Blavatsky H.P. - The Beacon of the Unknown: Difference between revisions

“''Gupta-Vidyâ'' (Secret Science) is an attractive sea, but stormy and full of rocks. The navigator who risks himself thereon, if he be not wise and full of experience,<ref>Acquired under the guidance of a ''guru'' or Master.</ref> will be swallowed up, wrecked upon one of the thousand submerged reefs. Great billows, the colour of sapphires, rubies and emeralds, billows full of beauty and mystery will overtake him, ready to bear the voyager away towards other and numberless beacon-lights that burn in all directions. But these are false lights, will-o’-the-wisps, lighted by the sons of ''Kâliya''<ref>The great serpent conquered by Krishna and driven from the river Yamunâ into the sea, where the serpent Kâliya took for wife a kind of Siren, by whom he had a numerous family.</ref> for the destruction of those who thirst for life. Happy are they who remain blind to these deceiving lights, more happy still those who never turn their eyes from the only true Beacon-light whose eternal flame burns in solitude in the depths of the waters of the Sacred Science. Numerous are the pilgrims who desire to enter those waters; very few are the strong swimmers who reach the Beacon. He who would get there must cease to be a number, and become ''all numbers''. He must have forgotten the illusion of separateness, and accept only the truth of collective individuality.<ref>The illusion of the ''personality'', of a separate ego, placed by our egotism in the forefront. In one word, it is necessary to assimilate all humanity, live by it, for it; and in it; in other terms, cease to be “one,” and become “all” or the ''total''.</ref> He must see with {{Page aside|249}}the ears, hear with the eyes,<ref>A Vedic expression. The senses, including the two mystic senses, are seven in Occultism; but an Initiate does not separate these senses one from the other, any more than he separates his unity from Humanity. Each one of the senses contains all the others.</ref> understand the language of the rainbow, and have concentrated his six senses in his seventh sense.”<ref>Symbology of colours. The language of the prism, of which “the seven mother-colours have each seven sons,” i.e., 49 shades or “sons” between the seven, are so many letters or alphabetical characters. The language of colours has, therefore, fifty-six letters for the Initiate (not to be confused with an adept; see my article “A Danger Signal”). Of these letters each septenary is absorbed by the mother-colours, as each of the seven mother-colours is finally absorbed in the white ray, Divine Unity symbolized by these colours.</ref>

The “beacon-light” of Truth is nature without the illusory veil of the senses. It can be reached only when the adept has become absolute master of his personal self, able to control all his physical and psychic senses by the aid of his “seventh sense,” through which he is gifted also with the true wisdom of the gods—Theo-sophia.

 

Needless to say, the profane—the non-initiated, outside the temple or pro-fanes—judge of the “beacons” and of the “Beacon” above mentioned in the opposite sense. For them it is the Beacon-light of Occult truth which is the ignus fatuus, the great will-o’-the-wisp of human illusion and folly; and they regard all the others as marking beneficent sand-banks, which stop in time those who are excitedly sailing on the sea of folly and superstition.

“Is it not enough,” say our kind critics, “that the world by dint of ‘isms’ has arrived at theosophism, which is nothing but transcendental humbuggery [fumisterie], without the latter furthermore offering us a réchauffé of mediaeval magic, with its grand Sabbath and chronic hysteria?”

Stop, stop, gentlemen! Do you know, when you talk like that, what true magic is, or the Occult Sciences? You have allowed your schools to fill you with the “diabolical sorcery” of Simon the Magician, and his disciple Menander, {{Page aside|250}}according to the good Father Irenaeus, the too zealous Theodoret and the unknown author of the Philosophumena. You have permitted yourselves to be told on the one hand that this magic comes from the devil; and on the other hand that it is the result of imposture and fraud. Very well. But what do you know of the true nature of the system followed by Apollonius of Tyana, Iamblichus and other magi? And what is your opinion about the identity of the theurgy of Iamblichus with the “magic” of the Simons and the Menanders? Its true character is only half revealed by the author of De mysteriis.<ref>By Iamblichus, who used the name of his master, the Egyptian priest Abammon, as a pseudonym. Its title is in Greek:<br>

