Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00320)

Aug 18 2004

Dear Katinka:

As far s I am concerned the standards were set by HPB in LUCIFER [WHAT'S IN
A NAME] and WHY THE VAHAN.

Here they are:

1

WHAT'S IN A NAME?
 
WHY THE MAGAZINE IS CALLED "LUCIFER"
WHAT'S in a name? Very often there is more in it than the profane is
prepared to understand, or the learned mystic to explain. It is an
invisible, secret, but very potential influence that every name carries
about with it and "leaveth wherever it goeth." Carlyle thought that "there
is much, nay, almost all, in names." "Could I unfold the influence of names,
which are the most important of all clothings, I were a second great
Trismegistus," he writes.

The name or title of a magazine started with a definite object, is,
therefore, all important; for it is, indeed, the invisible seed-grain, which
will either grow "to be an all-over-shadowing tree" on the fruits of which
must depend the nature of the results brought about by the said object, or
the tree will wither and die. These considerations show that the name of the
present magazine--rather equivocal to orthodox Christian ears--is due to no
careless selection, but arose in consequence of much thinking over its
fitness, and was adopted as the best symbol to express that object and the
results in view.

Now, the first and most important, if not the sole object of the magazine,
is expressed in the line from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, on its
title page. It is to bring light to "the hidden things of darkness," (iv.
5); to show in their true aspect and their original real meaning things and
names, men and their doings and customs; it is finally to fight prejudice,
hypocrisy and shams in every nation, in every class of Society, as in every
department of life. The task is a laborious one but it is neither
impracticable nor useless, if even as an experiment.

Thus, for an attempt of such nature, no better title could ever be found
than the one chosen. "Lucifer," is the pale morning-star, the precursor of
the full blaze of the noon-day sun--the "Eosphoros" of the Greeks. It shines
timidly at dawn to gather forces and dazzle the eye after sunset as its own
brother "Hesperos"--the radiant evening star, or the planet Venus. No fitter
symbol exists for the proposed work--that of throwing a ray of truth on
everything hidden by the darkness of prejudice, by social or religious
misconceptions; especially by that idiotic routine in life, which, once that
a certain action, a thing, a name, has been branded by slanderous
inventions, however unjust, makes respectable people, so called, turn away
shiveringly, refusing to even look at it from any other aspect than the one
sanctioned by public opinion. Such an endeavour then, to force the
weak-hearted to look truth straight in the face, is helped most
efficaciously by a title belonging to the category of branded names.

Piously inclined readers may argue that "Lucifer" is accepted by all the
churches as one of the many names of the Devil. According to Milton's superb
fiction, Lucifer is Satan, the "rebellious" angel, the enemy of God and man.
If one analyzes his rebellion, however, it will be found of no worse nature
than an assertion of free-will and independent thought, as if Lucifer had
been born in the XIXth century. This epithet of "rebellious" is a
theological calumny, on a par with that other slander of God by the
Predestinarians, one that makes of deity an "Almighty" fiend worse than the
"rebellious" Spirit himself; "an omnipotent Devil desiring to be
'complimented' as all merciful when he is exerting the most fiendish
cruelty," as put by J. Cotter Morison. Both the foreordaining and
predestining fiend-God, and his subordinate agent are of human invention;
they are two of the most morally repulsive and horrible theological dogmas
that the nightmares of light-hating monks have ever evolved out of their
unclean fancies.

They date from the Mediæval age, the period of mental obscuration, during
which most of the present prejudices and superstitions have been forcibly
inoculated on the human mind, so as to have become nearly ineradicable in
some cases, one of which is the present prejudice now under discussion.

So deeply rooted, indeed, is this preconception and aversion to the name of
Lucifer--meaning no worse than "light-bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light,"
and ferre "to bring")1--even among the educated classes, that by adopting it
for the title of their magazine the editors have the prospect of a long
strife with public prejudice before them. So absurd and ridiculous is that
prejudice, indeed, that no one has seemed to ever ask himself the question,
how came Satan to be called a light-bringer, unless the silvery rays of the
morning-star can in any way be made suggestive of the glare of the infernal
flames. It is simply, as Henderson showed, "one of those gross perversions
of sacred writ which so extensively obtain, and which are to be traced to a
proneness to seek for more in a given passage than it really contains--a
disposition to be influenced by sound rather than sense, and an implicit
faith in received interpretation"--which is not quite one of the weaknesses
of our present age. Nevertheless, the prejudice is to the shame of our
century.

