I. THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

THE MEANING OF THE NAME.

ENQUIRER. Theosophy and its doctrines are often referred to as a
new-fangled religion. Is it a religion?

THEOSOPHIST. It is not. Theosophy is Divine Knowledge or Science.

ENQ. What is the real meaning of the term?

THEO. “Divine Wisdom,” Θεοσοφία (Theosophia) or Wisdom of the gods, as
Θεογονία (theogonia), genealogy of the gods. The word Θεὸς means
a god in Greek, one of the divine beings, certainly not “God” in
the sense attached in our day to the term. Therefore, it is not
“Wisdom of God,” as translated by some, but _Divine Wisdom_ such
as that possessed by the gods. The term is many thousand years old.

ENQ. What is the origin of the name?

THEO. It comes to us from the Alexandrian philosophers, called lovers
of truth, Philatheians, from φιλ (phil) “loving,” and ἀλήθεια
(aletheia) “truth.” The name Theosophy dates from the third
century of our era, and began with Ammonius Saccas and his
disciples,[1] who started the Eclectic Theosophical system.

ENQ. What was the object of this system?

THEO. First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths upon its
disciples, and all those who were “lovers of the truth.” Hence the
motto adopted by the Theosophical Society: “There is no religion
higher than truth.”[2] The chief aim of the Founders of the
Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the three objects of its
modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to reconcile
all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics,
based on eternal verities.

ENQ. What have you to show that this is not an impossible dream; and
that all the world’s religions _are_ based on the one and the same
truth?

THEO. Their comparative study and analysis. The “Wisdom-Religion” was
one in antiquity; and the sameness of primitive religious
philosophy is proven to us by the identical doctrines taught
to the Initiates during the MYSTERIES, an institution once
universally diffused. “All the old worships indicate the existence
of a single Theosophy anterior to them. The key that is to open
one must open all; otherwise it cannot be the right key.” (Eclect.
Philo.)


THE POLICY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

ENQ. In the days of Ammonius there were several ancient great
religions, and numerous were the sects in Egypt and Palestine
alone. How could he reconcile them?

THEO. By doing that which we again try to do now. The Neo-Platonists
were a large body, and belonged to various religious
philosophies[3]; so do our Theosophists. In those days, the Jew
Aristobulus affirmed that the ethics of Aristotle represented the
_esoteric_ teachings of the Law of Moses; Philo Judæus endeavoured
to reconcile the _Pentateuch_ with the Pythagorean and Platonic
philosophy; and Josephus proved that the Essenes of Carmel were
simply the copyists and followers of the Egyptian Therapeutæ (the
healers). So it is in our day. We can show the line of descent of
every Christian religion, as of every, even the smallest, sect.
The latter are the minor twigs or shoots grown on the larger
branches; but shoots and branches spring from the same trunk—the
WISDOM-RELIGION. To prove this was the aim of Ammonius, who
endeavoured to induce Gentiles and Christians, Jews and Idolators,
to lay aside their contentions and strifes, remembering only
that they were all in possession of the same truth under various
vestments, and were all the children of a common mother.[4] This
is the aim of Theosophy likewise.

ENQ. What are your authorities for saying this of the ancient
Theosophists of Alexandria?

THEO. An almost countless number of well-known writers. Mosheim, one of
them, says that:—

“Ammonius taught that the religion of the multitude went
hand-in-hand with philosophy, and with her had shared the fate
of being by degrees corrupted and obscured with mere human
conceits, superstitions, and lies; that it ought, therefore,
to be brought back to its original purity by purging it of
this dross and expounding it upon philosophical principles;
and the whole Christ had in view was to reinstate and restore
to its primitive integrity the wisdom of the ancients; to
reduce within bounds the universally-prevailing dominion
of superstition; and in part to correct, and in part to
exterminate the various errors that had found their way into
the different popular religions.”

This, again, is precisely what the modern Theosophists say. Only
while the great Philaletheian was supported and helped in the
policy he pursued by two Church Fathers, Clement and Athenagoras,
by all the learned Rabbis of the Synagogue, the Academy and the
Groves, and while he taught a common doctrine for all, we, his
followers on the same line, receive no recognition, but, on the
contrary, are abused and persecuted. People 1,500 years ago are
thus shown to have been more tolerant than they are in this
_enlightened_ century.

ENQ. Was he encouraged and supported by the Church because,
notwithstanding his heresies, Ammonius taught Christianity and was
a Christian?

THEO. Not at all. He was born a Christian, but never accepted Church
Christianity. As said of him by the same writer:

“He had but to propound his instructions according to the
ancient pillars of Hermes, which Plato and Pythagoras knew
before, and from them constituted their philosophy. Finding the
same in the prologue of the Gospel according to St. John, he
very properly supposed that the purpose of Jesus was to restore
the great doctrine of wisdom in its primitive integrity.
The narratives of the Bible and the stories of the gods he
considered to be allegories illustrative of the truth, or
else fables to be rejected.” Moreover, as says the _Edinburgh
Encyclopedia_, “he acknowledged that Jesus Christ was an
excellent _man_ and the ‘friend of God,’ but alleged that it
was not his design entirely to abolish the worship of demons
(gods), and that his only intention was to purify the ancient
religion.”


THE WISDOM-RELIGION ESOTERIC IN ALL AGES.

ENQ. Since Ammonius never committed anything to writing, how can one
feel sure that such were his teachings?

THEO. Neither did Buddha, Pythagoras, Confucius, Orpheus, Socrates, or
even Jesus, leave behind them any writings. Yet most of these
are historical personages, and their teachings have all survived.
The disciples of Ammonius (among whom Origen and Herennius)
wrote treatises and explained his ethics. Certainly the latter
are as historical, if not more so, than the Apostolic writings.
Moreover, his pupils—Origen, Plotinus, and Longinus (counsellor
of the famous Queen Zenobia)—have all left voluminous records of
the Philaletheian System—so far, at all events, as their public
profession of faith was known, for the school was divided into
exoteric and _esoteric_ teachings.

ENQ. How have the latter tenets reached our day, since you hold that
what is properly called the WISDOM-RELIGION was esoteric?

THEO. The WISDOM-RELIGION was ever one, and being the last word of
possible human knowledge, was, therefore, carefully preserved. It
preceded by long ages the Alexandrian Theosophists, reached the
modern, and will survive every other religion and philosophy.

ENQ. Where and by whom was it so preserved?

THEO. Among Initiates of every country; among profound seekers after
truth—their disciples; and in those parts of the world where such
topics have always been most valued and pursued: in India, Central
Asia, and Persia.

ENQ. Can you give me some proofs of its esotericism?

