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 Τ.S. by our eloquent Demosthenes. After six pages (out of the 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 one 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.
Now this is the most extraordinary argument that could be made. At this rate no Brotherhood, no Association, no Society is possible. More than this; no theosophist,, however holy his present life may be, would have the right to call himself one; for were it always found necessary to examine his earlier life, "to ascertain the underlying principle" which rules through the nature of the present man—ten to one, he would be found unfit to be called a theosophist! The experiment would hardly be found pleasant to the majority of those whom association with the T.S. has reformed; and of such there are a good many.
After such virulent and severe denunciations one might expect some good, friendly and theosophically practical advice. Not at all, and none is offered, since we have been already told (p. 9) that it would be "out of place to suggest any specific measures, as no one who has any faith in Brotherhood—and in the power of Truth, will fail to perceive what is necessary". The President-Founder, has no faith in either "Brotherhood," or "the power of Truth"—apparently. This is made evident by his having failed to perceive (a) that the Headquarters—opened to all Theosophists of any race or social position, board and lodging free of charge the whole year round—was an unbrotherly Organization; (b) that "the central office at Adyar for keeping records and concentrating information" with its European and Hindu inmates working gratuitously and some helping it with their own money whenever they have it—ought to be carried on, according to the method and principle of George Miller of Bristol, namely, the numerous household and staff of officers at Adyar headed by the President-Founder ought to kneel every morning in prayer for their bread and milk appealing for their meals to "miracle"; and that finally, and (c) all the good the Society is doing, is no good whatever but "a spiritual wrong," because it presumes to call "a limited line of good work—(theosophy) Divine Wisdom". The undersigned is an ever patient theosophist, who has hitherto laboured under the impression that no amount of subtle scholasticism and tortured casuistry but could find like the Rosetta stone its Champollion—some day. The most acute among theosophists are now invited to make out in "Α Few Words"—what the writers or writer—is driving at unless in plain and unvarnished language, it be—"Down with the Theosophical Society, President-Founder and its Headquarters !" This is the only possible explanation of the twelve pages of denunciations to which a reply is now attempted. What can indeed be made out of the following jumble of contradictory statements:— (a) The President-Founder having been shown throughout as a "tyrant," a "would be Cesar," "aiming at papal power" and a "Venitian [5] Council of Three," and other words to that effect implied in almost every sentence of the paper under review, it is confessed: in the same breath that the "London Lodge of the Theosophical Society has completely ignored the Rules (of the Pope Caesar) published at Adyar!" (p. 4). And yet, the "L.L. of the T.S." still lives and breathes and one has heard of no anathema pronounced against it, so far . . . (b) Rule XIV stating that the Society has "to deal only with scientific and philosophical subjects," hence, "it is quite evident (?) that the power and position claimed in the Rules for the President-Founder and the Gen. Council and Convention are opposed to the spirit of the declared Objects".
It might have been as well perhaps to quote the entire paragraph in which these words appear, * once that hairs are split about the possibly faulty reaction of the Rules.
[** XIV. The Society having to deal only with scientific and philosophical subjects, and having Branches in different parts of the world under various 'forms of Government, does not permit its members, as such, to interfere with politics, and repudiates any attempt on the part of any one to commit it in favour or against any political party or measure. Violation of this rule will meet with expulsion.
This rather alters the complexion put on the charge, which seems conveniently to forget that "scientific and philosophical subjects" are not the only declared objects of the Society. Let us not leave room for a doubt that there is more animus underlying the charges than would be strictly theosophical.]
