Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00229)

Feb 9 2005

Dear Friends:

May I butt in? 


Re: : HPB, Authority and Theosophy


On the other hand, Jerry:  

Around 1943 a small book came out saying: 


WHY DON'T WE LEARN FROM HISTORY ?



If students STUDIED what HPB wrote, would there still be any troubles?

What causes retrospective conflicting visions to so bind our attention now ?
Are we satisfied that the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY has pursued the course that
was originally set for it ?

What are the criteria set for it? What is the "Original Program?" Should
that matter to us?

Are we looking for THEOSOPHY or something else ? Are we looking for
"Master's Message?" What is it? Where do we find it? 

I fear, many have not made for themselves a clear definition of what
THEOSOPHY is. 

In my esteem the history of individuals connected with the THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETYes detracts from a knowledge of and a study of the Philosophy and
science of THEOSOPHY .

To "apologise" for peoples' doings -- way back then -- does not enhance
THEOSOPHY ? Or am I wrong ? 

It seems to me our primary source is HPB for this era -- as "agent" for the
Masters. If she has been "diminished" or set aside, or contradicted, who
benefits ? And, why was that done? 

How much time are we spending on this debate that is answerless, and which
detracts from time we might use for the study of the philosophy?  

Are we looking to see if it is true and valuable ? Are we curious? Are we
defensive? If so why ? 

Certainly we cannot think the wanderings of those who made extraordinary
claims (and could not prove them) are helpful?  

At least, from adequate testimony, we know that HPB had powers and knowledge
-- and no one else has provided anything near to what was placed by her for
Them before the world over 100 years ago. 

If it has no value what attracts us to it ? 

Best wishes,

Dal

P S 

Please see HPB ORGANIZATION OF THE T S (below)

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins [mailto:jjhe@charter.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:58 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: : HPB, Authority and Theosophy



Hello Cass,

You are right. We all ought to be thinking of the future. I would add, 
we also need to work towards realizing that future. However, I also 
submit that a reluctance to deal with the past hinders our ability to 
effectively progress in the present, and to effectively build a future. 
To quote the great Spanish philosopher George Santayana:  
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those 
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Thanks
--j


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


THE ORGANlSATION OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

H. P. Blavatsky

[In order to leave no room for equivocation, the members of the T.S. have to
be reminded of the origin of the Society in 1875. Sent to the U.S. of
America in 1873 for the purpose of organizing a group of workers on a
psychic plane, two years later the writer received orders from her Master
and Teacher to form the nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were
broadly stated as follows: 

(1) Universal Brotherhood; 

(2) No distinction to be made by the members between]* races, creeds, or
social positions, but every member had to be judged and dealt by on his
personal merits; 

(3) To study the philosophies of the East--those of India chiefly,
presenting them gradually to the public in various works that would
interpret exoteric religions in the light of esoteric teachings; 

(4) To oppose materialism and theological dogmatism in every possible way,
by demonstrating the existence of occult forces unknown to Science, in
Nature, and the presence of psychic and spiritual powers in Man; trying, at
the same time, to enlarge the views of the Spiritualists by showing them
that there are other, many other agencies at work in the production of
phenomena besides the "Spirits" of the dead. Superstition had to be exposed
and avoided; and occult forces, beneficent and maleficent- ever surrounding
us and manifesting their presence in various ways--demonstrated to the best
of our ability. 
Such was the programme in its broad features. 

The two chief Founders were not told what they had to do, how they had to
bring about and quicken the growth of the Society and results desired; nor
had they any definite ideas given them concerning the outward
organisation--all this being left entirely with themselves. Thus, as the
undersigned had no capacity for such work as the mechanical formation and
administration of a Society, the management of the latter was left in the
hands of Col. H. S. Olcott, then and there elected by the primitive founders
and members--President for life. But if the two Founders were not told what
they had to do, they were distinctly instructed about what they should never
do, what they had to avoid, and what the Society should never become. Church
organisations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future
contrasts to our Society. 1 

To make it clearer: 

(1) The Founders had to exercise all their influence to oppose selfishness
of any kind, by insisting upon sincere, fraternal feelings among the
Members--at least outwardly; working for it to bring about a spirit of unity
and harmony, the great diversity of creeds notwithstanding; expecting and
demanding from the Fellows, a great mutual toleration and charity for each
other's shortcomings; mutual help in the research of truths in every
domain--moral or physical--and even in daily life.
 
