For The Consideration of Today’s Theosophists

Sunrise over the Mountains

The following letter, received from a fellow associate of the United Lodge of Theosophists, provides food for thought which may prove interesting and valuable for all students of Theosophy, particularly those who are – or who may become – associates of the ULT.

~ * ~

Fellow Workers:

It is said that each generation of Theosophists must prove their own worth… their worth is proportionate to their devotion to truth and the willingness to adjust and apply it to ourselves; to use it as the basis of our actions. From this context of devotion we apply that which we understand of the “doctrine.”

“The knot in the heart that must be untied is the intellect.”

We constantly study “The Voice of the Silence” for review and self-adjustment. This is the self-created context for our action from which all should originate.

The Preface of “The Voice” makes more clear:

“It is well known that, in India, the methods of psychic development differ with the Gurus (teachers or masters), not only because of their belonging to different Schools of Philosophy, of which there are six, but because every Guru has his own system, which he generally keeps very secret. But beyond the Himalayas the method in the Esoteric Schools does not differ, unless the Guru is simply a Lama, but little more learned than those he teaches.”

Our “Theosophic Lineage” is thus given. Companions cannot serve “two Masters.” Robert Crosbie “kept the line unbroken.” The meaning of the above expands as one grows in understanding of that which is, and which must be kept, “sacred and private.”

The duty that we have voluntarily assumed is thus the keeping of the “original message” from desecration, distortion, and materialization.

The publishing of the original writings of the Teachers and their agents was paramount to the founding of the ULT. Second-hand Theosophy, editing, the work of esoteric failures, replaced the Mahatmic impulse as the focus of study in the remainder of the Theosophical Movement. The doctrines of pseudo-Theosophy became the basis of action and practice. Right motive using wrong knowledge. Aspirants laboring towards a wrong “end in view.”

Masters tell us of the failed attempts of the past. “The Theosophic shells” that litter the world and which should be left to disintegrate and die. We are warned not to energize and revitalize them. The same in our student life. We must use discrimination to understand the influences we are acting under so as not to fall victim to our past skandhas. Skandha-Karma is individual and collective. There are “Theosophic skandhas” that have manifested under cyclic law that are testing all in an intense period of probation. In short, are we going to make the same mistakes of the original T.S. by succumbing to the same influences in new forms?

This student has heard repeatedly that there are good students in all other T.S. organizations and that the ULT platform is an obstacle to establishing “Theosophical unity”; that we should focus on points of agreement rather than our philosophic differences.

The definite philosophic teachings given by the “Teachers and their workers” is what is “’Theosophy.” What is Theosophy is not a position that each decides for himself. Consistency is a touchstone for discriminating what is from the “Mahatmic” source. We have such references in “The Secret Doctrine” Introductory, for example, p. xxx: “There was a “primeval revelation,” and it still exists; nor will it ever be lost to the world, but will reappear; . . .”

“A Mahatma’s Message to Some Brahmans” (p. 321-323 in Vol. II of “William Q. Judge Theosophical Articles”) give points to consider. It is to be remembered that this letter, transcribed from the Master by H.P. Blavatsky and later distributed by Mr. Judge, was part of the charges brought against him and the “intense subjective attacks” he endured. Chakravarti was but the outer vehicle for that ancient and enduring enemy of the Masters and the Movement.

From the Mahatma’s letter:

“The Society, acting in this directly in accord with our orders, forces no one to become a Theosophist of the Second Section. It is left with himself at his choice. It is useless for a member to argue “I am one of a pure life, I am a teetotaller and an abstainer from meat and vice, all my aspirations are for good, etc.” and he at the same time building by his acts and deeds an impassable barrier on the road between himself and us.

“What have we, the disciples of the Arhats of Esoteric Buddhism and of Sang-gyas [the Tibetan name for Buddha], to do with the Shasters and orthodox Brahmanism? There are 100 of thousands of Fakirs, Sannyasis, or Sadhus leading the most pure lives and yet being, as they are, on the path of error, never having had an opportunity to meet, see, or even hear of us. Their forefathers have driven the followers of the only true philosophy upon earth away from India, and now it is not for the latter to come to them, but for them to come to us, if they want us.”

