To all readers


This is an attempt to help this place reaching a higher level, than it has right now. :D

I paste here the whole of the article by H. P. Blavatsky called THE ORGANlSATION OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. (written 1886)

Please read all words and try to understand, that no matter whether one have been a fraud or not a fraud within the Theosophical Society, one aught to follow the main rules as they have been given, the socalled Law of Karma included. ;)

But, if you ask me, I find the teachings to be too somewhat old and inadequate today. I think the present day audience needs something else. A new teaching adapted to time place, people and circumstances aught to be considered heavily.



THE ORGANlSATION OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
Article by H. P. Blavatsky

'[In order to leave no room for equivocation, the members of the T.S. have to be reminded of the origin of the Society in 1875. Sent to the U.S. of America in 1873 for the purpose of organizing a group of workers on a psychic plane, two years later the writer received orders from her Master and Teacher to form the nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were broadly stated as follows:

(1) Universal Brotherhood;

(2) No distinction to be made by the members between]'* races, creeds, or social positions, but every member had to be judged and dealt by on his personal merits;

(3) To study the philosophies of the East--those of India chiefly, presenting them gradually to the public in various works that would interpret exoteric religions in the light of esoteric teachings;

(4) To oppose materialism and theological dogmatism in every possible way, by demonstrating the existence of occult forces unknown to Science, in Nature, and the presence of psychic and spiritual powers in Man; trying, at the same time, to enlarge the views of the Spiritualists by showing them that there are other, many other agencies at work in the production of phenomena besides the "Spirits" of the dead. Superstition had to be exposed and avoided; and occult forces, beneficent and maleficent- ever surrounding us and manifesting their presence in various ways--demonstrated to the best of our ability.

Such was the programme in its broad features. The two chief Founders were not told what they had to do, how they had to bring about and quicken the growth of the Society and results desired; nor had they any definite ideas given them concerning the outward organisation--all this being left entirely with themselves. Thus, as the undersigned had no capacity for such work as the mechanical formation and administration of a Society, the management of the latter was left in the hands of Col. H. S. Olcott, then and there elected by the primitive founders and members--President for life. But if the two Founders were not told what they had to do, they were distinctly instructed about what they should never do, what they had to avoid, and what the Society should never become. Church organisations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society.1

To make it clearer:

(1) The Founders had to exercise all their influence to oppose selfishness of any kind, by insisting upon sincere, fraternal feelings among the Members--at least outwardly; working for it to bring about a spirit of unity and harmony, the great diversity of creeds notwithstanding; expecting and demanding from the Fellows, a great mutual toleration and charity for each other's shortcomings; mutual help in the research of truths in every domain--moral or physical--and even in daily life.

(2) They had to oppose in the strongest manner anything approaching dogmatic faith and fanaticism--belief in the infallibility of the Masters, or even in the very existence of our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from the first. On the other hand, as a great respect for the private views and creeds of every member was demanded, any Fellow criticising the faith or belief of another Fellow, hurting his feelings, or showing a reprehensible self-assertion, unasked (mutual friendly advices were a duty unless declined)--such a member incurred expulsion. The greatest spirit of free research untrammelled by anyone or anything, had to be encouraged.

Thus, for the first year the Members of the T. Body, who representing every class in Society as every creed and belief--Christian clergymen, Spiritualists, Freethinkers, Mystics, Masons and Materialists--lived and met under these rules in peace and friendship. There were two or three expulsions for slander and backbiting. The rules, however imperfect in their tentative character, were strictly enforced and respected by the members. The original $5 initiation fee was soon abolished as inconsistent with the spirit of the Association: members had enthusiastically promised to support the Parent Society and defray the expenses of machines for experiments, books, the fees of the Recording Secretary,2 etc., etc. This was Reform No. 1. Three months after, Mr. H. Newton, the Treasurer, a rich gentleman of New York, showed that no one had paid anything or helped him to defray the current expenses for the Hall of meetings, stationery, printing, etc., and that he had to carry the burden of those expenses alone. He went on for a short time longer, then--he resigned as Treasurer. It was the President-Founder, Col. H. S. Olcott, who had to pay henceforth for all. He did so for over 18 months. The "fee" was re-established, before the Founders left for India with the two English delegates--now their mortal enemies; but the money collected was for the Arya Samaj of Aryavarta with which Society the Theosophical became affiliated. It is the President Founder who paid the enormous travelling expenses from America to India, and those of installation in Bombay, and who supported the two delegates out of his own pocket for nearly 18 months. When he had no more money left, nor the Corr. Secretary either--a resolution was passed that the "initiation fee" sums should go towards supporting the Head Quarters.

Owing to the rapid increase of the Society in India, the present Rules and Statutes grew out. They are not the outcome of the deliberate thought and whim of the President Founder, but the result of the yearly meetings of the General Council at the Anniversaries. If the members of that G. C. have framed them so as to give a wider authority to the Pres. Founder, it was the result of their absolute confidence in him, in his devotion and love for the Society, and not at all--as implied in "A Few Words"--a proof of his love for power and authority. Of this, however, later on.

It was never denied that the Organisation of the T.S. was very imperfect. Errare humanum est. But, if it can be shown that the President has done what he could under the circumstances and in the best way he knew how--no one, least of all a theosophist, can charge him with the sins of the whole community, as now done. From the founders down to the humblest member, the Society is composed of imperfect mortal men--not gods. This was always claimed by its leaders. "He who feels without sin, let him cast the first stone." It is the duty of every Member of the Council to offer advice and to bring for the consideration of the whole body any incorrect proceedings. One of the plaintiffs is a Councillor. Having never used his privileges as one, in the matter of the complaints now proffered--and thus, having no excuse to give that his just representations were not listened to, he, by bringing out publicly what he had to state first privately--sins against Rule XII. The whole paper now reads like a defamatory aspersion, being full of untheosophical and unbrotherly insinuations--which the writers thereof could never have had in view.

This Rule XIIth was one of the first and the wisest. It is by neglecting to have it enforced when most needed, that the President-Founder has brought upon himself the present penalty.3 It is his too great indulgence and unwise carelessness that have led to all such charges of abuse of power, love of authority, show, of vanity, etc., etc. Let us see how far it may have been deserved.

As shown for 12 years the Founder has toiled almost alone in the interests of the Society and the general good--hence, not his own, and, the only complaint he was heard to utter was, that he was left no time for self-development and study. The results of this too just complaint are, that those for whom he toiled, are the first to fling at him the reproach of being ignorant of certain Hindu terms, of using one term for another, for inst. of having applied the word "Jivanmukta" to a Hindu chela, on one occasion! The crime is a terrible one, indeed. . . . We know of "chelas" who being Hindus, are sure never to confuse such well known terms in their religion; but who, on the other hand, pursue Jivanmuktaship and the highest Theosophical Ethics through the royal road of selfish ambition, lies, slander, ingratitude and backbiting. Every road leads to Rome; this is evident; and there is such a thing in Nature as "Mahatma"-Dugpas. . . . It would be desirable for the cause of Theosophy and truth, however, were all the critics of our President in general, less learned, yet found reaching more to the level of his all-forgiving good nature, his thorough sincerity and unselfishness; as the rest of the members less inclined to lend a willing ear to those, who, like the said "Vicars of Bray" have developed a hatred for the Founders--for reasons unknown.

The above advice is offered to the two Theosophists who have just framed their "Few Words on the Theosophical Organisation." That they are not alone in their complaints (which, translated from their diplomatic into plain language look a good deal in the present case like a mere "querelle4 d'Allemand") and that the said complaints are in a great measure just,--is frankly admitted. Hence, the writer must be permitted to speak in this, her answer, of Theosophy and theosophists in general, instead of limiting the Reply strictly to the complaints uttered. There is not the slightest desire to be personal; yet, there has accumulated of late such a mass of incandescent material in the Society, by that eternal friction of precisely such "selfish personalities," that it is certainly wise to try to smother the sparks in time, by pointing out their true nature.

