Chapter XIX: Preface (9)

THEO. Wounded vanity in some form or other, almost in every case.
Generally, because their dicta and advice are not taken as
final and authoritative; or else, because they are of those who
would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. Because, in
short, they cannot bear to stand second to anybody in anything.
So, for instance, one member—a true “Sir Oracle”—criticized,
and almost defamed every member in the T.S. to outsiders as
much as to Theosophists, under the pretext that they were _all
untheosophical_, blaming them precisely for what he was himself
doing all the time. Finally, he left the Society, giving as his
reason a profound conviction that we were all (the Founders
especially)—FRAUDS! Another one, after intriguing in every
possible way to be placed at the head of a large Section of the
Society, finding that the members would not have him, turned
against the Founders of the T. S., and became their bitterest
enemy, denouncing one of them whenever he could, simply
because the latter could not, and would not, _force him_ upon
the Members. This was simply a case of an outrageous wounded
vanity. Still another wanted to, and virtually did, practise
_black-magic_—_i.e._, undue personal psychological influence on
certain Fellows, while pretending devotion and every Theosophical
virtue. When this was put a stop to, the Member broke with
Theosophy, and now slanders and lies against the same hapless
leaders in the most virulent manner, endeavouring to break up the
society by blackening the reputation of those whom that worthy
“Fellow” was unable to deceive.

ENQ. What would you do with such characters?

THEO. Leave them to their Karma. Because one person does evil that is
no reason for others to do so.

ENQ. But, to return to slander, where is the line of demarcation
between backbiting and just criticism to be drawn? Is it not one’s
duty to warn one’s friends and neighbors against those whom one
knows to be dangerous associates?

THEO. If by allowing them to go on unchecked other persons may be
thereby injured, it is certainly our duty to obviate the danger by
warning them privately. But true or false, no accusation against
another person should ever be spread abroad. If true, and the
fault hurts no one but the sinner, then leave him to his Karma.
If false, then you will have avoided adding to the injustice of
the world. Therefore, keep silent about such things with every
one not directly concerned. But if your discretion and silence are
likely to hurt or endanger others, then I add: _Speak the truth
at all costs_, and say, with Annesly, “Consult duty, not events.”
There are cases when one is forced to exclaim, “Perish discretion,
rather than allow it to interfere with duty.”

ENQ. Methinks, if you carry out these maxims, you are likely to reap a
nice crop of troubles!

THEO. And so we do. We have to admit that we are now open to the same
taunt as the early Christians were. “See, how these Theosophists
love one another!” may now be said of us without a shadow of
injustice.

ENQ. Admitting yourself that there is at least as much, if not more,
backbiting, slandering, and quarrelling in the T.S. as in the
Christian Churches, let alone Scientific Societies—What kind of
Brotherhood is this? I may ask.

THEO. A very poor specimen, indeed, as at present, and, until carefully
sifted and reorganized, _no_ better than all others. Remember,
however, that human nature is the same _in_ the Theosophical
Society as _out_ of it. Its members are no saints: they are at
best sinners trying to do better, and liable to fall back owing
to personal weakness. Add to this that our “Brotherhood” is no
“recognised” or established body, and stands, so to speak, outside
of the pale of jurisdiction. Besides which, it is in a chaotic
condition, and as unjustly _unpopular as is no other body_. What
wonder, then, that those members who fail to carry out its ideal
should turn, after leaving the Society, for sympathetic protection
to our enemies, and pour all their gall and bitterness into their
too willing ears! Knowing that they will find support, sympathy,
and ready credence for every accusation, however absurd, that
it may please them to launch against the Theosophical Society,
they hasten to do so, and vent their wrath on the innocent
looking-glass, which reflected too faithfully their faces. _People
never forgive those whom they have wronged._ The sense of kindness
received, and repaid by them with ingratitude, drives them into
a madness of self-justification before the world and their own
consciences. The former is but too ready to believe in anything
said against a society it hates. The latter—but I will say no
more, fearing I have already said too much.

ENQ. Your position does not seem to me a very enviable one.

THEO. It is not. But don’t you think that there must be something very
noble, very exalted, very true, behind the Society and its
philosophy, when the leaders and the founders of the movement
still continue to work for it with all their strength? They
sacrifice to it all comfort, all worldly prosperity, and success,
even to their good name and reputation—aye, even to their
honour—to receive in return incessant and ceaseless obloquy,
relentless persecution, untiring slander, constant ingratitude,
and misunderstanding of their best efforts, blows, and buffets
from all sides—when by simply dropping their work they would
find themselves immediately released from every responsibility,
shielded from every further attack.

ENQ. I confess, such a perseverance seems to me very astounding, and I
wondered why you did all this.

THEO. Believe me for no self-gratification; only in the hope of
training a few individuals to carry on our work for humanity by
its original programme when the Founders are dead and gone. They
have already found a few such noble and devoted souls to replace
them. The coming generations, thanks to these few, will find the
path to peace a little less thorny, and the way a little widened,
and thus all this suffering will have produced good results, and
their self-sacrifice will not have been in vain. At present, the
main, fundamental object of the Society is to sow germs in the
hearts of men, which may in time sprout, and under more propitious
circumstances lead to a healthy reform, conducive of more
happiness _to the masses_ than they have hitherto enjoyed.

XIII. ON THE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

THEOSOPHY AND ASCETICISM.

ENQ. I have heard people say that your rules require all members to be
vegetarians, celibates, and rigid ascetics; but you have not told
me anything of the sort yet. Can you tell the truth once for all
about this?

