Chapter XVIII: Preface (8)

“A Buddhist might believe in the existence of a god; sublime
above all human qualities and attributes—a perfect god, above
love, and hatred, and jealousy, calmly resting in a quietude
that nothing could disturb, and of such a god he would speak
no disparagement, not from a desire to please him or fear
to offend him, but from natural veneration; but he cannot
understand a god with the attributes and qualities of men, a
god who loves and hates, and shows anger; a Deity who, whether
described as by Christian Missionaries or by Mahometans or
Brahmins,[55] or Jews, falls below his standard of even an
ordinary good man.”

ENQ. Faith for faith, is not the faith of the Christian who believes,
in his human helplessness and humility, that there is a merciful
Father in Heaven who will protect him from temptation, help him in
life, and forgive him his transgressions, better than the cold and
proud, almost fatalistic faith of the Buddhists, Vedantins, and
Theosophists?

THEO. Persist in calling our belief “faith” if you will. But once we
are again on this ever-recurring question, I ask in my turn:
faith for faith, is not the one based on strict logic and reason
better than the one which is based simply on human authority
or—hero-worship? _Our_ “faith” has all the logical force of the
arithmetical truism that 2 and 2 will produce 4. Your faith is
like the logic of some emotional woman, of whom Tourgenyeff said
that for them 2 and 2 were generally 5, and a tallow candle into
the bargain. Yours is a faith, moreover, which clashes not only
with every conceivable view of justice and logic, but which, if
analysed, leads man to his moral perdition, checks the progress of
mankind, and positively making of might, right—transforms every
second man into a Cain to his brother Abel.

ENQ. What do you allude to?

HAS GOD THE RIGHT TO FORGIVE?

THEO. To the Doctrine of Atonement; I allude to that dangerous dogma in
which you believe, and which teaches us that no matter how
enormous our crimes against the laws of God and of man, we have
but to believe in the self-sacrifice of Jesus for the salvation
of mankind, and his blood will wash out every stain. It is twenty
years that I preach against it, and I may now draw your attention
to a paragraph from _Isis Unveiled_, written in 1875. This is what
Christianity teaches, and what we combat:—

“God’s mercy is boundless and unfathomable. It is impossible
to conceive of a human sin so damnable that the price paid
in advance for the redemption of the sinner would not wipe
it out if a thousandfold worse. And furthermore, it is never
too late to repent. Though the offender wait until the last
minute of the last hour of the last day of his mortal life,
before his blanched lips utter the confession of faith, he may
go to Paradise; the dying thief did it, and so may all others
as vile. These are the assumptions of the Church, and of the
Clergy; assumptions banged at the heads of your countrymen by
England’s favourite preachers, right in the ‘light of the XIXth
century,’” this most paradoxical age of all. Now to what does
it lead?

ENQ. Does it not make the Christian happier than the Buddhist or
Brahmin?

THEO. No; not the educated man, at any rate, since the majority of
these have long since virtually lost all belief in this cruel
dogma. But it leads those who still believe in it more _easily to
the threshold of every conceivable crime_, than any other I know
of. Let me quote to you from _Isis_ once more (_vide_ Vol. II.,
pp. 542 and 543)—

“If we step outside the little circle of creed and consider
the universe as a whole balanced by the exquisite adjustment
of parts, how all sound logic, how the faintest glimmering
sense of Justice, revolts against this Vicarious Atonement!
If the criminal sinned only against himself, and wronged no
one but himself; if by sincere repentance he could cause the
obliteration of past events, not only from the memory of man,
but also from that imperishable record, which no deity—not
even the Supremes, of the Supreme—can cause to disappear, then
this dogma might not be incomprehensible. But to maintain that
one may wrong his fellow-man, kill, disturb the equilibrium
of society and the natural order of things, and then—through
cowardice, hope, or compulsion, it matters not—be forgiven by
believing that the spilling of one blood washes out the other
blood spilt—this is preposterous! Can the _results_ of a crime
be obliterated even though the crime itself should be pardoned?
The effects of a cause are never limited to the boundaries of
the cause, nor can the results of crime be confined to the
offender and his victim. Every good as well as evil action has
its effects, as palpably as the stone flung into calm water.
The simile is trite, but it is the best ever conceived, so
let us use it. The eddying circles are greater and swifter as
the disturbing object is greater or smaller, but the smallest
pebble, nay, the tiniest speck, makes its ripples. And this
disturbance is not alone visible and on the surface. Below,
unseen, in every direction—outward and downward—drop pushes
drop until the sides and bottom are touched by the force. More,
the air above the water is agitated, and this disturbance
passes, as the physicists tell us, from stratum to stratum
out into space forever and ever; an impulse has been given to
matter, and that is never lost, can never be recalled!...

“So with crime, and so with its opposite. The action may be
instantaneous, the effects are eternal. When, after the stone
is once flung into the pond, we can recall it to the hand,
roll back the ripples, obliterate the force expended, restore
the etheric waves to their previous state of non-being, and
wipe out every trace of the act of throwing the missile, so
that Time’s record shall not show that it ever happened, then,
_then_ we may patiently hear Christians argue for the efficacy
of this Atonement,”

and—cease to believe in Karmic Law. As it now stands, we call upon
the whole world to decide, which of our two doctrines is the most
appreciative of deific justice, and which is more reasonable, even
on simple human evidence and logic.

