Theos-Talk Archives (March 1996 Message tl00005)

KEY15.TXT [The Key to Theosophy]

Text supplied by Eldon Tucker
Converted to ASCII by Alan Bain
-------------------------------

The Relations of the T.S. to Theosophy

On Self-Improvement

Q. Is moral elevation, then, the principal thing insisted upon
in your Society?

A. Undoubtedly! He who would be a true Theosophist must bring
himself to live as one.

Q. If so, then, as I remarked before, the behavior of some
members strangely belies this fundamental rule.

A. Indeed it does. But this cannot be helped among us, any more
than amongst those who call themselves Christians and act like
fiends. This is no fault of our statutes and rules, but that of
human nature. Even in some exoteric public branches, the members
pledge themselves on their "Higher Self" to live the life
prescribed by Theosophy. They have to bring their Divine Self to
guide their every thought and action, every day and at every
moment of their lives. A true Theosophist ought "to deal justly
and walk humbly."

Q. What do you mean by this?

A. Simply this: the one self has to forget itself for the many
selves. Let me answer you in the words of a true Philaletheian,
an F.T.S., who has beautifully expressed it in The Theosophist:

What every man needs first is to find himself, and then take an
honest inventory of his subjective possessions, and, bad or
bankrupt as it may be, it is not beyond redemption if we set
about it in earnest.  But how many do? All are willing to work
for their own development and progress; very few for those of
others. To quote the same writer again:

Men have been deceived and deluded long enough; they must break
their idols, put away their shams, and go to work for
themselves, nay, there is one little word too much or too many,
for he who works for himself had better not work at all; rather
let him work himself for others, for all. For every flower of
love and charity he plants in his neighbor's garden, a loathsome
weed will disappear from his own, and so this garden of the
gods, Humanity, shall blossom as a rose. In all Bibles, all
religions, this is plainly set forth, but designing men have at
first misinterpreted and finally emasculated, materialized,
besotted them. It does not require a new revelation. Let every
man be a revelation unto himself. Let once man's immortal spirit
take possession of the temple of his body, drive out the
money-changers and every unclean thing, and his own divine
humanity will redeem him, for when he is thus at one with
himself he will know the "builder of the Temple."

Q. This is pure Altruism, I confess.

A. It is. And if only one Fellow of the T.S. out of ten would
practice it ours would be a body of elect indeed. But there are
those among the outsiders who will always refuse to see the
essential difference between Theosophy and the Theosophical
Society, the idea and its imperfect embodiment. Such would visit
every sin and shortcoming of the vehicle, the human body, on the
pure spirit which sheds thereon its divine light. Is this just
to either? They throw stones at an association that tries to
work up to, and for the propagation of, its ideal with most
tremendous odds against it. Some vilify the Theosophical Society
only because it presumes to attempt to do that in which other
systems, Church and State Christianity preeminently, have failed
most egregiously; others because they would fain preserve the
existing state of things: Pharisees and Sadducees in the seat of
Moses, and publicans and sinners revelling in high places, as
under the Roman Empire during its decadence. Fair-minded people,
at any rate, ought to remember that the man who does all he can,
does as much as he who has achieved the most, in this world of
relative possibilities. This is a simple truism, an axiom
supported for believers in the Gospels by the parable of the
talents given by their Master: the servant who doubled his two
talents was rewarded as much as that other fellow-servant who
had received five. To every man it is given "according to his
several ability."

Q. Yet it is rather difficult to draw the line of demarcation
between the abstract and the concrete in this case, as we have
only the latter to form our judgment by.

A. Then why make an exception for the T.S.? Justice, like
charity, ought to begin at home. Will you revile and scoff at
the "Sermon on the Mount" because your social, political and
even religious laws have, so far, not only failed to carry out
its precepts in their spirit, but even in their dead letter?
Abolish the oath in Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and
do as the Quakers do, if you will call yourselves Christians.
Abolish the Courts themselves, for if you would follow the
Commandments of Christ, you have to give away your coat to him
who deprives you of your cloak, and turn your left cheek to the
bully who smites you on the right. "Resist not evil, love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you," for "whosoever shall break one of the least of these
Commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the Kingdom of Heaven," and "whosoever shall say 'Thou
fool' shall be in danger of hell fire." And why should you
judge, if you would not be judged in your turn? Insist that
between Theosophy and the Theosophical Society there is no
difference, and forthwith you lay the system of Christianity and
its very essence open to the same charges, only in a more
serious form.

Q. Why more serious?

A. Because, while the leaders of the Theosophical Movement,
recognizing fully their shortcomings, try all they can do to
amend their ways and uproot the evil existing in the Society;
and while their rules and bylaws are framed in the spirit of
Theosophy, the Legislators and the Churches of nations and
countries which call themselves Christian do the reverse. Our
members, even the worst among them, are no worse than the
average Christian. Moreover, if the Western Theosophists
experience so much difficulty in leading the true Theosophical
life, it is because they are all the children of their
generation. Every one of them was a Christian, bred and brought
up in the sophistry of his Church, his social customs, and even
his paradoxical laws. He was this before he became a
Theosophist, or rather, a member of the Society of that name, as
it cannot be too often repeated that between the abstract ideal
and its vehicle there is a most important difference.

---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age