In November 2012 I set up another site to serve as the companion or “sister site” to this blog. It has recently been redesigned, improved, and expanded and you are invited to come over and take a look.

The site is titled Blavatsky Theosophy Group UK and can be found at http://www.blavatskytheosophy.com.

There are several new articles which are only on that site at the moment, although they may be added to this one later. They include…

* Who was William Quan Judge?

* It’s all Illusion – but how?

* The Existence of Evil

* Human Evolution in The Secret Doctrine

* Is Theosophy Hinduism, Buddhism, or Something Else?

* The Psychic is not the Spiritual

* Blavatsky and Buddhism

* The “Etheric” Body Does Not Exist

* The Men from Other Planets

* Understanding the Logos

* Theosophy, The Jesuits & The Roman Catholic Church

* Miracle or Magic? – 10 Main Points from “Isis Unveiled”

There is also a “Daily Theosophy Quotes” section. If you haven’t done so already, please consider following or subscribing to both sites so that you can receive e-mail updates and notifications whenever any new articles are posted.

Namaste – I see and honour the Divine in you.

By MW, June 2013


Click this picture to go to the new website!




In the writings of H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Movement, we find KARMA described as the very cornerstone of the Esoteric philosophy, the ultimate Law of the Universe, and even as the Power which controls the Universe.

Of all the many different spiritual topics and subjects that are included within the teachings of Theosophy, those of Karma and Reincarnation are the most important and it is the role and duty of all Theosophists to endeavour to do what they can to help put a clear and accurate understanding of these principles into the public consciousness. A surprisingly high proportion of people nowadays readily admit that they believe in Karma and also in Reincarnation but the vast majority of them seem to have a rather hazy and unclear view of it and do not possess the necessary knowledge or understanding that would enable them to share and talk about these things freely and confidently with others.

If Karma is truly “the ultimate Law of the Universe,” then it’s certainly something worth knowing about and understanding!

There are only three possible explanations available to us as to why things are the way they are and why things happen the way they do. Either everything is down to sheer chaotic chance and accident and has no actual reason, purpose, or cause behind it whatsoever…or everything is due to the will and whim of some “Big Man” up in the sky; some type of personal anthropomorphic God…or the universe and everything in it is governed by immutable Law; unfailing, unerring, impartial, impersonal, and ever just. This would be, as Madame Blavatsky put it, “the Great Adjuster,” ever adjusting cause to effect, in order to maintain the perfect harmony, balance, and equilibrium of all things including the universe itself.

None of these three theories are mutually compatible. If we stop and think about it we will readily see that it is impossible to hold to more than one of them. If we accept the Law of Karma then we cannot at the same time believe in a God who makes things happen and stops things from happening. For Theosophists, “Deity is Law and Law is Deity.”

The Master K.H., one of the Eastern Adepts behind the Theosophical Movement, spoke of the One Life, the One Law, the One Element. These are absolutely inseparable from one another. In their inseparable and eternal union, they are “The ONLY One,” other than which there nothing ever has been (to paraphrase from the Rig Veda). The One Life being Pure Eternal Spirit and the One Element being Pure Eternal Matter (primordial root-matter or Mulaprakriti in Sanskrit), the One Law which is vitally and eternally interconnected with the “Two-in-One” is the immutable Law of Karma.

Madame Blavatsky has said in “The Secret Doctrine” that it is only this teaching of the Law of Karma that will ever satisfy the mind and heart of the intelligent and thinking person who seeks answers to such pertinent questions as “Why do bad things happen to good people?” and “Why do disasters happen?” and “Why do some people suffer?” and so forth.

That “good person” will not always have been a good person, since none of us are perfect. At some point, either earlier in the present lifetime or in a preceding lifetime, the person must have behaved in an unpleasant, harmful, negative, or inappropriate way, and committed what Buddhist teachings call “non-virtuous actions.” For every action, there must be and always will be a corresponding reaction at some future point. What we sow is what we will reap. What we reap is what we have sown. Thus – in the words of HPB’s “The Voice of the Silence” – “rigid justice rules the world.”

There is no Divine Being behind this Law of Universal Balance, Harmony, and Equilibrium. It is simply LAW, uncreated, eternal, and immutable, the Law inherent in the Universe. It just simply is…and the sooner we learn it and accept it (since we can hardly deny it) the better for all of us.

The remainder of this article is a compilation of insightful, inspiring, and sometimes challenging quotations on Karmic Law from Robert Crosbie, founder of the United Lodge of Theosophists.

~ * ~

“There is but one law for all beings; it has been called the Law of Laws, and is known under the name of Karma. This word means “action,” without which there is no re-action; it is also known as “Cause and Effect” or “Sowing and Reaping.” It is taught that there is no action unless there is a being to act or feel its effects, and as any action affects other beings, these must obtain their adjustment at the point of original action. Thus Justice and Mercy are provided for in the inherent nature of all beings, for both in their last analysis are one and the same.”


“You have asked me for comment on the questions sent in by our English brother; particularly, as to “Karma being as merciless as the Bible-God.” But does he consider that Mercy is not opposed to Justice, and that the fullest justice is the same as the fullest mercy? Some take the meaning of Mercy to be a permitted escape from the results of wrong-doing; but this would not be Justice, nor would it be merciful to those injured by the wrong-doing. …remember the definition of Karma: an undeviating and unerring tendency in the Universe to restore equilibrium, which operates incessantly. Karma is inherent law and its operation must therefore be impersonal. Some might take this to be “merciless,” but that would only be because they desire escape from consequences that are unpleasant.

There are just two ways of looking at the question: either the Universe is governed by Law and under Law, or all is Chaos. Our experience in every department of Nature points to the fact that Law reigns everywhere; nothing is done of any kind or anywhere, except under Law. …

Now as Law reigns in the material world, it can be seen to rule in the mental and moral world as well. Karma simply means “action” and its consequent “re-action.” There is no Karma unless there is a being to make it or feel its effects; unpleasant effects predicate causes that send forth unpleasantness in the world, affecting others, and finding the restoration of equilibrium at the point of disturbance. There can be, then, but one consideration, and that is, Justice. Why should we desire anything but Justice to be done?”


“The fact that Law rules in everything and every circumstance (Karma) is evidence that exact justice is the rule of life. As soon as one sees that there is no “God” to condemn or punish him and that he can only get that which belongs to him, and will surely get everything that does belong to him in a Universe of Law, then he has no reason for being “cheerless,” but feels satisfied, responsible, and confident. And no matter how much we may have transgressed or how little we may have known in the past, as soon as we sense the truth of Reincarnation – the process by which Law rules – we realize that we can set up better causes and make the future what we wish.”


“We must get the fact clearly in mind that Karma is Action with its consequent re-action; that the re-action is not something different or separate from the action, but a continuation of it. Karma therefore includes all action, good or bad, remedial or otherwise. … Karma is the Law of “sowing and reaping,” getting the exact results of our thoughts, words and deeds. We never lose the power to act, so how could we lose our Karma? We are Karma.”


Karma and reincarnation are first found clearly expressed in Hinduism, the world’s oldest religion, but they are in fact universal truths rather than just Hindu or Buddhist teachings. The motto of the Theosophical Movement is that “There is no religion higher than Truth.”