ENQ. Yet millions believe in the Christian dogma and are happy.

THEO. Pure sentimentalism overpowering their thinking faculties, which
no true philanthropist or Altruist will ever accept. It is
not even a dream of selfishness, but a nightmare of the human
intellect. Look where it leads to, and tell me the name of that
pagan country where crimes are more easily committed or more
numerous than in Christian lands. Look at the long and ghastly
annual records of crimes committed in European countries; and
behold Protestant and Biblical America. There, _conversions_
effected in prisons are more numerous than those made by public
_revivals_ and preaching. See how the ledger-balance of Christian
justice (!) stands; Red-handed murderers, urged on by the demons
of lust, revenge, cupidity, fanaticism, or mere brutal thirst for
blood, who kill their victims, in most cases, without giving them
time to repent or call on Jesus. These, perhaps, died sinful, and,
of course—consistently with theological logic—met the reward of
their greater or lesser offences. But the murderer, overtaken by
human justice, is imprisoned, wept over by sentimentalists, prayed
with and at, pronounces the charmed words of conversion, and goes
to the scaffold a redeemed child of Jesus! Except for the murder,
he would not have been prayed with, redeemed, pardoned. Clearly
this man did well to murder, for thus he gained eternal happiness!
And how about the victim and his, or her family, relatives,
dependents, social relations; has justice no recompense for them?
Must they suffer in this world and the next, while he who wronged
them sits beside the “holy thief” of Calvary, and is for ever
blessed? On this question the clergy keep a prudent silence.
(_Isis Unveiled._) And now you know why Theosophists—whose
fundamental belief and hope is justice for all, in Heaven as on
earth, and in Karma—reject this dogma.

ENQ. The ultimate destiny of man, then, is not a Heaven presided over
by God, but the gradual transformation of matter into its
primordial element, Spirit?

THEO. It is to that final goal to which all tends in nature.

ENQ. Do not some of you regard this association or “fall of spirit into
matter” as evil, and re-birth as a sorrow?

THEO. Some do, and therefore strive to shorten their period of
probation on earth. It is not an unmixed evil, however, since
it ensures the experience upon which we mount to knowledge and
wisdom. I mean that experience which _teaches_ that the needs of
our spiritual nature can never be met by other than spiritual
happiness. As long as we are in the body, we are subjected to
pain, suffering and all the disappointing incidents occurring
during life. Therefore, and to palliate this, we finally acquire
knowledge which alone can afford us relief and hope of a better
future.

FOOTNOTES:

[55] Sectarian Brahmins are here meant. The Parabrahm of the Vedantins is the Deity we accept and believe in.

XII. WHAT IS PRACTICAL THEOSOPHY?

DUTY.

ENQ. Why, then, the need for rebirths, since all alike fail to secure a
permanent peace?

THEO. Because the final goal cannot be reached in any way but through
life experiences and because the bulk of these consist in pain and
suffering. It is only through the latter that we can learn. Joys
and pleasures teach us nothing; they are evanescent, and can only
bring in the long run satiety. Moreover, our constant failure to
find any permanent satisfaction in life which would meet the wants
of our higher nature, shows us plainly that those wants can be met
only on their own plane, to-wit—the spiritual.

ENQ. Is the natural result of this a desire to quit life by one means
or another?

THEO. If you mean by such desire “suicide,” then I say, most decidedly
not. Such a result can never be a “natural” one, but is ever
due to a morbid brain disease, or to most decided and strong
materialistic views. It is the worst of crimes and dire in
its results. But if by desire, you mean simply aspiration to
reach spiritual existence, not a wish to quit the earth, then I
would call it a very natural desire indeed. Otherwise voluntary
death would be an abandonment of our present post and of the
duties incumbent on us, as well as an attempt to shirk Karmic
responsibilities, and thus involve the creation of new Karma.

ENQ. But if actions on the material plane are unsatisfying, why should
duties, which are such actions, be imperative?

THEO. First of all, because our philosophy teaches us that the object
of doing our duties to all men and to ourselves the last, is not
the attainment of personal happiness, but of the happiness of
others; the fulfilment of right for the sake of right, not for
what it may bring us. Happiness, or rather contentment, may indeed
follow the performance of duty, but is not and must not be the
motive for it.

ENQ. What do you understand precisely by “duty” in Theosophy? It cannot
be the Christian duties preached by Jesus and his Apostles, since
you recognize neither?

THEO. You are once more mistaken. What you call “Christian duties” were
inculcated by every great moral and religious Reformer ages before
the Christian era. All that was great, generous, heroic, was, in
days of old, not only talked about and preached from pulpits as
in our own time, but _acted upon_ sometimes by whole nations.
The history of the Buddhist reform is full of the most noble and
most heroically unselfish acts. “Be ye all of one mind, having
compassion one of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be
courteous; not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing;
but contrariwise, blessing” was practically carried out by the
followers of Buddha, several centuries before Peter. The Ethics of
Christianity are grand, no doubt; but as undeniably they are not
new, and have originated as “Pagan” duties.

ENQ. And how would you define these duties, or “duty,” in general, as
you understand the term?