'''᾿Αβάμμωνος διδασκάλου πρὸς τὴν Πορφυρίου πρὸς ᾿Ανεβὼ'''<br>

'''ἐπιστολὴν ἀπόκρισις, καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῆι ἀπορημάτων λύσεις.'''</ref> Nevertheless his explanations sufficed to convert Porphyry, Plotinus, and others, who from enemies to the esoteric theory became its most fervent adherents. The reason is extremely simple. True Magic, the theurgy of Iamblichus, is in its turn identical with the gnosis of Pythagoras, '''ἡ γνῶσις τῶν ὄντων''' the science of things that are, and with the divine ecstasy of the Philaletheians, “the lovers of truth.” But, one should judge of the tree only by its fruits. Who are those who have witnessed to the divine character and the reality of that ecstasy which is called samâdhi in Inda?<ref>Samâdhi is a state of abstract contemplation, defined in Sanskrit terms each of which requires a complete sentence to explain it. It is a mental, or, rather, spiritual state, which is not dependent upon any perceptible object, and during which the subject, absorbed in the region of pure spirit, lives in the Divinity.</ref> A long series of men, who, had they been Christians, would have been canonised—not by the decision of the Church, which has its partialities and predilections, but by that of most of the people, and by the vox populi, which is seldom wrong in its judgment. There is, for instance, Ammonius Saccas, called the theodidaktos, “god-instructed”; the great master whose life was so chaste and so pure, that Plotinus, his pupil, had not the slightest hope of ever seeing any mortal comparable to him. Then there is that same Plotinus who was to Ammonius what Plato was to Socrates —a disciple worthy of the virtues of his illustrious master.

{{Page aside|251}}

Then there is Porphyry, the pupil of Plotinus,<ref>Citizen of Rome for 28 years, he was so virtuous a man that it was considered an honour to have him as guardian for the orphans of the wealthiest patricians. He died without having made a single enemy during those 28 years.</ref> the author of the biography of Pythagoras. Under the shadow of this divine gnosis, whose beneficent influence has extended to our own days, all the celebrated mystics of the later centuries have been developed, such as Jacob Böhme, Emmanuel Swedenborg, and many others. Madame Guyon is the feminine counterpart of Iamblichus. The Christian Quietists, the Mussulman Sufis, the Rosicrucians of all countries, quenched their thirst at the waters of that inexhaustible fountain—the Theosophy of the Neo-Platonists of the first centuries of the Christian era. The gnosis preceded that era, for it was the direct continuation of the Gupta-Vidyâ (“secret knowledge” or “knowledge of Brahman”) of ancient India, transmitted through Egypt; just as the theurgy of the Philaletheians was the continuation of the Egyptian mysteries. In any case, the point from which this diabolic magic starts, is the Supreme Divinity; its end and final goal, the union of the divine spark which animates man with the parent-flame which is the Divine All.

This consummation is the ultima Thule of those Theosophists who devote themselves entirely to the service of humanity. Apart from those, others, who are not yet ready to sacrifice everything, may occupy themselves with the transcendental sciences, such as Mesmerism, and the modern phenomena under all their forms. They have the right to do so according to the clause which specifies, as one of the objects of The Theosophical Society, “the investigation of the unexplained laws of nature and the psychic powers latent in man.”

The first are not numerous—complete altruism being a rara avis even among modern Theosophists. The other members are free to occupy themselves with whatever they like. Notwithstanding this, and in spite of the fact that our behaviour is frank and devoid of mystery, we are constantly called upon to explain ourselves, and to satisfy the public that we do not celebrate witches’ Sabbaths, or manufacture {{Page aside|252}}broom-sticks for the use of Theosophists. This sort of thing sometimes borders on the grotesque. When it is not of having invented a new “ism”—a religion extracted from the depths of a disordered brain—or else of humbuggery that we are accused, it is of having exercised the arts of Circe upon men and beasts. Jests and satires fall upon The Theosophical Society thick as hail. Nevertheless it has stood unshaken during all the fourteen years during which that kind of thing has been going on; it is a “tough customer” truly.

