THE TEST OF HUMILITY

“Beware of false prophets and false teachers. . . . You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth bad fruit. . . . Therefore, by their fruits you shall know them.” (Jesus, quoted in the Gospel according to Matthew 7:15-17, 20)

“Shun praise, O Devotee. Praise leads to self-delusion. . . . Self-gratulation [i.e. self-praise], O disciple, is like unto a lofty tower, up which a haughty fool has climbed. Thereon he sits in prideful solitude and unperceived by any but himself.

“Be humble, if thou would’st attain to Wisdom. Be humbler still, when Wisdom thou hast mastered.” (“The Voice of The Silence” p. 26-27, 38, original edition, translated by H. P. Blavatsky from the Book of the Golden Precepts)

The majority of serious Theosophists, if asked a question such as “Who was the Teacher or Messenger chosen by the Masters for the 1875 Cycle?” would answer “H. P. Blavatsky.” And we would agree wholeheartedly with that. However, many may not have realised that HPB herself never actually directly claimed such a thing. 

Her not directly claiming it on her own behalf does not prevent it being so, but it does provide an extremely valuable object lesson and important example as to how a genuine representative of the genuine Mahatmas or Masters of Wisdom would conduct themselves. Armed with this example, we can more readily and reliably discern and discriminate as to the authenticity and trustworthiness of other spiritual teachers and leaders.

Yes, HPB made numerous statements explaining a little about the Masters’ “centennial effort” in the last quarter of each century but although she was clearly the one fulfilling that role in the last quarter of the 19th century, there is no record of her ever having made an assertion such as “I am the Teacher of this cycle,” or “I am the Messenger sent by the Masters,” etc. Yes, she readily acknowledged her contact with and training received in-person from those Master-Yogis, but simply got on with doing work on Their behalf and never attempted to draw special attention to herself or to emphasise her own importance or greatness. 

Her connection with the Masters was one which she could readily demonstrate and verify, and which was repeatedly verified entirely independently of her, through the Masters appearing to others – often in Their projected astral form but sometimes in Their own physical bodies – and also precipitating (i.e. producing and sending via materialisation) letters and other messages and supernormal phenomena, in various different parts of the world, sometimes thousands of miles away from where HPB herself was in that moment.

This, coupled with the fact that those Masters, as well as most of her closest colleagues, affirmed her to be the Messenger of the Masters, along with the content, nature, and quality of her literary productions – most impressively “The Secret Doctrine” – are the main reasons why people for over 130 years have been recognising and declaring her to be what she was.

But how did she speak about herself?

“Oh, don’t be so very dogmatic, for I cannot tell you anything, I am a poor, ignorant old woman, I cannot say anything at all.”

“I am a very simple-minded old woman. I come here and offer to teach you what I can.”

“I am not a high adept. I am a poor old woman very ill-treated here.” (“The Secret Doctrine Dialogues” p. 351, 368, 148)

Although she typically disclaimed Adeptship, presenting herself only as a chela (disciple) of the Masters, there are letters in which the Masters refer to her as “the Adept” and a letter to her most trusted colleague William Q. Judge in which she indicates that she is inwardly a Nirmanakaya, another term for a Bodhisattva. Her other main Theosophical co-founder Col. Olcott once received a Mahatma Letter in which the Master Morya was repeatedly referred to as “Our Brother H.P.B.,” thus suggesting that HPB’s inner entity was somehow the Master M. himself. (For more on this, see Who are you, Madame Blavatsky?)

Acting in Their own bodies, the Masters certainly do not try to hide the fact that They are Masters and Initiates, but at the same time They do not seek to promote, inflate, or draw attention to Themselves as individuals. See, for example, the self-deprecating quality of the Master K.H. or Koot Hoomi:

“Do me the favour, if my poor epistles are worth preserving, . . .”

“There is a hero-worshipping tendency clearly showing itself, and you, my friend, are not quite free from it yourself. . . . If you would go on with your occult studies and literary work — then learn to be loyal to the Idea, rather than to my poor self.” 

