III. THE WORKING SYSTEM OF THE T.S.[10]

THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY.

ENQ. What are the objects of the “Theosophical Society”?

THEO. They are three, and have been so from the beginning. (1). To form
the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without
distinction of race, colour, or creed. (2). To promote the
study of Aryan and other Scriptures, of the World’s religion
and sciences, and to vindicate the importance of old Asiatic
literature, namely, of the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian
philosophies. (3). To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature
under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers
latent in man especially. These are, broadly stated, the three
chief objects of the Theosophical Society.

ENQ. Can you give me some more detailed information upon these?

THEO. We may divide each of the three objects into as many explanatory
clauses as may be found necessary.

ENQ. Then let us begin with the first. What means would you resort to,
in order to promote such a feeling of brotherhood among races
that are known to be of the most diversified religions, customs,
beliefs, and modes of thought?

THEO. Allow me to add that which you seem unwilling to express. Of
course we know that with the exception of two remnants of
races—the Parsees and the Jews—every nation is divided, not merely
against all other nations, but even against itself. This is found
most prominently among the so-called civilized Christian nations.
Hence your wonder, and the reason why our first object appears to
you a Utopia. Is it not so?

ENQ. Well, yes; but what have you to say against it?

THEO. Nothing against the fact; but much about the necessity of
removing the causes which make Universal Brotherhood a Utopia at
present.

ENQ. What are, in your view, these causes?

THEO. First and foremost, the natural selfishness of human nature. This
selfishness, instead of being eradicated, is daily strengthened
and stimulated into a ferocious and irresistible feeling by the
present religious education, which tends not only to encourage,
but positively to justify it. People’s ideas about right and wrong
have been entirely perverted by the literal acceptance of the
Jewish Bible. All the unselfishness of the altruistic teachings
of Jesus has become merely a theoretical subject for pulpit
oratory; while the precepts of practical selfishness taught in
the Mosaic Bible, against which Christ so vainly preached, have
become ingrained into the innermost life of the Western nations.
“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” has come to be the
first maxim of your law. Now, I state openly and fearlessly, that
the perversity of this doctrine and of so many others _Theosophy
alone_ can eradicate.


THE COMMON ORIGIN OF MAN.

ENQ. How?

THEO. Simply by demonstrating on logical, philosophical, metaphysical,
and even scientific grounds that:—(a) All men have spiritually
and physically the same origin, which is the fundamental teaching
of Theosophy. (b) As mankind is essentially of one and the same
essence, and that essence is one—infinite, uncreate, and eternal,
whether we call it God or Nature—nothing, therefore, can affect
one nation or one man without affecting all other nations and
all other men. This is as certain and as obvious as that a stone
thrown into a pond will, sooner or later, set in motion every
single drop of water therein.

ENQ. But this is not the teaching of Christ, but rather a pantheistic
notion.

THEO. That is where your mistake lies. It is purely _Christian_,
although _not_ Judaic, and therefore, perhaps, your Biblical
nations prefer to ignore it.

ENQ. This is a wholesale and unjust accusation. Where are your proofs
for such a statement?

THEO. They are ready at hand. Christ is alleged to have said: “Love
each other” and “Love your enemies”; for “if ye love them (only)
which love you, what reward (or merit) have ye? Do not even the
_publicans_[11] the same? And if you salute your brethren only,
what do ye more than others? Do not even publicans so?” These
are Christ’s words. But Genesis ix. 25, says “Cursed be Canaan,
a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” And,
therefore, Christian but Biblical people prefer the law of Moses
to Christ’s law of love. They base upon the Old Testament, which
panders to all their passions, their laws of conquest, annexation,
and tyranny over races which they call _inferior_. What crimes
have been committed on the strength of this infernal (if taken in
its dead letter) passage in Genesis, history alone gives us an
idea, however inadequate.[12]

ENQ. I have heard you say that the identity of our physical origin is
proved by science, that of our spiritual origin by the
Wisdom-Religion. Yet we do not find Darwinists exhibiting great
fraternal affection.

THEO. Just so. This is what shows the deficiency of the materialistic
systems, and proves that we Theosophists are in the right. The
identity of our physical origin makes no appeal to our higher and
deeper feelings. Matter, deprived of its soul and spirit, or its
divine essence, cannot speak to the human heart. But the identity
of the soul and spirit, of real, immortal man, as Theosophy
teaches us, once proven and deep-rooted in our hearts, would lead
us far on the road of real charity and brotherly goodwill.

