. > > THEOSOPHY AND MARRIAGE. > > ENQ. Now to another question; must a man marry or remain a celibate? > > THEO. It depends on the kind of man you mean. If you refer to one who > intends to live _in_ the world, one who, even though a good, > earnest Theosophist, and an ardent worker for our cause, still has > ties and wishes which bind him to the world, who, in short, does > not feel that he has done for ever with what men call life, and > that he desires one thing and one thing only—to know the truth, > and to be able to help others—then for such a one I say there > is no reason why he should not marry, if he likes to take the > risks of that lottery where there are so many more blanks than > prizes. Surely you cannot believe us so absurd and fanatical as > to preach against marriage altogether? On the contrary, save in a > few exceptional cases of practical Occultism, marriage is the only > remedy against immorality. > > ENQ. But why cannot one acquire this knowledge and power when living a > married life? > > THEO. My dear sir, I cannot go into physiological questions with you; > but I can give you an obvious and, I think, a sufficient answer, > which will explain to you the moral reasons we give for it. Can > a man serve two masters? No! Then it is equally impossible for > him to divide his attention between the pursuit of Occultism and > a wife. If he tries to, he will assuredly fail in doing either > properly; and, let me remind you, practical Occultism is far too > serious and dangerous a study for a man to take up, unless he is > in the most deadly earnest, and ready to sacrifice _all, himself > first of all_, to gain his end. But this does not apply to the > members of our Inner Section. I am only referring to those who > are determined to tread that path of discipleship which leads to > the highest goal. Most, if not all of those who join our Inner > Section, are only beginners, preparing themselves in this life to > enter in reality upon that path in lives to come. > > THEOSOPHY AND EDUCATION. > > ENQ. One of your strongest arguments for the inadequacy of the existing > forms of religion in the West, as also to some extent the > materialistic philosophy which is now so popular, but which you > seem to consider as an abomination of desolation, is the large > amount of misery and wretchedness which undeniably exists, > especially in our great cities. But surely you must recognize how > much has been, and is being done to remedy this state of things by > the spread of education and the diffusion of intelligence. > > THEO. The future generations will hardly thank you for such a > “diffusion of intelligence,” nor will your present education do > much good to the poor starving masses. > > ENQ. Ah! but you must give us time. It is only a few years since we > began to educate the people. > > THEO. And what, pray, has your Christian religion been doing ever since > the fifteenth century, once you acknowledge that the education > of the masses has not been attempted till now—the very work, > if ever there could be one, which a _Christian_, _i.e._, a > Christ-following church and people, ought to perform? > > ENQ. Well, you may be right; but now— > > THEO. Just let us consider this question of education from a broad > standpoint, and I will prove to you that you are doing harm not > good, with many of your boasted improvements. The schools for the > poorer children, though far less useful than they ought to be, > are good in contrast with the vile surroundings to which they > are doomed by your modern Society. The _infusion_ of a little > practical Theosophy would help a hundred times more in life > the poor suffering masses than all this infusion of (useless) > intelligence. > > ENQ. But, really—— > > THEO. Let me finish, please. You have opened a subject on which we > Theosophists feel deeply, and I must have my say. I quite agree > that there is a great advantage to a small child bred in the > slums, having the gutter for playground, and living amid continued > coarseness of gesture and word, in being placed daily in a bright, > clean school-room hung with pictures, and often gay with flowers. > There it is taught to be clean, gentle, orderly; there it learns > to sing and to play; has toys that awaken its intelligence; learns > to use its fingers deftly; is spoken to with a smile instead of > a frown; is gently rebuked or coaxed instead of cursed. All this > humanises the children, arouses their brains, and renders them > susceptible to intellectual and moral influences. The schools are > not all they might be and ought to be; but, compared with the > homes, they are paradises; and they slowly are reacting on the > homes. But while this is true of many of the Board schools, your > system deserves the worst one can say of it. > > ENQ. So be it; go on. > > THEO. What is the _real_ object of modern education? Is it to cultivate > and develop the mind in the right direction; to teach the > disinherited and hapless people to carry with fortitude the burden > of life (allotted them by Karma); to strengthen their will; to > inculcate in them the love of one’s neighbour and the feeling of > mutual interdependence and brotherhood; and thus to train and form > the character for practical life? Not a bit of it. And yet, these > are undeniably the objects of all true education. No one denies > it; all your educationalists admit it, and talk very big indeed > on the subject. But what is the practical result of their action? > Every young man and boy, nay, every one of the younger generation > of schoolmasters will answer: “The object of modern education is > to pass examinations,” a system not to develop right emulation, > but to generate and breed jealousy, envy, hatred almost, in > young people for one another, and thus train them for a life of > ferocious selfishness and struggle for honours and emoluments > instead of kindly feeling. > > ENQ. I must admit you are right there. > > THEO. And what are these examinations—the terror of modern boyhood and > youth? They are simply a method of classification by which the > results of your school teaching are tabulated. In other words, > they form the practical application of the modern science methods > to the _genus homo, qua_ intellection. Now “science” teaches > that intellect is a result of the mechanical interaction of the > brain-stuff; therefore it is only logical that modern education > should be almost entirely mechanical—a sort of automatic machine > for the fabrication of intellect by the ton. Very little > experience of examinations is enough to show that the education > they produce is simply a training of the physical memory, and, > sooner or later, all your schools will sink to this level. As to > any real, sound cultivation of the thinking and reasoning power, > it is simply impossible while everything has to be judged by the > results as tested by competitive examinations. Again, school > training is of the very greatest importance in forming character, > especially in its moral bearing. Now, from first to last, your > modern system is based on the so-called scientific revelations: > “The struggle for existence” and the “survival of the fittest.” > All through his early life, every man has these driven into him by > practical example and experience, as well as by direct teaching, > till it is impossible to eradicate from his mind the idea that > “self,” the lower, personal, animal self, is the end-all, and > be-all, of life. Here you get the great source of all the > after-misery, crime, and heartless selfishness, which you admit > as much as I do. Selfishness, as said over and over again, is the > curse of humanity, and the prolific parent of all the evils and > crimes in this life; and it is your schools which are the hotbeds > of such selfishness. > > ENQ. That is all very fine as generalities, but I should like a few > facts, and to learn also how this can be remedied. > > THEO. Very well, I will try and satisfy you. There are three great > divisions of scholastic establishments, board, middle-class > and public schools, running up the scale from the most grossly > commercial to the idealistic classical, with many permutations > and combinations. The practical commercial begets the modern > side, and the ancient and orthodox classical reflects its heavy > respectability even as far as the School Board pupil teacher’s > establishments. Here we plainly see the scientific and material > commercial supplanting the effete orthodox and classical. Neither > is the reason very far to seek. The objects of this branch of > education are, then, pounds, shillings, and pence, the _summum > bonum_ of the XIXth century. Thus, the energies generated by the > brain molecules of its adherents are all concentrated on one > point, and are, therefore, to some extent, an organized army > of _educated_ and speculative intellects of the minority of > men, trained against the hosts of the ignorant, simple-minded > masses doomed to be vampirised, lived and sat upon by their > intellectually stronger brethren. Such training is not only > _untheosophical_, it is simply UNCHRISTIAN. Result: The direct > outcome of this branch of education is an overflooding of the > market with money-making machines, with heartless selfish > men—animals—who have been most carefully trained to prey on their > fellows and take advantage of the ignorance of their weaker > brethren! > > ENQ. Well, but you cannot assert that of our great public schools, at > any rate? > > THEO. Not exactly, it is true. But though the _form_ is different, the > animating spirit is the same: _untheosophical_ and _unchristian_, > whether Eton and Harrow turn out scientists or divines and > theologians. > > ENQ. Surely you don’t mean to call Eton and Harrow “commercial”? > > THEO. No. Of course the Classical system is above all things > _respectable_, and in the present day is productive of some good. > It does still remain the favourite at our great public schools, > where not only an intellectual, but also a social education > is obtainable. It is, therefore, of prime importance that the > dull boys of aristocratic and wealthy parents should go to such > schools to meet the rest of the young life of the “blood” and > money classes. But unfortunately there is a huge competition even > for entrance; for the moneyed classes are increasing, and poor > but clever boys seek to enter the public schools by the rich > scholarships, both at the schools themselves and from them to the > Universities. > > ENQ. According to this view, the wealthier “dullards” have to work even > harder than their poorer fellows? > > THEO. It is so. But, strange to say, the faithful of the cult of the > “Survival of the fittest” do not practice their creed; for their > whole exertion is to make the naturally unfit supplant the > fit. Thus, by bribes of large sums of money, they allure the > best teachers from their natural pupils to mechanicalise their > naturally unfit progeny into professions which they uselessly > overcrowd. > > ENQ. And you attribute all this to what? > > THEO. All this is owing to the perniciousness of a system