The July 1997 Supplement
to the
Theosophical
Manifesto - 1996, Concerning
The Future of the
(Adyar) Theosophical Society
Geoffrey A.
Farthing
G. Farthing (1909-2004)
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
A 2011 Editorial Note:
We reproduce the
following text from its paper
copy as received
by us from Geoffrey Farthing in 1997.
Since the
publication of the Manifesto in
1996 [1] and of the present Supplement in
1997, no
follower of Annie
Besant’s ritualisms and no student of
Jiddu Krishnamurti
made a consistent reaction to Farthing’s
Manifesto. The
reason for such a silence seems to be that there
is no argument
against facts. In due time, truth prevails; and
the teachings of
H.P. Blavatsky have the answer to the problems
faced by the Adyar
Society in the first part of the 21st century.
The reader will
see that there is much in common
between Geoffrey
Farthing’s views and those of the United
Lodge of
Theosophists, founded by Robert Crosbie in 1909.
(Carlos Cardoso
Aveline)
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
“…The magnetic link between
the Masters and Adyar was severed…”
“There have been various attempts in the past to
reform
the Society along Blavatsky/Master lines but so
powerful
has been the prevailing ‘cloud of glamour’
overshadowing
the whole Adyar Society (with perhaps a few
disregarded
pin-holes of light) that members not only have not
seen the
case that was being made but deliberately did not want
to.”
Geoffrey A. Farthing
A Manifesto - Supplement 1997
CONTENTS OF SUPPLEMENT:
1. Comment on Manifesto - brief discussion thereof.
2. Prevailing conditions at time of Society's
founding.
3. The Hodgson Report. Vindication of H.P.B. Her
wrongful dismissal from Adyar. Karmic consequences.
4. More about the uniqueness of Theosophy. No other
organization has it.
5. Some recommendations. Commercialism,
professionalism, new electronic media.
6. Keeping up the pressure.
7. Summary.
000
1. COMMENT ON REPLIES TO MANIFESTO 1996
Very few were received. Points made were:
1. To study original Theosophy would be submitting to
dogma and limiting.
2. A study of the original literature would somehow
restrict freedom of thought and curtail members’ rights to decide between ‘true’
and ‘false’ theosophy.
3. The document ought not to have been sent to other
than members of the General Council.
4. Presumptions about leaders of the Society not
having direct contact with the Masters were questionable.
5. Since H.P.B.’s death some members of the Society
claim or claimed to have been in contact with the Masters, i.e., the Masters’ links
with the corporate Society and/or Adyar have not been broken.
000
It is noteworthy that the historical outline from the
formation of the Society through the Besant/Leadbeater era was not questioned
and that the disassociation of the Society from all other bodies, e.g. Co-Masons,
was neither questioned nor even mentioned.
Although the Manifesto expressly supported all
members’ freedoms, i.e. to read what they like and join whatever institutions
they wanted it was taken in some quarters that the Manifesto would restrict
freedom, particularly in the matter of what should be read. The Manifesto in
fact defended the freedoms but it did say that people’s private opinions as to
what Theosophy was were not in themselves Theosophy. Theosophy is a definite
science related to the nature of Nature herself and is not in any way a matter
of opinion, belief or view. It cannot be either ‘true’ or ‘false’. Theosophy
proper is the knowledge of what is, and as it is, at all levels of being. It
opens up to the student the whole Cosmic scene. Its bounds are the furthest
limits of the Universe and its profundity the greatest depths to which human
(and superhuman) cognition can go by faculties developed to their fullness in
aeons of evolutionary time. It has no conceivable limits and is all-embracing.
It is open-ended and can in no sense be regarded as limiting or interfering
with ‘opinions’ about which it has nothing to do.
It would appear that those who regard its study as
limiting are judging it against a background of the circumscribed personal
non-Initiate literature of second generation ‘theosophy’. The limitation is in
those who have got what they want and do not want to look further.
To discuss such matters as freedom of thought and
dogmatism is not really relevant because those issues are not raised. The
purpose of the Manifesto is to discuss what is to be done to preserve the
Society into the next century so that it can fulfill its intended functions,
and to justify any action that may be necessary. The historical background to
the Society as it now is, is very relevant to these considerations.
