(1) BROADENING, EXPANDING, & TRANSCENDENTALISING OUR CONCEPTION OF WHAT THEOSOPHY IS – (2) FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND NO “OFFICIAL” CREED OR DOCTRINE, EXCEPT UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD – (3) BLAVATSKIANISM vs TRUE LOYALTY & DEVOTION TO HPB – (4) THEOSOPHICAL ORTHODOXY: BLAVATSKY & JUDGE vs CROSBIE & THE ULT – (5) AN OPENNESS TO CHANGE, READJUSTMENT, & CONFORMING TO THE TIMES AND CIRCUMSTANCES – (6) THEOSOPHY AND OCCULTISM ARE NOT THE SAME THING

The following passages from the original Theosophical literature are shared with minimal comment, since they speak for themselves very clearly. This will show the foundational principles of mindset, attitude, and action on which the modern Theosophical Movement was established by H. P. Blavatsky, William Q. Judge, and others, at the behest of the Masters of Wisdom. 

Any of us who read these statements carefully and open-mindedly will almost certainly discover and recognise within ourselves some area of errancy in living true to those principles. This is nothing to be ashamed of, provided one has the courage to make whatever self-adjustment one recognises to be needed. 

While this compilation is aimed primarily at those actively engaged in Theosophical work – such as in lodges or branches – and Theosophical promulgation, there are things here which will appeal and apply to all who are serious about these matters, even the solitary student. 

Associates of the United Lodge of Theosophists in particular are likely to notice numerous discrepancies, sometimes very significant ones, between HPB’s and WQJ’s guidance on the one hand and that of Robert Crosbie and the general ULT attitudes and way of doing things on the other. In Crosbie’s defence, he made clear that the ULT is not intended to function the same as a Theosophical Society but has a much more specific aim and purpose. This would be fine, were it not for the fact that Crosbie and the ULT have long implied that their approach and methods are the only proper and right ones, and the fact that – as will become clear to some as they read on – that approach, method, aim, etc. is in several respects in conflict with the lines of work laid down by the Teachers. 

It is not our place to suggest possible ways to resolve or deal with this; that is up to each ULT associate and Lodge, if indeed they see it as an issue. For us personally, our loyalty and deference always lies first and foremost with HPB, WQJ, and the Masters who they serve(d), and we intend to adjust our own perspectives and attitudes accordingly.

~ * ~

(1) BROADENING, EXPANDING, & TRANSCENDENTALISING OUR CONCEPTION OF WHAT THEOSOPHY IS

“The fundamental question, “What is the criterion of Theosophy?” calls for an answer. Has Theosophy the power of growth, progress and advancement in line with all new expositions of truth? In the minds of many the writings of H.P.B. are regarded as the infallible oracles of Theosophy. But in time criticism is sure to do its work. Consequently it is necessary soon to give out a definition of it much broader, simpler, and more unequivocal than any hereto fore offered.

“W.Q.J. — This is in fact a request to formulate and promulgate a dogmatic statement of Theosophy as we understand it. That is, to go completely back on the genius of the Theosophical movement, which is for the destruction of dogmatism. The strength of Theosophy lies in the fact that it is not to be defined. It is the wisdom of the gods, or of nature. This means, that evolution, slowly progressing will bring out new truths and new aspects of old truths, thus absolutely preventing any dogmas or “unequivocal definitions.” Were we to make and declare a definition of Theosophy it would be only the words of those who participated in drawing it up, and not acceptable to all. And were it possible that all would accept, then would be sounded the doom of the movement. Hence the reply to the question, “What is the criterion of Theosophy?” is that it is found in each man’s perception of the Truth; therefore there is no single criterion.

“If any persons regard H.P.B.’s writings as the infallible oracles of Theosophy, they go directly against her own words and the works themselves; they must be people who do not indulge in original thinking and cannot make much impression on the times.

“As for the Theosophical Society, the moment it makes a hard and fast definition of Theosophy it will mark the first hour of its decay.” (William Q. Judge, “Forum Answers” p. 124-125)

“You say that for three years you have been endeavoring to study Theosophy. Such being the case, you will meet with but little success. Divine Wisdom can not be a subject for study, but it may be an object of search. With the love for this same wisdom uppermost in our hearts, we ask you if it would not be wiser to lay aside the study of so called Theosophy and study yourself. Knowing yourself you know all men, the worlds seen and occult, and find Theo-Sophia. One cannot absorb Theosophy as a sponge does water, to be expelled at the slightest touch. Our conception of Theosophy is apt to be based upon the idea that it is an especial line of teaching — a larger, wider, and greater doctrine than others perhaps, but still a doctrine, and therefore limited. We must bear in mind that the true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each and all; that he can find the true object of his search equally as well in the Hebrew bible as in the Yoga philosophy, in the New Testament equally as well as in the Bhagavad-Gita.” (“Answers to Questioners,” “William Q. Judge Theosophical Articles” Vol. 2, p. 461-462)

“[Thomas] Vaughan offers a far better, more philosophical definition. “A Theosophist,” he says — “is one who gives you a theory of God or the works of God, which has not revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis.” In this view every great thinker and philosopher, especially every founder of a new religion, school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily a Theosophist. Hence, Theosophy and Theosophists have existed ever since the first glimmering of nascent thought made man seek instinctively for the means of expressing his own independent opinions. [Our note: Compare this with Robert Crosbie’s assertion that “Nothing should be named Theosophy but this Message [as given by H. P. Blavatsky specifically in her teachings, the exact way that she gave them]. Whoever takes any other position violates the first laws of occultism by belittling both Message and Messenger, and cannot expect to benefit by them.”]

