Five Editorial Trends in
The Theosophical Movement
Carlos Cardoso Aveline
.jpg)
The theosophical movement largely expresses itself and its teachings through written words. Since the autonomy and independence of every student should be stimulated, all theosophists must be able to know the editorial criteria by which the texts and books to be read by them are produced and published.
In order to accomplish this task, it is not enough for us to identify and evaluate the inaccurate editorial policies often followed - since the death of H. P. Blavatsky in 1891 - by the biggest theosophical association, the Adyar Society. It is also necessary to examine the present premises and assumptions of the editorial policies which are committed to the original teachings of modern esoteric philosophy.
Looking at the history of the theosophical movement since 1875, we may distinguish perhaps five main editorial trends, which are expressed in the way its periodicals and books are produced and presented to the public.
Of course, no one can say that there are only five editorial lines. Besides, these general editorial trends sometimes mix and combine with each other. It is not always easy to “classify” one individual as a member of this or that group only. C. Jinarajadasa, for instance, was arguably responsible for actions which belong to three of the following five groups of editorial trends. Also, every editor or writer who belongs at any given time to an editorial trend may change his or her loyalty and viewpoint, and this is something that has happened often. In spite of all these factors, the five groups of trends do exist, and they can be easily recognized. The first one provides us with the most important tests, as it is contrary to truth and it disguises itself.
1) Extreme Pseudo-Theosophy
We must learn to correctly identify that kind of pseudo-theosophical editorial line which does not have respect for the originals of the books, does not pay attention to the veracity of what is published, and does not ascribe importance to the original teachings.
This broad editorial line was inaugurated by Annie Besant in the 1890s - soon after the death of H. P. Blavatsky. It has been examined in a number of articles, some of which are available at the blog www.esoteric-philosophy.com and at the website www.filosofiaesoterica.com .
This combination of editorial procedures includes a few editors who present themselves as “students of H.P. Blavatsky”. Besides including libels against H.P.B. and in some cases even against the Masters of the Wisdom as part of what they call “theosophical literature”, they can be recognized by their personalistic approach to life, and by clearly not being committed to building the movement in any way.
To this group of editorial lines also belong a few individuals who present themselves as scholars. They defend a relativistic and sophistic viewpoint, though. In their view, “anything can be equally accepted as true or as false, according to one’s wishes”.
The editors of this group are unable to see any substantial difference between truth and falsehoods. They therefore freely authorize themselves to tamper with originals, to spread doubts about the honesty of the founders while still calling themselves “theosophists”, and to present shameless hypocrisy as a sacred expression of “liberty of thought”, which they say no one should be allowed to question or confront. Flatly ignoring the difference between an honest and a dishonest people, they use to say that “since the founders were not perfect, they can also be described as liars. For these spiritually blind editors, the image of the Founders of the movement plays the role of a psychological looking-glass, on which they can only see their own and low condition reflected.
2) Moderate Pseudo-Theosophy
The second group of editorial procedures can be considered an expression of “moderate pseudo-theosophy”. Group 2 accepts both theosophy and pseudo-theosophy. It clearly has a preference for Annie Besant’s ritualistic variety of pseudo-theosophy, often combined with the Adventist view according to which Jiddu Krishnamurti was an “avatar”. It is therefore rather sophistic, and also relativist or “utilitarian” in philosophy. But it avoids slandering the founders of the theosophical movement and - also an important point - it does not actively promote tampering with originals.
Our text entitled “Adulterating Theosophical Literature”, which has the subtitle “In 1966, The Leaders of The Adyar Society Discuss Their Tampering With Their Own Books”, shows the subtle but real difference existing between Group 1 and Group 2 of editorial trends. The article can be easily found in www.esoteric-philosophy.com and www.filosofiaesoterica.com .
A clear example of this difference has occurred when Dr. John Algeo got so confident in the anti-theosophical potentialities of Group 1 that he published a whole collection of lies against Helena P. Blavatsky, as if they had been written by herself. Dr. Algeo did this in his unfortunate 2003 book of “HPB Letters”.
A few months after that, the international president of the Adyar Society, Mrs. Radha Burnier, sent me a letter in which she admitted that those texts are “obviously spurious”.[1] Mrs. Burnier also said she knew nothing about the publication of such texts, and that she had not been consulted on that. It is worthwhile to note that Mr. Algeo was her own vice-president when he decided not to consult her on such a topic. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that , only a few years after that, Mr. Algeo provoked - in 2007 and 2008 - an unprecedented electoral and institutional crisis in the Adyar Society, during which he was challenging Mrs. Burnier’s leadership with methods and arguments considered by many as fraudulent and disrespectful.
