theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Theos-World The Relevancy of USA's Democracy

Mar 27, 2006 05:48 PM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck


				H. P. Blavatsky

"The above" we learn (rather late) "was written under misapprehension that
the 'Rules' bearing date 1885--were the latest. It has since been found that
there is a later version of the Rules dated 1886 which have modified the
older rules on a great many points." (see  End Of Article).

			======================

[In order to leave no room for equivocation, the members of the T.S. have to
be reminded of the origin of the Society in 1875. Sent to the U.S. of
America in 1873 for the purpose of organizing a group of workers on a
psychic plane, two years later the writer received orders from her Master
and Teacher to form the nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were
broadly stated as follows: 

(1) Universal Brotherhood; 

(2) No distinction to be made by the members between  * races, creeds, or
social positions, but every member had to be judged and dealt by on his
personal merits; 

(3) To study the philosophies of the East--those of India chiefly,
presenting them gradually to the public in various works that would
interpret exoteric religions in the light of esoteric teachings; 

(4) To oppose materialism and theological dogmatism in every possible way,
by demonstrating the existence of occult forces unknown to Science, in
Nature, and the presence of psychic and spiritual powers in Man; trying, at
the same time, to enlarge the views of the Spiritualists by showing them
that there are other, many other agencies at work in the production of
phenomena besides the "Spirits" of the dead. Superstition had to be exposed
and avoided; and occult forces, beneficent and maleficent- ever surrounding
us and manifesting their presence in various ways--demonstrated to the best
of our ability. 

Such was the programme in its broad features. The two chief Founders were
not told what they had to do, how they had to bring about and quicken the
growth of the Society and results desired; nor had they any definite ideas
given them concerning the outward organisation--all this being left entirely
with themselves. 

Thus, as the undersigned had no capacity for such work as the mechanical
formation and administration of a Society, the management of the latter was
left in the hands of Col. H. S. Olcott, then and there elected by the
primitive founders and members--President for life. But if the two Founders
were not told what they had to do, they were distinctly instructed about
what they should never do, what they had to avoid, and what the Society
should never become. Church organisations, Christian and Spiritual sects
were shown as the future contrasts to our Society . 1 

To make it clearer: 

(1) 	The Founders had to exercise all their influence to oppose
selfishness of any kind, by insisting upon sincere, fraternal feelings among
the Members--at least outwardly; working for it to bring about a spirit of
unity and harmony, the great diversity of creeds notwithstanding; expecting
and demanding from the Fellows, a great mutual toleration and charity for
each other's shortcomings; mutual help in the research of truths in every
domain--moral or physical--and even in daily life. 

(2) 	They had to oppose in the strongest manner anything approaching
dogmatic faith and fanaticism--belief in the infallibility of the Masters,
or even in the very existence of our invisible Teachers, having to be
checked from the first. On the other hand, as a great respect for the
private views and creeds of every member was demanded, any Fellow
criticising the faith or belief of another Fellow, hurting his feelings, or
showing a reprehensible self-assertion, unasked (mutual friendly advices
were a duty unless declined)--such a member incurred expulsion. The greatest
spirit of free research untrammelled by anyone or anything, had to be
encouraged. 

Thus, for the first year the Members of the T. Body, who representing every
class in Society as every creed and belief--Christian clergymen,
Spiritualists, Freethinkers, Mystics, Masons and Materialists--lived and met
under these rules in peace and friendship. 

There were two or three expulsions for slander and backbiting.

The rules, however imperfect in their tentative character, were strictly
enforced and respected by the members. 

The original $5 initiation fee was soon abolished as inconsistent with the
spirit of the Association: members had enthusiastically promised to support
the Parent Society and defray the expenses of machines for experiments,
books, the fees of the Recording Secretary  ,2 etc., etc. This was Reform
No. 1. 