“In considering any question of experience we have first of all to take into account the Law of Karma – action and re-action, or sowing and reaping; this on the face of it cannot be anything else but exact justice. Reincarnation is the result of karmic action, and also offers the opportunity to set better causes in motion. If selfishness rules in any one life, evil causes are set in motion the results of which must be adjusted either in that life or a following one. …if we find any people particularly marked out for persecution, we may be sure that as egos in other times they had been the offenders and are reaping what they sowed.”


“There is no injustice. What we see as apparent injustice seems so because we do not see the causes which have produced the present ill effects. If we have no knowledge of our own real nature and the Law of Karma that is inherent in it, then the feeling can only be that we have received injustice, and we harbor hatred and resentments. What prevents our understanding these things is mainly that we do not know what we are here for. We look at things from a one-life basis, and finding ourselves in this life we imagine it as something we had nothing to do with. Seeing others, according to our view, more fortunate than ourselves, we want to know why, and no answer being possible on the basis we have assumed, we assume that we are receiving injustice. If Karma is the doctrine of responsibility, Reincarnation is the doctrine of hope. The two go together. The reason we are on earth, according to the Occult teaching: we are not here because of our virtues; we are here because of our defects. The “personality” is really the working off of defects. If we do not learn what the object of life is, and don’t do the work, then we are only creating more defects to adjust, and more trouble for ourselves.”


Q. What, then, prevents men from understanding right and wrong, and this justice we call Karma?

A. “They take the position of irresponsibility, by resentment at supposed injustice; they expect to reap where they did not sow; they are looking for something for themselves. So they are ready to listen to any or all of the various panaceas offered, and go after whatever promises something for nothing. They do not look within; they are not humble; they do not ask what is the purpose of the Inner Man; how is it they are as they are, and not in some other place under other conditions.”

Q. Do you feel that the understanding of these ideas of Karma and Reincarnation alone can save the nation from internal troubles?

A. “It is the only way out. Until men understand that they are here not for once, that whatever they receive they have merited, we shall have just as much and worse trouble than that we have already had, for the longer it goes on the more intense will be the reactions. But, perhaps men will listen to these obvious self-evident truths only when there has been such an absolute subversion and destruction that they have to stop and think. How the Masters would if They could, save humanity! They have done all they can. The Message is here, and it is our only hope. … So if there are those who have eyes to see, who have ears to hear and who can understand, let them work in season and out of season to put these ideas before their fellow-men, that the ideas may spread and make others think.”


“Karma is the key-note to all conditions, for it governs the smallest atom as well as the highest spiritual being; it governs men, animals, worlds, and periods of evolution, in their individual actions and in their collective interactions. In its broadest sense, Karma is action; every effect flows from some action, from some cause precedent, and the reaction is but the continuance of that action. Karma is the basis of evolution; the ocean of life separating into its constituent drops, after pralaya, is action, in continuance of past actions which entered into that assimilative period, and go forth from it as a cause. Karma is the means by which evolution proceeds.”


“We are Karma; we represent Karma; as we think, we are the creators of Karma. There is no Karma unless there is a being to make it or feel its effects, and as each being in its degree has the power to act, to perceive and receive the effects of action, it must be realized that Karma is not a law imposed on man by gods, devils, men or beings of any kind, but is inherent in all beings; hence, it is the law of absolute justice, and each man is responsible for his own external affairs, conditions and circumstances, for his character, qualities and tendencies, for his mental, moral, psychic and spiritual nature, upon every plane of consciousness. He is likewise responsible for the effects of his thought and action on his fellow-men, and on the kingdoms below man; he cannot save himself at the expense of any other being, nor can he have true happiness so long as any of his fellow-men suffer.”


“The laws and principles of existence – the true rationale of life – are presented by Theosophy; hence, each man’s contact with it is alike an opportunity and a responsibility, to which he has been brought under Karma. He can make the most of it, or he may neglect it so as to fail to obtain or extend benefit. His refusal to take advantage of it now will make him less determined in some other life to carry out the purpose of his nature, which is defeated presently if he neglects, under any circumstances or pressure, that which he sees to be leading him in the right direction. But always there are those who will test Theosophy out in their own lives, and learn what it is, and will carry on the work to the last end. They in their good time must come to be the leaders and pioneers of humanity, which must learn, even though the learning takes centuries of suffering. If the light of pure Theosophy is kept burning clear, it will be the saving light of the whole world. That must be. But the question is, who will be the light-bearers?”

* The above quotations are from the books The Friendly Philosopher and Answers to Questions on The Ocean of Theosophy by Robert Crosbie, published by Theosophy Company.

For further explanation of these topics, you are welcome to read the articles A Right Understanding of Karma and A Right Understanding of Reincarnation. For information regarding the ULT (United Lodge of Theosophists) founded by Mr Crosbie and its numerous spiritual centres and study groups around the world, please see The United Lodge of Theosophists, Why I finally decided to “join” the United Lodge of Theosophists, and Some Words of B.P. Wadia.

H.P. Blavatsky on KarmaCLICK TO ENLARGE

Whatever IS, is Karma.
The Law of Karma is the Law of self-created destiny.


Buddha Nature


Above and beyond the mind, above and beyond the “soul” or any type of inner individuality that we can conceive of, is our essential nature which is the essential nature of ALL.

It is “THAT” which we truly and really are.

Universal and infinite in nature, it is the One Eternal Element which – being omnipresent, unconditioned, undifferentiated, and thus unmanifested – underlies absolutely everything in the manifested universe, as the pure and subjective substratum of all objective existence.

Everything manifested and conditioned – in other words, everything in the phenomenal universe – is in itself “empty and selfless” as Buddha so frequently taught. None of it has any real Self. It only has an undeniably impermanent and illusory “self.”

But there is a True Self (or Atman, which is the Sanskrit word meaning “Self”) which is above and beyond all of this.

In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Lord Buddha states, “The Atman is the Tathagatagarbha. All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the Atman is. This Atman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it.”

The same revered Buddhist scripture speaks of “that one principle of life which exists independently of all external phenomena.”

The Sanskrit word “Tathagatagarbha” means:

* Buddha Nature
* Buddha Principle
* Buddha Element
* The Buddha Within

A scripture from the Jonangpa school of Tibetan Buddhism talks of it in these terms:

* The Buddha Self
* The Beginingless Self
* The Solid Self
* The Diamond Self

It should be reiterated that this Self is the Universal Self of all and not any type of individual self or the personal property of separate individuals.

The true nature of all is ONENESS and this is what we are talking about here. This is the Buddha Nature.

This term should not be misunderstood as meaning that the Lord Gautama Buddha himself is the true Self of all…this is not what it means.

What it does mean, however, is that the same universal Principle or Element of Enlightenment and Perfection which Gautama Buddha embodied and manifested while on earth is the true Self and the real ultimate nature of all beings, although the vast majority have no idea about it.

This Element – the one and only Element – is spoken of at length in a profound Buddhist scripture said to date from the 5th century A.D. called the Uttara Tantra or Ratnagotravibhaga. In Tibetan Buddhism, this text is considered to have been dictated to Aryasangha by the Bodhisattva Maitreya.

In the year 2000 it was published in English by Snow Lion Publications under the title of Buddha Nature: The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra with Commentary.

