Readers of “The Voice of The Silence,” translated by H. P. Blavatsky from the still secret esoteric Buddhist text the Book of the Golden Precepts, will be familiar with several references therein to Mara, as will anyone familiar with Buddhism and Buddhist scriptures in general. Mara, not to be confused with the term Maya, is Buddhism’s equivalent of the devil of Christianity, though quite different in numerous respects.

In an explanatory note to the First Fragment of “The Voice of The Silence,” HPB comments that “Mara is in exoteric religions a demon, an Asura, but in esoteric philosophy it is personified temptation through men’s vices, and translated literally means “that which kills” the Soul. It is represented as a King (of the Maras) with a crown in which shines a jewel of such lustre that it blinds those who look at it, this lustre referring of course to the fascination exercised by vice upon certain natures.”

It is perfectly understandable why most students of Theosophy thus maintain that Mara is purely a symbol, an allegorical representation of the power or force of temptation, and not an actual being, entity, or individual of any sort.

The “Theosophical Glossary” entry for “Mara” (p. 206) briefly summarises Mara as “The god of Temptation, the Seducer who tried to turn away Buddha from his PATH. He is called the “Destroyer” and “Death” (of the Soul). One of the names of Kâma, God of love [Note: Kama, literally “desire” in Sanskrit, usually denotes sensual love and carnal passion].” This wording is less impersonal than the previous quote but could well be seen as merely a summary of the standard exoteric religious traditions about Mara in Buddhism.

Most students of the original Theosophical teachings would be likely to maintain that, like Mara, that which is referred to as “the Dweller of the Threshold” is a force or an energy or an impersonal influence, and not a being or entity of any sort.

Actually, this latter term is used in several different ways by HPB and thus is not capable of just one single fixed definition. Most students of Original Theosophy take William Q. Judge’s brief definition from his article “The Dweller of the Threshold” as summing up the whole matter, although we will shortly see that that is not the case at all.

Judge wrote:

“WHAT is the Dweller? It is the combined evil influence that is the result of the wicked thoughts and acts of the age in which any one may live, and it assumes to each student a definite shape at each appearance, being always either of one sort or changing each time. So that with one it may be as Bulwer Lytton pictured it, or with another only a dread horror, or even of any other sort of shape. It is specialized for each student and given its form by the tendencies and natural physical and psychical combinations that belong to his family and nation.”

So here it is described as an evil influence which may take on a different form for different people but which is never referred to or described by WQJ as being an actual Being or independent Entity but “an influence found in a plane that is extraneous to the student . . . the whole force of the evil power that naturally is arrayed against the good end he has set before him.”

That is surely part of the truth of the matter but let us compare it with this unforgettable description from “The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett” p. 186-187, regarding an Indian chela (disciple) of the Masters whose name was Dharbagiri Nath but who had the nickname of Bowaji, which is phonetically equivalent to Babaji but not to be confused with the famous “Babaji” figures popular in certain 20th century Hindu movements.

HPB writes to Sinnett:

“I have to fight alone, and single handed a POWER – that acts through him; and which, if I do not conquer, will conquer (ruin) the whole [Theosophical] Society, yourself, and ALL through me, though personally myself IT cannot harm. . . . the utter unnaturalness that a boy (or man) so utterly devoted to the CAUSE, the Masters, and myself to a degree as I believe – should suddenly, without the least provocation, cause, or reason, develop such a HATRED, such a fierce, savage, fiendish thirst of revenge and desire to ruin one [i.e. HPB] who except kindness had done him nothing . . . [it is] the POWER in him. . . . I will not see him, for I could not bear the horror – and if he does not change and the POWER does not leave him I will not permit him to cross the threshold [i.e. meaning in this case the threshold or doorway of the house HPB was then living in in Europe]. . . . no sooner had we left Ceylon, this last March or April – that I saw the well known FORM (I had already seen near him in Darjeeling, but this did not dare approach him then) . . . on deck [i.e. the deck of the ship] shaking its fist at me, and saying: “You are four now, you will soon be three, then two – then you will remain alone, alone, ALONE!” The prophecy has come out pretty fully. . . . Then Bowaji went away to Elberfeld – and there foaming at the mouth screamed before the Countess [Wachtmeister]: “She [i.e. HPB] will be left alone, I will prevent every one, Mohini and every one in India, to go to her. I hate, I HATE her – I would like to draw her heart’s blood,” etc. Yes I am left ALONE – the very words of the FORM. . . . You may laugh at the idea of the FORM. I do not nor does the Countess – who read his [i.e. Bowaji’s] letter to her. . . . “The Dweller of the Threshold is here, he is coming, coming. . . . Come and save me etc.” We know what it all means if you do not.”