Demands, and a feeling of necessity for reforms have not originated with the two complainants. They date from several years, and there has never been a question of avoiding reforms, but rather a failure of finding such means as would satisfy all the theosophists. To the present day, we have yet to find that "wise man" from the East or from the West, who could not only diagnosticate the disease in the T. Society, but offer advice and a remedy likewise to cure it. It is easy to write: "It would be out of place to suggest any specific measures" (for such reforms, which do seem more difficult to suggest than to be vaguely hinted at)--"for no one who has any faith in Brotherhood and in the power of Truth will fail to perceive what is necessary,"--concludes the critic. One may, perhaps, have such faith and yet fail to perceive what is most necessary. Two heads are better than one; and if any practical reforms have suggested themselves to our severe judges their refusal to give us the benefit of their discovery would be most unbrotherly. So far, however, we have received only most impracticable suggestions for reforms whenever these came to be specified. The Founders, and the whole Central Society at the Headquarters, for instance, are invited to demonstrate their theosophical natures by living like "fowls in the air and lilies of the field," which neither sow nor reap, toil not, nor spin and "take no thought for the morrow." This being found hardly practicable, even in India, where a man may go about in the garment of an Angel, but has, nevertheless, to pay rent and taxes, another proposition, then a third one and a fourth --each less practicable than the preceding--were offered . . . the unavoidable rejection of which led finally to the criticism now under review.

After carefully reading "A Few Words, etc.," no very acute intellect is needed to perceive that, although no "specific measures" are offered in them, the drift of the whole argument tends but to one conclusion, a kind of syllogism more Hindu than metaphysical. Epitomised, the remarks therein plainly say: "Destroy the bad results pointed out by destroying the causes that generate them." Such is the apocalyptic meaning of the paper, although both causes and results are made painfully and flagrantly objective and that they may be rendered in this wise: Being shown that the Society is the result and fruition of a bad President; and the latter being the outcome of such an "untheosophically" organized Society--and, its worse than useless General Council--"make away with all these Causes and the results will disappear"; i.e., the Society will have ceased to exist. Is this the heart-desire of the two true and sincere Theosophists?

The complaints--"submitted to those interested in the progress of true Theosophy"--which seems to mean "theosophy divorced from the Society"--may now be noticed in order and answered. They specify the following objections:

I. To the language of the Rules with regard to the powers invested in the President-Founder by the General Council. This objection seems very right. The sentence . . . The duties of the Council "shall consist in advising the P.F. in regard to all matters referred to them by him" may be easily construed as implying that on all matters not referred to the Council by the Pres.-Founder . . . its members will hold their tongues. The Rules are changed, at any rate they are corrected and altered yearly. This sentence can be taken out. The harm, so far, is not so terrible.

II. It is shown that many members ex-officio whose names are found on the list of the General Council are not known to the Convention; that they are, very likely, not even interested in the Society "under their special care"; a body they had joined at one time, then probably forgotten its existence in the meanwhile to withdraw themselves from the Association. The argument implied is very valid. Why not point it out of officially to the Members residing at, or visiting the Head Quarters, the impropriety of such a parading of names? Yet, in what respect can this administrative blunder, or carelessness, interfere with, or impede "the progress of true Theosophy."5

III. "The members are appointed by the President-Founder. . . ." it is complained; "the Gen. Council only advises on what is submitted to it" . . . and "in the meantime" that P.F. is empowered to issue "special orders" and "provisional rules," on behalf of that ("dummy") Council. (Rule IV, p. 20.) Moreover, it is urged that out of a number of 150 members of the G. Council, a quorum of 5 and even 3 members present, may, should it be found necessary by the President, decide upon any question of vital importance, etc., etc., etc.

Such an "untheosophical" display of authority, is objected to by Messrs. M. M. Chatterji and A. Gebhard on the ground that it leads the Society to Caesarism, to "tyranny" and "papal infallibility," etc., etc. However right the two complainants may be in principle it is impossible to fail seeing the absurd exaggerations of the epithets used; for, having just been accused on one page of "tyrannical authority," of "centralization of power" and a "papal institution" (p. 9)--on page 11, the President-Founder is shown "issuing special orders" from that "centre of Caesarism"--which no one is bound to obey, unless he so wishes! "It is well known" remarks the principal writer--"that not only individuals but even Branches have refused to pay this (annual) subscription . . . of . . . two shillings" (p. 11 ); without any bad effect for themselves, resulting out of it, as appears. Thus, it would seem it is not to a non-existent authority that objections should be made, but simply to a vain and useless display of power that no one cares for.

The policy of issuing "special orders" with such sorry results is indeed objectionable; only, not on the ground of a tendency to Caesarism, but simply because it becomes highly ridiculous. The undersigned for one, has many a time objected to it, moved however, more by a spirit of worldly pride and an untheosophical feeling of self-respect than anything like Yogi humility. It is admitted with regret that the world of scoffers and non-theosophists might, if they heard of it, find in it a capital matter for fun. But the real wonder is, how can certain European Theosophists, who have bravely defied the world to make them wince under any amount of ridicule, once they acted in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and duty--make a crime of what is at the worst a harmless, even if ridiculous, bit of vanity; a desire of giving importance--not to the Founder, but to his Society for which he is ready to die any day. One kind of ridicule is worth another. The Western theosophist, who for certain magnetic reasons wears his hair long and shows otherwise eccentricity in his dress, will be spared no more than his President, with his "special orders." Only the latter, remaining as kindly disposed and brotherly to the "individual Theosophist and even a Branch"--that snub him and his "order," by refusing to pay what others do--shows himself ten-fold more Theosophical an(1 true to the principle of Brotherhood, than the former, who traduces and denounces him in such uncharitable terms, instead of kindly warning him of the bad effect produced. Unfortunately, it is not those who speak the loudest of virtue and theosophy, who are the best examplars of both. Few of them, if any, have tried to cast out the beam from their own eye, before they raised their voices against the mote in the eye of a brother. Furthermore, it seems to have become quite the theosophical rage in these days, to denounce vehemently, yet never to offer to help pulling out any such motes.

The Society is bitterly criticized for asking every well-to-do theosophist (the poor are exempt from it, from the first) to pay annually two shillings to help defraying the expenses at Head-Quarters. It is denounced as "untheosophical," "unbrotherly," and the "admission fee" of £1, is declared no better than "a sale of Brotherhood." In this our "Brotherhood" may be shown again on a far higher level than any other association past or present. The Theosophical Society has never shown the ambitious pretension to outshine in theosophy and brotherliness, the primitive Brotherhood of Jesus and his Apostles,6 and that "Organisation," besides asking and being occasionally refused, helped itself without asking, and as a matter of fact in a real community of Brothers. Nevertheless, such actions, that would seem highly untheosophical and prejudicial in our day of culture when nations alone are privileged to pocket each other's property and expect to be honoured for it--do not seem to have been an obstacle in the way of deification and sanctification of the said early "Brotherly" group. Our Society had never certainly any idea of rising superior to the brotherliness and ethics preached by Christ, but only to those of the sham Christianity of the Churches--as originally ordered to by our MASTERS. And if we do no worse than the Gospel Brotherhood did, and far better than any Church, which would expel any member refusing too long to pay his Church rates, it is really hard to see why our "Organisation" should be ostracized by its own members. At any rate, the pens of the latter ought to show themselves less acerb, in these days of trouble when every one seems bent on finding fault with the Society, and few to help it, and that the President-Founder is alone to work and toil with a few devoted theosophists at Adyar to assist him.