(2) They had to oppose in the strongest manner anything approaching dogmatic
faith and fanaticism--belief in the infallibility of the Masters, or even in
the very existence of our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from the
first. 

On the other hand, as a great respect for the private views and creeds of
every member was demanded, any Fellow criticising the faith or belief of
another Fellow, hurting his feelings, or showing a reprehensible
self-assertion, unasked (mutual friendly advices were a duty unless
declined)--such a member incurred expulsion. The greatest spirit of free
research untrammelled by anyone or anything, had to be encouraged. 

Thus, for the first year the Members of the T. Body, who representing every
class in Society as every creed and belief--Christian clergymen,
Spiritualists, Freethinkers, Mystics, Masons and Materialists--lived and met
under these rules in peace and friendship. There were two or three
expulsions for slander and backbiting. 

The rules, however imperfect in their tentative character, were strictly
enforced and respected by the members. The original $5 initiation fee was
soon abolished as inconsistent with the spirit of the Association: members
had enthusiastically promised to support the Parent Society and defray the
expenses of machines for experiments, books, the fees of the Recording
Secretary, 2 etc., etc. This was Reform No. 1. 

Three months after, Mr. H. Newton, the Treasurer, a rich gentleman of New
York, showed that no one had paid anything or helped him to defray the
current expenses for the Hall of meetings, stationery, printing, etc., and
that he had to carry the burden of those expenses alone. He went on for a
short time longer, then--he resigned as Treasurer. 

It was the President-Founder, Col. H. S. Olcott, who had to pay henceforth
for all. He did so for over 18 months. 

The "fee" was re-established, before the Founders left for India with the
two English delegates--now their mortal enemies; but the money collected was
for the Arya Samaj of Aryavarta with which Society the Theosophical became
affiliated. It is the President Founder who paid the enormous travelling
expenses from America to India, and those of installation in Bombay, and who
supported the two delegates out of his own pocket for nearly 18 months. When
he had no more money left, nor the Corr. Secretary either--a resolution was
passed that the "initiation fee" sums should go towards supporting the Head
Quarters. 

Owing to the rapid increase of the Society in India, the present Rules and
Statutes grew out. They are not the outcome of the deliberate thought and
whim of the President Founder, but the result of the yearly meetings of the
General Council at the Anniversaries. If the members of that G. C. have
framed them so as to give a wider authority to the Pres. Founder, it was the
result of their absolute confidence in him, in his devotion and love for the
Society, and not at all--as implied in "A Few Words"--a proof of his love
for power and authority. Of this, however, later on.
 
It was never denied that the Organisation of the T.S. was very imperfect.
Errare humanum est. But, if it can be shown that the President has done what
he could under the circumstances and in the best way he knew how--no one,
least of all a theosophist, can charge him with the sins of the whole
community, as now done. 

>From the founders down to the humblest member, the Society is composed of
imperfect mortal men--not gods. This was always claimed by its leaders. "He
who feels without sin, let him cast the first stone." 

It is the duty of every Member of the Council to offer advice and to bring
for the consideration of the whole body any incorrect proceedings. One of
the plaintiffs is a Councillor. Having never used his privileges as one, in
the matter of the complaints now proffered--and thus, having no excuse to
give that his just representations were not listened to, he, by bringing out
publicly what he had to state first privately--sins against Rule XII. The
whole paper now reads like a defamatory aspersion, being full of
untheosophical and unbrotherly insinuations--which the writers thereof could
never have had in view. 

This Rule XIIth was one of the first and the wisest. It is by neglecting to
have it enforced when most needed, that the President-Founder has brought
upon himself the present penalty. 3 It is his too great indulgence and
unwise carelessness that have led to all such charges of abuse of power,
love of authority, show, of vanity, etc., etc. Let us see how far it may
have been deserved.
 