Does the ULT continue to be true to its purpose if it waters down the philosophy and the teaching so as not to offend? Is the only way to effect a “Theosophic unity” by accepting all and everything that is called Theosophy? Are we to remain silent when “Theosophic fiction” is put forth, so as not to disturb a current called “tolerance”? Do we lower our heads so as not to see the reality for what is being manifested as a basis for unity?

Robert Crosbie addresses this in Letter Four of “The Friendly Philosopher,” p. 11-12 in the section titled “The Spirit in the Body”:

“We need only Loyalty – loyalty to the work, loyalty to our convictions, loyalty to each other in full faith and confidence that each is a part of the other and all. So shall we be united in one thought, one will, one feeling.

“This does not mean indiscriminate acceptance of everything and everyone. The attitude of “namby-pambyism” is but a pseudo-tolerance. Carried to its legitimate conclusion, this false idea of “brotherhood” would signify that sin, sorrow, suffering, error, all religions and all philosophies are all right; that everybody is doing the best he can, and the best he knows how to do, and cannot do any different, and that all are steps of learning.

“Humanity sins, sorrows, suffers and dies a thousand deaths; because of what? Just IGNORANCE. Theosophy is TRUTH and as such can have no alliance with any form of error and remain Truth. If partial philosophies could save the world there would be no need for the sacrifices of the Masters. . . .

“I am no believer in diluted Theosophy. The Masters did not dilute it. We either carry on Their work or we do not; there is no need for hypocrisy nor self-deception.”

~ * ~

The writer of the above letter may be contacted via this website. If you wish to leave a comment please do so and we will inform the writer so that a reply can then be made.

~ Blavatsky Theosophy Group UK ~

Comments

  1. Student says:

    In the above letter, in the quote from the Mahatma’s message,
    It states ” …… it is not for the latter [Masters] to come to them, but for them to come to us, if they want us?”

    This phrase stands out as worthy of deeper consideration. Whatever Theosophical organization one may belong to, support; or an independent ” Theosophist”; the study of, and the attempt to promote Theosophy brings us to wanting to ” know them.”

    As an inquirer, it means attention needs to be given to:

    1. What are the teachings as given by the Mahatmas.
    2. Who and what are these Masters
    3. What severed ” the link ” with the Masters and what this means.
    4. What is the correct conduct towards esoteric knowledge that the TS and other groups say they have and members openly discuss and refer to.

    This inquirer, after doing research from varied Thosophical sources,
    found the following comments to reconcile.

    1. The relationship between an individual, aspirant, neophyte , chela, etc. is a sacred one and is never talked about.

    2. The sacred nature of the Masters, and all they represent, precludes the exposing of their images.

    3. Individuals claiming successorship to HPB or Judge being the source of the different TS groups. Perhaps some can expand on the quote about ” esoteric failures become exoteric leaders.”

    4. ITC: in reading about their agenda, they say it is to promote ” Theosophical unity.” From my limited understanding, this should mean, that whether an independent or a student of any group, the teachings of th Masters are being kept alive and being presented to the public.

    Have the members of the ITC, from all the varying Theosohical Groups, come together to identify what is consistent and from the Masters, and what is second hand and edited.

    This inquirer came across the European Shcool of theosophy . ( It’s thought I am remembering the name correctly. ) It is believed they were part of the TS Adyar. They have undertaken to do this study of review.

    From reviewing the many positions put forth from ” Theosophists “. world wide, it would be thought the First point to be considered for unity, is the recognition of what is Theosophy and a correct presentation of an understanding of the Masters and what is their ” end in view
    .”
    Without this clear basis, what would we be unfying for? Without this basis, would we be on a path that ” would bring us nearer to “them”

  2. An observation that when Gandhi called for unity between differing factions in India he was assassinated for his trouble — by a member of his own party. Just an observation, but very sad this human nature never changes. In a million years, said the Master, it has not changed.