The presumption that neither Annie Besant nor C. W.
Leadbeater were, after possibly some initial incidents, in contact with the
Masters was questioned. That assumption, however, was made after an extensive
analysis of all major events in the Society’s history during their terms of
office. Too many irreconcilable things happened to indicate that there was
direction by any Masters either directly or through them. For example, the
question arises: why did Krishnamurti not only renounce the office claimed for
him but very soon leave the Society altogether? Surely if he had been a protegé
of the Masters he would have known their intentions for the Society. He would
have wished to stay and work for it. After he left, however, he had no more
connection with it and certainly did not propound Theosophy. The answer to this
question must be that he became convinced that the role that Leadbeater cast
for him was not ordained by the Masters, and particularly not one of the
highest degree.
The communication with Masters that some leaders - and
others - claimed to have had was based on their saying so, or by inferences and
implications, which it was not possible to corroborate. We have the Masters’ statement about their communicating through H.P.B.
and that when she was not available or even when her aura was exhausted, there
would be no more letters (see Letter 20, p. 54, of “Letters from the
Masters of the Wisdom”, 1st Series, Jinarajadasa, TPH).
Leadbeater was able to cast a ‘glamour’ over not only
Mrs. Besant but the majority of members of the Society. This glamour still
hangs over it and is at the root of much erroneous, even superstitious,
thinking.
It was from this conditioned thinking and a dependence
on leaders, guides, institutions, etc., that Krishnamurti urged his hearers to
liberate themselves and become free, relying only on themselves. It was,
however, not the leaders, gurus, etc. who imprisoned them, it was themselves.
Krishnamurti through not knowing, or ignoring, Theosophy was not mindful of
Nature’s processes, one of which is growth in time by stages. Freedom, as
propounded by him was not and is not yet within the possible comprehension or
experience of the majority of human-kind at this time. ‘Guides, philosophers
and friends’ are still very necessary. Even so we should not be unmindful of
Jesus’ saying, “The Truth shall make you free”. What this really means may not
be obvious but it is reiterated in various ways in Theosophy.
There is a passage in the Conclusion to “The Key to
Theosophy” relevant to this:
“If you speak of THEOSOPHY, I answer that, as it has
existed eternally throughout endless cycles upon cycles of the Past, so it will
ever exist throughout the infinitudes of the Future, because Theosophy is
synonymous with EVERLASTING TRUTH.”
Yet there are some who see it changing with the times!
2. THE SOCIETY IN CONTEXT OF
PREVAILING CONDITIONS AT ITS INCEPTION
The role for the Society has to be seen against a
background of what was ‘topically in the air’ at the time when it was founded.
Science had become arrogant and was voicing a view that at its present rate of
progress it would soon be able to answer all questions concerning the nature of
Cosmos. On the other hand, religion, particularly in the West, was wholly
dogmatic, formal and institutionalized. Against this dual background there was
a lively interest in Spiritualism and to a lesser degree magic. The
Rosicrucianism, the Kabala, Masonry, Hermeticism, Ceremonial Magic, were all
movements involving a relatively large number of people on both sides of the
Atlantic. Each faction had its own group of elite, degrees of secrecy and a
literature freely circulated amongst members, but not so freely available to
the general public. Many of these movements had roots going back into
antiquity. Where though was an earnest and serious seeker after Truth to go for
genuine non-partisan information on these matters?
There were (and maybe still are) some secret Occult
lodges then working. From amongst these the two ‘theosophical’ Masters, members
of the Trans-Himalayan branch, were given permission to give out a certain amount
of occult teaching. They decided to make the effort in spite of the scepticism
of their brethren. They had to find someone with the necessary qualifications
to operate as their mouthpiece in the world. We do not know how many candidates
there were but they said that H.P.B. was the best available at the time and
through her a mass of information was eventually given to the world (see M.L.
2).
The Manifesto tells of her labours in the literary
field to introduce the Ancient Wisdom to the world - particularly the West as
all her principal writings were in English.
