honesty a man has, the less he
affects the air of a saint. The affectation of
sanctity is a blotch on the face of devotion.
SHALL WE WINNOW THE CORN, BUT FEED UPON THE CHAFF?
The most difficult thing in life is to know
THE presiding genius in the Daily News
Office runs amuck at LUCIFER in his issue of February 16th.
He makes merry over the presumed distress of some theosophists
who see in our serial novel, "The Talking Image of Urur" by
our colleague, Dr. F. Hartmann an attempt to poke fun at the
Theosophical Society. Thereupon, the witty editor quizzes "Madame
Blavatsky" for observing that she "does not agree with
the view" taken by some pessimists; and ends by expressing
fear that "the misgivings that have been awakened will not
easily be laid to rest."
Ride, si sapis. It is precisely because it is our desire
that the "misgivings" awakened should reach those in
whom the sense of personality and conceit has not
yet entirely stifled their better feelings, and force them to
recognize themselves in the mirror offered to them in the "Talking
Image," that we publish the "satirical" novel.
This proceeding of ours rather unusual, to be sure, for editors
to publish a satire, which seems to the short-sighted
to be aimed at their gods and parties only because they are unable
to sense the underlying philosophy and moral in them, has created
quite a stir in the dailies.
The various Metropolitan Press Cutting Agencies are pouring every
morning on our breakfast-table their load of criticism, advice,
and comment upon the rather novel policy. So, for instance, a
kindly-disposed correspondent of the Lancashire Evening Post
(February 18) writes as follows:
The editor of LUCIFER has done a bold thing.
She is publishing a story called "The Talking Image of Urur,"
which is designed to satirise the false prophets of Theosophy
in order that the true prophets may be justified. I appreciate
the motive entirely, but, unfortunately, there are weak-minded
theosophists who can see nothing in Dr. Hartmann's spirited talk
but a caricature of their whole belief. So they have remonstrated
with Madame Blavatsky, and she replies in LUCIFER
that "the story casts more just ridicule upon the enemies
and detractors of the Theosophic Society than upon the few theosophists
whose enthusiasm may have carried them into extremes." Unfortunately,
this is not strictly accurate. The hero of the tale, a certain
Pancho, is one of these enthusiasts, and it is upon him and upon
the mock "adepts" who deceive him that the ridicule
is thrown. But it never seems to have occurred to Madame Blavatsky
and Dr. Hartmann that the moment you begin to ridicule one element,
even though it be a false element, in the faith, you are apt to
shake the confidence of many if not most believers, for the simple
reason that they have no sense of humour. The
high priestess of the cult may have this sense for obvious reasons,
but her disciples are likely to be lost if they begin to laugh,
and if they can't laugh they will be bewildered and indignant.
I offer this explanation with all humility to Madame Blavatsky,
who has had some experience of the effects of satire.
The more so as, according to those members of the T.S. who have
read the whole story, it is precisely "Madame Blavatsky"
against whom its satire is the most directed. And if "Mme.
Blavatsky" presumably "the Talking Image" does
not object to finding herself represented as a kind of mediumistic
poll parrot, why should other "theosophists" object?
A theosophist above all men ought ever to bear in mind the advice
of Epictetus: "If evil be said of thee, and if it be true,
correct thyself; if it be a lie, laugh at it." We
welcome a witty satire always, and defy ridicule or any
efforts in this direction to kill the Theosophical Society, so
long as it, as a body, remains true to its original
As to the other dangers so kindly urged by the Post, the
"high priestess" acknowledges the benevolent objections
by answering and giving her reasons, which are these: The chosen
motto of the Theosophical Society has been for years "There
is no religion higher than truth"; the object of LUCIFER
is in the epigraph on its cover, which is "to bring to light
the hidden things of darkness." If the editor of LUCIFER
and the Theosophists would not belie these two propositions
and be true to their colours, they have to deal with perfect impartiality,
sparing no more themselves than outsiders, or even their enemies.