ENQ. But how does Theosophy explain the common origin of man?

THEO. By teaching that the _root_ of all nature, objective and
subjective, and everything else in the universe, visible and
invisible, _is_, _was_, and _ever will be_ one absolute essence,
from which all starts, and into which everything returns. This is
Aryan philosophy, fully represented only by the Vedantins, and
the Buddhist system. With this object in view, it is the duty of
all Theosophists to promote in every practical way, and in all
countries, the spread of _non-sectarian_ education.

ENQ. What do the written statutes of your Society advise its members to
do besides this? On the physical plane, I mean?

THEO. In order to awaken brotherly feeling among nations we have to
assist in the international exchange of useful arts and products,
by advice, information, and co-operation with all worthy
individuals and associations (provided, however, add the statutes,
“that no benefit or percentage shall be taken by the Society or
the ‘Fellows’ for its or their corporate services”). For instance,
to take a practical illustration. The organization of Society,
depicted by Edward Bellamy, in his magnificent work “Looking
Backwards,” admirably represents the Theosophical idea of what
should be the first great step towards the full realization of
universal brotherhood. The state of things he depicts falls short
of perfection, because selfishness still exists and operates in
the hearts of men. But in the main, selfishness and individualism
have been overcome by the feeling of solidarity and mutual
brotherhood; and the scheme of life there described reduces the
causes tending to create and foster selfishness to a minimum.

ENQ. Then as a Theosophist you will take part in an effort to realize
such an ideal?

THEO. Certainly; and we have proved it by action. Have not you heard of
the Nationalist clubs and party which have sprung up in America
since the publication of Bellamy’s book? They are now coming
prominently to the front, and will do so more and more as time
goes on. Well, these clubs and this party were started in the
first instance by Theosophists. One of the first, the Nationalist
Club of Boston, Mass., has Theosophists for President and
Secretary, and the majority of its executive belong to the T.S.
In the constitution of all their clubs, and of the party they are
forming, the influence of Theosophy and of the Society is plain,
for they all take as their basis, their first and fundamental
principle, the Brotherhood of Humanity as taught by Theosophy. In
their declaration of Principles they state:—“The principle of the
Brotherhood of Humanity is one of the eternal truths that govern
the world’s progress on lines which distinguish human nature from
brute nature.” What can be more Theosophical than this? But it is
not enough. What is also needed is to impress men with the idea
that, if the root of mankind is _one_, then there must also be one
truth which finds expression in all the various religions—except
in the Jewish, as you do not find it _expressed_ even in the
Kabala.

ENQ. This refers to the common origin of religions, and you may be
right there. But how does it apply to practical brotherhood on the
physical plane?

THEO. First, because that which is true on the metaphysical plane must
be also true on the physical. Secondly, because there is no more
fertile source of hatred and strife than religious differences.
When one party or another thinks himself the sole possessor of
absolute truth, it becomes only natural that he should think his
neighbour absolutely in the clutches of Error or the Devil. But
once get a man to see that none of them has the _whole_ truth, but
that they are mutually complementary, that the complete truth can
be found only in the combined views of all, after that which is
false in each of them has been sifted out—then true brotherhood
in religion will be established. The same applies in the physical
world.

ENQ. Please explain further.

THEO. Take an instance. A plant consists of a root, a stem, and many
shoots and leaves. As humanity, as a whole, is the stem which
grows from the spiritual root, so is the stem the unity of the
plant. Hurt the stem and it is obvious that every shoot and leaf
will suffer. So it is with mankind.

ENQ. Yes, but if you injure a leaf or a shoot, you do not injure the
whole plant.

THEO. And therefore you think that by injuring _one_ man you do not
injure humanity? But how do _you_ know? Are you aware that even
materialistic science teaches that any injury, however slight,
to a plant will affect the whole course of its future growth and
development? Therefore, you are mistaken, and the analogy is
perfect. If, however, you overlook the fact that a cut in the
finger may often make the whole body suffer, and react on the
whole nervous system, I must all the more remind you that there
may well be other spiritual laws, operating on plants and animals
as well as on mankind, although, as you do not recognize their
action on plants and animals, you may deny their existence.

ENQ. What laws do you mean?

