Esoteric Philosophy and
Outward Courtesy
Carlos Cardoso Aveline
Theosophy students must beware
of wishful thinking. This sort of mental
illusion results from an intense personal desire to be kind and
spiritually-minded towards all.
Inspired by this idealistic
attitude, it often occurs that when we see someone is making a mistake, we
forbid ourselves even to think about that.
We do not want to hurt that person’s feelings. We sense we
can’t cause suffering to his outer personality or “shell” by telling him the
truth. We take it for granted that such a person is attached to his favourite
illusions, and it seems unacceptable for us to destroy any fancies of our
friend’s outer shell.
Perhaps one or two of our
friends do the same favour to us. They see all our mistakes – they may even
invent some extra shortcomings – but since they are spiritual people, they are
kind enough to make believe they don’t. It could be insane to provoke our
anger.
Consciously or unconsciously most
people sense that truthfulness is a dangerous thing. At every moment, any extra
amount of sincerity may seriously violate the rules of social courtesy, breaking
an implicit but forceful agreement for mutual respect and equilibrium among different personality masks.
H.P. Blavatsky never accepted
such social rules, and she paid the price for that. The Old Lady looked at the movements of the soul – not at those of the shell. She couldn’t help it: she was far
from being politically correct. Perhaps her honesty was part of the reason why
so many people found her personality rather strange and unconventional.
When one has his consciousness
centered in the heart, his sincerity undergoes a process of growth and he finds it increasingly difficult to share
selfish goals, or to lie and say falsehoods in order to keep a kind attitude towards
people. There seems to be a greater self-confidence, on an inner level, and an
absence of short-term astuteness or cunning, outwardly. The student tends to
say what he thinks – and hence dozens of problems emerge. He may be hated or
persecuted for that higher degree of sincerity. He is often caught in the midst
of an iron contradiction between the need to be courteous and the need to be
sincere.
How can one best face that
challenge? Sooner or later, a growing degree of self-sacrifice will be inevitable.
Remaining silent is only a partial solution which cannot solve all problems in every
occasion. According to the “Golden Stairs” given by HPB to her students, making a brave declaration of principles is
one of the main steps in the inner path to the Temple of Truth. This is no rhetorical
recommendation. For truthful people, defending truth tends to be a practical
necessity. If they don’t do that, they may gradually cease to be sincere without
ever noticing it. Accepting lies or illusion destroys mental clarity and hence
severely reduces the possibility of identifying our own mistakes. Then one can’t even know one is going astray.
On the other hand, as we try
to be sincere and to defend truth we are
likely to be accused of being intolerant of other people’s views. If, for instance,
we take some steps to put an end to a specific absence of ethics within our
field of action, our attitude can be easily construed as intolerant. We are then
accused of being aggressive towards the emotional shells of others. But what
exactly are the limits between real, heartfelt tolerance – and merely social
courtesy?
A few basic principles might
help us in the task of making such a distinction.
1) While outward courtesy may
have nothing to do with ethics, tolerance is certainly inseparable from it. Tolerance
is the willing acceptance of change and contrast among different views and
aspects of life. It emerges without effort from an open mind and a pure heart.
Yet it is naturally limited by the sense of truthfulness towards all and of full
responsibility for one’s own actions.
2) Tolerance can only take
place where there is a common respect for truth. Liberty of thought should not
be seen as a license to lie and to slander, for instance. Passive or active
support to any wrongdoing is no tolerance, but sheer complicity, even when disguised
under the elegant masks of open-mindedness and spiritual generosity.
In short, duality and
diversity are part of external life. We must accept and even celebrate them, but
this is not the same as welcoming obvious lack of truthfulness – or leaving it
unchallenged.
Since its creation in the
1870s, the theosophical movement has been
an open battlefield for testing truth and error. Decade after decade, we have
been painfully trying to identify our collective mistakes, to learn from them
and finally to correct them once for all in order to go ahead. Unidentified
mistakes tend to repeat themselves, while those same mistakes, once corrected,
become part of our common wisdom and help us along the way.
Probation does not come from
within ourselves only: we also have to face it in the outer world – and to
decide what to do about it. In a sense we are all Arjunas before the battle, in
conflict with ourselves. We resist to act as warriors. It is not easy for a
student to choose between the duty to his
own conscience and his old habits, or between the eternal truth and his friends
and colleagues. When the student sees the actual need to do something which
will cause suffering to those most dear to him, or if he realizes that he may
be utterly misunderstood and rejected by his loved ones, he can grasp in a
deeper sense what Arjuna felt before the battle:
“The advent of feelings of
peace (...) completely overlaid the warrior qualities of Arjuna. His fortitude
was gone and he was full of melting sentiments. He said to Sri Krishna: ‘I see
on two sides, determined on a bitter war, all my relations and friends and
tribesmen, but the very idea of this fighting shakes me up to the root.’
