Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00807)

Friends, 

William Q. wrote this in 1893.

Carlos. 

oooooooooooooooooooo


"BLAVATSKIANISM" IN AND OUT OF SEASON


THEOSOPHISTS! let us consult together. Let us survey the army, the 
field of battle, and the fighters. Let us examine our ways and our 
speech, so that we may know what we are doing in this great affray 
which may last for ages and in which every act has a future. What do 
we see? A Theosophical Society struggling as a whole against the 
world. A few devoted members struggling against the world and some 
opponents within its ranks. A Society grown to its eighteenth year, 
after the expenditure of much time and energy and fame by those who 
have been with it in infancy, those who have come in from time to 
time, those who worked and left it for this generation. It has its 
karma like any other body, for it is a living thing and not a mere 
paper organization; and with that karma is also woven the karma of 
the units composing it.

How does it live and grow? Not alone by study and work, but by 
propriety of method of work; by due attention paid by the members to 
thought and speech in their theosophic promulgations. Wise workers, 
like wise generals, survey the field now and then to see if their 
methods are good or bad, even though fully convinced of the nobility 
and righteousness of their cause; they trust not only to the virtue 
of their aim and work, but attend to any defects now and then 
indicated by the assaults of the enemy; they listen to warnings of 
those who see or think they see errors of omission and commission. 
Let us all do this.

It happens to be the fact that most of those who work the hardest 
for the Society are at the same time devoted disciples, open or non-
professed, of H.P. Blavatsky, but that leaves still a large number 
of members who, with the first-named, may be variously classified. 
First, there are those who do not rely at all on H.P. Blavatsky, 
while not distinctly opposed and none the less good members. Next 
are those who are openly opposed to her name and fame, who, while 
reading her works and profiting by them as well as by the work 
aroused by her in others, are averse from hearing her name, oppose 
the free assertion of devotion to her, would like now and then to 
have Theosophy stripped of her altogether, and opine that many good 
and true possible members are kept away from the T.S. by her 
personality's being bound up in it. The two last things of course 
are impossible to meet, because if it had not been for her the 
Theosophical Society with its literature would not have come into 
existence. Lastly are those in the world who do not belong to our 
ranks, composed of persons holding in respect to the T.S. the 
various positions of for, against, and indifferent.

The active workers may be again divided as follows:

(a) Moderate ones, good thinkers who present their thoughts in words 
that show independent and original thought on theosophical subjects, 
thus not referring to authority, yet who are earnest, devoted and 
loyal.

(b) Those who are earnest, devoted and loyal, but present Theosophy 
more or less as quotations from H.P.B.'s writings, constantly naming 
and always referring their thoughts and conclusions to her, thus 
appearing to present Theosophy as solely based on her as an 
authority.

(c) The over-zealous who err like the former, and, in addition, too 
frequently and out of place and time, bring forward the name of H.P. 
Blavatsky; often relating what it was supposed she had done or not 
done, and what she said, attributing infallibility to her either 
directly or by indirection; thus arousing an opposition that is 
added to any impression of dogmatism or authority produced by other 
members.

(d) Believers in phenomena who give prominence to the wonders said 
to have been performed by H.P. Blavatsky; who accentuate the value 
of the whole field of occult phenomena, and sincerely supposing, 
however mistaken the notion, that occult and psychical phenomena 
will arrest attention, draw out interest, inspire confidence; when, 
in fact, the almost certain results are, to first arouse curiosity, 
then create distrust and disappointment; for nearly every one is a 
doubting Thomas who requires, while the desire cannot be satisfied, 
a duplicate of every phenomenon for himself. In The Occult World, 
the Adept writing on this very subject says that the demand for new 
phenomena would go on crescendo until at last one would be crushed 
by doubt, or the other and worse result of creating superstition and 
blind faith would come about. Every thoughtful person must surely 
see that such must be the consequence.

It is true that the movement has grown most in consequence of the 
effort of those who are devoted to an ideal, inspired by enthusiasm, 
filled with a lasting gratitude to H.P. Blavatsky. Their ideal is 
the service of Humanity, the ultimate potential perfectibility of 
man as exemplified by the Masters and Adepts of all ages, including 
the present. Their enthusiasm is born from the devotion which the 
ideal arouses, their gratitude is a noble quality engendered by the 
untiring zeal of the soul who brought to their attention the 
priceless gems of the wisdom religion. Ingratitude is the basest 
vice of which man can be guilty, and it will be base for them to 
receive the grand message and despise the messenger.