THEO. We call them Karmic laws; but you will not understand the full
meaning of the term unless you study Occultism. However, my
argument did not rest on the assumption of these laws, but really
on the analogy of the plant. Expand the idea, carry it out to
a universal application, and you will soon find that in true
philosophy every physical action has its moral and everlasting
effect. Hurt a man by doing him bodily harm; you may think
that his pain and suffering cannot spread by any means to his
neighbours, least of all to men of other nations. We affirm _that
it will, in good time_. Therefore, we say, that unless every man
is brought to understand and accept _as an axiomatic truth_ that
by wronging one man we wrong not only ourselves but the whole of
humanity in the long run, no brotherly feelings such as preached
by all the great Reformers, pre-eminently by Buddha and Jesus, are
possible on earth.


OUR OTHER OBJECTS.

ENQ. Will you now explain the methods by which you propose to carry out
the second object?

THEO. To collect for the library at our headquarters of Adyar, Madras,
(and by the Fellows of their Branches for their local libraries,)
all the good works upon the world’s religions that we can. To put
into written form correct information upon the various ancient
philosophies, traditions, and legends, and disseminate the same
in such practicable ways as the translation and publication of
original works of value, and extracts from and commentaries upon
the same, or the oral instructions of persons learned in their
respective departments.

ENQ. And what about the third object, to develop in man his latent
spiritual or psychic powers?

THEO. This has to be achieved also by means of publications, in those
places where no lectures and personal teachings are possible.
Our duty is to keep alive in man his spiritual intuitions. To
oppose and counteract—after due investigation and proof of its
irrational nature—bigotry in every form, religious, scientific, or
social, and _cant_ above all, whether as religious sectarianism
or as belief in miracles or anything supernatural. What we have
to do is to seek to obtain _knowledge_ of all the laws of nature,
and to diffuse it. To encourage the study of those laws least
understood by modern people, the so-called Occult Sciences, _based
on the true knowledge of nature_, instead of, as at present,
on _superstitious beliefs based on blind faith and authority_.
Popular folk-lore and traditions, however fanciful at times, when
sifted may lead to the discovery of long-lost, but important,
secrets of nature. The Society, therefore, aims at pursuing this
line of inquiry, in the hope of widening the field of scientific
and philosophical observation.


ON THE SACREDNESS OF THE PLEDGE.

ENQ. Have you any ethical system that you carry out in the Society?

THEO. The ethics are there, ready and clear enough for whomsoever
follow them. They are the essence and cream of the world’s ethics,
gathered from the teachings of all the world’s great reformers.
Therefore, you will find represented therein Confucius and
Zoroaster, Lao-Tze and the Bhagavat-Gita, the precepts of Gautama
Buddha and Jesus of Nazareth, of Hillel and his school, as of
Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and their schools.

ENQ. Do the members of your Society carry out these precepts? I have
heard of great dissensions and quarrels among them.

THEO. Very naturally, since although the reform (in its present shape)
may be called new, the men and women to be reformed are the
same human, sinning natures as of old. As already said, the
earnest _working_ members are few; but many are the sincere and
well-disposed persons, who try their best to live up to the
Society’s and their own ideals. Our duty is to encourage and
assist individual fellows in self-improvement, intellectual,
moral, and spiritual; not to blame or condemn those who fail.
We have, strictly speaking, no right to refuse admission to
anyone—especially in the _Esoteric Section_ of the Society,
wherein “he who enters is as one newly born.” But if any member,
his sacred pledges on his word of honour and immortal _Self_,
notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after that “new birth,”
with the new man, the vices or defects of his old life, and to
indulge in them still in the Society, then, of course, he is more
than likely to be asked to resign and withdraw; or, in case of
his refusal, to be expelled. We have the strictest rules for such
emergencies.

ENQ. Can some of them be mentioned?

THEO. They can. To begin with, no Fellow in the Society, whether
exoteric or esoteric, has a right to force his personal opinions
upon another Fellow. “It is not lawful for _any officer of
the Parent Society_ to express in public, by word or act, any
hostility to, or preference for, any one section,[13] religious
or philosophical, more than another. All have an equal right
to have the essential features of their religious belief laid
before the tribunal of an impartial world. And no officer of the
Society, in his capacity as an officer, has the right to preach
his own sectarian views and beliefs to members assembled, except
when the meeting consists of his co-religionists. After due
warning, violation of this rule shall be punished by suspension
or expulsion.” This is one of the offenses in the Society at
large. As regards the inner section, now called the _Esoteric_,
the following rules have been laid down and adopted, so far back
as 1880. “No Fellow shall put to his selfish use any knowledge
communicated to him by any member of the first section (now
a higher ‘degree’); violation of the rule being punished by
expulsion.” Now, however, before any such knowledge can be
imparted, the applicant has to bind himself by a solemn oath not
to use it for selfish purposes, nor to reveal anything said except
by permission.

