# Isis Very Much Unveiled/Part 2

PART II.
“THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE.”
LETTERS ON VARIOUS SIDES FROM THEOSOPHISTS.
The foregoing chapters appeared in the Westminster Gazette, of October 29th, and nine succeeding issues. They attracted wide notice and comment, and were the subject of allusion in a large part of the London and provincial press. In accordance with their usual custom, the official Theosophists in England are said to have cabled to their leaders abroad to know what line they should take; but, if so, they do not appear to have got any clear answer.
A mass of correspondence was addressed to the Westminster Gazette, and to the author of the articles, some of it from officials, most of it from private members; some admitting that “much is, and all may be true,” others denying everything—in general terms; some throwing over the Vice-President, others lauding him as a model of Theosophic rectitude; some rejoicing (“in confidence”) at the “cleaning-out of this Augean stable of trickery,” others declaring that, proved or disproved, the charges do not matter a pin.
In regard to the repeated accusations that the assailant of the society “waited” till its three Theosophic chiefs were at a distance before challenging them on their “Enquiry,” it was pointed out that they gave nobody any chance to wait, the official Report of the Enquiry being sent round almost on the very day that Mrs. Besant sailed for Australia.
The following is a representative selection from the letters:—
I.—LETTERS FROM OFFICIALS.
FROM THE EUROPEAN SECRETARY: “DESERVING OF NO ANSWER.”
Sir,—I have forwarded the copies of your paper containing the series of articles entitled “Isis Very Much Unveiled” to my friends Colonel Olcott, Mrs. Besant, and Mr. Judge, who are respectively at their posts and carrying out their engagements in India, Australia, and the United States of America.
The mass of insinuations and misrepresentations with which these articles abound is deserving of no answer.
I enclose you a copy of the Enquiry held in July last, to which the full statements of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Judge are appended. This was months ago issued to every member of the Theosophical Society and published in full in our magazines. You can thus allow your readers to form their own opinion, instead of relying on the insinuations of your contributor, if you choose to do so.
The writer of the articles has several times made reference to a private body of students, and endeavoured to involve it in his attack. The informant of your contributor knows that he can with impunity make any allegation he likes against that body, and that, although it is in a position to give, and has already given to its own members, a denial to his allegations with regard to its council, it must, nevertheless, remain silent in public because of obligations of honour.
For the rest, of the truth or falsity of the most serious allegations I am without any knowledge, and do not propose to enter the arena of mere opinion.
But of this I am confident—that my friends Colonel Olcott, Mrs. Besant, and Mr. Judge, together with the best part of the Theosophical Society, are not only ready and glad to face any obloquy in upholding their individual ideals, but also that they are also willing to sacrifice everything for the cause they hold so dear, except the privilege of working heart and soul for its final triumph,—I am, Sir, faithfully yours,
G. R. S. Mead.
19, Avenue-road, Regent’s Park, N.W.
[The pamphlet forwarded by Mr. Mead is the so-called “Enquiry into Certain Charges,” which was the starting-point of our articles, and which was very fully dealt with in the last two of the series.—Ed. W. G.]
FROM THE VICE-PRESIDENT’S REPRESENTATIVES: “WE COULD AN IF WE WOULD.”
Sir,—You appear to have expected an immediate reply to the series of articles entitled “Isis Very Much Unveiled.” This expectation is astonishing in view of the fact that, while the three persons mainly attacked by you were together in London for some weeks this summer, you waited until Mrs. Annie Besant and Colonel Olcott are now respectively in Australia and India, and Mr. W. Q. Judge is on a lecturing tour in the United States, as your informant knows. His time for attack is well chosen, but no just measure of surprise can be felt, either that their replies—should they care to make any—are delayed, or that we should have intended originally to await the close of your series before making our present brief remarks.
Your informant holds the position held among Freemasons by a brother who has broken his Masonic pledge. Those who refuse to enter further into this subject follow the traditions of all private societies in like circumstance. Englishmen will take at its proper valuation all information on whatever subject from such a source. We beg to take distinct issue with you on the point of the minor importance of sources of information. Our whole legal system is based upon the contrary fact. Character of witnesses has primary weight with all civilised juries.
The Theosophical Society has no concern with the beliefs of its members, nor with questions of Thaumaturgy. The endeavour to spread a contrary belief, to confuse the issue by slanders, or attacks against individual members, to belittle and misrepresent the objects and work of the society, must alike fail in the face of general disproof. The society pursues its way unaffected by all such attempts.
The Committee of Investigation appointed to consider the charges made against Mr. Judge threw out the indictment on the ground that the constitution of the Theosophical Society rendered illegal all charges involving questions of creed or belief. Mr. Judge came from the United States in readiness for their investigation, and his defence had to be abandoned for the preservation of the freedom of our platform. We do not, therefore, propose to bring the case to “trial by newspaper.” As representatives respectively of the American Section of the T.S. and of the general secretary of that Section on the Committee of Investigation, we are aware of the rebuttal evidence held in readiness by Mr. Judge. He holds affidavits from persons of unblemished reputation disproving a number of the charges made then and now by you, of which evidence detail is for the present reserved for the reasons above given. We need not further emphasise the danger of conclusions formed from “plaintiff’s evidence” only.
