Theosophists: Reunite!
By F. Pierce Spinks

CHAPTER III
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

“Now I beseech you, brethren ... that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
“For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren ... that there are contentions among you.
“Now this I say, that everyone of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
“Is Christ divided? ...”
- I Corinthians, 1,10-12

FROM the previous chapter we have learned that despite the expressed wish of the White Lodge and their spokesman, H.P. Blavatsky that the Theosophists should remain united at all costs, there are now several societies calling themselves Theosophical which do not even communicate with each other. They do not display “a spirit of unity and harmony” as called for in “The Original Program of the T.S.”; nor do they show “a great mutual toleration and charity for each other’s shortcomings” required by the Founders and written into the said Program. Moreover, they do not extend each other “mutual help in the research of truths in every domain,” as specifically called for in this “Original Program.” On the other hand some of them willfully and knowingly encourage an attitude of non-cooperation with other groups of Theosophists. Some of the leaders of the groups know that this is contrary to the first and prime Object of all the groups, but they [106] steadfastly refuse to cooperate with those who have in the past attempted to induce friendship and brotherliness among Theosophists. It is difficult for their followers to disassociate themselves from a policy which is set for them by their leaders, but a growing number of these followers are slowly realizing the folly of this leadership (to the extent that it supports disunity), which moves against the noble aim of all of us - A Universal Brotherhood of all men.

All the Theosophical Societies have much in common - more than is necessary to live together in harmony in One World Theosophical Society. All agree on the following:

a. Objects of the Theosophical Society
b. Universal Brotherhood as the main objective
c. Basic Teachings of Theosophy (see Chapter IV)
d. Belief in a White Lodge of Initiates whose members they call Masters
e. Belief that H.P. Blavatsky was the chosen spokesman of the Lodge.

These agreements are unquestionably sufficient to warrant a re-association of all groups as in H.P.B.’s day.

We are now to review some statements by prominent Theosophists in each of the Societies which will substantiate the assertion that a very unsatisfactory situation exists in the Theosophical Movement today, one which the Founders and the White Lodge would unquestionably condemn, as do the majority of the rank-and-file Theosophists throughout the world. As already stated, the breadth of the platform which the Founders designed in establishing the Society allowed plenty of room for people of widely dissimilar beliefs to come together and work in harmony towards the attainment [107] of the Objects of the Society. The Master K.H. once wrote to Mr. Sinnett that for any success in occultism it was necessary to associate people of dissimilar forces and polarities around the dominant idea of Universal Brotherhood. Obviously this means that some sacrifice in the form of tolerance is called for, and this sacrifice is of the very essence of occult progress. As Sidney A. Cook, Vice-President of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), once said:

“Our differences are not to divide us; they are not merely for addition; they are for multiplication of our powers so that we bring together our respective ideas and opinions and blend and integrate them into strength.” [1]

John Dewey said that a problem well stated is half solved. This is felt to be a sufficient excuse, if one is needed, for holding up a mirror to the Theosophists of today, and spelling out the problem, unpleasant though the task be. “Facts,” said Aldous Huxley, “do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” If by scrutinizing the unpleasant facts which mar the Theosophical scene of today the Movement can thereby return to the integrity of the Original Program of the Theosophical Society, then no apology need be made, for a necessary task will have been accomplished.

Written evidence of the problem is to be found in many sources. For example in The Canadian Theosophist, of May 15, 1954, we read:

“Individuals have realized that the continuance of the cleavages in the Movement is wrong, but nothing has been done by the ‘successors in guidance’ to correct the wrong. Pride, ignorance and a disdainful indifference have contributed to this; the situation will not be changed until either the increase in the number of those who desire to see the barriers removed is such as to force official action, or ‘the successors’ themselves come together in round table discussions.” [108]

The phrase “successors in guidance” refers to the great need which H.P.B. stated her successors would have of unbiased and clear judgment in the guidance of the Society.

In the same issue is to be found an article entitled “A Draft Preliminary Memorandum on an Alternative Policy for the T.S.” by T.H. Redfern, President of ‘Peace Lodge’ (Adyar) Theosophical Society, in Hyde, Cheshire, England, which reads in part:

“We regard the present relations (or lack of them) between the several branches of the Movement as a breach of the First principle of Brotherhood, and consequently a serious weakening in the power of the Movement to render its due service in the world. The main branches we refer to are The Theosophical Society (Adyar), The Theosophical Society (Pasadena) and The United Lodge of Theosophists, but we do not ignore lesser branches, and the principle applies to all. We hold that these breaches should and can be healed, but only members in all three bodies who behave as Theosophists can do it.”

Common to both these statements is a dissatisfaction with the present situation and a feeling that it must and can be corrected. The conviction is present that the power of the Movement to do its proper function in the world is seriously weakened by the disunities which prevail. Brother Redfern further says:

“In a world in which there is a growing interest in occultism, The Theosophical Movement should be outstanding as the united body of such students as are distinguished by the evident practice of brotherhood amongst themselves and in their relationship in the world, and by their mutual, equipoised respect for divergencies of understanding in their co-working!”

Mutual respect for divergent viewpoints is central to the Theosophical structure. For how can any group of heterogeneous elements function successfully side by side without this basic tolerance of opinion and respect for the beliefs of others? The Original Program [109] of the Society demanded it of all Fellows of the Society on pain of expulsion.

There can be no better authority on the supreme importance of unity than the Master K.H. himself. In his letter Number Four to Mr. A.P. Sinnett, dated Amrita Saras, October 29, 1880, he says:

“I must ask you to remember that the new Society shall not be allowed to disconnect itself with the Parent Body, though you are at liberty to manage your affairs in your own way without fearing the slightest interference from its President so long as you do not violate the general Rules.”

The “new Society” referred to was the proposed formation of an Anglo-Indian Branch of the Society. He said it “would be a mortal blow at the Theosophical Society” to form a new and independent Society, having the same objects and directors behind the scenes as the Society already established.

H.P.B.’s ideas on this subject are forcefully presented in a letter which she wrote to Rev. Arthur Gebhard from Ostende on July 13, 1886:

“But for you to talk of forming ‘an independent Branch’ - i.e. one that will be regarded as a rival or an inimical one I find a treason to the Masters (Underscoring is that of H.P.B.). And how can you ever suppose that the Masters will have anything to do with, or even notice a Society if it has nothing to do whatever with the Parent T.S.? ... But do not talk of independent Societies if you are Theosophists, and if you do not want to renounce the Masters more even than Franz did.”

From this it is a certainty that H.P.B. would vehemently oppose any and all schisms from the Parent Theosophical Society.

Suggestions as to the presence of more serious imperfections in the Movement are to be found in the next excerpt written by a correspondent to the Editor [110] of The Canadian Theosophist, and appearing on page 171 of the issue of January 15, 1952. It reads:

“Is it the ‘Theosophists’ Movement’ to which we would call the world’s attention? Surely internecine warfare, backbiting, calumny, slander and vindictiveness are not Theosophical inventions - they will never make a name for our Movement!
“What a curious spectacle - how She and They must laugh!
- to see small, jealous groups of rival Theosophists sedulously avoiding each other, while trying to do the work of H.P.B. and the Masters. Within recent months three new volumes of undeniably Theosophical literature have come off three different presses: the fifth volume (1883) of the COMPLETE WORKS OF H.P.B.; H.P.B. SPEAKS (Vol. I); and PRACTICAL OCCULTISM from the private letters of W.Q. Judge. Did hosannas go up from Theosophical groups everywhere upon the appearance of these labours of love? Not noticeably.”

The references to calumny, slander and vindictiveness are very disturbing and should have no place in a Movement committed to Brotherhood. Written documents will unfortunately bear out this statement. In the preface (page V) to The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950, published anonymously by The Cunningham Press of Los Angeles, California, the statement is made that the previous issue of this History covering the period from 1875 to 1925 was published “in the face of a threatened libel suit.” A reference to this previous volume will find much harsh criticism of various Theosophical groups. A detached scholar would be compelled to agree that this criticism of fellow Theosophists is not in keeping with the spirit of the Original Program of the Theosophical Society.

It is a matter of record, also, that the Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society (Point Loma) under Katherine Tingley’s leadership distributed widely two pamphlets, Incidents in the History of the Theosophical Movement and Annie Besant and the Moral [111] Code, which severely reproached the Theosophical Society (Adyar) and some of its prominent members. While the Society itself took no official notice of these unfriendly attacks, they aroused deep resentment on the part of many of the members and only served to worsen the situation.

There can be no doubt that these and other incidents which follow demonstrate how far some of the Theosophical Societies of today have wandered from The Original Program of the Theosophical Society. In her “Preliminary Memorandum” of the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), H.P. Blavatsky wrote:

“The Masters can give but little assistance to a Body not thoroughly united in purpose and feeling, and which breaks its fundamental rule - universal brotherly love, without distinction of race, creed or colour; nor to a Society, many members of which pass their lives in judging, condemning, and often reviling other members in a most untheosophical, not to say disgraceful, manner.” [2]

It is to be feared that the ‘reviling’ of other members in a ‘disgraceful manner’ is present today, for we find the Editor of Theosophical Notes (Berkeley, California), writing in the October 1955 issue making the statement that the members of a certain group of Theosophists “would die before they would join the Theosophical Society of Adyar.” How greatly this contrasts with H.P.B.’s ideas regarding the necessity for cooperation and unity can be seen from the Memorandum she wrote to members on the eve of her departure from India with Colonel Olcott in February 1884:

“What the Society expects from all its Branches and individual members is cooperation and help in its grand task of uniting the East and the West, the North and the South, in [112] a Scientific Brotherhood armed against dissension and consequent failure by the principle of Mutual Tolerance and Mutual Intellectual Sympathy ...”

There are many who feel that the existence of several Theosophical Societies is in itself a distinct curb to its progress. Dudley W. Barr, editor of The Canadian Theosophist (Adyar), once said:

“I can never write ‘other Theosophical Societies’ without feeling how incongruous it is to have more than one ‘Theosophical Society’ - to have ‘the wisdom of the god’ relating as it does to the Universal Brotherhood of man, parcelled out by different organizations, none of which will have anything to do with the firm next door.” (Italics added).

Here is a serious charge and one which is undeniable, that the different Theosophical Societies are not on speaking terms with each other. Obviously this impedes the creation of the brotherhood which the Movement was designed to create.