THEO. The best proof you can have of the fact is that every ancient
religious, or rather philosophical, cult consisted of an
esoteric or secret teaching, and an exoteric (outward public)
worship. Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the MYSTERIES
of the ancients comprised with every nation the “greater” (secret)
and “Lesser” (public) MYSTERIES—_e.g._, in the celebrated
solemnities called the _Eleusinia_, in Greece. From the
Hierophants of Samothrace, Egypt, and the initiated Brahmins of
the India of old, down to the later Hebrew Rabbis, all preserved,
for fear of profanation, their real _bona fide_ beliefs secret.
The Jewish Rabbis called their secular religious series the
_Mercavah_ (the exterior body), “the vehicle,” or, _the covering
which contains the hidden soul_—_i.e._, their highest secret
knowledge. Not one of the ancient nations ever imparted through
its priests its real philosophical secrets to the masses, but
allotted to the latter only the husks. Northern Buddhism has its
“greater” and its “lesser” vehicle, known as the _Mahayana_, the
esoteric, and the _Hinayana_, the exoteric, Schools. Nor can you
blame them for such secrecy; for surely you would not think of
feeding your flock of sheep on learned dissertations on botany
instead of on grass? Pythagoras called his _Gnosis_ “the knowledge
of things that are,” or ἡ γνῶσις τῶν ὄντων, and preserved that
knowledge for his pledged disciples only: for those who could
digest such mental food and feel satisfied; and he pledged them
to silence and secrecy. Occult alphabets and secret ciphers are
the development of the old Egyptian _hieratic_ writings, the
secret of which was, in the days of old, in the possession only
of the Hierogrammatists, or initiated Egyptian priests. Ammonius
Saccas, as his biographers tell us, bound his pupils by oath not
to divulge _his higher doctrines_ except to those who had already
been instructed in preliminary knowledge, and who were also bound
by a pledge. Finally, do we not find the same even in early
Christianity, among the Gnostics, and even in the teachings of
Christ? Did he not speak to the multitudes in parables which had a
two-fold meaning, and explain his reasons only to his disciples?
“To you,” he says, “it is given to know the mysteries of the
kingdom of heaven; but unto them that are without, all these
things are done in parables” (Mark iv. 11). “The Essenes of Judea
and Carmel made similar distinctions, dividing their adherents
into neophytes, brethren, and the _perfect_, or those initiated”
(Eclec. Phil.). Examples might be brought from every country to
this effect.

ENQ. Can you attain the “Secret Wisdom” simply by study? Encyclopædias
define _Theosophy_ pretty much as Webster’s Dictionary does,
_i.e._, as “_supposed intercourse with God and superior spirits,
and consequent attainment of superhuman knowledge by physical
means and chemical processes_.” Is this so?

THEO. I think not. Nor is there any lexicographer capable of
explaining, whether to himself or others, how _superhuman_
knowledge can be attained by _physical_ or chemical processes.
Had Webster said “by _metaphysical_ and alchemical processes,”
the definition would be approximately correct: as it is, it is
absurd. Ancient Theosophists claimed, and so do the modern, that
the infinite cannot be known by the finite—_i.e._, sensed by the
finite Self—but that the divine essence could be communicated to
the higher Spiritual Self in a state of ecstacy. This condition
can hardly be attained, like _hypnotism_, by “physical and
chemical means.”

ENQ. What is your explanation of it?

THEO. Real ecstacy was defined by Plotinus as “the liberation of the
mind from its finite consciousness, becoming one and identified
with the infinite.” This is the highest condition, says Prof.
Wilder, but not one of permanent duration, and it is reached only
by the very _very_ few. It is, indeed, identical with that state
which is known in India as _Samadhi_. The latter is practised by
the Yogis, who facilitate it physically by the greatest abstinence
in food and drink, and mentally by an incessant endeavour to
purify and elevate the mind. Meditation is silent and _unuttered_
prayer, or, as Plato expressed it, “the ardent turning of the
soul toward the divine; not to ask any particular good (as in the
common meaning of prayer), but for good itself—for the universal
Supreme Good” of which we are a part on earth, and out of the
essence of which we have all emerged. Therefore, adds Plato,
“remain silent in the presence of the _divine ones_, till they
remove the clouds from thy eyes and enable thee to see by the
light which issues from themselves, not what appears as good to
thee, but what is intrinsically good.”[5]

ENQ. Theosophy, then, is not, as held by some, a newly devised scheme?

THEO. Only ignorant people can thus refer to it. It is as old as the
world, in its teachings and ethics, if not in name, as it is also
the broadest and most catholic system among all.

ENQ. How comes it, then, that Theosophy has remained so unknown to the
nations of the Western Hemisphere? Why should it have been a
sealed book to races confessedly the most cultured and advanced?

THEO. We believe there were nations as cultured in days of old and
certainly more spiritually “advanced” than we are. But there are
several reasons for this willing ignorance. One of them was given
by St. Paul to the cultured Athenians—a loss, for long centuries,
of real spiritual insight, and even interest, owing to their too
great devotion to things of sense and their long slavery to the
dead letter of dogma and ritualism. But the strongest reason for
its lies in the fact that real Theosophy has ever been kept secret.

ENQ. You have brought forward proofs that such secrecy has existed; but
what was the real cause for it?

THEO. The causes for it were: _Firstly_, the perversity of average
human nature and its selfishness, always tending to the
gratification of _personal_ desires to the detriment of neighbours
and next of kin. Such people could never be entrusted with
_divine_ secrets. _Secondly_, their unreliability to keep the
sacred and divine knowledge from desecration. It is the latter
that led to the perversion of the most sublime truths and symbols,
and to the gradual transformation of things spiritual into
anthropomorphic, concrete, and gross imagery—in other words, to
the dwarfing of the god-idea and to idolatry.


THEOSOPHY IS NOT BUDDHISM.

ENQ. You are often spoken of as “Esoteric Buddhists.” Are you then all
followers of Gautama Buddha?

THEO. No more than musicians are all followers of Wagner. Some of us
are Buddhists by religion; yet there are far more Hindus and
Brahmins than Buddhists among us, and more Christian-born
Europeans and Americans than _converted_ Buddhists. The mistake
has arisen from a misunderstanding of the real meaning of the
title of Mr. Sinnett’s excellent work, “Esoteric Buddhism,” which
last word ought to have been spelt _with one, instead of two,
d’s_, as then _Budhism_ would have meant what it was intended for,
merely “Wisdom_ism_” (Bodha, bodhi, “intelligence,” “wisdom”)
instead of _Buddhism_, Gautama’s religious philosophy. Theosophy,
as already said, is the WISDOM-RELIGION.

ENQ. What is the difference between Buddhism, the religion founded by
the Prince of Kapilavastu, and _Budhism_, the “Wisdomism” which
you say is synonymous with Theosophy?

THEO. Just the same difference as there is between the secret teachings
of Christ, which are called “the mysteries of the Kingdom of
Heaven,” and the later ritualism and dogmatic theology of the
Churches and Sects. _Buddha_ means the “Enlightened” by _Bodha_,
or understanding, Wisdom. This has passed root and branch into the
_esoteric_ teachings that Gautama imparted to his chosen _Arhats_
only.

ENQ. But some Orientalists deny that Buddha ever taught any esoteric
doctrine at all?

