Isis very much unveiled, being the story of the great Mahatma hoax

“THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE.”
LETTERS ON VARIOUS SIDES FROM THEOSOPHISTS.

The foregoing chapters appeared in the Westminster Gazette, of October 29th, and nine succeeding issues. They attracted wide notice and comment, and were the subject of allusion in a large part of the London and provincial press. In accordance with their usual custom, the official Theosophists in England are said to have cabled to their leaders abroad to know what line they should take; but, if so, they do not appear to have got any clear answer.

A mass of correspondence was addressed to the Westminster Gazette, and to the author of the articles, some of it from officials, most of it from private members; some admitting that “much is, and all may be true,” others denying everything—in general terms; some throwing over the Vice-President, others lauding him as a model of Theosophic rectitude; some rejoicing (“in confidence”) at the “cleaning-out of this Augean stable of trickery,” others declaring that, proved or disproved, the charges do not matter a pin.

In regard to the repeated accusations that the assailant of the society “waited” till its three Theosophic chiefs were at a distance before challenging them on their “Enquiry,” it was pointed out that they gave nobody any chance to wait, the official Report of the Enquiry being sent round almost on the very day that Mrs. Besant sailed for Australia.

The following is a representative selection from the letters:—

FROM THE EUROPEAN SECRETARY: “DESERVING OF NO ANSWER.”

Sir,—I have forwarded the copies of your paper containing the series of articles entitled “Isis Very Much Unveiled” to my friends Colonel Olcott, Mrs. Besant, and Mr. Judge, who are respectively at their posts and carrying out their engagements in India, Australia, and the United States of America.

The mass of insinuations and misrepresentations with which these articles abound is deserving of no answer.

I enclose you a copy of the Enquiry held in July last, to which the full statements of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Judge are appended. This was months ago issued to every member of the Theosophical Society and published in full in our magazines. You can thus allow your readers to form their own opinion, instead of relying on the insinuations of your contributor, if you choose to do so.

The writer of the articles has several times made reference to a private body of students, and endeavoured to involve it in his attack. The informant of your contributor knows that he can with impunity make any allegation he likes against that body, and that, although it is in a position to give, and has already given to its own members, a denial to his allegations with regard to its council, it must, nevertheless, remain silent in public because of obligations of honour.

For the rest, of the truth or falsity of the most serious allegations I am without any knowledge, and do not propose to enter the arena of mere opinion.

But of this I am confident—that my friends Colonel Olcott, Mrs. Besant, and Mr. Judge, together with the best part of the Theosophical Society, are not only ready and glad to face any obloquy in upholding their individual ideals, but also that they are also willing to sacrifice everything for the cause they hold so dear, except the privilege of working heart and soul for its final triumph.—I am, Sir, faithfully yours,

[The pamphlet forwarded by Mr. Mead is the so-called “Enquiry into Certain Charges,” which was the starting-point of our articles, and which was very fully dealt with in the last two of the series.—Ed. W. G.]

Sir,—You appear to have expected an immediate reply to the series of articles entitled “Isis Very Much Unveiled.” This expectation is astonishing in view of the fact that, while the three persons mainly attacked by you were together in London for some weeks this summer, you waited until Mrs. Annie Besant and Colonel Olcott are now respectively in Australia and India, and Mr. W. Q. Judge is on a lecturing tour in the United States, as your informant knows. His time for attack is well chosen, but no just measure of surprise can be felt, either that their replies—should they care to make any—are delayed, or that we should have intended originally to await the close of your series before making our present brief remarks.

Your informant holds the position held among Freemasons by a brother who has broken his Masonic pledge. Those who refuse to enter further into this subject follow the traditions of all private societies in like circumstance. Englishmen will take at its proper valuation all information on whatever subject from such a source. We beg to take distinct issue with you on the point of the minor importance of sources of information. Our whole legal system is based upon the contrary fact. Character of witnesses has primary weight with all civilised juries.

The Theosophical Society has no concern with the beliefs of its members, nor with questions of Thaumaturgy. The endeavour to spread a contrary belief, to confuse the issue by slanders, or attacks against individual members, to belittle and misrepresent the objects and work of the society, must alike fail in the face of general disproof. The society pursues its way unaffected by all such attempts.