A little later Arjuna says to
Krishna:
“I cannot stand here for a
moment more. The very idea of killing these men makes me tremble. I cannot see
any good in fighting. I do not want triumph in war. Nor do I want a kingdom.
(...) I see before me every one with whom I can claim human relationship. I shall not raise my hand against them even
for an empire.” [1]
Indeed we all want peace,
physically and emotionally. More: we want peace based on routine. We do not
want to be warriors.
Perhaps it was to avoid outer dissension
and disharmony and to attain peace in the realm of appearances, that along the
20th century some theosophical circles got used to accept a strange mixture of true
ideas and absurd fancies, all put together as part of a naive conception of
universal brotherhood, in which implicit rules of courtesy forbid people from being
frank and honest with their words.
How can that happen, if the uncompromising
search for truth has been from the beginning an essential part of the
theosophical ideal?
First of all, many people are
slaves to appearances and have no real interest in searching for truth or testing
its descriptions in their lives. They prefer the easy way of belief.
Secondly, for those who really
try, having access to truth is never easy. The student has to undergo a certain
death to selfishness in order to be born in unconditional wisdom and happiness.
Gradual acceptance of truth brings with it a painful inner transformation which
can be successfully done by the student only after he has learned to become
relatively independent and to take entire responsibility for his own life.
Since childhood human beings
are taught to disguise and to repress their real emotions. Throughout life,
people suffer strong pressures to renounce their sincerity and to develop
highly socialized personality shells which feed mainly on fancies and
appearances. This trend – which leads to hypocrisy – is accepted and perhaps intensified
in some theosophical circles.
HPB wrote about such
spiritualized masks:
“No ‘cultured’ man or woman will
ever show anger in Society. To check and restrain every sign of annoyance shows
good manners, certainly, but also considerable achievement in hypocrisy and
dissimulation. There is an occult side to this rule of good breeding expressed
in an Eastern proverb: ‘Trust not the face which never shows signs of anger nor
the dog that never barks.’ Cold-blooded animals are the most venomous.” [2]
What do the Mahatmas say about
such a challenging relationship between inner life and outer form? In one of
the “Mahatma Letters”, an Adept-Teacher explains the way the enemies of Truth
work, and he compares it to the methods used by the teachers of Universal
Truth. Reading such a letter is a stimulating experience. After patiently comparing
the two paths – the easy one of lies and the difficult one of truthfulness – the
Master kindly says, using most simple words in an attempt to be understood by his
‘lay chela’ (lay disciple):
“... You have to remember that
our Eastern ideas about ‘motives’ and ‘truthfulness’ and ‘honesty’ differ
considerably from your ideas in the West. Both we believe that it is moral to
tell the truth and immoral to lie; but here every analogy stops and our notions
diverge in a very remarkable degree. For instance it would be a most difficult
thing for you to tell me, how it is that your civilized Western Society, Church
and State, politics and commerce have ever come to assume a virtue that it is
quite impossible for either a man of
education, a statesman, a trader, or anyone else living in the world – to practice
in an unrestricted sense? Can any one of the above mentioned classes – the
flower of England’s chivalry, her proudest peers and most distinguished commoners,
her most virtuous and truth speaking ladies – can any of them speak the truth,
I ask, whether at home, or in Society, during their public functions or in the
family circle? What would you think of a gentleman, or a lady, whose affable
politeness of manner and suavity of language would cover no falsehood; who, in
meeting you would tell you plainly and abruptly what he thinks of you, or of
anyone else? And where can you find that pearl of honest tradesmen or that
god-fearing patriot, or politician, or a simple casual visitor of yours, but conceals
his thoughts the whole while, and is obliged under the penalty of being regarded
as a brute, a madman – to lie deliberately, and with a bold face, no sooner he
is forced to tell you what he thinks of you; unless for a wonder his real
feelings demand no concealment? All is lie, all falsehood, around and in us, my brother; and that is why you
seemed [3] so surprised, if not
affected, whenever you find a person, who will tell you bluntly truth to
your face; and also why it seems
impossible for you to realize that a man can have no ill feelings against you,
nay even like and respect you for some things, and yet tell you to your face
what he honestly and sincerely thinks of you.” [4]
Masters admit that truth is “a
too powerful tonic which can kill as well as cure”. It has to be therefore “cautiously
given out, and bit by bit”. [5] Both
HPB and the Masters wrote about the practical importance of this old kabalistic motto: “To know, to dare,
to will and to remain silent”. [6]
Yet it is the truth which must
be gradually given out – not illusions. As the path to wisdom is dangerous, students
must have courage. Hence, earnest
aspirants are described as ‘Warriors of
Truth’. [7]
We have the right to refuse Krishna’s
lessons to Arjuna and decide not to be warriors. But we should know that this is
not a way leading to peace, as every attachment to a pleasant routine provokes greater
danger in the future. Writing about the subtle mechanisms by which selfishness can
infiltrate itself in a ‘spiritual’ group, a Teacher wrote, while evaluating the
reality of the London Lodge of the Theosophical Society, in the early
1880s:
“ (...) This is also the
reason why, the British T.S. does not progress one step practically. They are
of the Universal Brotherhood but in name,
and gravitate at best towards Quietism
– that utter paralysis of the Soul. They are intensely selfish in their
aspirations and will get but the reward of their selfishness.” [8]
The validity of this sentence
is not restricted to the 19th century. Perhaps we ought to ask ourselves
whether an Adept-Teacher, examining in 2005 the whole of the theosophical
movement, would get to the conclusion that we or our groups are free from that
mistake, in this first decade of 21st century.