3) Authentic Academic Work
A third group of editorial trends correspond to the work of independent researchers and university-oriented editors who do not slander the founders, nor show disrespect for truth but, on the contrary, generally help the Movement and its Cause, broadly defined.
They are easy enough to recognize. They do not have always a clear vision of what is theosophy and what is pseudo-theosophy. Yet they do seem to instinctively stay away from pseudo-theosophy in its more aggressive expressions. They also avoid its ritualistic traps and illusions. They typically make useful research on the history of the movement, and thus provide students of true theosophy with elements of information for a renewed effort along 21st century.
4) Editors of the Original Theosophy
One should not forget that the Adyar Society has published in a correct way a great deal of books belonging to the original theosophy.
The next group of editorial trends includes authors and editors related in various ways to the Adyar Society, to the Pasadena Society, the United Lodge of Theosophists, the Edmonton Theosophical Society in Canada , the Point Loma groups in several countries, the Fundación Blavatsky in Mexico
5) The Activist Trend in Original Theosophy
There is an enriching difference in editorial procedures between two main groups of editors, both linked to the original teachings of Theosophy.
Besides Group 4, we find H.P. Blavatsky using the words “militant” and “combative” to define what we are classifying in the present article as Group 5.
It may be useful to remember that according to the Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English language (1989 edition), the first definition of the word “militant” does not refer to violence. Instead, the meaning of the word is:
“Vigorously active, aggressive, or combative; a militant group of reformers.”
This is one characteristic of Group 5 as opposed to Group 4. The creative contrast between these two editorial trends does grant an extra amount of strength and dynamism to the theosophical movement. The relation between the two lines is discussed by H.P.B. in a 1887 letter to William Q. Judge. She opens the text with the words “My dearest W.Q.J.”, and then goes on to describe the difference in editorial lines between “Path” magazine, then published from New York by Judge, and “Lucifer” magazine, then published from London
“I will force people to subscribe for Path & this will never hurt Lucifer. One is the fighting combative Manas - the other (Path) is pure Buddhi. Can’t both be united in an offensive & defensive alliance in one or Sthula Sharira - theosophy? Lucifer will be Theosophy militant - “Path” the shining light, the Star of Peace. If your intuition does not whisper to you - it is so: then that intuition must be wool-gathering. No Sir, the “Path” is too well, too theosophically edited for me to interfere. I am not born for meek & conciliating literature!” [3]
Of course, the “fighting combative Manas” H.P.B. writes about is but the expression of a Flame coming from the Star, or Atma. Such a fire burns illusions as much as it enlightens that which is valuable. It is Atma-Manas, and it cannot work otherwise, for no one can seriously adopt both wisdom and illusions. This one White Light is probably related also to H.P.B.’s own main source of spiritual inspiration -; a source which, as we can see by studying “The Mahatma Letters”, does not put diplomacy first in its agenda.
The alliance between Group 4 and Group 5 is then a long term, stable and strategic factor. At its root, it is also the alliance between Atma-Buddhi (Group 4) and Atma-Buddhi-Manas (Group 5).
These two trends of editorial action have remained alive since 1875. The almost unknown theosophist J. Garrigues brilliantly expressed one line of action in Group 5 , up to the first half of the 1940s. In the present century, the editors of “The Aquarian Theosophist” have in more than one occasion followed the same path, since this electronic magazine was founded in November 2000. These two are certainly not the only examples of such an editorial view, which was created by H.P.B. and the Mahatmas in the period 1875-1891.[4]
In her text “The Original Programme of the Theosophical Society”, also known as “The Organization of the Theosophical Society”, H.P.B. wrote about four main objectives of the movement, as they were stated by her own “Master and Teacher”. She concludes her description of the fourth object by saying:
“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.” [5]
It is important to see, then, that this approach to the movement’s Mission
“Sincerity is true wisdom, it appears, only to the mind of the moral philosopher. It is rudeness and insult to him who regards dissimulation and deceit as culture and politeness, and holds that the shortest, easiest and safest way to success is to let sleeping dogs and old customs alone.” [6]
As we know, sincerity is one the qualities whose importance is decisive. And differences must not to be wiped out artificially, if students are to remain sincere.
