Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00410)

Jan 26 2004

Dear Friends:


These past few days some have given their opinions on HPB before and
after death,. As well as on the changes if any in Theosophical
doctrines.

Let us be clear. THEOSOPHY is not only a statement of doctrines proven
and well established that anyone can prove to themselves, but it is also
a survey of the history of Manifestation, evolution and the development
of man as a thinker and an independent free-willer.  

It surveys the Laws of our Universe, our system and our world as found
in universal NATURE -- the actual and sole "DEITY" we live in and know
anything of (regardless of the Names that are given to IT ).

Here are some statements to be thought over.

Best wishes.

Dallas

-------------------------------------------

1

	 
"YOURS TILL DEATH AND AFTER, H.P.B."


Such has been the manner in which our beloved teacher and friend always
concluded her letters to me. And now, though we are all of us committing
to paper some account of that departed friend and teacher, I feel ever
near and ever potent the magic of that resistless power, as of a mighty
rushing river, which those who wholly trusted her always came to
understand. Fortunate indeed is that Karma which, for all the years
since I first met her, in 1875, has kept me faithful to the friend who,
masquerading under the outer mortal garment known as H. P. Blavatsky,
was ever faithful to me, ever kind, ever the teacher and the guide.

In 1874, in the City of New York, I first met H.P.B. in this life. By
her request, sent through Colonel H. S. Olcott, the call was made in her
rooms in Irving Place, when then, as afterwards, through the remainder
of her stormy career, she was surrounded by the anxious, the
intellectual, the bohemian, the rich and the poor. It was her eye that
attracted me, the eye of one whom I must have known in lives long passed
away. She looked at me in recognition at that first hour, and never
since has that look changed. Not as a questioner of philosophies did I
come before her, not as one groping in the dark for lights that schools
and fanciful theories had obscured, but as one who, wandering many
periods through the corridors of life, was seeking the friends who could
show where the designs for the work had been hidden. And true to the
call she responded, revealing the plans once again, and speaking no
words to explain, simply pointed them out and went on with the task. It
was if but the evening before we had parted, leaving yet to be done some
detail of a task taken up with one common end; it was teacher and pupil,
elder brother and younger, both bent on the one single end, but she with
the power and the knowledge that belong but to lions and sages. So,
friends from the first, I felt safe. Others I know have looked with
suspicion on an appearance they could not fathom, and though it is true
they adduce many proofs which, hugged to the breast, would damn sages
and gods, yet it is only through blindness they failed to see the lion's
glance, the diamond heart of H.P.B.

The entire space of this whole magazine would not suffice to enable me
to record the phenomena she performed for me through all these years,
nor would I wish to put them down. As she so often said, they prove
nothing, but only lead some souls to doubt and others to despair. And
again, I do not think they were done just for me, but only that in those
early days she was laying down the lines of force all over the land and
I, so fortunate, was at the centre of the energy and saw the play of
forces in visible phenomena. The explanation has been offered by some
too anxious friends that the earlier phenomena were mistakes in
judgment, attempted to be rectified in later years by confining their
area and limiting their number, but until some one shall produce in the
writing of H.P.B. her concurrence with that view, I shall hold to her
own explanation made in advance and never changed. That I have given
above. For many it is easier to take refuge behind a charge of bad
judgment than to understand the strange and powerful laws which control
in matters such as these.

Amid all the turmoil of her life, above the din produced by those who
charged her with deceit and fraud and others who defended, while month
after month, and year after year, witnessed men and women entering the
theosophical movement only to leave it soon with malignant phrases for
H.P.B., there stands a fact we all might imitate - devotion absolute to
her Master. "It was He," she writes, "who told me to devote myself to
this, and I will never disobey and never turn back."

In 1888 she wrote to me privately: -

"Well, my only friend, you ought to know better. Look into my life and
try to realize it - in its outer course at least, as the rest is hidden.
I am under the curse of ever writing, as the wandering Jew was under
that of being ever on the move, never stopping one moment to rest. Three
ordinary healthy persons could hardly do what I have to do. I live an
artificial life; I am an automaton running full steam until the power of
generating steam stops, and then - good-bye!...Night before last I was
shown a bird's-eye view of the Theosophical Societies. I saw a few
earnest reliable Theosophists in a death struggle with the world in
general, with other - nominal but ambitious - Theosophists. The former
are greater in numbers than you may think, and they prevailed, as you in
America will prevail, if you only remain staunch to the Master's
programme and true to yourselves. And last night I saw ... and now I
feel strong - such as I am in my body - and ready to fight for Theosophy
and the few true ones to my last breath. The defending forces have to be
judiciously - so scanty they are - distributed over the globe, wherever
Theosophy is struggling against the powers of darkness."