{{Style P-Title|— II —}}

After all, critics who judge only by appearance are not altogether wrong. There is Theosophy and Theosophy: the true Theosophy of the Theosophist, and the Theosophy of a Fellow of the Society of that name. What does the world know of true Theosophy? How can it distinguish between that of a Plotinus, and that of the false brothers? And of the latter the Society possesses more than its share. The egoism, vanity and self-sufficiency of the majority of mortals is incredible. There are some for whom their little personality constitutes the whole universe, beyond which there is no salvation. Suggest to one of these that the alpha and omega of wisdom are not limited by the circumference of his or her brain, that his judgment is not quite equal to that of Solomon, and straightaway he accuses you of anti-Theosophy. You have been guilty of blasphemy against the Spirit, which will not be pardoned in this century, nor in the next. These people say, “I am Theosophy,” as Louis XIV said, “I am the State.” They speak of fraternity and of altruism and only care in reality for that which cares for no one else—themselves, in other words their little “me.” Their egoism makes them fancy that it is they alone who represent the temple of Theosophy, and that in proclaiming themselves to the world, they are proclaiming Theosophy. Alas! The doors and windows of that “temple” are no better than so many channels through which enter, but very seldom depart, the vices and illusions characteristic of egotistical mediocrities.

<center>From a portrait taken by Taber Studio, 8 Montgomery St.,</center>

<center>San Francisco, California.</center>

It is not such as these that can ever give a correct idea of practical Theosophy, still less of the transcendental Theosophy which occupies the minds of a small group of the elect. Everyone of us possesses the faculty, the interior sense, known as intuition, but how rare are those who know how to develop it! It is, however, the only faculty by means of which men and things are seen in their true colours. It is an instinct of the soul, which grows in us in proportion to the use we make of it, and which helps us to perceive and understand real and absolute facts with far more certainty than can the simple use of our senses and the exercise of our reason. What are called good sense and logic enable us to see the appearance of things, that which is evident to everyone. The instinct of which I speak, being a projection of our perceptive consciousness, a projection which acts from the subjective to the objective, and not vice versa, awakens the spiritual senses in us and the power to act; these senses assimilate to themselves the essence of the object or of the action under examination, and represent them to us as they really are, not as they appear to our physical senses and to our cold reason. “We begin with instinct, we end with omniscience,” says Professor A. Wilder, our oldest colleague. Iamblichus has described this faculty, and some Theosophists have been able to appreciate the truth of his description.

There exists [he says] a faculty in the human mind which is immensely superior to all those which are grafted or engendered in us. By means of it we can attain to union with superior intelligences, finding ourselves raised above the scenes of this earthly life, and partaking of the higher existence and superhuman powers of the inhabitants of the celestial spheres. By this faculty we find ourselves finally liberated from the dominion of Destiny [Karman], and we become, so to say, arbiters of our own fate. For when the most excellent part of us finds itself filled with energy, and when our soul is lifted up towards essences higher than science, it can separate itself from the conditions which hold it in bondage to every-day life; it exchanges its ordinary existence for another one, and renounces the conventional habits which belong to the external order of things, to give itself up to, and mix itself with, another order of things which reigns in that most elevated state of existence . . .<ref>Iamblichus, De mysteriis, VIII, 6 and 7.</ref>

The light and spirit of the Divinity are the wings of the soul. They raise it to communion with the gods, above this earth, with which the spirit of man is too ready to soil itself . . . To become like the gods, is to become holy, just and wise. That is the end for which man was created, and that ought to be his aim in the acquisition of knowledge.<ref>Phaedrus, 246 D. E.; Theaetetus, 176 B.</ref>