“[It was] Theosophy which prompted such men as Hegel, Fichte and Spinoza to take up the labors of the old Grecian philosophers and speculate upon the One Substance — the Deity, the Divine All proceeding from the Divine Wisdom — incomprehensible, unknown and unnamed — by any ancient or modern religious philosophy, with the exception of Christianity and Mohammedanism. Every Theosophist, then, holding to a theory of the Deity “which has not revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis,” may accept any of the above definitions or belong to any of these religions, and yet remain strictly within the boundaries of Theosophy. For the latter is belief in the Deity as the ALL, the source of all existence, the infinite that cannot be either comprehended or known, the universe alone revealing It, or, as some prefer it, Him, thus giving a sex to that, to anthropomorphize which is blasphemy. . . .

“The interior world has not been hidden from all by impenetrable darkness. By that higher intuition acquired by Theosophia — or God-knowledge, which carried the mind from the world of form into that of formless spirit, man has been sometimes enabled in every age and every country to perceive things in the interior or invisible world. Hence, the “Samadhi,” or Dyan Yog [i.e. Dhyana Yoga] Samadhi, of the Hindu ascetics; the “Daimonion-photi,” or spiritual illumination of the Neo-Platonists; the “sidereal confabulation of soul,” of the Rosicrucians or Fire-philosophers; and, even the ecstatic trance of mystics and of the modern mesmerists and spiritualists, are identical in nature, though various as to manifestation. The search after man’s diviner “self,” so often and so erroneously interpreted as individual communion with a personal God, was the object of every mystic, and belief in its possibility seems to have been coeval with the genesis of humanity, each people giving it another name. Thus Plato and Plotinus call “Noëtic work” that which the Yogin and the Shrotriya term Vidya. “By reflection, self-knowledge and intellectual discipline, the soul can be raised to the vision of eternal truth, goodness, and beauty — that is, to the Vision of God — this is the epopteia,” said the Greeks. “To unite one’s soul to the Universal Soul,” says Porphyry, “requires but a perfectly pure mind. Through self-contemplation, perfect chastity, and purity of body, we may approach nearer to It, and receive, in that state, true knowledge and wonderful insight.” . . .

“Plotinus, the pupil of the “God-taught” Ammonius, tells us that the secret gnosis or the knowledge of Theosophy, has three degrees — opinion, science, and illumination. “The means or instrument of the first is sense, or perception; of the second, dialectics; of the third, intuition. To the last, reason is subordinate; it is absolute knowledge, founded on the identification of the mind with the object known.” Theosophy is the exact science of psychology, so to say; it stands in relation to natural, uncultivated mediumship, as the knowledge of a Tyndall stands to that of a school-boy in physics. It develops in man a direct beholding; that which Schelling denominates “a realization of the identity of subject and object in the individual”; so that under the influence and knowledge of hyponia [i.e. or hyponoia, the exercise of noetic thought in order to perceive the underlying meaning of spiritual teaching, allegories, and so forth] man thinks divine thoughts, views all things as they really are, and, finally, “becomes recipient of the Soul of the World,” to use one of the finest expressions of Emerson. “I, the imperfect, adore my own perfect” — he says in his superb Essay on the Oversoul. Besides this psychological, or soul-state, Theosophy cultivated every branch of sciences and arts.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “What is Theosophy?”)

Thus, Theosophy or Theosophia – Divine Wisdom or the Wisdom of the Gods – is an attainment, a state, an unconditioned condition, not a doctrine or a fixed set of words, books, and teachings. The latter can tell us about Divine Wisdom but that is an entirely different thing from reaching Divine Wisdom. It is the case that both Blavatsky and Judge occasionally use the term “Theosophy” in a much more doctrinal sense but we see from the above that this is not the fullest and highest usage of the word. Some may have noticed that HPB, when presenting the specific doctrines of her Masters, rarely describes them as “Theosophy” but more typically as “The Esoteric Philosophy,” “Occult Philosophy,” “The Secret Doctrine,” etc. She usually explains the term “Theosophy” as in the quotations above and below.

