Am I a Theosophist?
Talk given by Ruth Lawson on 25 February
One November morning last year I awoke and found myself, quite unexpectedly, the President of the Dunedin Theosophical Society. Apart from the shock of it, one of my prevailing thoughts was…… but…… I don’t even know if I am a Theosophist? Am I a fraud!
I had attended meetings at the Society for several years and had even been secretary of the committee for a year or so but I still felt I didn’t really know if I could call myself a Theosophist.
They say that being a Theosophist is as easy as just agreeing with and trying to live the 3 Objects. I can do that. I can relate to them.
— To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour. I joined the TS because I want to share the delights, obstacles, heartaches and conundrums of my spiritual path with others. I wanted to hear what they believed and understand things from different vantage points. As for race, creed, sex, caste and colour, I am as inclusive as I can be and am learning.
— To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy, and Science. I have studied other religions and spiritual understandings as long as I became interested in these things. Perhaps even before, as I heard stories almost on my mother’s knee about my grandfather who gave up all worldly things to become a Buddhist monk in Ceylon, as it was called then, decades before Eastern religions became a common interest of Westerners.
--To investigate the unexplained Laws of Nature: I am a scientist and have always been frustrated by the rigid barriers between science and spirituality. However, I have found, through the TS that these are being eroded more and more so the two can complement and shed understanding on each other.
And the powers latent in man. I have been fascinated by and have practiced energy healing for a long time, so this is right up my street.
So I must be a Theosophist. This is easy!
But then I come to the Principle of Freedom of thought, which expressly says that every member has an equal right to follow any school of thought, and that no opinion, by whomsoever taught or held, is in any way binding on any member of the Society. And that “Not even the President-Founder ie Helena Blavatsky, has the right directly or indirectly to interfere with the freedom of thought of the humblest member, least of all to seek to influence his personal opinion”.
This has come to be at the heart of what I see as being a Theosophist. Freedom of thought means freedom to have your own thoughts and wholeheartedly allowing others to have theirs. What are your thoughts? Are you free to have them? Where do they come from? Surely many come from your family, education, religion and the culture in which you live? If you examine them would you still freely have those same thoughts or are they just habits of thought? Do you feel it would be too dangerous to have your own thoughts? Of course in many countries and cultures it most certainly is. Would your family, friends or the society in which you live reject you if you really and truly had your own thoughts ….. If I look at my thoughts, assumptions and habits and allow myself to examine whether I truly think this or that, would I continue to live the way I do? Would I think and do something different if I was totally true to myself? That is what is hard and is a continual journey of uncovering, facing up to and sinking more deeply into my true self.
Does having the freedom to have your own thoughts also imply you are totally free to express them in what you say and how you live? I am still thinking about that one. I reflect on where my freedom to express my own thoughts and opinions, impinges on the freedoms of others to express themselves. I reflect on how free one should be to criticise, offend, upset or belittle others and their opinions. I am in favour of rigorous debate, but in a society such as ours in Dunedin, not everyone is made of the resilient “stern” stuff that is necessary for this, and this is certainly not what everyone wants to have to gird themselves for when they come to a Wednesday public meeting! To me freedom of speech must always be tempered by respect. Perhaps this is the topic for another Wednesday public meeting.
Even harder for me is the corollary that I must allow everyone else freedom of thought too! On the surface this doesn’t look too hard, but let me tell you becoming president has really shone the spot light on this one for me. It has been a three month intensive! I have learnt not to prejudge a situation or opinion, I have learned that I may think I know all the facts but, by golly, you can never do that, and an additional piece of information can just turn the whole issue on its head. I have learned that not only is everyone else’s opinion valid but also somehow I must take it into account with every decision I make. No wonder dictatorship is such a tempting option… for some! Learning tolerance is an ongoing lesson. I am still learning how to listen to everyone’s opinion with an open mind and heart, even if I do not agree, even if they are criticising me, or something or someone I hold dear. I am still learning how to listen and be tolerant of others intolerance without getting upset! In terms of the spiritual path I am continuing to be taught that there is no right or wrong, no fast or slow, no further along or just beginning. Everyone is absolutely where they are meant to be and I do not know how to do what they are doing any more than they do. I am no more wise than anyone else. I cannot advise or make decisions for anyone else. Yes, it easy to say, but living this with absolute conviction and total respect for others is what is hard.
So perhaps I can sit back and say “Yes, I am a Theosophist”. But No! I hear people say or imply that you cannot be a Theosophist unless you believe in and follow the Theosophical founders, particularly Helena Blavatsky.