THEO. Duty is that which is _due_ to Humanity, to our fellow-men,
neighbours, family, and especially that which we owe to all those
who are poorer and more helpless than we are ourselves. This is
a debt which, if left unpaid during life, leaves us spiritually
insolvent and moral bankrupts in our next incarnation. Theosophy
is the quintessence of _duty_.

ENQ. So is Christianity when rightly understood and carried out.

THEO. No doubt it is; but then, were it not a _lip-religion_ in
practice, Theosophy would have little to do amidst Christians.
Unfortunately it is but such lip-ethics. Those who practise their
duty towards all, and for duty’s own sake, are few; and fewer
still are those who perform that duty, remaining content with the
satisfaction of their own secret consciousness. It is—

“... the public voice
Of praise that honours virtue and rewards it,”

which is ever uppermost in the minds of the “world renowned”
philanthropists. Modern ethics are beautiful to read about and
hear discussed; but what are words unless converted into actions?
Finally: if you ask me how we understand Theosophical duty
practically and in view of Karma, I may answer you that our duty
is to drink without a murmur to the last drop, whatever contents
the cup of life may have in store for us, to pluck the roses of
life only for the fragrance they may shed on _others_, and to be
ourselves content but with the thorns, if that fragrance cannot be
enjoyed without depriving some one else of it.

ENQ. All this is very vague. What do you do more than Christians do?

THEO. It is not what we members of the Theosophical Society do—though
some of us try our best—but how much farther Theosophy leads to
good than modern Christianity does. I say—_action_, enforced
action, instead of mere intention and talk. A man may be what he
likes, the most worldly, selfish and hard-hearted of men, even a
deep-dyed rascal, and it will not prevent him from calling himself
a Christian, or others from so regarding him. But no Theosophist
has the right to this name, unless he is thoroughly imbued with
the correctness of Carlyle’s truism: “The end of man is an
_action_ and not a _thought_, though it were the noblest”—and
unless he sets and models his daily life upon this truth. The
profession of a truth is not yet the enactment of it; and the more
beautiful and grand it sounds, the more loudly virtue or duty is
talked about instead of being acted upon, the more forcibly it
will always remind one of the Dead Sea fruit. _Cant_ is the most
loathsome of all vices; and _cant_ is the most prominent feature
of the greatest Protestant country of this century—England.

ENQ. What do you consider as due to humanity at large?

THEO. Full recognition of equal rights and privileges for all, and
without distinction of race, colour, social position, or birth.

ENQ. When would you consider such due not given?

THEO. When there is the slightest invasion of another’s right—be that
other a man or a nation; when there is any failure to show him the
same justice, kindness, consideration or mercy which we desire for
ourselves. The whole present system of politics is built on the
oblivion of such rights, and the most fierce assertion of national
selfishness. The French say: “Like master, like man”; they ought
to add, “Like national policy, like citizen.”

ENQ. Do you take any part in politics?

THEO. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given
below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have
affected a reform in _human nature, is like putting new wine into
old bottles_. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost
hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old
abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based
on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of
itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed
of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of
the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting
political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at
the head of affairs as of old.

THE RELATIONS OF THE T.S. TO POLITICAL REFORMS.

ENQ. The Theosophical Society is not, then, a political organization?

THEO. Certainly not. It is international in the highest sense in that
its members comprise men and women of all races, creeds, and forms
of thought, who work together for one object, the improvement of
humanity; but as a society it takes absolutely no part in any
national or party politics.

ENQ. Why is this?

THEO. Just for the reasons I have mentioned. Moreover, political action
must necessarily vary with the circumstances of the time and with
the idiosyncracies of individuals. While from the very nature of
their position as Theosophists the members of the T.S. are agreed
on the principles of Theosophy, or they would not belong to the
society at all, it does not thereby follow that they agree on
every other subject. As a society they can only act together in
matters which are common to all—that is, in Theosophy itself; as
individuals, each is left perfectly free to follow out his or
her particular line of political thought and action, so long as
this does not conflict with Theosophical principles, or hurt the
Theosophical Society.

ENQ. But surely the T.S. does not stand altogether aloof from the
social questions which are now so fast coming to the front?

THEO. The very principles of the T.S. are a proof that it does not—or,
rather, that most of its members do not—so stand aloof. If
humanity can only be developed mentally and spiritually by the
enforcement, first of all, of the soundest and most scientific
physiological laws, it is the bounden duty of all who strive
for this development to do their utmost to see that those laws
shall be generally carried out. All Theosophists are only too
sadly aware that, in Occidental countries especially, the social
condition of large masses of the people renders it impossible for
either their bodies or their spirits to be properly trained, so
that the development of both is thereby arrested. As this training
and development is one of the express objects of Theosophy, the
T.S. is in thorough sympathy and harmony with all true efforts in
this direction.

ENQ. But what do you mean by “true efforts”? Each social reformer has
his own panacea, and each believes his to be the one and only
thing which can improve and save humanity?

THEO. Perfectly true, and this is the real reason why so little
satisfactory social work is accomplished. In most of these
panaceas there is no really guiding principle, and there is
certainly no one principle which connects them all. Valuable time
and energy are thus wasted; for men, instead of co-operating,
strive one against the other, often, it is to be feared, for the
sake of fame and reward rather than for the great cause which they
profess to have at heart, and which should be supreme in their
lives.

