Blavatsky H.P. - What shall we do for our Fellow-Men: Difference between revisions

{{Style P-No indent|occultist who sees himself tied to the Karma of all his fellow-men, and who, on that account, labours for and with them, rather an egotistical one? For is not at the bottom of his “unselfishness” the knowledge that he cannot work out his own salvation at any lesser price? The escape from selfishness for such a man is self-sacrifice for the “world”; for the mystic, however, it is self-sacrifice to the eternal, to absolute being. Altruism is certainly considered one of the first requirements of any German Theosopher; we cannot or will not speak for others—but we are rather inclined to think that altruism had never been demanded in this country in the former sense (of self-sacrifice ''for'' the “world”), but only in the latter sense of self-sacrifice to the eternal (c).}}

{{Style P-No indent|deliverance from the world by furthering and favouring the world-process seems rather a round-about method. Our inclination leads us to retire from all worldly life, and to work apart—from a monastery or otherwise—together with and for all those fellow-men who are striving for the same goal of deliverance, and who are willing to rid themselves of all karma, their own as well as that of others. We would assist also all those who have to remain in wordly life, but who are already looking forward to the same goal of release, and who join us in doing their best to attain this end. We make no secret of our aims or our striving; we lay our views and our reasons before anyone who will hear them, and we are ready to receive amongst us anyone who will honestly join us (b). Above all,}}

(b). So do we. And if not all of us live up to our highest ideal of wisdom, it is only because we are men, not gods, after all. But there is one thing, however, we never do (those in the esoteric circle, at any rate): we set ourselves as examples to no men, for we remember well that precept in Âmagandha Sutta that says: “Self-praise, disparaging others, conceit, evil communications (denunciations), these constitute (moral) uncleanness”; and again, as in the Dhammapada (verse 252), “The fault of others is easily perceived, but that of oneself is difficult to perceive; the faults of others one lays open as much as possible, but one’s own fault one hides, as a cheat hides the bad die from the gambler.”—H.P.B.

{{Style P-No indent|however, we are doing our best to live up to our highest ideal of wisdom; and perhaps the good example may prove to be more useful to our fellow-men than any organized propaganda of teaching.}}

By the by, in your note you couple together Schopenhauer and Eduard von Hartmann. In this question, however, both are of opposite opinions. Schopenhauer, like most German mystics and theosophers, represents the views of Vedanta and (exoteric) Buddhism, that final salvation can, and can only, be individually attained independent of time and the karma of others. Hartmann, however, verges much more {{Page aside|472}}towards your opinion, for he does not believe in individual consummation and deliverance from the world; he thinks all mysticism and particularly that which is now known as Indian philosophy, an error, and demands of everyone as an altruistic duty to give himself up to the world-process, and to do his best in order to hasten its end (He is the “clever modern philosopher” whom I have mentioned on page 435) (c).

c). As I have never read von Hartmann, and know very little of Schopenhauer, nor do they interest me, I have permitted myself only to bring them forward as examples of the worst kind of pessimism; and you corroborate what I said, by what you state of Hartmann. If, however, as you say, Hartmann thinks “Indian philosophy an error,” then he cannot be said to verge toward my opinion, as I hold quite a contrary view. India might return the compliment with interest.—H.P.B.

3. There is, and can be, no doubt that Vedanta and (exoteric) Buddhism do not hold your view, but ours. Moreover, one could scarcely dispute that Lord Buddha—whatever esoteric doctrine he may have taught—founded monasteries, or that he favoured and assisted in doing so. Whether he expected all his disciples to become Bodhisattvas may be doubtful, but he certainly pointed out the “happy life” of a Bhikshu as the road to salvation; he expressly abstained from teaching cosmology or any worldly science; he never meddled with the worldly affairs of men, but every assistance he rendered them was entirely restricted to showing them the road to deliverance from existence. And just the same with Vedanta. It prohibits any attachment to worldly views and interests, or enquiries after cosmology or evolution a fortiori socialism and any other world-improvement. All this Vedanta calls Ajñâna (Buddhism: Avidya), while Jñâna or wisdom—the only aim of a sage (Jñâni)—is but the striving for the realization of the eternal (true reality, Atma) (a).