As shown for 12 years the Founder has toiled almost alone in the interests
of the Society and the general good--hence, not his own, and, the only
complaint he was heard to utter was, that he was left no time for
self-development and study. The results of this too just complaint are, that
those for whom he toiled, are the first to fling at him the reproach of
being ignorant of certain Hindu terms, of using one term for another, for
inst. of having applied the word "Jivanmukta" to a Hindu chela, on one
occasion! The crime is a terrible one, indeed. . . . 

We know of "chelas" who being Hindus, are sure never to confuse such well
known terms in their religion; but who, on the other hand, pursue
Jivanmuktaship and the highest Theosophical Ethics through the royal road of
selfish ambition, lies, slander, ingratitude and backbiting. Every road
leads to Rome; this is evident; and there is such a thing in Nature as
"Mahatma"-Dugpas. . . . 

It would be desirable for the cause of Theosophy and truth, however, were
all the critics of our President in general, less learned, yet found
reaching more to the level of his all-forgiving good nature, his thorough
sincerity and unselfishness; as the rest of the members less inclined to
lend a willing ear to those, who, like the said "Vicars of Bray" have
developed a hatred for the Founders--for reasons unknown. 

The above advice is offered to the two Theosophists who have just framed
their "Few Words on the Theosophical Organisation." That they are not alone
in their complaints (which, translated from their diplomatic into plain
language look a good deal in the present case like a mere "querelle 4
d'Allemand") and that the said complaints are in a great measure just,--is
frankly admitted. 

Hence, the writer must be permitted to speak in this, her answer, of
Theosophy and theosophists in general, instead of limiting the Reply
strictly to the complaints uttered. 

There is not the slightest desire to be personal; yet, there has accumulated
of late such a mass of incandescent material in the Society, by that eternal
friction of precisely such "selfish personalities," that it is certainly
wise to try to smother the sparks in time, by pointing out their true
nature.
 
Demands, and a feeling of necessity for reforms have not originated with the
two complainants. They date from several years, and there has never been a
question of avoiding reforms, but rather a failure of finding such means as
would satisfy all the theosophists. To the present day, we have yet to find
that "wise man" from the East or from the West, who could not only
diagnosticate the disease in the T. Society, but offer advice and a remedy
likewise to cure it. It is easy to write: "It would be out of place to
suggest any specific measures" (for such reforms, which do seem more
difficult to suggest than to be vaguely hinted at)--"for no one who has any
faith in Brotherhood and in the power of Truth will fail to perceive what is
necessary,"--concludes the critic. 

One may, perhaps, have such faith and yet fail to perceive what is most
necessary. Two heads are better than one; and if any practical reforms have
suggested themselves to our severe judges their refusal to give us the
benefit of their discovery would be most unbrotherly. 

So far, however, we have received only most impracticable suggestions for
reforms whenever these came to be specified. 

The Founders, and the whole Central Society at the Headquarters, for
instance, are invited to demonstrate their theosophical natures by living
like "fowls in the air and lilies of the field," which neither sow nor reap,
toil not, nor spin and "take no thought for the morrow." 

This being found hardly practicable, even in India, where a man may go about
in the garment of an Angel, but has, nevertheless, to pay rent and taxes,
another proposition, then a third one and a fourth --each less practicable
than the preceding--were offered . . . the unavoidable rejection of which
led finally to the criticism now under review. 

After carefully reading "A Few Words, etc.," no very acute intellect is
needed to perceive that, although no "specific measures" are offered in
them, the drift of the whole argument tends but to one conclusion, a kind of
syllogism more Hindu than metaphysical. 

Epitomised, the remarks therein plainly say: "Destroy the bad results
pointed out by destroying the causes that generate them." Such is the
apocalyptic meaning of the paper, although both causes and results are made
painfully and flagrantly objective and that they may be rendered in this
wise: Being shown that the Society is the result and fruition of a bad
President; and the latter being the outcome of such an "untheosophically"
organized Society--and, its worse than useless General Council--"make away
with all these Causes and the results will disappear"; i.e., the Society
will have ceased to exist. Is this the heart-desire of the two true and
sincere Theosophists? 

