Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00433)

July 28 2004

Re: Theosophical orthodoxy and FREEDOM


Dear Friends:

Here is what HPB wrote concerning an attack made on a brother student and
published in Col. Olcott’s absence by a temporary co-editor of THE
THEOSOPHIST.

HPB minces no words.

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

A PUZZLE FROM ADYAR

H. P. Blavatsky


WHEN the cat is abroad the mice dance in the house it seems. Since Colonel
Olcott sailed for Japan, the Theosophist has never ceased to surprise its
European readers, and especially the Fellows of our Society, with most
unexpected capers. It is as if the Sphinx had emigrated from the Nile and
was determined to continue offering her puzzles broadcast to the Œdipusesof
the Society. 

Now what may be the meaning of this extraordinary, and most tactless
"sortie" of the esteemed acting editor of our Theosophist? Is he, owing to
the relaxing climate of Southern India, ill, or like our (and his)
editor-enemies across the Atlantic, also dreaming uncanny dreams and seeing
Lying visions--or what? And let me remind him at once that he must not feel
offended by these remarks, as he has imperatively called them forth himself.
LUCIFER, the PATH and the THEOSOPHIST are the only organs of communication
with the Fellows of our Society, each in its respective country. 

Since the acting editor of the Theosophist has chosen to give a wide
publicity in his organ to abnormal fancies, he has no right to expect a
reply through any other channel than LUCIFER. Moreover, if he fails to
understand all the seriousness of his implied charges against me and several
honourable men, he may realise them better, when he reads the present. 

Already his enigmatical letter to Light has done mischief enough. While its
purport was evidently to fight some windmills of his own creation, an
inimical spiritualist who signs "Colenso" has jumped at the good opportunity
afforded him to misrepresent that letter. In his malicious philippic called
"Koothoomi Dethroned" he seeks to show that Mr. Harte's letter announces
that the "Masters" are thrown overboard by the T. S. and "Mme. Blavatsky
dethroned." Is it this that "Richard Harte, acting editor of the
Theosophist," sought to convey to the Spiritualists in his letter in Light
of July 6th? 

Without further enquiry as to the real meaning of the Light letter, what
does he try to insinuate by the following in the July number of the
Theosophist? 

A DISCLAIMER 

The Editor of the Theosophist has much pleasure in publishing the following
extracts from a letter from Mr. Bertram Keightley, Secretary of the
"Esoteric Section" of the Theosophical Society, to one of the Commissioners,
which have been handed to him for publication. It should be explained that
the denial therein contained refers to certain surmises and reports afloat
in the Society, and which were seemingly corroborated by apparently
arbitrary and underhand proceedings by certain Fellows known to be members
of the Esoteric Section. 


To this 1, the "Head of the Esoteric Section," [ H P B ] answer: 

1. Mr. Bertram Keightley's letter, though containing the truth, and nothing
but the truth, was never intended for publication, as a sentence in it
proves. Therefore the acting Editor had no right to publish it. 

2. Fellows of the E. S. having to be first of all Fellows of the
Theosophical Society, what does the sentence "Fellows known to be members of
the E. S."--who stand accused by Mr. Harte (or even by some idiotic reports
afloat in the Society) of "arbitrary and underhand proceedings"--mean? Is
not such a sentence a gross insult thrown into the face of honourable
men--far better Theosophists than any of their accusers--and of myself? 

3. What were the silly reports? That the "British or the American Section,"
and even the "Blavatsky Lodge" of the Theosophical Society wanted to "boss
Adyar." For this is what is said in the Theosophist in the alleged
"disclaimer": 

Mr. Keightley tells this Commissioner that he must not believe "that the
Esoteric Section has any, even the slightest, pretension to `boss' the
Theosophical Society or anything of the kind." 

Again he says: "We are all, H.P.B. first and foremost, just as loyal to the
Theosophical Society and to Adyar as the Colonel can possibly he." And yet
again he says: 1 have nothing more to say, except to repeat in the most
formal and positive manner my assurance that there is not a word of truth in
the statement that the Esoteric Section has any desire or pretension to
`boss' any other part or Section of the T. S." 