“Meanwhile, receive my poor blessings.” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 34, 323-324, 370)

Yet the pseudo-Kuthumi – or Kuthumis, since there are masses of unsavoury astral entities willing to take on his name and identity, as well as that of other Masters and great figures, for their own entertainment and/or vampiric purposes – beloved of New Age channellers and mediums (usually unaware and uninterested that the original and actual Master K.H. emphasised the Masters’ strong opposition to mediumship) typically speaks like this:

“Behold, it is I, the glorious Ascended Master Kuthumi! Beloved, I come to you today with a transformative message from the heart of the Cosmos. Attune yourselves now with my mighty vibrations, and my sacred crystalline force, assimilated with the wondrous violet flame, shall transmute your karma, if you only obey my instructions!”

The contrast is striking and palpable. Sadly, many people are so strongly affected and influenced by bombastic utterances, grandiose proclamations, and fancy buzzwords that they would rather listen to an unverified and unverifiable impostor than the real deal.

Theosophy suggests that humility should be a crucial test of any teacher before one begins to “follow” them. If one cannot find one single self-effacing, self-attenuating, humble remark on the part of a spiritual teacher, or on the part of the entities which they claim to channel or otherwise represent, but instead only finds self-exalting, self-glorifying statements, one would do well to run far away in the other direction. It doesn’t particularly matter if those statements are delivered in the first person or the third person; what matters is that the individual is trying to sway you and gain your appreciation, trust, devotion, or commitment, by their claims, rather than letting their “fruits” speak for themselves. This doesn’t at all mean that the person is of necessity a fraud or con artist; some are but many are not. Many are merely a case of – to use another metaphor from Jesus – “the blind leading the blind.” And what did he say happens when the blind lead the blind? “They both fall into the ditch.” It cannot end well.

The 14th Dalai Lama is well known for his sincere and deep humility. Despite being recognised and revered within Tibetan Buddhism as the incarnation or emanation of Avalokiteshvara, celestial Bodhisattva of Compassion, here is how he speaks of himself:

“I am nothing special, just an ordinary human being. That’s why I always describe myself as just a simple Buddhist monk.”

He does not deny being connected in some way with Avalokiteshvara but speaks of it in terms of “Avalokiteshvara is my boss, I am his messenger.” In the article just linked to, we wrote:

“Tsong-Kha-Pa, like Gautama Buddha himself, held very strongly that Buddhist monks and Lamas should not draw attention to any occult knowledge and/or powers which they may possess and should not exhibit or demonstrate any occult or psychic powers; their use should be careful and private. While this is not accepted in some other forms of Tibetan Buddhism, especially among the Nyingmapas, the Gelugpas take it seriously. So while the Dalai Lama [the leading figurehead of the Gelug school, founded by the 14th-15th century Tibetan reformer Tsong-Kha-Pa, who is also an important figure in Theosophical teachings] certainly generally presents himself as “just a humble Buddhist monk” and tries to imply that he is really as normal and ordinary as everyone else, this should not necessarily be taken at face value. Within Tibetan Buddhism, he is considered to have mastered in his present lifetime numerous Tibetan systems of meditation, yoga (internal yoga), and esoteric development, all of which are traditionally associated with occult powers and abilities (although that is not the aim or goal of them), and, besides this, in the 2002 documentary film “Yogis of Tibet,” a yogi mentions that while he (the yogi) was living in a cave far away from civilisation, the Dalai Lama contacted him telepathically to give him certain instructions, including to come back to civilisation to help people with the knowledge he had gained from his retreat.”

Further, see what Glenn Mullin has to say in “Meditations to Transform the Mind,” published in 1999 by Snow Lion:

“The present Dalai Lama . . . After the Kalachakra initiation in Bodh Gaya in 1974 the entire crowd of 150,000 went through in single file. I stood in line for three days before coming into his presence. As I passed before him he reached down, grabbed me by the ear and whispered a few words to me. Perhaps I read more into them than was there, but they seemed to sum up much of what had been on my mind throughout the entire two weeks of the teaching and initiation. On another occasion, and after another initiation, I had a very sore back, but was careful not to show it as I walked past him in line. He reached down and whacked me on the very point of the excruciating pain. The problem went away instantly, and has never again returned.” (p. 193-194)

Mullin is not the only one to have reported such things. The truly great deliberately conceal much – or even, in some cases, all – of their greatness, while those who are far from being great yearn to make people view them as great.