“Our objects . . . the most important of which is to revive the work of Ammonius Saccas, and make various nations remember that they are the children “of one mother.” As to the transcendental side of the ancient Theosophy, it is also high time that the Theosophical Society should explain. With how much, then, of this nature-searching, God-seeking science of the ancient Aryan and Greek mystics, and of the powers of modern spiritual mediumship, does the Society agree? Our answer is: with it all. But if asked what it believes in, the reply will be: “As a body — Nothing.” The Society, as a body, has no creed, as creeds are but the shells around spiritual knowledge; and Theosophy in its fruition is spiritual knowledge itself — the very essence of philosophical and theistic enquiry. Visible representative of Universal Theosophy, it can be no more sectarian than a Geographical Society, which represents universal geographical exploration without caring whether the explorers be of one creed or another. The religion of the Society is an algebraical equation, in which so long as the sign = of equality is not omitted, each member is allowed to substitute quantities of his own, which better accord with climatic and other exigencies of his native land, with the idiosyncrasies of his people, or even with his own. Having no accepted creed, our Society is very ready to give and take, to learn and teach, by practical experimentation, as opposed to mere passive and credulous acceptance of enforced dogma. It is willing to accept every result claimed by any of the foregoing schools or systems, that can be logically and experimentally demonstrated. Conversely, it can take nothing on mere faith, no matter by whom the demand may be made. . . .

“The very root idea of the Society is free and fearless investigation.

“As a body, the Theosophical Society holds that all original thinkers and investigators of the hidden side of nature whether materialists — those who find in matter “the promise and potency of all terrestrial life,” or spiritualists — that is, those who discover in spirit the source of all energy and of matter as well, were and are, properly, Theosophists. For to be one, one need not necessarily recognize the existence of any special God or a deity. One need but worship the spirit of living nature, and try to identify oneself with it. To revere that Presence, the invisible Cause, which is yet ever manifesting itself in its incessant results; the intangible, omnipotent, and omnipresent Proteus: indivisible in its Essence, and eluding form, yet appearing under all and every form; who is here and there, and everywhere and nowhere; is ALL, and NOTHING; ubiquitous yet one; the Essence filling, binding, bounding, containing everything, contained in all. It will, we think, be seen now, that whether classed as Theists, Pantheists or Atheists, such men are near kinsmen to the rest. Be what he may, once that a student abandons the old and trodden highway of routine, and enters upon the solitary path of independent thought — Godward — he is a Theosophist; an original thinker, a seeker after the eternal truth with “an inspiration of his own” to solve the universal problems.

“With every man that is earnestly searching in his own way after a knowledge of the Divine Principle, of man’s relations to it, and nature’s manifestations of it, Theosophy is allied. It is likewise the ally of honest science, as distinguished from much that passes for exact, physical science, so long as the latter does not poach on the domains of psychology and metaphysics.

“And it is also the ally of every honest religion — to wit, a religion willing to be judged by the same tests as it applies to the others. Those books, which contain the most self-evident truth, are to it inspired (not revealed). But all books it regards, on account of the human element contained in them, as inferior to the Book of Nature; to read which and comprehend it correctly, the innate powers of the soul must be highly developed. Ideal laws can be perceived by the intuitive faculty alone; they are beyond the domain of argument and dialectics, and no one can understand or rightly appreciate them through the explanations of another mind, even though this mind be claiming a direct revelation. . . .

“The Society, as a body, feels equal respect and veneration for Vedic, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, and other old religions of the world; and, a like brotherly feeling toward its Hindu, Sinhalese, Parsi, Jain, Hebrew, and Christian members as individual students of “self,” of nature, and of the divine in nature. . . .

“But as all work for one and the same object, namely, the disenthralment of human thought, the elimination of superstitions, and the discovery of truth, all are equally welcome. The attainment of these objects, all agree, can best be secured by convincing the reason and warming the enthusiasm of the generation of fresh young minds, that are just ripening into maturity, and making ready to take the place of their prejudiced and conservative fathers. And, as each — the great ones as well as small — have trodden the royal road to knowledge, we listen to all, and take both small and great into our fellowship. For no honest searcher comes back empty-handed, and even he who has enjoyed the least share of popular favor can lay at least his mite upon the one altar of Truth.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “What Are The Theosophists?”)

(2) FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND NO “OFFICIAL” CREED OR DOCTRINE, EXCEPT UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD

“I have heard some words about our pretending to be undogmatic, or that our claim to freedom is against the fact. I do not hold such an opinion. Our Society is, as a body, wholly unsectarian. It must always be so. But that does not affect the inevitable result of so many joined in one effort. A large number of us must have come at last to a common belief. This we can boldly say, and at the same time also that no enquirer is obliged to subscribe to those beliefs. For this we have the warrant, not only of our own statutes, but also that of the oft-repeated declarations of H. P. Blavatsky. If I have a belief which works with all the problems that vex us so much, then I will tell it to my fellow who has joined these ranks. If wrong, the interchange of thought will correct me; if right, the truth must at last prevail. In this, Brotherhood means toleration of opinion, and not a fear of declaring the beliefs you hold, nor does that declaration [i.e. of one’s firmly held beliefs] negative in the least the claim to unsectarianism.” (William Q. Judge, “The Promulgation of Theosophy”)

