Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00446)

Thursday, January 29, 2004


Re: T S History -- a correction

Where is the H Q of the T S ?


Dear Friends:

I find a posting that reads in part: “an article by Blavatsky written
in Bombay in 1879 - the year when the Theosophical Society's
headquarters was transferred to India,”

Allow me to make a correction in fact of this view of T S history.

The H Q of the T S was never formally by Resolution "transferred" out of
New York . The Minute Books of the original T S are with the T S in A
in Pasadena, and they verify this as I have seen them.

Col. Olcott and HPB went to India in 1878, arriving in Bombay in 1879. 

The Resolution recorded in the T S Minute Book was that they were
constituted a "Delegation."  

The T S had at that time proposed to affiliate itself with the ARYA
SAMAJ [Assembly of the Nobles] movement of Pandit Dayanand Saraswati.
They went to India and one of their objects was to cement this
affiliation. It did not succeed because of Dayanand's insistence on
absolute authority -- and therefore, complete obedience to his rules and
decisions.

The freedom of the members of the T S being impugned, it was not
possible for the "Delegation" to ratify the proposed affiliation. It
was therefore abandoned and instead, it was decided to establish a
Branch of the T S first in Bombay. Later many more Branches were
established all over India. An Indian HQ became necessary. The Adyar
property was bought with funds provided by Col. Olcott and HPB. Details
of these matters will be found recorded in the early volumes of the
THEOSOPHIST. They are also summarized in the book: The THEOSOPHICAL
MOVEMENT (1875-1950).

Col. Olcott, when in India declared that the H Q was wherever he was
encamped. This was the basis on which thereafter matters were
conducted. It is called legally: a “de facto” decision. Whereas: “de
jure,” the T S as a Society never left the shores of America, its
birthplace. And its HQ remained in New York.

The SEAL of the T S was changed in India, and then adopted generally as
mentioned.

We may also take note of a judicial contribution made as to the legal
nature of the T S (reprinted from The KEY TO THEOSOPHY :

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


LEGAL STATUS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY 
Key. p. 309-10



THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.


The following Official Report, on which was granted a Decree of In to
the St. Louis Theosophical Society, is art important document, as
putting on record the view taken of the Theosophical Society—after a
careful examination of witnesses on oath—by an American Court of Law.
 
First—The petitioner is not a religious body, I report this negative
finding for the reason that the word “Theosophical” contained in
petitioners’ name conveys a possible religious implication. 

The statutory phrase “society formed for religious purposes” applies, I
suppose, only to an organization formed in part for worship, worship
being an individual act involving adoration and perhaps emotional power,
both being of necessity individual acts, or else to an organization
formed for a propagation of a religious faith. 

Merely to teach a religion as one may teach algebra, is not, I think, a
religions work, as the word “religious” is used in the Statute and the
Constitution. A man may occupy a collegiate chair of Professor of
Religions and as such teach the tenets of many religions. These
different religions being variant and antagonistic, the Professor could
not by any possibility worship under all. Nay, he might even be
irreligious. Hence, merely teaching religions is not a religions work in
the statutory sense. 

It will be noted that in art. 2 of this society’s constitution, the word
religion is used in the plural. To teach religions is educational, not
religious. “To promote the study of religions” is in part to promote the
study of the history of man. I add the subordinate finding that the
society has no religious creed and practices no worship. 

Second—The petitioner proposes to promote the study of literature and
sciences. These objects are expressly within the terms of the Statute. 

Third—Cognate with the last object is that of investigating
“unexplained laws of nature and psychical powers latent in man.” These
two phrases, taken in their apparent meaning, are unobjectionable. But
there is reason to believe that they form a meaning other than the
apparent one. 

The court will take notice of the commonly accepted meaning of the word
“Theosophy.” Though I am ignorant of Theosophy, I think it is supposed
to include among other things manifestations and phenomena, physical and
psychical, that are violative of the laws now known by physicists and
metaphysicians, and perhaps not explained or claimed to be explained or
understood even by Theosophists themselves. 

