We wish first of all to make absolutely clear that there is no political intention whatsoever behind this article. Theosophy itself is, and must remain, entirely apolitical, although individual Theosophists are free to pursue and support whatever form of politics they may personally consider the best or most suitable.

From the time of H. P. Blavatsky herself, politics has been considered “out of bounds” for Theosophical lodges, groups, and meetings, since its discussion and debate not only has little relation to the more important task of studying and presenting Esoteric Philosophy but also invariably gives rise to disagreement, disunion, and disharmony. The primary purpose of the Theosophical Movement is to unite together people of all backgrounds, opinions, races, religions, cultures, nationalities, sexes, economic status, and whatever else, not to divide them even further.

“Theosophists, . . . by dealing with politics within any Branch Society might bring disgrace and ruin on the whole body,” HPB once wrote.

This does not mean that Theosophical groups have always abided by this wise and safe principle but in general it has usually been adhered to. When it is not, it can be seen that even longtime students of Theosophy known for their calm, patience, and serenity, often become riled up, impassioned, and dogmatic, since, as we all know, almost everyone has their own personal sociopolitical perspective on current affairs, especially but not solely those of their own nation, and sadly almost everyone emphatically believes that their view is the best one and the right one and that others must of necessity be “wrong,” “misguided,” or “misinformed.” Students of Theosophy, being human, are not immune from such attitudes.

Therefore, although the topics addressed in this article often relate to areas which are typically connected with politics, any unbiased and careful reader will be able to see that neither we nor H. P. Blavatsky nor Theosophy are promoting or endorsing any particular form of politics, whether left wing, centrist, or right wing. What we are looking at here is simply the fundamental spiritual, ethical, and even psychological principles for the improvement and transformation of human society around the world. We are exploring the Theosophical vision for what could be called social transformation. So let’s get started.

BLAVATSKY ON POLITICS

“Unconcerned about politics; hostile to the insane dreams of Socialism and of Communism, which it abhors – as both are but disguised conspiracies of brutal force and sluggishness against honest labour; the [Theosophical] Society cares but little about the outward human management of the material world. The whole of its aspirations are directed toward the occult truths of the visible and invisible worlds. Whether the physical man be under the rule of an empire or a republic, concerns only the man of matter. His body may be enslaved; as to his Soul, he has the right to give to his rulers the proud answer of Socrates to his Judges. They have no sway over the inner man.” (“What Are The Theosophists?”)

“During the whole period of our four years’ living in India, neither our Society, nor its Founders, nor this Journal [i.e. “The Theosophist”] had anything to do whatever with politics. Nay, feeling an innate and holy horror for everything connected with it, we have avoided the subject most strenuously. Empires might have fallen down and arisen anew during that interval, but still our Journal as ourselves would not have heeded the catastrophe but given ever our undivided attention to “Occult Truths” and kindred metaphysical problems.” (“Dragged In Again!”)

“Spiritualism is tolerated and its rights respected in our ranks, just as is Christianity, Socialism or Freethought of any degree. Our rules do not permit us to meddle with the personal belief, religious or political views, or private life of the members, so long as these do not interfere with, or become harmful to, our three declared objects.” (“The Thersites of Freethought”)

But in her book “The Key to Theosophy” we see there is another reason why Theosophy does not hold politics in particularly high regard (although many Theosophists vote for one party or another in elections, as is well within their right and, some might say, their responsibilities as citizens) and that is because any and every form of politics is inevitably doomed to fail at making a real, lasting, beneficial difference at a fundamental level to the lives, happiness, and welfare of all members of society, until such a time as human nature itself is drastically transformed from how it typically is now. To sow the seeds of such a transformation in human thought, outlook, perception, knowledge, feeling, and understanding, is one of the main intentions of the Theosophical Movement.

On p. 230-231 of “The Key to Theosophy” we read:

“ENQUIRER. What do you consider as due to humanity at large?

“THEOSOPHIST. Full recognition of equal rights and privileges for all, and without distinction of race, colour, social position, or birth.

“ENQ. When would you consider such due not given?

“THEO. When there is the slightest invasion of another’s right – be that other a man or a nation; when there is any failure to show him the same justice, kindness, consideration or mercy which we desire for ourselves. The whole present system of politics is built on the oblivion of such rights, and the most fierce assertion of national selfishness. The French say: “Like master, like man”; they ought to add, “Like national policy, like citizen.”

“ENQ. Do you take any part in politics?

“THEO. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at the head of affairs as of old.”

POLITICAL SOCIALISM vs SPIRITUAL SOCIALISM

As we saw above, HPB stated very clearly and directly that the Theosophical Movement is “hostile to the insane dreams of Socialism and of Communism, which it abhors – as both are but disguised conspiracies of brutal force and sluggishness against honest labour.”

Although we also just saw her say, however, that socialism “is tolerated and its rights respected” when forming the private belief or preference of an individual Theosophist, she was far less tolerant towards that far-left form of socialism known as communism. In her private scrapbook, an undated entry (but almost definitely from 1875) shows that she pasted a newspaper cutting entitled “Extreme Measures Advocated.” The cutting speaks of Charles Sotheran, one of the earliest members of the Theosophical Society, who, “declaring himself a labour Socialist, spoke at a mass meeting of strikers and urged them to take extreme measures against the Capitalist exploiters.”

HPB added these words: “A Theosophist becoming a rioter, encouraging revolution and MURDER, a friend of Communists is no fit member of our Society. HE HAS TO GO.”