For Theosophists to be divided, says T.H. Redfern [3]

“is a contradiction in terms, an impossibility, and for those who would be Theosophists to remain divided is therefore a confession of failure.”

The editors of Eirenicon, [4] speaking of the disunion of those who should be united, emphasize the same note:

“The disunity of the Theosophical Movement is so radically contrary to its essential mission and message to mankind that the Movement is seriously invalidated and cannot fully sustain the power necessary for its complete success.”

Readers will generally agree that commitment to the ideal of brotherhood is incompatible with the existence of bad relations between sister societies. The writer of the above article goes on to suggest that it may be that reunion cannot start at the top but will [113] be brought about “through some of the ordinary rank and file in the several Societies who deplore the disunion, seek one another out, begin to meet and banish barriers and serve as leaven in the Societies and Lodges to which they belong.” Without such a reunion he doubts that the present Movement will be found “usable as a launching platform ... by the expected Messenger from the Brotherhood of Adepts in 1975.” He is referring here to the theory generally held by Theosophists that the Initiates of the White Lodge attempt to help mankind more openly during the last quarter of each century. Most Theosophists hope that the problems in the Movement can be solved by then so that this Brotherhood of highly evolved men will have a strong vehicle through which to work.

In an unsigned article appearing in The Canadian Theosophist, May 15, 1954, we read:

“Today the Theosophical Movement is split into various separate organizations and the ‘solidarity,’ ‘unity of purpose and feeling’ and ‘brotherly love’ is still missing - and missing also is ‘the more tangible help’ from Those who were behind the founding of the Society.”

In harmony was further evidenced when Mrs. Alice L. Cleather, prominent in her day as a pupil of H.P.B., formed “The Blavatsky Association” and denied membership therein to members of the Theosophical Society (Adyar).

An editorial in The Canadian Theosophist, September 1951, raises the question as to whether any of the schisms in the Movement were necessary in view of the fact that wide divergencies of opinion are permitted to continue within the Adyar Theosophical Society. What would have been the effect, it boldly queries, [114]

“if in spite of all provocations, all groups had remained in the one Society, each quietly and firmly maintaining its own independent approach, and contributing ideas to the whole body? Many words have been written in justification of these divisions ... But notwithstanding all rationalizations, the fact remains that we did undertake to form a nucleus of Universal Brotherhood, and that we have now a half-dozen Universal Brotherhoods who do not speak to each other. Can we do something about this in the short time remaining?”

The Theosophical Society (Adyar) does permit this free expression, an assertion amply borne out by the criticism of some of its policies which has long been made by the Canadian Section and certain Lodges elsewhere.

An article on “White Lotus Day” appearing in The Canadian Theosophist, May 15, 1953, declares the Movement has such viability that it moves forward despite “our human foolishness and downright stupidity, our egotism and self-righteousness.” These characteristics have arrested its progress together with “distortions of the original message,” the “power complexes of many ‘leaders’,” and “the activities of little ‘holier-than-thou’ groups within the Movement.”

Recognizing that the situation was unsatisfactory, some attempts were made to rectify it. The largest scale effort will be dealt with in a later chapter. But all these efforts failed to reunite. And why? Because the real aim was not to unite the Societies but rather to attract members to themselves, not only individual members, but whole groups.

A good deal of effort was expended by The Theosophical Society (Point Loma) in an attempt to have Theosophists of all affiliations meet annually in common observance of the anniversary of the death of H.P. Blavatsky, a day called White Lotus Day. The [115] United Lodge of Theosophists have never officially cooperated in this effort, though Lodges of other affiliations have. The San Francisco Lodge of the T.S. (Point Loma) used to invite the local U.L.T. annually to this joint celebration, but they steadfastly declined. On one of these occasions two members of the U.L.T. heard of the invitation and attended. Noticing them there, the Point Loma group reported the meeting as a “joint” celebration with the T.S. (Adyar) and the U.L.T. This report disturbed the officials of the U.L.T.

Mr. T.H. Redfern, President of the Peace Lodge of the T.S. (Adyar) in England, whom we have already quoted, has made similar efforts to bring together on White Lotus Day members of the Point Loma T.S. and the U.L.T. with Adyar members. He reports the following incident in Eirenicon, August-September 1948. He visited the London office of the U.L.T. early in 1948 and asked if they would join in a White Lotus Day celebration which was being contemplated by the Adyar and Point Loma lodges of the Northwest. The U.L.T. replied that they could have no joint celebration until the Adyar and Covina Societies “have the same policy as we do,” that is, the study of the “unaltered Message of H.P.B.” Mr. Redfern then asked them if their members would join in a meeting not sponsored officially by any lodges but merely by individuals, the idea motivating them being a mutual admiration for H.P.B. The reply was that individual students were free to do as they liked about such a meeting.

Mr. Redfern commented that there was much which he deeply admired about the U.L.T. - and so do we - but he doubts that either H.P. Blavatsky or W.Q. Judge would approve of their attitude towards other [116] Theosophical Societies. We are certain they would not, for obviously some of these attitudes flagrantly violate “The Original Program of the Theosophical Society” written by H.P.B. herself.

At about the same time another effort was made to bring the Societies together. It was the occasion of the Annual Convention of the English Section of the Theosophical Society (Adyar). Mrs. Groves, General Secretary, sent invitations to the Point Loma T.S. and the U.L.T. to attend the opening session. The Vice-President of the English Section of the Point Loma T.S. attended and on invitation made a speech. Not so the U.L.T., who sent a letter stating why they could not cooperate. Nevertheless, in a beautiful and dignified display of brotherhood in action, Mrs. Groves attended a special U.L.T. meeting in memory of Robert Crosbie, founder of the U.L.T. She stated that she went personally to assure the U.L.T. that only friendly sentiments had prompted her invitation. She added that while the U.L.T. members were friendly to her personally, they expressed themselves strongly that the other Societies were “on the wrong lines,” and they gave this as their reason for avoiding fraternization. The U.L.T. (London) followed this with a letter to Mrs. Groves stating that they appreciated her efforts towards friendliness, but reiterating their stand that H.P.B.’s teachings had been “modified, twisted and distorted beyond recognition by individuals calling themselves Theosophists.” “There could be,” the letter stated, “no possible cooperation between ourselves and your Society until the Theosophical Society (Adyar) repudiates the teachings of its false teachers.”

It is well known that all members of all Theosophical societies are united in admiration for H.P.B. One might [117] ask where are the sensitive feelings of a group that would refuse to pay a tribute in death to the one to whom all owe so much. She had nothing in life but a wish to serve all of us; so how can we so steel our hearts to the common urge to pay her homage, on this one day of the year, that we must do so in separate corners, disunited, willfully so, despite her last wish that we remain united? What kind of homage is this to the Teacher-Foundress?

These unsatisfactory inter-relationships extend even into the area of the publication of H.P.B.’s works, for it is related by a former official of the United Lodge of Theosophists that his group proposed to the T.S. (Point Loma) that they should print a joint issue of The Secret Doctrine without the imprimatur of either Society on it, but the Point Loma T.S. turned down the offer. This, it should be added, was some years ago, in the middle twenties.

Evidence of bitterness is present in The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950, a book generally believed to have been written by members of the United Lodge of Theosophists, though no author is shown. Speaking of the conditions in the Theosophical Society in India after 1885, this book states:

“A Society with this sort of leadership was worse than none, for its policy was one of semi-conscious hypocrisy, justified by fear. It may be added that there has been no appreciable change in the Adyar Society from that day to this.” [5]

This is an assertion which decidedly does not harmonize with the requirements of The Original Program of the T.S. as to not hurting the feelings of a fellow member. Nor does it present the full story which, when told and read by unbiased minds, amply justifies the actions which the leaders of that day took. In [118] the passage just quoted the largest segment of the Theosophical fraternity is held up for condemnation in a book purporting to be a history. It is noteworthy that a few paragraphs later in this same volume H.P. Blavatsky is quoted as highly praising that very leadership of the Adyar Society which the U.L.T. deplore:

“Ceylon was the foyer from which the religion of Gautama streamed out to Cambodia, Siam and Burma; what then could be more appropriate than that there should be borne from this Holy Land a message of Brotherhood to Japan! How this message was taken, how delivered by our President, and with what magnificent results, is too well known to the whole Western World to need reiteration of the story in the present connection. Suffice it to say, it ranks among the most dramatic events in history, and is the all sufficient, unanswerable and crowning proof of the vital reality of our scheme to beget the feeling of Universal Brotherhood among all peoples, races, kindreds, castes, and colors.” [6]

Another sweeping disparagement of the Theosophical Society (Adyar) is found later in the same work:

“When H.P.B. left India in 1885, the Adyar Society quite evidently lapsed to the status of a religious organization, subject to all the weaknesses and defects of organizational sectarianism. Thereafter the chief function of Adyar seems to have been to harrass H.P.B. and to impede her work, and, after her passing, to do the same to William Q. Judge. To continue the history of the Adyar Society in detail after 1900 would be to perform a melancholy ritual in the name of historical ‘completeness,’ while neglecting the vital currents of Theosophical influence, if any, arising from other sources.” [7]

Can the author be making these generalizations merely for the sake of building up another organization of Theosophists? It is suggested that it would be less melancholy if this author were to record the obvious plus-factors as well as what he believes to be the minus-factors, and include all the excellent work which noble ladies and gentlemen dedicated to a high [119] purpose have done and are doing to promote the Objects of the Theosophical Society (Adyar). It would seem only fair to mention both. Not to do so in a ‘history’ of the Movement could be taken as showing bias. Particulars of these worthwhile achievements are to be had for the asking, and include such activities as listed below:

1. THEOSOPHICAL RESEARCH CENTER IN LONDON
A group of scientifically inclined members form sub-groups to undertake research projects. They have published a long list of monographs linking Theosophy and modern science.

2. COMMITTEE FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THEOSOPHY AND MODERN THOUGHT
A group in New York City for the most part, with similar ideas to the London group. So far they have put out only mimeographed materials for the orientation of new workers.

3. PARENTS RESEARCH GROUP
An English group dedicated to the helping of parents. Publishes The Parents Group Bulletin, a Quarterly now near the end of its second year. An outstanding magazine.