​In conclusion, we beg to state our long acquaintance with, and our confidence in the integrity and standing of, Mr. Judge, a confidence shared, to our personal knowledge, to the fullest extent by the American Section of the T.S., as the reports of its last Convention prove. The American is the largest and the most active of our three Sections, one which not only carries on an enormous work, but which also assists the other two Sections. It is in it that Mr. Judge’s long labour and personal sacrifices have won for him the respect of the community.—Yours very truly,
30, Linden-gardens, Bayswater, W., November 6.
Archibald Keightley. James M. Pryse.
Editorial Notes appended in Westminster Gazette.
ANOTHER AVENUE ROAD OFFICIAL: “VOLUMINOUS LITERATURE” v. HARD FACTS.
Sir,—Now that you have had the only answer it is possible for the present to make in connexion with that part of your articles which professes to disclose the affairs of a secret body, I am at liberty to make some remarks on that part of them which deals with the public affairs of the Theosophical Society, if you will grant me the opportunity of reply which, as a member of an attacked society, I have the right to demand.
In spite of all implications and assertions to the contrary, I must emphatically assert it as my opinion that the majority of members of the society do not join on account of phenomena; and I regard any attempt to prove the contrary as a conscious or unconscious misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs. A large mass of the public know well by this time that the chief activity of the society consists in making known and advocating a certain system of philosophy, and that appeals are made to the judgment and intellectual sense of the people as to whether they shall accept or reject it. I do not know whether your intelligent readers will consider themselves flattered when they read your contributor’s notion of the kind of procedure that is necessary to captivate them; but I am inclined to think that most of them must have common-sense enough to prefer judging a philosophy by its own merits to accepting or rejecting it according to the evidence for and against phenomena wrought in connexion with it. However, if there be any who, indifferent to all questions of ethical and philosophical truth, choose their faith according to its thaumaturgic properties alone, the society will not be sorry to lose them, for such weak natures are a source of weakness to every body in which they enrol themselves.
While declaring here my own belief in the integrity and sincerity of the persons attacked in your articles, and regretting my inability to communicate all of that faith to others, I maintain, Sir, that Theosophy will not stand or fall by any personal scandals, whether true or false, and that the Theosophical Society wilt not cease to exist in Europe so long as there are even a few who believe as I do.
​Your contributor has sought to convey the impression that the Theosophists, or at all events those who reside at the various headquarters, live in an atmosphere of constant thaumaturgy and intrigue; ever in expectation of some new wonder, ever ready to alter their deepest convictions at a moment’s notice in accordance with some enigmatical message or some trumpery sign. I call upon those who know the society, are habitués at its meetings, or have lived at headquarters, to say whether there is a grain of truth in this, or whether, on the contrary, we are a body of earnest students, living a prosaic life, and exhausting our energies in the endeavour to place before others the truths we have found so helpful to ourselves.
Your contributor makes much of his contention that the adepts were invented by Madame Blavatsky. What does he expect to gain by this? If he can succeed in discrediting Madame Blavatsky in the eyes of a few persons, he cannot disprove the existence of adepts for them unless he is also prepared to discredit every one of the other sources of information from which the evidence for the existence of such exalted men is drawn. Madame Blavatsky has reminded the world of the reality of those beings in which the more enlightened of its denizens have always believed. Of the few who may have accepted the belief on her testimony alone I would say, better they had taken the trouble to substantiate it from other sources. Whether Madame Blavatsky invented the adepts or not, at all events I here and now advance the theory, and refer for my evidence to the Theosophical literature on the subject, which is plentiful.
Let our critics, after reading it, come forward and publicly refute us. We await their onslaught with pleasure. Many points I am obliged to leave untouched on account of the length my letter would otherwise assume; but I must just note the absolute futility of the statement that “Max Müller has edited the only series of English translations of the Sacred Books of the East with which I am acquainted,” and the complete falsity of the statement that “there is no reason to believe that any member of the society in Europe could pass an examination in any Oriental language whatever.” Let these serve as samples of the quality of the rest of the attack.
In conclusion, sir, I would call your readers’ attention to the fantastically absurd position of an opponent who hopes to discredit, by his ​so-called “exposure” of a certain group of manifestations, the whole sacred science of true magic. I maintain that such a science as magic (in its true sense) exists, that it teaches the mysteries of nature and of man, that the voice of the ages endorses it, and that it is worthy of study to-day. I am prepared to support these contentions publicly if called upon, and can meanwhile refer your readers to the voluminous literature of the subject.—Yours truly,Henry T. Edge.
19, Avenue-road, Regent’s Park, London, N.W., November 7.
II.—LETTERS FROM PROMINENT THEOSOPHISTS.
FROM MR. HERBERT BURROWS: “A REPLY WE MUST HAVE, OR I LEAVE THE SOCIETY.”
“What do you think of The Westminster Gazette articles? What are the Theosophical Society and what are its members going to do about them?” This is the question which is asked me on all hands. I recognise that not only my own personal friends but the public generally have a right to ask this question, and to expect an answer, and I have asked the permission of the Editor to give the answer from my own point of view, without in the smallest degree pledging anyone else. Without the smallest tinge of egotism, I may say that, next to Mrs. Besant, I am perhaps better known to the public generally than any other English member of the Theosophical Society. I have tried to bring a good many people into the fold of the faith, I know intimately the currents of thought inside the society, and while no one is responsible for the opinions I express, I believe that they represent the feelings of a large number of members.
The Old “Exposure” and the New.
