Part 3

ENQ. What do you mean?

THEO. I have said already that a true Theosophist must put in practice the loftiest moral ideal, must strive to realize his unity with the whole of humanity, and work ceaselessly for others. Now, if an Occultist does not do all this, he must act selfishly for his own personal benefit; and if he has acquired more practical power than other ordinary men, he becomes forthwith a far more dangerous enemy to the world and those around him than the average mortal. This is clear.

ENQ. Then is an Occultist simply a man who possesses more power than other people?

THEO. Far more—if he is a _practical_ and really learned Occultist, and not one only in name. Occult sciences are _not_, as described, in Encyclopædias, “those _imaginary_ sciences of the Middle Ages which related to the _supposed_ action or influence of Occult qualities or supernatural powers, as alchemy, magic, necromancy, and astrology,” for they are real, actual, and very dangerous sciences. They teach the secret potency of things in Nature, developing and cultivating the hidden powers “latent in man,” thus giving him tremendous advantages over more ignorant mortals. Hypnotism, now become so common and a subject of serious scientific inquiry, is a good instance in point. _Hypnotic_ power has been discovered almost by accident, the way to it having been prepared by mesmerism; and now an able hypnotizer can do almost anything with it, from forcing a man, unconsciously to himself, to play the fool, to making him commit a crime—often by proxy for the hypnotizer, and _for the benefit of the latter_. Is not this a terrible power if left in the hands of unscrupulous persons? And please to remember that this is only one of the minor branches of Occultism.

ENQ. But are not all these Occult sciences, magic, and sorcery, considered by the most cultured and learned people as relics of ancient ignorance and superstition?

THEO. Let me remind you that this remark of yours cuts both ways. The “most cultured and learned” among you regard also Christianity and every other religion as a relic of ignorance and superstition. People begin to believe now, at any rate, in _hypnotism_, and some—even of the _most cultured_—in Theosophy and phenomena. But who among them, except preachers and blind fanatics, will confess to a belief in _Biblical miracles_? And this is where the point of difference comes in. There are very good and pure Theosophists who may believe in the supernatural, divine _miracles_ included, but no Occultist will do so. For an Occultist practices _scientific_ Theosophy, based on accurate knowledge of Nature’s secret workings; but a Theosophist, practising the powers called abnormal, _minus_ the light of Occultism, will simply tend toward a dangerous form of mediumship, because, although holding to Theosophy and its highest conceivable code of ethics, he practises it in the dark, on sincere but _blind_ faith. Anyone, Theosophist or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of the branches of Occult science—_e.g._, Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the secrets of producing physical phenomena, etc.—without the knowledge of the philosophic _rationale_ of those powers, is like a rudderless boat launched on a stormy ocean.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALISM.

ENQ. But do you not believe in Spiritualism?

THEO. If by “Spiritualism” you mean the explanation which Spiritualists give of some abnormal phenomena, then decidedly _we do not_. They maintain that these manifestations are all produced by the “spirits” of departed mortals, generally their relatives, who return to earth, they say, to communicate with those they have loved or to whom they are attached. We deny this point blank. We assert that the spirits of the dead cannot return to earth—save in rare and exceptional cases, of which I may speak later; nor do they communicate with men except by _entirely subjective means_. That which does appear objectively, is only the phantom of the ex-physical man. But in _psychic_, and so to say, “Spiritual” Spiritualism, we do believe, most decidedly.

ENQ. Do you reject the phenomena also?

THEO. Assuredly not—save cases of conscious fraud.

ENQ. How do you account for them, then?

THEO. In many ways. The causes of such manifestations are by no means so simple as the Spiritualists would like to believe. Foremost of all, the _deus ex machinâ_ of the so-called “materializations” is usually the astral body or “double” of the medium or of some one present. This _astral_ body is also the producer or operating force in the manifestations of slate-writing, “Davenport”-like manifestations, and so on.

ENQ. You say “usually”; then _what_ is it that produces the rest?