IV. "There is no such institution in existence as the Parent Society"--we are told (pp. 2 and 3). "It has disappeared from the Rules and . . . has no legal existence" . . . The Society being unchartered, it has not--legally; but no more has any Theosophist a legal existence, for the matter of that. Is there one single member throughout the whole globe who would be recognised by law or before a Magistrate--as a theosophist? Why then do the gentlemen "complainants" call themselves "theosophists" if the latter qualification has no better legal standing than the said "Parent Society" of the Head Quarters itself? But the Parent-body does exist, and will, so long as the last man or woman of the primitive group of Theosophist Founders is alive. This--as a body; as for its moral characteristics, the Parent-Society means that small nucleus of theosophists who hold sacredly through storm and blows to the original programme of the T.S., as established under the direction and orders of those, whom they recognise--and will, to their last breath--as the real originators of the Movement, their living, Holy MASTERS AND TEACHERS.7

V. The complaints then, that the T.S. "has Laws without sanction," a "legislative body without legality," a "Parent Society without existence," and, worse than all--"a President above all rules"--are thus shown only partially correct. But even were they all absolutely true, it would be easy to abolish such rules with one stroke of the pen, or to modify them. But now comes the curious part of that severe philippic against the T.S. by our eloquent Demosthenes. After six pages (out of twelve) had been filled with the said charges, the writer admits on the 7th,--that they have been so modified!--"The above" we learn (rather late) "was written under misapprehension that the 'Rules' bearing date 1885--were the latest. It has since been found that there is a later version of the Rules dated 1886 which have modified the older rules on a great many points." So much the better.--Why recall, in such case, mistakes in the past if these exist no longer? But the accusers do not see it in this light. They are determined to act as a theosophical Nemesis; and in no way daunted by the discovery, they add that nevertheless "it is necessary to examine the earlier rules to ascertain the underlying principle, which rules through the present ones as well." This reminds of the fable of "the Wolf and the Lamb." But--you see--"the chief point is, that the Convention has no power to make any rules, as such a power is opposed to the spirit of Theosophy," . . . etc., etc.

Now this is the most extraordinary argument that could be made. At this rate no Brotherhood, no Association, no Society is possible. More than this; no theosophist, however holy his present life may be, would have the right to call himself one; for were it always found necessary to examine his earlier life, "to ascertain the underlying principle" which rules through the nature of the present man--ten to one, he would be found unfit to be called a theosophist! The experiment would hardly be found pleasant to the majority of those whom association with the T.S. has reformed; and of such there are a good many.

After such virulent and severe denunciations one might expect some good, friendly and theosophically practical advice. Not at all, and none is offered, since we have been already told (p. 9) that it would be "out of place to suggest any specific measures, as no one who has any faith in Brotherhood--and in the power of Truth will fail to perceive what is necessary." The President-Founder has no faith in either "Brotherhood," or "the power of Truth"--apparently. This is made evident by his having failed to perceive (a) that the Head Quarters--opened to all Theosophists of any race or social position, board and lodging free of charge the whole year round--was an unbrotherly Organisation; (B) that "the central office at Adyar for keeping records and concentrating information" with its European and Hindu inmates working gratuitously and some helping it with their own money whenever they have it--ought to be carried on, according to the method and principle of George Miller of Bristol, namely, the numerous households and staff of officers at Adyar headed by the Pres.-Founder ought to kneel every morning in prayer for their bread and milk, appealing for their meals to "miracle"; and that finally, and © all the good the Society is doing, is no good whatever but "a spiritual wrong," because it presumes to call a limited line of good work--(theosophy) Divine Wisdom."

The undersigned is an ever patient theosophist, who has hitherto laboured under the impression that no amount of subtle scholasticism and tortured casuistry but would find like the Rosetta stone its Champollion--some day. The most acute among theosophists arc now invited to make out in A Few Words"--what the writers or writer--is driving at--unless in plain and unvarnished language, it be--Down with the Theosophical Society, President-Founder and its Head-Quarters!" This is the only possible explanation of the twelve pages of denunciations to which a reply is now attempted. What can indeed be made out of the following jumble of contradictory statements:

(a) The President Founder having been shown throughout as a "tyrant," a "would be Caesar," "aiming at papal power" and a "Venetian Council of Three," and other words to that effect implied in almost every sentence of the paper under review, it is confessed in the same breath that the "London Lodge" of the Theosophical Society has completely ignored the Rules (of the Pope Caesar) published at Adyar! (p. 4) And yet, the "L.L. of the T.S." still lives and breathes and one has heard of no anathema pronounced against it, so far. . . .

(B) Rule XIV stating that the Society has "to deal only with scientific and philosophical subjects," hence, "it is quite evident {?} that the power and position claimed in the Rules for the P't Founder and the Gen. Council and Convention are opposed to the spirit of the declared Objects."

It might have been as well perhaps to quote the entire paragraph in which these words appear,8 once that hairs are split about the possibly faulty reaction of the Rules? Is it not self-evident, that the words brought forward "only with scientific and philosophical subjects" are inserted as a necessary caution to true theosophists, who by dealing with politics within any Branch Society might bring disgrace and ruin on the whole body--in India to begin with? Has the Society or has it not over 140 Societies scattered through four parts of the world to take care of? As in the case of "Mahatmas" and "Mahatmaship"--active work of the Theosophical Society is confused--willingly or otherwise, it is not for the writer to decide--with Theosophy. No need of entering here upon the difference between the jar that contains a liquid and the nature of, or that liquid itself.

"Theosophy teaches self-culture . . . and not control," we are told. Theosophy teaches mutual-culture before self-culture to begin with. Union is strength. It is by gathering many theosophists of the same way of thinking into one or more groups, and making them closely united by the same magnetic bond of fraternal unity and sympathy that the objects of mutual development and progress in Theosophical thought may be best achieved. "Self-culture" is for isolated Hatha Yogis, independent of any Society and having to avoid association with human beings; and this is a triply distilled SELFISHNESS. For real moral advancement--there "where two or three are gathered" in the name of the SPIRIT OF TRUTH--there that Spirit or Theosophy will be in the midst of them.

To say that theosophy has no need of a Society--a vehicle and centre thereof--is like affirming that the Wisdom of the Ages collected in thousands of volumes, at the British Museum has no need of either the edifice that contains it, nor the works in which it is found. Why not advise the British Gov't on its lack of discrimination and its worldliness in not destroying Museum and all its vehicles of Wisdom? Why spend such sums of money and pay so many officers to watch over its treasures, the more so, since many of its guardians may be quite out of keeping with, and opposed to the Spirit of that Wisdom? The Directors of such Museums may or may not be very perfect men, and some of their assistants may have never opened a philosophical work: yet, it is they who take care of the library and preserve it for future generations who are indirectly entitled to their thanks. How much more gratitude is due to those who like our self-sacrificing theosophists at Adyar, devote their lives to, and give their services gratuitously to the good of Humanity!

Diplomas, and Charters are objected to, and chiefly the "admission fee." The latter is a "taxation," and therefore "inconsistent with the principle of Brotherhood". . . . A "forced gift is unbrotherly," etc., etc. It would be curious to see where the T.S. would be led to, were the P't. F. to religiously follow the proffered advices. "Initiation" on admission, has been made away with already in Europe, and has led to that which will very soon become known; no use mentioning it at present. Now the "Charters" and Diplomas would follow. Hence no document to show for any group, and no diploma to prove that one is affiliated to the Society. Hence also perfect liberty to any one to either call himself a theosophist, or deny he is one. The "admission fee"? Indeed, it has to be regarded as a terrible and unbrotherly "extortion," and a "forced gift," in the face of those thousands of Masonic Lodges, of Clubs, Associations, Societies, Leagues, and even the "Salvation Army." The former, extort yearly fortunes from their Members; the latter--throttle in the name of Jesus the masses and appealing to voluntary contributions make the converts pay, and pay in their turn every one of their "officers," none of whom will serve the "Army" for nothing.