Is it not self-evident, that the words brought forward only with scientific and philosophical subjects. "are inserted as a necessary caution to true theosophists, who by dealing with politics within any Branch Society might bring disgrace and ruin on the whole body,—in India to begin with? Has the Society or has it not -over 140 Societies scattered through four parts of the World to take care of? As in the case of "Mahatmas" and "Mahatmaship"—active work of the Theosophical Society is confused—willingly or otherwise it is not for the writer to decide—with Theosophy. No need of entering here upon the difference between the jar that contains a liquid and the nature of, or that liquid itself. "Theosophy teaches self-culture . . . and not control," we are told. Theosophy teaches mutual-culture before self-culture to begin with. Union is strength. It is by gathering many theosophists of the same way of thinking into one or more groups, and making them closely united by the same magnetic bond of fraternal unity and sympathy that the objects of mutual development and progress in Theosophical thought may be best achieved. "Self-ulture" is for isolated Hatha Yogis, independent of any Society and having to avoid association with human beings; and this is a triply distilled Selfishness. For real moral advancement "where two or three are gathered" in the name of the Spirit Of Truth there that Spirit of Theosophy will be in the midst of them. To say that theosophy has no need of a Society—a vehicle and centre thereof,—is like affirming that the Wisdom of the Ages collected in thousands of volumes, at the British Museum has no need of either the edifice that contains it, nor the works in which it is found. Why not advise the British Govt. on its lack of discrimination .and its worldliness in not destroying Museum .and all its vehicles of Wisdom? Why spend such sums of money and pay so many officers to watch over its treasures, the more so, since many of its guardians may be quite out of keeping with, and opposed to the Spirit of that Wisdom. The Directors of such Museums may or may not be very perfect men, and some of their assistants may have never opened a philosophical work: yet, it is they who take care of the library and preserving it for future generations, are indirectly entitled to their thanks. How much more gratitude is due to those who like our self-sacrificing theosophists at Adyar, devote their lives to, and give their services gratuitously to the good of Humanity!
Diplomas, and Charters are objected to, and chiefly the "admission fee". The latter is a "taxation," and therefore "inconsistent with the principle of Brotherhood". . . A "forced gift is unbrothely," etc., etc. It would be curious to see where the T.S., would be led to, were the Pt. F. to religiously follow the proffered advices. "Initiation" on admission, has been made away with already in Europe, and has led to that which will very soon become known: no use mentioning it at present. Now the "Charters" and diplomas would follow. Hence no document to show for any group, and no diploma to prove that one is affiliated to the Society. Hence also perfect liberty to any one to either call himself a theosophist, or deny he is one. The "admission fee"? Indeed, it has to be regarded as a terrible and unbrotherly "extortion," and a "forced gift," in the face of those thousands of Masonic Lodges, of Clubs, Associations, Societies, Leagues, and even the "Salvation Army". The former, extort yearly fortunes from their Members; the latter—throttle in the name of Jesus the masses and appealing to voluntary contributions make the converts pay, and pay in their turn every one of their "officers," none of whom will serve the "Army" for nothing. Yet it would be well, perchance were our members to follow the example of the Masons in their solidarity of thought and action and at least outward Union, notwithstanding that receiving a thousand times more from their members they give them in return still less than we do, whether spiritually or morally. This solitary single guinea expected from every new member is spent in less than one week, as was calculated, on postage and correspondence with theosophists. Or are we to understand that all correspondence with members—now left to "self culture"is also to cease and has to follow diplomas, Charters and the rest? Then truly, the Headquarter and Office have better be closed. A simple Query—however: Have the £1.—the yearly contribution to the L. L. of the Τ. S., and the further sum of 2/6d. to the Oriental Group been abolished as "acts of unbrotherly extortion," and how long, if so, have they begun to be regarded as "a sale of Brotherhood"?
To continue: the charges wind up with the following remarks, so profound, that it requires a deeper head than ours to fathom all that underlies the words contained in them."Is the T.S. a Brotherhood, or not?" queries the plaintiff—"If the former is it possible to have any centre of arbitrary power? *
[* It is the first time since the Τ. S. exists that such an accusation of arbitrary power, is brought forward. Not many will be found of this way of thinking.]
To hold that there is necessity for such a centre is only a roundabout way of saying that no Brotherhood is possible*, but in point of fact that necessity itself is by no means proved (!?). There have been no doubt Brotherhoods under high Masters . . ." (there "have been" and still are. H.P.B.) . . . "but in such cases the Masters were never elected for geographical or other considerations (?).
[*No need taking a roundabout way, to say that no Brotherhood would ever be possible if many theosophists shared the very original views of the writer.]
The natural leader of men was always recognized by his embodying the spirit of Humanity. To institute comparisons would be little short of blasphemy. The greatest among men is always the readiest to serve and yet is unconscious of the service. Let us pause before finally tying the millstone of worldliness around the neck of Theosophy. Let us not forget that Theosophy does not grow in our midst by force and control but by sunshine of brotherliness and the dew of self-oblivion. If we do not believe in Brotherhood and Truth let us put ashes on our head and weep in sack-cloth and not rejoice in the purple of authority and in the festive garments of pride and worldliness. It is by far better that the name of Theosophy should never be heard, than that it should be used as the Motto of a papal authority." . . .