Amen! But before I reproduce the acting editor's further marvellous comments
thereon, I claim the right to say a few words on the subject. Since, as
said, the letter was never meant to be paraded in print--chiefly, perhaps,
because qui s' excuse s'accuse--it is no criticism to show that it contains
that which I would describe as a meaningless flap-doodle, or, rather, a pair
of them, something quite pardonable in a private and hastily-written letter,
but quite unpardonable and grotesque when appearing as a published document.


1st. That the E. S. had never any pretensions to "boss the T. S." stands to
reason: with the exception of Col. Olcott, the President, the Esoteric
Section has nothing whatever to do with the Theosophical Society, 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, as
shown in the official announcement over the signature of the President
Founder himself. It follows, therefore, that the E. S., as a body, owes no
allegiance whatever to the Theosophical Society, as a Society, least of all
to Adyar. 

2nd. It is pure nonsense to say that "H.P.B.... is loyal to the Theosophical
Society and to Adyar" (!?). H.P.B. is loyal to death to the Theosophical
CAUSE, and those great Teachers whose philosophy can alone bind the whole of
Humanity into one Brotherhood. Together with Col. Olcott, she is the chief
Founder and Builder of the Society which was and is meant to represent that
CAUSE; and if she is so loyal to H. S. Olcott, it is not at all because of
his being its "President," but, firstly, because there is no man living who
has worked harder for that Society, or been more devoted to it than the
Colonel, and, secondly, because she regards him as a loyal friend and
co-worker. Therefore the degree of her sympathies with the "Theosophical
Society 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, if you please)
who represent it? Why not loyal to the compound or the bath-room of Adyar?
Adyar is the present Headquarters of the Society, because these
"Headquarters are wherever the President is," as stated in the rules. 

To be logical, the Fellows of the T. S. had to be loyal to Japan while Col.
Olcott was there, and to London during his presence here. 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. 

What then, again, can be the meaning of the following comments by the acting
Editor, who follows Mr. Keightley's letter with these profoundly wise
remarks: 

It is to be hoped that after this very distinct and authoritative disclaimer
no further "private circulars" will be issued by any members of the Esoteric
Section, calling upon the Fellows to oppose the action of the General
Council, because "Madame Blavatsky does not approve of it"; and also that
silly editorials, declaring that Theosophy is degenerating into obedience to
the dictates of Madame Blavatsky, like that in a recent issue of the
Religio-Philosophical Journal, will cease to appear. 

The "private circulars" of the E.S. have nothing to do with the acting
editor of the Theosophist nor has he any right to meddle with them. 

Whenever "Madame Blavatsky does not approve" of "an action of the General
Council," 1 she will say so openly and to their faces. Because 

(a) Madame Blavatsky does not owe the slightest allegiance to a Council
which is liable at any moment to issue silly and untheosophical ukases; and 

(b) for the simple reason that she recognizes but one person in the T. S.
besides herself, namely Colonel Olcott, as having the right of effecting
fundamental re-organizations in a Society which owes its life to them, and
for which they are both karmically responsible. 

If the acting editor makes slight account of a sacred pledge, neither Col.
Olcott nor H. P. Blavatsky are likely to do so. H. P. Blavatsky will always
bow before the decision of the majority of a Section or even a simple
Branch; but she will ever protest against the decision of the General
Council, were it composed of Archangels and Dhyan Chohans themselves, if
their decision seems 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 of
exercising autocracy or papal powers, and Col. Olcott would be the last man
in the world to attempt to do so. 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. 

And now I have said over my own signature what I had to say and that which
ought to have been said in so many plain words long ago. The public is all
agog with the silliest stories about our doings, and the supposed and real
dissensions in the Society. 

Let every one know the truth at last, in which there is nothing to make any
one ashamed, and which alone can put an end to a most painful and strained
feeling. This truth is as simple as can be. 