The Committee of Investigation appointed to consider the charges made against Mr. Judge threw out the indictment on the ground that the constitution of the Theosophical Society rendered illegal all charges involving questions of creed or belief. Mr. Judge came from the United States in readiness for their investigation, and his defence had to be abandoned for the preservation of the freedom of our platform. We do not, therefore, propose to bring the case to “trial by newspaper.” As representatives respectively of the American Section of the T.S. and of the general secretary of that Section on the Committee of Investigation, we are aware of the rebuttal evidence held in readiness by Mr. Judge. He holds affidavits from persons of unblemished reputation disproving a number of the charges made then and now by you, of which evidence detail is for the present reserved for the reasons above given. We need not further emphasise the danger of conclusions formed from “plaintiff’s evidence” only.

In conclusion, we beg to state our long acquaintance with, and our confidence in the integrity and standing of, Mr. Judge, a confidence shared, to our personal knowledge, to the fullest extent by the American Section of the T.S., as the reports of its last Convention prove. The American is the largest and the most active of our three Sections, one which not only carries on an enormous work, but which also assists the other two Sections. It is in it that Mr. Judge’s long labour and personal sacrifices have won for him the respect of the community.—Yours very truly,

Editorial Note appended in Westminster Gazette.

In regard to Dr. Keightley’s remarks on “the character of the witnesses,” from which, in view of the law of libel, we have had to omit one or two phrases, it is only fair to state that this letter was received before it had been made clear in the articles that the chief witnesses were, in fact, not Mr. Old, who has resigned office, but the President and Dr. Keightley’s brother, who retain it.

Sir,—Now that you have had the only answer it is possible for the present to make in connexion with that part of your articles which professes to disclose the affairs of a secret body, I am at liberty to make some remarks on that part of them which deals with the public affairs of the Theosophical Society, if you will grant me the opportunity of reply which, as a member of an attacked society, I have the right to demand.

In spite of all implications and assertions to the contrary, I must emphatically assert it as my opinion that the majority of members of the society do not join on account of phenomena; and I regard any attempt to prove the contrary as a conscious or unconscious misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs. A large mass of the public know well by this time that the chief activity of the society consists in making known and advocating a certain system of philosophy, and that appeals are made to the judgment and intellectual sense of the people as to whether they shall accept or reject it. I do not know whether your intelligent readers will consider themselves flattered when they read your contributor’s notion of the kind of procedure that is necessary to captivate them; but I am inclined to think that most of them must have common-sense enough to prefer judging a philosophy by its own merits to accepting or rejecting it according to the evidence for and against phenomena wrought in connexion with it. However, if there be any who, indifferent to all questions of ethical and philosophical truth, choose their faith according to its thaumaturgic properties alone, the society will not be sorry to lose them, for such weak natures are a source of weakness to every body in which they enrol themselves.

While declaring here my own belief in the integrity and sincerity of the persons attacked in your articles, and regretting my inability lo communicate all of that faith to others, I maintain, Sir, that Theosophy will not stand or fall by any personal scandals, whether true or false, and that the Theosophical Society will not cease to exist in Europe so long as there are even a few who believe as I do.

Your contributor has sought to convey the impression that the Theosophists, or at all events those who reside at the various headquarters, live in an atmosphere of constant thaumaturgy and intrigue; ever in expectation of some new wonder, ever ready to alter their deepest convictions at a moment’s notice in accordance with some enigmatical message or some trumpery sign. I call upon those who know the society, are habitués at its meetings, or have lived at headquarters, to say whether there is a grain of truth in this, or whether, on the contrary, we are a body of earnest students, living a prosaic life, and exhausting our energies in the endeavour to place before others the truths we have found so helpful to ourselves.