4. THE THEOSOPHICAL BOOK GIFT INSTITUTE
Last year 628 libraries were visited and 4773 books were placed in 738 libraries. Sixteen titles of Theosophical Books are offered to libraries and subscriptions to The Theosophist. Most of this work is done by Miss Edith Grey, but many others help in time and contributions. The books are free to the libraries.

5. THE THEOSOPHICAL BOOK ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND
Braille Library of over 700 volumes serving blind readers on a national basis: 656 volumes loaned last year; 79 volumes added to library.
Theosophical Braille Quarterly of 68 pages: Members’ supplement sent out eight times a year.
Talking books for those who cannot read Braille: 148 books; 22 new added last year. [120]
The Directors, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Snyder, recently returned from a year in Asia. In Pakistan they trained 32 people to write Braille, 5 of them blind, and helped them to start educational work for the blind. In India they taught Braille to a class at the Theosophical Headquarters; when trained they will start a Braille section of the Adyar Library.

6. THE THEOSOPHICAL ORDER OF SERVICE, which is Theosophy in Action: SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT
Food and clothing parcels to needy persons in the U.S. and abroad.
Hospital Service
Recreation work for patients including showing movies Service to patients - reading, errands, etc.
Work with crippled children
Encouraging prison reform
Combatting juvenile delinquency
Work with prisoners
Classes in a few prisons
Letters to prisoners
Books in prison libraries
Camp Kolikinthou, near Athens, Greece
European Theosophists adopted this camp to try to help the persons there. They called upon American Theosophists for help. Supplementary diet furnished to the refugees there improved the mental and physical condition of adults and children so that only 20% of the children in this camp needed special treatment for lung conditions as compared to 85% in other camps. Now all families who wish to do so have been aided to start life outside and given $100 each to make a start. This leaves in the camp only those who wished to remain, all of whom have employment, and the U.N. (United Nations) is building houses for them. The complete job of rehabilitation has been held up to other groups assisting in other camps as an ideal.

To demonstrate the appreciation of the United Nations Department for Refugees for the quality of work accomplished by the Theosophists at Camp Kolikinthou we quote from a letter written by Mme. Ariane de Berg in Geneva to the Chairman of the American Theosophical Committee for Camp Kolikinthou: [121]

“Through my previous communications and the Theosophical Press you know how greatly our work is appreciated by the High Commissioner’s for Refugees Office in Geneva. Since we started our ‘Camp Adoption Scheme,’ 50 camps have been adopted, and I have been told many times that we were the only ones to have made a constructive job of it ...
“I have been asked to write ‘The Story of Camp Kolikinthou Adoption’ for distribution among the other organizations who have adopted camps after our example, to serve as a guide in their work. I have been asked also to have it recorded as part of a broadcast on the U.N. High Commissioner’s for Refugees work.”

Another letter from the Secretary on Foreign Relations of The Theosophical Society, Athens, Greece, to the Link Officer for St. Michael’s Center, Huizen, Holland, pays tribute to the excellence of this work:

“Several families have been rehabilitated and having left the camp, they now live in their homes, full of gratitude. Most of the other refugees have been helped to find work and earn their living. Young people, especially girls, have been trained in professions and crafts or have been helped to finish their education in schools, so that they may earn their livelihood in a respectable way ...
“This great Theosophical achievement has been recognized by all official agencies - by the Greek Government, by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, by the World Council of Churches and by many others.”

Thus there are many constructive and soundly Theosophical activities in progress at all times, and these so transparently outweigh the errors which everyone has made that we ask: Where is the profit in harshly criticizing brother Theosophists, particularly in a book which is read as history by the public? Does this not damage the Movement rather than help it?

A new student who might not have access to other histories and other estimates of this Society might indeed conclude that the Original Program had altogether been forsaken. But the evident self-righteousness [122] of this critique violates the demand of the Founders that all Fellows show “great mutual toleration and charity for each other’s shortcomings.” The same paragraph speaks of “the betrayal of William Q. Judge” by the first two Presidents of The Theosophical Society (Adyar), i.e. Col. H.S. Olcott and Mrs. A. Besant. These are strong words of condemnation, whereas the Original Program demands of its members complete tolerance of other members’ shortcomings. One of the Masters wrote that “no Theosophist should blame a brother ... throw slur upon his actions or denounce him lest he should lose the right of being considered a Theosophist.” It is feared that the denouncements made by the anonymous writer above quoted would hardly have the approval of the Master who wrote the passage just cited.

The same anonymous writer in The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950 criticizes C. Jinarajadasa, then President of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), for using the word ‘God’ in certain of his writings.

“The President of the Theosophical Society ought to heed the advice of his predecessor in office, Mr. Arundale, and gain a definite acquaintance at least with the spirit of The Secret Doctrine, for he would find in that book the categorical statement by Madame Blavatsky that ‘Initiates never use the epithet “God” to designate the One and Secondless Principle in the Universe; ..: As one who, in 1925, was not merely an ‘initiate,’ but, according to Mrs. Besant’s Ommen revelation, a first-string ‘Arhat,’ Mr. Jinarajadasa betrays an amazing ignorance of the customs of his ‘degree’.” [8]

Madame Blavatsky did reject the idea of an extra-cosmic, personal and anthromorphic God; but she propounded instead a Universal Divine Principle.

“It is not the One, Unknown, ever-present God in Nature, or Nature in abscondito that is rejected, but the God of human dogma and his humanized ‘Word’.” - The Secret Doctrine, I, p. 9, 1st edition. [123]

So what difference does it make whether we call this Divine Principle God, Jehovah, Supreme Being, Creator, Nature, Allah, Yah, Adonai, Ain-Soph, Tao, Brahman, Osiris, Adi-Buddha, or any other appellation that attempts to convey to the mind an idea embodying an impersonal, divine Deity? It is a question of semantics and not a case wherein criticism of one group of Theosophists by another is justified. If this writer is an agnostic, we can sympathize with the point of view which candidly asserts that it does not know if God exists. But if he denies the existence of God, his profession makes him an atheist, guilty of a dogmatic assertion without the slightest evidence to support it.

The following pertinent story is told in Dun’s Review, March 1956, p.96, and the temptation to quote it is too great to resist:

“During World War II a heated argument developed during a meeting of the British and American Chiefs of Staff Committee. The British brought in a memo on an important point and proposed to ‘table’ it - which to them meant to begin immediate discussion. This brought a protest from the Americans to whom ‘tabling’ means putting aside, and the argument became rather warm before both groups realized they wanted the same thing.”

Let us not get into the way of being querrulous about terminology. The Christians use the word God, Father, Lord, Creator, Redeemer, and we use the words Supreme Being for the same purpose. We speak of Divine Beings, and they speak of Angels; we speak of The Lords of Karma, and they use the term Angels of the Lord who administer justice; we use the Sanskrit word Karma, and they use the phrase “As ye sow so shall ye reap.” There IS no objection to using a different set of word-forms to convey the same idea, provided we advise our hearers that they are the same, [124] and that our use of a different term does not constitute a declaration of a new dogma. The human mind is prone to abstract a different meaning from different terminologies, and therefrom draw or abstract different inferences. Thus it is seen that the use of different terminologies to describe the same fact or process tends to lead seekers for truth along different pathways. An over-ambitious person might seek to capitalize on this situation by forming a new sect or church or society (with themselves as the head) and by declaring the first party in error as to beliefs.

Alfred Korzybski said that if you destroy the terminology of a science you destroy the science. The same might be said of religion. When these differences between groups of Theosophists are emphasized and a fellow Theosophist is held up for ridicule because of his belief, the Original Program of the T.S. is violated.

To use the terminology of General Semantics, a new branch of knowledge now struggling for deserved recognition: Maps are not the Territory - they only represent it. There is nothing wrong with the term ‘God’ except the Maps which we have of It, in some cases. H.P.B. tried to change those Maps, but she did not claim that the Territory which the Map was supposed to represent did not exist.

*  *  *

During a European Conference of the Theosophical Society (Point Loma) held at Molle, Sweden on August 22 and 23, 1953, its leader, J.A. Long, made the statement that it was only his society through which the Masters work. [9] This same statement was also frequently made on his trip through Europe in the Spring of 1951. [10] [125]

This is an assertion, unverifiable and non-corroboratable, which cannot help but breed disunity among the Theosophists of today, for if this, the smallest of the three Societies, is the only one which the White Lodge sponsors, then similar claims made by other Theosophical Societies must be spurious.

But how can this group deny to other Theosophical groups the validity which it claims for itself? This and similar statements only widen the gap between the Theosophical groups. They are not, we reiterate, in keeping with the spirit or letter of The Original Program of the T.S. It should not escape the average intelligence that deception on the psychic and alleged occult plane is the simplest kind to put forward, and these claims probably exceed the true ones by ten thousand to one. The true occultist will make no public claims. The case of H.P.B. was a rare exception.

The problem of bad inter-Theosophical group relations is augmented by bad intra-Theosophical group relations in several instances. The Point Loma T.S. was rent by internal dissensions at the time of the assumption of leadership by Colonel A.L. Conger in 1945, and this caused a number of its prominent members to leave the Society. A further and more serious trouble took place in 1951 on Colonel Conger’s death as related in the previous chapter.

Additional evidence of disharmony between the sister societies of the Movement is the barrage of heated criticism levelled at so-called ‘neo-Theosophy’ and its advocates by some of those who have come to be known as ‘pure-Theosophists’ in the ‘Blavatsky tradition.’ Present in much of this is rancour, bitterness, and denunciation of the beliefs of the ‘neo- Theosophists,’ [126] qualities which do violence to the Original Program of the T.S. Passages could be quoted to illustrate this, but they are purposely omitted because of their severity and inappropriateness in a work devoted to finding ways to restore harmony in the Movement. No one even partly acquainted with what is going on in the Movement today will deny the existence of this discordant undercurrent. One feels constrained to remind these critics of the oriental proverb which says, “Thou shalt not swat the fly on thy neighbor’s forehead with a hatchet.”