Three months after, Mr. H. Newton, the Treasurer, a rich gentleman of New
York, showed that no one had paid anything or helped him to defray the
current expenses for the Hall of meetings, stationery, printing, etc., and
that he had to carry the burden of those expenses alone. He went on for a
short time longer, then--he resigned as Treasurer. 

It was the President-Founder, Col. H. S. Olcott, who had to pay henceforth
for all. He did so for over 18 months. 

The "fee" was re-established, before the Founders left for India with the
two English delegates--now their mortal enemies; but the money collected was
for the Arya Samaj of Aryavarta with which Society the Theosophical became
affiliated. 

It is the President Founder who paid the enormous travelling expenses from
America to India, and those of installation in Bombay, and who supported the
two delegates out of his own pocket for nearly 18 months. When he had no
more money left, nor the Corr. Secretary [HPB] either--a resolution was
passed that the "initiation fee" sums should go towards supporting the Head
Quarters. 

Owing to the rapid increase of the Society in India, the present Rules and
Statutes grew out. They are not the outcome of the deliberate thought and
whim of the President Founder, but the result of the yearly meetings of the
General Council at the Anniversaries.

If the members of that G. C. [General Council] have framed them so as to
give a wider authority to the Pres. Founder, it was the result of their
absolute confidence in him, in his devotion and love for the Society, and
not at all--as implied in "A FEW WORDS"--a proof of his love for power and
authority. Of this, however, later on. 

It was never denied that the Organisation of the T.S. was very imperfect.
Errare humanum est. 

But, if it can be shown that the President has done what he could under the
circumstances and in the best way he knew how--no one, least of all a
theosophist, can charge him with the sins of the whole community, as now
done. 

>From the founders down to the humblest member, the Society is composed of
imperfect mortal men--not gods. This was always claimed by its leaders. "He
who feels without sin, let him cast the first stone." It is the duty of
every Member of the Council to offer advice and to bring for the
consideration of the whole body any incorrect proceedings. 

One of the plaintiffs is a Councillor. Having never used his privileges as
one, in the matter of the complaints now proffered--and thus, having no
excuse to give that his just representations were not listened to, he, by
bringing out publicly what he had to state first privately--sins against
Rule XII. The whole paper now reads like a defamatory aspersion, being full
of untheosophical and unbrotherly insinuations--which the writers thereof
could never have had in view. 

This Rule XII th was one of the first and the wisest. It is by neglecting to
have it enforced when most needed, that the President-Founder has brought
upon himself the present penalty. 3 It is his too great indulgence and
unwise carelessness that have led to all such charges of abuse of power,
love of authority, show, of vanity, etc., etc. Let us see how far it may
have been deserved. 

As shown for 12 years the Founder has toiled almost alone in the interests
of the Society and the general good--hence, not his own, and, the only
complaint he was heard to utter was, that he was left no time for
self-development and study. The results of this too just complaint are, that
those for whom he toiled, are the first to fling at him the reproach of
being ignorant of certain Hindu terms, of using one term for another, for
instance of having applied the word "Jivanmukta" to a Hindu chela, on one
occasion! The crime is a terrible one, indeed. . . . 

We know of "chelas" who being Hindus, are sure never to confuse such well
known terms in their religion; but who, on the other hand, pursue
Jivanmuktaship and the highest Theosophical Ethics through the royal road of
selfish ambition, lies, slander, ingratitude and backbiting. Every road
leads to Rome; this is evident; and there is such a thing in Nature as
"Mahatma"-Dugpas. . . .

 It would be desirable for the cause of Theosophy and truth, however, were
all the critics of our President in general, less learned, yet found
reaching more to the level of his all-forgiving good nature, his thorough
sincerity and unselfishness; as the rest of the members less inclined to
lend a willing ear to those, who, like the said "Vicars of Bray" have
developed a hatred for the Founders--for reasons unknown. 