When I read Mr. Garrett’s opening chapters, I said to myself, “Chestnuts!” We had heard it so often before. All the while Mr. Garrett was writing about the “S.P.R.” he was probably asking himself, How is it that this business did not kill the Theosophical Society? The answer is, Because it was not conclusive. When Mrs. Besant and I joined the society, apart from each other, I joining a few
MRS. ANNIE BESANT.
(From a photograph by Messrs. Elliott & Fry, Baker-street. W.)
​days before her, Madame Blavatsky said to both of us, “You had better read what there is against me,” and referred us to the Psychical Report. We read it separately, analysed it, and joined. I brought to it my Civil Service training, what business faculties I had, and a fair knowledge of the laws of evidence. I am a sceptic by nature, and I was then a materialist, and the honest conclusion that I came to was that the case for the prosecution was far too weak to warrant a conviction. That opinion I still hold. If I thought differently I should be outside the Theosophical Society instead of in it. I suppose that nine out of ten people who talk glibly about the report have never seen even the covers of it.
But I am bound to say that as Mr. Garrett went on with this newer case the situation altered. The details are too precise, and supported by too much evidence, for me honestly to escape from the conclusion that, if the facts and documents are correctly set forth, a primâ facie case has been established against Mr. Judge. “If Mr. Judge declines to answer.” Some facts in the series of articles and many of the inferences are wrong, as I shall have occasion to show; but enough is made clear to imperatively demand an answer. The charge here is, of course, of no offence known to the law; but were it otherwise, many men have been found guilty on charges which were supported by less evidence than these.
I am quite aware that a goodly number of my fellow Theosophists will blame me exceedingly for saying this, especially some of our younger members, whose moral sense seems somehow or other to have become confused over this matter. Let me put myself quite straight with them. My mind is perfectly open on the subject. I have no opinion yet one way or the other as to Mr. Judge’s conduct, for I have not heard his defence. For aught I know he may have a crushing, triumphant reply, and Mr. Garrett and Mr. Old (and with them Mrs. Besant!) may all have to go down on their knees to Mr. Judge. But that reply we must have, and as a member of the Theosophical Society, whose motto is, “There is no religion ​higher than Truth,” and who has appealed to the public to join it because I believed that it was founded on truth, and that its chief officials and leaders were upright, honourable people, I mean to use every legitimate effort to get it. If Mr. Judge declines to give it, if he refuses to come out into the open fully and squarely, or if his reply does not meet the case, then sadly and reluctantly I shall have to leave the Theosophical Society, for it will be impossible any longer to remain in an organisation whose vice-president is in such a position. An Appeal to all Honest Theosophists. Now it depends on the members of the society as to whether Mr. Judge’s reply shall be forthcoming. They can make such strong representations to him as will be impossible for him to ignore, and I hold that it is their duty to do so. Every member of the society has an indefeasible right to know what manner of man their vice-president is, and it ought to be made perfectly clear that the morality of the organisation is at least as high as that of the best commercial morality, and is not based on Jabez-Balfourism. If there is to be any talk, as there is already among some members, of “letting by-gones be by-gones—saving the situation—ignoring the attack for the sake of Theosophy, safeguarding occultism,” &c., then self-respecting members will have to protest strongly, and, if necessary, clear out. All such talk comes from mental ostriches, and in this matter ostrich-tactics won’t work. It is not a question of Mr. Judge, or of occultism, or the Theosophical Society, but what is above and beyond all these, Truth, on which Theosophy itself is based, as I firmly believe. If there is no religion higher than truth then truth must be had at all hazards. For the truth we shall have to wait, perhaps, some months. Till we get it, minds should be perfectly open and unbiassed. Only three people can give the truth—Mr. Judge, Mrs. Besant, and Colonel Olcott. As far as lies in my power I mean to see that the truth is forthcoming. The Judicial Committee of Inquiry. Over this Mr. Garrett has floundered somewhat. I was a member of it, and know the facts. When Mr. Garrett says in his ​first article that “a few people are aware … that there was recently a Theosophic meeting at which Mrs. Besant confessed to her friends that there had been something wrong with the ‘communications,’ ” and that she persuaded those assembled generally to hush the matter up, he does not know his case. This is what really happened. After Mr. Old had been some time in India he came to the conclusion that certain charges against Mr. Judge, which up to then had been vaguely floating about, were true, and he said so. In England we disbelieved them, for we had no real evidence, but when Mrs. Besant reached India, and examined the evidence, she agreed with Mr. Old. She formally adopted and formulated the charges, and the fact that she had done so immediately became known all over the world. There was no hole-and-corner work about it. An official investigation committee met, but found itself blocked by the constitutional difficulties with which your readers are now familiar. Mrs. Besant and the Deadlock. Then I proposed that we should resolve ourselves into a voluntary jury of honour. Mr. Judge did not agree to this, and so there was a deadlock. The evidence had not been heard, although Mrs. Besant was ready with it, for the inquiry had not been made, neither had we heard Mr. Judge’s defence. The next stage in the proceedings was the reading, to a very full meeting of members from all parts of the world—for it was our annual convention—of the statements by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Judge, to which Mr. Garrett has so often referred. In her statement Mrs. Besant said: “The vital charge is that Mr. Judge has issued letters and messages in the script recognisable as that adopted by a Master with whom H.P.B. was closely connected, and that these letters and messages were neither written nor precipitated directly by the Master in whose writing they appear.” That is pretty definite and precise. These two statements by the accuser and the accused, together with all the proceedings of the committee, were published in Lucifer on August 15, and they were reprinted in a pamphlet which was sent to every member of the society, and I also know ​that the day before she sailed for Australia Mrs. Besant made arrangements for that pamphlet to be sent to all the principal papers of the United Kingdom. I have said all this at length in order to dispel the idea that Mrs. Besant wished to bamboozle the society or hush up charges of fraud. I know that it is asked why she did not publish the whole of the evidence. If the official Enquiry had been proceeded with the evidence would have been published with its other proceedings. But Mrs. Besant felt, rightly or wrongly, that it would be unfair of her to publish it without the defence, and this there were no means of getting. The Unsatisfactory Position of the Society. But now see the unsatisfactory position of the society. The most serious charge possible had been made by its chief member against its second official, one of its founders, the tried and trusty friend of Madame Blavatsky. The charges were still hanging over his head, his members in America thoroughly disbelieved them, the members in India as thoroughly believed them, and we in Europe did not know what to think. They had been neither proved nor disproved. Colonel Olcott was going back to India, Mr. Judge flitted back to America, and Mrs. Besant rushed off to Australia to fulfil lecturing engagements made a year previously, and so far as regards the society generally Mahomet’s coffin was not in it for “floating.” Those of us who really took the thing to heart held our hands. We fully recognised the gravity of the whole matter, but we determined to wait till Mrs. Besant’s return before we moved, for without the evidence we were powerless. But we reckoned without our Westminster!
