Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00025)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
theosophy@...> wrote:

> I would also like Pedro and other Leadbeater fans
> comment on that quote by the Mahatma, and explain why the LCC
> is not exactly losing its socalled -  reason the exist -  in the 
same manner 
> as the by Carlos in the below quoted Priest and Churches.
> 
> Here is some more explanation why I am against CWL's  LIberal 
Catholic 
> Church (LCC).
> My poor somewhat almost Middle Eastern Sufi-heart is suffering 
seeing this 
> problem, not being dealt with properly.
> There are too many members with what I would call Christian-
theosophical 
> tendencies. These same members has a lot of prejudice to
> offer the Middle East if they develop their occult skills 
prematurely or in 
> the wrong direction.
> 
> 
> As Blavatsky said in her 1888 article:
> IS THEOSOPHY A RELIGION?
> 
> "Moreover, the very raison d'être of the Theosophical Society was, 
from its 
> beginning, to utter a loud protest and lead an open warfare 
against dogma or 
> any belief based upon blind faith.
> It may sound odd and paradoxical, but it is true to say that, 
hitherto, the 
> most apt workers in practical theosophy, its most devoted members 
were those 
> recruited from the ranks of agnostics and even of materialists. No 
genuine, 
> no sincere searcher after truth can ever be found among the blind 
believers 
> in the "Divine Word," let the latter be claimed to come from 
Allah, Brahma 
> or Jehovah, or their respective Kuran, Purana and Bible. For:
> 
> Faith is not reason's labour, but repose. "
> http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsTheosophyAReligion.htm
> 
> Leadbeater even himself admits his own double-standard.
> Here from "Inner Life" written 1917, C. W. Leadbeater.
> 
> " CEREMONIAL
> 287. 
> The line of ceremonial is one along which many people come, but of 
course it 
> must be understood that no religious ceremonial whatever is ever 
really 
> essential, and the man who wishes to enter upon the Path of 
Holiness must 
> realize this fully and must cast off belief in the necessity of 
ceremonies, 
> as one of the fetters which hold him back from nirvana. This does 
not mean 
> that ceremonies may not be sometimes quite effective in producing 
the 
> results which are intended, but only that they are never really 
necessary 
> for any one, and that the candidate for higher progress must learn 
to do 
> utterly without them. The ceremonial line is an easy road for a 
certain type 
> of people, and is really helpful and uplifting for them; but there 
is 
> another type of men who always feel ceremonial as an obstacle 
between 
> themselves and the deities which they wish to reach.
> 
> 288. 
> In Christianity this ceremonial line is the one appointed by its 
founder, 
> through which his magic is to work. The consecration of the host, 
for 
> example, is a means by which spiritual force is poured out over 
the people. 
> There is often a vast amount of devotional feeling at the moment 
of the 
> consecration, and the working of the magic is assisted by that, 
though it 
> does not depend upon it. Those who are devotional unquestionably 
receive 
> more because they bring with them an additional faculty of 
reception. On the 
> other hand, there is always the probability that ignorant devotion 
will 
> degenerate into superstition. In a recent enquiry into these 
matters from 
> the occult point of view, made in Sicily, I found that there was 
certainly 
> plenty of superstition, and much harmful interference in family 
matters on 
> the part of the priests; but still on the whole the country was 
distinctly 
> better than it would have been without it. We should remember also 
that in 
> history we usually hear much of the worst effects of religious 
enthusiasm, 
> whereas the good steady progress of many thousands under its 
influence makes 
> but little impression."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us hear your wise words in response Pedro, Dave and friends.


Morten,

Below is an article I wrote for the March, 2004 issue of "Theosophy 
in Australia". 
Best wishes,
pedro


"God: A Theosophical View"

If the Mahatmas, Madame Blavatsky´s Teachers, are regarded as 
spiritual authorities within the Theosophical Society, then their 
view on God, as expressed in The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, 
becomes the definitive theosophical view on the subject, and it has, 
for a number of students of Theosophy. Here are some of the passages 
that have been quoted, again and again, and which are accepted by 
some as the final words on the subject: 


Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for 
it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. Therefore, 
we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are 
planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our 
system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. 
Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the 
effect of Avidya and Maya, ignorance based on the great delusion.1

... The God of the Theologians is simply an imaginary power, un loup 
garou as d´Holbach expressed it—a power which has never manifested 
itself. Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to 
teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on 
himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for 
countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery.2 


The Mahatmas´ View: Is it Definitive? 