In this scripture, Buddha Nature is defined as being “the Element of Primordial Wisdom,” or Adi-Buddhi in Sanskrit. It is also spoken of in various different ways under a variety of different terms, including:

* Suchness (Dharmata)
* Thatness (Tathata – “the ultimate inexpressible nature of all things”)
* Dharmakaya
* Dharmadhatu (The realm of Truth, the Noumenon)
* Buddhakaya
* Buddha-dhatu
* The undefiled Expanse
* The uncreated Expanse
* The unpolluted Expanse
* The absolute Expanse
* “Reality as it is”
* The indestructible state
* True Self
* The Noble Truth
* The Absolute Nirvana
* The Supreme Undefiled Element
* The final Truth

It is said to be “all pervading” and “ever unchanging” and “Since the nature is unchanging, full of virtue, and utterly pure, Suchness is said to correspond to the shape and colour of gold.”

In general, the Mahayana Buddhism of Tibet states that there is no absolute substratum and that the ultimate reality is emptiness, which is even empty of emptiness itself (!). This is the Prasanga-Madhyamika viewpoint which Madame Blavatsky viewed and described as being extremely rationalistic, “anti-esoteric” and simply wrong. The Uttara Tantra provides a challenge to this traditional viewpoint by stating that the ultimate reality – the One Element – is empty of everything separate, finite, conditioned, and impure but “it is not empty” in and as Itself. It does not have the nature and quality of emptiness.

To use a phrase from HPB’s The Voice of The Silence, it is “the fullness of the seeming void.”

The Uttara Tantra says that this Dharmakaya is immutable (“it is immutability itself”) and changeless (“it is unchangingness itself”). It goes on to state that “It is always free from duality, since it is foreign to all ideation”… “absence of thought is its nature.”

This teaching of an ultimate non-dual REALITY which is the essential nature and true universal Self of all things is therefore not too different at all from the Atman = Brahman doctrine of the Hindu Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

But “the perfect buddha nature within beings [is] obscured by the shroud of desire, hatred, and the other mental poisons.”

The perfect buddhakaya is all-embracing,
suchness cannot be differentiated,
and all beings have the disposition.
Thus they always have buddha nature.

The Buddha has said that all beings have buddha nature
“since buddha wisdom is always present within the assembly of beings.
since this undefiled nature is free from duality,
and since the disposition to buddhahood has been named after
its fruit.”

Essence, cause, fruit, function, endowment, manifestation,
phases, all-pervasiveness of suchness, unchangingness,
and inseparability of the qualities should be understood
as intended to describe the meaning of the absolute expanse.

Just as a jewel, the sky, and water are pure
it is by nature always free from the poisons.
From devotion to the Dharma, from highest wisdom,
and from samadhi and compassion its realization arises.

The Uttara Tantra also explains that those who have realized the “changeless state” of Thatness are thus freed from the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. Having perceived the true nature of Nirvana, they are liberated from Samsara.

Its realization or actualisation is the result of “devotion to the Dharma [i.e. the living Doctrine of the Buddha]…highest wisdom…samadhi [i.e. perfect inner contemplation and highest meditation] and compassion,” since “understanding and compassionate love [are] the means to enlightenment.”

Enlightenment is vast, without middle or end, and thus all-pervasive like space.
Fully seeing that buddhahood, the treasure of the unpolluted
qualities, is present within all sentient beings without the
slightest distinction,
The wind of the Buddhas’ sublime compassion totally dispels the
clouds of afflictions and hindrances to knowledge, which have
spun their net about it.

Maitreya states in this text that even the animals possess Buddha Nature, which is surely yet another good reason – as if any were needed – for being vegetarian.

Of interest to Theosophists is the fact that this Uttara Tantra or Ratnagotravibhaga scripture is held in particularly high regard by the Masters of the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood who were behind H.P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement. I have mentioned about it in the article titled The Secret Book of Dzyan.

It is also intriguing to note that in the autumn of 1997 a small fragment of paper containing Tibetan writing was translated, which had been found inside the envelope of one of the “Mahatma Letters” sent by the Master K.H. (Koot Hoomi) to an English Theosophist in 1882. This Tibetan writing – whether written by the Master K.H. himself or one of his chelas, Djwhal Khul perhaps – was verse 21 from the first chapter of the Uttara Tantra. Translated into English, it reads as follows:

“The only refuge for him who aspires to true perfection is Buddha alone.”

Those who truly and fully perceive and realise the Buddha Nature, the Buddha Principle, the Buddha Element, as their own true Self and the true Self of ALL, become Buddhas in this world and labour tirelessly and without ceasing for the liberation of all living beings from suffering.

By MW, May 2013

Click this picture to go to the new website!



Extracts from the article “The Closing Cycle” by William Quan Judge

Nothing is more plain than that H.P. Blavatsky said, on the direct authority of the Masters, that in the last twenty-five years of each century an effort is made by the Lodge and its agents with the West, and that it ceases in its direct and public form and influence with the twenty-fifth year. Those who believe her will believe this; those who think they know more about it than she did will invent other ideas suited to their fancies.

She explained, as will all those who are taught (as are many) by the same Masters, that were the public effort to go on any longer than that, a reaction would set in very similar to indigestion. Time must be given for assimilation, or the “dark shadow which follows all innovations” would crush the soul of man. The great public, the mass, must have time and also material. Time is ever. The matter has been furnished by the Masters in the work done by H.P. Blavatsky in her books, and what has grown out of those. She has said, the Masters have said, and I again assert it for the benefit of those who have any faith in me, that the Masters have told me that they helped her write The Secret Doctrine so that the future seventy-five and more years should have some material to work on, and that in the coming years that book and its theories would be widely studied. The material given has then to be worked over, to be assimilated for the welfare of all. …

We have to do as Buddha told his disciples: preach, promulgate, expound,

William Quan Judge

illustrate, and make clear in detail all the great things we have learned. That is our work, and not the bringing out of surprising things about clairvoyance and other astral matters, nor the blinding of the eye of science by discoveries impossible for them but easy for the occultist. The Master’s plan has not altered. He gave it out long ago. It is to make the world at large better, to prepare a right soil for the growing out of the powers of the soul, which are dangerous if they spring up in our present selfish soil. It is not the Black Lodge that tries to keep back psychic development; it is the White Lodge. The Black would fain have all the psychic powers full flower now, because in our wicked, mean, hypocritical, and money-getting people they would soon wreck the race. This idea may seem strange, but for those who will believe my unsupported word I say it is the Master’s saying. – W.Q.J.

~ * ~

Quick to Dismiss, Quick to Belittle

The notion that no further teachings from the Esoteric Doctrine would or could be given out after the close of the 1875-1900 cycle until the start of the next centennial cycle in 1975 (provisional in itself) – and that the Masters’ direct involvement would cease after that point in 1899/1900 – isn’t only confined to that one well known statement by HPB as many seem to think, but is present in explicit terms throughout the Masters’ own words in “The Mahatma Letters,” is found in other writings and statements of HPB, and was openly known and freely stated right from the start of the Theosophical Movement, as evidenced by William Judge talking about it to an enquirer in a letter published in the “Practical Occultism” book by Theosophical University Press and his explanatory article about the matter titled “The Closing Cycle,” written not too long before he passed away.

