Theosophical Society, Cardiff Lodge,
206 Newport Road,
Cardiff, Wales, UK, CF24 – 1DL.
C
Jinarajadasa
The Future of the Theosophical Society
by
C. Jinarajadasa
Lecture delivered at the Theosophical Convention,
Benares, December 1930
First Published August 1931
Return to Homepage
FRIENDS:
It is surely an axiom that the welfare of the Theosophical Society
depends on the Theosophists who compose its members, and obviously that further
depends on what is their understanding of Theosophy. As is Theosophy, and as are the
Theosophists, so will be the nature of the Society. If we can define Theosophy, then we can say
what a Theosophist ought to be, and from that what should be the ideal nature
of the Society.
The Society has now been working for fifty-five years, and today
[in 1930]it is composed of forty-six National
Societies. We have a literature on Theosophy in many
languages, and Theosophical lecturers try to expound what is Theosophy in many tongues.
Now, the Society has a Constitution, that is to say, it works under certain
definite rules. That Constitution gives us the Objects of the Society, and
there are also in it rules which deal with the transaction of necessary
business.
It is a striking fact that, in the only document which binds
together all the members of the Society from every country, that is, the Constitution
of the Theosophical Society, the word Theosophy is not mentioned. According to
our Constitution, the Society does not exist to proclaim what the world calls Theosophy as the Society's
philosophy; the Society does not exist to proclaim the truth of any religion
whatsoever or of any philosophy. What then does the Society exist for ? Its
aims are stated in its three Objects, which may be summarized as follows:
first, to promote Brotherhood; second, to encourage men to seek a Wisdom; and
third, to discover the God in man.
Thence issue two problems. The first is the general problem of what
is Theosophy,
and the second the particular problem of what should be the nature of the
Theosophical Society. I propose to deal first with the general problem - what
do we mean by Theosophy,
what is its definition ?
The first use on record of the word Theosophy is by Proclus, in the fifth century A.D. As he speaks of a "Theosophy
of the
foreigners", evidently he contrasts it in his mind with a Theosophy of the
Greeks. Ever since the days of the Neo-Platonists, the word has signified a
kind of inner mystical knowledge held by philosophers and mystics, and
particularly a kind of knowledge which was not revealed to people at large by
the religion of the day.
This conception of Theosophy
or a Divine Wisdom which we find among the Gnostics is exactly the same as what
we find here in India among our
philosophers. Brahma Vidyă, the knowledge as to
Brahman, could be proclaimed only by those who "know Brahman" . These teachers, in a mystical succession of Guruparampară, or apostolic succession, pass their
knowledge on from Guru to pupil. Each who carries on the traditional knowledge
adds something of his own discovery as to the nature of Brahman.
When we come to
modern Theosophy,
we start with a body of ideas given by those who are called the Masters of
Wisdom. It was in 1875 that under their inspiration Madame Blavatsky initiated
the Theosophical Movement. The Society was started in order that the teachings
which they had given to her concerning the larger vision of life might be given
to the whole world. The Masters themselves, as they gave their teaching,
proclaimed that what they said was not new. They said: "This is the
Ancient Wisdom, we only tell it to you again today." But since they gave a
teaching, we may say that modern Theosophy
started with a revelation of a kind. But if we were to say that Theosophy
today consists only of a revelation, only of the teaching given by the Masters,
I hold we should certainly not be making an accurate statement.
In my own mind,
since Theosophy
is the Divine Wisdom which deals with the nature of God and the nature of man, that Wisdom must
inevitably be added to, as the generations pass one by one. As the universe
unfolds itself, whether it be according to a Divine
Plan or not, Theosophy
or the Wisdom about that universe must also grow.
It is perfectly
true that we have certain great ideas which come from the mysticisms of the
past as a nucleus of Theosophy.
But it is only a nucleus. Theosophy is being added to by every generation.
Every one of you, every human being who assimilates a single experience of
life, adds to Theosophy thereby. For a man's experience is the statement by his
consciousness of the relation between him and the Absolute; and because each
man is different from all others, his experience is an element to be added to
the sum total of experience which we call Theosophy.
Therefore Theosophy
is increasing, is growing from age to age; and all of us, even the youngest
members of the Society, nay more, every one who lives in the world, even the
coolies in the streets, are adding to what Theosophy
is as the Perfect Wisdom.
Furthermore, if Theosophy
is the Wisdom, then every form of knowledge is a part of that Wisdom. That is
why to me every discovery of modern science is part inseparable of Theosophy.