Their view is clearly uncompromising, vigorous and radical. It 
rejects the notion of God completely and absolutely. They also 
identify themselves with the Buddhist tradition. But the question 
presents itself: did the Mahatmas expect their view to be the view 
of the members of the Theosophical Society? Also, did they consider 
themselves as spiritual authorities in the TS? These questions may 
be relevant precisely because a number of students hold the view of 
the primacy of the Mahatmas´ teachings—and HPB´s teachings—over all 
other theosophical literature. One finds, though, in their letters 
statements that contradict such expectation: 


If you would go on with your occult studies and literary work—then 
learn to be loyal to the Idea, rather than to my poor self.3

The cant about "Masters" must be silently but firmly put down. Let 
the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which 
each one is a part.4 


Both quotations above indicate that the Adepts did not expect, nor 
encourage, members of the Society to look up to them as authorities. 
And the reason for this may be that in the field of Esoteric 
Philosophy one has to learn to open up one´s higher faculties 
through study, right living and meditative awareness, before one can 
truly see. As the Mahatmas declared, `the illumination must come 
from within´, from the depths of one´s own consciousness. In view of 
this, making anyone, even a Mahatma, a spiritual authority is 
counterproductive and certainly generates a sense of abject 
dependence which works against one´s own spiritual unfoldment. 

Virginia Hanson, a life-long student of The Mahatma Letters, who 
penetrated very deeply into their spirit and teaching, pointed out 
that `one cannot help noticing as one studies the letters, that the 
Mahatma never denies the reality of spirit—only of spirit as a 
separate and distinct principle apart from matter´.5 She also 
mentioned that `referring in another letter to the conclusion by an 
English member that the Mahatmas "have no God" the Mahatma K.H. 
says: "He is right — since he applies the name to an extracosmic 
anomaly, and that we, knowing nothing of the latter, find each man 
his God—within himself in his own personal, and at the same time 
impersonal Avalokiteswara" ´(ML 113, chronological, p. 390).6

The last quotation is important because its substance reappears 
again and again in the theosophical literature, affirming that the 
real God is our seventh principle, Atma, the One Self, that which 
truly `saves´ us from countless existences lived under the grip of 
ignorance, and which is one with the Absolute, ultimate Reality. 
Consider the following passages from the famous communication from 
the Maha-Chohan, the Mahatmas´ Master:


For as everyone knows, total emancipation from authority of the one 
all-pervading power or law called God by the priests—Buddha, Divine 
Wisdom and enlightenment or Theosophy, by the philosophers of all 
ages—means also the emancipation from that of human law. Once 
unfettered and delivered from their dead weight of dogmatic 
interpretations, personal names, anthropomorphic conceptions and 
salaried priests, the fundamental doctrines of all religions will be 
proved identical in their esoteric meaning. Osiris, Krishna, Buddha, 
Christ, will be shown as different names for one and the same royal 
highway to final bliss, Nirvana.7


Mystical Christianity, that is to say that Christianity which 
teaches self-redemption through our own seventh principle—this 
liberated Para-Atma (Augoeides) called by some Christ, by others 
Buddha, and equivalent to regeneration or rebirth in spirit—will be 
found just the same truth as the Nirvana of Buddhism. All of us have 
to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory apparent self, to recognize 
our true self in a transcendental divine life. But if we would not 
be selfish, we must strive to make other people see that truth, to 
recognize the reality of that transcendental self, the Buddha, the 
Christ or God of every preacher. This is why even exoteric Buddhism 
is the surest path to lead men towards the one esoteric truth.8


So we find that the denial of God by the Adepts seems to apply more 
to the theological conception of the Divine, which is fragmented, 
dualistic and contradictory, articulated as it was by the 
Aristotelian logic, in which there is a fundamental primacy of 
logos, word, concept, reason, over nous, spiritual perception, 
mystical insight. The Maha-Chohan clearly makes mystical 
Christianity, for example, one of the exceptions to this. The 
Mahatmas certainly condemn the God of the theologians, not 
necessarily of the mystics for while the former would write volumes 
upon volumes trying to define and explain their `God´, the mystics 
knew in the depths of their hearts the Ground of Being, the 
uncreated Divinity. The same is true of the real mystics, seers and 
yogis in every tradition. 