As to the "weak-minded theosophists" if any they can
take care of themselves in the way they please. If the "false
prophets of Theosophy" are to be left untouched, the true
prophets will be very soon as they have already been confused
with the false. It is nigh time to winnow our corn and cast away
the chaff. The T.S. is becoming enormous in its numbers, and if
the false prophets, the pretenders (e.g., the "H.B.
of L.," exposed in Yorkshire by Theosophists two years ago,
and the "G.N.K.R." just exposed in America), or even
the weak-minded dupes, are left alone, then the Society threatens
to become very soon a fanatical body split into three hundred
sects like Protestantism each hating the other, and all bent
on destroying the truth by monstrous exaggerations and idiotic
schemes and shams. We do not believe in allowing the presence
of sham elements in Theosophy, because of the fear, forsooth,
that if even "a false element in the faith" is ridiculed,
the latter "is apt to shake the confidence" in the
whole. At this rate Christianity would be the first to die out
centuries ago under the sledge-hammer blows dealt to its various
churches by its many reformers. No philosopher, no mystic or student
of symbolism, can ever laugh at or disbelieve in the sublime allegory
and conception of the "Second Advent" whether in the
person of Christ, Krishna, Sosiosh, or Buddha. The Kalki Avatar,
or last (not "second") Advent, to wit, the appearance
of the "Saviour of Humanity" or the "Faithful"
light of Truth, on the White Horse of Death death to falsehood,
illusion, and idol, or self-worship is a universal belief.
Shall we for all that abstain from denouncing the behaviour of
certain "Second Adventists" (as in America)? What true
Christians shall see their co-religionists making fools of
themselves, or disgracing their faith, and still abstain from
rebuking them publicly as privately, for fear lest this false
element should throw out of Christianity the rest of the believers?
Can any of them praise his co-religionists for climbing periodically,
in a state of paradisiacal decolleté, on the top
of their houses, trees, and high places, there to await the "advent"?
No doubt those who hope by stealing a march on their slower Brethren
to find themselves hooked up the first, and carried bodily
into Heaven, are as good Christians as any. Should they not
be rebuked for their folly all the same? Strange logic!
THE WISE MAN COURTS TRUTH; THE FOOL, FLATTERY
However it may be, let rather our ranks be made thinner, than
the Theosophical Society go on being made a spectacle to the world
through the exaggerations of some fanatics, and the attempts of
various charlatans to profit by a ready-made programme. These,
by disfiguring and adapting Occultism to their own filthy and
immoral ends, bring disgrace upon the whole movement. Some writer
remarked that if one would know the enemy against whom he has
to guard himself the most, the looking-glass will give him the
best likeness of his face. This is quite true. If the first object
of our Society be not to study one's own self, but to find fault
with all except that self, then, indeed, the T.S. is doomed to
become and it already has in certain centres a Society for mutual
admiration; a fit subject for the satire of so acute an
observer as we know the author of "The Talking Image of Urur"
to be. This is our view and our policy. "And be it, indeed,
that I have erred, mine error remaineth with myself."
That such, however, is the policy of no other paper we know a
daily, a weekly, a monthly, or a quarterly we are quite aware.
But, then, they are the public organs of the masses. Each has
to pander to this or that other faction of politics or Society,
and is doomed "to howl with the wolves," whether it
likes or not. But our organs LUCIFER pre-eminently are,
or ought to be, the phonographs, so to speak, of the Theosophical
Society, a body which is placed outside and beyond all centres
of forced policy. We are painfully conscious that "he who
tells the truth is turned out of nine cities"; that truth
is unpalatable to most men; and that since men must learn to
love the truth before they thoroughly believe it the truths
we utter in our magazine are often as bitter as gall to many.