In this group may be included Spiritualism, mesmerism, clairvoyance,
mind-healing, mind-reading, and the like. I took testimony on this
question, and found that while a belief in any one of these sorts of
manifestations and phenomena is not required, while each member of the
society is at liberty to hold his own opinion, yet such questions form
topics of inquiry and discussion, and the members as a mass are probably
believers individually in phenomena that are abnormal and in powers that
are superhuman as far as science now knows. 

It is undoubtedly the right of any citizen to hold whatever opinions he
pleases on these subjects, and to endeavour at his pleasure to
investigate the unexplained and to display the latent. 

But the question here is: Shall the Court grant a franchise in aid of
such endeavour? 

Voodooism is a word applied to the practices of guileful men among the
ignorant and superstitious who inflict impostures upon guileless men
among the ignorant and superstitious. No Court would grant a franchise
in furtherance of such practices. 

The Court then will stop to inquire into the practices and perhaps the
reputableness of the enterprise which seeks judicial aid. I am not
meaning to make a comparison between voodooism and this group of
phenomena which for convenience (though I know not whether accurately) I
will call occultism. I only take voodooism as a strong case to show the
Court ought to inquire. 

If we now inquire into occultism we shall find that it has been
occasionally used, as is reported, for the purposes of imposture. But
this goes for nothing against its essential character. Always and
everywhere bad men will make a bad use of anything for selfish ends. 

The object of this society, whether attainable or not, is undeniably
laudable, assuming that there are physical and psychical phenomena
unexplained, and that Theosophy seeks to explain them. Assuming that
there are human powers yet latent, it seeks to discover them. It may be
that absurdities and impostures are in fact incident to the nascent
stage of its development. 

As to an understanding like that of occultism, which asserts powers
commonly thought superhuman, and phenomena commonly thought
supernatural, it seemed to me that the Court, though not assuming to
determine judicially the question of their verity, would, before
granting to occultism a franchise, inquire whether at least it had
gained the position of being reputable or whether its adherents were
merely men of narrow intelligence, mean intellect, and omnivorous
credulity. 

I accordingly took testimony on that point, and find that a number of
gentlemen in different countries of Europe, and also in this country,
eminent in science, are believers in occultism. Sir Edward Bulwer
Lytton, a writer of large and varied learning, and of solid intellect,
is asserted to have been an occultist, an assertion countenanced by at
least two of his books. 

The late President Wayland, of Brown University, writing of abnormal
mental operations as shown in clairvoyance, says: “The subject seems to
me well worthy of the most searching and candid examination. It is by no
means deserving of ridicule, but demands the attention of the most
philosophical inquiry.” 

Sir William Hamilton, probably the most acute and, undeniably, the most
learned of English metaphysicians that ever lived, said at least thirty
years ago: “However astonishing, it is now proved beyond all rational
doubt that in certain abnormal states of the nervous organism
perceptions are possible through other than the ordinary channels of the
senses.” 

By such testimony Theosophy is at least placed on the footing of
respectability. Whether by further labour it can make partial truths
complete truths, whether it can eliminate extravagances and purge itself
of impurities, if there are any, are probably questions upon which the
Court will not feel called upon to pass. 

I perceive no other feature of the petitioners’ constitution that is
obnoxious to legal objection, and accordingly I have the honour to
report that I show no cause why the prayer of the petitioners should not
be granted.
AUGUST W. ALEXANDER,
Amicus Curæ.