In the “Preliminary Memorandum to the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society” in 1888, HPB wrote, “Let every member know, moreover, that the time for such priceless acquisition is limited… there remain but a few years to the last hour of the term – namely, till December the 31st, 1899. Those who will not have profited by the opportunity (given to the world in every last quarter of a century)…will advance no further than the knowledge already acquired. No Master of Wisdom from the East will himself appear or send any one to Europe or America after that period… Such is the Law, for we are in Kali Yuga – the Black Age – and the restrictions in this cycle, the first 5000 years of which will expire in 1897, are great and almost

H.P. Blavatsky


Some people, desperate to believe in the validity and legitimacy of the supposedly Master-inspired teachings and writings of later Theosophists, have asserted that Madame Blavatsky made a mistake when writing the above and that this statement and notion should simply be discarded and forgotten about and put down to error on her part. But if this is so, then the following points need to be considered by those who are so quick to dismiss and belittle the words and work of the one the Masters called their “direct agent” and “brother”…

* If HPB was mistaken in this, then how can we know that she was not mistaken in other things that she said and taught? If this statement of hers was “erroneous” then all her statements may well be erroneous. In which case, why are you even bothering with Theosophy at all, in any shape or form, if it’s built upon such a supposedly shaky and untrustworthy foundation?

* If HPB was mistaken in this, then how come the Masters did not correct the error? If it is an error then it’s a very serious and misleading one, especially considering the definitiveness with which it’s stated. They had ample time and opportunity in which to correct both it and any “misconceptions” arising as a result of it, being able to do so either via HPB herself or via their contact with any of the numerous Theosophists and even non-Theosophists that they were at times in written communication with during HPB’s lifetime. But the fact is that they refrained from doing this and that they expressed the exact same viewpoint – and at even greater length – in their own letters, such as those that have been published in “The Mahatma Letters.”

* If you wish to believe that HPB was mistaken in this, in order to thus give validity to the claims, teachings, and revelations put forth by post-HPB Theosophists who asserted that they were in direct contact and communication with the Masters, then why exactly is this? What exactly do you have against HPB, her teachings, and the written teachings of the actual Masters themselves, that you would want to rubbish them in this way? What exactly is it that you dislike so much about the original authentic Theosophy that you would want to discard it in favour of the “neo-Theosophy” presented by the likes of Leadbeater, Besant, Bailey et al; this being an entirely different and hugely contradictory system of teaching to that laid out by HPB, W.Q. Judge, and the Masters who stood behind them?

~ * ~

“Her message remains for us the test of Theosophy…”

It is interesting to note that before Annie Besant abandoned the cause of true Theosophy (for details of which see H.P. Blavatsky – A Great Betrayal by Alice Leighton Cleather, The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950 available from Theosophy Company, amongst other books) and fell under the damaging and destructive influence of first the Brahmin Chakravarti and then the former Christian priest Leadbeater, she had been in full agreement with the exact same views expressed in this article. Several months after Madame Blavatsky’s death in 1891, Besant wrote these words in a prominent article…

“By Theosophy I mean the “Wisdom Religion,” or the “Secret Doctrine,” and our only knowledge of the Wisdom Religion at the present time comes to us from the Messenger of its Custodians, H.P. BLAVATSKY. Knowing what she taught, we can recognise fragments of the same teachings in other writings, but her message remains for us the test of Theosophy everywhere. … Only, none of us has any right to put forward his own views as “Theosophy,” in conflict with hers, for all that we know of Theosophy comes from her. … Theosophists have it in charge not to whittle away the Secret Doctrine. … Steadily, calmly, without anger but also without fear, they must stand by the Secret Doctrine as she gave it, who carried unflinchingly through the storms of well-nigh seventeen years the torch of the Eastern Wisdom. The condition of success is perfect loyalty.”

~ * ~

The Intersection of 3 Great Cycles

Significantly, the period 1875-1900 marked the intersection of three great cycles for humanity. Not only was it the regular “centennial attempt,” when in the last quarter of every century an effort is made by the Great Brotherhood to bring about a further spiritual awakening of the human race but it also coincided with the close of the first 5,000 years of the Kali Yuga as well as the closing – astronomically and astrologically – of the “Old Age” of Pisces and the gradual dawning of the New Age of Aquarius. According to HPB and the Masters, the year 1900 would mark the opening of the Aquarian Cycle.

The previous centennial attempt, between 1775-1800, saw Franz Anton Mesmer serving in the West as the Messenger of the Brotherhood, assisted by Cagliostro and Le Comte de Saint Germain. This is explained in HPB’s “Theosophical Glossary.” That was, however, nowhere near as cyclically or spiritually significant as the 1875-1900 cycle which followed it, for during that period the intersection of three great cycles (and not just one, as had been in the case in 1775-1800 and for many centuries before that) occurred.

In one letter, the Master K.H. writes, “We employ agents – the best available. Of these for the past 30 years the chief has been the personality known as H.P.B. to the world (but otherwise to us). Imperfect and very troublesome, no doubt, she proves to some, nevertheless there is no likelihood of our finding a better one for years to come – and your theosophists should be made to understand it. … Theosophists should learn it. You will understand LATER the significance of this declaration so keep it in mind.”

Talking on this theme, the Theosophist Robert Crosbie stated that, “The intersection of these three cycles, then, meant several things, but one signification was that in or about that period a Great Personage would appear on the earth, with such knowledge as the civilization and the mind of the time would allow. If we want to know who that Being was, we have only to think along the lines of our studies. The being known to the world as H.P. Blavatsky was known to the Masters by quite another name, as They stated, and the knowledge put forward by Her, or by Him, is what we know as Theosophy.”

He continued, “Religions, sciences, governments, and peoples were all changing. For that very reason the Great Personage came. The conditions were such as to permit that visit and make possible the greatest benefit from it. When old forms are changing, men’s minds are more open, and then is the time for the work that only great Beings can do. … If we will study the teachings of that Being and of that Great Lodge with this idea in mind, the better will be our understanding. The more we can understand from that point of view, the more we shall receive – the closer shall we reach to wisdom. The status of that Being is one great lesson which an understanding of the law of cycles should teach us. … The fact of the intersection of three cycles pointing to a very extraordinary event in the coming of a certain Personage lies at the root of an understanding of the whole philosophy. If we do not grasp the fact that the source of the philosophy is an actual knowledge, and realize that the Being who presented that knowledge knew it, and gave out all that could be given at this time, we have not got the first clue. With that clue, we can get more and more light in every direction; we can see what these things mean, for it actually tends to open what you might call the spiritual eye.”

To say that it would take more than one lifetime for a person to study, meditate upon, and thoroughly assimilate the whole mass of teachings left by H.P. Blavatsky – and in particular “The Secret Doctrine” – is an understatement. The precious and priceless information, instruction, and guidance left by her and William Judge, her close and trusted associate and co-founder of the Theosophical Society, constitutes a veritable treasure chest of esoteric wisdom. Crosbie was of the opinion that those Theosophists who ended up distorting, diluting, altering, and suppressing that Teaching following HPB’s passing were committing a serious spiritual and moral crime, not only against Theosophy but also against humanity, whose future spiritual progress and inner evolution depended on it.

~ * ~

“Hardline fundamentalists” or just devoted students of the Teacher and the Teaching?

“Let those of us who accept the statements of the Masters remember that they have certified in writing that The Secret Doctrine is the triple production of those two great beings [i.e. the Master Koot Hoomi and Master Morya] and H.P. Blavatsky. Such a certificate they have given of no other book. Their certificate will not be accepted by outsiders nor by that small class of Theosophists who loudly proclaim they will accept nothing that does not accord with reason; but one is puzzled to know how their reason can work in respect to matters such as these about which the Adepts alone know the truth.”
~ William Quan Judge ~

It is rather curious that those particular Theosophists who hold to such views as those expressed throughout this article and who choose to focus their Theosophical study on the teachings of Blavatsky and Judge – the original Theosophy in other words – are sometimes referred to as “sectarian Theosophists” and “hardline fundamentalists” by the followers of Leadbeater, Besant, Bailey, and so on. In that case, are not Annie Besant’s words quoted above the very epitome of this so-called sectarianism and fundamentalism?