Who, upon reading this, and being ignorant that the above piece of rhetorical flowers of speech is directed against the luckless President-Founder—would not have in his "mind's eye"—an Alexander Borgia, a Caligula, or to say the least—General Booth in his latest metamorphosis! When, how, or by doing what, has our good natured, unselfish, ever kind President merited such a Ciceronian tirade? The state of things denounced exists now for almost twelve years, and our accuser knew of it and even took an active part in its organization, Conventions, Councils, Rules, etc., etc., at Bombay, and at Adyar. This virulent sortie is no doubt due to "self- culture"? The critic has outgrown the movement and turned his face from the original programme; hence his severity. But where is the true theosophical charity, the tolerance and the "sunshine of brotherliness" just spoken of, and so insisted upon? Verily—it is easy to preach the "dew of self-oblivion" when one has nothing to think about except to evolve such finely rounded phrases; were every theosophist at Adyar to have his daily wants and even comforts, his board, lodging and all, attended to by a wealthier theosophist;. and were the same "sunshine of brotherliness" to be poured upon him, as it is upon the critic who found for himself an endless brotherly care, a fraternal and self-sacrificing devotion in two other noble minded members, then—would there be little need for the President Founder to call upon and humble himself before our theosophists. For, if he has to beg for 2 annual shillings—it is, in order that those—Europeans and Hindus—who work night and day at Adyar, giving their services free and receiving little thanks or honour for it, should have at least one meal a day. The fresh "dew of self-oblivion" must not be permitted to chill one's heart, and turn into the lethal mold of forgetfulness to such an extent as that. The severe critic seems to have lost sight of the fact that for months, during the last crisis, the whole staff of our devoted Adyar officers, from the President down to the youngest brother in the office, have lived on 5d. a day each, having reduced their meals to the minimum. And it is this mite, the proceeds of the. "2 shill. contribution," conscientiously paid by some, that is now called extortion, a desire to live "in the purple of authority and the festive garments of pride and worldliness"!
Our "Brother" is right. Let us "weep in sack cloth and ashes on our head" if the Τ. 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 a 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 Headquarters. 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 anyone 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 criticize 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 every one 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 social 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 pinacle [6] of Saintship through their statues 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 similae [1] 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 sprung 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.
Nevertheless, it is the members who now seek to sit in Solomon's seat; and they tell us that the Society is useless, its President positively mischievous, and that the Headquarters ought to be done away with, as "the organization called Theosophical presents many features seriously obstructive to the progress of Theosophy. Trees, however, have to be judged by their fruits. It was just shown that no "special orders" issuing from the "Centre of Power" called Adyar, could affect in any way whatever either Branch or individual; and therefore any theosophist bent on "self culture", "self-involution" or any kind of selfness, is at liberty to do so; and if, instead of using his rights he will apply his brain-power to criticize other people's actions then it is he who becomes the obstructionist and not at all the "Organization called Theosophical". For, if theosophy is anywhere practised on this globe, it is at Adyar, at the Headquarters. Let "those interested in the progress of true theosophy" appealed to by the writers look around them and judge. See the Branch Societies and compare them with the group that works in that "Centre of Power". Admire the "progress of theosophy" at Paris, London and even America. Behold, in the great "Brotherhood, a true Pandemonium of which the Spirit of Strife and Hatred himself might be proud! everywhere—quarrelling, [7] fighting for supremacy; back-biting, slandering, scandal-mongering for the last two years; a veritable battlefield, on which several members have so disgraced themselves and their Society by trying to disgrace others, that they have actually become more like hyenas than human beings by digging into the graves of the Past, in the hopes of bringing forward old forgotten slanders and scandals!
At Adyar alone, at the Headquarters of the Theosophical Society, the Theosophists are that which they ought to be everywhere else: true theosophists and not merely philosophers and Sophists. In that centre alone are now grouped together the few solitary, practically working Members, who labour and toil, quietly and uninterruptedly, while those Brothers for whose sake they are working, sit in the dolce far niente of the West and criticise them. Is this "true theosophical and brotherly work", to advise to put down and disestablish the only "centre" where real brotherly, humanitarian work is being accomplished?
