Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00026)

THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE

by Geoffrey A. Farthing

[A Commentary on Annie Besant's and C.W. Leadbeater's Theosophical 
Contributions. This article was published in the May, 1997 issue of 
HIGH COUNTRY THEOSOPHIST and then reprinted in THEOSOPHY WORLD, June, 
1997.]

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Towards the end of the 19th century, even though their colleagues
in the 'Brotherhood' did not feel that the time was opportune,
i.e. that humanity generally had not progressed spiritually
enough even though a few may have done so, two Masters of the
Wisdom were allowed to make the attempt to make available to
mankind in general some of their occult knowledge concerning the
nature of existence and man's being. Up till then this had been
kept secret.

The Theosophical Society, founded in New York in 1875, was formed
originally as an association of people interested in spiritualism
and psychic phenomena. Its early objects reflected this but they
were soon to become, after a few changes, as they are now, with
an emphasis on brotherhood.

The Headquarters of the Society was removed to Bombay in 1880 and
then to Adyar in 1883. Although the Masters were emphatic that
the Society was not to be a school of Occultism or Magic and that
their sole purpose was to benefit mankind at large, they
nevertheless in various ways let it be known not only that they
were possessed of occult knowledge and power but that they were
able and willing to make some of it available to suitable
candidates.

This was to be done principally in the writings of H.P. 
Blavatsky, but some information was given directly by the two
Masters concerned in their letters to A.P. Sinnett.

Some of this knowledge was distinct from that contained in any
extant literature at the time, with the exception of some older
and/or obscure 'occult' writings. These were mostly
unintelligible without the necessary 'keys'.

It was claimed, however, that the knowledge contained in the new
outpouring was the source and origin of all philosophical and
religious knowledge, in its pure form. The old scriptures and
philosophical writings had been 'contaminated' by human
interpretation, additions and alterations. They had to a large
extent departed from the pure original and had distorted their
meanings.

The first major attempt at elucidation of this ancient knowledge
was the writing of ISIS UNVEILED by HPB published in 1877, a work
of enormous erudition in which 1,330 other works. some of great
rarity and antiquity were quoted from. It is known that several
Masters had a hand in it, providing HPB with much of the
information it contains.

This Ancient Wisdom was later more fully and specifically
described in THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT, from which he
wrote two books: THE OCCULT WORLD and later ESOTERIC BUDDHISM.

This latter, although by no means complete or wholly accurate, is
important as being the first systematic formulation, in outline,
of what was later to become known as Theosophy. The books were
published in 1884 and 1885. From 1875 onwards HPB's almost
continuous output of articles and letters contained aspects of
the teachings. These writings are now collected together and
edited in fourteen volumes of Collected Writings.

HPB was with the Theosophical Society in India for about two
years during which time her phenomena and contacts with the
Masters were amply demonstrated. A number of people, however,
even at Headquarters did not accept these manifestations as
genuine. Furthermore, the phenomena were completely beyond the
credence of the local church missionaries.

Some letters purporting to come from HPB addressed to members of
the staff at Adyar clearly gave the impression that HPB's
phenomena were based on deception. After a lengthy enquiry by an
investigator from the Society for Psychical Research who relied
much on adverse witnesses and a hand-writing expert he declared
HPB to be a fraud.

This was in a document adopted by the SPR which later became
known as the Hodgson Report. It has~been repudiated since by a
number of investigators, latterly even by the SPR. One tragic
outcome of the report was that HPB, who in any case at the time
was in poor health, was advised to leave Adyar.

After leaving India HPB traveled to England via Germany and
Belgium. During this time she was occupied as and when health
and other circumstances permitted, in writing THE SECRET DOCTRINE
which was published in 1888 in London.

This was her most important theosophical work. It is an
exposition of all of the Ancient Wisdom that the Masters were
then prepared to make public. It is an enormous work in which
1,100 other works are referred to and in which ancient (and
modern) religions and philosophies are explained and form a
background to an immense system of knowledge of the whole
universal scene and man in it.

HPB was miraculously kept alive by her Master on two or three
occasions of dire illness, to complete the work which was
followed two years later by THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY.

On a number of occasions it was stressed that HPB was the
Masters' sole agent. With her departure from Adyar their
influence there ceased. One consequence of this was that most of
their Chelas 'disappeared' (including Damodar who never returned
to the Society from Tibet).