“Toleration can only really exist where brotherhood is admitted as a truth and a necessity. Hence its principle of toleration means that every member has the right to believe as he or she pleases in all matters of religion, philosophy, and the like, but must not try to force that belief on others, though not prevented from promulgating it. The Society as a body has no belief save in universal brotherhood, and from that it gets its strength. The moment it [i.e. the Theosophical Society itself, as an organisation] should declare a creed or dogma, that moment its strength would begin to leave it, for division would arise and sides would be taken. Hence, also, it includes in its ranks men of all religions: Brahmins, Buddhists, Christians, Mahommedans and every other variety, as they all know that the T. S. furnishes them a common ground on which to work. The bigoted dogmatist cannot feel moved to join the body, because its freedom is opposed to bigotry, and the member who is a Buddhist is just as good as the Christian or the Agnostic. Many times have persons asked that the society formulate some doctrines as authoritative, but that has always been refused, and, indeed, would be its death-knell.

“Its three objects cover the whole field of research and the first is essential because without brotherliness and toleration no calm inquiry would be possible. The second calls for an investigation of the religions and philosophies of all men, and for demonstrating the importance of that study. Its importance lies in the fact that the religions and philosophies of man are his revelations made by his greater better self, or God within, to his lower self, and must be all studied if we are to arrive at the one fountain or basis from which they have arisen and in which they are based. Hence the scriptures of the Christian do not rule, nor likewise do those of the Brahmin or the Buddhist, even though the last be the older.

“But some people think the Society is a Buddhist one or Hindu one. This is because as a fact the religions of the West have come from those of the East, and the great age, and the similarity of the older ones to the newer ones of the West, must soon be apparent. And further, it is inevitable that a large body of members must come to a general tacit agreement or belief which is prominent because of their great devotion and constant work. But no one has to believe with this body of persons on any point. Reincarnation, Karma, the sevenfold nature of man, and the doctrine of the Masters, may be rejected, and one may still be a good member so long as he or she believes in and tries to practice Universal Brotherhood.

“The main underlying effort of the work of the members of the Society should be to furnish a real and philosophical basis for ethics, seeing that the ancient ethics re-promulgated by Jesus are not practised by the nations who profess them. In this respect the work of the Society in Christian lands is ever tending to bring forth a real Christianity, and not to oppose it. Opposition to mere dogma is not opposition to truth, and hence the Society is a builder up and not a mere destroyer of old beliefs. In other lands it has its distinct work also; as in India it will be to revive the old pure spiritual life now covered with much dogma, and among the Buddhists it will show men how to live by the ethics of Buddha, which, promulgated centuries before the birth of Jesus, are the same ipsissima verba as those of the latter.” (William Q. Judge, “The T.S. and Its Basis”)

“But if asked what it believes in, the reply will be: “As a body — Nothing.” The Society, as a body, has no creed, as creeds are but the shells around spiritual knowledge; and Theosophy in its fruition is spiritual knowledge itself — the very essence of philosophical and theistic enquiry. Visible representative of Universal Theosophy, it can be no more sectarian than a Geographical Society, which represents universal geographical exploration without caring whether the explorers be of one creed or another.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “What Are The Theosophists?”)

“In the Key to Theosophy, in the “Conclusion,” H.P.B. again refers to this subject and expresses the hope that the Society might not, after her death, become dogmatic or crystallize on some phase of thought or philosophy, but that it might remain free and open, with its members wise and unselfish. And in all her writings and remarks, privately or publicly, she constantly reiterated this idea. Of this the writer has direct evidence as to her statements in private.

“If our effort is to succeed, we must avoid dogmatism in theosophy as much as in anything else, for the moment we dogmatise and insist on our construction of theosophy, that moment we lose sight of Universal Brotherhood and sow the seeds of future trouble.

“There is a great likelihood that members of the Society will insist on a certain orthodoxy in our ranks. They are already doing it here and there, and this is a note of warning to draw their attention to the danger. There is no orthodoxy in our Society. Even though nine-tenths of the members believe in Reincarnation, Karma, the sevenfold constitution, and all the rest, and even though its prominent ones are engaged in promulgating these doctrines as well as others, the ranks of the Society must always be kept open, and no one should be told that he is not orthodox or not a good Theosophist because he does not believe in these doctrines. All that anyone is asked to subscribe to is Universal Brotherhood, and its practice in the search for truth. For the efforts of those who are thus promulgating specific ideas are made under the sanction of the second object of the Society, which any one is free to follow or to refuse to follow as he sees fit. One may deny — undogmatically — reincarnation and other doctrines, or may assert belief in a personal or impersonal God, and still be a good member of the Society, provided Universal Brotherhood is subscribed to and put into practice.

“If a member says he must formulate a God, or cannot believe in Reincarnation, none other should condemn or draw comparisons, or point to the writings of H.P.B. or any one else to show that such a member is untheosophical. . . .