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

2

On Autonomy


[ The following quotations deserve their place here in view of the
assertion still made in the T S, Adyar that The American Theosophists
and Mr. W.Q.Judge "seceded" from the T.S. --DTB ]


A 1893 Letter from Col. Olcott

Mr. A.E.S. Smythe, President TS in Canada, wrote the Editors of
Theosophy [ reported on p. 11 of the March 15th issue of Canadian
Theosophist, for 1923, Vol. 4, # 1 ] quoting a letter addressed in 1893
by Col. Olcott, P.T.S. to Mr. Judge in which he read the following :


"If you want separate Theosophical Societies made out of the 	
Sections, have them by all means. I offered this years ago 	
to H.P.B. and even to A.P.S." [ from: Olcott, P T S ]


In the CANADIAN THEOSOPHIST, Vol. X, July 1929, pp 156-7  

Mr. A.E.S.Smythe, President wrote:


"The splitting of the Society was the act of Colonel Olcott who hated
Judge. Judge had expected that the Colonel would recognize the
autonomous T.S. in America and affiliate it with Adyar, but Olcott
changed his mind and refused to do this, and Judge...was much
disappointed with the Colonel's refusal. I was in the office at 144
Madison Avenue when Judge received a letter from Olcott postmarked and
stamped from Spain, and Judge remarked 'Now everything will be all
right.' But the letter was not what Judge expected and his
disappointment was very obvious. This phase of the situation has never
been explained, and I have never been able to learn whether Judge
counted with warrant on Olcott's support, or whether it was really a
right-about-face on Olcott's part, for Judge certainly expected Olcott
to support him. Judge had collected $ 17,000.00 in America and sent it
to Olcott when the Adyar treasurer embezzled that amount...Judge and
Besant were all right till H.P.B. died and we can honour and depend upon
them up till that point. After May 8, 1891 we have had to depend upon
ourselves and should be charitable to our neighbours. -- A. E. S.
Smythe. "


[ From HPB: "Why I do not Return to India" -- letter 

	
April, 1890
"...the name alone of the holy Masters...has wrought a mighty change for
the better in your land [India]...so long as I remained at Adyar, things
went on smoothly enough, because one or other of the Masters was almost
constantly present among us, and their spirit ever protected the T.S.
from real harm...[1884] It was during that time and Colonel Olcott's
absence in Burma, that the seeds of all future strifes,
and...disintegration of the T.S., were planned by our enemies...(110) I
say, at that critical moment, if the members of the Society, and
especially its leaders at Adyar, Hindu and European, had stood together
as one man, firm in their conviction of the reality and power of the
Masters, Theosophy would have come out more triumphantly than ever, and
none of their fears would have ever been realized...In spite of my
protests, I was hurried away from Headquarters...and immediately
intrigues and rumors began...it was rumored that I had been abandoned by
the Masters, been disloyal to Them...I was accused of being, at best, a
hallucinated medium, who had mistaken "spooks" for living
Masters...others declared that the real H.P.Blavatsky was dead...and
that the form had been forthwith seized upon by a Dugpa Chela...I was a
witch, a sorceress...In fact the powers of psychology attributed to me
by my enemies...are so great that they alone would have made of me a
most remarkable Adept--independently of any Masters or Mahatmas. (111)
with the exception of Colonel Olcott, everyone seemed to banish the
Masters from their thoughts and Their spirit from Adyar...since my
departure...the activity of the movement there gradually
slackened...(112)
 
Acting under Master's orders I began a new movement in the West on the
original lines; I founded Lucifer, and the Lodge which bears my
name...I learned that I was once more wanted in India--at any rate by
some. But the invitation came too late; neither would my doctor permit
it, nor can I, if I would remain true to my life-pledge and vows, now
live at the Headquarters from which the Masters and Their spirit are
virtually banished. The presence of Their portraits will not help;
They are a dead letter...no advice of mine on occult lines seems likely
to be accepted, as the fact of my relations with the Masters is doubted,
even totally denied by some...the spread of Theosophy and of the T.S. in
the West, during the last three years, has been extraordinary...I was
enabled and encouraged by the devotion of an ever increasing number of
members to the Cause and to Those who guide it, to establish an Esoteric
Section, in which I can teach something of what I have learned to those
who have confidence in me, and who prove this by their disinterested
work for Theosophy and the T.S. (113) The only claim, therefore, which
India could ever have upon me would be strong only in proportion to the
activity of the Fellows there for Theosophy and their loyalty to the
Masters.