Yet it would be well, perchance, were our members to follow the example of the Masons in their solidarity of thought and action and at least outward Union, notwithstanding that receiving a thousand times more from their members they give them in return still less than we do, whether spiritually or morally. This solitary single guinea expected from every new member is spent in less than one week, as was calculated, on postage and correspondence with theosophists. Or are we to understand that all correspondence with members--now left to "self-culture"--is also to cease and has to follow diplomas, Charters and the rest? Then, truly, the Head Quarters and Office had better be closed. A simple Query--however: Have the 1£--the yearly contribution to the L.L. of the T.S., and the further sum of 2/6d. to the Oriental Group been abolished as "acts of unbrotherly extortion," and how long, if so, have they begun to be regarded as "a sale of Brotherhood"?

To continue: the charges wind up with the following remarks, so profound, that it requires a deeper head than ours to fathom all that underlies the words contained in them. "Is the T.S. a Brotherhood, or not?" queries the plaintiff--"If the former, is it possible to have any centre of arbitrary power?9 To hold that there is necessity for such a centre is only a roundabout way of saying that no Brotherhood is possible,10 but in point of fact that necessity itself is by no means proved {!?}. There have been no doubt Brotherhoods under high Masters. . . ." {there "have been" and still are. H.P.B.] "but in such cases the Masters were never elected for geographical or other considerations {?}. The natural leader of men was always recognised by his embodying the spirit of Humanity. To institute comparisons would be little short of blasphemy. The greatest among men is always the readiest to serve and yet is unconscious of the service. Let us pause before finally tying the millstone of worldliness around the neck of Theosophy. Let us not forget that Theosophy does not grow in our midst by force and control but by sunshine of brotherliness and the dew of self-oblivion. If we do not believe in Brotherhood and Truth let us put ashes on our head and weep in sack-cloth and not rejoice in the purple of authority and in the festive garments of pride and worldliness. It is by far better that the name of Theosophy should never be heard, than that it should be used as the Motto of a papal authority." . . .

Who, upon reading this, and being ignorant that the above piece of rhetorical flowers of speech is directed against the luckless Pres't Founder--would not have in his "mind's eye"--an Alexander Borgia, a Caligula, or to say the least--General Booth in his latest metamorphosis! When, how, or by doing what, has our good-natured unselfish, ever kind President merited such a Ciceronian tirade? The state of things denounced exists now for almost twelve years, and our accuser knew of it and even took an active part in its organisation, Conventions, Councils, Rules, etc., etc., at Bombay, and at Adyar. This virulent sortie is no doubt due to "SELF-CULTURE"? The critic has outgrown the Movement and turned his face from the original programme; hence his severity. But where is the true theosophical charity, the tolerance and the "sunshine .,f brotherliness" just spoken of, and so insisted upon?

Verily--it is easy to preach the "dew of self-oblivion" when one has nothing to think about except to evolve such finely rounded phrases; were every theosophist at Adyar to have his daily wants and even comforts, his board, lodging and all, attended to by a wealthier theosophist; and were the same "sunshine of brotherliness" to be poured upon him, as it is upon the critic who found for himself an endless brotherly care, a fraternal and self-sacrificing devotion in two other noble-minded members, then--would there be little need for the President Founder to call upon and humble himself before our theosophists. For, if he has to beg for 2 annual shillings--it is, in order that those--Europeans and Hindus --who work night and day at Adyar, giving their services free and receiving little thanks or honour for it, should have at least one meal a day. The fresh "dew of self-oblivion" must not be permitted to chill one's heart, and turn into the lethal mold of forgetfulness to such an extent as that. The severe critic seems to have lost sight of the fact that for months, during the last crisis, the whole staff of our devoted Adyar officers, from President down to the youngest brother in the office, have lived on 5d. a day each, having reduced their meals to the minimum. And it is this mite, the proceeds of the "2 shill. contribution," conscientiously paid by some, that is now called extortion, a desire to live "in the purple of authority and the festive garments of pride and worldliness"!

Our "Brother" is right. Let us "weep in sack cloth and ashes on our head" if the T.S. has many more such unbrotherly criticisms to bear. Truly "it would be far better that the name of Theosophy should never be heard than that it should be used as a motto"--not of papal authority which exists nowhere at Adyar outside the critic's imagination--but as a motto of a "self-developed fanaticism." All the great services otherwise rendered to the Society, all the noble work done by the complainant will pale and vanish before such an appearance of cold-heartedness. Surely he cannot desire the annihilation of the Society? And if he did it would be useless: the T.S. cannot be destroyed as a body. It is not in the power of either Founders or their critics; and neither friend nor enemy can ruin that which is doomed to exist, all the blunders of its leaders notwithstanding. That which was generated through and founded by the "High Masters" and under their authority if not their instruction--MUST AND WILL LIVE. Each of us and all will receive his or her Karma in it, but the vehicle of Theosophy will stand indestructible and undestroyed by the hand of whether man or fiend.

No; "truth does not depend on show of hands"; but in the case of the much abused President-Founder it must depend on the show of facts. Thorny and full of pitfalls was the steep path he had to climb up alone and unaided for the first years. Terrible was the opposition outside the Society he had to build--sickening and disheartening the treachery he often encountered within the Head Quarters. Enemies gnashing their teeth in his face around, those whom he regarded as his staunchest friends and co-workers betraying him and the Cause on the slightest provocation. Still, where hundreds in his place would have collapsed and given up the whole undertaking in despair, he, unmoved and unmovable, went on climbing up and toiling as before, unrelenting and undismayed, supported by that one thought and conviction that he was doing his duty. What other inducement has the Founder ever had, but his theosophical pledge and the sense of his duty toward THOSE he had promised to serve to the end of his life? There was but one beacon for him--the hand that had first pointed to him his way up: the hand of the MASTER he loves and reveres so well, and serves so devotedly though occasionally, perhaps, unwisely. As President elected for life, he has nevertheless offered more than once to resign in favour of any one found worthier than him, but was never permitted to do so by the majority--not of "show of hands" but show of hearts, literally--as few are more beloved than he is even by most of those, who may criticize occasionally his actions. And this is only natural: for, cleverer in administrative capacities, more learned in philosophy, subtler in casuistry, in metaphysics or daily life policy, there may be many around him; but the whole globe may be searched through and through and no one found stauncher to his friends, truer to his word, or more devoted to real, practical theosophy--than the President-Founder; and these are the chief requisites in a leader of such a movement--one that aims to become a Brotherhood of men. The Society needs no Loyolas; it has to shun anything approaching casuistry; nor ought we to tolerate too subtle casuists. There, where every individual has to work out his own Karma, the judgment of a casuist who takes upon himself the duty of pronouncing upon the state of a brother's soul, or of guiding his conscience, is of no use, and may become positively injurious. The Founder claims no more rights than every one else in the Society: the right of private judgment, which, whenever it is found to disagree with Branches or individuals is quietly set aside and ignored--as shown by the complainants themselves.

This, then, is the sole crime of the would-be culprit, and no worse than this can be laid at his door. And yet what is the reward of that kind man? He, who has never refused a service, outside what he considers his official duties--to any living being; he who has redeemed dozens of men, young and old, from dissipated, often immoral lives and saved others from terrible scrapes by giving them a safe refuge in the Society; he, who has placed others again, on the pinnacle of Saintship through their status in that Society, when otherwise they would have indeed found themselves now in the meshes of "worldliness" and perhaps worse;--he, that true friend of every theosophist, and verily "the readiest to serve and as unconscious of the service"--he is now taken to task for what?--for insignificant blunders, for useless "special orders," a childish, rather than untheosophical love of display, out of pure devotion to his Society.