This cannot be helped. The two editors would hold selves as recreants in
their own sight, as traitors to the very spirit of the proposed work, were
they to yield and cry craven before the danger. If one would fight
prejudice, and brush off the ugly cobwebs of superstition and materialism
alike from the noblest ideals of our forefathers, one has to prepare for
opposition. "The crown of the reformer and the innovator is a crown of
thorns" indeed. If one would rescue Truth in all her chaste nudity from the
almost bottomless well, into which she has been hurled by cant and
hypocritical propriety, one should not hesitate to descend into the dark,
gaping pit of that well. No matter how badly the blind bats--the dwellers in
darkness, and the haters of light--may treat in their gloomy abode the
intruder, unless one is the first to show the spirit and courage he preaches
to others, he must be justly held as a hypocrite and a seceder from his own
principles.

Hardly had the title been agreed upon, when the first premonitions of what
was in store for us, in the matter of the opposition to be encountered owing
to the title chosen, appeared on our horizon. One of the editors received
and recorded some spicy objections. The scenes that follow are sketches from
nature.
I
A Well-known Novelist. Tell me about your new magazine. What class do you
propose to appeal to?

Editor. No class in particular: we intend to appeal to the public.

Novelist. I am very glad of that. For once I shall be one of the public, for
I don't understand your subject in the least, and I want to. But you must
remember that if your public is to understand you, it must necessarily be a
very small one. People talk about occultism nowadays as they talk about many
other things, without the least idea of what it means. We are so ignorant
and--so prejudiced.

Editor. Exactly. That is what calls the new magazine into existence. We
propose to educate you, and to tear the mask from every prejudice.

Novelist. That really is good news to me, for I want to be educated. What is
your magazine to be called?
Editor. Lucifer.

Novelist. What! Are you going to educate us in vice'? We know enough about
that. Fallen angels are plentiful. You may find popularity, for soiled doves
are in fashion just now, while the white-winged angels are voted a bore,
because they are not so amusing. But I doubt your being able to teach us
much.

II

A Man of the World (in a careful undertone, for the scene is a
dinner-party). I hear you are going to start a magazine, all about
occultism. Do you know, I'm very glad. I don't say anything about such
matters as a rule, but some queer things have happened in my life which
can't be explained in any ordinary manner. I hope you will go in for
explanations.

Editor. We shall try, certainly. My impression is, that when occultism is in
any measure apprehended, its laws are accepted by everyone as the only
intelligible explanation of life.

A M. W. Just so, I want to know all about it, for 'pon my honour, life's a
mystery. There are plenty of other people as curious as myself. This is an
age which is afflicted with the Yankee disease of "wanting to know." I'll
get you lots of subscribers. What's the magazine called?

Editor. Lucifer--and (warned by former experience) don't misunderstand the
name. It is typical of the divine spirit which sacrificed itself for
humanity--it was Milton's doing that it ever became associated with the
devil. We are sworn enemies to popular prejudices, and it is quite
appropriate that we should attack such a prejudice as this--Lucifer, you
know, is the Morning Star--the Lightbearer, . . . 
. . .
A M. W. (interrupting). Oh, I know all that--at least don't know, but I take
it for granted you've got some good reason for taking such a title. But your
first object is to have readers; you want the public to buy your magazine, I
suppose. That's in the programme, isn't it?

Editor. Most decidedly.

A M. W. Well, listen to the advice of a man who knows his way about town.
Don't mark your magazine with the wrong colour at starting. It's quite
evident, when one stays an instant to think of its derivation and meaning,
that Lucifer is an excellent word. But the public don't stay to think of
derivations and meanings; and the first impression is the most important.
Nobody will buy the magazine if you call it Lucifer.

III

A Fashionable Lady Interested in Occultism. I want to hear some more about
the new magazine, for I have interested a great many people in it, even with
the little you have told me. But I find it difficult to express its actual
purpose. What is it?

Editor. To try and give a little light to those that want it.

A F. L. Well, that's a simple way of putting it, and will be very useful to
me. What is the magazine to be called?
Editor. Lucifer.

A F. L. (After a pause) You can't mean it.

Editor. Why not?

A F. L. The associations are so dreadful! What can be the object of calling
it that? It sounds like some unfortunate sort of joke, made against it by
its enemies.

Editor. Oh, but Lucifer, you know, means Light-bearer; it is typical of the
Divine Spirit--

A F. L. Never mind all that--I want to do your magazine good and make it
known, and you can't expect me to enter into explanations of that sort every
time I mention the title? Impossible! Life is too short and too busy.
Besides, it would produce such a bad effect; people would think me priggish,
and then I couldn't talk at all, for I couldn't bear them to think that.
Don't call it Lucifer please don't. Nobody knows what the word is typical
of; what it means now is the devil, nothing more or less.