“Blavatsky Theosophists” are criticised, condemned, and even mocked and ridiculed by Alice Bailey students, for example, for declining to read the Alice Bailey books. Examples of this can readily be seen on Theosophical forum sites

Alice Leighton Cleather (1846-1938) and Geoffrey Farthing (1909-2004), two unsung heroes of the Theosophical Movement.

Alice Leighton Cleather (1846-1938) and Geoffrey Farthing (1909-2004), two unsung heroes of the Theosophical Movement.

across the internet, where students of the original Theosophy are accused of being “conceited, bigoted, and afraid” due to their lack of interest in the Bailey teachings. Yet if this is not “hardline” and “sectarian” then what is? As the late Geoffrey Farthing, founder of the Blavatsky Trust, once said, accusations of sectarianism and hardline fundamentalism are strangely enough never levelled at those who could be described as Leadbeater students or Bailey followers – many of whom confine their Theosophical study and knowledge solely to the works of those teachers – yet Blavatsky students are often being labelled with such charming epithets by the former.

It would seem that many who call themselves Theosophists have a peculiar inherent dislike and lack of respect – often poorly disguised but in some cases open and up front – for H.P. Blavatsky, the one who gave Theosophy to the world.

Yet as is shown, amongst other things, by communications I receive from visitors to this website, there is a growing dissatisfaction and distrust around the world with “neo-Theosophy” and a renewed interest beginning in the life, work, and teachings of HPB. As the facts are put out there and the truth of the matter continues to be unveiled, long may it continue!

By MW, May 2013

“Your revolt, good friend, against her [HPB’s] infallibility – as you once thought it – has gone too far and you have been unjust to her, for which I am sorry to say, you will have to suffer hereafter along with others. … You have never understood Upasika [HPB], nor the laws thro’ which her apparent life has been made to work since you knew her. You are ungrateful and unjust and even cruel. You take maya for reality and reality for illusion.”
~ Letter from the Master Koot Hoomi ~

* SOME RELATED ARTICLES: Insights from the Mahatma Letters, A Conversation with an Alice Bailey Student, 31 Important Differences between Theosophy and Neo-Theosophy, Who wrote The Secret Doctrine?, Who are you, Madame Blavatsky?, Some Words of William Quan Judge, and The Masters and Madame Blavatsky.

The excellent and widely respected biography HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky by Sylvia Cranston is highly recommended to all.


Click this picture to go to the new website!



Based on pages 272-282 of Vol. 1 of The Secret Doctrine by H.P. Blavatsky

#1. The Secret Doctrine – the Esoteric Doctrine itself – is the accumulated, tried, tested, and proven Wisdom of the Ages.

#2. Its fundamental Law is the ONE absolute, infinite, impersonal, omnipresent Divine Principle.

#3. The Universe is the periodical (cyclic) manifestation of this Principle.

#4. The Universe and everything in it is “Maya” – illusion – not in the sense of being non-existent but in the sense of it all being so temporary, impermanent, finite, and ever-changing, when compared with the changeless, eternal, immutable Divine Principle.

#5. Absolutely everything in the Universe is conscious, having its own form of consciousness on its own plane of perception.

#6. The Universe is guided, controlled, and animated from within outwards by an almost endless series of Hierarchies of spiritual and divine beings.

#7. The Secret Doctrine is not an atheistic Teaching, since it believes in the One Infinite Divine Life, but it rejects and denies the existence of any anthropomorphic or personal “God.”

#8. The actual construction of the Universe is performed by those extremely varied Hierarchies of intelligent Powers and Forces, who bring the Ideation of the Universal Mind into manifestation.

#9. No spiritual entity or divine being is entitled to our worship or adoration; our silent and worshipful reverence ought to be for the One Divine Principle alone…the Causeless Cause and Rootless Root.

#10. Spirit and Matter are co-eternal, in the sense of subjective unconditioned Root-Matter which becomes the vehicle for the manifestation of Spirit.

#11. The transcendental Reality believed in by Esotericists is the infinite and eternal ENERGY, from which all things proceed, in which all things exist, and into which all is eventually reabsorbed and reunited.

* This is specifically related to the article on this site titled The Essence of The Secret Doctrine and also to An Invitation to The Secret Doctrine and Who wrote The Secret Doctrine? You may also like the article Today’s Science is Tomorrow’s Ignorance.


Click this picture to go to the new website!



The hold of Christianity over the Western world was largely gained in the first place through force, fear, and fraud. It was a tragedy for the West that it was Christianised and – as William Quan Judge puts it in “The Ocean of Theosophy” – “On the coming of the Christian era a heavy pall of darkness fell on the minds of men in the West.” He refers to it as “the mental night of Europe” and this “mental night” wasn’t actually fully dispelled until the 20th century when the actual facts about the utterly untrustworthy, unreliable, and downright erroneous and misleading nature of the scripture, theology, and background of the Christian religion were proven and exposed beyond any degree of argument.

Although many Christians like to imply that the dawning of the Christian era was the beginning of a “period of light” for humanity, the facts of the matter show otherwise. It was the enforcement of ignorance and often the massacre and murder of all who dared stand in the way of the progress and supremacy of the Church. Far from being the beginning of a period of light for humanity it was the beginning of centuries of darkness, particularly for those nations of the world which had the misfortune of becoming Christianised.

Now let us consider the following…

For Christians to describe their God as infinite is a contradiction in terms. They say that their God is a “personal God,” yet a personal God must of necessity be a finite God because if something is “infinite,” it can have nothing finite about itself whatsoever. Unless Christians believe that they are entitled to give entirely different meanings and implications to words which we all use, they must admit that the “Infinite” has to be entirely unconditioned, not-finite, undifferentiated, omnipresent, absolute, immutable, undefinable, indescribable, and impersonal.

“But we do believe and teach that God is omnipresent,” they say.

The word “omnipresent” literally means “present absolutely everywhere.” If there is something which is present absolutely everywhere, then there can be nothing in existence apart from THAT. If this is so, then God is all and in all, which is exactly what Hinduism teaches, as does Theosophy, although the latter tends to refrain from using the term “God” because of the likelihood of it misleading people. But if God is not all and in all, then God is not omnipresent. And if “God” is not omnipresent then “He” is severely limited and therefore not worthy of being called “God” at all, let alone being indicated as Divine. Christian theology says that unless a person follows their prescribed formula for salvation, they are separated and cut off from God and headed for an eternity in hell. The very fact that Christians perceive a pervasive duality and separateness amongst humanity – between the “children of God” (Christians) and the “children of the devil” (all non-Christians) – shows that they do not believe in the divine omnipresence at all. Theirs is a dualistic, separate, separative, separating God which is the very antithesis of that which is “Infinite.”

