A Dialogue on the Evolution of
a Sangha
Carlos Cardoso Aveline
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
An initial version of this
article was published at
the electronical magazine “The
Aquarian Theosophist”,
in its edition of February 2008, with no indication
as to its author. The entire
collection of “The
Aquarian
Theosophist” can be seen at www.teosofia.com
.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Student A.
Perhaps one should forget about the history of the theosophical movement
altogether.
True, there may be some real occult importance in the 100 year cycle,
for instance; and to examine that, one
must have a knowledge of History. The
life-rhythm of the theosophical effort is largely based on this cycle. Besides, the article “The Hundred Year Cycle”
(“Theosophy” magazine, August 1931, pp. 449-452) shows the occult link existing
between the sun-spots cycle, the one hundred years’ cycle and the number nine.
It so happens that one century equals nine times the cycle of sun-spots
(11.2 years each). The United Lodge of
Theosophists, ULT, was founded in a year which has two “9s” in it (1909), and it
was founded in a 18th of February, the “18” being also twice nine. The foundation
of the ULT took place 18 years after the physical death of H. P. Blavatsky, and
there is more.
The year 1900, which was pointed by H.P.B. as the starting point of
Aquarius Age [1], is situated precisely
at the simmetrical axis or central point between HPB’s death, in
1891, and the ULT foundation, in 1909. HPB died
nine years before 1900; the ULT was founded nine years after that year. This
numerological equilibrium may be connected to the “heart-beat” of the Sun and
other factors.
All of this may be interesting from the occult point of view, since we
are, or should be, aware of the esoteric meaning and importance of numbers.
Nine, it is well-known, means “the end of a cycle”.
Yet there is problem which ....
Student B.
Yes?
Student A.
The difficulty is that, as one discovers Theosophy, it seems one has
more than enough for a lifetime task in calmly studying, understanding and
living the wisdom present in works like “Isis Unveiled”, “The Secret Doctrine”,
the Gita and many books by HPB, Judge
and Crosbie.
Not to mention countless classical thinkers in different countries and
cultures, from Plato and Kabir to
Confucius, Lao-tzu and Paracelsus.
Why should one then also study the history of the theosophical
movement? Would it not be a diversion
and a loss of time?
Student B.
Only apparently so.
To serve mankind and thus play an active, intelligent role in our
planetary evolution is an essential part of Occult learning; and the theosophical
movement constitutes the main vehicle or instrument Theosophists can use as
they do that. Obviously, one can only
know the theosophical movement - one’s practical tool to serve mankind - if one
knows and studies its purpose and its history.
Besides, we should consider that the idea of “three jewels” or “three
refuges” (Triratna in Sanskrit) is central both to exoteric and esoteric
Buddhism. And esoteric Buddhism is
broadly the same as Esoteric Philosophy, Theosophy, Gupta Vidya or Occultism.
Student A.
What are the three refuges, or “Triratna”?
Student B.
There is a Law of Impermanence which applies to every transitory aspect
of life. The truth-seeker searches for
refuge from all transient things - including his own lower self - in that which
is permanent. This is a long-term
learning and might be called “lay discipleship”. The soul of the learner will thus say, in
these or other words:
1) I take refuge in the Teachers of Divine Wisdom (or Buddhas);
2) I take refuge in the Teaching and the Law (or Dharma); and
3) I take refuge in the
mutual-help process of co-discipleship (or Sangha).
These are the refuges.
But in order for anyone to take refuge in the theosophical sangha, which is really located not in
any physical place but in some subtle patterns or ‘way of life’, one needs to
understand the history or accumulated karma of the movement in the world, so
that one can truly understand it, see in what level of consciousness it really
exists and understand its present and future opportunities at various levels of
reality. Theosophy teaches that it is
not worthwhile to make a separate
individual search for truth, for independence must be compensated by mutual
help and solidarity. It cannot be correct, therefore, to wash our hands
Pilate-like with regard to the destiny of the theosophical movement. It is by the second refuge, in the teaching,
and the third refuge, in the sangha,
that we can be better able to take the first refuge, in the inner guidance or
the teacher. The three elements are
interdependent. One must know what is
and what is not the real teaching, so that one can know what is, and what is
not, the real sangha; and how to find
the true guidance or inner Master.
