Five Editorial Trends in
The Theosophical
Movement
Carlos Cardoso Aveline
Front cover of “The Fire and Light”
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The following text reproduces Chapter
Eight of
the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical
Literature”,
by Carlos Cardoso Aveline, The
Aquarian Theosophist, Portugal, 255
pp., 2013.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
“Where thou art Obliged to speak, be sure
to speak the Truth; For Equivocation is half
way to Lying, as Lying, the whole way to Hell.”
(William Penn) [1]
The theosophical
effort largely expresses itself through written words. Since the independence
of every student should be stimulated, theosophists have the right to know the
editorial criteria by which the texts and books read by them are produced and
published.
In order to get a better understanding of these
criteria, it is not enough for us to identify the inaccurate editorial policies
followed - since the death of H.P. Blavatsky in 1891 - by the biggest
theosophical association, the Adyar Society. It is also necessary to examine
the premises and assumptions of the editorial policies which are sincerely
committed to the original teachings of modern esoteric philosophy.
Looking at the history of the theosophical work since
1875, we may distinguish five main editorial trends, which express themselves
in the way their periodicals and books are produced and presented to the
public.
No one, of course, can say that there are only five editorial lines. Besides,
these general editorial trends often mix and combine with each other. It is not always easy to “classify” one
individual as a member of this or that group only. C. Jinarajadasa, for instance,
was arguably responsible for actions which belong to three of the following
five groups of editorial trends. Also, every editor or writer who belongs at
any given time to an editorial trend may change his or her loyalty and
viewpoint, and this is something that has happened often. In spite of these
factors, the five groups of trends do exist, and they can be easily recognized.
The first one provides us with the most important tests, as it is contrary to
truth, and it disguises itself.
1) Extreme Pseudo-Theosophy
It is a matter of defending the rights of consumers.
Readers deserve respect, and they should be helped to identify that editorial
policy which tampers with the originals of the books and does not pay attention
to the veracity of what is published.
The practice was inaugurated by Annie Besant in the
1890s - soon after HPB left the scene. It has been adopted by a few editors who
present themselves as “Blavatsky students”. Besides spreading libels against
HPB and - in some cases - against the Masters of the Wisdom, they can be
recognized by their personalistic approach to life, and by not being committed
to building the movement in any way.
Such “scholars” defend a relativistic philosophy. They
say that anything can be equally accepted
as true or as false, according to one’s wishes. They are unable to see any
substantial difference between truth and falsehoods. They freely authorize
themselves to tamper with originals, to spread doubts about the honesty of the
founders of the movement while still calling themselves “theosophists”, and to
present shameless hypocrisy as a sacred expression of “liberty of thought”,
which they say no one should be allowed to question or confront.
Flatly ignoring the vast difference between an honest
and a dishonest individual, they use to suggest that “since the founders were
not perfect, they can also be
described as liars”. For these
editors, the image of the main Founder of the movement plays the role of a
psychological looking-glass, on which they can only see their own and low
condition reflected.
2) Moderate Pseudo-Theosophy
The second group of editorial procedures can be
considered an expression of “moderate pseudo-theosophy”. Group 2 accepts
both theosophy and pseudo-theosophy. It has a preference for Annie Besant’s
ritualistic variety of pseudo-theosophy, often combined with the Adventist view
according to which Jiddu Krishnamurti was an “avatar”. It is therefore rather
sophistic and relativist in philosophy.
But it avoids slandering the founders of the theosophical movement and -
also an important point - it does not actively promote tampering with
originals.
Chapter 17 of the present volume, “Adulterating
Theosophical Literature”, narrates a 1966 conversation among Adyar leaders
which reveals the subtle but profound difference existing between Group 1
and Group 2. A more recent example of such a contrast emerged when Dr.
John Algeo published a remarkable collection of lies against HPB, as if they
had been written by herself. His action is examined in the Chapters 18,
“Defending the Old Lady”, and 19, “A Masterpiece of Editorial Forgery”.
A few months after the publication of the fake
letters, the international president of the Adyar Theosophical Society, Mrs.
Radha Burnier, sent me a letter in which she admitted that those texts are
“obviously spurious”. [2]
A few years later - in 2007 and 2008 - John Algeo
provoked an unprecedented electoral crisis in the Adyar Theosophical Society by
using fraudulent and disrespectful methods to challenge Mrs. Radha Burnier’s
leadership. By letting his followers spread false rumours about her health, he
further employed the same methods used by the slanderers of HPB.