Answer (a). It depends on what you call Vedanta— whether the Dwaita, or the Viśishtadwaita. That we differ from all these, is no news, and I have spoken of it repeatedly. Yet in the esotericism of the Upanishads, when correctly understood, and our esotericism, there will not be found much difference. Nor have I ever disputed any of the facts about Buddha as now brought forward; although these are facts from only his exoteric biography. Nor has he invented or drawn from his inner consciousness the philosophy he taught, but only the method of his rendering it. Buddhism {{Page aside|473}}being simply esoteric Bodhism taught before him secretly in the arcana of the Brahminical temples, contains, of course, more than one doctrine of which the Lord Buddha never spoke in public. But this shows in no way that he did not teach them to his Arhats. Again, between “attachment to worldly views or interests” and the study of Cosmology, which is not “a worldly science” however, there is an abyss. One pertains to religious and philosophical asceticism, the other is necessary for the study of Occultism—which is not Buddhistic, but universal. Without the study of cosmogony and theogony which teach the hidden value of every force in Nature and their direct correspondence to, and relation with, the forces in man (or the principles ), no occult psycho-physics or knowledge of man as he truly is, is possible. No one is forced to study esoteric philosophy unless he likes it, nor has anyone ever confused Occultism with Buddhism or Vedantism.—H.P.B.

Ajñâni (misprinted in the July number page 436: agnam) signified just the same as what is rendered by “fool” in the English translations of the Dhammapada and the Suttas. It is never understood “intellectually” and certainly does not mean an ignoramus, on the contrary, the scientists are rather more likely to be ajñânis than any “uneducated” mystic. Ajñâni expresses always a relative notion. Jñâni is anyone who is striving for the self-realization of the eternal; a perfect jñâni is only the jivanmukta, but anyone who is on the road of development to this end may be (relatively) called jnâni, while anyone who is less advanced is comparatively an ajñâni. As, however, every jñâni sees the ultimate goal above himself, he will call himself ajñâni, until he has attained jivanmukta; moreover, no true mystic will ever call any fellow-man a “fool” in the intellectual sense of the word, for he lays very little stress on intellectuality. To him anyone is a “fool” only in so far as he cares for (worldly) existence and strives for anything else than wisdom, deliverance, paranirvana. And this turn of mind is entirely a question of the “will” of the individuality. The “will” of the ajñâni is carrying him from spirit into matter (descending arc of the cycle), while the “will” of the jñâni disentangles him from matter and makes him soar up towards “spirit” and out of all existence. This question of overcoming the “dead point” in the circle is by no means one of intellectuality; it is quite likely that a sister of mercy or a common labourer may have turned the corner while the Bacons, Göthes, Humboldts, etc., may yet linger on the descending side of existence tied down to it by their individual wants and desires (b).

(b). Agnam, instead of ajñâni was of course a printer’s mistake. With such every Journal and Magazine abounds, in Germany, I suppose, as much as in England, and from which Lucifer is no more free than the Sphinx. It is the printer’s and the proofreader’s Karma. But it is a worse mistake, however, to translate Ajñâni by “fool,” all the Beals, Oldenbergs, Webers, and Hardys, to the contrary. Jnana (or, Jñâna, rather) is Wisdom certainly, but even more, for it is the spiritual knowledge of things divine, unknown to all but those who attain it—and which saves the Jivanmuktas who have mastered both Karmayoga and Jñânayoga. Hence, if all those who have not jñâna (or jnana) at their fingers’ end, are to be considered “fools” this would mean that the whole world save a few Yogis is composed of fools, which would be out-carlyleing Carlyle in his opinion of his countrymen. Ajñâna, in truth, means simply “ignorance of the true Wisdom,” or literally, “Wisdomless” and not at all “fool.” To explain that the word “fool” is “never understood intellectually” is to say nothing, or worse, an Irish bull, as, according to every etymological definition and dictionary, a fool is “deficient in intellect” and “destitute of reason.” Therefore, while thanking the kind doctor for the trouble he has taken to explain so minutely the vexed Sanskrit term, I can do so only in the name of Lucifer’s readers, not for myself, as I knew all he says, minus his risky new definition of “fool” and plus something else, probably as early as on the day when he made his first appearance into this world of Maya. No doubt, neither Bacon, Humboldt, nor even the great Haeckel himself, the “light of Germany,” could ever be regarded as “jñânis”; but no more could any European I know of, however much he may have rid himself of all “individual wants and desires.”—H.P.B.