THEO. The truth is that our rules require nothing of the kind. The
Theosophical Society does not even expect, far less require of
_any_ of its members that they should be ascetics in any way,
except—if you call _that_ asceticism—that they should try and
benefit other people and be unselfish in their own lives.

ENQ. But still many of your members are strict vegetarians, and openly
avow their intention of remaining unmarried. This, too, is most
often the case with those who take a prominent part in connection
with the work of your Society.

THEO. That is only natural, because most of our really earnest workers
are members of the Inner Section of the Society, which I told you
about before.

ENQ. Oh! then you do require ascetic practices in that Inner Section?

THEO. No; we do not _require_ or _enjoin_ them even there; but I see
that I had better give you an explanation of our views on the
subject of asceticism in general, and then you will understand
about vegetarianism and so on.

ENQ. Please proceed.

THEO. As I have already told you, most people who become really earnest
students of Theosophy, and active workers in our Society, wish to
do more than study theoretically the truths we teach. They wish
to _know_ the truth by their own direct personal experience, and
to study Occultism with the object of acquiring the wisdom and
power, which they feel that they need in order to help others,
effectually and judiciously, instead of blindly and at haphazard.
Therefore, sooner or later, they join the Inner Section.

ENQ. But you said that “ascetic practices” are not obligatory even in
that Inner Section?

THEO. No more they are; but the first thing which the members learn
there is a true conception of the relation of the body, or
physical sheath, to the inner, the true man. The relation and
mutual interaction between these two aspects of human nature are
explained and demonstrated to them, so that they soon become
imbued with the supreme importance of the inner man over the outer
case or body. They are taught that blind unintelligent asceticism
is mere folly; that such conduct as that of St. Labro which I
spoke of before, or that of the Indian Fakirs and jungle ascetics,
who cut, burn and macerate their bodies in the most cruel and
horrible manner, is simply self-torture for selfish ends, _i.e._,
to develop will-power, but is perfectly useless for the purpose of
assisting true spiritual, or Theosophic, development.

ENQ. I see, you regard only _moral_ asceticism as necessary. It is as a
means to an end, that end being the perfect equilibrium of the
_inner_ nature of man, and the attainment of complete mastery over
the body with all its passions and desires?

THEO. Just so. But these means must be used intelligently and wisely,
not blindly and foolishly; like an athlete who is training and
preparing for a great contest, not like the miser who starves
himself into illness that he may gratify his passion for gold.

ENQ. I understand now your general idea; but let us see how you apply
it in practice. How about vegetarianism, for instance?

THEO. One of the great German scientists has shown that every kind of
animal tissue, however you may cook it, still retains certain
marked characteristics of the animal which it belonged to,
which characteristics can be recognised. And apart from that,
every one knows by the taste what meat he is eating. We go
a step farther, and prove that when the flesh of animals is
assimilated by man as food, it imparts to him, physiologically,
some of the characteristics of the animal it came from.
Moreover, occult science teaches and proves this to its students
by ocular demonstration, showing also that this “coarsening”
or “animalizing” effect on man is greatest from the flesh of
the larger animals, less for birds, still less for fish and
other cold-blooded animals, and least of all when he eats only
vegetables.

ENQ. Then he had better not eat at all?

THEO. If he could live without eating, of course it would. But as the
matter stands, he must eat to live, and so we advise really
earnest students to eat such food as will least clog and weight
their brains and bodies, and will have the smallest effect in
hampering and retarding the development of their intuition, their
inner faculties and powers.

ENQ. Then you do not adopt all the arguments which vegetarians in
general are in the habit of using?

THEO. Certainly not. Some of their arguments are very weak, and often
based on assumptions which are quite false. But, on the other
hand, many of the things they say are quite true. For instance, we
believe that much disease, and especially the great predisposition
to disease which is becoming so marked a feature in our time, is
very largely due to the eating of meat, and especially of tinned
meats. But it would take too long to go thoroughly into this
question of vegetarianism on its merits; so please pass on to
something else.

ENQ. One question more. What are your members of the Inner Section to
do with regard to their food when they are ill?

THEO. Follow the best practical advice they can get, of course. Don’t
you grasp yet that we never impose any hard-and-fast obligations
in this respect? Remember once for all that in all such questions
we take a rational, and never a fanatical, view of things. If
from illness or long habit a man cannot go without meat, why, by
all means let him eat it. It is no crime; it will only retard
his progress a little; for after all is said and done, the purely
bodily actions and functions are of far less importance than what
a man _thinks_ and _feels_, what desires he encourages in his
mind, and allows to take root and grow there.

ENQ. Then with regard to the use of wine and spirits, I suppose you do
not advise people to drink them?

THEO. They are worse for his moral and spiritual growth than meat, for
alcohol in all its forms has a direct, marked, and very
deleterious influence on man’s psychic condition. Wine and spirit
drinking is only less destructive to the development of the inner
powers, than the habitual use of hashish, opium, and similar drugs.

THEOSOPHY AND MARRIAGE.

ENQ. Now to another question; must a man marry or remain a celibate?

