One thing clearly and frequently explained in Theosophy is that it is intended to be entirely non-dogmatic, unsectarian, and not conforming to or promoting any type of orthodoxy. The Theosophical Movement is also intended to challenge and counteract these qualities in the world at large.

What do these terms actually mean and what are the differences between them?

In brief, dogmatism may be defined as the attempt to force or pressure (whether directly or subtly) another person to accept or believe a philosophy, doctrine, or opinion which oneself accepts and believes as true. Sectarianism is the attitude and expression that one’s own preferred group, society, or organisation, is inherently superior to all others and that it is unwise or inadvisable to belong to any other than this. Sectarianism also gives one the feeling of entitlement to denounce, condemn, and self-righteously look down upon any or all other groups, societies, or organisations. Orthodoxy is, in its broadest sense, the belief that there is only “one right way” to believe, express, or do something, and the attempt to get others to conform to this.

Clearly, none of the above is remotely attractive or appealing, nor conducive to genuine open-mindedness, fraternal feelings, universality in thought, feeling, speech, and action, and the bringing about of the Theosophical Movement’s first and main objective: Universal Brotherhood without any distinctions of any kind. But before today’s Movement can make much of a difference in general society in this regard, it has to attend to the dogmatism within its own folds.

In the modern Theosophical Movement, there seem to have developed two main forms of dogmatism, on two different ends of the spectrum.

On one hand there are many Theosophists (mostly in “The Theosophical Society – Adyar”) who dogmatically insist that it is dogmatic for any Theosophists to focus on or present the Theosophical teachings of H. P. Blavatsky as being in any sense an authoritative exposition of what Theosophy teaches.

In their view, it is dogmatic to say or suggest that Theosophy has any type of teachings, philosophy, metaphysics, or doctrines of its own. In their view, for Theosophy to be undogmatic it must be seen – and must present itself – as something completely undefined, totally vague, and amorphous.

As we showed some years ago in an article titled Theosophy Undefined?, there are even some prominent figures in the Adyar Society who essentially accuse HPB and her Teachers, the Mahatmas or Masters of Wisdom, of being dogmatists, simply for their daring to define that Theosophy has any specific or distinct teachings of its own and is a definite body of knowledge or specific system of teaching. As we showed in that article, not only is such an attitude basically a complete dismissal and disrespectful rubbishing of the very individuals who made the modern Theosophical Movement possible, it is also shown over and over again from the words of HPB and the Masters to not be a legitimately Theosophical approach. It is thus quite easy for one’s very understandable fears of dogmatism to lead oneself to become an ultra-dogmatist without even realising it. This type of attitude is commented on by William Q. Judge (one of the original co-founders of the Movement) in a quote below from his article “Dogmatism in Theosophy.”

But on the other side, there are some Theosophists (mainly in the United Lodge of Theosophists, with which we ourselves are connected and have been associated for over a decade) whose perfectly justifiable and admirable love, respect, and devotion towards HPB, WQJ, and the Masters, coupled with an awareness of some of the main ways in which Theosophy was distorted in the first half of the 20th century, sometimes leads to such traits as, in no particular order:

* A complete denigration of, and suspicion towards, all other Theosophical groups and a belief that there are no, or at best barely any, genuine students of Theosophy – let alone souls who may inwardly be disciples of the Masters – in other Theosophical groups.

* An unwillingness to look beyond or think beyond the printed word, thus making an unquestionable, infallible scripture out of the original Theosophical literature.

* A reticence to individually – let alone collectively – study any scriptures or sacred texts that are not mentioned by HPB or WQJ or not published by the ULT, on the grounds that it is safest to stick solely with what the original Theosophical founders may have mentioned, rather than confidently conducting one’s own studies, researches, and explorations in the light of Theosophy.

* An automatic dismissal of any view, interpretation, or understanding of a Theosophical statement or teaching outside of the traditionally or conventionally held “ULT view” of things.

* A great readiness or sometimes eagerness to label as “Pseudo-Theosophy” or “Pseudo-Theosophist” any Theosophical teaching or teacher which ever expressed any view or idea outside of the traditional “ULT view;” it was indeed HPB who first coined and used the term “Pseudo-Theosophy,” so there is nothing wrong with the phrase itself but rather with the keenness some have to apply it to everyone and everything who does not see Theosophy exactly the same way as themselves.