Is, then, human nature to be viewed so uncharitably by us, as to call untheosophical, worldly and sinful the natural impulse of a mother to dress up her child and parade it to the best advantages? The comparison may be laughed at, but if it is, it will be only by him who would, like the fanatical Christian of old, or the naked, dishevelled Yogi of India--have no more charity for the smallest human weakness. Yet, the simile is quite correct, since the Society is the child, the beloved creation of the Founder; he may be well forgiven for this too exaggerated love for that for which he has suffered and toiled more than all other theosophists put together. He is called "worldly," "ambitious of power" and untheosophical for it. Very well; let then any impartial judge compare the life of the Founder with those of most of his critics, and see which was the most theosophical, ever since the Society sprang into existence. If no better results have been achieved, it is not the President who ought to be taken to task for it, but the Members themselves, as he has been ever trying to promote its growth, and the majority of the "Fellows" have either done nothing, or created obstacles in the way of its progress through sins of omission as of commission. Better unwise activity, than an overdose of too wise inactivity, apathy or indifference which are always the death of an undertaking.

Nevertheless, it is the members who now seek to sit in Solomon's seat; and they tell us that the Society is useless, its President positively mischievous, and that the Head-Quarters ought to be done away with, as "the organisation called Theosophical presents many feature seriously obstructive to the progress of Theosophy."
Trees, however, have to be judged by their fruits. It was just shown that no "special orders" issuing from the "Centre of Power" called Adyar, could affect in any way whatever either Branch or individual; and therefore any theosophist bent on "self culture," "self-involution" or any kind of selfness, is at liberty to do so; and if, instead of using his rights he will apply his brain-power to criticize other people's actions then it is he who becomes the obstructionist and not at all the "Organisation called Theosophical." For, if theosophy is anywhere practised on this globe, it is at Adyar, at the Head-Quarters. Let "those interested in the progress of true theosophy" appealed to by the writers look around them and judge. See the Branch Societies and compare them with the group that works in that "Centre of Power." Admire the "progress of theosophy" at Paris, London and even America. Behold, in the great "Brotherhood," a true Pandemonium of which the Spirit of Strife and Hatred himself might be proud! Everywhere--quarreling, fighting for supremacy; backbiting, slandering, scandal-mongering for the last two years; a veritable battlefield, on which several members have so disgraced themselves and their Society by trying to disgrace others, that they have actually become more like hyenas than human beings by digging into the graves of the Past, in the hopes of bringing forward old forgotten slanders and scandals!

At Adyar alone, at the Head-Quarters of the Theosophical Society, the Theosophists are that which they ought to be everywhere else: true theosophists and not merely philosophers and Sophists. In that centre alone are now grouped together the few solitary, practically working Members, who labour and toil, quietly and uninterruptedly, while those Brothers for whose sake they are working, sit in the dolce far niente of the West and criticize them. Is this "true theosophical and brotherly work," to advise to put down and disestablish the only "centre" where real brotherly, humanitarian work is being accomplished?

"Theosophy first, and organisation after." Golden words, these. But where would Theosophy be heard of now, had not its Society been organised before its spirit and a desire for it had permeated the whole world? And would Vedanta and other Hindu philosophies have been ever taught and studied in England outside the walls of Oxford and Cambridge, had it not been for that organization that fished them like forgotten pearls out of the Ocean of Oblivion and Ignorance and brought them forward before the profane world? Nay, kind Brothers and critics, would the Hindu exponents of that sublime philosophy themselves have ever been known outside the walls of Calcutta, had not the Founders, obedient to the ORDERS received, forced the remarkable learning and philosophy of those exponents upon the recognition of the two most civilized and cultured centres of Europe--London and Paris?

Verily it is easier to destroy than to build. The words "untheosophical" and "unbrotherly" are ever ringing in our ears; yet, truly theosophical acts and words are not to be found in too unreasonable a super-abundance among those who use the reproof the oftener. However insignificant, and however limited the line of good deeds, the latter will have always more weight than empty and vainglorious talk, and will be theosophy, whereas theories without any practical realisation are at best philosophy. Theosophy is an all-embracing Science; many are the ways leading to it, as numerous in fact as its definitions, which began by the sublime, during the day of Ammonius Saccas, and ended by the ridiculous--in Webster's Dictionary. There is no reason why our critics should claim the right for themselves alone to know what is theosophy and to define it. There were theosophists and Theosophical Schools for the last 2,000 years, from Plato down to the mediæval Alchemists, who knew the value of the term, it may be supposed. Therefore, when we are told that "The question is not whether the T.S. is doing good, but whether it is doing that kind of good which is entitled to the name of Theosophy"--we turn round and ask: "And who is to be the judge in this mooted question?" We have heard of one of the greatest Theosophists who ever lived, who assured his audience that whosoever gave a cup of cold water to a little one in his [Theosophy's] name, would have a greater reward than all the learned Scribes and Pharisees. "Woe to the world because of offences!"

Belief in the Masters was never made an article of faith in the T.S. But for its Founders, the commands received from Them when it was established have ever been sacred. And this is what one of them wrote in a letter preserved to this day:

"Theosophy must not represent merely a collection of moral verities, a bundle of metaphysical Ethics epitomized in theoretical dissertations. Theosophy must be made practical, and has, therefore, to be disencumbered of useless discussion. . . . It has to find objective expression in an all-embracing code of life thoroughly impregnated with its spirit--the spirit of mutual tolerance, charity and love. Its followers have to set the example of a firmly outlined and as firmly applied morality before they get the right to point out, even in a spirit of kindness, the absence of a like ethic Unity and singleness of purpose in other associations and individuals. As said before--no Theosophist should blame a brother whether within or outside of the association, throw a slur upon his actions or denounce him11 lest he should himself lose the right of being considered a theosophist. Ever turn away your gaze from the imperfections of your neighbor and centre rather your attention upon your own shortcomings in order to correct them and become wiser. . . . Show not the disparity between claim and action in another man but--whether he be brother or neighbour--rather help him in his arduous walk in life. . . .

"The problem of true theosophy and its great mission is the working out of clear, unequivocal conceptions of ethic ideas and duties which would satisfy most and best the altruistic and right feelings in us; and the modeling of these conceptions for their adaptation into such forms of daily life where they may be applied with most equitableness. . . . Such is the common work in view for all who are willing to act on these principles. It is a laborious task and will require strenuous and persevering exertion, but it must lead you insensibly to progress and leave no room for any selfish aspirations outside the limits traced. . . . Do not indulge in unbrotherly comparisons between the task accomplished by yourself and the work left undone by your neighbor or brother, in the field of Theosophy, as none is held to weed out a larger plot of ground than his strength and capacity will permit him. . . . Do not be too severe on the merits or demerits of one who seeks admission among your ranks, as the truth about the actual state of the inner man can only be known to, and dealt with justly by KARMA alone. Even the simple presence amidst you of a well-intentioned and sympathizing individual may help you magnetically. . . . You are the Free-workers in the Domain of Truth, and as such, must leave no obstructions on the paths leading to it." . . . {The letter closes with the following lines which have now become quite plain, as they give the key to the whole situation} . . . "The degrees of success or failure are the landmark we shall have to follow as they will constitute the barriers placed with your own hands between yourselves and those whom you have asked to be your teachers. The nearer your approach to the goal contemplated--the shorter the distance between the student and the Master." . . .

A complete answer is thus found in the above lines to the paper framed by the two Theosophists. Those who are now inclined to repudiate the Hand that traced it and feel ready to turn their backs upon the whole Past and the original programme of the T.S. are at liberty to do so. The Theosophical body is neither a Church or a Sect and every individual opinion is entitled to a hearing. A Theosophist may progress and develop, and his views may outgrow those of the Founders, grow larger and broader in every direction, without for all that abandoning the fundamental soil upon which they were born and nurtured. It is only he who changes diametrically his opinions from one day to another and shifts his devotional views from white to black--who can be hardly trusted in his remarks and actions. But surely, this can never be the case of the two Theosophists who have now been answered. . . . Meanwhile, peace and fraternal good will to all.