THEO. That depends on the nature of the manifestations. Sometimes the astral remains, the Kamalokic “shells” of the vanished _personalities_ that were; at other times, Elementals. “Spirit” is a word of manifold and wide significance. I really do not know what Spiritualists mean by the term; but what we understand them to claim is that the physical phenomena are produced by the reincarnating _Ego_, the _Spiritual_ and immortal “individuality.” And this hypothesis we entirely reject. The Conscious _Individuality_ of the disembodied _cannot materialize_, nor can it return from its own mental Devachanic sphere to the plane of terrestrial objectivity.

ENQ. But many of the communications received from the “spirits” show not only intelligence, but a knowledge of facts not known to the medium, and sometimes even not consciously present to the mind of the investigator, or any of those who compose the audience.

THEO. This does not necessarily prove that the intelligence and knowledge you speak of belong to _spirits_, or emanate from _disembodied_ souls. Somnambulists have been known to compose music and poetry and to solve mathematical problems while in their trance state, without having ever learnt music or mathematics. Others answered intelligently to questions put to them, and even, in several cases, spoke languages, such as Hebrew and Latin, of which they were entirely ignorant when awake—all this in a state of profound sleep. Will you, then, maintain that this was caused by “spirits”?

ENQ. But how would you explain it?

THEO. We assert that the divine spark in man being one and identical in its essence with the Universal Spirit, our “spiritual Self” is practically omniscient, but that it cannot manifest its knowledge owing to the impediments of matter. Now the more these impediments are removed, in other words, the more the physical body is paralyzed, as to its own independent activity and consciousness, as in deep sleep or deep trance, or, again, in illness, the more fully can the _inner_ Self manifest on this plane. This is our explanation of those truly wonderful phenomena of a higher order, in which undeniable intelligence and knowledge are exhibited. As to the lower order of manifestations, such as physical phenomena and the platitudes and common talk of the general “spirit,” to explain even the most important of the teachings we hold upon the subject would take up more space and time than can be allotted to it at present. We have no desire to interfere with the belief of the Spiritualists any more than with any other belief. The _onus probandi_ must fall on the believers in “spirits.” And at the present moment, while still convinced that the higher sort of manifestations occur through the disembodied souls, their leaders and the most learned and intelligent among the Spiritualists are the first to confess that not _all_ the phenomena are produced by spirits. Gradually they will come to recognize the whole truth; but meanwhile we have no right nor desire to proselytize them to our views. The less so, as in the cases of purely _psychic and spiritual manifestations_ we believe in the intercommunication of the spirit of the living man with that of disembodied personalities.[7]

ENQ. This means that you reject the philosophy of Spiritualism _in toto_?

THEO. If by “philosophy” you mean their crude theories, we do. But they have no philosophy, in truth. Their best, their most intellectual and earnest defenders say so. Their fundamental and only unimpeachable truth, namely, that phenomena occur through mediums controlled by invisible forces and intelligences—no one, except a blind materialist of the “Huxley big toe” school, will or _can_ deny. With regard to their philosophy, however, let me read to you what the able editor of _Light_, than whom the Spiritualists will find no wiser nor more devoted champion, says of them and their philosophy. This is what “M.A. Oxon,” one of the very few _philosophical_ Spiritualists, writes, with respect to their lack of organization and blind bigotry:—

It is worth while to look steadily at this point, for it is of vital moment. We have an experience and a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is comparatively insignificant. The ordinary Spiritualist waxes wroth if anyone ventures to impugn his assured knowledge of the future and his absolute certainty of the life to come. Where other men have stretched forth feeble hands groping into the dark future, he walks boldly as one who has a chart and knows his way. Where other men have stopped short at a pious aspiration or have been content with a hereditary faith, it is his boast that he knows what they only believe, and that out of his rich stores he can supplement the fading faiths built only upon hope. He is magnificent in his dealings with man’s most cherished expectations. “You hope,” he seems to say, “for that which I can demonstrate. You have accepted a traditional belief in what I can experimentally prove according to the strictest scientific method. The old beliefs are fading; come out from them and be separate. They contain as much falsehood as truth. Only by building on a sure foundation of demonstrated fact can your superstructure be stable. All round you old faiths are toppling. Avoid the crash and get you out.”