One of the rules for would-be disciples in the Theosophical text “Light on the Path” reads, “And that power which the disciple shall covet is that which shall make him appear as nothing in the eyes of men.” (p. 4)

It could be said that “that power” spoken of is the power of true impersonality or what in Mahayana Buddhism is termed freedom from “self-grasping” and “self-cherishing.”

However, one should not assume that just because a spiritual seeker or aspirant or student of Theosophy is humble, guarded, and reticent to talk about or draw attention to themselves, that they must therefore be an advanced occultist taking pains to “appear as nothing” while in fact being secretly an Initiate and in contact with the Masters. Of course, in a small number of cases this may actually be so. But most of the time, it simply means that the person is somewhat wiser or more sensible or more serious than others. If a Theosophist, they may merely be practising William Judge’s advice to “conceal rather than give out your inner psychic life, for by telling of it your proper progress is hindered,” and “Begin by trying to conquer the habit, almost universal, of pushing yourself forward.” Thus, it is best not to make hasty deductions, conclusions, or speculations.

FROM “MODERN APOSTLES AND PSEUDO-MESSIAHS” BY H. P. BLAVATSKY

“. . . the Messiah craze has vastly increased, and men and women alike have been involved in its whirlpools. Given, a strong desire to reform somehow the religious or social aspect of the world, a personal hatred of certain of its aspects, and a belief in visions and messages, and the result was sure; the “Messiah” arose with a universal panacea for the ills of mankind. If he (very often she) did not make the claim, it was made for him. Carried away by the magnetic force, the eloquence, the courage, the single idea of the apostle pro tem [i.e. “of the moment” or “of the present time”], numbers, for very varied reasons, accepted him or her as the revelator of the hour and of all time. . . . Ignorance emboldens, and the weak will always worship the bold. . . . And the result is sorry to behold, for each seems to be putting the crown upon his own head. . . .

“[Self-aggrandising spiritual claimants who encountered Theosophy during the time of HPB saw] truths they had not dreamed of, and gifts they had never possessed, exercised in silence and with potent force by men whose names were unknown even to history [i.e. referring to the Mahatmas or Masters of Wisdom], and recognised only by hidden disciples, or their peers. Something higher was placed before the sight of these eager reformers than fame: it was truth. . . . Wherever Theosophy spreads, there it is impossible for the deluded to mislead, or the deluded to follow [Note: There have undeniably been delusions and the deluded within Theosophical organisations; most prominently in the first half of the 20th century. But where the authentic, genuine Theosophy as taught by HPB and her Adept-Teachers spreads and becomes properly known, a high degree of immunity against delusion and deception comes about]. It opens a new path, a forgotten philosophy which has lived through the ages, . . . It gathers reformers together, throws light on their way, and teaches them how to work towards a desirable end with most effect, but forbids any to assume a crown or sceptre, and no less delivers from a futile crown of thorns. Mesmerisms and astral influences fall back, and the sky grows clear enough for higher light. It hushes the “Lo here! and lo there!” and declares the Christ, like the kingdom of heaven, to be within. It guards and applies every aspiration and capacity to serve humanity in any man, and shows him how. It overthrows the giddy pedestal, and safely cares for the human being on solid ground. Hence, in this way, and in all other ways, it [i.e. Theosophy itself] is the truest deliverer and saviour of our time. . . .

“Of one thing, rationally-minded people, apart from Theosophists, may be sure. And that is, service for humanity is its all-sufficient reward; and that empty jars are the most resonant of sound. To know a very little of the philosophy of life, of man’s power to redeem wrongs and to teach others, to perceive how to thread the tangled maze of existence on this globe, and to accomplish aught of lasting and spiritual benefit, is to annihilate all desire or thought of posing as a heaven-sent saviour of the people. For a very little self-knowledge is a leveller indeed, and more democratic than the most ultra-radical can desire. The best practical reformers of the outside abuses we have known, such as slavery, deprivation of the rights of woman, legal tyrannies, oppressions of the poor, have never dreamed of posing as Messiahs. Honour, worthless as it is, followed them unsought, for a tree is known by its fruits, and to this day “their works do follow them.” . . .

