The 1976 Letter
to Dr. I. K. Taimni,
Regarding the Future
of Adyar Esoteric School
Geoffrey A. Farthing
G. A. Farthing (1909-2004)
“Are the Masters likely to use again the T.S., a
vehicle which has not availed itself of what they
gave out before and has not propagated it, for
the next outpouring? (…..) This must be corrected
before the Society can make significant progress…”
(Geoffrey A.
Farthing, in his 1976 Letter to I. K. Taimni)
A 2011 Editorial Note:
Geoffrey Farthing (1909-2004) was a leading member
of the Adyar Theosophical Society in the 20th century and author of several
books. In 1976, he wrote a classified letter to Dr. I.K. Taimni, then the Director
or “Outer Head” of the Esoteric School (E.S.) of the Adyar Society.
Farthing sent copies of his letter to “sundry
individual members of the E.S.” It was his first written document to Adyar
leaders suggesting they should take courageous steps in the direction of real
theosophy.
Twenty years later, Farthing would issue two public
texts in which he defended the same general ideas, while avoiding a direct
discussion of the Esoteric School. In November
1996 he distributed his 15 pp. text “A
Manifesto”, with the subtitle “Action
to launch the Theosophical Society effectively and healthily into the
twenty-first century, and even the next millennium”. In July 1997, his 9
pp. “Supplement 1997 to Manifesto
1996 Concerning the Future of the Theosophical Society” was published.
Although the 1996 and 1997 texts have played an
important role in the movement and will do so in the future, the 1976 letter is
different for it deals with that which has been called “the heart of the
theosophical movement”.
It is now published for the first time.
The decision to make the document public was taken
after careful consideration of the challenges and perspectives of the Adyar
section of the movement, especially since the institutional crisis in 2007-2010.
The structural paralysis of Adyar Society remains chronic. Its effects are
transmitted to the theosophical movement as a whole. Its origin is in the problems
described by Farthing in his 1976 letter.
Truth liberates from ignorance.
Truthfulness is the key to the future, and time never passes in vain. At the occult level, there are no
separations in the theosophical movement, and the action of karma heals every
wound.
Farthing left physical life seven years ago, in
2004. Thirty-five years have elapsed since the 1976 letter was written. It is time for it to be available to all
theosophists, because it is more than just a historical document. It can
inspire action in the present. It may offer a partial view of the future. Its power to change and to help is easier to
perceive in the 21st century than it was in the 20th.
It clearly
announces:
“Are the Masters likely to use again the T.S., a
vehicle which has not availed itself of what they gave out before and has not
propagated it, for the next outpouring?” And also:
“This must be corrected before the Society can make significant
progress…”
Dr.
I.K. Taimni (1898-1978), to whom the letter is addressed, was the author of
various books, especially on the Hindu tradition.
We
add explanatory notes at the end of the text. Underlined words are thus in the
typewritten copy we received from Mr. Farthing in January 2000.
(Carlos
Cardoso Aveline)
0000
To the Outer
Head of the Adyar E.S.
Geoffrey A. Farthing
All recipients of this letter are asked to read it as objectively as
possible and to think long and carefully over what has been proposed and the
justifications for the proposals. Nothing less than the whole effective future
of the Theosophical Society is at stake, maybe its very life, and that at a
time when the next ‘outpouring’ is due. Please make your views positively and
quickly known to your local Secretary of the E.S. and ask him or her to pass
them on quickly to Mr. Taimni. Geoffrey A. Farthing
0000000
OPEN
LETTER TO THE OUTER HEAD OF THE
ESOTERIC
SCHOOL OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
Dear Mr. Taimni,
You may know that over the years I have had
communication with your predecessor [1]
and other Heads of the Esoteric School
concerning its relationship with and influence on the Theosophical Society.
You will know that I am not a member of the E.S.
However, I have been acquainted with the main aspects of the School’s teachings
and practices. Because of my non-membership of the school these are, in
themselves, of no direct concern to me. I am nevertheless very concerned for
the Theosophical Society, for its image in the public mind, for its proper
function in the world, and for its future.