4. As we agree, that all existence, in fact, the whole world and the whole of its evolutionary process, its joys and evils, its gods and its devils, are Maya (illusion) or erroneous conceptions of the true reality: how can it appear to us worthwhile to assist and to promote this process of misconception? (a)

Answer (a). Precisely, because the term maya, just like that of “ajñâna” in your own words—expresses only a {{Page aside|475}}relative notion. The world . . . “its joys and evils, its gods and devils,” and men to boot, are undeniably, when compared with that awful reality, everlasting eternity, no better than the productions and tricks of maya, illusion. But there the line of demarcation is drawn. So long as we are incapable of forming even an approximately correct conception of this inconceivable eternity, for us, who are just as much an illusion as anything else outside of that eternity, the sorrows and misery of that greatest of all illusions—human life in the universal mahamaya—for us, I say, such sorrows and miseries are a vivid and a very sad reality. A shadow from your body, dancing on the white wall, is a reality so long as it is there, for yourself and all who can see it; because a reality is just as relative as an illusion. And if one “illusion” does not help another “illusion” of the same kind to study and recognise the true nature of Self, then, I fear, very few of us will ever get out from the clutches of maya.—H.P.B.

5. Like all world-existence, time and causality also are only Maya or—as Kant and Schopenhauer have proved beyond contradiction—are only our conditioned notions, forms of our intellection. Why then should any moment of time, or one of our own unreal forms of thought, be more favourable to the attainment of paranirvana than any other? To this paranirvana, Atma, or true reality, any manvantara is just as unreal as any pralaya. And this is the same with regard to causality, as with respect to time, from whichever point of view you look at it. If from that of absolute reality, all causality and karma are unreal, and to realize this unreality is the secret of deliverance from it. But even if you look at it from the ajñâna-view, that is to say, taking existence for a reality, there can never (in “time”) be an end—nor can there have been a beginning—of causality. It makes, therefore, no difference whether any world is in pralaya or not; also Vedanta rightly says that during any pralaya the karana sarira (causal body, ajñâna) of Isvara and of all jivas, in fact, of all existence, is continuing (b). And how could this be otherwise? After the destruction

(b). This is again a Visishtadwaita interpretation, which we do not accept in the esoteric school. We cannot say, as they do, that while the gross bodies alone perish, the sukshma particles, which they consider uncreated and indestructible and the only real things, alone remain. Nor do we believe any Vedantin of the Sankarâchârya school would agree in uttering such a heresy. For this amounts to saying that {{Page aside|476}}Manomaya Kosha, which corresponds to what we call Manas, mind, with its volitional feelings and even Kamarupa, the vehicle of the lower manas, also survives during pralaya. See page 185 in Five Years of Theosophy and ponder over the three classifications of the human principles. Thence it follows that the Karana Sarira (which means simply the human Monad collectively or the reincarnating ego), the “causal body,” cannot continue; especially if, as you say, it is ajñâna, ignorance or the wisdomless principle, and even agreeably with your definition “a fool.” The idea alone of this “fool” surviving during any pralaya, is enough to make the hair of any Vedanta philosopher and even of a full blown Jivanmukta, turn grey, and thrust him right back into an “ajñâni” again. Surely as you formulate it, this must be a lapsus calami? And why should the Karana Sarira of Isvara let alone that of “all Jivas” (!) be necessary during pralaya for the evolution of another universe? Isvara, whether as a personal god, or an intelligent independent principle, per se, every Buddhist whether esoteric or exoteric and orthodox, will reject; while some Vedantins would define him as Parabrahm plus MAYA only, i.e., a conception valid enough during the reign of maya, but not otherwise. That which remains during pralaya is the eternal potentiality of every condition of Prajñâ (consciousness) contained in that plane or field of consciousness, which the Adwaita calls Chidakasa and Chinmatra (abstract consciousness), which, being absolute, is therefore perfect unconsciousness—as a true Vedantin would say.—H.P.B.