We also have her positive statement that, should she for any
reason cease to act as the Masters' agent, there would be no more
contact with them (see M.L.136, 2nd and 3rd editions).

All this seems to have been forgotten or ignored later. A number
of people both within the Society and without, e.g. Alice
Bailey, later claimed to have contact with the Masters and to
have received communications from them.

These communications, some of them very copious and impressive,
were, however, received psychically or 'channeled': very
importantly they were all uncorroborated.

Communications through psychic mediums was not the method used by
the Masters. These facts, the nature of the message and the
special position of HPB, are of prime importance in the
consideration of what followed in the early 20th century, of the
present state of the Society and its successful launch into the
21st century.

ANNIE BESANT

In the latter years of HPB's life a significant event was that
Annie Besant was welcomed with open arms into the Theosophical
Society by HPB who saw in her an exceptional and able helper. 
She was later admitted to HPB's Inner Group of twelve.

A reference to Annie Besant in THE MAHATMA LETTERS indicates that
she was known to the Masters; however, there is no reference to
her ever becoming a chela, although she did receive in 1900 what
seems to be an authentic letter from the Masters. There is no
other evidence, apart from her own inferences, that she had any
contact with them.

Had Annie Besant been a chela her 'magnetization' by Chakravati,
ostensibly to 'align her principles', described in an eye witness
statement (1895) by Dr Archibald Keightly, would have severed any
relations she may have had with her Master.

After HPB's death Annie Besant let it be inferred, in assuming
the "Outer Headship" of the E.S., that she was in touch with the
Masters.

She also introduced Co-Masonry into England and associated it
with the Theosophical Society, which, however, had been founded
quite independently of any other organization. All international
Presidents since have, however, held high office as Co-Masons.

HPB expressly stated that 'we do not meddle in politics ...' yet
Annie Besant's prime interest in India was political.

This is not in any way to say that she did not do an immense
amount of good in establishing schools and colleges and altering
social practices, but these activities are not specifically
theosophical.

Politics aims to change systems for the benefit of people;
Theosophy aims to change people themselves for the long-term
benefit of humanity itself.

It is undeniable that in the early years of her membership of the
Society,` Annie Besant was a powerful voice in the cause of
Theosophy and its dissemination. This seems to have been
foreseen by HPB

However, from the time of her 'magnetization' by Chakravati, it
appears that, possibly still under his influence, she to a large
extent espoused Hinduism. This is evident in her later writings
to such a point that a major reference to Theosophy in the
Encyclopedia Britannica is under the heading of Hinduism.

Apart from Chakravati there is not much doubt that Annie Besant
was later also much influenced by C.W. Leadbeater. He obviously
prevailed upon her in the matter of the Liberal Catholic Church
and in the Krishnamurti incident.

C.W. LEADBEATER

CWL joined the Society in 1883. He did not, unlike Annie Besant
receive a welcome from HPB, nor was he admitted to her Inner
Group.

He was given some instruction by a regular chela at Adyar for a
period and developed his clairvoyance but there is no reference
that this relationship continued.

He did receive a reply to his early communication with the
Masters but there is no corroborative evidence that he ever had
any more contact with them after these introductory letters.

It also came to light that his veracity is much in question: his
statements, for example, about his age, his family in South
America, and his implying that he had been to Oxford as an
undergraduate were discovered later to be false.

In the light of what the Master K.H. said about God, religion
and the priestly caste in Mahatma Letter X, had Leadbeater been a
chela he could never have allied himself with the Liberal
Catholic Church and certainly he could never have allowed himself
to be made a Bishop and thereafter always dress as such. The
Masters had said "Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this
nightmare ... etc. " (A personal God of Theology) (M.L.X, 2nd
and 3rd editions).

This is important in the light of CWL's later claims of an
intimate and continued relationship with not only one but a
number of Masters, even up to the highest in the Hierarchy from
whom he claimed periodically to have received instruction in such
matters as the upbringing of Krishnamurti.

In the light of some of these supposed contacts e.g. Comte St
Germain, Jesus, etc. the association of the Liberal Catholic
Church with the Society was justified.

