diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/55618-h/55618-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/55618-h/55618-h.htm | 11718 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 11718 deletions
diff --git a/old/55618-h/55618-h.htm b/old/55618-h/55618-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 11f1a1f..0000000 --- a/old/55618-h/55618-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11718 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Key to Theosophy, by H. P. Blavatsky. - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - -.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;} - -h1,h2,h3 { text-align: center; clear: both; } - -h1 {page-break-before: always; } -h2 {page-break-before: avoid;} -h3 { margin-top: 2em; } - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} - -p { margin-top: .51em; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1.5em; margin-bottom: .49em; } -p.no-indent { margin-top: .51em; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0em; margin-bottom: .49em;} -p.author { margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 5%; text-align: right;} -p.indent { text-indent: 1.5em;} -p.f90 { font-size: 90%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } -p.f110 { font-size: 110%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } -p.f120 { font-size: 120%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } -p.f150 { font-size: 150%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } -p.f200 { font-size: 200%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } - -.space-above1 { margin-top: 1em; } -.space-above2 { margin-top: 2em; } -.space-below1 { margin-bottom: 1em; } -.space-below2 { margin-bottom: 2em; } -.space-below3 { margin-bottom: 3em; } - -hr.r5 {width: 5%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; - margin-left: 47.5%; margin-right: 47.5%; } -hr.r25 {width: 25%; margin-top: 3em; margin-bottom: 3em; - margin-left: 37.5%; margin-right: 37.5%; } -hr.tb {width: 45%; margin-left: 27.5%; margin-right: 27.5%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; } -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%; } -hr.full {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%; } - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} - - .tdl {text-align: left;} - .tdl_neg {text-align: left; text-indent: -1.5em;} - .tdl_ind1 {text-align: left; text-indent: 1em;} - .tdl_ind2 {text-align: left; text-indent: 2em;} - .tdr {text-align: right;} - .tdc {text-align: center;} - .tdr_bott {text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;} - -.pagenum { - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 95%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; -} - -.blockquot { - text-indent: 0.75em; - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 15%; -} - -.blockquot2 { - text-indent: 1.5em; - font-size: smaller; - margin-left: 15%; - margin-right: 15%; -} - -.blockquot3 { - text-indent: -2em; - margin-left: 15%; - margin-right: 15%; -} - -.bb {border-bottom: solid 2px;} -.bt {border-top: solid 2px;} -.bbox {border: solid 2px;} - -.center {text-align: center; - text-indent: 0; } -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.u {text-decoration: underline;} - -img {max-width: 100%; height: auto;} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; -} - -.footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -.poetry-container { text-align: center; } - -.poem { margin-left:10%; - margin-right:10%; - display: inline-block; - text-align: left; } - -.poem .stanza {margin: 1em 0em 1em 0em;} - - .poem span.i0 {display: block; margin-left: 0em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - .poem span.i1 {display: block; margin-left: 0.5em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - .poem span.i2 {display: block; margin-left: 1em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - -@media screen, print -{ - img.drop-cap { float: left; margin: 0 0.5em 0 0; } - p.drop-cap:first-letter - { color: transparent; - visibility: hidden; - margin-left: -0.9em; - } - -} - -@media handheld { .pagenum {display:none;} - .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block;} - .poem { display: block; } - img.drop-cap { display: none; } - p.drop-cap:first-letter { color: inherit; visibility: visible; margin-left: 0; } -} - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -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.) - - - - - - -</pre> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="figcenter covernote"> - <img src="images/cover.jpg" alt="Book Cover." width="600" height="648" /> -</div> - -<h1>The Key to Theosophy</h1> -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/ilo_01.jpg" alt="Book Cover." width="341" height="60" /> -</div> -<hr class="full" /> -<p class="center"><b>THE</b></p> -<p class="f200"><b>KEY TO THEOSOPHY</b></p> - -<p class="f90 space-above2">BEING</p> -<p class="f120"><i>A CLEAR EXPOSITION, IN THE FORM OF QUESTION AND ANSWER</i></p> - -<p class="f90 space-above2">OF THE</p> -<p class="f150"><b>ETHICS, SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY</b></p> - -<p class="f90 space-above2">FOR THE STUDY OF WHICH THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY</p> -<p class="f90 space-below3">HAS BEEN FOUNDED</p> - -<p class="f90 space-above2">BY</p> -<p class="f150"><b>H. P. BLAVATSKY</b></p> - -<p class="center space-below2">[Reprinted Verbatim from the Original Edition first published in 1889.]</p> - -<p class="center space-above2">THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS<br />LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA<br />1920</p> -<hr class="r25" /> -<p class="center"><i>Dedicated</i><br /><br />by<br />“<i>H. P. B.</i>”</p> -<p class="center space-above2"><i>To all her Pupils<br />that</i></p> -<p class="center"><i>They may Learn and Teach<br />in their turn</i></p> -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[vii]</a></span></p> - -<p class="f150"><b>CONTENTS</b></p> -<table class="space-below3" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="Table of Contents." cellpadding="0"> - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdc u"><br />SECTION I.</td> - <td class="tdr"><br /><span class="smcap">page</span></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">Theosophy and the Theosophical Society</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Meaning of the Name</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_1_1"> 1</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Policy of the Theosophical Society</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_1_2"> 3</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Wisdom-Religion Esoteric in all Ages</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_1_3"> 5</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Theosophy is not Buddhism</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_1_4">10</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION II.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">Exoteric and Esoteric Theosophy</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">What the Modern Theosophical Society is not</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_2_1">12</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Theosophists and Members of the “T.S.”</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_2_2">15</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Difference between Theosophy and Occultism</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_2_3">19</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Difference between Theosophy and Spiritualism</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_2_4">21</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"> Why is Theosophy accepted?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_2_5">27</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION III.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">The Working System of the T.S.</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Objects of the Society</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_3_1">30</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Common Origin of Man</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_3_2">31</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Our other Objects</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_3_3">36</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On the Sacredness of the Pledge</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_3_4">37</a> - <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[viii]</a></span></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION IV.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">The Relations of the Theosophical Society to Theosophy</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On Self-Improvement</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_4_1">40</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Abstract and the Concrete</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_4_2">43</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION V.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">The Fundamental Teachings of Theosophy</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On God and Prayer</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_5_1">47</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Is it Necessary to Pray?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_5_2">50</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Prayer Kills Self-Reliance</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_5_3">55</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On the Source of the Human Soul</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_5_4">57</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Buddhist Teachings on the above</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_5_5">59</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION VI.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">Theosophical Teachings as to Nature and Man</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Unity of All in All</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_6_1">64</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Evolution and Illusion</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_6_2">65</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Septenary Constitution of our Planet</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_6_3">67</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Septenary Nature of Man</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_6_4">69</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Distinction between Soul and Spirit</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_6_5">72</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Greek Teachings</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_6_6">75</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION VII.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">On the Various Post-mortem States</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Physical and the Spiritual Man</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_7_1">79</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Our Eternal Reward and Punishment; and on Nirvana</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_7_2">85</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On the Various “Principles” in Man</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_7_3">91</a> - <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[ix]</a></span></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION VIII.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">On Re-incarnation or Rebirth</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">What is Memory according to Theosophical Teaching?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_8_1">96</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"> Why do we not Remember our Past Lives?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_8_2">99</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On Individuality and Personality</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_8_3">104</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On the Reward and Punishment of the Ego</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_8_4">107</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION IX.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">On the Kama-Loka and Devachan</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On the Fate of the Lower “Principles”</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_9_1">112</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Why Theosophists do not believe in the Return of Pure “Spirits”  </td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_9_2">114</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">A few Words about the Skandhas</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_9_3">120</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On Post-mortem and Post-natal Consciousness</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_9_4">123</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">What is really meant by Annihilation</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_9_5">127</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Definite Words for Definite Things</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_9_6">134</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION X.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">On the Nature of our Thinking Principle</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Mystery of the Ego</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_10_1">139</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Complex Nature of Manas</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_10_2">143</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Doctrine is Taught in St. John’s Gospel</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_10_3">146</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION XI.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">On the Mysteries of Re-incarnation</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Periodical Rebirths</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_11_1">155</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">What is Karma?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_11_2">158</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Who are Those who Know?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_11_3">170</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Difference between Faith and Knowledge;</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">    or, Blind and Reasoned Faith</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_11_4">172</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Has God the Right to Forgive?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_11_5">176</a> - <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[x]</a></span></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION XII.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">What is Practical Theosophy?</span></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Duty</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_12_1">180</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Relations of the T.S. to Political Reforms</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_12_2">183</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On Self-Sacrifice</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_12_3">188</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">On Charity</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_12_4">192</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Theosophy for the Masses</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_12_5">194</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">How Members can Help the Society</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_12_6">196</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">What a Theosophist ought not to do</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_12_7">197</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION XIII.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">On the Misconceptions about the Theosophical Society</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Theosophy and Asceticism</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_13_1">204</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Theosophy and Marriage</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_13_2">207</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Theosophy and Education</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_13_3">208</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Why, then, is there so much Prejudice against the T.S?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_13_4">214</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Is the Theosophical Society a Money-making Concern?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_13_5">221</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Working Staff of the T.S.</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_13_6">225</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />SECTION XIV.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_neg" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">The “Theosophical Mahatmas”</span>:</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">Are They “Spirits of Light” or “Goblins Damn’d”?</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_14_1">228</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Abuse of Sacred Names and Terms</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_14_2">237</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc u" colspan="2"><br />CONCLUSION.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">The Future of the Theosophical Society</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#SECTION_15_1">241</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdr"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[xi]</a></span></td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> - -<hr class="chap"/> -<p class="f150"><b>PREFACE</b></p> - -<p class="indent">The purpose of this book is exactly expressed in its title, -“<span class="smcap">The Key to Theosophy</span>,” 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.</p> - -<p class="indent">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.</p> - -<p class="indent">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.</p> - -<p class="author">H. P. B.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span></p> -<p class="f200"><b>THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY.</b></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_1_1" id="SECTION_1_1"></a> -<h2>I. <br />THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.</h2></div> -<hr class="r5" /> -<h3>THE MEANING OF THE NAME.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enquirer.</span> Theosophy and its doctrines -are often referred to as a new-fangled religion. Is it a religion?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theosophist.</span> It is not. -Theosophy is Divine Knowledge or Science.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What is the real meaning of the term?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> “Divine Wisdom,” -<b>Θεοσοφία</b> (Theosophia) or Wisdom of the gods, as <b>Θεογονία</b> (theogonia), -genealogy of the gods. The word <b>Θεὸς</b> 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 <i>Divine Wisdom</i> such as that possessed by the gods. The term is -many thousand years old.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What is the origin of the name?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It comes -to us from the Alexandrian philosophers, called lovers of truth, -Philatheians, from <b>φιλ</b> (phil) “loving,” and <b>ἀλήθεια</b> (aletheia) “truth.” -The name Theosophy dates from the third century of our era, and began -with Ammonius Saccas and his disciples,<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> -who started the Eclectic Theosophical system. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What was the object of this system?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.”<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> -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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span></p> - -<p> <span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What have you to show that this is -not an impossible dream; and that all the world’s religions <i>are</i> based -on the one and the same truth? - -<span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.)</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_1_2" id="SECTION_1_2"></a>THE POLICY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> By doing that which we again try to do now. -The Neo-Platonists were a large body, and belonged to various -religious philosophies<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>; -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span> -so do our Theosophists. In those days, the Jew Aristobulus affirmed -that the ethics of Aristotle represented the <i>esoteric</i> teachings -of the Law of Moses; Philo Judæus endeavoured to reconcile the -<i>Pentateuch</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> -This is the aim of Theosophy likewise.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What are your authorities for saying this of the -ancient Theosophists of Alexandria?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> An almost countless number of well-known writers. -Mosheim, one of them, says that:— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.”</p> - -<p class="no-indent">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 <i>enlightened</i> century.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Was he encouraged and supported -by the Church because, notwithstanding his heresies, Ammonius taught -Christianity and was a Christian?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Not at all. He was born a Christian, but -never accepted Church Christianity. As said of him by the same writer:</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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 <i>Edinburgh -Encyclopedia</i>, “he acknowledged that Jesus Christ was an excellent -<i>man</i> 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.”</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_1_3" id="SECTION_1_3"></a>THE WISDOM-RELIGION ESOTERIC IN ALL AGES.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Since Ammonius never committed anything to writing, -how can one feel sure that such were his teachings?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Neither did Buddha, Pythagoras, Confucius, Orpheus, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span> -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 <i>esoteric</i> -teachings.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How have the latter tenets -reached our day, since you hold that what is properly called the -WISDOM-RELIGION was esoteric?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Where and by whom was it so preserved?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Can you give me some proofs of its -esotericism?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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—<i>e.g.</i>, in the celebrated -solemnities called the <i>Eleusinia</i>, 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 -<i>bona fide</i> beliefs secret. The Jewish Rabbis called their secular religious -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span> -series the <i>Mercavah</i> (the exterior body), “the vehicle,” or, <i>the -covering which contains the hidden soul</i>—<i>i.e.</i>, 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 <i>Mahayana</i>, the esoteric, and the -<i>Hinayana</i>, 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 <i>Gnosis</i> “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 <i>hieratic</i> 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 <i>his higher doctrines</i> 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 <i>perfect</i>, or those -initiated” (Eclec. Phil.). Examples might be brought from every country -to this effect.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Can you attain the “Secret Wisdom” -simply by study? Encyclopædias define <i>Theosophy</i> pretty much as -Webster’s Dictionary does, <i>i.e.</i>, as “<i>supposed intercourse with God -and superior spirits, and consequent attainment of superhuman -knowledge by physical means and chemical processes</i>.” Is this so? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> I think not. Nor is there any -lexicographer capable of explaining, whether to himself or others, -how <i>superhuman</i> knowledge can be attained by <i>physical</i> or chemical -processes. Had Webster said “by <i>metaphysical</i> 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>i.e.</i>, 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 <i>hypnotism</i>, by “physical and chemical means.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What is your explanation of it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>very</i> few. It is, indeed, identical -with that state which is known in India as <i>Samadhi</i>. 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 <i>unuttered</i> -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 <i>divine ones</i>, 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.”<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Theosophy, then, is not, as held by -some, a newly devised scheme?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You have brought forward proofs that -such secrecy has existed; but what was the real cause for it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> The causes for it were: <i>Firstly</i>, -the perversity of average human nature and its selfishness, always -tending to the gratification of <i>personal</i> desires to the detriment of -neighbours and next of kin. Such people could never be entrusted with -<i>divine</i> secrets. <i>Secondly</i>, 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_1_4" id="SECTION_1_4"></a>THEOSOPHY IS NOT BUDDHISM.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You are often spoken of as “Esoteric -Buddhists.” Are you then all followers of Gautama Buddha?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>converted</i> 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 <i>with one, instead of two, d’s</i>, -as then <i>Budhism</i> would have meant what it was intended for, merely -“Wisdom<i>ism</i>” (Bodha, bodhi, “intelligence,” “wisdom”) instead of -<i>Buddhism</i>, Gautama’s religious philosophy. Theosophy, as already said, -is the WISDOM-RELIGION.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What is the difference between -Buddhism, the religion founded by the Prince of Kapilavastu, -and <i>Budhism</i>, the “Wisdomism” which you say is synonymous with -Theosophy?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. <i>Buddha</i> means the -“Enlightened” by <i>Bodha</i>, or understanding, Wisdom. This has passed -root and branch into the <i>esoteric</i> teachings that Gautama imparted to -his chosen <i>Arhats</i> only.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But some Orientalists deny that -Buddha ever taught any esoteric doctrine at all?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Gupta Vidya</i> (secret knowledge) of the -ancient Brahmins, the key to which their modern successors have, with -few exceptions, completely lost. And this <i>Vidya</i> has passed into what -is now known as the <i>inner</i> teachings of the <i>Mahayana</i> school of -Northern Buddhism. Those who deny it are simply ignorant pretenders -to Orientalism. I advise you to read the Rev. Mr. Edkins’ <i>Chinese -Buddhism</i>—especially the chapters on the Exoteric and <i>Esoteric</i> -schools and teachings—and then compare the testimony of the whole -ancient world upon the subject. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But are not the ethics of Theosophy identical with -those taught by Buddha?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Are there any great points of -difference?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> One great distinction between -Theosophy and <i>exoteric</i> Buddhism is that the latter, represented by -the Southern Church, entirely denies (a) the existence of any Deity, -and (b) any conscious <i>post-mortem</i> life, or even any self-conscious -surviving individuality in man. Such at least is the teaching of the -Siamese sect, now considered as the <i>purest</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_2_1" id="SECTION_2_1"></a> -<h2>II. <br />EXOTERIC AND ESOTERIC THEOSOPHY.</h2></div> - -<h3>WHAT THE MODERN THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IS NOT.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Your doctrines, then, are not a -revival of Buddhism, nor are they entirely copied from the Neo-Platonic -Theosophy?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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:</p> - -<p class="blockquot2">‘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.’</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot">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.’ -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot">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.”</p> - -<p class="no-indent">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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Which system do you prefer or -follow, in that case, besides Buddhistic ethics?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Esoteric</i> -Sections.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What is the difference?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>practical</i> instead of -<i>theoretical</i> lines. The Fellows may be Christians or Mussulmen, Jews -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span> -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.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> -These may, or may not, become Theosophists <i>de facto</i>. 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 <i>divine</i> -fitness of things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his own—if -the expression may be used—<i>sectarian</i> and egotistic way. “Handsome is, -as handsome does” could be paraphrased in this case and be made to run: -“Theosophist is, who Theosophy does.”</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_2_2" id="SECTION_2_2"></a>THEOSOPHISTS AND MEMBERS OF THE “T.S.”</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This applies to lay members, as -I understand. And what of those who pursue the esoteric study of -Theosophy; are they the real Theosophists?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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>i.e.</i>, a -<i>pledged</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then what is the good of joining the -so-called Theosophical Society in that case? Where is the incentive?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>black</i> 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 -<i>civilized</i> 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 <i>supernatural</i> (!), 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span> -for themselves the <i>ultima thule</i> 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 <i>exoteric</i> 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 <i>Kabala</i> and the Jewish <i>Zohar</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how is one to know whether the -ounce is real gold or only a counterfeit?