The Importance of Returning to a Proper
Appreciation of
Blavatsky-Masters Theosophy
Robert Kitto
Geoffrey A. Farthing (1909-2004)
“…Among the commandments of
Tsongkhapa there is one that enjoins the Rahats
(Arhats) to make an attempt to enlighten the world,
including the ‘white barbarians’, every century, at
a certain specified period of the cycle.”
[Helena Blavatsky, in “Collected
Writings”, TPH, Volume XIV, p. 431]
It is almost a cliché to say that one of the greatest
challenges facing any serious student of Theosophy is the futile attempt to
reconcile the teachings of H.P. Blavatsky and her Adept Teachers, in the great
outpouring of occult knowledge that occurred during the latter portion of her
lifetime, and that which passed as Theosophy in the early part of the twentieth
century, and now referred to as neo-, or pseudo-Theosophy. [1]
Many Theosophists are content to follow the revisions and the
re-statement of Theosophy that followed Blavatsky’s death, as this
re-statement forms a substantial corpus
of material belonging to the principle Theosophical Society - that having its
international headquarters at Adyar.
Geoffrey Farthing, an active English member of the Adyar Society until
his death in 2004, and one of Theosophy's finest minds was not content that
this was so, and became one of the greatest exponents of Blavatsky-Masters
rendition of Theosophy. Many believe the distinction to be relatively
unimportant, being all “Theosophy”, but he argued forcibly, and consistently,
that this is not so.
Geoffrey Farthing (1909-2004) was concerned that the original point and
purpose of the Theosophical Society, and the efforts of the Adept Teachers who
had made its formation possible, had been lost in the years that followed the
Blavatsky’s death, and that a significant part of the substance and detail of
the teachings had become distorted. His writings, over nearly forty years,
primarily aim to accurately present Blavatsky's work in a form suited to the
modern reader, and in addition, a significant number of articles and letters
take a critical and sometimes controversial look, at the Society itself. The
matter is as relevant today, as it ever was, for the “original point and
purpose” that he sought so tenaciously to re-establish within the Society was
that the Blavatsky-Masters teachings were the means “to help mankind along its
proper evolutionary path”. Whether one agrees, or not, and he recognised that
it is for individuals to arrive at their own views, he argued that the Society,
which had, after all, been entrusted with this knowledge, should primarily
present it in a clear and accessible way, and distinct from later personally
derived and speculative additions.
In 1969 Geoffrey Farthing wrote “the
past few decades, for one reason or another, the Society, in my view, has lost
its identity. It has become buried in accretions.” These words, in an
article entitled “What is the Theosophical Society?” [2] opened a new stage in a debate that has challenged (and
fractured) the Society ever since Blavatsky’s death in 1891. Geoffrey, as
probably the late twentieth century’s principle and foremost exponent of
Blavatsky-Theosophy, took up the challenge of reinstating the primacy of her
teachings in a well argued and tenacious, though controversial, debate which
continues to this day.
After joining The Theosophical Society in 1948, and having originally
studied the writings of C.W. Leadbeater, and Annie Besant - that which had
initially been offered to him (thus illustrating the problem he addresses) - he
moved to studies of Blavatsky’s extensive work, and also “The Mahatma Letters
to A.P. Sinnett” whereby he first realised the inconsistency between
Besant/Leadbeater writings and that which they had been entrusted with. [3]
Subsequently he wrote;
“I could not believe that
well-informed and gifted people like Leadbeater and Besant had ‘got it wrong’.
Somehow or another fault lay in me and I wrestled over this problem for perhaps
2 years. During this time I studied in detail the classification of man’s
principles from both points of view (e.g. Blavatsky in The Key to Theosophy) and tried hard to reconcile them, but they
are not reconcilable. Eventually of course this led to my publishing the
booklet THE
ETHERIC DOUBLE? ” [4]
Having written “Theosophy - What it All About?” (1967) and “When we Die”
(1972), a comprehensive exposition of the after-death states, accurately based
on “The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett” (and at considerable variance to the
clairvoyant conjecture of Leadbeater), he served as National President of the
Theosophical Society in England (1969-72).
Without the support of the then neo-Theosophist majority in England, he
was unable to continue his Presidency, but Christmas Humphreys, to whom serious
students of esotericism have gratitude for his having collaborated with
Elizabeth Preston in producing “An Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine”
(Blavatsky’s magnum opus), and a (third and definitive) edition of “The Mahatma
Letters to A.P. Sinnett”, joined with him in the founding of The Blavatsky
Trust (1974). Christmas Humphreys [5]
who was equally determined to do all he could to preserve Blavatsky’s teachings
“as given” wrote:
“… I supported that tower of strength and knowledge, Mr. Geoffrey
Farthing ... in the foundation of The Blavatsky Trust, in an attempt to wean
Lodges of the parent body from pseudo-Theosophy, and to give them at least a
list of books which contain the original teaching. Whether an individual finds
the vast cycle of wisdom offered to the world under that title to be true is
for that student to decide, but at least let it be clear what is and what is
not ‘Theosophy’.” [6]
Geoffrey’s contention that the H. P. Blavatsky-Masters teachings
“constitute the authentic revelation of Theosophy” is a view he recognised to
be widely resented by the majority within the Society. [7] Quite often, the abstruse writings of Blavatsky are not the
first to be turned to for spiritual enquiry, and the notions derived - perhaps
painstakingly - from the miscellany of other sources are probably not easily
relinquished. Within the Adyar Society an attempt had been made - most likely
well meant - to re-present Blavatsky’s partially abstract concepts and complex
disjointed prose, with a systemised and detailed metaphysical dogma. At best,
this supplanted the “root-substance” from which spiritual
intelligence-intuition can arise with that of intellect, but it also introduced
error, inconsistency and even fanciful imaginings.