THEO. They may as well deny that Nature has any hidden secrets for the
men of science. Further on I will prove it by Buddha’s
conversation with his disciple Ananda. His esoteric teachings
were simply the _Gupta Vidya_ (secret knowledge) of the ancient
Brahmins, the key to which their modern successors have, with few
exceptions, completely lost. And this _Vidya_ has passed into
what is now known as the _inner_ teachings of the _Mahayana_
school of Northern Buddhism. Those who deny it are simply
ignorant pretenders to Orientalism. I advise you to read the Rev.
Mr. Edkins’ _Chinese Buddhism_—especially the chapters on the
Exoteric and _Esoteric_ schools and teachings—and then compare the
testimony of the whole ancient world upon the subject.

ENQ. But are not the ethics of Theosophy identical with those taught
by Buddha?

THEO. Certainly, because these ethics are the soul of the
Wisdom-Religion, and were once the common property of the
initiates of all nations. But Buddha was the first to embody
these lofty ethics in his public teachings, and to make them
the foundation and the very essence of his public system. It is
herein that lies the immense difference between exoteric Buddhism
and every other religion. For while in other religions ritualism
and dogma hold the first and most important place, in Buddhism
it is the ethics which have always been the most insisted upon.
This accounts for the resemblance, amounting almost to identity,
between the ethics of Theosophy and those of the religion of
Buddha.

ENQ. Are there any great points of difference?

THEO. One great distinction between Theosophy and _exoteric_ Buddhism
is that the latter, represented by the Southern Church, entirely
denies (a) the existence of any Deity, and (b) any conscious
_post-mortem_ life, or even any self-conscious surviving
individuality in man. Such at least is the teaching of the Siamese
sect, now considered as the _purest_ form of exoteric Buddhism.
And it is so, if we refer only to Buddha’s public teachings; the
reason for such reticence on his part I will give further on. But
the schools of the Northern Buddhist Church, established in those
countries to which his initiated Arhats retired after the Master’s
death, teach all that is now called Theosophical doctrines,
because they form part of the knowledge of the initiates—thus
proving how the truth has been sacrificed to the dead-letter by
the too-zealous orthodoxy of Southern Buddhism. But how much
grander and more noble, philosophical and scientific, even in its
dead-letter, is this teaching than that of any other Church or
religion. Yet Theosophy is not Buddhism.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Also called Analogeticists. As explained by Prof. Alex. Wilder,
F.T.S., in his “Eclectic Philosophy,” they were called so because of
their practice of interpreting all sacred legends and narratives, myths
and mysteries, by a rule or principle of analogy and correspondence: so
that events which were related as having occurred in the external world
were regarded as expressing operations and experiences of the human
soul. They were also denominated Neo-Platonists. Though Theosophy,
or the Eclectic Theosophical system, is generally attributed to the
third century, yet, if Diogenes Laertius is to be credited, its origin
is much earlier, as he attributed the system to an Egyptian priest,
Pot-Amun, who lived in the early days of the Ptolemaic dynasty. The
same author tells us that the name is Coptic, and signifies one
consecrated to Amun, the God of Wisdom. Theosophy is the equivalent of
Brahma-Vidya, divine knowledge.

[2] Eclectic Theosophy was divided under three heads: (1) Belief
in one absolute, incomprehensible and supreme Deity, or infinite
essence, which is the root of all nature, and of all that is, visible
and invisible. (2) Belief in man’s eternal immortal nature, because,
being a radiation of the Universal Soul, it is of an identical essence
with it. (3) _Theurgy_, or “divine work,” or _producing a work of
gods_; from _theoi_, “gods,” and _ergein_, “to work.” The term is
very old, but, as it belongs to the vocabulary of the MYSTERIES,
was not in popular use. It was a mystic belief—practically proven
by initiated adepts and priests—that, by making oneself as pure
as the incorporeal beings—_i.e._, by returning to one’s pristine
purity of nature—man could move the gods to impart to him Divine
mysteries, and even cause them to become occasionally visible, either
subjectively or objectively. It was the transcendental aspect of what
is now called Spiritualism; but having been abused and misconceived
by the populace, it had come to be regarded by some as necromancy,
and was generally forbidden. A travestied practice of the theurgy
of Iamblichus lingers still in the ceremonial magic of some modern
Kabalists. Modern Theosophy avoids and rejects both these kinds of
magic and “necromancy” as being very dangerous. Real _divine_ theurgy
requires an almost superhuman purity and holiness of life; otherwise
it degenerates into mediumship or black magic. The immediate disciples
of Ammonius Saccas, who was called _Theodidaktos_, “god-taught”—such
as Plotinus and his follower Porphyry—rejected theurgy at first, but
were finally reconciled to it through Iamblichus, who wrote a work
to that effect entitled “De Mysteriis,” under the name of his own
master, a famous Egyptian priest called Abammon. Ammonius Saccas was
the son of Christian parents, and, having been repelled by dogmatic
spiritualistic Christianity from his childhood, became a Neo-Platonist,
and like J. Boehme and other great seers and mystics, is said to
have had divine wisdom revealed to him in dreams and visions. Hence
his name of _Theodidaktos_. He resolved to reconcile every system of
religion, and by demonstrating their identical origin to establish
one universal creed based on ethics. His life was so blameless
and pure, his learning so profound and vast, that several Church
Fathers were his secret disciples. Clemens Alexandrinus speaks very
highly of him. Plotinus, the “St. John” of Ammonius, was also a man
universally respected and esteemed, and of the most profound learning
and integrity. When thirty-nine years of age he accompanied the Roman
Emperor Gordian and his army to the East, to be instructed by the
sages of Bactria and India. He had a School of Philosophy in Rome.
Porphyry, his disciple, whose real name was Malek (a Hellenized Jew),
collected all the writings of his master. Porphyry was himself a great
author, and gave an allegorical interpretation to some parts of Homer’s
writings. The system of meditation the Philaletheians resorted to was
ecstacy, a system akin to Indian Yoga practice. What is known of the
Eclectic School is due to Origen, Longinus, and Plotinus, the immediate
disciples of Ammonius.—(_Vide Eclectic Philos._, by A. Wilder).

[3] It was under Philadelphus that Judaism established itself in
Alexandria, and forthwith the Hellenic teachers became the dangerous
rivals of the College of Rabbis of Babylon. As the author of “Eclectic
Philosophy” very pertinently remarks: “The Buddhistic, Vedantic, and
Magian systems were expounded along with the philosophies of Greece at
that period. It was not wonderful that thoughtful men supposed that
the strife of words ought to cease, and considered it possible to
extract one harmonious system from these various teachings.... Panænus,
Athenagoras, and Clement were thoroughly instructed in Platonic
philosophy, and comprehended its essential unity with the Oriental
systems.”