This cannot be helped. Were we to adopt any other kind of policy,
not only LUCIFER a very humble organ of Theosophy but
the Theosophical Society itself, would soon lose all its raison
d'être and become an anomaly.
But "who shall sit in the seat of the scorner?" Is it
the timid in heart, who tremble at every opinion too boldly expressed
in LUCIFER lest it should displease this faction
of readers or give offense to that other class of subscribers?
Is it the "self-admirers," who resent every remark,
however kindly expressed, if it happens to clash with their
notions, or fails to show respect to their hobbies?
. . . I
am Sir Oracle
And when I ope my lips, let no dog bark!
Surely we learn better and profit more by criticism than by flattery,
and we amend our ways more through the abuse of our enemies than
the blind pandering of friends. Such satires as the "Fallen
Idol," and such chelas as Nebelsen, have done more good to
our Society, and certain of its members, than any "theosophical"
novel; for they have shown up and touched au vif the foolish
exaggerations of more than one enthusiast.
Self abnegation is possible only to those who have learnt to
know themselves; to such as will never mistake the echo
of their own inner voice that of selfish desire or passion for
the voice of divine inspiration or an appeal from their MASTER.
Nor is chelaship consonant with mediumistic sensitiveness
and its hallucinations; and therefore all the sensitives who
have hitherto forced themselves into discipleship have generally
made fools of themselves, and? sooner or later, thrown ridicule
upon the T.S. But after the publication of the "Fallen Idol"
more than one such exhibition was stopped. "The Talking Image
of Urur" may then render the same, if not better, service.
If some traits in its various dramatis personæ fit
in some particulars certain members who still belong to the Society,
other characters and the most successful of them resemble rather
certain EX-members; fanatics, in the past, bitter enemies now conceited
fools at all times. Furthermore "Puffer" is a compound
and very vivid photograph. It may be that of several members
of the T.S., but it looks also like a deluded victim of other
bogus Esoteric and Occult Societies. One of such just sprung up
at Boston U.S.A., is now being nipped in the bud and exposed by
our own Theosophists.
These are the "Solar adepts" spoken of in our January
editorial, the âmes damnées of shameful commercial
enterprises. No event could vindicate the policy of our journal
better than the timely exposure of these pseudo-adepts, those
"Sages of the Ages" who bethought themselves of trading
upon the public hunger for the marvellous ad absurdum. We
did well to speak of them in the editorial as we have. It was
timely and lucky for us to have pointed to the ringleaders of
that shameful speculation the sale of bogus occult knowledge.
For we have averted thereby a great and new danger to the Society namely
that of unscrupulous charlatans being taken for Theosophists.
Misled by their lies and their publications filled with terms
from Eastern philosophy and with ideas they had bodily stolen
from us only to disfigure and misapply them the American press
has already referred to them as Theosophists. Whether out of sheer
flippancy, or actual malice, some dailies have headed their sensational
articles with "Theosophic Knaves," and "Pantognomostic
Theosophs," etc., etc. This is pure fiction. The editor of
the "Esoteric" had never been at any time a member of
our society, or of any of its numerous Branches. "ADHY-APAKA,
alias the Hellenic ETHNOMEDON and ENPHORON,
alias the Greco-Tibetan, Ens-movens OM
mane padmi AUM" (sic)
was our enemy from the beginning of his career. As impudently
stated by him to a reporter, we theosophists hated him for his
"many virtues"! Nor has the Sage "bent under the
weight of centuries," the VIDYA NYAIKA,
said to be represented by a person called Eli Ohmart, had anything
to do with the T.S. The two worthies had, like two venomous wily
spiders, spread their webs far and wide, and numerous are the
Yankee flies caught in them. But thanks to the energy of some
of our Boston Members, the two hideous desecrators of Eastern
philosophy are exposed. In the words of the "Boston Globe,"
this is the
WEIRD TALE WHICH MAY HAVE A SEQUEL IN COURT
"If there are no arrests made, I shall go right on with the
work; but if they make trouble, I shall stay and face the music."