The true theosophical movement welcomes enriching differences among its workers. Since it invites all to implement self-devised efforts, it follows that outer differences constitute an inevitable and fundamentally positive factor along the path.
How to face outer contrast and contradiction in a correct way? A popular saying in Brazil
Some students are closer to H.P.B.’s editorial line. Others may prefer to avoid confronting errors. The two trends are in close unity, as Robert Crosbie knew and taught. He expressed the inner harmony between the combative Buddhi and the non-combative Buddhi with these words:
“We need only Loyalty - loyalty to the work, loyalty to our convictions, loyalty to each other in full faith and confidence that each is a part of the other and of all. So shall we be united in one thought, one will, one feeling. This does not mean indiscriminate acceptance of everything and everyone. The attitude of ‘namby-pambyism’ is but a pseudo-tolerance. Carried to its legitimate conclusion, this false idea of ‘brotherhood’ would signify that sin, sorrow, suffering, error, all religions and all philosophies are all right; that every body is doing the best he can, and the best he knows how to do, and cannot do any different, and that all are steps of learning.”
And Crosbie went on:
“Humanity sins, sorrows, suffers and dies a thousand deaths; because of what? Just IGNORANCE. Theosophy is TRUTH and as such can have no alliance with any form of error and remain Truth. If partial philosophies could save the world there would be no need for the sacrifices of the Masters. For those who never knew Theosophy, or whose minds are so crooked in action that they cannot receive it, there should be pity and compassion. But pity and consideration for their false positions cannot call for a surrender of our discrimination - for a surrender of what we know, and of what it is our purpose to live and to know. I am no believer in diluted Theosophy. The Masters did not dilute it. We either carry on Their work or we do not; there is no need for hypocrisy nor self-deception. Others in the world, not able to perceive the Oneness of Theosophy, nor its bearing at the present time, may and do use portions of it - some of them, it is to be feared, to their own condemnation and the further bewilderment of mankind. Are they right, or to be praised or ‘tolerated’? Is it not the bounden duty of those who know, to hold aloft the White Standard of Truth? It must be so, else how could an enquiring one perceive it? Theosophy has to be held aloft in such a way as to confront errors of every kind, with their handmaidens of cant and hypocrisy.” [7]
This viewpoint must be a guiding light for the theosophical movement, in the present century and in the future ones.
NOTES:
[1] “Defending the Old Lady”, by Carlos Cardoso Aveline, an article first published at “Fohat” magazine, Canada, Winter 2004 edition, pp. 79-82 and 95 and later at “The Aquarian Theosophist”, September 2005, pp. 1-9. It can also be easily found in www.esoteric-philosophy.com and www.filosofiaesoterica.com.
[2] “The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett”, TUP edition, 1992, Letter LXXXVI, page 405, lower half of the page. In the 1972 Adyar edition of t he Mahatma Letters, see p. 399. In the Philippines TPH, 1993, Chronological edition, it is the Letter 119, p. 408.
[3] “Theosophical History” magazine, volume V, number 7, July 1995, p. 222.
[4] See the article “Theosophical Journals According to the Mahatmas”, by Carlos Cardoso Aveline. It can be found at www.esoteric-philosophy.com and www.filosofiaesoterica.com (section “Theosophical Movement”). The article was first published by “Insight” - the magazine of the Adyar Theosophical Society in England Canada London
[5] “The Organization of the Theosophical Society”, Helena P. Blavatsky, in “Theosophical Articles”, a three volume compilation of her short texts, published by Theosophy Co., Los Angeles, 1981. See volume I, 512 pp., p. 223. The text was published by “The Theosophist” magazine, Adyar , India
[6] “To the Readers of Lucifer”, an article by H.P. Blavatsky, in “Theosophical Articles”, Theosophy Co., Los Angeles, volume I, 512 pp., 1981, p. 279. The word “Lucifer” means “The Light Bearer” and refers to the “Morning Star”, Venus. It was distorted by ignorant and superstitious theologians of the Middle Ages.
[7] “The Friendly Philosopher”, Robert Crosbie, Theosophy Co., 416 pp., 1945, pp. 11-12.
00000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
If you want to have access to a daily study of the original teachings of Theosophy, there is an E-Group you can join. Write to lutbr@terra.com.br, with copy to lutportugal@gmail, and ask for information on the e-group E-THEOSOPHY.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