When one comes to deal with this magnificent person in a practical way, what is the result? Very curious and very disappointing. He is so sure of his ground that he takes no trouble to ascertain the interpretation which others put upon his facts. The wisdom of the ages has concerned itself with the explanation of what he rightly regards as proven; but he does not turn a passing glance on its researches. He does not even agree altogether with his brother Spiritualist. It is the story over again of the old Scotch body who, together with her husband, formed a “kirk.” They had exclusive keys to Heaven, or, rather, she had, for she was “na certain aboot Jamie.” So the infinitely divided and subdivided and resubdivided sects of Spiritualists shake their heads, and are “na certain aboot” one another. Again, the collective experience of mankind is solid and unvarying on this point that union is strength, and disunion a source of weakness and failure. Shoulder to shoulder, drilled and disciplined, a rabble becomes an army, each man a match for a hundred of the untrained men that may be brought against it. Organization in every department of man’s work means success, saving of time and labour, profit and development. Want of method, want of plan, haphazard work, fitful energy, undisciplined effort—these mean bungling failure. The voice of humanity attests the truth. Does the Spiritualist accept the verdict and act on the conclusion? Verily, no. He refuses to organize. He is a law unto himself, and a thorn in the side of his neighbours.—_Light_, June 22, 1889.

ENQ. I was told that the Theosophical Society was originally founded to crush Spiritualism and belief in the survival of the individuality in man?

THEO. You are misinformed. Our beliefs are all founded on that immortal individuality. But then, like so many others, you confuse _personality_ with individuality. Your Western psychologists do not seem to have established any clear distinction between the two. Yet it is precisely that difference which gives the key-note to the understanding of Eastern philosophy, and which lies at the root of the divergence between the Theosophical and Spiritualistic teachings. And though it may draw upon us still more the hostility of some Spiritualists, yet I must state here that it is Theosophy which is the _true_ and unalloyed Spiritualism, while the modern scheme of that name is, as now practised by the masses, simply transcendental materialism.

ENQ. Please explain your idea more clearly.

THEO. What I mean is that though our teachings insist upon the identity of spirit and matter, and though we say that spirit is _potential_ matter, and matter simply crystallized spirit (_e.g._, as ice is solidified steam), yet since the original and eternal condition of _all_ is not spirit but _meta_-spirit, so to speak, (visible and solid matter being simply its periodical manifestation,) we maintain that the term spirit can only be applied to the _true_ individuality.

ENQ. But what is the distinction between this “true individuality” and the “I” or “Ego” of which we are all conscious?

THEO. Before I can answer you, we must argue upon what you mean by “I” or “Ego.” We distinguish between the simple fact of self-consciousness, the simple feeling that “I am I,” and the complex thought that “I am Mr. Smith” or “Mrs. Brown.” Believing as we do in a series of births for the same Ego, or re-incarnation, this distinction is the fundamental pivot of the whole idea. You see “Mr. Smith” really means a long series of daily experiences strung together by the thread of memory, and forming what Mr. Smith calls “himself.” But none of these “experiences” are really the “I” or the Ego, nor do they give “Mr. Smith” the feeling that he is himself, for he forgets the greater part of his daily experiences, and they produce the feeling of _Egoity_ in him only while they last. We Theosophists, therefore, distinguish between this bundle of “experiences,” which we call the _false_ (because so finite and evanescent) _personality_, and that element in man to which the feeling of “I am I” is due. It is this “I am I” which we call the _true_ individuality; and we say that this “Ego” or individuality plays, like an actor, many parts on the stage of life.[8] Let us call every new life on earth of the same _Ego_ a _night_ on the stage of a theatre. One night the actor, or “Ego,” appears as “Macbeth,” the next as “Shylock,” the third as “Romeo,” the fourth as “Hamlet” or “King Lear,” and so on, until he has run through the whole cycle of incarnations. The Ego begins his life-pilgrimage as a sprite, an “Ariel,” or a “Puck”; he plays the part of a _super_, is a soldier, a servant, one of the chorus; rises then to “speaking parts,” plays leading _rôles_, interspersed with insignificant parts, till he finally retires from the stage as “Prospero,” the _magician_.

ENQ. I understand. You say, then, that this true _Ego_ cannot return to earth after death. But surely the actor is at liberty, if he has preserved the sense of his individuality, to return if he likes to the scene of his former actions?

THEO. We say not, simply because such a return to earth would be incompatible with any state of _unalloyed_ bliss after death, as I am prepared to prove. We say that man suffers so much unmerited misery during his life, through the fault of others with whom he is associated, or because of his environment, that he is surely entitled to perfect rest and quiet, if not bliss, before taking up again the burden of life. However, we can discuss this in detail later.

WHY IS THEOSOPHY ACCEPTED?

ENQ. I understand to a certain extent; but I see that your teachings are far more complicated and metaphysical than either Spiritualism or current religious thought. Can you tell me, then, what has caused this system of Theosophy which you support to arouse so much interest and so much animosity at the same time?

THEO. There are several reasons for it, I believe; among other causes that may be mentioned is, _firstly_, the great reaction from the crassly materialistic theories now prevalent among scientific teachers. _Secondly_, general dissatisfaction with the artificial theology of the various Christian Churches, and the number of daily increasing and conflicting sects. _Thirdly_, an ever-growing perception of the fact that the creeds which are so obviously self—and mutually—contradictory _cannot be true_, and that claims which are unverified _cannot be real_. This natural distrust of conventional religions is only strengthened by their complete failure to preserve morals and to purify society and the masses. _Fourthly_, a conviction on the part of many, and _knowledge_ by a few, that there must be somewhere a philosophical and religious system which shall be scientific and not merely speculative. _Finally_, a belief, perhaps, that such a system must be sought for in teachings far antedating any modern faith.

ENQ. But how did this system come to be put forward just now?

THEO. Just because the time was found to be ripe, which fact is shown by the determined effort of so many earnest students to reach _the truth_, at whatever cost and wherever it may be concealed. Seeing this, its custodians permitted that some portions at least of that truth should be proclaimed. Had the formation of the Theosophical Society been postponed a few years longer, one half of the civilized nations would have become by this time rank materialists, and the other half anthropomorphists and phenomenalists.

ENQ. Are we to regard Theosophy in any way as a revelation?

THEO. In no way whatever—not even in the sense of a new and direct disclosure from some higher, supernatural, or, at least, _superhuman beings_; but only in the sense of an “unveiling” of old, very old, truths to minds hitherto ignorant of them, ignorant even of the existence and preservation of any such archaic knowledge.[9]

ENQ. You spoke of “Persecution.” If truth is as represented by Theosophy, why has it met with such opposition, and with no general acceptance?

THEO. For many and various reasons again, one of which is the hatred felt by men for “innovations,” as they call them. Selfishness is essentially conservative, and hates being disturbed. It prefers an easy-going, unexacting _lie_ to the greatest truth, if the latter requires the sacrifice of one’s smallest comfort. The power of mental inertia is great in anything that does not promise immediate benefit and reward. Our age is pre-eminently unspiritual and matter of fact. Moreover, there is the unfamiliar character of Theosophic teachings; the highly abstruse nature of the doctrines, some of which contradict flatly many of the human vagaries cherished by sectarians, which have eaten into the very core of popular beliefs. If we add to this the personal efforts and great purity of life exacted of those who would become the disciples of the _inner_ circle, and the very limited class to which an entirely unselfish code appeals, it will be easy to perceive the reason why Theosophy is doomed to such slow, uphill work. It is essentially the philosophy of those who suffer, and have lost all hope of being helped out of the mire of life by any other means. Moreover, the history of any system of belief or morals, newly introduced into a foreign soil, shows that its beginnings were impeded by every obstacle that obscurantism and selfishness could suggest. “The crown of the innovator is a crown of thorns” indeed! No pulling down of old, worm-eaten buildings can be accomplished without some danger.

ENQ. All this refers rather to the ethics and philosophy of the T.S. Can you give me a general idea of the Society itself, its object and statutes?

THEO. This was never made secret. Ask, and you shall receive accurate answers.

ENQ. But I heard that you were bound by pledges?

THEO. Only in the _Arcane_ or “Esoteric” Section.

ENQ. And also, that some members after leaving did not regard themselves bound by them. Are they right?

THEO. This shows that their idea of honour is an imperfect one. How can they be right? As well said in the _Path_, our theosophical organ at New York, treating of such a case: “Suppose that a soldier is tried for infringement of oath and discipline, and is dismissed from the service. In his rage at the justice he has called down, and of whose penalties he was distinctly forewarned, the soldier turns to the enemy with false information,—a spy and traitor—as a revenge upon his former Chief, and claims that his punishment has released him from his oath of loyalty to a cause.” Is he justified, think you? Don’t you think he deserves being called a dishonourable man, a coward?

ENQ. I believe so; but some think otherwise.

THEO. So much the worse for them. But we will talk on this subject later, if you please.

FOOTNOTES:

[6] An “attached member” means one who has joined some particular branch of the T.S. An “unattached,” one who belongs to the Society at large, has his diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is connected with no branch or lodge.

[7] We say that in such cases it is not the _spirits_ of the dead who _descend_ on earth, but the spirits of the living that _ascend_ to the pure Spiritual Souls. In truth there is neither _ascending_ nor _descending_, but a change of _state_ or _condition_ for the medium. The body of the latter becoming paralyzed, or “entranced,” the spiritual Ego is free from its trammels, and finds itself on the same plane of consciousness with the disembodied spirits. Hence, if there is any spiritual attraction between the two _they can communicate_, as often occurs in dreams. The difference between a mediumistic and a non-sensitive nature is this: the liberated spirit of a medium has the opportunity and facility of influencing the passive organs of its entranced physical body, to make them act, speak, and write at its will. The Ego can make it repeat, echo-like, and in the human language, the thoughts and ideas of the disembodied entity, as well as its own. But the _non-receptive_ or non-sensitive organism of one who is very positive cannot be so influenced. Hence, although there is hardly a human being whose Ego does not hold free intercourse, during the sleep of his body, with those whom it loved and lost, yet, on account of the positiveness and non-receptivity of its physical envelope and brain, no recollection, or a very dim, dream-like remembrance, lingers in the memory of the person once awake.

[8] _Vide infra_, “On Individuality and Personality.”

[9] It has become “fashionable,” especially of late, to deride the notion that there ever was, in the _mysteries_ of great and civilized peoples, such as the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans, anything but priestly imposture. Even the Rosicrucians were no better than half lunatics, half knaves. Numerous books have been written on them; and tyros, who had hardly heard the name a few years before, sallied out as profound critics and Gnostics on the subject of alchemy, the fire-philosophers, and mysticism in general. Yet a long series of the Hierophants of Egypt, India, Chaldea, and Arabia are known, along with the greatest philosophers and sages of Greece and the West, to have included under the designation of wisdom and divine science all knowledge, for they considered the base and origin of every art and science as _essentially_ divine. Plato regarded the _mysteries_ as most sacred, and Clemens Alexandrinus, who had been himself initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries, has declared “that the doctrines taught therein contained in them the end of all human knowledge.” Were Plato and Clemens two knaves or two fools, we wonder, or—both?

III. THE WORKING SYSTEM OF THE T.S.[10]

THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY.

ENQ. What are the objects of the “Theosophical Society”?