which turns > out goods to order, irrespective of the natural proclivities > and talents of the youth. The poor little candidate for this > progressive paradise of learning, comes almost straight from the > nursery to the treadmill of a preparatory school for sons of > gentlemen. Here he is immediately seized upon by the workmen of > the materio-intellectual factory, and crammed with Latin, French > and Greek Accidence, Dates and Tables, so that if he have any > natural genius it is rapidly squeezed out of him by the rollers of > what Carlyle has so well-called “dead vocables.” > > ENQ. But surely he is taught something besides “dead vocables,” and > much of that which may lead him direct to _Theosophy_, if not > entirely into the Theosophical Society? > > THEO. Not much. For of history, he will attain only sufficient > knowledge of his own particular nation to fit him with a > steel armour of prejudice against all other peoples, and be > steeped in the foul cess-pools of chronicled national hate and > blood-thirstiness; and surely, you would not call that—_Theosophy_? > > ENQ. What are your further objections? > > THEO. Added to this is a smattering of selected, so-called, Biblical > facts, from the study of which all intellect is eliminated. It is > simply a memory lesson, the “Why” of the teacher being a “Why” of > circumstances and not of reason. > > ENQ. Yes; but I have heard you congratulate yourself at the > ever-increasing number of the Agnostics and Atheists in our day, > so that it appears that even people trained in the system you > abuse so heartily _do_ learn to think and reason for themselves. > > THEO. Yes; but it is rather owing to a healthy reaction from that > system than due to it. We prefer immeasurably more in our Society > Agnostics, and even rank Atheists, to bigots of whatever religion. > An Agnostic’s mind is ever opened to the truth; whereas the latter > blinds the bigot like the sun does an owl. The best—_i.e._, the > most truth-loving, philanthropic, and honest—of our Fellows were, > and are, Agnostics and Atheists (disbelievers in a _personal_ > God). But there are no _free_-thinking boys and girls, and > generally early training will leave its mark behind in the shape > of a cramped and distorted mind. A proper and sane system of > education should produce the most vigorous and liberal mind, > strictly trained in logical and accurate thought, and not in blind > faith. How can you ever expect good results, while you pervert > the reasoning faculty of your children by bidding them believe in > the miracles of the Bible on Sunday, while for the six other days > of the week you teach them that such things are scientifically > impossible? > > ENQ. What would you have, then? > > THEO. If we had money, we would found schools which would turn out > something else than reading and writing candidates for starvation. > Children should above all be taught self-reliance, love for all > men, altruism, mutual charity, and more than anything else, to > think and reason for themselves. We would reduce the purely > mechanical work of the memory to an absolute minimum, and devote > the time to the development and training of the inner senses, > faculties and latent capacities. We would endeavour to deal with > each child as a unit, and to educate it so as to produce the most > harmonious and equal unfoldment of its powers, in order that its > special aptitudes should find their full natural development. We > should aim at creating _free_ men and women, free intellectually, > free morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and above all things, > _unselfish_. And we believe that much if not all of this could be > obtained by _proper and truly theosophical_ education. > > WHY, THEN, IS THERE SO MUCH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE T.S.? > > ENQ. If Theosophy is even half of what you say, why should there exist > such a terrible ill-feeling against it? This is even more of a > problem than anything else. > > THEO. It is; but you must bear in mind how many powerful adversaries we > have aroused ever since the formation of our Society. As I just > said, if the Theosophical movement were one of those numerous > modern crazes, as harmless at the end as they are evanescent, it > would be simply laughed at—as it is now by those who still do not > understand its real purport—and left severely alone. But it is > nothing of the kind. Intrinsically, Theosophy is the most serious > movement of this age; and one, moreover, which threatens the very > life of most of the time-honoured humbugs, prejudices, and social > evils of the day—those evils which fatten and make happy the upper > ten and their imitators and sycophants, the wealthy dozens of the > middle classes, while they positively crush and starve out of > existence the millions of the poor. Think of this, and you will > easily understand the reason of such a relentless persecution by > those others who, more observant and perspicacious, do see the > true nature of Theosophy, and therefore dread it. > > ENQ. Do you mean to tell me that it is because a few have understood > what Theosophy leads to, that they try to crush the movement? But > if Theosophy leads only to good, surely you cannot be prepared to > utter such a terrible accusation of perfidious heartlessness and > treachery even against those few? > > THEO. I am so prepared, on the contrary. I do not call the enemies we > have had to battle with during the first nine or ten years of the > Society’s existence either powerful or “dangerous”; but only those > who have arisen against us in the last three or four years. And > these neither speak, write nor preach against Theosophy, but work > in silence and behind the backs of the foolish puppets who act as > their visible _marionnettes_. Yet if _invisible_ to most of the > members of our Society, they are well known to the true “Founders” > and the protectors of our Society. But they must remain for > certain reasons unnamed at present. > > ENQ. And are they known to many of you, or to yourself alone? > > THEO. I never said _I_ knew them. I may or may not know them—but I know > _of them_, and this is sufficient; and _I defy them to do their > worst_. They may achieve great mischief and throw confusion > into our ranks, especially among the faint-hearted, and those > who can judge only by appearances. _They will not crush the > Society_, do what they may. Apart from these truly dangerous > enemies—“dangerous,” however, only to those Theosophists who > are unworthy of the name, and whose place is rather _outside_ > than _within_ the T.S.—the number of our opponents is more than > considerable. > > ENQ. Can you name these, at least, if you will not speak of the others? > > THEO. Of course I can. We have to contend against (1) the hatred of the > Spiritualists, American, English, and French; (2) the constant > opposition of the clergy of all denominations; (3) especially > the relentless hatred and persecution of the missionaries in > India; (4) this led to the famous and infamous attack on our > Theosophical Society by the Society for Psychical Research, an > attack which was stirred up by a regular conspiracy organized by > the missionaries in India. Lastly, we must count the defection > of various prominent (?) members, for reasons I have already > explained, all of whom have contributed their utmost to increase > the prejudice against us. > > ENQ. Cannot you give me more details about these, so that I may know > what to answer when asked—a brief history of the Society, in > short; and why the world believes all this? > > THEO. The reason is simple. Most outsiders knew absolutely nothing of > the Society itself, its motives, objects or beliefs. From its very > beginning the world has seen in Theosophy nothing but certain > marvellous phenomena, in which two-thirds of the non-spiritualists > do not believe. Very soon the Society came to be regarded as a > body pretending to the possession of “miraculous” powers. The > world never realised that the Society taught absolute disbelief > in _miracle_ or even the possibility of such; that in the Society > there were only a few people who possessed such psychic powers > and but few who cared for them. Nor did it understand that the > phenomena were never produced publicly, but only privately for > friends, and merely given as an accessory, to prove by direct > demonstration that such things could be produced without dark > rooms, spirits, mediums, or any of the usual paraphernalia. > Unfortunately, this misconception was greatly strengthened and > exaggerated by the first book on the subject which excited much > attention in Europe—Mr. Sinnett’s “_Occult World_.” If this work > did much to bring the Society into prominence, it attracted still > more obloquy, derision and misrepresentation upon the hapless > heroes and heroine thereof. Of this the author was more than > warned in the _Occult World_, but did not pay attention to the > _prophecy_—for such it was, though half-veiled. > > ENQ. For what, and since when, do the Spiritualists hate you? > > THEO. From the first day of the Society’s existence. No sooner the fact > became known that, as a body, the T.S. did not believe in > communications with the spirits of the dead, but regarded the > so-called “spirits” as, for the most part, astral reflections of > disembodied personalities, shells, etc., than the Spiritualists > conceived a violent hatred to us and especially to the Founders. > This hatred found expression in every kind of slander, > uncharitable personal remarks, and absurd misrepresentations of > the Theosophical teachings in all the American Spiritualistic > organs. For years we were persecuted, denounced and abused. This > began in 1875 and continues to the present day. In 1879, the > headquarters of the T.S. were transferred from New York to Bombay, > India, and then permanently to Madras. When the first branch of > our Society, the British T.S., was founded in London, the English > Spiritualists came out in arms against us, as the Americans had > done; and the French Spiritists followed suit. > > ENQ. But why should the clergy be hostile to you, when, after all, the > main tendency of the Theosophical doctrines is opposed to > Materialism, the great enemy of all forms of religion in our day? > THEO. The Clergy opposed us on the general principle that “He who > is not with me is against me.” 