{{Style P-No indent|of any universe in pralaya, must not another appear? Before our present universe must there not have been an infinite number of other universes? How could this be, if the cause of existence did not last through any pralaya as well as through any kalpa? And if so, why should any pralaya be a more favourable moment for the attainment of paranirvana than any manvantara?}}

6. But if then one moment of time and one phase of causality were more favourable for this than any other: why should it just be any pralaya after a manvantara, not the end of the maha-kalpa or at least that of a kalpa. In any kalpa (of 4,320 millions of earthly years) there are 14 manvantaras and pralayas and in each maha-kalpa (of 311,040 milliards of earthly years) there are (36,000x 14) 504,000 manvantaras and pralayas. Why is this opportunity of paranirvana offered {{Page aside|477}}just so often and not oftener, or not once only at the end of each universe. In other words, why can paranirvana only be obtained by spurts and in batches; why, if it cannot be attained by any individuality at its own time, why must one wait only for the whole of one’s present fellow-humanity; why not also for all the animals, plants, amoebas and protoplasms, perhaps also for the minerals of our planet—and why not also for the entities on all the other stars of the universe? (a)

Answer (a). As Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden objects in the form of questions to statements and arguments that have never been formulated by me, I have nothing to say to this.— H.P.B.

7. But, it appears, the difficulty lies somewhat deeper still. That which has to be overcome, in order to attain paranirvana, is the erroneous conception of separateness, the selfishness of individuality, the “thirst for existence” (trishna, tanha). It stands to reason, that this sense of individuality can only be overcome individually: How can this process be dependent on other individualities or anything else at all? Selfishness in the abstract which is the cause of all existence, in fact, Ajñâna and Maya, can never be altogether removed and extinguished. Ajñâna is as endless as it is beginningless, and the number of jivas (atoms?) is absolutely infinite; if the jivas of a whole universe were to be extinguished in paranirvana, jivaship and ajñâna would not be lessened by one atom. In fact, both are mere unreality and misconception. Now, why should just one batch of humanity have to unite, in order to get rid each of his own misconception of reality? (b)

(b). Here again the only “unreality and misconception” I can perceive are his own. I am glad to find my correspondent so learned, and having made such wonderful progress since I saw him last some three years ago, when still in the fulness of his ajñâna; but I really cannot see what all his arguments refer to?—H.P.B.

Summing up, I will now give three instances of the difference in which I think, a Mystic or (exoteric) Buddhist, Bhikshu or Arhat, on the one side, and an occultist or theosophist on the other, would act, if both are fully consistent with their views and principles. Both will certainly use any opportunity which offers itself to do good to their fellow-men; but the good which they will try to do, will be of a different kind.