When I started on this journey of thinking about this talk I knew very little about Helena Blavatsky, often known by her initials HPB, one of the Founders of the TS. So I have been doing a bit of intensive research and for others who may also be a little ignorant, I will give you a very short summary of her life.
She was born in 1831 in what is now the Ukraine but was then part of Russia, to an aristocratic family. She married General Blavatsky at 17 but the marriage only lasted 3 weeks. After that she spent many years travelling the world searching out teachers and esoteric teachings. If her accounts can be believed, she was the most well-travelled lady of her time. In addition to European Countries she visited Turkey, Egypt, North America, Mexico, West Indies, India, Burma, Japan and even Tibet which was dangerous and closed to Europeans at the time.
According to her accounts HPB spent time learning from among others, a Tatar shaman, a Coptic magician, studying the Kabbalah with a rabbi, Mahayana Buddhism at a Tibetan monastery, and the Druze religion.
Her main guide through her life was Morya, a Hindu who first appeared to her in visions as a child and whom she then met in person several times. He had advanced powers of clairvoyance, clairaudience, telepathy, the ability to control another's consciousness, to dematerialize and rematerialize physical objects, and to project his astral bodies, thus giving the appearance of being in two places at once. With his friend, Master Koot Hoomi (also spelled Kuthumi) a Tibetan Buddhist, they taught HPB to develop and control her own psychic powers. Other Masters that guided her were Hilarion and Serapis Bey. These are the Masters, Adepts or Mahatmas (“Great Souls”) who advised her through her life.
Arriving in N. York in 1873 almost penniless, she made her living sewing and designing advertising cards, but also as a medium, and soon met Henry Olcott a lawyer, who was fascinated by her psychic abilities. She could apparently read minds and travel astrally and like Edgar Cayce could read Akashic records.
They soon became close friends, and began living together, whether as man and wife is still in debate. He wrote about her in various popular newspapers and magazines and was probably her most loyal friend over the years. Together with the Irish spiritualist, William Judge, they founded the TS in 1875. At the time someone described it as: "a very wide umbrella, under which quite a few things could find a place".
In order to clarify what the TS was about he wrote her first major opus Isis Revealed, in 1877. Despite being a major tome of 1,300 pages, filled with complex spiritual ideas, and attracting negative mainstream press reviews, it was such a commercial success that its initial print run of 1,000 copies sold out in a week. During the writing of it HPB says what seemed like a second consciousness within her inspired her. In it she quoted extensively from esoteric and religious texts, many of which it seems unlikely she had access to. She was either remembering them from earlier readings or, as she claimed later, the information was acquired by reading her sources clairvoyantly. Nevertheless, the book represented an original synthesis that connected disparate ideas not brought together before, with its central theme being that all the world's religions stemmed from a single "Ancient Wisdom".
In 1878 she and Olcott left the USA for India where they set up TS centres throughout the country and by 1885, 106 lodges had been established in India, Burma, and Ceylon. An estate in Adyar also purchased which is today the international headquarters of the TS. In India they published the first edition of the Theosophist and what became known as the Mahatma Letters, which HPB claimed were written by the Mahatmas, Koot Hoomi and Morya.
Physical copies of the letters would materialise in unusual places, and since their publication, there has been much debate as to their authenticity, whether they were for real or stage managed to impress. She was hounded by the press who made up fantastic claims about her and attitudes toward her were typically polarized into extreme camps, one uncritically idolizing her as a holy guru and the other expressing complete disdain for her as a fraud. She was accused many times of charlatanism and the British Society for Psychic Research regarded her as an imposter. A verdict that wounded her almost mortally.
This blow combined with serious infighting at Adyar and declining health led to her departure from India to return to Europe where she worked on The Secret Doctrine, the huge tome of 1,500 pages, she is probably best known for. In it she outlined her ideas about how the universe, the planets, and the human species came to exist, and discussed her views on the human soul and the afterlife. Three years after its publication she contracted flu and died in Annie Besant’s house in North London. The date, 8th May 1891, is now recognised as White Lotus Day by the TS.
As a woman, Helena Blavatsky was an impressive figure with the piercing azure eyes so evident even in black and white photos of her. She was probably what we would now term obese and wore outlandish sack-like dresses. She ate irregularly and when she did, ate enormous quantities. She never took any exercise and was a chain smoker of roll your own cigarettes, but lived simply and refused to take payment for her teachings.