This is true Theosophy, inner Theosophy, that of the soul. But, followed with a selfish aim, Theosophy changes its nature and becomes demonosophy. That is why Oriental Wisdom teaches us that the Hindu Yogi who isolates himself in an impenetrable forest, like the Christian hermit who, as was common in former times, retires to the desert, are both of them but accomplished egoists. The one acts with the sole idea of finding in the One essence of Nirvâna refuge against reincarnation; the other acts with the unique idea of saving his soul—both of them think only of themselves. Their motive is altogether personal; for, even supposing they attain their end, are they not like cowardly soldiers, who desert the regiment when it goes into action, in order to protect themselves from the bullets? In isolating themselves as they do, neither the Yogi nor the “saint” helps anyone but himself; on the contrary, both show themselves profoundly indifferent to the fate of mankind whom they fly from and desert. Mount Athos<ref>[A celebrated monastic community situated on the peninsula of the same name, which is the most eastern of the three promontories which extend, like the prongs of a trident, southwards from the coast of Macedonia into the Aegean Sea. It is also called Hagion Oros. The peak rises like a pyramid, with a steep summit of white marble, to a height of 6,350 feet.—Compiler.]</ref> contains, perhaps, a few sincere fanatics; nevertheless even these have unwittingly gotten off the only track that could lead them to the truth—the path of Calvary, on which each one voluntarily bears the cross of humanity, and for humanity. In reality it is a nest of the coarsest kind of selfishness; and it is to such places that Adams’ remark on monasteries applies: “There are solitary creatures who seem to have fled from the rest of mankind for the sole pleasure of communing with the Devil tête-à-tête.”

Gautama the Buddha only remained in solitude long enough to enable him to arrive at the truth, to the promulgation of which he devoted himself from that time on, begging his bread, and living for humanity. Jesus retired to the desert for forty days only, and died for this same humanity. Apollonius of Tyana, Plotinus and Iamblichus, while leading lives of singular abstinence, almost of asceticism, lived in the world and for the world. The greatest ascetics and saints of our own day are not those who retire into inaccessible places, but those who pass their lives in travelling from place to place, doing good and trying to raise mankind; although they may avoid Europe, and those civilized countries where no one has any eyes or ears except for himself countries divided into two camps—those of Cain and Abel.

Those who regard the human soul as an emanation of the Deity, as a particle or ray of the universal and ABSOLUTE soul, understand the parable of the talents better than do the Christians. He who hides in the earth the talent given him by his “Lord” will lose that talent, as the ascetic loses it, who takes it into his head to “save his soul” in egotistical solitude. The “good and faithful servant” who doubles his capital, by harvesting for him who has not sown, because he had no means of doing so, and who reaps where the poor could not scatter the grain, acts like a true altruist. He will receive his recompense, just because he has worked for another, without the idea of reward or recognition. That man is the altruistic Theosophist, while the other is an egoist and a coward.

The Beacon-light upon which the eyes of all real Theosophists are fixed is the same towards which in all ages the imprisoned human soul has struggled. This Beacon, whose light shines upon no earthly seas, but which has mirrored itself in the sombre depths of the primordial waters of infinite space, is called by us, as by the earliest Theosophists, “Divine Wisdom.” This is the last word of the esoteric doctrine. Where was the country in ancient days, with the right to call itself civilized, that did not possess a double system of WISDOM, one for the masses, and the other for the few, the exoteric and the esoteric? This WISDOM, or, as we sometimes say, the “Wisdom-Religion” or Theosophy, is as {{Page aside|256}}old as the human mind. The title of sages—the high-priests of this worship of truth—was its first derivative. These names were transformed into philosophy and philosophers—the “lovers of science” or of wisdom. It is to Pythagoras that we owe that name, as also that of gnosis, the system of '''ἡ γνῶσις τῶν ὄντων''' “the knowledge of things that are,” or of the essence that is hidden beneath the external appearances. Under that name, so noble and so correct in its definition, all masters of antiquity designated the aggregate of human and divine knowledge. The sages and Brâhmanas of India, the magi of Chaldea and Persia, the hierophants of Egypt and Arabia, the prophets or nebi’im of Judaea and of Israel, as well as the philosophers of Greece and Rome, have always classified that special science in two divisions—the esoteric, or the true, and the exoteric, disguised by symbols. To this very day the Jewish Rabbis give the name of Merkabah to the body or vehicle of their religious system, that which contains within itself the higher sciences accessible only to the initiates, and of which it is only the husk.