However, both the Church and the CoMasons were representative of
past dispensations. They both had their roots in ceremonial
magic, the practice of which HPB did not endorse on account of
the possible dangers involved. In a letter which Damodar wrote
to Sinnett, Masonry and Rosicrucianism were specifically
forbidden (M.L. Old Edition No. 142A, Chronological No. 14A).

During the founding of the Society it had been proposed that the
Society might become Masonic. This was specifically decided
against. Other behavior of the then leaders is also
questionable.

In view of HPB's sundry comments about Masonry (into which she
was admitted on account of her knowledge of it, but never
formally 'initiated'), having lost its secrets, how came it that
the Leaders of the Society not only espoused Co-Masonry but the
Egyptian Rite which CWL together with a colleague in Australia
had devised and which is still widely practiced by some members
in the E.S.?

KRISHNAMURTI

Krishnamurti was 'discovered' by CWL in 1909. After many
difficulties, including law suits, he and his brother were
brought up by the Society.

He was hailed as the future mouthpiece of the Lord Maitreya He
was even seen as a second coming of the Lord. He was unusually
gifted but it was CWL's 'insights' that initially established him
in his role. The Lord Maitreya himself is supposed to have
instructed CWL in his upbringing and training. He was brought
up and groomed in the fashion of an English gentleman, a far cry
from a Hindu 'Avatar'.

Those who had his upbringing and education in hand, notably CWL
and Dick Balfour-Clark, were very much second generation
theosophists. Krishnaji therefore probably never knew anything
of the HPB/Masters teachings.

It is also very doubtful whether Krishnaji himself ever had a
first-hand 'Master' experience although he did describe once
having seen three Masters in a vision. Had he had a real
experience, however, he could neither have forgotten it nor
thereafter have doubted their existence and later have repudiated
them.

Furthermore, as Krishnaji's teachings of freedom, self-reliance,
non-dependence on authority and institutions and so on, are all
virtually in proper accord with the 'Master' Theosophy, there
would not have been any reason for him to repudiate it, nor his
connection with the Society.

His loss was that he never became acquainted with the sea of
theosophical knowledge which would to a large extent not only
have justified his views but provided him with relevant data for
use in his teaching, e.g. the difference between the personality
and the individuality, the essential idea of Unity, and had he
been interested, the proper nature of the Self, the total cosmic
structure and processes.

His 'launching' was a reversion again, as in the case of the
Liberal Catholic Church and the Co-Masons, to the traditional old
dispensation of an authoritarian regime.

The second coming of the Christ was at that time (1920's) being
regarded as imminent whereas, according to the Masters and
theosophical teaching, such a 'second coming', i.e. the advent
of an Avatar, was not expected for millennia. In any case the
severance of the Society from the Masters made such a 'coming'
into it extraordinarily unlikely.

The arrogance of those who professed to be able to elect
Krishnaji's twelve disciples was an example of the distorted view
of themselves that those leaders had. Surely an 'Avatar' would
have been quite capable of electing his own disciples.

In any case in the nature of Karma his upbringing and earthly
surroundings would have all been in proper accord without the
interference of CWL. Many things are puzzling about Krishnaji's
upbringing: one was that from reports kitchen staff at Adyar were
changed because they were of the wrong caste. In a Society which
specifically allows no such distinctions this is hard to
understand.

The recognition of Krishnaji's spiritual development from a
clairvoyant examination of his aura when he was so young
undoubtedly demonstrated CWL's possession of that faculty but
this does not corroborate his claim to have received messages
from the 'King of the World'.

The 'finding' of Krishnaji, his upbringing and then adoption as a
vehicle for the Lord-Maitreya was virtually the culmination of
the 'split' from Master Theosophy.

Krishnaji's repudiation of this position was a serious blow to
Annie Besant who obviously believed absolutely sincerely in her
announcement of the New Coming. CWL's reaction to this
repudiation seems to have been more limited and far less painful
than Annie Besant's although he suffered a loss of stature that
he would otherwise have had as the finder, sponsor and educator
of this new divine vehicle.

After Krishnaji's withdrawal from the Society, Annie Besant also
suffered a gradual diminution in stature and thereafter her
health failed progressively.

SECOND GENERATION THEOSOPHY

The fact that neither Annie Besant nor CWL, after maybe one or
two initial incidents, was actually in touch with any Master
although they may have genuinely believed they were has serious
implications when considering what they said and did when they
assumed positions of authority.