[4] Says Mosheim of Ammonius: “Conceiving that not only the
philosophers of Greece, but also all those of the different barbarian
nations, were perfectly in unison with each other with regard to every
essential point, he made it his business so to expound the thousand
tenets of all these various sects as to show they had all originated
from one and the same source, and tended all to one and the same end.”
If the writer on Ammonius in the _Edinburgh Encyclopædia_ knows what
he is talking about, then he describes the modern Theosophists, their
beliefs, and their work, for he says, speaking of the _Theodidaktos_:
“He adopted the doctrines which were received in Egypt (the esoteric
were those of India) concerning the Universe and the Deity, considered
as constituting one great whole; concerning the eternity of the world
... and established a system of moral discipline which allowed the
people in general to live according to the laws of their country and
the dictates of nature, but required the wise to exalt their mind by
contemplation.”

[5] This is what the scholarly author of “The Eclectic Philosophy,”
Prof. A. Wilder, F.T.S., describes as “_spiritual photography_”:
“The soul is the camera in which facts and events, future, past, and
present, are alike fixed; and the mind becomes conscious of them.
Beyond our every-day world of limits all is one day or state—the past
and future comprised in the present.” ... “Death is the last _ecstasis_
on earth. Then the soul is freed from the constraint of the body, and
its nobler part is united to higher nature and becomes partaker in the
wisdom and foreknowledge of the higher beings.” Real Theosophy is, for
the mystics, that state which Apollonius of Tyana was made to describe
thus: “I can see the present and the future as in a clear mirror. The
sage need not wait for the vapours of the earth and the corruption of
the air to foresee events.... The _theoi_, or gods, see the future;
common men the present; sages that which is about to take place.”
“The Theosophy of the Sages” he speaks of is well expressed in the
assertion, “The Kingdom of God is within us.”




II.

EXOTERIC AND ESOTERIC THEOSOPHY.


WHAT THE MODERN THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IS NOT.

ENQ. Your doctrines, then, are not a revival of Buddhism, nor are they
entirely copied from the Neo-Platonic Theosophy?

THEO. They are not. But to these questions I cannot give you a better
answer than by quoting from a paper read on “Theosophy” by Dr.
J. D. Buck, F.T.S., before the last Theosophical Convention, at
Chicago, America (April, 1889). No living theosophist has better
expressed and understood the real essence of Theosophy than our
honoured friend Dr. Buck:—

“The Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose
of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the
promotion of the Theosophic life. The present Theosophical
Society is not the first of its kind. I have a volume
entitled: ‘Theosophical Transactions of the Philadelphian
Society,’ published in London in 1697; and another with the
following title: ‘Introduction to Theosophy, or the Science
of the Mystery of Christ; that is, of Deity, Nature, and
Creature, embracing the philosophy of all the working powers
of life, magical and spiritual, and forming a practical
guide to the sublimest purity, sanctity, and evangelical
perfection; also to the attainment of divine vision, and the
holy angelic arts, potencies, and other prerogatives of the
regeneration,’ published in London in 1855. The following is
the dedication of this volume:

‘To the students of Universities, Colleges, and schools of
Christendom: To Professors of Metaphysical, Mechanical,
and Natural Science in all its forms: To men and women
of Education generally, of fundamental orthodox faith:
To Deists, Arians, Unitarians, Swedenborgians, and other
defective and ungrounded creeds, rationalists, and sceptics
of every kind: To just-minded and enlightened Mohammedans,
Jews, and oriental Patriarch-religionists: but especially
to the gospel minister and missionary, whether to the
barbaric or intellectual peoples, this introduction to
Theosophy, or the science of the ground and mystery of all
things, is most humbly and affectionately dedicated.’

In the following year (1856) another volume was issued,
royal octavo, of 600 pages, diamond type, of ‘Theosophical
Miscellanies.’ Of the last-named work 500 copies only
were issued, for gratuitous distribution to Libraries and
Universities. These earlier movements, of which there were
many, originated within the Church, with persons of great
piety and earnestness, and of unblemished character; and all
of these writings were in orthodox form, using the Christian
expressions, and, like the writings of the eminent Churchman
William Law, would only be distinguished by the ordinary
reader for their great earnestness and piety. These were
one and all but attempts to derive and explain the deeper
meanings and original import of the Christian Scriptures, and
to illustrate and unfold the Theosophic life. These works
were soon forgotten, and are now generally unknown. They
sought to reform the clergy and revive genuine piety, and
were never welcomed. That one word, “Heresy,” was sufficient
to bury them in the limbo of all such Utopias. At the time
of the Reformation John Reuchlin made a similar attempt with
the same result, though he was the intimate and trusted
friend of Luther. Orthodoxy never desired to be informed
and enlightened. These reformers were informed, as was Paul
by Festus, that too much learning had made them mad, and
that it would be dangerous to go farther. Passing by the
verbiage, which was partly a matter of habit and education
with these writers, and partly due to religious restraint
through secular power, and coming to the core of the matter,
these writings were Theosophical in the strictest sense,
and pertain solely to man’s knowledge of his own nature
and the higher life of the soul. The present Theosophical
movement has sometimes been declared to be an attempt to
convert Christendom to Buddhism, which means simply that
the word ‘Heresy’ has lost its terrors and relinquished its
power. Individuals in every age have more or less clearly
apprehended the Theosophical doctrines and wrought them into
the fabric of their lives. These doctrines belong exclusively
to no religion, and are confined to no society or time. They
are the birthright of every human soul. Such a thing as
orthodoxy must be wrought out by each individual according
to his nature and his needs, and according to his varying
experience. This may explain why those who have imagined
Theosophy to be a new religion have hunted in vain for its
creed and its ritual. Its creed is Loyalty to Truth, and its
ritual ‘To honour every truth by use.’

How little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is
understood by the masses of mankind, how seldom its
transcendent importance is recognised, may be seen in the
diversity of opinion and fictitious interpretations regarding
the Theosophical Society. This Society was organized on this
one principle, the essential Brotherhood of Man, as herein
briefly outlined and imperfectly set forth. It has been
assailed as Buddhistic and anti-Christian, as though it could
be both these together, when both Buddhism and Christianity,
as set forth by their inspired founders, make brotherhood the
one essential of doctrine and of life. Theosophy has been
also regarded as something new under the sun, or at best as
old mysticism masquerading under a new name. While it is true
that many Societies founded upon, and united to support,
the principles of altruism, or essential brotherhood, have
borne various names, it is also true that many have also
been called Theosophic, and with principles and aims as the
present society bearing that name. With these societies, one
and all, the essential doctrine has been the same, and all
else has been incidental, though this does not obviate the
fact that many persons are attracted to the incidentals who
overlook or ignore the essentials.”

No better or more explicit answer—by a man who is one of our most
esteemed and earnest Theosophists—could be given to your questions.

ENQ. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics?

THEO. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it
must be stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is
divided into Exoteric and _Esoteric_ Sections.

ENQ. What is the difference?