Her writings later included Instructions to her Inner
Group which she formed during the last two years of her life. Apart from her
continuing articles, there is a compilation of Notes taken at meetings of the
Blavatsky Lodge, known as the Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge, wherein many
abstruse aspects of Theosophy are explained.
During the course of H.P.B.’s life the interest in
Spiritualism somewhat diminished; science opened new fields of exploration and
became less dogmatic; to a small extent dogmatic religion became less rigid. In
this field the advent of translations of the scriptures and other holy books
from India and the Far East becoming generally available in the West was
beginning to have an effect.
The relationship to Theosophy as given us by H.P.B.
with modern thought in terms of the stage at which science has now established
itself and having regard to the present freedoms within the religious and
psychological fields, has not yet been specifically explored to any extent.
However, the prophetic nature of the writings of H.P.B. in a number of aspects
in these fields is very significant. Her works are as relevant today as they
were when they were written, validating their claim even now to speak for the
Ancient Wisdom, or the Wisdom Religion as she sometimes termed it.
It is important that the outpouring of knowledge given
us through H.P.B. should be clearly distinguished from the longstanding
traditional knowledge and wisdom which for centuries have been freely available
and even now are sources of inspiration and instruction for many people. The
latter were in no sense esoteric or occult. Whole areas of theosophic thought
and explanation are not in them.
3. THE HODGSON REPORT
The full report by Dr. Vernon Harrison of his
investigations into the Hodgson Report has now been published. [2] This document completely
vindicates H.P.B. of all the charges of fraud in the matter of the production
of the Mahatma Letters. It re-establishes H.P.B.’s standing as an author in her
own right, but not of the Mahatma Letters. According to Dr. Harrison there was
no author of those letters other than the Masters themselves, regardless of how
the letters may have been produced and received. A second aspect of this
vindication is the clearing of H.P.B. of all the charges brought against her by
the missionaries in Madras in the Coulomb affair.
This vindication has far-reaching effects. Had these
charges of fraud not been levelled against H.P.B. it is very unlikely that she
would have left Adyar at the time she did. When the charges were brought by the
missionaries H.P.B. wanted to take legal action against them. Olcott advised
against this and he was supported by the General Council. It appears, however, that
some at least of the members of the General Council were inimical to H.P.B.
They would do nothing to support her; rather did they wish, for reasons of
their own, that she should leave Adyar. What pressure was brought to bear on
her we do not know but we do know that in her going she was required to
renounce her claim to any property rights she might have had on the compound
and to give up ownership of “The Theosophist” which she had founded. These
requirements indicate that her going was not to be temporary. It has been
claimed that her health was a reason for her returning to Europe; that may have
been a contributory factor but her health having been restored she could have
gone back to Adyar. As things were, however, she felt it quite impossible to return.
In plain fact she had been ‘dismissed’.
The consequences of this departure were not
immediately obvious to those left behind. In effect, however, it meant that the
magnetic link between the Masters and Adyar was severed. There was no one else
there to act in H.P.B.’s capacity. Damodar had received some training and might
to some extent have done so but he was not there any more.
It has not been really understood or accepted that H.P.B. was in fact
the direct agent of the Masters (see
Letter 19 of “Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom”, 1st Series,
Jinarajadasa). For example, Sinnett could not accept this and resented it, with
the result that with his increasing irritation at having to receive
correspondence through her, the letters from the Masters just ceased. H.P.B.
would not transmit any more. Both the Masters and H.P.B. warned him this would
happen. Without H.P.B. to operate through they would and did retire into
obscurity.
The karmic consequences of Olcott’s and the General
Council’s unwillingness to support H.P.B. and her subsequent departure from
Adyar is something that remains. Her
dismissal inflicted great personal hurt and injustice in the light of her
innocence (now proven). Any General Council that over the years has neglected
to rectify the position or even acknowledge what happened and has taken no
measures whatever to redress the situation has transmitted the karmic
consequences of the action of the original Council to its successors up to the
present time. This is something that must be recognized when considering the
action to be taken to ensure the proper continuity of the Society.
4. THE UNIQUENESS OF THEOSOPHY
In the Manifesto [3] some historical background to the founding of the Theosophical
Society was given. Against this background an appreciation of what was intended
for the Society can be made.