This harsh criticism usually originates in two of the groups and is directed at members of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), many of whom have found the formulations of neo-Theosophy worthy of their belief. Criticism of beliefs is not necessarily to be deplored, as it can produce progress. But it must be done in a friendly spirit and in a manner not to offend, as required in the Original Program. “Honest differences of views and honest debate,” says Herbert Hoover, “are not disunity. They are the vital process of policy-making among free men.” But separate Societies, devoted to the same objects, which do not speak to each other, and which harshly criticize each other, are a case of disunity. In the Theosophical Society an open invitation is made to people of widely differing beliefs to join in forming a brotherhood. Respect for differing creeds is mandatory not only by reason of the nature of the Society itself, but also because of the specific injunction to that effect in “The Original Program.”

It must be clearly understood that the abolition of constructive criticism is not being advocated. Historically, critical statements are of positive value because [127] they focus attention on any weakness, and this forces change. There are many who are against the skeptical attitude. They say: Unless you have constructive criticism, do not give destructive criticism. From the intellectual viewpoint that request is quite dubious. It is clear in the history of the intellect that skepticism has always preceded anything constructive. Quite a number of scientists and philosophers developed and expanded their theories after skepticism had revealed their flaws. If there are no strong objections to any particular thesis, then the thesis stands. The burden of skepticism, criticism and questioning forces the adherents of a theory to turn back to its foundations in order to meet the objections. They must then either develop the theory more strongly or they must modify it.

A new member of the Corresponding Fellows Lodge in England wrote the editor of the “Bulletin” some months ago expressing surprise that in an organization devoted to Brotherhood there should be disharmony. He was particularly concerned because this Lodge had been “turned out of the Point Loma T.S.” It reminded him of earlier schisms in the Movement. He felt it was “high time that all bodies … teaching Theosophy under the same name should hold a World Congress to thrash out their differences” and work out a new plan “for achieving a United Theosophical Brotherhood.” Other members, new and old, are becoming increasingly vocal in this regard, showing that they reject the old unbrotherly pattern and want to re-establish the Movement on the basis set by the Founders.

Perhaps the most serious harm caused by dissensions in the Movement is the confusion created in the mind [128] of the public when they see the Theosophical Societies all separated though professing brotherhood. As Mr. A.P. Warrington, Vice-President of the Theosophical Society (Adyar) said at the International Convention held at Adyar 24-27 December 1932:

“As it is, the broad Theosophical Movement, with its twenty or more different kinds of Theosophical Societies, can but impress the inquirer as following unfortunately in the footsteps of religious Protestantism with its numberless dissensions and sects.” [11]

This situation is deplorable and puts the public in much the same predicament as the hypothetical animal, Buridan’s ass. This creature, usually credited to the French philosopher Jean Buridan (14th century), suffered from the hypothetical dilemma of perfectly balanced but conflicting desires for two different piles of hay. Hypothetically the poor ass died from starvation.

As early as July, 1930, Marie R. Hotchener, a prominent Theosophical writer, expressed regret that the Theosophists should continue to criticize and condemn each other, and pointed out that this had hurt the progress of Theosophy everywhere. She added:

“How can the general public accept as genuine our professions of spiritual brotherhood and tolerance if one group of Theosophists condemns another group? And how can Theosophy become a vital force for world peace if it does not first prove itself a unifying force for peace among Theosophists themselves?” [12]

Other Theosophical groups have more or less serious internal dissensions, and perhaps this must be expected in the present imperfect state of man’s evolution. But the Founders’ broad platform provided the widest latitude for differing viewpoints. This has been singularly demonstrated in the case of the Canadian Section of the T.S. (Adyar). For years they have voiced strong [129] disapproval of policies and doctrines enunciated by the Leaders of their own international organization. But they have done this within the framework of their own national society, as loyal members of it, and without seceding from it, a fact which is highly commendable. This leads one to ask why all other differences in the past could not have been handled in the same way. In the T.S. (Adyar) intra-Theosophical difficulties are also to be found. In his Presidential Address to the 80th International Convention at Adyar, December 26, 1955, Mr. N. Sri Ram said:

“I am glad to advert here to the annual report from France, because it strikes a note of serene hope, following the dissensions which have agitated the members of that Section during the last six years. Another Section where there have been differences of a disturbing nature, but which is now able to report a state of unity, is Chile in South America ... I personally have the trust that in a Society which stands for so beautiful a teaching as Theosophy and has had the inestimable blessing of having been started under the inspiration of the Masters of the Wisdom, all dissensions and differences due to our human frailties and ignorance must disappear sooner or later like mist before the sunshine.”

The above are a few of the many instances which could be cited which prove that the inter-relations between the Theosophical groups of today are far from satisfactory. One would have no hesitation in saying that the Founders would strongly disapprove of such a situation, and the assertion is confidently made that the rank and file Theosophists of today yearn to see it corrected.

Herbert Hoover, on the occasion of the Iowa Centennial Memorial Foundation, said that “the duty of men in public office ... is to lead in standards of integrity.” How much more is it true that it is the duty of those who presently lead the different units of the broken Theosophical Movement to lead in standards of Theosophical [130] integrity; and these standards must of necessity conform to the Original Program of the Founders of the Theosophical Society. There is danger of decay in the Movement if the Theosophists, through complaisance with error, allow policies to continue which are basically unfriendly to that Program.

*  *  *

Now let us return some sixty years on the time track to the Tenth Convention of the American Section in Chicago on April 26, 1896. Colonel Olcott is addressing the members. Viewing the secession of the previous year with pain in his heart, knowing that it would cause anguish in the heart of H.P.B. also, he is heard to say that the split must be recognized as an accomplished fact, and he wishes his late associates well in all the good work they might do in the future, “patiently waiting for the time when they shall be ready to undo the wrong they have done us and smooth the way for closer and more brotherly cooperation. The initiative must come from them. We can do no more than we have, viz. to declare our readiness to meet them half-way, to forget the past, and to forgive the injuries they have done us collectively and individually.”

Since then several expressions of a desire for unity in the Movement have been made by leaders of the different groups. In Dr. de Purucker’s Letter to Members of the T.S. (Point Loma) dated February 17, 1930, we read:

“Following instructions that have been given to me in a very definite form, it is my duty to tell you that the time has now come when every true and devoted Theosophist should work towards a unification of the various more or less scattered, and in some cases, alas, antagonistic, Societies of the general Theosophical Movement.” [131]

In his Messages to Conventions Dr. de Purucker underscores his desire to eliminate “the Theosophical disgrace” of separate disunited Societies, and his earnest appeal for a reunification of all Theosophical Societies into one Society.

Annie Besant, President of The Theosophical Society (Adyar) from 1907-1933, said:

“I think we both hope so to work that eventually there will be really only one Theosophical Society in the world.” [13]

Dr. G.S. Arundale, former President of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), said in his address at the Diamond Jubilee Convention held at Adyar from 25 December to 5 January, 1936:

“I hope the day is not far distant when those movements which have become detached from the parent stem will once again become part of our Theosophical Society, indivisible in its all-inclusive Brotherhood, but diverse as to the many modes of understanding and interpretation of Theosophy.”

The United Lodge of Theosophists have made a declaration in favor of unity among all Theosophists which is to be found in Robert Crosbie’s work “The Friendly Philosopher”:

“The unassailable basis for union among Theosophists, wherever and however situated, is SIMILARITY OF AIM, PURPOSE AND TEACHING. The acceptance of this principle by all Theosophists would at once remove all barriers ... THE WAY TO UNITE IS TO UNITE - NOTHING PREVENTS IF THAT IS THE DESIRE.” [14]

*  *  *

We have stated the facts. They cannot be ignored. The Proposition is now laid down that the bad inter-relations of the Theosophical Movement of today, evidenced by [132]

a. Uncommunicativeness between the groups, promoting bitterness and disharmony
b. Harsh and bitter criticism of each other
c Lack of support for each others’ activities, and
d. Lack of attendance at each others’ Lodge and public meetings

constitute a serious problem which impedes the Movement’s progress. This problem must be solved, for it is an evil which leads away from the common goal of each of the groups - the establishment of a nucleus of Brotherhood.

It is strongly believed that the White Lodge, which sponsored the Theosophical Society in 1875, would now like to see a complete rapprochement between all Theosophists, resulting in a return to the Theosophical unity enjoyed in H.P. Blavatsky’s day and which she begged us to preserve. They, it is believed, would have us now return to harmony, reintegration, communicativeness, mutual helpfulness, and they would have us proclaim anew, as a holy call, the Evangel of Brotherhood, that healing, cohesive substance which is the very heart of the Theosophical Movement itself.

Today the call for a return to unity enjoyed by all in H.P.B.’s time is being increasingly heard. What then holds us back? What is this inertia which binds us to what is old and unwanted? Is it fear of the unknown, or resistance to change or to new ideas? If so, then there is real danger of disintegration in the Movement.

We are told by psychologists that these negative characteristics cause many of our maladjustments because nature is a process, a constant change. If we resist this process, obviously our maladjustment [133] increases as the days go by. This fact was recognized in antiquity, for in his Dialogue de Oratoribus, Sec. 18, Tacitus the Roman historian says:

“The fault lies in the carping spirit of mankind, that we are always praising what is old and scorning what is new.”

One of the greatest pains to a human being is caused by a new idea. Men resist new ideas and cling to the old like a drowning man to a straw because they think their security is being challenged. “But,” said Carlyle, “today is not yesterday. We ourselves change. How then, can our works and thoughts, if they are always to be the fittest, continue always the same? Change, indeed, is painful, yet ever needful.”

In a talk at the National Press Club in the Spring of 1954, Harvard University’s President Nathan Pusey said:

“A scholar ... has an obligation to investigate and report new ideas in his field, even when his conclusions may be unpopular among the general public.”

In The People in Your Life, Margaret Mead says:

“Any society that is working at improving inter-racial relations and inter-religious and inter-group relations is dependent for its progress on individuals who object to the current position.” [15]

The advocates of Reunification object to the present situation because it moves contrary to the main current of human brotherhood. Additionally, the Masters did not create the Theosophical Society to be broken up into many little unfriendly, uncommunicative pieces. If division of the Theosophical Society were desirable and carried out in its entirety, the eventual result would be a regression into some form of Solipsism.

Dr. J.B. Rhine of Duke University, North Carolina, wrote: [134]

“It is a noteworthy fact that the great religious advances have come as heresies, reformations, or schisms under the stress of great need and of glaring inadequacy in the existing situation.” [16]

The Advocates of Reunification consider that the contrast between the Original Program of the Theosophical Society and the present disunity in the Movement can be characterized as a “glaring inadequacy” which calls for urgent corrective action.