“With the advent of Theosophy, the Messiah-craze surely has had its day, and sees its doom. For if it teaches, or has taught, one thing more plainly than another, it is that the “first shall be last, and the last first.” And in the face of genuine spiritual growth, and true illumination, the Theosophist grows in power to most truly befriend and help his fellows, while he becomes the most humble, the most silent, the most guarded of men.

“Saviours to their race, in a sense, have lived and will live. Rarely has one been known. Rare has been the occasion when thus to be known has been either expedient or possible. Therefore, fools alone will rush in “where angels fear to tread.””

FROM “THEOSOPHY” MAGAZINE

PUBLISHED BY THE PARENT LODGE (LOS ANGELES) OF THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS

“When the next great Teacher comes in the last quarter of this century, how are people to recognize him as “the One”? Is it probable that he will say, “I am He who was for to come”?

“The next great Teacher to come will undoubtedly not say that he is the Teacher, just as all the really great ones did not say it before him. Those who recognize him for what he really is will be like those who realized the worth of Buddha and of Christ. However quiet and unassuming the Teacher may be, he will at all times have the teaching for those who want it and seek it out. Those who talk most about being “Teachers” are really “fakes” and “make-believes.” No great Teacher ever proclaimed that he is the one and only savior of the world. He comes to take up the Work, not to advertise a personality. We could expect to know him by his teachings, which would naturally be in accordance with the Three Fundamentals of H. P. B., and not inconsistent with any of her now recorded philosophy. But, it will be only the real Theosophists — the pure in heart, desiring only to help others — who will know him as “the One.”” 

“Why did H. P. B. call herself a disciple instead of a teacher?

“. . . There is occult significance in the oft-repeated truism, “The more I know the more I realize how little I know.” In a universe of infinite possibilities, the greater the horizon of the observer, the more he sees of what yet is to be learned and accomplished. To the man in the street, overjoyed at a commercial success of the moment, the humility of the sage is something to wonder at, to regard askance. . . . True enough, all things are relative, and so we may say, of course H. P. B. had to learn just as we; there must be beings high above her as we are above the black beetle. . . . And in keeping with the fitness of things, it would perhaps be wiser not to attempt to think in those terms but rather to regard the life of H. P. B. for what it was: a symbol of existence; a life of example as well as precept. H. P. B. lived the life of the disciple that we might learn how the true disciple acts; surely such an one is already a teacher by virtue of his devotion. Finally, how can there be any real distinction between the two? In a universe of interdependence, of sacrifice, there can be no learning without teaching, no teaching without learning. . . .

“The fact that the teacher-pupil relationship too often engenders over-reverence, dependence on authority, was reason enough to present persistently the Message foremost, and to retire herself into the role of learner. Therein is the word, disciple, applicable (as words go), describing her dual position of learner and teacher, without elevating her beyond contact with her listeners. Implied in this one cogent word — disciple — is H. P. B.’s message of progressive learning and universal brotherhood. On the Path, the low becomes high; the consciousness, power and knowledge of Master and Disciple are not in reality separate, and one may serve another with superior wisdom.” (“Youth-Companions’ Forum,” “Theosophy” May 1933)

“Some Theosophists are looking and longing for a “coming Christ,” though how they can do so in the face of the teachings of Theosophy is a mystery. . . . It is presumed that the expected “Christ” will be in human form; how are we to know him? Will he say so himself? If so, would one be wise or foolish to accept such a claim? Should some other vouch for him and his claim, are we any better off? To accede to any such claim presents no other appearance than the height of superstition, the abnegation of our highest birthright, discrimination. Should such an one come to the world would he make claims? Has any such ever done so? Surely such a being would be wise enough to know that anyone can make claims, as in the past and doubtless in the future. By his works men would come to recognize his knowledge and power; such has been the way in the past, and what else have we to judge by?” (Robert Crosbie, “Misconceptions of Theosophy,” “Theosophy” December 1912)

~ * ~

It would be dogmatic and inappropriate if we were to categorically insist that “claim-making” is always a sign of falsity, delusion, or untrustworthiness. There are surely rare exceptions to most rules or even every rule. And it is not every single type of possible claim that is a warning sign; we are speaking here specifically of claims and insinuations of one’s own spiritual greatness, superiority, central importance to the destiny of humanity and the world, omniscience, omnipotence, infallibility, and so forth . . . all of which are quite frequently encountered in esoteric, metaphysical, and New Age circles, and have even very occasionally been encountered in the post-Blavatsky Theosophical Movement.