Student A.
I can see that. Most of the
so-called theosophical movement may still be deluded as to how do Masters work,
what exactly is their teaching and how should one work in the sangha.
Yet what is the particular importance of the United Lodge of
Theosophists in the history of the theosophical movement? Is it not
“institutionalism” to think too much of ULT?
Student B.
Since 1909, the ULT has had a decisive - if not obvious - influence on
the trajectory of the theosophical movement as a whole.
The movement had deeply lost almost any sense of direction when in 18th
February 1909 Robert Crosbie and others founded the United Lodge in Los Angeles
Student A.
Yes, I see what you mean. It’s a
house of cards.
Yet, what’s the theosophical importance of History, as a science?
Student B.
History is the science or study of accumulated experience. And accumulated experience is the same as Karma.
In the first paragraph of the famous Letter 10, in “Mahatma Letters”, an
Adept-Teacher defines Occult Science as the study of the causes by their consequences,
and of the consequences by their causes.
History itself can be well defined in exactly the same words as
these.
The study of History is therefore but the study of the Karma Law as it
works along time. On the other hand,
historical knowledge also helps people to prepare a better future. Knowing one's past trajectory enables one to
perceive one’s highest dharma, both individually and collectively as a
movement.
Student A.
What exactly do you mean by that?
Student B.
There is nothing entirely new, or entirely old, under the Sun. Everything that was, will be, says
Ecclesiastes, 1.
In order to know more about the future, one must study all of the past
and present from the viewpoint of our higher potentialities - both individual
and collective. Our future is therefore
far from being an “empty page”. If one
studies the law of the cycles, one sees that the past history or accumulated
experience contains the seeds of every future progress. It also contains the seeds of future
mistakes, which one must try to avoid from now.
Past, present and future are but one continuous, living process in the
eyes of the Occultist. As a result of
this, if we intend to try being real Theosophists, we must grow beyond the
shallow attitude of simple denial of past events.
Student A.
You may be right. Yet most
attempts to understand the collective evolution of the international
theosophical “sangha” or “nucleus”
may well lead to a clash of “political” viewpoints and to a discussion on
bureaucracy and external “power mechanisms”.
In what way can this be really useful?
As you know, the ULT was created to liberate Theosophy from power
politics, not to get more people entangled in it.
Student B.
As one studies History, one finds a long series of illusions and
disillusionments, of search for truth and collective deceptions. History allows us to understand the wide,
multidimensional process of probation and test through which the movement has
grown since its inception in September 1875, and since the creation of the ULT
in 1909.
The movement is a magnetic field of collective learning and effort
against both collective and individual self-delusion.
There are of course conflicting viewpoints as to the history of the
movement, and no one is the sole proprietor of truth. But the Theosophy of HPB, Judge and the
Masters has never recommended to abandon truth in order to avoid
discussion.
One should not argue for the sake of argument or out of personality
motives. One must be clear about
that. In Occultism, everything depends
on the altruism and generosity of intentions and motives. But H.P.B. described thus the right attitude
of a committed and whole-hearted
theosophist:
“Ready to lay down our life any day for THEOSOPHY - that great cause of the Universal Brotherhood
for which we live and breath - and willing to shield if need be, every
theosophist with our own body, we yet denounce as openly and as virulently the
distortion of the original lines upon which the Theosophical Society was
primarily built, and the gradual loosening and the undermining of the original
system by the sophistry of many of its highest officers.” [2]
Student A.
Right. At the same time, you
should consider that HPB and Judge were very special people, to say the
least. This is rather something for
initiates to do, and we must not be too arrogant about that.
Let’s be honest: we are but common people. Why should we try to follow the examples set
by HPB, Judge, Crosbie and others who challenged the great “theosophical” empires
of power-politics? Why should we not see Theosophy as something cozy, nice and
comfortable?
Student B.
(Growing impatient) Cozy and comfortable? If you really think you should not follow the
practical example given by great theosophists, perhaps you might consider
joining the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, Romish and Popish institutions may be ideal places for those
who would rather build a mental abyss between themselves and the teachers,
preferring to “adore” wise men instead of learning from them.