Your contributor makes much of his contention that the adepts were invented by Madame Blavatsky. What does he expect to gain by this? If he can succeed in discrediting Madame Blavatsky in the eyes of a few persons, he cannot disprove the existence of adepts for them unless he is also prepared to discredit every one of the other sources of information from which the evidence for the existence of such exalted men is drawn. Madame Blavatsky has reminded the world of the reality of those beings in which the more enlightened of its denizens have always believed. Of the few who may have accepted the belief on her testimony alone I would say, better they had taken the trouble to substantiate it from other sources. Whether Madame Blavatsky invented the adepts or not, at all events I here and now advance the theory, and refer for my evidence to the Theosophical literature on the subject, which is plentiful.

Let our critics, after reading it, come forward and publicly refute us. We await their onslaught with pleasure. Many points I am obliged to leave untouched on account of the length my letter would otherwise assume; but I must just note the absolute futility of the statement that “Max Müller has edited the only series of English translations of the Sacred Books of the East with which I am acquainted,” and the complete falsity of the statement that “there is no reason to believe that any member of the society in Europe could pass an examination in any Oriental language whatever.” Let these serve as samples of the quality of the rest of the attack.

In conclusion, sir, I would call your readers’ attention to the fantastically absurd position of an opponent who hopes to discredit, by his so-called “exposure” of a certain group of manifestations, the whole sacred science of true magic. I maintain that such a science as magic (in its true sense) exists, that it teaches the mysteries of nature and of man, that the voice of the ages endorses it, and that it is worthy of study to-day. I am prepared to support these contentions publicly if called upon, and can meanwhile refer your readers to the voluminous literature of the subject.—Yours truly,

II.—LETTERS FROM PROMINENT THEOSOPHISTS.

FROM MR. HERBERT BURROWS: “A REPLY WE MUST HAVE, OR I LEAVE THE SOCIETY.”

“What do you think of The Westminster Gazette articles? What are the Theosophical Society and what are its members going to do about them?” This is the question which is asked me on all hands. I recognise that not only my own personal friends but the public generally have a right to ask this question, and to expect an answer, and I have asked the permission of the Editor to give the answer from my own point of view, without in the smallest degree pledging anyone else. Without the smallest tinge of egotism, I may say that, next to Mrs. Besant, I am perhaps better known to the public generally than any other English member of the Theosophical Society. I have tried to bring a good many people into the fold of the faith, I know intimately the currents of thought inside the society, and while no one is responsible for the opinions I express, I believe that they represent the feelings of a large number of members.

The Old “Exposure” and the New.

When I read Mr. Garrett’s opening chapters, I said to myself, “Chestnuts!” We had heard it so often before. All the while Mr. Garrett was writing about the “S.P.R.” he was probably asking himself, How is it that this business did not kill the Theosophical Society? The answer is, Because it was not conclusive. When Mrs. Besant and I joined the society, apart from each other, I joining a few days before her, Madame Blavatsky said to both of us, “You had better read what there is against me,” and referred us to the Psychical Report. We read it separately, analysed it, and joined. I brought to it my Civil Service training, what business faculties I had, and a fair knowledge of the laws of evidence. I am a sceptic by nature, and I was then a materialist, and the honest conclusion that I came to was that the case for the prosecution was far too weak to warrant a conviction. That opinion I still hold. If I thought differently I should be outside the Theosophical Society instead of in it. I suppose that nine out of ten people who talk glibly about the report have never seen even the covers of it.

But I am bound to say that as Mr. Garrett went on with this newer case the situation altered. The details are too precise, and supported by too much evidence, for me honestly to escape from the conclusion that, if the facts and documents are correctly set forth, a primâ facie case has been established against Mr. Judge.

“If Mr. Judge declines to answer.”

Some facts in the series of articles and many of the inferences are wrong, as I shall have occasion to show; but enough is made clear to imperatively demand an answer. The charge here is, of course, of no offence known to the law; but were it otherwise, many men have been found guilty on charges which were supported by less evidence than these.