The complaints --"submitted to those interested in the progress of true
Theosophy"-- which seems to mean "theosophy divorced from the Society"-- may
now be noticed in order and answered. They specify the following objections:
 
I. To the language of the Rules with regard to the powers invested in the
President-Founder by the General Council. This objection seems very right.
The sentence . . . The duties of the Council "shall consist in advising the
P.F. [President Founder] in regard to all matters referred to them by him"
may be easily construed as implying that on all matters not referred to the
Council by the Pres.-Founder . . . its members will hold their tongues. The
Rules are changed, at any rate they are corrected and altered yearly. This
sentence can be taken out. The harm, so far, is not so terrible. 

II. It is shown that many members ex-officio whose names are found on the
list of the General Council are not known to the Convention; that they are,
very likely, not even interested in the Society "under their special care";
a body they had joined at one time, then probably forgotten its existence in
the meanwhile to withdraw themselves from the Association. The argument
implied is very valid. Why not point it out of officially to the Members
residing at, or visiting the Head Quarters, the impropriety of such a
parading of names? Yet, in what respect can this administrative blunder, or
carelessness, interfere with, or impede "the progress of true Theosophy." 5 

III. "The members are appointed by the President-Founder. . . ." it is
complained; "the Gen. Council only advises on what is submitted to it" . . .
and "in the meantime" that P.F. is empowered to issue "special orders" and
"provisional rules," on behalf of that ("dummy") Council. (Rule IV, p. 20.)
Moreover, it is urged that out of a number of 150 members of the G. Council,
a quorum of 5 and even 3 members present, may, should it be found necessary
by the President, decide upon any question of vital importance, etc., etc.,
etc.
 
Such an "untheosophical" display of authority, is objected to by Messrs. M.
M. Chatterji and A. Gebhard on the ground that it leads the Society to
Caesarism, to "tyranny" and "papal infallibility," etc., etc. However right
the two complainants may be in principle it is impossible to fail seeing the
absurd exaggerations of the epithets used; for, having just been accused on
one page of "tyrannical authority," of "centralization of power" and a
"papal institution" (p. 9)--on page 11, the President-Founder is shown
"issuing special orders" from that "centre of Caesarism"--which no one is
bound to obey, unless he so wishes! "It is well known" remarks the principal
writer--"that not only individuals but even Branches have refused to pay
this (annual) subscription . . . of . . . two shillings" (p. 11 ); without
any bad effect for themselves, resulting out of it, as appears. Thus, it
would seem it is not to a non-existent authority that objections should be
made, but simply to a vain and useless display of power that no one cares
for.
 
The policy of issuing "special orders" with such sorry results is indeed
objectionable; only, not on the ground of a tendency to Caesarism, but
simply because it becomes highly ridiculous. The undersigned for one, has
many a time objected to it, moved however, more by a spirit of worldly pride
and an untheosophical feeling of self-respect than anything like Yogi
humility. It is admitted with regret that the world of scoffers and
non-theosophists might, if they heard of it, find in it a capital matter for
fun. But the real wonder is, how can certain European Theosophists, who have
bravely defied the world to make them wince under any amount of ridicule,
once they acted in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and
duty--make a crime of what is at the worst a harmless, even if ridiculous,
bit of vanity; a desire of giving importance--not to the Founder, but to his
Society for which he is ready to die any day. One kind of ridicule is worth
another. 

The Western theosophist, who for certain magnetic reasons wears his hair
long and shows otherwise eccentricity in his dress, will be spared no more
than his President, with his "special orders." Only the latter, remaining as
kindly disposed and brotherly to the "individual Theosophist and even a
Branch"-- that snub him and his "order," by refusing to pay what others do--
shows himself ten-fold more Theosophical and true to the principle of
Brotherhood, than the former, who traduces and denounces him in such
uncharitable terms, instead of kindly warning him of the bad effect
produced. 