By January 1876, just two months after the Society was founded, Sotheran resigned from it and became ardently anti-Blavatsky for the rest of his life.

Elsewhere in the Theosophical literature we find such statements as:

“He [i.e. the disciple of the Masters] smiles at the socialist and the reformer who endeavour by sheer force to re-arrange circumstances which arise out of the forces of human nature itself. This is but kicking against the pricks; a waste of life and energy.” (“Light on The Path” p. 77)

“All the workers in socialism, in labor unions and in similar lines . . . Their motive is wholly concerned with physical existence, prosperity, ease, comfort. No attempt along those lines can ever bring any lasting benefit, as witness various so-called reforms that have come and gone – reformers with them. Where are their sacrifices? We all proceed from the same Source and are all traveling toward the same goal; but we shall not get right methods and right relations until we understand our own natures, and act in accordance with them. That is the only way we can mitigate either national or individual Karma.” (Robert Crosbie, “Answers to Questions on The Ocean of Theosophy” p. 150)

It may therefore be initially very surprising and even appear self-contradictory to see that H. P. Blavatsky also used the terms “Socialism” and “Socialist” in a very positive way and in a high spiritual context, even reverently describing Buddha and Jesus as true Socialists. That is the distinction and explanation: from the Theosophical perspective, such great Sages and Adepts were true Socialists in the true meaning of the term, whereas what the world knows of as political and economic socialism is in fact not true Socialism at all.

“Both Gospels, the Buddhist and the Christian, were preached with the same object in view. Both reformers were ardent philanthropists and practical altruists – preaching most unmistakably Socialism of the noblest and highest type, self-sacrifice to the bitter end. “Let the sins of the whole world fall upon me that I may relieve man’s misery and suffering!” cries Buddha; . . . “I would not let one cry whom I could save!” exclaims the Prince-beggar, clad in the refuse rags of the burial-grounds. “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest,” is the appeal to the poor and the disinherited made by the “Man of Sorrows,” who hath not where to lay his head. The teachings of both are boundless love for humanity, charity, forgiveness of injury, forgetfulness of self, and pity for the deluded masses; both show the same contempt for riches, and make no difference between meum and tuum. Their desire was, without revealing to all the sacred mysteries of initiation, to give the ignorant and the misled, whose burden in life was too heavy for them, hope enough and an inkling into the truth sufficient to support them in their heaviest hours. But the object of both Reformers was frustrated, owing to excess of zeal of their later followers. The words of the Masters having been misunderstood and misinterpreted, behold the consequences!” (“The Key to Theosophy” p. 79-80)

Likewise, in her article titled “Misconceptions,” we find her saying:

“Neither the true Christianity of Jesus – the great Socialist and Adept, the divine man who was changed into an anthropomorphic god – nor the sciences . . . nor the philosophies of today . . . will allow the Occident [i.e. the West] to attain its full efflorescence if it turns its back upon the ancient wisdom of bygone centuries. . . . As long as intellectual progress will refuse to accept a subordinate position to ethical progress, and egotism will not give way to the Altruism preached by Gautama and the true historical Jesus (the Jesus of the pagan sanctuary, not the Christ of the Churches), happiness for all the members of humanity will remain a Utopia.” (“Theosophy: Some Rare Perspectives” p. 8-9)

In the same article and in others, she describes in inspiring language her and her Adept-Teachers’ vision for what she calls “a social revolution.”

From such passages we also see some of the main ways in which this type of “Socialism” differs from what has typically been known in the world under that name. In one striking contrast, it does not elevate the poor and the “working classes” above anyone else, nor does it suggest that society should be rebuilt around them or according to their wishes or dictates. It also emphasises that this type of “social revolution” cannot be a revolution in the ordinary sense of the word but would have to be willingly and peacefully entered into by all. It must not and indeed cannot come about any other way.

“The “happiness” you speak of will not come as long as moral progress slumbers in inactivity, paralyzed by the ferocious egotism of everybody, the rich as well as the poor. . . . [There exists] that false fraternity which says to his fellow man, “Think as I do, or I will knock you down; be my brother, or I will run you down!”

“The Theosophical “missionaries” aim also at a social revolution. But it is a wholly ethical revolution. It will come about when the disinherited masses understand that happiness is in their own hands, that wealth brings nothing but worries, that he is happy who works for others, for those others work for him, and when the rich realize that their felicity depends upon that of their brothers – whatever their race or religion – then only will the world see the dawn of happiness.” (“Misconceptions,” “Theosophy: Some Rare Perspectives” p. 19-20)

“Full and entire liberty of conscience allowed to all, fraternity reigning between the rich and the poor, equality recognised in theory and practice between the aristocrat and the plebeian, – are still so many castles in the air and for a good reason. All this must come about naturally and voluntarily on both sides, but the time has not yet arrived for the lion and the lamb to lie down together. The great reform must take place without any social shocks, without a drop of blood being spilled; which can happen in no other way than by the recognition of the axiomatic truth of Oriental Philosophy, which teaches us that the great diversity of fortune, of social rank and of intellect, is due but to the personal Karma of each human being. We reap only what we have sown.