I am quite aware that a goodly number of my fellow Theosophists will blame me exceedingly for saying this, especially some of our younger members, whose moral sense seems somehow or other to have become confused over this matter. Let me put myself quite straight with them. My mind is perfectly open on the subject. I have no opinion yet one way or the other as to Mr. Judge’s conduct, for I have not heard his defence. For aught I know he may have a crushing, triumphant reply, and Mr. Garrett and Mr. Old (and with them Mrs. Besant!) may all have to go down on their knees to Mr. Judge. But that reply we must have, and as a member of the Theosophical Society, whose motto is, “There is no religion higher than Truth,” and who has appealed to the public to join it because I believed that it was founded on truth, and that its chief officials and leaders were upright, honourable people, I mean to use every legitimate effort to get it. If Mr. Judge declines to give it, if he refuses to come out into the open fully and squarely, or if his reply does not meet the case, then sadly and reluctantly I shall have to leave the Theosophical Society, for it will be impossible any longer to remain in an organisation whose vice-president is in such a position.

An Appeal to all Honest Theosophists.

Now it depends on the members of the society as to whether Mr. Judge’s reply shall be forthcoming. They can make such strong representations to him as will be impossible for him to ignore, and I hold that it is their duty to do so. Every member of the society has an indefeasible right to know what manner of man their vice-president is, and it ought to be made perfectly clear that the morality of the organisation is at least as high as that of the best commercial morality, and is not based on Jabez-Balfourism. If there is to be any talk, as there is already among some members, of “letting by-gones be by-gones—saving the situation—ignoring the attack for the sake of Theosophy, safeguarding occultism,” &c., then self-respecting members will have to protest strongly, and, if necessary, clear out. All such talk comes from mental ostriches, and in this matter ostrich-tactics won’t work. It is not a question of Mr. Judge, or of occultism, or the Theosophical Society, but what is above and beyond all these, Truth, on which Theosophy itself is based, as I firmly believe. If there is no religion higher than truth, then truth must be had at all hazards. For the truth we shall have to wait, perhaps, some months. Till we get it, minds should be perfectly open and unbiassed. Only three people can give the truth—Mr. Judge, Mrs. Besant, and Colonel Olcott. As far as lies in my power I mean to see that the truth is forthcoming.

The Judicial Committee of Inquiry.

Over this Mr. Garrett has floundered somewhat. I was a member of it, and know the facts. When Mr. Garrett says in his first article that “a few people are aware ... that there was recently a Theosophic meeting at which Mrs. Besant confessed to her friends that there had been something wrong with the ‘communications,’” and that she persuaded those assembled generally to hush the matter up, he does not know his case. This is what really happened. After Mr. Old had been some time in India he came to the conclusion that certain charges against Mr. Judge, which up to then had been vaguely floating about, were true, and he said so. In England we disbelieved them, for we had no real evidence, but when Mrs. Besant reached India, and examined the evidence, she agreed with Mr. Old. She formally adopted and formulated the charges, and the fact that she had done so immediately became known all over the world. There was no hole-and-corner work about it. An official investigation committee met, but found itself blocked by the constitutional difficulties with which your readers are now familiar.

Mrs. Besant and the Deadlock.

Then I proposed that we should resolve ourselves into a voluntary jury of honour. Mr. Judge did not agree to this, and so there was a deadlock. The evidence had not been heard, although Mrs. Besant was ready with it, for the inquiry had not been made, neither had we heard Mr. Judge’s defence. The next stage in the proceedings was the reading, to a very full meeting of members from all parts of the world—for it was our annual convention—of the statements by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Judge, to which Mr. Garrett has so often referred. In her statement Mrs. Besant said: “The vital charge is that Mr. Judge has issued letters and messages in the script recognisable as that adopted by a Master with whom H.P.B. was closely connected, and that these letters and messages were neither written nor precipitated directly by the Master in whose writing they appear.” That is pretty definite and precise. These two statements by the accuser and the accused, together with all the proceedings of the committee, were published in Lucifer on August 15, and they were reprinted in a pamphlet which was sent to every member of the society, and I also know that the day before she sailed for Australia Mrs. Besant made arrangements for that pamphlet to be sent to all the principal papers of the United Kingdom. I have said all this at length in order to dispel the idea that Mrs. Besant wished to bamboozle the society or hush up charges of fraud. I know that it is asked why she did not publish the whole of the evidence. If the official Enquiry had been proceeded with the evidence would have been published with its other proceedings. But Mrs. Besant felt, rightly or wrongly, that it would be unfair of her to publish it without the defence, and this there were no means of getting.