The whole tenor of the Society thereafter was one of
make-believe! It became a pantomime, largely devised and
orchestrated by CWL: a fairy story, but with a thread of truth
running through it.

Except for passing references to HPB as 'our revered teacher',
her literature as such was seldom referred to or studied. There
was, however, a flood of literature purporting to be
'theosophical' from both Annie Besant and CWL, and later from
others.

CWL's writings were largely colored by his own real or imaginary
clairvoyant insights and his interpretations of them.

It is noteworthy here that, in the HPB/ Masters literature there
is very little reference to, and no diagrams of, the Chakras so
much featured by later writers. What little there is is in the
papers to the Inner Group (incorporated by Annie Besant into her
Vol III of the S.D. )

Whereas the Annie Besant and CWL literature can be criticized
from a purely theosophical point of view, much of -what Annie
Besant wrote was significant spiritual instruction. It was,
however, of the conventional, classical religious type, derived
largely from the Indian scriptures but with a Christian and a
'theosophical' flavor.

She had reviewed THE SECRET DOCTRINE at the time of its
publication; this must have made a lasting impression on her but
apart from acknowledging her debt to HPB, she seldom, if ever,
specifically referred back to its teaching, or to that in THE KEY
TO THEOSOPHY.

CWL seems never to have read either of these books. He puts
himself in a very false position as an 'occult' author in the
Introduction to his book THE ASTRAL PLANE where he says that his
manuscript was considered so excellent as an exposition that the
Masters wanted it for their archives.

It is difficult to see why this should be; much of the
information given us in the book is at variance with their
teaching and furthermore it is not clear, for example, which
'astral' plane he is describing, the HPB or the A.B./ CWL one,
the former being the 2nd plane of Nature and the latter being the
4th.

There is also no mention of the 'etheric double' in the
HPB/Masters classification of the human principles. It is to
this double that CWL ascribes many of the qualities that HPB
attributes to her astral body.

The changes of numbering of the principles where Kama (emotion,
desire) was put 2nd instead of 4th is important. An aid to the
understanding of THE SECRET DOCTRINE is analogy and
correspondences.

In the Masters' literature Kama as the 4th principle is
emphasized in the evolutionary stages of development in the 4th
Round, the 4th Race, the 4th Substance, not the 2nd.

One example of the extent to which the members of the
Theosophical Society, from senior members to the newest, were
'infected' by CWL is exemplified by Jinarajadasa's acceptance
of the fact that CWL's Astral Plane manuscript had in fact been
transmitted magically to the Masters.

Obviously also Jinarajadasa's statement that he, in common with
others, had had several initiations about which he knew nothing
except what CWL told him, again raises the question of CWL's
veracity.

As the years progressed the divergence between the HPB/Masters
teachings and the second generation Theosophy widened; even basic
information was changed, e.g. the introduction of the 'etheric
double' (with four 'etheric' states of physical matter), the
alterations to the classification of principles and planes, and
the CWL account of the after-death states which is quite
different from that of the Masters, etc.

The divergence of the two systems became clearly apparent with
the publication of the Mahatma Letters in 1924/5. It was
unfortunate that, for a number of reasons, their publication had
been delayed till then.

Apart from 'occult' material in them, these letters set a
background of specific purpose to the founding of the Society. 
This was closely related to the Masters being regarded as one
tier of membership in the Society, with their accepted Chelas as
a second and the ordinary members a third.

To begin with this was the case but it obviously ceased to be so
on HPB's death (if not before). An attempt to reintroduce it by
edict later was obviously spurious.

The Letters also describe in some detail the conditions that were
essential for a relationship between the Masters and their
Chelas. These conditions were very stringent, particularly
aregarding honesty and straightforwardness.

In the period after HPB's death and with the withdrawal of the
Masters once again into obscurity, instead of direct guidance
from or association with the Master, even if it were visiting him
in the Astral, the practice grew up of this being done indirectly.

For example, people were taken to the Masters in their astral
bodies for initiations etc., but about which next day they knew
nothing apart from what they were told. In one or two places the
Masters do say that this can happen in the matter of training but
not by proxy. Further, initiations are matters of enhancement of
waking consciousness and this can occur only when certain
conditions created necessarily by the pupil, not someone on his
behalf, have been met.