Hiram Erastus Butler, the esoteric philosopher of 478 Shawmut
Avenue, uttered the foregoing sentiment to a GLOBE
reporter last evening as calmly as one would make a casual remark
about the weather.
Thereby hangs a tale, a long, complicated, involuted, weird, mystical,
scientific, hysterical tale a tale of love and intrigue, of adventure,
of alleged and to some extent of admitted swindling, of charges
of a horrible and unspeakable immorality, of communion with embodied
and disembodied spirits, and especially of money. In short, a
tale that would make your head weary and your heart faint if you
attempted to follow out all its labyrinthine details and count
the cogs on its wheels within wheels. A tale that quite possibly
may find its sequel in the courts, where judge, jury, and counsel
will have a chance to cudgel their brains over almost every mystery
in the known universe.
These are the heroes whom certain timid Theosophists those
who raised their voices against the publication of the "Talking
Image of Urur "advised us to leave alone. Had it not been
for that unwillingness to expose even impersonal things and deeds,
our editorial would have been more explicit. Far from us be the
desire to "attack" or "expose" even our enemies,
so long as they harm only ourselves, personally and individually.
But here the whole of the Theosophical body already so maligned,
opposed, and persecuted was endangered, and its destinies were
hanging in the balance, because of that impudent pseudo esoteric
speculation. He, therefore, who maintains in the face of the Boston
scandal, that we did not act rightly in tearing off the sanctimonious
mask of Pecksniffian piety and the "Wisdom of the Ages"
which covered the grimacing face of a most bestial immorality,
of insatiable greediness for lucre and impudence, fire, water,
and police proof is no true Theosophist. How minds, even of an
average intelligence, could be caught by such transparent snares
as these publicly exhibited by the two worthies, to wit: Adhy-Apaka
and Vidya Nyaika traced by the American press to one Hiram E.
Butler and Eli Ohmart passes all comprehension! Suffice to read
the pamphlet issued by the two confederates, to see at the first
glance that it was a mere repetition more enlarged and barefaced,
and with a wider, bolder programme, still a repetition of the
now defunct "H.B. of L." with its mysterious appeals
of four years ago to the "Dissatisfied" with "the
Theosophical Mahatmas." The two hundred pages of the wildest
balderdash constitute their "Appeal from the Unseen and the
Unknown" and the "Interior of the Inmost" (?) to
"the Awakened." Pantognomos and Ekphoron offer
to teach the unwary "the laws of ENS,
MOVENS, and OM,"
and appeal for money. Vidya Nyaika and Ethnomedon propose
to initiate the ignorant into the "a priori Sambudhistic
(?) philosophy of Kapila" and beg for hard cash. The
story is so sickening that we dislike to stain our pages with
its details. But now to the moral of the fable.
YE SPURNED THE SUBSTANCE AND HAVE
CLUTCHED THE SHADOW
For fourteen years our Theosophical Society has been before the
public. Born with the three-fold object of infusing a little more
mutual brotherly feeling in mankind; of investigating the mysteries
of nature from the Spiritual and Psychic aspect; and, of doing
a tardy justice to the civilizations and Wisdom of Eastern pre-Christian
nations and literature, if it did not do all the good that a richer
Society might, it certainly did no harm. It appealed only to those
who found no help for their perplexities anywhere else. To those
lost in the psychic riddles of Spiritualism, or such, again, as,
unable to stand the morbid atmosphere of modern unbelief, and
seeking light in vain from the unfathomable mysteries taught by
the theology of the thousand and one Christian sects, had given
up all hope of solving any of the problems of life. There was
no entrance fee during the first two years of the Society's existence;
afterwards, when the correspondence and postage alone demanded
hundreds of pounds a year, new members had to pay £1 for
their diploma. Unless one wanted to support the movement, one
could remain a Fellow all his life without being asked for a penny,
and two-thirds of our members have never put their hand in their
pocket, nor were they asked to do so. Those who supported the
cause were from the first a few devoted Theosophists who laboured
without conditions or any hope for reward. Yet no association
was more insulted and laughed at than was the Theosophical Society.