The Unsatisfactory Position of the Society.

But now see the unsatisfactory position of the society. The most serious charge possible had been made by its chief member against its second official, one of its founders, the tried and trusty friend of Madame Blavatsky. The charges were still hanging over his head, his members in America thoroughly disbelieved them, the members in India as thoroughly believed them, and we in Europe did not know what to think. They had been neither proved nor disproved. Colonel Olcott was going back to India, Mr. Judge flitted back to America, and Mrs. Besant rushed off to Australia to fulfil lecturing engagements made a year previously, and so far as regards the society generally Mahomet’s coffin was not in it for “floating.” Those of us who really took the thing to heart held our hands. We fully recognised the gravity of the whole matter, but we determined to wait till Mrs. Besant’s return before we moved, for without the evidence we were powerless. But we reckoned without our Westminster!

In concluding this article, I say frankly that The Westminster has really, although quite unconsciously, done Mr. Judge a good turn. I do not for a moment flatter myself that Mr. Garrett wishes any good to Theosophy! The tone of his articles precludes that idea. But his attack on Mr. Judge puts the latter in this position, that if he chooses he can defend himself without any fear whatever of pledging the Theosophical Society to one jot or tittle of dogma with regard to Mahatmas. He is attacked as a man, and as a man I sincerely hope that he will manfully and satisfactorily reply.

Sir,—As my name has been publicly mentioned by Mr. Mead, general secretary of the European T.S., in connexion with the series of articles “Isis Very Much Unveiled,” I think it advisable to state my own position and attitude in the matter.

The writer of those articles has named me, quite correctly, as having taken the first step in forcing an inquiry into the case against Mr. Judge. For this act of mine, I was suspended from my membership in the Esoteric Section, under the authority of the joint signatures of William Q. Judge and Annie Besant, Outer Heads of the E.S.T., and my name was dishonourably mentioned before the members of the E.S., among whom I numbered many an old colleague and friend. The mandate somehow found its way into the public Press. However, there was one advantage. After her official action in suspending me from membership Mrs. Besant was, of course, bound to hear my justification. This happened at Adyar in the winter of 1893. Mrs. Besant’s first remark to me after reading the case and examining the documents was, “You were perfectly justified by the facts before you.”

THE HEAD OFFICIALS PLEDGED TO PUBLISH THE FACTS.

In the presence of the president-founder Colonel Olcott, Mrs. Besant, Countess Wachtmeister, Mr. E. T. Sturdy, together with Mr. Edge and myself, it was decided that the task of officially bringing the charges should devolve upon Mrs. Besant, and that the whole of the evidence should be published. Consequently, the documents were handed over to Mrs. Besant for the purpose of drawing up her charges, and the president sent an official letter—or, as Colonel Olcott now claims, a “private letter” in official form—dated at Agra, February 12, 1894, to Mr. Judge as vice-president, in which he said (I re-quote from a circular issued by Mr. Judge, March 15, 1894):—“I place before you the following options:—

1. To retire from all offices held by you in the T.S., and leave me to make a merely general public explanation; or,

2. To have a Judicial Committee convened ... and make public the whole of the proceedings in detail.

In either alternative, you will observe, a public explanation is found necessary: in the one case, general; in the other, to be full and covering all the details.”

It was the second alternative which was adopted, with the abortive and disingenuous result already known. But what of the “full publication of all the details”? What of us Theosophists who had brought these charges against Mr. Judge? Were we not left in the position of persons who had brought charges without proving them? The position was one which I felt to be intolerable. Mrs. Besant had the full evidence in her hands by which to justify all the charges she had engaged to bring against Mr. Judge, but for some reason best known to herself involved the whole society in countenancing a systematic attempt to bolster up a delusion by concealment of facts. Mrs. Besant was also in honour bound to publish the facts, to all members of the society at least, since they were of a nature to vitally affect the beliefs of Theosophists the world over. She was, in short, bound to give them the same publicity as her former professions of occult intercourse obtained.

“MORALLY BOUND TO GIVE PUBLICITY TO THE TRUTH.”