Such she ever was; devoted to Theosophy and the Society organized to
carry out a programme embracing the world in its scope. Willing in the
service of the cause to offer up hope, money, reputation, life itself,
provided the Society might be saved from every hurt, whether small or
great. And thus bound body, heart and soul to this entity called the
Theosophical Society, bound to protect it at all hazards, in face of
every loss, she often incurred the resentment of many who became her
friends but would not always care for the infant organization as she had
sworn to do. And when they acted as if opposed to the Society, her
instant opposition seemed to them to nullify professions of friendship.
Thus she had but few friends, for it required a keen insight, untinged
with personal feeling, to see even a small part of the real H. P.
Blavatsky.

But was her object merely to form a Society whose strength should lie in
numbers? No so. She worked under directors who, operating from behind
the scene, knew that the Theosophical Society was, and was to be, the
nucleus from which help might spread to all the people of the day,
without thanks and without acknowledgment. Once, in London, I asked her
what was the chance of drawing the people into the Society in view of
the enormous disproportion between the number of members and the
millions of Europe and America who neither knew of nor cared for it.
Leaning back in her chair, in which she was sitting before her writing
desk, she said: -

"When you consider and remember those days in 1875 and after, in which
you could not find any people interested in your thoughts, and now look
at the wide-spreading influence of theosophical ideas - however labeled
- it is not so bad. We are not working merely that people may call
themselves Theosophists, but that the doctrines we cherish may affect
and leaven the whole mind of this century. This alone can be
accomplished by a small earnest band of workers, who work for no human
reward, no earthly recognition, but who, supported and sustained by a
belief in that Universal Brotherhood of which our Masters are a part,
work steadily, faithfully, in understanding and putting forth for
consideration the doctrines of life and duty that have come down to us
from immemorial time. Falter not so long as a few devoted ones will work
to keep the nucleus existing. You were not directed to found and realise
a Universal Brotherhood, but to form the nucleus for one; for it is only
when the nucleus is formed that the accumulations can begin that will
end in future years, however far, in the formation of that body which we
have in view."

H.P.B. had a lion heart, and on the work traced out for her she had the
lion's grasp; let us, her friends, companions and disciples, sustain
ourselves in carrying out the designs laid down on the trestle-board, by
the memory of her devotion and the consciousness that behind her task
there stood, and still remain, those Elder Brothers who, above the
clatter and the din of our battle, ever see the end and direct the
forces distributed in array for the salvation of "that great orphan -
Humanity."

WILLIAM Q. JUDGE, F.T.S.
Lucifer, June, 1891
 
----------------------------------------------------------------

2


HOW SHE MUST LAUGH


SINCE the demise of H.P. Blavatsky's body, a little over a year ago,
mediums in various parts of the world have reported her "spirit" as
giving communications like what follows:

In Paris in May, 1891, that she objected to the cremation of her body
and had changed her views. Yes indeed, how her views must have changed!
Nota bene: this was from a Catholic medium.

In America in September, 1891, that she had absolutely changed all her
views and was now sincerely sorry she had promulgated Theosophy at all.
Again later, in the United States, that she desired to have
materializing and picture-daubing mediums represent her theories and her
teachers to the world, and to carry on her work.

About October, 1891, that her old ideas regarding "spooks" had altered,
and that now she wished it to be known as her teaching that the cast-off
astral remnants of a human being are in fact spirits, and may be taught
in the after life! And further, she is at present - presumably in
Kamaloka - desirous of seeing all her books burnt so that her old
teachings, now pernicious in her sight, may be forgotten as speedily as
possible.

Those who communicate these extraordinary reports from H.P.B. are not
accused by us of malice or any improper motive. The first "message" came
privately from one who had known her in life but whose views were always
quite in line with the message. The others represent the different
private opinions of the medium or clairvoyant reporting them. Such is
nearly always the case with these "spirit messages." They do, indeed,
come from psychic planes, and are not strictly the product of the
medium's normal brain. But they are the result of obscure thoughts of
the medium which color the astral atmosphere, and thus do no more than
copy the living. In one case, and that was the hugest joke of all, the
medium made a claim to at once step into H.P.B.'s shoes and be
acknowledged the leader of the Society!