THE PRESENT

Regardless of the state of the Society, thanks to the Masters'
insistence and help, and the sacrifices of HPB, the world and
particularly the Society have a voluminous and authentic
Initiate-Master-inspired literature.

The Society itself is now a world-wide organization of an
idealistic and benevolent nature, inspired by the idea of
universal brotherhood, but the second and third objects are
interpreted very loosely and widely to include anything from
UFO's to what is generally extra- ordinary and sensational.

All this, however, against a background of what might be termed
'religion' or spirituality, mostly by way of, for example, the
Eastern exoteric scriptures and various ideas on Theosophy,
methods of yoga and meditation. There is also in some places a
strong adherence to the Liberal Catholic Church and Co-Masonry as
if they were indeed part of the theosophical movement.

In some places, notably Africa, the Theosophical Society is
identified with the Theosophical Order of Service. Charity is
impressed on every member through the brotherhood idea; there are
however hundreds of charitable organizations to work for and
there can be nothing special about the 'theosophical' one to
warrant its association with the Society.

Similarly the Round Table is an admirable organization but again
nothing in it is specifically theosophical.

Theosophical Science groups while keeping interested members
informed of current scientific matters have seldom if ever
related science to anything specifically associated therewith in
the classical theosophical literature. Because some scientific
members have found faults and inconsistencies in 'scientific'
statements in the literature they have abandoned the whole grand
theosophical system, demonstrating at least a lack of a sense of
proportion.

Where older Lodges have survived, and in Section central
libraries, books on Theosophy on display or listed in catalogues,
are mostly those of the second generation writers. Their
contents on the whole are taken to be Theosophy without question.

A few individuals try to correct this situation but their
influence generally is very small. Only a scattered and
desultory interest is paid to the classical 'theosophical
literature of the HPB/ Masters era. The idea is widespread that
the jealously guarded freedom of thought of members can mean that
anyone's views or opinions about 'theosophy' can be put out as
such.

This was certainly the case in the early days of the 20th
century. It was almost vehemently stressed then that there was
no such thing as a definite 'theosophical' system of thought,
knowledge or teaching. The great fear was of 'dogmatism'.

This word, however, was, and still is in places, wrongly applied. 
A dogma means an obligatory belief and no such thing is imposed
on Theosophical Society members. This does not mean that there
are not authoritative statements of fact such as those given us
by the Masters, who claim to know what they speak or write about,
i.e. they are not speculating, voicing opinions or advancing
theories.

All beliefs concerning Theosophy and the Theosophical Society
ought seriously to be questioned against what can easily be
discovered of the original teachings and intentions for the
Society. A serious perusal of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY will do this.

What is said above about 'make-believe' in the Society also
applies to the E.S. The implied connection of it with the
Masters through the Outer Head is an example. There is in fact
no such connection.

Furthermore, the implication by secrecy, or even privacy, that it
possesses some esoteric knowledge which it can impart to members
is also 'make-believe'. It makes an appeal to would-be aspirants
to chelaship and imposes some preliminary disciplines but omits
the necessity for hard work in studying and assimilating the
eternal verities of Theosophy as given by the Masters.

THE FUTURE

First the Adyar Society must take an honest look, fearlessly, at
the present position against the background outlined above.

Loyalties to past leaders, to their personal influence and their
teachings, must become secondary issues. This means an
acknowledgment that all that happened to the Society as a result
of C.W. Leadbeater's influence on it, directly or indirectly,
his influence on Annie Besant and his enduring influence by way
of his writings, is suspect. It must be recognized that these
writings are 'theosophically' defective and misleading.

Annie Besant's influence, by reason of her long term as
President, must also be very objectively assessed. Whatever her
personal integrity she was obviously misled and mistaken, witness
the Krishnamurti fiasco, her espousal of Co-Masonry as part of
the Theosophical Society and her handling of the Judge 'case'
with its disastrous results.

For most members a change of mind or basic beliefs will at best
be painful and at worst difficult if not impossible. This means
that only a section of the existing membership can, in the first
instance at any rate, be expected to make any radical change, and
this section will necessarily include E.S. members who will
obviously have their loyalties but they will also presumably have
acquired some self-reliance and have learned to think
independently.

Some members already have or will have difficulty with the
question of their membership of the Liberal Catholic Church and
CoMasonry in the light of their longstanding association with the
Society. Many of these institutions have in fact been regarded
as 'theosophical', even theosophy itself.