I have been at considerable pains to read the history
of the Theosophical movement in all its branches. I have read a number of books
beginning with the factual histories of the Society, like that of Mrs. Ransom. [2] I read a number of books on the
life of H.P.B., some of which in many respects, being grossly inadequate and
slanderous. I have also read the modern descriptions of the activities of the
Society, written by single individuals from their own experiences, such as
those of Mary Neff, Alice Cleather, Emily and Mary Lutyens. From this reading
and widespread travelling I have some knowledge of how the Society is regarded
in the outside world. It is generally not well known at all, except [3] possibly in India. Where it is
known of, it is regarded as a small sectarian body.
I came into the Society after the War after having
read fairly widely in philosophical and spiritualistic literature and spent a
number of years reading mostly the Besant/Leadbeater type literature. This
formed my first views as to what Theosophy was. In the light of pronouncements
of Mr. Jinarajadasa and later by Mr. Sri Ram, I formed the view that Theosophy
was at best ill-defined and even that it was not susceptible of definition.
This led to the view that it was largely, if not entirely, a matter of opinion
and this in fact seemed, and even still seems, to be the common view of the
leaders and members of the Society. It did not then occur to me that they were
confusing two things; (a) Theosophy and what they think it is, and (b) the Objects
of the Society which allow freedom of opinion and belief to all its members.
In later years, however, beginning with the study of
the “Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett” and graduating to “The Key to Theosophy”,
“Secret Doctrine”, “Isis” and “The Collected Writings of H.P.B.”, I have had radically
to alter my views as to what Theosophy is, particularly having regard to the
quite positive statements made in this respect by H.P.B. and the Masters
themselves. They can in no sense be regarded as allowing the view that
Theosophy is a matter of opinion. To them, Theosophy is exact science, as
susceptible of verification in all its various aspects, as are the tenets of
any other science, provided the right approach is made to it and the right
methods used and persevered with. On the other hand one discovers that views of
it put out after H.P.B.’s death are in many respects quite contradictory to
what the Masters said. For example much of the descriptions of the astral
plane, our activities during sleep, the after-death states and the nature of
spiritualistic phenomena, the personalisation of Manu, Christ, Maitreya etc.,
cannot in any sense be reconciled with that the Masters taught on these
subjects. Similarly, many religiously inclined members have come to regard
their religious theologies if they include, or had added to them, the teachings
of Karma and Reincarnation, as being Theosophy whereas this is far from the
truth. These ideas however do justify, for example, Hindu students feeling that
in their wonderful religious literature they are already possessed of
Theosophy, without having to study it as something distinct. The Buddhists
likewise, because they teach the Karma and because much of their philosophical
and canonical views can be reconciled with the teachings of Occultism or
Theosophy, feel that they too are possessed of it.
The point, however, is that in both these cases the
scriptural teachings that are now available to the adherents of these religions
were available hundreds or even thousands of years ago and they are the exoteric
teachings of those religions. In neither case are the esoteric teachings
made available in any extant literature nor are they propounded outside of
certain closed schools, which may or may not still exist. H.P.B. said of the
massive Indian religious literature that the six great schools of Indian
philosophy represented “the six principles of that unit body of WISDOM of which
the ‘gnosis’, the hidden knowledge is the seventh…” (S.D.,Vol I, p.278). She
follows this by saying that she hopes “enough has been given out in the
cosmogonic portion of the work to show Archaic teachings to be more scientific
(in the modern sense of the word) on their very face, than any other ancient
scriptures left to be regarded and judged on their exoteric aspect.”
The Masters, who instituted The Theosophical Society,
intended it to be an instrument for conveying some up-till-then occult,
esoteric, information to the general public. This information was only then
made publicly available for the first time. This does not mean to say
that if one had the keys to the symbolism, the allegories, parables and other
allusions in ancient religious writings that it is not referred to or, at
least, hinted at in them but it is not stated in plain language. For example,
the Masters’ teachings on the seven-fold constitution of man as a reflection of
that of Cosmos, the teachings on the vast cyclic evolutionary process involving
chains of globes etc.., the theory (to put it no higher) of rounds and races
with corresponding development of faculties, the true nature of space and of
original spirit-substance and its differentiation into matter, the origin of
forms in the kingdoms of Nature, the states of consciousness corresponding to
Cosmic principles, the mechanics of astral travel, the working of miracles with
the agency of the elementals etc., explanations of fore-knowledge and
‘omniscience’ (in their sense of the term), the plain language explanations of
the spiritual development processes in man leading up to the expansion of the
consciousness and the unfolding of his powers, culminating eventually in the
super-human states and much more; all this they gave out and explained to us
and for the most part it is not so stated or explained anywhere else. Further
they related what they taught to the old religious systems and teachings and to
the teachings and practices of the schools of magic and mystery, to the western
Kabalistic tradition and so on, giving us valuable explanations of ancient
theologies and interpretations of myths. In doing all this they not only gave
us a mine of information which is not in any exoteric religious
writings, but they showed how it extended into and was relevant to, the fields
of the study and speculation of the philosophers of ancient and modern times.