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span> -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 <i>glimpses</i> of the -hidden secrets of Nature. But all these are <i>specialists</i>. One is a -theoretical inventor, another a Hebrew, <i>i.e.</i>, 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 <i>specialists</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is the production of such healing -adepts the aim of Theosophy?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is help, then, to reach this most -important aim, given only to those who study the esoteric sciences?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Not at all. Every <i>lay</i> 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 <i>drones</i> 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 <i>blind</i> from -the <i>conscious</i> magic.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_2_3" id="SECTION_2_3"></a>THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You speak of Theosophy and -Occultism; are they identical?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> By no means. A man may be a very -good Theosophist indeed, whether <i>in</i> or <i>outside</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you mean?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then is an Occultist simply a man -who possesses more power than other people?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Far more—if he is a <i>practical</i> and -really learned Occultist, and not one only in name. Occult sciences are -<i>not</i>, as described, in Encyclopædias, “those <i>imaginary</i> sciences of -the Middle Ages which related to the <i>supposed</i> action or influence of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span> -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. <i>Hypnotic</i> 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 <i>for the benefit of -the latter</i>. 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>hypnotism</i>, and some—even of the <i>most cultured</i>—in Theosophy and -phenomena. But who among them, except preachers and blind fanatics, -will confess to a belief in <i>Biblical miracles</i>? And this is where -the point of difference comes in. There are very good and pure -Theosophists who may believe in the supernatural, divine <i>miracles</i> -included, but no Occultist will do so. For an Occultist practices -<i>scientific</i> Theosophy, based on accurate knowledge of Nature’s secret -workings; but a Theosophist, practising the powers called abnormal, -<i>minus</i> 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 <i>blind</i> faith. Anyone, Theosophist or Spiritualist, who -attempts to cultivate one of the branches of Occult science—<i>e.g.</i>, -Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the secrets of producing physical -phenomena, etc.—without the knowledge of the philosophic <i>rationale</i> of -those powers, is like a rudderless boat launched on a stormy ocean. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_2_4" id="SECTION_2_4"></a>THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But do you not believe in -Spiritualism?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> If by “Spiritualism” you mean the -explanation which Spiritualists give of some abnormal phenomena, then -decidedly <i>we do not</i>. 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 <i>entirely subjective means</i>. That -which does appear objectively, is only the phantom of the ex-physical -man. But in <i>psychic</i>, and so to say, “Spiritual” Spiritualism, we do -believe, most decidedly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you reject the phenomena also?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Assuredly not—save cases of -conscious fraud.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How do you account for them, then?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>deus ex machinâ</i> of the -so-called “materializations” is usually the astral body or “double” -of the medium or of some one present. This <i>astral</i> body is also the -producer or operating force in the manifestations of slate-writing, -“Davenport”-like manifestations, and so on.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You say “usually”; then <i>what</i> -is it that produces the rest?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> That depends on the nature of the -manifestations. Sometimes the astral remains, the Kamalokic “shells” -of the vanished <i>personalities</i> 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 <i>Ego</i>, the <i>Spiritual</i> and immortal “individuality.” And -this hypothesis we entirely reject. The Conscious <i>Individuality</i> of -the disembodied <i>cannot materialize</i>, nor can it return from -its own mental Devachanic sphere to the plane of terrestrial objectivity. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> This does not necessarily prove -that the intelligence and knowledge you speak of belong to <i>spirits</i>, -or emanate from <i>disembodied</i> 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”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how would you explain it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>inner</i> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span> -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 <i>onus probandi</i> 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 <i>all</i> 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 <i>psychic and -spiritual manifestations</i> we believe in the intercommunication of the -spirit of the living man with that of disembodied personalities.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This means that you reject the -philosophy of Spiritualism <i>in toto</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>can</i> deny. With regard to their philosophy, however, let me read -to you what the able editor of <i>Light</i>, 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 -<i>philosophical</i> Spiritualists, writes, with respect to their lack of -organization and blind bigotry:— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span></p> - -<p class="indent">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.”</p> - -<p class="indent">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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span> -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.—<i>Light</i>, June 22, 1889.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I was told that the Theosophical -Society was originally founded to crush Spiritualism and belief in the -survival of the individuality in man?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> You are misinformed. Our beliefs -are all founded on that immortal individuality. But then, like so many -others, you confuse <i>personality</i> 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 <i>true</i> and unalloyed Spiritualism, while the modern scheme of -that name is, as now practised by the masses, simply transcendental -materialism.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Please explain your idea more clearly.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What I mean is that though our -teachings insist upon the identity of spirit and matter, and though we -say that spirit is <i>potential</i> matter, and matter simply crystallized -spirit (<i>e.g.</i>, as ice is solidified steam), yet since the original -and eternal condition of <i>all</i> is not spirit but <i>meta</i>-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 <i>true</i> individuality.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But what is the distinction between -this “true individuality” and the “I” or “Ego” of which we are all conscious? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Egoity</i> in him only while they -last. We Theosophists, therefore, distinguish between this bundle -of “experiences,” which we call the <i>false</i> (because so finite and -evanescent) <i>personality</i>, 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 <i>true</i> -individuality; and we say that this “Ego” or individuality plays, like -an actor, many parts on the stage of life.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> -Let us call every new life on earth of the same <i>Ego</i> a <i>night</i> 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 <i>super</i>, is a soldier, -a servant, one of the chorus; rises then to “speaking parts,” plays -leading <i>rôles</i>, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally -retires from the stage as “Prospero,” the <i>magician</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I understand. You say, then, -that this true <i>Ego</i> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> We say not, simply because such a -return to earth would be incompatible with any state of <i>unalloyed</i> -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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_2_5" id="SECTION_2_5"></a>WHY IS THEOSOPHY ACCEPTED?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> There are several reasons for it, -I believe; among other causes that may be mentioned is, <i>firstly</i>, the -great reaction from the crassly materialistic theories now prevalent -among scientific teachers. <i>Secondly</i>, general dissatisfaction with -the artificial theology of the various Christian Churches, and the -number of daily increasing and conflicting sects. <i>Thirdly</i>, an -ever-growing perception of the fact that the creeds which are so -obviously self—and mutually—contradictory <i>cannot be true</i>, and that -claims which are unverified <i>cannot be real</i>. This natural distrust of -conventional religions is only strengthened by their complete failure -to preserve morals and to purify society and the masses. <i>Fourthly</i>, a -conviction on the part of many, and <i>knowledge</i> by a few, that there -must be somewhere a philosophical and religious system which shall be -scientific and not merely speculative. <i>Finally</i>, a belief, perhaps, -that such a system must be sought for in teachings far antedating any -modern faith.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how did this system come to be -put forward just now?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Just because the time was found -to be ripe, which fact is shown by the determined effort of so many -earnest students to reach <i>the truth</i>, 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Are we to regard Theosophy in any -way as a revelation?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> In no way whatever—not even in the -sense of a new and direct disclosure from some higher, supernatural, -or, at least, <i>superhuman beings</i>; 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.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You spoke of “Persecution.” If truth -is as represented by Theosophy, why has it met with such opposition, -and with no general acceptance?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>lie</i> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span> -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 <i>inner</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> This was never made secret. Ask, -and you shall receive accurate answers.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But I heard that you were bound by -pledges?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Only in the <i>Arcane</i> or “Esoteric” -Section.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And also, that some members after -leaving did not regard themselves bound by them. Are they right?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> This shows that their idea of -honour is an imperfect one. How can they be right? As well said in -the <i>Path</i>, 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I believe so; but some think -otherwise.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> So much the worse for them. But we -will talk on this subject later, if you please. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_3_1" id="SECTION_3_1"></a> -<h2>III. <br />THE WORKING SYSTEM OF THE -T.S.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></h2></div> - -<h3>THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What are the objects of the -“Theosophical Society”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Can you give me some more detailed -information upon these?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> We may divide each of the three -objects into as many explanatory clauses as may be found necessary.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Well, yes; but what have you to say -against it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Nothing against the fact; but -much about the necessity of removing the causes which make Universal -Brotherhood a Utopia at present.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What are, in your view, these causes?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Theosophy alone</i> can eradicate.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_3_2" id="SECTION_3_2"></a>THE COMMON ORIGIN OF MAN.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But this is not the teaching of -Christ, but rather a pantheistic notion. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> That is where your mistake lies. It -is purely <i>Christian</i>, although <i>not</i> Judaic, and therefore, perhaps, -your Biblical nations prefer to ignore it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This is a wholesale and unjust -accusation. Where are your proofs for such a statement?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>publicans</i><a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> -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 <i>inferior</i>. 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.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how does Theosophy explain the -common origin of man?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> By teaching that the <i>root</i> of all -nature, objective and subjective, and everything else in the universe, -visible and invisible, <i>is</i>, <i>was</i>, and <i>ever will be</i> 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 <i>non-sectarian</i> education.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do the written statutes of your -Society advise its members to do besides this? On the physical plane, I mean? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then as a Theosophist you will take -part in an effort to realize such an ideal?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>one</i>, 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 <i>expressed</i> even -in the Kabala. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>whole</i> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Please explain further.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Yes, but if you injure a leaf or a -shoot, you do not injure the whole plant.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> And therefore you think that by -injuring <i>one</i> man you do not injure humanity? But how do <i>you</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What laws do you mean?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>that it will, in good time</i>. -Therefore, we say, that unless every man is brought to understand and -accept <i>as an axiomatic truth</i> 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_3_3" id="SECTION_3_3"></a>OUR OTHER OBJECTS.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Will you now explain the methods by -which you propose to carry out the second object?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And what about the third object, to -develop in man his latent spiritual or psychic powers? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>cant</i> above all, whether as religious sectarianism or -as belief in miracles or anything supernatural. What we have to do is -to seek to obtain <i>knowledge</i> 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, <i>based on the true knowledge -of nature</i>, instead of, as at present, on <i>superstitious beliefs based -on blind faith and authority</i>. 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_3_4" id="SECTION_3_4"></a>ON THE SACREDNESS OF THE PLEDGE.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Have you any ethical system that you -carry out in the Society?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do the members of your Society carry -out these precepts? I have heard of great dissensions and quarrels -among them.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>working</i> members are few; but many are the sincere -and well-disposed persons, who try their best to live up to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span> -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 -<i>Esoteric Section</i> 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 <i>Self</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Can some of them be mentioned?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>any -officer of the Parent Society</i> to express in public, by word or act, -any hostility to, or preference for, any one section,<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> -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 <i>Esoteric</i>, 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But is this reasonable and just?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Most assuredly. To any man or -woman with the slightest honourable feeling a pledge of secrecy taken -even on one’s <i>word of honour</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But is not this going rather far?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>pledge</i> 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, “<i>A pledge once taken, is for ever -binding in both the moral and the occult worlds.</i> 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 <i>Path</i>, July, 1889.) -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_4_1" id="SECTION_4_1"></a> -<h2>IV. <br />THE RELATIONS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY TO THEOSOPHY.</h2></div> - -<h3>ON SELF-IMPROVEMENT.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is moral elevation, then, the -principal thing insisted upon in your Society?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Undoubtedly! He who would be a true -Theosophist must bring himself to live as one.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> If so, then, as I remarked before, -the behaviour of some members strangely belies this fundamental -rule.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>the</i> life -prescribed by Theosophy. They have to bring their <i>Divine Self</i> 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you mean by this?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Theosophist</i>: “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; -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span> -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.’”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This is pure Altruism, I confess.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span> -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 <i>five</i>. To every man it is -given “according to his several ability.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>will</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Why <i>more</i> serious?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_4_2" id="SECTION_4_2"></a>THE ABSTRACT AND THE CONCRETE.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Please elucidate this difference a -little more.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I thought you said you had no tenets -or doctrines of your own?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But is such truth unreachable -outside of the Society? Does not every Church claim the same?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>a</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But Theosophy, you say, is not a religion? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>that white ray</i> 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 -<i>Theosophia</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What is meant by the Society having -no tenets or doctrines of its own is, that no special doctrines or -beliefs are <i>obligatory</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> May we be told what it is?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> We make no secret of it. It was -outlined a few years ago in the <i>Theosophist</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_5_1" id="SECTION_5_1"></a> -<h2>V. <br />THE FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY.</h2></div> - -<h3>ON GOD AND PRAYER.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you believe in God?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> That depends what you mean by the -term.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I mean the God of the Christians, -the Father of Jesus, and the Creator: the Biblical God of Moses, in -short.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>man</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> State your reasons, if you -please.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I believe he is.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Then, if infinite—<i>i.e.</i>, -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>i.e.</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> -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>i.e.</i>, through the emanation from itself (another absurdity, due -this time to the translators of the Kabala)<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> -of the Sephiroth. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How about those Kabalists, who, -while being such, still believe in Jehovah, or the <i>Tetragrammaton</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then you are Atheists?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <b>παν</b>, “all,” and <b>θεος</b>, “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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span> -etymologise the word Pantheism esoterically, and as we do.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What is, then your definition of it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Let me ask you a question in my -turn. What do you understand by Pan or Nature?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Yes, I believe so.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Well, we neither take into -consideration this objective and material nature, which we call an -evanescent illusion, nor do we mean by <b>παν</b> Nature, in the sense -of its accepted derivation from the Latin <i>Natura</i> (becoming, from -<i>nasci</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Stop! Omniscience is the prerogative -of something that thinks, and you deny to your Absoluteness the power -of thought.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>absolute</i>. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then your Absolute thinks?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> No, IT does not; for the simple -reason that it is <i>Absolute Thought</i> itself. Nor does it exist, for -the same reason, as it is absolute existence, and <i>Be-ness</i>, 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 <i>evolving</i>, -not <i>creating</i>, builder of the universe; that <i>universe itself -unfolding</i> out of its own essence, not being <i>made</i>. 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, <i>because</i> absolute LAW, -which in its manifesting periods is <i>The ever-Becoming</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_5_2" id="SECTION_5_2"></a>IS IT NECESSARY TO PRAY?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq</span>. Do you believe in prayer, and do you -ever pray?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo</span>. We do not. We <i>act</i>, instead of -<i>talking</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You do not offer prayers even to the -Absolute Principle?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you not believe at all in the -efficacy of prayer?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is there any other kind of -prayer?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Most decidedly; we call it -WILL-PRAYER, and it is rather an internal command than a petition.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> To whom, then, do you pray when you -do so?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> To “our Father in heaven”—in its -esoteric meaning.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq</span>. Is that different from the one given -to it in theology?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Entirely so. An Occultist or a -Theosophist addresses his prayer to <i>his Father which is in secret</i> -(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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then you make of man a God?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Please say “God” and not <i>a</i> 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 <i>by</i>, and <i>in</i>, 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span> -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?”<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you mean to say that prayer is an -occult process bringing about physical results?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> I do. <i>Will-Power</i> becomes a living -power. But woe unto those Occultists and Theosophists, who, instead -of crushing out the desires of the lower personal <i>ego</i> or physical -man, and saying, addressing their <i>Higher</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>true</i> 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 <i>love -your enemies</i> and do <i>good to them that hate you</i>. 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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 <i>devils</i> and harmful spirits, -but this only proves the universality of the belief in the efficacy of -prayer.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>petition</i>, but meant, in -days of old, far more an invocation and incantation. The <i>mantra</i>, or -the rhythmically chanted prayer of the Hindus, has precisely such a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span> -meaning, as the Brahmins hold themselves higher than the common <i>devas</i> -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 <i>given</i> 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: (<i>a</i>) It kills in man self-reliance; -(<i>b</i>) 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 <i>Samadhi</i>, and after -death, <i>Nirvana</i>. We refuse to pray to <i>created</i> finite beings—<i>i.e.</i>, -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Christians would call it pride and -blasphemy. Are they wrong?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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! <i>but rather act</i>; for -darkness will not brighten. Ask nought from silence, for it can neither -speak nor hear.” And the other—Jesus—recommends: “Whatsoever ye shall -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span> -ask in my name (that of Christos) that will I do.” Of course, -this quotation, if taken in its <i>literal</i> 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 -<i>Atma-Buddhi-Manas</i>, 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_5_3" id="SECTION_5_3"></a>PRAYER KILLS SELF RELIANCE.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But did not Christ himself pray and -recommend prayer?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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” <i>prayed to -himself</i>, and separated the will of that God from his own!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> No wonder. If “Christ Jesus” is -God, and one independent and separate from him who prays, of course -everything is, and <i>must</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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>i.e.</i>, -that those who believe <i>do</i> feel themselves helped and strengthened. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Nor is there any more doubt, that -some patients of “Christian” and “Mental Scientists”—the great -“<i>Deniers</i>”<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> -—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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> To his Higher Self, the divine -spirit, or the God in him, and to his <i>Karma</i>. 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 <span class="smcap">Lucifer</span> for April, 1888, p. 147, Art. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span> -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?”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then they are truly Atheists.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>non</i>-Christian to eternal -perdition.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Does not the Buddhist priesthood do -the same?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Never. They hold too much to the -wise precept found in the <span class="smcap">Dhammapada</span> 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.”</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_5_4" id="SECTION_5_4"></a>ON THE SOURCE OF THE HUMAN SOUL.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How, then, do you account for man -being endowed with a Spirit and Soul? Whence these?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> From the Universal Soul. Certainly -not bestowed by a <i>personal</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> So you reject the teaching that Soul -is given, or breathed into man, by God?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> We are obliged to. The “Soul” -spoken of in ch. ii. of Genesis (v. 7) is, as therein stated, the -“living Soul” or <i>Nephesh</i> (the <i>vital</i>, animal soul) with which God -(we say “nature” and <i>immutable law</i>) endows man like every animal, is -not at all the thinking Soul or mind; least of all is it the <i>immortal Spirit</i>. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Well, let us put it otherwise: is it -God who endows man with a human <i>rational</i> Soul and immortal Spirit?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Again, in the way you put the -question, we must object to it. Since we believe in no <i>personal</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you mean? What -difficulties?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I should be glad to learn in what way.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Simply this: the Buddhist priest -premised by asking the <i>padri</i> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span> -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, <i>he creates daily and hourly souls -for just such children</i>? 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You forget that all such -inexplicable cases are mysteries, and that we are forbidden by our -religion to pry into the mysteries of God.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.”</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_5_5" id="SECTION_5_5"></a>THE BUDDHIST TEACHINGS ON THE ABOVE.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What does Buddhism teach with regard -to the Soul?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It depends whether you mean -exoteric, popular Buddhism, or its esoteric teachings. The former -explains itself in the <i>Buddhist Catechism</i> 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 “<i>Skandhas</i>,” or the attributes, of the <i>old</i> personality, and ask -whether this new aggregation of <i>Skandhas</i> is a <i>new</i> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span> -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 <i>same individuality as before</i> (but not the -same personality), with but a changed form, or new aggregation of -<i>Skandhas</i>, justly reaps the consequences of his actions and thoughts -in the previous existence.” This is abstruse metaphysics, and plainly -does not express <i>disbelief</i> in Soul by any means.