*  *  *

History records the names of many whose ideas, ahead of their time, were at first ridiculed but later vindicated. H.P.B. is a case in point. Galileo, and his assertion that Jupiter had moons, was another. Even when he built a telescope through which these moons were visible, he could get no respectable savant of that time to look through it. From Florence, Italy, he wrote to Kepler in Germany:

“What would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of all this? Shall we laugh or shall we cry?”

But they still refused to put their eye to his lens because the ‘Holy Writ’ of that day had no place for his assertions. Nikolas Krebs of 15th Century Europe, and later Copernicus, aroused vast antagonism on the part of the ‘authorities’ of their day.

Turning to more modern illustrations, we find the cases of those who, late in the last century, were thought by their contemporaries to be quite erratic, almost mad, because they dared to dream of flying in the skies. One of the earliest of these, a Frenchman named Louis Mouillard, after seeing some eagles fly, [135] made some wooden wings and climbed a mountain in Egypt to try them out. Those who saw him dubbed him “AI Magnoun el Fransaoui,” Arabic for “The French Fool.”

In 1907 the British Admiralty was offered the patents of Orville Wright, aeronautical inventor. The First Lord’s reply:

“I regret to have to tell you after careful consideration of my Board that the Admiralty, while thanking you for so kindly bringing the proposals to their notice, are of opinion that they would not be of any practical value to the Naval Service.”

And a well known American general, some forty years ago said:

“I see no reason why the range of a military aeroplane should ever exceed three days’ march by the infantry.”

The scientific world did not accept Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood for a whole generation. The use of antiseptics in surgery, put forward by Lister, was at first opposed by the medical world. The psychological discoveries of Sigmund Freud had difficulty gaining acceptance. Charles F. Kettering, highly successful inventor and businessman, in a book called How to Train Workers for War Industries, said:

“As I look back over the years, it is pretty much of a definite law that man is so constituted as to see what is wrong with a new thing, not what is right. I think that a critical view of history would indicate that man has tended to persecute the man with the new idea and then - if the idea was good - honor him.”

This same writer added that in the course of his career he had submitted a good many ideas to committees composed of average men, and that “their [136] reaction is to see the wrongness, to obliterate ninety per cent of rightness which the average eye cannot see for the sake of ten per cent wrongness which the conventional eye always sees.”

Pioneers in any line of thought, even if constructive, are usually looked upon with displeasure, for they threaten existing modes of behaviour. But ideas which have the merit of truth in them eventually prevail. A reunited Theosophical Movement, we hold, has in its favor the validity of Theosophical principles themselves. It needs no learned argument - its merit is intrinsic, self-evident.

One or two members whose support has been sought for the Project embraced in this book have declared in a half uncertain voice that they did not think they could go along with the idea. But on asking the reason for their lack of interest they were unable to give any reply. This brings to mind the words of Dr. Coyne Campbell. Addressing the Central States Speech Association in Oklahoma City in 1941, he stated that of all the patients brought to him who were judged seriously maladjusted, there was one symptom common to them all: None of them were able to tell him clearly what their trouble was. It is found that in such cases it helps a great deal to make a written statement of the situation. It seems appropriate to add at this time, however, that most of those to whom the reunification project has been presented have reacted favorably to it.

But some members on hearing of the idea have stated that there is no need to change the status quo, as any attempt to do so would make more enemies than friends, and anyway there is a kind of unity already existing. As to the former, Jesus did not think [137] of the enemies he would make when he drove the money changers out of the temple; and Krishna berated Arjuna for his despondency before the battle:

“A soldier of the Kshatriya tribe hath no duty superior to lawful war, and just to thy wish the door to heaven is found open before thee through this glorious unsought fight, which only Fortune’s favored soldiers may obtain.”
- Bhagavad-Gita

Science records its greatest periods of progress when individuals have held up old time-tested assumptions for examination and possible discard. An outstanding case of the latter is the instance of a Polish mathematician, Lobachevski, who decided to drop the Euclidean postulate that parallel lines never meet, and he and others formulated a new geometry based on this new stand. There are now a number of these non-Euclidean geometrists (Ganss, Rieman, Nils Bohr, Heisenberg and Lillian Lieber are some). Euclid also assumed that the three angles of a triangle always made two right angles. He could not prove this, as it was based on another unprovable proposition. So he set it up as an axiom, though it was not self-evident, but was needed in his other formulations. The non-Euclidean geometrists also dropped this postulate and assumed that the three angles of a triangle added up to more or less than two right angles. It was this revision of the Euclidean formulations which led Einstein to his theory of Relativity. And this theory of Relativity led to the reduction of the Atom, which in turn ushered in The Atomic Age with its enormously increased possibilities for growth.

The important point to bear in mind here is that once the human mind was released from the bondage of an established pattern, a tremendous growth in [138] knowledge took place. So today, may it not be possible, too, that the Theosophists, if they release themselves from the present tensions of conflicting interests and bad inter-relations, may open up an era of vastly increased membership and progress? Why not discard the assumption that the Theosophists of Group “A” are unable to reunite with Group “B” because of a schism that took place sixty-odd years ago? Why not assume instead that the individual Theosophists in both groups would happily welcome this re-association with their brothers in the same Movement? Are we not alive to the hindrance to our progress which a continuance of the status quo imposes on us?

There is no occasion to be fearful because of the novelty of the idea. There has been a definite trend in the past few years towards lessening the gap between the Theosophical groups, and this has been attained largely through a demand for ‘straight Theosophy’ as it is called. If a stranger to Theosophy were to visit some of the Lodges of the different Theosophical Societies, he would find great similarity today, equivalent almost to sameness, as brought out in our first chapter. When told that each group he visited belonged to different organizations he could hardly be blamed if he expressed surprise. It reminds one of a story told about Emerson. He had invited all the ministers of differing denominations in Boston to hear his lecture on the Vedas. After the lecture each one of them came up to him in turn and said: “I am so glad to know, Mr. Emerson, that you are one of us and believe as we do!”

The sponsors of this Project are aware of the views of some, referred to before, that there is no harm in having a number of Theosophical Societies. The [139] argument is that the members of different groups have loyalties which cannot be submerged, and these loyalties stand in the way of a fusion. But can we not expect Theosophists to show greater loyalty to a nobler objective than to a lesser one? - to the Original Program of the T.S. rather than to personalities? Can we not reasonably expect of them that they will discard the lesser in order to attain the greater, if the two conflict? Is it not a reasonable expectation that they will, if given the opportunity, be loyal to H.P.B.’s plea for unity, to the Master’s desire for unity? One wonders if this point of view does not stem from a desire to justify the situation as it is today rather than carry on what appears to them to be a hopeless struggle against it. However, with a feeling of charity towards those who honestly hold to this view, I must present my earnest conviction here that I think this viewpoint is decidedly wrong.

It has been remarked that in H.P.B.’s day unity was comparatively easy to maintain because she was the center of gravity in the Theosophical Society. What was Theosophy in 1880? It was the sum total of H.P.B.’s writings. The same was true in 1890. But the original and fundamental object of the Theosophical Society was, and is, to form a Universal Brotherhood. With the passage of time, however, the wealth of H.P.B.’s teachings furnished us with a philosophy which can be called Theosophy. But membership in the Society does not depend on our believing a single one of its teachings. Universal Brotherhood is the only commitment. And yet the promulgation of Theosophical teaching has become a very principal object to many of the members of the Theosophical Societies. Rightly enough, they want to spread Theosophy abroad. [140] But we are not committed to do this when we become members. It is the emphasis which is wrong today. To make this clearer it might be advisable to separate these two activities and place them onto two levels, viz:

a. Form a nucleus of Universal Brotherhood - MAIN OBJECT
b. Promulgate Theosophy - not essential for membership, though a highly desirable activity, as it provides a comprehensive base for Brotherhood.

It is on the second of these levels where we run into many of our difficulties, as each group classifies, codifies, and enlarges upon the basic teachings and, alas, makes statements that this set of teachings is canonical and that set put out by a different Theosophical group, is not, thereby getting the new member, who is committed only to Universal Brotherhood, involved in something which he had not bargained for.

It is the Theosophists with their Theosophy who cause the difficulties in the Movement - not the Buddhists, the Christians, the Hindus, the Mohammedans and representatives of other faiths - because they seem to fear that they will be driven apart by other Theosophists with their Theosophy. But these fears and quarrels take place on the outer perimeter. Basically only Brotherhood is essential in any true Theosophical Society. All argument as to what Theosophy is and what it is not, is on the fringe of things. It is not germane. In The Mahatma Letters we are warned that the Theosophists are slowly manufacturing a creed. This has been going on for some time. Ideological fences have been created in the Movement: those inside are the pure, the redeemed, the blessed; those outside are the impure, the Theosophical vagabonds, [141] unreliable, unredeemed. And as they peer over each others’ fences, fears and dislikes are inevitable. Those on the outside looking in, or vice versa, are going to look upon the other group eventually as an enemy, to be despised, feared, disliked. In this climate tolerance, kindliness, communicativeness, and brotherhood cannot grow.

So again to keep clear of the dust of our own raising, we ask, What, then, is important? And the answer cannot be denied. It is this: THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY MUST STAND BY ITS OBJECTS. And these Objects do not require us to teach “pure” Theosophy, or “H.P.B.” Theosophy, or to condemn any other kind of Theosophy. The Objects are broad enough, catholic enough, to appeal to professors of all faiths. And by the same token they should be broad enough to appeal to all Theosophists. They did in 1875. Why cannot they do so now?

We can well leave that as a question and proceed to note that it is accepted as a basic psychological principle that our responses are determined by that to which we attend. If we continue to watch a yawning man we will begin yawning ourselves. If we make a hero out of some person, we tend to adopt some of his characteristics. By attending to that which we find blameworthy in other Theosophical groups, we are apt to develop similar qualities in ourselves. We may not readily recognize this growing quality in ourselves as stemming from its real source, because we do not care to be associated with that which we condemn in others; but if we are honest we shall eventually face it as something that cannot be denied.

Why cannot all Theosophists come into one Theosophical Society in the same way that the various other [142] faiths do? If people of such divergent beliefs as Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jains, and Mohammedans, can come into one Theosophical group and not fear that they will suffer thereby, what keeps the Theosophists themselves from doing likewise?