To quote H.P.B. again, “Our chief care it to elucidate that which has already
been given out, and, to our regret, very incorrectly at times; to supplement
the knowledge hinted at - whenever and wherever possible - by additional matter.”
Theosophy is therefore unique in giving us this
additional explanatory knowledge. It is true that the immediate appeal of this
aspect of it must be to the intellect but I suggest that in the case of fifth
race man and, in particular, the fifth sub-race, it is to the intellect that
the appeal must be made now. I believe that this is the relevance of H.P.B.’s
statements that Theosophy is “for those who can think or for those who can
drive themselves to think, not mental sluggards,” and that “the true student of
the Secret Doctrine is a Jnana Yogi, and this path of yoga is the true
path for the Western student. It is to provide him with sign posts on that path
that The Secret Doctrine has been written.” [4] In this context it should be borne in mind that the teaching
was given out in English, to the Western World. I submit that since the death
of H.P.B. these clear indicators of the ………….
[5] real nature and message of
Theosophy, and their implications have been very largely, if not completely,
ignored in the Society. More importantly they have been largely omitted for a
very long time from the instruction given to members of the Esoteric School.
This instruction has been based commonly on the ancient Eastern tradition,
mostly Hindu. [6]
The results of this on The Theosophical Society as an
institution for the promotion of the special Theosophical ideas and therefore
on the image the Society has created on the outside world, has been very
serious. In my view the failure of the Society to make its proper impact has
been entirely due to this omission, and this serious omission must be laid at
the door of the successive ‘Outer Heads’ [7]
and other leaders of the Esoteric School. The justification for this charge
against the E.S. is that people are attracted into the School by reason of the
claims made for it. As I understand these claims they are so to train
candidates that they will (a) become more effective members of The Theosophical
Society and (b) be brought, at least, to the notice of, if not into contact
with, the Masters. The way to achieve both of these is by way of the School’s
personal disciplines, its recommended material for study and its meditational
practices.
These objects have attracted the most sincere of the
Society’s members who from among their number, have provided most of its
leaders and workers in its various activities throughout its life so far. They
have become the writers and lecturers. They have become its administrators.
They have been the members of its Councils and Executive Committees. They have
acted as an example to younger members and, generally as a body, they have been
the biggest single formative influence within the Society. Included in their
number has always been the President of the Society with his or her special
influence by reason of his office. These members have been conditioned by their
training in the Esoteric School. This means to say that through them as the
Society’s workers, the Esoteric School has itself been the most influential
single factor in the life of The Theosophical Society, apart from its original
founding and objects. Note especially what H.P.B. herself said in her Esoteric
Papers (Preliminary Explanations to Instruction III): “The reputation of the
T.S. is in the keeping of each one of you, (i.e. members of the E.S.) and as
you regard or neglect it, so will it prosper. But you have to remember that the
life of the E.S. too, depends on that of the Body. The moment the T.S. falls in
America (it cannot die in India, or even Europe, so long as the Colonel or I
are alive) through your apathy or carelessness, every member of the E.S. who
has not done his duty will go down with it. From that day there will be no hope
of acquiring true Eastern secret knowledge to the end of the 20th Century.”
(It should be noted that when H.P.B. died most of the
known chelas of the Masters were heard of no more in the Society except for a
few like the Countess Wachtmeister and W.Q. Judge.)