H. P. BLAVATSKY

Corres. Sec'ty, T.S.

Ostende, Oct. 3rd, 1886
Theosophist, June, 1924

* These opening words enclosed in brackets were presumably on the first manuscript page by H.P.B., which was lost, but they were later restored from a typed copy at Adyar and included in the August 1931 reprinting of the article in the Theosophist.-- Eds .
back to text

1 A liberal Christian member of the T.S. having objected to the study of Oriental religions and doubted whether there was room left for any new Society--a letter answering his objections and preference to Christianity was received and the contents copied for him; after which he denied no longer the advisability of such a Society as the professed Theosophical Association, A few extracts from this early letter will show plainly the nature of the Society as then contemplated, and that we have tried only to follow, and carry out in the best way we could the intentions of the true originators of the Society in those days. The pious gentleman having claimed that he was a theosophist and had a right of judgment over other people was told . . .

"You have no right to such a title. You are only a philo-theosophist; as one who has reached to the full comprehension of the name and nature of a theosophist will sit in judgment on no man or action. . . . You claim that your religion is the highest and final step toward divine Wisdom on this earth, and that it has introduced into the arteries of the old decaying world new blood and life and verities that had remained unknown to the heathen? If it were so indeed, then your religion would have introduced the highest truths into all the social, civil and international relations of Christendom. Instead of that, as any one can perceive, your social as your private life is not based upon a common moral solidarity but only on constant mutual counteraction and purely mechanical equilibrium of individual powers and interests. . . . If you would be a theosophist you must not do as those around you do who call on a God of Truth and Love and serve the dark Powers of Might, Greed and Luck. We look in the midst of your Christian civilisation and see the same sad signs of old: the realities of your daily lives are diametrically opposed to your religious ideal, but you feel it not; the thought that the very laws that govern your being whether in the domain of politics or social economy clash painfully with the origins of your religion--does not seem to trouble you in the least. But if the nations of the West are so fully convinced that the ideal can never become practical and the practical will never reach the ideal--then, you have to make your choice: either it is your religion that is impracticable, and in that case it is no better than a vain-glorious delusion, or it might find a practical application, but it is you, yourselves, who do not care to apply its ethics to your daily walk in life. . . . Hence, before you invite other nations 'to the King's festival table' from which your guests arise more starved than before, you should, ere you try to bring them to your own way of thinking, look into the repasts they offer to you. . . . Under the dominion and sway of exoteric creeds, the grotesque and tortured shadows of the theosophical realities, there must ever be the same oppression of the weak and the poor and the same typhonic struggle of the wealthy and the mighty among themselves. . . . It is esoteric philosophy alone, the spiritual and psychic blending of man with Nature that, by revealing fundamental truths, can bring that much desired mediate state between the two extremes of human Egotism and divine Altruism and finally lead to the alleviation of human suffering. . . " (See next to last page for continuation. [See p. 35.])
back to text

2 Mr. Cobb.
back to text

3 For years the wise rule by which any member accused of backbiting or slander was expelled from the Society after sufficient evidence--has become obsolete. There have been two or three solitary cases of expulsion for the same in cases of members of no importance. Europeans of position and name were allowed to cover the Society literally with mud and slander their Brothers with perfect impunity. This is the President's Karma--and it is just.
back to text

4 This may be a reference to the legal term, querela, for "bill of complaint"; Gebhard being in Germany, the "Allemand" is clear.--Eds THEOSOPHY.
back to text

5 Furthermore the writer of the complaints in "A Few Words, etc.," is himself a member on the General Council for over two years (see Rules 1885). Why has he not spoken earlier?
back to text

6 Yet, the Theosophical Brotherhood does seem doomed to outrival the group of Apostles in the number of its denying Peters. its unbelieving Thomases, and even Iscariots occasionally, ready to sell their Brotherhood for less than thirty sheckels of silver!
back to text

7 The members of the T.S. know, and those who do not should be told, that the term ' Mahatma," now so subtly analysed and controverted, for some mysterious reasons had never been applied to our Masters before our arrival in India. For years they were known as the "Adept-Brothers," the "Masters," etc. It is the Hindus themselves who began applying the term to the two Teachers, This is no place for an etymological disquisition on the fitness or unfitness of the qualification, in the case in hand. As a state Mahatmaship is one thing, as a double noun, Maha-atma (Great Soul) quite another one. Hindus ought to know the value of metaphysical Sanskrit names used; and it is they the first, who have used it to designate the MASTERS.
back to text

8 XIV "The Society having to deal only with scientific and philosophical subjects, and having Branches in divergent parts of the world under various forms of Government, does not permit its members such, to interfere with politics, and repudiates any attempt on the part of any one to commit it in favor of or against any political party or measure. Violation of this rule will meet with expulsion."

This rather alters the co complexion put on the charge, which seems to conveniently forget that "scientific and philosophical subjects" are not the only declared objects of the Society. Let us not leave room for a doubt that there is more animus underlying the charges than would he strictly theosophical.
back to text

9 It is the first time since the T.S. exists that such an accusation of "arbitrary power," is brought forward. Not many will be found of this way of thinking.
back to text

10 No need taking a roundabout way, to say that no Brotherhood would ever be possible if many theosophists shared the very original views of the writer.
back to text

11 It is in consequence of this letter that Art. XII was adopted in Rules and a fear of lacking the charity prescribed, that led so often to neglect its enforcement.
back to text

Khidr7,

What are some examples of new teachings "adapted to time, place, people and circumstances" that you are looking for? What would you like to see?

If we had a Theosophical Society History forum the first post would go there. Aside from two paragraphs from an Adept, that were the basis for Some Words on Daily Life (which is posted somewhere here) the rest is organizational strife.

There is little, to my mind, uplifting about it; it just shows HPB battling against her internal enemies.

The heading of this thread, if not moved, should be changed to TS History.

To all readers

Do we need help being on a higher level? There sure is a lot of integrity being demonstrated thus far. And, the scope of the Board goes beyond the Organization depicted in that it reflects the various Thesophical schools of thought. I'm baffled.

I am as well confused on who is questioning the level of Board. Has Adyer logged some complaint or something? Not exactly sure who or what would be making the stated determination of this place needing to reach a higher level???

Regardless, I am sure any "illumination" you bring to us will be gratefully received, and we appreciate your planned help, if I might speak for others in general.

As this is a Board, a community of Theosophists who are sharing their endeavors, from my perspective at least, I do not see "the Theosophy Forum" as a Theosophical Organization. Is that where Level 2 will be taking us?

I tried, but I am not getting that such is accomplishing your objectives, stated or implied. I am not seeing how the weight of the information is appropriate

For example, and from the top:

This is made evident by his having failed to perceive (a) that the Head Quarters--opened to all Theosophists of any race or social position, board and lodging free of charge the whole year round--was an unbrotherly Organisation; ( that "the central office at Adyar for keeping records and concentrating information" with its European and Hindu inmates working gratuitously and some helping it with their own money whenever they have it--ought to be carried on, according to the method and principle of George Miller of Bristol, namely, the numerous households and staff of officers at Adyar headed by the Pres.-Founder ought to kneel every morning in prayer for their bread and milk, appealing for their meals to "miracle"; and that finally, and © all the good the Society is doing, is no good whatever but "a spiritual wrong," because it presumes to call a limited line of good work--(theosophy) Divine Wisdom."