“If the personality of each physical man differs from that of every other, the immortal individuality, or immaterial being in him, emanates from the same divine essence as does that of his neighbours. He who is thoroughly impressed with the philosophic truth that every Ego [i.e. synonymous in Theosophical terminology with the reincarnating soul] begins and ends by being the indivisible WHOLE, cannot love his neighbour less than he does himself. But, until this becomes a religious truth, no such reform can take place. The egoistical proverb: “Charity begins at home,” or that other one: “Everyone for himself and God for us all,” will always impel “superior” and Christian races to oppose the practical realization of this beautiful pagan saying: “The poor man is the son of the rich one,” and still more that which tells us, “Give to eat first to him that is hungry, and take that which remains for thyself.”

“But the time is coming when this “barbarian” wisdom of the “inferior” races will be better appreciated. What we must try to do in the meantime is to bring a little peace into the world, in the hearts of those who suffer, by raising for them a corner of the veil which hides the divine truth. Let those who are strongest show the road to those who are weaker, and help them to climb the steep hill of life; and let them teach these to fix their eyes on the Beacon which shines on the horizon like a new star of Bethlehem beyond the mysterious and unknown sea of the Theosophical Sciences, – and let the disinherited ones of life recover hope.” (“Le Phare de L’Inconnu,” meaning “The Beacon-Light of The Unknown,” Part VII, “Theosophical Articles and Notes” p. 68-69)

Probably the most disagreeable aspect of this to many people is that financial and material equality for all, and a consequent dissolution of the division between rich and poor, is not held up as a goal, nor even treated as a possibility, save in the sense of neither side looking down upon or mistreating in any way the other. This very understandably sounds to some like an intention to preserve and maintain class injustice and class divisions in society.

Every Theosophist recognises that that is definitely not ideal but the principle behind it is that the reality of the existence and constant operation of the Law of Karma makes it entirely unavoidable, at least for a very long time to come.

This doesn’t mean that the whole interrelationship between different segments or sectors of society cannot be radically improved and altered (as has already come about, mostly naturally, in quite a big though still incomplete way, in many parts of the Western world, since the early to mid 20th century) but it does mean that until all souls have wiped off their negative and difficult backlog of Karma (their inescapable self-created destiny produced through cause and effect, action and reaction, etc.) and stopped creating new troublesome Karma for themselves, any attempt to forcibly make every single member of society of equal financial status and equally materially comfortable in surroundings could barely last even one day before ruptures and inequalities would start appearing again.

We are aware that to many people who have never properly studied it or clearly and deeply reflected upon it, the whole idea of Karma often sounds grossly unfair and unjust. Theosophy maintains, however, as do all the Indic religions, that it is actually the law of perfect justice, in the sense that in the past we created our present and in the present we are creating our future. It cannot be comprehended apart from its twin law of reincarnation or rebirth, the periodical re-embodiment of the human soul or Ego. We thus highly recommend a careful and open-minded reading of such articles on this site as A Right Understanding of Karma, Questions about Karma, Is Karma Merciful and Compassionate?, and Karma, Justice, and Forgiveness. No-one is under any expectation or obligation to believe in or accept the teaching about Karma but one should at least make sure one clearly and accurately understands it before criticising it. It is a much deeper, more subtle, complex, intricate, and far reaching concept than many realise.

In William Q. Judge’s article “The Kali Yuga – The Present Age” in the “Conversations on Occultism” series, the “Sage,” thought to refer to H. P. Blavatsky, says to the “Student”:

“Again, the great thirst for riches and material betterment, while spiritual life is to a great extent ignored, is regarded by us as darkness. The great conflict already begun between the wealthy classes and the poorer is a sign of darkness. Were spiritual light prevalent, the rich and the poor would still be with us, for Karma cannot be blotted out, but the poor would know how to accept their lot and the rich how to improve the poor; now, on the contrary, the rich wonder why the poor do not go to the poorhouse, meanwhile seeking in the laws for cures for strikes and socialism, and the poor continually growl at fate and their supposed oppressors. All this is of the quality of spiritual darkness.”

We must point out, however, for purposes of important clarification, that this does not mean the Theosophical approach is that the poorer, more vulnerable members of society should just silently put up with being mistreated and left to suffer helplessly. Throughout “The Key to Theosophy,” for example, HPB strongly criticises the inhumane and heartless attitudes and policies of the “elite” of society towards the poor and the working classes. Affirming the equal inner divinity of all, her “Misconceptions” article declares that “the only God whom we should serve is Humanity, and our only cult should be the love of our fellow man. Doing evil towards him, we wound God and make him suffer.” (“Theosophy: Some Rare Perspectives” p. 21) But what it does mean is summed up in the sixth point of A Right Understanding of Karma:

“It is true that we all have “a lot in life.” It is our Karmic lot, our Karmically determined allotment of situations, circumstances, and experiences. We should always strive for the best but when we just cannot succeed as we would like to in certain areas of life, no matter how hard or often we try or what we do, we should accept it as an indication of our Karma and be thankful and content for what we do have, rather than frustrated and depressed over what we do not or cannot have. No amount of positive thinking, creative visualisation, affirmations or prayers, can alter your Karmic lot in life. This is your Prarabdha Karma. This is not fatalism; it is the Law of self-created destiny. In the past you created your present and in the present you are creating your future.”

The Theosophical position is that efforts should always be made to alleviate suffering and that such efforts will always succeed to whatever extent the Karma of the sufferers permits.