The above advice is offered to the two Theosophists who have just framed
their "Few Words on the Theosophical Organisation." That they are not alone
in their complaints (which, translated from their diplomatic into plain
language look a good deal in the present case like a mere "querelle  4
d'Allemand") and that the said complaints are in a great measure just,-- is
frankly admitted. Hence, the writer must be permitted to speak in this, her
answer, of Theosophy and theosophists in general, instead of limiting the
Reply strictly to the complaints uttered. There is not the slightest desire
to be personal; yet, there has accumulated of late such a mass of
incandescent material in the Society, by that eternal friction of precisely
such "selfish personalities," that it is certainly wise to try to smother
the sparks in time, by pointing out their true nature. 

Demands, and a feeling of necessity for reforms have not originated with the
two complainants. They date from several years, and there has never been a
question of avoiding reforms, but rather a failure of finding such means as
would satisfy all the theosophists. 

To the present day, we have yet to find that "wise man" from the East or
from the West, who could not only diagnosticate the disease in the T.
Society, but offer advice and a remedy likewise to cure it. It is easy to
write: "It would be out of place to suggest any specific measures" (for such
reforms, which do seem more difficult to suggest than to be vaguely hinted
at)--"for no one who has any faith in Brotherhood and in the power of Truth
will fail to perceive what is necessary,"--concludes the critic. 

One may, perhaps, have such faith and yet fail to perceive what is most
necessary. Two heads are better than one; and if any practical reforms have
suggested themselves to our severe judges their refusal to give us the
benefit of their discovery would be most unbrotherly. So far, however, we
have received only most impracticable suggestions for reforms whenever these
came to be specified. 

The Founders, and the whole Central Society at the Headquarters, for
instance, are invited to demonstrate their theosophical natures by living
like "fowls in the air and lilies of the field," which neither sow nor reap,
toil not, nor spin and "take no thought for the morrow." This being found
hardly practicable, even in India, where a man may go about in the garment
of an Angel, but has, nevertheless, to pay rent and taxes, another
proposition, then a third one and a fourth --each less practicable than the
preceding--were offered . . . the unavoidable rejection of which led finally
to the criticism now under review. 

After carefully reading "A FEW WORDS, etc.," no very acute intellect is
needed to perceive that, although no "specific measures" are offered in
them, the drift of the whole argument tends but to one conclusion, a kind of
syllogism more Hindu than metaphysical. Epitomised, the remarks therein
plainly say: "Destroy the bad results pointed out by destroying the causes
that generate them." Such is the apocalyptic meaning of the paper, although
both causes and results are made painfully and flagrantly objective and that
they may be rendered in this wise: Being shown that the Society is the
result and fruition of a bad President; and the latter being the outcome of
such an "untheosophically" organized Society--and, its worse than useless
General Council--"make away with all these Causes and the results will
disappear"; i.e., the Society will have ceased to exist. Is this the
heart-desire of the two true and sincere Theosophists? 

The complaints--"submitted to those interested in the progress of true
Theosophy"--which seems to mean "theosophy divorced from the Society"--may
now be noticed in order and answered. They specify the following objections:


I. 	To the language of the Rules with regard to the powers invested in
the President-Founder by the General Council. This objection seems very
right. The sentence . . . The duties of the Council "shall consist in
advising the P .F. [President Founder] in regard to all matters referred to
them by him" may be easily construed as implying that on all matters not
referred to the Council by the Pres.-Founder . . . its members will hold
their tongues. The Rules are changed, at any rate they are corrected and
altered yearly. This sentence can be taken out. The harm, so far, is not so
terrible. 

II. 	It is shown that many members ex-officio whose names are found on
the list of the General Council are not known to the Convention; that they
are, very likely, not even interested in the Society "under their special
care"; a body they had joined at one time, then probably forgotten its
existence in the meanwhile to withdraw themselves from the Association. The
argument implied is very valid. Why not point it out officially to the
Members residing at, or visiting the Head Quarters, the impropriety of such
a parading of names? Yet, in what respect can this administrative blunder,
or carelessness, interfere with, or impede "the progress of true Theosophy."
5 

III. 	"The members are appointed by the President-Founder. . . ." it is
complained; "the Gen. Council only advises on what is submitted to it" . . .
and "in the meantime" that P .F. [President Founder]  is empowered to issue
"special orders" and "provisional rules," on behalf of that ("dummy")
Council. (Rule IV, p. 20.) Moreover, it is urged that out of a number of 150
members of the G. Council, a quorum of 5 and even 3 members present, may,
should it be found necessary by the President, decide upon any question of
vital importance, etc., etc., etc. 