However, in the Gospels, Jesus is presented as saying to a huge crowd of people from all walks of life and all types of backgrounds, “The Kingdom of God is within you,” and “You are gods and all of you are the children of the Most High.” None of these people could have been Christians, seeing as Christianity didn’t come about until after the death of Jesus. None of them had been “redeemed by the blood of Christ” yet Jesus tells them that they are all divine and that they are all the children of God. This is one of the innumerable contradictions and discrepancies which Christians try to avoid facing and dealing with.

“Every student of the Bible must be aware that the first and second chapters of Genesis could not have proceeded from the same pen. They are evidently allegories and parables; for the two narratives of the creation and peopling of our earth diametrically contradict each other in nearly every particular of order, time, place, and methods employed in the so-called creation. In accepting the narratives literally, and as a whole, we lower the dignity of the unknown Deity. We drag him down to the level of humanity, and endow him with the peculiar personality of man, who needs the “cool of the day” to refresh him; who rests from his labors; and is capable of anger, revenge, and even of using precautions against man, “lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life.” (A tacit admission, by the way, on the part of the Deity, that man could do it, if not prevented by sheer force.).” – H.P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled

As Madame Blavatsky and others have shown, the first Christians were undoubtedly the Ebionites and they were Gnostics who followed the Essene-based teachings of the older Nazarene sect, to which Jesus had belonged during his lifetime. The sect of the Nazarenes existed long before Jesus was born and he belonged to them during his lifetime. The oldest texts show that Jesus wasn’t actually known as “Jesus of Nazareth” but as “Jesus the Nazarene,” referring to his belonging to the Nazarenes, which the Apostle Paul later belonged to, hence his being called “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” in the book of Acts.

All the relatives of Jesus belonged to the Ebionites following his death and it is a proven fact that neither the Ebionites nor any other Christian group for the first few centuries of Christianity believed Jesus to have been divine or to have been “God incarnate.”

The Ebionites had but one scriptural text, namely the Gospel of Matthew, the original version written in Hebrew, which is known to have been entirely different from the so-called “Gospel of Matthew” which exists in the Christian New Testament today. The Gospel of Matthew which we have today is – in its initial Greek form – largely the product of Saint Jerome in the 4th century A.D. but has also been edited and altered on numerous occasions since then, as has the entire New Testament.

The Ebionites, which included Jesus’ own friends and family, rejected all other Gospels and scriptures than their Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as being false (this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was a highly esoteric text which only a relatively small number of people could comprehend at all, as they had to be initiated into the understanding of it) and maintained that Jesus was neither a Saviour, nor a Redeemer, nor the “Only Son of God” but simply “a good and righteous man only” who they believed taught an important message.

Another interesting consideration – this time in regard to early Christian art – is that the very first images of Jesus, which themselves didn’t appear until at least 200 years after his death as the original Christians were strongly against the idea of portraying him, all showed him as clean shaven and holding or using a magic wand to perform his miracles. The later images of the bearded Jesus were based on Greek artwork of Zeus, as an attempt by the Christian Church to attract the pagan masses to the new religion.

After the scheming bishops and theologians had liberally adopted countless aspects, symbols, and allegories from other religions, they then proceeded to condemn all the others as demonic and evil, began to rigorously persecute them all, and flatly denied there being any similarity whatsoever between them.

“Jesus taught the world nothing that had not been taught as earnestly before by other Masters. He begins his sermon [on the Mount] with certain purely Buddhistic precepts that had found acceptance among the Essenes, and were generally practiced by the Orphikoi, and the Neo-platonists. There were the Philhellenes, who, like Apollonius, had devoted their lives to moral and physical purity, and who practiced asceticism. … He tries to imbue the hearts of his audience with a scorn for worldly wealth; a fakir-like unconcern for the morrow; love for humanity, poverty, and chastity. He blesses the poor in spirit, the meek, the hungering and the thirsting after righteousness, the merciful and the peace-makers, and, Buddha-like, leaves but a poor chance for the proud castes to enter into the kingdom of heaven. … Every word of his sermon is an echo of the essential principles of monastic Buddhism.” – H.P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled

It may be asked in what way Theosophy views Jesus. First of all, Theosophy maintains that the Jesus of popular Christianity never existed. For one thing, if this were not the case then why is it that of all the writers, philosophers, historians, and commentators who lived at the time Jesus was supposedly doing all those many wondrous things in such wonderful ways before enthusiastic and increasing crowds of many thousands all over Palestine, none of them ever mentioned him in any way or even seem to have known or heard of him?

As Madame Blavatsky wrote, “Renan shows that Philo, who died toward the year 50, and who was born many years earlier than Jesus, living all the while in Palestine while the “glad tidings” were being preached all over the country, according to the Gospels, had never heard of him! Josephus, the historian, who was born three or four years after the death of Jesus, mentions his execution in a short sentence, and even those few words were altered “by a Christian hand,” says the author of the Life of Jesus. … For nearly four centuries, the great historians nearly contemporary with Jesus had not taken the slightest notice either of his life or death. Christians wondered at such an unaccountable omission of what the Church considered the greatest events in the world’s history. Eusebius saved the battle of the day.”

This last sentence is in reference to the historian Josephus’ apparent reference to and glorification of Jesus. This is still used and referred to by some Christians today as proof of the reality and legitimacy of the Jesus preached by their Church and theology. But the fact is that this praise of the supposed “Saviour” was not in Josephus’ original works and only began to appear in the editions that followed his death. It was in fact Eusebius, one of the Church Fathers, who had the passage in question fraudulently interpolated into the text, in order to give credence to the claims of Christianity and to help the Christian cause.

Theosophy states, however, that a spiritual Teacher did exist in that part of the world sometime around that time, some of whose teachings and activities bore some similarities to those later described in the Christian Gospels (which, let us remember, are categorically proven to have not been written until at least 500 A.D. at the very earliest and thus not by the four Apostles at all!) and that the Jesus of the Christian Church is largely just a fictitious, fantastical, and distorted copy of this actual individual, who may indeed have been named Jehoshua or Yeshua.

It is this Teacher who I have made reference to at various points earlier in this article and it is of him that HPB affirmed, “The personage (Jesus) so addressed – whenever he lived – was a great Initiate and a “Son of God”.”

However, as shown, the teachings of Theosophy emphasise the fact that “Jesus taught the world nothing that had not been taught as earnestly before by other Masters,” and maintain that in reality his life, mission, and work were of very little importance or consequence to the world at large. And if that statement should inadvertently cause offence to some, we have only to turn to the purported words of Jesus himself in the Gospels to see that he believed and taught that he was to be a Saviour only to the Israelites and not to the other races and peoples of the world.

“I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” he is recorded as saying in Matthew 15:24. There are also numerous instances related in the Gospels where Gentiles (meaning non-Jewish people) approached Jesus to be healed, only for him to inform them that “I was not sent to the Gentiles but to the children of Israel. Is it right to take the children’s bread and give it to dogs?” The Gospels relate that he did often eventually consent to heal such individuals but only because of their relentlessness and refusal to leave him in peace until they had received the blessing they sought for.

The Christian religion – including its God, its Saviour, its Bible, and its

Blavatsky described Christianity as “a parasitic growth” and wrote that it is “suicidal” for any country to adopt it as the national religion.

doctrines – is largely built upon centuries and centuries of lies, treachery, ignorance, and corruption. H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Movement, had no qualms about describing Christianity as the most arrogant, ignorant, and impudent of all the world’s religions. It is also the one which stands on the shakiest and most dangerous ground when it comes to the investigation of facts, history, theology, and proofs – for in the 21st century blind fanatical faith and wilful ignorance will not and CANNOT prevail against evidence and hard fact.