Unfortunately, it is not those who speak the loudest of virtue and
theosophy, who are the best examplars of both. Few of them, if any, have
tried to cast out the beam from their own eye, before they raised their
voices against the mote in the eye of a brother. Furthermore, it seems to
have become quite the theosophical rage in these days, to denounce
vehemently, yet never to offer to help pulling out any such motes. 

The Society is bitterly criticized for asking every well-to-do theosophist
(the poor are exempt from it, from the first) to pay annually two shillings
to help defraying the expenses at Head-Quarters. It is denounced as
"untheosophical," "unbrotherly," and the "admission fee" of £1, is declared
no better than "a sale of Brotherhood." In this our "Brotherhood" may be
shown again on a far higher level than any other association past or
present. 

The Theosophical Society has never shown the ambitious pretension to
outshine in theosophy and brotherliness, the primitive Brotherhood of Jesus
and his Apostles, 6 and that "Organisation," besides asking and being
occasionally refused, helped itself without asking, and as a matter of fact
in a real community of Brothers. 

Nevertheless, such actions, that would seem highly untheosophical and
prejudicial in our day of culture when nations alone are privileged to
pocket each other's property and expect to be honoured for it--do not seem
to have been an obstacle in the way of deification and sanctification of the
said early "Brotherly" group. 

Our Society had never certainly any idea of rising superior to the
brotherliness and ethics preached by Christ, but only to those of the sham
Christianity of the Churches--as originally ordered to by our MASTERS. And
if we do no worse than the Gospel Brotherhood did, and far better than any
Church, which would expel any member refusing too long to pay his Church
rates, it is really hard to see why our "Organisation" should be ostracized
by its own members. At any rate, the pens of the latter ought to show
themselves less acerb, in these days of trouble when every one seems bent on
finding fault with the Society, and few to help it, and that the
President-Founder is alone to work and toil with a few devoted theosophists
at Adyar to assist him. 

IV. "There is no such institution in existence as the Parent Society"-- we
are told (pp. 2 and 3). "It has disappeared from the Rules and . . . has no
legal existence" . . . 

The Society being unchartered, it has not--legally; but no more has any
Theosophist a legal existence, for the matter of that. Is there one single
member throughout the whole globe who would be recognised by law or before a
Magistrate--as a theosophist? 

Why then do the gentlemen "complainants" call themselves "theosophists" if
the latter qualification has no better legal standing than the said "Parent
Society" of the Head Quarters itself? 

But the Parent-body does exist, and will, so long as the last man or woman
of the primitive group of Theosophist Founders is alive. This--as a body; as
for its moral characteristics, the Parent-Society means that small nucleus
of theosophists who hold sacredly through storm and blows to the original
programme of the T.S., as established under the direction and orders of
those, whom they recognise--and will, to their last breath--as the real
originators of the Movement, their living, Holy MASTERS AND TEACHERS. 7 

V. The complaints then, that the T.S. "has Laws without sanction," a
"legislative body without legality," a "Parent Society without existence,"
and, worse than all--"a President above all rules"-- are thus shown only
partially correct. But even were they all absolutely true, it would be easy
to abolish such rules with one stroke of the pen, or to modify them. But now
comes the curious part of that severe philippic against the T.S. by our
eloquent Demosthenes. After six pages (out of twelve) had been filled with
the said charges, the writer admits on the 7th,--that they have been so
modified! --"The above" we learn (rather late) "was written under
misapprehension that the 'Rules' bearing date 1885--were the latest. 

It has since been found that there is a later version of the Rules dated
1886 which have modified the older rules on a great many points." So much
the better.--Why recall, in such case, mistakes in the past if these exist
no longer? 

But the accusers do not see it in this light. They are determined to act as
a theosophical Nemesis; and in no way daunted by the discovery, they add
that nevertheless "it is necessary to examine the earlier rules to ascertain
the underlying principle, which rules through the present ones as well."
This reminds of the fable of "the Wolf and the Lamb." But--you see--"the
chief point is, that the Convention has no power to make any rules, as such
a power is opposed to the spirit of Theosophy," . . . etc., etc.