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is not something like this spoken -of in <i>Esoteric Buddhism</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It is, for this teaching belongs -both to Esoteric <i>Budhism</i> or Secret Wisdom, and to the exoteric -Buddhism, or the religious philosophy of Gautama Buddha.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But we are distinctly told that most -of the Buddhists do not believe in the Soul’s immortality?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> No more do we, if you mean by -Soul the <i>personal Ego</i>, or life-Soul—<i>Nephesh</i>. But every learned -Buddhist believes in the individual or <i>divine Ego</i>. 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 <i>verbatim</i> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you mean to suggest that -neither the teachings of Buddha nor those of Christ have been -heretofore rightly understood? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>altruists—preaching most unmistakably Socialism</i> 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 <i>meum</i> and <i>tuum</i>. Their desire was, without -revealing to <i>all</i> 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!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But surely Buddha must have -repudiated the soul’s immortality, if all the Orientalists and his own -Priests say so!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But why, in that case, do Buddhism -and Christianity represent the two opposite poles of such belief?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">“Who cry upon their gods and are not heard,</span> -<span class="i0">Or are not heeded—”</span> -</div></div></div> - -<p class="no-indent"> and who live and die in mental despair. He had -to arrest first of all this muddy torrent of superstition, to uproot -<i>errors</i> before he gave out the truth. And as he could not give out -<i>all</i>, for the same good reason as Jesus, who reminds <i>his</i> 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 <i>to conceal too much</i>. 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.”<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This refers to Gautama, but in what -way does it touch the Gospels?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<i>Revealer</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_6_1" id="SECTION_6_1"></a> -<h2>VI. <br />THEOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS AS TO NATURE AND MAN.</h2></div> - -<h3>THE UNITY OF ALL IN ALL.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Having told me what God, the Soul -and Man are <i>not</i>, in your views, can you inform me what they <i>are</i>, -according to your teachings?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>creation</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Can you elaborate the subject?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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—<i>days and -nights lasting each 182 trillions and quadrillions of years</i>, instead -of 182 days each. As the sun arises every morning on our <i>objective</i> -horizon out of its (to us) <i>subjective</i> 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 <i>Manvantara</i> and that of <i>Pralaya</i> -(dissolution). The Westerns may call them Universal Days and Nights if -they prefer. During the latter (the nights) <i>All is in All</i>; every atom -is resolved into one Homogeneity. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_6_2" id="SECTION_6_2"></a>EVOLUTION AND ILLUSION.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But who is it that creates each time -the Universe?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>reality</i> casting a periodical -reflection of <i>itself</i> on the infinite Spatial depths. This reflection, -which you regard as the objective <i>material</i> universe, we consider as a -temporary <i>illusion</i> and nothing else. That alone which is eternal is -<i>real</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> At that rate, you and I are also -illusions.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> As flitting personalities, to-day -one person, to-morrow another—we are. Would you call the sudden flashes -of the <i>Aurora borealis</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> All this does not explain to me how -this illusion called the universe originates; how the conscious <i>to -be</i>, proceeds to manifest itself from the unconsciousness that <i>is</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It is <i>unconsciousness</i> 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 <i>sui generis</i>, we are told. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you mean by <i>sui generis</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>men</i>, -<i>i.e.</i>, 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—<i>plus</i> 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 <i>external</i> nature in other Solar -systems, and how foolish is it to judge of other <i>stars</i> and worlds and -human beings by our own, as physical science does!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But what are your data for this -assertion?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And therefore you have implicit -faith in them?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Faith is a word not to be found -in theosophical dictionaries: we say <i>knowledge based on observation -and experience</i>. 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 <i>knowledge</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is it on such data that you came to -accept the strange theories we find in <i>Esoteric Buddhism</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Just so. These theories may be -slightly incorrect in their minor details, and even faulty in their -exposition by lay students; they are <i>facts</i> in nature, nevertheless, -and come nearer the truth than any scientific hypothesis.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_6_3" id="SECTION_6_3"></a>ON THE SEPTENARY CONSTITUTION OF OUR PLANET.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I understand that you describe our -earth as forming part of a chain of earths?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is that on account of the great -distance?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>layer</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You do not accept, then, the -well-known explanations of biology and physiology to account for the -dream state?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How do you explain these?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<i>aspects</i>; and the lower or the physical quaternary, composed of -<i>four</i>—in all <i>seven</i>.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_6_4" id="SECTION_6_4"></a>THE SEPTENARY NATURE OF MAN.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is it what we call Spirit and Soul, -and the man of flesh?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span> -deriving its constituent parts from the <i>minor</i> “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 <i>Nous</i> and <i>psuche</i>). 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 <i>spiritual</i> 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,” <i>vide</i> 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.</p> - -<p class="f120 space-above1">THEOSOPHICAL DIVISION.</p> - -<table class="space-below2 bb bt" border="0" cellspacing="1" summary="_" cellpadding="1" rules="cols"> - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdc">   </td> - <td class="tdc bb">  <span class="smcap">Sanscrit Terms.</span>  </td> - <td class="tdc bb">  <span class="smcap">Exoteric Meaning.</span>  </td> - <td class="tdc bb"><span class="smcap">Explanatory.</span></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>a</i>) Rupa, or </td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>a</i>) Physical body.</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>a</i>) Is the vehicle of</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Sthula-Sarira.</td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">all the other</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">“principles” during</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2 bb">life.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>b</i>) Pranâ.</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>b</i>) Life, or</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>b</i>) Necessary only</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Vital principle.</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">to <i>a</i>, <i>c</i>, <i>d</i>, and</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the functions of the</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">lower <i>Manas</i>, which</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"><b>A</b></td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">embrace all those</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">limited to the</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2 bb">(<i>physical</i>) brain.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>c</i>) Linga Sharira.</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>c</i>) Astral Body.</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>c</i>) The <i>Double</i>, the</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2 bb">phantom body.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>d</i>) Kama rupa.</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>d</i>) The seat of</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>d</i>) This is the centre</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">animal desires</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">of the animal man,</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and passions.</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">where lies the line</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">of demarcation which</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">separates the mortal</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">man from the</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">immortal entity.</td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> -<div class="transnote bbox"> -<p class="indent">Transcriber's Note:</p> -<p class="indent"> The letter <b>A</b> in the left hand column stands for -“<span class="smcap">Lower Quaternary.</span>” which was written vertically -in the original table.</p> -</div> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span></p> -<table class="space-below2 bb bt" border="0" cellspacing="1" summary="_" cellpadding="1" rules="cols"> - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdc">   </td> - <td class="tdc bb">  <span class="smcap">Sanscrit Terms.</span>  </td> - <td class="tdc bb">  <span class="smcap">Exoteric Meaning.</span>  </td> - <td class="tdc bb"><span class="smcap">Explanatory.</span></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>e</i>) <i>Manas</i>—a dual</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>e</i>) Mind, Intelligence:</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>e</i>) The future state</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">principle in its</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">which is the higher</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and the Karmic</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">functions.</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">human mind, whose</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">destiny of man</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">light, or radiation,</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">depend on whether</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">links the <span class="smcap">Monad</span>, for</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Manas gravitates</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the lifetime, to the</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">more downward to</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">mortal man.</td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Kama rupa, the</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">seat of the animal</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">passions, or</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">upwards to <i>Buddhi</i>,</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Spiritual <i>Ego</i>. In</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the latter case,</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the higher</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> <b>A</b> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">consciousness of</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the individual</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Spiritual</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">aspirations of</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2"><i>mind</i> (Manas),</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">assimilating</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Buddhi, are</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">absorbed by it</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and form the <i>Ego</i>,</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">which goes into</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2 bb">Devachanic bliss.<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>f</i>) Buddhi.</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>f</i>) The Spiritual Soul.</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>f</i>) The vehicle of pure</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2 bb">universal spirit.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>g</i>) Atma.</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>g</i>) Spirit.</td> - <td class="tdl">(<i>g</i>) One with the</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Absolute, as its</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind2">radiation.</td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> - -<div class="transnote bbox"> -<p class="indent">Transcriber's Note:</p> -<p class="indent"> The letter <b>A</b> in the left hand column stands for -“<span class="smcap">The Upper Imperishable Triad.</span>” which was written vertically -in the original table.</p> -</div> - -<p class="no-indent">Now what does Plato teach? He speaks of the <i>interior</i> -man as constituted of two parts—one immutable and always the same, formed of -the same <i>substance</i> as Deity, and the other mortal and corruptible. -These “two parts” are found in our upper <i>Triad</i>, and the lower -<i>Quaternary</i> (<i>vide</i> Table). He explains that when the Soul, <i>psuche</i>, -“allies herself to the Nous (divine spirit or substance<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a>), -she does everything aright and felicitously”; but the case is otherwise -when she attaches herself to <i>Anoia</i>, (folly, or the irrational animal -Soul). Here, then, we have <i>Manas</i> (or the Soul in general) in its -two aspects: when attaching itself to <i>Anoia</i> (our <i>Kama rupa</i>, 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 <i>Nous</i> (Atma-Buddhi) it merges into the immortal, -imperishable Ego, and then its spiritual consciousness of the personal -that <i>was</i>, becomes immortal. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_6_5" id="SECTION_6_5"></a>THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOUL AND SPIRIT.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you really teach, as you are -accused of doing by some Spiritualists and French Spiritists, the -annihilation of every personality?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> We do not. But as this question -of the duality—the <i>individuality</i> of the Divine Ego, and the -<i>personality</i> of the human animal—involves that of the possibility of -the real immortal Ego appearing in <i>Séance rooms</i> as a “materialised -spirit,” which we deny as already explained, our opponents have started -the nonsensical charge.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You have just spoken of <i>psuche</i> -running towards its entire annihilation if it attaches itself to -<i>Anoia</i>. What did Plato, and do you mean by this?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo</span>. The <i>entire</i> annihilation of the -<i>personal</i> 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 <i>quaternary</i>. Would you expect the man of flesh, or the -<i>temporary personality</i>, 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then you also reject <i>resurrection -in the flesh</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> The Egyptians revered -Nature-Spirits, and deified even onions: your Hindus are <i>idolaters</i>, -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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Nout</i>; and it -is from this word that Anaxagoras got his denomination <i>Nous</i>, or as -he calls it, <b>Νους αυτοχρατης</b>, “the Mind or Spirit Self-Potent,” the -<b>αρχητης χινηδεως</b>, the leading motor, or <i>primum-mobile</i> of all. With -him the <i>Nous</i> was God, and the <i>logos</i> was man, his emanation. The -<i>Nous</i> is the spirit (whether in Kosmos or in man), and the <i>logos</i>, -whether Universe or astral body, the emanation of the former, the -physical body being merely the animal. Our external powers perceive -<i>phenomena</i>; our <i>Nous</i> alone is able to recognise their <i>noumena</i>. -It is the logos alone, or the <i>noumenon</i>, that survives, because it -is immortal in its very nature and essence, and the <i>logos</i> 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 <i>which is raised in incorruptibility</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> And I support the view. Besides -Plato, there is Pythagoras, who also followed the same idea.<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> -He described the <i>Soul</i> as a self-moving Unit (<i>monad</i>) composed of -three elements, the <i>Nous</i> (Spirit), the <i>phren</i> (mind), and the -<i>thumos</i> (life, breath or the <i>Nephesh</i> of the Kabalists) which three -correspond to our “Atma-Buddhi,” (higher Spirit-Soul), to <i>Manas</i> (The -<span class="smcap">Ego</span>), and to <i>Kama-rupa</i> in conjunction -with the <i>lower</i> reflection of Manas. That which the Ancient Greek -philosophers termed <i>Soul</i>, in general, we call Spirit, or Spiritual -<i>Soul</i>, <i>Buddhi</i>, as the vehicle of <i>Atma</i> (the <i>Agathon</i>, or Plato’s -Supreme Deity). The fact that Pythagoras and others state that <i>phren</i> -and <i>thumos</i> are shared by us with the brutes, proves that in this -case the <i>lower</i> Manasic reflection (instinct) and <i>Kama-rupa</i> (animal -living passions) are meant. And as Socrates and Plato accepted the -clue and followed it, if to these five, namely, <i>Agathon</i> (Deity or -Atma), <i>Psuche</i> (Soul in its collective sense), <i>Nous</i> (Spirit or -Mind), <i>Phren</i> (physical mind), and <i>Thumos</i> (Kama-rupa or passions) -we add the <i>eidolon</i> of the Mysteries, the shadowy <i>form</i> or the human -double, and the <i>physical body</i>, 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 (<span class="smcap">Ego</span>) 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 <i>death</i>, 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, <i>are alone entitled to know</i>. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_6_6" id="SECTION_6_6"></a>THE GREEK TEACHINGS.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Because your translators, their -great learning notwithstanding, have made of the philosophers, the -Greeks especially, <i>misty</i> 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 <i>mistaken who think him to be compounded of two parts only</i>. 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>i.e.</i>, those who make -of the <i>Triad</i> part of the corruptible mortal <i>quaternary</i>. 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 (<b>ψυχη</b>) -with the understanding (<b>νοῦς</b>) 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.”</p> - -<p>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 <i>related to every principle</i>. 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 <i>from</i> and -<i>through</i> and ever influenced by the moon<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a>; -and only of the higher part or the <i>Spiritual Soul</i>, with the Atmic and -Manasic elements in it does he make a direct emanation of the Sun, who -stands here for <i>Agathon</i> the Supreme Deity. This is proven by what he -says further as follows: -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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, -<b>τελειν</b>, resembled that given to death, <b>τελευταν</b>. The -Athenians also heretofore called the deceased sacred to Demeter. As for -the other death, it is in the moon or region of Persephone.”</p> - -<p class="no-indent">Here you have our doctrine, which shows man a -<i>septenary</i> during life; a <i>quintile</i> just after death, in Kama-loka; -and a threefold <i>Ego</i>, Spirit-Soul, and consciousness in <i>Devachan</i>. -This separation, first in “the Meadows of Hades,” as Plutarch calls the -<i>Kama-loka</i>, 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 <i>Consciousness</i>. This is what Plutarch means when -he says:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> -For this reason she is called <i>Monogenes, only begotten</i>, or rather -<i>begetting one alone</i>; for <i>the better part of man becomes alone when -it is separated by her</i>. 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span> -body, should wander for a time, though not all for the same, in the -region lying between the earth and moon (<i>Kama-loka</i>).<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> -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.”</p> - -<p class="no-indent"> 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 <i>quintuple</i> and a triad, he is -a compound of seven, five, or three <i>entities</i>; 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 <i>eidolon</i>, all of which disperse at death, are simply -<i>aspects</i> and <i>states of consciousness</i>. There is but one <i>real</i> man, -enduring through the cycle of life and immortal in essence, if not in -form, and this is <i>Manas</i>, 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 <i>with all the states of matter</i>, 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 -<i>finite</i> conception, is still universal Spirit-matter or matter-Spirit -<i>in its absolute infinitude</i>?” It is then one of the lowest, and in its -manvantaric manifestations <i>fractioned</i>-aspects of this Spirit-matter, -which is the conscious <i>Ego</i> that creates its own paradise, a fool’s -paradise, it may be, still a state of bliss. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But what is <i>Devachan</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_7_1" id="SECTION_7_1"></a> -<h2>VII. <br />ON THE VARIOUS POST MORTEM STATES.</h2></div> - -<h3>THE PHYSICAL AND THE SPIRITUAL MAN.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I am glad to hear you believe in the -immortality of the Soul.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Not of “the Soul,” but of the -divine Spirit; or rather in the immortality of the reincarnating -Ego.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What is the difference?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p>We say that the Spirit (the “Father in secret” of Jesus), or -<i>Atman</i>, 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 <i>exist</i> and yet <i>is</i>, 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 <i>Buddhi</i>, its vehicle and direct -emanation. This is the secret meaning of the assertions of almost all -the ancient philosophers, when they said that “the <i>rational</i> part of -man’s soul”<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> -never entered wholly into the man, but only overshadowed him more or -less through the <i>irrational</i> spiritual Soul or Buddhi.<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I laboured under the impression -that the “Animal Soul” alone was irrational, not the Divine.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> You have to learn the difference -between that which is negatively, or <i>passively</i> “irrational,” because -undifferentiated, and that which is irrational because too <i>active</i> -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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>inner</i> man (the psychic and spiritual compound of the -<i>astral</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And what do you say?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span> -immortal and eternal, <i>per se</i>. <i>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</i>—that the shining thread, which -links the spirit to the <i>personal</i> 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 <i>Personality</i>, and is reincarnated, after enjoying for a -short time its freedom as a planetary spirit, almost immediately.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> It is stated in <i>Isis Unveiled</i> -that such planetary Spirits or Angels, “the gods of the Pagans or the -Archangels of the Christians,” will never be men on our planet.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Quite right. Not “<i>such</i>,” but -<i>some</i> 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 <i>pralaya</i>,” (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” <i>potentially</i>, the -latter <i>actually</i>.<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> -Do you understand now the difference?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Yes; but this specialisation has -been in all ages the stumbling-block of metaphysicians. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>personal</i> Ego (if -it did not deserve to soar higher), and the <i>divine</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p class="indent">Let me repeat to you again. Pythagoras, Plato, -Timaeus of Locris, and the old Alexandrian School, derived the -<i>Soul</i> of man (or his higher “principles” and attributes) from the -Universal World Soul, the latter being, according to their teachings, -<i>Aether</i> (Pater-Zeus). Therefore, neither of these “principles” can be -<i>unalloyed</i> essence of the Pythagorean Monas, or our <i>Atma-Buddhi</i>, -because the <i>Anima Mundi</i> is but the effect, the subjective emanation -or rather radiation of the former. Both the <i>human</i> Spirit (or the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span> -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 <i>anima bruta</i> and the <i>anima divina</i>. 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 <i>within</i> the universal soul, and the other from <i>without</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Would you call the Soul, <i>i.e.</i>, the -human thinking Soul, or what you call the Ego—matter?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Not matter, but substance -assuredly; nor would the word “matter,” if prefixed with the adjective, -<i>primordial</i>, 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 <i>no</i>-Spirit, or the absolute <i>all</i>. Unless you admit that man -was evolved out of this primordial Spirit-matter, and represents a -regular progressive scale of “principles” from <i>meta</i>-Spirit down to -the grossest matter, how can we ever come to regard the <i>inner</i> man -as immortal, and at the same time as a spiritual Entity and a mortal -man?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then why should you not believe in -God as such an Entity?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span></p> - -<p class="indent">Its immortality as a form is limited only to its -life-cycle or the <i>Mahamanvantara</i>; after which it is one and identical -with the Universal Spirit, and no longer a separate Entity. As to -the <i>personal</i> 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 <i>Atma</i> -(<i>i.e.</i>, Buddhi-Manas) is immortal. The Soul of man (<i>i.e.</i>, of the -personality) <i>per se</i> is neither immortal, eternal nor divine. Says the -<i>Zohar</i> (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 -<i>Zohar</i> teaches that the soul cannot reach the abode of bliss, unless -she has received the “holy kiss,” or the reunion of the soul <i>with the -substance from which she emanated</i>—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 <i>Book of the Keys</i>, a -Hermetic work. Woe indeed, for nothing will remain of that personality -to be recorded on the imperishable tablets of the Ego’s memory.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Every atom and speck of matter, -not of substance only, is <i>imperishable</i> in its essence, but not in -its <i>individual consciousness</i>. Immortality is but one’s unbroken -consciousness; and the <i>personal</i> consciousness can hardly last longer -than the personality itself, can it? And such consciousness, as I -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span> -already told you, survives only throughout Devachan, after which it is -reabsorbed, first, in the <i>individual</i>, and then in the <i>universal</i> -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 <i>Pentateuch</i>, -and <i>Genesis</i> especially, never regarded <i>nephesh</i>, that which God -breathes into Adam (Gen. ch. ii.), as the <i>immortal</i> soul. Here are -some instances:—“And God created ... every <i>nephesh</i> (life) that -moveth” (Gen i. 21), meaning animals; and (Gen. ii. 7) it is said: -“And man became a <i>nephesh</i>” (living soul), which shows that the word -<i>nephesh</i> was indifferently applied to <i>immortal</i> man and to <i>mortal</i> -beast. “And surely your blood of your <i>nepheshim</i> (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 <i>nephesh</i>” (escape for thy <i>life</i>, -it is translated), (Gen. xix. 17). “Let us not kill him,” reads the -English version (Gen. xxxvii. 21). “Let us not kill his <i>nephesh</i>” is -the Hebrew text. “<i>Nephesh</i> for <i>nephesh</i>,” says Leviticus (xvii. 8). -“He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death,” literally “He -that smiteth the <i>nephesh</i> of a man” (Lev. xxiv. 17); and from verse -18 and following it reads: “And he that killeth a beast (<i>nephesh</i>) -shall make it good ... Beast for beast,” whereas the original text has -it “nephesh for nephesh.” How could man <i>kill</i> 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_7_2" id="SECTION_7_2"></a>ON ETERNAL REWARD AND PUNISHMENT;<br />AND ON NIRVANA.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Law of Retribution</i>, 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:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">“Let rules be fixed that may our rage contain,</span> -<span class="i0">And punish faults <i>with a proportion’d pain</i>;</span> -<span class="i0">But do not flay him who deserves alone</span> -<span class="i0">A whipping for the fault that he has done.”</span> -</div></div></div> - -<p class="no-indent"> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Have you any other reasons for -rejecting this dogma?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Vehicle</i>, of an <i>Ego</i> coeval with every -other Ego; because all <i>Egos</i> are <i>of the same essence</i> and belong to -the primeval emanation from one universal infinite <i>Ego</i>. Plato calls -the latter the <i>logos</i> (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 <i>personal</i> God in which -so many Theists believe. Pray do not confuse.