My contention is that the conditioning of members of
the School has been such that they have been actually drawn away from the
original teachings of Theosophy. In so far as this has been the case, then this
has been the root cause of the public’s wrong image of the Society and of what
the outside world now thinks of it. It also accounts for the disrepute into
which the Society has fallen in that it accounts for the extraordinary things
that happened, for example, during the Krishnamurti era when, for example, some
members of the E.S. were said to have achieved a number of initiations in a few
weeks etc., and all members were required to believe that he was to be the
World Teacher. Members of the E.S. joining such organizations as the
Co-Masonry, the Liberal Catholic Church and others, the attitudes generated
towards Krishnamurti, all these could not have possibly taken place had those
leaders and members been only reasonably well-acquainted with, and mindful of
the Masters’ and H.P.B.’ teachings. These teachings are specific about the
times when attempts are made to enlighten men and they make quite clear the
occult standing of Masonry, of popular religious ceremonial, of Western magic
etc. Except for possibly some of the Western magical groups, the real occult
significance of religious and Masonic ceremonial is not known to those organisations.
It is known only to the occult (or Theosophical) student. He has to explain
their practices to them. It is not the other way round. We are told they
(except in so far as any secret organisations survive) are occultly dead.
One has only to read of the effect on the public mind
of much that the Society and its leaders did in the second and third decades of
this century to realise
how public opinion was hardened against both the Society and the word
‘Theosophy’. Krishnamurti himself repudiated the claims made for him and
abandoned what he had thought was Theosophy. He, consequently, did incalculable
harm to the ‘cause’. It is quite apparent that he was really never instructed
in Theosophy proper and therefore did not know what he has abandoning. It is
obvious that he still does not. [8]
Great discredit, and even ridicule, was reflected on
the movement when public pronouncements were made that not only had certain
individuals suddenly achieved high initiation but that, in good time, of
course, they were to be members of the world government. This brought the whole
movement, and Theosophy, into ridiculous disrepute. From a proper Theosophical
point of view such initiations were quite impossible. It is also quite obvious
now that the prominent members of the Society involved at that time had no
knowledge of what they were doing and of what real initiation meant. They were
however senior members of the E.S. and should have known. This is more
important than might be immediately obvious. If they did not know these things
what qualifications had they for leading an Esoteric School and preparing its
instructions etc. Is not their influence still imprinted in the E.S. teachings
and practices? Can these not now be called into question?
My conclusions from all this and my contentions are
that, through the influence of its members, the E.S. affects the image created
in the public mind of Theosophy and the Society. The disastrously erroneous
impressions of four or five decades ago still persist in the public mind, at
least in the West, to which the message was primarily addressed. This must be
corrected before the Society can make significant progress and before Theosophy
can attain to the recognition it should have. At present virtually no notice is
being taken in the E.S. of the great out-pouring of occult knowledge then made
at the instigation of the Masters and through the terrible sacrifices of Mme.
Blavatsky. Why did the Masters demand this sacrifice if what they were then
giving out could be ignored within the inmost section of the very Society which
they had founded specifically to bring to the notice of mankind that such a
thing as Theosophy (in their terms) existed?
Another important point is that whereas the Society
allows complete freedom of thought and expression to its members, within very
wide limits, and does not interfere with their religious or philosophical
beliefs, it nevertheless does have this very specific teaching to put out to
the world. In itself this teaching can form a framework for all knowledge and
experience. It also gives to modern thinking man explanations as to his origins
and spiritual nature, of which his traditional religions, particularly in the
West, have so sadly deprived him. At this time in history there is no other
such system of knowledge available. Members of the Society are not required, as
a condition of membership, to acquaint themselves with these teachings but they
are sooner or later exposed to them. They can make their choice to study
Theosophy or not. This is no reason, however, for its not being studied at all,
as in my experience very largely is the case, in large areas throughout the
world. The E.S. through its prescribed reading could correct this position very
quickly and to judge from their talks and writings, there are a few members of
the E.S. with a sufficient knowledge of Theosophy to devise papers and
instructions based on the doctrines given by the Masters. Even if it were thought
that the original teachings as a whole are too difficult for some or even most
of the members of the E.S., they could be used as a background to the E.S.