What can we do with regard to
this?
For 130 years now, a living
chain of theosophical workers have taught to us a practical lesson which is as
old as human kind, and which comes from all wisdom traditions. The lesson says that
selflessness in the action is one of the best ways of preventing and fighting both “spiritual” selfishness and tamasic immobility.
The “Bhagavad Gita”, commented
by Dnyaneshvar, explains:
“Those who turn their back to
their duty (Dharma), who are filled with the pride of achievement, or who are
absorbed in objects of enjoyment, will fall a prey to acute unhappiness. (...)
Performance of one’s duty is the only means
of securing happiness in the next birth.” [9]
Dnyaneshvar also says:
“You need not absorb yourself
in religious ceremonies. You need not pain the body. Nor go upon long journeys
of pilgrimage. You need not practice physical Yoga (Hatha Yoga), or give
devotion with any motive. You need not to equip yourself with any charms or
incantations. You need not worship the minor deities or engage in any fussy
activities. Your obligatory duties are the one sacrifice (Yadna) you should
offer. Do your duties cheerfully and without desire for fruits (...). The
performance of duty is the only sacrifice worth practising.” [10]
We must always sow before we
harvest. And the seed sown must necessarily be of the same type and substance
as that which we hope to harvest one day. There are, therefore, more than one
indication that being truthful is a central
duty, a basic step for us – if we have the intention to tread the old steep
road leading to Truth.
NOTES:
[1] “Gita the Mother”,
a commentary by Dnyaneshvar Maharaj, translated in English by Manu Subedar,
Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India, 2000, 318 pp., see p. 58.
[2] “From the Note
Book of an Unpopular Philosopher”, by H.P. Blavatsky, in “Collected Writings”, TPH,
1960, vol. VIII, p. 137. Published for the first time in the “Lucifer” magazine,
October 1887.
[3] “Seemed”. The THP third edition of the “Mahatma Letters”, revised by Christmas
Humphreys and Elsie Benjamin, changed “seemed” into “seem”.
[4] “The Mahatma
Letters to A. P. Sinnett”, Transcribed by A. T. Barker, facsimile edition,
Theosophical University Press, Pasadena, California, 1992, Letter XXX, p. 232.
[5] “Mahatma Letters”,
T.U.P., Letter XXXIV, p. 245.
[6] “The Letters of H.
P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett”, Theosophical University Press, compiled by A.
T. Barker, facsimile edition, Pasadena, California, 1973, Letter XVII, p. 36. See also “Letters
From the Masters of the Wisdom”, Second Series, TPH/India, 1973, Letter 65, p.
118.
[7] See, for instance,
“Mahatma Letters”, Letter LV, p. 322.
[8] “Mahatma Letters”,
T.U.P., Letter XXVIII, p. 210.
[9] “Gita the Mother”,
a commentary by Dnyaneshvar Maharaj, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India, see
p. 74 (first sentence of this quotation) and 78 (last sentence of this
quotation).
[10] “Gita the Mother”, p. 73.
000
This article was first
published in the Canadian magazine “Fohat”,
volume IX, Number 3, Fall 2005, pp. 60-62 and 71.
000
In September 2016, after
a careful analysis of the state of the esoteric movement worldwide, a group of students
decided to form the Independent Lodge of
Theosophists, whose priorities include the building of a better future in
the different dimensions of life.
000