Scriptural and Theosophical References to God 

Let us consider some references to God in some of the scriptures of 
the world and in theosophical literature. 

In the gospel according to John (4:24), in his dialogue with a woman 
of Samaria, Jesus says: `God is a Spirit: and they that worship him 
must worship him in spirit and in truth´. These are not the words of 
a theologian; they are a teaching from someone who knew. God is our 
deepest Self and true worship or communion takes place at those 
depths where we are one with the Divine Ground.

St. Paul, to whom HPB refers as an initiate again and again in her 
writings, communicates his vision of the Deity in his famous 
discourse in Athens (Acts of the Apostles): `God that made the world 
and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, 
dwelleth not in temples made with hands´(18:24). `That they should 
seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, 
though he be not far from everyone of us: For in him we live, and 
move, and have our being.´ (18:27, 28). For the early Christians, 
God was not an `extracosmic anomaly´ but the indwelling Spirit 
abiding in the depths of the human heart as well as the 
transcendental Reality pervading everything, both being one. 

The early Church Fathers, some of whom Madame Blavatsky said were 
initiate-members of the ancient Mystery Schools, held a view of the 
Godhead which was a combination of Platonic and Eastern sources. 
Annie Besant sums up the philosophical foundations on which the 
Mysteries were based:


The theory on which these Mysteries were based may be very briefly 
thus stated: there is ONE, prior to all beings, immovable, abiding 
in the solitude of His own unity. From THAT arises the Supreme God, 
the Self-begotten, the Good, the Source of all things, the Root, the 
God of Gods, the First Cause, unfolding Himself into Light. From Him 
springs the Intelligible World, or ideal universe, the Universal 
Mind, the Nous, and the incorporeal or intelligible Gods belong to 
this. From this the World-Soul, to which belong the "divine 
intellectual forms which are present with the visible bodies of the 
Gods". Then come various hierarchies of superhuman beings, 
Archangels, Archons (Rulers) or Cosmocratores, Angels, Daimons, etc. 
Man is a being of a lower order, allied to these in his nature, and 
is capable of knowing them; this knowledge was achieved in the 
Mysteries, and it led to union with God.9 


The little book *Practical Occultism*, in the chapter entitled `Some 
Practical Suggestions for Daily Life´, has this to say: 


The "God" in us—that is to say, the Spirit of Love and Truth, 
Justice and Wisdom, Goodness and Power—should be our only true and 
permanent Love, our only reliance in everything, our only Faith, 
which, standing firm as a rock, can for ever be trusted; our only 
Hope, which will never fail us if all other things perish; and the 
only object which we must seek to obtain, by our Patience, waiting 
contentedly until our evil Karma has been exhausted and the divine 
Redeemer will reveal to us his presence within our soul. The door 
through which he enters is called Contentment; for he who is 
discontented with himself is discontented with the law that made him 
such as he is; as God is Himself the Law, God will not come to those 
that are discontented with Him.10 


In The Key to Theosophy, when discussing prayer, HPB presents her 
view of God:


ENQ. To whom, then, do you pray when you do so?
THEO. To "our Father in heaven" – in its esoteric meaning.
ENQ. Is that different from the one given to it in theology?
THEO. Entirely so. An Occultist or a Theosophist addresses his 
prayer to his Father which is in secret (read, and try to 
understand, Matthew vi, 6), not an extra-cosmic and therefore finite 
God; and that "Father" is in man himself.
ENQ. Then you make of man a God?
THEO. Please say "God" and not a God. In our sense, the inner man is 
the only God we can have cognizance of. And how can this be 
otherwise? Grant us our postulate that God is a universally 
diffused, infinite principle, and how can man alone escape from 
being soaked through by, and in, the Deity? We call our "Father in 
heaven" that deific essence of which we are cognizant within us, in 
our heart and spiritual consciousness, and which has nothing to do 
with the anthropomorphic conception we may form of it in our 
physical brain or its fancy: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of 
God, and that the spirit of [the absolute] God dwelleth in you?" 
Yet, let no man anthropomorphize that essence in us. Let no 
Theosophist, if he would hold to divine, not human truth, say that 
this "God in secret" listens to, or is distinct from, either finite 
man or the infinite essence—for all are one.11 


C. W. Leadbeater, Annie Besant´s colleague and co-worker in the 
popularisation of Theosophy in the early twentieth century, also 
contributed his view to our understanding of the all-embracing 
Deity: 