In character, HPB has been described as complex, eccentric, determined, energetic, charismatic, impulsive, kind hearted and affectionate while prone to explode in anger. She was remarkably courageous and independent in both thought and action at a time when women’s lives and freedoms were severely restricted. She was motivated above all else, it seems, to find her own spiritual truth and travelled the world searching for wisdom and higher teachings from many of the spiritual masters of the time. She de-emphasized the importance of gender and allowed women to take on spiritual leadership equal to that of men. She brought the knowledge of Eastern religion and philosophy to the West and contributed in no small way to the New Age movement. Her charismatic leadership and uncompromising promotion created and defined the Theosophical movement in the nineteenth century.
Despite her eccentricity, the controversy she generated and the doubts about the genuineness of her psychic abilities, what cannot be denied is the profound wisdom and truth of much that she wrote. Her words shine like a clear beacon for many. She has even been described as among the most original, visionary and perceptive minds of her time.
The fundamental concept behind the teachings she disseminated was that there was an "ancient wisdom religion" which had once been found across the world, and which was known to various ancient figures, such as the Greek philosopher Plato and the ancient Hindu sages. It was passed down the ages by oral tradition as we see Indian pundits even now, memorising, chanting and passing down the Vedas. All religions have developed from this original global faith.
This ancient wisdom religion proposes that there is an underlying, indivisible Truth, sometimes called the Absolute, from which everything in the Universe arises. It emphasises that everything in the universe is illusion or maya and that everything is conscious. It notes a universal law of periodicity or evolution through cyclic change and the “law of correspondences" or “as above so below”. It sees the individual soul as part of a Universal over-soul that has an obligatory evolutionary pilgrimage from one incarnation to the next, governed by karmic law.
I don’t know what the value is in commenting on a person who died over a century ago but perhaps in the spirit of this talk I suppose I ought to address the issue of whether or not I believe in Mme Blavatsky. I presume what this means is what do I think of her as a woman, do I believe she had the seemingly amazing psychic powers she claimed and others reported and do I believe in her teachings.
I have to say I have enormous admiration for her as a woman. She was so single minded, so independent, so clear sighted, so inspired, so courageous and so indefatigable. Although, I would have loved to hear her speak I wonder, if as a contemporary, I would have become a dedicated follower. I think her eccentricity, the drama and controversy around her might have put me off. On the other hand my hunger for the amazing new knowledge she was bringing forth might have eclipsed all other reservations. I do wonder if I would have had the courage to stare into those penetrating eyes. Even from the black and white photos I get the feeling she would have been be able to see right into my soul. Even from this time distance they make me feel uncomfortable.
I have no problem believing that Masters, Mahatmas or Adepts exist, as I know great men and women have and do walk the Earth and exist in nonphysical realms. I have seen ghosts and regularly talk with angels. I have seen some of my past lives. I know it is possible to train our eyes to see beyond the physical, as at times I can see vague auras, so clairvoyance seems just an extension of this. I have been impressed by the knowledge available to mediums, and I have listened to channellers, so receiving messages from Masters that are not physically present does not seem so unlikely. Having them appear in front of me as many report happened when in the company of HPB, also seems quite possible. Through the ages many have reported such phenomena. Angels were always appearing to people in the Bible, and we take it for granted that this was commonplace in ancient times. Why not today? As for seeing writings and manuscripts from afar, how is that different from the remote viewing carried out by the US army that we studied last year in the Study group?
My concern would not be with whether these phenomena happen or happened but with the quality of the message, for I know that such messages must be treated with extreme caution and discrimination. Today you can go on the net and see any number of messages purporting to be from angel this and archangel that, from Jeshua, from Lady Gaia and from commanders of huge space ships that are supposedly parked up behind the sun just waiting to rescue us all when all turns to custard down here. Just because a message comes from someone distant or out of body, it does not mean it is necessarily true or wise, yet alone for the highest good of all. The quality of the message depends on the level of consciousness of both the subject and the receiver. Discerning the value of such messages is such a delicate and personal thing, and relies on tuning in to one’s heart and one’s highest intuitions. Messages and channels I once thought were true and pure, now I have grown somewhat in spiritual understanding, I now see are subtly coloured by ego or not for the highest good. So do HPBs teachings come from the highest place? I would not know. Was she genuine or was she a fraud? Similarly, how can one tell from this distance? What I suspect is that when genuine psychic powers become used in public performances they often become unreliable or even fail altogether and the practitioner may be tempted to rely on deception and magicians’ tricks to uphold their reputation.