“But at the same time it is obvious that to enter the Society and then, under our plea of tolerance, assert that theosophy shall not be studied, that the great body of thought and philosophy offered in our literature shall not be investigated [i.e. by those Theosophists who want to], is untheosophical, unpractical, and absurd, for it were to nullify the very object of our organization; it is a dogmatism that flows from negation and indifference. We must study the philosophy and the doctrines offered to us before we are in a position to pass judgment and say that they are not true or that they shall be rejected. To judge or reject before examination is the province of little minds or prejudiced dogmatists.

“And as the great body of philosophy, science, and ethics offered by H. P. Blavatsky and her teachers has upon it the seal of research, of reasonableness, of antiquity, and of wisdom, it demands our first and best consideration in order that we may with fitness conclude upon its acceptation or rejection.” (William Q. Judge, “Dogmatism in Theosophy”)

“It has been supposed by some that in order to be a Theosophist you must believe in Mahatmas, that you must believe in H. P. Blavatsky, in reincarnation, in Karma; but you do not have to believe in any of those things at all. But, I take it, you must believe in Universal Brotherhood.

“The reason why people have been a little confused is this: they have seen the Theosophical Society absolutely without a creed, absolutely without any dogma, and as inside of it they know of a large number of people who believe in those ideas and doctrines, they think that is what the Theosophist must believe. But it is not. For, don’t you see, if we started a Universal Brotherhood, and started a Society to find out the truth, and then fixed a dogma, that moment we would be telling a lie and forfeiting the whole object we started to accomplish. We can never have a creed. We do not know what the truth is. It may be that we are wrong; it may be we will find out more. It is true we will never go back to those old dogmas and creeds, although there are still many members on the books of the powerful churches. We can never go back there, but we may go further on, and we are quite willing to.

“We are promulgating our philosophies which we talk about[,] as individuals, and on our own account. As Vice-President of the Society I have no right to say that any particular thing is true, and I never do say so. But I have the right to say, as I myself emphatically do, that I as an individual believe certain things are true, and I would be a poor sort of man if, believing certain things to be true, I did not try to show that they are. But at the same time I have no right to say, as man or official, you must believe it because I do. I simply present it to you for your consideration, and it is for you to decide, not for me. I am not going to stop saying that I believe so-and-so because a few other persons cannot believe it. They can go on with me and we will agree to disagree, and we will only forward the cause of Universal Brotherhood.” (William Q. Judge, “Organized Life of The T.S.”)

“The policy is freedom to members and perfect neutrality on the part of the T.S. To have any other, or to say that merely because one is in a society such as ours, or is an officer, he cannot give his own opinions so long as he accords the same privilege to another, would be a monstrous thing, contrary to our constitution and quite against a long history in which, from H.P.B. and Col. Olcott down, all members have had perfect freedom of expression.” (William Q. Judge, “Our Convictions – Shall We Assert Them?”)

“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. . . .

“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 [i.e. a manifestation of the First Object], or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan [i.e. Indian] and other old literature [i.e. a manifestation of the Second Object], or a psychic student [i.e. a manifestation of the Third Object]. 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.” . . . [Members of the Theosophical Society] may, or may not, become Theosophists de facto [i.e. Theosophists in reality, rather than merely Theosophists in name]. 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.”” (H. P. Blavatsky, “The Key to Theosophy” p. 19-20)

“The Theosophical Society . . . Its future will depend almost entirely upon the degree of selflessness, earnestness, devotion, and last, but not least, on the amount of knowledge and wisdom possessed by those members, on whom it will fall to carry on the work, and to direct the Society after the death of the Founders. . . . I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric doctrine, though that is most important; I spoke rather of the great need which our successors in the guidance of the Society will have of unbiassed and clear judgment. Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must remember that all our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion, that all are more or less of their generation both physically and mentally, and consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If, then, they cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to recognise it instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only be that the Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “The Key to Theosophy” p. 304-305)

“Always say and let it be constantly known that no man is forced to believe.” (William Q. Judge, “Letters That Have Helped Me” p. 183)

(3) BLAVATSKIANISM vs TRUE LOYALTY & DEVOTION TO HPB

“It happens to be the fact that most of those who work the hardest for the Society are at the same time devoted disciples, open or non-professed, of H. P. Blavatsky, but that leaves still a large number of members who, with the first-named, may be variously classified. First, there are those who do not rely at all on H. P. Blavatsky, while not distinctly opposed and none the less good members. Next are those who are openly opposed to her name and fame, who, while reading her works and profiting by them as well as by the work aroused by her in others, are averse from hearing her name, oppose the free assertion of devotion to her, would like now and then to have Theosophy stripped of her altogether, and opine that many good and true possible members are kept away from the T.S. by her personality’s being bound up in it. The two last things of course are impossible to meet, because if it had not been for her the Theosophical Society with its literature would not have come into existence. . . .

“The active workers may be again divided as follows:

“a. Moderate ones, good thinkers who present their thoughts in words that show independent and original thought on theosophical subjects, thus not referring to authority, yet who are earnest, devoted and loyal.

“b. Those who are earnest, devoted and loyal, but present Theosophy more or less as quotations from H.P.B.’s writings, constantly naming and always referring their thoughts and conclusions to her, thus appearing to present Theosophy as solely based on her as an authority.