Reiterating the same point but from a slightly different angle, HPB says in her article “Let Every Man Prove His Own Work”:

“The secular philanthropist is really at heart a socialist, and nothing else; he hopes to make men happy and good by bettering their physical position. No serious student of human nature can believe in this theory for a moment. There is no doubt that it is a very agreeable one, because if it is accepted there is immediate, straightforward work to undertake. “The poor ye have always with you.” [Note: Those are words attributed to Jesus in both Matthew 26:11 and Mark 14:7.] The causation which produced human nature itself produced poverty, misery, pain, degradation, at the same time that it produced wealth, and comfort, and joy and glory. Lifelong philanthropists, who have started on the work with a joyous youthful conviction that it is possible to “do good,” have, though never relaxing the habit of charity, confessed to the present writer that, as a matter of fact, misery cannot be relieved. It is a vital element in human nature, and is as necessary to some lives as pleasure is to others.”

Referring to the quote with which we began this section, the writer (probably the late Henry Geiger) of the book “The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950,” first published by the Los Angeles Lodge of the United Lodge of Theosophists and recently republished by the Bangalore Lodge in India, observes on p. 76:

“Madame Blavatsky’s strictures against Socialism might puzzle the modern liberal, save for the undoubted fact that she warmly approved of the ethical principle of absolute sharing and had little use for the entrenched selfishness of the economic system of private property. In this passage, she is obviously castigating the brutal conception of the class struggle common to European socialist doctrine. Elsewhere, speaking of the indigenous American socialism of Edward Bellamy, she calls the organization of society as depicted in Looking Backward a representation of “what should be the first great step towards the full realization of universal brotherhood.” She refers to both Buddha and Jesus as “ardent philanthropists and practical altruists – preaching most unmistakably Socialism of the noblest and highest type, self-sacrifice to the bitter end.” Plainly, Socialism of this sort is unconnected with any special economic or political theory, but embodies that generous spirit of human brotherhood which is the principal inspiration of the Theosophical Movement.”

THEOSOPHICAL SUPPORT FOR THE SOCIALISM (THEN CALLED “NATIONALISM”) OF EDWARD BELLAMY

The “indigenous American socialism of Edward Bellamy” just referred to was not actually called “socialism” at the time. Bellamy, who lived from 1850-1898, instead called it nationalism.

But this was before the term “nationalism” had taken on its present connotations, which are frequently – though by no means always – seen as the very antithesis of socialism. Nowadays, “nationalism” is most frequently defined as “identification with one’s own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.” But Bellamy was not using the word in a separatist sense. He in fact adopted the word because, as he admitted privately, he knew how the very word and concept of “socialism” disturbs, alarms, and upsets many Americans, and he was also not keen on it himself. He wished for his ideas to be accepted or rejected based on their own inherent value or lack of it, rather than because of deeply entrenched aversion to a particular name.

The following is from the Wikipedia page about Edward Bellamy:

“In Looking Backward [i.e. Bellamy’s most famous and celebrated book, written in the form of a utopian novel], a non-violent revolution had transformed the American economy and thereby society; private property had been abolished in favor of state ownership of capital and the elimination of social classes and the ills of society that he thought inevitably followed from them. In the new world of the year 2000, there was no longer war, poverty, crime, prostitution, corruption, money, or taxes. Neither did there exist such occupations seen by Bellamy as of dubious worth to society, such as politicians, lawyers, merchants, or soldiers. Instead, Bellamy’s utopian society of the future was based upon the voluntary employment of all citizens between the ages of 21 and 45, after which time all would retire. Work was simple, aided by machine production, working hours short and vacation time long. The new economic basis of society effectively remade human nature itself in Bellamy’s idyllic vision, with greed, maliciousness, untruthfulness, and insanity all relegated to the past. . . .

“Bellamy’s book inspired legions of inspired readers to establish so-called Nationalist Clubs, beginning in Boston late in 1888. His vision of a country relieved of its social ills through abandonment of the principle of competition and establishment of state ownership of industry proved an appealing panacea to a generation of intellectuals alienated from the dark side of Gilded Age America. By 1891 it was reported that no fewer than 162 Nationalist Clubs were in existence.

“Bellamy’s use of the term “Nationalism” rather than “socialism” as a descriptor of his governmental vision was calculated, as he did not want to limit either sales of his novel or the potential influence of its political ideas. In an 1888 letter to literary critic William Dean Howells, Bellamy wrote:

““Every sensible man will admit there is a big deal in a name, especially in making first impressions. In the radicalness of the opinions I have expressed, I may seem to out-socialize the socialists, yet the word socialist is one I never could well stomach. In the first place it is a foreign word in itself, and equally foreign in all its suggestions. It smells to the average American of petroleum, suggests the red [i.e. communist] flag, and with all manner of sexual novelties, and an abusive tone about God and religion, which in this country we at least treat with respect. […] [W]hatever German and French reformers may choose to call themselves, socialist is not a good name for a party to succeed with in America. No such party can or ought to succeed [in the USA] that is not wholly and enthusiastically American and patriotic in spirit and suggestions.””

Wikipedia does not mention the closeness that existed between Theosophy and the Nationalist Clubs. 50% of the early members of the Nationalist Clubs were also members of the Theosophical Society and actively involved with the work and activities of its American Section, which was presided over by HPB’s closest colleague William Q. Judge.