*  *  *

It has also been suggested that merging all Theosophical Societies is like merging all Universities. But this statement is erroneous; there is no parallel. Universities teach the discoveries and methods of others. Thus we study psychology as formulated by Freud, Adler, Steckel; philosophy contained in the teachings of Plato, Bergson, Kant, Spinoza, Descartes, Hume and Russell. New discoveries in science or philosophy may replace the old, rendering it useless, and the student is always urged to make new discoveries himself.

Theosophy, on the other hand, conveys to the world the existing divine teachings of the Masters, which teachings derive from a higher source. Professors in Universities give lectures which are based on various and sometimes contradictory sources. Thus the Behaviorists disagree with the Hereditarians and the theories of Freud are not in agreement with the theories advanced by others. Often the professor, after a lecture in which he gives all the known theories on the subject, will conclude that he is not in accord with any of the theories advanced. He thereupon presents his own, formulated as a result of his own tests.

In Theosophy, however, we have a different situation, inasmuch as it is claimed that all great teachers: Buddha, Jesus, Krishna, Moses, etc., belong to the same school, the White Lodge. Theosophy claims that [143] the Lodge selected H.P.B. to help form a Society through which they gave transcendental teachings, and these teachings are uniform, undeviating and unchanging. It is not possible to believe, therefore, that

a. The Masters will give out different and varying teachings, or that
b. They will give their teachings to societies which are antagonistic to each other and yet bearing the same name - Theosophical.

Universities do not claim to possess all the wisdom and all the truth, and on the contrary they claim that they do not know which school and which professor is right or wrong. Universities investigate, test, experiment and try to discover which is right and which is wrong, but they do not claim to be absolutely sure or to possess the truth exclusively. Theosophists, however, claim that they can not err provided they cleave to the teachings which have been given them by the Masters of Wisdom. It is just as unthinkable to pretend that such Masters are going to communicate the same teachings through various different Societies bearing the same name and to sponsor disunities and divisions among them, as it is to believe that Jesus sponsored various and differing denominations with antipathies towards each other, through which to convey His teachings.

No; a parallel between the Universities and the Theosophical Societies does not exist unless it is stated as a major premise that the Theosophists are like students in Universities, trying to find the truth, but without any reliable source towards which to turn, with the exception of the researches and writings of [144] previous students. If we posit this as a premise, we remove the distinctive source of the teachings, in just the same way as we would if we postulated that Jesus did not receive his teachings from God, and Moses did not obtain his religious doctrines from a divine source, and that both were expressing merely philosophies of their own. If we postulate that the teachings and philosophies expressed by Jesus and Moses were of their own inventions, and if we know that Moses and Jesus were both human beings, then since all humans are subject to error it follows that their teachings too may be erroneous.

It is believed that no Theosophist will care to establish such a premise, which would remove the very core, the very basis, for supporting the Theosophical Society.

The Theosophical Society, then, claims to convey to the world not primarily the results of researches by its students, but the teachings of the Masters, those who have sublime wisdom, those who help to govern and guide humanity in its evolution. In making this claim people will follow the Theosophical Society because it is energized by something divine, by something beyond normal human imperfections. If this basic assumption did not underlie the Theosophical Movement the whole would collapse, as it would then not differ from other research movements. Instead of going to the Theosophical Society we would then all go to the Universities for knowledge, try to get what knowledge they can give, test it, compare it, and reach some possible conclusions. When we go to church it is because there we expect to find something revealed by a Divinity, and what is offered in the case of any church is bottomed by Revelation. In the case of the Theosophical Society we receive something which is transmitted to us by the Masters.

Some have expressed pessimism over the possibility of tidying the Movement up so that it will be a fit instrument for its originators to use again. But to what degree is this pessimism self-induced? It brings to mind George Berkeley’s remarks in his Introduction to Of Human Knowledge: “We have first raised a dust, and then complain we cannot see.” If we will avoid raising the dust of intolerance and self-righteousness we will see our problems clear up. The alternative is a bleak thought, and has been mentioned as a possibility by several thoughtful writers - that the Masters would abandon all Theosophical Societies and sponsor a new group, the old being unworthy of support because lacking the foundation of success: Brotherhood.

The thought is basic to this writing that the situation is by no means hopeless and that there is reason to believe that all Theosophists will transcend past differences and recreate the Unity necessary for the flow of teachings from the Masters which existed during H.P.B.’s time. It is recognized that the undertaking is in effect plowing into a difficult soil, but there is comfort in the kind of spirit shown by Napoleon when he said “impossible is not French.” The pessimism of the prophets of Theosophical disaster need not claim our attention if the message of this writing is heeded.

CHAPTER III
REFERENCE NOTES

[1] The American Theosophist, April 1953, pp.72-3
[2] The Original Programme of The Theosophical Society by H.P. Blavatsky, 1886, Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madras, India, 1931, p.66
[3] T.H. Redfern, in Peace Lodge Papers, No.21, p.4
[4] Eirenicon, March-April 1947, p.1
[5] The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950, p.112
[6]  Ibid, p.1l5
[7] Ibid, p.301
[8] The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950, p.296
[9] See “European Conference of the Theosophical Society, Aug. 22, 23, 1953, Molle, Sweden,” published by The Theosophical Society, Pasadena 15, Calif., U.S.A.
[10] See The Leader’s Tour in Europe, April-June 1951, Part Three, Germany, published by The Theosophical Society, Pasadena 15, Calif., U.S.A.
[11] From the General Report of the International Convention of the Theosophical Society (Adyar) held 24-27 December 1932 at Adyar, Madras, India, p.9
[12] The Theosophist, Vol. I, No.7, July 1930, pp.575-578
[13] Peace Lodge Papers, No.21, p.1
[14] The Friendly Philosopher by Robert Crosbie, 2nd Ed. 1945, pp.410-11, The Theosophy Co., Los Angeles
[15] The People in Your Life, Margaret Mead, Ch.V, p.142, Albert A. Knopf, New York, 1951
[16] The New World of the Mind by Dr. J.B. Rhine, p.221, Wm. Sloane Associates, New York City

CHAPTER IV
COMPARISON OF BASIC TEACHINGS

“Work for Theosophy, and try to find the points of union and contact with each other, my Brothers, and the difficulties will vanish away because seen to be what they are - affairs of relatively small importance.”
G. de Purucker, Messages to Conventions, p.230

WHAT is the cornerstone on which Theosophy rests? If each member of the different Theosophical Societies were to answer that question after careful thought would they not be compelled to reply: Universal Brotherhood? This is the leitmotif of the Theosophical Society founded by H.P.B. and Colonel Olcott, and is the main object of the Society. It is also the main objective of the Theosophical Societies which have sprung from the parent society. This is the vital, compelling doctrine which overshadows all the others, without which all other doctrines would be on uncertain ground. It is the fount from which flows all spiritual teaching. Without it the other doctrines would fall, for they need this to support them.

Universal Brotherhood, our central theme, might be likened to the apex of the pyramid of Theosophical teachings, the four solid bases upon which the apex rests, being the well-known Theosophical teachings of:

Man’s Divine Origin
Evolution
Reincarnation
Karma [148]

The reader is assured that this “pyramid of Theosophical teachings” is not in any sense offered as a new dogma. The number of teachings which are similar as between the different Theosophical organizations can be made greater or smaller than these just mentioned, and the results will be the same, viz: that there is great similarity of teaching between the different Theosophical Societies. But the teachings appearing in this discussion have been chosen from among many because:

a. It is believed they are of greater fundamental importance in the philosophy than are some of the other teachings;
b. They tend more readily to support the main commitment than do some of the other teachings; and
c. They are among the most familiar and most often discussed teachings.

It is recognized, too, that Universal Brotherhood is not entirely a teaching, since it is likewise a commitment which all Theosophists embrace. But in its broad implications it can as well be labelled a teaching as a commitment, and for the purpose of the discussion it has been placed in that category.

If the various Theosophical Societies are in agreement as to the leitmotif, it may be said that a basis for unity among them exists now. If on further examination it is found that these same Theosophical Societies teach the four doctrines above mentioned, then there is a still broader basis for unity; and this is true even if in some of the details there is not complete agreement, for we must always keep in mind that we have no dogmas which must be believed in order to gain admittance [148] to our brotherhood. H.P.B., ever anxious to keep the basis for membership in the T.S. as broad as possible, frequently stated that the main purpose behind the formation of the T.S. was the establishment of a nucleus of Universal Brotherhood. “It is well known,” she wrote in Lucifer, issue of November 1887, “that the first rule of The Society is to carry out the object of forming the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood.”

BROTHERHOOD

The Theosophical Society (Adyar) has as its first Object: “To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or color.” To show the importance which its officials attach to this object, it is recalled that at the Theosophical World Congress in Chicago, Illinois, August 25-31, 1929, Annie Besant, second President of the Society, offered a Resolution that there should be only one Object, to promote Brotherhood. The Congress decided to request the General Council to take a postal vote on the matter. This was done, but a large majority voted to retain the objects as they were. [1]

This same idea of making acceptance of the principle of Universal Brotherhood the sole test for membership in the Theosophical Society (Adyar), was an idea which, nevertheless, persisted. It was again brought up by Dr. G.S. Arundale, who succeeded Annie Besant as President. He wrote:

“Sometimes I think ... that I would make acceptance of the First Object of The Theosophical Society the sole and acid test for membership. What matters more than Brotherhood, what matters but Brotherhood? And many there may be who feel no urge to make a comparative study of religion, philosophy [150] and science, nor to venture forth into the unknown. These too, have I said to myself, must find place in our Society ...
“Still, why ask for sympathy for these special features, when our supreme preoccupation should be Brotherhood, and nothing more? All these sympathies will be added once Brotherhood is there.” [2]

The third Object of the Theosophical Society (Point Loma) is “to form an active Brotherhood among men.” Its former head, G. de Purucker, spoke strongly in favor of this pivotal objective when he said:

“We are by natural law, and therefore we should be in our acts and in our thoughts, brothers: brothers in thought, brothers in conduct, brothers in act, brothers in work; and all the teachings of the Masters and of their Messenger H.P.B. lead directly to that one objective, a practical Universal Brotherhood.” [3]

And the same author expands the idea:

“The Theosophical Society was founded by the Masters of Wisdom for one purpose mainly ... the purpose was to give to mankind a religio-philosophical and scientific explanation of life’s riddles, based on the natural fact of Universal Brotherhood, which would bring about a moral and spiritual revolution in the world.” [4]

Annie Besant echoed this basic belief in brotherhood when she stated:

“The recognition of this brotherhood intellectually, and the endeavor to live it practically, are so stimulative of the higher nature of men, that it was made the one obligatory object of the T.S., the single ‘article of belief’ that all who would enter its fellowship must accept. To live it, even to a small extent, cleanses the heart and purifies the vision; to live it perfectly would be to eradicate all stain of separateness, and to let the pure shining of the Self irradiate us, as a light through flawless glass.” [5]

The United Lodge of Theosophists has published a leaflet entitled Theosophy Simply Stated which declares: [151]

“Behind all perceiving and knowing and experiencing is the One undivided Self. The power in us to perceive, to know, to experience - apart from anything that is seen, known or experienced - is the One Self, the one Consciousness, shared by all alike, the Power of every being. Herein lies the true basis of Brotherhood - the unifying bond for all above man and for all below man.”