In concluding this article, I say frankly that The Westminster has really, although quite unconsciously, done Mr. Judge a good turn. I do not for a moment flatter myself that Mr. Garrett wishes any good to Theosophy! The tone of his articles precludes that idea. But his attack on Mr. Judge puts the latter in this position, that if he chooses he can defend himself without any fear whatever of pledging the Theosophical Society to one jot or tittle of dogma with regard to Mahatmas. He is attacked as a man, and as a man I sincerely hope that he will manfully and satisfactorily reply.
Herbert Burrows.
FROM MR. W. R. OLD, EX-OFFICIAL: “A THOROUGH GRIP OF THE FACTS.”
Sir,—As my name has been publicly mentioned by Mr. Mead, general secretary of the European T.S., in connexion with the series of articles “Isis Very Much Unveiled,” I think it advisable to state my own position and attitude in the matter.
The writer of those articles has named me, quite correctly, as having taken the first step in forcing an inquiry into the case against Mr. Judge. For this act of mine, I was suspended from my membership in the Esoteric Section, under the authority of the joint signatures of William Q. Judge and Annie Besant, Outer Heads of the E.S.T., and my name was dishonourably mentioned before the members of the E.S., among whom I numbered many an old colleague and friend. The mandate somehow found its way into the public Press. However, there was one advantage. After her official action in suspending me from membership Mrs. Besant was, of course, bound to hear my justification. This happened at Adyar in the winter of 1893. Mrs. Besant’s first remark to me after reading the case and examining the documents was, “You were perfectly justified by the facts before you.” THE HEAD OFFICIALS PLEDGED TO PUBLISH THE FACTS. In the presence of the president-founder Colonel Olcott, Mrs. Besant, Countess Wachtmeister, Mr. E. T. Sturdy, together with Mr. Edge and myself, it was decided that the task of officially bringing the charges should devolve upon Mrs. Besant, and that the whole of the evidence should be published. Consequently, the documents were handed over to Mrs. Besant for the purpose of drawing up her charges, and the president sent an official letter—or, as Colonel Olcott now claims, a “private letter” in official form—dated at Agra, February 12, 1894, to Mr. Judge as vice-president, in which he said (I re-quote from a circular issued by Mr. Judge, March 15, 1894):—“I place before you the following options:—
1. To retire from all offices held by you in the T.S., and leave me to make a merely general public explanation; or,
2. To have a Judicial Committee convened … and make public the whole of the proceedings in detail.
​In either alternative, you will observe, a public explanation is found necessary: in the one case, general; in the other, to be full and covering all the details.”
It was the second alternative which was adopted, with the abortive and disingenuous result already known. But what of the “full publication of all the details”? What of us Theosophists who had brought these charges against Mr. Judge? Were we not left in the position of persons who had brought charges without proving them? The position was one which I felt to be intolerable. Mrs. Besant had the full evidence in her hands by which to justify all the charges she had engaged to bring against Mr. Judge, but for some reason best known to herself involved the whole society in countenancing a systematic attempt to bolster up a delusion by concealment of facts. Mrs. Besant was also in honour bound to publish the facts, to all members of the society at least, since they were of a nature to vitally affect the beliefs of Theosophists the world over. She was, in short, bound to give them the same publicity as her former professions of occult intercourse obtained.
“Morally Bound to Give Publicity to the Truth.”
The T.S. is an organised body with a wide system of propaganda, and has taken the public into its confidence in cases where its special claims appear to have been supported by facts, and while the public are invited to join the society it is only right and honest that they should know what of those claims are true and what of those “facts” have stood the test of inquiry. This responsibility cannot be avoided, and as I have personally been instrumental in the inquiry into these claims and facts, I am morally bound to give what publicity I can to the truth when arrived at. To rectify what I believed to be a fatal policy on the part of those concerned with the charges against Mr. Judge, I resigned from all offices held by me in the T.S., and left myself free to speak openly of the matter whenever occasion presented itself. I do not believe that a system of truth can be raised from a fabric of fraud. In the course of my travels I met with my friend Mr. Garrett, to whom, upon inquiry, I gave the reasons of my resignation from official connexion with the society. He asked my permission to publish the facts. My reply was that although I could not unsay what I ​had said, I had not intended such publication as he contemplated, and doubted whether the case could be put forth with sufficient clearness and fairness by a “Philistine.” I soon found, however, that he had a thorough grip of the facts; and on his representation, the truth of which I had to admit, that the society had closed the inquiry, and would not open its journals to a full discussion of the evidence, I let him take his own course.