If you don’t actually practice the teaching or follow the example of
great teachers as much as you can, you
will need an external theological “Saviour”, and this is the source and essence
of pseudo-theosophy or Jesuitism. But I
don’t mean to hurt your feelings with harsh words. What I mean is but that “Theosophist is him
who Theosophy does”. He who limits
himself to talking and memorizing books, words and grand ideas - he is no
theosophist. He will not see why one
should discuss the movement and its History, unless someone takes the time to
discuss these things with him.
Student A.
(Looking uncomfortable)
But discuss it in what manner and style?
Student B.
You have my humble apologies. I
hope the foci of our individual consciousness are beyond personality feelings
about this and other questions.
Let’s keep then to the substance of the matter, if you please, instead
of discussing the fortunate or unfortunate way things are put. Once ideas are clear, let’s keep “personality
feelings” apart.
Diplomacy and sophistry are not our priorities, are they?
Student A.
Certainly not.
Student B.
That is truly a blessing - of the pedagogical kind - for it enables us to learn. Politics is often a plague. People who
sacrifice sincerity or actual facts for the sake of “political correctness” are
actually renouncing Theosophy. They are
ready to abandon the real teaching so that they can better possess its outer
and empty shell. They follow the
opposite of the lesson given in Matthew 13: 24-30, as they carefully burn the
wheat and put the weeds in their barn.
Student A.
Agreed. I guess this is the
difference between esoteric and exoteric views.
Yet many think we must not discuss the theosophical movement or its
history. They say it is better to
concentrate in beautiful, abstract things.
Why do practical things have to be so full of difficulties?
Student B.
Those who believe in some “God” can always ask their own “Lord” about
the reason for their difficulties.
Theosophists, on the other hand, have common sense. They recognize that every “difficulty” is but
a lesson to be understood and learned.
Obstacles are teachings which Life kindly puts before us lest we forget
to study them. The theosophical movement
and its History are not beyond criticism.
We all have much to learn from its accumulated experience, which
includes many mistakes. In order to have
the much needed moral authority to criticize dogmatic religions - an important
task - we must first do our homework.
This previous condition can’t be left aside, and HPB wrote:
“We bear our Karma for our lack of humility during the early days of the
Theosophical Society; for our favourite aphorism: ‘See, how Christians love one
another’ has now to be paraphrased daily and almost hourly, into: ‘Behold, how
our Theosophists love each other.’ And
we tremble at the thought that, unless many of our ways and customs, at the
Theosophical Society at large, are amended or done away with, LUCIFER will one
day have to expose many a blot on our own escutcheon - e.g., worship of Self, uncharitableness,
and sacrificing to one’s personal vanity the welfare of other Theosophists -
more ‘fiercely’ than it has ever denounced the various shams and abuses of
power in state Churches and Modern Society.” [3]
Student A.
But there is still the danger of getting too “political” or
“institutional” as we study and discuss the History of the movement. Do you have other evidences that the original
programme of the movement included the honest study and frank discussion of its
own work, its own mistakes, and the lessons it must learn decade after decade,
century after century?
Student B.
There is plenty of evidence about that.
H.P.B. was entirely devoted to the building of the theosophical movement,
which meant (and of course still means) a lot of organizational work. See her letters to A.P.Sinnett. Take a look at her texts in “Theosophical
Articles” (Theosophy Company, three volumes).
The movement was also intensely discussed in “The Key to Theosophy”. By her actions, H.P.B. taught the direct
interdependence of the three elements of the Triratna which we have seen
before.
It is not hard to see that H.P.B. had the whole history of the movement
(though a brief one by then) in her heart and before her mind. And the human and planetary history, of
course.
As to W.Q. Judge, he was far from ignoring historical matters.
His organizational skills were extraordinary. His “Path” magazine
discusses at almost every page the daily life of the theosophical movement,
alongside with the most abstract philosophy and wisdom of theosophy. In his
direct style, Judge wrote many insightful texts on the theosophical work and
how it can be best organized.
Student A.
Is that all?
Student B.