HPB herself wrote, in “The Key to Theosophy”:

“The organization of Society, depicted by Edward Bellamy, in his magnificent work “Looking Backwards,” admirably represents the Theosophical idea of what should be the first great step towards the full realization of universal brotherhood. The state of things he depicts falls short of perfection, because selfishness still exists and operates in the hearts of men. But in the main, selfishness and individualism have been overcome [i.e. in Bellamy’s novel] by the feeling of solidarity and mutual brotherhood; and the scheme of life there described reduces the causes tending to create and foster selfishness to a minimum. . . . Have not you heard of the Nationalist clubs and party which have sprung up in America since the publication of Bellamy’s book? They are now coming prominently to the front, and will do so more and more as time goes on. Well, these clubs and this party were started in the first instance by Theosophists. One of the first, the Nationalist Club of Boston, Mass., has Theosophists for President and Secretary, and the majority of its executive belong to the T. S. In the constitution of all their clubs, and of the party they are forming, the influence of Theosophy and of the Society is plain, for they all take as their basis, their first and fundamental principle, the Brotherhood of Humanity as taught by Theosophy. In their declaration of Principles they state:– “The principle of the Brotherhood of Humanity is one of the eternal truths that govern the world’s progress on lines which distinguish human nature from brute nature.” What can be more Theosophical than this? But it is not enough.” (p. 44-45)

In “Five Messages from H. P. Blavatsky to The American Theosophists” we find, in the third message: “Happily new tendencies are also springing up, working to change the basis of men’s daily lives from selfishness to altruism. The Nationalist Movement is an application of Theosophy. But remember, all of you, that if Nationalism is an application of Theosophy, it is the latter which must ever stand first in your sight. Theosophy is indeed the life, the indwelling spirit which makes every true reform a vital reality, for Theosophy is Universal Brotherhood, the very foundation as well as the keystone of all movements toward the amelioration of our condition.” (p. 26)

It so happened that the Nationalist Movement faded out soon after Edward Bellamy’s death in 1898, but many of his ideas have continued to be considered and referred to, by both political theorists and social commentators. Henry Geiger (1908-1989) of the Parent Lodge of the United Lodge of Theosophists in Los Angeles is described on Wikipedia as “an advocate of Edward Bellamy’s type of socialism.” This was done primarily through his independently produced and highly regarded weekly journal “Manas” (all the issues of which are online here) which was, however, about vastly more than that.

THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS ON TRUE SOCIALISM, HIGHER SOCIALISM, OR SPIRITUAL SOCIALISM

The United Lodge of Theosophists was founded in Los Angeles, California, USA in 1909 by Robert Crosbie, who had been a colleague and pupil of William Judge as well as a pupil (at a distance) of H. P. Blavatsky. It has the expressed mission statement “To spread broadcast the Teachings of Theosophy as recorded in the Writings of H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge.”

Although nowhere near as well known or frequently encountered as the largest Theosophical Society organisation (namely “The Theosophical Society – Adyar”) it does have Lodges and study groups in almost 20 countries around the world and is the second largest and second most influential of the four main “branches” or “streams” (all independent, distinct, and differing in various ways from one another) of today’s Theosophical Movement.

Due to the ULT’s great appreciation, respect, and reverence for HPB and for the Master-Teachers or Master Yogis of whom she was the initiated and specially prepared representative or messenger, the themes we have been exploring found, and still find, expression and elucidation in articles published in ULT magazines, both in the USA and in India. We will see some of these now, starting with excerpts from an article written a century ago titled “The Higher Socialism” and which is quite remarkable in its clarity, depth, and breadth of Theosophical vision. As per the standard ULT principles, such articles by ULT associates have always been published anonymously, mainly so that the ideas can stand on their own merit rather than because of who may have written them.

We must also clarify that despite articles on our present subject, ULT magazines have not and do not promote any particular political perspective, political party, or politician. These articles are not about endorsing or recommending any type of extant political socialism, as has hopefully been made clear. The only areas in which the ULT has at times veered slightly away from an absolutely apolitical stance are in its anti-fascist (and thus anti-Hitler and anti-Nazi during the 1930s and 1940s) approach and expressions of support and sympathy for Mahatma Gandhi’s efforts towards Indian independence from British imperialism. In these points it has been in harmony with attitudes expressed by HPB herself, regarding dictators as well as the freedom of India.

“To the intelligent Theosophical student the emergence of socialism in the future is not only a hope but a certitude. Just as at the birth of the age of Democracy, misunderstanding of Ideals and Principles brought about a subversion of Democracy, so also the misconstruction of the fundamentals of true Socialism will endanger the future Civilization in all its branches. That Socialism is bound to prevail in the future is not a matter of doubt with any intelligent student of historical evolution or of Theosophy, but ours is the task as Theosophists to strike the note of warning against the wrong type of socialism and to indicate the principles of the right kind. The study of Theosophy enables us to come to a realization of a higher type of Socialism than that which modern politicians, economists and socialists know of. To the temperament of that Socialism, blood-shed and warfare are foreign. That Socialism is based not so much on economic and political laws, as on moral and spiritual ones. It is the Socialism which gives and does not grab, which loves and does not hate. It is the Socialism that does not desire to push itself into a position of power where it will be a ruler over socialists and non-socialists, but it is a Socialism which brings peace and enlightenment to all alike. It is the Socialism that does not bring the proletariat to power but brings all unto the Kingdom of true Fraternity – the Common welfare. It does not endeavor to level all by the process of pulling down those who stand at the upper rungs of the ladder of progress, but it seriously endeavors to raise all to as high a level of society as the highest among us have reached.

“The Higher Socialism is based on the law of Universal Brotherhood. . . . it does believe in the possibility, nay in the certainty, of fashioning a Brotherhood of Spirit and Soul. We cannot make all people equal in mind and bodies, but we can make all people equal by giving them an equality of opportunity to make progress as souls. This equality of opportunity is to be given to the Brotherhood of Souls, who in manifestation differ in intellectual and moral capacity, in faculty of expression and in efficiency of labour.