When we lay down the existence of God as the first and greatest of 
our principles, it becomes necessary for us to define the sense in 
which we employ that much-abused, yet mighty word. We try to redeem 
it from the narrow limits imposed on it by the ignorance of 
undeveloped men, and to restore to it the splendid conception—
splendid, though infinitely below the reality—given to it by the 
founders of religions. And we distinguish between God as the 
Infinite Existence, and the manifestation of this Supreme Existence 
as a revealed God, evolving and guiding a universe. Only to this 
limited manifestation should the term "a personal God" be applied. 
God in Himself is beyond the bounds of personality, is "in all and 
through all"; and indeed is all; and of the Infinite, the Absolute, 
the All, we can only say "He is".


For all practical purposes we need not go further than that 
marvellous and glorious manifestation of Him (a little less entirely 
beyond our comprehension) the great Guiding Force or Deity of our 
own solar system, whom philosophers have called the Logos. Of him is 
true all that we have ever heard predicated of God—all that is good, 
that is—not the blasphemous conceptions sometimes put forward, 
ascribing to Him human vices. But all that has ever been said of the 
love, the wisdom, the power, the patience and compassion, the 
omniscience, the omnipresence, the omnipotence—all of this, and much 
more, is true of the Logos of our system. Verily "in Him we live and 
move and have our being", not as a poetical expression, but (strange 
as it may seem) as a definite scientific fact; and so when we speak 
of the Deity our first thought is naturally of the Logos.12 


The Bhagavad Gita, although originating in the Indian tradition, has 
now been embraced by many people in the world as a source of 
inspiration and spiritual guidance. It also contains valuable 
teachings regarding the nature of the Divine Ground and its oneness 
with the human being´s inmost Self:


Many births have been left behind by Me and by thee, O Arjuna. I 
know them all, but thou knowest not thine, O Parantapa. Though 
unborn, the imperishable SELF, and also the Lord of all beings 
brooding over nature, which is Mine own, yet I am born through Mine 
own Power. Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata, and 
there is exaltation of unrighteousness, then I Myself come forth; 
for the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, 
for the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I am born from 
age to age. He who thus knoweth My divine birth and action, in its 
essence, having abandoned the body, cometh not to birth again, but 
cometh unto Me, O Arjuna. Freed from passion, fear, and anger, 
filled with Me, taking refuge in Me, purified in the fire of wisdom, 
many have entered into My Being. However men approach Me, even so do 
I welcome them, for the path men take from every side is Mine, O 
Paratha.13 


The words of Sri Krishna show that there are many paths to the 
Divine, for there are different temperaments and approaches in the 
age-old quest for Truth. And on this quest one learns, 
progressively, to heed the call of the immortal Spirit within, the 
hidden God whose essential nature is truth, unconditioned 
consciousness and supreme happiness and joy—sat, chit, ananda in the 
Vedanta tradition.

Swami T. Subba Row was a very eminent member of the Theosophical 
Society in India in its early years. He was thoroughly versed in the 
philosophy of Vedanta, of which he was also a practitioner. HPB had 
a great respect for him and even requested him to help her with The 
Secret Doctrine, `and writing most of the commentaries and 
explanations´14, which he eventually declined. The Mahatmas referred 
to him as an `initiated Brahmin´, one with a direct knowledge of the 
spiritual realities. He has an enlightening commentary on the nature 
of Krishna in the Gita:


Some have taken Krishna´s exhortation to Arjuna to worship him alone 
as supporting the doctrine of a personal god. But this is an 
erroneous conclusion. For, though speaking of himself as Parabrahm, 
Krishna is still the Logos. He describes himself as Atma, but no 
doubt is one with Parabrahm, as there is no essential difference 
between Atma and Parabrahm. So all sons of God, including Christ, 
have spoken of themselves as one with the Father. His saying, that 
he exists in almost every entity in the Cosmos, expresses strictly 
an attribute of Parabrahm. But a Logos, being a manifestation of 
Parabrahm, can use these words and assume these attributes. Thus 
Krishna only calls upon Arjuna to worship his own highest spirit, 
through which alone he can hope to attain salvation. Krishna is 
teaching Arjuna what the Logos in the course of initiation will 
teach the human Monad, pointing out that through himself alone is 
salvation to be obtained. This implies no idea of a personal god.15 


In the leaflet Theosophy and Islam, published by the Australian 
Section of the TS, the Islamic view of the Divine is presented: 