THEO. It depends on the kind of man you mean. If you refer to one who
intends to live _in_ the world, one who, even though a good,
earnest Theosophist, and an ardent worker for our cause, still has
ties and wishes which bind him to the world, who, in short, does
not feel that he has done for ever with what men call life, and
that he desires one thing and one thing only—to know the truth,
and to be able to help others—then for such a one I say there
is no reason why he should not marry, if he likes to take the
risks of that lottery where there are so many more blanks than
prizes. Surely you cannot believe us so absurd and fanatical as
to preach against marriage altogether? On the contrary, save in a
few exceptional cases of practical Occultism, marriage is the only
remedy against immorality.

ENQ. But why cannot one acquire this knowledge and power when living a
married life?

THEO. My dear sir, I cannot go into physiological questions with you;
but I can give you an obvious and, I think, a sufficient answer,
which will explain to you the moral reasons we give for it. Can
a man serve two masters? No! Then it is equally impossible for
him to divide his attention between the pursuit of Occultism and
a wife. If he tries to, he will assuredly fail in doing either
properly; and, let me remind you, practical Occultism is far too
serious and dangerous a study for a man to take up, unless he is
in the most deadly earnest, and ready to sacrifice _all, himself
first of all_, to gain his end. But this does not apply to the
members of our Inner Section. I am only referring to those who
are determined to tread that path of discipleship which leads to
the highest goal. Most, if not all of those who join our Inner
Section, are only beginners, preparing themselves in this life to
enter in reality upon that path in lives to come.

THEOSOPHY AND EDUCATION.

ENQ. One of your strongest arguments for the inadequacy of the existing
forms of religion in the West, as also to some extent the
materialistic philosophy which is now so popular, but which you
seem to consider as an abomination of desolation, is the large
amount of misery and wretchedness which undeniably exists,
especially in our great cities. But surely you must recognize how
much has been, and is being done to remedy this state of things by
the spread of education and the diffusion of intelligence.

THEO. The future generations will hardly thank you for such a
“diffusion of intelligence,” nor will your present education do
much good to the poor starving masses.

ENQ. Ah! but you must give us time. It is only a few years since we
began to educate the people.

THEO. And what, pray, has your Christian religion been doing ever since
the fifteenth century, once you acknowledge that the education
of the masses has not been attempted till now—the very work,
if ever there could be one, which a _Christian_, _i.e._, a
Christ-following church and people, ought to perform?

ENQ. Well, you may be right; but now—

THEO. Just let us consider this question of education from a broad
standpoint, and I will prove to you that you are doing harm not
good, with many of your boasted improvements. The schools for the
poorer children, though far less useful than they ought to be,
are good in contrast with the vile surroundings to which they
are doomed by your modern Society. The _infusion_ of a little
practical Theosophy would help a hundred times more in life
the poor suffering masses than all this infusion of (useless)
intelligence.

ENQ. But, really——

THEO. Let me finish, please. You have opened a subject on which we
Theosophists feel deeply, and I must have my say. I quite agree
that there is a great advantage to a small child bred in the
slums, having the gutter for playground, and living amid continued
coarseness of gesture and word, in being placed daily in a bright,
clean school-room hung with pictures, and often gay with flowers.
There it is taught to be clean, gentle, orderly; there it learns
to sing and to play; has toys that awaken its intelligence; learns
to use its fingers deftly; is spoken to with a smile instead of
a frown; is gently rebuked or coaxed instead of cursed. All this
humanises the children, arouses their brains, and renders them
susceptible to intellectual and moral influences. The schools are
not all they might be and ought to be; but, compared with the
homes, they are paradises; and they slowly are reacting on the
homes. But while this is true of many of the Board schools, your
system deserves the worst one can say of it.

ENQ. So be it; go on.

THEO. What is the _real_ object of modern education? Is it to cultivate
and develop the mind in the right direction; to teach the
disinherited and hapless people to carry with fortitude the burden
of life (allotted them by Karma); to strengthen their will; to
inculcate in them the love of one’s neighbour and the feeling of
mutual interdependence and brotherhood; and thus to train and form
the character for practical life? Not a bit of it. And yet, these
are undeniably the objects of all true education. No one denies
it; all your educationalists admit it, and talk very big indeed
on the subject. But what is the practical result of their action?
Every young man and boy, nay, every one of the younger generation
of schoolmasters will answer: “The object of modern education is
to pass examinations,” a system not to develop right emulation,
but to generate and breed jealousy, envy, hatred almost, in
young people for one another, and thus train them for a life of
ferocious selfishness and struggle for honours and emoluments
instead of kindly feeling.

ENQ. I must admit you are right there.

THEO. And what are these examinations—the terror of modern boyhood and
youth? They are simply a method of classification by which the
results of your school teaching are tabulated. In other words,
they form the practical application of the modern science methods
to the _genus homo, qua_ intellection. Now “science” teaches
that intellect is a result of the mechanical interaction of the
brain-stuff; therefore it is only logical that modern education
should be almost entirely mechanical—a sort of automatic machine
for the fabrication of intellect by the ton. Very little
experience of examinations is enough to show that the education
they produce is simply a training of the physical memory, and,
sooner or later, all your schools will sink to this level. As to
any real, sound cultivation of the thinking and reasoning power,
it is simply impossible while everything has to be judged by the
results as tested by competitive examinations. Again, school
training is of the very greatest importance in forming character,
especially in its moral bearing. Now, from first to last, your
modern system is based on the so-called scientific revelations:
“The struggle for existence” and the “survival of the fittest.”
All through his early life, every man has these driven into him by
practical example and experience, as well as by direct teaching,
till it is impossible to eradicate from his mind the idea that
“self,” the lower, personal, animal self, is the end-all, and
be-all, of life. Here you get the great source of all the
after-misery, crime, and heartless selfishness, which you admit
as much as I do. Selfishness, as said over and over again, is the
curse of humanity, and the prolific parent of all the evils and
crimes in this life; and it is your schools which are the hotbeds
of such selfishness.