“We therefore believe in a kind of spiritual Socialism, that observes the fundamental law of love against hate, that works not according to the principles of the rights of man, but on the basis of the Duties of man. The Socialism that we want to support is the Socialism that is based on the true international principle and does not express itself in a one-sided love for one’s own country without regard to its being in the right or in the wrong, but a love that will set our own country right if it is in the wrong. We believe in the internationalism that will bring peace and harmony to the various classes in all the countries of the world. That Higher Socialism affirms that there are no small countries and no big countries, but that that country is really big which is living according to the principles of Brotherhood, according to the law of love, that is providing opportunity for all, nationally and internationally.

“Socialism ordinarily talked about deals with those who are poor in the riches of the world and therefore is regarded as the science of economics. Higher Socialism deals with poverty of many types. It stands for the removal of poverty not only of money but also of mind and of morals. . . . [In regard to taxes:] From every one according to his capacity and to every one according to his needs, is applied not only to those who work by hands, but also to those who work by heads and hearts. The Higher Socialism does not deal with the labour market but deals with intelligent aspiring human Souls who cannot live by bread alone.

“The Brotherhood of Souls implies therefore the understanding of differences in manifested nature from a new point of view. . . . For instance, in the economic world all men can never be equal; there will always be some who are rich and others poor; some wise and others less so; some good and others bad; some who are born creative geniuses and others born congenital idiots. But when we take a complete view of the world of manifestation in which a myriad differences leap to the eye, and when we see these differences in the light of Spiritual Wisdom, we find that there is an equality, for all men are rich and poor at the same time; that some are rich in one portion of their universe while they are poor in others. The Higher Socialism tries to manifest the power of this Spiritual Brotherhood in which each man is apparently different from the other and yet both are identically the same with all.

“The Higher Socialism not only shows the equality of all men who are bound together in Spiritual Brotherhood but also shows the Brotherhood of all nations along the same line of reasoning. There are no small and great nations, there are no big powers and minor principalities, but each kingdom and nation is a Spiritual Entity capable of discharging its own duties to itself and to others, fulfilling its mission for the good of all. Each nation has a message to give to the world for the edification, inspiration and illumination of other nations, and in giving that message it earns for itself the privilege of learning from the messages of other nations.

“The above may be regarded by some as a mere vision of an impractical idealist, but it is the dreamers of dreams who in the realm of higher politics become practical mystics, the saviours of nations and peoples. H. P. Blavatsky was such a practical mystic though she never engaged herself in the petty struggles of party politics; and her wonderful message to her students and followers brings its Great lessons even after the lapse of over 30 [now 130] years.” (“The Higher Socialism,” “Theosophy” Magazine, November 1922)

“Ordinarily, socialism deals with the economic and political aspects of human society; the moral basis of socialism is neglected and that neglect is, in a great measure, responsible for the failure of socialism. Everyone talks of Brotherhood, and even of Universal Brotherhood, but how many accept the full implications of the qualifying adjective “universal”? Capitalists and those who advocate capitalism are looked upon as enemies, actual or potential, by every budding socialist! Workers everywhere are fighting those for whom they work. The philosophy of socialism, its metaphysical foundation, is rarely considered. . . . The metaphysical foundation of true Spiritual Socialism is to be found, not in Marx, but in the philosophy of the Buddha, of the Sages of the Upanishads, whose doctrines were carried to the Western world by their devotees, and among the latter by Pythagoras. The Greek doctrine of “the Many in the One, the One in the Many,” was but an echo of the Upanishadic teaching of a single substance-principle from which the myriad forms of Life emerge. . . . The Buddhistic view that the entire manifested universe is composed of a milliard beings, all of one substance, svabhavat, is again the same teaching. These ancient philosophers did not reject the differences and inequalities among people. They accepted them as necessary factors in human progression and perfection. But they proceeded to point to the Source, the One Life, which did make all humans brothers and sisters because they had a common spiritual origin; but this did not mean that all had an equal mental capacity, or an equal moral stamina. This is not the occasion for a philosophical disquisition on this intricate principle of metaphysics; but unless our legislators study it and grasp the proposition to some extent, they will be lured by the false dicta of materialistic socialism or be caught up in other false political theories.” (“The Dignity of Work,” “The Theosophical Movement” Magazine, November 2002)

“Theosophy puts forward the true Socialism, which does not seek the welfare of any group, not even the largest, but, recognizing the true fraternity of all – older brothers and younger – seeks to promote the Commonweal. The higher socialism involves not a pulling down to a common level, but a levelling up of all to a higher average status. All cannot be made equal, physically, mentally or morally. But equal opportunities can and should be afforded for each to take the next step in advance for him. This requires a far-reaching transformation in political and social as well as economic conditions. This will result from application (not mere talk) of the principles involved. It will result in a lessening of the cries for individual “rights” and the voluntary assumption of responsibilities, with little or no thought of personal honours or rewards. The dignity of labour, the risks and responsibilities of capitalists, the stability of family life, the necessary educational and penal reforms, etc., will all receive due recognition and attention if – if our writers, our legislators, our philanthropists, will take a universal viewpoint; a viewpoint based on rigid justice to all beings, themselves included.” (“Justice To All Beings,” “The Theosophical Movement” Magazine, December 2002)

SARVODAYA: GANDHI’S PRINCIPLE OF NON-VIOLENT SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948), better known to the world as Mahatma Gandhi, was the most influential leader of Indian nationalism (in the sense of patriotism and self-rule rather than separatist or isolationist-minded nationalism) in British-ruled India. Employing non-violence (called “Ahimsa” in Sanskrit) and peaceful protest in his methods, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired many subsequent movements for non-violence, civil rights, and freedom all over the world.