Certain persons, who seem unable to conceive that a man may act on principle and without interested motives, have suggested that I was moved by some petty personal grudge, or even by some pecuniary inducement. I repudiate both these insinuations as lies. My independent action in this matter has involved certain pecuniary sacrifices; I have in no way used it, and should scorn to use it, for pecuniary gain. MR. JUDGE AND MRS. BESANT. It will, therefore, be clear to all members of the T.S. and the public generally that I am responsible for the facts occurring in Mr. Garrett’s articles only so far as they apply to the charges against Mr. Judge, and for these I have documentary evidence produced under a legal hand, and duly witnessed. With Mr. Garrett’s method of presenting the facts I am by no means in sympathy. I do not lose sight of the fact that, however mistaken or misled many of the Theosophical Society may be, as regards the traditional “Mahatmas” and their supposed “communications,” they are nevertheless as sincere in their beliefs as many of their more orthodox fellows, and have as much right to respectful consideration. I regret particularly that Mrs. Besant should have been placed in this awkward public position by the present exposure. Her intention I believe to have been perfectly honest but I think she made a fatal mistake in avoiding the publication of the full facts, and in allowing the misconception to endure concerning her own and Mr. Judge’s connexion with the Mahatmas. MME. BLAVATSKY AND THE MAHATMAS. Of Madame Blavatsky I speak as I knew her. At the time I made her acquaintance she had forsworn all “phenomenalism,” so that I never saw any occult phenomena at any time. I believe that for her the Mahatmas existed, and I believe she thought them to be embodied personalities. ​Colonel Olcott has another theory, and others have their own. Personally, I believe in the extensibility of human faculty, and in the existence of an order of intelligences higher than our own, but I do not require that they are embodied or terrestrial in any sense of the word. Finally, I have been through the Theosophical Society with my eyes open, and for more than five years have been, officially and unofficially, as fully “in the Theosophical Society” as one can well be; and while I am certain that many are fully convinced of the truth of their own beliefs in these matters, I am also fully assured that a large number are in the position of persons self-deceived, who have unfortunately committed themselves too far to review their position without almost disastrous consequences to themselves and others. But that of which I have the fullest conviction and the greatest amount of presentable proof is the fact that no such thing as evidence of the existence (in an ordinary sense) of the Mahatmas, or of their connexion with the T.S. as a body or with its members individually, is obtainable by a person pursuing ordinary methods of investigation.
For those who are willing to found their beliefs upon the mere statement of another, without question of possible interestedness on the one hand, or self-deception on the other, the position is of course otherwise. For such persons proofs have no value whatever, what they are pleased to call their “beliefs” and their “knowledge” being determined or determinable from the moment they sign away their independence of judgment and freedom of thought.—Yours sincerely,
Walter R. Old.
P.S.—One misstatement of fact appears in your issue of November 3. What Mr. Garrett refers to as “Madame Blavatsky’s Rosicrucian signet-ring” was not a ring, but a jewel, used as a pendant. Also, the “dark gentleman” who delivered the two £10 notes to Mr. Judge made his call (so we were told) in the early afternoon, not in “the evening” as stated in Mr. Garrett’s text. I am bound to add that, whatever may be my annoyance and regret at the tone of the articles and of some of the inferences, as regards that part of the evidence which is known to myself, I have noticed so far no other substantial error of fact.
[These slight corrections have been made in this reprint.—F. E. G.]
FROM MR. A. P. SINNETT: “OCCULTISTS MAY NOT TELL FIBS.”
Sir,—The circular bearing this title—referred to in your leading columns yesterday—was issued last July, and directly affects some questions you have lately been discussing. Under the circumstances, I hope you will kindly consent to give it fuller publicity. It was addressed to students of Occultism, and ran as follows:—
The inevitable mystery which surrounds Occultism and the Occultist has given rise in the minds of many to a strange confusion between the duty of silence and the error of untruthfulness. There are many things that the Occultist may not divulge; but equally binding is the law that he may never speak untruth. And this obligation to Truth is not confined to speech; he may never think untruth, nor act untruth. A spurious Occultism dallies with truth and falsehood, and argues that deception on the illusory physical plane is consistent with purity on the loftier planes on which the Occultist has his true life; it speaks contemptuously of “mere worldly morality”—a contempt that might be justified if it raised a higher standard, but which is out of place when the phrase is used to condone acts which the “mere worldly morality” would disdain to practise. The doctrine that the end justifies the means has proved in the past fruitful of all evil; no means that are impure can bring about an end that is good, else were the Good Law a dream and Karma a mere delusion. From these errors flows an influence mischievous to the whole Theosophical Society, undermining the stern and rigid morality necessary as a foundation for Occultism of the Right Hand Path.