But does devotion, loyalty, or gratitude require that we should 
thrust our estimate of a person forward to the attention of the 
public in a way that is certain to bring on opposition? Should our 
work in a great movement, meant to include all men, intended to 
condense the truth from all religions, be impeded or imperiled by 
over-zealous personal loyalty? I think not. We should be wise as 
serpents. Wisdom does not consist in throwing the object of our 
heart's gratitude in the faces of those who have no similar feeling, 
for when we do that it may easily result that personal 
considerations will nullify our efforts for the good of those we 
address.

Now it is charged in several quarters that we are dogmatic as a 
Society. This is extremely easy of disproof as a fact, and some 
trouble has been taken to disprove it. But is there not a danger 
that we might go too far on this line, and by continuing the 
disproof too long increase the very belief which we say is 
baseless? "The more proof offered the less believed" is how often 
true. Our constitution is the supreme law. Its being non-dogmatic is 
proof enough. Years of notification on almost every document have 
prepared the proofs which every one can see. I would seem that 
enough has been said on the subject of our non-dogmatism.

But the charge then is altered, and "dogmatism" is supplanted 
by "Blavatskianism," and here the critics have a slight ground to 
stand on; here is where a danger may exist and where the generals, 
the captains, the whole army, should properly pay attention and be 
on their guard. In the words and methods of the various classes of 
members above mentioned is the cause for the charge. I am not 
directing any remarks to the question whether members "believe in 
Blavatsky or not," for the charge made is intended to imply that 
there is too much said about H.P. Blavatsky as authority, as source, 
as guide, too little original thinking, too much reliance on the 
words of a single person.

In the years that are gone, necessity existed for repelling mean 
personal attacks on H.P. Blavatsky's character. To take up arms in 
her behalf then was wise. Now her works remain. The necessity for 
constant repulse of attacks on her does not exist. Judgment can be 
used in doing so. Loyalty is not thrown to the winds when good 
judgment says there is no need to reply. One of the best replies is 
to carry on the work in the noble and altruistic spirit she always 
pointed out. Take, for instance, the almost senile attacks 
periodically made by the Society for Psychical Research. What good 
can be possibly accomplished by paying any attention to them? None 
at all, except what results to that body by inflating it with the 
idea that its shafts have hit a vulnerable spot. Ever since their ex 
post facto agent went to India to play at psychical investigation 
they have almost lived by their attacks, for by them, more than 
anything else, they gain some attention; her personality, even to 
this day, adds spice to their wide-of-the-mark discussions. Even at 
the Chicago World's Congresses their discussions were mostly given 
up to re-hashing the same stories, as if they were proud that, even 
though they knew nothing of psychic law, they had at least 
discovered one human being whose nature they could not fathom, and 
desired to for ever parade her with the various labels their fancy 
suggested. But in districts or new publications, where a new attack 
is made, good judgment may suggest an answer bringing up the 
statement of charges and copiousness of former answers. Now our work 
goes on in meetings, in publications, in discussions, and here is 
where the old idea of repelling attack may run into an unnecessary 
parade of the person to whom in heart we are loyal, while at the 
same time the voluminousness of her writings is often an excuse for 
not investigating for oneself, and this leads to quoting her too 
frequently by name as authority.

She never claimed authority, but, contrariwise, disclaimed it. But 
few of the theories broached by her were new to our day, albeit 
those are the key-ideas. Yet these very key-ideas are not those on 
which the quotations and personal references to her are made so 
often. She neither invented, nor claimed as new, the doctrines of 
Karma, Reincarnation, Devachan, Cycles, and the like. These are all 
exhaustively treated in various literatures - Buddhistic, Jain, 
Brahmanical, Zoroastrian. They are capable, like all theosophic 
doctrines, of independent examination, of philosophical, logical, 
and analogical proof. But, if we state them parrot-like, and then 
bring forward a quotation from H.P. Blavatsky to prove them, has not 
an opponent, has not any one, member or non-member, a right to say 
that the offending person is not doing independent thinking, is not 
holding a belief after due consideration, but is merely acting 
blindly on faith in matters where blind faith is not required? And 
if many members do the same thing, it is quite natural that a cry 
should be raised by some one of "Blavatskianism."