Editor. But then that is quite a mistake, and one of the first prejudices we
propose to do battle with. Lucifer is the pale, pure herald of dawn--

Lady (interrupting). I thought you were going to do something more
interesting and more important than to whitewash mythological characters. We
shall all have to go to school again, or read up Dr. Smith's Classical
Dictionary. And what is the use of it when it is done? I thought you were
going to tell us things about our own lives and how to make them better. I
suppose Milton wrote about Lucifer, didn't he?--but nobody reads Milton now.
Do let us have a modern title with some human meaning in it.

IV

A Journalist (thoughtfully, while rolling his cigarette). Yes, it is a good
idea, this magazine of yours. We shall all laugh at it, as a matter of
course: and we shall cut it up in the papers. But we shall all read it,
because secretly everybody hungers after the mysterious. What are you going
to call it?

Editor. Lucifer.

Journalist (striking a light). Why not The Fusee? Quite as good a title and
not so pretentious.

The "Novelist," the "Man of the World," the "Fashionable Lady," and the
"Journalist," should be the first to receive a little instruction. A glimpse
into the real and primitive character of Lucifer can do them no harm and
may, perchance, cure them of a bit of ridiculous prejudice. They ought to
study their Homer and Hesiod's Theogony if they would do justice to Lucifer,
"Eosphoros and Hesperos," the Morning and the Evening beautiful star. If
there are more useful things to do in this life than "to whitewash
mythological characters," to slander and blacken them is, at least, as
useless, and shows, moreover, a narrow-mindedness which can do honour to no
one.

To object to the title of LUCIFER, only because its "associations are so
dreadful," is pardonable--if it can be pardonable in any case--only in an
ignorant American missionary of some dissenting sect, in one whose natural
laziness and lack of education led him to prefer ploughing the minds of
heathens, as ignorant as he is himself, to the more profitable, but rather
more arduous, process of ploughing the fields of his own father's farm. In
the English clergy, however, who receive all a more or less classical
education, and are, therefore, supposed to be acquainted with the ins and
outs of theological sophistry and casuistry, this kind of opposition is
absolutely unpardonable. It not only smacks of hypocrisy and deceit, but
places them directly on a lower moral level than him they call the apostate
angel. By endeavouring to show the theological Lucifer, fallen through the
idea that

To reign is worth
ambition, though in Hell;
Better to reign in
Hell than serve in Heaven,

they are virtually putting into practice the supposed crime they would fain
accuse him of. They prefer reigning over the spirit of the masses by means
of a pernicious dark LIE, productive of many an evil, than serve heaven by
serving TRUTH. Such practices are worthy only of the Jesuits.

But their sacred writ is the first to contradict their interpretations and
the association of Lucifer, the Morning Star, with Satan. Chapter XXII of
Revelation, verse 16th, says: "I, Jesus . . . am the root. . . and the
bright and Morning Star" "early rising"): hence Eosphoros, or the Latin
Lucifer. The opprobrium attached to this name is of such a very late date,
the Roman Church found itself forced to screen the theological slander
behind a two-sided interpretation--as usual. Christ, we are told, is the
"Morning Star," the divine Lucifer; and Satan the usurpatior of the Verbum,
the "infernal Lucifer." 2 "The great Archangel Michael, the conqueror of
Satan, is identical in paganism 3 with Mercury-Mithra, to whom, after
defending the Sun (symbolical of God) from the attacks of Venus-Lucifer, was
given the possession of this planet, et datus est ei locus Luciferi And
since the Archangel Michael is the 'Angel of the Face,' and 'the Vicar of
the Verbum' he is now considered in the Roman Church as the regent of that
planet Venus which 'the vanquished fiend had usurped'." Angelus faciei Dei
sedem superbi humilis Obtinuit, says Cornelius à Lapide (in Vol. VI, p.
229).