ENQ. That is all very fine as generalities, but I should like a few
facts, and to learn also how this can be remedied.

THEO. Very well, I will try and satisfy you. There are three great
divisions of scholastic establishments, board, middle-class
and public schools, running up the scale from the most grossly
commercial to the idealistic classical, with many permutations
and combinations. The practical commercial begets the modern
side, and the ancient and orthodox classical reflects its heavy
respectability even as far as the School Board pupil teacher’s
establishments. Here we plainly see the scientific and material
commercial supplanting the effete orthodox and classical. Neither
is the reason very far to seek. The objects of this branch of
education are, then, pounds, shillings, and pence, the _summum
bonum_ of the XIXth century. Thus, the energies generated by the
brain molecules of its adherents are all concentrated on one
point, and are, therefore, to some extent, an organized army
of _educated_ and speculative intellects of the minority of
men, trained against the hosts of the ignorant, simple-minded
masses doomed to be vampirised, lived and sat upon by their
intellectually stronger brethren. Such training is not only
_untheosophical_, it is simply UNCHRISTIAN. Result: The direct
outcome of this branch of education is an overflooding of the
market with money-making machines, with heartless selfish
men—animals—who have been most carefully trained to prey on their
fellows and take advantage of the ignorance of their weaker
brethren!

ENQ. Well, but you cannot assert that of our great public schools, at
any rate?

THEO. Not exactly, it is true. But though the _form_ is different, the
animating spirit is the same: _untheosophical_ and _unchristian_,
whether Eton and Harrow turn out scientists or divines and
theologians.

ENQ. Surely you don’t mean to call Eton and Harrow “commercial”?

THEO. No. Of course the Classical system is above all things
_respectable_, and in the present day is productive of some good.
It does still remain the favourite at our great public schools,
where not only an intellectual, but also a social education
is obtainable. It is, therefore, of prime importance that the
dull boys of aristocratic and wealthy parents should go to such
schools to meet the rest of the young life of the “blood” and
money classes. But unfortunately there is a huge competition even
for entrance; for the moneyed classes are increasing, and poor
but clever boys seek to enter the public schools by the rich
scholarships, both at the schools themselves and from them to the
Universities.

ENQ. According to this view, the wealthier “dullards” have to work even
harder than their poorer fellows?

THEO. It is so. But, strange to say, the faithful of the cult of the
“Survival of the fittest” do not practice their creed; for their
whole exertion is to make the naturally unfit supplant the
fit. Thus, by bribes of large sums of money, they allure the
best teachers from their natural pupils to mechanicalise their
naturally unfit progeny into professions which they uselessly
overcrowd.

ENQ. And you attribute all this to what?

THEO. All this is owing to the perniciousness of a system which turns
out goods to order, irrespective of the natural proclivities
and talents of the youth. The poor little candidate for this
progressive paradise of learning, comes almost straight from the
nursery to the treadmill of a preparatory school for sons of
gentlemen. Here he is immediately seized upon by the workmen of
the materio-intellectual factory, and crammed with Latin, French
and Greek Accidence, Dates and Tables, so that if he have any
natural genius it is rapidly squeezed out of him by the rollers of
what Carlyle has so well-called “dead vocables.”

ENQ. But surely he is taught something besides “dead vocables,” and
much of that which may lead him direct to _Theosophy_, if not
entirely into the Theosophical Society?

THEO. Not much. For of history, he will attain only sufficient
knowledge of his own particular nation to fit him with a
steel armour of prejudice against all other peoples, and be
steeped in the foul cess-pools of chronicled national hate and
blood-thirstiness; and surely, you would not call that—_Theosophy_?

ENQ. What are your further objections?

THEO. Added to this is a smattering of selected, so-called, Biblical
facts, from the study of which all intellect is eliminated. It is
simply a memory lesson, the “Why” of the teacher being a “Why” of
circumstances and not of reason.

ENQ. Yes; but I have heard you congratulate yourself at the
ever-increasing number of the Agnostics and Atheists in our day,
so that it appears that even people trained in the system you
abuse so heartily _do_ learn to think and reason for themselves.

THEO. Yes; but it is rather owing to a healthy reaction from that
system than due to it. We prefer immeasurably more in our Society
Agnostics, and even rank Atheists, to bigots of whatever religion.
An Agnostic’s mind is ever opened to the truth; whereas the latter
blinds the bigot like the sun does an owl. The best—_i.e._, the
most truth-loving, philanthropic, and honest—of our Fellows were,
and are, Agnostics and Atheists (disbelievers in a _personal_
God). But there are no _free_-thinking boys and girls, and
generally early training will leave its mark behind in the shape
of a cramped and distorted mind. A proper and sane system of
education should produce the most vigorous and liberal mind,
strictly trained in logical and accurate thought, and not in blind
faith. How can you ever expect good results, while you pervert
the reasoning faculty of your children by bidding them believe in
the miracles of the Bible on Sunday, while for the six other days
of the week you teach them that such things are scientifically
impossible?

ENQ. What would you have, then?