Such an "untheosophical" display of authority, is objected to by Messrs. M.
M. Chatterji and A. Gebhard on the ground that it leads the Society to
Caesarism, to "tyranny" and "papal infallibility," etc., etc. However right
the two complainants may be in principle it is impossible to fail seeing the
absurd exaggerations of the epithets used; for, having just been accused on
one page of "tyrannical authority," of "centralization of power" and a
"papal institution" (p. 9)--on page 11, the President-Founder is shown
"issuing special orders" from that "centre of Caesarism"--which no one is
bound to obey, unless he so wishes! "It is well known" remarks the principal
writer--"that not only individuals but even Branches have refused to pay
this (annual) subscription . . . of . . . two shillings" (p. 11 ); without
any bad effect for themselves, resulting out of it, as appears. Thus, it
would seem it is not to a non-existent authority that objections should be
made, but simply to a vain and useless display of power that no one cares
for. 

The policy of issuing "special orders" with such sorry results is indeed
objectionable; only, not on the ground of a tendency to Caesarism, but
simply because it becomes highly ridiculous. The undersigned for one, has
many a time objected to it, moved however, more by a spirit of worldly pride
and an untheosophical feeling of self-respect than anything like Yogi
humility. It is admitted with regret that the world of scoffers and
non-theosophists might, if they heard of it, find in it a capital matter for
fun. But the real wonder is, how can certain European Theosophists, who have
bravely defied the world to make them wince under any amount of ridicule,
once they acted in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and
duty--make a crime of what is at the worst a harmless, even if ridiculous,
bit of vanity; a desire of giving importance--not to the Founder, but to his
Society for which he is ready to die any day. One kind of ridicule is worth
another. 

The Western theosophist, who for certain magnetic reasons wears his hair
long and shows otherwise eccentricity in his dress, will be spared no more
than his President, with his "special orders." Only the latter, remaining as
kindly disposed and brotherly to the "individual Theosophist and even a
Branch"--that snub him and his "order," by refusing to pay what others
do--shows himself ten-fold more Theosophical and true to the principle of
Brotherhood, than the former, who traduces and denounces him in such
uncharitable terms, instead of kindly warning him of the bad effect
produced. 

Unfortunately, it is not those who speak the loudest of virtue and
theosophy, who are the best examplars of both. Few of them, if any, have
tried to cast out the beam from their own eye, before they raised their
voices against the mote in the eye of a brother. Furthermore, it seems to
have become quite the theosophical rage in these days, to denounce
vehemently, yet never to offer to help pulling out any such motes. 

The Society is bitterly criticized for asking every well-to-do theosophist
(the poor are exempt from it, from the first) to pay annually two shillings
to help defraying the expenses at Head-Quarters. It is denounced as
"untheosophical," "unbrotherly," and the "admission fee" of 1, is declared
no better than "a sale of Brotherhood." In this our "Brotherhood" may be
shown again on a far higher level than any other association past or
present. The Theosophical Society has never shown the ambitious pretension
to outshine in theosophy and brotherliness, the primitive Brotherhood of
Jesus and his Apostles, 6 and that "Organisation," besides asking and being
occasionally refused, helped itself without asking, and as a matter of fact
in a real community of Brothers. Nevertheless, such actions, that would seem
highly untheosophical and prejudicial in our day of culture when nations
alone are privileged to pocket each other's property and expect to be
honoured for it--do not seem to have been an obstacle in the way of
deification and sanctification of the said early "Brotherly" group. 