“c. The over-zealous who err like the former, and, in addition, too frequently and out of place and time, bring forward the name of H. P. Blavatsky; often relating what it was supposed she had done or not done, and what she said, attributing infallibility to her either directly or by indirection; thus arousing an opposition that is added to any impression of dogmatism or authority produced by other members.

“d. Believers in phenomena who give prominence to the wonders said to have been performed by H. P. Blavatsky; who accentuate the value of the whole field of occult phenomena, and sincerely supposing, however mistaken the notion, that occult and psychical phenomena will arrest attention, draw out interest, inspire confidence; when, in fact, the almost certain results are, to first arouse curiosity, then create distrust and disappointment; for nearly every one is a doubting Thomas who requires, while the desire cannot be satisfied, a duplicate of every phenomenon for himself. In The Occult World, the Adept writing on this very subject says that the demand for new phenomena would go on crescendo until at last one would be crushed by doubt, or the other and worse result of creating superstition and blind faith would come about. Every thoughtful person must surely see that such must be the consequence.

“It is true that the movement has grown most in consequence of the effort of those who are devoted to an ideal, inspired by enthusiasm, filled with a lasting gratitude to H. P. Blavatsky. Their ideal is the service of Humanity, the ultimate potential perfectibility of man as exemplified by the Masters and Adepts of all ages, including the present. Their enthusiasm is born from the devotion which the ideal arouses, their gratitude is a noble quality engendered by the untiring zeal of the soul who brought to their attention the priceless gems of the wisdom religion. Ingratitude is the basest vice of which man can be guilty, and it will be base for them to receive the grand message and despise the messenger.

“But does devotion, loyalty, or gratitude require that we should thrust our estimate of a person forward to the attention of the public in a way that is certain to bring on opposition? Should our work in a great movement, meant to include all men, intended to condense the truth from all religions, be impeded or imperiled by over-zealous personal loyalty? I think not. We should be wise as serpents. Wisdom does not consist in throwing the object of our heart’s gratitude in the faces of those who have no similar feeling, for when we do that it may easily result that personal considerations will nullify our efforts for the good of those we address. . . .

“But in an assembly of members coming together to discuss theosophical doctrines in general, say such as Karma, Reincarnation, the Septenary Constitution, and the like, it is certainly unwise to give quotation after quotation from H. P. Blavatsky’s works on the matter in hand. This is not fair to the hearers, and it shows only a power of memory or compilation that argues nothing as to the comprehension of the subject on the reader’s part. It is very easy to compile, to quote sentence after sentence, to weave a long series of extracts together, but it is not progress, nor independence, nor wisdom. [Please note: The irony of this present article being itself a long compilation is not lost on us! But we intend to try taking this advice on board in future.] On the other hand, it is a complete nullification of the life-work of the one who has directed us to the path; it is contrary to the spirit and genius of the Society. . . . New and good members . . . will be driven off if assailed with quotations.

“If there is power in a grateful loyalty to H. P. Blavatsky, as for my part I fully believe, it does not have its effect by being put forward all the time, or so often as to be too noticeable, but from its depth, its true basis, its wise foundation, its effect on our work, our act, and thought.” (William Q. Judge, “”Blavatskianism” In and Out of Season”)

“I advised ________ to do her part to lessen the constant bringing forward of the name of H. P. B., instead of independent thought on Theosophy. We have too much of it and it is no proof of loyalty, and it gives rise to much of the foolish talk of our dogmatism. You will understand, and may be able to influence some to a more moderate though firm attitude that will not lessen their loyalty and devotion. One good point is that the true chêla does not talk much of his Master and often does not refer to that Master’s existence. It has almost become the same as unnecessarily waving the red flag at a bull. Those of us who have experience do not do it; but the younger ones do. X_______  does it here in his speeches and I am going to speak to him of it. If it be not avoided, the first thing we know there will be a split between the H. P. B.’ers and the theosophists pur sang [i.e. literally “pure blood,” used here in the sense of “totally true and genuine”], the latter claiming to be the real thing because devoid of any personal element. You and I and _______  do not find it necessary all the time to be flinging her (H. P. B.) in the faces of others, and it is well now to take the warning offered from the outside. Besides, I have had a very strong inside warning on it.” (William Q. Judge, “Letters That Have Helped Me” p. 103-104)

“If any persons regard H.P.B.’s writings as the infallible oracles of Theosophy, they go directly against her own words and the works themselves; they must be people who do not indulge in original thinking and cannot make much impression on the times.” (William Q. Judge, “Forum Answers” p. 124-125)

Compare the preceding statement with this, from the article “The Infallible Criterion” in the ULT’s “Theosophy” magazine for December 1926: “In this era of the Theosophical Movement . . . The text-books of Theosophy as set down in black on white by the Teachers themselves, and issued during their life-time, are available. . . . Anybody and everybody can know what Theosophy is, and where it is to be found. The text-books are infallible. They afford an infallible source of study and application. They stand as a changeless and self-proving criterion.” In the January 1928 issue, the magazine responded to several serious criticisms that had been received about this article. It attempted to defend the article’s statements, while comparing these criticisms aimed at them to the persecutions of 1893-95 aimed against William Judge, and concluding with encouraging all Theosophists to view the Masters as infallible. HPB’s and the Masters’ repeated declarations that even the Mahatmas should not be considered infallible were left unmentioned.