No members of any body were spoken of in more contemptuous terms
than the Fellows of the T.S. from the first. The Society was born
in America, and therefore it was regarded in England with disfavour
and suspicion. We were considered as fools and knaves, victims
and frauds before the benevolent interference of the Psychic Research
Society, which tried to build its reputation on the downfall of
Theosophy and Spiritualism, but really harmed neither. Nevertheless,
when our enemies got the upper hand, and by dint of slander and
inventions had most maliciously succeeded in placing before the
credulous public, ever hungry for scandals and sensations, mere
conjectures as undeniable and proven facts, it was the American
press which became the most bitter in its denunciations of Theosophy,
and the American public the most willing to drink in and giggle
over the undeserved calumnies upon the Founders of the T.S. Yet
it is they who were the first told, through our Society, of the
actual existence of Eastern Adepts in Occult Sciences. But both
the English and the Americans spurned and scoffed at the very
idea, while even the Spiritualists and Mystics, who ought to have
known better, would, with a few exceptions, have nothing to do
with heathen Masters of Wisdom. The latter were, they maintained,
"invented by the Theosophists": it was all "moonshine."
For these "Masters," whom no member was ever asked to
accept, unless he liked to do so himself, on whose behalf no
supernatural claim was ever made, unless, perhaps, in the
too ardent imagination of enthusiasts; these Masters who gave
to, and often helped with money, poor Theosophists,
but never asked anything of the rich these MASTERS
were too much like real men. They neither claimed to be
gods nor spirits, nor did they pander to people's gush and sentimental
creeds. And now those Americans have got at last what their hearts
yearned for: a bona fide ideal of an adept and magician. A creature
several thousand years old. A true-blue "Buddhist-Brahmin"
who appeals to Jehovah, or Jahveh, speaks of Christ and
the Messianic cycle, and blesses them with an AMEN
and an "OM MANE PADMI HUM" in the
same breath, relieving them at the same time of 40,000 dollars
before they are a month old in their worship of him . . . Wullahy!
Allah is great and "Vidya Nyaika" is his only prophet.
Indeed we feel little pity for the victims. What is the psychology
that some Theosophists are accused of exercising over their
victims in comparison with this? And this necessitates a few words
IGNORANCE NOT ALTOGETHER BLISS
All know that there is a tacit, often openly-expressed, belief
among a few of the Fellows of the T.S. that a certain prominent
Theosophist among the leaders of the Society psychologizes
all those who happen to come within the area of that individual's
influence. Dozens, nay, hundreds, were, and still are, "psychologized."
The hypnotic effect seems so strong as to virtually transform
all such "unfortunates" into irresponsible nincompoops,
mere cyphers and tools of that theosophical Circe. This idiotic
belief was originally started by some "wise men" of
the West. Unwilling to admit that the said person had either any
knowledge or powers, bent on discrediting their victim,
and yet unable to explain certain abnormal occurrences, they hit
upon this happy and logical loop-hole to get out of their
difficulties. The theory found a grateful and fruitful soil. Henceforth,
whenever any Fellows connected theosophically with the said "psychologizer"
happen to disagree in their views upon questions, metaphysical
or even purely administrative, with some other member "on
despotism bent," forthwith the latter comes out with the
favourite solution: "Oh, they are psychologized!" The
magic WORD springs out on the arena
of discussion like a Jack-in-a-box, and forthwith the attitude
of the "rebels" is explained and plausibly accounted
Of course the alleged "psychology" has really no existence
outside the imagination of those who are too vain to allow any
opposition to their all-wise and autocratic decrees on
any other ground than phenomenal nay, magical interference
with their will. A short analysis of the Karmic effects that would
be produced by the exercise of such powers may prove interesting
Even on the terrestrial, purely physical plane, moral irresponsibility
ensures impunity. Parents are answerable for their children, tutors
and guardians for their pupils and wards, and even the Supreme
Courts have admitted extenuating circumstances for criminals who
are proved to have been led to crime by a will or influences stronger
than their own. How much more forcibly this law of simple retributive
justice must act on the psychic plane; and what, therefore, may
be the responsibility incurred by using such psychological powers,
in the face of Karma and its punitive laws, may be easily inferred.