These remarks are to be found under the heading “First Fundamental Idea.” Thus the U.L.T. accords it the place of importance which both the Adyar and Point Loma Societies have given it.

Other Theosophical writers of note have expressed themselves similarly on this topic. C.J. Ryan of the Theosophical University, Point Loma, wrote:

“Theosophy does not teach that Brotherhood depends upon external conditions - social, political or even intellectual. Its root lies in the order of Nature, in the organic unity of the human race, physically, and above all, spiritually. Universal Brotherhood is not something to be constructed; mankind is really a great family, and it is only our blindness that prevents us from recognizing this and acting accordingly. Mankind is an organism; men are its constituent cells, and what injures one hurts all ...
“The Brotherhood of Man, therefore, is not a sentimental theory, framed to ameliorate stern realities; it is a fact in Nature, and Nature will ultimately compel us to accept it, even if it takes ages of suffering to bring about.” [6]

The above ideas are likewise well expressed by C.W. Leadbeater in his widely read Text Book of Theosophy. Were his name not shown as the author, one would imagine that the writing was merely a continuation of the paragraphs immediately preceding by various other Theosophical writers.

“Since he (a Theosophist) knows that we are all part of one great evolution and all literally the children of one father, he sees that the Universal Brotherhood of humanity is no mere conception, but a definite fact; not a dream of something which is to be in the dim distance of Utopia, but a condition existing here and now. [152]
“... Cognizant as he is of the absolute spiritual unity of humanity, he knows that, even in this lower world, no true profit can be made by one man which is not made in the name of and for the sake of humanity; that one man’s progress must be a lifting of the burden of all others; that one man’s advance in spiritual things means a very slight yet not imperceptible advance to humanity as a whole; that everyone who bears suffering and sorrow nobly in his struggle toward the light is lifting a little of the heavy load of the sorrow and suffering of his brothers as well.” [7]

This is essentially the same teaching propounded by H.P.B.:

“All men have spiritually and physically the same origin, which is the fundamental teaching of Theosophy. 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.” [8]

Mr. C. Jinarajadasa, former President of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), gave a talk to the headquarters staff on his work in Europe upon his return therefrom on December 9, 1948. “Again and again,” he said in conclusion,

“in the letters of the Masters emphasis is laid upon the fact that the work of the Society is to inculcate and emphasize in every way the fundamental basis of human Brotherhood ... The Theosophical Society stands still unique in asserting that its primary aim is to make a nucleus of Universal Brotherhood.”

The fact that the Theosophical Societies comprise people of many different religions, with many and divergent viewpoints, compels its members to exercise a wide degree of tolerance and forbearance for the opinions of other members. Each is requested to show the same respect towards the beliefs of others which he expects others to show towards his own. This tolerance is to be expected in a Society where Brotherhood is officially set forth as a main Object. And yet [153] it was found necessary to make a written statement of this policy some years ago. Annie Besant, then President, formulated this policy for her Society, and since no one objected to it, she stated that it represented the general view:

“No person’s religious opinions are asked upon his joining, nor is interference with them permitted, but everyone is required to show to the religion of his fellow-members the same respect as he claims for his own.
“The Society has no dogmas, and therefore no heretics. It does not shut any man out because he does not believe the Theosophical teachings. A man may deny everyone of them, save that of human Brotherhood, and claim his place and his right within its ranks.” [9]

Bespeaking the importance which she attached to the principle of Universal Brotherhood, Katherine Tingley, when reorganizing the American Section of The Theosophical Society on February 18, 1898, renamed it The Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society; and in her official public statement of the policy of the Society affirmed that “acceptance of the principle of Universal Brotherhood is the only prerequisite to fellowship.”

To demonstrate that Brotherhood is a cardinal feature in the Theosophical program, James S. Perkins, National President of The Theosophical Society in America, wrote recently to a new member:

“In associating yourself with us you join a world-wide group of friendly students whose purpose is not alone to study but to shed light upon the practice of brotherhood. This effort has an especial importance in our time when brotherhood is recognized as a vital issue and the failure to practice it threatens the orderly processes of civilization.”

In a talk given at the Summer School for Theosophists at Wheaton, Illinois, in 1949, the same writer suggested: [154]

“Brotherhood may be thought of as differences made whole. … When all the differences, the uniquenesses, have been completely unfolded, as they are being unfolded in evolution, and when they are added together, the wholeness of Brotherhood, the perfect Brotherhood of Life, will be attained. I like that idea because it suggests that there is no such thing as inferiority and superiority. There are differences, and these differences are destined to be added together in an ultimate wholeness of life.
“... Thus, The Theosophical Society is establishing Brotherhood in the world in a very real way. To be a part of that effort fulfills the deepest yearning of many members of the Society throughout the world to be of real help to mankind. How wonderful it is that we should discover the opportunity that is ours to engage in this activity! But the deeper we go into it, the more aware we will become of the twofold task involved, the ever-present demand for self-conquest, and for action to alleviate the suffering of the world.” [10]

In A Theosophist Looks at the World, Mr. Sri Ram, President of The Theosophical Society (Adyar), says that the implementation of the ideals which the Society stands for is left to the individual. “Even our Brotherhood,” he adds, “the one truth of practical action and ethics which is our bed-rock, is left to be practised by each member according to his lights.”

In his Annual Presidential Address of 1954 at the International Convention of The Theosophical Society (Adyar), he likewise declared:

“I ask you to join with me in sending from here a greeting to every Theosophist, wherever he may be on the face of this globe, and every group of Theosophists, whether Lodge or Section. Is it not true that Love conquereth all, whether within us or without us? To a heart radiant with goodwill and brotherly feeling, space is as nothing; the differences of latitude and longitude, of dress, language and customs are also as nothing. Our First Object being to form a nucleus of Universal Brotherhood, for which we are the constituent material, though perhaps only partially galvanized, let us begin this Convention in a state of goodwill that reaches far and wide, willing to regard anyone anywhere as a Brother, a sharer in the universal life ...” [155]

And in agreement with other Theosophical authorities on the subject, he states:

“The Society’s mission has been, as we can now clearly perceive, to press the idea of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, so necessary for the organization of the ‘one world’ of today, and place before the world certain root-ideas of the Wisdom called Theosophy, in order to facilitate the transformation which was to take place in the world of thought, and following it, in the world of human conduct ... This is still the Society’s mission.” [11]

Annie Besant expresses the subject under discussion so beautifully that her words are used to close the formal presentation of ideas on Brotherhood, by representatives of the different Theosophical Societies.

“Never let it be forgotten that this Brotherhood is, whether men ignore it or deny it. Man’s ignorance does not change the laws of Nature, nor vary by one hair’s breadth her changeless, irresistible march. Her laws crush those who oppose them and break into pieces everything which is not in harmony with them ... Therefore can no nation endure that outrages Brotherhood, no civilization can last that is built on its antithesis. We have not to make Brotherhood; it exists. We have to attune our lives into harmony with it, if we desire that we and our work shall not perish.” [12]

Because the members of all Theosophical Societies claim H.P.B. as their spiritual parent, it is well to compare her teachings on Brotherhood with the writings of all her followers which have just been quoted. The essence of her words is clear:

a. The most important single object of the Society is to establish a nucleus of Universal Brotherhood;
b. All men are of the same origin, and this provides the basis for the Brotherhood of man;
c. Elevation of the human race can only be attained by practicing human solidarity;
d. Every Theosophist is bound to teach and live this principle. [156]

As we study with care the words of all the other Theosophical exponents presented in this chapter we cannot fail to be impressed by their spiritual and intellectual accord with H.P.B.’s expressions. They all agree that acceptance of a belief in Universal Brotherhood, with all its implications of identical spiritual parentage, is the cornerstone of all Theosophical teaching because based on the very order and behavior of nature itself. They are in accord in recognizing the importance of living this brotherhood, not merely preaching it, and that to press for a recognition of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity is the pledged mission of all true Theosophists - an objective and ideal still unique among societies and individuals of the world today.

Thus, we see, there is unanimity of viewpoint among the Theosophists of different affiliations on this subject of primary importance. Does not this fundamental accord represent a strong and appealing basis for reunification?

The importance which the Theosophist attaches to this idea is not without precedent in religious history; and, believing that it will be stimulating, the discussion of this subject is concluded with a story about a Hebrew Rabbi, famed in his day, Reb Hillel, who lived in Massora, Mesopotamia, about 1100 A.D. An insolent gentile once came to him and declared himself ready to be converted to Judaism on condition that Reb Hillel teach him the entire Torah in the short space that he could bear to stand upon one leg. The great Rabbi, far from driving the scoffer from his sight, accepted the bargain, saying:

“Do not inflict on others what you would not undergo yourself; this is the whole Torah - all else is commentary.” [157]

MAN’S DIVINE ORIGIN

We turn now to the teaching of the Divine Origin of Man, and offer, as before, the words of H.P.B.