Our Society had never certainly any idea of rising superior to the
brotherliness and ethics preached by Christ, but only to those of the sham
Christianity of the Churches--as originally ordered to by our MASTERS. And
if we do no worse than the Gospel Brotherhood did, and far better than any
Church, which would expel any member refusing too long to pay his Church
rates, it is really hard to see why our "Organisation" should be ostracized
by its own members. At any rate, the pens of the latter ought to show
themselves less acerb, in these days of trouble when every one seems bent on
finding fault with the Society, and few to help it, and that the
President-Founder is alone to work and toil with a few devoted theosophists
at Adyar to assist him. 

IV. 	"There is no such institution in existence as the Parent
Society"--we are told (pp. 2 and 3). "It has disappeared from the Rules and
. . . has no legal existence" . . . The Society being unchartered, it has
not--legally; but no more has any Theosophist a legal existence, for the
matter of that. Is there one single member throughout the whole globe who
would be recognised by law or before a Magistrate--as a theosophist? Why
then do the gentlemen "complainants" call themselves "theosophists" if the
latter qualification has no better legal standing than the said "Parent
Society" of the Head Quarters itself? 

But the PARENT-BODY DOES EXIST, and will, so long as the last man or woman
of the primitive group of Theosophist Founders is alive. This--as a body; as
for its moral characteristics, the Parent-Society means that small nucleus
of theosophists who hold sacredly through storm and blows to the original
programme of the T.S., as established under the direction and orders of
those, whom they recognise--and will, to their last breath--as the real
originators of the Movement, their living, Holy MASTERS AND TEACHERS. 7 

V. 	The complaints then, that the T.S. "has Laws without sanction," a
"legislative body without legality," a "Parent Society without existence,"
and, worse than all--"a President above all rules"--are thus shown only
partially correct. But even were they all absolutely true, it would be easy
to abolish such rules with one stroke of the pen, or to modify them. But now
comes the curious part of that severe philippic against the T.S. by our
eloquent Demosthenes. 

After six pages (out of twelve) had been filled with the said charges, the
writer admits on the 7th,--that they have been so modified!--"The above" we
learn (rather late) "was written under misapprehension that the 'Rules'
bearing date 1885--were the latest. It has since been found that there is a
later version of the Rules dated 1886 which have modified the older rules on
a great many points." So much the better.  

-- Why recall, in such case, mistakes in the past if these exist no longer?
But the accusers do not see it in this light. They are determined to act as
a theosophical Nemesis; and in no way daunted by the discovery, they add
that nevertheless "it is necessary to examine the earlier rules to ascertain
the underlying principle, which rules through the present ones as well."
This reminds of the fable of "the Wolf and the Lamb." But--you see--"the
chief point is, that the Convention has no power to make any rules, as such
a power is opposed to the spirit of Theosophy," . . . etc., etc. 

H P B 

==================================

	1891 / 1892  


	After the death of HPB,   W Q Judge wrote

-------------------------------------------------

	THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY	[ June, 1891 ]


The death of H. P. Blavatsky should have the effect on the Society of making
the work go on with increased vigor free from all personalities. 

The movement was not started for the glory of any person, but for the
elevation of Mankind. 

The organization [ THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY ] is not effected as such by her
death for her official positions were those of Corresponding Secretary and
President of the European Section. 

The Constitution has long provided that after her death the office of
Corresponding Secretary should not be filled. The vacancy in the European
Section will be filled by election in that Section, as that is matter with
which only the European Branches have to deal. 

She held no position in the exoteric American Section, and had no
jurisdiction over it in any way. Hence there is no vacancy to fill and no
disturbance to be felt in the purely corporate part of the American work.
The work here is going on as it always has done, under the efforts of its
members who now will draw their inspiration from the books and works of
H.P.B. and from the purity of their own motive.