Thenceforth let it be clearly understood that the rest of my life is
devoted only to those who believe in the Masters, and are willing to
work for Theosophy as They understand it, and for the T.S. on the lines
upon which They originally established it.
-- HPB "Why I do not Return to India,"

[ This letter from HPB was written and sent with B. Keightley, April
1890. Published in Theosophist, January 1922.	HPB Articles I pp 108 -
114 ]


"...the Esoteric Section has nothing whatever to do with the T.S., its
Council or officers. It is a Section entirely apart from the exoteric
body, and independent of it. H.P.B. alone being responsible for its
members...the E.S. as a body, owes no allegiance whatever to the T.S.,
as a Society, least of all to Adyar...H.P.B. is loyal to the death to
the Theosophical CAUSE, and those great Teachers whose philosophy can
alone bind the whole of Humanity into one Brotherhood...Therefore the
degree of her sympathies with the "T.S. and Adyar" depends upon the
degree of the loyalty of that Society to the CAUSE. Let it break away
from the original lines and show disloyalty in its policy to the CAUSE
and the original programme of the Society, and H.P.B. calling the T.S.
disloyal, will shake it off like dust from her feet.

And what does "loyalty to Adyar" mean, in the name of all wonders? What
is Adyar, apart from that CAUSE and the two (not one Founder) who
represent it ? ...
 
There is no longer a "Parent Society;" it is abolished and replaced by
an aggregate body of Theosophical societies, all autonomous, as are the
States of America, and all under one Head President, who, together with
H.P.Blavatsky, will champion the Cause against the whole world. Such is
the real state of things...a Council which is liable at any moment to
issue silly and untheosophical ukases...in a Society which owes its life
to them [she and Col. Olcott], and for which they are both karmically
responsible...she will ever protest against the decision of the General
Council, were it composed of Archangels and Dhyan Chohans themselves, if
their decisions seem to her unjust or untheosophical, or fails to meet
with the approval of the majority of the Fellows. No more than
H.P.Blavatsky has the President Founder the right to exercise autocracy
or papal powers...It is the two Founders and especially the President,
who have virtually sworn allegiance to the Fellows, whom they have to
protect, and teach those who want to be taught, and not to tyrannize and
rule over them."	
-- H P B "A Puzzle from Adyar" Lucif, Aug. 1889
HPB Articles I 219-220


"...Sections and Branches like the "London Lodge" and others which are
autonomous...Is not the Blavatsky Lodge, like the London, Dublin, or any
other "Lodge," a branch of, and a Theosophical Society ?"
HPB Articles I 221



=====================================


I hope this may prove use.

Best wishes, 




Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: Mor
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:48 AM
To: 
Subject: Manas and Blavatsky on the Christian Massmedia...

Hallo all,

My views are:


It could be of value to consider the following, when we talk about Manas
and its development.

It is an article by Blavatsky written in Bombay in 1879 - the year when
the Theosophical Society's headquarters was transferred to India, - and
the Seal of the Society changed. The AUM symbol was added to it as well
as the Motto: "There is no Religion higher than Truth".

The article is to me important because it is related to an issue, which
is even more important today.
It is the issue of the Mass-medias and the various religious groups
influence upon them. 


Today some of them act in a less visible and more "intelligent" manner
to promote a certain cultural lifestyle supported by a Christian
element, no matter how poisoness such a dogmatic element is, - even if
it be an eternal hell. 


Well that is my view. And Blavatsky shows a sort of similar view in her
article, although it is somewhat old.
"Not A Christian"! 