* A belief that all ULT Lodges and ULT associates should be basically identical in terms of attitudes, approaches, and opinions, and that there is really only one correct way to “do ULT,” this one correct way usually not having altered since around the 1950s.

* A seeming unawareness of the possibility of one’s own dogmatism or sectarianism and a willingness to only see dogmatic, sectarian, or separatist characteristics in other Theosophical groups and people.

It is important to be aware that nowadays such characteristics are becoming less frequently encountered in the ULT and whilst some decades ago most of them were quite common, this has changed and is changing, most likely from a growing realisation that these attitudes and approaches are actually contrary to the attitude and approach inculcated by H. P. Blavatsky, William Judge, and the Masters.

It seems important to remember that the wording of the Declaration of the United Lodge of Theosophists is that “the unassailable basis for union among Theosophists” is “similarity of aim, purpose and teaching.” Similarity of aim, purpose, and teaching, not sameness or exact identicality.

We should add that at one time the writer of this present article has personally held some of the above-listed traits or characteristics and undoubtedly still does to some extent today.

If we are all being honest with ourselves, we can surely all see and recognise that each one of us harbours at least a few dogmatic and/or sectarian views, attributes, or behaviours, whether about Theosophy or anything else. Because we possess a Lower Manas or personal brain-mind, linked with the emotional/passional desire nature of Kama, this is virtually inevitable to some degree, at least until we advance much further along the Path. The important thing is to be willing and able to humbly recognise it in ourselves and then endeavour to become the change we wish to see in this world. It all ultimately hinges around the cultivation of true humility.

~ * ~

SOME STATEMENTS FROM
H. P. BLAVATSKY, WILLIAM Q. JUDGE, AND ROBERT CROSBIE

“Theosophy is the vehicle of the spirit that giveth life; consequently, nothing dogmatic can be Theosophical.” (“Gems from the East” compiled by H. P. Blavatsky, Entry for 27th June)

“It is not necessary for truth to put on boxing-gloves.” (“Gems from the East” compiled by H. P. Blavatsky, Entry for 29th June)

“We are all fellow-students, more or less advanced; but no one belonging to the Theosophical Society ought to count himself as more than, at best, a pupil-teacher – one who has no right to dogmatize.” (“Five Messages from H. P. Blavatsky to The American Theosophists” p. 4)

“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)

“Many are the energetic members of the Theosophical Society who wish to work and work hard. But the price of their assistance is that all the work must be done in their way and not in any one else’s way. And if this is not carried out they sink back into apathy or leave the Society entirely, loudly declaring that they are the only true Theosophists. Or, if they remain, they endeavor to exalt their own method of working at the expense of all other earnest workers. This is fact, but it is not Theosophy. There can be no other end to it than that the growth of the Society will soon be split up into various sects, . . .

“. . . to work properly in our Great Cause it is necessary to forget all personal differences of opinion as to how the work is to be carried on. Let each of us work in his own way and not endeavour to force our ideas of work upon our neighbours. Remember how the Initiate Paul warned his correspondents against the attitude of sectarianism they took up in the early Christian Church :– “I am of Paul, I of Apollos,” and let us profit by the warning. Theosophy is essentially unsectarian, and work for it forms the entrance to the Inner life. But none can enter there save the man himself in the highest and truest spirit of Brotherhood, and any other attempt at entrance will either be futile or he will lie blasted at the threshold.” (“Five Messages from H. P. Blavatsky to The American Theosophists” p. 16-17)

“The critical nature of the stage on which we have entered is as well known to the forces that fight against us as to those that fight on our side. No opportunity will be lost of sowing dissension, of taking advantage of mistaken and false moves, of instilling doubt, of augmenting difficulties, of breathing suspicions, so that by any and every means the unity of the Society may be broken and the ranks of our Fellows thinned and thrown into disarray. Never has it been more necessary for the members of the T.S. [i.e. Theosophical Society] to lay to heart the old parable of the bundle of sticks than it is at the present time; divided, they will inevitably be broken, one by one; united, there is no force on earth able to destroy our Brotherhood. Now I have marked with pain a tendency among you, as among the Theosophists in Europe and India, to quarrel over trifles, and to allow your very devotion to the cause of Theosophy to lead you into disunion. . . . Self-watchfulness is never more necessary than when a personal wish to lead, and wounded vanity, dress themselves in the peacock’s feathers of devotion and altruistic work; . . .” (“Five Messages from H. P. Blavatsky to The American Theosophists” p. 27-28)

“I care everything for the unsectarianism that H. P. B. died to start.” (William Q. Judge, “Letters That Have Helped Me” p. 120)

“The Theosophical Society was founded to destroy dogmatism. This is one of the meanings of its first object – Universal Brotherhood. . . .