As for the teachings HPB brought through, as I have summarised them tonight, I have absolutely no problem with them. They seem similar to the Vedic teachings I absorbed when I was practising TM over many years and hearing many, many hours of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi discussing Vedic Science.
Nevertheless, I have read little of HPBs original writings and will have to see whether I am now inspired to follow up my rather superficial research for this talk with more in depth reading.
One lesson I do take from HPB’s life is that she single mindedly and independently trod her own spiritual path. She searched for her own teachings and wisdom. She had her own Masters just as I have my own personal Masters and lights that guides my path. What I can do is take HB as a role model showing me that everyone can discern their own light on the path and follow it with courage and passion, but there is no way I have to make her path my own or follow her teachings (or anyone else’s) unless they speak to the highest part of myself.
What does concern me somewhat is a possible unspoken pressure, assumption or expectation within the TS, probably more so up North than in Dunedin, to re-define one’s spirituality with reference to Theosophy. The danger is that once one has joined an organisation and have become committed to it, one becomes increasingly cut off from other perspectives and points of view and the uncritical acceptance of assumptions and dogma can occur almost as if by osmosis. My experience of Christian organisations and new Age Guru led spiritual movements has led me to be very wary and suspicious of a sort of creeping capture by the organisation and its dogma. A kind of guilt or shame can also set in that makes it difficult to admit to doubts or differences with the organisation’s accepted beliefs.
Of course for many organisations this is an explicit objective, as they are convinced of the superiority of their own world or spiritual perspective. I think the TS is different from this, at least in Dunedin. I have never felt, until recently, any pressure either explicit or covert, to follow any particular spiritual dogma, philosophy or Master. I have felt free to follow my own path. This is how it should be, of course. One’s spirituality and the path one takes is entirely personal and individual. For me it is the most profound, most personal, most sacred part of being human. It comes from my deepest intuitions, convictions and values. I can only follow them by being completely free. I can read or hear the experiences and wisdom of others, in fact, I search for them, but it is entirely up to me whether I accept, reject or put them aside for future consideration. Once I commit myself to some “branded” movement and accept their dogma and assumptions, I am giving up one of the most precious qualities of my human existence, my own sovereignty, my own freedom. To me the TS is the only spiritual organisation I know, that I can join, yet still be free to follow my own star. This freedom must be encouraged, defended and celebrated. It is so precious.
So we come back to the question. Am I a Theosophist? The principle of freedom of thought means I don’t need to believe HPB had anything significant to say if I don’t want to, I don’t need to believe she was a clairvoyant who could read distant texts, I don’t need to believe even that such a thing as Adepts or Masters actually exist and that she had a trunk line to them and that the messages they gave her have any truth or relevance. Even HPB wrote that it is a duty "to oppose in the strongest manner possible anything approaching dogmatic faith and fanaticism; belief in infallibility of the masters or even in the very existence of our invisible teachers... "
I don’t need to undergo training, apprentice myself to a teacher, sit an exam, sign a pledge, adhere to a dogma or doctrine or forgo all other ways of thinking to be a Theosophist. I do not need to sit in front of a panel of elders who decide whether or not I come up to scratch. All I have to do is decide that a Theosophist is what I want to be. I can even call myself one without joining the TS or paying my sub, I believe, for it is only I who can say whether I am or am not a Theosophist.
The only specific requirement for membership is that I accept the 3 objects. Particularly I must support the idea of the formation of a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, irrespective of any dogma, creed, religious belief or opinion. The word brotherhood is the important one here (although I would like to change it to something more inclusive of both sexes). It implies that what we are working together to create, is an atmosphere of inclusion, acceptance, valuing, freedom and caring about each other.
The purpose of this brotherhood is then to encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science and to investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man.
So if you want to get together to explore the meaning of the life and the reality of the world beyond your physical senses, if you are interested in learning how to heal yourself, others and the planet, if you are learning how to open your heart, if you are committed to living as a conscious being, if you are intent on raising your vibration, or developing your psychic powers, or looking more deeply into your own spirituality or religion. If you want to share your ideas about crop circles, UFOs and ancient civilisations. Like me you too are a Theosophist. As HPB herself said “all real lovers of divine wisdom and truth had, and have, the right to the name of Theosophist”. Being a Theosophist is a statement of intention not a destination. Hello fellow Theosophists!
