Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
13,465
edits
Blavatsky H.P. - The Facts Brought Before Masters: Difference between revisions
Blavatsky H.P. - The Facts Brought Before Masters (view source)
Revision as of 09:28, 14 April 2026
, 14 Aprilno edit summary
(Created page with "{{HPB-CW-header | item title = The Facts Brought Before Masters | item author = Blavatsky H.P. | volume = 12 | pages = 59-63 | publications = | scrapboo...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| previous = Blavatsky H.P. - Miscellaneous Notes (58) | | previous = Blavatsky H.P. - Miscellaneous Notes (58) | ||
| next = Zirkoff B. - The Voice of the Silence | | next = Zirkoff B. - The Voice of the Silence | ||
| alternatives = | | alternatives = | ||
| translations = | | translations = | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
{{Style P-Title|THE FACTS BROUGHT BEFORE MASTERS<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[The original Manuscript of this statement in H.P.B.’s own handwriting is in the Archives of the former Point Loma Theosophical Society. It is unsigned and undated and was apparently sent to W. Q. Judge. It must have been written when the Blavatsky Lodge in London was beginning to grow and expand rather rapidly, which would be in 1888-89. Confronted with diametrically opposing views from various types of people, H.P.B. must have felt the urge to ask these questions.<br> | {{Style P-Title|THE FACTS BROUGHT BEFORE MASTERS<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[The original Manuscript of this statement in H.P.B.’s own handwriting is in the Archives of the former Point Loma Theosophical Society. It is unsigned and undated and was apparently sent to W. Q. Judge. It must have been written when the Blavatsky Lodge in London was beginning to grow and expand rather rapidly, which would be in 1888-89. Confronted with diametrically opposing views from various types of people, H.P.B. must have felt the urge to ask these questions.<br> | ||
Countess Constance Wachtmeister was at the time managing the Theosophical Publishing Society and was the head of the Library and the Propaganda Fund. The initials I.C.O. stand for Mrs. Isabel Cooper-Oakley. Annie Besant was against the idea of inviting all these fashionable people to such functions as are discussed here.<br> | Countess Constance Wachtmeister was at the time managing the Theosophical Publishing Society and was the head of the Library and the Propaganda Fund. The initials I.C.O. stand for Mrs. Isabel Cooper-Oakley. Annie Besant was against the idea of inviting all these fashionable people to such functions as are discussed here.<br> | ||
This Manuscript was originally published in The Theosophical Forum, Covina, Calif., Vol. XXVI, January, 1948. | This Manuscript was originally published in ''The Theosophical Forum'', Covina, Calif., Vol. XXVI, January, 1948.—''Compiler''.]}}</ref>}} | ||
{{Vertical space|}} | {{Vertical space|}} | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
{{Vertical space|}} | {{Vertical space|}} | ||
{{Page aside|60}} | {{Page aside|60}} | ||
{{Style P-Subtitle|{{Style S-Small capitals|Answers To Some Questions Concerning This.}}}} | |||
{{Vertical space|}} | {{Vertical space|}} | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Q. Was I wrong in encouraging the proposed monthly receptions with the view of interesting some society men and women in the T. S. movement? | Q. Was I wrong in encouraging the proposed monthly receptions with the view of interesting some society men and women in the T. S. movement? | ||
A. Not in the least. The time is short, and as the Sage says: “No effort is ever lost. Every cause must produce its effects. The result may vary according to the circumstances which form a part of the cause, but it is always wiser to work and force the current of events than to wait for time.” Unless sought for, no man or woman of the better classes and education will come to you at this stage of opposition and struggle; and by not coming they will never learn the truth about earnest Theosophists and their meritorious efforts to win the day and unveil truth. | A. Not in the least. The time is short, and as the Sage says: “No effort is ever lost. Every cause must produce its effects. The result may vary according to the circumstances which form a part of the cause, but ''it is always wiser to work and force the current of events than to wait for time''.” Unless sought for, no man or woman of the better classes and education will come to you at this stage of opposition and struggle; and by not coming they will never learn the truth about earnest Theosophists and their meritorious efforts to win the day and unveil truth. | ||
Q. Is it likely that the Theosophists who give these parties as those who help them should be regarded as frivolous? | Q. Is it likely that the Theosophists who give these parties as those who help them should be regarded as frivolous? | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
{{Page aside|62}} | {{Page aside|62}} | ||