One of the most important teachings in Islam is the doctrine of 
Tawhid or the blessed Oneness. Says the Quran: "La Illaha Illallah!" 
(Muhammad, Chapter 47, Verse 19). "There is no God but Allah". It 
means there is nothing but the Divine in the whole universe. 
Everything that exists, whether animate or inanimate, is the Divine. 
In his article "The Philosophy of Islam" (The Theosophist, January 
1929) Nadarbeg K. Mizra points out that "in Islam all the prayers 
and meditations have been so arranged as to direct the attention of 
the disciple to an abstract idea of God". Says the Quran: "O Thou! 
whose abstract nature is free from illustrations and whose 
attributes are beyond examples". (Al-Saffat, Chapter 37, Verse 80) 
Mirza explains that God´s "attributes are beyond description and 
cannot adequately be even conceived by a human mind". 


Frithjof Schuon, in his book Understanding Islam, translates the 
fundamental statement from the Quran, La Illaha Illallah, as `there 
is no divinity (or reality, or absolute) outside the only Divinity 
(or Reality, or Absolute)´. The Islamic precept of absence of images 
in religious worship clearly indicates the notion that God is beyond 
description and intellectual apprehension. But this does not mean 
that one cannot come to experience the Divine fullness. The great 
Sufi teachers are living examples of the discovery and realisation 
of the Oneness of God in the deep and untrodden recesses of the 
human soul and spirit. 

Theosophy as an Eclectic System 

Theosophy, the Wisdom-Religion, has been, from time immemorial, an 
eclectic system. It is not identified with one particular system 
only but seeks to express the core teachings of the world´s 
religious and philosophical traditions. The word eclectic comes from 
the Greek verb ekleg, `pick out´. Theosophy, in its eclectic 
nature, `picks out´ the essence of every tradition and shows it to 
be identical, in its spirit, to that of every other tradition. The 
eclectic character of Theosophy was highlighted by Madame Blavatsky 
in The Key to Theosophy: 


ENQUIRER. What is the origin of the name "Theosophy"?
THEOSOPHIST. It comes to us from the Alexandrian philosophers, 
called lovers of truth, Philaletheians, from phil "loving," and 
aletheia "truth." The name Theosophy dates from the third century of 
our era, and began with Ammonius Saccas and his disciples, who 
started the Eclectic Theosophical system. 
ENQUIRER. What was the object of this system? 
THEOSOPHIST. First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths 
upon its disciples, and all those who were "lovers of the truth." 
Hence the motto adopted by the Theosophical Society: "There is no 
religion higher than truth." The chief aim of the Founders of the 
Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the three objects of its 
modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to reconcile all 
religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based 
on eternal verities. 16 


The expression `all religions´ includes, obviously, the theistic 
religions of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. By 
emphasising the importance of searching for Truth `freely and 
fearlessly´, Theosophy renders a valuable service to all genuine 
seekers: it points to the existence of a common ground among all the 
different traditions—a truly universal teaching, based on an 
uplifting ethic which has at its very heart the principle of 
Universal Brotherhood without any distinctions, a principle that 
emanates from the reality of the undivided unity of all existence; 
but it also helps the student to realise as a fact that the 
centuries-old religious structures have accumulated many accretions, 
like superstitions, dogmas, man-made hierarchies, ideological 
domination of its adherents and a sectarian mind-set that has 
fuelled many bitter divisions, atrocities and wars. 

In her magnum opus, The Secret Doctrine, Madame Blavatsky elaborates 
on the unique but eclectic nature of Theosophy: 


As a whole, neither the foregoing nor what follows can be found in 
full anywhere. It is not taught in any of the six Indian schools of 
philosophy, for it pertains to their synthesis—the seventh, which is 
the Occult doctrine. It is not traced on any crumbling papyrus of 
Egypt, nor is it any longer graven on Assyrian tile or granite wall. 
The Books of the Vedanta (the last word of human knowledge) give out 
but the metaphysical aspect of this world-Cosmogony; and their 
priceless thesaurus, the Upanishads—Upa-ni-shad being a compound 
word meaning "the conquest of ignorance by the revelation of secret, 
spiritual knowledge"—require now the additional possession of a 
Master-key to enable the student to get at their full meaning. The 
reason for this I venture to state here as I learned it from a 
Master.17 