He who does his part – wisely, sanely, and decently – to help dismantle altogether the already largely fallen Christian edifice is doing humanity a great service, for the Christian religion is not the cure for atheism but the cause of atheism…for millions upon millions of people in the West at least.

Having been a devout and seriously committed evangelical Christian for some time in the past and having even, during that time, very nearly entered the Christian ministry, I do not say these words lightly but rather sincerely and wholeheartedly, out of love and concern for the spiritual future of humanity.

By MW, May 2013

~ ~ ~

“The Christian virtues inculcated by Jesus in the sermon on the mount are nowhere exemplified in the Christian world. The Buddhist ascetics and Indian fakirs seem almost the only ones that inculcate and practice them. Meanwhile the vices which coarse-mouthed slanderers have attributed to Paganism, are current everywhere among Christian Fathers and Christian Churches.”

“Let it not be imagined that we bring this reproach to any who revere Jesus as God. Whatever the faith, if the worshipper be but sincere, it should be respected in his presence. If we do not accept Jesus as God, we revere him as a man. Such a feeling honors him more than if we were to attribute to him the powers and personality of the Supreme, and credit him at the same time with having played a useless comedy with mankind, as, after all, his mission proves scarcely less than a complete failure.”

“Let them [i.e. the Christian priests and leaders] pass on – we have devoted too much space to them and their conglomerate theology, already. We have weighed both in the balance of history, of logic, of truth, and found them wanting. Their system breeds atheism, nihilism, despair, and crime: its priests and preachers are unable to prove by works their reception of divine power. If both Church and priest could but pass out of the sight of the world as easily as their names do now from the eye of our reader, it would be a happy day for humanity.”

~ H.P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled ~

* RELATED ARTICLES: The True Nature of Jehovah, Blavatsky on – Hell and Christianity, and The Original Main Aims of the Theosophical Movement.


Click this picture to go to the new website!

The One Eternal Thing

The Teachings of Theosophy on the Nature of the Divine Absolute Reality

There are a number of technical Sanskrit terms used in Theosophy which have at times been a source of confusion for some, as regards their actual meaning and relation to one another. Some of these terms are Parabrahm, Brahman, Mulaprakriti, Akasha, and Svabhavat. It is hoped that this article will help to make things clearer and simplify some of the high metaphysics and philosophy, as well as providing an overview and explanation of how Theosophy views, understands, and talks about the Divine.

In the “Theosophical Glossary” H.P. Blavatsky tells us that—

* SVABHAVAT is “the world-substance and stuff, or rather that which is behind it – the spirit and essence of substance … From it all nature proceeds and into it all returns at the end of the life-cycles. … it is the plastic essence of matter.”

* MULAPRAKRITI is (literally) “‘the root of Nature’ (Prakriti) or [root of] Matter … undifferentiated substance … The Parabrahmic Root … Akasha.”

* PARABRAHM is “The Supreme Infinite Brahman. ‘Absolute’ – the attributeless, the secondless reality. The impersonal and nameless universal PRINCIPLE.”

* AKASHA is “the subtle supersensuous spiritual essence which pervades all space; the primordial substance … the Universal Space in which lies inherent the eternal Ideation of the Universe … and from which radiates the First Logos.”

* BRAHMAN is “the impersonal, supreme and uncognisable Principle of the Universe from the essence of which all emanates, and into which all returns … is incorporeal, immaterial, unborn, eternal, beginningless and endless. It is all-pervading, animating the highest god as well as the smallest mineral atom.”

Add to this the words of the Master Koot Hoomi in “The Mahatma Letters” that “The One reality is Mulaprakriti (undifferentiated Substance) – the ‘Rootless root’,” and HPB’s own emphatic spoken words transcribed in “The Secret Doctrine Commentaries” that “Akasha is a perfectly homogeneous thing. It is the rootless root of all, it is Mulaprakriti, it is the rootless root of Nature, that which is perfectly unknown to us,” and the matter is solved, it becoming perfectly clear that according to the Esoteric Doctrine of the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood, Akasha, Mulaprakriti, Svabhavat, Parabrahm, and Brahman are all one and the same “Thing.”

Regardless of whatever particular name or term is being used at any given time, it is all referring to the Absolute, the Infinite, the ONE Supreme Ultimate Reality.

Adi Shankaracharya, the formulator and codifier of the Advaita Vedanta branch of non-dualistic Hindu philosophy, wrote in his commentary on the Brahmasutras, “Brahman is the spiritual cause since there is no other spirit, and It is also the material cause since there is no other material.” In “The Secret Doctrine,” HPB explains, “The root philosophy of both Advaita and Buddhist scholars is identical, and both have the same respect for animal life, for both believe that every creature on earth, however small and humble, ‘is an immortal portion of the immortal matter’ – for matter with them has quite another significance than it has with either Christian or materialist – and that every creature is subject to Karma.”

Thus everything that we see around us is – in its essence – an “immortal portion of the Immortal Matter.” HPB first uses this phrase in “Isis Unveiled,” when quoting from the French writer Louis Jacolliot who had described a conversation he had had in India with a certain Hindu priest. Jacolliot asked him what his views were on God, whereupon “He answered us, smiling: ‘Aham eva param Brahma’ – I am myself a god. ‘What do you mean by that?’ ‘I mean that every being on earth, however humble, is an immortal portion of the immortal matter’.”

The exact same concept is expressed by the Master K.H., who describes every objectively manifested being and thing as “Children of the Akasha.” To quote again from a particularly beautiful passage in “The Mahatma Letters” – “Look around you and see the myriad manifestations of life, so infinitely multiform; of life, of motion, of change. What caused these? From what inexhaustible source came they, by what agency? Out of the invisible and subjective they have entered our little area of the visible and objective. Children of Akasha, concrete evolutions from the ether, it was force which brought them into perceptibility and Force will in time remove them from the sight of man.”

Over the years, ignorant critics and careless readers have taken certain statements of the Master K.H. and used them to accuse the Masters (and the teachings of Theosophy) of being materialistic and atheistic. For example, the Master made such statements in his letters as, “Matter we know to be eternal,” “We believe in MATTER alone,” “boundless eternal matter,” and “When we speak of our One Life we also say that it penetrates, nay is the essence of every atom of matter; and that therefore it not only has correspondence with matter but has all its properties likewise, etc. – hence is material, is matter itself.”

The “matter” he is talking about is not physical objective matter but rather the unseen subjective Root-Matter. And this is exactly what is meant in Eastern esoteric philosophy by Akasha/Mulaprakriti/Svabhavat. The Sanskrit word “Mulaprakriti” literally means “root matter.” This is the “immortal matter” mentioned above. As HPB says in “The Secret Doctrine,” “The matter of the Eastern philosophers is not the ‘matter’ and Nature of the Western metaphysicians.”

The oldest of the six schools of Hindu philosophy is the Samkhya philosophy of Kapila, the central teaching of which is the eternal and ultimate nature of Matter, as in Mulaprakriti (the unconditioned, unmanifested Root-Matter) rather than Prakriti (conditioned, manifested, objective matter). On the surface it might seem that the views of the Mahatmas in this regard are identical to the Samkhya teachings but actually they are not, as there are some important differences between the two, despite some obvious similarities. Swami Sivananda explains in his excellent commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita that the Samkhya maintains that Matter and Spirit are eternally distinct and separate from one another, whereas the Vedanta philosophy asserts that they are actually ultimately ONE in their eternal essence because ALL IS ONE and the Eternal Reality is Non-Duality, which is what “Advaita” literally means.