ENQ. How, then, should Theosophical principles be applied so that
social co-operation may be promoted and true efforts for social
amelioration be carried on?

THEO. Let me briefly remind you what these principles are—universal
Unity and Causation; Human Solidarity; the Law of Karma;
Re-incarnation. These are the four links of the golden chain which
should bind humanity into one family, one universal Brotherhood.

ENQ. How?

THEO. In the present state of society, especially in so-called
civilized countries, we are continually brought face to face with
the fact that large numbers of people are suffering from misery,
poverty and disease. Their physical condition is wretched, and
their mental and spiritual faculties are often almost dormant. On
the other hand, many persons at the opposite end of the social
scale are leading lives of careless indifference, material luxury,
and selfish indulgence. Neither of these forms of existence
is mere chance. Both are the effects of the conditions which
surround those who are subject to them, and the neglect of social
duty on the one side is most closely connected with the stunted
and arrested development on the other. In sociology, as in all
branches of true science, the law of universal causation holds
good. But this causation necessarily implies, as its logical
outcome, that human solidarity on which Theosophy so strongly
insists. If the action of one reacts on the lives of all, and this
is the true scientific idea, then it is only by all men becoming
brothers and all women sisters, and by all practising in their
daily lives true brotherhood and true sisterhood, that the real
human solidarity, which lies at the root of the elevation of the
race, can ever be attained. It is this action and interaction,
this true brotherhood and sisterhood, in which each shall live for
all and all for each, which is one of the fundamental Theosophical
principles that every Theosophist should be bound, not only to
teach, but to carry out in his or her individual life.

ENQ. All this is very well as a general principle, but how would you
apply it in a concrete way?

THEO. Look for a moment at what you would call the concrete facts of
human society. Contrast the lives not only of the masses of the
people, but of many of those who are called the middle and upper
classes, with what they might be under healthier and nobler
conditions, where justice, kindness, and love were paramount,
instead of the selfishness, indifference, and brutality which
now too often seem to reign supreme. All good and evil things in
humanity have their roots in human character, and this character
is, and has been, conditioned by the endless chain of cause and
effect. But this conditioning applies to the future as well as
to the present and the past. Selfishness, indifference, and
brutality can never be the normal state of the race—to believe so
would be to despair of humanity—and that no Theosophist can do.
Progress can be attained, and only attained, by the development
of the nobler qualities. Now, true evolution teaches us that
by altering the surroundings of the organism we can alter and
improve the organism; and in the strictest sense this is true
with regard to man. Every Theosophist, therefore, is bound to do
his utmost to help on, by all the means in his power, every wise
and well-considered social effort which has for its object the
amelioration of the condition of the poor. Such efforts should be
made with a view to their ultimate social emancipation, or the
development of the sense of duty in those who now so often neglect
it in nearly every relation of life.

ENQ. Agreed. But who is to decide whether social efforts are wise or
unwise?

THEO. No one person and no society can lay down a hard-and-fast rule in
this respect. Much must necessarily be left to the individual
judgment. One general test may, however, be given. Will the
proposed action tend to promote that true brotherhood which it is
the aim of Theosophy to bring about? No real Theosophist will
have much difficulty in applying such a test; once he is satisfied
of this, his duty will lie in the direction of forming public
opinion. And this can be attained only by inculcating those higher
and nobler conceptions of public and private duties which lie
at the root of all spiritual and material improvement. In every
conceivable case he himself must be a center of spiritual action,
and from him and his own daily individual life must radiate those
higher spiritual forces which alone can regenerate his fellow-men.

ENQ. But why should he do this? Are not he and all, as you teach,
conditioned by their Karma, and must not Karma necessarily work
itself out on certain lines?

THEO. It is this very law of Karma which gives strength to all that I
have said. The individual cannot separate himself from the race,
nor the race from the individual. The law of Karma applies equally
to all, although all are not equally developed. In helping on the
development of others, the Theosophist believes that he is not
only helping them to fulfil their Karma, but that he is also, in
the strictest sense, fulfilling his own. It is the development of
humanity, of which both he and they are integral parts, that he
has always in view, and he knows that any failure on his part to
respond to the highest within him retards not only himself but
all, in their progressive march. By his actions, he can make it
either more difficult or more easy for humanity to attain the next
higher plane of being.

ENQ. How does this bear on the fourth of the principles you mentioned,
viz., Re-incarnation?

THEO. The connection is most intimate. If our present lives depend upon
the development of certain principles which are a growth from
the germs left by a previous existence, the law holds good as
regards the future. Once grasp the idea that universal causation
is not merely present, but past, present and future, and every
action on our present plane falls naturally and easily into its
true place, and is seen in its true relation to ourselves and to
others. Every mean and selfish action sends us backward and not
forward, while every noble thought and every unselfish deed are
stepping-stones to the higher and more glorious planes of being.
If this life were all, then in many respects it would indeed be
poor and mean; but regarded as a preparation for the next sphere
of existence, it may be used as the golden gate through which
we may pass, not selfishly and alone, but in company with our
fellows, to the palaces which lie beyond.

ON SELF-SACRIFICE.

ENQ. Is equal justice to all and love to every creature the highest
standard of Theosophy?

THEO. No; there is an even far higher one.