This gives the reason why one of the early Popes was called Lucifer, as
Yonge and ecclesiastical records prove. It thus follows that the title
chosen for our magazine is as much associated with divine and pious ideas as
with the supposed rebellion of the hero of Milton's "Paradise Lost." By
choosing it, we throw the first ray of light and truth on a ridiculous
prejudice which ought to have no room made for it in this our "age of facts
and discovery." We work for true Religion and Science, in the interest of
fact as against fiction and prejudice. It is our duty, as it is that of
physical Science--professedly its mission--to throw light or facts in Nature
hitherto surrounded by the darkness of ignorance And since ignorance is
justly regarded as the chief promoter of superstition, that work is,
therefore, a noble and beneficent work But natural Sciences are only one
aspect of SCIENCE and TRUTH. Psychological and moral Sciences, or theosophy,
the knowledge of divine truth, wheresoever found, are, still more important
in human affairs, and real Science should not be limited simply to the
physical aspect of life and nature. Science is an abstract of every fact, a
comprehension of every truth within the scope of human research and
intelligence. "Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental philosophy"
(Coleridge), has proved more beneficent to the true philosopher in the study
of the human heart--therefore, in the promotion of truth--than the more
accurate, but certainly less deep, science of any Fellow of the Royal
Institution.

Those readers, however, who do not find themselves convinced that the Church
had no right to throw a slur upon a beautiful star, and that it did so
through a mere necessity of accounting for one of its numerous loans from
Paganism with all its poetical conceptions of the truths in Nature, are
asked to read our article "The History of a Planet." Perhaps, after its
perusal, they will see how far Dupuis was justified in asserting that "all
the theologies have their origin in astronomy." With the modern Orientalists
every myth is solar. This is one more prejudice, and a preconception in
favour of materialism and physical science. It will be one of our duties to
combat it with much of the rest.

Lucifer, September, 1887
 
1 "It was Gregory the Great who was the first to apply this passage of
Isaiah, 'How art thou fallen from Heaven. Lucifer. son of the morning,'
etc., to Satan, and ever since the bold metaphor of the prophet, which
referred, after all, but to an Assyrian king inimical to the Israelites, has
been applied to the Devil."

2 Mirville's Memoirs to the Academy of France, Vol. IV, quoting Cardinal
Ventura. 

3 Which paganism has passed long millenniums, it would seem, in copying
beforehand Christian dogmas to come. 
 
------------------------------------------

2

WHY THE "VAHAN"?

Article by H. P. Blavatsky

BECAUSE, the word means a Vehicle. In Theosophical metaphysics this term
denotes a basis, something, as a bearer, more substantial than that which it
bears; e.g., Buddhi, the spiritual Soul, is the Vahan of Atmâ --the purely
immaterial "principle." Or again, as in physiology, our brain is the
supposed physical vehicle or Vahan of superphysical thought. 

Thus, this little fortnightly paper is destined to serve as the bearer of
Theosophical thought, and the recorder of all Theosophical activities. 

The enterprise is no financial speculation, but most decidedly an additional
expense which our meagre funds can ill afford, but which our duty urges us
to undertake. The journal is to go free of charge to our British Branches
and "unattached" Fellows. It is also meant for those who are unable to
subscribe to our regular magazines, but the wealthier will profit along with
the poorer, for the following reasons. The Karma of those who could, but
will not subscribe for the organs of their Society, whether from
indifference or any other cause, is their own; but the duty of keeping all
the Fellows in touch with us, and au courant with Theosophical events--is
ours. For, many of those who being virtually cut off from almost everything
that goes on in the Theosophical centres, lose very soon their interest in
the movement and continue henceforward "Fellows" but in name. 

It has been always held that a true Theosophist must have no personal ends
to serve, no favourite hobby to propagate, no special doctrine to enforce or
to defend. For, to merit the honourable title of Theosophist one must be an
altruist, above all; one ever ready to help equally foe or friend; to act,
rather than to speak; and urge others to action, while never losing an
opportunity to work himself. 

But, if no true Theosophist will ever dictate to his fellow, brother or
neighbor, what this one should believe or disbelieve in, nor force him to
act on lines which may be distasteful to him, however proper they may appear
to himself, there are other duties which he has to attend to: 

(a) to warn his brother of any danger the latter may fail to see; and

(b) to share his knowledge--if he has acquired such with those who have
been less fortunate than himself in opportunities for acquiring it. 