THEO. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free to
profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if
they so prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to
carry out one or more of the three objects of the Association.
The Society is a philanthropic and scientific body for the
propagation of the idea of brotherhood on _practical_ instead of
_theoretical_ lines. The Fellows may be Christians or Mussulmen,
Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists or
Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be either
a philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and other
old literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help,
if he can, in the carrying out of at least one of the objects
of the programme. Otherwise he has no reason for becoming a
“Fellow.” Such are the majority of the exoteric Society, composed
of “attached” and “unattached” members.[6] These may, or may not,
become Theosophists _de facto_. Members they are, by virtue of
their having joined the Society; but the latter cannot make a
Theosophist of one who has no sense for the _divine_ fitness of
things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his own—if the
expression may be used—_sectarian_ and egotistic way. “Handsome
is, as handsome does” could be paraphrased in this case and be
made to run: “Theosophist is, who Theosophy does.”


THEOSOPHISTS AND MEMBERS OF THE “T.S.”

ENQ. This applies to lay members, as I understand. And what of those
who pursue the esoteric study of Theosophy; are they the real
Theosophists?

THEO. Not necessarily, until they have proven themselves to be such.
They have entered the inner group and pledged themselves to
carry out, as strictly as they can, the rules of the occult
body. This is a difficult undertaking, as the foremost rule of
all is the entire renunciation of one’s personality—_i.e._, a
_pledged_ member has to become a thorough altruist, never to
think of himself, and to forget his own vanity and pride in the
thought of the good of his fellow-creatures, besides that of his
fellow-brothers in the esoteric circle. He has to live, if the
esoteric instructions shall profit him, a life of abstinence in
everything, of self-denial and strict morality, doing his duty by
all men. The few real Theosophists in the T.S. are among these
members. This does not imply that outside of the T.S. and the
inner circle, there are no Theosophists; for there are, and more
than people know of; certainly far more than are found among the
lay members of the T.S.

ENQ. Then what is the good of joining the so-called Theosophical
Society in that case? Where is the incentive?

THEO. None, except the advantage of getting esoteric instructions, the
genuine doctrines of the “Wisdom-Religion,” and if the real
programme is carried out, deriving much help from mutual aid
and sympathy. Union is strength and harmony, and well-regulated
simultaneous efforts produce wonders. This has been the secret of
all associations and communities since mankind existed.

ENQ. But why could not a man of well-balanced mind and singleness of
purpose, one, say, of indomitable energy and perseverance, become
an Occultist and even an Adept if he works alone?

THEO. He may; but there are ten thousand chances against one that he
will fail. For one reason out of many others, no books on
Occultism or Theurgy exist in our day which give out the secrets
of alchemy or mediæval Theosophy in plain language. All are
symbolical or in parables; and as the key to these has been lost
for ages in the West, how can a man learn the correct meaning
of what he is reading and studying? Therein lies the greatest
danger, one that leads to unconscious _black_ magic or the most
helpless mediumship. He who has not an Initiate for a master
had better leave the dangerous study alone. Look around you and
observe. While two-thirds of _civilized_ society ridicule the
mere notion that there is anything in Theosophy, Occultism,
Spiritualism, or in the Kabala, the other third is composed of
the most heterogeneous and opposite elements. Some believe in the
mystical, and even in the _supernatural_ (!), but each believes
in his own way. Others will rush single-handed into the study of
the Kabala, Psychism, Mesmerism, Spiritualism, or some form or
another of Mysticism. Result: no two men think alike, no two are
agreed upon any fundamental occult principles, though many are
those who claim for themselves the _ultima thule_ of knowledge,
and would make outsiders believe that they are full-blown
adepts. Not only is there no scientific and accurate knowledge
of Occultism accessible in the West—not even of true astrology,
the only branch of Occultism which, in its _exoteric_ teachings,
has definite laws and a definite system—but no one has any idea
of what real Occultism means. Some limit ancient wisdom to the
_Kabala_ and the Jewish _Zohar_, which each interprets in his
own way according to the dead-letter of the Rabbinical methods.
Others regard Swedenborg or Boehme as the ultimate expressions of
the highest wisdom; while others again see in mesmerism the great
secret of ancient magic. One and all of those who put their theory
into practice are rapidly drifting, through ignorance, into black
magic. Happy are those who escape from it, as they have neither
test nor criterion by which they can distinguish between the true
and the false.

ENQ. Are we to understand that the inner group of the T.S. claims to
learn what it does from real initiates or masters of esoteric
wisdom?

THEO. Not directly. The personal presence of such masters is not
required. Suffice it if they give instructions to some of those
who have studied under their guidance for years, and devoted their
whole lives to their service. Then, in turn, these can give out
the knowledge so imparted to others, who had no such opportunity.
A portion of the true sciences is better than a mass of undigested
and misunderstood learning. An ounce of gold is worth a ton of
dust.

ENQ. But how is one to know whether the ounce is real gold or only a
counterfeit?

THEO. A tree is known by its fruit, a system by its results. When our
opponents are able to prove to us that any solitary student
of Occultism throughout the ages has become a saintly adept
like Ammonius Saccas, or even a Plotinus, or a Theurgist like
Iamblichus, or achieved feats such as are claimed to have been
done by St. Germain, without any master to guide him, and all
this without being a medium, a self-deluded psychic, or a
charlatan—then shall we confess ourselves mistaken. But till
then, Theosophists prefer to follow the proven natural law of
the tradition of the Sacred Science. There are mystics who have
made great discoveries in chemistry and physical sciences, almost
bordering on alchemy and Occultism; others who, by the sole aid of
their genius, have rediscovered portions, if not the whole, of the
lost alphabets of the “Mystery language,” and are, therefore, able
to read correctly Hebrew scrolls; others still, who, being seers,
have caught wonderful _glimpses_ of the hidden secrets of Nature.
But all these are _specialists_. One is a theoretical inventor,
another a Hebrew, _i.e._, a Sectarian Kabalist, a third a
Swedenborg of modern times, denying all and everything outside of
his own particular science or religion. Not one of them can boast
of having produced a universal or even a national benefit thereby,
not even to himself. With the exception of a few healers—of that
class which the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons would
call quacks—none have helped with their science Humanity, nor even
a number of men of the same community. Where are the Chaldees of
old, those who wrought marvellous cures, “not by charms but by
simples”? Where is an Apollonius of Tyana, who healed the sick
and raised the dead under any climate and circumstances? We know
some _specialists_ of the former class in Europe, but none of the
latter—except in Asia, where the secret of the Yogi, “to live in
death,” is still preserved.

ENQ. Is the production of such healing adepts the aim of Theosophy?

THEO. Its aims are several; but the most important of all are those
which are likely to lead to the relief of human suffering under
any or every form, moral as well as physical. And we believe the
former to be far more important than the latter. Theosophy has to
inculcate ethics; it has to purify the soul, if it would relieve
the physical body, whose ailments, save cases of accidents, are
all hereditary. It is not by studying Occultism for selfish ends,
for the gratification of one’s personal ambition, pride, or
vanity, that one can ever reach the true goal: that of helping
suffering mankind. Nor is it by studying one single branch of
the esoteric philosophy that a man becomes an Occultist, but by
studying, if not mastering, them all.