Although described repeatedly there by HPB as “the POWER” and “the FORM,” it is apparent that it was in this instance not a form unique to the perceptions or visions of Bowaji but rather “the well known FORM,” one which HPB immediately recognised. To us, a “FORM” that is capable of “shaking its fist” at someone to threaten and intimidate them, while also saying specific words as a prophetic threat, must surely be an actual individual entity, since it clearly implies a self-conscious intelligent being that has particular plans and wishes of its own. We personally find it difficult to see in such a description no more than “the combined evil influence that is the result of the wicked thoughts and acts of the age” or a purely impersonal energy. The description also seems to imply that the “Dweller of the Threshold” spoken of here is an entity capable of possessing certain individuals, as well as feeling and expressing truly demonic hatred towards those it knows to be actively working against and opposed to its own dark plans and intentions.

In “The Mahatma Letters” p. 42-43, the Master K.H. describes Stainton Moses’ (a Spiritualist medium who for a time became somewhat involved with Theosophy) experience with “that hideous Dweller of the Threshold” which Moses had described as “a hand to hand battle with all the legions of the Fiend.”

The Master there directly equates that “Dweller” to “the Brothers of the Shadow – our greatest, most cruel, and – why not confess – our most potential Enemies.” By this is meant the Dark Brotherhood or Black Lodge.

He writes that “One night she [i.e. HPB] had prostrated herself before her Superior [i.e. her Guru, the Master M. or Mahatma Morya], one of the few they fear, praying him to wave his hand across the ocean, lest S.M. should die, . . . “He must be tried” was the answer.”

The “Dweller of the Threshold” is then described by the Master K.H. as “human fiends in league with the Elementaries [i.e. meaning in this context depraved and evil discarnate human entities on the astral plane] . . . embodiments of those adverse influences which beset the inner Self struggling to be free and to progress.”

So the singular or collective Dweller(s) of the Threshold may indeed be “personified temptation” and “embodiments of adverse/opposing influences” but this does not prevent them also being actual beings and individual entities. The personification or embodiment of a maleficent “Force” or “Power” in the life of the serious esoteric aspirant takes place via an entity or entities. No significant degree of INITIATION can be attained by anyone except by boldly facing and completely conquering and overcoming such an assault on one’s inner nature.

HPB herself had to do this in the summer of 1875, a few months prior to the founding of the Theosophical Society. Letters from the Master Serapis to Col. Olcott at that time include such statements as: “The Dweller is watching closely and will never lose his opportunity [Note: Notice again the implication that the Dweller is not simply an “it” but a “he” and not merely a “something” but a “someone” who is capable of self-consciously monitoring and keeping a close watch on his intended targets or victims], if our Sister’s courage fails. This is to be one of her hardest trials. . . . Let [Olcott] plan the ground and prepare it for the reception of our Sister . . . if she survives the trial. . . . Brother mine, I can do naught for our poor Sister. She has placed herself under the stern law of the Lodge and these laws can be softened for none. . . . she must win her right . . .” (“Letters from The Masters of The Wisdom” Second Series, p. 34, 35-36)

It would thus appear that HPB had to undergo an extremely difficult initiatory test and process – “the dreaded ordeal,” the Master calls it – before the Theosophical Society could be established; a test and process which, if she had failed, would probably have resulted in the Society never being formed in that century. Fortunately for us and for the world, she did not fail.

It is said that most Theosophists do not need to fear or even think about such a thing as the Dweller of the Threshold, since they are not likely to ever face or encounter such a phenomenon in their present lifetime.

Nevertheless, it is surely useful to have a clearer and more complete idea and understanding of what is really meant by this term. It should be remembered, however, that as stated earlier, the term is used in a number of different ways or contexts by H. P. Blavatsky and therefore even what we have shared above is not complete. Its other uses typically relate to the occult psychological influence exerted on a person by the Kama Rupa or cast-off “shell” of their lower nature from their previous incarnation, if it has not fully dissipated on the astral plane prior to one’s rebirth.

~ * ~

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.

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~