“From the remotest antiquity mankind as a whole have always been convinced of the existence of a personal spiritual entity within the personal physical man. This entity was more or less divine, according to its proximity to the crown. The closer the union the more serene man’s destiny, the less dangerous the external conditions.” [13]

Answering an inquirer’s question as to how Theosophy can eradicate the perversity of doctrines which make Universal Brotherhood a Utopia at present, H.P.B. says it is possible for Theosophy to do so:

“By demonstrating on logical, philosophical, metaphysical, and even scientific grounds that: - (a) all men have spiritually 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.” [14]

The writings of other Theosophical authorities are now compared with these statements. Writes G. de Purucker:

“Everyone of you, my Brothers, is a divinity encased in vehicles, in sheaths, of an enshrouding lower selfhood; and all the work of growth, all the work of evolution, is the thinning out of these sheaths, is the dissolving of the gross physical aspects of them, and the raising of them to become ethereal, translucent to the rays of the inner god-sun, the god within.” [15]

C. Jinarajadasa makes frequent reference to man’s inherent divinity:

“Because man is Divine, the Wisdom is his heritage. Nay, not Wisdom alone, but Power also - power to dare, to suffer, and to conquer.” [16] [158]

Discussing the Deity in one of his smaller works, C.W. Leadbeater says:

“That He is within us as well as without us, or, in other words, that man himself is in essence divine, is another great truth which, though those who are blind to all but the outer and lower world may still argue about it, is an absolute certainty to the student of the higher side of life. Of the constitution of man’s soul and its various vehicles we shall speak under the heading of the second of the truths; suffice it for the moment to note that the inherent divinity is a fact, and that in it resides the assurance of the ultimate return of every human being to the divine level.” [17]

We find Robert Crosbie, founder of the U.L.T., voicing much the same teaching:

“We all proceeded from the same one Source - not many - and are proceeding on the same path to the same great goal. The ancients said that the Divine Self is in all beings, but in all it does not shine forth. The real is within, and may be realized by any human being in himself. Everyone needs that realization that he may shine forth and express the God within, which all beings but partially express.” [18]

Mr. N. Sri Ram, President of The Theosophical Society (Adyar), says:

“Man is a fragment of the Divine Nature, fallen from the high estate of a unitary, dimensionless, unlimited consciousness, into limitations of matter, in which he starts as a spiritual seed that grows and grows until it is eventually a universal tree, that is, a tree of consciousness which pervades every part and particle of the universe; thus lifts himself up to the source from which he came.” [19]

Theosophists are wont to refer to the Bible as an esoteric work, full of truth, though requiring interpretation. H.P.B. holds the Bible in great respect though she admonishes us against a too literal interpretation of parts of it. In Lucifer, issue of November 1887, she writes:

“... the Christian Canon, especially the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, are made up of fragments of gnostic wisdom, the [159] groundwork of which is pre-Christian and built on the MYSTERIES of Initiation ... The more one studies ancient religious texts, the more one finds that the ground-work of the New Testament is the same as the ground-work of the Vedas, of the Egyptian theogony, and the Mazdean allegories.”

She adds that the primitive writers of the Gospels certainly knew the truth, but that later successors had lost their real meaning. Because of this high esteem a few passages bearing on the subject are presented:

“And He (God) said: ‘Let us make man to our image and likeness, and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.’
“And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him.” [20]
“For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him.” [21]

In a chapter on “Sacramental Mysticism,” C. Jinarajadasa writes:

“Now, man from the beginning is an expression of Divinity; man’s aim in existence is to know himself as God. This realization is given in some types of mysticism through love or contemplation or ecstasy; sacramental mysticism achieves the same result through a ritual.” [22]

Here again is the teaching of the Divinity of man, the basis of all speculation about man and the purpose of his life here. Without this concept it would be difficult to construct a spiritual philosophy, and it is the lack of this doctrine which produces materialistic thinking. From this teaching flows much of the inspiration and hope which characterize the Theosophist’s outlook on life.

So again in noting the teachings of the three main Theosophical Societies, as expressed through leading exponents, we are struck by a closeness of agreement amounting almost to identity. [160]

EVOLUTION

All Theosophists agree that man is constantly evolving, that all progress is attained through this process of evolution. The broad principle is accepted by all, even though some differences in the details may be found. It is felt, however, that too many are apt to point to these differences as sufficient cause for disunity. The answer to this, as already emphasized, is the broad platform which the Founders of the Society erected. On it there is room for these differences, for a wide freedom of interpretation.

In defense of this freedom of belief G. de Purucker once said:

“In striving to retain the purity of the teachings of our God-Wisdom, let us never drop into the dogmatic attitude, which will spell the death of free conscience, free thought, free speech, sane and legitimate freedom of all kinds in the T.S.” [23]

An official statement on Freedom of Thought within The Theosophical Society appears on the cover page of each issue of The Theosophist, official international organ of the Society (Adyar). It reads:

“As the Theosophical Society has spread far and wide over the civilized world, and as members of all religions have become members of it without surrendering the special dogmas, teachings and beliefs of their respective faiths, it is thought desirable to emphasize the fact that there is no doctrine, no opinion, by whomsoever taught or held, that is any way binding on any member of the Society (Italics ours), none which any member is not free to accept or reject. Approval of its three Objects is the sole condition of membership. No teacher nor writer, from H.P. Blavatsky downwards, has any authority to impose his teachings or opinions on members. Every member has an equal right to attach himself to any teacher or to any school of thought which he may choose, but has no right to force his choice on any other. Neither a candidate for any [161] office, nor any voter, can be rendered ineligible to stand or to vote, because of any opinion he may hold, or because of membership in any school of thought to which he may belong. Opinions or beliefs neither bestow privileges nor inflict penalties. The members of the General Council earnestly request every member of The Theosophical Society to maintain, defend, and act upon these fundamental principles of the Society, and also fearlessly to exercise his own right of liberty of thought and of expression thereof, within the limits of courtesy and consideration for others.”

This statement is actually a Resolution passed by the General Council of the Theosophical Society (Adyar) on December 23, 1924.

This emphasis on freedom of thought is needed, for there are those who allege that the different Societies do not agree with each other on the details of this teaching of Evolution and also that some of these details in teaching are not in harmony with those taught by H.P. Blavatsky. But note that they refer only to the details of a main teaching, not to the teaching itself. It is doubtful if any two pupils of the same teacher would agree entirely on all details of a major teaching, such as Evolution.

Speaking of the antiquity of this doctrine, H.P.B. wrote:

“Before any of our modern teachers thought of evolution, the ancients taught us, through Hermes, that nothing can be abrupt in Nature; that she never proceeds by jumps and starts, that everything in her works is slow harmony, and that there is nothing sudden - not even violent death.” [24]

In regard to the possibilities for the individual, which this doctrine embraces, she wrote:

“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.” [25] [162]

To avoid confusion in the use of terms, H.P.B. made a few explanations which she proposed to use in her work Isis Unveiled. About Evolution she wrote:

“EVOLUTION - The development of higher orders of animals from the lower ... In Evolution, as it is now beginning to be understood, there is supposed to be in all matter an impulse to take on a higher form - a supposition clearly expressed by Manu and other Hindu philosophers of the highest antiquity.” [26]

In his address to the Convention of The Theosophical Society in America (Adyar) in Chicago on June 25, 1949, President Jinarajadasa said:

“Now this process of evolution takes place in infinite time, that is to say, it is unceasing, it is unhurried, and each one has an infinity of time for the work of perfecting himself. This plan operates through races and race cultures, through long periods called rounds and chains, and all the time that plan is perfecting the evolution of man and of his world.” [27]

It is here pointed out that evolution involves self-perfection in due course of time, which is precisely what H.P.B. means when she states that Adeptship can be reached by means of Evolution.

G. de Purucker was a highly respected scholar, and many of his views have met with general approval, even by Theosophists of other affiliations; hence his works; are rather liberally used to point up the official ideas of the Point Loma T.S. The following are excerpts from his Man In Evolution:

“Evolution is not merely an automatic response to external stimuli, but it is first of all action from within, unceasing attempts in self-expression; and each response to the external stimuli, which the natural environment provides, gives opportunity for a larger and fuller measure of self-expression than before existed.” [28]

On the same subject C. Jinarajadasa states: [163]

“The evolution of life is not a receiving but a giving. For at the root of the life itself, as its very heart and soul, is something greater still, a Consciousness. From HIS fulness of Power, Love and Beauty, HE gave to the first speck of life all that HE is. As all the rays from the glorious panorama of a mountain range may be converged by a lens into one invisible geometrical point, so each germ of life is as a focal point of that illimitable Existence. Within each cell HE resides in HIS fulness; under HIS guidance, at the proper time, Shakespeare and Beethoven step forth, and we call the action Evolution.” [29]

The late H.T. Edge, a pupil of H.P.B., and long on the staff of the Theosophical Society (Point Loma), writes:

“So evolution is a process of self-realization or manifestation carried on by the Cosmic Life or Spirit or Intelligence; God unfolding and revealing himself, we might say in Theological language; and Nature the visible garb of Deity.” [30]

Because he has spoken so clearly on the subject, we quote now from C.W. Leadbeater:

“This brings us to that aspect of Theosophy which we have called religious. Those who come to know and understand these things are dissatisfied with the slow aeons of evolution; they yearn to become more immediately useful, and so they demand and obtain knowledge of the shorter but steeper Path. There is no possibility of escaping the amount of work that has to be done. It is like carrying a load up a mountain; whether one carries it straight up a steep path or more gradually by a road of gentle slope, precisely the same number of footpounds must be exerted. Therefore to do the same work in a small fraction of the time means determined effort. It can be done, however, for it has been done; and those who have done it agree that it far more than repays the trouble.” [31]

W.Q. Judge, regarded by many Theosophists, particularly those of U.L.T. and Point Loma affiliation, as a reliable authority on these matters, writes in his best known work: [164]

“What then is the universe for, and for what final purpose is man the immortal thinker here in evolution? It is all for the experience and emancipation of the soul, for the purpose of raising the entire mass of manifested matter up to the stature, nature, and dignity of conscious god-hood.” [32]

Robert Crosbie of the U.L.T. once wrote:

“We are the reincarnating egos who will continue to incarnate until the great task which we undertook is completed. That task is the raising up of the whole of humanity to the highest possible stage of perfection on an earth of this kind … We have to bring ourselves in touch and tune with the whole great purpose of Nature which is the evolution of the Soul, and for which alone all the universe exists.” [33]

Observations on t