However, it is necessary that the Society should formally declare
that henceforth neither of them is really any part of, or has any
special association with, the Theosophical Society.

This does not mean that members are not free to join the Liberal
Catholic or any other Church, or become Masons or members of any
other institution they wish, provided that they are not inimical
or antithetical to Theosophy, and still be members of the
Society.

The Society has its own special message to promulgate. This
message only exists in the writings of HPB and in the Mahatma
Letters. This message in its completeness (as far as it was
given out) is unique.

The future direction of the Society must therefore include:

1) The eradication of the 'make-believe' Leadbeater influence -
in all departments including literature, and severance from the
Society of all other organizations, i.e. the Liberal Catholic
Church and Co-Masonry.

2) A thorough examination of all literature purporting to be
'theosophical', and a brave declaration, and no further
promotion, of any which is not wholly consonant with the original
teachings. This is no proscription but all books purporting to
be theosophical which strictly are not should be clearly labeled
or marked that they are the author's views on the subject and not
necessarily authentic. Members are, of course, free to read what
they like but they can be warned, if not guided. The section in
any Theosophical Society library purporting to be theosophical
literature should be segregated from other material offered, be
clearly marked and the books given prominence on book lists,
catalogues, etc.

3) The retention and promotion of the three objects of the
Society plus an active promotion of~Theosophy as given by the
Masters

4) At all Theosophical Society Centers, Headquarters, etc., there
should be someone qualified to discuss Theosophy, say what it is,
and recommend books to enquirers. This service should as far as
possible be available at all times or a notice displayed as to
where it can be obtained.

5) Commercialism in any form, i.e. book selling or publication
as such, without specific reference to the promotion of a
knowledge of Theosophy, is not part of the legitimate activities
of the Society. 'Fringe' literature can be obtained in ordinary
bookshops or from other organizations, e.g. the Arcane School,
the Anthroposophical Society, etc. This recommendation is made
with our second object specifically in mind. Study of
comparative religion is encouraged by the Society but it does not
have to publish or supply the books.

6) Professionalism in the society should be examined. Whereas
'goods and services' must obviously be paid for, Theosophy as
such cannot be sold. Should exponents be paid? If so, to what
extent?

7) Serious study of the 'prime' literature, whatever else is done
in Lodges, at Centers, etc., should be encouraged and all
facilities provided. Facilities should be provided for
meditation - quiet and solitude if possible. Meditation should,
however, be 'theosophical', i.e. classical (Patanjali), HPB
Diagram, or just silence, not according to local gurus and
amateurs with 'special' methods, and NEVER for money.

8) The Society will obviously need a group of students dedicated
to the study of the literature and to the dissemination of what
they discover both in the writings, and in themselves, as they
progress. This can be supplied by some of the existing members
of the E.S. At present there are no 'esoteric' leaders or
teachers in the Society; it will therefore in this respect have
to 'lift itself up by its own boot-laces' as the expression has
it.

There is no justification for secrecy within the E.S. or the
Society but on occasion private members meetings could be
efficacious for discussion, exchange of information, mutual
encouragement, etc. There is obviously now no corporate
connection with the Masters so that that 'make-believe' can be
dispensed with. The E.S. study should be confined to the Master
or HPB writings. The Society has no other Initiate-inspired
literature.

Where the E.S. members feel they need inspirational literature
apart from books like THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, LIGHT ON THE PATH
and some of the classical mystical works like THE BHAGAVAD GITA,
as this is a personal matter they should be free to discover
their own. Discrimination as to what is consonant with
theosophical teachings will grow. Let students beware of
self-styled teachers and of themselves posing as such. They will
know when they really are qualified - they will have been
'authorized'. Let none pretend.

9) The Society's relation to 'computerization', the Internet,
etc., needs serious examination and Sections given guidelines.

ABOUT THEOSOPHY

HPB used the words Occultism, Esotericism, Esoteric Science,
etc., as synonymous with Theosophy. In THE SECRET DOCTRINE she
states several times that some of the teaching given there had
never been made public before. These statements indicate that
the teachings included more material than was contained in any
published religious or philosophic literature.

This distinction has been almost entirely overlooked. The great
Hindu scriptures have been taken virtually to be Theosophy. 
Initiated Brahmins know this is not the case but they keep their
esoteric knowledge to themselves.