Although sometimes described as a politician, he never held any governmental office nor did he present himself as representing any particular political party. He has perhaps more accurately been described as a political ethicist and political thinker yet first and foremost he was a philosopher; one who applied practical philosophical thought to every area and aspect of individual and collective life. Although officially a Hindu and deriving greater inspiration and help from Hindu thought – particularly the Bhagavad Gita – than any other religion, he described himself as “also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew” and every other religion.

As a young man in London, he came in contact with members of the Theosophical Society and met with H. P. Blavatsky (who lived in London for the last few years of her life) in November 1889. It was Theosophists who first encouraged him to read and give serious attention to the Bhagavad Gita and the scriptures and philosophies of his own native religion. He also read HPB’s books “The Key to Theosophy” and “The Secret Doctrine” around this time and signed up as a member of the London-based Blavatsky Lodge in March 1891, a month and a half before HPB passed away.

For the remainder of his life, including at the height of his worldwide fame and recognition, Gandhi continued to express gratitude and appreciation for Theosophy and the work and writings of HPB. Finding himself unable to support later developments and major alterations of teaching and approach that occurred within “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” in the first half of the 20th century, he felt affinity for the Indian Theosophist B. P. Wadia who resigned from the Adyar Society in the early 1920s and who later established the Indian Lodges of the United Lodge of Theosophists, as well as numerous other ULT Lodges worldwide. Gandhi wrote a foreword to Sophia Wadia’s book “The Brotherhood of Religions” in 1938.

Gandhian philosophy is constituted of four main principles which have been called the four pillars of Gandhian thought. These are Satya (Truth), Ahimsa (Non-Violence), Sarvodaya (Non-Violent Social Transformation, sometimes also called Non-Violent Socialism), and Satyagraha (literally “Truth-Force,” also called “Soul-Force,” manifesting as Non-Violent Resistance).

Sarvodaya is what relates most pertinently to this present article. Like Theosophy, Gandhi meant by “socialism” something very different from what the world knows of under that name.

The following excerpt is from a September 1985 article by Raghavan Iyer titled “Gandhian Socialism: Isms and Individuals,” first published by the Santa Barbara United Lodge of Theosophists in their “Hermes” magazine and now published by Theosophy Trust in the book “Mahatma Gandhi and Buddha’s Path to Enlightenment.” Iyer (1930-1995) grew up in and spent much of his early adulthood in the Indian ULT and worked closely with B. P. Wadia, inheriting the latter’s profound admiration and reverence for Gandhi. In 1973, Iyer wrote a book titled “The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi,” first published by mainstream publishers and still considered one of the most important works on the development of Gandhi’s thought and philosophy. Wadia (1881-1958) also wrote numerous articles (though less scholarly and more appealing to the general reader) on such themes, which are today published by the Indian ULT as the book “The Gandhian Way.”

“Mahatma Gandhi . . . He willingly called himself a “socialist” and a “communist” in appropriate contexts, but his convictions were distilled from the moral stamina of the Indian masses and the spiritual heritage of humanity rather than from the secular theorists and sectarian ideologies of the past century and a half. His classical socialism was metaphysically prior to the ideological State socialism of the twentieth century, and his non-violent communism was ethically superior to the qualified Marxism of contemporary Communist nation-states. . . . Mahatma Gandhi found Marxist communism unacceptable both as a political philosophy and as a basic principle of social organization. . . . Communism as an ideology was repugnant to Gandhi, though he readily sympathized with its declared ideals and ultimate ends. . . .

“Gandhi rejected violence in any form, and though his periodic criticisms of capitalism, socialism and communism varied, they were all rooted in the sacrosanct principle that ends cannot be divorced from means and that violent means could never produce non-violent ends. . . . His political and social reformation had to emerge from the awakened masses, . . . Class war was wholly unacceptable on the principle of non-violence, and it was unnecessary and even irrelevant in a large-scale social revolution from the bottom upwards. Gandhi could not countenance the possibility of class war even on theoretical grounds because it violated his unshakeable conviction that ends never rise morally above their means. . . .

“First of all, social reform must include everyone, oppressor as well as oppressed, capitalist as well as exploited. Secondly, such inclusion must be voluntary and not coerced. And thirdly, it must clearly distinguish between the inequities that will necessarily remain even in the best societies while utterly abolishing eradicable inequalities. . . . Socio-economic reform necessitates a radical change in perspective on the part of organized workers and propertied owners alike.”

The following quotes from Gandhi himself are included in the article:

“Inequalities in intelligence and even opportunity will last till the end of time. . . . And if I would recognize the fundamental equality, as I must, of the capitalist and the labourer, I must not aim at his destruction. . . . By the non-violent method we seek not to destroy the capitalist, we seek to destroy capitalism.”

“Hardly one man in a thousand can be found who practices communism in everyday life. Communists have come to consider it their supreme duty, their supreme service, to create disaffection, to generate discontent and to organize strikes. They do not see whom this discontent, these strikes, will ultimately harm. Half knowledge is one of the worst evils. The best is either full knowledge or ignorance. We are thus caught in isms and take pride in them and consider it a fashion to belong to this or that ism.”