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But where is the difficulty, once -you accept a manifested principle, in believing that the soul of every -new mortal is <i>created</i> by that Principle, as all the Souls before it -have been so created?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Because that which is <i>impersonal</i> -can hardly create, plan and think, at its own sweet will and pleasure. -Being a universal <i>Law</i>, immutable in its periodical manifestations, -those of radiating and manifesting its own essence at the beginning of -every new cycle of life, <span class="smcap">IT</span> 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 <i>create</i> every soul -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span> -for the space of <i>one brief span of life</i>, 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 <i>fiend</i> -than a God. (<i>Vide infra</i>, “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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Can you give me some instances as a proof of this?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, <b>παλινδρομοῦσιν αὖθις</b> <i>return to other bodies, being -desirous to live in them</i>.” In the <i>Zohar</i>, 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.”<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> -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.”<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> -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 <i>Zohar</i>, -“The Palace of Love,” <b>היבל אחכה</b>; 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Yet there is no re-incarnation -spoken of in all this.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> A soul which pleads to be allowed -to remain where she is, <i>must be pre-existent</i>, and not have been -created for the occasion. In the <i>Zohar</i> (vol. iii., p. 61), however, -there is a still better proof. Speaking of the reincarnating <i>Egos</i> -(the <i>rational</i> souls), those whose last personality has to fade out -<i>entirely</i>, 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 <i>Atma-Buddhi</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Moreover, it is very strange to find -<i>Nirvana</i> 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!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Acts</i> and the <i>Epistles</i>, -who laid the foundation of the <i>Kingdom of Heaven</i>, and the modern -commentators on the Buddhist <i>Sutra of the Foundation of the Kingdom of Righteousness</i>, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span> -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 <i>soul</i>; -and with this confusion of <i>soul</i> and <i>spirit</i> together, <i>Bible</i> -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 <i>annihilation</i> means only a dispersion of matter, -in whatever form or <i>semblance</i> 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 <i>entity</i> 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 <i>Nirvana</i>, lasting as long -as the cycle of life has lasted—an eternity, truly. And then that -Breath, existing <i>in Spirit</i>, is <i>nothing</i> because it is <i>all</i>; as a -form, a semblance, a shape, it is completely annihilated; as absolute -Spirit it still is, for it has become <i>Be-ness</i> itself. The very word -used, “absorbed in the universal essence,” when spoken of the “Soul” as -Spirit, means “<i>union with</i>.” It can never mean annihilation, as that -would mean eternal separation.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span> -translated. We speak of an <i>animal</i>, a <i>human</i>, and a <i>spiritual</i>, -Soul, and distinguish between them. Plato, for instance, calls -“rational <span class="smcap">Soul</span>” that which we call <i>Buddhi</i>, -adding to it the adjective of “spiritual,” however; but that which we -call the reincarnating Ego, <i>Manas</i>, he calls Spirit, <i>Nous</i>, etc., -whereas we apply the term <i>Spirit</i>, when standing alone and without any -qualification, to Atma alone. Pythagoras repeats our archaic doctrine -when stating that the <i>Ego</i> (<i>Nous</i>) is eternal with Deity; that the -soul only passed through various stages to arrive at divine excellence; -while <i>thumos</i> returned to the earth, and even the <i>phren</i>, the lower -<i>Manas</i>, was eliminated. Again, Plato defines <i>Soul</i> (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 <i>Manas</i> “Spirit,” which we do not.</p> - -<p class="blockquot"> “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.”</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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 <i>Nous</i>, a -god, and disciplines all things correctly and happily; but when with -<i>Annoia</i>—not <i>nous</i>—it works out everything the contrary.”</p> - -<p class="no-indent">In this language, as in the Buddhist texts, the -negative is treated as essential existence. <i>Annihilation</i> comes under -a similar exegesis. The positive state is essential being, but no -manifestation as such. When the spirit, in Buddhistic parlance, enters -<i>Nirvana</i>, it loses objective existence, but retains subjective being. -To objective minds this is becoming absolute “nothing”; to subjective, -<span class="smcap">No-thing</span>, nothing to be displayed to sense. -Thus, their Nirvana means the certitude of individual immortality <i>in -Spirit</i>, not in Soul, which, though “the most ancient of all things,” -is still—along with all the other <i>Gods</i>—a finite emanation, in <i>forms</i> -and individuality, if not in substance. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I do not quite seize the idea -yet, and would be thankful to have you explain this to me by some -illustrations.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<i>after death</i>, you will hardly realize our Eastern philosophy.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_7_3" id="SECTION_7_3"></a>ON THE VARIOUS “PRINCIPLES” IN MAN.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Of course, it is most difficult, -and, as you say, “puzzling” to understand correctly and distinguish -between the various <i>aspects</i>, called by us, the “principles” of the -real <span class="smcap">Ego</span>. 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you mean the Vedantins, as an -instance? Don’t they divide your seven “principles” into five only?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Man</i> at all, the physical -body being in their view something beneath contempt, and merely an -<i>illusion</i>. Nor is the Vedanta the only philosophy to reckon in this -manner. Lao-Tze, in his <i>Tao-te-King</i>, mentions only five principles, -because he, like the Vedantins, omits to include two principles, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span> -namely, the spirit (Atma) and the physical body, the latter of -which, moreover, he calls “the cadaver.” Then there is the <i>Taraka -Rajà Yogà</i> School. Its teaching recognises only three “principles” -in fact; but then, in reality, their <i>Sthulopadi</i>, or the physical -body, in its waking conscious state, their <i>Sukshmopadhi</i>, the same -body in <i>Svapna</i>, or the dreaming state, and their <i>Karanopadhi</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> -They are welcome to hold to their division; we hold to ours.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then it seems almost the same as the -division made by the mystic Christians: body, soul and spirit?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Just the same. We could easily -make of the body the vehicle of the “vital Double”; of the latter -the vehicle of Life or <i>Pranâ</i>; of <i>Kama-rupa</i>, or (animal) soul, -the vehicle of the <i>higher</i> and the <i>lower</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> It is just that which it is so -difficult to understand.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It seems to me very easy, on the -contrary, once that you have seized the main idea, <i>i.e.</i>, 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 <i>body</i>; the thinking -principle in him—which is only a little higher than the <i>instinctual</i> -element in the animal—or the vital conscious soul; and that which -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span> -places him so immeasurably beyond and higher than the animal—<i>i.e.</i>, -his <i>reasoning</i> 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?</p> - -<p class="indent">First of all, Spirit (in the sense of the Absolute, -and therefore, indivisible <span class="smcap">All</span>), or Atma. -As this can neither be located nor limited in philosophy, being simply -that which <span class="smcap">IS</span> 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 <i>maya</i>; 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 <i>seventh</i> principle the synthesis of the sixth, and gives -it for vehicle the <i>Spiritual</i> Soul, <i>Buddhi</i>. Now the latter conceals -a mystery, which is never given to any one, with the exception of -irrevocably pledged <i>chelas</i>, 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 <i>Human</i> Soul, -<i>Manas</i> or <i>mens</i>, every one will agree that the intelligence of man is -<i>dual</i> to say the least: <i>e.g.</i>, 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But why should not man be -represented by two “principles” or two aspects, rather?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>aspect</i>, in whatever -direction. These, then, are what we call the two principles or aspects -of <i>Manas</i>, the higher and the lower; the former, the higher Manas, -or the thinking, conscious <span class="smcap">Ego</span> gravitating -toward the spiritual Soul (Buddhi); and the latter, or its instinctual -principle, attracted to <i>Kama</i>, the seat of animal desires and passions -in man. Thus, we have <i>four</i> “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 <i>principle</i>; 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But what is it that reincarnates, in -your belief?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> The Spiritual thinking Ego, the -permanent principle in man, or that which is the seat of <i>Manas</i>. It is -not Atma, or even Atma-Buddhi, regarded as the dual <i>Monad</i>, which is -the <i>individual</i>, or <i>divine</i> man, but Manas; for Atman is the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span> -Universal <span class="smcap">All</span>, and becomes the <span -class="smcap">Higher-Self</span> of man only in conjunction with -<i>Buddhi</i>, its vehicle, which links <span class="smcap">IT</span> to -the individuality (or divine man). For it is the Buddhi-Manas which -is called the <i>Causal body</i>, (the United 5th and 6th Principles) and -which is <i>Consciousness</i>, that connects it with every personality it -inhabits on earth. Therefore, Soul being a generic term, there are -in men three <i>aspects</i> 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 (<i>nous</i> or Manas) only its divine essence <i>if -left unsoiled</i> survives, while the third in addition to being immortal -becomes <i>consciously</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You will do well, as it is against -this doctrine that your enemies fight the most ferociously.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> You mean the Spiritualists? I know; -and many are the absurd objections laboriously spun by them over the -pages of <i>Light</i>. 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 <i>accident</i> 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! -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_8_1" id="SECTION_8_1"></a> -<h2>VIII. <br />ON RE-INCARNATION OR REBIRTH.</h2></div> - -<h3>WHAT IS MEMORY ACCORDING TO THEOSOPHICAL TEACHING?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I would like to hear your -arguments.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> They are short and few. Yet when -you take into consideration (<i>a</i>) the utter inability of the best -modern psychologists to explain to the world the nature of <i>mind</i>; -and (<i>b</i>) their complete ignorance of its potentialities, and higher -states, you have to admit that this objection is based on an <i>a -priori</i> conclusion drawn from <i>primâ facie</i> and circumstantial -evidence more than anything else. Now what is “memory” in your -conception, pray?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> That which is generally accepted: -the faculty in our mind of remembering and of retaining the knowledge -of previous thoughts, deeds and events.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Please add to it that there -is a great difference between the three accepted forms of memory. -Besides memory in general you have <i>Remembrance</i>, <i>Recollection</i> -and <i>Reminiscence</i>, have you not? Have you ever thought over the -difference? Memory, remember, is a generic name. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Yet, all these are only synonyms.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>physical</i> brain; and <i>remembrance</i> and <i>recollection</i> are -the attributes and handmaidens of that memory. But <i>reminiscence</i> is -an entirely different thing. “Reminiscence” is defined by the modern -psychologist as something intermediate between <i>remembrance</i> and -<i>recollection</i>, or “a conscious process of recalling past occurrences, -but <i>without that full and varied reference</i> to particular things which -characterises <i>recollection</i>.” Locke, speaking of recollection and -remembrance, says: “When an <i>idea again</i> recurs without the operation -of the like object on the external sensory, it is <i>remembrance</i>; if -it be sought after by the mind, and with pain and endeavour found and -brought again into view, it is <i>recollection</i>.” But even Locke leaves -<i>reminiscence</i> without any clear definition, because it is no faculty -or attribute of our <i>physical</i> 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 -<i>abnormal</i>—from the pictures suggested by genius to the <i>ravings</i> of -fever and even madness—are classed by science as having no <i>existence</i> -outside of our fancy. Occultism and Theosophy, however, regard -<i>reminiscence</i> in an entirely different light. For us, while <i>memory</i> -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 <i>reminiscence</i> the <i>memory of the soul</i>. And it is <i>this</i> -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: -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">“Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting,</span> -<span class="i2">The soul that rises with us, our life’s star,</span> -<span class="i0">Hath elsewhere had its setting,</span> -<span class="i2">And cometh from afar.”</span> -</div></div></div> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>learned</i> -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 <i>Lectures on -Platonic Philosophy</i>—“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 <i>phantasy</i>, and the most -unreliable thing in us.<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> -Ammonius Saccas asserted that the only faculty in man directly opposed -to prognostication, or looking into futurity, is <i>memory</i>. Furthermore, -remember that memory is one thing and mind or <i>thought</i> 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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But don’t you think that these are too fine -distinctions to be accepted by the majority of mortals?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_8_2" id="SECTION_8_2"></a>WHY DO WE NOT REMEMBER OUR PAST LIVES?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Very easily. Since those -“principles” which we call physical, and none of which is denied by -science, though it calls them by other names,<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> -are disintegrated after death with their constituent elements, -<i>memory</i> along with its brain, this vanished memory of a vanished -personality, can neither remember nor record anything in the subsequent -re-incarnation of the <span class="smcap">Ego</span>. Re-incarnation -means that this Ego will be furnished with a <i>new</i> body, a <i>new</i> brain, -and a <i>new</i> memory. Therefore it would be as absurd to expect this -<i>memory</i> 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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>rapport</i> with one’s real permanent Ego, not one’s -evanescent memory.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how can people believe in that -which they <i>do not know</i>, nor have ever seen, far less put themselves -in <i>rapport</i> with it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What is, finally, this mysterious -eternal principle? Can you explain its nature so as to make it -comprehensible to all?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> The <span class="smcap">Ego</span> -which reincarnates, the <i>individual</i> and immortal —not -personal—“I”; the vehicle, in short, of the Atma-Buddhic <span -class="smcap">Monad</span>, that which is rewarded in Devachan and -punished on earth, and that, finally, to which the reflection only of -the <i>Skandhas</i>, or attributes, of every incarnation attaches -itself.<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you mean by <i>Skandhas</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Just what I said: “attributes,” -among which is <i>memory</i>, 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”<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> -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 <i>Jhana</i> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Not quite; something of each -personality, unless the latter was an <i>absolute</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> -(See On <i>post mortem</i> and <i>post natal</i> 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 <i>real</i> “Ego” has lived -them over and knows them all.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then how does it happen that the -real or Spiritual man does not impress his new personal “I” with this -knowledge?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Still there ought to be exceptions, -and some ought to remember.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span> -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 <i>individuality</i>, 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 <i>in potentia</i>, 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 <i>no existence</i>, the -reason for the absence of all remembrance in the purely physical memory -is apparent.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You just said that the -<span class="smcap">Spiritual Ego</span> was omniscient. Where, then, is -that vaunted omniscience during his Devachanic life, as you call it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> During that time it is latent -and potential, because first of all, the Spiritual Ego (the compound -of Buddhi-Manas) is <i>not</i> the Higher <span class="smcap">Self</span>, -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 <i>potentially</i> in Devachan, and <i>de -facto</i> exclusively in Nirvana, when the Ego is merged in the Universal -Mind-Soul. Yet it re-becomes <i>quasi</i> omniscient during those hours on -earth when certain abnormal conditions and physiological changes in -the body make the <i>Ego</i> 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, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span> -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 <span class="smcap">THAT</span> 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_8_3" id="SECTION_8_3"></a>ON INDIVIDUALITY AND -PERSONALITY.<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a></h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> I try to; but alas, it is -harder with some than to make them feel a reverence for childish -impossibilities, only because they are <i>orthodox</i>, and because -orthodoxy is respectable. To understand the idea well, you have to -first study the dual sets of “principles”; the <i>spiritual</i>, or those -which belong to the imperishable Ego; and the <i>material</i>, 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:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot3">I. Atma, the “Higher Self,” is neither your -Spirit nor mine, but like sunlight shines on all. It is the universally -diffused “<i>divine principle</i>,” and is inseparable from its one and -absolute <i>Meta</i>-Spirit, as the sunbeam is inseparable from sunlight.</p> - -<p class="blockquot3">II. <i>Buddhi</i> (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, <i>unless the divine Duad is -assimilated by, and reflected in</i>, some <i>consciousness</i>. Neither Atma -nor Buddhi are ever reached by Karma, because the former is the highest -aspect of Karma, <i>its working agent</i> of ITSELF in one aspect, and the -other is unconscious <i>on this plane</i>. This consciousness or mind is,</p> - -<p class="blockquot3">III. <i>Manas</i>,<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> -the derivation or product in a reflected form of <i>Ahamkara</i>, “the -conception of I,” or <span class="smcap">Ego-ship</span>. It is, -therefore, when inseparably united to the first two, called the <span -class="smcap">Spiritual Ego</span>, and <i>Taijasi</i> (the radiant). -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span></p> - -<p class="no-indent">This is the real Individuality, or the divine man. -It is this Ego which—having originally incarnated in the <i>senseless</i> -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 <i>a real man</i>. 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But is this just? Why should this -<span class="smcap">Ego</span> receive punishment as the result of -deeds which it has forgotten?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>that was</i>) 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But are there no modes of -communication between the Spiritual and human consciousness or -memory?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>body celestial</i> instead of the <i>body terrestrial</i>, -to bring before every human soul <i>the collective experience of its -whole past existence</i> (<i>existences</i>, rather).” And this <i>body -celestial</i> is our Manasic <span class="smcap">Ego</span>. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_8_4" id="SECTION_8_4"></a>ON THE REWARD AND PUNISHMENT OF THE EGO.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I have heard you say that the <i>Ego</i>, -whatever the life of the person he incarnated in may have been on -Earth, is never visited with <i>post-mortem</i> punishment.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you mean?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Simply this: <i>crimes and sins -committed on a plane of objectivity and in a world of matter, cannot -receive punishment in a world of pure subjectivity</i>. 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 <i>post-mortem state</i> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span> -it, we say: “Whatever the sin and dire results of the original Karmic -transgression of the now incarnated Egos<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> -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 <i>raison d’être</i>, and have all failed except -those who had the key to it, namely, the Eastern sages. Life is, as -Shakespeare describes it:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -</div><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i1">... but a walking shadow—a poor player,</span> -<span class="i0">That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,</span> -<span class="i0">And then is heard no more. It is a tale</span> -<span class="i0">Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,</span> -<span class="i0">Signifying nothing....”</span> -</div></div></div> - -<p class="no-indent"> 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 -<i>sempiternity</i> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span> -<i>Manu</i> (“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>i.e.</i>, -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 <i>celestial body</i> -in Devachan, and much more.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then am I to understand that the -murderer, the transgressor of law divine and human in every shape, is -allowed to go unpunished?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> -We believe in an unerring law of Retribution, called <span -class="smcap">Karma</span>, which asserts itself in a natural -concatenation of causes and their unavoidable results.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And how, or where, does it act?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Ego</i> re-emerges to assume a new incarnation. It is at this -moment that the future destiny of the now-rested Ego trembles in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span> -scales of just Retribution, as <i>it</i> now falls once again under the -sway of active Karmic law. It is in this re-birth which is ready for -<i>it</i>, 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 <i>personality</i>. They will be thrown by -Nemesis in the way of the <i>new</i> man, concealing the <i>old</i>, the eternal -<span class="smcap">Ego</span>, and ...</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But where is the equity you speak -of, since these <i>new</i> “personalities” are not aware of having sinned or -been sinned against?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<i>real</i> man who wears it is the same culprit as of old. It is the -<i>individuality</i> who suffers through his “personality.” And it is -this, and this alone, that can account for the terrible, still only -<i>apparent</i>, 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 <i>inner</i> 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: -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">“Why should my birth keep down my mounting spirit?</span> -<span class="i0">Are not all creatures subject unto time?</span> -<span class="i0">There’s legions now of beggars on the earth,</span> -<span class="i0">That their original did spring from Kings,</span> -<span class="i0">And many monarchs now, whose fathers were</span> -<span class="i0">The riff-raff of their age....”</span> -</div></div></div> - -<p class="no-indent">Alter the word “fathers” into “Egos”—and you will have the truth. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_9_1" id="SECTION_9_1"></a> -<h2>IX. <br />ON THE KAMA-LOKA AND DEVACHAN.</h2></div> - -<h3>ON THE FATE OF THE LOWER “PRINCIPLES.”</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You spoke of <i>Kama-loka</i>, what is -it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> When the man dies, his lower three -principles leave him for ever; <i>i.e.</i>, body, life, and the vehicle of -the latter, the astral body or the double of the <i>living</i> man. And -then, his four principles—the central or middle principle, the animal -soul or <i>Kama-rupa</i>, with what it has assimilated from the lower Manas, -and the higher triad find themselves in <i>Kama-loka</i>. The latter is an -astral locality, the <i>limbus</i> of scholastic theology, the <i>Hades</i> of -the ancients, and, strictly speaking, a <i>locality</i> only in a relative -sense. It has neither a definite area nor boundary, but exists <i>within</i> -subjective space; <i>i.e.</i>, is beyond our sensuous perceptions. Still it -exists, and it is there that the astral <i>eidolons</i> of all the beings -that have lived, animals included, await their <i>second death</i>. For -the animals it comes with the disintegration and the entire fading out -of their <i>astral</i> particles to the last. For the human <i>eidolon</i> it -begins when the Atma-Buddhi-Manasic triad is said to “separate” itself -from its lower principles, or the reflection of the <i>ex-personality</i>, -by falling into the Devachanic state.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And what happens after this?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Then the <i>Kama-rupic</i> phantom, -remaining bereft of its informing thinking principle, the higher -<i>Manas</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> In what way?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And is it <i>this</i> nonentity which we -find materializing in Séance rooms with Mediums?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It is this nonentity. A true -nonentity, however, only as to reasoning or cogitating powers, still an -<i>Entity</i>, 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 <i>proxy</i>, so to speak. This -“spook,” or the Kama-rupa, may be compared with the <i>jelly-fish</i>, -which has an ethereal gelatinous appearance so long as it is in its -own element, or water (the <i>medium’s specific AURA</i>), 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What of the latter? How long does -the incarnating <i>Ego</i> remain in the Devachanic state?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I do not understand you. What is selfish?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Their doctrine of the return of -Spirits, the real “personalities” as they say; and I will tell you -why. If <i>Devachan</i>—call it “paradise” if you like, a “place of bliss -and of supreme felicity,” if it is anything—is such a place (or say -<i>state</i>), 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 <i>in their homes</i>, what kind of bliss can be -in store for them?</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_9_2" id="SECTION_9_2"></a>WHY THEOSOPHISTS DO NOT -BELIEVE IN THE<br /> RETURN OF PURE “SPIRITS.”</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you mean? Why should this -interfere with their bliss?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 “<i>Spirit</i>” or <i>Ego</i>—that individuality which is now -all impregnated, for the entire Devachanic period, with the noblest -feelings held by its late <i>personality</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, 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, <i>and more -so than before</i>, for “Spirits see more than mortals in the flesh do.” -We say that the bliss of the <i>Devachanee</i> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> spiritual <i>consciousness</i> -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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span> -sorrows of this life. Not a drop from the life-cup of pain and -suffering will miss his lips; and <i>nolens volens</i>, 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 -<i>happy</i> 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!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Because such is the law of love -and mercy. During every Devachanic period the Ego, omniscient as it -is <i>per se</i>, clothes itself, so to say, with the <i>reflection</i> of -the “personality” that was. I have just told you that the <i>ideal</i> -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 <i>that</i> is -not omniscient. Were it that, it would never be in the state we call -Devachan at all. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What are your reasons for it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> If you want an answer on the strict -lines of our philosophy, then I will say that it is because everything -is <i>illusion</i> (<i>Maya</i>) 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 <i>absolute</i> 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 <i>Devachanee</i> 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 <i>unalloyed</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But this is more than simple -delusion, it is an existence of insane hallucinations!