Perhaps, as you have formed some concrete ideas of how you plan for us to reach a Higher level, they could be stated more simply and direct in your own words. As it stands, this may be an exercise in futility.

Hasn't the Theosophical Society already split up and fragmented over this? I cannot conclude which or what main rules you would have us accept universally, as many schools of thought are currently supported -- this being an open forum, such that it is. This is where you might be most helpful in helping this place reach a higher level, as you say, in my humble opinion. Exactly what do you want to keep, what do you want to throw out, and what do you want to add? You proffer that the present day audience needs something else, if I understood you correctly.

It is probably evident that some schools prefer the 'old' and some others find the teachings inadequate. If we threw out the old teachings, then we would be giving up a tradition, which might not set well, and a well-founded belief that many are attached to. Some new perspectives have considerable value too, but probably just to those who lean more to the neo-theosophical. I gather such is why the Board is Univerally oriented, but then again, its not likely my place to say. Perhaps Nick will take your suggestions, once forumlated, under advisement.


I would surmise that you would place more value on HPB's initial document. It seems to me to focus on the four points stated up front. Perhaps a shortcut would be to look at those, as follows

You might have to elaborate on this one for us. To my limited observance of the posts, my sense is that we are all receptive to a Universal Brotherhood. You might have some very distinct qualifiers to add, though.

Nick's Theosophy Forum seems to have already incorporated this.

Those of India chiefly, hugh? My non-prejudicial thinking wants me to believe Thesophy leaves the choice of religion to the individual. It would also seem to me that the philosophies of the East are already well indoctrinated into the core set of Theosphical books, central to most member's reading, and regardless their choice of schools of thought. As everyone demonstrates an open mind here already, at least to the point of letting everyone share their views, and since the Board supports all schools, I am GUESSING (3) is also already handled.

The opposition of dogma of any type seems to be well supported already.
I could attest to at least some willingness to 'demonstrate the existence of occult forces,' and I could probably 'the presence of psychic and spiritual powers in Man' as well, and probably the 'enlarging the views of Spritualists.' There is as well many proponents of views about phenomena and spirits of the dead. As well, there are discussions on superstition, both exposed and avoided. The 'demonstrated to the best of our ability' would seem to be tempered to our own preferences. The choice is ever evident, so we may have that base covered too.


I keep coming back to the thought that perhaps you could explain in your own words what needs to be changed, and why, ... and what you are proposing. The old style of writing can be difficult to follow. I suspect they soon afterwords coined that enduring phrase "You had to be there."

Greetings,

Christian

To Nick Pilot and all readers


Here are my views:

Nick the Pilot Posted on Jan 27 2007, 09:56 PM:

Yeah. I also asked me self those questions. I wonder what answers one could write
to such questions.
what would your own answers be? :rolleyes:

Here is one answer:
On one level "new teachings adapted to time, place, people and circumstances" are teachings,
which the Seekers, beginners or more advanced spiritually need in this life of theirs.
To be able to help them, this requires a certain level of solid knowledge about their needs for this life or cycle.
This of course requires a certain level of compassion.

What the Seekers, beginners or more advanced spiritually need in this life of theirs is very
often NOT, what they themselves Want. Beginners and even those calling themselves advanced theosophists
often confuse spiritual Needs with their own Wants. And they often tell everyone, that THEY know much better what
they Need, than anyone on this planet.
They often ask questions, perhaps at forums or elsewhere, questions which are not what they spiritually Need
answers on, and what others do not spiritually Need answers on at the place, time and circumstances the questions
are being asked. Well, often I said, not always.


This was an answer on one level. Other levels I have not touched upon in this answer. I will something relating to this in the thread on definition of Theosophy.

I do hope this was helpful.

To Nicholas, ChristianMyst and all readers,

My views are:

The following is written out of compassion,
Nicholas wrote:

M. Sufilight answers:
Yes, I somewhat agree. Not exactly mindlifting to some readers. But, if one reads the text carefully and compare it with present day practise in and especially between various groups, one would perhaps understand the importance of Blavatsky's views much better.

The two paragraphs or so from an Adept, which Blavatsky added are important to me, so to understand, why the members of various groupings today, from a theosophical point of view, are acting quite strangely towards each other.

I quote a minor excerpt of the unnamed Adept from the text:
"Theosophy must be made practical, and has, therefore, to be disencumbered of useless discussion. . . . It has to find objective expression in an all-embracing code of life thoroughly impregnated with its spirit--the spirit of mutual tolerance, charity and love. Its followers have to set the example of a firmly outlined and as firmly applied morality before they get the right to point out, even in a spirit of kindness, the absence of a like ethic Unity and singleness of purpose in other associations and individuals. As said before--no Theosophist should blame a brother whether within or outside of the association, throw a slur upon his actions or denounce him11 lest he should himself lose the right of being considered a theosophist."

This was one reason why I started this thread.

ChristianMyst wrote about the idea, that HPB was a failed medium in another thread at this forum. And I have because of that and the theosophical cause every right to compassionately protest against such an idea. Such a protest of mine is done out of compassion to the theosophical cause. If you question my motives, then please let me know.

Christianmyst namely wrote in another thread (Introduction to Theosophy, Jan 26 2007, 08:16 AM Report Post)
the following:

I would really like Christianmyst to compassionately clarify, why he wrote the above words. Will he do that?

One of my problems are, that if Christianmyst accepts Blavatsky as a failed medium and apparently holds C. W. Leadbeater in high regard, then [U]why is C. W. Leadbeater saying the following about Blavatsky in chapter IV of his book "How Theosophy Came To Me", written as late in his life as 1930[U]:

"Madame Blavatsky


Let me try for a moment to look at her as an outsider might have looked, if that be possible for me. Frankly, I do not
think I can do that, because I love her with the deepest love, I reverence her more than anyone else, except her great
Masters and mine. So perhaps I cannot look at her dispassionately from outside, but at least I am trying to do so. I
have seen many strangers approach her. I will try to tell you what I have seen reflected in their faces and their minds.
The first thing that strikes them all, the first thing that always struck me, was the tremendous power that she radiated.
The moment one came into Madame Blavatsky’s presence, one felt that here was some one who counted—some one who could do
things, emphatically one of the great ones of the world; and I think that none of us ever lost that feeling.


There were assuredly many people who disagreed with various things that she said; there were others of us who followed
her enthusiastically. She was so strong a person that I have never seen anyone among the thousands who met her who was
indifferent to her. Some of them absolutely hated her, but more were immensely impressed by her. Many were almost awed
by her; but those who knew her best loved her with a never-failing emotion, and love her still. I have recently seen
some of those who knew her well, and it does seem that in every one of them the memory of her is just as green as it is
in my own heart, and we have never ceased to love her. The impression that she made was indescribable. I can well
understand that some people were afraid of her. She looked straight through one; she obviously saw everything there was
in one—and there are men who do not like that. I have heard her make sometimes very disconcerting revelations about
those to whom she spoke.


I say that that overwhelming sense of power was the first thing that was borne in upon one; and then it is difficult to
say what came next, but there was a sense of dauntless courage about her which was very refreshing, outspokenness to the
verge of—one could not quite say rudeness, but she spoke out exactly what she thought and exactly what she felt; there,
again, there are people who do not like that, who find it rather a shock to meet naked truth; but that was what she gave
them. Prodigious force was the first impression, and perhaps courage, outspokenness, and straightforwardness were the
second.