Talk given by Ruth Lawson on 25 February
One November morning last year I awoke and found myself, quite unexpectedly, the President of the Dunedin Theosophical Society. Apart from the shock of it, one of my prevailing thoughts was…… but…… I don’t even know if I am a Theosophist? Am I a fraud!
I had attended meetings at the Society for several years and had even been secretary of the committee for a year or so but I still felt I didn’t really know if I could call myself a Theosophist.
They say that being a Theosophist is as easy as just agreeing with and trying to live the 3 Objects. I can do that. I can relate to them.
— To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour. I joined the TS because I want to share the delights, obstacles, heartaches and conundrums of my spiritual path with others. I wanted to hear what they believed and understand things from different vantage points. As for race, creed, sex, caste and colour, I am as inclusive as I can be and am learning.
— To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy, and Science. I have studied other religions and spiritual understandings as long as I became interested in these things. Perhaps even before, as I heard stories almost on my mother’s knee about my grandfather who gave up all worldly things to become a Buddhist monk in Ceylon, as it was called then, decades before Eastern religions became a common interest of Westerners.
--To investigate the unexplained Laws of Nature: I am a scientist and have always been frustrated by the rigid barriers between science and spirituality. However, I have found, through the TS that these are being eroded more and more so the two can complement and shed understanding on each other.
And the powers latent in man. I have been fascinated by and have practiced energy healing for a long time, so this is right up my street.
So I must be a Theosophist. This is easy!
But then I come to the Principle of Freedom of thought, which expressly says that every member has an equal right to follow any school of thought, and that no opinion, by whomsoever taught or held, is in any way binding on any member of the Society. And that “Not even the President-Founder ie Helena Blavatsky, has the right directly or indirectly to interfere with the freedom of thought of the humblest member, least of all to seek to influence his personal opinion”.
This has come to be at the heart of what I see as being a Theosophist. Freedom of thought means freedom to have your own thoughts and wholeheartedly allowing others to have theirs. What are your thoughts? Are you free to have them? Where do they come from? Surely many come from your family, education, religion and the culture in which you live? If you examine them would you still freely have those same thoughts or are they just habits of thought? Do you feel it would be too dangerous to have your own thoughts? Of course in many countries and cultures it most certainly is. Would your family, friends or the society in which you live reject you if you really and truly had your own thoughts ….. If I look at my thoughts, assumptions and habits and allow myself to examine whether I truly think this or that, would I continue to live the way I do? Would I think and do something different if I was totally true to myself? That is what is hard and is a continual journey of uncovering, facing up to and sinking more deeply into my true self.
Does having the freedom to have your own thoughts also imply you are totally free to express them in what you say and how you live? I am still thinking about that one. I reflect on where my freedom to express my own thoughts and opinions, impinges on the freedoms of others to express themselves. I reflect on how free one should be to criticise, offend, upset or belittle others and their opinions. I am in favour of rigorous debate, but in a society such as ours in Dunedin, not everyone is made of the resilient “stern” stuff that is necessary for this, and this is certainly not what everyone wants to have to gird themselves for when they come to a Wednesday public meeting! To me freedom of speech must always be tempered by respect. Perhaps this is the topic for another Wednesday public meeting.
Even harder for me is the corollary that I must allow everyone else freedom of thought too! On the surface this doesn’t look too hard, but let me tell you becoming president has really shone the spot light on this one for me. It has been a three month intensive! I have learnt not to prejudge a situation or opinion, I have learned that I may think I know all the facts but, by golly, you can never do that, and an additional piece of information can just turn the whole issue on its head. I have learned that not only is everyone else’s opinion valid but also somehow I must take it into account with every decision I make. No wonder dictatorship is such a tempting option… for some! Learning tolerance is an ongoing lesson. I am still learning how to listen to everyone’s opinion with an open mind and heart, even if I do not agree, even if they are criticising me, or something or someone I hold dear. I am still learning how to listen and be tolerant of others intolerance without getting upset! In terms of the spiritual path I am continuing to be taught that there is no right or wrong, no fast or slow, no further along or just beginning. Everyone is absolutely where they are meant to be and I do not know how to do what they are doing any more than they do. I am no more wise than anyone else. I cannot advise or make decisions for anyone else. Yes, it easy to say, but living this with absolute conviction and total respect for others is what is hard.
So perhaps I can sit back and say “Yes, I am a Theosophist”. But No! I hear people say or imply that you cannot be a Theosophist unless you believe in and follow the Theosophical founders, particularly Helena Blavatsky.