How she must laugh! Unless mere death may change a sage into an idiot,
she is enjoying these jokes, for she had a keen sense of humor, and as
it is perfectly certain that Theosophists are not at all disturbed by
these "communications," her enjoyment of the fun is not embittered by
the idea that staunch old-time Theosophists are being troubled. But what
a fantastical world it is with its Materialists, Spiritualists,
Christians, Jews, and other barbarians, as well as the obscure
Theosophists!

PATH, July, 1892
 
----------------------------------------------------

3



"BLAVATSKIANISM" IN AND OUT OF SEASON

THEOSOPHISTS! let us consult together. Let us survey the army, the field
of battle, and the fighters. Let us examine our ways and our speech, so
that we may know what we are doing in this great affray which may last
for ages and in which every act has a future. What do we see? A
Theosophical Society struggling as a whole against the world. A few
devoted members struggling against the world and some opponents within
its ranks. A Society grown to its eighteenth year, after the expenditure
of much time and energy and fame by those who have been with it in
infancy, those who have come in from time to time, those who worked and
left it for this generation. It has its karma like any other body, for
it is a living thing and not a mere paper organization; and with that
karma is also woven the karma of the units composing it.

How does it 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.

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

The active workers may be again divided as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now it is charged in several quarters that we are dogmatic as a Society.
This is extremely easy of disproof as a fact, and some trouble has been
taken to disprove it. But is there not a danger that we might go too far
on this line, and by continuing the disproof too long increase the very
belief which we say is baseless? "The more proof offered the less
believed" is how often true. Our constitution is the supreme law. Its
being non-dogmatic is proof enough. Years of notification on almost
every document have prepared the proofs which every one can see. I would
seem that enough has been said on the subject of our non-dogmatism.

But the charge then is altered, and "dogmatism" is supplanted by
"Blavatskianism," and here the critics have a slight ground to stand on;
here is where a danger may exist and where the generals, the captains,
the whole army, should properly pay attention and be on their guard. In
the words and methods of the various classes of members above mentioned
is the cause for the charge. I am not directing any remarks to the
question whether members "believe in Blavatsky or not," for the charge
made is intended to imply that there is too much said about H.P.
Blavatsky as authority, as source, as guide, too little original
thinking, too much reliance on the words of a single person.

In the years that are gone, necessity existed for repelling mean
personal attacks on H.P. Blavatsky's character. To take up arms in her
behalf then was wise. Now her works remain. The necessity for constant
repulse of attacks on her does not exist. Judgment can be used in doing
so. Loyalty is not thrown to the winds when good judgment says there is
no need to reply. One of the best replies is to carry on the work in the
noble and altruistic spirit she always pointed out. Take, for instance,
the almost senile attacks periodically made by the Society for Psychical
Research. What good can be possibly accomplished by paying any attention
to them? None at all, except what results to that body by inflating it
with the idea that its shafts have hit a vulnerable spot. Ever since
their ex post facto agent went to India to play at psychical
investigation they have almost lived by their attacks, for by them, more
than anything else, they gain some attention; her personality, even to
this day, adds spice to their wide-of-the-mark discussions. Even at the
Chicago World's Congresses their discussions were mostly given up to
re-hashing the same stories, as if they were proud that, even though
they knew nothing of psychic law, they had at least discovered one human
being whose nature they could not fathom, and desired to for ever parade
her with the various labels their fancy suggested. But in districts or
new publications, where a new attack is made, good judgment may suggest
an answer bringing up the statement of charges and copiousness of former
answers. 

Now our work goes on in meetings, in publications, in discussions, and
here is where the old idea of repelling attack may run into an
unnecessary parade of the person to whom in heart we are loyal, while at
the same time the voluminousness of her writings is often an excuse for
not investigating for oneself, and this leads to quoting her too
frequently by name as authority.