All that our scientists are discovering in the laboratories is Theosophy,
and the more I know of those discoveries of the scientists and of their
speculations, the more I understand the Theosophy which I find in Theosophical
books. In addition still, every form of truth, not only in religion and
science, but in every department of human activity, is to me Theosophy. Thus,
in that great domain which we call Art, I find Theosophy, I cannot conceive of
Theosophy except as interpenetrating all the activities of the artists of the
world; all the subtle manifestations of the human Spirit which we call Art
reveal Theosophy.
Therefore, Theosophy
is growing, and it must always inevitably grow. And the result is, that no one person can define what Theosophy
is. But you may say: "Are you not a Theosophical lecturer? Have you not
traveled from country to country lecturing on Theosophy,
telling people what Theosophy is ?" Yes, but as I
try to do that work of telling people something of the Wisdom, there is always
a reservation in my own mind. It is, that I am expounding
only the little that I have discovered of Theosophy.
It has never been in my mind that I stand forth as the proclaimer
of all the Theosophy
that exists. I can assure you that sometimes I have been in a quandary, because
when lecturing I must to some extent be dogmatic in order to be clear and
precise, and so cannot help offering a teaching as if all Theosophists were committed
to my aspect of that teaching.
There are, in fact,
many kinds of Theosophy
to be found in the so-called manuals and text books, and in the general
literature of Theosophical authors.
Certainly we recommend selected books for enquirers as those most
helpful to them to understand what is Theosophy. But such a list is only issued
as the most helpful in the judgment of some. Inevitably each such list is
challenged, and rightly so. Every list of books issued by any organization or
body of students as the "best for study" will always be challenged.
And yet, as a practical body of Theosophists, working to make the world
understand certain principles of Wisdom, we must offer something. On the other
hand, as we offer, it is right that we should be met with the challenge:
"Are you sure you are offering the best books ?"
Who shall tell us what Theosophy
is, since by the very nature of Brahma Vidyă, the
Divine Wisdom, no one has a right to say: " Thus
far is truth, and no further ?" How can we offer any book, any list of
books, which shall always remain the best ?
Therefore, the only
solution is this: that each inquirer must read, listen and discover, not what
is Annie Besant's Theosophy
or Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy,
but his own Theosophy.
You will remember what was said in India: " Arise, awake, seek out the Great Ones and get understanding".But whose understanding ? The
understanding of the Teachers ? That surely could not
have been the meaning underlying those words. Seek out the Teachers and listen,
but get your own understanding; for it is only when you discover your own
Theosophy that for the first time you
become something of a true Theosophist.
The logical result
of what, I am saying is this. There are as many Theosophies as there are
members of the Society; and more still than that, there are as many Theosophies
as there are human beings in this world. That is why, while I read certain
books which are labelled Theosophical, I read also
books on science. I read too books of poetry, and go from museum to museum of
pictures and statues, and from concert to concert of music. And I move about in
the cities, particularly where the poor are suffering. For in all those places,
I find some sentence of the Divine Wisdom.
While then we have
today a body of truths that now passes for Theosophy, we have to discover more
truths still. To achieve that result, we have a fund of knowledge to start with
- first of all the traditions of the past. These were summarized for the first
time by Madame Blavatsky in Isis-Unveiled. I certainly hold that what is called
"tradition" does contain a part of the Wisdom. Then, wherever there
are living teachers who are ready to teach any aspect of the Wisdom, what they
give to us is also a part of the Wisdom. Thus, such a work as Sinnett's The Occult World, which contains the teachings
which the Masters gave, is also a part of Theosophy. By studying what the
living teachers, the Great Ones, reveal, we discover more of Theosophy than
exists in traditions.
Furthermore,
wherever there is a member of the Society who, by faculties of his own,
investigates any aspect of Nature, everything which he discovers is to me an
additional way of understanding more of Theosophy. Take, for instance, those
rather special investigations of Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater into the
records of the past, investigations which they made by clairvoyance. Take also
their other investigations concerning the nature of the atom. To me, who accept
the facts recorded by them, those investigations of theirs also contribute to
the body of knowledge which we ought to make our own as Theosophy.
I do not mean to
say that every one is bound to believe what another proclaims as truth. But if
a man is a sincere seeker of truth, he should seek not only in the past, study not
only what the Great Ones are teaching, but also see whether what men and women
on his own level have discovered, or think they have discovered, is not also
truth. More still than this, if we are to receive more of Theosophy, each one
of us must discover that more by meditation, by observation of life, and above
all by observation of the workings of his own heart For, there is not a child
who does not reveal something of Theosophy,
not a single being who aspires who does not understand something of the Perfect
Wisdom.
So each one of us
must be both an investigator of the Wisdom and also a contributor to its
further discovery. The two aspects are
related. The more we investigate, the more we discover what is in us to give.
But the more we give, however humbly, since in what we consider as true there
may be many a mistake, the more we shall find of the Wisdom. I consider it
should be the attitude of the Theosophist to enquire fearlessly into every
problem, so that there may be no corner of earth or hell or heaven in which he
is not seeking, in order to discover the Perfect Wisdom.
Regarding such an
ideal search for truth, let me mention one failure on our part as Theosophists.
That happened twenty-four years ago, when our members discovered that C.W. Leadbeater
held some rather startling ideas as to the sex problem as it affects men.
Obviously the sex problem is one of the most acute of problems, if not the most
acute, which confronts mankind. And on this problem, we as Theosophists have no
more light to offer than those who have not found Theosophy.
We explain how every problem in the universe can be set right in the light of
Theosophy, but on this problem of sex we are dumb.
Now, there was no
need whatsoever for anyone to accept C.W. Leadbeater's
ideas as correct; but there was the need to recognize that a very great problem
existed for Theosophists to solve, though it was presented to them in a
startling way. This is just what our members did not do. They confused two
issues - that of C.W. Leadbeater as an
individual, and his ideas concerning a great problem. The Theosophical
conscience underwent a shock, and the whole problem of sex was thrust into the
background. C.W. Leadbeater resigned, and anyone who said, as I and others did,
that a member of the Society had the right to remain in the Society whatever
his ideas were, was promptly labelled and abused as
upholding C.W. Leadbeater's ideas. It may be news to
some of you that for making this stand - that the Society did wrong in forcing
C.W. Leadbeater to resign - I was expelled from the Theosophical Society. Of
course, I was reinstated later. But the fact that Theosophists, after expelling
a man as unworthy to remain in the Society, should later elect him as its
Vice-President, shows that the judgment of Theosophists is like the judgment of
non-Theosophists when they lose their heads.
Now, I mention all
this because we did have an opportunity to inquire into the sex problem, and we
did not take it. Everybody, particularly those who later became denouncers of C.W.Leadbeater, had no doubts as to his clairvoyance, up to
the time they found what were his startling ideas on the sex problem. They
believed in his psychism, and they quoted his
writings on the Astral and Devachanic Planes, on Thought Forms, on Life after
Death, etc.. Presumably he could see the invisible, and so could help us to
understand the sex problem, its causes and effects, as seen from the invisible.
But did anyone, as a grave student into the most vital of problems, ask him, catechize him, as to what
he had seen, beg him to investigate case after case, so that at least we might
have some more facts to go upon, in order to find a solution ? That is just,
what the Theosophists did not do. They were afraid that they might be
identified with C.W.Leadbeater's views, and so they
thrust the problem into the background.
Today, though many
of you may not know of it, there is a vast body of knowledge on the sex
problem. But in this body of knowledge we Theosophists might have been among
the pioneers. My great regret is that we, who proclaim ourselves as lovers of
knowledge and servers of mankind, once lost a very great opportunity of both
knowledge and service.
It will be obvious
from what I have said that the knowledge which we have today of Theosophy is
bound to be limited. Each of us who is a Theosophical lecturer or writer can
know only a part of Theosophy. Yet even that part, however fragmentary it be,
is needed today to help men. As we go from country to country, as we look into
conditions everywhere, we see how needed Theosophy is, even the fragment of it
which we know. When we look into human conditions and see how the spirit of man
has been imprisoned by evil traditions of race, sex, creed, caste and colour,
and particularly by priesthoods, then we see clearly how greatly Theosophy
is needed wherever man lives in thraldom to tradition,
confined by the limiting ideas of race and religion which are so prevalent
today.
I come now to the
particular problem of the Theosophical Society as an organization. Let me say
at the outset that this particular problem will always remain, seeing that
human nature is what it is. So long as men are men, we shall always have
clashes of opinion as to the ways of application of the great truths in which
we all believe, because each is bound to claim that he knows best how to apply
a truth. J. J. van der Leeuw
has said recently that there is in the Society too much "revelation",
from the Masters, and from so-called "leaders". We certainly have had
from time to time what can be called "revelations" . But shall we
profit in the Society by suppressing any type of experience which contributes
to our knowledge ? That seems to me is not the true way.
The way, on the
other hand, is by safeguarding liberty of thought and expression, so that
within the Society all may have the opportunity to assert and to deny. It is
curious that when young people especially talk of liberty of thought, it means
that "they" must be given full freedom to express their opinions, but
not their elders. So often when people talk of liberty of thought, they mean
liberty for them to deny, not the liberty for others to assert. But true
liberty of thought means the freedom both to assert and to deny. The spirit of
true liberty does not lie in assertion or denial, but 18 in the way either is done. That is
why, in the statement as to "Freedom of Thought" which is published
every month in The Theosophist, it is there said that each member has a
"right of liberty of thought and expression thereof, within the limits of
courtesy and consideration for others". If only we could understand what
courtesy means, I do not think we would have so many troubles in the
Theosophical Society.
It is perfectly
true that Theosophical "leaders" dominate. But how can you help it ?
Can you show any way in which such a dynamic personality as Annie Besant would
not dominate, even if she were not the President of the Society ? You cannot
help some people towering head and shoulders above others. But what is needed
is a corrective to their possible domination, and that is by the refusal to
believe or to be led. If more and more members would be more outspoken,
"within the limits of courtesy", in their non-acceptance of the views
of outstanding Theosophical personalities, we should have a more healthy life
in the Society.
I grant that when a
member refuses to believe what a "leader" proclaims, a kind of social
ostracism is sometimes apt to appear; but the reason for that is that
Theosophists are human beings, and some are, if I may so put it, theosophists
with a little t, and not Theosophists with a big T. Certainly there is the
danger of a Theosophical orthodoxy in every Lodge. But can this be prevented 14 by
compulsion ? It is of course the duty of the officers of a Lodge to see that
perfect freedom of expression is never denied to anyone. But it is no use
trying to curb Theosophical leaders by saying: "You should not
assert". Even if he did not ask for followers, the right kind of a
"leader" would always begin to dominate, whether he wished it or not,
by his sheer personality. What we can do is to see that within the Society
those who assert and those who deny, "within the
limits of courtesy", have equal right to contribute their work to the
cause of Theosophy.
Let me point out
that, on this matter of denial, already the General Council of the Society has
interfered twice; the first occasion was in 1895, when a very important
principle was laid down. For several years the then Vice-President, William Q.
Judge, had been giving messages from the Masters. Many accepted them
thankfully, but others said: "But these are bogus messages; he has
concocted them; he is deceiving people". So after long discussion, W.Q.Judge was asked to prove his messages genuine. After
much bitter agitation, the General Council at last met to try Mr. Judge on
charges of deception. Then Mr. Judge objected before the Council that the
Society could not make any enquiry at all into his conduct, because to enquire
whether his messages were genuine or not would be to lay down as a belief of
the Society that the Masters of Wisdom exist. The Council upheld 15 Mr. Judge, and laid down the
principle that it is not the business of the Society to speak one way or the
other as to the existence of the Masters. The Council therefore ruled that the
question of the genuineness or otherwise of Mr. Judge's revelations was not a
matter upon which the Society could give judgment.
Then later, in
1923, we had a similar situation. This was when a certain number of members,
objecting to what they considered a departure from Theosophy, said: " Back
to Blavatsky ! Let us not accept any revelations since the time of Madame
Blavatsky as a part of Theosophy". A meeting of the General Council which
met at Vienna discussed this
problem, and it said: " Let us make a
pronouncement upon freedom of thought". It was then that Annie Besant, who
sees deep into problems, said that not only should no individual Theosophist
since H. P. B. be given a superior position as an exponent of Theosophy,
but that no exception should be made even in the ease of H. P. B. herself.
Annie Besant said: "If we are to have freedom of thought, freedom must be
given to deny the teachings which H. P. B. herself gave".
It was then, too,
that a certain number of Theosophists said that a particular group of
Theosophists, who had no official relation to the Society but still were
prominent in the Society, those who belonged to the Esoteric School, should be
disciplined in some way or other because they had too much influence in the
Society. Others said
16 that a body of Theosophists who were identified with the
Liberal Catholics were also unduly influencing the Society. They said: "We
must see that these people do not have so much influence in the T.S." But
how can we prevent them ? How can we prevent any
Theosophist from exercising an influence over others, if his character inspires
others, or if they believe that his revelations are true ?
Then it was that
Annie Besant laid down a general principle that "neither a candidate for
any office, nor any voter, can be rendered ineligible to stand or to vote,
because of any opinion he may hold, or because of membership in any school of
thought to which he may belong". If today any member of the Esoteric School
seems to have a preponderating influence in the affairs of the Society, we
cannot prevent it. The only corrective is for others to organize other Esoteric
Schools. Let others also come forth saying: "We too are the heart of the
Society".
Human nature being
what it is, it is useless to say to members: "You shall not make this or
the other assertion". I hold that in the Theosophical Society we shall do
better to let everybody make their assertions, "within the limits of
courtesy". A perfectly free platform is safer for the future of the
Society than one which lays down what ought not to be said, because it is not
Theosophical .
It is likely that
in the Society's organization there are many defects; no organization is
perfect. But 17
every member should help in removing defects: that is why a General Council of
the Society exists. The members of this General Council, the governing body of
the Society, are human beings, and so are not perfectly wise; but they are
experimenting to make a perfect organization. They desire to know the
considered opinion of members. Every Theosophist can help his National Society
and the International Society by pointing out, "within the limits of
courtesy", errors in method.
But the trouble is
this, that members will criticize privately among themselves, but will not take
sufficient courage to place their criticisms before the local officers, and if
necessary fight for reforms. Much loose talk goes on, but very few will take
the trouble to be informed accurately as to what needs amendment, with the
result that often their criticism is well meant but is based on the wrong
facts. We have a magnificent example of tolerance of criticism in Annie Besant,
who always publishes in her magazine every criticism which is made against her.
The more harsh the criticism, the more pages of her magazine are open to the
critic. She is an example of that freedom of thought we talk about; she wants
us to criticize. But also, she answers her critics; she does not meekly bow her
head before every criticism. Then her critics complain that she is trying to
dominate.
We shall certainly
never have a perfect organization, but we want to work towards it. As a 18 member of the
General Council, let me mention how members can usefully help with suggestions.
They should first of all understand the mechanism of the Society. There are
many people who criticize the Society, who have never read its Constitution. It
is no use sending criticisms referring to matters which are outside the powers
granted by the Constitution. If changes are wanted in administration, members
should first find out what can or cannot be done. Of course, the Constitution
itself can be changed, but till it is, we are bound by it as it is now.
I must now refer to
a great problem which has come before Theosophists. It has been pointed out
that one element of unrest in the Society is due to some members wanting the
Society to change, because Mr. Krishnamurti is teaching. The Theosophical
Society ought always to change, whether Mr. Krishnamurti is teaching or not.
That, to me, is an axiom. We should always adapt the work of the Society to the
needs of men, irrespective of whether any Teacher is or is not teaching in the
world. But some of our critics say: "Ought not the Theosophical Society to
accept the teaching of Krishnamurti, should it not stand behind him, should it
not become the vessel into which he can pour his message? "
I should like to
point out that the Society has never proclaimed any one teaching of any one Teacher
as the sole truth. Both Colonel Olcott 19 and Madame Blavatsky declared
themselves Buddhists in religion, but they nowhere said that the Buddha is the
only Teacher. Annie Besant has stressed the wonderful teachings of Hinduism,
but she has never said that Shri Krishna is the only
Teacher for all.
On the other hand,
we have proclaimed that it is wise for every Theosophist to investigate every
religion and every mystical tradition. If we were to say that the Society
accepts and endorses the teaching of Krishnamurti, we should be doing what the
Society was never intended to do. We stand neither for his teaching nor against
it, just as, we do not stand for the teaching of Shri
Krishna nor for that of the Prophet Muhammad. But we are for any and every teaching
which fosters Brotherhood. That, I hold, should be the attitude of the
Theosophical Society. Since our First Object is to promote Brotherhood, the
attitude of the Society as an organization should be to give encouragement to
every teaching which is likely to promote Brotherhood.
Then some say:
''Did not you leaders of the Society proclaim Krishnamurti as a Teacher to
come; and now that he is come, ought not you definitely to enrol
yourself under him and do his particular work ? " But the Theosophical
Society has never proclaimed the coming of a World-Teacher. But have not
leading Theosophists ? Yes, Annie Besant, C.W. Leadbeater, Geo.S.
Arundale, I 20
myself, we have all done so. But do not forget that meetings of the Order of
the Star were always distinct from meetings of the Theosophical Society. From
the beginning, when certain of us proclaimed how the young boy Krishnamurti was
going to be the vehicle of a Great Teacher, and there was much alarm among some
lest the Society should be committed to this strange idea, every meeting of the
Order of the Star in the East has been held separately, and not under the
auspices of the Theosophical Society.
It is perfectly
true that during the days of a Convention, a particular day was given to the
Order of the Star in the East. But that was for the convenience of the
Society's members who were members of the Order of the Star, just as special
times were given during Conventions to other groups of Theosophists interested
in other types of work, like education, social service, art, and even politics.
But wherever I have spoken to prepare men's minds to accept the World-Teacher,
it has always been under the auspices of the Order of the Star in the East, and
not as a part of my work for the Theosophical Society.
Any member who
believes profoundly that he has something to give must be given an opportunity
in the Society to express it. I do not think we can have more striking
instances of the way that this opportunity has been taken than in the lives of
the two Founders of the Society and of the present 21 President, Annie Besant. When
Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott came to Ceylon, they joined Buddhism. Did
not the Theosophists then have the right to say: "You must not join that
particular religion; you will commit the whole Society to Buddhism" ? But I do not think that a single Hindu Theosophist
misunderstood the acceptance of Buddhism by Madame Blavatsky and Colonel
Olcott, and said that they should not have become Buddhists.
But when Annie
Besant began her work in India in 1893, some
members in Europe soon said - I was living there at
the time - "Mrs. Besant is committing the whole Society to Hinduism".
Then later, when Annie Besant began a magnificent series of lectures in Queen's
Hall on Esoteric Christianity, and for the first time gave an occult
explanation of such a mystery as that of Transubstantiation, some Protestant
members said: "Annie Besant is committing us to Roman Catholicism!"
Later when in 1911 she said of Krishnamurti; "This boy is going to be the
vehicle of a Great Teacher", a certain number of members said: "Annie
Besant is committing the whole Society to this creed of the Star in the East! " When Annie Besant later still became interested in
the Liberal Catholic movement and attended its services, some said: "Annie
Besant is committing the Society to the Liberal Catholic Church!" And this
year when Annie Besant went to the Star Camp
at Ommen, but did not go to Huizen, the headquarters of the Liberal Catholic Church in Holland, some Liberal
Catholics said: "How is it that Annie Besant goes only to the Star Camp,
but does not come to us ? "
One thing is
perfectly clear; it is that Annie Besant claims, her
liberty of action and exercises it. Annie Besant has never said, "Follow
me". Never has she once said in her life, "Come where I am
going". She is not the person to look back to see how many behind her are
ready to follow. She says, "I know what my duty is and I am going to do
it". But some have said: "Is not that a kind of forcing us ? When
Annie Besant joined the Home Rule movement, when she worked against some policy
of Gandhiji, was she not forcing us to follow her ?
" I reply, No ! For such is the nature of us human beings that, let but
another shine out with greater power of spiritual life, he is bound to
influence us all. The moment the sun shines, all the little plants which are
growing in the shade of a tree will be in the shadow; but that is not the fault
of the tree.
The solution is for
each of us to dare to claim to be a leader, work towards such a position, and
not be a failure in it. We gain nothing by limiting beforehand the liberty of
any leader. But we can oppose him if necessary, and depose him from his
leadership. If we succeed, it means that our policy is what the Society
wants.
I would say that
our work as Theosophists must be to enquire into every teaching which helps,
Brotherhood. Just because that is our duty, I think we ought all to enquire
into some of the most fascinating teachings which the world contains today, and
they are the teachings of Krishnamurti. If his doctrine is rightly understood,
it will profoundly help the cause of Brotherhood. But we cannot commit the
Theosophical Society to his doctrine, any more than we can commit it to the
doctrines of Hinduism or of Buddhism or of Christianity.
Speaking for
myself, I mean to do as much as in me lies to explain to men the significance
of Krishnamurti's teaching. But I mean equally to
explain the significance of the teachings of Christ, Buddha, Shri Krishna, Muhammad, Zoroaster and other Teachers. Only
the other day I wrote a few pages of foreword to a book on Muhammadanism,
pointing out the beauties of Islam. In exactly the same way, so long as I am a
member of the Theosophical Society and study the Ancient Wisdom, I shall do
what I can to make people understand the significance of Krishnamurti's
teaching.
About his teaching
I can say this from my own experience: wherever I had to deliver two lectures
during my Latin-American tour, to a public who knew nothing of Theosophy
or of Krishnamurti, and I spoke first on Theosophy, explaining our general
Theosophical attitude to life, and particularly the recognition which we have
of the Divinity of all 24 men and
things, and then delivered later the lecture on Krishnamurti's
ideals, the public understood Krishnamurti far better, " because of the
preparation given to their minds by my preliminary lecture on Theosophy".
That is my experience. Therefore I hold that the greatest service which I
personally can render to Krishnamurti is to go on with my Theosophical work,
expounding the great ideals of Theosophy, and so make the world realize that,
since there is only one Divine Wisdom, the wisdom of Krishnamurti is also part
of that Divine Wisdom.
There is one aspect
of our work as Theosophists to which I must now refer. It is a work for the
world which we have not yet begun, though it was mentioned to us as long ago as
1881 by that great Adept who is called the Mahăchohan.
In certain remarks of his on the future of the Theosophical Society, which the
Master K. H. passed on to A. P. Sinnett, the Mahăchohan
explained first what the Society was not intended to be, and second what was
its true rôle. It was not intended to be a school of
magic, a place where occult teaching concerning secret powers in man was to be
given to every person who wanted that knowledge, irrespective of whether by
moral worth he deserved that knowledge or not. But the Society was definitely
intended by its true Founders, the Adepts, to work in all ways to promote
Brotherhood.
As an organization
for practical Brotherhood, it had before it, as one part of its labours, work to 25 minimize the fearful struggle for
existence which modern civilization was steadily intensifying. The lessening of
the struggle for existence was to be brought about by the Theosophical Society,
by showing the world, with the aid of Theosophy,
the illusoriness of worldly ambitions. The great Adept desired us to teach the
world "a practical contempt for the earthly life", since this was the
only cure for the untold miseries of men. Let me quote his words :
In a word how -
seeing that the main objects of the T.S. are misinterpreted by those who are
most willing to serve us personally - are we to deal with the rest of mankind,
with that curse known as the "struggle for life", which is the real
and most prolific parent of most woes and sorrows and all crimes ? Why has that
struggle become the almost universal scheme of the universe ? We answer,
because no religion, with the exception of Buddhism, has hitherto taught a
practical contempt for the earthly life, while each of them, always with that
one solitary exception, has through its hells and damnations inculcated the
greatest dread of death. Therefore do we find that struggle for life raging
most fiercely in Christian countries, most prevalent in Europe and America. It
weakens in the Pagan lands, and is nearly unknown among Buddhist populations.
(In China during famine and where the masses are most ignorant of their own or
any religion, it was remarked that those mothers who devoured their children
belonged localities where there were the most Christian missionaries to be
found; where there were none, and the Bonzes alone had the field, the
population died with the utmost indifference.) Teach the people to see that
life on this earth, even the happiest, is but a burden and delusion, that it is
but our own Karma, the cause producing the effect, that is our own judge, our saviour in future lives, and the great struggle for life will
soon lose its intensity.
I do not think we
have done much as yet towards this part of our work of helping to minimize the 26 struggle for
existence. As Theosophists, we have not so hungered and thirsted after life in
non-physical worlds as to show the world that "contempt for the earthly
life" to which the Adept refers. We study much about "Devachan"
- where we believe our aspirations will at last blossom in their beauty - but
our realization of it all is so vague that we are little different from the
rest of the world. Certainly we study the great scheme of the seven planes, but
most Theosophists look at those planes from below upwards, and hence the vivid
fact in their minds that this physical world is real, and all the invisible is
not only invisible but also shadowy and unreal. It should be exactly the
reverse with the true Theosophist.
The result is that
though the Society has grown, we have not made individuals more spiritual. Our
record in social service is great, but it would be greater still in
effectiveness in helping men if we ourselves hungered and thirsted more for the
life of the invisible worlds. It is indeed a noble ideal to plan to help the
world, but "the world" which needs helping is not only the physical
plane, but six other planes as well. And the "dead" are more than the
living, when it comes to helping mankind ! If more Theosophists were to live
this aspect of Theosophy, I think we should be able, wherever we go, to
establish a new set of values as to what constitutes happiness. When that is
done, the struggle for existence will diminish, and men will not cling to this
earthly realm as they do now, and suffer so bitterly by their clinging.
So long as any kind
of work remains to be done for Brotherhood, the Society has its rôle in the world. So long as here in India, there is one
"untouchable", so long as Hinduism and Islam stand separate, so long
as one simple ignorant Hindu or ignorant Muslim does not know how to reverence
the other, the work of the Society is not over. And in foreign lands, so long
as the white races do not change their attitude of superiority towards the coloured races, the work of the Society is not over. And in
the United States, so long as its Negroes are held under any social subjection,
the work for Brotherhood is not over.
Theosophists are
wanted in every land with their work, and the work of the youngest Theosophist
sometimes is as precious as the work of the President of the Society. So long
as men are held under the sway of priests and of racial prejudices, so long
work for Brotherhood is needed. There are for us all many ways of working. We
have worked in the past, and our record is splendid. Each has his work, his
part in the Great Plan.
In all my work,
there is one aim, which is not to proclaim any particular ideas of Theosophy,
but to strive in all ways to rouse in men's hearts and minds the recognition of
a Hidden Divinity in man, whose Divine Nature is to be released by an
understanding of the Wisdom. If Theosophy has given 28 me one message, it is that of the
mystery of that exquisite overpowering sense of the Nature of God in all
things, above all in all men. Therefore I have gone about, trying to teach
people what are the truths of the past, what is Science and what its
significance, and what is the beauty of Art and its message. And when speaking
in Western lands, it has been to show what is the exquisite charm of the East
and of its spirituality, that mysterious sense of spiritual presences
everywhere which we find in India.
I have tried to do
all this in the light of a Wisdom, not chaotically, but with the recognition
that a Wisdom exists. I say that a Wisdom exists because, the more I study, the
more I realize that the universe is not a chaotic group of forces and things,
but that, on the other hand, there is behind all things and events a Divine
Wisdom which "mightily and sweetly ordereth all
things", a Divine Wisdom which shines in all - in Nature, in the movement
of stars and planets, in every plant and animal. That same Wisdom is in the
atom and in an exquisite way, I find it especially in the faces of little
children.
To make our Society
the common meeting-ground of all who seek to offer service to God or to man is
to me the task which lies before us all. So long as we succeed in teaching each
who joins the Society to discover his own Theosophy, the future of the Society
is utterly sure. We must teach 29 each to discover "his own Theosophy"
by showing the way to his inmost Self; and we can show him that way by
surrounding him with all that is noblest in the traditions of the past, and
with all that is fascinating in the discoveries of the present.
The work of the
Theosophical Society is, and must always be, to throw open all doors and gates
which now shut us out from that Brotherland of the
Spirit which is the heritage of all men.
Return
to Homepage
History
of The Theosophical Society
History
of Theosophy in Wales
Theosophical Society, Cardiff Lodge,
206 Newport Road,
Cardiff, Wales, UK, CF24 – 1DL.
For more info on Theosophy
Try these
Dave’s
Streetwise Theosophy Boards
The
Theosophy Website that
Welcomes
Absolute Beginners
Theosophy in
Cardiff
Theosophy
in Wales
Wales!
Wales! Theosophy Wales
The
All Wales Guide to
Getting Started in Theosophy
This
is for everybody not just people in Wales
Cardiff
Lodge’s Instant Guide to Theosophy
Cardiff
Theosophy Start-Up
A
Free Intro to Theosophy
Cardiff
Theosophical Archive
Cardiff
Blavatsky Archive
Blavatsky
Blogger
Independent
Theosophical Blog
Quick
Blasts of Theosophy
One
Liners & Quick Explanations
Great
Theosophists
The
Most Basic Theosophy Website in the Universe
If
you run a Theosophy Group you can use
this as an introductory handout
Theosophy
The
New Rock ‘n Roll
The
Key to Theosophy
The
Voice of the Silence
The
South of Heaven Guide
To
Theosophy
and Dreams
The
South of Heaven Guide
To
Theosophy
and Angels
Theosophy
and Help From
The
Universe
Feelgood Theosophy
Visit
the Feelgood Lodge
The
Tooting Broadway
Underground
Theosophy Website
The
Spiritual Home of Urban Theosophy
The
Mornington Crescent
Underground
Theosophy Website
The
Earth Base for Evolutionary Theosophy
Try these if you
are looking for a
local Theosophy
Group or Centre
UK
Listing of Theosophical Groups
Worldwide
Directory of Theosophical Links
International
Directory of
Theosophical
Societies