“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. . . .

“. . . 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. . . . 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. The greatest minds on earth are puzzled by great ideas such as these, and yet, holding them, can still search for truth with others in a perfect spirit of toleration.

“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, 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.” (William Q. Judge, “Dogmatism in Theosophy”)

“Never utter these words: ‘I do not know this – therefore it is false.’ One must study to know, know to understand, understand to judge.” (The Hindu sage Narada, quoted by H. P. Blavatsky, “Isis Unveiled” Vol. 1, p. 628)

“How does it [i.e. the Theosophical Movement] live and grow? Not alone by study and work, but by propriety of method of work; by due attention paid by the members to thought and speech in their theosophic promulgations. Wise workers, like wise generals, survey the field now and then to see if their methods are good or bad, even though fully convinced of the nobility and righteousness of their cause; they trust not only to the virtue of their aim and work, but attend to any defects now and then indicated by the assaults of the enemy; they listen to warnings of those who see or think they see errors of omission and commission. Let us all do this.” (William Q. Judge, ““Blavatskianism” In and Out of Season”)

“Again there arises the thought “I am a student, a holder of a portion of the mystic lore.” Insidiously there steals in the thought “Behold I am a little more than other men, who have not penetrated so far.” Know then oh man, that you are not as great even as they. He who thinks he is wise is the most ignorant of men, and he who begins to believe he is wise is in greater danger than any other man who lives. . . .

“Be patient, kindly and wise, for perhaps in the next moment of life, the light will shine out upon thy companion, and you discover that you are but a blind man, claiming to see. . . .

“Fear nothing that is in Nature and visible. Dread no influence exerted by sect, faith, or society. Each and every one of them originated upon the same basis – Truth, or a portion of it at least. You may not assume that you have a greater share than they, it being needful only, that you find all the truth each one possesses. You are at war with none. It is peace you are seeking, therefore it is best that the good in everything is found. For this brings peace. . . .

“He who is bound in any way – he who is narrow in his thoughts – finds it doubly difficult to pass onward. . . . It is not by going to extremes or growing fanatical in any direction that the life will be realized. . . . Urge no man to see as yourself, as it is quite possible you may see differently when you awake in the morning. It is wiser to let the matter rest without argument. No man is absolutely convinced by that. It is but blowing your breath against the whirlwind.” (William Q. Judge, “Musings On The True Theosophist’s Path”)

“If you have a truth, and the soil in which you desire to plant your seed is ready, he will receive it. If not, it is quite useless to argue the matter, thus setting up vibrations of antagonistic force harmful both to yourself and others. You may say that Plato point by point combated all opposition to the theory of the Immortality of the Soul. True, yet, in all the centuries subsequent, how many have believed in the soul’s immortality because of the victory of logic compared to those in whose consciousness awoke a conviction from the gentle teachings of Buddha and of Jesus? Controversy belongs chiefly to the intellectual plane, and is seldom waged for the pure spiritual uplifting of humanity. . . . Seeds are never beaten into the unbroken ground but sown in the tilled soil.” (William Q. Judge, “On Argument”)

“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.

“The Theosophical Movement being continuous, it is to be found in all times and in all nations. Wherever thought has struggled to be free, wherever spiritual ideas, as opposed to forms and dogmatism, have been promulgated, there the great movement is to be discerned. . . .

“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. . . . 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”)

“Theosophy is that ocean of knowledge which spreads from shore to shore of the evolution of sentient beings; unfathomable in its deepest parts, it gives the greatest minds their fullest scope, yet, shallow enough at its shores, it will not overwhelm the understanding of a child. . . . It is not a belief or dogma formulated or invented by man, but is a knowledge of the laws which govern the evolution of the physical, astral, psychical, and intellectual constituents of nature and of man.” (William Q. Judge, “The Ocean of Theosophy” p. 1)

“Much as it may seem like dogma, there is but one philosophy; there are Masters; there is Their Message. It is not dogma because it is a statement of fact, which each is invited to prove for himself – and shown how to do it. True knowledge has been lost to the world; the Masters restore it. They help those directly whom They can; those so helped help others directly and indirectly. The cycle has an upward, less material, tendency; it needs right direction, which the direct and indirect influence of the Message provides. Blessed are those who are able to perceive and take the direct way.” (Robert Crosbie, “The Friendly Philosopher” p. 76 – Note: Crosbie was a pupil of William Judge and H. P. Blavatsky and in 1909 founded the United Lodge of Theosophists with the expressed mission statement “To spread broadcast the Teachings of Theosophy as recorded in the Writings of H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge.”)