instructions, and the more gifted members could be encouraged actively to study
them. For this to happen the Outer Head and the leaders of the E.S. generally
must, themselves, be well versed in the teachings. The writings and lectures that have emanated from them
for many years and still do, do not indicate that this is the case. This is not
to suggest that what is being taught is not otherwise time honoured and
admirable. It is however not particularly Theosophical. It could be given
against a background knowledge of, for example, the extant Hindu scriptures
which have been available for centuries, or against much of what Krishnamurti
has to say. None of this reflects the special information given us by the
Masters at the end of the last century and surely this is what we members of
the Theosophical Society should primarily be concerned with. This special
knowledge is what distinguishes Theosophy from everything else and the
Theosophical Society from all others in a like category, in that it was set up
to promote a knowledge of Theosophy. To quote “The Key to Theosophy” p. 39, the
Society “was formed to assist in showing to men that such a thing as Theosophy exists,
and to help them to ascend towards it by study and assimilating its eternal
verities”.[9] This quotation
indicates not only the intention for the Theosophical Society but that
Theosophy is something specific in its own right.
There are many members in the Society who rather
derisively use the expression “Back to Blavatsky” as if this were both a
backward step and limiting one. Only those quite ignorant of the teachings
could think so. First Blavatsky was the amanuensis of the Masters. Any derision
is therefore, maybe indirectly, aimed at them. The tacit refusal is to go “Back
to the Masters”. Secondly, the teachings are an extension of all other extant,
true, knowledge. They do not ignore all that as gone before. Nor do they, by
implication or otherwise, suggest there will not be any more teaching after
them. Rather do they emphasise that there will be. But what was given out was
limited to what was thought wise and what could be assimilated by man at
present; it was an extension of what was already known. It was in addition to
it, and what is much more important, Initiate inspired. It is therefore those
who refuse to study original Theosophy who are imposing limitations on their
Theosophy, not those who go back to Blavatsky and study her writings. The
latter have access to all that was given out both old and new. The others
content themselves only with what was there before. They will also not be aware
of the great discrepancies that exist between what they regard as Theosophy and
that given us in the original literature. Further it is important to realise that
any occult knowledge additional to what was given out at the end of the last
century will, in the nature of things, have to come from Initiates. It cannot
come, as some seem to think possible, from modern research because such
research necessarily deals with the objective manifest world. Even psychology
and drug induced mystical experience can only touch the fringe of the occult
proper.
An important point arises here; if there is to be
another outpouring, in the same or another idiom, in this latter quarter of the
century by what standard will it to be judged? If it is, again, to be Initiate
inspired it will accord with what was given out before. How will we know if
this is so if we are not familiar with the teaching we already have? With what
will we compare it? Are the Masters likely to use again the T.S., a vehicle
which has not availed itself of what they gave out before and has not propagated
it, for the next outpouring?
The foregoing is criticism of the E.S. as it has
existed and as it seems it exists at the present. If these comments are well
based and the evidence is that they are, what can be done to correct the
situation?
May I suggest for your consideration and appropriate
action the following alternative to the present E.S. arrangement. That the
existing E.S., in its present form, be wound up or allowed to die off for as
long as there are existing members who want to stay in it. No new members would
be recruited. This recommendation is justified because the present School has
no initiate teachers and is therefore not a truly esoteric School. It is at
least misnamed. Further there is no need for its secrecy or even confidentiality.
There is nothing it produces or practices that is not to be found in ordinary
published literature. The use of the two founder Masters’ portraits should be
suspended as a school activity. People might use these privately on their own
initiative and responsibility.
The private nature of the present E.S. in that it
forms a brotherhood within the general brotherhood of the Society, makes it
separatist, even divisive, and facilitates its abuse as a political influence
in the T.S. Obviously this does not necessarily occur generally but it is
claimed that it has done in the past, and may still do so in places. In any
case the members of the E.S. being known as such to each other and being the
influential members of the T.S. tend to form a hierarchical ‘government’ within
it, even though this may not be deliberate. This position is reinforced if the
E.S. members are also members of Co-Masonry.
Mr. Sri Ram, with whom I discussed these matters,
agreed with me on many of my points. He said however that he felt he could not
close the E.S. or 4,000 Indian members who looked to him (as Outer Head of the
E.S.) as their guru would leave the Society. This could be the case in other
countries.
The closing of the present E.S., which as said is not
an occult school in the proper sense, would not, in itself, prejudice
the possibility of the Society being used by any Initiate who may come in
connection with the next outpouring. If we are again to have initiate teachers,
they will if they think fit form around themselves a new genuine esoteric
school.
