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

{{Vertical space|}}

''Answer''. As the undersigned accepts for her views and walk in life no authority dead or living, no system of {{Page aside|465}}philosophy or religion but one––''namely, the esoteric teachings of ethics and philosophy of those she calls'' “{{Style S-Small capitals|Masters}}”—answers have, therefore, to be given strictly in accordance with these teachings. My first reply then is: Nothing of that which is conducive to help man, collectively or individually, to live—not “happily”—but less ''unhappily'' in this world, ought to be indifferent to the Theosophist-Occultist. It is no concern of his whether his help benefits a man in his ''worldly or spiritual'' progress; his first duty is to be ever ready to help if he can, without stopping to philosophize. It is because our clerical and lay Pharisees too often offer a Christian dogmatic tract, instead of the simple bread of life to the wretches they meet—whether these are starving physically or morally—that pessimism, materialism and despair win with every day more ground in our age. Weal and woe, or happiness and misery, are relative terms. Each of us finds them according to his or her predilections; one in worldly, the other in intellectual pursuits, and no one system will ever satisfy all. Hence, while one finds his pleasure and rest in family joys, another in “Socialism” and the third in a “longing only for eternal peace,” there may be those who are starving for truth, in every department of the science of nature, and who consequently are yearning to learn the esoteric views about “cosmology the evolution of man and of the universe.”—H.P.B.

''Answer'' (a). There is some confusion here. I never said that no ''jiva'' could attain Paranirvana, nor meant to infer that “the final goal can only be reached solidarily” by our present humanity. This is to attribute to me an ignorance to which I am not prepared to plead guilty, and in his turn my correspondent has misunderstood me. But as every system in India teaches several kinds of ''pralayas'' as also of Nirvanic or “Moksha” states, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has evidently confused the ''Prakritika'' with the ''Naimittika'' Pralaya, of the Visishtadwaita Vedantins. I even suspect that my esteemed correspondent has imbibed more of the teachings of this particular sect of the three Vedantic schools than he had bargained for; that his “Brahmin Guru” in short, of whom there are various legends coming to us from Germany, has coloured his pupil far more with the philosophy of Sri Ramanujacharya, than with that of Sri Sankarachârya. But this is a trifle connected with circumstances beyond his control and of a Karmic character. His aversion to “Cosmology” and other sciences including theogony, and as contrasted with “Ethics” pure and simple, dates also from the period he was taken in hand by the said learned guru. The latter expressed it personally to us, after his sudden ''salto mortali'' from esotericism—too difficult to comprehend and therefore to teach—to ''ethics'' which anyone who knows a {{Page aside|468}}Southern language or two of India, can impart by simply translating his texts from philosophical works with which the country abounds. The result of this is, that my esteemed friend and correspondent talks Visishtadwaitism as unconsciously as M. Jourdain talked “prose,” while believing he argues from the Mahayana and Vedantic standpoint—pure and simple. If otherwise, I place myself under correction. But how can a Vedantin speak of ''Jivas'' as though these were ''separate'' entities and independent of {{Style S-Small capitals|Jivatma}}, the one universal soul! This is a purely Visishtadwaita doctrine which asserts that Jivatma is different in each individual from that in another individual? He asks “why paranirvana could ''not'' be attained by any ''jiva'' at any time.” We answer that if by “jiva” he means the “Higher Self” or the ''divine ego'' of man, only—then we say it may reach Nirvana, not Paranirvana, but even this, only when one becomes ''Jivanmukta'', which does ''not'' mean “at any time.” But if he understands by “Jiva” simply the ''one life'' which, the Visishtadwaitas say, is contained in every particle of matter, separating it from the ''sarira'' or body that contains it, then, we do not understand at all what he means. For, we do not agree that Parabrahm only ''pervades'' every Jiva, as well as each particle of matter, but say that Parabrahm is inseparable from every Jiva, as from every particle of matter since it is the ''absolute'', and that {{Style S-Small capitals|it}} is in truth that Jivatma itself ''crystallized''—for want of a better word. Before I answer his questions, therefore I must know whether he means by Paranirvana, the same as I do, and of which of the ''Pralayas'' he is talking. Is it of the ''Prakritika'' Maha Pralaya, which takes place every 311,040,000,000,000 years; or of the ''Naimittika'' Pralaya occurring after each ''Brahma Kalpa'' equal to 1,000 Maha Yugas, or which? Convincing reasons can be given then only when two disputants understand each other. I speak from the esoteric standpoint almost identical with the Adwaita interpretation: Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden argues from that of—let him say ''what'' system, for, lacking omniscience, I cannot tell.—H.P.B.

{{Style P-Quote|1. The unselfishness of the Altruist has a very different character according to which of the two views he takes. To begin with ''our'' view, the true Mystic who believes that he can attain deliverance from the world and from his individuality independent of the Karma of any other entities, or of the whole humanity, is an Altruist, because and so far as he is a monist, that is to say, on account of the ''tan twam asi''. Not the form or the individuality, but the ''being'' of all entities is the same and is his own; in proportion as he feels his own ''avidya, ajñâna'' or unwisdom, so does he feel that of other entities, and has compassion with them on that account (b). To take now the other view: Is not the altruism of an}}

{{Page aside|479}}

''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.