Supposing they met a poor, starving wretch, with whom they share their only morsel of bread: the mystic will try to make the man understand that the body is only to be kept up, because that entity which lives in it has a certain spiritual destination, and that this {{Page aside|478}}destination is nothing less than getting rid of all existence, and, at the same time, of all wants and desires; that having to beg for one's food is no real hardship, but might give a happier life than that of rich people with all their imaginary worries and pretensions, that, in fact, the life of a destitute who is nothing and who has nothing in the world, is the “happy life”—as Buddha and Jesus have shown—when it is coupled with the right aspiration to the eternal, the only true and unchangeable reality, the divine peace. If the mystic finds that the man's heart is incapable of responding to any keynote of such true religiousness, he will leave him alone, hoping that, at some future time, he too will find out that all his worldly wants and desires are insatiable and unsatisfying, and that after all true and final happiness can only be found in striving for the eternal.—Not so the occultist. He will know that he himself cannot finally realise the eternal, until every other human individuality has likewise gone through all the worldly aspirations and has been weaned from them. He will, therefore, try to assist this poor wretch first in his worldly affairs; he will perhaps teach him some trade or handicraft by which he can earn his daily bread, or he will plan with him some socialistic scheme for bettering the worldly position of the poor.

Answer. Here the “Mystic” acts precisely as a Theosophist or Occultist of the Eastern school would. It is extremely interesting to learn where Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has studied “Occultists” of the type he is describing? If it is in Germany, then pitying the Occultist who knows “that he himself cannot finally realize the eternal” until every human soul has been weaned from “worldly aspiration” I would invite him to come to London where other Occultists who reside therein would teach him better. But then why not qualify the “Occultist” in such case and thus show his nationality? Our correspondent mentions with evident scorn “Socialism” in this letter, as often as he does “Cosmology.” We have but two English Socialists, so far, in the T. S., of which two, every Theosophist ought to be proud and accept them as his exemplar in practical Buddha- and Christ-like charity and virtues. Such socialists—two active altruists full of unselfish love and charity and ready to work for all that suffers and needs help—are decidedly worth ten thousand Mystics and other Theosophers, whether German or English, who talk instead of acting and sermonize instead of teaching. But let us take note of our correspondent's second instance.—H.P.B.

Answer. Is the cat out of the bag at last? I am asked to “oblige” our correspondent by answering questions, and instead of clear statements, I find no better than transparent hints against the working methods of the T. S.! Those who go against “esoteric cosmology” and the development of psychic powers are not forced to study either. But I have heard these objections four years ago, and they too, were started by a certain “Guru” we are both acquainted with, when that learned “Mystic” had had enough of Chelaship and suddenly developed the ambition of becoming a Teacher. They are stale.—H.P.B.

Thirdly, supposing our mystic and our occultist meet a sick man who applies to them for help. Both will certainly try to cure him the best they can. At the same time, both will use this opportunity to turn their patient's mind to the eternal if they can; they will try to make him see that everything in the world is only the just effect of some cause, and that, as he is consciously suffering from his present illness, he himself must somewhere have consciously given the corresponding and adequate cause for this illness, either in his present or in any former life; that the only way of getting finally rid of all ills and evils is, not to create any more causes, but rather to abstain from all doing, to rid oneself of every avoidable want and desire, and in this way to lift oneself above all causality (karma). This, however, can only be achieved by putting good objects of aspiration into the place of the bad, the better object into that of the good, and the best into that of the better; directing, however, one's whole attention to our highest goal of consummation and living {{Page aside|480}}in the eternal as much as we can, this is the only mode of thought that will finally deliver us from the imperfections of existence.

Now, will you do us the great favour to show us reasons why the mystic is wrong and the occultist right, or why paranirvana should not be attained by any individuality and at any time, when its own karma has been burnt by jñâna in samadhi, and independent of the karma of any other individual or that of humanity.

{{Style P-Signature|HÜBBE-SCHLEIDEN.}}

{{Style P-No indent|Neuhaugen bei München, September, 1889.}}

Answer. As no Occultist of my acquaintance would act in this supposed fashion no answer is possible. We theosophists, and especially your humble servant, are too occupied with our work to lose time at answering supposititious cases and fictions. When our prolific correspondent tells us whom he means under the name of the “Occultist” and when or where the latter has acted in that way, I will be at his service. Perhaps he means some Theosophist or rather member of the T.S. under this term? For I, at any rate, never met yet an “Occultist” of that description. As to the closing question I believe it was sufficiently answered in the earlier explanations of this reply.

{{Style P-Signature|H. P. BLAVATSKY.}}