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>hallucination</i>—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, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span> -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 <i>intellectual -conscious souls</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> There is something in your argument. -I confess to having never seen it in this light.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Devachanee</i>, 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 <i>Ego</i> filled with love for the imaginary -children it sees near itself, living a life of happiness, as real to -<i>it</i> 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 -<i>providential</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> In no case, then, do you admit the -possibility of the communication of the living with the <i>disembodied</i> -spirit?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Ego</i> -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 <i>to -remain awake</i>, and therefore it was really the <i>individuality</i>, the -“Spirit” that communicated)—has derived much benefit from the return -of the spirit into the <i>objective</i> plane is another question. The -spirit is dazed after death and falls very soon into what we call -“<i>pre-devachanic</i> unconsciousness.” The second exception is found in -the <i>Nirmanakayas</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What about them? And what does the -name mean for you?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It is the name given to those -who, though they have won the right to Nirvana and cyclic rest—(<i>not</i> -“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 <i>in spirit</i> on this earth. They have no material -body, as they have left it behind; but otherwise they remain with all -their principles even <i>in astral life</i> in our sphere. And such can and -do communicate with a few elect ones, only surely not with <i>ordinary</i> mediums. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I have put you the question about -<i>Nirmanakayas</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> So they are, only the Orientalists -have confused this terrestrial body by understanding it to be -<i>objective</i> and <i>physical</i> instead of purely astral and subjective.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And what good can they do on -earth?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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” (<i>Spirit -Identity</i>, p. 69).</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But “M.A. Oxon” is a -Spiritualist?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Quite so, and the only <i>true</i> -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.”<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> -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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What are these propositions?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span></p> - -<p class="blockquot3">“1. That there is a life coincident -with, and independent of the physical life of the body.”</p> - -<p class="blockquot3">“2. That, as a necessary corollary, this life -extends beyond the life of the body” (we say it extends throughout -Devachan).</p> - -<p class="blockquot3">“3. That there is communication between the -denizens of that state of existence and those of the world in which we -now live.”</p> - -<p class="no-indent">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 <i>Individuality</i> and <i>Personality</i>. Spiritualists -confuse the two “into one”; we separate them, and say that, with the -exceptions above enumerated, no <i>Spirit</i> will revisit the earth, though -the animal Soul may. But let us return once more to our direct subject, -the Skandhas.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_9_3" id="SECTION_9_3"></a>A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE SKANDHAS.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What becomes of the other, the lower -Skandhas of the personality, after the death of the body? Are they -quite destroyed?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Karmic -effects</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This really passes my comprehension, -and is very difficult to understand.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But Christianity teaches the same. -It also preaches progression.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Yes, only with the addition of -something else. It tells us of the <i>impossibility</i> 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 <i>Lower -Self</i> the latter inculcates the necessity of endeavouring to elevate -oneself to the Christos, or Buddhi state.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> By teaching the annihilation of -consciousness in case of failure, however, don’t you think that -it amounts to the annihilation of <i>Self</i>, in the opinion of the -non-metaphysical?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> From the standpoint of those who -believe in the resurrection of the body <i>literally</i>, and insist that -every bone, every artery and atom of flesh will be raised bodily on -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span> -the Judgment Day—of course it does. If you still insist that it is the -perishable form and finite qualities that make up <i>immortal</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But if in Devachan the Spirit is -free from matter, why should it not possess all knowledge?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>are</i> exceptions to every rule. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_9_4" id="SECTION_9_4"></a>ON POST-MORTEM AND POST-NATAL -CONSCIOUSNESS.<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a></h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But if human self-consciousness -survives death as a rule, why should there be exceptions?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>must</i> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But since you have just said that -the fundamental laws of the after death state admit of no exceptions, -how can this be?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Ego</i>), or -Iswara and Pragna<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> -there is in reality no more difference than <i>between a -forest and its trees, a lake and its waters</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But, as I understand it, Buddhi -represents in this simile the forest, and -Manas-taijasi<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> -the trees. And if Buddhi is immortal, how can that which is similar to -it, <i>i.e.</i>, Manas-taijasi, entirely lose its consciousness till the day -of its new incarnation? I cannot understand it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span> -neither Manas nor Taijasi, can exist apart from Buddhi, the divine -soul, because the first (<i>Manas</i>) is, in its lower aspect, a -qualificative attribute of the terrestrial personality, and the second -(<i>Taijasi</i>) 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, <i>as it were something separate</i> from the universal -soul for the whole period of the cycle of incarnation. Say rather that -<i>Buddhi-Manas</i> can neither die nor lose its compound self-consciousness -in Eternity, nor the recollection of its previous incarnations in which -the two—<i>i.e</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do I understand you to say that we -must not mix in our minds the noumenon with the phenomenon, the cause -with its effect?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>in our after-life</i> only -the fruit of that which we have ourselves sown in this.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Our philosophy teaches that Karmic punishment -reaches Ego only in its next incarnation. After death it receives only -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span> -the reward for the unmerited sufferings endured during its past -incarnation.<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> -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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then the personal man must always go on suffering -<i>blindly</i> the Karmic penalties which the Ego has incurred? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>personal</i> becomes one with the <i>individual</i> -and all-knowing <i>Ego</i>. 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Does this happen to everyone?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is there anything corresponding to -this before re-birth?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Ego</i>, 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 <i>Ego</i> -regains his full <i>manasic</i> 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_9_5" id="SECTION_9_5"></a>WHAT IS REALLY MEANT BY ANNIHILATION.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I have heard some Theosophists speak -of a golden thread on which their lives were strung. What do they mean -by this?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> In the Hindu Sacred books it -is said that that which undergoes periodical incarnation is the -<i>Sutratma</i>, which means literally the “Thread Soul.” It is a synonym of -the reincarnating Ego—Manas conjoined with <i>Buddhi</i>—which absorbs -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But we ordinary mortals who have not -reached Samma-Sambuddha, how are we to understand this simile?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> -dreams? I repeat it: <i>death is sleep</i>. 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 <i>correct</i> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> -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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Well, and the flower, the terrestrial “I”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> The flower, as all past and future -flowers which have blossomed and will have to blossom on the mother -bough, the <i>Sutratma</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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 -<i>post-mortem</i> life has limits, however much wider they may be -than those of terrestrial life. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<i>post-mortem</i> 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 <i>Ego</i>, -or the <i>individuality</i>, 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 <i>Paranirvana</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Thus, then, it seems that, for the -terrestrial personality, immortality is still conditional. Is, then, -immortality itself <i>not</i> unconditional? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Not at all. But immortality -cannot touch the <i>non-existent</i>: for all that which exists -as <span class="smcap">Sat</span>, or emanates from <span -class="smcap">Sat</span>, immortality and Eternity are absolute. Matter -is the opposite pole of spirit, and yet the two are one. The essence of -all this, <i>i.e.</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But why in such a case call sleep -the reality, and waking the illusion?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But surely this is annihilation?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Still, would it not be more correct -to say that death is birth into a new life, or a return once more into -eternity?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> You may if you like. Only remember -that births differ, and that there are births of “still-born” beings, -which are <i>failures</i> 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p class="indent">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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_9_6" id="SECTION_9_6"></a>DEFINITE WORDS FOR DEFINITE THINGS.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.”<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> -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:— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot"> -... “The human soul, once launched on the streams of evolution as a human -individuality,<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> -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<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a>; -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 <i>alternate</i> 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; <i>and that -non-materializable portion of the Soul which abides permanently on -the spiritual plane may fitly</i>, perhaps, be spoken of as the <span -class="smcap">Higher Self</span>.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span></p> - -<p class="indent">This “Higher Self” is <span -class="smcap">Atma</span>, 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 <i>Atman</i> or the “Higher Self” is really Brahma, the <span -class="smcap">Absolute</span>, and indistinguishable from it. In hours -of <i>Samadhi</i>, the higher spiritual consciousness of the Initiate is -entirely absorbed in the <span class="smcap">ONE</span> 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 <i>Ego</i>, whereas this term ought never to be applied -except <i>to the One universal Self</i>. Hence the confusion. Speaking -of Manas, the “causal body,” we may call it—when connecting it with -the Buddhic radiance—the “<span class="smcap">Higher Ego</span>,” -never the “Higher Self.” For even Buddhi, the “Spiritual Soul,” is -not the <span class="smcap">Self</span>, but the vehicle only of -<span class="smcap">Self</span>. All the other “<i>Selves</i>”—such as the -“Individual” self and “personal” self—ought never to be spoken or -written of without their qualifying and characteristic adjectives.</p> - -<p class="indent">Thus in this most excellent essay on the “Higher -Self,” this term is applied to the <i>sixth principle</i> or <i>Buddhi</i> (of -course in conjunction with Manas, as without such union there would be -no <i>thinking</i> principle or element in the spiritual soul); and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span> -has in consequence given rise to just such misunderstandings. The -statement that “a child does not acquire its <i>sixth</i> principle—or -become a morally responsible being capable of generating Karma—until -seven years old,” proves what is meant therein by the <span -class="smcap">Higher Self</span>. 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,<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> -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.</p> - -<p class="indent">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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span></p> - -<table class="space-below2 space-above2 bb bt" border="0" cellspacing="1" summary="_" cellpadding="1" rules="cols"> - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">Atma, the inseparable ray of the Universal</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"><span class="smcap">The Higher</span>  </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">and <span class="smcap">One Self</span>. It is the God <i>above</i>, more</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"><span class="smcap">Self</span> is</td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">than within, us. Happy the man who succeeds</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1 bb">in saturating his <i>inner Ego</i> with it!</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">the Spiritual soul or <i>Buddhi</i>, in close union</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"><span class="smcap">The Spiritual</span></td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">with <i>Manas</i>, the mind-principle, without</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"><i>divine</i> <span class="smcap">Ego</span> is</td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">which it is no <span class="smcap">Ego</span> at all, but only the Atmic</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1 bb"><i>Vehicle</i>.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1"><i>Manas</i>, the “Fifth” Principle, so called,</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">independently of Buddhi. The Mind-Principle</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"><span class="smcap">The Inner,</span></td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">is only the Spiritual Ego when merged</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc">or <span class="smcap">Higher</span></td> - <td class="tdl_ind1"><i>into one</i> with Buddhi,—no materialist being</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc">“Ego” is</td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">supposed to have in him <i>such</i> an Ego, however</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">great his intellectual capacities. It is the</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc bb"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1 bb">permanent <i>Individuality</i> or the “Reincarnating Ego.”</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">the physical man in conjunction with his</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1"><i>lower</i> Self, <i>i.e.</i>, animal instincts, passions,</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"><span class="smcap">The Lower</span>,</td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">desires, etc. It is called the “false personality,”</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc">or <span class="smcap">Personal</span></td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">and consists of the <i>lower Manas</i> combined</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc">“Ego” is</td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">with Kama-rupa, and operating through</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdc"> </td> - <td class="tdl_ind1">the Physical body and its phantom or “double.”</td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> - -<p class="no-indent"> The remaining “Principle” “<i>Pranâ</i>,” or “Life,” -is, strictly speaking, the radiating force or Energy of Atma—as the -Universal Life and the <span class="smcap">One Self</span>,—<span -class="smcap">Its</span> 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 <i>deus ex machinâ</i> of the -living man.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This division being so much -simplified in its combinations will answer better, I believe. The other -is much too metaphysical.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> If outsiders as well as Theosophists would -agree to it, it would certainly make matters much more comprehensible. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_10_1" id="SECTION_10_1"></a> -<h2>X. <br />ON THE NATURE OF OUR THINKING PRINCIPLE.</h2></div> - -<h3>THE MYSTERY OF THE EGO.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I perceive in the quotation you -brought forward a little while ago from the <i>Buddhist Catechism</i> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> I have just explained that the -reincarnating Principle, or that which we call the <i>divine</i> man, is -indestructible throughout the life cycle: indestructible as a thinking -<i>Entity</i>, and even as an ethereal form. The “reflection” is only the -spiritualised <i>remembrance</i>, during the Devachanic period, of the -<i>ex-personality</i>, Mr. A. or Mrs. B.—with which the <i>Ego</i> 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 <i>Ego</i> -has to identify itself with the <i>personal</i> consciousness of that life, -if anything shall remain of it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This means that the <i>Ego</i>, -notwithstanding its divine nature, passes every such period between -two incarnations in a state of mental obscuration, or temporary insanity.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> You may regard it as you like. -Believing that, outside the <span class="smcap">One</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span> -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 <i>inner</i> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How would <i>you</i> name them, and -especially how would you explain the permanence of one and the -evanescence of the other?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Manasic</i> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you really understand by -illusion in this case?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It is very well described in the -just-mentioned essay on “The Higher Self.” Says its author: -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot">“The theory we are considering (the interchange of -ideas between the <i>Higher Ego</i> 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.”</p> - -<p class="indent">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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you mean by the root -dwelling in eternity?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>manasic</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how is it that <span class="smcap">Manas</span>, -although you call it <i>Nous</i>, a “God,” is so weak during its -incarnations, as to be actually conquered and fettered by its body? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, <i>is so weak</i> as to allow evil (or the -Devil) to have the best of <i>him</i> 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 <i>Avatar</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And is it this Ego of ours which is -our God?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Not at all; “<i>A</i> God” is not the -universal deity, but only a spark from the one ocean of Divine Fire. -Our God <i>within</i> us, or “our Father in Secret” is what we call the -“<span class="smcap">Higher Self</span>,” <i>Atma</i>. 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 <span class="smcap">Inner Man</span> in -<span class="smcap">Isis Unveiled</span> (Vol. II. 593):— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot">“From the remotest antiquity <i>mankind</i> as a -whole <i>have always been convinced of the existence of a personal -spiritual entity within the personal physical man</i>. This inner -entity was more or less divine, according to its proximity to the -<i>crown</i>. 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 <i>there are external -and internal conditions which affect the determination of our will upon -our actions</i>. They rejected fatalism, for fatalism implies a blind -course of some still blinder power. But they believed in <i>destiny</i> -or <i>Karma</i>, 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 <i>personality</i>. Both these lead on <span -class="smcap">Man</span>, but one of them must prevail; and from the -very beginning of the invisible affray the stern and implacable <i>law -of compensation and retribution</i> 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 -<i>self-made</i> 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.”</p> - -<p class="indent">Such is the destiny of the <span -class="smcap">Man</span>—the true Ego, not the Automaton, the <i>shell</i> -that goes by that name. It is for him to become the conqueror over matter.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_10_2" id="SECTION_10_2"></a>THE COMPLEX NATURE OF MANAS.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Say on.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>one with the</i> <span -class="smcap">All</span>, 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 <i>individually</i> and <i>personally</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, 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 <i>Manasa -putra</i>, “the Sons of the (Universal) mind.” This <i>individualised</i> -“Thought” is what we Theosophists call the <i>real</i> human <span -class="smcap">Ego</span>, the thinking Entity imprisoned in a case of -flesh and bones. This is surely a Spiritual Entity, not <i>Matter</i>, and -such Entities are the incarnating <span class="smcap">Egos</span> that -inform the bundle of animal matter called mankind, and whose names are -<i>Manasa</i> or “Minds.” But once imprisoned, or incarnate, their essence -becomes dual: that is to say, the <i>rays</i> of the eternal divine Mind, -considered as individual entities, assume a two-fold attribute which is -(<i>a</i>) their <i>essential</i> inherent characteristic, heaven-aspiring mind -(higher <i>Manas</i>) and (<i>b</i>) 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is this “child” the -“personality”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>spiritual</i> bundle of experiences, the noblest -aspirations, undying affections, and <i>unselfish</i> nature of Mr. A. or -Mrs. B. clings for the time of the Devachanic period to the <span -class="smcap">Ego</span>, which is identified with the spiritual -portion of that terrestrial Entity, now passed away out of sight. The -<span class="smcap">Actor</span> is so imbued with the <i>rôle</i> just -played by him that he dreams of it during the whole Devachanic night, -which <i>vision</i> continues till the hour strikes for him to return to the -stage of life to enact another part.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how is it that this doctrine, -which you say is as old as thinking men, has found no room, say, in -Christian theology?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> You are mistaken, it has; only -theology has disfigured it out of all recognition, as it has many -other doctrines. Theology calls the <span class="smcap">Ego</span> -the Angel that God gives us at the moment of our birth, <i>to take care -of our Soul</i>. 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 <i>breath</i> of God and his -<i>alleged creation</i>, which, by some most amazing intellectual jugglery, -is doomed to burn in a material hell without ever being -consumed,<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> -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— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">“.... to fulfil</span> -<span class="i0">Good for Salvation’s heirs, for us they still</span> -<span class="i0">Grieve when we sin, rejoice when we repent;”</span> -</div></div></div> - -<p class="no-indent"> Yet it becomes evident that if all the Bishops -the world over were asked to define once for all what they mean by -<i>Soul</i> and its functions, they would be as unable to do so as to show -us any shadow of logic in the orthodox belief!</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_10_3" id="SECTION_10_3"></a>THE DOCTRINE IS TAUGHT IN ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Does Christ teach anything of the -sort?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>upper triad</i> in -man? <i>Atma</i> is the Husbandman—the Spiritual Ego or <i>Buddhi</i> (Christos) -the Vine, while the animal and vital Soul, the <i>personality</i>, is the -“branch.” “I am the <i>true</i> 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 <i>withered</i> and -cast into the fire and burned.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span></p> - -<p class="indent">Now we explain it in this way. Disbelieving in the -hell-fires which theology discovers as underlying the threat to the -<i>branches</i>, we say that the “Husbandman” means Atma, the Symbol for the -infinite, impersonal Principle,<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> -while the Vine stands for the Spiritual Soul, <i>Christos</i>, and each -“branch” represents a new incarnation.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But what proofs have you to support -such an arbitrary interpretation?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Universal symbology is a warrant -for its correctness and that it is not arbitrary. Hermas says of “God” -that he “planted the Vineyard,” <i>i.e.</i>, he created mankind. In the -<i>Kabala</i>, 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 “<i>King</i> Messiah” is, therefore, shown as washing -his garments in <i>the wine</i> from above, from the creation of the -world.<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> -And King <i>Messiah</i> is the <span class="smcap">Ego</span> purified -<i>by washing his garments</i> (<i>i.e.</i>, his personalities in re-birth), -in the <i>wine from</i> above, or <span class="smcap">Buddhi</span>. -Adam, or A-Dam, is “blood.” The Life of the flesh is in the blood -(nephesh—soul), <i>Leviticus</i> 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 <i>Codex</i>. Seven vines are procreated—which -seven vines are our Seven Races with their seven Saviours or -<i>Buddhas</i>—which spring from Iukabar Zivo, and Ferho (or Parcha) Raba -waters them.<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> -When the blessed will ascend among the creatures of Light, they shall -see Iavar-Xivo, <i>Lord of</i> <span class="smcap">Life</span>, and the -<span class="smcap">First Vine</span>.<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> -These kabalistic metaphors are thus naturally repeated in the <i>Gospel -according to St. John</i> (xv., 1). -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span></p> - -<p class="indent"> Let us not forget that in the human system—even -according to those philosophies which ignore our septenary division—the -<span class="smcap">Ego</span> or <i>thinking man</i> is called the <i>Logos</i>, -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 -<i>Space</i> (or the duration of the life cycle) for the redemption of -<span class="smcap">Matter</span>. 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But surely, if the <i>Ego</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Not at all, unless it has -done nothing to avert this dire fate. But if, all its efforts -notwithstanding, its voice, <i>that of our conscience</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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 <i>Spiritual death</i>. They -will never accept it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 (<i>vide Isis Unveiled</i>), the centripetal -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span> -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 <i>Buddhi</i>) is the centrifugal and the soul (<i>Manas</i>) 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 <i>Buddhi</i> and -<i>Manas</i> 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 -<i>personal</i> form (called indifferently <i>Kama rupa</i> and <i>Mayavi rupa</i>), -the spiritual efflorescence of which, attaching itself to the Ego, -follows it into Devachan and gives to the permanent <i>individuality</i> -its <i>personal</i> colouring (<i>pro tem.</i>, so to speak), is carried -off to remain in <i>Kama-loka</i> 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 <span -class="smcap">Inner Self</span> (<i>Manas</i>), 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 <span -class="smcap">Ego</span> or Manas, once freed from the body, remains -severed entirely from the ethereal relic of the personality; and the -latter, or <i>Kama rupa</i>, following its earthly attractions, is drawn -into and remains in Hades, which we call the <i>Kama-loka</i>. These are -“the withered branches” mentioned by Jesus as being cut off from the -<i>Vine</i>. Annihilation, however, is never instantaneous, and may require -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span> -centuries sometimes for its accomplishment. But there the personality -remains along with the <i>remnants</i> of other more fortunate personal -Egos, and becomes with them a <i>shell</i> and an <i>Elementary</i>. As said -in <i>Isis</i>, it is these two classes of “Spirits,” the <i>shells</i> and -the <i>Elementaries</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But does not the author of “<i>Isis -Unveiled</i>” stand accused of having preached against re-incarnation? -<span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>re-incarnation</i> 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 -<i>Karmic</i> re-incarnation, at long intervals varying between 1,000 and -1,500 years, when it is the fundamental belief of both Buddhists and -Hindus?