3) Authentic Academic Work
The third group of editorial trends corresponds to the
work of independent researchers and university-oriented editors who do not
slander the founders, nor show disrespect for truth but, on the contrary,
generally help the Movement and its Cause, broadly defined.
They are easy enough to recognize. They do not have
always a clear vision of what is theosophy and what is not. Yet they do tend to
stay away from pious fraud and
pseudo-theosophy in its more aggressive expressions.
These editors avoid ritualistic illusions. They
typically make useful research on the history of the movement, and thus provide
students of true theosophy with elements of information for their renewed
effort in the 21st century.
4) Editors of the Original Theosophy
One should not forget that the Adyar Society has
published in a correct way a great deal of books belonging to the original theosophy.
The fourth group of editorial trends includes authors
and editors related in various ways to the Adyar Society, to the Pasadena
Society, the United Lodge of Theosophists, the Edmonton Theosophical Society in
Canada, the Point Loma groups in several countries, the Fundación Blavatsky in
Mexico, and other associations. Group 4 is committed to the original
teachings of Theosophy. Books have auras, as one Adept wrote in a Letter [3], and an authentically Buddhic or
spiritual influence flows from these editorial lines and from the magazines and
books resulting from them. Anyone can see this, by going beyond appearances and
studying deeper theosophy. Group 4 holds a key to the next phases in the
historical development of the movement, in the 21st century and beyond.
5) The Activist Trend in Original Theosophy
There is a creative tension between two groups of
editorial lines, both loyal to the original teachings of Theosophy: group 4 and
group 5. H.P. Blavatsky used the words “militant” and “combative” to define
what we are classifying as Group 5.
It is useful to remember that the Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary
of the English language (in its 1989 edition), offers this first definition of
the word “militant”:
“Vigorously active, aggressive, or combative; a militant group of reformers.”
Group 5 is militant, as opposed to Group 4. The creative contrast between
these editorial trends grants an extra amount of strength and dynamism to the
theosophical movement. The two lines are discussed by HPB in an 1887 letter to
William Q. Judge. She opens the text
with the words “My dearest W.Q.J.”, and goes on to describe the difference in
editorial lines between “Path” magazine, then published from New York by Judge,
and “Lucifer” magazine, then published from London, by herself. HPB writes:
“I will force people to
subscribe for Path & this will
never hurt Lucifer. One is the
fighting combative Manas - the other
(Path) is pure Buddhi. Can’t both be
united in an offensive & defensive alliance in one or Sthula Sharira - theosophy? Lucifer will be Theosophy militant - ‘Path’ the shining light, the
Star of Peace. If your intuition does not whisper to you - it is so: then that intuition must be wool-gathering. No Sir, the ‘Path’ is too well, too theosophically edited for me to
interfere. I am not born for meek &
conciliating literature!” [4]
The “fighting combative Manas” HPB writes about is but
the expression of a Flame coming from the Star, or Atma. Such a fire burns illusions as much as it
enlightens that which is valuable. It is
Atma-Manas, and it cannot work otherwise, for no one can seriously adopt both
wisdom and illusions. This one White Light is probably related also to HPB’s
own main source of spiritual inspiration -; a source which, as we can see by
studying “The Mahatma Letters”, does not
put diplomacy first in its agenda.
The alliance between Group 4 and Group 5 is
then a long term, stable and strategic factor. At its root, it is also the
alliance between Atma-Buddhi (Group 4)
and Atma-Buddhi-Manas (Group 5).
These two trends of editorial action have remained
alive since 1875. In his books and through the pages of “Theosophy” magazine,
John Garrigues expressed one line of action in Group 5, up to his death in 1944. Another thinker of the fifth group
was British author Geoffrey Farthing (1909-2004). The editors of “The Aquarian
Theosophist” have in more than one occasion followed the same path, and these
are certainly not the only examples of such an editorial view, which was
established by HPB and the Mahatmas themselves. [5]
In her text “The Original Programme of the
Theosophical Society”, also known as “The Organization of the Theosophical
Society”, HPB wrote about four main objectives of the movement, as they were
stated by her own Master. She concludes her description of the fourth object by
saying:
“Superstition had to be exposed and avoided; and
occult forces, beneficent and maleficent - ever surrounding us and
manifesting their presence in various ways - demonstrated to the best of our ability.” [6]
This approach to the movement’s Mission is therefore
not HPB’s idea only; it comes from a much higher source. Sincerity is one of
the decisive qualities in theosophy, and differences must not be wiped out
artificially, if its students are to remain sincere. The true theosophical
movement welcomes enriching differences among its workers. Since it invites
everyone to implement self-devised efforts, it must see outer differences as an
inevitable and fundamentally positive factor along the path.