It is important to realize how these teachings stand
in relation to the various classical schools of antiquity. In “The Secret
Doctrine” it says, “It is not taught in any of the six Indian Schools of
Philosophy, for it pertains to their synthesis - the seventh, which is the
occult doctrine. It is not traced on any crumbling papyrus of Egypt nor is it
any longer graven on Assyrian tile or granite wall. The Books of the Vedanta (the last word of human
knowledge) give out but the metaphysical aspect of this world-Cosmogony; and
their priceless thesaurus, the Upanishads
- Upa-Ni-Shad being a compound word
meaning the ‘conquest of ignorance by the revelation of secret, spiritual
knowledge’ - require now the additional possession of a master key to enable
the student to get at their full meaning.” [‘The Secret Doctrine’, vol. I, p.
269]
This quoted passage clearly distinguishes Theosophy
from what was contained in even the greatest of the world’s religious teachings
then available. This distinction was very soon overlooked and forgotten.
What was distinctly different between the new
outpouring and the old systems lies in the field of Occultism or Esotericism
proper. Many of the old religious and philosophical systems had an occult
background for the most part kept secret and jealously guarded. A detailed
examination of the essential differences has no place in a document such as
this but they are primarily based on a fuller knowledge of the planes of
Nature, together with scales of correspondences, and the inner constitution of
man, showing how these can be quickened and developed to ‘expand’ his
consciousness by the study and assimilation of the Eternal Verities of
Theosophy.
5. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
The case made above indicates that in the hundred
years or so since H.P.B.’s death and her leaving Adyar the whole character of
the Society has changed. It can never go back to what it was in the late 1800’s
because the whole world situation has changed.
Nevertheless, what the Society has to offer by way of
the Ancient Wisdom is itself changeless. The ‘Eternal Verities’ do not change
as the world situation changes in terms of culture, politics and the
vicissitudes of national fortunes, or any other such circumstance.
The setting, however, in which the Ancient Wisdom is
presented to the world, and the means for its presentation, have to change. In
the Manifesto a warning was issued against trying to ‘popularize’
Theosophy by simplification. This can only lead to dilution and possible
distortion.
Because of the magnitude and, for many people, the
inherent difficulty of acquiring a knowledge of Theosophy, the great temptation
has been to substitute for the real thing something easier to apprehend or practice.
Substitute activities may in themselves have intrinsic, sometimes perhaps even
considerable value, but they do not contain or even reflect the unique nature
of Master-inspired Theosophy.
This diversion of attention from the purposes of the
Society is the main argument for the disassociation of all other organizations
from the Theosophical Society. In “The Key” (p. 21 Orig. Ed.) H.P.B. outlines
reasons for joining the Society and instances the importance of each Lodge
having its own specific activity. She mentioned healing as one. Members should
realize that some of the teaching, direct or implied, in for example the
Egyptian Rite [4], is directly at
variance with Theosophy, particularly the ‘adoration’ of post-human entities
(angels, etc.) who have long since lost all the limitation of personal
feelings, and want no worship.
All who would see in ceremonial a means of salvation
are recommended to read in “The Secret Doctrine”, from the bottom, two
paragraphs of page 279, Orig. Ed. and the third paragraph on page 280 [vol. I].
These passages include the following:
“...neither the collective Host (Demiurgos), nor any
of the working powers [in Cosmos] individually, are proper subjects for divine
honours or worship. All are entitled to the grateful reverence of Humanity,
however, and man ought to be ever striving to help the divine evolution of ideas, by becoming to the best of his
ability a co-worker with nature in
the cyclic task.”
Then follows the much quoted sublime passage:
“The ever unknowable and incognizable Karana alone, the Causeless Cause of all causes, should have its shrine and altar on
the holy and ever untrodden ground of our heart - invisible, intangible,
unmentioned, save through ‘the still small voice’ of our spiritual
consciousness. Those who worship before it, ought to do so in the silence and
the sanctified solitude of their Souls; making their spirit the sole mediator
between them and the Universal Spirit,
their good actions the only priests, and their sinful intentions the only visible
and objective sacrificial victims to the Presence.”