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then you reject the theories of both -the Spiritists and the Spiritualists, in their entirety?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span> -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 <i>genera</i> -are legion, our opponents admit of no other than human disembodied -“Spirits,” which, to our knowledge, are mostly Kamalokic <span -class="smcap">Shells</span>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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 <i>séances</i>, 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>shells</i>, down to the utterly senseless -and nondescript spooks of all kinds, I claim a certain right to my -views.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Can you give an instance or -instances to show why these practices should be regarded as dangerous?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Don’t you believe in their phenomena -at all?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span> -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 <i>these</i> Intelligences -are not of the type of the John Kings and the Ernests who figure in -<i>séance</i> 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you mean to suggest that it is -all witchcraft and nothing more?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What I mean is that, whether -conscious or unconscious, all this dealing with the dead is -<i>necromancy</i>, 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span> -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 <i>gaudium</i> of -all the corporations of highly learned and scientific fools, and to the -replenishment of his own pocket. But <i>de mortuis nil nisi bonum</i>; 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 <i>post-mortem</i> 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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But is your inference a correct one?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, <i>and to ignore the powers of the incarnate</i> -Spirit.”<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> -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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_11_1" id="SECTION_11_1"></a> -<h2>XI. <br />ON THE MYSTERIES OF RE-INCARNATION.</h2></div> - -<h3>PERIODICAL REBIRTHS.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> You mean, then, that we have all -lived on earth before, in many past incarnations, and shall go on so -living?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And we keep on incarnating in new -<i>personalities</i> all the time?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And it is this succession of births -that is generally defined as re-incarnation?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And what is it that regulates the -duration, or special qualities of these incarnations?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Karma, the universal law of -retributive justice.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is it an intelligent law?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> For the Materialist, who calls -the law of periodicity which regulates the marshalling of the several -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span> -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 <i>equity</i>, <i>wisdom</i>, and -<i>intelligence</i>. 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> In this Christian dogmas contradict -both, and I doubt whether any Christian will accept the teaching.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Where is it so stated?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> In most of their sacred works. -In the “<i>Wheel of the Law</i>” (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.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Christians believe the same thing, -don’t they?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>innocent</i> 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 “<i>personal</i> 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. <i>Resist not evil</i>, and <i>render good for evil</i>, 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Are we then to infer a man’s past -from his present?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_11_2" id="SECTION_11_2"></a>WHAT IS KARMA?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But what is Karma?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> As I have said, we consider it as -the <i>Ultimate Law</i> 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, <i>Karma</i> is that unseen and -unknown law <i>which adjusts wisely, intelligently and equitably</i> each -effect to its cause, tracing the latter back to its producer. Though -itself <i>unknowable</i>, its action is perceivable.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then it is the “Absolute,” the -“Unknowable” again, and is not of much value as an explanation of the -problems of life?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> On the contrary. For, though we -do not know what Karma is <i>per se</i>, and in its essence, we <i>do</i> know -<i>how</i> it works, and we can define and describe its mode of action with -accuracy. We only do <i>not</i> know its ultimate <i>Cause</i>, just as modern -philosophy universally admits that the <i>ultimate</i> Cause of anything is “unknowable.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <span class="smcap">Karma</span>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But, surely, all these evils which -seem to fall upon the masses somewhat indiscriminately are not actual -merited and <span class="smcap">INDIVIDUAL</span> Karma?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do I, then, understand that the law -of Karma is not necessarily an individual law?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span> -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.” (<i>Signed by a name too respected and too well known to -be given to scoffers.</i>)</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Well, then, tell me generally how -you describe this law of Karma?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>does</i> act so as to restore Harmony and preserve the balance of -equilibrium, in virtue of which the Universe exists.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Give me an illustration.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>all</i> -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 <i>to that same point</i> 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 <i>himself</i> with the -same force with which they were set in motion.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span> -“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 <i>actual -consequences</i> of his own actions, without any regard to their moral -character; but since he receives his due for <i>all</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I wish you would, as your literature -seems to be very sparing on this subject?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Because it is <i>the</i> most difficult -of all our tenets. Some short time ago there appeared the following -objection from a Christian pen:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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?”</p> - -<p class="no-indent">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:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.’</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">Just though mysterious, leads us on unerring</span> -<span class="i0">Through ways unmarked from guilt to punishment.</span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span> -</div></div></div> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.”</p> - -<p class="indent">E. D. Walker, in his “Re-incarnation,” offers the -following explanation:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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 <i>it</i> 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.”</p> - -<p class="indent">And then the writer quotes from the <i>Secret Doctrine</i>:</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span> -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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span> -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.”</p> - -<p class="indent">Another able Theosophic writer says (<i>Purpose of -Theosophy</i>, by Mrs. P. Sinnett):—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span> -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.”</p> - -<p class="indent">Mr. J. H. Connelly proceeds—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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.”</p> - -<p class="indent">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:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">Karma—all that total of a soul</span> -<span class="i2">Which is the things it did, the thoughts it had,</span> -<span class="i0">The “self” it wove with woof of viewless time</span> -<span class="i2">Crossed on the warp invisible of acts.</span> -</div></div></div> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">Before beginning and without an end,</span> -<span class="i2">As space eternal and as surety sure,</span> -<span class="i0">Is fixed a Power divine which moves to good,</span> -<span class="i2">Only its laws endure.</span> -</div><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">It will not be contemned of anyone;</span> -<span class="i2">Who thwarts it loses, and who serves it gains:</span> -<span class="i0">The hidden good it pays with peace and bliss,</span> -<span class="i2">The hidden ill with pains.</span> -</div><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">It seeth everywhere and marketh all;</span> -<span class="i2">Do right—it recompenseth! Do one wrong—</span> -<span class="i0">The equal retribution must be made,</span> -<span class="i2">Though Dharma tarry long.</span> -</div><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">It knows not wrath nor pardon; utter-true,</span> -<span class="i2">Its measures mete, its faultless balance weighs;</span> -<span class="i0">Times are as naught, to-morrow it will judge</span> -<span class="i2">Or after many days.</span> -</div></div></div> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">Such is the law which moves to righteousness,</span> -<span class="i2">Which none at last can turn aside or stay;</span> -<span class="i0">The heart of it is love, the end of it</span> -<span class="i2">Is peace and consummation sweet. Obey.</span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span> -</div></div></div> - -<p class="no-indent"> 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!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Yes, I see what you mean generally; -but I wish you could give some concrete example of the action of -Karma?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Can anyone, even an Adept or Seer, -follow out this Karmic process of readjustment in detail?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Certainly: “Those who <i>know</i>” can -do so by the exercise of powers which are latent even in all men.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_11_3" id="SECTION_11_3"></a>WHO ARE THOSE WHO KNOW?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Does this hold equally of ourselves -as of others?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I am afraid such a conception would -only embitter us.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span> -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 <i>Law</i>, or that destiny was in any other hands than our own.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>just</i> compassion and mercy is shown in the state of Devachan.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And is the production of Adepts the -aim of Theosophy?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a></span> -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 <i>Higher Life</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What, then, may be their object or -distinct purpose in joining the Theosophical Society?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_11_4" id="SECTION_11_4"></a>THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN -FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE; <br />OR, BLIND AND REASONED FAITH.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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 <i>blind faith</i>. In what does this differ from that of conventional -religions?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> As it differs on almost all the -other points, so it differs on this one. What you call “faith,” and -that which is <i>blind faith</i>, in reality, and with regard to the dogmas -of the Christian religions, becomes with us “<i>knowledge</i>,” the logical -sequence of things <i>we know</i>, about <i>facts</i> in nature. Your Doctrines -are based upon interpretation, therefore, upon the <i>second-hand</i> -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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a></span> -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 <i>Universal Spirit</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> If we lose even our individuality, -then it becomes simply annihilation.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> I say it <i>does not</i>, since I speak -of <i>separate</i>, not of universal individuality. The latter becomes as a -part transformed into the whole; the <i>dewdrop</i> is not evaporated, but -becomes the sea. Is physical man <i>annihilated</i>, 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!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> It follows, then, that there is, <i>de -facto</i>, no man, but all is Spirit?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>universal</i> 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 <i>blind faith</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Thus it is on <i>knowledge</i>, not on -<i>faith</i>, that you assert that the permanent principle, the Spirit, -simply makes a transit through matter?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> I would put it otherwise and say—we -assert that the appearance of the permanent and one principle, Spirit, -<i>as matter</i> is transient, and, therefore, no better than an illusion. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Very well; and this, given out on -knowledge not faith?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Just so. But as I see very well -what you are driving at, I may just as well tell you that we hold -<i>faith</i>, such as you advocate, to be a mental disease, and real faith, -<i>i.e.</i>, the <i>pistis</i> of the Greeks, as “<i>belief based on knowledge</i>,” -whether supplied by the evidence of physical or <i>spiritual</i> senses.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you mean?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> I mean, if it is the difference -between the two that you want to know, then I can tell you that between -<i>faith on authority</i> and <i>faith on one’s spiritual intuition</i>, there is -a very great difference.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What is it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> One is human credulity and -<i>superstition</i>, the other human belief and <i>intuition</i>. As Professor -Alexander Wilder says in his “Introduction to the <i>Eleusinian -Mysteries</i>,” “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 <i>dare</i> to do.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And is it that “intuition” which -forces you to reject God as a personal Father, Ruler and Governor of -the Universe?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>intelligent -powers</i> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span> -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 <i>infinite</i> god. Their gods, therefore, were all -finite. The Siamese author of the <i>Wheel of the Law</i>, expresses -the same idea about your personal god as we do; he says (p. 25):</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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,<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> -or Jews, falls below his standard of even an ordinary good man.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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? <i>Our</i> “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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you allude to? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[176]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_11_5" id="SECTION_11_5"></a>HAS GOD THE RIGHT TO FORGIVE?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Isis Unveiled</i>, written in 1875. This is -what Christianity teaches, and what we combat:—</p> - -<p>“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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Does it not make the Christian -happier than the Buddhist or Brahmin?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>easily to the threshold of every conceivable crime</i>, than any -other I know of. Let me quote to you from <i>Isis</i> once more (<i>vide</i> Vol. -II., pp. 542 and 543)— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[177]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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 <i>results</i> 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!...</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“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, <i>then</i> we may patiently hear -Christians argue for the efficacy of this Atonement,”</p> - -<p class="no-indent">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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[178]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Yet millions believe in the -Christian dogma and are happy.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, <i>conversions</i> effected in -prisons are more numerous than those made by public <i>revivals</i> 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. (<i>Isis Unveiled.</i>) 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[179]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It is to that final goal to which -all tends in nature.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do not some of you regard this association -or “fall of spirit into matter” as evil, and re-birth as a sorrow?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>teaches</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[180]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_12_1" id="SECTION_12_1"></a> -<h2>XII. <br />WHAT IS PRACTICAL THEOSOPHY?</h2></div> - -<h3>DUTY.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Why, then, the need for rebirths, -since all alike fail to secure a permanent peace?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is the natural result of this a -desire to quit life by one means or another?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But if actions on the material plane -are unsatisfying, why should duties, which are such actions, be imperative? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[181]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>acted upon</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And how would you define these -duties, or “duty,” in general, as you understand the term?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Duty is that which is <i>due</i> 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 <i>duty</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> So is Christianity when rightly -understood and carried out.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> No doubt it is; but then, were it -not a <i>lip-religion</i> 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— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[182]</a></span></p> - -<div class="poetry-container"><div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">“ ... the public voice</span> -<span class="i0">Of praise that honours virtue and rewards it,”</span> -</div></div></div> - -<p class="no-indent">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 <i>others</i>, and to be ourselves content but -with the thorns, if that fragrance cannot be enjoyed without depriving -some one else of it.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> All this is very vague. What do you -do more than Christians do?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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—<i>action</i>, 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 -<i>action</i> and not a <i>thought</i>, 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. <i>Cant</i> is the most loathsome of all vices; and <i>cant</i> -is the most prominent feature of the greatest Protestant country of -this century—England.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you consider as due to humanity at large? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[183]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Full recognition of equal rights -and privileges for all, and without distinction of race, colour, social -position, or birth.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> When would you consider such due not -given?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you take any part in politics?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>human nature, is like putting new -wine into old bottles</i>. 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_12_2" id="SECTION_12_2"></a>THE RELATIONS OF THE T.S. TO POLITICAL REFORMS.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> The Theosophical Society is not, -then, a political organization?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[184]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Why is this?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But surely the T.S. does not stand -altogether aloof from the social questions which are now so fast coming -to the front?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[185]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How, then, should Theosophical -principles be applied so that social co-operation may be promoted and -true efforts for social amelioration be carried on?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[186]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> All this is very well as a general -principle, but how would you apply it in a concrete way?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Agreed. But who is to decide whether -social efforts are wise or unwise?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[187]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How does this bear on the fourth of -the principles you mentioned, viz., Re-incarnation?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[188]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_12_3" id="SECTION_12_3"></a>ON SELF-SACRIFICE.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is equal justice to all and love to -every creature the highest standard of Theosophy?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> No; there is an even far higher -one.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What can it be?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> The giving to others <i>more</i> than to -oneself—<i>self-sacrifice</i>. Such was the standard and abounding measure -which marked so pre-eminently the greatest Teachers and Masters of -Humanity—<i>e.g.</i>, 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 <i>one</i> self we can -benefit the many.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Could you make your idea clearer by -giving an instance?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[189]</a></span> -heathen from <i>damnation</i>,” 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, <i>has not died in vain</i>. 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 <i>true Theosophist</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But the Christians do not think so?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[190]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then you regard self-sacrifice as a duty?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>to death</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how are we to reach such an -elevated status?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="smcap">Ego</span>, and which speaks louder in us than the -earthquakes and the thunders of Jehovah, wherein “the Lord is not.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> If such are our duties to humanity -at large, what do you understand by our duties to our immediate -surroundings?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Just the same, plus those that -arise from special obligations with regard to family ties.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It is a groundless calumny, like -so many others. The first of the Theosophical duties is to do one’s -duty by <i>all</i> men, and especially by those to whom one’s <i>specific</i> -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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[191]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And what may be the duty of a -Theosophist to himself?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> To control and conquer, <i>through -the Higher, the lower self</i>. 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>i.e.</i>, 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 <i>by any idle reflection the silly world may make upon you</i>, for -their censures are not in your power, and consequently should not be -any part of your concern.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Theosophist</i>; 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then why does he enter the Society -at all?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, <i>vox populi</i> (so far as regards the voice of -the educated, at any rate) is no longer <i>vox dei</i>, 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 <i>why</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[192]</a></span></p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_12_4" id="SECTION_12_4"></a>ON CHARITY.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How do you Theosophists regard the -Christian duty of charity?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What charity do you mean? Charity -of mind, or practical charity in the physical plane?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I mean practical charity, as your -idea of Universal brotherhood would include, of course, charity of -mind.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Then you have in your mind the -practical carrying out of the commandments given by Jesus in the Sermon -on the Mount?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Precisely so.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And yet many are those who pass -their lives in dispensing charity?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Then why don’t your Churches teach -that the doctrine of damnation and hell-fire is to be understood as -a <i>parable</i> 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 <i>physical</i> -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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[193]</a></span> -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 -<i>Christian are your laws</i>!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But surely every one knows that -millions and millions are spent annually on private and public -charities?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Whitechapel</i> by some 20 per cent.?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What would you do, then?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 (<i>a third person</i>) 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, <i>through thy servants</i>, lest thy -money should diminish gratitude, and thy food turn to gall.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how can this be applied practically?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> The Theosophical ideas of charity -mean <i>personal</i> exertion for others; <i>personal</i> mercy and kindness; -<i>personal</i> interest in the welfare of those who suffer; <i>personal</i> -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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[194]</a></span> -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 <i>generating national -Karma</i>, and terrible will be its results on the day of reckoning.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_12_5" id="SECTION_12_5"></a>THEOSOPHY FOR THE MASSES.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And you think that Theosophy would, -by stepping in, help to remove these evils, under the practical and -adverse conditions of our modern life?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Had we more money, and had not most -of the Theosophists to work for their daily bread, I firmly believe we -could.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[195]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But this contentedness, which you -praise so much, would do away with all motive for exertion and bring -progress to a stand-still.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<i>pari passu</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then is all this metaphysics and -mysticism with which you occupy yourself so much, of no importance?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[196]</a></span> -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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And yet its enemies are very -numerous, and every day Theosophy acquires new opponents.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you hope to impart this -enthusiasm, one day, to the masses?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, <i>Karma</i> and <i>Re-incarnation</i>, 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_12_6" id="SECTION_12_6"></a>HOW MEMBERS CAN HELP THE SOCIETY.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How do you expect the Fellows of -your Society to help in the work?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[197]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_12_7" id="SECTION_12_7"></a>WHAT A THEOSOPHIST OUGHT NOT TO DO.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Have you any prohibitory laws or -clauses for Theosophists in your Society?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[198]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> May I be told what are these -perilous reefs in the open sea of Theosophy?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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:—</p> - -<p class="indent">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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But suppose what one hears is the -truth, or may be true without one knowing it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And what should you do then?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Ought he to forgive entirely in such -cases?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> In every case, especially he who is -sinned against.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But if by so doing, he risks to -injure, or allow others to be injured? What ought he to do then?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[199]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What are the other negative clauses?