ENQ. Is help, then, to reach this most important aim, given only to
those who study the esoteric sciences?

THEO. Not at all. Every _lay_ member is entitled to general instruction
if he only wants it; but few are willing to become what is
called “working members,” and most prefer to remain the _drones_
of Theosophy. Let it be understood that private research is
encouraged in the T.S., provided it does not infringe the limit
which separates the exoteric from the esoteric, the _blind_ from
the _conscious_ magic.


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.

ENQ. You speak of Theosophy and Occultism; are they identical?

THEO. By no means. A man may be a very good Theosophist indeed, whether
_in_ or _outside_ of the Society, without being in any way an
Occultist. But no one can be a true Occultist without being a real
Theosophist; otherwise he is simply a black magician, whether
conscious or unconscious.

ENQ. What do you mean?

THEO. I have said already that a true Theosophist must put in practice
the loftiest moral ideal, must strive to realize his unity with
the whole of humanity, and work ceaselessly for others. Now, if
an Occultist does not do all this, he must act selfishly for his
own personal benefit; and if he has acquired more practical power
than other ordinary men, he becomes forthwith a far more dangerous
enemy to the world and those around him than the average mortal.
This is clear.

ENQ. Then is an Occultist simply a man who possesses more power than
other people?

THEO. Far more—if he is a _practical_ and really learned Occultist, and
not one only in name. Occult sciences are _not_, as described,
in Encyclopædias, “those _imaginary_ sciences of the Middle
Ages which related to the _supposed_ action or influence of
Occult qualities or supernatural powers, as alchemy, magic,
necromancy, and astrology,” for they are real, actual, and very
dangerous sciences. They teach the secret potency of things in
Nature, developing and cultivating the hidden powers “latent in
man,” thus giving him tremendous advantages over more ignorant
mortals. Hypnotism, now become so common and a subject of serious
scientific inquiry, is a good instance in point. _Hypnotic_ power
has been discovered almost by accident, the way to it having been
prepared by mesmerism; and now an able hypnotizer can do almost
anything with it, from forcing a man, unconsciously to himself,
to play the fool, to making him commit a crime—often by proxy for
the hypnotizer, and _for the benefit of the latter_. Is not this a
terrible power if left in the hands of unscrupulous persons? And
please to remember that this is only one of the minor branches of
Occultism.

ENQ. But are not all these Occult sciences, magic, and sorcery,
considered by the most cultured and learned people as relics of
ancient ignorance and superstition?

THEO. Let me remind you that this remark of yours cuts both ways. The
“most cultured and learned” among you regard also Christianity and
every other religion as a relic of ignorance and superstition.
People begin to believe now, at any rate, in _hypnotism_, and
some—even of the _most cultured_—in Theosophy and phenomena. But
who among them, except preachers and blind fanatics, will confess
to a belief in _Biblical miracles_? And this is where the point
of difference comes in. There are very good and pure Theosophists
who may believe in the supernatural, divine _miracles_ included,
but no Occultist will do so. For an Occultist practices
_scientific_ Theosophy, based on accurate knowledge of Nature’s
secret workings; but a Theosophist, practising the powers called
abnormal, _minus_ the light of Occultism, will simply tend toward
a dangerous form of mediumship, because, although holding to
Theosophy and its highest conceivable code of ethics, he practises
it in the dark, on sincere but _blind_ faith. Anyone, Theosophist
or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of the branches of
Occult science—_e.g._, Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the secrets
of producing physical phenomena, etc.—without the knowledge of the
philosophic _rationale_ of those powers, is like a rudderless boat
launched on a stormy ocean.


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.

ENQ. But do you not believe in Spiritualism?

THEO. If by “Spiritualism” you mean the explanation which Spiritualists
give of some abnormal phenomena, then decidedly _we do not_.
They maintain that these manifestations are all produced by the
“spirits” of departed mortals, generally their relatives, who
return to earth, they say, to communicate with those they have
loved or to whom they are attached. We deny this point blank. We
assert that the spirits of the dead cannot return to earth—save
in rare and exceptional cases, of which I may speak later; nor do
they communicate with men except by _entirely subjective means_.
That which does appear objectively, is only the phantom of the
ex-physical man. But in _psychic_, and so to say, “Spiritual”
Spiritualism, we do believe, most decidedly.

ENQ. Do you reject the phenomena also?

THEO. Assuredly not—save cases of conscious fraud.

ENQ. How do you account for them, then?

THEO. In many ways. The causes of such manifestations are by no means
so simple as the Spiritualists would like to believe. Foremost of
all, the _deus ex machinâ_ of the so-called “materializations”
is usually the astral body or “double” of the medium or of some
one present. This _astral_ body is also the producer or operating
force in the manifestations of slate-writing, “Davenport”-like
manifestations, and so on.

ENQ. You say “usually”; then _what_ is it that produces the rest?

THEO. That depends on the nature of the manifestations. Sometimes the
astral remains, the Kamalokic “shells” of the vanished
_personalities_ that were; at other times, Elementals. “Spirit”
is a word of manifold and wide significance. I really do not
know what Spiritualists mean by the term; but what we understand
them to claim is that the physical phenomena are produced by the
reincarnating _Ego_, the _Spiritual_ and immortal “individuality.”
And this hypothesis we entirely reject. The Conscious
_Individuality_ of the disembodied _cannot materialize_, nor can
it return from its own mental Devachanic sphere to the plane of
terrestrial objectivity.

ENQ. But many of the communications received from the “spirits” show
not only intelligence, but a knowledge of facts not known to the
medium, and sometimes even not consciously present to the mind of
the investigator, or any of those who compose the audience.

THEO. This does not necessarily prove that the intelligence and
knowledge you speak of belong to _spirits_, or emanate from
_disembodied_ souls. Somnambulists have been known to compose
music and poetry and to solve mathematical problems while in their
trance state, without having ever learnt music or mathematics.
Others answered intelligently to questions put to them, and even,
in several cases, spoke languages, such as Hebrew and Latin, of
which they were entirely ignorant when awake—all this in a state
of profound sleep. Will you, then, maintain that this was caused
by “spirits”?

ENQ. But how would you explain it?

THEO. We assert that the divine spark in man being one and identical in
its essence with the Universal Spirit, our “spiritual Self” is
practically omniscient, but that it cannot manifest its knowledge
owing to the impediments of matter. Now the more these impediments
are removed, in other words, the more the physical body is
paralyzed, as to its own independent activity and consciousness,
as in deep sleep or deep trance, or, again, in illness, the more
fully can the _inner_ Self manifest on this plane. This is our
explanation of those truly wonderful phenomena of a higher order,
in which undeniable intelligence and knowledge are exhibited. As
to the lower order of manifestations, such as physical phenomena
and the platitudes and common talk of the general “spirit,” to
explain even the most important of the teachings we hold upon the
subject would take up more space and time than can be allotted
to it at present. We have no desire to interfere with the belief
of the Spiritualists any more than with any other belief. The
_onus probandi_ must fall on the believers in “spirits.” And at
the present moment, while still convinced that the higher sort of
manifestations occur through the disembodied souls, their leaders
and the most learned and intelligent among the Spiritualists are
the first to confess that not _all_ the phenomena are produced by
spirits. Gradually they will come to recognize the whole truth;
but meanwhile we have no right nor desire to proselytize them to
our views. The less so, as in the cases of purely _psychic and
spiritual manifestations_ we believe in the intercommunication
of the spirit of the living man with that of disembodied
personalities.[7]

ENQ. This means that you reject the philosophy of Spiritualism _in
toto_?