The T.S. is an organised body with a wide system of propaganda, and has taken the public into its confidence in cases where its special claims appear to have been supported by facts, and while the public are invited to join the society it is only right and honest that they should know what of those claims are true and what of those “facts” have stood the test of inquiry. This responsibility cannot be avoided, and as I have personally been instrumental in the inquiry into these claims and facts, I am morally bound to give what publicity I can to the truth when arrived at. To rectify what I believed to be a fatal policy on the part of those concerned with the charges against Mr. Judge, I resigned from all offices held by me in the T.S., and left myself free to speak openly of the matter whenever occasion presented itself. I do not believe that a system of truth can be raised from a fabric of fraud. In the course of my travels I met with my friend Mr. Garrett, to whom, upon inquiry, I gave the reasons of my resignation from official connexion with the society. He asked my permission to publish the facts. My reply was that although I could not unsay what I had said, I had not intended such publication as he contemplated, and doubted whether the case could be put forth with sufficient clearness and fairness by a “Philistine.” I soon found, however, that he had a thorough grip of the facts; and on his representation, the truth of which I had to admit, that the society had closed the inquiry, and would not open its journals to a full discussion of the evidence, I let him take his own course.

Certain persons, who seem unable to conceive that a man may act on principle and without interested motives, have suggested that I was moved by some petty personal grudge, or even by some pecuniary inducement. I repudiate both these insinuations as lies. My independent action in this matter has involved certain pecuniary sacrifices; I have in no way used it, and should scorn to use it, for pecuniary gain.

MR. JUDGE AND MRS. BESANT.

It will, therefore, be clear to all members of the T.S. and the public generally that I am responsible for the facts occurring in Mr. Garrett’s articles only so far as they apply to the charges against Mr. Judge, and for these I have documentary evidence produced under a legal hand, and duly witnessed. With Mr. Garrett’s method of presenting the facts I am by no means in sympathy. I do not lose sight of the fact that, however mistaken or misled many of the Theosophical Society may be, as regards the traditional “Mahatmas” and their supposed “communications,” they are nevertheless as sincere in their beliefs as many of their more orthodox fellows, and have as much right to respectful consideration. I regret particularly that Mrs. Besant should have been placed in this awkward public position by the present exposure. Her intention I believe to have been perfectly honest, but I think she made a fatal mistake in avoiding the publication of the full facts, and in allowing the misconception to endure concerning her own and Mr. Judge’s connexion with the Mahatmas.

MME. BLAVATSKY AND THE MAHATMAS.

Of Madame Blavatsky I speak as I knew her. At the time I made her acquaintance she had forsworn all “phenomenalism,” so that I never saw any occult phenomena at any time. I believe that for her the Mahatmas existed, and I believe she thought them to be embodied personalities. Colonel Olcott has another theory, and others have their own. Personally, I believe in the extensibility of human faculty, and in the existence of an order of intelligences higher than our own, but I do not require that they are embodied or terrestrial in any sense of the word. Finally, I have been through the Theosophical Society with my eyes open, and for more than five years have been, officially and unofficially, as fully “in the Theosophical Society” as one can well be; and while I am certain that many are fully convinced of the truth of their own beliefs in these matters, I am also fully assured that a large number are in the position of persons self-deceived, who have unfortunately committed themselves too far to review their position without almost disastrous consequences to themselves and others. But that of which I have the fullest conviction and the greatest amount of presentable proof is the fact that no such thing as evidence of the existence (in an ordinary sense) of the Mahatmas, or of their connexion with the T.S. as a body or with its members individually, is obtainable by a person pursuing ordinary methods of investigation.

For those who are willing to found their beliefs upon the mere statement of another, without question of possible interestedness on the one hand, or self-deception on the other, the position is of course otherwise. For such persons proofs have no value whatever, what they are pleased to call their “beliefs” and their “knowledge” being determined or determinable from the moment they sign away their independence of judgment and freedom of thought.—Yours sincerely,

P.S.—One misstatement of fact appears in your issue of November 3. What Mr. Garrett refers to as “Madame Blavatsky’s Rosicrucian signet-ring” was not a ring, but a jewel, used as a pendant. Also, the “dark gentleman” who delivered the two £10 notes to Mr. Judge made his call (so we were told) in the early afternoon, not in “the evening” as stated in Mr. Garrett’s text. I am bound to add that, whatever may be my annoyance and regret at the tone of the articles and of some of the inferences, as regards that part of the evidence which is known to myself, I have noticed so far no other substantial error of fact.