ENQ. What can it be?

THEO. The giving to others _more_ than to oneself—_self-sacrifice_.
Such was the standard and abounding measure which marked
so pre-eminently the greatest Teachers and Masters of
Humanity—_e.g._, Gautama Buddha in History, and Jesus of Nazareth
as in the Gospels. This trait alone was enough to secure to them
the perpetual reverence and gratitude of the generations of men
that come after them. We say, however, that self-sacrifice has to
be performed with discrimination; and such a self-abandonment,
if made without justice, or blindly, regardless of subsequent
results, may often prove not only made in vain, but harmful.
One of the fundamental rules of Theosophy is, justice to
oneself—viewed as a unit of collective humanity, not as a personal
self-justice, not more but not less than to others; unless,
indeed, by the sacrifice of the _one_ self we can benefit the many.

ENQ. Could you make your idea clearer by giving an instance?

THEO. There are many instances to illustrate it in history.
Self-sacrifice for practical good to save many, or several people,
Theosophy holds as far higher than self-abnegation for a sectarian
idea, such as that of “saving the heathen from _damnation_,”
for instance. In our opinion, Father Damien, the young man of
thirty who offered his whole life in sacrifice for the benefit
and alleviation of the sufferings of the lepers at Molokai, and
who went to live for eighteen years alone with them, to finally
catch the loathsome disease and die, _has not died in vain_. He
has given relief and relative happiness to thousands of miserable
wretches. He has brought to them consolation, mental and physical.
He threw a streak of light into the black and dreary night of
an existence, the hopelessness of which is unparalleled in the
records of human suffering. He was a _true Theosophist_, and his
memory will live for ever in our annals. In our sight this poor
Belgian priest stands immeasurably higher than—for instance—all
those sincere but vain-glorious fools, the Missionaries who have
sacrificed their lives in the South Sea Islands or China. What
good have they done? They went in one case to those who are not
yet ripe for any truth; and in the other to a nation whose systems
of religious philosophy are as grand as any, if only the men who
have them would live up to the standard of Confucius and their
other sages. And they died victims of irresponsible cannibals and
savages, and of popular fanaticism and hatred. Whereas, by going
to the slums of Whitechapel or some other such locality of those
that stagnate right under the blazing sun of our civilization,
full of Christian savages and mental leprosy, they might have done
real good, and preserved their lives for a better and worthier
cause.

ENQ. But the Christians do not think so?

THEO. Of course not, because they act on an erroneous belief. They
think that by baptising the body of an irresponsible savage they
save his soul from damnation. One church forgets her martyrs,
the other beatifies and raises statues to such men as Labro, who
sacrificed his body for forty years only to benefit the vermin
which it bred. Had we the means to do so, we would raise a statue
to Father Damien, the true, practical saint, and perpetuate his
memory for ever as a living exemplar of Theosophical heroism and
of Buddha- and Christ-like mercy and self-sacrifice.

ENQ. Then you regard self-sacrifice as a duty?

THEO. We do; and explain it by showing that altruism is an integral
part of self-development. But we have to discriminate. A man has
no right to starve himself _to death_ that another man may have
food, unless the life of that man is obviously more useful to the
many than is his own life. But it is his duty to sacrifice his own
comfort, and to work for others if they are unable to work for
themselves. It is his duty to give all that which is wholly his
own and can benefit no one but himself if he selfishly keeps it
from others. Theosophy teaches self-abnegation, but does not teach
rash and useless self-sacrifice, nor does it justify fanaticism.

ENQ. But how are we to reach such an elevated status?

THEO. By the enlightened application of our precepts to practice. By
the use of our higher reason, spiritual intuition and moral sense,
and by following the dictates of what we call “the still small
voice” of our conscience, which is that of our EGO, and which
speaks louder in us than the earthquakes and the thunders of
Jehovah, wherein “the Lord is not.”

ENQ. If such are our duties to humanity at large, what do you
understand by our duties to our immediate surroundings?

THEO. Just the same, plus those that arise from special obligations
with regard to family ties.

ENQ. Then it is not true, as it is said, that no sooner does a man
enter into the Theosophical Society than he begins to be gradually
severed from his wife, children, and family duties?

THEO. It is a groundless calumny, like so many others. The first of the
Theosophical duties is to do one’s duty by _all_ men, and
especially by those to whom one’s _specific_ responsibilities are
due, because one has either voluntarily undertaken them, such as
marriage ties, or because one’s destiny has allied one to them; I
mean those we owe to parents or next of kin.

ENQ. And what may be the duty of a Theosophist to himself?

THEO. To control and conquer, _through the Higher, the lower self_. To
purify himself inwardly and morally; to fear no one, and nought,
save the tribunal of his own conscience. Never to do a thing by
halves; _i.e._, if he thinks it the right thing to do, let him do
it openly and boldly, and if wrong, never touch it at all. It is
the duty of a Theosophist to lighten his burden by thinking of the
wise aphorism of Epictetus, who says: “Be not diverted from your
duty _by any idle reflection the silly world may make upon you_,
for their censures are not in your power, and consequently should
not be any part of your concern.”

ENQ. But suppose a member of your Society should plead inability to
practice altruism by other people, on the ground that “charity
begins at home”; urging that he is too busy, or too poor, to
benefit mankind or even any of its units—what are your rules in
such a case?