(4) THEOSOPHICAL ORTHODOXY: BLAVATSKY & JUDGE vs CROSBIE & THE ULT

“Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. It is diversity of opinion, within certain limits that keeps the Theosophical Society a living and a healthy body, its many other ugly features notwithstanding. Were it not, also, for the existence of a large amount of uncertainty in the minds of students of Theosophy, such healthy divergencies would be impossible, and the Society would degenerate into a sect, in which a narrow and stereotyped creed would take the place of the living and breathing spirit of Truth and an ever growing Knowledge.” (“Five Messages from H. P. Blavatsky to the American Theosophists” p. 5)

But compare HPB’s clear and forceful words of warning against the development of a “Theosophical Orthodoxy” with the following:

“An article in a publication issued by one of the theosophical organizations propounds the question “Theosophy or Orthodoxy; Which?” — evidently presenting to its readers the necessity for a choice between them. A moment’s thought should have shown that Orthodoxy has no existence of itself, but can only be considered in relation to some formulated system of thought, and that the title in question presents an impossible situation. . . . [Our note: Why impossible? HPB makes clear that there is a choice to be made and that the creation or development of a “Theosophical Orthodoxy” or “Orthodoxy in Theosophy” is the wrong choice. Crosbie must have known of those words of HPB but nonetheless always avoided quoting or referring to them.]

“The question therefore which every student should put before himself for solution is neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy, but — “Did anyone present to the world a formulated system of philosophy, religion and science? Did that personage give a name to the system? Who was that personage?” The answer cannot be obtained by consulting the opinions of any person or persons whatever; they are questions of fact, and facts alone can answer.

“Every student worthy of the name knows that H. P. Blavatsky gave a body of knowledge to the world; that She named what She gave “Theosophy” and that She explicitly declared it to be from the Masters of Wisdom.

“In justice to the Message, to the Messenger who brought it and to the ideal of Masters, nothing should be named Theosophy but this Message. [Our note: We saw earlier how HPB’s answer to “What is Theosophy?” nowhere says “Theosophy is my writings” or “Theosophy is the Masters’ teachings through my agency.” On the contrary, she makes very clear that Theosophia or Divine Wisdom is something entirely universal, experiential, and incapable of being limited or confined to any particular system, teaching, doctrine, or philosophy, as truly wonderful and transformative as some of those may be.] Whoever takes any other position violates the first laws of occultism by belittling both Message and Messenger, and cannot expect to benefit by them. . . .

“If there are Masters, and They have delivered a Message to us, that Message is Their Orthodoxy — or right understanding; this should be preferred to that of all others, however highly such may esteem themselves or be esteemed by their fellow-men.” (Robert Crosbie, “The Friendly Philosopher” p. 401-404)

“If there is to be orthodoxy in any Theosophical organization let there be the orthodoxy of H.P.B. and of those whose teachings are in conformity with her Message. The U.L.T. stands for no orthodoxy save the orthodoxy of Truth.” (B. P. Wadia, “Extracts from Unpublished Letters”)  [Our note: What orthodoxy of HPB? HPB denounced orthodoxy, whether Theosophical or otherwise. Can Truth be an orthodoxy? Remember also WQJ’s words quoted earlier: “There is a great likelihood that members of the Society will insist on a certain orthodoxy in our ranks. They are already doing it here and there, and this is a note of warning to draw their attention to the danger. There is no orthodoxy in our Society.”]

“Some animadversion has been cast on those who hold to the [ULT] attitude, by terming them “orthodox” theosophists, and presenting in connection with the term the fact that H. P. B. “wrote strongly against the orthodoxies of the world built up around the literal following of somebody’s written word.” It is not well to be disturbed by what may seem to be a disparaging epithet, . . . Orthodox Theosophists would be those who had a right and true understanding of Theosophy; may their number increase.” (Robert Crosbie, “Theosophy and Orthodoxy,” “Theosophy” magazine, September 1913) [Our note: Surely HPB and Judge would say “may their number decrease“? This is a serious thing and can only be a wilful blindness on Crosbie’s part. This is one of the factors which has caused us to reassess our previous estimation of Robert Crosbie as “The man who rescued Theosophy.” It is not “a faithful keeping to the original lines” to go directly against those original lines and on a subject which the Founders warned so firmly about.]

“In the Point Loma society it is as manifest as in the Adyar literature that the real attitude and activities [are] not under the H. P. Blavatsky definitions of Theosophy and Theosophical Orthodoxy.” (“Aftermath,” “Theosophy” magazine, published by the United Lodge of Theosophists, October 1935) [Our note: This is really quite staggering now. There are no “H. P. Blavatsky definitions of Theosophical Orthodoxy” for Theosophists to comply with; there are only H. P. Blavatsky warnings against Theosophical Orthodoxy.]