It must be repeated that nothing here said means that
members of the Society are ‘forbidden’ to read anything that they like. Anyone
wishing to study Theosophy, however, is advised to read the original literature
in the original. That literature has an intrinsic quality by reason of its
being Initiate-inspired; a virtue very rare in other literature. Any
experienced student will confirm that.
Commercialism and professionalism were mentioned in
the original Manifesto. These properly have nothing to do with
Theosophy. The Theosophical Society was certainly never envisaged as a
money-making concern. Money helps it in its work, that is undeniable, but such
money should come from those who want to support its activities and feel some
duty in that respect. Some commercialism can be justified on purely rational
grounds: money is needed for publishing, advertising, etc., but those who
pursue money-making activities are exposed to risks, anxieties, etc., which
wholly militate against Theosophy. Further serious consideration must be given
to what is published; does it propagate the intended message?
Professionalism can lead to the paid proponent of
Theosophy of having to ‘tread the party line’ or becoming crystallized in what
he or she regards as ideas acceptable to his pay master. Real freedom of
expression would thereby be inhibited and also prevent the growth of insight in
the lecturer. The more one knows of it the more ‘living’ a thing Theosophy
becomes. It can never be a fixed ‘dogma’.
Amateurism proper means the doing for the love of it
whatever one feels one can or should do for the ‘cause’, and it ought to be the
hallmark and only motive of the theosophical worker.
In the Manifesto the world communication network
(Web-sites, etc.) was mentioned. These are the modern means of letting it be
known that such a thing as Theosophy exists. Their techniques should be learned
and their use carefully considered. Some means whereby the ‘authentic’ message
of Theosophy as opposed to the garbled versions of it now being put out under
that name could be readily recognized will have to be devised if at all
possible.
6. KEEPING UP THE PRESSURE
There have been various attempts in the past to reform
the Society along Blavatsky/Master lines but so powerful has been the
prevailing ‘cloud of glamour’ overshadowing the whole Adyar Society (with
perhaps a few disregarded pin-holes of light) that members not only have not
seen the case that was being made but deliberately did not want to. Such
attempts have been regarded as a particular personal quirk of whoever has at
the time been trying to penetrate the fog. The matter, however, is not a
personal one, it has to do with a world event of the utmost importance to
humanity as a whole. This has just not being appreciated. People have preferred
their entrenched beliefs.
7. SUMMARY
1) Apart from
its three objects, the intention for the Society was to propagate a knowledge
of Theosophy. Theosophy is the teaching as propounded by H.P.B. and the Masters
of the Wisdom.
2) H.P.B. was wrongfully dismissed from Adyar. Her
innocence having been proved, some redress is due to her. In effect this means
re-instating her teachings (and those of her Masters).
3) Neither Krishnamurti nor his teachings have
anything to do with Theosophy whatever their other merits may be.
NOTES:
[1] See “A Theosophical Manifesto - 1996”, by Geoffrey A. Farthing, which
can be found in our associated websites. (CCA)
[2] This is an indirect reference
to the volume “H. P. Blavatsky and the SPR - An Examination of the
Hodgson Report of 1885”, by Vernon Harrison, PhD., Member of the Society of
Psychical Research, London, England, Theosophical University Press, TUP, Pasadena,
1997, 78 pp. (CCA)
[3] See Note [1] above, on “A
Theosophical Manifesto - 1996”, by G. A. Farthing. (CCA)
[4] It should be clarified, at
this point, that the spurious “Egyptian Rite” fabricated by C.W. Leadbeater and
Annie Besant has no relation with the masonic Egyptian Rite created by Alessandro
Cagliostro in France during the 18th century. (CCA)
000
See also the
text “Life And Work of Geoffrey Farthing - The Autobiographic Testimony Of a
Leading Theosophist”. It is available in our associated websites.
000
On the role of the esoteric movement in the
ethical awakening of mankind during the 21st century, see the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical Literature”, by
Carlos Cardoso Aveline.
Published in
2013 by The Aquarian Theosophist,
the volume has 255 pages and can be obtained through Amazon Books.
000