When I started on this journey of thinking about this talk I knew very little about Helena Blavatsky, often known by her initials HPB, one of the Founders of the TS. So I have been doing a bit of intensive research and for others who may also be a little ignorant, I will give you a very short summary of her life.
She was born in 1831 in what is now the Ukraine but was then part of Russia, to an aristocratic family. She married General Blavatsky at 17 but the marriage only lasted 3 weeks. After that she spent many years travelling the world searching out teachers and esoteric teachings. If her accounts can be believed, she was the most well-travelled lady of her time. In addition to European Countries she visited Turkey, Egypt, North America, Mexico, West Indies, India, Burma, Japan and even Tibet which was dangerous and closed to Europeans at the time.
According to her accounts HPB spent time learning from among others, a Tatar shaman, a Coptic magician, studying the Kabbalah with a rabbi, Mahayana Buddhism at a Tibetan monastery, and the Druze religion.
Her main guide through her life was Morya, a Hindu who first appeared to her in visions as a child and whom she then met in person several times. He had advanced powers of clairvoyance, clairaudience, telepathy, the ability to control another's consciousness, to dematerialize and rematerialize physical objects, and to project his astral bodies, thus giving the appearance of being in two places at once. With his friend, Master Koot Hoomi (also spelled Kuthumi) a Tibetan Buddhist, they taught HPB to develop and control her own psychic powers. Other Masters that guided her were Hilarion and Serapis Bey. These are the Masters, Adepts or Mahatmas (“Great Souls”) who advised her through her life.
Arriving in N. York in 1873 almost penniless, she made her living sewing and designing advertising cards, but also as a medium, and soon met Henry Olcott a lawyer, who was fascinated by her psychic abilities. She could apparently read minds and travel astrally and like Edgar Cayce could read Akashic records.
They soon became close friends, and began living together, whether as man and wife is still in debate. He wrote about her in various popular newspapers and magazines and was probably her most loyal friend over the years. Together with the Irish spiritualist, William Judge, they founded the TS in 1875. At the time someone described it as: "a very wide umbrella, under which quite a few things could find a place".
In order to clarify what the TS was about he wrote her first major opus Isis Revealed, in 1877. Despite being a major tome of 1,300 pages, filled with complex spiritual ideas, and attracting negative mainstream press reviews, it was such a commercial success that its initial print run of 1,000 copies sold out in a week. During the writing of it HPB says what seemed like a second consciousness within her inspired her. In it she quoted extensively from esoteric and religious texts, many of which it seems unlikely she had access to. She was either remembering them from earlier readings or, as she claimed later, the information was acquired by reading her sources clairvoyantly. Nevertheless, the book represented an original synthesis that connected disparate ideas not brought together before, with its central theme being that all the world's religions stemmed from a single "Ancient Wisdom".
In 1878 she and Olcott left the USA for India where they set up TS centres throughout the country and by 1885, 106 lodges had been established in India, Burma, and Ceylon. An estate in Adyar also purchased which is today the international headquarters of the TS. In India they published the first edition of the Theosophist and what became known as the Mahatma Letters, which HPB claimed were written by the Mahatmas, Koot Hoomi and Morya.
Physical copies of the letters would materialise in unusual places, and since their publication, there has been much debate as to their authenticity, whether they were for real or stage managed to impress. She was hounded by the press who made up fantastic claims about her and attitudes toward her were typically polarized into extreme camps, one uncritically idolizing her as a holy guru and the other expressing complete disdain for her as a fraud. She was accused many times of charlatanism and the British Society for Psychic Research regarded her as an imposter. A verdict that wounded her almost mortally.
This blow combined with serious infighting at Adyar and declining health led to her departure from India to return to Europe where she worked on The Secret Doctrine, the huge tome of 1,500 pages, she is probably best known for. In it she outlined her ideas about how the universe, the planets, and the human species came to exist, and discussed her views on the human soul and the afterlife. Three years after its publication she contracted flu and died in Annie Besant’s house in North London. The date, 8th May 1891, is now recognised as White Lotus Day by the TS.
As a woman, Helena Blavatsky was an impressive figure with the piercing azure eyes so evident even in black and white photos of her. She was probably what we would now term obese and wore outlandish sack-like dresses. She ate irregularly and when she did, ate enormous quantities. She never took any exercise and was a chain smoker of roll your own cigarettes, but lived simply and refused to take payment for her teachings.