The acting editor of the Theosophist has taken it into his head that the
Esoteric Section together with the British and American Sections, were
either conspiring or preparing to conspire against what he most curiously
calls "Adyar" and its authority. Now being a most devoted fellow of the T.
S. and attached to the President, his zeal in hunting up this mare's nest
has led him to become more Catholic than the Pope. 

That is all, and I hope that such misunderstandings and hallucinations will
come to an end with the return of the President to India. Had he been at
home, he, at any rate, would have objected to all those dark hints and
cloaked sayings that have of late incessantly appeared in the Theosophist to
the great delight of our enemies. 

We readily understand that owing to lack of original contributions the
acting editor should reproduce a bungled up and sensational report from the
N. Y. Times and call it "Dr. Keightley speaks." But when jumping at a
sentence of Dr. Keightley's, who in speaking of some "prominent members,"
said that they had been "abandoned or been read out of the fold," he gravely
adds in a foot-note that this is "another mistake of the reporter," as "no
Fellow of the Theosophical Society has been expelled of recent years"; it is
time some one should tell the esteemed acting editor plainly that for the
pleasure of hitting imaginary enemies he allows the reader to think that he
does not know what he is talking about.

If through neglect at Adyar the names of the expelled Fellows have not been
entered in the books, it does not follow that Sections and Branches like the
"London Lodge" and others which are autonomous have not expelled, or had no
right to expel, any one. 

Again, what on earth does he mean by pretending that the reporter has
"confounded the Blavatsky Lodge with the Theosophical Society?" Is not the
Blavatsky Lodge, like the London, Dublin, or any other "Lodge," a branch of,
and a Theosophical Society? What next shall we read in our unfortunate
Theosophist? 

But it is time for me to close. If Mr. Harte persists still in acting in
such a strange and untheosophical way, then the sooner the President settles
these matters the better for all concerned. 

Owing to such undignified quibbles, Adyar and especially the Theosophist are
fast becoming the laughing stock of Theosophists themselves as well as of
their enemies; the bushels of letters received by me to that effect, being a
good proof of it. 

I end by assuring him that there is no need for him to pose as Colonel
Olcott's protecting angel. Neither he nor I need a third party to screen us
from each other. 

We have worked and toiled and suffered together for fifteen long years, and
if after all these years of mutual friendship the President Founder were
capable of lending ear to insane accusations and turning against me,
well--the world is wide enough for both. 

Let the new Exoteric Theosophical Society headed by Mr. Harte, play at red
tape if the President lets them and let the General Council expel me for
"disloyalty," if again, Colonel Olcott should be so blind as to fail to see
where the "true friend" and his duty lie. 

Only unless they hasten to do so, at the first sign of their disloyalty to
the CAUSE--it is I who will have resigned my office of Corresponding
Secretary for life and left the Society. This will not prevent me from
remaining at the head of those--who will follow me. 

H. P. BLAVATSKY

Lucifer, August, 1889

------------------------------------------
 
Footnote
1 Or "Commissioners" of whom Mr. R. Harte is one. [Ed.]

=========================================
Best wishes,

Dallas
 
==============================


-----Original Message-----
From: Perry 
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 5:49 AM
To: 
Subject: Wasting time? I wonder...

A major misperception that perhaps needs to be recognised on this
group is that simply because it has been stated that there are certain
teachings that are recognised as being those presented originally by
Madame Blavatsky and her teachers, and then by others that came later
who claimed to receive teachings from the very same source and yet are
completely different in content, by association does not therefore
mean anyone who makes such an observation to be therefore claiming the
teachings are correct or incorrect but simply that they cannot be from
the same source.

I myself would not assert Blavatsky and her teachers are correct,
there philosophy is extremely consistent and continues to be a source
of inspiration but that does not mean I know it to be absolutely
correct...maybe I am being led up the garden path with it! 

It seems to be worth pursuing at this point in time and I using this
sort of approach helpful for spiritual /philosophical inquiry,leaving
room for new ideas and points of view which will hopefully change
quite regularly as I discover more and always remind myself the Truth
cannot be found in the pages of a book.

CUT