The Theosophist 5, no. 12 (September 1984), 301-303. [i]
Mr. Arthur Lillie’s pamphlet is an interesting contribution to the literature of Occultism. Not because it discloses anything especially new, except a deplorable and quite unexpected want of information on the part of the writer, but because it brings before the public a number of questions, which it will be well to discuss, as a free discussion will necessarily assist the progress of the Theosophical movement, which, as Mr. Lillie acknowledges, is assuming gigantic proportions. Most of his objections however have been frequently discussed in the Theosophist, and therefore and, for want of space, we shall not go extensively into the details at present.[2]
A glance at Mr. Lillie’s pamphlet makes it at once apparent that the author has taken a very narrow view of the subject before him. There are people who in a beautiful oil painting can see nothing but a piece of canvass daubed with paint and who look upon “the cattle upon a thousand hills” only as the representatives of a certain number of pounds of butcher’s meat. Objects change as our perceptions and our opinions change. The Parsee may look upon fire as an all-penetrating life dispensing deity, and he whose house burns down may curse it as being a wicked demon. To the enlightened ‘‘esoteric” Buddhist God may be a universal principle, whose wisdom he may admire in every leaf, while to the superstitious “exoteric’’ Buddhist the same God may he a monster, whose wrath he seeks to appease by the turning of a “prayer machine.”
Bulwer Lytton says: “Only in a peculiar state of mind can we perceive the truth and Bacon says: “Head not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.” This advice Mr. Lillie has evidently not followed. The spirit exhibited by his desperate and rather rambling attack shows that he has a pet theory to defend; that having gained some reputation as a writer on “Buddhism,” he believes his domain invaded, and wishes to regain lost ground. Mr. Lillie beholds the shell and cannot see the kernel. He has all his life studied old superstitions, beliefs and customs and thereby lost sight of the ancient wisdom.
We can fully appreciate Mr. Lillie’s irritation, and we sympathize with him to certain extent. At the entrance to the temple of ancient religion stands the “dweller of the threshold,” a queer looking ghost, whose name is authority. But if we examine that ghost a little closer, we find him to be a stupid illusion, the product of an excited imagination. Neither “Esoteric Buddhism” nor any other writings were ever intended to be presented as conclusive and infallible like ready made patent medicines or pontifical bulls. Instead of dogmatizing, the Mahatmas have endeavoured to inculcate that enquiry and research are necessary for the attainment of knowledge.
They, have nowhere insisted that their teachings should be believed because they were given by Mahatmas; they have given instructions and hints, asking us to examine the facts, and let the results stand on their own merit.
They have, prompted by a desire to assist human progress, sown the seed of the theosophical movement, not only by assisting various writers in their researches, but also by forming a nucleus for the spread of occult knowledge by organizing the “Theosophical Society.’’ That seed has, as Mr. Lillie acknowledges, commenced to grow. Whether its further growth will be impeded by the weeds of selfishness, whether the young plants will be trampled down by the oxen of dogmatism and swagger, or whether it will continue to grow and be victorious over all the surrounding superstitions and errors, remains to be seen.
But Mr. Lillie does not believe in the Mahatmas, and this is perhaps unfortunate for him. What means could they take to make Mr. Lillie believe? Does ho want them to present themselves before a committee of investigation, and if so, where are their credentials? To speak of a Mahatma proving his identity as a person is a contradiction of terms, because to enter that state which constitutes a Mahatma, a merging into the Universal Mind is required; and “personality’’ ceases, for the time being, to exist. Those that are in daily intercourse with the Adepts do not need to see them to believe in their existence and need not care very much about knowing their names or address, because such students are not concerned with the physical bodies of the Adepts. As to the absurd “Kiddle incident,” its true explanation was known to all of us here at the time when it occurred; and if the exact explanation was not permitted to be made at once, it was probably for a reason which Mr. Lillie may find out, if he attempts to use his own intuition.
But is it so very necessary that Mr. Lillie should be convinced, and are the Adepts so very anxious to convince him? Does truth rest upon authority or authority upon the truth? It would be absurd to reject a book simply because we are not personally acquainted with the author, and the beggar who would come to the back door to receive alms, and then cudgel in hand would demand to know by what authority they were given, would probably get the door slammed into his face.