If this were an age in the West when any respect or reverence 
existed as a general thing in the people, the sayings of a sage 
could be quoted as authority. But it is not such an age. Reverence 
is paralyzed for a time, and the words of a sage are of no moment as 
such. H.P. Blavatsky came in this irreverent time, holding herself 
only as a messenger and indicator, not as a sage pure and simple. 
Hence to merely quote her words out of due place will but arouse a 
needless irritation. It may indicate in oneself a failure to think 
out the problem independently, an absence of diligence in working 
out our own salvation in the way directed by Gautama Buddha. What, 
then, are the right times and places, and which are out of place and 
time?

When the assembly and the subject are both meant to deal with the 
life and works of H.P. Blavatsky, then it is right and proper and 
wise to speak of her and her works, her acts, and words. If one is 
dealing with an analysis or compilation of her writings on any 
subject, then must she and what she wrote be used, named and quoted. 
But even at those times her words should not be quoted as and for 
authority, inasmuch as she said they were not. Those who consider 
them to be authority will quickly enough accept them. As she never 
put forward anything as original investigation of hers in the realm 
of science, in the line of experiments in hypnotism, in 
clairvoyance, mind-reading, or the like, we ought to be careful how 
and when we bring her statements forward to an unbelieving public.

But in an assembly of members coming together to discuss 
theosophical doctrines in general, say such as Karma, Reincarnation, 
the Septenary Constitution, and the like, it is certainly unwise to 
give quotation after quotation from H.P. Blavatsky's works on the 
matter in hand. This is not fair to the hearers, and it shows only a 
power of memory or compilation that argues nothing as to the 
comprehension of the subject on the reader's part. It is very easy 
to compile, to quote sentence after sentence, to weave a long series 
of extracts together, but it is not progress, nor independence, nor 
wisdom. On the other hand, it is a complete nullification of the 
life-work of the one who has directed us to the path; it is contrary 
to the spirit and genius of the Society. And if in such an assembly 
much time is given to recounting phenomena performed by H.P.B., or 
telling how she once said this and at another time did that, the 
time is out of joint with the remarks. Meetings of branches are 
meant for giving to the members and enquirers a knowledge of 
theosophical doctrines by which alone true progress is to come to 
our movement. New and good members are constantly needed; they 
cannot be fished out of the sea of enquirers by such a process as 
the personal history of anyone, they cannot be retained by relations 
of matters that do not teach them the true aim and philosophy of 
life, they will be driven off if assailed with quotations.

If there is power in a grateful loyalty to H.P. Blavatsky, as for my 
part I fully believe, it does not have its effect by being put 
forward all the time, or so often as to be too noticeable, but from 
its depth, its true basis, its wise foundation, its effect on our 
work, our act, and thought. Hence to my mind there is no disloyalty 
in reserving the mention of her name and qualities for right and 
timely occasions. It is certain that as Theosophy brings forward no 
new system of ethics, but only enforces the ethics always preached, 
the claim, if made, that our ethics, our high endeavor, are to be 
found nowhere else described save in the works left by H.P, 
Blavatsky, is baseless, will lead to wrong conclusions, and bring up 
a reaction that no amount of argument can suppress. No greater 
illustration of an old and world-wide religion can be found than 
that provided by Buddhism, but what did Buddha say to his disciples 
when they brought up the question of the honours to be paid to his 
remains? He told them not to hinder themselves about it, not to 
dwell on it, but to work out their own salvation with diligence1

That the views held by H.P. Blavatsky herself coincided with this 
can be seen by reading the pamphlet entitled The Theosophical 
Society and H.P.B. being a reprint of articles that appeared in 
LUCIFER of December, 1890. She requested the reprint, and some of 
her notes are appended to the articles. In those Bro. Patterson took 
somewhat the same ground as this article, and she commended it in 
most positive terms.

William Q. Judge

Lucifer, December, 1893

1 -  See the Mahâparinibbana Sutta.