ENQ. But is a man expelled, or resigning, from the section free to
reveal anything he may have learned, or to break any clause of the
pledge he has taken?

THEO. Certainly not. His expulsion or resignation only relieves him
from the obligation of obedience to the teacher, and from that of
taking an active part in the work of the Society, but surely not
from the sacred pledge of secrecy.

ENQ. But is this reasonable and just?

THEO. Most assuredly. To any man or woman with the slightest honourable
feeling a pledge of secrecy taken even on one’s _word of honour_,
much more to one’s Higher Self—the God within—is binding till
death. And though he may leave the Section and the Society, no man
or woman of honour will think of attacking or injuring a body to
which he or she has been so pledged.

ENQ. But is not this going rather far?

THEO. Perhaps so, according to the low standard of the present time and
morality. But if it does not bind as far as this, what use is
a _pledge_ at all? How can anyone expect to be taught secret
knowledge, if he is to be at liberty to free himself from all the
obligations he had taken, whenever he pleases? What security,
confidence, or trust would ever exist among them, if pledges such
as this were to have no really binding force at all? Believe
me, the law of retribution (Karma) would very soon overtake one
who so broke his pledge, and perhaps as soon as the contempt of
every honourable man would, even on this physical plane. As well
expressed in the N. Y. “Path” just cited on this subject, “_A
pledge once taken, is for ever binding in both the moral and the
occult worlds._ If we break it once and are punished, that does
not justify us in breaking it again, and so long as we do, so long
will the mighty lever of the Law (of Karma) react upon us.” (The
_Path_, July, 1889.)

FOOTNOTES:

[10] _Vide_ (at the end) the official rules of the T.S., Appendix A.
_Nota bene_, “T.S.” is an abbreviation for “Theosophical Society.”

[11] Publicans—regarded as so many thieves and pickpockets in those
days. Among the Jews the name and profession of a publican was the
most odious thing in the world. They were not allowed to enter the
Temple, and Matthew (xviii. 17) speaks of a heathen and a publican
as identical. Yet they were only Roman tax-gatherers occupying the
same position as the British officials in India and other conquered
countries.

[12] “At the close of the Middle Ages slavery, under the power of
moral forces, had mainly disappeared from Europe; but two momentous
events occurred which overbore the moral power working in European
society and let loose a swarm of curses upon the earth such as mankind
had scarcely ever known. One of these events was the first voyaging
to a populated and barbarous coast where human beings were a familiar
article of traffic; and the other the discovery of a new world, where
mines of glittering wealth were open, provided labour could be imported
to work them. For four hundred years men and women and children were
torn from all whom they knew and loved, and were sold on the coast of
Africa to foreign traders; they were chained below decks—the dead often
with the living—during the horrible ‘middle passage,’ and, according to
Bancroft, an impartial historian, two hundred and fifty thousand out
of three and a quarter millions were thrown into the sea on that fatal
passage, while the remainder were consigned to nameless misery in the
mines, or under the lash in the cane and rice fields. The guilt of this
great crime rests on the Christian Church. ‘In the name of the most
Holy Trinity’ the Spanish Government (Roman Catholic) concluded more
than ten treaties authorising the sale of five hundred thousand human
beings; in 1562 Sir John Hawkins sailed on his diabolical errand of
buying slaves in Africa and selling them in the West Indies in a ship
which bore the sacred name of Jesus; while Elizabeth, the Protestant
Queen, rewarded him for his success in this first adventure of
Englishmen in that inhuman traffic by allowing him to wear as his crest
‘a demi-Moor in his proper colour, bound with a cord, or, in other
words, a manacled negro slave.’”—_Conquests of the Cross_ (quoted from
the _Agnostic Journal_).

[13] A “branch,” or lodge, composed solely of co-religionists, or a
branch _in partibus_, as they are now somewhat bombastically called.