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This demands an exceptional nature, -and would come rather hard upon some persons.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What comes next?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This is but just. What comes next?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is it the duty of every member to -teach others and preach Theosophy?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[200]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What do you consider, then, to be -the chief of these negative Theosophical duties?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Of such we have had many. No -member, whether prominent or insignificant, has ever left us without -becoming our bitter enemy.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> How do you account for it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>to pose as an innocent and deceived victim</i>, -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But what makes these people turn -against the Society?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[201]</a></span> -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 <i>all untheosophical</i>, 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)—<span class="smcap">Frauds!</span> 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, <i>force him</i> upon the -Members. This was simply a case of an outrageous wounded vanity. Still -another wanted to, and virtually did, practise <i>black-magic</i>—<i>i.e.</i>, -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What would you do with such -characters?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Leave them to their Karma. Because -one person does evil that is no reason for others to do so.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[202]</a></span> -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: <i>Speak the -truth at all costs</i>, 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Methinks, if you carry out these -maxims, you are likely to reap a nice crop of troubles!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> A very poor specimen, indeed, as -at present, and, until carefully sifted and reorganized, <i>no</i> better -than all others. Remember, however, that human nature is the same <i>in</i> -the Theosophical Society as <i>out</i> 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 <i>unpopular as is no other body</i>. 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. <i>People never forgive those whom they have wronged.</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[203]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Your position does not seem to me a -very enviable one.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I confess, such a perseverance seems -to me very astounding, and I wondered why you did all this.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>to -the masses</i> than they have hitherto enjoyed. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[204]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_13_1" id="SECTION_13_1"></a> -<h2>XIII. <br />ON THE MISCONCEPTIONS -ABOUT<br /> THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.</h2></div> - -<h3>THEOSOPHY AND ASCETICISM.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> The truth is that our rules require -nothing of the kind. The Theosophical Society does not even expect, far -less require of <i>any</i> of its members that they should be ascetics in -any way, except—if you call <i>that</i> asceticism—that they should try and -benefit other people and be unselfish in their own lives.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Oh! then you do require ascetic -practices in that Inner Section?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> No; we do not <i>require</i> or <i>enjoin</i> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Please proceed.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>know</i> the truth by their own direct -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[205]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But you said that “ascetic -practices” are not obligatory even in that Inner Section?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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>i.e.</i>, to develop will-power, but is -perfectly useless for the purpose of assisting true spiritual, or -Theosophic, development.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I see, you regard only <i>moral</i> -asceticism as necessary. It is as a means to an end, that end being the -perfect equilibrium of the <i>inner</i> nature of man, and the attainment of -complete mastery over the body with all its passions and desires?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I understand now your general idea; -but let us see how you apply it in practice. How about vegetarianism, -for instance?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[206]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then he had better not eat at all?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then you do not adopt all the -arguments which vegetarians in general are in the habit of using?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> One question more. What are your members -of the Inner Section to do with regard to their food when they are ill?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[207]</a></span> -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 <i>thinks</i> and <i>feels</i>, what desires he encourages in his mind, and -allows to take root and grow there.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then with regard to the use of wine -and spirits, I suppose you do not advise people to drink them?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_13_2" id="SECTION_13_2"></a>THEOSOPHY AND MARRIAGE.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Now to another question; must a man -marry or remain a celibate?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> It depends on the kind of man you -mean. If you refer to one who intends to live <i>in</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But why cannot one acquire this -knowledge and power when living a married life? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[208]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>all, himself -first of all</i>, 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_13_3" id="SECTION_13_3"></a>THEOSOPHY AND EDUCATION.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Ah! but you must give us time. It is -only a few years since we began to educate the people.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<i>Christian</i>, <i>i.e.</i>, a Christ-following church and people, -ought to perform? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[209]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Well, you may be right; but now—</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>infusion</i> of a little practical -Theosophy would help a hundred times more in life the poor suffering -masses than all this infusion of (useless) intelligence.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But, really——</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> So be it; go on.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What is the <i>real</i> 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, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[210]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I must admit you are right there.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>genus homo, qua</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[211]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> That is all very fine as -generalities, but I should like a few facts, and to learn also how this -can be remedied.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>summum bonum</i> 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 <i>educated</i> 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 -<i>untheosophical</i>, 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!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Well, but you cannot assert that of -our great public schools, at any rate?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Not exactly, it is true. But -though the <i>form</i> is different, the animating spirit is the same: -<i>untheosophical</i> and <i>unchristian</i>, whether Eton and Harrow turn out -scientists or divines and theologians. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[212]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Surely you don’t mean to call Eton -and Harrow “commercial”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> No. Of course the Classical system -is above all things <i>respectable</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> According to this view, the -wealthier “dullards” have to work even harder than their poorer -fellows?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And you attribute all this to -what?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[213]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But surely he is taught something -besides “dead vocables,” and much of that which may lead him direct to -<i>Theosophy</i>, if not entirely into the Theosophical Society?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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—<i>Theosophy</i>?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What are your further objections?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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 <i>do</i> learn to think and reason for -themselves.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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>i.e.</i>, the most truth-loving, philanthropic, and honest—of -our Fellows were, and are, Agnostics and Atheists (disbelievers in a -<i>personal</i> God). But there are no <i>free</i>-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? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[214]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> What would you have, then?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<i>free</i> men and women, free intellectually, free morally, unprejudiced -in all respects, and above all things, <i>unselfish</i>. And we believe -that much if not all of this could be obtained by <i>proper and truly -theosophical</i> education.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_13_4" id="SECTION_13_4"></a>WHY, THEN, IS THERE SO MUCH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE T.S.?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[215]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>marionnettes</i>. Yet if <i>invisible</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And are they known to many of you, -or to yourself alone?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> I never said <i>I</i> knew them. I may -or may not know them—but I know <i>of them</i>, and this is sufficient; and -<i>I defy them to do their worst</i>. They may achieve great mischief and -throw confusion into our ranks, especially among the faint-hearted, -and those who can judge only by appearances. <i>They will not crush -the Society</i>, 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 <i>outside</i> than <i>within</i> -the T.S.—the number of our opponents is more than considerable.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Can you name these, at least, if you -will not speak of the others?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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; -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[216]</a></span> -(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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>miracle</i> 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 “<i>Occult -World</i>.” 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 <i>Occult World</i>, but did not pay attention to the -<i>prophecy</i>—for such it was, though half-veiled.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> For what, and since when, do the -Spiritualists hate you? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[217]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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? <span class="smcap"> Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Christian College Magazine</i>, supported by -the pretended revelations of a menial, the S.P.R. found that they -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[218]</a></span> -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 <i>authoritative</i> and <i>strictly -scientific</i> 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 -<i>grand monde</i>, 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, -“<i>Calomniez, calomniez toujours et encore, il en restera toujours -quelque chose.</i>” 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[219]</a></span> -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 <i>Don Basilio’s</i> -“<span class="smcap">Calumnia</span>,” 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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—</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[220]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>immoral</i> precept or a <i>pernicious</i> doctrine was ever taught -to them. Open the <i>Secret Doctrine</i>, 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 <i>exoteric</i> creeds. Such ceaseless and malicious -misrepresentation of our teachings and beliefs is really disgraceful. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[221]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But you cannot deny that the Phallic -element <i>does</i> exist in the religions of the East?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Rosicrucians</i>, 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 <i>naïve</i> 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 <i>Vallabhachârya</i> -sect.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> A writer in the <i>Agnostic</i> -journal—one of your accusers—has just hinted that the followers of -this disgraceful sect are Theosophists, and “claim true Theosophic -insight.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p class="indent">But you will find the whole subject dealt with at -length in the <i>Secret Doctrine</i>, 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.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_13_5" id="SECTION_13_5"></a>IS THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY A<br /> MONEY-MAKING CONCERN?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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! -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[222]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> This is a fib, like many others. -In the published accounts of January, 1889, you will find an exact -statement of <i>all</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But surely they need money to -live?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But could not Madame Blavatsky, -especially, make more than enough to live upon by her writings?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Political articles?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[223]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>present</i> good to the <i>future</i> -benefit of other people. If the Founders do not set the example, who -will?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And are there many who follow it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> I am bound to answer you the truth. -In Europe about half-a-dozen in all, out of more than that number of -Branches.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then it is not true that the -Theosophical Society has a large capital or endowment of its own?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then why not raise subscriptions?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> We are not the Salvation Army; we -<i>cannot</i> and <i>have never</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[224]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Say to those who told you this, -that they either themselves utter, or repeat, a gross falsehood. -<i>Never has</i> “Madame Blavatsky” <i>asked or received</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then I have been told of several -large <i>legacies</i> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[225]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Again, and I say this on the -authority of your own Journal, the <i>Theosophist</i>, 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 <i>Theosophist</i> for 1888?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> We have, in these words, “That the -thanks of the Convention be conveyed to H. H. the Maharajah ... for his -<i>promised munificent gift</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But surely, if the Maharajah -promised and received thanks for his gift publicly and in print, he -will be as good as his promise?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> He may, though the promise is 18 -months old. I speak of the present and not of the future.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then how do you propose to go on?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> You may laugh, but it is so.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_13_6" id="SECTION_13_6"></a>THE WORKING STAFF OF THE T.S.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>false coiners</i>; nor would they throw an additional -and very strong temptation on the path of members and candidates: -<i>Theosophy is not to be bought</i>. Hitherto, for the past 14 years, not a -single working member has ever received pay or salary from either the -Masters or the Society. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[226]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then are none of your workers paid -at all?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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., <i>owing to -slanders</i>) in Europe, we need more working hands. We hope to have a -few members who will henceforth be remunerated—if the word <i>can</i> be -used in the cases in question. For every one of these Fellows, who are -preparing to give <i>all</i> their time to the Society, are quitting good -official situations with excellent prospects, to work for us at <i>less -than half their former salary</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And who will provide the funds for -this?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But you must surely make money by -your books, magazines, and other publications?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> The <i>Theosophist</i> 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. -<i>Lucifer</i> is slowly but steadily ingulfing money, never yet having paid -expenses—thanks to its being boycotted by the pious booksellers and -railway stalls. The <i>Lotus</i>, 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 <i>Path</i> pay its way, while the <i>Revue Théosophique</i> -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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[227]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Well may you call them “ridiculous!” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[228]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_14_1" id="SECTION_14_1"></a> -<h2>XIV. <br />THE “THEOSOPHICAL MAHATMAS.”</h2></div> - -<h3>ARE THEY “SPIRITS OF LIGHT” OR “GOBLINS DAMN’D”?</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.”</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> They are neither. I once heard -one outsider say to another that they were a sort of <i>male mermaids</i>, -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 <i>living men</i>, born as we are born, and doomed to die like every -other mortal.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Yes, but it is rumoured that some of -them are a thousand years old. Is this true?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Seriously, though, do they outlive -the ordinary age of men?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What do you call the ordinary age? -I remember reading in the <i>Lancet</i> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[229]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But what does the word “Mahatma” -really mean?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And why do you call them -“Masters”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But is it not selfish thus to -isolate themselves?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Don’t you ascribe to them -supernatural powers?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Is it true that these men <i>inspire</i> -some of your writers, and that many, if not all, of your Theosophical -works were written under their dictation? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[230]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Some have. There are passages -entirely dictated by them and <i>verbatim</i>, but in most cases they only -inspire the ideas and leave the literary form to the writers.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But this in itself is miraculous; -is, in fact, a <i>miracle</i>. How can they do it?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="smcap">Nature</span> 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 <span class="smcap">STATE</span>. So if this latter hindrance is -overcome, where is the “miracle” of <i>thought transference</i>, at whatever -distance?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But you will admit that Hypnotism -does nothing so miraculous or wonderful as that?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[231]</a></span> -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”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Then why do not our physicians -experiment and try if they could not do as much?<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>must fail</i> -at present, and indeed until they are brought to acknowledge that such -powers are attainable.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> And could they be taught?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> This is very interesting. Tell -me, have the Adepts thus inspired or dictated to many of your Theosophists?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[232]</a></span> -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 <i>black</i> magic.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But what do you really mean by -“black magic”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> Simply <i>abuse of psychic powers</i>, -or of any <i>secret of nature</i>; 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 <i>black magician</i> by us. The famous -“rejuvenating system” of Dr. Brown-Sequard, of Paris, through a -loathsome <i>animal injection</i> into human blood—a discovery all the -medical papers of Europe are now discussing—if true, is <i>unconscious -black magic</i>.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But this is mediæval belief in witchcraft -and sorcery! Even Law itself has ceased to believe in such things?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>sorcery</i>. -You cannot believe in the efficacy and reality of the <i>powers of suggestion</i> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[233]</a></span> -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 <i>Sorcery</i>. 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> What charges?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> That <i>they</i> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>implied compliment</i>, 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[234]</a></span> -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 <i>very</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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”?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But her enemies claim to have proved -their case.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But they sent a representative to -India to investigate the matter, didn’t they?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>ridiculous</i> and self-condemnatory document.” It was found -to be full of suppositions and “<i>working</i> hypotheses” which mutually -destroy each other. Is this a serious charge? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[235]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Yet it has done the Society great -harm. Why, then, did she not vindicate her own character, at least, -before a Court of Law?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>Atheism and infidelity</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[236]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But, of course, these Masters <i>do</i> -exist?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> We affirm <i>they do</i>. 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 <i>her own existence</i>, 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 <i>hullabaloo</i> made -over that question? The fact of her being an impostor <i>has never been -proved</i>, and will always remain <i>sub judice</i>; 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 -<i>triple</i> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But if you have such wise and good -men to guide the Society, how is it that so many mistakes have been -made?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> The Masters do <i>not</i> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[237]</a></span> -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 <i>that</i> “Master,” I suppose? although his existence is far -more <i>hypothetical</i> than that of the Mahatmas; as no one has ever seen -the Holy Ghost, and <i>his</i> guidance of the Church, moreover, their own -ecclesiastical history distinctly contradicts. <i>Errare humanum est.</i> -Let us return to our subject.</p> - -<h3><a name="SECTION_14_2" id="SECTION_14_2"></a>THE ABUSE OF SACRED NAMES AND TERMS.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>lied</i> 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 <i>all</i> -Theosophical books must be accepted on their merits, and not according -to any claim to authority which they may put forward.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But would Mdme. Blavatsky apply this -to her own works—the <i>Secret Doctrine</i>, for instance? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[238]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> The names certainly do occur very -frequently now-a-days, and I never remember hearing of such persons as -“Masters” till quite recently.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[239]</a></span> -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 <i>by an Adept of twenty years’ standing</i>. Now, it is a <i>palpable -lie</i>. We know the amanuensis and his <i>inspirers</i> (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 <i>bogus</i> 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 <i>Art Magic</i> and <i>Ghost-Land</i>, and now ends with the “Adept” -and “Author” of <i>The Light of Egypt</i>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Do you reject “Louis” as an Adept? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[240]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> We denounce no one, leaving this -noble task to our enemies. The spiritualistic author of <i>Art Magic</i>, -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,<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> -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 <i>chelas</i> of our Teachers! And it is this “Adept” that -is used now to break the teachings of our Masters!</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> If I can answer them I will. What is that? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[241]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><a name="SECTION_15_1" id="SECTION_15_1"></a> -<h2>CONCLUSION.</h2></div> - -<h3>THE FUTURE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.</h3> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Tell me, what do you expect for -Theosophy in the future?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> If you speak of <span -class="smcap">Theosophy</span>, 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> Pardon me; I meant to ask you rather -about the prospects of the Theosophical Society.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> I quite see the importance of -their being selfless and devoted, but I do not quite grasp how their -<i>knowledge</i> 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?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[242]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But if this danger be averted?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> A truly delightful picture! But -tell me, do you really expect all this to be accomplished in one short -century?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[243]</a></span> -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.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Enq.</span> But how does this bear on the future -of the Theosophical Society?</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Theo.</span> 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 <i>united</i> 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 -<i>has</i> achieved in the last fourteen years, without <i>any</i> 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!</p> - -<p class="f110 space-above2 space-below2">FINIS.</p> -<hr class="full space-below2" /> - -<p class="f150"><b>The United Lodge of Theosophists</b></p> -<hr class="r5" /> -<p class="f120"><b>DECLARATION</b></p> - -<p class="indent">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.</p> - -<p class="indent">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 <span class="smcap">Self</span>; a profounder -conviction of Universal Brotherhood.</p> - -<p class="indent">It holds that the unassailable <i>Basis for Union</i> -among Theosophists, wherever and however situated, is “<i>similarity of -aim, purpose and teaching</i>,” and therefore has neither Constitution, -By-laws nor Officers, the sole bond between its Associates being that -<i>basis</i>. And it aims to disseminate this idea among Theosophists in the -furtherance of Unity.</p> - -<p class="indent">It regards as Theosophists all who are engaged in -the true service of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, -condition or organization, and</p> - -<p class="indent">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.</p> - -<p class="indent">“<i>The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, -yet belongs to each and all.</i>”</p> - -<hr class="r5" /> - -<p class="blockquot"> 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.</p> - -<hr class="r5" /> - -<p class="indent">The foregoing is the Form signed by Associates of the -United Lodge of Theosophists.</p> - -<p class="indent">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.</p> - -<p class="center"><i>Correspondence should be addressed to</i></p> -<p class="f120"><b>General Registrar, United Lodge of Theosophists</b></p> -<p class="f90"><b>LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA</b></p> -<p class="center space-below2"><b>504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street</b></p> -<hr class="chap space-below2" /> - -<p>“<i>To Spread Broadcast the Teachings of Theosophy, as Recorded in the -Writings of H. P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge.</i>”</p> - -<p class="f150"><b>THEOSOPHY</b></p> - -<p class="no-indent"><b><i>A Magazine Devoted to the Theosophical -Movement, the Brotherhood of Humanity, the Study of Occult Science and -Philosophy, and Aryan Literature.