Mr. Lillie evidently shows a want of proper discrimination. The objects of the movement as a whole are certainly laudable, and no sane person can have any serious objection to them. As such, the movement ought to be discussed. But Mr. Lillie cannot mentally rise above the sphere of narrow sectarianism, he descends to personalities, and the attacks, which he directs against the movement, concern only persons and things with which that movement is for the time being connected. Mr. Sinnett’s book forms not the essential part, but only an incident of that movement. It was never intended to be the Theosophist, “word of God,’’ and if anything in that book or in any other writing can be shown to be erroneous, the Theosophists as well as Mr. Sinnett will he glad to have it corrected.
To call Madame Blavatsky “a female brother,” is simply absurd and shows a complete misconception of what the “Brothers” really are. She is not a “Brother” any more than a person who has matriculated at the Cambridge University is therefore a “wrangler.” Neither is she a “Buddhistic nun,” as in that case she would not be travelling in Europe. But she is an initiate, who has had occasion to learn a great deal more of Occultism, than is known to the uninitiated, and the world owes her an immense amount of gratitude for her teachings and her self sacrifice. Although not more than a human being, Madame Blavatsky is not only possessed of extraordinary knowledge based upon personal experience, but by her close connection with the Himalayan Brotherhood and the consequent acquisition of certain occult powers through initiation is able to enter into direct communication with it.
It is true that Madame Blavatsky warned the “Spiritualists” carefully to study the nature of the forces with which they were meddling, because they are dangerous; but that advice cannot apply to herself, because instead of being controlled by these forces, she knows how to control them herself. Mediumship implies the surrendering of one’s Reason to the will of another, and it is therefore certainly advisable that that other one should be thoroughly known, because if he is stupid or dishonest, he may run away with it or do it great injury. It is well to warn children not to play with the fire, but it would be foolish to ask Mr. Lane-Fox not to dabble with electricity.
Mr. Lillie’s criticisms further disclose the fact that he has read Mr. Sinnett’s book in a very careless and superficial manner, and he imputes assertions to Mr. Sinnett and to Eliphas Levi, which these gentlemen never made. He makes Mr. Sinnett say: “The highest reward of the just man made perfect, is annihilation;” but the sentence reads:—“ to merge his glorified individuality into that sum total of all consciousness, which esoteric metaphysics treat as absolute consciousness.’’ If by “absolute consciousness” Mr. Lillie understands “annihilation,” who is responsible for that defect of his judgment? Mr. Lillie makes Mr. Sinnett say “Avitchi or the Domain of Joy.” We wish Mr. Lillie much joy in Avitchi, if he should ever get there as a punishment for his profanations.
The Dhyan Chohan will be by-and-by annihilated.
Here again Mr. Lillie mistakes Nirvana for annihilation a serious blunder if committed by an Orientalist; however as he insists on that interpretation and refers to his own writings as an authority for it, we are forced to yield or cease to be polite. It is impracticable in this short review to follow all the glaring mistakes of Mr. Lillie, and we will add only one more sample to show the confusion in his ideas. Mr. Schlagintweit informs him that from Devachan return is impossible.
Now if Mr. Lillie will read page 85 of “Esoteric Buddhism,” he will find the same doctrine enunciated, namely, that a return from Devachan for the purpose of communicating with men, is not possible. The spiritual monad that reincarnates, has passed put of its Devachanic condition, and Mr. Schlagintweit’s remarks do not contradict that fact. It simply follows, from a perusal of Mr. Lillie’s book, that he is fighting a man of straw of his own creation, and that it is his own fancy that has created the “Gospel of Nightmare.”
“Christianity” is not identical with the Kabala, neither is “Esoteric Buddhism” identical with the popular “Buddhism” of either northern or southern India; but as all the symbolism of Christianity finds its true explanation in the Kabala, so the fundamental truths contained in a distorted form in what is known as exoteric Buddhism are contained in the ancient Wisdom-Religion, called the “Secret Doctrine,” or as Mr. Sinnett has chosen to call it, “Esoteric Buddhism.” If it had been intended to augment the pile of useless theological rubbish, by giving a compilation of the manners and costumes of certain eastern sects, a book might have been produced, which would perhaps have been interesting to a few antiquarians and quarrelsome theologians, but it would never have attracted the attention of the most enlightened and freethinking minds. The spirit of the Buddhist religion cannot be discerned by studying the manners of Tibetan “nuns” or by dismembering the prayer machine of a religious “crank;” to attempt it would be as reasonable as to search for the spirit of true Christianity in the beads of the rosary of the Roman Catholic monk.