Theosophy first, and organization after." Golden words, these. But where would Theosophy be heard of now, had not its Society been organized before its Spirit and a desire for it had permeated the whole world? And would Vedanta and other Hindu philosophies have been ever taught and studied in England outside the walls of Oxford and Cambridge, had it not been for that organization that fished them like forgotten pearls out of the Ocean of Oblivion and Ignorance and brought them forward before the profane world? Nay, kind Brothers and critics, would the Hindu exponents of that sublime philosophy themselves have ever been known outside the walls of Calcutta, had not the Founders, obedient to the Orders received, forced the remarkable learning and philosophy of those exponents upon the recognition of the two most civilized and cultured centres of Europe—London and Paris? Verily it is easier to destroy than to build. Then words "untheosophical" and "unbrotherly" are ever ringing in our ears; yet, truly theosophical acts and words are not to be found in too unreasonable a superabundance among those who use the reproof the oftener. However insignificant, and however limited the line of good deeds, the latter will have always more weight than empty and vainglorious talk, and will be theosophy whereas theories without any practical realisation are at best philosophy. Theosophy is an all-embracing Science; many are the ways leading to it, as numerous in fact as its definitions, which began by the sublime, during the day of Ammonius Saccas, and ended by the ridiculous—in Webster's Dictionary. There is no reason why our critics should claim the right for themselves alone, to know what is theosophy and to define it. There were theosophists and Theosophical Schools for the last 2,000 years, from Plato down to the mediaeval Alchemists, who knew the value of the term, it may be supposed. Therefore, when we are told that "the question is not whether the Τ. S. is doing good, but whether it is doing that kindof good which is entitled to the name of Τheosophy"—we turn round and ask: "And who is to be the judge in this mooted question?" We have heard of one of the greatest Theosophists who ever lived, who assured his audience that whosoever gave a cup of cold water to a little one in his (Theosophy's) name, would have a greater reward than all the learned Scribes and Pharisees. "Woe to the world because of offences!"
Belief in the Masters was never made an article of faith in the Τ. S. But for its Founders, the commands received from Them when it was established have ever been sacred. And this is what one of them wrote in a letter preserved to this day:
"Theosophy must not represent mere]y a collection of moral verities, a bundle of meta-physical Ethics epitomized in theoretical dissertations. Theosophy must be made practical, and has, therefore, to be disenεumbered of useless discussion . . . It has to find objective expression in an all-embracing code of life thoroughly impregnated with its spirit—the spirit of mutual tolerance, charity and love. Its followers have to set the example of a firmly outlined and as firmly applied morality before they get the right to point out, even in a spirit of kindness, the absence of a like ethic Unity and singleness of purpose in other associations and individuals. As said before—no Theosophist should blame a brother whether within or outside of the association, throw slur upon his actions or denounce him * lest he should himself lose the right of being considered a theosophist.
[*It is in consequence of this letter that Art. ΧΙΙ was adopted in Rules and a fear of lacking the charity prescribed, that led so often to neglect its enforcement.]
Ever turn away your gaze from the imperfections of your neighbour and centre rather your attention upon your own shortcomings in order to correct them and become wiser. . . . Show not the disparity between claim and action in another man but—whether he be brother or neighbour—rather help him in his arduous walk in life . . . The problem of true theosophy and its great mission is the working out of clear, unequivocal conceptions of ethic ideas and duties which would satisfy most and best the altruistic and right feeling in us; and the modelling of these conceptions for their adaptation into such forms of daily life where they may be applied with most equitableness . . . Such is the common work in view for all who are willing to act on these principles. It is a laborious task and will require strenuous and persevering exertion, but it must lead you insensibly to progress and leave no room for any selfish aspirations outside the limits traced . . . Do not indulge in unbrotherly comparisons between the task accomplished by yourself and the work left undone by your neighbour or brother, in the field of Theosophy, as none is held to weed out a larger plot of ground than his strength and capacity will permit him . . . Do not be too severe on the merits or demerits of one who seeks admission among your ranks, as the truth about the actual state of the inner man can only be known to, and dealt with justly by Karma alone. Even the simple presence amidst you of a well-intentioned and sympathising individual may help you magnetically . . . You are the Free-workers on the Domain of Truth, and as such, must leave no obstructions on the paths leading to it." . . . [The letter closes with the following lines which have now become quite plain, as they give the key to the whole situation] . . ."The degrees of success or failure are the landmark we shall have to follow, as they will constitute the barriers placed with your own hands between your-selves and those whom you have asked to be your teachers. The nearer your approach to the goal contemplated—the shorter the distance between the student and the Master." . .