We are accused of mystery, and we are reproached with making a secret of the higher Theosophy. We confess that the doctrine which we call gupta-vidyâ (secret science) is only for the few. But who were the masters in ancient times who did not keep their teachings secret, for fear they would be profaned? From Orpheus and Zoroaster, Pythagoras and Plato, down to the Rosicrucians, and the more modern Freemasons, it has been the invariable rule that the disciple must gain the confidence of the master before receiving from him the supreme and final word. The most ancient religions have always had their greater and lesser mysteries. The neophytes and catechumens took an inviolable oath before they were accepted. The Essenes of Judaea and Mount Carmel required the same thing. The Nabi and the Nazars (the “separated ones” of Israel), like the lay Chelas and the Brahmachârins of India, differed greatly from each other. The former could, and can, be married and remain in the world, while studying the sacred writings up to a certain point; the latter, the Nazars and the Brahmachârins, have always been entirely pledged to the mysteries of initiation. The great schools of Esotericism were international, {{Page aside|257}}although exclusive, as is proved by the fact that Plato, Herodotus, and others, went to Egypt to be initiated; while Pythagoras, after visiting the Brâhmanas of India, stopped at an Egyptian sanctuary, and finally was received, according to Iamblichus, at Mount Carmel. Jesus followed the traditional custom, and justified the reticence by quoting the well-known precept: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” [Matt., vii, 6].

Some ancient writings known to Bibliophiles, personify WISDOM, representing it as emanating from AIN-SOPH, the Parabrahman of Jewish Kabalists, and being an associate and companion of the manifested deity. Hence its sacred character among all nations. Wisdom is inseparable from Divinity. Thus we have the Vedas emanating from the mouth of the Hindu Brahmâ (the logos). Buddha comes from Budha, “Wisdom,” divine intelligence. The Babylonian Nebo, the Thoth of Memphis, the Greek Hermes, were all gods of esoteric wisdom.

The Greek Athena, Mêtis, and Neith of the Egyptians, are the prototypes of Sophia-Akhamôth, the feminine wisdom of the Gnostics. The Samaritan Pentateuch calls the book of Genesis—Akamauth, or “Wisdom,” as is also the case in two fragments of very ancient manuscripts, the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Iaseus (Jesus). The work known as Mashalim, or “Discourses and Proverbs of Solomon,” personifies Wisdom by calling it “the assistant of the (Logos) creator,” in the following terms (I translate verbatim):

{{Style P-Poem|poem=I(a)HV(e)H possessed me from the beginning.<ref>JHVH, or Jahveh (Jehovah) is the Tetragrammaton, consequently the emanated Logos and the creator; the ALL, without beginning or end, or AIN-SOPH, in its quality of ABSOLUTE, being unable of creating or of desiring to create.</ref>

Yet I was the first emanation in the eternities.

I was his delight, day after day.<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Though the wording differs somewhat, yet the ideas expressed in this passage are identical with Proverbs viii, 22-30. Mashalim is the plural of Mashal, meaning “example,” “fable,” “allegory,” i.e., a teaching that is illustrated. The Proverbs of Solomon are known in Hebrew as Mishle Shelomah. The Wisdom of Iaseus is the same work as the one known as The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or as Ecclesiasticus.—Compiler.]}}</ref>}}

This is exoteric, like all that has reference to the personal gods of the nations. The INFINITE cannot be known to our reason, which can only distinguish and define; but we can always conceive the abstract idea thereof, thanks to that faculty higher than our reason—intuition, or the spiritual instinct of which I have spoken. The great initiates, who have the rare power of throwing themselves into the state of samâdhi—which can be but imperfectly translated by the word ecstasy, a state in which one ceases to be the conditioned and personal “I,” and becomes one with the ALL—are the only ones who can boast of having been in contact with the infinite; but no more than other mortals can they describe that state in words . . .

These few characteristics of true Theosophy and its practice have been sketched for the small number of our readers who are gifted with the desired intuition. As to the others, either they would not understand us, or would laugh.