Finding that this false view of Occultism is spreading in the Theosophical Society, we desire to place an record our profound aversion to it, and our conviction that morality of the loftiest type must be striven after by every one who would tread in safety the difficult ways of the Occult World. Only by rigid truthfulness in thought, speech, and act on the planes on which works our waking consciousness, can the student hope to evolve the intuiton which unerringly discerns between the true and the false in the supersensuous worlds, which recognises truth at sight and so preserves him from fatal risks in those at first confusing regions. To cloud the delicate sense of truth here is to keep it blind there; hence every teacher of Occultism has laid stress on truthfulness as the most necessary equipment of the would-be disciple. To quote a weighty utterance of a wise Indian disciple:—
“Next in importance, or perhaps equal in value, to Devotion is Truth. It is simply impossible to over-estimate the efficacy of Truth in all its phases ​and bearings in helping the onward evolution of the human soul. We must love truth, seek truth, and live truth; and thus alone can the Divine Light which is Truth Sublime be seen by the student of Occultism. When there is the slightest leaning towards falsehood in any shape, there is shadow and ignorance, and their child, pain. This leaning towards falsehood belongs to the lower personality without doubt. It is here that our interests clash, it is here the struggle for existence is in full swing, and it is therefore here that cowardice and dishonesty and fraud find any scope. The ‘signs and symptoms’ of the operations of this lower self can never remain concealed from one who sincerely loves truth and seeks truth.”
To understand oneself, and so escape self-deception, Truth must be practised; thus only can be avoided the dangers of the “conscious and unconscious deception” against which a Master warned his pupils in 1885.
Virtue is the foundation of White Occultism; the Pàramitàs, six and ten, the transcendental virtues, must be mastered, and each of the Seven Portals on the Path is a virtue, which the Disciple must make his own, Out of the soil of pure morality alone can grow the sacred flower which blossoms at length into Arhatship, and those who aspire to the blooming of the flower must begin by preparing the soil.
I do not propose to discuss the merits of the case against Mr. Judge, but we who signed this paper—without prejudging in their personal aspect accusations which it had then been found impossible to thresh out thoroughly—conceived it desirable to remind all fellow-students of Occultism that no beneficial results along that path could possibly be attained except by a course of life which, whatever else it might be, should be strictly in harmony with the dictates of ordinary morality.
The Theosophical Society has grown in a few years to such extraordinary proportions, and is so loosely jointed, that it cannot be correctly thought of as a homogeneous association all parts of which are equally represented by the officers nominally at its head. But it ought at this crisis to be generally understood that the many persons of culture and earnest purpose to whom spiritual progress alone the original lines of Theosophic teaching is the main object of existence are guided by evidence concerning the possibilities of their higher evolution that is of a kind utterly unlike that which you not unreasonably discredit. ​A great block of such evidence is in our possession concerning not merely the existence but also the attributes of the great initiates, and to those of us in a position to appreciate this the foundations of Theosophic knowledge are quite unshaken by such incidents as those on which you have been commenting.—I am, Sir, yours, &c.,
WHOM DID THE CIRCULAR REFER TO
[In reference to the subject of Mr. Sinnett’s letter, the following is an extract from the Westminster Gazette under the heading:—“More Theosophistry: A Belated Piece of Bluff.”]
In the current number of the Review of Reviews a letter appears signed by the Dr. Keightley who lately wrote to The Westminster Gazette as a professed representative of Mr. W. Q. Judge, Vice-President of the Theosophical Society. The letter is worthy of some attention as an illustration of the tactics of Mr. Judge’s friends, and of the line which they were taking towards any allusion in the Press to certain events before the appearance of the recent exposure in this journal.
The letter is dated October 25, and was therefore written at the time when the Theosophists still hoped to maintain the great “hush up” inaugurated at the Convention of last July, and before they dreamed that all London would presently be discussing the facts which had been so industriously buried.
The occasion of the letter appears to have been a comment of Mr. Stead’s in the last number of the Review on a circular lately issued under the title of “Occultism and Truth.” This circular was issued just after the so-called “Enquiry into Certain Charges against the Vice-President,” and (to this office, at any rate) it was enclosed under one cover with the pamphlet report of that “Enquiry.” The substance of it is an assurance to the Theosophical world, on the part of some prominent Theosophists, that occultists have no more right than ordinary people to fib. Coming at the time when it did, and signed as it was by all the principal official Theosophists, with the one exception of the vice-president, the Editor of the Review of Reviews very naturally interpreted it as having some connexion with the charges against the last-named gentleman, and with what his colleagues evidently felt to be their apparent condonation of the “occult methods” ascribed to him.
The following is the substantial passage in the letter thereupon addressed to the Review of Reviews by Mr. Judge’s representatives:—
Allow us to make a very necessary correction. … Mrs. Besant, who originated the circular, was asked directly whether it was connected with the charges or whether it was in any way aimed at Mr. Judge. She gave an emphatic denial to both questions to many who took the same view expressed by you.
Another fact is not generally known, and leads people—yourself among others—into unconsciously committing an injustice. The charges against Mr. Judge were never substantiated, and the committee appointed to inquire into them declared that they were illegally laid.
(The letter then concludes with a high tribute to Mr. Judge’s character for truthfulness and every other virtue.)
Now, as regards the statement about the intention of the Circular, we will only say that one co-signatory of it at least has committed himself to the precise view of it which this letter denies. Nor is it obvious why the heads of any society should issue a round robin to say it is naughty to tell taradiddles, unless some current reference were intended to the affairs of the society.