Is it not evident that, if even human justice recognizes the impossibility
of punishing an irrational idiot, a child, a minor, etc., taking
into account even hereditary causes and bad family influences that
the divine Law of Retribution, which we call KARMA,
must visit with hundredfold severity one who deprives reasonable,
thinking men of their free will and powers of ratiocination?
From the occult standpoint, the charge is simply one of black
magic, of envoûtement. Alone a Dugpa, with
"Avitchi" yawning at the further end of his life cycle,
could risk such a thing. Have those so prompt to hurl the charge
at the head of persons in their way, ever understood the whole
terrible meaning implied in the accusation? We doubt it. No occultist,
no intelligent student of the mysterious laws of the "night
side of Nature," no one who knows anything of Karma, would
ever suggest such an explanation. What adept or even a moderately-informed
chela would ever risk an endless future by interfering with, and
therefore taking upon himself, the Karmic debit of all those
whom he would so psychologize as to make of them merely the tools
of his own sweet will!
This fact seems so evident and palpably flagrant, that it is absurd
to have to recall it to those who boast of knowing all about Karma.
Is it not enough to bear the burden of the knowledge that from birth to death, the least, the most
unimportant, unit of the human
family exercises an influence over, and receives in his turn,
as unconsciously as he breathes, that of every other unit whom
he approaches, or who comes in contact with him? Each of us either
adds to or diminishes the sum total of human happiness and human
misery, "not only of the present, but of every subsequent
age of humanity," as shown so ably by Elihu Burritt, who
There is no sequestered spot in the Universe, no dark niche along
the disc of non-existence, from which he (man) can retreat from
his relations to others, where he can withdraw the influence of
his existence upon the moral destiny of the world; everywhere
his presence or absence will be felt everywhere he will have
companions who will be better or worse for his influence. It is
an old saying, and one of fearful and fathoming import, that we
are forming characters for eternity. Forming characters! Whose?
Our own or others'? Both and in that momentous fact lies the
peril and responsibility of our existence. Who
is sufficient for the thought? Thousands of my fellow-beings will
yearly enter eternity2 with characters
differing from those they would have carried thither had I never
lived. The sunlight of that world will reveal my finger-marks
in their primary formations, and in their successive strata of
thought and life.
These are the words of a profound thinker. And if the simple fact
of our living changes the sum of human weal and woe in a way
for which we are, owing to our ignorance, entirely irresponsible what
must be the Karmic decree in the matter of influencing hundreds
of people by an act perpetrated and carried on for years in premeditation
and the full consciousness of what we are doing!
Verily the man or woman in the unconscious possession of such
dangerous powers had much better never be born. The Occultist
who exercises them consciously will be caught up by the whirlwind
of successive rebirths, without even an hour of rest. Woe to him,
then, in that ceaseless, dreary series of terrestrial Avitchis;
in that interminable æon of torture, suffering, and despair,
during which, like the squirrel doomed to turn the wheel at every
motion, he will launch from one life of misery into another, only
to awake each time with a fresh burden of other people's Karma,
which he will have drawn upon himself! Is it not enough, indeed,
to be regarded as "frauds, cranks, and infidels," by
the outsiders, without being identified with wizards and
witches by our own members!