THEO. If by “philosophy” you mean their crude theories, we do. But they
have no philosophy, in truth. Their best, their most intellectual
and earnest defenders say so. Their fundamental and only
unimpeachable truth, namely, that phenomena occur through mediums
controlled by invisible forces and intelligences—no one, except a
blind materialist of the “Huxley big toe” school, will or _can_
deny. With regard to their philosophy, however, let me read to
you what the able editor of _Light_, than whom the Spiritualists
will find no wiser nor more devoted champion, says of them and
their philosophy. This is what “M.A. Oxon,” one of the very few
_philosophical_ Spiritualists, writes, with respect to their lack
of organization and blind bigotry:—

It is worth while to look steadily at this point, for it is of
vital moment. We have an experience and a knowledge beside which
all other knowledge is comparatively insignificant. The ordinary
Spiritualist waxes wroth if anyone ventures to impugn his assured
knowledge of the future and his absolute certainty of the life to
come. Where other men have stretched forth feeble hands groping
into the dark future, he walks boldly as one who has a chart and
knows his way. Where other men have stopped short at a pious
aspiration or have been content with a hereditary faith, it is his
boast that he knows what they only believe, and that out of his
rich stores he can supplement the fading faiths built only upon
hope. He is magnificent in his dealings with man’s most cherished
expectations. “You hope,” he seems to say, “for that which I can
demonstrate. You have accepted a traditional belief in what I can
experimentally prove according to the strictest scientific method.
The old beliefs are fading; come out from them and be separate.
They contain as much falsehood as truth. Only by building on a
sure foundation of demonstrated fact can your superstructure be
stable. All round you old faiths are toppling. Avoid the crash and
get you out.”

When one comes to deal with this magnificent person in a practical
way, what is the result? Very curious and very disappointing. He
is so sure of his ground that he takes no trouble to ascertain
the interpretation which others put upon his facts. The wisdom
of the ages has concerned itself with the explanation of what he
rightly regards as proven; but he does not turn a passing glance
on its researches. He does not even agree altogether with his
brother Spiritualist. It is the story over again of the old Scotch
body who, together with her husband, formed a “kirk.” They had
exclusive keys to Heaven, or, rather, she had, for she was “na
certain aboot Jamie.” So the infinitely divided and subdivided
and resubdivided sects of Spiritualists shake their heads,
and are “na certain aboot” one another. Again, the collective
experience of mankind is solid and unvarying on this point that
union is strength, and disunion a source of weakness and failure.
Shoulder to shoulder, drilled and disciplined, a rabble becomes
an army, each man a match for a hundred of the untrained men that
may be brought against it. Organization in every department of
man’s work means success, saving of time and labour, profit and
development. Want of method, want of plan, haphazard work, fitful
energy, undisciplined effort—these mean bungling failure. The
voice of humanity attests the truth. Does the Spiritualist accept
the verdict and act on the conclusion? Verily, no. He refuses to
organize. He is a law unto himself, and a thorn in the side of his
neighbours.—_Light_, June 22, 1889.

ENQ. I was told that the Theosophical Society was originally founded to
crush Spiritualism and belief in the survival of the individuality
in man?

THEO. You are misinformed. Our beliefs are all founded on that immortal
individuality. But then, like so many others, you confuse
_personality_ with individuality. Your Western psychologists do
not seem to have established any clear distinction between the
two. Yet it is precisely that difference which gives the key-note
to the understanding of Eastern philosophy, and which lies at the
root of the divergence between the Theosophical and Spiritualistic
teachings. And though it may draw upon us still more the hostility
of some Spiritualists, yet I must state here that it is Theosophy
which is the _true_ and unalloyed Spiritualism, while the modern
scheme of that name is, as now practised by the masses, simply
transcendental materialism.

ENQ. Please explain your idea more clearly.

THEO. What I mean is that though our teachings insist upon the identity
of spirit and matter, and though we say that spirit is _potential_
matter, and matter simply crystallized spirit (_e.g._, as ice is
solidified steam), yet since the original and eternal condition
of _all_ is not spirit but _meta_-spirit, so to speak, (visible
and solid matter being simply its periodical manifestation,) we
maintain that the term spirit can only be applied to the _true_
individuality.

ENQ. But what is the distinction between this “true individuality” and
the “I” or “Ego” of which we are all conscious?

THEO. Before I can answer you, we must argue upon what you mean by “I”
or “Ego.” We distinguish between the simple fact of
self-consciousness, the simple feeling that “I am I,” and
the complex thought that “I am Mr. Smith” or “Mrs. Brown.”
Believing as we do in a series of births for the same Ego, or
re-incarnation, this distinction is the fundamental pivot of
the whole idea. You see “Mr. Smith” really means a long series
of daily experiences strung together by the thread of memory,
and forming what Mr. Smith calls “himself.” But none of these
“experiences” are really the “I” or the Ego, nor do they give “Mr.
Smith” the feeling that he is himself, for he forgets the greater
part of his daily experiences, and they produce the feeling of
_Egoity_ in him only while they last. We Theosophists, therefore,
distinguish between this bundle of “experiences,” which we call
the _false_ (because so finite and evanescent) _personality_, and
that element in man to which the feeling of “I am I” is due. It
is this “I am I” which we call the _true_ individuality; and we
say that this “Ego” or individuality plays, like an actor, many
parts on the stage of life.[8] Let us call every new life on earth
of the same _Ego_ a _night_ on the stage of a theatre. One night
the actor, or “Ego,” appears as “Macbeth,” the next as “Shylock,”
the third as “Romeo,” the fourth as “Hamlet” or “King Lear,” and
so on, until he has run through the whole cycle of incarnations.
The Ego begins his life-pilgrimage as a sprite, an “Ariel,” or a
“Puck”; he plays the part of a _super_, is a soldier, a servant,
one of the chorus; rises then to “speaking parts,” plays leading
_rôles_, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally
retires from the stage as “Prospero,” the _magician_.

ENQ. I understand. You say, then, that this true _Ego_ cannot return to
earth after death. But surely the actor is at liberty, if he has
preserved the sense of his individuality, to return if he likes to
the scene of his former actions?

THEO. We say not, simply because such a return to earth would be
incompatible with any state of _unalloyed_ bliss after death, as
I am prepared to prove. We say that man suffers so much unmerited
misery during his life, through the fault of others with whom he
is associated, or because of his environment, that he is surely
entitled to perfect rest and quiet, if not bliss, before taking up
again the burden of life. However, we can discuss this in detail
later.