Sir,—The circular bearing this title—referred to in your leading columns yesterday—was issued last July, and directly affects some questions you have lately been discussing. Under the circumstances, I hope you will kindly consent to give it fuller publicity. It was addressed to students of Occultism, and ran as follows:—

The inevitable mystery which surrounds Occultism and the Occultist has given rise in the minds of many to a strange confusion between the duty of silence and the error of untruthfulness. There are many things that the Occultist may not divulge; but equally binding is the law that he may never speak untruth. And this obligation to Truth is not confined to speech; he may never think untruth, nor act untruth. A spurious Occultism dallies with truth and falsehood, and argues that deception on the illusory physical plane is consistent with purity on the loftier planes on which the Occultist has his true life; it speaks contemptuously of “mere worldly morality”—a contempt that might be justified if it raised a higher standard, but which is out of place when the phrase is used to condone acts which the “mere worldly morality” would disdain to practise. The doctrine that the end justifies the means has proved in the past fruitful of all evil; no means that are impure can bring about an end that is good, else were the Good Law a dream and Karma a mere delusion. From these errors flows an influence mischievous to the whole Theosophical Society, undermining the stern and rigid morality necessary as a foundation for Occultism of the Right Hand Path.

Finding that this false view of Occultism is spreading in the Theosophical Society, we desire to place on record our profound aversion to it, and our conviction that morality of the loftiest type must be striven after by every one who would tread in safety the difficult ways of the Occult World. Only by rigid truthfulness in thought, speech, and act on the planes on which works our waking consciousness, can the student hope to evolve the intuition which unerringly discerns between the true and the false in the supersensuous worlds, which recognises truth at sight and so preserves him from fatal risks in those at first confusing regions. To cloud the delicate sense of truth here is to keep it blind there; hence every teacher of Occultism has laid stress on truthfulness as the most necessary equipment of the would-be disciple. To quote a weighty utterance of a wise Indian disciple:—

“Next in importance, or perhaps equal in value, to Devotion is Truth. It is simply impossible to over-estimate the efficacy of Truth in all its phases and bearings in helping the onward evolution of the human soul. We must love truth, seek truth, and live truth; and thus alone can the Divine Light which is Truth Sublime be seen by the student of Occultism. When there is the slightest leaning towards falsehood in any shape, there is shadow and ignorance, and their child, pain. This leaning towards falsehood belongs to the lower personality without doubt. It is here that our interests clash, it is here the struggle for existence is in full swing, and it is therefore here that cowardice and dishonesty and fraud find any scope. The ‘signs and symptoms’ of the operations of this lower self can never remain concealed from one who sincerely loves truth and seeks truth.”

To understand oneself, and so escape self-deception, Truth must be practised; thus only can be avoided the dangers of the “conscious and unconscious deception” against which a Master warned his pupils in 1885.

Virtue is the foundation of White Occultism; the Pàramitàs, six and ten, the transcendental virtues, must be mastered, and each of the Seven Portals on the Path is a virtue, which the Disciple must make his own. Out of the soil of pure morality alone can grow the sacred flower which blossoms at length into Arhatship, and those who aspire to the blooming of the flower must begin by preparing the soil.

H. S. Olcott, A. P. Sinnett, Annie Besant, Bertram Keightley, W. Wynn Westcott, E. T. Sturdy, C. W. Leadbeater.

I do not propose to discuss the merits of the case against Mr. Judge, but we who signed this paper—without prejudging in their personal aspect accusations which it had then been found impossible to thresh out thoroughly—conceived it desirable to remind all fellow-students of Occultism that no beneficial results along that path could possibly be attained except by a course of life which, whatever else it might be, should be strictly in harmony with the dictates of ordinary morality.