By 1954, however, after the deaths of both Robert Crosbie and John Garrigues, the editors of “Theosophy” magazine had finally recognised regarding HPB that “she knew, better than anyone else, the danger that even Theosophy, for all its knowledge of the nature of man and his spiritual self-existence, would fall into the hands of makers of Theosophical orthodoxy, developing its own conscious and unconscious betrayers of the message of spiritual freedom.” (“The Point of Egoity,” March 1954)

Since misunderstandings can easily arise, we want to clarify that our sharing the above quotes and comments does not equate to being “against” Robert Crosbie. We consider the majority of his work and legacy very useful and beneficial, even in the present day. But we are not willing to let that lead us to either whitewash or “sweep under the carpet” such issues as the above.

(5) AN OPENNESS TO CHANGE, READJUSTMENT, & CONFORMING TO THE TIMES AND CIRCUMSTANCES

“There is a very great difference between the Theosophical Movement and any Theosophical Society. The Movement is moral, ethical, spiritual, universal, invisible save in effect, and continuous. A Society formed for theosophical work is a visible organization, an effect, a machine for conserving energy and putting it to use; it is not nor can it be universal, nor is it continuous. Organized Theosophical bodies are made by men for their better cooperation, but, being mere outer shells, they must change from time to time as human defects come out, as the times change, and as the great underlying spiritual movement compels such alterations. . . .

“One can therefore see that to worship an organization, even though it be the beloved theosophical one, is to fall down before Form, and to become the slave once more of that dogmatism which our portion of the Theosophical Movement, the T.S., was meant to overthrow.

“Some members have worshipped the so-called “Theosophical Society,” thinking it to be all in all, and not properly perceiving its de facto and piecemeal character as an organization nor that it was likely that this devotion to mere form would lead to a nullification of Brotherhood at the first strain. . . . But the real unity and prevalence, and the real internationalism, do not consist in having a single organization. They are found in the similarity of aim, of aspiration, of purpose, of teaching, of ethics.” (William Q. Judge, “The Theosophical Movement”)

“Thus it is plain that the methods of Occultism, though in the main unchangeable, has yet to conform to altered times and circumstances. The state of the general [Theosophical] Society of England — quite different from that of India, where our existence is a matter of common and, so to say, of inherent belief among the population, and in a number of cases of positive knowledge — requires quite a different policy in the presentation of Occult Sciences. The only object to be striven for is the amelioration of the condition of MAN by the spread of truth suited to the various stages of his development and that of the country he inhabits and belongs to. TRUTH has no ear-mark and does not suffer from the name under which it is promulgated — if the said object is attained.” (Master K.H., “The Mahatma Letters” p. 399)

(6) THEOSOPHY AND OCCULTISM ARE NOT THE SAME THING

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

“THEOSOPHIST. 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 [i.e. a practical student and exerciser of esoteric and magical knowledge or science] without being a real Theosophist; otherwise he is simply a black magician, whether conscious or unconscious. . . . 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.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “The Key to Theosophy” p. 25)

“Men cannot all be Occultists, but they can all be Theosophists. Many who have never heard of the Society are Theosophists without knowing it themselves; for the essence of Theosophy is the perfect harmonizing of the divine with the human in man, the adjustment of his god-like qualities and aspirations, and their sway over the terrestrial or animal passions in him. Kindness, absence of every ill feeling or selfishness, charity, good-will to all beings, and perfect justice to others as to one’s self, are its chief features. He who teaches Theosophy preaches the gospel of good-will; and the converse of this is true also, — he who preaches the gospel of good-will, teaches Theosophy.”

“Theosophy is Universal Brotherhood, the very foundation as well as the keystone of all movements toward the amelioration of our condition.”

“”ALTRUISM.” . . . this is the keynote of Theosophy and the cure for all ills; this it is which the real Founders of the Theosophical Society [i.e. the real Founders being the Masters of Wisdom] promote as its first object — UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD.” (“Five Messages from H. P. Blavatsky to the American Theosophists” p. 6-7, 26, 15)

“[There is an] essential difference between . . . what is generally known as Theosophy on the one hand, and Occult science on the other, . . . It is easy to become a Theosophist. Any person of average intellectual capacities, and a leaning toward the meta-physical; of pure, unselfish life, who finds more joy in helping his neighbour than in receiving help himself; one who is ever ready to sacrifice his own pleasures for the sake of other people; and who loves Truth, Goodness and Wisdom for their own sake, not for the benefit they may confer — is a Theosophist.

“But it is quite another matter to put oneself upon the path which leads to the knowledge of what is good to do, as to the right discrimination of good from evil; a path which also leads a man to that power through which he can do the good he desires, often without even apparently lifting a finger [i.e. the Path of Occultism].” (H. P. Blavatsky, “Practical Occultism”)

~ * ~

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 also like to read Approaching Theosophy Through The Intellect or The Heart.

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~