All that the Society needs now to make it the great power it was intended to
be is first, solidarity, and second, Theosophical education. These are
wholly in the hands of its members. The first gives that resistless strength
which is found only in Union, the second gives that judgment and wisdom
needed to properly direct energy and zeal.

Read these words from H. P. Blavatsky's Key to Theosophy:

"If the present attempt in the form of our Society succeeds better than its
predecessors have done, then it will be in existence as an organized,
living, and healthy body when the time comes for the effort of the XX th
century. The general condition of men's minds and hearts will have been
improved and purified by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have said,
their prejudices and dogmatic illusions will have been, to some extent, at
least, removed. Not only so, but besides a large and accessible literature
ready to men's hands, the next impulse will find a numerous and united body
of people ready to welcome the new torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the
minds of men prepared for his message, a language ready for him in which to
clothe the new truths he brings, an organization awaiting his arrival which
will remove the merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties from
his path. 

Think how much one to whom such an opportunity is given could accomplish.
Measure it by comparison with what the Theosophical Society actually has
achieved in the last fourteen years without any of these advantages and
surrounded by hosts of hindrances which would not hamper the new leader.
Consider all this and then tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say
that, 

if the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to its mission, to its
original impulses, through the next hundred years - tell me, I say, if I go
too far in asserting that this earth will be a heaven in the twenty-first
century in comparison with what it is now!"

Let us, then, be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.

Path, June, 1891
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

		Subject:  Relevancy of USA's Democracy


In       Mr. Judge wrote:  [ From The Omaha Bee (1891); ]
 

"There was already beginning to spread among the minds of the people of
Europe in the time of Boehme a revolt against the terrible orthodoxy which
would not allow a man to believe that the earth was round or that it could
not be possible that the globe and all thereon were created in six small
solar days. This discontent at last led to the pilgrimage of the puritan
fathers to America and the great nation now on this continent as a
consequence.

Among the descendants of these strong men were such as Franklin and
Jefferson and Washington and their friends. But at the same time there was
also another man in England who did not come here until the revolution had
begun to be whispered in the air, though as yet not broken forth. 
This personage was the well known Thomas Paine, than whom no other man,
perhaps, has been so unjustly libeled since his death. Washington said of
him that the American colonies owed him a debt of gratitude, for to him more
than any one, in Washington's opinion, did the people owe the impulse to
strive for liberty. 

These prominent figures in the history of this nation -- Washington,
Franklin and Jefferson -- were the freest of thinkers, and all the wild
efforts of interested persons since then have not been able to show them as
only church going pious souls, but solely as men who lived justly and did
right in the eyes of men and the sight of the one God in whom they believed.
Certainly as to Paine and Franklin it is clear that they were liberal and
wholly untrammeled by any church or priest.

These men, with their friends and supporters, established the United States
on a footing of absolute freedom from dogmatic interference, and as a revolt
against tyranny. They took care to leave God out of the Constitution -- and
why? For the reason that every man has his own conception of that Being, and
if God were mentioned in that great instrument, then bigots and sectaries
would enforce their notion of God on every one else, drawing their supreme
warrant from the Constitution. 

And so the great American experiment came on the world's stage; to be a
success or miserable failure; to hold out to humanity for ages to come the
hope of an ever-widening horizon of liberty and truth and right. Whether
those hopes will be fulfilled is a mystery yet in the womb of time.

"What," you may ask, "has all this to do with Theosophy?" 

A very great deal; for the latest and best organized attempt to revive true
Theosophy and spread it among the people of the earth was begun in the
United States, the land of experiment and of reform. 

Fifteen years ago and a little over, the sages of the East conveyed to their
friends the intelligence that the time had now come to start the
preparations for a new wave of thought and a new revival of belief in the
soul and its powers, together with a new building up of the breastworks
needed to stem the onrush of materialism, which had been growing under the
diligent, fostering care of the scientific schools, whose masters and pupils
care not for the immortal and believe not in the inner self. The result of
this communication -- in itself a command -- resulted in the forming of the
Theosophical Society in the city of New York, with the avowed object of
forming a nucleus of a universal brotherhood -- in fact, a repetition, on
the purely moral side, of the Declaration of Independence. Unlike other
bodies with broad aims, this one had from the first a basis which has given
it solidity and will ever keep it alive.