The Theosophical Society has grown in a few years to such extraordinary proportions, and is so loosely jointed, that it cannot be correctly thought of as a homogeneous association all parts of which are equally represented by the officers nominally at its head. But it ought at this crisis to be generally understood that the many persons of culture and earnest purpose to whom spiritual progress along the original lines of Theosophic teaching is the main object of existence are guided by evidence concerning the possibilities of their higher evolution that is of a kind utterly unlike that which you not unreasonably discredit. A great block of such evidence is in our possession concerning not merely the existence but also the attributes of the great initiates, and to those of us in a position to appreciate this the foundations of Theosophic knowledge are quite unshaken by such incidents as those on which you have been commenting.—I am, Sir, yours, &c.,

WHOM DID THE CIRCULAR REFER TO

[In reference to the subject of Mr. Sinnett’s letter, the following is an extract from the Westminster Gazette under the heading;—“More Theosophistry: A Belated Piece of Bluff.”]

In the current number of the Review of Reviews a letter appears signed by the Dr. Keightley who lately wrote to The Westminster Gazette as a professed representative of Mr. W. Q. Judge, Vice-President of the Theosophical Society. The letter is worthy of some attention as an illustration of the tactics of Mr. Judge’s friends, and of the line which they were taking towards any allusion in the Press to certain events before the appearance of the recent exposure in this journal.

The letter is dated October 25, and was therefore written at the time when the Theosophists still hoped to maintain the great “hush up” inaugurated at the Convention of last July, and before they dreamed that all London would presently be discussing the facts which had been so industriously buried.

The occasion of the letter appears to have been a comment of Mr. Stead’s in the last number of the Review on a circular lately issued under the title of “Occultism and Truth.” This circular was issued just after the so-called “Enquiry into Certain Charges against the Vice-President,” and (to this office, at any rate) it was enclosed under one cover with the pamphlet report of that “Enquiry.” The substance of it is an assurance to the Theosophical world, on the part of some prominent Theosophists, that occultists have no more right than ordinary people to fib. Coming at the time when it did, and signed as it was by all the principal official Theosophists, with the one exception of the vice-president, the Editor of the Review of Reviews very naturally interpreted it as having some connexion with the charges against the last-named gentleman, and with what his colleagues evidently felt to be their apparent condonation of the “occult methods” ascribed to him.

The following is the substantial passage in the letter thereupon addressed to the Review of Reviews by Mr. Judge’s representatives:—

Allow us to make a very necessary correction.... Mrs. Besant, who originated the circular, was asked directly whether it was connected with the charges or whether it was in any way aimed at Mr. Judge. She gave an emphatic denial to both questions to many who took the same view expressed by you.

Another fact is not generally known, and leads people—yourself among others—into unconsciously committing an injustice. The charges against Mr. Judge were never substantiated, and the committee appointed to inquire into them declared that they were illegally laid.

(The letter then concludes with a high tribute to Mr. Judge’s character for truthfulness and every other virtue.)

Now, as regards the statement about the intention of the Circular, we will only say that one co-signatory of it at least has committed himself to the precise view of it which this letter denies. Nor is it obvious why the heads of any society should issue a round robin to say it is naughty to tell taradiddles, unless some current reference were intended to the affairs of the society.

Besides this, however, there is unmistakably conveyed the impression that Mr. Judge’s accusers failed to substantiate their case, and that there was something actually “illegal,” in the ordinary sense of the word, about some part of their conduct.

As readers of “Isis Very Much Unveiled” are aware, both these things are absolutely untrue. The simple fact was that, owing to the objections raised by Mr. Judge, no opportunity was given for the charges to be either substantiated or the reverse; while the only justification for the statement that they were “illegally laid” is such as can be squeezed out of the fact that the Theosophical Pickwickians were persuaded by Mr. Judge that inquiry was forbidden by the constitution of their society.

It only remains to add, to complete the disingenuousness of this very Theosophistical letter, that its signatories authenticate its statements by flaunting the title of “Members of the Committee of Investigation”; the committee referred to being the one which met only to decide that it could not investigate, and the members of it as such having no knowledge whatever of the evidence either on one side or the other!