< The Theosophical Society (continued from page 11-173) >
it has, or has ever had, with the Arya Samaj. Connection with that body, it has at present, and for a long time past has had, as a Society, none. There is a distinct branch of the Theosophical Society, and of the Arya Samaj of India,” who are described as the “Theosophists of the Arya Samaj.”* Whether they are, or are not in that capacity subject to the rules of the Arya Samaj, I neither know nor care. Nor do I know or care what the rules referred to are; though, knowing something of the Arya Samaj, I utterly disbelieve that they have the character ascribed to them. Probably the subordination of the Samaja (the branch societies) to the central authorities is very marked, in accordance with Indian ideas, and for efficient organisation in the important work of reformation which that society was designed to carry on. The Theosophical Society and the Arya Samaj were independently established at opposite quarters of the world, but with public objects extremely similar. Hence there was subsequently a temporary alliance of the two, and at one time the words ‘4 of the Arya Samaj of Aryavart,” were added to our own designation. But at no time did we come under any subjection to the Arya Samaj or its rules; the organic connection was merely nominal, and the Theosophical Society never parted with its independent organisation for a day, or altered any of the objects which had been pursued ever since its foundation. I am not concerned with the defence of the Arya Samaj (if it at present needs any which I have no evidence of, or reason to believe), but I may mention that some time ago Professor Monier Williams, who knows India rather better, perhaps, than J. K., writing in The Athenaeum, mentioned it and the distinguished scholar who founded it, in terms of respect and approbation. That J. K. may not complain that I have omitted any fact which he may think material, I will add that during our brief nominal connection with the Arya Samaj, our general council, finding that Society doing, by means of its complete organisation, work which we wished done, but could not then do ourselves, aided it by the contribution of the initiation fees paid by our members on joining. I think I have now conclusively shown that a more ignorant and reckless charge was never brought than this one by J. K„ whose accuracy, as is often the case, appears to be on a par with his charity. Andi beg him further to understand that if by the offensive phrase, “Hindoo American Idolleration” he presumes to insinuate aught against the motives of the respected founders of the Theosophical Society, Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky, in their absence, I denounce the calumny by the strongest word with which a false and injurious suggestion can be met. I have forborne to quote the whole of this offensive paragraph, because J. K. has so mixed up the Arya Samaj with the Theosophical Society that I know not how much of it I am called on to answer in vindication of the latter. “Live as you please, pay only your guinea, and you are a Theosophist.” That, I presume, is because we have no special dietary rules. In any other sense it is untrue. “As far as I am aware, the London Theosophists, with the exception of two lady members, are all flesh-eaters as well as tobacco-smokers” (what, all the lady members, except those two, tobacco-smokers!) “and teetotalism is not the rule among them.” J. K.’s information is incorrect. Not to mention others, male and female, I know of, I am myself not a flesh-eater but a strict abstainer from such food. A small minority only of us are smokers. But “rational asceticism,” though, in my opinion, a good rule, is a very small and not perhaps an essential part of what the theosophic life exacts. A pure body, and victory over the senses, are necessary attainments for the aspirant; but even these are only the first desiderata, and the ascetic egotist is further from the good than the free lover who “thinketh no evil.” As regards the Theosophical Society, it will be readily understood that conditions of practical occult-ism cannot be imposed on all who join us from general sympathy or for theoretical study. But some things, such as all stimulants and certain meats, we have been repeatedly counselled to abstain from, according to the practice of our founders, Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky. And this on account of their specific effects. Other foods, &c., are condemned only when, as regards the particular individual, they have begotten an undue appetite, and as a positive attraction to material things, impede his progress We are not “indulged,” but are told plainly m one of our rules, as often less formally, that as long as we delay the work of self-conquest we can never advance to the higher degrees of the Society. Most of us in England, including myself, are of the lowest section, mere probationers. When therefore J.K. says “I doubt whether any member has yet received a guinea’s worth of theosophy,” I reply that even were he correct, (which I do not admit), that would be our own fault, for nothing can be imparted to an unworthy recipient.
And mark the inconsistency! Having made this sneering remark, J. K. himself unconsciously answers it in another reproach, which he appears to suppose contains information new to us. “No one of the invisible fraternity can give that which one’s own individual soul can give” (can alone give, I presume he means.) Exactly. Now hear Colonel Olcott, in answer to the question, “On one’s becoming a member, is any course prescribed for him to follow with a view to his continual progression, and the acquisition of the mastery over his baser nature?” Ans.—“What an important question is this which heads the second series that I read to you! How can one be helped to acquire the mastery over his baser nature? Mighty problem! How change the brute into the angel? Why ask for the obvious answer to so simple a question? Does my friend imagine there is more than one way in which it can be done? Can any other but one’s own self effect this purification, this splendid conquest, in comparison with whose glory all the greatest victories of war sink into contemptible insignificance? There must be first the belief that this conquest is possible; then, knowledge of the method; then, practice. Men, only passively animal, become brutal from ignorance of the consequences of the first downward step. So, too, they fail to become God-like because of their ignorance of the potentiality of effort. Certainly one can never improve himself who is satisfied with his present circumstances. The reformer is of necessity a discontented man—discontented with what pleases common souls—striving after something better. Self-reform exacts the same temperament. A man who thinks well of his vices, his prejudices, his superstitions, his habits, his physical, mental, moral state, is in no mood to begin to climb the high ladder which reaches from the world of his littleness to a broader one. He had better roll over in his mire, and dismiss Theosophy with a grunt of impatience.”... “You understand now, do you not, the meaning of the various sections and degrees of our Theosophical curriculum? We welcome most heartily across our threshold everyman or woman of ascertained respectable character and professed sincerity of purpose who wishes to study the ancient philosophies. He is on probation. If he is a true Theosophist at bottom, he will show it. If not, he will show it, and go back <... continues on page 11-172 >
* See Theosophy March, 1880