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. The > missionaries in India hated and tried to crush us because they saw > the flower of the educated Indian youth and the Brahmins, who are > almost inaccessible to them, joining the Society in large numbers. > And yet, apart from this general class hatred, the T.S. counts in > its ranks many clergymen, and even one or two bishops. > > ENQ. And what led the S.P.R. to take the field against you? You were > both pursuing the same line of study, in some respects, and > several of the Psychic Researchers belonged to your society. > > THEO. First of all we were very good friends with the leaders of the > S.P.R.; but when the attack on the phenomena appeared in the > _Christian College Magazine_, supported by the pretended > revelations of a menial, the S.P.R. found that they had > compromised themselves by publishing in their “Proceedings” too > many of the phenomena which had occurred in connection with the > T.S. Their ambition is to pose as an _authoritative_ and _strictly > scientific_ body; so that they had to choose between retaining > that position by throwing overboard the T.S. and even trying to > destroy it, and seeing themselves merged, in the opinion of the > Sadducees of the _grand monde_, with the “credulous” Theosophists > and Spiritualists. There was no way for them out of it, no two > choices, and they chose to throw us overboard. It was a matter of > dire necessity for them. But so hard pressed were they to find > any apparently reasonable motive for the life of devotion and > ceaseless labour led by the two Founders, and for the complete > absence of any pecuniary profit or other advantage to them, that > our enemies were obliged to resort to the thrice-absurd, eminently > ridiculous, and now famous “Russian spy theory,” to explain this > devotion. But the old saying, “The blood of the martyr is the seed > of the Church,” proved once more correct. After the first shock of > this attack, the T.S. doubled and tripled its numbers, but the bad > impression produced still remains. A French author was right in > saying, “_Calomniez, calomniez toujours et encore, il en restera > toujours quelque chose._” Therefore it is, that unjust prejudices > are current, and that everything connected with the T.S., and > especially with its Founders, is so falsely distorted, because > based on malicious hearsay alone. > > ENQ. Yet in the 14 years during which the Society has existed, you must > have had ample time and opportunity to show yourselves and your > work in their true light? > > THEO. How, or when, have we been given such an opportunity? Our most > prominent members had an aversion to anything that looked like > publicly justifying themselves. Their policy has ever been: “We > must live it down”; and “What does it matter what the newspapers > say, or people think?” The Society was too poor to send out > public lecturers, and therefore the expositions of our views > and doctrines were confined to a few Theosophical works that > met with success, but which people often misunderstood, or > only knew of through hearsay. Our journals were, and still are, > boycotted; our literary works ignored; and to this day no one > seems even to feel quite certain whether the Theosophists are > a kind of Serpent-and-Devil worshippers, or simply “Esoteric > Buddhists”—whatever that may mean. It was useless for us to go > on denying, day after day and year after year, every kind of > inconceivable cock-and-bull stories about us; for, no sooner was > one disposed of, than another, a still more absurd and malicious > one, was born out of the ashes of the first. Unfortunately, > human nature is so constituted that any good said of a person > is immediately forgotten and never repeated. But one has only > to utter a calumny, or to start a story—no matter how absurd, > false or incredible it may be, if only it is connected with some > unpopular character—for it to be successful and forthwith accepted > as a historical fact. Like _Don Basilio’s_ “CALUMNIA,” the rumour > springs up, at first, as a soft gentle breeze hardly stirring the > grass under your feet, and arising no one knows whence; then, in > the shortest space of time, it is transformed into a strong wind, > begins to blow a gale, and forthwith becomes a roaring storm! A > calumny among news, is what an octopus is among fishes; it sucks > into one’s mind, fastens upon our memory, which feeds upon it, > leaving indelible marks even after the calumny has been bodily > destroyed. A calumnious lie is the only master-key that will open > any and every brain. It is sure to receive welcome and hospitality > in every human mind, the highest as the lowest, if only a little > prejudiced, and no matter from however base a quarter and motive > it has started. > > ENQ. Don’t you think your assertion altogether too sweeping? The > Englishman has never been over-ready to believe in anything said, > and our nation is proverbially known for its love of fair play. A > lie has no legs to stand upon for long, and— > > THEO. The Englishman is as ready to believe evil as a man of any other > nation; for it is human nature, and not a national feature. As > to lies, if they have no legs to stand upon, according to the > proverb, they have exceedingly rapid wings; and they can and do > fly farther and wider than any other kind of news, in England > as elsewhere. Remember lies and calumny are the only kind of > literature we can always get gratis, and without paying any > subscription. We can make the experiment if you like. Will you, > who are so interested in Theosophical matters, and have heard > so much about us, will you put me questions on as many of these > rumours and “hearsays” as you can think of? I will answer you > the truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the strictest > verification. > > ENQ. Before we change the subject, let us have the whole truth on this > one. Now, some writers have called your teachings “immoral > and pernicious”; others, on the ground that many so-called > “authorities” and Orientalists find in the Indian religions > nothing but sex-worship in its many forms, accuse you of teaching > nothing better than Phallic worship. They say that since modern > Theosophy is so closely allied with Eastern, and particularly > Indian, thought, it cannot be free from this taint. Occasionally, > even, they go so far as to accuse European Theosophists of > reviving the practices connected with this cult. How about this? > > THEO. I have heard and read about this before, and I answer that no > more utterly baseless and lying calumny has ever been invented > and circulated. “Silly people can see but silly dreams,” says > a Russian proverb. It makes one’s blood boil to hear such vile > accusations made without the slightest foundation, and on the > strength of mere inferences. Ask the hundreds of honourable > English men and women who have been members of the Theosophical > Society for years whether an _immoral_ precept or a _pernicious_ > doctrine was ever taught to them. Open the _Secret Doctrine_, > and you will find page after page denouncing the Jews and other > nations precisely on account of this devotion to Phallic rites, > due to the dead letter interpretation of nature symbolism, and > the grossly materialistic conceptions of her dualism in all the > _exoteric_ creeds. Such ceaseless and malicious misrepresentation > of our teachings and beliefs is really disgraceful. > > ENQ. But you cannot deny that the Phallic element _does_ exist in the > religions of the East? > > THEO. Nor do I deny it; only I maintain that this proves no more than > does its presence in Christianity, the religion of the West. Read > Hargrave Jenning’s _Rosicrucians_, if you would assure yourself of > it. In the East, the Phallic symbolism is, perhaps, more crude, > because more true to nature, or I would rather say, more _naïve_ > and sincere than in the West. But it is not more licentious, > nor does it suggest to the Oriental mind the same gross and > coarse ideas as to the Western, with, perhaps, one or two > exceptions, such as the shameful sect known as the “Maharajah,” or > _Vallabhachârya_ sect. > > ENQ. A writer in the _Agnostic_ journal—one of your accusers—has just > hinted that the followers of this disgraceful sect are > Theosophists, and “claim true Theosophic insight.” > > THEO. He wrote a falsehood, and that’s all. There never was, nor is > there at present, one single Vallabhachârya in our Society. As to > their having, or claiming Theosophic insight, that is another fib, > based on crass ignorance about the Indian Sects. Their “Maharajah” > only claims a right to the money, wives and daughters of his > foolish followers and no more. This sect is despised by all the > other Hindus. > > But you will find the whole subject dealt with at length in the _Secret > Doctrine_, to which I must again refer you for detailed > explanations. To conclude, the very soul of Theosophy is dead > against Phallic worship; and its occult or esoteric section more > so even than the exoteric teachings. There never was a more lying > statement made than the above. And now ask me some other questions. > > IS THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY A MONEY-MAKING CONCERN? > > ENQ. Agreed. Well, have either of the Founders, Colonel H. S. Olcott or > H. P. Blavatsky, ever made any money, profit, or derived any > worldly benefit from the T.S., as some papers say? > > THEO. Not one penny. The papers lie. On the contrary, they have both > given all they had, and literally beggared themselves. As for > “worldly benefits,” think of the calumnies and vilification they > have been subjected to, and then ask the question! > > ENQ. Yet I have read in a good many missionary organs that the entrance > fees and subscriptions much more than covered all expenses; and > one said that the Founders were making twenty thousand pounds a > year! > > THEO. This is a fib, like many others. In the published accounts of > January, 1889, you will find an exact statement of _all_ the money > ever received from any source since 1879. The total received from > all sources (entrance fees, donations, etc., etc.) during these > ten years is under six thousand pounds, and of this a large part > was contributed by the Founders themselves from the proceeds of > their private resources and their literary work. All this has been > openly and officially admitted, even by our enemies, the Psychic > Research Society. And now both the Founders are penniless; one, > too old and ill to work as she did before, unable to spare time > for outside literary work to help the Society in money, can only > write for the Theosophical cause; the other keeps labouring for it > as before, and receives as little thanks for it. > > ENQ. But surely they need money to live? > > THEO. Not at all. So long as they have food and lodging, even though > they owe it to the devotion of a few friends, they need little > more. > > ENQ. But could not Madame Blavatsky, especially, make more than enough > to live upon by her writings? > > THEO. When in India she received on the average some thousand rupees a > year for articles contributed to Russian and other papers, but > gave it all away to the Society. > > ENQ. Political articles? > > THEO. Never. Everything she has written throughout the seven years of > her stay in India is all there in print. It deals only with > the religions, ethnology, and customs of India, and with > Theosophy—never with politics, of which she knows nothing and > cares less. Again, two years ago she refused several contracts > amounting together to about 1,200 roubles in gold per month; for > she could not accept them without abandoning her work for the > Society, which needed all her time and strength. She has documents > to prove it. > > ENQ. But why