</i></b></p> - -<div> - <img class="drop-cap" src="images/letter_t.jpg" width="35" height="45" alt="T" /> -</div> -<p class="drop-cap no-indent">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 <i>The Theosophist</i>, <i>Lucifer</i>, and -<i>The Path</i>, now for many years out of print, so that their surpassing -value was lost and inaccessible to Students of the present generation. -<span class="smcap">Theosophy</span> 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.</p> - -<hr class="r5" /> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">Back Volumes</span> and Back -Numbers can be supplied at $5.00 per Volume and 50 cents per Number.</p> - -<p class="no-indent"><span class="smcap">Subscriptions</span> can begin -with any desired Number of the current Volume. Subscription price, -$2.00 per annum; single copies 25 cents each.</p> - -<p class="no-indent">Address all communications and remittances to</p> - -<p class="f110 space-below2"><b>Theosophy, Metropolitan -Bldg., Los Angeles,Cal.</b></p> -<hr class="chap space-below2" /> - -<div> - <img class="drop-cap" src="images/letter_s.jpg" width="30" height="46" alt="S" /> -</div> -<p class="drop-cap no-indent">Students interested in obtaining a clear -and correct understanding of the actual Teachings of <span class="smcap">Theosophy</span>, -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.</p> - -<table class="space-above1 space-below2" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="_" cellpadding="0" > - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdl">KEY TO THEOSOPHY, <i>By</i> <span class="smcap">H. P. Blavatsky</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr">$2.50</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">An Exposition in the form of question and answer.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">The best Manual for daily study and reference.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">A <i>verbatim</i> reprint of the Original Edition. Large</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">type, durably and artistically bound in Buckram.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, <i>By</i> <span class="smcap">William Q. Judge</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><br />$1.25</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">A succinct presentation of the philosophy free from</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">technical expressions; a perfect condensation of the</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Secret Doctrines of Man and Nature.   Cloth.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />THE OCCULT WORLD<br />ESOTERIC BUDDHISM - <i>By</i> <span class="smcap">A. P. Sinnett</span>,    <i>Each</i>,</td> - <td class="tdr_bott">$2.00</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">The two earliest popular presentations of Theosophical</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Teachings, containing extracts from Letters written by</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the <i>Mahatma</i> K. H. From the Plates of the Original</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">American Editions.   Cloth.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />ISIS UNVEILED, Two Volumes, <i>By</i> <span class="smcap">H. P. Blavatsky</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><br />$10.00</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Volume i, Science; Volume ii, Theology.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">A reprint of the Original Edition of 1877.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">This, the first great work of H. P. B.,</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">contains a vast wealth of information and</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">instruction not to be had elsewhere. Cloth.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Two Volumes, <i>By</i> <span class="smcap">H. P. Blavatsky</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><br />$15.00</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Volume I, Cosmogenesis; Volume II, Anthropogenesis.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">The Original Edition, published in 1888, is now out of</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">print. This Edition, published in London, contains some</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">unwarrantable changes, but is in the main accurate and is</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the only one available. Written “<i>for the instruction of</i></td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2"><i>students of Occultism</i>,” it is <i>sui generis</i> and absolutely</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">invaluable to the true student of the mysteries of Life</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and Being. Cloth.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />ABRIDGMENT OF THE SECRET DOCTRINE, <i>By</i> <span class="smcap">Katherine Hillard</span>,  </td> - <td class="tdr"><br />$3.00</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">A very good condensation of the major teachings of Madame</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Blavatsky’s “Secret Doctrine” in the language of the Author. Cloth.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, <i>By</i> <span class="smcap">H. P. Blavatsky</span>,</td> - <td class="tdr"><br />$5.00</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">A reprint of the Original Edition, containing an exhaustive</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and scholarly treatment of the Sanskrit and other technical</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">terms employed in Theosophical literature. Cloth.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> - -<hr class="chap space-below2" /> -<div> - <img class="drop-cap" src="images/letter_t.jpg" width="35" height="45" alt="T" /> -</div> -<p class="drop-cap no-indent">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 <span class="smcap">Masters of Wisdom</span>, are -urged to read, ponder and assimilate to the utmost extent possible to -them, the following Treatises on the <i>Heart Doctrine</i>:</p> - -<table class="space-above1 space-below2" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="_" cellpadding="0" > - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdl">THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE. Chosen Fragments</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">from The Book of the Golden Precepts. Translated</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and annotated by H. P. Blavatsky.</td> - <td class="tdr">Leather, $1.50</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  1.25</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">THE BHAGAVAD-GITA, The Book of Devotion.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Containing the Dialogue between <i>Krishna</i>, the</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Supreme Master of Devotion, and <i>Arjuna</i>, his</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Disciple. Rendered into exquisite parallel terms</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">in the English tongue by William Q. Judge.</td> - <td class="tdr">Leather, 1.50</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2"> </td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  1.25</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">NOTES ON THE BHAGAVAD-GITA. Commentaries</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">of the greatest service to sincere students of to-day.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">The first Seven Chapters by W. Q. Judge; the</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">remainder by his friend and Colleague Robert Crosbie.</td> - <td class="tdr">Leather, 1.50</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />YOGA APHORISMS OF PATANJALI. The <i>Thought</i></td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">of this Ancient Master, whose Aphorisms have</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">been the guide of Disciples in the East for untold</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">thousands of years. Done into English terms with</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Notes, by William Q. Judge.</td> - <td class="tdr">Leather, 1.50</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  1.25</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">LIGHT ON THE PATH. A treatise for the personal</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">use of those who are ignorant of the Eastern Wisdom,</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and who desire to enter within its Influence. An exact</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">reprint of the Original Edition of 1885, together with</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the Comments originally published in <i>Lucifer</i>.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Written down by M. C.</td> - <td class="tdr">Leather, 1.50</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"> </td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  1.25</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME. Actual Letters, by</td> - <td class="tdr"></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">William Q. Judge, embodying Lessons and Guidance</td> - <td class="tdr"></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">of direct personal value to every Student and Disciple.</td> - <td class="tdr"></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">Volume I, </td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  1.00</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">Volume II,</td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  1.00</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">  The Two Volumes bound in One,</td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  1.50</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, THE BHAGAVAD-GITA,</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">And PATANJALI’S YOGA APHORISMS,</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Bound in One Volume,</td> - <td class="tdr">Leather, 3.00</td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> - -<hr class="chap space-below2" /> -<div> - <img class="drop-cap" src="images/letter_p.jpg" width="30" height="45" alt="P" /> -</div> -<p class="drop-cap no-indent">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 <i>Children’s School of -Theosophy</i>. 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.</p> - -<table class="space-above1 space-below2" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="_" cellpadding="0" > - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdl">BECAUSE—<span class="smcap">For The Children Who Ask Why</span>.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Interesting, comprehensible and assimilable, in clear</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and reverent fashion this Book presents to Children</td> - <td class="tdr"></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the answers to those questions of Self that Parents</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">find it most difficult to meet, and affords a common</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">basis of understanding to Parent and Child.</td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  $1.25</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />THE ETERNAL VERITIES. A Series of Lessons in basic</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">truths and ideas, with complete chart and programme</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">so that its full value may be availed of in the</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">instruction of Children of all ages, whether in the</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">School or the Home. Original Songs, Chants, Music,</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Allegories and Tales of Symbolism, in a manner not</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">only to interest but to carry the Lessons into the</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Hearts and Minds of the Learners.</td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  $1.50</td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> -<hr class="r5" /> -<div> - <img class="drop-cap" src="images/letter_i.jpg" width="32" height="45" alt="I" /> -</div> -<p class="drop-cap no-indent">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.</p> - -<p class="blockquot no-indent">Address,</p> -<p class="center space-below2"><b>CHILDREN’S SCHOOL OF THEOSOPHY</b><br /> -LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA<br /> -504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street</p> - -<hr class="chap space-below2" /> -<div> - <img class="drop-cap" src="images/letter_n.jpg" width="34" height="46" alt="N" /> -</div> -<p class="drop-cap no-indent">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 <span class="smcap">Theosophy</span> 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.</p> - -<table class="space-above1 space-below1" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="_" cellpadding="0" > - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdl">ECHOES FROM THE ORIENT, <i>By</i> <span class="smcap">William Q. Judge</span>.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">A Series of Chapters written in the most admirable</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">style, giving an outline of Theosophy and the</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Theosophical Movement, and treating of the great</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Subjects of Masters, Karma, Re-incarnation and Evolution.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2"> </td> - <td class="tdr">Cloth,  $0.60</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2"> </td> - <td class="tdr">Paper,   .35</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl">CONVERSATIONS ON THEOSOPHY. A Pamphlet giving the</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">fundamental teachings of the Secret Doctrine. From</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the writings of H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">Paper, envelope size,</td> - <td class="tdr">.10</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">In quantities for propaganda purposes,  50 copies for</td> - <td class="tdr">2.50</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />KARMA AND RE-INCARNATION. A large and attractively</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">bound pamphlet, envelope size, containing the famous</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2"><i>Aphorisms on Karma</i>, and a notably clear and</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">comprehensive treatment of the subjects of Karma</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and Re-incarnation.</td> - <td class="tdr">.15</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdr">In quantities for propaganda purposes,  50 copies for</td> - <td class="tdr">4.00</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />CULTURE OF CONCENTRATION,</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">  And OF OCCULT POWERS.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Two related Essays by William Q. Judge on subjects</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">of supreme importance.</td> - <td class="tdr">.10</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />EXTRACTS FROM A LETTER THAT HAS HELPED ME.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">Being a statement of the <i>Gospel of Hope and</i></td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2"><i>Responsibility</i>. This Letter has brought consolation</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and the comfort of understanding to many</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">regarding the Great Mystery.</td> - <td class="tdr">.10</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl"><br />THOUGHTS FOR THINKERS. A Pamphlet designed for</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">the “man in the street,” who is often an open-minded</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">practical philosopher and thinker of the first rank.</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">These <span class="smcap">Thoughts</span> are undogmatic, non-argumentative</td> - <td class="tdr"> </td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_ind2">and very suggestive.</td> - <td class="tdr">.10</td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> - -<p class="blockquot">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.</p> - -<p class="blockquot">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.</p> - -<p class="center"><i>Address all orders and inquiries and make all remittances payable to</i></p> - -<p class="center space-below2">UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS<br /> -LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA<br /> -504 Metropolitan Building, Broadway at Fifth Street</p> -<hr class="full space-below2" /> - -<div class="footnotes"> -<p class="f150 u"><b>Footnotes:</b></p> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> - 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> -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) <i>Theurgy</i>, or “divine work,” or <i>producing a work of -gods</i>; from <i>theoi</i>, “gods,” and <i>ergein</i>, “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>i.e.</i>, 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 <i>divine</i> 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 <i>Theodidaktos</i>, “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 <i>Theodidaktos</i>. 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.—(<i>Vide Eclectic Philos.</i>, by A. Wilder).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> -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.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> -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 <i>Edinburgh Encyclopædia</i> knows what he -is talking about, then he describes the modern Theosophists, their -beliefs, and their work, for he says, speaking of the <i>Theodidaktos</i>: -“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.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> -This is what the scholarly author of “The Eclectic Philosophy,” Prof. -A. Wilder, F.T.S., describes as “<i>spiritual photography</i>”: “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 <i>ecstasis</i> 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 <i>theoi</i>, 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.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"> -<span class="label">[6]</span></a> -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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> -We say that in such cases it is not the <i>spirits</i> of the dead who -<i>descend</i> on earth, but the spirits of the living that <i>ascend</i> to -the pure Spiritual Souls. In truth there is neither <i>ascending</i> nor -<i>descending</i>, but a change of <i>state</i> or <i>condition</i> 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 <i>they can communicate</i>, -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 <i>non-receptive</i> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> -<i>Vide infra</i>, “On Individuality and Personality.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> -It has become “fashionable,” especially of late, to deride the notion -that there ever was, in the <i>mysteries</i> 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 -<i>essentially</i> divine. Plato regarded the <i>mysteries</i> 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?</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> -<i>Vide</i> (at the end) the official rules of the T.S., Appendix A. <i>Nota -bene</i>, “T.S.” is an abbreviation for “Theosophical Society.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> -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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> -“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.’”—<i>Conquests of the Cross</i> (quoted from -the <i>Agnostic Journal</i>).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> -A “branch,” or lodge, composed solely of co-religionists, or a branch -<i>in partibus</i>, as they are now somewhat bombastically called.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> -Ain-Soph, <b>אין סיף</b> = <b>τὸ πάγ</b> = <b>ἔπειρος</b> Nature, the non-existent which IS, but is not <i>a</i> Being.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> -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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> -One often finds in Theosophical writings -conflicting statements about the Christos principle in man. Some call -it the sixth principle (<i>Buddhi</i>), others the seventh (<i>Atman</i>). 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 <i>Bhagavatgita</i> we -find Krishna calling himself indifferently Atman, the abstract Spirit, -Kshetragna, the Higher or reincarnating Ego, and the Universal <span -class="smcap">Self</span>, all names which, when transferred from the -Universe to man, answer to <i>Atma</i>, <i>Buddhi</i> and <i>Manas</i>. The <i>Anugita</i> -is full of the same doctrine.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> -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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> -Buddha gives to Ananda, his <i>initiated</i> disciple, who enquires for the -reason of this silence, a plain and unequivocal answer in the dialogue -translated by Oldenburg from the <i>Samyuttaka Nikaya</i>:—“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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="indent"> -<a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> -In Mr. Sinnett’s “Esoteric Buddhism” <i>d</i>, <i>e</i>, and <i>f</i>, are -respectively called the Animal, the Human, and the Spiritual Souls, -which answers as well. Though the principles in <i>Esoteric Buddhism</i> are -numbered, this is, strictly speaking, useless. The dual <i>Monad</i> alone -(<i>Atma-Buddhi</i>) is susceptible of being thought of as the two highest -numbers (the 6th and 7th). As to all others, since <i>that</i> “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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="indent"> -<a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> -Paul calls Plato’s <i>Nous</i> “Spirit”; but as this spirit is “substance,” -then, of course, <i>Buddhi</i> and not <i>Atma</i> 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 -<i>absolute</i> principle of which Buddhi, the Soul-Spirit, is the carrier.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> -“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 <i>Agnostic</i> comes from <i>Agnosis</i>, 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?</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> -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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> -Proserpina, or Persephone, stands here for post mortem Karma, which -is said to regulate the separation of the lower from the higher -“principles”: the <i>Soul</i>, as <i>Nephesh</i>, the breath of animal life, -which remains for a time in Kama-loka, from the higher compound <i>Ego</i>, -which goes into the state of Devachan, or bliss.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> -Until the separation of the higher, spiritual “principle” takes -place from the lower ones, which remain in the Kama-loka until -disintegrated.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> -In its generic sense, the word “rational” meaning something emanating from the Eternal Wisdom.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> -<i>Irrational</i> in the sense that as a <i>pure</i> 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 <i>Buddhi</i>, receiving its light of Wisdom from -Atma, gets its rational qualities from <i>Manas</i>. <i>Per se</i>, as something -homogeneous, it is devoid of attributes.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="indent"> -<a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> -<i>Vide</i> “<i>Secret Doctrine</i>,” Vol. II., stanzas.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="indent"> -<a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> -“<i>Zohar</i>,” Vol. II., p. 96.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="indent"> -<a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> -“<i>Mishna</i>,” “Aboth,” Vol. IV., p. 29.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="indent"> -<a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> -See “Secret Doctrine” for a clearer explanation. Vol. I., p. 157.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> -“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.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> -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 <i>Sthula sarira</i>, <i>Pranâ</i>, <i>Kama rupa</i>, -and <i>Linga sarira</i> (<i>vide supra</i>).</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> -There are five <i>Skandhas</i> or attributes in the Buddhist teachings: -“<i>Rupa</i> (form or body), material qualities; <i>Vedana</i>, sensation; -<i>Sanna</i>, abstract ideas; <i>Samkhara</i>, tendencies of mind; <i>Vinnana</i>, -mental powers. Of these we are formed; by them we are conscious of -existence; and through them communicate with the world about us.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> -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 <i>Widyodaya -Parivena</i> (College) at Colombo, as being in agreement with the Canon of -the Southern Buddhist Church.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> -Or the <i>Spiritual</i>, in contradistinction to the personal <i>Self</i>. The -student must not confuse this Spiritual Ego with the “HIGHER SELF” -which is <i>Atma</i>, the God within us, and inseparable from the Universal -Spirit.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> -Even in his <i>Buddhist Cathechism</i>, 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 -<i>tanhaically</i> 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 <i>particular line</i>, 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 <i>Tanha</i> -(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’ (<i>Buddhism</i>, 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 <i>asankheyyas</i> and a hundred thousand cycles,’ -Fausboll and Rhys-Davids’ BUDDHIST BIRTH STORIES, p. 13) are required -to develop a <i>man</i> into a Buddha, and <i>the iron will to become one</i> -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?” (<i>Bud. Cat., Appendix</i> -A. 137.)</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> -<span class="smcap">Mahat</span> or the “Universal Mind” is the source -of Manas. The latter is Mahat, <i>i.e.</i>, mind, in man. Manas is also -called <i>Kshetrajna</i>, “embodied Spirit,” because it is, according to -our philosophy, the <i>Manasa-putras</i>, or “Sons of the Universal Mind,” -who <i>created</i>, or rather produced, the <i>thinking</i> man, “<i>manu</i>,” by -incarnating in the <i>third Race</i> mankind in our Round. It is Manas, -therefore, which is the real incarnating and permanent <i>Spiritual Ego</i>, -the INDIVIDUALITY, and our various and numberless personalities only -its external masks.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> -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 <i>Secret Doctrine</i>. All our “Egos” are thinking and rational -entities (<i>Manasa-putras</i>) who had lived, whether under human or -other forms, in the precedent <i>life-cycle</i> (Manvantara), and whose -Karma it was to incarnate in the <i>man</i> of this one. It was taught in -the <span class="smcap">Mysteries</span> that, having delayed to comply with this law -(or having “refused to create” as Hinduism says of the <i>Kumaras</i> and -Christian legend of the Archangel Michael), <i>i.e.</i>, 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 <i>Egos</i>. 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> -“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.)</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> -“Some things that I <i>do</i> know of Spiritualism and some that I do <i>not</i>.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> -A few portions of this chapter and of the preceding were published in -<i>Lucifer</i> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> -Iswara is the collective consciousness of the manifested deity, -Brahma,<i> i.e.</i>, the collective consciousness of the Host of Dhyan -Chohans (<i>vide</i> <span class="smcap">Secret Doctrine</span>); and Pragna -is their individual wisdom.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> -<i>Taijasi</i> means the radiant in consequence of its union with Buddhi; -<i>i.e.</i>, Manas, the human soul, illuminated by the radiance of the -divine soul. Therefore, Manas-taijasi may be described as radiant -mind; the <i>human</i> reason lit by the light of the spirit; and -Buddhi-Manas is the revelation of the divine <i>plus</i> human intellect and -self-consciousness.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> -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 <span class="smcap">Lucifer</span>, 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> -<i>Vide</i> Transactions of the <span -class="smcap">London Lodge</span> <i>of the Theos. Soc.</i>, No. 7, Oct., 1885.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> -The “reincarnating Ego,” or “Human Soul,” as he called it, the <i>Causal Body</i> with the Hindus.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> -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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> -“Shifting of <i>Metaphysical terms</i>” 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> -Being of “an <i>asbestos</i>-like nature,” according to the -eloquent and fiery expression of a modern English Tertullian.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> -During the <i>Mysteries</i>, it is the Hierophant, the “Father,” who planted -the Vine. Every symbol has Seven Keys to it. The discloser of the -<i>Pleroma</i> was always called “Father.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> -<i>Zohar</i> XL., 10.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> -<i>Codex Nazarœus</i>, Vol. III., pp. 60, 61.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> -Ibid., Vol. II., p. 281.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> -<i>Second Sight</i>, “Introduction.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> -Sectarian Brahmins are here meant. The Parabrahm of the -Vedantins is the Deity we accept and believe in.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> -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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> -Vide “Ghost Land,” Part I., p. 133, <i>et seq.</i></p></div> -</div> - -<hr class="r5" /> -<div class="transnote bbox"> -<p class="f120 space-above1">Transcriber's Notes:</p> -<hr class="r5" /> -<p class="indent">The cover image was created by the transcriber, and is in the public domain.</p> -<p class="indent">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.</p> -<p class="indent">Uncertain or antiquated spellings or ancient words were not corrected.</p> -<p class="indent">Errors in punctuation and inconsistent hyphenation were not corrected - unless otherwise noted.</p> -<p class="indent">Typographical errors have been silently corrected but other variations - in spelling and punctuation remain unaltered.</p> -</div> - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -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-h.htm or 55618-h.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. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> |