THE GENUS "INFIDEL" AND ITS VARIETIES
It is true to say that the varieties of infidels are many, and
that one "infidel" differs from another infidel as a
Danish boar-hound differs from the street mongrel. A man may be
the most heterodox infidel with regard to orthodox dogmas. Yet,
provided he proclaims himself loudly a Christian, that heterodoxy when
even going to the length of saying that "revealed
religion is an imposture" will be regarded by some as simply
"of that exalted kind which rises above all human forms."3
A "Christian" of such a kind may as the late Laurence
Oliphant has give vent to a still more startling theory. He may
affirm that he considers that "from time to time the Divine
Influence emanates itself, so to speak, in phenomenal persons.
Sakyamouni was such; Christ was such; and such
I consider Mr. (Lake) Harris to be in fact, he is a new avatar,"
and still remain a Christian of an "exalted kind"
in the sight of the "Upper Ten." But let an "infidel"
of the Theosophical Society say just the same (minus the
absurdity of including the American Lake Harris in the list of
the Avatars), and no contumely heaped upon him by clergy
and servile newspapers will ever be found too strong!
But this belongs properly to the paradoxes of the Age; though
the Avataric idea has much to do with Karma and rebirth,
and that belief in reincarnation has nothing in it that can militate
against the teachings of Christ. We affirm, furthermore, that
the great Nazarene Adept distinctly taught it. So did Paul and
the Synoptics, and nearly all the earliest Church Fathers, with
scarcely an exception, accepted it, while some actually taught
DO NOT START TWO HARES AT ONCE
From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step, and
Karma acts along every line, on nations as on men. The Japanese
Mikado is tottering towards his end for having played too long
at hide and seek with his worshippers. Hundreds of shrewd
Americans have been taken in through disbelieving in truths and
lending a too credulous ear to bold lies. A French abbé
has fallen under Karmic penalty for coquetting too openly with
Theosophy, and attempted to mirror himself, like a modern clerical
Narcissus, in the too deep waters of Eastern Occultism. The Abbé
Roca, an honourary chanoine (canon) in the diocese of Perpignan,
our old friend and irrepressible adversary in the French Lotus
a year ago has come to grief. Yet his ambition was quite
an innocent one, if rather difficult of realization. It was founded
on a dream of his; a reconciliation between Pantheistic Theosophy
and a Socialistic Latin Church, with a fancy Pope at the head
of it. He longed to see the Masters of Wisdom of old India and
Eastern Occultism under the sway of Rome regenerated, and
amused himself with predicting the same. Hence a frantic race
between his meridional phantasy and the clerical bent of his thought.
Poor, eloquent abbe! Did he not already perceive the Kingdom of
Heaven in the new Rome-Jerusalem? A new Pontiff seated on a throne
made out of the cranium of Macroprosopus, with the Zohar
in his right pocket, Chochmah, the male Sephiroth (transformed
by the good abbe into the Mother of God), in his left, and a "Lamb"
stuffed with dynamite, in the paternal Popish embrace. The "Wise
Men" of the East were even now, he said, crossing the Himalayas,
and, "led by the Star" of Theosophy, would soon be worshipping
at the shrine of the reformed Pope and Lamb. It was a glorious
dream alas, still but a dream. But he persisted in calling us
the "greatest of Christian-Buddhists." (Lotus, February,
1888.) Unfortunately for himself he also called the Pope of the
"Cæsaro-papal Rome" "the Satan of the seven
hills," in the same number. Result: Pope Leo XIII asserts
once more the proverbial ingratitude of theological Rome. He has
just deprived our poetical and eloquent friend and adversary,
the Abbé Roca, of the
exercise of all his functions in Holy Orders, as also of his living,
for refusing to submit to a decree by which his works were placed
on the Index Expurgatorius. These works bore the titles of "Christ,
the Pope, and the Democracy"; "The Fatal Crisis and
the Salvation of Europe"; and "The End of the World."