THEO. No man has a right to say that he can do nothing for others, on
any pretext whatever. “By doing the proper duty in the proper
place, a man may make the world his debtor,” says an English
writer. A cup of cold water given in time to a thirsty wayfarer is
a nobler duty and more worth, than a dozen of dinners given away,
out of season, to men who can afford to pay for them. No man who
has not got it in him will ever become a _Theosophist_; but he may
remain a member of our Society all the same. We have no rules by
which we could force any man to become a practical Theosophist, if
he does not desire to be one.

ENQ. Then why does he enter the Society at all?

THEO. That is best known to him who does so. For, here again, we have
no right to pre-judge a person, not even if the voice of a whole
community should be against him, and I may tell you why. In our
day, _vox populi_ (so far as regards the voice of the educated,
at any rate) is no longer _vox dei_, but ever that of prejudice,
of selfish motives, and often simply that of unpopularity. Our
duty is to sow seeds broadcast for the future, and see they are
good; not to stop to enquire _why_ we should do so, and how and
wherefore we are obliged to lose our time, since those who will
reap the harvest in days to come will never be ourselves.

ON CHARITY.

ENQ. How do you Theosophists regard the Christian duty of charity?

THEO. What charity do you mean? Charity of mind, or practical charity
in the physical plane?

ENQ. I mean practical charity, as your idea of Universal brotherhood
would include, of course, charity of mind.

THEO. Then you have in your mind the practical carrying out of the
commandments given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount?

ENQ. Precisely so.

THEO. Then why call them “Christian”? Because, although your Saviour
preached and practised them, the last thing the Christians of
to-day think of is to carry them out in their lives.

ENQ. And yet many are those who pass their lives in dispensing charity?

THEO. Yes, out of the surplus of their great fortunes. But point out to
me that Christian, among the most philanthropic, who would give to
the shivering and starving thief, who would steal his coat, his
cloak also; or offer his right cheek to him who smote him on the
left, and never think of resenting it!

ENQ. Ah, but you must remember that these precepts have not to be taken
literally. Times and circumstances have changed since Christ’s
day. Moreover, He spoke in Parables.

THEO. Then why don’t your Churches teach that the doctrine of damnation
and hell-fire is to be understood as a _parable_ too? Why do
some of your most popular preachers, while virtually allowing
these “parables” to be understood as you take them, insist on the
literal meaning of the fires of Hell and the _physical_ tortures
of an “Asbestos-like” soul? If one is a “parable,” then the other
is. If Hell-fire is a literal truth, then Christ’s commandments
in the Sermon on the Mount have to be obeyed to the very letter.
And I tell you that many who do not believe in the Divinity of
Christ—like Count Leo Tolstoi and more than one Theosophist—do
carry out these noble, because universal, precepts literally; and
many more good men and women would do so, were they not more than
certain that such a walk in life would very probably land them in
a lunatic asylum—so _Christian are your laws_!

ENQ. But surely every one knows that millions and millions are spent
annually on private and public charities?

THEO. Oh, yes; half of which sticks to the hands it passes through
before getting to the needy; while a good portion or remainder
gets into the hands of professional beggars, those who are too
lazy to work, thus doing no good whatever to those who are really
in misery and suffering. Haven’t you heard that the first result
of the great outflow of charity towards the East-end of London was
to raise the rents in _Whitechapel_ by some 20 per cent.?

ENQ. What would you do, then?

THEO. Act individually and not collectively; follow the Northern
Buddhist precepts: “Never put food into the mouth of the hungry by
the hand of another”; “Never let the shadow of thy neighbour (_a
third person_) come between thyself and the object of thy bounty”;
“Never give to the Sun time to dry a tear before thou hast wiped
it.” Again “Never give money to the needy, or food to the priest,
who begs at thy door, _through thy servants_, lest thy money
should diminish gratitude, and thy food turn to gall.”

ENQ. But how can this be applied practically?

THEO. The Theosophical ideas of charity mean _personal_ exertion for
others; _personal_ mercy and kindness; _personal_ interest in the
welfare of those who suffer; _personal_ sympathy, forethought
and assistance in their troubles or needs. We Theosophists do
not believe in giving money (N.B., if we had it) through other
people’s hands or organizations. We believe in giving to the
money a thousandfold greater power and effectiveness by our
personal contact and sympathy with those who need it. We believe
in relieving the starvation of the soul, as much if not more than
the emptiness of the stomach; for gratitude does more good to
the man who feels it, than to him for whom it is felt. Where’s
the gratitude which your “millions of pounds” should have called
forth, or the good feelings provoked by them? Is it shown in
the hatred of the East-End poor for the rich? in the growth of
the party of anarchy and disorder? or by those thousands of
unfortunate working girls, victims to the “sweating” system,
driven daily to eke out a living by going on the streets? Do
your helpless old men and women thank you for the workhouses; or
your poor for the poisonously unhealthy dwellings in which they
are allowed to breed new generations of diseased, scrofulous
and rickety children, only to put money into the pockets of the
insatiable Shylocks who own houses? Therefore it is that every
sovereign of all those “millions,” contributed by good and
would-be charitable people, falls like a burning curse instead
of a blessing on the poor whom it should relieve. We call this
_generating national Karma_, and terrible will be its results on
the day of reckoning.