What to do? Is something equivalent to the E.S.
desirable? Many members of the T.S. would say definitely that it was. There is
a place for such a school, but one to which the above objections do not apply.
It is proposed that, in place of the existing E.S., a
Theosophical Training School be established. There are obviously some
requirements to be met and considerations to be taken into account. The
requirements would include:
1) The Training School should be one for Theosophical instruction
and practical guidance in the spiritual life on Theosophical lines.
2) The School should be part of the T.S., not separate
or distinct, from it. Its members would be members of the T.S. and it would be
open to all who wanted to join.
3) The Training School would not interfere with the
objects and activities of the T.S.
4) The School, as such, would own no property. It
could share meeting accommodation and office space and equipment with the T.S.,
use T.S. registers, duplicating and postal facilities etc.
5) The School would have no fees. Its instructions
would have to be quite free, but members might be called on to meet the special
expenses of the school, in addition to their subscriptions to the T.S., so that
in no way would the School be a charge on the T.S.
6) The Officers (if any) of the School would most
likely be existing officers of the T.S. but not necessarily. This rule would
obviate any feelings of separation.
7) The School would make no claim to be esoteric
beyond the teachings given us by H.P.B. and the Masters. Any purported new
teachers, posing as such, who may come would have to justify themselves against
the previous teachings.
8) The School would claim no special relationship with
the Masters and make no claims that scholars on joining would enjoy any special
privileges or attention from the Masters, or even be in the way of so doing
simply by reason of their joining and being members of the School. As there
would be no “Inner Head” of the School; there would be no “Outer Head”. There
would need to be a Principal in charge.
9) Membership of the School would, in itself, confer
no rights or status with the T.S.
10) There would be no degrees or initiations. The
ability to lead the good life in all respects, scholarship and service would be
the only qualifications for respect from other students, and members of the
T.S.
11) Scholars writing or lecturing, while as members of
the T.S. would be free to utter what they liked, would undertake not to put out
their private views and opinions as Theosophy. What is taught as Theosophy must
accord with the Masters’ teachings. (The question of dogmatism might arise here
but anyone at all familiar with the teachings would realise the impossibility
of making a dogma of them. Dogma can only be based on belief or opinion, not on
fact.)
12) Scholars could be expelled from the School on
well-substantiated grounds of dishonesty, immorality, malicious gossip,
slander, or for not doing reasonably within his or her power to further the
interests of the T.S.
13) Scholars would be in three groups:
i) Beginners. These could stay in this grade for say
two years only. They must then move up or resign.
ii) Ordinary. These scholars would be free in that
they would not have taken any vows but have expressed the earnest intention,
possibly in writing, to study and be willing to work for the T.S. in any
capacity their circumstances allowed.
iii) Committed. By a vow to their Higher Self (but
only to that Self) to work for and further the interests of the T.S., the
Theosophical movement generally, and thereby all humanity.
14) The curriculum of the school would include the
study of prescribed books and papers, graded according to the group and
seniority of the scholar. Papers would be circulated to scholars privately:
they would not be secret nor be returnable. Initially all instruction would be
based on H.P.B. and Master teaching. They left us plenty of chela instruction
up to, and beyond, training scholar standard.
15) The school regime would include meditation
periods, on recommended material and outline methods would be taught.
Meditation practices would be on classical lines, using initially at any rate,
the H.P.B. guides. Minimum periods of study would be obligatory. Alcohol
forbidden. Vegetarian diet recommended. Smoking at discretion of scholars, not
recommended. The highest codes of ethics and morals would be the aim of all
students.
