On Pedro Oliviera?s article, and my criticism
Nov 01, 2006 08:30 AM
by Carl Ek
This article was not published in "Theosophy in Australia", nor on
its web-page, after a decision made by Mrs. Linda Oliveira, the
editor and wife of Pedro Oliviera. Strange, isn't it!?
/Carl
______________________________
Some comments concerning the article "Which Theosophy?" by Pedro
Oliveira
by
Carl Ek
In Theosophy in Australia, No 1 - March 2006, I was caught by an
article by Pedro Oliveira titled "Which Theosophy?" My first
thought was, after I read the title: "What does he mean?"
What "which theosophy"? From my point of view, as a student of
Theosophy, who is trying to live Theosophy, in the meaning of being
a true Theosophist. I couldn't at first really understand what the
sentence of the article was about. But after I had observed the
picture collage with H.P. Blavatsky, William Q. Judge, C.W.
Leadbeater and Annie Besant, it stood perfectly clear for me. These
four people are well known names in the history of the modern
Theosophical Movement. To directly say that they are representing
two or more "camps" would be from several points of view wrong. But
one thing is clear, that Blavatsky and Judge stand for one. This is
because there is not a single word from either of them that goes
against what the other has said either concerning teachings, or
their view on the Theosophical Society or the modern Theosophical
Movement. Blavatsky made a clear statement when she was
saying: "There Judge is, there also I am". Internal ranking between
them doesn't exist, because they were/are both highly accepted
chelas, and advanced occultists. They were/are both the principal
Teachers of the modern Theosophical Movement, and in that - true
Colleagues. Everyone with any knowledge of what those two stood for
and taught, know and understand that this was the case. That
Leadbeater then stood for something different is undoubtedly clear
too. He was representing another "camp", consciously or not
consciously, I do not dare to say. This I state with the basis that
he was presenting teachings, that stood in clear contrast with what
the Masters, and what their Messengers taught and represented. Annie
Besant as a disciple and close co-worker with Blavatsky (and
personal friend of Mr. Judge) didn't deviate from this so long as
Blavatsky was incarnated. But after that something happened, and all
of you that have read Colonel Olcott's Old Diary Leaves, know this
very well. The old Colonel knew very well what was going on. Several
times he asked William Q. Judge to take over as the President of the
Society. Then Judge did not do this and you know very well what
Olcott did. Indeed he was still holding the title of Founding-
President, but the main part of his time and energy he laid on
Buddhism and this was the case until he passed away in 1907.
In Mr. Oliveira's article there are several mistakes and errors, and
some of these are because important historical facts in these
matters are jumped over, and these are important to show to get a
correct picture of the development of the modern Theosophical
Movement. My comments are based on the fact that there is only one
Theosophy, and one Theosophical teaching (with roots among the
Masters, and the Tradition and the School they are representing),
and everything else then is not Theosophy (for why should the
Masters of Wisdom contradict themselves!?). The parts and quotations
I comment on follow the order as they appear in Oliveira's article.
I wish to make it clear that this should not be seen as a
personal "attack" on Mr. Oliveira, but only to bring attention to
where he has become a victim of errors. I have chosen only to
comment the first part of the article in detail because it is more
important for the understanding of the source, the purpose and the
teaching of the Theosophical Movement. The rest I will comment in
short words. Some errors I have chosen not to discuss because the
teachings behind them are far too complicated and advanced for this
forum.
First of all, it's important to make clear what is the fountain-
source and origin of Theosophy (according to Theosophy). Is it
private statements made by one or several individuals (Blavatsky,
Judge, Mahatmas, Buddhas, Chelas etcetera)? Revelations from
beings, that are more or less human and/or gods? Or is it the
result of experiences made by humans that have searched and
researched unbounded since the Manasputras in the middle of the
present rounds third root race (c. 18 million years ago) incarnated
in humanity to "wake" it to full self consciousness? Theosophy
teaches that it is the last thing, and nothing else. The most
talented of these "awakened" humans was/are the so
called "researches", whom later organised themselves into a unity, a
body, which we (in The West) are calling The Brotherhood (this is
the name the Masters themselves prefer that we use) or The Master
Lodge (the expression The White Lodge, has been so misused by pseudo-
theosophical groups that I prefer no to use it).
One purpose among others of the Brotherhood is to continuously
search and research the secrets of the Universe, and to guide (but
not lead) humanity in its spiritual development. They are who we,
(as us a part of the Theosophical Movement) are calling the Masters.
What and who are the Masters?
Among some pseudo-theosophical groups they have been given a super
human, or even divine, status. And even some non-theosophical
elements operating inside the Theosophical Movement have gone so far
away from the original Theosophical Teaching that they are devoting
the Masters into nearly religious forms. Clear is that the Masters
do not answer any kind of prayers, neither do they communicate in
mediumistic or spiritistic ways. Several terrible examples are known
when this has been tried. H.P. Blavatsky in her excellent
article "How too take contact with the Masters" makes clear how
contacts could be taken, and all who are a member of the E.S. and
have paid attention in their studies know another way. It is clear
the Masters are humans, but not necessarily (for the moment) of
flesh and blood (with knowledge in the Theosophical teachings
concerning the seven human principles, and about the nature of the
Masters this is very clear).
In a number of places in Oliveira's article, the Masters are
mentioned and referred to. For those who don't know who and what the
Masters are, or how they work, is it important to explain, otherwise
neither Oliveira's article, nor my comments will be understood
correctly. Misunderstandings concerning the nature of the Masters
outside the Theosophical Movement have created several strange
doctrines, and indeed strange organisations. Those with knowledge in
modern history and sociology of religion know, that during the 20th
century (mainly from the 1920's and forward) many sects and cults,
totally or partly got their "teaching" from people that operated
inside the Theosophical Movement who spread false and wrong
doctrines, or used Theosophy as a mask for their non-theosophical
activity.
How many Masters there are is known only to the superior in the
Brotherhood. From the Theosophical literature we know of 17 Masters,
(plus many chelas, that are a direct disciple to a Master), who in
different ways, were more or less involved in the founding of the
modern Theosophical Movement and the Theosophical Society (the
Parent Society). Among these, three were considerably more active,
and took the growing modern Theosophy on their shoulders, and Karma.
These three Masters where M., K.H. and H.P.B. (not to be mixed-up
with the Chela Helena P. Blavatsky). What the initials stand for has
no interest, for none of them are standing for their real names.
They are using different names in different circumstances and in
different places. H.P. Blavatsky described how the two Masters M.
and K.H. are living in Ladakh precisely as all the other humans
there, and are well known in that society. If we should go there and
ask for M. or K.H., no one of the locals would understand of whom we
are talking about (and even if there are some people any of these
names, they would certainly not be any of the mentioned Masters),
hence they are using other names there. Therefore to give any
importance to their names, and definitely to mystify them, is with
out value. Everyone that has had connection with them, know that
they are humans, just like you and I, but with a much greater
knowledge than the main part of humanity. They eat less and have a
significantly less need of sleep. Their occult powers, like to
create, send away and use a Mayavi-rupa (a vehicle of mental matter,
also called a thought body, with origin, where it also will be
absorbed after its "duty" is fulfilled, often in Manas, and even
more rare in Buddhi), to read karma and to read in the Astral Light,
to change their physical material atoms in their sthula-sárira in to
astral-material and through this reach a higher age than is normal
for the common man, to reincarnate without a kama-loka and a
devachanic rest in total consciousness and a lot of other things
which make these humans to Masters, but they are still totally
human. The Evolution of Man has this in its plan, for all mankind,
on our way to higher life forms.
The Masters send their disciples (Chelas) "out in the world" on a
regular basis, and also on more unique and specific missions. One
of these is to found a Mystery School, and the Chela appears then as
a hierophant. We know several like this from the history, like
Plato, Pythagoras and Cagliostro. And a mission, just like that,
was one of Helena P. Blavatsky's. In this matter, she is not
unique, but never in a surveyable time has so large amount of
esoteric knowledge gone to be exoteric. The famous Hindu Theosophist
and writer T. Subba Row's (1856-1890) reaction on Helena P.
Blavatsky's publishing of the opus by the three Masters M., K.H. and
H.P.B., the Secret Doctrine was interesting. His opinion was that
this was absolutely too much (and this even since Master M. was his
one Master, but to Theosophy he was loyal in till death, and
probably still is, even if he resigned from his membership in the
T.S. the year before that he past away).
As the Master Lodge, the Mystery Schools are educational intuitions,
built up by Masters (which in their turn are Chelas to their own
Masters), and Chelas, which are the teachers and Students. They are
also researchers (hence no one is fully skilled in the Mysteries of
the Universe), and keepers of artefacts and scriptures from ancient
times. The above mentioned Mystery Schools, have in some cases
organised a "Temple", a religion, above its "crypt", for the common
man, which not are ready to take part in deeper studies. Here they
could take part of ethical messages, masked in an emotional and easy
obtainable form to be accessible for simple minds, with something
for all of the five senses. The Christian Church (which doesn't have
any "crypt" anymore) is a well known example of this, with its
priests in beautiful colourful dresses for the eyes, incense for the
nose, bread and wine for the mouth, holy water to put the fingers
in, then make the sign of the cross for the skin and have lovely
music for the ears. Rituals exists even in the Mystery Schools, in
their first three degree's, but then on a much higher level.
Reminiscences from these rituals could the observant Esotericist
find in the blue degrees of Freemasonry, to give a Western example.
The hope of the Master Lodge was that the Theosophical Society would
be a Mystery School in the West, the first and only one since the
ardent christen Emperor Justinian I of Byzans in the year 529,
closed the last one, namely Academos of Plato in Athens, and with
that opened a new era, the "Dark Middle-age". They hoped to found a
new Mystery School within T.S. which ended up to be a failure, by
reasons we soon will see.
Then it is clear, that Theosophy is science, which lives philosophy,
and (could) use religion, in that order.
In the first part on page 7, we read the following about the
founding of T.S.:"... through the inspiration and guidance of her
Adept-Teachers ..." It is indeed right so say that H.P. Blavatsky
was inspired and guided by her Teachers, but three things that are
important in this matter are not mentioned. The first is that her
Teachers were also her Superiors in this work, so the founding of
T.S. was nothing but an order. She was their Messenger, primarily
for the West (but she has also other missions, of greater value),
for the 19th (and 20th) century. The second thing is that T.S., or
more correctly in this context the Theosophical Movement (because
far from all members of the different theosophical societies are
students of Theosophy, and far lesser Theosophists), has to be seen
as a part of the Great Lodge, as a branch, even if not to
satisfaction (as it was originally thought). The third is that it
was two that had this mission, namely Helena P. Blavatsky and
William Q. Judge.
This was not the first time these two occult giants were
working together, and definitely not the last. The trust H.P.B. and
Helena P. Blavatsky had and has for William Q. Judge (his/her "mate-
in-arm"), is showing the close relationship they had. These
quotations from different letters (gathered and published in The
Irish Theosophist in June, 1895) written by H.P.B. and Helena P.
Blavatsky are showing this very clearly:
"Thanks for all, my dear old chum [W.Q.J.]; may the Masters protect
him. His ever and till and AFTER death."
"My dear W.Q.J. . . . my only friend . . . Judge has done for me so
much lately, I owe him such gratitude, there is nothing I would do
for him . . . `Pon my word, I never knew I cared so much for him
personally. . . . I will never forget Judge's loyalty and devotion,
his unswerving friendship. . . ."
The following quotation form the pencil of H.P.B. makes this far
clearer:
London Oct. 23, 1889
"The idea is absurd and preposterous . . . H.P.B. would give . . .
the whole esoteric bood in the U.S.A. for one W.Q.J. who is part of
herself since several aeons . . . .
DIXI. H.P.B."
In the next part we read:"HPB, as Madame Blavatsky was
affectionately known by her students and co-workers, . . . " . A
person who is claming this has only elementary knowledge in
Theosophy, and the Messenger (this fact even C.W. Leadbeater admit
even if he made some mistakes concerning it, see his Statement from
the June 14th 1885 which is quoted in the article The `Complex
Character' of Madame Blavatsky by M.T. (Light (London) March 2,
1901, p. 103) which will be found under the link;
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/anoncomplex.htm). The proofs are
many, that H.P.B. and Helena P. Blavatsky was/are not the same
person. For those who are not so well orientated in the Theosophical
literature these facts are not known. This is explained with the
following words: H.P.B. was one of the three Masters/High Occultists
which had taken Theosophy, and with that the whole Movement, on its
shoulders and Karma, he was also one of three co-writers of the
Secret Doctrine. Helena P. Blavatsky on the other hand, was a Chela
of Master M., which had from her Master been given the Mission to be
the new Mystery School, which the T.S. was considered to be,
Hierophant and Leader.
The following quotation is showing this clearly:
London Oct. 23, 1889
"He or she, who believes that under any circumstances whatever,
provocations, gossips, slander or anything devised by the enemy
H.P.B. will ever dream even of going against W. Q. J. -- does not
know H P B -- even if he or she does know H. P. Blavatsky, or thinks
he knows her.
DIXI. H.P.B. "
Above he makes a distinction between "H.P.B." the high occultist
and "H. P. Blavatsky" the Russian woman, the outer personality with
its marked idiosyncrasies, of which the Masters speak very plainly
in their letters to A.P. Sinnett. She half-humorously indicated this
distinction, of which no one was more aware than herself, in the
words she wrote in her own copy of The Voice of the Silence: "H.P.B.
to H. P. Blavatsky with no kind regards."
(http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-tm/hpbtm-17.htm)
In the middle of the same part Blavatsky's move from Adyar
back to Europe is mentioned. It would have been suitable to mention
the reasons of this move here. In Blavatsky's article Why I do not
return to India we find them:
"There seems to have been something strange and uncanny going on at
Adyar, during these last years. No sooner does a European, most
Theosophically inclined, most devoted to the Cause, and the personal
friend of myself or the President, set his foot in Headquarters,
than he becomes forthwith a personal enemy to one or other of us,
and what is worse, ends by injuring and deserting the Cause.
But the loyalty and courage of the Adyar Authorities, and of the few
Europeans who had trusted in the Masters, were not equal to the
trial when it came. In spite of my protests, I was hurried away from
Headquarters. Ill as I was, almost dying in truth, as the physicians
said, yet I protested, and would have battled for Theosophy in India
to my last breath, had I found loyal support. But some feared legal
entanglements, some the Government, while my best friends believed
in the doctors' threats that I must die if I remained in India. So I
was sent to Europe to regain my strength, with a promise of speedy
return to my beloved Aryavarta.
Acting under the 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. Recognizing the splendid work done at Adyar by Colonel
Olcott and others to carry out the second of the three objects of
the T.S., viz., to promote the study of Oriental Literature, I was
determined to carry out here the two others. All know with what
success this had been attended. Twice Colonel Olcott was asked to
come over, and then 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 be 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."
(http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/WhyIDoNotReturnToIndia.htm)
On page 8, in its first own part we read: "Soon after HPB
died, in May 1891, differences of approach to the teachings of
Theosophy became evident." Two errors appear in this sentence.
First; H.P.B. did not die in May, 1891. That Helena P. Blavatsky
died then has nothing directly to do with H.P.B. The second, and far
more important, is that there never were any changes in the
Theosophical Teachings, until today's day, and will never happen.
Some pseudo-theosophical teachings have been spread, but these are
not Theosophical, and will never be. If it is the spread of these
pseudo-theosophical teachings Oliveira is talking about, which it
probably is, this happened not before the true Manas of the Society
and the Movement was "gone". To it was 1891 was that Blavatsky,
after that until 1896, it was William Q. Judge.
Later in the same part we find: "William Q. Judge, Vice-President of
the TS at that time, left the TS with Headquarters at Adyar and
formed The Theosophical Society in America in 1895". This is not
correct. Judge was also then Secretary General for the American
Section of T.S., and what happened during the Boston Convention 1895
was that the Section in total agreement with the Regulations and
Statutes of the Society declared it self as an independent part of
the International T.S. Just as Blavatsky did when she returned to
Europe and formed the European Federation as an independent part of
T.S., and with her self as President for life, and the Boston
Convention elected Judge as President for life. The sentence trying
to clam that Judge left T.S., in an alternative break of and founded
his own society is not correct. If Judge had the ambition to be the
International President of T.S., he could have been that. We must
keep in mind that during this period, the normal way of organisation
in the Movement was that every National society was an independent
Theosophical Society.
In chapter 22 of H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement by
Charles J. Ryan we are finding:
"Unfortunately, this desirable condition did not last long. Grossly
distorted reports and scurrilous articles about the recent
difficulties appeared in sensational newspapers, written by enemies
of theosophy, upon documentary information supplied by a suspended
member of the E.S., who said he found it "Intolerable" to be left in
the position of "having brought charges without proving them."
Within the Society sides were again taken. Mrs. Besant pressed her
charges still more strongly, and Mr. Judge's defenders supported him
with vigor. It soon became apparent that no satisfactory agreement
could be reached between the contending parties. A temporary
separation, at least, was the only way out of the difficulty. The
final outcome was the decision of the American Section, the largest
of the sections, to work henceforth as "The Theosophical Society in
America" with complete independence, under the presidency of W. Q.
Judge. This was effected with great enthusiasm at the Boston
Convention on April 28-9, 1895, by a majority of 191 votes against
10."
(http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-tm/hpbtm-22.htm)
H.P.B. and Helena P. Blavatsky trusted totally in Judge is there no
duet in.
"Take my place in America now & after I am gone ? at Adyar."
H.P.B. to W.Q.J.
(http://blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj81287.htm)
In a letter by H.P.B. from 1889 we read the following:
"The Esoteric Section and its life in the U.S.A. depends on W.Q.J.
remaining its agent & what he is now. The day W.Q.J. resigns, H.P.B.
will be virtually dead for the Americans. W.Q.J. is the Antaskarana
between the two Manas (es), the American thought & the Indian ? or
rather the trans-Himalayan Esoteric Knowledge. DIXI.
P.S. W.Q.J. had show, & impress this on the minds of all those whom
it may concern"
H.P.B.
H.P.B.'s last words make it far clearer how enormously important
William Q. Judge was for the Movement:
"KEEP THE LINK (the Antaskarana) UNBROKEN! DO NOT LET MY LAST
INCARNATION BE A FAILURE."
The Master was very clear upon His opinion then He
wrote: "Judge is right!" to Mrs. Besant. This was also hers, until
she ended up under the influence of Mr. Chakravarti. We continue to
read in chapter 22 in H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement
by Charles J. Ryan:
"Annie Besant was strongly impressed by the personality of the
Brahmanical representative, G. N. Chakravarti, and for many years
her opinions were colored by his point of view. W. Q. Judge watched
his growing ascendancy over her mind with anxiety, feeling that it
was not in harmony with H. P. Blavatsky's intense disapproval of the
methods of what she called "religions of pomp and gold." He became
more uneasy when, on Mrs. Besant's return to England with the party
that included Mr. Chakravarti, she prepared to go to India on a long
lecture-tour, and he warned her that it was not a propitious time to
go. Before leaving, she spent a short time in London during which
she saw a good deal of the Brahman, who left for India shortly
before she and the Countess Wachtmeister started for the Orient. A
vivid light is thrown upon this very critical time in the history of
the T.S. by Dr. Archibald Keightley, a most reliable student under
H.P.B. The following passage occurs in a long protest he made in
defense of Mr. Judge during the crisis of 1895. After giving
instances of Chakravarti's ability to throw glamour over individuals
or groups, he wrote:
I lived at Headquarters [London] during Mr. Chakravarti's visit
there and knew from Mrs. Besant, from him and from personal
observation, of his frequent magnetisation of Mrs. Besant. He said
that he did it to, "coordinate her bodies for work to be done." To a
physician and a student of occultism, the magnetisation of a woman
advanced to the critical age of mid-life, a vegetarian, an ascetic,
by a man, a meat-eater, one of full habit, large appetite and of
another and dark race, is not wise. The latter magnetism will
assuredly overcome the former, however excellent the intentions of
both persons. And I soon saw the mental effect of this in Mrs.
Besant's entire change of view, in other matters besides those of
H.P.B. and Mr. Judge. -- The Path, X, 99-100, June 1895. "
(http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-tm/hpbtm-22.htm)
Further some quotation from letters (gathered and published in The
Irish Theosophist in June, 1895) written by H.P.B. and Helena P.
Blavatsky are making clear Judge's position in the Theosophical
Movement, and the personal trust H.P.B. and the Masters hade to him:
" Judge . . . whom I trusted more perhaps than I did Olcott or
myself."
"Master wants Judge to be elected for life, for reasons of His own ?
that's God's truth, . . .Less than you would I want to see X ______
or anyone (save Judge) elected for life . . . But if I do not like
the idea it is because I trust no one any longer, save Judge, and
Olcott perhaps. I have lost my last faith in mankind and see and
smell (rightly, if you please) Judases everywhere. But with Judge it
is different . . ."
"I trust Judge more than anyone in the world."
[To W.Q.Judge] "Well, sir and my only friend, the crisis is nearing.
I am ending my S.D. and you are going to replace me, or take my
place in America. . . . I rather lose the whole American lot to the
last man, X _______ included, than YOU."
Mr. Judge was from the very beginning clear over the negative
influence Mr. Chakravarti hade over Mrs. Besant, and through her
even on T.S. and E.S.T. In a letter from 1894, Mr. Judge is writing
to Mr. Torsten Hedlund, then deputy leader under Dr. Gustaf Zander
for the E.S.T. in Sweden, and warning him of the new E.S.-
instructions, in which Besant had change after Chakravarti's
opinions. Dr. Franz Hartmann, then leader for the German
Theosophists, private disciple of Blavatsky and corresponder with
the Masters K.H. and S.B., described in a letter to his German
fellow-Theosophists after one of his visits in London HQ. How Besant
was when Chakravarti was present in the room in a state of hypnosis,
and that this ended when he (Chakravarti) left the room.
See further: William Q. Judge's 12-page E.S.T. circular dated the 3
of November 1894, The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950 Chapter XVI
and especially pp. 241-246 and Henry S. Olcott's Old Diary Leafs
Volume V, Chapter XIV, "Mr. Judge Denounces Mrs. Besant", especially
pp. 252-260.
Further are we reading in the same part:" With him (Judge, my note)
begins a line of students that regard the writings of Madame
Blavatsky and her Adept-Teachers as the only authentic source of
modern Theosophy. They include Katherine Tingley, Gottfried de
Purucker and Robert Crosbie, among many others". This is absolutely
not true! To clear this out we most look on two tendencies in the
Theosophical Movement. Two persons are representing one of this,
namely Katherine Tingley (K.T.) and Gottfried de Purucker (G.deP.)
on one hand, and Robert Crosbie (R.C.), on the other. All three are
on the "Judge-side". If we first look at K.T. and G.deP., they are
representing that tendency which to day is the Theosophical Society
with Headquarters at Pasadena (formerly in Point Loma and Covina).
Oliveira is claming that they are saying, that it is only the
writings of Madame Blavatsky and The Masters that are the only
authentic source of modern Theosophy. This is absolutely not
correct. One could see the Pasadena-Theosophy as a logical
presentation in that that Blavatsky propound the basic overview,
Judge further developed the mystic, Tingley the ethics and Purucker
the philosophy. So the clam is totally wrong.
If we now look at Robert Crosbie, who also got the doubtful honour
of representing this "line", the third person in this "triad", we
must see who he was. Firstly he was for many years a corresponding
disciple of Blavatsky, and a personal friend, close co-worker and
indeed one of Judge's most trusted disciples. In the beginning he
followed Katherine Tingley. After Judges death, she "took" over the
Theosophical Society in America and united with that the societies
in Europe and other places which were "Judge-faithful" (some decided
however to stay independent, and probably the most known of these
was the German society Theosophische Gesellschaft in Deutschland
e.V., headed by Dr. Franz Hartmann (which still is working totally
independent after the original program) and E.T. Hargrove who was
then President of the Theosophical Society in Europe and America
(Judges administrative successor) left and founded a new society
(according to him, K.T. took over more or less "illegally") and
Julia W.L. Keightley (more known as Jasper Niemand, author of
Letters that have helped me, she was Judges closest disciple and
instructed many advanced occultists over the world) who later
followed him, and some other well known Theosophists), and founded
the new International Headquarters in Point Loma (also known as
Lomaland). R.C. was invited by K.T. to come and live in Lomaland,
and to take part of the inner work and to bear high offices in the
Society. But 1909 R.C. left the Theosophical Society Point Loma, and
settled down in Los Angeles. Around him, he joined a group of
Theosophists and Students of Theosophy and started a study group,
with Judge's The Ocean of Theosophy as material. The reason why he
left Point Loma and its society, and he wasn't alone (the Society
lost many members during K.T.'s leader-period), was because of
K.T.'s way of leading the Society and keeping up, for the majority
of the members, a far too high ethical level (which was close to
superhuman), and put the character fashioning and altruism, before
the main purpose and original way of working (G.deP. later, during
his leadership, went back to previous forms of organisation and way
working in the Society, but he was totally clear that K.T. was
right, had good purposes and was guided by the Masters, he
understood that if the members were not ready, then the common man
wasn't either). The study group R.C. had founded in L.A. soon
selected the name of the United Lodge of Theosophists (U.L.T.), and
this lodge is seen as the Mother-lodge for the U.L.T.-lodges all
over the world. The U.L.T.-lodges see them self as a group of
Theosophists and Students of Theosophy which decided to unite in a
lodge in a particular location and all lodges are considered to be
independent. What holds the U.L.T.-lodges together are two things.
First the Declaration:
"The policy of this Lodge is independent devotion to the cause of
Theosophy, without professing attachment to any Theosophical
organization. It is loyal to the great founders of the Theosophical
Movement, but does not concern itself with dissensions or
differences of individual opinion."
"The work it has on hand and the end it keeps in view are too
absorbing and too lofty to leave it the time or inclination to take
part in side issues. That work and that end is the dissemination of
the Fundamental Principles of the philosophy of Theosophy, and the
exemplification in practice of those principles, through a truer
realization of the SELF; a profounder conviction of Universal
Brotherhood.
"It holds that the unassailable Basis for Union among Theosophists,
wherever and however situated, is "similarity of aim, purpose and
teaching," and therefore has neither Constitution, By-Laws, nor
Officers, the sole bond between its Associates being that basis. And
it aims to disseminate this idea among Theosophists in the
furtherance of Unity.
"It regards as Theosophists all are engaged in the true service of
Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or
organization, and
"It welcomes to its association all those who are in accord with its
declared purposes and who desire to fit themselves, by study and
otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach others.
The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each
and all."
The Declaration above is gathered together by R.C. mainly by the
most essential quotations from the writings of W.Q.J. The second
thing that is holding the U.L.T.-lodges together is that every lodge-
member is associated in the Parent Lodge in Los Angeles (which a
person could be without being a member in a particular lodge).
U.L.T. is very careful of the fact that Judge was
Blavatsky's "Colleague", and like her the Teacher of the modern
Theosophical Movement, but doesn't use the Mahatma Letters (to A.P.
Sinett, or others) and writings of other Theosophists. The U.L.T.
only use Blavatsky's, Judge's and Crosbie's (plus in certain ways,
the writings of B.P. Wadia) works. R.C. is not seen as a Teacher,
but as a person who explains the writings of Judge. This authority
his owns as a personal friend, co-worker and disciple of Judge. We
have to be clear over what is the purpose of U.L.T. U.L.T. sees it
self as a School of Theosophy, with the purpose to spread the basics
in the Teachings of Theosophy. All other Theosophical studies, on a
more advanced level or esoteric Theosophy, are left outside the
U.L.T. Sometimes, in some places, it is arranged by leading
members "private study groups" for this types of studies. These
groups are not a part of U.L.T., are not advertised and its new
participants are recruited from and out side the lodges, when they
are thought to be mature and ready. The main purpose for this is as
the Declaration is saying: "It holds that the unassailable Basis for
Union among Theosophists, wherever and however situated,
is "similarity of aim, purpose and teaching," In other words, the
basic Theosophy, could all Students of Theosophy gather around. We
must to have it clear that the majority of the "U.L.T.-members",
during its period of increase in the 1920th and -30th mainly came
form the Adyar-society (which followed Bomanji Pestonji Wadia when
he left the T.S. (Adyar), because of that this society had left the
original Theosophical Doctrine and way of working. In his Statement
of Resignation from the Theosophical Society (Adyar), and as a
member of the General Council, from July 18, 1922 B.P. Wadia writ:
"I have come to the conclusion that the Theosophical Society has
strayed away from the "Original Programme" inspired by the "Original
Impulses" whereby the Masters brought it into existence through the
help of Their Messenger, H.P. Blavatsky. It is no more a Society of
seekers of the Wisdom, but an organization where many believe in the
few, and blind following has come to prevail; where shams pass for
realities, and the credulity of superstition gains encouragement;
and where the noble ideals of Theosophical Ethics are exploited and
dragged in the mire of psychism and immorality. Theosophy as a
system of thought put forward by the Masters through H.P. Blavatsky
has ceased to be a serious subject of persistent study, and that
which has taken its place has little resemblance to the original
virile, healthy, and profound teachings. The Theosophical Society as
it exists today is disloyal to Theosophy and its Holy Cause, and I
regard that those who remain loyal to Theosophy can not be loyal to
the Theosophical Society.
I have earnestly and honestly endeavored to bring the above fact to
the notice of the members by the only straight forward course of
preaching the Truth as H.P. Blavatsky taught it. Time, energy and
money spent in the Theosophical Society have brought the further
knowledge that the existing conditions in the Theosophical Society
are so deep rooted and so wide spread that the disease is incurable.
The Theosophical Society, as feared by H.P. Blavatsky, has drifted
on a sandbank and is, spiritually speaking, a dead body.
Under these circumstances there is but one honest course to be
pursued, by the sincere Theosophist, and I have chosen it: to leave
the Society from which the Life of the Lodge has departed; and must
continue to work for Theosophy, loyal to the true Founders and to
their Message, co-operating with all those brother-Theosophists who
hold to the unassailable basis for union ? "similarity of aim,
purpose and teaching" in reference to that Message."
I am recommending every one to read and study this impotent
document, as a whole. It is to be found during this Internet link:
http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/BPWadia_StatementOfResignationTS_2
003.htm
B.P. Wadia was the one who laid the foundations to every
U.L.T.-lodge (except the Mother-lodge), except those in Malmö
(Sweden), Jacmel (Haiti) and Douala (Cameroon), in the world. The
case that U.L.T. is doubted about "new teachings", but not denying,
has many reasons, which I here choose to leave out-side.
On page 8, in its third part it's said:" . . . a great Adept known
as the Maha-Chohan . . .". This is a title, gathered together by the
Sanskrit word maha for great or grand, and the Tibetan chohan for
lord. Which are given "Grand Lord", and describe one which is a
Master to a Master. This sentence could give the non experienced
Student the false idea that is a name (which is the opinion of
several pseudo-theosophical and non-theosophical groups).
Page 9:
? The part that is quoted in the fourth part, and is said to
be from Maha-Chohan is a pure falsification, and produced in the
ring among Leadbeater. And with that have the whole thing no value.
? In the last part is it spoken about T.S. (Adyar) in
statistic words. That fact, that the Indians never removed a closed
lodge from de scrolls, is not taken on consideration. Which the
following quotation is showing:
"H.S.O. threatens to resign, may be will resign, and he seeks to
throw the whole blame upon me! Last year when here, he boasted of
theosophy & its Branches going up higher than sky, in India. All was
flourishing then, all promising, the people's devotion as great as
ever, 150 Branches strong & happy: And what's the truth & what does
Bert find there? Out of the 150 Branches, only 40 alive. No one
approaching Adyar at 5 miles distance."
(http://blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj111990.htm)
Further is it talking about the numbers of members at the times of
Annie Besant's death. The fact that around 50% of the members of
T.S. (Adyar) left in connection with the abdication of Jiddu
Krishnamurti, and with that a drastic falling numbers of lodges is
not either taken into consideration.
In the third part is it spoken about "Buddhist". Has Oliveira not
read The Secret Doctrine, or even The Key to Theosophy? He seems to
have read from The Key to Theosophy at least, but not understood
what he was reading when he is seemed to believe that "Budhist" is a
person that belongs to the Buddhist religion/philosophy and with
that the same as a Buddhist. So the whole "talk" is with out value.
We most not forget that both M. and K.H. was/are Hindus, and not
belonging to Buddhism, but Budhists. In Encyclopedic Theosophical
Glossary we read:
"Budhaism or Budhism [from Sanskrit budha wisdom] The anglicized
form of the term for the teachings of divine philosophy, called in
India budha (esoteric wisdom). It is equivalent to the Greek term
theosophia. It must be distinguished from Buddhism, the philosophy
of Gautama Buddha, although this is a direct and pure derivative
from budhaism."
See further the Introductory to the Secret Doctrine Vol. I, pp. xxi,
xxvii-xviii.
Page 10:
? In the first part Oliveira is writing that several books
that was co-writed by Annie Besant (her own book The Seven
Principles of Man is as an excellent new beginners book, in its
original from 1892/1897) and C.W. Leadbeater, "are based on their
clairvoyant investigations". To not take into consideration what
Blavatsky said about this type of activity is frightening. My
question to Mr. Oliveira is: What interests have a student of
Theosophy in their truly private thought forms? There is nothing of
public interest in any of these books (except, maybe, for some parts
of their Occult Chemistry). It is referred to that H.P.B. her self
was using clairvoyance when "she" wrote the S.D. Every reader with
some knowledge in the clairvoyance knows that this was not this same
type of clairvoyance, and have nothing to do with this. To read in
the Akasha, and travel in a mayavi-rupa is not the same thing, so
when Oliveira is writing"..., bearing in mind the latter's effort
was to popularise Theosophy." could it not to be seen as any thing
else then a bad excuse for a none-theosophical way of acting.
? In concerning on what is appearing on page 10 have I am
wondering if Mr. Oliveira considered there to be more then one
truth, and if is he gives some value to the Motto of the
Theosophical Movement, which is saying that there is no religion
higher then the Truth?
Page 11:
? The fact that T.S. does not having an official creed is not
the same thing as that Theosophy is not representing certain
doctrines. To be a member of a Theosophical Society is further, not
the same as to be a Theosophist or a Student of Theosophy. And a
Theosophist or a Student of Theosophy does not have to be member of
a Theosophical Society, to be that. Probably are the majority of
them NOT members of any Society.
? The quoted "letter" is not written by a Master, which its
contents are showing since it's not Theosophical, and therefore have
nothing to do in this matter.
? Oliveira is claiming in the last part of the page that the
linga-sarira should be "the Double, the phantom body". This is not a
Theosophical Doctrine. Theosophy is teaching that it directly the
opposite, that it is the physical body that is the "the Double, the
phantom body", and the astral body that is the original. The reason
for this appears in early Theosophical writings because a large
number of the early members came from Spiritism, and to choose other
words would or could have be misunderstood by some. Another well
known example of this is when H.P. Blavatsky is "denying" the
doctrine of reincarnation in Isis Unveiled. When she does that she
is meaning the ideas as they where thought by Allan Cardec, and how
his fellow-Spiritists then believed it to be. She was speaking
instead about the "transmigration of the soul" and "metempsychosis"
(see H.P. Blavatsky "Theories about Reincarnation and Spirits", The
Path November 1886).
Page 12:
? Concerning the so called translations from Sanskrit made by
Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater. Every student of Theosophy (and
Sanskritist) knows that these not are correct, since they are not
with Theosophy agreeing. An example of this that Manas is called
a "body", because it is easy to destroy. The Manas is not a body, in
the same way as the three bodies are in the lower part of the Human
Constitution, and it is not easy to destroy, in other words nearly
impossible.
? In the second part is further a non-theosophical statement
about the Astral Body and to make it alone as bearer of Prana is not
correct. Theosophy is saying that hence everything is living;
therefore everything must be bearer of Prana.
? In the fourth part is H. Tudor Edmond's foreword to Arthur
Powell's book The Etheric Double mentioned. How is it possible to
use non-theosophical material, in a stillborn attempt to make non-
theosophical ideas Theosophical? Named what ever! For a description
over the differences between the HPB/Masters Theosophical Teaching
concerning this, and the leadbeaterian, see The Etheric Double: The
Far-Reaching Effects of a false Assumptions by Geoffrey A. Farthing
(see link http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/etheric.htm).
? In the fifth part are a number of ideas by Annie Besant and
C.W. Leadbeater, and their followers, menaced and incorrectly called
theosophical. Even with a minor knowledge in Theosophy is it clear
that these ideas not are Theosophical.
My opinion about what is honest saying that if someone create a new
doctrine (and I am talking about a totally new doctrine, and not
minor explanation and complements to a already existing one),
should, if they so wish, also give it a name of its own. Otherwise
it is to go with a false notation. Then Annie Besant (most probably,
not consciously and by her on will) and C.W. Leadbeater, and there
followers, created a new doctrine (for one speaking example. see A
Comparison of C.W. Leadbeater's The Chakras with the Writings of
H.P. Blavatsky, William Q. Judge and G. de Purucker by M. Jaqua
(http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/jaqua.htm), which is not
Theosophical, should they not call it Theosophy, and therefore give
it a name of its own.
It is seemed that some persons in the T.S. with Headquarters in
Adyar have come to have a creed which is saying; Do NOT believe as
H.P. Blavatsky and the Masters were teaching. Believe what you want
(and call it gladly theosophy), but absolutely not what the Pioneers
of the Movement believed in, for then you are a Fundamentalist, and
not welcome in the society. This even if someone truly and deep
believes and works for the Principe of Universal Brotherhood.
"Well I have raised a "Frankenstein" & he seeks to devour me."
Helena P. Blavatsky in a letter to William Q. Judge
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