could not both she and Colonel Olcott do as others—notably > many Theosophists—do; follow out their respective professions and > devote the surplus of their time to the work of the Society? > > THEO. Because by serving two masters, either the professional or the > philanthropic work would have had to suffer. Every true > Theosophist is morally bound to sacrifice the personal to the > impersonal, his own _present_ good to the _future_ benefit of > other people. If the Founders do not set the example, who will? > > ENQ. And are there many who follow it? > > THEO. I am bound to answer you the truth. In Europe about half-a-dozen > in all, out of more than that number of Branches. > > ENQ. Then it is not true that the Theosophical Society has a large > capital or endowment of its own? > > THEO. It is false, for it has none at all. Now that the entrance fee of > £1 and the small annual due have been abolished, it is even a > doubtful question whether the staff at the headquarters in India > will not soon be starved to death. > > ENQ. Then why not raise subscriptions? > > THEO. We are not the Salvation Army; we _cannot_ and _have never_ > begged; nor have we ever followed the example of the Churches and > sects and “taken up collections.” That which is occasionally sent > for the support of the Society, the small sums contributed by some > devoted Fellows, are all voluntary donations. > > ENQ. But I have heard of large sums of money given to Mdme. Blavatsky. > It was said four years ago that she got £5,000 from one rich, > young “Fellow,” who went out to join them in India and £10,000 > from another wealthy and well-known American gentleman, one of > your members who died in Europe four years ago. > > THEO. Say to those who told you this, that they either themselves > utter, or repeat, a gross falsehood. _Never has_ “Madame > Blavatsky” _asked or received_ ONE PENNY from the two above-named > gentlemen, nor anything like that from anyone else, since the > Theosophical Society was founded. Let any man living try to > substantiate this calumny, and it will be easier for him to > prove that the Bank of England is a bankrupt than that the said > “Founder” has ever made any money out of Theosophy. These two > calumnies have been started by two high-born ladies, belonging > to the London aristocracy, and have been immediately traced > and disproved. They are the dead bodies, the carcases of two > inventions, which, after having been buried in the sea of > oblivion, are once more raised on the surface of the stagnant > waters of slander. > > ENQ. Then I have been told of several large _legacies_ left to the T.S. > One—some £8,000—was left to it by some eccentric Englishman, > who did not even belong to the Society. The other—£3,000 or > £4,000—were testated by an Australian F.T.S. Is this true? > > THEO. I heard of the first; and I also know that, whether legally left > or not, the T.S. has never profited by it, nor have the Founders > ever been officially notified of it. For, as our Society was not > then a chartered body, and thus had no legal existence, the Judge > at the Court of Probate, as we were told, paid no attention to > such legacy and turned over the sum to the heirs. So much for the > first. As for the second, it is quite true. The testator was one > of our devoted Fellows, and willed all he had to the T.S. But when > the President, Colonel Olcott, came to look into the matter, he > found that the testator had children whom he had disinherited for > some family reasons. Therefore, he called a council, and it was > decided that the legacy should be refused, and the moneys passed > to the legal heirs. The Theosophical Society would be untrue to > its name were it to profit by money to which others are entitled > virtually, at any rate on Theosophical principles, if not legally. > > ENQ. Again, and I say this on the authority of your own Journal, the > _Theosophist_, there’s a Rajah of India who donated to the Society > 25,000 rupees. Have you not thanked him for his great bounty in > the January _Theosophist_ for 1888? > > THEO. We have, in these words, “That the thanks of the Convention be > conveyed to H. H. the Maharajah ... for his _promised munificent > gift_ of Rupees 25,000 to the Society’s Fund.” The thanks were > duly conveyed, but the money is still a “promise,” and has never > reached the Headquarters. > > ENQ. But surely, if the Maharajah promised and received thanks for his > gift publicly and in print, he will be as good as his promise? > > THEO. He may, though the promise is 18 months old. I speak of the > present and not of the future. > > ENQ. Then how do you propose to go on? > > THEO. So long as the T.S. has a few devoted members willing to work for > it without reward and thanks, so long as a few good Theosophists > support it with occasional donations, so long will it exist, and > nothing can crush it. > > ENQ. I have heard many Theosophists speak of a “power behind the > Society” and of certain “Mahatmas,” mentioned also in Mr. > Sinnett’s works, that are said to have founded the Society, to > watch over and protect it. > > THEO. You may laugh, but it is so. > > THE WORKING STAFF OF THE T.S. > > ENQ. These men, I have heard, are great Adepts, Alchemists, and what > not. If, then, they can change lead into gold and make as much > money as they like, besides doing all kinds of miracles at will, > as related in Mr. Sinnett’s “Occult World,” why do not they find > you money, and support the Founders and the Society in comfort? > > THEO. Because they did not found a “miracle club.” Because the Society > is intended to help men to develop the powers latent in them > through their own exertions and merit. Because whatever they may > or may not produce in the way of phenomena, they are not _false > coiners_; nor would they throw an additional and very strong > temptation on the path of members and candidates: _Theosophy is > not to be bought_. Hitherto, for the past 14 years, not a single > working member has ever received pay or salary from either the > Masters or the Society. > > ENQ. Then are none of your workers paid at all? > > THEO. Till now, not one. But as every one has to eat, drink, and clothe > himself, all those who are without any means of their own, and > devote their whole time to the work of the society, are provided > with the necessaries of life at the Headquarters at Madras, India, > though these “necessaries” are humble enough, in truth! (See > Rules at the end.) But now that the Society’s work has increased > so greatly and still goes on in increasing (N.B., _owing to > slanders_) in Europe, we need more working hands. We hope to have > a few members who will henceforth be remunerated—if the word _can_ > be used in the cases in question. For every one of these Fellows, > who are preparing to give _all_ their time to the Society, are > quitting good official situations with excellent prospects, to > work for us at _less than half their former salary_. > > ENQ. And who will provide the funds for this? > > THEO. Some of our Fellows who are just a little richer than the rest. > The man who would speculate or make money on Theosophy would be > unworthy to remain in our ranks. > > ENQ. But you must surely make money by your books, magazines, and other > publications? > > THEO. The _Theosophist_ of Madras, alone among the magazines, pays a > profit, and this has regularly been turned over to the Society, > year by year, as the published accounts show. _Lucifer_ is > slowly but steadily ingulfing money, never yet having paid > expenses—thanks to its being boycotted by the pious booksellers > and railway stalls. The _Lotus_, in France—started on the private > and not very large means of a Theosophist, who has devoted to it > his whole time and labour—has ceased to exist, owing to the same > causes, alas! Nor does the New York _Path_ pay its way, while the > _Revue Théosophique_ of Paris has only just been started, also > from the private means of a lady-member. Moreover, whenever any of > the works issued by the Theosophical Publishing Company in London > do pay, the proceeds will be devoted to the service of the Society. > > ENQ. And now please tell me all you can about the Mahatmas. So many > absurd and contradictory things are said about them, that one does > not know what to believe, and all sorts of ridiculous stories > become current. > > THEO. Well may you call them “ridiculous!” > > XIV. THE “THEOSOPHICAL MAHATMAS.” > > ARE THEY “SPIRITS OF LIGHT” OR “GOBLINS DAMN’D”? > > ENQ. Who are they, finally, those whom you call your “Masters”? Some > say they are “Spirits,” or some other kind of supernatural beings, > while others call them “myths.” > > THEO. They are neither. I once heard one outsider say to another that > they were a sort of _male mermaids_, whatever such a creature may > be. But if you listen to what people say, you will never have a > true conception of them. In the first place they are _living men_, > born as we are born, and doomed to die like every other mortal. > > ENQ. Yes, but it is rumoured that some of them are a thousand years > old. Is this true? > > THEO. As true as the miraculous growth of hair on the head of > Meredith’s Shagpat. Truly, like the “Identical,” no Theosophical > shaving has hitherto been able to crop it. The more we deny them, > the more we try to set people right, the more absurd do the > inventions become. I have heard of Methuselah being 969 years > old; but, not being forced to believe in it, have laughed at > the statement, for which I was forthwith regarded by many as a > blasphemous heretic. > > ENQ. Seriously, though, do they outlive the ordinary age of men? > > THEO. What do you call the ordinary age? I remember reading in the > _Lancet_ of a Mexican who was almost 190 years old; but I have > never heard of mortal man, layman, or Adept, who could live even > half the years allotted to Methuselah. Some Adepts do exceed, by > a good deal, what you would call the ordinary age; yet there is > nothing miraculous in it, and very few of them care to live very > long. > > ENQ. But what does the word “Mahatma” really mean? > > THEO. Simply a “great soul,” great through moral elevation and > intellectual attainment. If the title of great is given to a > drunken soldier like Alexander, why should we not call those > “Great” who have achieved far greater conquests in Nature’s > secrets, than Alexander ever did on the field of battle? Besides, > the term is an Indian and a very old word. > > ENQ. And why do you call them “Masters”? > > THEO. We call them “Masters” because they are our teachers; and because > from them we have derived all the Theosophical truths, however > inadequately some of us may have expressed, and others understood, > them. They are men of great learning, whom we term Initiates, > and still greater holiness of life. They are not ascetics in > the ordinary sense, though they certainly remain apart from the > turmoil and strife of your western world. > > ENQ. But is it not selfish thus to isolate themselves? > > THEO. Where is the selfishness? Does not the fate of the Theosophical > Society sufficiently prove