In character, HPB has been described as complex, eccentric, determined, energetic, charismatic, impulsive, kind hearted and affectionate while prone to explode in anger. She was remarkably courageous and independent in both thought and action at a time when women’s lives and freedoms were severely restricted. She was motivated above all else, it seems, to find her own spiritual truth and travelled the world searching for wisdom and higher teachings from many of the spiritual masters of the time. She de-emphasized the importance of gender and allowed women to take on spiritual leadership equal to that of men. She brought the knowledge of Eastern religion and philosophy to the West and contributed in no small way to the New Age movement. Her charismatic leadership and uncompromising promotion created and defined the Theosophical movement in the nineteenth century.
Despite her eccentricity, the controversy she generated and the doubts about the genuineness of her psychic abilities, what cannot be denied is the profound wisdom and truth of much that she wrote. Her words shine like a clear beacon for many. She has even been described as among the most original, visionary and perceptive minds of her time.
The fundamental concept behind the teachings she disseminated was that there was an "ancient wisdom religion" which had once been found across the world, and which was known to various ancient figures, such as the Greek philosopher Plato and the ancient Hindu sages. It was passed down the ages by oral tradition as we see Indian pundits even now, memorising, chanting and passing down the Vedas. All religions have developed from this original global faith.
This ancient wisdom religion proposes that there is an underlying, indivisible Truth, sometimes called the Absolute, from which everything in the Universe arises. It emphasises that everything in the universe is illusion or maya and that everything is conscious. It notes a universal law of periodicity or evolution through cyclic change and the “law of correspondences" or “as above so below”. It sees the individual soul as part of a Universal over-soul that has an obligatory evolutionary pilgrimage from one incarnation to the next, governed by karmic law.
I don’t know what the value is in commenting on a person who died over a century ago but perhaps in the spirit of this talk I suppose I ought to address the issue of whether or not I believe in Mme Blavatsky. I presume what this means is what do I think of her as a woman, do I believe she had the seemingly amazing psychic powers she claimed and others reported and do I believe in her teachings.
I have to say I have enormous admiration for her as a woman. She was so single minded, so independent, so clear sighted, so inspired, so courageous and so indefatigable. Although, I would have loved to hear her speak I wonder, if as a contemporary, I would have become a dedicated follower. I think her eccentricity, the drama and controversy around her might have put me off. On the other hand my hunger for the amazing new knowledge she was bringing forth might have eclipsed all other reservations. I do wonder if I would have had the courage to stare into those penetrating eyes. Even from the black and white photos I get the feeling she would have been be able to see right into my soul. Even from this time distance they make me feel uncomfortable.
I have no problem believing that Masters, Mahatmas or Adepts exist, as I know great men and women have and do walk the Earth and exist in nonphysical realms. I have seen ghosts and regularly talk with angels. I have seen some of my past lives. I know it is possible to train our eyes to see beyond the physical, as at times I can see vague auras, so clairvoyance seems just an extension of this. I have been impressed by the knowledge available to mediums, and I have listened to channellers, so receiving messages from Masters that are not physically present does not seem so unlikely. Having them appear in front of me as many report happened when in the company of HPB, also seems quite possible. Through the ages many have reported such phenomena. Angels were always appearing to people in the Bible, and we take it for granted that this was commonplace in ancient times. Why not today? As for seeing writings and manuscripts from afar, how is that different from the remote viewing carried out by the US army that we studied last year in the Study group?
My concern would not be with whether these phenomena happen or happened but with the quality of the message, for I know that such messages must be treated with extreme caution and discrimination. Today you can go on the net and see any number of messages purporting to be from angel this and archangel that, from Jeshua, from Lady Gaia and from commanders of huge space ships that are supposedly parked up behind the sun just waiting to rescue us all when all turns to custard down here. Just because a message comes from someone distant or out of body, it does not mean it is necessarily true or wise, yet alone for the highest good of all. The quality of the message depends on the level of consciousness of both the subject and the receiver. Discerning the value of such messages is such a delicate and personal thing, and relies on tuning in to one’s heart and one’s highest intuitions. Messages and channels I once thought were true and pure, now I have grown somewhat in spiritual understanding, I now see are subtly coloured by ego or not for the highest good. So do HPBs teachings come from the highest place? I would not know. Was she genuine or was she a fraud? Similarly, how can one tell from this distance? What I suspect is that when genuine psychic powers become used in public performances they often become unreliable or even fail altogether and the practitioner may be tempted to rely on deception and magicians’ tricks to uphold their reputation.