“I will not wait till I have converted the whole society to my view but will straightaway make a beginning with myself.”

We can now see how extremely close and nearly identical to the social vision of H. P. Blavatsky and Theosophy was Gandhi’s outlook and teaching on these matters. For more about Gandhi’s general spiritual outlook and his words about Theosophy, please see Gandhi on Blavatsky and Theosophy.

THE RIGHT KIND OF PATRIOTISM

Both during HPB’s time and now, some Theosophists have viewed patriotism as an untheosophical attitude and feeling, on the grounds that patriotism is by definition for one country and therefore not truly collective or universal.

But it’s important to see what HPB and her Teachers had to say about it. They are very much in favour of patriotism, provided it is not accompanied by feelings of separatism, national or racial superiority, or an unwillingness to acknowledge the mistakes and failings (historical as well as recent) of one’s nation. In spite of its imperfections, however bad they may be, one ought to still love one’s land, the people in it, and all the good and positive things about its history, its culture, its qualities, and its potential. Karma made you of that particular nationality, ethnicity, and race in this current lifetime for a reason and it is your responsibility to humbly reflect on that.

“When the spirit of patriotism is dead in a nation, it very easily becomes a mere puppet in the hands of the rulers,” warns HPB in her article “The Negators of Science.”

“Alas! . . . the word Patriotism has now scarcely any electric power over the Indian heart,” regrets the Master K.H. in a letter to A. P. Sinnett. (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 384)

The same Adept once wrote to the English Theosophist A. O. Hume: “You pride yourself upon not being a “patriot” – I do not; for, in learning to love one’s country one but learns to love humanity the more.” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 212)

Nonetheless, HPB recognises that “ambition, grasping greediness or envy” are frequently “miscalled Patriotism.” (“Karmic Visions”)

“But nations, by tacit agreement, have decided that selfish motives in politics shall be called “noble national aspiration, patriotism,” etc.; and the citizen views it in his family circle as “domestic virtue.” Nevertheless, Selfishness, whether it breeds desire for aggrandizement of territory, or competition in commerce at the expense of one’s neighbour, can never be regarded as a virtue. We see smooth-tongued DECEIT and BRUTE FORCE – the Jachin and Boaz of every International Temple of Solomon – called Diplomacy, and we call it by its right name.” (“What is Truth?”)

“Few of us (except such as have attained the final negation of Moksha) can so far enfranchise ourselves from the influence of our earthly connection as to be insusceptible in various degrees to the higher pleasures, emotions, and interests of the common run of humanity. Until final emancipation reabsorbs the Ego, it must be conscious of the purest sympathies called out by the esthetic effects of high art, its tenderest cords respond to the call of the holier and nobler human attachments. Of course, the greater the progress towards deliverance, the less this will be the case, until, to crown all, human and purely individual personal feelings – blood-ties and friendship, patriotism and race predilection – all will give away, to become blended into one universal feeling, the only true and holy, the only unselfish and Eternal one – Love, an Immense Love for humanity – as a Whole! For it is “Humanity” which is the great Orphan, the only disinherited one upon this earth, my friend. And it is the duty of every man who is capable of an unselfish impulse to do something, however little, for its welfare. Poor, poor humanity!” (Master K.H., “The Mahatma Letters” p. 32)

~ * ~

Hopefully this article has helped to bring to light and explain many aspects and features of the Social Vision of H. P. Blavatsky and Theosophy.

We are under no illusions that such a lofty ideal for social transformation and complete societal regeneration is likely to come about anytime soon. Realistically speaking, it almost definitely will not happen in our present lifetimes. But every attempt to sow the seeds of it cannot help but make a difference and have at least some effect, however small and seemingly inconsequential it may now appear. “Ideas rule the world” said Plato and Theosophy reminds us that “thought is the real plane of action.” It is in the realm of daily human ideation that this universal and non-violent ethical revolution will be formed. It has already been conceived, it is now being gestated, and one day it shall be born.

“I am confident that, when the real nature of Theosophy is understood, the prejudice against it, now so unfortunately prevalent, will die out. Theosophists are of necessity the friends of all movements in the world, whether intellectual or simply practical, for the amelioration of the conditions of mankind. We are the friends of all those who fight against drunkenness, against cruelty to animals, against injustice to women, against corruption in society or in government, although we do not meddle in politics. We are the friends of those who exercise practical charity, who seek to lift a little of the tremendous weight of misery that is crushing down the poor. But, in our quality of Theosophists, we cannot engage in any one of these great works in particular. As individuals we may do so, but as Theosophists we have a larger, more important, and much more difficult work to do. . . . The function of Theosophists is to open men’s hearts and understandings to charity, justice, and generosity, attributes which belong specifically to the human kingdom and are natural to man when he has developed the qualities of a human being. Theosophy teaches the animal-man to be a human-man; and when people have learnt to think and feel as truly human beings should feel and think, they will act humanely, and works of charity, justice, and generosity will be done spontaneously by all.”

“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 Mahatmas or Masters of Wisdom] promote as its first object – UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD.” (“Five Messages from H. P. Blavatsky to The American Theosophists” p. 8-9, 15)

~ * ~

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 300 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. If this article particularly interested or inspired you, you may be interested in others listed under the heading “SPIRITUAL LIVING AND PRACTICE.”

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~