THEO. If we had money, we would found schools which would turn out
something else than reading and writing candidates for starvation.
Children should above all be taught self-reliance, love for all
men, altruism, mutual charity, and more than anything else, to
think and reason for themselves. We would reduce the purely
mechanical work of the memory to an absolute minimum, and devote
the time to the development and training of the inner senses,
faculties and latent capacities. We would endeavour to deal with
each child as a unit, and to educate it so as to produce the most
harmonious and equal unfoldment of its powers, in order that its
special aptitudes should find their full natural development. We
should aim at creating _free_ men and women, free intellectually,
free morally, unprejudiced in all respects, and above all things,
_unselfish_. And we believe that much if not all of this could be
obtained by _proper and truly theosophical_ education.

WHY, THEN, IS THERE SO MUCH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE T.S.?

ENQ. If Theosophy is even half of what you say, why should there exist
such a terrible ill-feeling against it? This is even more of a
problem than anything else.

THEO. It is; but you must bear in mind how many powerful adversaries we
have aroused ever since the formation of our Society. As I just
said, if the Theosophical movement were one of those numerous
modern crazes, as harmless at the end as they are evanescent, it
would be simply laughed at—as it is now by those who still do not
understand its real purport—and left severely alone. But it is
nothing of the kind. Intrinsically, Theosophy is the most serious
movement of this age; and one, moreover, which threatens the very
life of most of the time-honoured humbugs, prejudices, and social
evils of the day—those evils which fatten and make happy the upper
ten and their imitators and sycophants, the wealthy dozens of the
middle classes, while they positively crush and starve out of
existence the millions of the poor. Think of this, and you will
easily understand the reason of such a relentless persecution by
those others who, more observant and perspicacious, do see the
true nature of Theosophy, and therefore dread it.

ENQ. Do you mean to tell me that it is because a few have understood
what Theosophy leads to, that they try to crush the movement? But
if Theosophy leads only to good, surely you cannot be prepared to
utter such a terrible accusation of perfidious heartlessness and
treachery even against those few?

THEO. I am so prepared, on the contrary. I do not call the enemies we
have had to battle with during the first nine or ten years of the
Society’s existence either powerful or “dangerous”; but only those
who have arisen against us in the last three or four years. And
these neither speak, write nor preach against Theosophy, but work
in silence and behind the backs of the foolish puppets who act as
their visible _marionnettes_. Yet if _invisible_ to most of the
members of our Society, they are well known to the true “Founders”
and the protectors of our Society. But they must remain for
certain reasons unnamed at present.

ENQ. And are they known to many of you, or to yourself alone?

THEO. I never said _I_ knew them. I may or may not know them—but I know
_of them_, and this is sufficient; and _I defy them to do their
worst_. They may achieve great mischief and throw confusion
into our ranks, especially among the faint-hearted, and those
who can judge only by appearances. _They will not crush the
Society_, do what they may. Apart from these truly dangerous
enemies—“dangerous,” however, only to those Theosophists who
are unworthy of the name, and whose place is rather _outside_
than _within_ the T.S.—the number of our opponents is more than
considerable.

ENQ. Can you name these, at least, if you will not speak of the others?

THEO. Of course I can. We have to contend against (1) the hatred of the
Spiritualists, American, English, and French; (2) the constant
opposition of the clergy of all denominations; (3) especially
the relentless hatred and persecution of the missionaries in
India; (4) this led to the famous and infamous attack on our
Theosophical Society by the Society for Psychical Research, an
attack which was stirred up by a regular conspiracy organized by
the missionaries in India. Lastly, we must count the defection
of various prominent (?) members, for reasons I have already
explained, all of whom have contributed their utmost to increase
the prejudice against us.

ENQ. Cannot you give me more details about these, so that I may know
what to answer when asked—a brief history of the Society, in
short; and why the world believes all this?

THEO. The reason is simple. Most outsiders knew absolutely nothing of
the Society itself, its motives, objects or beliefs. From its very
beginning the world has seen in Theosophy nothing but certain
marvellous phenomena, in which two-thirds of the non-spiritualists
do not believe. Very soon the Society came to be regarded as a
body pretending to the possession of “miraculous” powers. The
world never realised that the Society taught absolute disbelief
in _miracle_ or even the possibility of such; that in the Society
there were only a few people who possessed such psychic powers
and but few who cared for them. Nor did it understand that the
phenomena were never produced publicly, but only privately for
friends, and merely given as an accessory, to prove by direct
demonstration that such things could be produced without dark
rooms, spirits, mediums, or any of the usual paraphernalia.
Unfortunately, this misconception was greatly strengthened and
exaggerated by the first book on the subject which excited much
attention in Europe—Mr. Sinnett’s “_Occult World_.” If this work
did much to bring the Society into prominence, it attracted still
more obloquy, derision and misrepresentation upon the hapless
heroes and heroine thereof. Of this the author was more than
warned in the _Occult World_, but did not pay attention to the
_prophecy_—for such it was, though half-veiled.

ENQ. For what, and since when, do the Spiritualists hate you?

THEO. From the first day of the Society’s existence. No sooner the fact
became known that, as a body, the T.S. did not believe in
communications with the spirits of the dead, but regarded the
so-called “spirits” as, for the most part, astral reflections of
disembodied personalities, shells, etc., than the Spiritualists
conceived a violent hatred to us and especially to the Founders.
This hatred found expression in every kind of slander,
uncharitable personal remarks, and absurd misrepresentations of
the Theosophical teachings in all the American Spiritualistic
organs. For years we were persecuted, denounced and abused. This
began in 1875 and continues to the present day. In 1879, the
headquarters of the T.S. were transferred from New York to Bombay,
India, and then permanently to Madras. When the first branch of
our Society, the British T.S., was founded in London, the English
Spiritualists came out in arms against us, as the Americans had
done; and the French Spiritists followed suit.

ENQ. But why should the clergy be hostile to you, when, after all, the
main tendency of the Theosophical doctrines is opposed to
Materialism, the great enemy of all forms of religion in our day?
THEO. The Clergy opposed us on the general principle that “He who
is not with me is against me.” Since Theosophy does not agree with
any one Sect or Creed, it is considered the enemy of all alike,
because it teaches that they are all, more or less, mistaken. The
missionaries in India hated and tried to crush us because they saw
the flower of the educated Indian youth and the Brahmins, who are
almost inaccessible to them, joining the Society in large numbers.
And yet, apart from this general class hatred, the T.S. counts in
its ranks many clergymen, and even one or two bishops.

ENQ. And what led the S.P.R. to take the field against you? You were
both pursuing the same line of study, in some respects, and
several of the Psychic Researchers belonged to your society.

THEO. First of all we were very good friends with the leaders of the
S.P.R.; but when the attack on the phenomena appeared in the
_Christian College Magazine_, supported by the pretended
revelations of a menial, the S.P.R. found that they had
compromised themselves by publishing in their “Proceedings” too
many of the phenomena which had occurred in connection with the
T.S. Their ambition is to pose as an _authoritative_ and _strictly
scientific_ body; so that they had to choose between retaining
that position by throwing overboard the T.S. and even trying to
destroy it, and seeing themselves merged, in the opinion of the
Sadducees of the _grand monde_, with the “credulous” Theosophists
and Spiritualists. There was no way for them out of it, no two
choices, and they chose to throw us overboard. It was a matter of
dire necessity for them. But so hard pressed were they to find
any apparently reasonable motive for the life of devotion and
ceaseless labour led by the two Founders, and for the complete
absence of any pecuniary profit or other advantage to them, that
our enemies were obliged to resort to the thrice-absurd, eminently
ridiculous, and now famous “Russian spy theory,” to explain this
devotion. But the old saying, “The blood of the martyr is the seed
of the Church,” proved once more correct. After the first shock of
this attack, the T.S. doubled and tripled its numbers, but the bad
impression produced still remains. A French author was right in
saying, “_Calomniez, calomniez toujours et encore, il en restera
toujours quelque chose._” Therefore it is, that unjust prejudices
are current, and that everything connected with the T.S., and
especially with its Founders, is so falsely distorted, because
based on malicious hearsay alone.

ENQ. Yet in the 14 years during which the Society has existed, you must
have had ample time and opportunity to show yourselves and your
work in their true light?

THEO. How, or when, have we been given such an opportunity? Our most
prominent members had an aversion to anything that looked like
publicly justifying themselves. Their policy has ever been: “We
must live it down”; and “What does it matter what the newspapers
say, or people think?” The Society was too poor to send out
public lecturers, and therefore the expositions of our views
and doctrines were confined to a few Theosophical works that
met with success, but which people often misunderstood, or
only knew of through hearsay. Our journals were, and still are,
boycotted; our literary works ignored; and to this day no one
seems even to feel quite certain whether the Theosophists are
a kind of Serpent-and-Devil worshippers, or simply “Esoteric
Buddhists”—whatever that may mean. It was useless for us to go
on denying, day after day and year after year, every kind of
inconceivable cock-and-bull stories about us; for, no sooner was
one disposed of, than another, a still more absurd and malicious
one, was born out of the ashes of the first. Unfortunately,
human nature is so constituted that any good said of a person
is immediately forgotten and never repeated. But one has only
to utter a calumny, or to start a story—no matter how absurd,
false or incredible it may be, if only it is connected with some
unpopular character—for it to be successful and forthwith accepted
as a historical fact. Like _Don Basilio’s_ “CALUMNIA,” the rumour
springs up, at first, as a soft gentle breeze hardly stirring the
grass under your feet, and arising no one knows whence; then, in
the shortest space of time, it is transformed into a strong wind,
begins to blow a gale, and forthwith becomes a roaring storm! A
calumny among news, is what an octopus is among fishes; it sucks
into one’s mind, fastens upon our memory, which feeds upon it,
leaving indelible marks even after the calumny has been bodily
destroyed. A calumnious lie is the only master-key that will open
any and every brain. It is sure to receive welcome and hospitality
in every human mind, the highest as the lowest, if only a little
prejudiced, and no matter from however base a quarter and motive
it has started.

ENQ. Don’t you think your assertion altogether too sweeping? The
Englishman has never been over-ready to believe in anything said,
and our nation is proverbially known for its love of fair play. A
lie has no legs to stand upon for long, and—

THEO. The Englishman is as ready to believe evil as a man of any other
nation; for it is human nature, and not a national feature. As
to lies, if they have no legs to stand upon, according to the
proverb, they have exceedingly rapid wings; and they can and do
fly farther and wider than any other kind of news, in England
as elsewhere. Remember lies and calumny are the only kind of
literature we can always get gratis, and without paying any
subscription. We can make the experiment if you like. Will you,
who are so interested in Theosophical matters, and have heard
so much about us, will you put me questions on as many of these
rumours and “hearsays” as you can think of? I will answer you
the truth, and nothing but the truth, subject to the strictest
verification.

ENQ. Before we change the subject, let us have the whole truth on this
one. Now, some writers have called your teachings “immoral
and pernicious”; others, on the ground that many so-called
“authorities” and Orientalists find in the Indian religions
nothing but sex-worship in its many forms, accuse you of teaching
nothing better than Phallic worship. They say that since modern
Theosophy is so closely allied with Eastern, and particularly
Indian, thought, it cannot be free from this taint. Occasionally,
even, they go so far as to accuse European Theosophists of
reviving the practices connected with this cult. How about this?

THEO. I have heard and read about this before, and I answer that no
more utterly baseless and lying calumny has ever been invented
and circulated. “Silly people can see but silly dreams,” says
a Russian proverb. It makes one’s blood boil to hear such vile
accusations made without the slightest foundation, and on the
strength of mere inferences. Ask the hundreds of honourable
English men and women who have been members of the Theosophical
Society for years whether an _immoral_ precept or a _pernicious_
doctrine was ever taught to them. Open the _Secret Doctrine_,
and you will find page after page denouncing the Jews and other
nations precisely on account of this devotion to Phallic rites,
due to the dead letter interpretation of nature symbolism, and
the grossly materialistic conceptions of her dualism in all the
_exoteric_ creeds. Such ceaseless and malicious misrepresentation
of our teachings and beliefs is really disgraceful.

ENQ. But you cannot deny that the Phallic element _does_ exist in the
religions of the East?

THEO. Nor do I deny it; only I maintain that this proves no more than
does its presence in Christianity, the religion of the West. Read
Hargrave Jenning’s _Rosicrucians_, if you would assure yourself of
it. In the East, the Phallic symbolism is, perhaps, more crude,
because more true to nature, or I would rather say, more _naïve_
and sincere than in the West. But it is not more licentious,
nor does it suggest to the Oriental mind the same gross and
coarse ideas as to the Western, with, perhaps, one or two
exceptions, such as the shameful sect known as the “Maharajah,” or
_Vallabhachârya_ sect.

ENQ. A writer in the _Agnostic_ journal—one of your accusers—has just
hinted that the followers of this disgraceful sect are
Theosophists, and “claim true Theosophic insight.”

THEO. He wrote a falsehood, and that’s all. There never was, nor is
there at present, one single Vallabhachârya in our Society. As to
their having, or claiming Theosophic insight, that is another fib,
based on crass ignorance about the Indian Sects. Their “Maharajah”
only claims a right to the money, wives and daughters of his
foolish followers and no more. This sect is despised by all the
other Hindus.

But you will find the whole subject dealt with at length in the _Secret
Doctrine_, to which I must again refer you for detailed
explanations. To conclude, the very soul of Theosophy is dead
against Phallic worship; and its occult or esoteric section more
so even than the exoteric teachings. There never was a more lying
statement made than the above. And now ask me some other questions.

IS THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY A MONEY-MAKING CONCERN?

ENQ. Agreed. Well, have either of the Founders, Colonel H. S. Olcott or
H. P. Blavatsky, ever made any money, profit, or derived any
worldly benefit from the T.S., as some papers say?

THEO. Not one penny. The papers lie. On the contrary, they have both
given all they had, and literally beggared themselves. As for
“worldly benefits,” think of the calumnies and vilification they
have been subjected to, and then ask the question!

ENQ. Yet I have read in a good many missionary organs that the entrance
fees and subscriptions much more than covered all expenses; and
one said that the Founders were making twenty thousand pounds a
year!

THEO. This is a fib, like many others. In the published accounts of
January, 1889, you will find an exact statement of _all_ the money
ever received from any source since 1879. The total received from
all sources (entrance fees, donations, etc., etc.) during these
ten years is under six thousand pounds, and of this a large part
was contributed by the Founders themselves from the proceeds of
their private resources and their literary work. All this has been
openly and officially admitted, even by our enemies, the Psychic
Research Society. And now both the Founders are penniless; one,
too old and ill to work as she did before, unable to spare time
for outside literary work to help the Society in money, can only
write for the Theosophical cause; the other keeps labouring for it
as before, and receives as little thanks for it.

ENQ. But surely they need money to live?

THEO. Not at all. So long as they have food and lodging, even though
they owe it to the devotion of a few friends, they need little
more.

ENQ. But could not Madame Blavatsky, especially, make more than enough
to live upon by her writings?

THEO. When in India she received on the average some thousand rupees a
year for articles contributed to Russian and other papers, but
gave it all away to the Society.

ENQ. Political articles?

THEO. Never. Everything she has written throughout the seven years of
her stay in India is all there in print. It deals only with
the religions, ethnology, and customs of India, and with
Theosophy—never with politics, of which she knows nothing and
cares less. Again, two years ago she refused several contracts
amounting together to about 1,200 roubles in gold per month; for
she could not accept them without abandoning her work for the
Society, which needed all her time and strength. She has documents
to prove it.

ENQ. But why could not both she and Colonel Olcott do as others—notably
many Theosophists—do; follow out their respective professions and
devote the surplus of their time to the work of the Society?

THEO. Because by serving two masters, either the professional or the
philanthropic work would have had to suffer. Every true
Theosophist is morally bound to sacrifice the personal to the
impersonal, his own _present_ good to the _future_ benefit of
other people. If the Founders do not set the example, who will?

ENQ. And are there many who follow it?

THEO. I am bound to answer you the truth. In Europe about half-a-dozen
in all, out of more than that number of Branches.

ENQ. Then it is not true that the Theosophical Society has a large
capital or endowment of its own?

THEO. It is false, for it has none at all. Now that the entrance fee of
£1 and the small annual due have been abolished, it is even a
doubtful question whether the staff at the headquarters in India
will not soon be starved to death.

ENQ. Then why not raise subscriptions?

THEO. We are not the Salvation Army; we _cannot_ and _have never_
begged; nor have we ever followed the example of the Churches and
sects and “taken up collections.” That which is occasionally sent
for the support of the Society, the small sums contributed by some
devoted Fellows, are all voluntary donations.

ENQ. But I have heard of large sums of money given to Mdme. Blavatsky.
It was said four years ago that she got £5,000 from one rich,
young “Fellow,” who went out to join them in India and £10,000
from another wealthy and well-known American gentleman, one of
your members who died in Europe four years ago.

THEO. Say to those who told you this, that they either themselves
utter, or repeat, a gross falsehood. _Never has_ “Madame
Blavatsky” _asked or received_ ONE PENNY from the two above-named
gentlemen, nor anything like that from anyone else, since the
Theosophical Society was founded. Let any man living try to
substantiate this calumny, and it will be easier for him to
prove that the Bank of England is a bankrupt than that the said
“Founder” has ever made any money out of Theosophy. These two
calumnies have been started by two high-born ladies, belonging
to the London aristocracy, and have been immediately traced
and disproved. They are the dead bodies, the carcases of two
inventions, which, after having been buried in the sea of
oblivion, are once more raised on the surface of the stagnant
waters of slander.

ENQ. Then I have been told of several large _legacies_ left to the T.S.
One—some £8,000—was left to it by some eccentric Englishman,
who did not even belong to the Society. The other—£3,000 or
£4,000—were testated by an Australian F.T.S. Is this true?

THEO. I heard of the first; and I also know that, whether legally left
or not, the T.S. has never profited by it, nor have the Founders
ever been officially notified of it. For, as our Society was not
then a chartered body, and thus had no legal existence, the Judge
at the Court of Probate, as we were told, paid no attention to
such legacy and turned over the sum to the heirs. So much for the
first. As for the second, it is quite true. The testator was one
of our devoted Fellows, and willed all he had to the T.S. But when
the President, Colonel Olcott, came to look into the matter, he
found that the testator had children whom he had disinherited for
some family reasons. Therefore, he called a council, and it was
decided that the legacy should be refused, and the moneys passed
to the legal heirs. The Theosophical Society would be untrue to
its name were it to profit by money to which others are entitled
virtually, at any rate on Theosophical principles, if not legally.

ENQ. Again, and I say this on the authority of your own Journal, the
_Theosophist_, there’s a Rajah of India who donated to the Society
25,000 rupees. Have you not thanked him for his great bounty in
the January _Theosophist_ for 1888?

THEO. We have, in these words, “That the thanks of the Convention be
conveyed to H. H. the Maharajah ... for his _promised munificent
gift_ of Rupees 25,000 to the Society’s Fund.” The thanks were
duly conveyed, but the money is still a “promise,” and has never
reached the Headquarters.

ENQ. But surely, if the Maharajah promised and received thanks for his
gift publicly and in print, he will be as good as his promise?

THEO. He may, though the promise is 18 months old. I speak of the
present and not of the future.

ENQ. Then how do you propose to go on?

THEO. So long as the T.S. has a few devoted members willing to work for
it without reward and thanks, so long as a few good Theosophists
support it with occasional donations, so long will it exist, and
nothing can crush it.

ENQ. I have heard many Theosophists speak of a “power behind the
Society” and of certain “Mahatmas,” mentioned also in Mr.
Sinnett’s works, that are said to have founded the Society, to
watch over and protect it.

THEO. You may laugh, but it is so.

THE WORKING STAFF OF THE T.S.

ENQ. These men, I have heard, are great Adepts, Alchemists, and what
not. If, then, they can change lead into gold and make as much
money as they like, besides doing all kinds of miracles at will,
as related in Mr. Sinnett’s “Occult World,” why do not they find
you money, and support the Founders and the Society in comfort?

THEO. Because they did not found a “miracle club.” Because the Society
is intended to help men to develop the powers latent in them
through their own exertions and merit. Because whatever they may
or may not produce in the way of phenomena, they are not _false
coiners_; nor would they throw an additional and very strong
temptation on the path of members and candidates: _Theosophy is
not to be bought_. Hitherto, for the past 14 years, not a single
working member has ever received pay or salary from either the
Masters or the Society.

ENQ. Then are none of your workers paid at all?

THEO. Till now, not one. But as every one has to eat, drink, and clothe
himself, all those who are without any means of their own, and
devote their whole time to the work of the society, are provided
with the necessaries of life at the Headquarters at Madras, India,
though these “necessaries” are humble enough, in truth! (See
Rules at the end.) But now that the Society’s work has increased
so greatly and still goes on in increasing (N.B., _owing to
slanders_) in Europe, we need more working hands. We hope to have
a few members who will henceforth be remunerated—if the word _can_
be used in the cases in question. For every one of these Fellows,
who are preparing to give _all_ their time to the Society, are
quitting good official situations with excellent prospects, to
work for us at _less than half their former salary_.

ENQ. And who will provide the funds for this?

THEO. Some of our Fellows who are just a little richer than the rest.
The man who would speculate or make money on Theosophy would be
unworthy to remain in our ranks.

ENQ. But you must surely make money by your books, magazines, and other
publications?