A. I do not see why they should be blamed. Every Theosophist does what he can and ought to do it on the lines he can work upon and knows how. One carries his energies among one group of people, works for one class of men. Another tries to do the same among those he sympathizes with the most. Every man is an embodiment of different ideas, and while he lives and moves on this plane, has to work through and with the help of his physical body, which is the necessary instrument that enables him to come in contact with matter and to control it, to mix with other people and influence them. Why should they not dress these bodies? The personality should be neither exalted nor neglected. The T. S. may be compared to a human body. Each organ performs a different function, apart from others, yet all work for the body and help one another. Why expect the brain to digest your food and the muscles of your legs to think out ideas? Why should the heart say to the tongue— “Move not, your jabbering disturbs me,” if the tongue performs its duty allotted to it by Nature and for the benefit of the whole body? The Self is the Master of the body and it is his duty not to allow his mental equilibrium to be disturbed by anything that may befall his physical body, or to refuse its use under any circumstances, if that use be of any benefit to his neighbour. But it is also his duty to guide his heart-emotions and not let these emotions guide him. Tell those who surround you that they are each of them a Self different from the “Self” of his Brother or Sister, and that whatever the body of one may be led to do for the benefit of all and in an absolute Spirit of unselfishness—is meritorious . . . . . . . | A. I do not see why they should be blamed. Every Theosophist does what he can and ought to do it on the lines he can work upon and knows how. One carries his energies among one group of people, works for one class of men. Another tries to do the same among those he sympathizes with the most. Every man is an embodiment of different ideas, and while he lives and moves on this plane, has to work through and with the help of his physical body, which is the necessary instrument that enables him to come in contact with matter and to control it, to mix with other people and influence them. Why should they not dress these bodies? The personality should be neither exalted nor neglected. The T. S. may be compared to a human body. Each organ performs a different function, apart from others, yet all work for the body and help one another. Why expect the brain to digest your food and the muscles of your legs to think out ideas? Why should the heart say to the tongue— “Move not, your jabbering disturbs me,” if the tongue performs its duty allotted to it by Nature and for the benefit of the whole body? The ''Self'' is the Master of the body and it is his duty not to allow his mental equilibrium to be disturbed by anything that may befall his physical body, or to refuse its use under any circumstances, if that use be of any benefit to his neighbour. But it is also his duty to guide his heart-emotions and not let these emotions guide him. Tell those who surround you that they are each of them a Self different from the “Self” of his Brother or Sister, and that whatever the body of one may be led to do for the benefit of all and in an absolute Spirit of unselfishness—is meritorious . . . . . . . | ||
<center>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .</center> | <center>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .</center> | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
{{Page aside|63}} | {{Page aside|63}} | ||
Q. Just so; but what I want You to state is the Occult aspect of such attitude, the Nidana aroused, so that I may repeat your own words. Was this remark right? or wrong? and if so—why? | Q. Just so; but what I want ''You'' to state is the Occult aspect of such attitude, the Nidana aroused, so that I may repeat your own words. Was this remark right? or wrong? and if so—why? | ||
A. Every one has a right to act according to his own conscience; but it is the nature of such act of conscience that decides whether it will be right or wrong. Suppose a “pledge-order” came to do something base and criminal— for instance sell one’s son or daughter, or rob in a legal way one’s neighbour. Then no pledge could avail. The “order” would be something going entirely against a universally recognized law, a principle. But in the case in hand the situation is quite different: here the “Order” would concern something that was only a personal prejudice based on party-spirit. The pledged party cannot go against such an innocent thing as a social gathering in the name of Theosophy, but does so, opposing her co-students and colleagues on grounds entirely selfish and personal, a sin in itself. Were then, such an order ever given (which luckily for all concerned it never will) and the pledged person refused to obey it, though knowing that since it was given there must be something serious involved in it, then—you know, what the effects of it would be. | A. Every one has a right to act according to his own conscience; but it is the nature of such act of conscience that decides whether it will be right or wrong. Suppose a “pledge-order” came to do something base and criminal— for instance sell one’s son or daughter, or rob in a legal way one’s neighbour. Then no pledge could avail. The “order” would be something going entirely against a universally recognized law, a principle. But in the case in hand the situation is quite different: here the “Order” would concern something that was only a personal prejudice based on party-spirit. The pledged party cannot go against such an innocent thing as a social gathering in the name of Theosophy, but does so, opposing her co-students and colleagues on grounds entirely selfish and personal, a sin in itself. Were then, such an order ever given (which luckily for all concerned it never will) and the pledged person refused to obey it, though knowing that since it was given there must be something serious involved in it, then—you know, what the effects of it would be. | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
Q. I know, but then the “party” does not know it. | Q. I know, but then the “party” does not know it. | ||
A. Then she ought to. A direct “order” is a rare thing indeed and a most serious one. You have no right to let any one of them remain in ignorance. | A. Then she ought to. A ''direct'' “order” is a rare thing indeed and a most serious one. You have no right to let any one of them remain in ignorance. | ||
{{Footnotes}} | {{Footnotes}} | ||