But it is perhaps desirable to state unequivocally that the 
teachings, however fragmentary and incomplete, contained in these 
volumes, belong neither to the Hindu, the Zoroastrian, the Chaldean, 
nor the Egyptian religion, neither to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and 
Christianity exclusively. The Secret Doctrine is the essence of all 
these. Sprung from it in their origins, the various religious 
schemes are now made to merge back into their original element, out 
of which every mystery and dogma has grown, developed, and become 
materialized.18 


In one of his articles, `A Personal and Impersonal God´, T. Subba 
Row acknowledged the opposing views on the subject of God among TS 
members at that time (1883). He showed that living the spiritual 
life is more important than engaging in metaphysical arguments: 


Let us then each take the solution that best suits our mental and 
spiritual constitution, and let us leave our neighbours an equal 
freedom of choice; let us never hesitate to state and defend our own 
views and oppose those other views that we think wrong, but let us 
do all this as we would defend our own and oppose our opponent´s 
game at chess, with no more feeling against our opponents than we 
have against an adversary at the noble game. 

Above all let us remember that in this present life, the high 
theoretical questions of Personal, Impersonal, and No-God, are of 
less concern to us than our own everyday life about the right 
conduct of which no similar difficulties exist.19 


What is the theosophical view on God? Is it the one declared by the 
Mahatmas, or by the Maha-Chohan, or by Madame Blavatsky? Is it the 
one present in the Gita, or in Annie Besant´s books, or in Subba 
Row´s articles? Do not all the above views enrich our understanding 
of this profound subject? Are they not an example of the eclectic 
spirit of Theosophy? In the end, perhaps every student will have to 
answer these questions by himself or herself. But whatever the 
theosophical view on God may be, or for that matter, on any subject, 
it will be one that is not exclusive, parochial, intolerant, 
divisive, crystallised. If it is a theosophical view at all, it will 
help to enlighten the human mind, to open vast vistas of perception 
and experience, and to point the way to the entrance of that path 
that leads deep into the Mystery that makes us all one with every 
living creature, with every human heart and with the boundless 
universe. 
  

References: 
1. The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett in chronological sequence, 
ed. Vicente Hao Chin, Jr., Theosophical Publishing House, Manila, 
1993, p. 270. As the late Virginia Hanson, one of the deepest 
students of the Letters of all time, explained, Letter 10 
(chronologically 88) `is not a letter at all. It is headed, "Notes 
by K.H. on a `Preliminary Chapter´ headed `God´ by Hume [A. O. Hume, 
one of the recipients of the Letters], intended to preface an 
exposition of Occult Philosophy".´ (In An Introduction to the 
Mahatma Letters by Virginia Hanson, Olcott Institute, Theosophical 
Society in America, 1996, p. 45). 
2. ibid, p. 270.
3. ibid, p. 432.
4. Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom - First Series, ed. C. 
Jinarajadasa, The Theosophical Publishing House, Madras, 1948, p. 
112.
5. An Introduction to the Mahatma Letters, p. 46.
6. ibid, p. 48.
7. C. Jinarajadasa, op cit, pp. 5-6.
8. ibid, p. 6.
9. Besant, Annie, Esoteric Christianity, The Theosophical Publishing 
House, Wheaton, 1987, 
p. 15.
10. Blavatsky, H.P., Practical Occultism, The Theosophical 
Publishing House, Madras, 1981, pp. 72-73. 
11. Blavatsky, H. P., The Key to Theosophy, Theosophical Publishing 
House, London, year of publication not provided, pp 67-68.
12.Leadbeater, C. W., An Outline of Theosophy, The Theosophical 
Publishing House, Madras, 1963, pp. 22-23.
13.The Bhagavad Gita, transl. Annie Besant, The Theosophical 
Publishing House, Madras, IV:5-11.
14. Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett, ed. Trevor Barker, 
T. Fisher Unwin Ltd, London. 1925.
15. Subba Row, T., Notes on the Bhagavad Gita, Theosophical 
University Press, Pasadena, 1978, p. 6. 
16. Blavatsky, H.P., The Key to Theosophy, Theosophical Publishing 
House, London, no year of publication, pp.1-3.
17. Blavatsky, H. P., The Secret Doctrine, The Theosophical 
Publishing House, Madras, 1979, p. 269.
18. ibid, p. viii.
19. Subba Row, T., Esoteric Writings, Theosophical Publishing House, 
Madras, 1931, p.457. .