It is true that in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna does not attempt to conceal his true divine identity and nature from Arjuna but instead reveals it to him in a powerful way. But let us remember that (a) it is probably not supposed to be an historical account for the most part, but rather a literary device, although we do know that Krishna historically existed, (b) Krishna’s revelation of his divine identity and Avataric nature is disclosed to his disciple Arjuna one-to-one, in a private conversation in Arjuna’s chariot. It is not reported that Krishna gave public speeches to crowds of people in which he announced that he was an Avatar or endeavoured to get the masses to devotedly follow him and his instructions.

In the Shurangama Sutra, a popular scripture in Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha is presented as saying:

“After my parinirvana, I command the Bodhisattvas and Arhats to manifest themselves in various forms in the Age of the decline of the Dharma, in order to deliver beings from the cycle of rebirth. They may appear as monks, lay practitioners, kings, officials, young boys, young girls, or even as prostitutes, widows, thieves, butchers, and merchants. They will mingle with people of these types, while speaking highly to them of the Buddha’s teachings, and thus lead them to enter samadhi with body and mind. But they will never openly declare, “I am really a Bodhisattva,” or “I am really an Arhat,” nor will they reveal the Buddha’s secret teachings or share sacred things with beginners. Only at the time of their death, they will make a secret transmission, and reveal their true identity to one or a few trusted people. . . . A poor person who falsely declares themselves to be a king, invites their own destruction. How much more so for falsely claiming to be a Dharma King? If the cause is not genuine, the result will be twisted.”

Robert Crosbie, the founder of the United Lodge of Theosophists, reminds us:

“But if it is true that H. P. B. was the Direct Agent of the Lodge — and this is explicitly stated to be the fact by the Master K. H., however Col. Olcott, Mrs. Besant or others, may twist and interpret H. P. B. and Her teachings — then we must go to the records left by Her and Her Colleague, W. Q. Judge, for direction in all matters pertaining to the Theosophical Movement, . . . For to do otherwise would be equivalent to saying that those Great Beings, the real Founders of the Movement, had left no guidance for the generations to come, and that humanity was left the prey to any and all claimants that might arise. But it is not true that humanity has been left a prey to mistaken or designing persons; the records left by the Messengers [i.e. H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge] are a sure, consistent guide, and if they are well studied and applied, will show a straight, even and self-evident Path. It is lack of study that leaves so many in ignorance, and ready to pursue every will-o’-the-wisp they see. . . . All those who do not follow the lines laid down by the Messengers are certain to be misled. Yet the way is clear; the pity of it is that otherwise sincere and devoted persons will not heed the warnings given; will not study, think, and apply what was recorded for them and their guidance.” (“The Friendly Philosopher” p. 34-35, 36)

~ * ~

“Why should any of us — aye, even the most learned in occult lore among theosophists — pose for infallibility? Let us humbly admit with Socrates that “all we know is, that we know nothing”; at any rate nothing in comparison to what we have still to learn.”
(H. P. Blavatsky, “”Esoteric Buddhism” and “The Secret Doctrine””)

“If Sun thou can’st not be, then be the humble planet. Aye, if thou art debarred from flaming like the noon-day Sun upon the snow-capped mount of purity eternal, then choose, O Neophyte, a humbler course. Point out the “Way” – however dimly, and lost among the host – as does the evening star to those who tread their path in darkness.”
(“The Voice of The Silence” p. 36, translated by H. P. Blavatsky from the Book of the Golden Precepts)

This article may have raised more questions about various things. Please make use of the site search function (the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the page) and visit the Articles page to see the complete list of over 400 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. You may particularly be interested in those articles linked to within the above.

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~