Theosophical Correspondence.
Translation from German by Robert Hutwohl[1]
Buddhism and Christianity.
Question: — How are Buddhism and Christianity different from each other?
Answer: — In their outward forms the two religious systems are somewhat different from each other, although the practices of the Catholic Church have their origin in the Buddhism of the North; but the essence is the same in both. Buddhism is the religion of light and love. Christianity has basically the same purpose. Each of these systems has a number of adherents who are not yet mature enough to see the essence of their own religion, and therefore cling to the outer shell. The opponents of the Buddhist philosophy, without exception, manifest a lamentable ignorance of it, and of the defenders one would often justly say, “God protect me from my friends, from my enemies I can guard myself.”
Can the end justify the means?
Question: — Can the end justify the means?
Answer: — The supposedly Jesuitical assertion that the end justifies the means has already stirred up a lot of dust, and yet every unprejudiced person capable of thinking for himself will answer the above question in the affirmative, provided that the end is a really good or “holy” one and that the means in themselves are harmless and do not harm anyone. Church ceremonies, bell ringing, reading mass, theological studies, and the like are neither useful nor harmful in themselves; but they are “sanctified” by being used for a holy purpose, namely, to awaken religious life in man. In themselves these things have no value, but as a means to an end they are valuable. Those cold, dead and unfeeling forms of religion which suppress everything sublime and poetic and are based only on intellectual views and the belief in dogmas and the memorization of Bible verses are only a whitewashed materialism and not a true religion. Their purpose is to stupefy and numb the soul through lack of spirit.
But in order to sanctify the means, the end must be a truly holy one and the act must arise neither from Tamas (dullness) nor from Rajas (passion), but from Sattva (knowledge). If the Jesuit burns a heretic alive to save his soul, the intention may indeed be good; but the sanctity of the end exists only in the Jesuit’s imagination, and the means is in itself reprehensible. Tamas is at the basis of this act. If a man cuts off another’s nose out of malice, this act arises from Rajas, and the end is just as reprehensible as the means; but if an insightful doctor undertakes this operation to remove a cancerous tumor and thereby prolongs the patient’s life, his act arises from Sattva, and the means owes its sanctification to a good end.
Everyone will agree that it is a beautiful thing to tell the truth without regard to one’s own advantage; but whether it is also a godly act to betray it at all times without regard to the welfare of others is another question.
How much harm has not been caused by speaking the truth at the wrong time, in the wrong place, or where it could only be misunderstood. There are certain fanatics, ruffians and louts who, in their conceit, imagine that what they believe to be true is also the absolute truth, and who try to push their opinions around without hesitation. But you can think someone is a fool without committing the unkindness of saying it to their face and thereby insulting them.
If a doctor believes that his seriously ill patient is in great danger, it would certainly be very foolish of him to tell the patient this, thereby depriving him of all courage to live and all hope of recovery. If, on the other hand, he arouses hopes in the patient which he himself doubts will be fulfilled, then he is using a therapeutic means, namely suggestion, which strengthens the patient’s confidence and perhaps restores him. In such a case, the end justifies the means, because the end is a holy one and the means in itself is harmless.
Absolute truth cannot be presented to anyone else on a silver platter. It is the hidden pearl that everyone must find in the depths of their heart. Christ also had to speak to his contemporaries in fables and parables; Forms, images and symbols are necessary in order to gain knowledge of the truth through them, through appearance to light, through symbol to reality, through the external to the internal. There are people who are so foolish as to forbid their children from reading fairy tales because they think that they are “all lies”. They are unable to see the truth hidden in them, which can be found all the more easily, the more incredible the external form of the story, and by their prohibition they deprive children of the means of awakening a feeling for the true, noble and beautiful through their own reflection. A means which is in itself reprehensible and harmful cannot be sanctified by attributing to it a supposedly holy purpose; but a means which is in itself harmless can be sanctified by using it for a holy purpose. Everything which instructs and ennobles man and elevates him spiritually is holy and good.
Note
[1] Hartmann, F. (1908). “Theosophical Correspondence. Buddhism and Christianity. Can the end justify the means?” Hutwohl, R. (trans.), Theosophischer Wegweiser 9, no. 10 (July), 317-319. [Translation from the German by Robert Hutwohl, ©2025]