Theosophy admits that one essential truth underlies all religions. As that truth can be only one, it must be the same in all religious systems and consequently the truth found in Buddhism must be the same as the truth found in the Kabala.
Whether we draw our information that the earth turns around her axis from an ancient Rishi, or from an English professor, that truth remains ever the same, and if the essential truths of Buddhism are identical with those hinted at in the Kabala, the former being expounded by an Adept and the latter by Eliphas Levi; it will not be unreasonable to expect that the assertions of the Adept and those of the “paradoxical Frenchman” may somewhat correspond with each other. The ‘‘Christianity” of Guiteau and Freeman, Torquemada and Robespierre, differs to a certain extent from the “Christianity” of St. Martin, or Jacob Boehme, still the ultimate principle or origin is the same, no matter how it may be misunderstood.
“Buddha” means “ Enlightened’’ and the word “Buddhism” does not strictly refer to what is now popularly understood to have been the doctrine of Sakyamuni, who became a “Buddha” some 600 years before the Christian era. Esoteric Buddhism existed many thousands of years before that time, and we have cause to believe that it is as old as the existence of man on this globe.
Mr. Lillie complains of mystifications in occultism.
The word “occult” implies something concealed or secret, something that is not so plain and simple that a child can easily comprehend it, and we may therefore expect that occult teachings will contain mystifications. The fact that the “Brothers” should have any secrets, which they refuse to impart to the uninitiated must be very provoking to the temper of the superficial thinker; but the necessity for secrecy may result from various causes:—
- Prom the insufficiency of language to convey ideas of things, for which that language has no words and the people who use that language no comprehension. It is well known that Sanscrit has many words for which there are no corresponding words in English, implying ideas for which many Europeans have no comprehension. As an illustration we may name the word “Nirvana,” which in spite of everything that has been said to the contrary is still held by many to mean “extinction.”
- From the incapability of the investigator to comprehend the nature of the secrets, and to illustrate this fact, we need only refer to the innumerable wars, quarrels and persecutions, followed by bloodshed, torture and misery, that have been caused by a misunderstanding of theological doctrines or by a wrong definition of terms. Calvin burnt Servetus on a slow fire, because he did not agree with him on a definition of terms, and it is probable that neither one nor the other knew the right definition.
- From dangers that may arise from obtaining knowledge which confers power, without having the necessary sense of justice to apply that power and not to misuse it. If the powers of the “Vril” were in the hands of certain bigots, the “Theosophical headquarters” would probably have only a limited existence; if Dr. Wyld knew the powers of black magic, be might perhaps destroy Mr. Sinnett for not having permitted him to see that picture, and Mr. Lillie in his residence in London may yet have occasion to wish that the Fenians had become saints before becoming acquainted with the powers of dynamite.
- From the fact that relative truth refers to conditions and the conditions are changeable. If it is for instance said “Prayer is useful” and “Prayer is useless,” both assertions are true according to the nature of that “prayer.” If it is a strong desire to accomplish an act, which it is in our power to perform, it is useful because it strengthens the will; if it is a puerile begging for an absurdity, it is useless. If it is said that the cosmic ether is “Matter,” it does not imply that it is the same form of “matter’’ as clay, etc.
To understand the teachings of occultism, it is necessary to enter into their spirit and not merely haggle at words. In conclusion it may be well to point out to Mr. Lillie, that if he will seriously apply himself to the study of Esoterie Buddhism, the objections raised in his pamphlet will disappear. He will then discover that the “Buddhism,” to whose study he has given so much time and attention, is only the caricature of the true Esoteric Doctrine, and that far above the muddle of credal superstitions, scientific fallacies and personal prejudices, is a realm of truth, to explore which is tho duty of the true searcher for knowledge.
F. Hartmann F. T. S.
Notes:
[1] Koot Hoomi Unveiled—Review. F. Hartmann, F.T.S. The Theosophist 5, no. 12 (September 1984), 301-303. {This article was reformatted from the original, but with the content unchanged other than fixing minor typos, by Robert Hutwohl, ©2020}
[2] Besides this, Mr. T. Subba Row is preparing a detailed answer. As to the derivation of the sanskrit name Koot Hoomi, see in the mean time the reply by the London Lodge, Theo. Socy.