THEOSOPHY FOR THE MASSES.

ENQ. And you think that Theosophy would, by stepping in, help to remove
these evils, under the practical and adverse conditions of our
modern life?

THEO. Had we more money, and had not most of the Theosophists to work
for their daily bread, I firmly believe we could.

ENQ. How? Do you expect that your doctrines could ever take hold of the
uneducated masses, when they are so abstruse and difficult that
well-educated people can hardly understand them?

THEO. You forget one thing, which is that your much-boasted modern
education is precisely that which makes it difficult for you
to understand Theosophy. Your mind is so full of intellectual
subtleties and preconceptions that your natural intuition
and perception of the truth cannot act. It does not require
metaphysics or education to make a man understand the broad
truths of Karma and Re-incarnation. Look at the millions of
poor and uneducated Buddhists and Hindoos, to whom Karma and
re-incarnation are solid realities, simply because their minds
have never been cramped and distorted by being forced into an
unnatural groove. They have never had the innate human sense of
justice perverted in them by being told to believe that their
sins would be forgiven because another man had been put to death
for their sakes. And the Buddhists, note well, live up to their
beliefs without a murmur against Karma, or what they regard as a
just punishment, whereas, the Christian populace neither lives
up it to its moral ideal, nor accepts its lot contentedly. Hence
murmuring and dissatisfaction, and the intensity of the struggle
for existence in Western lands.

ENQ. But this contentedness, which you praise so much, would do away
with all motive for exertion and bring progress to a stand-still.

THEO. And we, Theosophists, say that your vaunted progress and
civilization are no better than a host of will-o’-the-wisps,
flickering over a marsh which exhales a poisonous and deadly
miasma. This, because we see selfishness, crime, immorality,
and all the evils imaginable, pouncing upon unfortunate mankind
from this Pandora’s box which you call an age of progress,
and increasing _pari passu_ with the growth of your material
civilization. At such a price, better the inertia and inactivity
of Buddhist countries, which have arisen only as a consequence of
ages of political slavery.

ENQ. Then is all this metaphysics and mysticism with which you occupy
yourself so much, of no importance?

THEO. To the masses, who need only practical guidance and support, they
are not of much consequence; but for the educated, the natural
leaders of the masses, those whose modes of thought and action
will sooner or later be adopted by those masses, they are of the
greatest importance. It is only by means of the philosophy that an
intelligent and educated man can avoid the intellectual suicide
of believing on blind faith; and it is only by assimilating the
strict continuity and logical coherence of the Eastern, if not
esoteric, doctrines, that he can realize their truth. Conviction
breeds enthusiasm, and “Enthusiasm,” says Bulwer Lytton, “is the
genius of sincerity, and truth accomplishes no victories without
it”; while Emerson most truly remarks that “every great and
commanding movement in the annals of the world is the triumph of
enthusiasm.” And what is more calculated to produce such a feeling
than a philosophy so grand, so consistent, so logical, and so
all-embracing as our Eastern Doctrines?

ENQ. And yet its enemies are very numerous, and every day Theosophy
acquires new opponents.

THEO. And this is precisely that which proves its intrinsic excellence
and value. People hate only the things they fear, and no one goes
out of his way to overthrow that which neither threatens nor rises
beyond mediocrity.

ENQ. Do you hope to impart this enthusiasm, one day, to the masses?

THEO. Why not? since history tells us that the masses adopted Buddhism
with enthusiasm, while, as said before, the practical effect upon
them of this philosophy of ethics is still shown by the smallness
of the percentage of crime amongst Buddhist populations as
compared with every other religion. The chief point is, to uproot
that most fertile source of all crime and immorality—the belief
that it is possible for them to escape the consequences of their
own actions. Once teach them that greatest of all laws, _Karma_
and _Re-incarnation_, and besides feeling in themselves the true
dignity of human nature, they will turn from evil and eschew it as
they would a physical danger.

HOW MEMBERS CAN HELP THE SOCIETY.

ENQ. How do you expect the Fellows of your Society to help in the work?

THEO. First by studying and comprehending the theosophical doctrines,
so that they may teach others, especially the young people.
Secondly, by taking every opportunity of talking to others and
explaining to them what Theosophy is, and what it is not; by
removing misconceptions and spreading an interest in the subject.
Thirdly, by assisting in circulating our literature, by buying
books when they have the means, by lending and giving them and
by inducing their friends to do so. Fourthly, by defending
the Society from the unjust aspersions cast upon it, by every
legitimate device in their power. Fifth, and most important of
all, by the example of their own lives.

ENQ. But all this literature, to the spread of which you attach so much
importance, does not seem to me of much practical use in helping
mankind. This is not practical charity.

THEO. We think otherwise. We hold that a good book which gives people
food for thought, which strengthens and clears their minds, and
enables them to grasp truths which they have dimly felt but could
not formulate—we hold that such a book does a real, substantial
good. As to what you call practical deeds of charity, to benefit
the bodies of our fellow-men, we do what little we can; but, as
I have already told you, most of us are poor, whilst the Society
itself has not even the money to pay a staff of workers. All of us
who toil for it, give our labour gratis, and in most cases money
as well. The few who have the means of doing what are usually
called charitable actions, follow the Buddhist precepts and do
their work themselves, not by proxy or by subscribing publicly to
charitable funds. What the Theosophist has to do above all is to
forget his personality.