No. Everywhere in the “Mahatma
Letters to A.P.Sinnett” one finds an impressively frank discussion of the most
difficult challenges to the theosophical movement.
There is no reason, then, why theosophists living in any century should
be ever able to be efficient, unless they have a clear notion of the karmic or
historical process by which an ‘outer’, open Nucleus of the Universal
Brotherhood is being built since September 1875.
The history of the movement is the story of the conflicting relationship
between the Eye Doctrine and the Heart Doctrine within the theosophical “sangha”.
It is no short term action. It is
part of the preparation for the sixth sub-race of the fifth race. The seed was planted in 1875-1900 period, but
in the twentieth century it had to start germinating by its own merits. In the
present century, a renewed effort is needed.
The real movement has, as H.P.B. wrote of every individual student, to
“continuously burst through its confining shell or encasement, and such a
disruption must also be accompanied by pain, not physical but mental and
intellectual” (“Spiritual Progress”, in “Theosophical Articles”, vol. II, p.
110.)
The inner theosophical seedling must make the heart doctrine burst
through the eye-doctrine or pseudo-theosophical shell, in order to come out
into fresh air and establish a direct contact with the inspiring energy sent by
the Sun.
Student A.
Perhaps you are right but, you see, the ULT seems to be much more
concerned with studying the philosophy itself than thinking about the movement
or its history.
Student B.
Such a focus is perfectly right and it shouldn’t be otherwise. But it does not mean one must ignore History.
It was the ULT which first gave the
theosophical movement a correct account of its history, when it published in
1925 the first edition of book “The Theosophical Movement”.
Mostly written by John Garrigues, this 705 pp. book was in part written with the help of Robert
Crosbie and other other associates. That
is a long and thoroughly documented book.
It has a clear, detailed institutional discussion of the movement's
history, including both Adyar TS and Point Loma TS. It is a superb portrait of organizational and
even inter-personality levels of activity in the movement.
The shorter, 1951 version of “The Theosophical Movement” covers the
period 1875-1950 and is also more than enough to show why every theosophist
must care for the movement’s History.
In the complete collection of “Theosophy” magazine, one cannot avoid
bumping into dozens of most frank articles discussing the history of the
movement and also ULT’s history. One
should pay special attention to the series of articles entitled “Aftermath” and
published in “Theosophy” magazine from January 1935. They are by John Garrigues,
too.
There is a remarkable lesson on the occult aspect of the movement’s
history in the article which announces the publication of the book “The
Friendly Philosopher”, in “Theosophy”, December 1934. At the end of it (p. 55), we see a note
signed by “The Editors” and addressed “To All Theosophists”. It underlines the importance of understanding
history. Interestingly enough, it refers
to the theosophical movement as “the field of battle”, which seems to imply
that, as W.Q. Judge wrote, “we are all Arjunas”.
This is the note:
“The Theosophical Movement was published in book form in
1925. Since that time great changes have
taken place in the theosophical world. The first generation of Theosophists
have passed away, the second is passing, the third is coming actively into the
field of battle. Beginning next month, therefore, this Magazine will publish a
survey of theosophical history as made
since 1925, with such citations as will, it is hoped, make clear the issues of
the present and the near future. Readers
of this Magazine are requested to call the attention of as many as possible to
this Series...”.
Student A.
This is really something to ponder upon.
Perhaps the amount of lucid historical consciousness that the movement
has at any given time is rather linked to its amount of inner vitality. Thank you very much, and Namaste.
Student B.
Thank you, and peace to all beings.
NOTES:
[1] “Collected
Writings” Helana P. Blavatsky, TPH,
Volume VIII, p. 174, footnote.
[2] “Is Denunciation a
Duty?”, in “Theosophical Articles”, H. P. Blavatsky, Theosophy Company, Los Angeles
[3] “Is Denunciation a
Duty?”, see same volume and page.
00000000000000000000000
Always
visit www.Esoteric-Philosophy.com
, www.TheosophyOnline.com and www.FilosofiaEsoterica.com
.
If
you want to have access to a daily study of the original teachings of
Theosophy, write to lutbr@terra.com.br and ask for
information on the e-group E-THEOSOPHY.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