that the world is neither ready to > recognise them nor to profit by their teaching? Of what use > would Professor Clerk Maxwell have been to instruct a class of > little boys in their multiplication-table? Besides, they isolate > themselves only from the West. In their own country they go about > as publicly as other people do. > > ENQ. Don’t you ascribe to them supernatural powers? > > THEO. We believe in nothing supernatural, as I have told you already. > Had Edison lived and invented his phonograph two hundred years > ago, he would most probably have been burnt along with it, and the > whole attributed to the devil. The powers which they exercise are > simply the development of potencies lying latent in every man and > woman, and the existence of which even official science begins to > recognise. > > ENQ. Is it true that these men _inspire_ some of your writers, and that > many, if not all, of your Theosophical works were written under > their dictation? > > THEO. Some have. There are passages entirely dictated by them and > _verbatim_, but in most cases they only inspire the ideas and > leave the literary form to the writers. > > ENQ. But this in itself is miraculous; is, in fact, a _miracle_. How > can they do it? > > THEO. My dear Sir, you are labouring under a great mistake, and it is > science itself that will refute your arguments at no distant > day. Why should it be a “miracle,” as you call it? A miracle is > supposed to mean some operation which is supernatural, whereas > there is really nothing above or beyond NATURE and Nature’s laws. > Among the many forms of the “miracle” which have come under modern > scientific recognition, there is Hypnotism, and one phase of its > power is known as “Suggestion,” a form of thought transference, > which has been successfully used in combating particular physical > diseases, etc. The time is not far distant when the World of > Science will be forced to acknowledge that there exists as much > interaction between one mind and another, no matter at what > distance, as between one body and another in closest contact. > When two minds are sympathetically related, and the instruments > through which they function are tuned to respond magnetically and > electrically to one another, there is nothing which will prevent > the transmission of thoughts from one to the other, at will; > for since the mind is not of a tangible nature, that distance > can divide it from the subject of its contemplation, it follows > that the only difference that can exist between two minds is a > difference of STATE. So if this latter hindrance is overcome, > where is the “miracle” of _thought transference_, at whatever > distance? > > ENQ. But you will admit that Hypnotism does nothing so miraculous or > wonderful as that? > > THEO. On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that a Hypnotist > can affect the brain of his subject so far as to produce an > expression of his own thoughts, and even his words, through the > organism of his subject; and although the phenomena attaching to > this method of actual thought transference are as yet few in > number, no one, I presume, will undertake to say how far their > action may extend in the future, when the laws that govern their > production are more scientifically established. And so, if such > results can be produced by the knowledge of the mere rudiments of > Hypnotism, what can prevent the Adept in Psychic and Spiritual > powers from producing results which, with your present limited > knowledge of their laws, you are inclined to call “miraculous”? > > ENQ. Then why do not our physicians experiment and try if they could > not do as much?[56] > > THEO. Because, first of all, they are not Adepts with a thorough > understanding of the secrets and laws of psychic and spiritual > realms, but materialists, afraid to step outside the narrow groove > of matter; and, secondly, because they _must fail_ at present, and > indeed until they are brought to acknowledge that such powers are > attainable. > > ENQ. And could they be taught? > > THEO. Not unless they were first of all prepared, by having the > materialistic dross they have accumulated in their brains swept > away to the very last atom. > > ENQ. This is very interesting. Tell me, have the Adepts thus inspired > or dictated to many of your Theosophists? > > THEO. No, on the contrary, to very few. Such operations require special > conditions. An unscrupulous but skilled Adept of the Black > Brotherhood (“Brothers of the Shadow,” and Dugpas, we call > them) has far less difficulties to labour under. For, having no > laws of the Spiritual kind to trammel his actions, such a Dugpa > “sorcerer” will most unceremoniously obtain control over any > mind, and subject it entirely to his evil powers. But our Masters > will never do that. They have no right, except by falling into > Black Magic, to obtain full mastery over anyone’s immortal Ego, > and can therefore act only on the physical and psychic nature of > the subject, leaving thereby the free will of the latter wholly > undisturbed. Hence, unless a person has been brought into psychic > relationship with the Masters, and is assisted by virtue of his > full faith in, and devotion to, his Teachers, the latter, whenever > transmitting their thoughts to one with whom these conditions > are not fulfilled, experience great difficulties in penetrating > into the cloudy chaos of that person’s sphere. But this is no > place to treat of a subject of this nature. Suffice it to say, > that if the power exists, then there are Intelligences (embodied > or disembodied) which guide this power, and living conscious > instruments through whom it is transmitted and by whom it is > received. We have only to beware of _black_ magic. > > ENQ. But what do you really mean by “black magic”? > > THEO. Simply _abuse of psychic powers_, or of any _secret of nature_; > the fact of applying to selfish and sinful ends the powers of > Occultism. A hypnotiser, who, taking advantage of his powers of > “suggestion,” forces a subject to steal or murder, would be called > a _black magician_ by us. The famous “rejuvenating system” of Dr. > Brown-Sequard, of Paris, through a loathsome _animal injection_ > into human blood—a discovery all the medical papers of Europe are > now discussing—if true, is _unconscious black magic_. > > ENQ. But this is mediæval belief in witchcraft and sorcery! Even Law > itself has ceased to believe in such things? > > THEO. So much the worse for law, as it has been led, through such a > lack of discrimination, into committing more than one judiciary > mistake and crime. It is the term alone that frightens you with > its “superstitious” ring in it. Would not law punish an abuse of > hypnotic powers, as I just mentioned? Nay, it has so punished it > already in France and Germany; yet it would indignantly deny that > it applied punishment to a crime of evident _sorcery_. You cannot > believe in the efficacy and reality of the _powers of suggestion_ > by physicians and mesmerisers (or hypnotisers), and then refuse to > believe in the same powers when used for evil motives. And if you > do, then you believe in _Sorcery_. Yon cannot believe in good and > disbelieve in evil, accept genuine money and refuse to credit such > a thing as false coin. Nothing can exist without its contrast, and > no day, no light, no good could have any representation as such > in your consciousness, were there no night, darkness nor evil to > offset and contrast them. > > ENQ. Indeed, I have known men, who, while thoroughly believing in that > which you call great psychic, or magic powers, laughed at the very > mention of Witchcraft and Sorcery. > > THEO. What does it prove? Simply that they are illogical. So much the > worse for them, again. And we, knowing as we do of the existence > of good and holy Adepts, believe as thoroughly in the existence of > bad and unholy Adepts, or—Dugpas. > > ENQ. But if the Masters exist, why don’t they come out before all men > and refute once for all the many charges which are made against > Mdme. Blavatsky and the Society? > > THEO. What charges? > > ENQ. That _they_ do not exist, and that she has invented them. That > they are men of straw, “Mahatmas of muslin and bladders.” Does not > all this injure her reputation? > > THEO. In what way can such an accusation injure her in reality? Did she > ever make money on their presumed existence, or derive benefit, > or fame, therefrom? I answer that she has gained only insults, > abuse, and calumnies, which would have been very painful had she > not learned long ago to remain perfectly indifferent to such > false charges. For what does it amount to, after all? Why, to an > _implied compliment_, which, if the fools, her accusers, were not > carried away by their blind hatred, they would have thought twice > before uttering. To say that she has invented the Masters comes > to this: She must have invented every bit of philosophy that has > ever been given out in Theosophical literature. She must be the > author of the letters from which “Esoteric Buddhism” was written; > the sole inventor of every tenet found in the “Secret Doctrine,” > which, if the world were just, would be recognised as supplying > many of the missing links of science, as will be discovered a > hundred years hence. By saying what they do, they are also giving > her the credit of being far cleverer than the hundreds of men, > (many _very_ clever and not a few scientific men,) who believe in > what she says—inasmuch as she must have fooled them all! If they > speak the truth, then she must be several Mahatmas rolled into one > like a nest of Chinese boxes; since among the so-called “Mahatma > letters” are many in totally different and distinct styles, all of > which her accusers declare that she has written. > > ENQ. It is just what they say. But is it not very painful to her to be > publicly denounced as “the most accomplished impostor of the age, > whose name deserves to pass to posterity,” as is done in the > Report of the “Society for Psychical Research”? > > THEO. It might be painful if it were true, or came from people less > rabidly materialistic and prejudiced. As it is, personally she > treats the whole matter with contempt, while the Mahatmas simply > laugh at it. In truth, it is the greatest compliment that could be > paid to her. I say so, again. > > ENQ. But her enemies claim to have proved their case. > > THEO. Aye, it is easy enough to make such a claim when you have > constituted yourself judge, jury, and prosecuting counsel at > once, as they did. But who, except their direct followers and our > enemies, believe in it? > > ENQ. But they sent a representative to India to investigate the matter, > didn’t they? > > THEO. They did, and their final conclusion rests entirely on the > unchecked statements and unverified assertions of this young > gentleman. A lawyer who read through his report told a friend > of mine that in all his experience he had never seen “such a > _ridiculous_ and self-condemnatory document.” It was found to be > full of suppositions and “_working_ hypotheses” which mutually > destroy