She never claimed authority, but, contrariwise, disclaimed it. But few
of the theories broached by her were new to our day, albeit those are
the key-ideas. Yet these very key-ideas are not those on which the
quotations and personal references to her are made so often. She neither
invented, nor claimed as new, the doctrines of Karma, Reincarnation,
Devachan, Cycles, and the like. These are all exhaustively treated in
various literatures - Buddhistic, Jain, Brahmanical, Zoroastrian. They
are capable, like all theosophic doctrines, of independent examination,
of philosophical, logical, and analogical proof. But, if we state them
parrot-like, and then bring forward a quotation from H.P. Blavatsky to
prove them, has not an opponent, has not any one, member or non-member,
a right to say that the offending person is not doing independent
thinking, is not holding a belief after due consideration, but is merely
acting blindly on faith in matters where blind faith is not required?
And if many members do the same thing, it is quite natural that a cry
should be raised by some one of "Blavatskianism."

If this were an age in the West when any respect or reverence existed as
a general thing in the people, the sayings of a sage could be quoted as
authority. But it is not such an age. Reverence is paralyzed for a time,
and the words of a sage are of no moment as such. H.P. Blavatsky came in
this irreverent time, holding herself only as a messenger and indicator,
not as a sage pure and simple. 

Hence to merely quote her words out of due place will but arouse a
needless irritation. It may indicate in oneself a failure to think out
the problem independently, an absence of diligence in working out our
own salvation in the way directed by Gautama Buddha. What, then, are the
right times and places, and which are out of place and time?

When the assembly and the subject are both meant to deal with the life
and works of H.P. Blavatsky, then it is right and proper and wise to
speak of her and her works, her acts, and words. If one is dealing with
an analysis or compilation of her writings on any subject, then must she
and what she wrote be used, named and quoted. 

But even at those times her words should not be quoted as and for
authority, inasmuch as she said they were not. Those who consider them
to be authority will quickly enough accept them. As she never put
forward anything as original investigation of hers in the realm of
science, in the line of experiments in hypnotism, in clairvoyance,
mind-reading, or the like, we ought to be careful how and when we bring
her statements forward to an unbelieving public.

But in an assembly of members coming together to discuss theosophical
doctrines in general, say such as Karma, Reincarnation, the Septenary
Constitution, and the like, it is certainly unwise to give quotation
after quotation from H.P. Blavatsky's works on the matter in hand. 

This is not fair to the hearers, and it shows only a power of memory or
compilation that argues nothing as to the comprehension of the subject
on the reader's part. It is very easy to compile, to quote sentence
after sentence, to weave a long series of extracts together, but it is
not progress, nor independence, nor wisdom. On the other hand, it is a
complete nullification of the life-work of the one who has directed us
to the path; it is contrary to the spirit and genius of the Society. 

And if in such an assembly much time is given to recounting phenomena
performed by H.P.B., or telling how she once said this and at another
time did that, the time is out of joint with the remarks. Meetings of
branches are meant for giving to the members and enquirers a knowledge
of theosophical doctrines by which alone true progress is to come to our
movement. New and good members are constantly needed; they cannot be
fished out of the sea of enquirers by such a process as the personal
history of anyone, they cannot be retained by relations of matters that
do not teach them the true aim and philosophy of life, they will be
driven off if assailed with quotations.

If there is power in a grateful loyalty to H.P. Blavatsky, as for my
part I fully believe, it does not have its effect by being put forward
all the time, or so often as to be too noticeable, but from its depth,
its true basis, its wise foundation, its effect on our work, our act,
and thought. Hence to my mind there is no disloyalty in reserving the
mention of her name and qualities for right and timely occasions. It is
certain that as Theosophy brings forward no new system of ethics, but
only enforces the ethics always preached, the claim, if made, that our
ethics, our high endeavor, are to be found nowhere else described save
in the works left by H.P, Blavatsky, is baseless, will lead to wrong
conclusions, and bring up a reaction that no amount of argument can
suppress. No greater illustration of an old and world-wide religion can
be found than that provided by Buddhism, but what did Buddha say to his
disciples when they brought up the question of the honours to be paid to
his remains? He told them not to hinder themselves about it, not to
dwell on it, but to work out their own salvation with diligence

That the views held by H.P. Blavatsky herself coincided with this can be
seen by reading the pamphlet entitled The Theosophical Society and
H.P.B. being a reprint of articles that appeared in LUCIFER of December,
1890. She requested the reprint, and some of her notes are appended to
the articles. In those Bro. Patterson took somewhat the same ground as
this article, and she commended it in most positive terms.

William Q. Judge

Lucifer, December, 1893

1See the Mahâparinibbana Sutta. return


========================
DTB