Ernest Wood who worked closely at Adyar, in an editorial capacity with
C.W. Leadbeater, later writing in his autobiography “Is This Theosophy ... ?” [8]
describes the use of imagination in deriving some of the detail of Chakras for
publication. This later material has
been the basis for many aspects of new-age spirituality. Such a view inevitably
has its critics, and “Back to Blavatsky” became a derisive taunt, though
Geoffrey was quick to challenge this illogicality:
“Such an expression could only be uttered seriously by those
fundamentally ignorant of what, through her [H.P. Blavatsky’s] agency, the
Masters gave us. It is like electrical
engineers taunting each other with going back to Faraday, or atomic scientists
back to Planck or Rutherford, or mathematicians back to Newton or
Einstein. There is no such thing in
matters of knowledge as going back to anyone.” [9]
Over the next few decades Geoffrey dedicated himself to much
Theosophical work, writing a number of books, documentary films, and many
articles. He returned to promoting the restoration of the Theosophical Society
itself in an article “The Theosophical Society and Its Future” [10] , which looked at characters such
as Annie Besant, C.W. Leadbeater, and Jiddu Krishnamurti through whom the drama
of early twentieth century Theosophy had been so dramatically, and damagingly
played out. Because of the suggestions for change contained therein it became
known as the “Manifesto”.
A few years before his death he wrote, in a letter to his friends
throughout the world;
“After
fifty years of fairly intense study I have come to the conclusion that the
original outpouring of occult knowledge from the Masters, to the extent that
they then gave it out, was a unique world event. It has not been properly
appreciated as such.” [11]
The
importance of returning to a proper appreciation and understanding of
Blavatsky-Masters Theosophy, and recognising it as a unique event - for the
benefit of humanity - is being increasingly understood. Only by the
transformational effect of the original outpouring having successfully run its
course, it is argued, can we reasonably expect further Adept teachings. This
was the keystone of Geoffrey’s life and work, and there is a deep spiritual
altruism at its heart.
Throughout
his life, he wrote over 150 Articles, 120 letters for publication, 4
documentary film scripts, gave hundreds of lectures, taught, and published
nearly 20 books and booklets, together with a large collection of valuable
audio material. Geoffrey’s work continues to have relevance, and through its
efforts the Trust places Theosophy before those wishing to understand esoteric
philosophy in a form stripped of the inconsistent speculations of the twentieth
century.
The Trust, www.blavatskytrust.org.uk, remains
active, and in addition to posthumously publishing and promoting Geoffrey’s
work, is an educational charity funding a successful International Chair in
Western Esotericism (including a Theosophy module), at the prestigious
University of Exeter, UK. The Trust has recently (2009) re-published Geoffrey’s
“Deity, Cosmos and Man” (which is also online), re-published 4 video
documentary films as DVD, and in August posthumously published Geoffrey’s “The
Kabalah and Theosophy”.
There are numerous - yet unpublished - pieces that are intended for
eventual publication, including a volume entitled “The Word” (left unfinished).
At the time of his death he was engaged in researching and writing “Compare
& Contrast” (a provisional title) upon his predominant theme - the
comparison of true Theosophy with that of its unintended neo- pseudo- progeny.
NOTES:
[1] Comparisons are
made in “Theosophy vs. Neo-Theosophy”,
Margaret Thomas, Isis Books, 1995. (An online version of an earlier edition is
available.)
[2] Available
online.
[3] In “The Theosophical Society and its Future”
published in The High Country Theosophist, May 1997 Geoffrey wrote; “The
divergence of the two systems became clearly apparent with the publication of
the Mahatma Letters in 1924/5. It was unfortunate that, for a number of
reasons, their publication had been delayed till then.”
[4] From “Life And Work of Geoffrey Farthing - The
Autobiographic Testimony Of a Leading Theosophist”, by Carlos Cardoso
Aveline. The text is available at www.TheosophyOnline.com
and its associated websites. As to the article “The Etheric Double”, it can be found at www.blavatskytrust.org.uk/html/booklets/etheric_double.htm
.
[5] Christmas Humphreys (and the Lodge of which
he was President) seceded from The Theosophical Society in 1926, a divisive
time within the Society, and this eventually formed the Buddhist Society of
Great Britain.
[6] Christmas
Humphrey’s autobiography “Both Sides of
the Circle” (The quotation includes the present Writer’s underline),
published 1978.
[7] See “What Theosophy Is Not”, 1971.
[8] Rider & Co.
publishers, 1936.
[9] “What Theosophy Is Not”; see note 7,
above.
[10] Published Online under the title of
“A Theosophical Manifesto - 1996”.
[11] Dated 24
February 2000.
000
The above article was first published in the August
2012 edition of The Aquarian Theosophist.
To read more on Geoffrey Farthing, see the text “Life And Work of Geoffrey Farthing - The AutobiographicTestimony Of a Leading Theosophist”, by Carlos
Cardoso Aveline.
Robert Kitto is a former computer systems
developer. A long standing member of the
Theosophical Society (Adyar) in the United Kingdom, he was a Lodge President
and in 2002 became a Trustee of The Blavatsky Trust.
000
On the dharma and duty of the esoteric movement, 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