“Dogmatism is a failing of many. I think it is engendered by a feeling of insecurity, in reality, while endeavoring to assure oneself and others of the certainty of one’s correct knowledge. Of course there are other kinds, such as the maintenance of one’s own opinion simply because it is one’s opinion – an egotistical assertion. . . . One may speak convincingly of that which to him is true, without incurring the charge of dogmatism. When we are convinced of the truth of a matter, there is no reason why we should not voice that conviction as strongly as the case demands, but there is no reason why, in such case, we should demand acceptance of it. In our case, we do not demand acceptance of Theosophy; we point out its principles and their applications. Theosophy makes certain statements as being matters of knowledge by perfected men, but not as statements to be believed. It is shown that such knowledge, being acquired by Them from observation and experience in many bodies, can be reached by all men, and the ways to do so are pointed out [i.e. such as through the practical application of the aspects of the Path of occult development found in such books as “The Voice of The Silence,” “Light on The Path,” and the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali]. The reasonableness of the claim of knowledge takes the statement out of the realm of dogma.” (Robert Crosbie, “The Friendly Philosopher” p. 114)

“As to “a dogmatical presentment,” Theosophy has never been put forth as a Dogma, but as a relation of facts which have been gathered through observation and experience, which anyone can accept or reject without condemnation or praise. One might as well call the only exact science we use, viz., Mathematics, dogmatic or a dogma because it is presented as an assemblage of facts which the student can study, apply and prove for himself. Theosophy stands in exactly the same position: a presentation of Knowledge gained through aeons of time; it is not to be confounded with the speculations of any of its students, who at best are subject to their personal prejudices, predilections and weaknesses. It should also be clearly understood that all theosophical writers or leaders – except Those who brought Theosophy to the world – are students of more or less proficiency in the Science, and are therefore liable to misconceptions and erroneous applications. The only possibility of discerning such errors lies in a comparison with the Science as originally presented.” (Robert Crosbie, “The Friendly Philosopher” p. 405-406)

“The Theosophical Movement is greater than any society or organization. . . . The Theosophical Society was founded by Masters as an organization for the promulgation of the Wisdom Religion. That organization has split into fragments. . . . Into each fragment of the original T. S., there have entered many attracted by the philosophy. The right or wrong of the splits does not affect them. In each fragment there must be those who are good and true disciples of Masters. As far as my knowledge goes, I would say that Masters are working in many ways, and through many organizations as well as with individuals. There are no barriers to Their assistance, except such as personalities impose upon themselves. Their work is universal; let our view be as much in that direction as possible. So shall we best serve and know.” (Robert Crosbie, “The Friendly Philosopher” p. 4-5)

“For the T. S. A. [i.e. Theosophical Society in America] impersonality means not to worship itself as an organization; to endeavor to get broader and freer; to merge itself, more and more, into the living spirit of the movement – its higher self; to neither despise itself because it is a form nor exalt itself because it has a soul; to become less doctrinal and more human.” (Robert Crosbie, “The Friendly Philosopher” p. 128; this particular passage was written by him in 1897, when still a member of “The Theosophical Society in America” which at that time was the name of the organisation led by Katherine Tingley, which later became the Point Loma Theosophical Society. These words can be carefully applied, however, to any Theosophical group or organisation.)

~ * ~

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. Some articles closely relating to this one are:

Robert Crosbie On The Best Approach To Other Theosophical Groups & Teachings, Universal Theosophy and Universal Theosophists, Making Theosophy, Living, Practical & Transformative, Theosophy Undefined?, Is Theosophy A Religion?, Who Was William Quan Judge?, The United Lodge of Theosophists, and Col. Olcott’s Disloyalty to H. P. Blavatsky (a useful article for understanding the origins of the attitudes described at the start of the present article in connection with “The Theosophical Society – Adyar”).

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~