The founders of the organization, believing in the intelligence sent to them
that a wave of interest in the powers of the soul was about to rise and that
a new seeking for the philosopher's stone upon an entirely different basis
from any in the past would soon begin, wisely directed the attention of the
members to the ancient stores of learning, to the end that all the
superstition of the centuries might be stripped off from the doctrines and
beliefs held from immemorial time in respect to man, his power, his origin
and his destiny. 

This attention resulted in a belief in the ranks of society that there
existed a key to the puzzles of the inner self, and soon upon the belief
there followed a wide promulgation. But such a divulgement inevitably draws
down abuse and ridicule from all who will not take the trouble to know what
it is all about, and brave men and women are required to carry the struggle
forward until misunderstanding disappears. Such men and women have been
found, and now a little more light begins to break, increasing the
probability that the people are almost ready to give a hearing to
expositions of such satisfying doctrines as those of karma and
reincarnation, which are two out of many that the members of the Society
endeavor to place before thinking people.

These two doctrines are in fact the foundation stones of all theological
edifices, for without them the universe is a hopeless jumble, while with
them hardly a question of cosmogony or anthropology remains unanswered.

Evolution, so widely accepted, is admitted as an empiric doctrine only, for
there is no connection between the links of evolution, and scientists are
obliged to assume many things, many of them hunting forever for the missing
link, whether it be between the ape and man, or between the mineral and the
vegetable more highly organized. But with  Karma and Reincarnation  the link
appears, maybe without any visible representative, but plainly seen as a
philosophical conception. And in the great question of the evolution of man
as a reasoning being, all doubts disappear at once when we master the
theosophical idea of his origin and destiny. 

Theosophy does not deny Evolution but asserts a reasonable one. It shows man
as coming up through every form from the very lowest known to science, and
postulates for him a destiny so much higher and greater than any permitted
to him by either church or science that the pen of comparison gives up the
task. But it goes further than science, as the Human Monad -- the immortal
spark -- according to Theosophy, comes out of the eternities, and in each
evolutionary course it emerges upon the plane of matter as we know it, in
the form of an immaterial (if we may say so about that which although
invisible to our sight is still matter) being called by some an elemental
and by others a spirit. But of these things more at another time.

For the present it is sufficient to know that the theosophical experiment of
the present century is a product of the soil of America, although engineered
at the beginning by a Russian subject, who at the same time gave up her
allegiance to the Czar of all the Russias and became an American citizen."
	[ From OMAHA BEE (1891); reprinted in THEOSOPHICAL FORUM, August
1948, 
pp. 491-94. ]
 
-------------------------------------


copied by Dallas
 
================================



-----Original Message-----
From: carlosaveline cardoso aveline
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 
To: 
Subject:  Relevancy of USA's Democracy



Dear Sufilight,  ....


On democracies:

Ocultism teaches that the shell of a man is illusion and made of ignorance, 
yet in some occasions his essence, his higher soul, will appear in a 
stronger way. There is "antahkarana", the bridge.  A man's life should never

be despised just because his outer shell is largely made of ignorance.   
He has the seed of wisdom inside.

So with a country, or a people, or a nation.

HPB wrote that the USA was the model for the creation of the theosophical 
movement. The movement is the seed, or seedling, for future civilizations.  
Inspired in the USA, HPB calls the theosophical movement "a republic [i. ed.

a democracy] of conscience".

So the USA and its democracy has more in it than meets the eye...

Yet this is our common task: to discern and to inspire the awakening of 
authenticity in that which appears not to be authentic; and to show the 
mechanisms of collective illusion so that people, nations and theosophical 
groups get less and less deluded.

I hope this clarifies my views.


Carlos.













[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application