{{Style P-Title|—III—}}

Do our kind critics always know what they are laughing at? Have they the smallest idea of the work which is being performed in the world and the mental changes that are being brought about by Theosophy at which they smile? The progress due to our literature is already evident, and, thanks to the untiring labours of a certain number of Theosophists, it is becoming recognized even by the blindest. There are not a few who are persuaded that Theosophy will be the philosophy and the moral code, if not the religion, {{Page aside|259}}of the future. The reactionaries captivated by the dolce farniente of conservatism sense it, hence the hatred and persecution which call in criticism to their aid. But criticism, inaugurated by Aristotle, has fallen away from its primitive standard. The ancient philosophers, those sublime ignoramuses as regards modern civilization, when they criticised a system or a work, did so with impartiality, and with the sole object of improving and perfecting that with which they found fault. First they studied the subject, and then they analyzed it. It was a service rendered, and was recognized and accepted as such by both parties. Does modern criticism always conform to that golden rule? It is very evident that it does not. Our judges of today are far beneath the level even of the philosophical criticism of Kant. Criticism, which takes unpopularity and prejudice for its canons, has replaced that of “pure reason”; and the critic ends by tearing to pieces with his teeth everything he does not comprehend, and especially whatever he does not care in the least to understand. In the last century—the golden age of the goose-quill— criticism was biting enough sometimes; but still it did justice. Caesar’s wife might be suspected, but she was never condemned without being heard in her defence. In our century Montyon prizes<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Prizes instituted in France in the nineteenth century by Baron Antoine de Montyon (1733-1820), a French philanthropist, for those who benefited others in various ways.—Compiler.]}}</ref> and public statues are for him who invents the most murderous engine of war; today, when the steel pen has replaced its more humble predecessor, the fangs of the Bengal tiger or the teeth of the terrible saurian of the Nile would make wounds less deep than does the steel nib of the modern critic, who is nearly always absolutely ignorant of that which he tears to pieces so thoroughly.

It is some consolation, perhaps, to know that the majority of our literary critics, transatlantic and continental, are ex-scribblers who have made a fiasco in literature, and are now avenging themselves for their mediocrity upon everything they come across. The thin blue wine, insipid and processed, almost always turns into strong vinegar. Unfortunately, the reporters of the press in general (poor devils, {{Page aside|260}}hungry for promotion), whom we would be sorry to begrudge the little they make—even at our expense—are not our only or our most dangerous critics. Bigots and materialists—the sheep and goats of religion—having in turn placed us in their index expurgatorius, our books are banished from their libraries, our journals are boycotted, and ourselves subjected to the most complete ostracism. One pious soul, who accepts literally the miracles of the Bible following with emotion the ichthyographical investigations of Jonah in the whale’s belly, or the trans-ethereal journey of Elias, flying off, salamander-like, in his chariot of fire, nevertheless regards the Theosophists as wonder-mongers and cheats. Another—âme damnée of Haeckel—while displaying a credulity as blind as that of the bigot in his belief in the evolution of man and the gorilla from a common ancestor (considering the total absence of every trace in nature of any connecting link whatever), splits his sides laughing when he finds that his neighbour believes in occult phenomena and psychic manifestations. Nevertheless, neither the bigot nor the man of science, nor even the academician, numbered among the “Immortals,” can explain to us the smallest of the problems of existence. The metaphysician who for centuries has studied the phenomenon of being in its first principles, and who would smile pityingly while listening to the ramblings of Theosophy, would be greatly embarrassed to explain to us the philosophy or even the cause of dreams. Which of them can tell us why all the mental operations, except reasoning, which faculty alone finds itself suspended and paralyzed—function while we dream with as much activity and energy as when we are awake? The disciple of Herbert Spencer would send one who squarely asked him that question to the biologist. The latter, for whom digestion is the alpha and omega of every dream—as well as hysteria, that great Proteus of a thousand forms, which is present in all psychic phenomena—could by no means satisfy us. Indigestion and hysteria are, in fact, twin sisters, two goddesses to whom the modern physiologist has raised an altar at which he has constituted himself the officiating priest. That is his own business, so long as he does not meddle with the gods of his neighbours.