WHY IS THEOSOPHY ACCEPTED?

ENQ. I understand to a certain extent; but I see that your teachings
are far more complicated and metaphysical than either Spiritualism
or current religious thought. Can you tell me, then, what has
caused this system of Theosophy which you support to arouse so
much interest and so much animosity at the same time?

THEO. There are several reasons for it, I believe; among other causes
that may be mentioned is, _firstly_, the great reaction from the
crassly materialistic theories now prevalent among scientific
teachers. _Secondly_, general dissatisfaction with the artificial
theology of the various Christian Churches, and the number of
daily increasing and conflicting sects. _Thirdly_, an ever-growing
perception of the fact that the creeds which are so obviously
self—and mutually—contradictory _cannot be true_, and that claims
which are unverified _cannot be real_. This natural distrust of
conventional religions is only strengthened by their complete
failure to preserve morals and to purify society and the masses.
_Fourthly_, a conviction on the part of many, and _knowledge_ by
a few, that there must be somewhere a philosophical and religious
system which shall be scientific and not merely speculative.
_Finally_, a belief, perhaps, that such a system must be sought
for in teachings far antedating any modern faith.

ENQ. But how did this system come to be put forward just now?

THEO. Just because the time was found to be ripe, which fact is shown
by the determined effort of so many earnest students to reach
_the truth_, at whatever cost and wherever it may be concealed.
Seeing this, its custodians permitted that some portions at
least of that truth should be proclaimed. Had the formation of
the Theosophical Society been postponed a few years longer, one
half of the civilized nations would have become by this time
rank materialists, and the other half anthropomorphists and
phenomenalists.

ENQ. Are we to regard Theosophy in any way as a revelation?

THEO. In no way whatever—not even in the sense of a new and direct
disclosure from some higher, supernatural, or, at least,
_superhuman beings_; but only in the sense of an “unveiling” of
old, very old, truths to minds hitherto ignorant of them, ignorant
even of the existence and preservation of any such archaic
knowledge.[9]

ENQ. You spoke of “Persecution.” If truth is as represented by
Theosophy, why has it met with such opposition, and with no
general acceptance?

THEO. For many and various reasons again, one of which is the hatred
felt by men for “innovations,” as they call them. Selfishness is
essentially conservative, and hates being disturbed. It prefers
an easy-going, unexacting _lie_ to the greatest truth, if the
latter requires the sacrifice of one’s smallest comfort. The power
of mental inertia is great in anything that does not promise
immediate benefit and reward. Our age is pre-eminently unspiritual
and matter of fact. Moreover, there is the unfamiliar character of
Theosophic teachings; the highly abstruse nature of the doctrines,
some of which contradict flatly many of the human vagaries
cherished by sectarians, which have eaten into the very core of
popular beliefs. If we add to this the personal efforts and great
purity of life exacted of those who would become the disciples
of the _inner_ circle, and the very limited class to which an
entirely unselfish code appeals, it will be easy to perceive the
reason why Theosophy is doomed to such slow, uphill work. It is
essentially the philosophy of those who suffer, and have lost all
hope of being helped out of the mire of life by any other means.
Moreover, the history of any system of belief or morals, newly
introduced into a foreign soil, shows that its beginnings were
impeded by every obstacle that obscurantism and selfishness could
suggest. “The crown of the innovator is a crown of thorns” indeed!
No pulling down of old, worm-eaten buildings can be accomplished
without some danger.

ENQ. All this refers rather to the ethics and philosophy of the T.S.
Can you give me a general idea of the Society itself, its object
and statutes?

THEO. This was never made secret. Ask, and you shall receive accurate
answers.

ENQ. But I heard that you were bound by pledges?

THEO. Only in the _Arcane_ or “Esoteric” Section.

ENQ. And also, that some members after leaving did not regard
themselves bound by them. Are they right?

THEO. This shows that their idea of honour is an imperfect one. How can
they be right? As well said in the _Path_, our theosophical organ
at New York, treating of such a case: “Suppose that a soldier is
tried for infringement of oath and discipline, and is dismissed
from the service. In his rage at the justice he has called down,
and of whose penalties he was distinctly forewarned, the soldier
turns to the enemy with false information,—a spy and traitor—as
a revenge upon his former Chief, and claims that his punishment
has released him from his oath of loyalty to a cause.” Is he
justified, think you? Don’t you think he deserves being called a
dishonourable man, a coward?

ENQ. I believe so; but some think otherwise.

THEO. So much the worse for them. But we will talk on this subject
later, if you please.

FOOTNOTES:

[6] An “attached member” means one who has joined some particular
branch of the T.S. An “unattached,” one who belongs to the Society at
large, has his diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is
connected with no branch or lodge.

[7] We say that in such cases it is not the _spirits_ of the dead
who _descend_ on earth, but the spirits of the living that _ascend_
to the pure Spiritual Souls. In truth there is neither _ascending_
nor _descending_, but a change of _state_ or _condition_ for the
medium. The body of the latter becoming paralyzed, or “entranced,” the
spiritual Ego is free from its trammels, and finds itself on the same
plane of consciousness with the disembodied spirits. Hence, if there
is any spiritual attraction between the two _they can communicate_,
as often occurs in dreams. The difference between a mediumistic and
a non-sensitive nature is this: the liberated spirit of a medium has
the opportunity and facility of influencing the passive organs of its
entranced physical body, to make them act, speak, and write at its
will. The Ego can make it repeat, echo-like, and in the human language,
the thoughts and ideas of the disembodied entity, as well as its own.
But the _non-receptive_ or non-sensitive organism of one who is very
positive cannot be so influenced. Hence, although there is hardly a
human being whose Ego does not hold free intercourse, during the sleep
of his body, with those whom it loved and lost, yet, on account of the
positiveness and non-receptivity of its physical envelope and brain,
no recollection, or a very dim, dream-like remembrance, lingers in the
memory of the person once awake.

[8] _Vide infra_, “On Individuality and Personality.”

[9] It has become “fashionable,” especially of late, to deride the
notion that there ever was, in the _mysteries_ of great and civilized
peoples, such as the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans, anything but
priestly imposture. Even the Rosicrucians were no better than half
lunatics, half knaves. Numerous books have been written on them; and
tyros, who had hardly heard the name a few years before, sallied
out as profound critics and Gnostics on the subject of alchemy, the
fire-philosophers, and mysticism in general. Yet a long series of the
Hierophants of Egypt, India, Chaldea, and Arabia are known, along
with the greatest philosophers and sages of Greece and the West, to
have included under the designation of wisdom and divine science all
knowledge, for they considered the base and origin of every art and
science as _essentially_ divine. Plato regarded the _mysteries_ as
most sacred, and Clemens Alexandrinus, who had been himself initiated
into the Eleusinian mysteries, has declared “that the doctrines taught
therein contained in them the end of all human knowledge.” Were Plato
and Clemens two knaves or two fools, we wonder, or—both?