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

Before entering upon the main question that compels me to ask
you kindly to accord me space in your esteemed paper, will you inform me
as to the nature of that newly-born infant prodigy which calls itself
The Bombay Review? Is it a bigoted, sectarian organ of the Christians,
or an impartial journal, fair to all, and unprejudiced as every
respectable paper styling itself "Review" ought to be, especially in a
place like Bombay, where such a diversity of religious opinions is to be
found? The two paragraphs in the number of February 22nd, which so
honour the Theosophical Society by a double notice of its American
members, would force me to incline toward the former opinion. Both the
editorial which attacks my esteemed friend, Miss Bates, and the
apocalyptic vision of the modern Ezekiel, alias "Anthropologist," who
shoots his rather blunt arrows at Col. Olcott, require an answer, if it
were but to show the advisability of using sharper darts against
Theosophists. Leaving the seer to his prophetic dream of langoutis and
cow-dung, I will simply review the editorial of this Review which tries
to be at the same time satirical and severe and succeeds only in being
nonsensical. Quoting from another paper a sentence relating to Miss
Bates, which describes her as "not a Christian," it remarks in that
bitter and selfish spirit of arrogance and would-be superiority, which
so characterizes Christian sectarianism:

The public might have been spared the sight of the
italicized personal explanations.

What "public" may I ask? The majority of the intelligent and
reading public - especially of native papers - in Bombay as throughout
India is, we believe, composed of non-Christians - of Parsîs, Hindûs,
etc. And this public instead of resenting such "wanton aggressiveness,"
as the writer pleases to call it, can but rejoice to find at least one
European lady, who, at the same time that she is not a Christian, is
quite ready, as a Theosophist, to call any respectable "heathen" her
brother, and regard him with at least as much sympathy as she does a
Christian. But this unfortunate thrust at Theosophy is explained by what
follows:

In the young lady's own interest the insult ought not to
have been flung into the teeth of the Christian public.

Without taking into consideration the old and wise axiom, that
honesty is the best policy, we can only regret for our Christian
opponents that they should so soon "unveil" their cunning policy. While
in the eyes of every honest "heathen" Theosophist, there can be no
higher recommendation for a person than to have the reputation of being
truthful even at the expense of his or her "interest," our Christian
Review unwittingly exposes the concealed rope of the mission machinery,
by admitting that it is in the interest of every person here, at least -
to appear a Christian or a possible convert, if he is not one de facto.
We feel really very, very grateful to the Review for such a timely and
generous confession. The writer's defence of the 'public" for which it
speaks as one having authority is no less vague and unsatisfactory, as
we all know that among the 240,000,000 of native population in India,
Christians count but as a drop in an ocean. Or is it possible that no
other public but the Christian is held worthy of the name or even of
consideration? Had converted Brâhmans arrived here instead of
Theosophists, and one of these announced his profession of faith by
italicizing the words, not a heathen, we doubt whether the fear of
hurting the feelings of many millions of Hindus would have ever entered
the mind of our caustic paragraphist!

Nor do we find the sentence, "India owes too much to
Christianity," anything but arrogant and presumptuous talk. India owes
much and everything to the British Government, which protects its
heathen subjects equally with those of English birth, and would no more
allow the one class to insult the other than it would revive the
Inquisition. India owes to Great Britain its educational system, its
slow but sure progress, and its security from the aggression of other
nations; to Christianity it owes nothing. And yet perhaps I am mistaken,
and ought to have made one exception. India owes to Christianity its
mutiny of 1857, which threw it back for a century. This we assert on the
authority of general opinion and of Sir John Kay, who declares, in his
Sepoy War, that the mutiny resulted from the intolerance of the
crusading missions and the silly talk of the Friend of India.

I have done; adding but one more word of advice to the Review.
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, when the latest
international revision of the Bible - that infallible and revealed Word
of God! - reveals 64,000 mistranslations and other mistakes, it is not
the Theosophists - a large number of whose members are English patriots
and men of learning - but rather the Christians who ought to beware of
"wanton aggressiveness" against people of other creeds. Their boomerangs
may fly back from some unexpected parabola and hit the throwers.


[From the Indian Spectator.]
Bombay, Feb. 25th, 1879 
H. P. Blavatsky 

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



The fact that Blavatsky considered the Newspapers important and
that she died when in juridical dispute with one of them - aught not to
be just ignored, but rather taken to Heart !

And with our present year 2004 world situation, one should
underestimate the people behind different Newspapers and the newer tools
Television and including Web-TV and Web-papers are capeable of creating.

CUT