each other. Is this a serious charge? > > ENQ. Yet it has done the Society great harm. Why, then, did she not > vindicate her own character, at least, before a Court of Law? > > THEO. Firstly, because as a Theosophist, it is her duty to leave > unheeded all personal insults. Secondly, because neither the > Society nor Mdme. Blavatsky had any money to waste over such a > law-suit. And lastly, because it would have been ridiculous for > both to be untrue to their principles, because of an attack made > on them by a flock of stupid old British wethers, who had been led > to butt at them by an over frolicksome lambkin from Australia. > > ENQ. This is complimentary. But do you not think that it would have > done real good to the cause of Theosophy, if she had > authoritatively disproved the whole thing once for all? > > THEO. Perhaps. But do you believe that any English jury or judge would > have ever admitted the reality of psychic phenomena, even if > entirely unprejudiced beforehand? And when you remember that > they would have been set against us already by the “Russian Spy” > scare, the charge of _Atheism and infidelity_, and all the other > calumnies that have been circulated against us, you cannot fail to > see that such an attempt to obtain justice in a Court of Law would > have been worse than fruitless! All this the Psychic Researchers > knew well, and they took a base and mean advantage of their > position to raise themselves above our heads and save themselves > at our expense. > > ENQ. The S.P.R. now denies completely the existence of the Mahatmas. > They say that from beginning to end they were a romance which > Madame Blavatsky has woven from her own brain? > > THEO. Well, she might have done many things less clever than this. At > any rate, we have not the slightest objection to this theory. As > she always says now, she almost prefers that people should not > believe in the Masters. She declares openly that she would rather > people should seriously think that the only Mahatmaland is the > grey matter of her brain, and that, in short, she has evolved them > out of the depths of her own inner consciousness, than that their > names and grand ideal should be so infamously desecrated as they > are at present. At first she used to protest indignantly against > any doubts as to their existence. Now she never goes out of her > way to prove or disprove it. Let people think what they like. > > ENQ. But, of course, these Masters _do_ exist? > > THEO. We affirm _they do_. Nevertheless, this does not help much. Many > people, even some Theosophists and ex-Theosophists, say that > they have never had any proof of their existence. Very well; > then Mme. Blavatsky replies with this alternative:—If she has > invented them, then she has also invented their philosophy and > the practical knowledge which some few have acquired; and if > so, what does it matter whether they do exist or not, since she > herself is here, and _her own existence_, at any rate, can hardly > be denied? If the knowledge supposed to have been imparted by > them is good intrinsically, and it is accepted as such by many > persons of more than average intelligence, why should there be > such a _hullabaloo_ made over that question? The fact of her > being an impostor _has never been proved_, and will always remain > _sub judice_; whereas it is a certain and undeniable fact that, > by whomsoever invented, the philosophy preached by the “Masters” > is one of the grandest and most beneficent philosophies once it > is properly understood. Thus the slanderers, while moved by the > lowest and meanest feelings—those of hatred, revenge, malice, > wounded vanity, or disappointed ambition,—seem quite unaware > that they are paying the greatest tribute to her intellectual > powers. So be it, if the poor fools will have it so. Really, Mme. > Blavatsky has not the slightest objection to being represented by > her enemies as a _triple_ Adept, and a “Mahatma” to boot. It is > only her unwillingness to pose in her own sight as a crow parading > in peacock’s feathers that compels her to this day to insist upon > the truth. > > ENQ. But if you have such wise and good men to guide the Society, how > is it that so many mistakes have been made? > > THEO. The Masters do _not_ guide the Society, not even the Founders; > and no one has ever asserted that they did: they only watch > over and protect it. This is amply proved by the fact that no > mistakes have been able to cripple it, and no scandals from > within, nor the most damaging attacks from without, have been > able to overthrow it. The Masters look at the future, not at the > present, and every mistake is so much more accumulated wisdom for > days to come. That other “Master” who sent the man with the five > talents did not tell him how to double them, nor did he prevent > the foolish servant from burying his one talent in the earth. > Each must acquire wisdom by his own experience and merits. The > Christian Churches, who claim a far higher “Master,” the very > Holy Ghost itself, have ever been and are still guilty not only > of “mistakes,” but of a series of bloody crimes throughout the > ages. Yet, no Christian would deny, for all that, his belief in > _that_ “Master,” I suppose? although his existence is far more > _hypothetical_ than that of the Mahatmas; as no one has ever seen > the Holy Ghost, and _his_ guidance of the Church, moreover, their > own ecclesiastical history distinctly contradicts. _Errare humanum > est._ Let us return to our subject. > > THE ABUSE OF SACRED NAMES AND TERMS. > > ENQ. Then, what I have heard, namely, that many of your Theosophical > writers claim to have been inspired by these Masters, or to have > seen and conversed with them, is not true? > > THEO. It may or it may not be true. How can I tell? The burden of proof > rests with them. Some of them, a few—very few, indeed—have > distinctly either _lied_ or were hallucinated when boasting of > such inspiration; others were truly inspired by great Adepts. > The tree is known by its fruits; and as all Theosophists have to > be judged by their deeds and not by what they write or say, so > _all_ Theosophical books must be accepted on their merits, and not > according to any claim to authority which they may put forward. > > ENQ. But would Mdme. Blavatsky apply this to her own works—the _Secret > Doctrine_, for instance? > > THEO. Certainly; she says expressly in the PREFACE that she gives out > the doctrines that she has learnt from the Masters, but claims no > inspiration whatever for what she has lately written. As for our > best Theosophists, they would also in this case far rather that > the names of the Masters had never been mixed up with our books > in any way. With few exceptions, most of such works are not only > imperfect, but positively erroneous and misleading. Great are > the desecrations to which the names of two of the Masters have > been subjected. There is hardly a medium who has not claimed to > have seen them. Every bogus swindling Society, for commercial > purposes, now claims to be guided and directed by “Masters,” often > supposed to be far higher than ours! Many and heavy are the sins > of those who advanced these claims, prompted either by desire for > lucre, vanity, or irresponsible mediumship. Many persons have been > plundered of their money by such societies, which offer to sell > the secrets of power, knowledge, and spiritual truth for worthless > gold. Worst of all, the sacred names of Occultism and the holy > keepers thereof have been dragged in this filthy mire, polluted > by being associated with sordid motives and immoral practices, > while thousands of men have been held back from the path of truth > and light through the discredit and evil report which such shams, > swindles, and frauds have brought upon the whole subject. I say > again, every earnest Theosophist regrets to-day, from the bottom > of his heart, that these sacred names and things have ever been > mentioned before the public, and fervently wishes that they had > been kept secret within a small circle of trusted and devoted > friends. > > ENQ. The names certainly do occur very frequently now-a-days, and I > never remember hearing of such persons as “Masters” till quite > recently. > > THEO. It is so; and had we acted on the wise principle of silence, > instead of rushing into notoriety and publishing all we knew and > heard, such desecration would never have occurred. Behold, only > fourteen years ago, before the Theosophical Society was founded, > all the talk was of “Spirits.” They were everywhere, in everyone’s > mouth; and no one by any chance even dreamt of talking about > living “Adepts,” “Mahatmas,” or “Masters.” One hardly heard even > the name of the Rosicrucians, while the existence of such a thing > as “Occultism” was suspected even but by very few. Now all that > is changed. We Theosophists were, unfortunately, the first to > talk of these things, to make the fact of the existence in the > East of “Adepts” and “Masters” and Occult knowledge known; and > now the name has become common property. It is on us, now, that > the Karma, the consequences of the resulting desecration of holy > names and things, has fallen. All that you now find about such > matters in current literature—and there is not a little of it—all > is to be traced back to the impulse given in this direction by > the Theosophical Society and its Founders. Our enemies profit to > this day by our mistake. The most recent book directed against > our teachings is alleged to have been written _by an Adept of > twenty years’ standing_. Now, it is a _palpable lie_. We know the > amanuensis and his _inspirers_ (as he is himself too ignorant to > have written anything of the sort). These “inspirers” are living > persons, revengeful and unscrupulous in proportion to their > intellectual powers; and these _bogus_ Adepts are not one, but > several. The cycle of “Adepts,” used as sledge-hammers to break > the theosophical heads with, began twelve years ago, with Mrs. > Emma Hardinge Britten’s “Louis” of _Art Magic_ and _Ghost-Land_, > and now ends with the “Adept” and “Author” of _The Light of > Egypt_, a work written by Spiritualists against Theosophy and its > teachings. But it is useless to grieve over what is done, and we > can only suffer in the hope that our indiscretions may have made > it a little easier for others to find the way to these Masters, > whose names are now everywhere taken in vain, and under cover of > which so many iniquities have already been perpetrated. > > ENQ. Do you reject “Louis” as an Adept? > > THEO. We denounce no one, leaving this noble task to our enemies. The > spiritualistic author of _Art Magic_, etc., may or may not have > been acquainted with such an Adept—and saying this, I say far > less than what that lady has said and written about us and > Theosophy for the last several years—that is her own business. > Only when, in a solemn scene of mystic vision, an alleged “Adept” > sees “spirits” presumably at Greenwich, England, through Lord > Rosse’s telescope, which was built in, and never moved from, > Parsonstown, Ireland,[57] I