diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/55618-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/55618-0.txt | 10639 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 10639 deletions
diff --git a/old/55618-0.txt b/old/55618-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 3e40c2c..0000000 --- a/old/55618-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,10639 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Key to Theosophy, by H. P. Blavatsky - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Key to Theosophy - Being A Clear Exposition, In The Form Of Question And - Answer Of The Ethics, Science And Philosophy - -Author: H. P. Blavatsky - -Release Date: September 24, 2017 [EBook #55618] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY *** - - - - -Produced by David Edwards, Paul Marshall and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -book was produced from scanned images of public domain -material from the Google Books project.) - - - - - - - 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 - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Key to Theosophy, by H. P. Blavatsky - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY *** - -***** This file should be named 55618-0.txt or 55618-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/5/6/1/55618/ - -Produced by David Edwards, Paul Marshall and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This -book was produced from scanned images of public domain -material from the Google Books project.) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |