The Little Purple Notebook On How To Escape From This Universe
Copyleft � 1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.
Subscription Information: Maria Loren
[email protected]
Website:
http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madame Helena P. Blavatsky was born in Russia in 1831 and lived until 1891.
She is one the greatest pioneer esotericist ever and founded the
Theosophical Society in 1875. Her work is in the public domain. The
electronic version of the article below is presented with permission by
Blavatsky Net
http://www.blavatsky.net/ which contains links to all known
Theosophical Movements in the world. This article touches basic issues on
the subject of all para-sciences beyond Theosophy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS THEOSOPHY A RELIGION?
Article by H. P. Blavatsky
"Religion is the best armour that man can have,
but it is the worst cloak." --BUNYAN
IT is no exaggeration to say that there never was--during the present
century, at any rate--a movement, social or religious, so terribly, nay, so
absurdly misunderstood, or more blundered about than THEOSOPHY--whether
regarded theoretically as a code of ethics, or practically, in its
objective expression, i.e., the Society known by that name.
Year after year, and day after day had our officers and members to
interrupt people speaking of the theosophical movement by putting in more
or less emphatic protests against theosophy being referred to as a
"religion," and the Theosophical Society as a kind of church or religious
body. Still worse, it is as often spoken of as a "new sect"! Is it a
stubborn prejudice, an error, or both? The latter, most likely. The most
narrow-minded and even notoriously unfair people are still in need of a
plausible pretext, of a peg on which to hang their little uncharitable
remarks and innocently-uttered slanders. And what peg is more solid for
that purpose, more convenient than an "ism" or a "sect." The great majority
would be very sorry to be disabused and finally forced to accept the fact
that theosophy is neither. The name suits them, and they pretend to be
unaware of its falseness. But there are others, also, many more or less
friendly people, who labour sincerely under the same delusion. To these, we
say: Surely the world has been hitherto sufficiently cursed with the
intellectual extinguishers known as dogmatic creeds, without having
inflicted upon it a new form of faith! Too many already wear their faith,
truly, as Shakespeare puts it, "but as the fashion of his hat," ever
changing "with the next block." Moreover, the very raison d'�tre of the
Theosophical Society was, from its beginning, to utter a loud protest and
lead an open warfare against dogma or any belief based upon blind faith.
It may sound odd and paradoxical, but it is true to say that, hitherto, the
most apt workers in practical theosophy, its most devoted members were
those recruited from the ranks of agnostics and even of materialists. No
genuine, no sincere searcher after truth can ever be found among the blind
believers in the "Divine Word," let the latter be claimed to come from
Allah, Brahma or Jehovah, or their respective Kuran, Purana and Bible. For:
Faith is not reason's labour, but repose.
He who believes his own religion on faith, will regard that of every other
man as a lie, and hate it on that same faith. Moreover, unless it fetters
reason and entirely blinds our perceptions of anything outside our own
particular faith, the latter is no faith at all, but a temporary belief,
the delusion we labour under, at some particular time of life. Moreover,
"faith without principles is but a flattering phrase for willful
positiveness or fanatical bodily sensations," in Coleridge's clever
definition.
What, then, is Theosophy, and how may it be defined in its latest
presentation in this closing portion of the XIXth century?
Theosophy, we say, is not a Religion.
Yet there are, as everyone knows, certain beliefs, philosophical, religious
and scientific, which have become so closely associated in recent years
with the word "Theosophy" that they have come to be taken by the general
public for theosophy itself. Moreover, we shall be told these beliefs have
been put forward, explained and defended by those very Founders who have
declared that Theosophy is not a Religion. What is then the explanation of
this apparent contradiction? How can a certain body of beliefs and
teachings, an elaborate doctrine, in fact, be labelled "Theosophy" and be
tacitly accepted as "Theosophical" by nine-tenths of the members of the
T.S., if Theosophy is not a Religion?--we are asked.
To explain this is the purpose of the present protest.
It is perhaps necessary, first of all, to say, that the assertion that
"Theosophy is not a Religion," by no means excludes the fact that
"Theosophy is Religion" itself. A Religion in the true and only correct
sense, is a bond uniting men together--not a particular set of dogmas and
beliefs. Now Religion, per se, in its widest meaning is that which binds
not only all MEN, but also all BEINGS and all things in the entire Universe
into one grand whole. This is our theosophical definition of religion; but
the same definition changes again with every creed and country, and no two
Christians even regard it alike. We find this in more than one eminent
author. Thus Carlyle defined the Protestant Religion in his day, with a
remarkable prophetic eye to this ever-growing feeling in our present day,
as:
For the most part a wise, prudential feeling, grounded on mere
calculation; a matter, as all others now are, of expediency and
utility; whereby some smaller quantum of earthly enjoyment may be
exchanged for a far larger quantum of celestial enjoyment. Thus
religion, too, is profit, a working for wages; not reverence, but
vulgar hope or fear.
In her turn Mrs. Stowe, whether consciously or otherwise, seemed to have
had Roman Catholicism rather than Protestantism in her mind, when saying of
her heroine that:
Religion she looked upon in the light of a ticket (with the
correct number of indulgences bought and paid for), which, being
once purchased and snugly laid away in a pocket-book, is to be
produced at the celestial gate, and thus secure admission to
heaven. . . .
But to Theosophists (the genuine Theosophists are here meant) who accept no
mediation by proxy, no salvation through innocent bloodshed, nor would they
think of "working for wages" in the One Universal religion, the only
definition they could subscribe to and accept in full is one given by
Miller. How truly and theosophically he describes it, by showing that
. . . true Religion
Is always mild, propitious and humble;
Plays not the tyrant, plants no faith in blood,
Nor bears destruction on her chariot wheels;
But stoops to polish, succour and redress,
And builds her grandeur on the public good.
The above is a correct definition of what true theosophy is, or ought to
be. (Among the creeds Buddhism alone is such a true heart-binding and
men-binding philosophy, because it is not a dogmatic religion. ) In this
respect, as it is the duty and task of every genuine theosophist to accept
and carry out these principles, Theosophy is RELIGION, and the Society its
one Universal Church; the temple of Solomon's wisdom,* in building which
"there was neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house
while it was building" (I Kings, vi.); for this "temple" is made by no
human hand, nor built in any locality on earth--but, verily, is raised only
in the inner sanctuary of man's heart wherein reigns alone the awakened
soul.
Thus Theosophy is not a Religion, we say, but RELIGION itself, the one bond
of unity, which is so universal and all-embracing that no man, as no
speck--from gods and mortals down to animals, the blade of grass and
atom--can be outside of its light. Therefore, any organization or body of
that name must necessarily be a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD.
Were it otherwise, Theosophy would be but a word added to hundreds other
such words as high sounding as they are pretentious and empty. Viewed as a
philosophy, Theosophy in its practical work is the alembic of the Medi�val
alchemist. It transmutes the apparently base metal of every ritualistic and
dogmatic creed (Christianity included) into the gold of fact and truth, and
thus truly produces a universal panacea for the ills of mankind. This is
why, when applying for admission into the Theosophical Society, no one is
asked what religion he belongs to, nor what his deistic views may be. These
views are his own personal property and have nought to do with the Society.
Because Theosophy can be practiced by Christian or Heathen, Jew or Gentile,
by Agnostic or Materialist, or even an Atheist, provided that none of these
is a bigoted fanatic, who refuses to recognize as his brother any man or
woman outside his own special creed or belief. Count Leo N. Tolstoy does
not believe in the Bible, the Church, or the divinity of Christ; and yet no
Christian surpasses him in the practical bearing out of the principles
alleged to have been preached on the Mount. And these principles are those
of Theosophy; not because they were uttered by the Christian Christ, but
because they are universal ethics, and were preached by Buddha and
Confucius, Krishna, and all the great Sages, thousands of years before the
Sermon on the Mount was written. Hence, once that we live up to such
theosophy, it becomes a universal panacea indeed, for it heals the wounds
inflicted by the gross asperities of the Church "isms" on the sensitive
soul of every naturally religious man. How many of these, forcibly thrust
out by the reactive impulse of disappointment from the narrow area of blind
belief into the ranks of arid disbelief, have been brought back to hopeful
aspiration by simply joining our Brotherhood--yea, imperfect as it is.
If, as an offset to this, we are reminded that several prominent members
have left the Society disappointed in theosophy as they had been in other
associations, this cannot dismay us in the least. For with a very, very few
exceptions, in the early stage of the T.S.'s activities when some left
because they did not find mysticism practiced in the General Body as they
understood it, or because "the leaders lacked Spirituality," were
"untheosophical, hence, untrue to the rules," you see, the majority left
because most of them were either half-hearted or too self-opinionated--a
church and infallible dogma in themselves. Some broke away, again under
very shallow pretexts indeed, such, for instance, as "because Christianity
(to say Churchianity, or sham Christianity, would be more just) was too
roughly handled in our magazines"--just as if other fanatical religions
were ever treated any better or upheld! Thus, all those who left have done
well to leave, and have never been regretted.
Furthermore, there is this also to be added: the number of those who left
can hardly be compared with the number of those who found everything they
had hoped for in Theosophy. Its doctrines, if seriously studied, call
forth, by stimulating one's reasoning powers and awakening the inner in the
animal man, every hitherto dormant power for good in us, and also the
perception of the true and the real, as opposed to the false and the
unreal. Tearing off with no uncertain hand the thick veil of dead-letter
with which every old religious scriptures were cloaked, scientific
Theosophy, learned in the cunning symbolism of the ages, reveals to the
scoffer at old wisdom the origin of the world's faiths and sciences. It
opens new vistas beyond the old horizons of crystallized, motionless and
despotic faiths; and turning blind belief into a reasoned knowledge founded
on mathematical laws--the only exact science--it demonstrates to him under
profounder and more philosophical aspects the existence of that which,
repelled by the grossness of its dead-letter form, he had long since
abandoned as a nursery tale. It gives a clear and well-defined object, an
ideal to live for, to every sincere man or woman belonging to whatever
station in Society and of whatever culture and degree of intellect.
Practical Theosophy is not one Science, but embraces every science in life,
moral and physical. It may, in short, be justly regarded as the universal
"coach," a tutor of world-wide knowledge and experience, and of an
erudition which not only assists and guides his pupils toward a successful
examination for every scientific or moral service in earthly life, but fits
them for the lives to come, if those pupils will only study the universe
and its mysteries within themselves, instead of studying them through the
spectacles of orthodox science and religions.
And let no reader misunderstand these statements. It is Theosophy per se,
not any individual member of the Society or even Theosophist, on whose
behalf such a universal omniscience is claimed. The two--Theosophy and the
Theosophical Society--as a vessel and the olla podrida it contains, must
not be confounded. One is, as an ideal, divine Wisdom, perfection itself;
the other a poor, imperfect thing, trying to run under, if not within, its
shadow on Earth. No man is perfect; why, then, should any member of the
T.S. be expected to be a paragon of every human virtue? And why should the
whole organization be criticized and blamed for the faults, whether real or
imaginary, of some of its "Fellows," or even its Leaders? Never was the
Society, as a concrete body, free from blame or sin--errare humanum
est--nor were any of its members. Hence, it is rather those members most of
whom will not be led by theosophy, that ought to be blamed. Theosophy is
the soul of its Society; the latter the gross and imperfect body of the
former. Hence, those modern Solomons who will sit in the Judgment Seat and
talk of that they know nothing about, are invited before they slander
theosophy or any theosophists to first get acquainted with both, instead of
ignorantly calling one a "farrago of insane beliefs" and the other a "sect
of impostors and lunatics."
Regardless of this, Theosophy is spoken of by friends and foes as a
religion when not a sect. Let us see how the special beliefs which have
become associated with the word have come to stand in that position, and
how it is that they have so good a right to it that none of the leaders of
the Society have ever thought of disavowing their doctrines.
We have said that we believed in the absolute unity of nature. Unity
implies the possibility for a unit on one plane, to come into contact with
another unit on or from another plane. We believe in it.
The just published "Secret Doctrine" will show what were the ideas of all
antiquity with regard to the primeval instructors of primitive man and his
three earlier races. The genesis of that WISDOM-RELIGION in which all
theosophists believe, dates from that period. So-called "Occultism," or
rather Esoteric Science, has to be traced in its origin to those Beings
who, led by Karma, have incarnated in our humanity, and thus struck the
key-note of that secret Science which countless generations of subsequent
adepts have expanded since then in every age, while they checked its
doctrines by personal observation and experience. The bulk of this
knowledge--which no man is able to possess in its fullness--constitutes
that which we now call Theosophy or "divine knowledge." Beings from other
and higher worlds may have it entire; we can have it only approximately.
Thus, unity of everything in the universe implies and justifies our belief
in the existence of a knowledge at once scientific, philosophical and
religious, showing the necessity and actuality of the connection of man and
all things in the universe with each other; which knowledge, therefore,
becomes essentially RELIGION, and must be called in its integrity and
universality by the distinctive name of WISDOM-RELIGION.
It is from this WISDOM-RELIGION that all the various individual "Religions"
(erroneously so called) have sprung, forming in their turn offshoots and
branches, and also all the minor creeds, based upon and always originated
through some personal experience in psychology. Every such religion, or
religious offshoot, be it considered orthodox or heretical, wise or
foolish, started originally as a clear and unadulterated stream from the
Mother-Source. The fact that each became in time polluted with purely human
speculations and even inventions, due to interested motives, does not
prevent any from having been pure in its early beginnings. There are those
creeds --we shall not call them religions--which have now been overlaid
with the human element out of all recognition; others just showing signs of
early decay; not one that escaped the hand of time. But each and all are of
divine, because natural and true origin; aye-- Mazdeism, Brahmanism,
Buddhism as much as Christianity. It is the dogmas and human element in the
latter which led directly to modern Spiritualism.
Of course, there will be an outcry from both sides, if we say that modern
Spiritualism per se, cleansed of the unhealthy speculations which were
based on the dicta of two little girls and their very unreliable
"Spirits"--is, nevertheless, far more true and philosophical than any
church dogma. Carnalised Spiritualism is now reaping its Karma. Its
primitive innovators, the said "two little girls" from Rochester, the Mecca
of modern Spiritualism, have grown up and turned into old women since the
first raps produced by them have opened wide ajar the gates between this
and the other world. It is on their "innocent" testimony that the elaborate
scheme of a sidereal Summer-land, with its active astral population of
"Spirits," ever on the wing between their "Silent Land" and our very
loud-mouthed, gossiping earth--has been started and worked out. And now the
two female Mahommeds of Modern Spiritualism have turned self-apostates and
play false to the "philosophy" they have created, and have gone over to the
enemy. They expose and denounce practical Spiritualism as the humbug of the
ages. Spiritualists--(save a handful of fair exceptions)--have rejoiced and
sided with our enemies and slanderers, when these, who had never been
Theosophists, played us false and showed the cloven foot denouncing the
Founders of the Theosophical Society as frauds and impostors. Shall the
Theosophists laugh in their turn now that the original "revealers" of
Spiritualism have become its "revilers"? Never! for the phenomena of
Spiritualism are facts, and the treachery of the "Fox girls" only makes us
feel new pity for all mediums, and confirms, before the whole world, our
constant declaration that no medium can be relied upon. No true theosophist
will ever laugh, or far less rejoice, at the discomfiture even of an
opponent. The reason for it is simple:--
Because we know that beings from other, higher worlds do confabulate with
some elect mortals now as ever; though now far more rarely than in the days
of old, as mankind becomes with every civilized generation worse in every
respect.
Theosophy--owing, in truth, to the lev�e in arms of all the Spiritualists
of Europe and America at the first words uttered against the idea that
every communicating intelligence is necessarily the Spirit of some
ex-mortal from this earth--has not said its last word about Spiritualism
and "Spirits." It may one day. Meanwhile, an humble servant of theosophy,
the Editor, declares once more her belief in Beings, grander, wiser, nobler
than any personal God, who are beyond any "Spirits of the dead," Saints, or
winged Angels, who, nevertheless, do condescend in all and every age to
occasionally overshadow rare sensitives--often entirely unconnected with
Church, Spiritualism or even Theosophy. And believing in high and holy
Spiritual Beings, she must also believe in the existence of their
opposites--lower "spirits," good, bad and indifferent. Therefore does she
believe in spiritualism and its phenomena, some of which are so repugnant
to her.
This, as a casual remark and a digression, just to show that Theosophy
includes Spiritualism--as it should be, not as it is--among its sciences,
based on knowledge and the experience of countless ages. There is not a
religion worthy of the name which has been started otherwise than in
consequence of such visits from Beings on the higher planes.
Thus were born all prehistoric, as well as all the historic religions,
Mazdeism and Brahmanism, Buddhism and Christianity, Judaism, Gnosticism and
Mahomedanism; in short every more or less successful "ism." All are true at
the bottom, and all are false on their surface. The Revealer, the artist
who impressed a portion of the Truth on the brain of the Seer, was in every
instance a true artist, who gave out genuine truths; but the instrument
proved also, in every instance, to be only a man. Invite Rubenstein and ask
him to play a sonata of Beethoven on a piano left to self-tuning, one-half
of the keys of which are in chronic paralysis, while the wires hang loose;
then see whether, the genius of the artist notwithstanding, you will be
able to recognize the sonata. The moral of the fabula is that a man--let
him be the greatest of mediums or natural Seers--is but a man; and man left
to his own devices and speculations must be out of tune with absolute
truth, while even picking up some of its crumbs. For Man is but a fallen
Angel, a god within, but having an animal brain in his head, more subject
to cold and wine fumes while in company with other men on Earth, than to
the faultless reception of divine revelations.
Hence the multi-coloured dogmas of the churches. Hence also the thousand
and one "philosophies" so-called (some contradictory, theosophical theories
included); and the variegated "Sciences" and schemes, Spiritual, Mental,
Christian and Secular; Sectarianism and bigotry, and especially the
personal vanity and self-opinionatedness of almost every "Innovator" since
the medi�val ages. These have all darkened and hidden the very existence of
TRUTH--the common root of all. Will our critics imagine that we exclude
theosophical teachings from this nomenclature? Not at all. And though the
esoteric doctrines which our Society has been and is expounding, are not
mental or spiritual impressions from some "unknown, from above," but the
fruit of teachings given to us by living men, still, except that which was
dictated and written out by those Masters of Wisdom themselves, these
doctrines may be in many cases as incomplete and faulty as any of our foes
would desire it. The "Secret Doctrine"--a work which gives out all that can
be given out during this century, is an attempt to lay bare in part the
common foundation and inheritance of all--great and small religious and
philosophical schemes. It was found indispensable to tear away all this
mass of concreted misconceptions and prejudice which now hides the parent
trunk of (a) all the great world-religions; (b) of the smaller sects; and
(c) of Theosophy as it stands now--however veiled the great Truth, by
ourselves and our limited knowledge. The crust of error is thick, laid on
by whatever hand; and because we personally have tried to remove some of
it, the effort became the standing reproach against all theosophical
writers and even the Society. Few among our friends and readers have failed
to characterize our attempt to expose error in the Theosophist and Lucifer
as "very uncharitable attacks on Christianity," "untheosophical assaults,"
etc., etc. Yet these are necessary, nay, indispensable, if we wish to
plough up at least approximate truths. We have to lay things bare, and are
ready to suffer for it--as usual. It is vain to promise to give truth, and
then leave it mingled with error out of mere faint-heartedness. That the
result of such policy could only muddy the stream of facts is shown
plainly. After twelve years of incessant labour and struggle with enemies
from the four quarters of the globe, notwithstanding our four theosophical
monthly journals--the Theosophist, Path, Lucifer, and the French Lotus--our
wish-washy, tame protests in them, our timid declarations, our "masterly
policy of inactivity," and playing at hide-and-seek in the shadow of dreary
metaphysics, have only led to Theosophy being seriously regarded as a
religious SECT. For the hundredth time we are told--"What good is Theosophy
doing?" and "See what good the Churches are doing!"
Nevertheless, it is an averred fact that mankind is not a whit better in
morality, and in some respects ten times worse now, than it ever was in the
days of Paganism. Moreover, for the last half century, from that period
when Freethought and Science got the best of the Churches--Christianity is
yearly losing far more adherents among the cultured classes than it gains
proselytes in the lower strata, the scum of Heathendom. On the other hand,
Theosophy has brought back from Materialism and blank despair to belief
(based on logic and evidence) in man's divine Self, and the immortality of
the latter, more than one of those whom the Church has lost through dogma,
exaction of faith and tyranny. And, if it is proven that Theosophy saves
one man only in a thousand of those the Church has lost, is not the former
a far higher factor for good than all the missionaries put together?
Theosophy, as repeatedly declared in print and viva voce by its members and
officers, proceeds on diametrically opposite lines to those which are
trodden by the Church; and Theosophy rejects the methods of Science, since
her inductive methods can only lead to crass materialism. Yet, de facto,
Theosophy claims to be both "RELIGION" and "SCIENCE," for theosophy is the
essence of both. It is for the sake and love of the two divine
abstractions--i.e., theosophical religion and science, that its Society has
become the volunteer scavenger of both orthodox religion and modern
science; as also the relentless Nemesis of those who have degraded the two
noble truths to their own ends and purposes, and then divorced each
violently from the other, though the two are and must be one. To prove this
is also one of our objects in the present paper.
The modern Materialist insists on an impassable chasm between the two,
pointing out that the "Conflict between Religion and Science" has ended in
the triumph of the latter and the defeat of the first. The modern
Theosophist refuses to see, on the contrary, any such chasm at all. If it
is claimed by both Church and Science that each of them pursues the truth
and nothing but the truth, then either one of them is mistaken, and accepts
falsehood for truth, or both. Any other impediment to their reconciliation
must be set down as purely fictitious. Truth is one, even if sought for or
pursued at two different ends. Therefore, Theosophy claims to reconcile the
two foes. It premises by saying that the true spiritual and primitive
Christian religion is, as much as the other great and still older
philosophies that preceded it--the light of Truth--"the life and the light
of men."
But so is the true light of Science. Therefore, darkened as the former is
now by dogmas examined through glasses smoked with the superstitions
artificially produced by the Churches, this light can hardly penetrate and
meet its sister ray in a science, equally as cobwebbed by paradoxes and the
materialistic sophistries of the age. The teachings of the two are
incompatible, and cannot agree so long as both Religious philosophy and the
Science of physical and external (in philosophy, false) nature, insist upon
the infallibility of their respective "will-o'-the wisps." The two lights,
having their beams of equal length in the matter of false deductions, can
but extinguish each other and produce still worse darkness. Yet, they can
be reconciled on the condition that both shall clean their houses, one from
the human dross of the ages, the other from the hideous excrescence of
modern materialism and atheism. And as both decline, the most meritorious
and best thing to do is precisely what Theosophy alone can and will do:
i.e., point out to the innocents caught by the glue of the two
waylayers--verily two dragons of old, one devouring the intellects, the
other the souls of men--that their supposed chasm is but an optical
delusion; that, far from being one, it is but an immense garbage mound
respectively erected by the two foes, as a fortification against mutual
attacks.
Thus, if theosophy does no more than point out and seriously draw the
attention of the world to the fact that the supposed disagreement between
religion and science is conditioned, on the one hand by the intelligent
materialists rightly kicking against absurd human dogmas, and on the other
by blind fanatics and interested churchmen who, instead of defending the
souls of mankind, fight simply tooth and nail for their personal bread and
butter and authority--why, even then, theosophy will prove itself the
saviour of mankind.
And now we have shown, it is hoped, what real Theosophy is, and what are
its adherents. One is divine Science and a code of Ethics so sublime that
no theosophist is capable of doing it justice; the others weak but sincere
men. Why, then, should Theosophy ever be judged by the personal
shortcomings of any leader or member of our 150 branches? One may work for
it to the best of his ability, yet never raise himself to the height of his
call and aspiration. This is his or her misfortune, never the fault of
Theosophy, or even of the body at large. Its Founders claim no other merit
than that of having set the first theosophical wheel rolling. If judged at
all they must be judged by the work they have done, not by what friends may
think or enemies say of them. There is no room for personalities in a work
like ours; and all must be ready, as the Founders are, if needs be, for the
car of Jaggennath to crush them individually for the good of all. It is
only in the days of the dim Future, when death will have laid his cold hand
on the luckless Founders and stopped thereby their activity, that their
respective merits and demerits, their good and bad acts and deeds, and
their theosophical work will have to be weighed on the Balance of
Posterity. Then only, after the two scales with their contrasted loads have
been brought to an equipoise, and the character of the net result left over
has become evident to all in its full and intrinsic value, then only shall
the nature of the verdict passed be determined with anything like justice.
At present, except in India, those results are too scattered over the face
of the earth, too much limited to a handful of individuals to be easily
judged. Now, these results can hardly be perceived, much less heard of amid
the din and clamour made by our teeming enemies, and their ready
imitators--the indifferent. Yet however small, if once proved good, even
now every man who has at heart the moral progress of humanity, owes his
thankfulness to Theosophy for those results. And as Theosophy was revived
and brought before the world, vi� its unworthy servants, the "Founders," if
their work was useful, it alone must be their vindicator, regardless of the
present state of their balance in the petty cash accounts of Karma, wherein
social "respectabilities" are entered up.
Lucifer, November, 1888