Besides, this, however, there is unmistakably conveyed the impression that Mr. Judge’s accusers failed to substantiate their case, and that there was something actually “illegal,” in the ordinary sense of the word, about some part of their conduct.
As readers of “Isis Very Much Unveiled” are aware, both these things are absolutely untrue. The simple fact was that, owing to the objections raised by Mr. Judge, no opportunity was given for the charges to be either substantiated or the reverse; while the only justification for the statement that they were “illegally laid” is such as can be squeezed out of the fact that the Theosophical Pickwickians were persuaded by Mr. Judge that inquiry was forbidden by the constitution of their society.
III.—LETTERS FROM MINOR OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE MEMBERS.
What matters “Truth or Falsehood?”
Sir,—My husband and myself are two of the officials in one of the local branches of the Theosophical Society. I write in his name and my own to say that we have read with some interest your voluminous attack on the personal characters of some of our leading members.
We were also amused by the ingenuous surprise of your reporter, that the Blavatsky Lodge meeting in London, which he attended, was spent in philosophic study, not in the discussion of psychic phenomena or of the personal characters of members.
You say (Chapter II.):—“This society as such must stand or fall with its Mahatmas.” This is not so. The Theosophical Society is entirely neutral on the question of the existence or non-existence of such beings, and the reason why the charges, of which you have published a more or less correct statement, were not gone into by the authorities of the T.S. was, that to have done so would have entailed an infringement of that neutrality.
The question whether Mrs. Besant was misled when she made the statement at the Secular Hall in 1891 has been answered by her own clear withdrawal of that statement.
The question as to Mr. Judge is entirely one as to his own truth or falsehood, and may be well left to him to answer or not. It is not necessary for the public or for the members of the Theosophic Society to judge him.—Faithfully yours,
Sarah Corbett.
Manchester, November 6.
A Protest against “Condoning.”
Sir,—Having read the revelations your correspondent has been pleased to give to the public, and presuming them to be correct, it seems to me that there are now three parties at fault in place of two as I had supposed, viz., Mr. Judge for imposing (whether consciously as a deceiver or unconsciously as a medium obsessed by a spirit of ambition and the communicator of the facts (if a member of the inner circle) for breaking his solemn pledge not to reveal or betray the affairs of that circle. The recent correspondence now adds others ​as condoning the offence of Mr. Judge—and all this has come from the love of pre-eminence and the mere dabbling (child’s play) with the occult. Clearly, if the offence was proved, the officers of the society were bound in truth and honour to expel the offender, and all would then have been clear and straight. My advice to the society would be to stick to their programme, which is a highly laudable one, and let no word from an invisible and unknown be taken as of any external value, but judged only by its internal worth.
The society, it seems to me, can no longer pretend to condemn the communication with Spirits as a dangerous thing, nor cry out against the occasional frauds of mediums, in conscious or unconscious state, seeing how heavily they have fallen into the same snare, nor can they point the finger to frauds or delusions in other bodies whether Catholic or non-Catholic. A greater strictness and more uniform abstinence from flesh-eating and tobacco, as well as alcohol (which last they eschew) should be enjoined on all its members by their authorised officers, and their own three objects steadily pursued—separating from the third all spurious imitations of magical wonders; and, above all, the spirit of truth which accepts nothing on this or that authority without careful verification should be cultivated. A want of bravery to do the right, to tell the truth, and face the consequences, is the only thing that can be laid to the charge of the presiding officers of the Indian and English sections. Are all societies and Churches free from this? Has not a natural tenderness from long friendship, and sympathy in noble and useful work, been often the cause of much to be deplored? And in this instance, is not such over-tenderness of noble, unsuspicious, and honourable souls, worthy rather of regret than of too severe censure.—Yours,A Theosophist.
“Abandon the T.S. in Disgust.”
Sir,—I see Mr. Mead is reported as saying that “what the articles [in The Westminster Gazette] would do, if they did anything, was to sift the society of those who had simply joined for the sake of the marvellous.”
​This remark shows the same utter oblivion of the appreciation of truth that has unhappily shown itself in the society’s record before. It is not a question of phenomena; it is one of good faith; and if this is the line taken, not the phenomena-hunters merely, but seekers for truth and respecters of it, who expected to find it in the Theosophical Society, will abandon that body in disgust.
Mr. Mead continues:—“Theosophists could no more divulge secrets without violating every sense of honour than a Mason could.”
To compare the Theosophical Society, as at present constituted, with an honourable body like the Masons, is an insult to the latter, goose-guzzling and luxuriant as they may have tended to become in these latter days.
There is a profound difference between hiding secrets, which are entrusted to one, and which concern certain (perhaps) important facts in the nature of man, and taking part in proceedings to gull a number of fellow-students and the outside public. This is practically what has been done before, and the dissatisfied either disappeared altogether or were well howled at as traitors to “the cause,” whereas, in verity, they were doing their best for the disowned cause of truth; or, again, they were coerced by the solemn warning of “your pledge, take care of your pledge,” and thereby intimidated from seeing that they were making themselves parties to a continuous misrepresentation of facts and a deliberate fraud upon their less-informed fellow-members, not to mention the public. “What have our troubles to do with the public?” has been the question. I reply, “Everything,” for it is to the public that constant appeal is made and amongst its ranks that proselytes are sought.