WHAT A THEOSOPHIST OUGHT NOT TO DO.

ENQ. Have you any prohibitory laws or clauses for Theosophists in your
Society?

THEO. Many, but, alas! none of them are enforced. They express the
ideal of our organization,—but the practical application of such
things we are compelled to leave to the discretion of the Fellows
themselves. Unfortunately, the state of men’s minds in the present
century is such that, unless we allow these clauses to remain, so
to speak, obsolete, no man or woman would dare to risk joining the
Theosophical Society. This is precisely why I feel forced to lay
such a stress on the difference between true Theosophy and its
hard-struggling and well-intentioned, but still unworthy vehicle,
the Theosophical Society.

ENQ. May I be told what are these perilous reefs in the open sea of
Theosophy?

THEO. Well may you call them reefs, as more than one otherwise sincere
and well-meaning F.T.S. has had his Theosophical canoe shattered
into splinters on them! And yet to avoid certain things seems the
easiest thing in the world to do. For instance, here is a series
of such negatives, screening positive Theosophical duties:—

No Theosophist should be silent when he hears evil reports or slanders
spread about the Society, or innocent persons, whether they be his
colleagues or outsiders.

ENQ. But suppose what one hears is the truth, or may be true without
one knowing it?

THEO. Then you must demand good proofs of the assertion, and hear both
sides impartially before you permit the accusation to go
uncontradicted. You have no right to believe in evil, until you
get undeniable proof of the correctness of the statement.

ENQ. And what should you do then?

THEO. Pity and forbearance, charity and long-suffering, ought to be
always there to prompt us to excuse our sinning brethren, and
to pass the gentlest sentence possible upon those who err. A
Theosophist ought never to forget what is due to the shortcomings
and infirmities of human nature.

ENQ. Ought he to forgive entirely in such cases?

THEO. In every case, especially he who is sinned against.

ENQ. But if by so doing, he risks to injure, or allow others to be
injured? What ought he to do then?

THEO. His duty; that which his conscience and higher nature suggests to
him; but only after mature deliberation. Justice consists in doing
no injury to any living being; but justice commands us also never
to allow injury to be done to the many, or even to one innocent
person, by allowing the guilty one to go unchecked.

ENQ. What are the other negative clauses?

THEO. No Theosophist ought to be contented with an idle or frivolous
life, doing no real good to himself and still less to others. He
should work for the benefit of the few who need his help if he is
unable to toil for Humanity, and thus work for the advancement of
the Theosophical cause.

ENQ. This demands an exceptional nature, and would come rather hard
upon some persons.

THEO. Then they had better remain outside the T. S. instead of sailing
under false colours. No one is asked to give more than he can
afford, whether in devotion, time, work or money.

ENQ. What comes next?

THEO. No working member should set too great value on his personal
progress or proficiency in Theosophic studies; but must be
prepared rather to do as much altruistic work as lies in his
power. He should not leave the whole of the heavy burden and
responsibility of the Theosophical movement on the shoulders of
the few devoted workers. Each member ought to feel it his duty to
take what share he can in the common work, and help it by every
means in his power.

ENQ. This is but just. What comes next?

THEO. No Theosophist should place his personal vanity, or feelings,
above those of his Society as a body. He who sacrifices the
latter, or other people’s reputations on the altar of his personal
vanity, worldly benefit, or pride, ought not to be allowed to
remain a member. One cancerous limb diseases the whole body.

ENQ. Is it the duty of every member to teach others and preach
Theosophy?

THEO. It is indeed. No fellow has a right to remain idle, on the excuse
that he knows too little to teach. For he may always be sure that
he will find others who know still less than himself. And also
it is not until a man begins to try to teach others, that he
discovers his own ignorance and tries to remove it. But this is a
minor clause.

ENQ. What do you consider, then, to be the chief of these negative
Theosophical duties?

THEO. To be ever prepared to recognize and confess one’s faults. To
rather sin through exaggerated praise than through too little
appreciation of one’s neighbour’s efforts. Never to back-bite or
slander another person. Always to say openly and direct to his
face anything you have against him. Never to make yourself the
echo of anything you may hear against another, nor harbour revenge
against those who happen to injure you.

ENQ. But it is often dangerous to tell people the truth to their faces.
Don’t you think so? I know of one of your members who was bitterly
offended, left the Society, and became its greatest enemy, only
because he was told some unpleasant truths to his face, and was
blamed for them.

THEO. Of such we have had many. No member, whether prominent or
insignificant, has ever left us without becoming our bitter enemy.

ENQ. How do you account for it?

THEO. It is simply this. Having been, in most cases, intensely devoted
to the Society at first, and having lavished upon it the most
exaggerated praises, the only possible excuse such a backslider
can make for his subsequent behaviour and past short-sightedness,
is _to pose as an innocent and deceived victim_, thus casting
the blame from his own shoulders on to those of the Society in
general, and its leaders especially. Such persons remind one of
the old fable about the man with a distorted face, who broke his
looking-glass on the ground that it reflected his countenance
crookedly.

ENQ. But what makes these people turn against the Society?