There is an important point which arises because of
the world wide nature of the Society and the different national and religious
backgrounds of members. The E.S. instruction has been based so far – except for
the brief initial period – almost exclusively on traditional Hindu lines. It
appears quite obviously however that this was not intended. It is also obvious
that either (1) existing religious views of scholar must be regarded, in which
case we should need instruction in the Buddhist, Christian, Moslem, Jewish
etc., idioms; or (2) existing religious backgrounds be transcended. This latter
would seem to have been the intention of the Masters. If denominational and
sectarian differences are to be regarded in the Schools instruction, they can
only be so, having regard to the extant exoteric literature of the
religion or sect because any esoteric teachings there may be behind the outer
teaching of any particular religion is still not available publicly. Anything
of their secret teachings that is available has been divulged in the
theosophical original basic literature, including the five E.S. papers
published in the third (fifth, Adyar Ed.) volume of “The Secret Doctrine”.[10] This latter must then surely be
the base for the Theosophical Training School’s instruction. If this were
adopted then we would get, at least as far as the Training School members were
concerned, a unified teaching stemming from a common source, transcending that
of any individual religion. In view of the immense amount of material in the
early literature descriptive and explanatory of the particular doctrines,
Deities, traditions and practices of all the major religions, including the old
classical ones, this, transcending of limited individual religions, seems to
have been the intention.
Such a transcendence of these religious differences
could have far reaching, and deep global repercussions to the inestimable long
term benefit of humanity. Please note that nothing in this letter is meant to
reflect against the great public work that Annie Besant and others in the E.S.
have done in their time.
In the sincere hope that you will see the vital
importance of what is written here, having full regard to the great influence –
and it is right that it should have: - that the E.S. has on all phases of work
in the T.S. all over the world, and in the further hope that you will, as a
matter of urgency, take the necessary action that it calls for, I sign myself,
Yours affectionately and truly,
Geoffrey A. Farthing
Circulation:
1) Mrs. Radha Burnier
2) The President and Vice-President of the T.S.
3) All Corresponding and local Secretaries of the
E.S.T. or The General Secretaries of the T.S.
4) Sundry Individual Members of the E.S.
P.S. Since this letter was drafted I have (by chance?)
become possessed of a copy of E.S.T. paper, 3 Nov.1894 by W.Q. Judge which
corroborates the views as to the standing of the E.S. which I have made in the
letter. I had, however, arrived at my views quite independently from my reading
and thinking about what has happened in the past, leading into the present
situation.
You will remember that Mr. Judge was a direct chela of
the Masters, that he wrote the rules for the E.S. in 1888 in London, that he
was manager and teacher for it, especially in America. Please see the
paper referred to.
November 1976,
G.A. Farthing.
Lake Farm, Eavestone,
Ripon HG4 3HD, N. Yorkshire
England.
NOTES:
[1] Dr. Taimni’s predecessor was Mr. N. Sri Ram (1889-1973),
the fifth president of the Adyar Society and father of the seventh president,
Ms. Radha Burnier.
[2] “A Short History of the Theosophical Society”,
compiled by Josephine Ranson, TPH, Adyar, Chennai (Madras), India, 1938, 1989,
591 pp.
[3] Except – the original has “expect”, an
obvious typing mistake.
[4] “The Secret Doctrine and Its Study”, a text by
P. G. Bowen transcribing H.P.B. statements, Theosophy Company, Los Angeles. 6
pp., see p. 6.
[5] The text is so in Farthing’s typewritten
document.
[6] This applies to the E.S. during Dr. I.K. Taimni’s
direction (1973-1978). Dr. Taimni was a student of Hindu tradition. Since 1978,
the E.S. gradually took distance from I.K.T.’s line of work, while still ignoring
the original teachings of Theosophy.
[7] N. Sri Ram took the position of Outer Head from C.
Jinarajadasa in 1953.
[8] Indeed, Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986) never went
beyond the limits of a vague new age thinking. He did not include in his view
of life fundamental concepts in modern theosophy like Karma, Dharma,
Reincarnation, Higher Self, Adeptship and Discipleship. He ignored the concept
of Theosophy, and in his lectures and writings never manifested sympathy for
the theosophical movement or its objects.
[9] “The Key to Theosophy”, H.P. Blavatsky, Section 4.
The passage is at p. 57 in both Theosophy Company editions of 1987; the one
made in Los Angeles, USA, and the one published in Mumbai, India.
[10] These materials are now
included in the “Collected Writings” of H.P. Blavatsky. The adulterated version of
“The Secret Doctrine”, prepared in six volumes by Annie Besant, was abandoned
by the Adyar Publishing House (TPH) in 1979, when it published the original
text of the work, edited by Boris de Zirkoff.
000
See also the text
“Life And Work of Geoffrey Farthing -
The Autobiographic Testimony Of a Leading Theosophist”. It is available at
our associated websites.
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