As for the teachings HPB brought through, as I have summarised them tonight, I have absolutely no problem with them. They seem similar to the Vedic teachings I absorbed when I was practising TM over many years and hearing many, many hours of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi discussing Vedic Science.
Nevertheless, I have read little of HPBs original writings and will have to see whether I am now inspired to follow up my rather superficial research for this talk with more in depth reading.
One lesson I do take from HPB’s life is that she single mindedly and independently trod her own spiritual path. She searched for her own teachings and wisdom. She had her own Masters just as I have my own personal Masters and lights that guides my path. What I can do is take HB as a role model showing me that everyone can discern their own light on the path and follow it with courage and passion, but there is no way I have to make her path my own or follow her teachings (or anyone else’s) unless they speak to the highest part of myself.
What does concern me somewhat is a possible unspoken pressure, assumption or expectation within the TS, probably more so up North than in Dunedin, to re-define one’s spirituality with reference to Theosophy. The danger is that once one has joined an organisation and have become committed to it, one becomes increasingly cut off from other perspectives and points of view and the uncritical acceptance of assumptions and dogma can occur almost as if by osmosis. My experience of Christian organisations and new Age Guru led spiritual movements has led me to be very wary and suspicious of a sort of creeping capture by the organisation and its dogma. A kind of guilt or shame can also set in that makes it difficult to admit to doubts or differences with the organisation’s accepted beliefs.
Of course for many organisations this is an explicit objective, as they are convinced of the superiority of their own world or spiritual perspective. I think the TS is different from this, at least in Dunedin. I have never felt, until recently, any pressure either explicit or covert, to follow any particular spiritual dogma, philosophy or Master. I have felt free to follow my own path. This is how it should be, of course. One’s spirituality and the path one takes is entirely personal and individual. For me it is the most profound, most personal, most sacred part of being human. It comes from my deepest intuitions, convictions and values. I can only follow them by being completely free. I can read or hear the experiences and wisdom of others, in fact, I search for them, but it is entirely up to me whether I accept, reject or put them aside for future consideration. Once I commit myself to some “branded” movement and accept their dogma and assumptions, I am giving up one of the most precious qualities of my human existence, my own sovereignty, my own freedom. To me the TS is the only spiritual organisation I know, that I can join, yet still be free to follow my own star. This freedom must be encouraged, defended and celebrated. It is so precious.
So we come back to the question. Am I a Theosophist? The principle of freedom of thought means I don’t need to believe HPB had anything significant to say if I don’t want to, I don’t need to believe she was a clairvoyant who could read distant texts, I don’t need to believe even that such a thing as Adepts or Masters actually exist and that she had a trunk line to them and that the messages they gave her have any truth or relevance. Even HPB wrote that it is a duty "to oppose in the strongest manner possible anything approaching dogmatic faith and fanaticism; belief in infallibility of the masters or even in the very existence of our invisible teachers... "
I don’t need to undergo training, apprentice myself to a teacher, sit an exam, sign a pledge, adhere to a dogma or doctrine or forgo all other ways of thinking to be a Theosophist. I do not need to sit in front of a panel of elders who decide whether or not I come up to scratch. All I have to do is decide that a Theosophist is what I want to be. I can even call myself one without joining the TS or paying my sub, I believe, for it is only I who can say whether I am or am not a Theosophist.
The only specific requirement for membership is that I accept the 3 objects. Particularly I must support the idea of the formation of a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, irrespective of any dogma, creed, religious belief or opinion. The word brotherhood is the important one here (although I would like to change it to something more inclusive of both sexes). It implies that what we are working together to create, is an atmosphere of inclusion, acceptance, valuing, freedom and caring about each other.
The purpose of this brotherhood is then to encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science and to investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man.
So if you want to get together to explore the meaning of the life and the reality of the world beyond your physical senses, if you are interested in learning how to heal yourself, others and the planet, if you are learning how to open your heart, if you are committed to living as a conscious being, if you are intent on raising your vibration, or developing your psychic powers, or looking more deeply into your own spirituality or religion. If you want to share your ideas about crop circles, UFOs and ancient civilisations. Like me you too are a Theosophist. As HPB herself said “all real lovers of divine wisdom and truth had, and have, the right to the name of Theosophist”. Being a Theosophist is a statement of intention not a destination. Hello fellow Theosophists!
