Nicholas,
Please, do understand that I was just seeking additional information and support for the re-publication of Boris’ magazine issues and that I really don’t want to enter in any dispute.
On the basis of the information and support received I have uploaded to the website the first Volume (6 issues) and the Tribute issue of “Theosophia” with the links from the “Theosophia” index page. Please see:
"Theosophia"So, dear Dara and Nicholas thank you very much for your valuable information and suggestions. I would be very grateful if you could call my attention to any mistake in the texts, so that they could be as perfectly reproduced as possible.
Thank you very much, Christopher, for warnings and suggestions.
And equally thanks to Nick for running this forum and allowing in that way a fruitful exchange of information.
Warmest regards,
Anton
p.s. In these days I am seeking also additional copyright information for the re-publication of F. Pierce Spinks’ extraordinary book “Theosophists Reunite!” Here are some passages from this unique work:
AN ELOQUENT PLEA FOR A REUNITED SOCIETY
Undaunted by the failure of earlier attempts at reunification, the author determined to try again, and this book comes at a period almost ten years later when he lays before the Theosophical world the basic idea and challenges them with the following proposition: Return to the integrity of The Original Programme of the T.S. written by H.P. Blavatsky in 1886. Basing his premise upon the principle of logic which says that an idea is necessarily true, when, to assume the contrary, is absurd, the author - making use of similar reasoning - believes that the White Lodge now wants a return to unity, fellowship and inter-relatedness among all Theosophists of all affiliations, for to assert the contrary would be absurd and contrary to the structure of the Movement itself.
In the concluding chapter, Mr. Spinks makes an eloquent plea for a reunited society as it was in the days of its Founder, H.P. Blavatsky. Few that read the book will be left unimpressed by the intensity of the plea which he makes and the rationality of the arguments which he brings to bear on the problem.
The inevitable conclusion which the author reached was that a general rapprochement of all Theosophical groups is imperative if the purposes of the Movement are to be achieved.
“Theosophists: Reunite!” is a strong challenge and an eloquent plea which no Theosophist can ignore.
*
One month before she died H.P. Blavatsky addressed these stirring words to the Boston Convention of The Theosophical Society in 1891:
“The critical nature of the stage on which we have entered is as well known to the forces that fight against us as to those that fight on our side. No opportunity will be lost of sowing dissension, of taking advantage of mistaken and false moves, of instilling doubt, of augmenting difficulties, of breathing suspicions, so that by any and every means the unity of the Society may be broken and the ranks of our Fellows thinned and thrown into disarray. Never has it been more necessary for the members of the T.S. to lay to heart the old parable of the bundle of sticks than it is at the present time: divided, they will inevitably be broken, one by one; united, there is no force on earth able to destroy our Brotherhood.”
Four years later, despite this eloquent plea, a schism rent the Theosophical Society from which it has never recovered. Shortly after this first rupture further cleavages took place, bringing at one time to twenty-two the number of separate societies deriving their inspiration and teaching from the original Society.
How would Madame Blavatsky view the existence of several Theosophical Societies were she with us today? Is there reason to believe that she would approve? Does the existence of these groups, each having similar objects, yet separated by psychological barriers and Iron Curtains, lessen the effectiveness of the appeal to Brotherhood which each makes?
In this same message, her last, to the American Convention, H.P.B., as she was affectionately called, spoke of “these diabolical attempts of our powerful enemies - the irreconcilable foes of the truths now being given out.” Would she, we may ask, attribute to this same ‘enemy’ the present disunity in the Theosophical Movement? What steps would she be likely to recommend to correct a condition which she begged us so pointedly to avoid?
Properly to understand the issues involved in the above questions it is important to be acquainted with the concepts underlying the formation of The Theosophical Society. These are clearly stated by H.P. Blavatsky in an article written by her in 1886 entitled “The Original Programme of the Theosophical Society”, portions of which we quote:
“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 member 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.”
The Objects, Rules and By-Laws of the Society were slightly modified over the years, but as early as 1878 a Circular was printed in which they are shown as being almost identical with those in effect today.
Because all Theosophists look to H.P. Blavatsky as the agent of the White Lodge in founding the T.S., we feel we may choose these words of hers to act as the axis around which we may safely launch our inquiry. But in considering this great problem it is essential that reason be brought to bear upon Theosophical affairs, recognizing that reason, as Descartes and Spinoza concluded, is properly used only as the mathematician uses it, that is, without bias, and directed by soundness of argument. So from this base, which should appeal to all because of the universal acceptance of H.P.B. as an agent of the Masters, we shall reach out to examine the events in Theosophical history which seem pointedly to run contrary to the wishes of the Founders, as expressed above by their spokesman. Trying to avoid prejudgment and emotion, we hope to encourage objective thinking, recalling Spinoza’s words, “Reason is the light of the mind, and without her all things are dreams and phantoms.”
The Founders of the Theosophical Society evidently fully realized the difficulties which would be encountered in inviting under one organizational roof representatives of many and diverse creeds. Consider the following taken from ‘The Original Programme’:
(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.”
Belief likewise in the infallibility of H.P.B.’s teachers was to be avoided, and criticism of a fellow member was strictly forbidden on pain of expulsion from the Society. Witness the following:
(2) They had to oppose in the strongest manner possible 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 criticizing 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.”
It is urged that readers keep these paragraphs strongly in mind during our discussion, because we believe the violation of these basic ideals to be a principal cause of the problems in the Theosophical Movement.
In the archives of The Theosophical Society at Adyar is preserved a letter from one of the Masters who helped to found the T.S. “Theosophy,” he writes,
“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 ... As said before - no Theosophist should blame a brother whether within or outside of the association, throw slur upon his actions or denounce him lest he should himself lose the right of being considered a Theosophist.”
Now let us ask ourselves whether or not the Theosophists have carried out this Program:
1. Do they blame each other?
2. Do they denounce one another for actions with which they disagree?
3. Do Theosophists today condemn other Theosophists for their shortcomings?
4. Do they respect the private views and creeds of other members?
5. If not, what has brought about the change in direction from the Original Program?
To these questions we shall seek an honest answer. Recognizing that the matters we shall consider have to do with personal beliefs, and that the issues involved are somewhat emotionally charged, we shall aim to preserve that attitude advocated by the seventeenth century philosopher Descartes, expressed in his “Meditation I”, of suspending judgment “and with firm purpose avoid giving credence to any false thing.” We should be less than honest, however, if we failed to show that when reaching the area of inter-Theosophical relations Theosophists are inclined partially to abandon the great concepts which underlie the present Theosophical Movement, and to act in a manner contrary to the purposes which they profess.