may well be permitted to wonder at the > ignorance of that “Adept” in matters of science. This beats all > the mistakes and blunders committed at times by the _chelas_ of > our Teachers! And it is this “Adept” that is used now to break the > teachings of our Masters! > > ENQ. I quite understand your feeling in this matter, and think it only > natural. And now, in view of all that you have said and explained > to me, there is one subject on which I should like to ask you a > few questions. > > THEO. If I can answer them I will. What is that? > > FOOTNOTES: > > [56] Such, for instance, as Prof. Bernheim and Dr. C. Lloyd Tuckey of > England; Professors Beaunis and Liégeois, of Nancy; Delbœuf of Liège; > Burot and Bourru, of Rochefort; Fontain and Sigard, of Bordeaux; Forel, > of Zurich; and Drs. Despine, of Marseilles; Van Renterghem and Van > Eeden, of Amsterdam; Wetterstrand, of Stockholm; Schrenck-Notzing, of > Leipzig, and many other physicians and writers of eminence. > > [57] Vide “Ghost Land,” Part I., p. 133, _et seq._ > > CONCLUSION. > > THE FUTURE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. > > ENQ. Tell me, what do you expect for Theosophy in the future? > > THEO. If you speak of THEOSOPHY, I answer that, as it has existed > eternally throughout the endless cycles upon cycles of the Past, > so it will ever exist throughout the infinitudes of the Future, > because Theosophy is synonymous with EVERLASTING TRUTH. > > ENQ. Pardon me; I meant to ask you rather about the prospects of the > Theosophical Society. > > THEO. Its future will depend almost entirely upon the degree of > selflessness, earnestness, devotion, and last, but not least, on > the amount of knowledge and wisdom possessed by those members on > whom it will fall to carry on the work, and to direct the Society > after the death of the Founders. > > ENQ. I quite see the importance of their being selfless and devoted, > but I do not quite grasp how their _knowledge_ can be as vital > a factor in the question as these other qualities. Surely the > literature which already exists, and to which constant additions > are still being made, ought to be sufficient? > > THEO. I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric doctrine, > though that is most important; I spoke rather of the great > need which our successors in the guidance of the Society will > have of unbiased and clear judgment. Every such attempt as the > Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in failure, because, > sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set up > hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible > degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You > must remember that all our members have been bred and born in some > creed or religion, that all are more or less of their generation > both physically and mentally, and consequently that their > judgment is but too likely to be warped and unconsciously biased > by some or all of these influences. If, then, they cannot be > freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to recognise it > instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only > be that the Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought > or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die. > > ENQ. But if this danger be averted? > > THEO. Then the Society will live on into and through the twentieth > century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of > thinking and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble > ideas of Religion, Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely > it will burst asunder the iron fetters of creeds and dogmas, > of social and caste prejudices; it will break down racial and > national antipathies and barriers, and will open the way to the > practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men. Through its > teaching, through the philosophy which it has rendered accessible > and intelligible to the modern mind, the West will learn to > understand and appreciate the East at its true value. Further, the > development of the psychic powers and faculties, the premonitory > symptoms of which are already visible in America, will proceed > healthily and normally. Mankind will be saved from the terrible > dangers, both mental and bodily, which are inevitable when that > unfolding takes place, as it threatens to do, in a hot-bed of > selfishness and all evil passions. Man’s mental and psychic > growth will proceed in harmony with his moral improvement, while > his material surroundings will reflect the peace and fraternal > goodwill which will reign in his mind, instead of the discord and > strife which is everywhere apparent around us to-day. > > ENQ. A truly delightful picture! But tell me, do you really expect all > this to be accomplished in one short century? > > THEO. Scarcely. But I must tell you that during the last quarter of > every hundred years an attempt is made by those “Masters,” of > whom I have spoken, to help on the spiritual progress of Humanity > in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century > you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of > spirituality—or call it mysticism if you prefer—has taken place. > Some one or more persons have appeared in the world as their > agents, and a greater or less amount of occult knowledge and > teaching has been given out. If you care to do so, you can trace > these movements back, century by century, as far as our detailed > historical records extend. > > ENQ. But how does this bear on the future of the Theosophical Society? > > THEO. If the present attempt, in the form of our Society, succeeds > better than its predecessors have done, then it will be in > existence as an organized, living and healthy body when the time > comes for the effort of the XXth century. The general condition > of men’s minds and hearts will have been improved and purified > by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have said, their > prejudices and dogmatic illusions will have been, to some extent > at least, removed. Not only so, but besides a large and accessible > literature ready to men’s hands, the next impulse will find a > numerous and _united_ body of people ready to welcome the new > torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of men prepared for > his message, a language ready for him in which to clothe the new > truths he brings, an organization awaiting his arrival, which will > remove the merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties > from his path. Think how much one, to whom such an opportunity is > given, could accomplish. Measure it by comparison with what the > Theosophical Society actually _has_ achieved in the last fourteen > years, without _any_ of these advantages and surrounded by hosts > of hindrances which would not hamper the new leader. Consider > all this, and then tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say > that if the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to > its mission, to its original impulses through the next hundred > years—tell me, I say, if I go too far in asserting that earth will > be a heaven in the twenty-first century in comparison with what it > is now! > > FINIS. > > The United Lodge of Theosophists > > DECLARATION > > The policy of this Lodge is independent devotion to the cause > of Theosophy, without professing attachment to any Theosophical > organization. It is loyal to the great Founders of the Theosophical > Movement, but does not concern itself with dissensions or differences > of individual opinion. > > The work it has on hand and the end it keeps in view are too absorbing > and too lofty to leave it the time or inclination to take part in side > issues. That work and that end is the dissemination of the Fundamental > Principles of the philosophy of Theosophy, and the exemplification > in practice of those principles, through a truer realization of the > SELF; a profounder conviction of Universal Brotherhood. > > It holds that the unassailable _Basis for Union_ among Theosophists, > wherever and however situated, is “_similarity of aim, purpose and > teaching_,” and therefore has neither Constitution, By-laws nor > Officers, the sole bond between its Associates being that _basis_. And > it aims to disseminate this idea among Theosophists in the furtherance > of Unity. > > It regards as Theosophists all who are engaged in the true service > of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or > organization, and > > It welcomes to its association all those who are in accord with its > declared purposes and who desire to fit themselves, by study and > otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach others. > > “_The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each > and all._” > > * * * * * > > Being in sympathy with the purposes of this Lodge, as set > forth in its “Declaration,” I hereby record my desire to > be enrolled as an Associate; it being understood that such > association calls for no obligation on my part other than > that which I, myself, determine. > > The foregoing is the Form signed by Associates of the United Lodge of > Theosophists. > > Inquiries are invited from all persons to whom this Movement may > appeal. Cards for signature will be sent upon request, and every > possible assistance furnished Associates in their studies and in > efforts to form local Lodges. There are no dues of any kind, and no > formalities to be complied with. > > _Correspondence should be addressed to_ > General Registrar, United Lodge of Theosophists > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA > 504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street > > “_To Spread Broadcast the Teachings of Theosophy, as Recorded > in the Writings of H. P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge._” > > THEOSOPHY > > _A Magazine Devoted to the Theosophical Movement, the Brotherhood > of Humanity, the Study of Occult Science and Philosophy, and Aryan > Literature._ > > THEOSOPHY is a Monthly Magazine devoted to the promulgation of > Theosophy as it was given by those who brought it. Established in > 1912 by the United Lodge of Theosophists, the magazine is now in the > front rank of Theosophical publications and its circulation extends > to every civilized country. The first eight volumes of the magazine > contain reprints of the numerous original articles written by H. P. > Blavatsky and William Q. Judge in explanation, exemplification and > application of the philosophy recorded in their published books. > These precious articles, replete with Occult instruction, were first > published in _The Theosophist_, _Lucifer_, and _The Path_, now for > many years out of print, so that their surpassing value was lost and > inaccessible to Students of the present generation. THEOSOPHY has > made them once more available. In addition to these reprints the > magazine contains many original articles written by Robert Crosbie > and other devoted Pupils and Students of the Messengers of the > Theosophical Movement of the nineteenth century. Not the least of > the contents of the magazine are the Studies of the Teachings, the > historical articles relating to the Theosophical Movement, the Parent > Theosophical Society, and the many allied and related organizations > and societies of the present day. The entire contents of the magazine > are universal in scope and application, unbiased in treatment, and > free from sectarian or partisan influence. In order to preserve at > all times the impersonality of its tone, and that readers may form > their judgment from the inherent value perceived in the articles > and not from the names signed to them, the Editors and Contributors > remain anonymous, no living person’s name being mentioned in > connection with the authorship of any article published. > > BACK VOLUMES and Back Numbers can be supplied at $5.00 per > Volume and 50 cents per Number. > > SUBSCRIPTIONS can begin with any desired Number of the current > Volume. Subscription price, $2.00 per annum; single copies 25 cents > each. > > Address all communications and remittances to > > =Theosophy, Metropolitan Bldg., Los Angeles, Cal.