Now, though we are painfully aware that a good number of members have joined
the T.S. out of simple curiosity, while others, remaining for some time out
of touch with the movement, have lost their interest in it, we must never
lose the hope of reviving that interest. Many are the Fellows who, having
failed at first to help on the cause, have now become earnest "working
members," as they are called. Therefore, we say to-day to all: "If you would
really help the noble cause--you must do so now; for, a few years more and
your, as well as our efforts, will be in vain." The world moves in cycles,
which proceed under the impetus of two mutually antagonistic and destroying
Forces, the one striving to move Humanity onward, toward Spirit, the other
forcing Mankind to gravitate downward, into the very abysses of matter. It
remains with men to help either the one or the other. Thus, also, it is our
present task, as Theosophists, to help in one or the other direction. We are
in the very midst of the Egyptian darkness of Kali-yuga, the "Black Age,"
the first 5,000 years of which, its dreary first cycle, is preparing to
close on the world between 1897 and 1898. Unless we succeed in placing the
T.S. before this date on the safe side of the spiritual current, it will be
swept away irretrievably into the Deep called "Failure," and the cold waves
of oblivion will close over its doomed head. Thus will have ingloriously
perished the only association whose aims, rules and original purposes answer
in every particular and detail--if strictly carried out--to the innermost,
fundamental thought of every great Adept Reformer, the beautiful dream of a
UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD OF MAN. 
Verily, of philanthropical, political, and religious bodies we have many.
Clubs, congresses, associations, unions, refuges, societies, each of them a
social protector of special men and nations, special arts and sciences, or a
bulwark against this or that evil, spring up daily, each of these moved by
its own party or sectarian spirit. But which of them is strictly universal,
good for all and prejudicial to none? Which of them answers fully to the
noble injunction of the Buddhist Arhats and also of King Asoka? "When thou
plantest trees along the roads, allow their shade to protect the wicked as
the good. When thou buildest a Rest-House, let its doors be thrown open to
men of all religions, to the opponents of thine own creed, and to thy
personal enemies as well as to thy friends." None, we say, none save our own
Society, a purely unsectarian, unselfish body; the only one which has no
party object in view, which is open to an men, the good and the bad, the
lowly and the high, the foolish and the wise--and which calls them all
"Brothers," regardless of their religion, race, colour, or station in life. 

To all these we now say: As "there is no religion higher than Truth," no
deity greater than the latter, no duty nobler than self-sacrifice, and that
the time for action is so short-shall not each of you put his shoulder to
the wheel of the heavy car of our Society and help us to land it safely
across the abyss of matter, on to the safe side? 

--H.P.B. 

Vahan, December, 1890 

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

Best wishes


Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Katinka Hesselink [mailto:mail@k...] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 12:59 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Re: what to do in magazines

Hi Eldon,

If a theosophical magazine represents merely a certain version of
theosophy it is partial and therefore not really a theosophical
magazine at all. Fortunately I don't see the magazines as partial in
that sense. History is indeed simply ignored. Controversy is
unanimously ignored as well (this is impartial in a sense, boring
too). On the other hand, the present discussion isn't really
historical so much as it is based on the question: which theosophical
teachings are relevant? Theosophical History is nicely covered by the
magazine 'Theosophical History'. 

As an aside - even when John Algeo was the general secretary (read
president) of the TS-Adyar in the US he was complaining that Quest
wasn't the kind of magazine he felt it should be. In short: even the
'president' isn't the one who calls all the shots. Partly a magazine
gets its taste from the feel people get from it. Depending on what
kind of articles are published, certain articles won't even be sent
in, let alone published. So it is very difficult for a magazine to
change course. That being said I still feel that for a theosophical
magazine to mean something in this world, they need to become more
'contemporary' or something. More alive to what happens in the world
outside the theosophical window. And indeed: less ignoring
controversy. How else are we going to find the truth, if not by facing
up to problems and giving both sides of the story? How the work of
Paul Johnson was dealt with is in this case a good example. The
Theosophist didn't even report on it (I've been told). It could have
just given both sides of the story and told the theosophists: hey,
there is a new theory on HPB out there. This is what we think is wrong
with it, this is what the author says. Judge for yourselves. The
Theosophist contains a lot of interesting material, so does Quest and
every other theosophical publication. But the link to the outside
world is missing. Has anatta been discussed in a theosophical
publication? Or do the articles on buddhism in theosophical
publications just ignore this tiny problem? The same for every other
philosophical and practical controversy. I can't think of one such
controversy that IS discussed in theosophical magazines. Fohat is the
one exception. It does create and report on controversy. But of
course: that is a private enterprise. Why can't an official magazine
take a risk every now and again? That would be so much more interesting.

The controversies that do get discussed are usually explained away
without letting the person who started the controversy speak for
themselves. (Krishnamurti comes to mind - this is the one controversy
that Radha Burnier can't ignore totally)

Case in point: though Geoffrey Farthing's death was reported in the
Theosophist and he got a nice obituary and in the next (=last)
theosophist an article of his was republished - no mention at all was
made of the issue that was close to his heart: the place of HPB in the
TS. In short: controversy is ignored again, pushed under the carpet.
Do ordinary members even know of that controversy? (see the last two
issues of Lucifer 7 for details)

Just ranting,
Katinka
CUT