    • Theosophical Observer says:

      There is an old sophist technique, that when there can be no response to the issues arising from a position represented, to identify with a hero which is universally held in regard by the audience. Thus, a rebuttal to the position becomes viewed as an attack of the hero, who somehow is made to support the position of the sophist. Do you see yourself as a Theosophical sacrifice for the cause of uniting the Theosophical Movement on whatever basis possible? Any differing position – presented from a study of the teachings – being but additional nails fixing you to a cross of your creation.

      Let us review the issue of Theosophical unity, a position put forth by ITC, in context of the letter posted to which the above reply is intended.

      The “Voice” reference identifies the source from which the “Wisdom Religion” has been preserved and presented to the “Western World” . Theosophy is that presentation. Similarity of aim, purpose, and teaching, as the basis for the working unity to accurately present it to the world. To preserve intact the teachings, for any who choose to know it, to study the original presentation without an interpreter. An enquirer expects to encounter Theosophy as it was given through HPB and Judge who represented the Teachers and were vehicles for the work of the Movement.

      The “Voice” Preface speaks of the fact of different schools of Philosophy. The Trans Himalayan School distinct and unique from all others. The article refers to it as the “spiritual lineage” of the Theosophical Movement. Tsong Ka Pa is directly associated with the modern presentation of the Theosophical Movement and the special effort made in the last 25 years of each century. The work of HPB and Judge, the establishing of the Theosophical Society, an aspect of cyclic impulse from those guardians and benefactors of humanity.

      One aspect of the unifying in the name of brotherhood and tolerance as put forth by ITC, negates the unique position and teachings from this source. Would a coming together on a basis of brotherhood and tolerance with Hatha Yogins, because they are leading a “spiritual life” and are good people, be an object of our Teachers, while promoting a course of action based on a philosophy inconsistent with that given from the Trans Himalayan School?

      Is not the understanding of “esoteric failure” that it expresses itself in the deviation and presenting of a philosophy purported to be from those Teachers when in reality it is not? Personal failure to truly fit oneself to help and teach others by presenting and directing their attention to a “Theosophy” that is inconsistent from that of those Teachers. Misdirecting the enquirer’s inner spiritual impulse to find truth and laboring to an end in view that is false.

      The quote from the Mahatma’s letter has a direct bearing on ITC. “There are 100 of thousands of Fakirs, Sannyasis, or Sadhus leading the most pure lives and yet being, as they are, on the path of error . . .”

      There are good people in all Theosophic groups and individuals laboring alone. But what of the aspect about being on a “path of error” no matter how high and well meaning their intentions might be? How can one be sure that the “Theosophy” they are studying is as given from the Teachers?

      Odin, if that is the name of the person writing, please respond specifically to the quote from the Mahatma’s letter and the “Voice of the Silence” preface, and the words from Robert Crosbie at the end of the above letter.

      The European School of Theosophy has reviewed the original teachings with those that have followed after the leaving of this plane by HPB and Mr. Judge.

      Have the leaders and adherents of ITC taken such a review to identify the original Mahatmic inspired writings from “esoteric failures” and identified what is second hand Theosophy? What is the similarity, of aim, purpose, and teaching as the basis for unity presented by ITC?

      From Geoffrey Farthing:

      Questioner: How did you discover the enormous distance in occult quality between the original exposition of Theosophy (HPB-Masters) and its second version, by C. W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant? . . .

      Farthing: My discovery of the differences came about from John Coats having given me a copy of “The Mahatma Letters”, with their detailed account of what happens after death. This account does not reconcile with what is given in the Leadbeater/Besant literature. One of the major differences is the matter of the Etheric Double. … I studied in detail the classification of man’s principles from both points of view (e.g. Blavatsky in “The Key to Theosophy” ) and tried hard to reconcile them, but they are not reconcilable. . . .

%d bloggers like this: