Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00492)

"Our "Brother" is right. Let us "weep in sackcloth and ashes on our 
head" if the T.S. has many more such unbrotherly criticisms to bear. 
Truly it would be far better "that the name of Theosophy should never 
be heard than that it should be used as the motto" -- not of papal 
authority which exists nowhere at Adyar outside the critic's 
imagination -- but as a motto of a "self-developed fanaticism." All 
the great services otherwise rendered to the Society, all the noble 
work done by the complainant will pale and vanish before such an 
appearance of cold-heartedness. Surely he cannot desire the 
annihilation of the Society? And if he did it would be useless: the 
T.S. cannot be destroyed as a body. It is not in the power of either 
Founders or their critics; and neither friend nor enemy can ruin that 
which is doomed to exist, all the blunders of its leaders 
notwithstanding. That which was generated through and founded by 
the "High Masters" and under their authority if not their 
instruction -- MUST AND WILL LIVE. Each of us and all will receive 
his or her Karma in it, but the vehicle of Theosophy will stand 
indestructible and undestroyed by the hand of whether man or fiend. 
No; "truth does not depend on show of hands"; but in the case of the 
much-abused President-Founder it must depend on the show of facts. 
Thorny and full of pitfalls was the steep path he had to climb up 
alone and unaided for the first years. Terrible was the opposition 
outside the Society he had to build -- sickening and disheartening 
the treachery he often encountered within the Head-Quarters. Enemies 
gnashing their teeth in his face around, those whom he regarded as 
his staunchest friends and co-workers betraying him and the Cause on 
the slightest provocation. Still, where hundreds in his place would 
have collapsed and given up the whole undertaking in despair, he, 
unmoved and unmovable, went on climbing up and toiling as before, 
unrelenting and undismayed, supported by that one thought and 
conviction that he was doing his duty. What other inducement has the 
Founder ever had, but his theosophical pledge and the sense of his 
duty toward THOSE he had promised to serve to the end of his life? 
There was but one beacon for him -- the hand that had first pointed 
to him his way up: the hand of the MASTER he loves and reveres so 
well, and serves so devotedly though occasionally perhaps, unwisely. 
President elected for life, he has nevertheless offered more than 
once to resign in favour of any one found worthier than him, but was 
never permitted to do so by the majority -- not of "show of hands" 
but show of hearts, literally, -- as few are more beloved than he is 
even by most of those, who may criticise occasionally his actions. 
And this is only natural: for cleverer in administrative capacities, 
more learned in philosophy, subtler in casuistry, in metaphysics or 
daily life policy, there may be many around him; but the whole globe 
may be searched through and through and no one found stauncher to his 
friends, truer to his word, or more devoted to real, practical 
theosophy -- than the President-Founder; and these are the chief 
requisites in a leader of such a movement -- one that aims to become 
a Brotherhood of men. The Society needs no Loyolas; it has to shun 
anything approaching casuistry; nor ought we to tolerate too subtle 
casuists. There, where every individual has to work out his own 
Karma, the judgment of a casuist who takes upon himself the duty of 
pronouncing upon the state of a brother's soul, or guide his 
conscience is of no use, and may become positively injurious. The 
Founder claims no more rights than everyone else in the Society: the 
right of private judgment, which, whenever it is found to disagree 
with Branches or individuals are quietly set aside and ignored -- as 
shown by the complainants themselves. This then, is the sole crime of 
the would-be culprit, and no worse than this can be laid at his door. 
And yet what is the reward of that kind man? He, who has never 
refused a service, outside what he considers his official duties -- 
to any living being; he who has redeemed dozens of men, young and old 
from dissipated, often immoral lives and saved others from terrible 
scrapes by giving them a safe refuge in the Society; he, who has 
placed others again, on the pinnacle of Saintship through their 
status in that Society, when otherwise they would have indeed found 
themselves now in the meshes of "worldliness" and perhaps worse; -- 
he, that true friend of every theosophist, and verily "the readiest 
to serve and as unconscious of the service" -- he is now taken to 
task for what? -- for insignificant blunders, for useless "special, 
orders," a childish, rather than untheosophical love of display, out 
of pure devotion to his Society. Is then human nature to be viewed so 
uncharitably by us, as to call untheosophical, worldly and sinful the 
natural impulse of a mother to dress up her child and parade it to 
the best advantages? The comparison may be laughed at, but if it is, 
it will be only by him who would, like the fanatical Christian of 
old, or the naked, dishevelled Yogi of India -- have no more charity 
for the smallest human weakness. Yet, the simile is quite correct, 
since the Society is the child, the beloved creation of the Founder; 
he may be well forgiven for this too exaggerated love for that for 
which he has suffered and toiled more than all other theosophists put 
together. He is called "worldly," "ambitious of power" and 
untheosophical for it. Very well; let then any impartial judge 
compare the life of the Founder with those of most of his critics, 
and see which was the most theosophical ever since the Society sprang 
into existence. If no better results have been achieved, it is not 
the President who ought to be taken to task for it, but the Members 
themselves, as he has been ever trying to promote its growth, and the 
majority of "Fellows" have either done nothing, or created obstacles 
in the way of its progress through sins of omission as of commission. 
Better unwise activity, than an overdose of too wise inactivity, 
apathy or indifference which are always the death of an undertaking."

(http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/theos/th-origp.htm)