Nothing has, so far, been exposed in these articles that any right-thinking truth-seeker would wish to have cloaked. The public are not being made acquainted with any arcane wisdom; but if one-third of the statements made in The Westminster Gazette are supported by documentary and other evidence, then the world certainly ought to be warned against a society that takes as its motto, “There is no religion higher than truth” and forthwith allows its leading members to play such antics and engage in such grotesque jugglery without bringing them sternly to book. As for continuing to work with these people in the establishment of a ​“universal brotherhood,” rather will it become a universal imposture to expose which were a service to the glorious old Wisdom of the Venerable East, which it dishonoured by its sham Mahatmas.
Those who are publishing the facts, if facts they be, are doing a service to the cause of truth, and should have the thanks and gratitude of all of us in the Theosophical Society whose motive in being there is to seek TRUTH, and to combat error and fraud in religion, mysticism, or anything else.—I am, &c.,
A Fellow of the Theosophical Society and Member of the E.S.T.
“It all comes of not Sticking to Vegetables.”
Sir,—With every word of Brother Old’s letter of to-day’s issue I beg to express my fullest sympathy. I deprecate the tone of the “revelations,” but of the necessity of making the public fully acquainted with the facts I have not the least doubt. As to the existence of “Mahatmas,” I can only say I do believe in the existence on this earth of a higher order of beings who, by total abstinence from and abhorrence of flesh-eating, alchohol, and tobacco, and other evil and impure customs, and by adherence to a fixed rule of life, retiring early and early rising, with daily ablutions, and by certain studies and training of body and mind, have acquired certain attributes and powers so far in advance of ordinary human beings as to be regarded by them as miraculous. Of this I have had evidence, not from Theosophists, but from personal friends resident in India before ever they heard of the name of Theosophy. Whether any of these have anything to do in the direction of the Theosophical Society is quite another matter. There is Theosophy and Theosophy, and one of these I would rather term “Theophilosophy,” i.e., “the love and wisdom of God,” or “love and wisdom religion”—and not wisdom only as is implied in the term “Theosophy.” Readers of “The Perfect Way” and its companion volume, “Clothed with the Sun,” by that noble woman Anna Kingsford and her colleague, will know what I mean. Now, what about the future of the Theosophical Society? I believe its officers may fall, but its work must endure. No doubt of that. The founders have had their weaknesses and foibles like other mortals, but I hope none will ever forget the gratitude they owe to Madame Blavatsky, especially to the blessings she has conferred in ​founding the Theosophical Society and giving through its means to all hungry and thirsty souls such priceless stores of knowledge and suggestive thought (from the Oriental religions and philosophies which have made such deep impress on the millions of the East) as are contained in the grand volumes of “The Secret Doctrine,” with its index and glossary, and her other publications. None can read these volumes, but must ask themselves, What manner of woman must she have been who devoted so many long years of labour, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, in their production, and that amidst incredible difficulties and opposition and worry? Nor must we forget the debt that we owe to Colonel Olcott and Madame Besant for having made this knowledge accessible to all minds and conditions by their lectures and booklets.
What can be more noble than the promotion of universal brotherhood irrespective of sex, colour, caste, or creed, united in the study of the ancient religions of East and West, and of all that pertains to the hidden powers in man, and their development for the good of the race? But these last, I say again, will not be attained in purity but by prayer, and abstinence from flesh meat, alcohol, and tobacco, and other evil customs of society, and the disuse of all things gotten by cruelty to, or oppression of, our fellow-creatures the lower animals, and by pure surroundings.—Yours,
I. G. Ouseley, O.G.A. and F.T.S.
Evelyn-terrace, Brighton,
November 9.
“Folly and Fraud: but of such is the Kingdom.”
Sir,—No one should blame you, or resent the publication of the facts. Truth is the first consideration, and though we who have interested ourselves in the philosophy promulgated by the society may bitterly regret that folly and fraud are to be found within its fold—as elsewhere—yet we can rest assured that whatever there is in this philosophy which appeals to the enlightened intelligence of mankind will remain when the superstructure raised by designing intriguers or unwise enthusiasts shall have crumbled away. It is in consequence of this belief that the writer, with others in the society, can read with calmness, and not without some sense of amusement, this unpleasant disclosure; not doubting but that a great deal of it is true, and that all may be so; and while feeling unmixed contempt for the ​“informer,” can acknowledge that any editor is well within his rights, and a public benefactor, when exposing fraud wherever it is found.
Would that this feature were more pronounced in journalism generally, and not indulged in only when such exposures fall in with public prejudice!
For several years the writer of this letter has been absent from the Avenue-road centre; among other reasons, from a feeling of disapproval of certain follies which may be called incipient relic worship, and which no sensible person could tolerate for long. So it will be seen that all Theosophists have not fallen under the spell of Mrs. Besant’s rash enthusiasm, which has done, and is doing, so much to discredit her, now as heretofore, in the eyes of the world. Yet, in spite of her indiscrimination and lack of sound judgment, which has alienated many, the writer would rather stand in the pillory of public opprobrium with her than sit at a banquet with the “informer” and those who can rejoice over the failings of a beautiful soul. For it may be said of her, and a few others, “Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” That there is to be found even one of these among Theosophists may leads few to suspect that there is something more in Theosophy than can be discovered in your articles, and that, though fraud should be proved, there may nevertheless be real occultists and true phenomena. Thus, what at first sight appears a serious blow to our cause will perhaps induce further inquiry among your readers, while doing useful work in destroying errors and growing superstition.F. T. S.