I suppose most of us have heard that she was often accused of deception by those who disliked or feared her. Enemies
thought her guilty of fraud, of forgery, of all kinds of extraordinary things. Those who repeat such slanders in the
present day are all people who have never seen her, and I venture to say that if any of those who talk about her now
could have been in her presence for an hour they would have realized the futility of their aspersions. I can understand
that certain other things might have been said against her—for example, that she rode a little roughshod over people’s
prejudices sometimes; perhaps it is a good thing for people to have their prejudices exposed occasionally; but to accuse
her of forgery or deception was utter folly to any of us who knew her. It was even said that she was a Russian spy.
(There was a great scare at the time that Russia had designs on India.) If there ever was on this earth a person who
was absolutely unsuited for the work of a spy, that person was Madame Blavatsky. She could not have kept up the
necessary deception for ten minutes; she would have given it all away by her almost savage outspokenness. The very
idea of deception of any sort in connection with Madame Blavatsky is unthinkable to anyone who knew her, who had lived
in the same house with her, and knew how she spoke straight out exactly what she thought and felt. Her absolute
genuineness was one of the most prominent features of her marvellously complex character."
( http://www.singaporelodge.org/htctm.htm)

And there is more positive info from Leadbeater about Blavatsky in that book.


A few well-meant remarks to ChristianMyst:
I will perhaps consider answering the questions you posed later. Maybe the following issue belongs in another thread or maybe it belongs here. I think we at first have
to have a clear stance on where I and you, relate to Blavatsky in all this.
I simply cannot accept her being degraded like in the above, and that
especially because my own Knowledge daily tells me something else. Leadbeater's statement about Blavatsky, should tell you differently. Try reading the rest of the book "How Theosophy Came To Me" by CWL on what he says about Blavatsky.


I do hope this was helpful.

Khirdr7

Interesting.

Only the underlined is my expressed opinion Khird7. The rest is your presumption.

Why would that be true?

I think this is the truth you are struggling with. This is something "personal." And, this is where you should have started in the beginning, and most likey in a more suitable forum. What you want to perceive as an attack is actually something else. When you and others hold up Blavatsky as a shinny shield instead of thinking for oneself based on their own careful review and examination of Thesophy from a fouth-dimensional perspective (inside out, and all around), then you and the others who quote instead of think, examine and speak their truth FORCE HER to take the slings and arrows FOR YOU.

Why must a Theosophist drag around their old grandmother around with them and throw her under the bus every time they cross the street. Only to dredge her back up when the next opportunity for risk presents herself. I serve to illustrate the point that THIS is not respectful, and that I try to speak my own truth. Such I consider to be true respect for the great lady, as she did not require or want us to deify her. She wanted men to reach their own potential. She brought the ancient's wisdom to the world, AS SHE KNEW IT. She claimed no source, and encouraged others to reach for themselves. Such, we do not do. There have been some good lectures, however, and in review you may find their opinions grew and changed over time, which is logical. Another reason I feel quoting is a bad idea, and why we only set Blavatsky up to fail over and over again in this changing world.

She is not anyone's scapegoat, but will always suffer as she has in the past because Theosphists are rare who can proffer their own learned opinion. To, as well, force others to continually counter with opposing quotes is a lesson in futility, which I have hoped to illustrate. I will always be able to find the words I need when Theosphy is played as a game.

My choice of Leadbeater, by the way, was deliberate, BECAUSE I knew the active members do not want to give him much do credit. This was MY act of compassion as I could have drawn upon far higher sources and made considerably for disturbing points. My point is not to disrespect Blavatsky but rather to show her some respect. No one can win in a non-thinking game. No matter who we chose to throw in front of the bus instead of taking our own slings and arrows will be shot down. And, of course you took the bait.

So, getting back to your first post, and this upfront response:

Wonderful. Let me know when you catch up and provide your illumed response from you as the source. I would be happy to take up the new business after having the advantage of your thinking.
Christian

Yes to the beginning and end, but not to the middle. I can dig up the quote if needed, but she always said she was only passing on what she had been taught by her gurus.

As for Sufilight's (what name do you prefer Sufi?) dislike of HPB being denigrated again: Why assume he is an unthinking, authority-bound weak sister? (Yes I know, these are my words, not yours)

Reverence and devotion for spiritual figures is common and The Secret Doctrine mentions such devotion as primal within humanity.

To ChristianMyst and all readers


My views are:

All the below words of mine are written out of compassion towards the wisdom teachings.

First a few words. Most people on other forums call me M. Sufilight. Khidr7 is also an option. I hope that help Nicholas and others.

To the readers I will say, that I am today not a member of any theosophical organisation. I am just culling the good I find in each system of teaching and thought. And I put high value on wisdom and compassion.



ChristianMyst wrote:

My Sufilight answer and questions:
Allright. Let me try another formulation. Do you find Leadbeater to be a failed medium as well? In what manner are you setting a compassionate and wise example by degrading H. P. Blavatsky by in a quite unsupported manner saying that she was
a medium who failed? Blavatsky, was an initiated chela, did you know about her intimately, since you claim that she was a failed medium?


ChristianMyst wrote:

My Sufilight answer:
It is true in the sense, that I am not prepared to answer the questions you posed in your previous post in this thread unless this stance about Blavatsky is clairified, - clairifed more than it is now. That is what the words ”we at first have to have a clear stance on where I and you, relate to Blavatsky in all this” refers to.


ChristianMyst wrote:

My Sufilight answer:
These remarks in the above are very personal. You are talking to me, and not about the issue. As far as I know, everyone who is one the Path towards liberation are struggling with the Truth. My motive with, what I wrote was, - as anyone honestly capeable Clairvoyant can verify in my aura, - to avoid the theosophical cause being damaged.

To me you should seek to avoid running double-standards. You write about your deep respect and love for Blavatsky and yet you degrade her AND thereby also her teachings by saying that she was a medium who failed. It would be good if you supported your views with some compassionate information about the issues.

I think you misunderstand my point. What you call ”deify” when you talk about Blavatsky, we call respect and compassion to the theosophical cause and towards fellow human beings. We are not deifying her, but we are accepting her teachings as very important to the planet, and we use the teachings in a non-dead-letter sense as well as many other teachings. Although I admit, that some theosophists do not.

I will say how ever, that Blavatsky to me made a few minor mistakes. Mistakes, which are difficult to explain in physical writing because of the level they happened on. Well, that is just my view, and I am not prepared to tell you more about this, because there are different views upon this issue. So I am certainly not deifying Blavatsky. Some of us theosophists know about ParaBrahman as Not This, Not That.


ChristianMyst wrote:

My Sufilight answer:
Bait or not. Your words would make more sense, if they were more wise and compassionate, the bait included. The above words are to me an expression of ”Jesuitism” or dishonest activities. To me it is sad that you are acting like this.

Some readers are left with you, ChristianMyst, a so-called Medium having an unclear position about theosophy, Blavatsky and her teachings, as well as wisdom and compassion. You could consider that.

Kindness and cruelty, while effective and understood in ordinary relationships, operate as part of a conditioning system within a teaching or group situation.

Maybe this post will help you understanding your own role in this thread.


True and False Teachers...
Since there are so many people all over the world claiming that they are spiritual teachers, many of those who want to follow them - and those who want to refute them - spend much of their time trying to work out which are real ones and which are not.
What is rather remarkable is that a great many of these self-styled teachers are discernibly not teachers, if studied with the normal rational apparatus which is of some value even to seekers after truth.

There is a story about a man who went up to another one who was selling what he described as "the most delicious and irreplaceable honey in the world" in a market-place. "If it is so marvellous," he asked, "why are you selling it?"

"I wouldn't try, you may be sure," answered the honey-seller, "if a mouse hadn't fallen into it!"

Now, in spiritual matters it may be claimed that the seeker, however sincere, cannot tell whether there is a mouse in the honey of the teaching which he offered. But if he would only steel himself to look at the honey with dead mice floating on top, he would start to learn how to recognise the real thing. If you can test a verifiable counterfeit, you will eventually find a coin which is gold. Those who start at the other end: who can test gold without being confused by counterfeits, are different lot of people, sad to say.


Did this help you?


M. Sufilight