= > > Students interested in obtaining a clear and correct understanding of > the actual Teachings of THEOSOPHY, as recorded in the writings > of the Messengers of the Theosophical Movement of the nineteenth > century or in writings recommended by Them, should have the following > books. > > KEY TO THEOSOPHY, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $2.50 > An Exposition in the form of question and answer. The > best Manual for daily study and reference. A _verbatim_ > reprint of the Original Edition. Large type, durably and > artistically bound in Buckram. > > THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, _By_ WILLIAM Q. JUDGE, $1.25 > A succinct presentation of the philosophy free from > technical expressions; a perfect condensation of the > Secret Doctrines of Man and Nature. Cloth. > > THE OCCULT WORLD > ESOTERIC BUDDHISM _By_ A. P. SINNETT, _Each_, $2.00 > The two earliest popular presentations of Theosophical > Teachings, containing extracts from Letters written by > the _Mahatma_ K. H. From the Plates of the Original > American Editions. Cloth. > > ISIS UNVEILED, Two Volumes, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $10.00 > Volume i, Science; Volume ii, Theology. > A reprint of the Original Edition of 1877. This, the > first great work of H. P. B., contains a vast wealth of > information and instruction not to be had elsewhere. > Cloth. > > THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Two Volumes, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $15.00 > Volume I, Cosmogenesis; Volume II, Anthropogenesis. > The Original Edition, published in 1888, is now out of > print. This Edition, published in London, contains some > unwarrantable changes, but is in the main accurate and > is the only one available. Written “_for the instruction > of students of Occultism_,” it is _sui generis_ and > absolutely invaluable to the true student of the > mysteries of Life and Being. Cloth. > > ABRIDGMENT OF THE SECRET DOCTRINE, _By_ KATHERINE HILLARD, $3.00 > A very good condensation of the major teachings of Madame > Blavatsky’s “Secret Doctrine” in the language of the > Author. Cloth. > > THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, _By_ H. P. BLAVATSKY, $5.00 > A reprint of the Original Edition, containing an > exhaustive and scholarly treatment of the Sanskrit > and other technical terms employed in Theosophical > literature. Cloth. > > THOSE who find the Teachings of Theosophy to be comprehensive, > self-explanatory, and a complete solution of all the problems of > Life from a philosophical, logical and scientific standpoint, and > who may desire to follow the Path shown in order to realize in and > for themselves the noble Ideal of Brotherhood exemplified by the > MASTERS OF WISDOM, are urged to read, ponder and assimilate to the > utmost extent possible to them, the following Treatises on the > _Heart Doctrine_: > > THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE. Chosen Fragments > from The Book of the Golden Precepts. Translated > and annotated by H. P. Blavatsky. Leather, $1.50 > Cloth, 1.25 > > THE BHAGAVAD-GITA, The Book of Devotion. > Containing the Dialogue between _Krishna_, the Supreme > Master of Devotion, and _Arjuna_, his Disciple. > Rendered into exquisite parallel terms in the English > tongue by William Q. Judge. Leather, 1.50 > Cloth, 1.25 > > NOTES ON THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. Commentaries > of the greatest service to sincere students of to-day. > The first Seven Chapters by W. Q. Judge; the remainder > by his friend and Colleague Robert Crosbie. > Leather, 1.50 > > YOGA APHORISMS OF PATANJALI. The _Thought_ > of this Ancient Master, whose Aphorisms have been > the guide of Disciples in the East for untold thousands > of years. Done into English terms with > Notes, by William Q. Judge. Leather, 1.50 > Cloth, 1.25 > > LIGHT ON THE PATH. A treatise for the personal > use of those who are ignorant of the Eastern Wisdom, > and who desire to enter within its Influence. An exact > reprint of the Original Edition of 1885, together > with the Comments originally published in _Lucifer_. > Written down by M. C. > Leather, 1.50 > Cloth, 1.25 > > LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME. Actual Letters, > by William Q. Judge, embodying Lessons and Guidance of > direct personal value to every Student and Disciple. > Volume I, Cloth, 1.00 > Volume II, Cloth, 1.00 > The Two Volumes bound in One, Cloth, 1.50 > > THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, THE BHAGAVAD-GITA, > And PATANJALI’S YOGA APHORISMS, > Bound in One Volume, Leather, 3.00 > > PARENTS and others interested in the Spiritual and Moral welfare > of Children and averse to the sectarian dogmas and false ideas > prevalent under the name of religious teachings, have long > felt the necessity for literature which should impart true > fundamental conceptions of Nature, of Life and of Duty to the > growing generation. As a portion of its Fraternal activities the > United Lodge of Theosophists has long maintained a _Children’s > School of Theosophy_. To this School come children of all > ages, Theosophists and Non-Theosophists as to Parentage. They > are taught the primary truths common to all religions and > philosophies, dealing with Birth, Life, Death, Law, Action, > and Duty. The Eternal Verities thus inculcated make for clean, > sturdy, wholesome physical, mental, as well as moral and > spiritual happiness and well-being. The experience thus gained > in actual practice has been embodied in two books, wherein the > lessons and instructions found helpful and formative to the > highest character are plainly and clearly outlined, with all > necessary suggestions and directions to enable Parents, Teachers > and others to fit themselves to be the better able to help and > guide the plastic minds of the Children to true perceptions of > Life and Action. > > BECAUSE—FOR THE CHILDREN WHO ASK WHY. > Interesting, comprehensible and assimilable, in clear > and reverent fashion this Book presents to Children the > answers to those questions of Self that Parents find it > most difficult to meet, and affords a common basis of > understanding to Parent and Child. > Cloth, $1.25 > > THE ETERNAL VERITIES. A Series of Lessons in basic > truths and ideas, with complete chart and programme so > that its full value may be availed of in the instruction > of Children of all ages, whether in the School or the > Home. Original Songs, Chants, Music, Allegories and > Tales of Symbolism, in a manner not only to interest but > to carry the Lessons into the Hearts and Minds of the > Learners. > Cloth, $1.50 > > IN ORDER, further, to afford the maximum possible assistance > to Parents and others interested in the proper education of > Children, The United Lodge of Theosophists maintains a Bureau > of Correspondence to which particular problems connected with > the bringing-up of Children may be addressed. Replies to > enquiries are in all cases by Women Associates of the Lodge who > are themselves Mothers and Teachers and who voluntarily and > gladly give their time and experience to benefit their perplexed > Sisters. There are no fees or charges of any description in > connection with this labor of love, and all Mothers and Teachers > are invited to benefit by it. Address, > > =CHILDREN’S SCHOOL OF THEOSOPHY= > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA > 504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street > > NO MORE important work exists for the Theosophical Student than > to be in a position to direct inquirers to channels where they > may inform themselves of the leading Principles of the teachings > of THEOSOPHY in their philosophical, ethical and scientific > bearings. The following are recommended for their exact > accuracy, their simplicity and clarity in the presentation of > the Wisdom-Religion. > > ECHOES FROM THE ORIENT, _By_ WILLIAM Q. JUDGE. > A Series of Chapters written in the most admirable > style, giving an outline of Theosophy and the > Theosophical Movement, and treating of the great > Subjects of Masters, Karma, Re-incarnation and > Evolution. Cloth, $0.60 > Paper, .35 > > CONVERSATIONS ON THEOSOPHY. A Pamphlet giving > the fundamental teachings of the Secret Doctrine. > From the writings of H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. > Judge. > Paper, envelope size, .10 > In quantities for propaganda purposes, 50 copies for 2.50 > > KARMA AND RE-INCARNATION. A large and attractively > bound pamphlet, envelope size, containing the famous > _Aphorisms on Karma_, and a notably clear and > comprehensive treatment of the subjects of Karma and > Re-incarnation. .15 > In quantities for propaganda purposes, 50 copies for 4.00 > > CULTURE OF CONCENTRATION, And OF OCCULT POWERS. > Two related Essays by William Q. Judge on subjects > of supreme importance. .10 > > EXTRACTS FROM A LETTER THAT HAS HELPED ME. > Being a statement of the _Gospel of Hope and > Responsibility_. This Letter has brought consolation > and the comfort of understanding to many regarding > the Great Mystery. .10 > > THOUGHTS FOR THINKERS. A Pamphlet designed for the > “man in the street,” who is often an open-minded > practical philosopher and thinker of the first rank. > These THOUGHTS are undogmatic, non-argumentative and > very suggestive. .10 > > The foregoing and other Books advertised in the preceding > pages may all be obtained on order through your local > Bookseller, or orders may be sent direct to the undersigned. > > Inquiries are invited regarding any Theosophical Books > and Publications not specifically mentioned herein. > Correspondence and questions are also invited on > Theosophical problems and subjects from all interested. > > _Address all orders and inquiries > and make all remittances payable to_ > > UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS > > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA > > 504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street > > — *The Key to Theosophy (Public Domain (Project Gutenberg))*