Even in the face of the present papal decision, he is advertising
the appearance of a fourth work, entitled "Glorieux Centenaire,'
1889. "Monde Nouveau." "Nouveaux Cieux, nouvelle
According to Galignani (and his own articles and letters
in theosophical organs, we may add) the fearless
Abbé has for some time, (says Galignani), been denouncing
the Papacy as a creature of Cæsar, and as wholly preoccupied
with the question of its temporalities in face of the crying needs
of humanity. According to his view, the Divine aid was promised
the Church until the end of the world, or of the age; and the
Cæsarean age having passed away, all things are to be made
new. He looks forward to a spiritual coming of Christ by the spread
of the modern sentiment of "liberty, equality, fraternity,
toleration, solidarity, and mutuality," in the atmosphere
of the Gospel. Although his views do not appear to be very clear,
he argues that the Gospel is passing from "the mystico-sentimental
phase to the organico-social phase," thanks to the progress
of science, which will illumine everything. (The Globe. )
This is only what had to be expected. The Abbé would not
accept our joint warnings and took no heed of them. The sad epilogue
of our polemics is given (not altogether correctly as regards
the present writer) in the same Globe, wherein the news
is wound up in the following words:
He has been contending, in the Lotus, in favour of a union
of the East and the West by means of a fusion between Buddhism
and the Christian Gospel; but Mdme. Blavatsky, the foremost European
convert to the Indian religion, has emphatically repudiated all
attempts at such union, because she cannot or will not accept
the authority of Christ. The Abbe Roca is therefore left out in
This is not so. What "Mdme. Blavatsky" replied in the
Lotus December 1887) to the Abbé's assertions that
the said fusion between his Church and Theosophy would
surely come, was this:
. . . "We are not as optimistic as he (the Abbé Roca)
is. His church sees in vain her greatest 'mysteries' unmasked
and the fact proclaimed in every country by scholars versed in
Orientalism and Symbology as by Theosophists; and we refuse to
believe that she will ever accept our truths or confess her errors.
And as, on the other hand, no true theosophist will accept any
more a carnalised Christ according to the Latin dogma than
an anthropomorphic God, and still less a 'Pastor' in the person
of a Pope, it is not the adepts who will ever go toward 'the Mount
of Salvation,' (as invited by the Abbe). They will rather wait
that the Mahomet of Rome should go to the trouble of taking the
path which leads to Mount Meru." . . .
This is not rejecting "the authority of Christ" if the
latter be regarded as we and Laurence Oliphant regarded Him, i.e.
as an Avatar like Gautama Buddha and other great adepts
who became the vehicles or Reincarnations of the "one"
Divine influence. What most of us will never accept is the anthropomorphized
"charmant docteur" of Renan, or the Christ of
Torquemada and Calvin rolled into one. Jesus, the Adept we believe
in, taught our Eastern doctrines, KARMA and
REINCARNATION foremost of all. When the so-called
Christians will have learnt to read the New Testament between
the lines, their eyes will be opened and they will see.
We propose to deal with the subject of Karma and Reincarnation
in our next issue. Meanwhile, we are happy to see that a fair
wind is blowing over Christendom and propels European thought
more and more Eastward.
Lucifer, March, 1889
1 The "obvious reasons" so
delicately worded are these: "the high priestess of the cult"
is almost universally supposed, outside of the T.S., to have exercised
her own satirical powers and "sense of humour" on her
alleged and numerous victims by bamboozling them
into a belief of her own invention. So be it. The tree
is known by its fruits, and it is posterity which will have to
decide on the nature of the fruit. ED.]
back to text
2 Devachan, rather; the entr'acte
between two incarnations.
back to text
3 Vide Lady Grant Duff's
article "Laurence Oliphant" in the Contemporary Review
for February: pages 185 and 188.
back to text
4 Ibid. Quoted from Sir Thomas
Wade's notes, by Lady Grant Duff page 186,
back to text