How can one deal with outer contrast and contradiction
in a correct way? A popular saying in Brazil expresses something of interest:
“Everything is worthwhile if the Soul is not small”. It means that the bright
side of everything tends to appear once we look at it from the viewpoint of a
universal heart.
Some students are closer to HPB’s editorial line.
Others prefer to avoid confronting errors. The two trends are in close unity,
as Robert Crosbie knew and taught. He expressed the inner harmony between the combative
Buddhi and the non-combative Buddhi with these words:
“We need only Loyalty - loyalty to the work, loyalty
to our convictions, loyalty to each other in full faith and confidence that
each is a part of the other and of all. So shall we be united in one thought,
one will, one feeling. This does not mean indiscriminate acceptance of
everything and everyone. The attitude of ‘namby-pambyism’ is but a
pseudo-tolerance. Carried to its legitimate conclusion, this false idea of
‘brotherhood’ would signify that sin, sorrow, suffering, error, all religions
and all philosophies are all right; that everybody is doing the best he can,
and the best he knows how to do, and cannot do any different, and that all are
steps of learning.”
And Crosbie went on:
“Humanity sins, sorrows, suffers and dies a thousand
deaths; because of what? Just IGNORANCE. Theosophy is TRUTH and as such can
have no alliance with any form of
error and remain Truth. If partial philosophies could save the world there
would be no need for the sacrifices of the Masters. For those who never knew
Theosophy, or whose minds are so crooked in action that they cannot receive it,
there should be pity and compassion. But pity and consideration for their false
positions cannot call for a surrender of our discrimination - for a surrender
of what we know, and of what it is our purpose
to live and to know. I am no believer in diluted Theosophy. The Masters did not
dilute it. We either carry on Their work or we do not; there is no need for
hypocrisy nor self-deception. Others in the world, not able to perceive the
Oneness of Theosophy, nor its bearing at the present time, may and do use
portions of it - some of them, it is to be feared, to their own condemnation
and the further bewilderment of mankind. Are they right, or to be praised or
‘tolerated’? Is it not the bounden duty of those who know, to hold aloft the
White Standard of Truth? It must be so, else how could an enquiring one
perceive it? Theosophy has to be held aloft in such a way as to confront errors
of every kind, with their handmaidens of cant and hypocrisy.” [7]
This viewpoint may be considered as a guiding light
for the theosophical movement’s websites, magazines and journals, in the
present century and in the future ones.
NOTES:
[1] “The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, The Journal
of John Woolman, Fruits of Solitude,
William Penn”, Harvard Classics, P.F. Collier & Son, New York, 1909, 416
pp., p. 353.
[2] The facsimile of Mrs. Burnier’s letter opens Chapter
18.
[3] See “The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett”, T.U.P. edition, 1992, Letter
LXXXVI, page 405, lower half of the page. In the 1972 Adyar edition of the
Mahatma Letters, see p. 399. In the Philippines TPH, 1993, Chronological
edition, it is the Letter 119, p. 408.
[4] “Theosophical History” magazine, volume V, number 7,
July 1995, p. 222.
[5] See Chapter 9, “Journals According to the Mahatmas”.
[6] “The Organization of the Theosophical Society”,
Helena P. Blavatsky, in “Theosophical Articles”, a three volume compilation of
her short texts, published by Theosophy Co., Los Angeles, 1981. See volume I,
512 pp., p. 223. The text was published
by “The Theosophist” magazine, Adyar, India, in its August 1931 edition, under
the title of “The Original Programme of the Theosophical Society”. It is the
main text in a small book published by TPH-Adyar under the same title of “The
Original Programme of the Theosophical Society” (first edition, 1931).
[7] “The Friendly Philosopher”, Robert Crosbie, Theosophy
Co., 416 pp., 1945, pp. 11-12.
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