This was the position when HPB made some of that knowledge
public: it was much resented even -by Subba Rao whose Master
incidentally was the same as HPB's. All extant scriptures are
exoteric even though in their mystical content they reflect much
of what is in Theosophy.

Such treatises as THE BHAGAVAD GITA, the Puranas, many Sufi
writings and other world acknowledged scriptural writings are
beautiful and inspiring, potentially capable of leading aspirants
on to the highest experiences.

Neither they nor Hinduism nor Buddhism, in their published form,
are 'esoteric', nor of course is the now published THE SECRET
DOCTRINE except that its prolonged study changes our modes of
thinking and understanding, giving us insights we could otherwise
not get.

What do the theosophical writings include that others do not?
While the differences might appear superficial in themselves, in
their totality they are not.

For example, the Hindu system is fivefold, as far as the human
principles and the skandhas are concerned, whereas the
theosophical system is sevenfold. The planes of Nature are
sevenfold, with each having a corresponding level of
consciousness.

In Theosophy Karma is a comprehensive Law applying universally,
not just to human beings by way of reward or retribution. 
Theosophy contains the vast evolutionary scheme by Chains,
Globes, Rounds and Races which process by analogy applies to all
manifest things, e.g. all those 'things' comprising the kingdoms
of Nature. Incidentally, properly there are no 'things'; every
'thing' is a life.

Some 'esoteric' systems of the past, notably the original Kabala,
had reflections, in some instances almost exact, of the
theosophical scheme, but they were neither so comprehensive nor
so explicit. In THE SECRET DOCTRINE for example, HPB relates
much of the theosophical teaching to the principal world
religions and explains much of their symbolism and practices.

Some of this is also dealt with in ISIS UNVEILED wherein the
student can find exciting insights and many explanations of even
obscure ancient writings. It is a mine of information leading up
to the comprehensive and relatively systematized exposition in
THE SECRET DOCTRINE of as much of the Ancient Wisdom as could be
published then.

All this knowledge was in addition to that of the 'mystical'
information and teachings in exoteric literature. The outpouring
of information and teaching given in THE SECRET DOCTRINE pushed
forward the boundaries of knowledge several steps beyond what was
then otherwise available to the layman.

To a very large extent this has been ignored by the world and
much more sadly even by the majority of members of the
Theosophical Society, who according to THE KEY have the special
responsibility "of letting it be known that such a thing as
Theosophy exists". They cannot possibly do that if they
themselves do not know what it is.

The Maha Chohan uses the expression "to popularize a knowledge of
Theosophy". Where this has been heeded at all it has been taken
to mean the rendering of the vast and erudite teachings of
Theosophy into a form suitable for assimilation by the general
populace.

Quite obviously this cannot be done and any attempt to do so must
at least oversimplify the grand concepts and at worst dilute them
until their profundity and inner meaning is completely lost. 
Such an attempt to 'popularize' Theosophy in this way, to make it
appeal to people who otherwise cannot comprehend it, is virtual
sacrilege.

This, however, is a tactic used to increase membership of the
Society. The Society's three objects are popular, for anybody to
subscribe to, but apart from letting it be known as widely as
possible that it exists, Theosophy itself cannot be popularized.

This is something that has to be accepted when considering the
future of the Society. We must never forget the nature of the
original writings. No attempt was made even in THE KEY TO
THEOSOPHY, to 'simplify' or 'dilute' the subject matter. They
were written to appeal to the 'highest minds', who in turn, as
far as possible, would disseminate their content to others, i.e
the grand ideas would percolate down and so influence all
society.

A consequence of the virtual substitution of the original
literature by that of the second generation writers has meant
that there has been very little follow-up material in the
HPB/Masters vein. There is, however, enough to introduce the
subject to intending students.

To comprehend Theosophy one has to make a serious and prolonged
effort. In Bowen's Notes "Madame Blavatsky on How to Study
Theosophy", HPB explained to him, "This mode of thinking is what
the Indians call Jnana Yoga" and then mentioned the likely
experiences that may arise.

But nothing can happen without the effort. The Theosophical
Society was founded at the instigation of the Masters with a
sublime object in view: the salvation of the whole human race by
a 'popularization' of their teachings. Surely we can attempt to
do this to the limit of our capacity. Let us try!