In contrast with the Samkhya philosophy, Theosophy teaches that Spirit and Matter are not two different essences but are the two different states of the ONE Essence. And although that “One Divine Essence” is really both indescribable and undefinable, It can be thought of and best summed up under the terms of:

* Abstract SPACE
* Abstract DURATION (i.e. Eternity)
* Abstract MATTER
* Abstract MOTION

This is how the Mahatmas and Madame Blavatsky express it. In their “Cosmological Notes,” the Master Morya and Master Koot Hoomi list these terms of Space, Duration, Matter, and Motion and write, “It is all these and yet one, this the Universe manifested and unmanifested and there is nothing else in the Universe.” Using the Tibetan terms they say again, “Zhi gyu (cosmic matter,) Thog (space), Nyug (duration), Khor wa (motion), all one.”

In “The Secret Doctrine” – which the Master K.H. stated was the “triple production” of both himself and the Master Morya with their “direct agent” and “brother” HPB (see the article Who wrote The Secret Doctrine?) – we read, “The One Eternal Element, or element-containing Vehicle, is Space, dimensionless in every sense; co-existent with which are – endless duration, primordial (hence indestructible) matter, and motion – absolute “perpetual motion” which is the “breath” of the “One” Element. This breath, as seen, can never cease, not even during the Pralayic eternities.”

The Proem to “The Secret Doctrine” includes the statement that, “It is the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical in its regular manifestations, between which periods reigns the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality; truly, “a chaos to the sense, a Kosmos to the reason.” Its one absolute attribute, which is ITSELF, eternal, ceaseless Motion, is called in esoteric parlance the “Great Breath,” which is the perpetual motion of the universe, in the sense of limitless, ever-present SPACE. That which is motionless cannot be Divine.”

A few pages later it is revealed that Parabrahm is this Infinite Abstract Space and that Mulaprakriti is one and the same as – inseparable from – Parabrahm. Mulaprakriti is “undifferentiated and eternal,” it is the “unmanifested primordial matter,” it is “the eternal Root of THAT.” Later, in answering questions from Theosophists about the teachings in “The Secret Doctrine,” HPB told them, “In the occult catechism it is asked: “what is the thing which always is, which you cannot imagine as not ‘being,’ do what you may?” The answer is – Space. For, there may not be a single man in the universe to think of it, not a single eye to perceive it, not a single brain to sense it, but still space is – and you cannot make away with it.” Yes, even when the universe reaches the end of its life cycle and ceases to exist, Space will still exist, as infinite abstract Space, for Space is not only eternal but is eternity itself. “Space as an abstraction is endless … Space exists there where there is nothing and must exist in full vacuum as elsewhere.”

If you can form at least some small conception in your consciousness of a perfect eternal unity of abstract Space, abstract Duration, abstract Matter, and abstract Motion, then you will have begun to grasp the Theosophical conception of the Divine, the Ultimate Reality. It is to be admitted, however, that it is almost entirely beyond our present limited human consciousness. The Masters speak of IT as “the One Life, the One Law, the One Element.” It is absolute, infinite EXISTENCE Itself. There is nothing but That. All is That and That is all. It is pure eternal Spirit and pure eternal Matter; one and the same. The matter we can see, sense, and touch around us is not pure eternal Matter but is the objective, physical, temporary matter of the manifested universe. Yet underlying all of that matter is the pure eternal Matter (or Mulaprakriti, Akasha, etc.) and underlying all consciousness and everything subjective in the manifested universe is pure eternal Spirit (or Parabrahm, Brahman, etc.).

It makes no difference whether we prefer to speak of the Ultimate as Parabrahm, Brahman, Mulaprakriti, Akasha, Svabhavat, Adi-Buddha, Ein Soph, or whatever…all these terms refer to one and the same “Thing,” the one and only “Thing,” the Causeless Cause and Rootless Root, poetically described in the Rig Veda as “the Only One, other than which there nothing ever has been.”

It is, in the words of “The Secret Doctrine,” “the One homogeneous divine SUBSTANCE-PRINCIPLE, the one radical cause. … It is called “Substance-Principle,” for it becomes “substance” on the plane of the manifested Universe, an illusion, while it remains a “principle” in the beginningless and endless abstract, visible and invisible SPACE. It is the omnipresent Reality: impersonal, because it contains all and everything. Its impersonality is the fundamental conception of the System. It is latent in every atom in the Universe, and is the Universe itself.”

But is this God?

HPB says in “Isis Unveiled” that it would be both childish and absurd to describe or refer to the One Essence as “God.” In all the thousands of pages of her writings, over a period of just over 15 years, the word “God” hardly ever appears at all. She does at times use the term “Deity,” which to the minds of most of us is a synonym for “God,” but she stresses that she uses that term simply to refer to the One Infinite Divine Life, which has been the subject of this article: “Deity is not God. It is NOTHING, and DARKNESS. It is nameless, and therefore called Ain-Soph – ‘the word Ayin meaning nothing’.” Plus, “all those who sought to give a name to the incognizable Principle have simply degraded it. Even to speak of Cosmic Ideation – save in its phenomenal aspect – is like trying to bottle up primordial Chaos, or to put a printed label on ETERNITY.”

When she says that the Divine is “nothing” and “darkness” or speaks of it as “the Unknown Darkness,” she is not saying that It does not exist, nor that It is “Darkness” in the sense of something evil. By “nothing” she means that It is “No Thing,” not a thing of any kind, not a Being or Entity of any kind (she calls it “the absolute Non-Entity”), and not anything that we can adequately or accurately conceive of or comprehend in any way. In the highermost part of our being, in our essential nature, we are That but until we re-become That in consciousness It cannot help but remain as “darkness” (i.e. unfathomable) to our finite perceptions, although really it is Absolute LIGHT, as HPB also says many times.

Her use of the term “Darkness” when speaking of the Absolute is therefore perfectly philosophical and reasonable. It is only Christian critics who – being so filled with fear of “the devil,” the “Prince of Darkness” they insist upon believing in and having no comprehension whatsoever of spiritual philosophy or allegorical symbolism – have ignorantly condemned Madame Blavatsky for speaking of “Infinite Deity” as “Darkness.” Perhaps they forget that their own Bible clearly declares that “darkness surrounds the pavilion” of God, “who has His hiding place in darkness.”

This same symbolic phraseology is also found in the Upanishads, such as in the Chandogya Upanishad where the individual liberated from Samsara, the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, jubilantly proclaims, “From the Divine Dark to the manifest to the Divine Dark I pass again. As a horse shakes free its mane, I have shaken off all evil. Freeing myself from the bonds of birth and death as the moon escapes from Rahu’s mouth, I have attained the pure realm of Brahman; I have attained the pure realm of Brahman. Brahman is my home. I shall not lose it. Truly I shall not be lost again.”

So HPB and the Masters are obviously not atheistic but they are thoroughly nontheistic, the subtle and important difference between the two being that the atheistic view is that nothing divine or spiritual exists at all, whereas the nontheistic view is that the divine and spiritual most definitely and undoubtedly exists but that there is nothing in existence which can be described or thought of as “God.”

Buddhism and Jainism are thoroughly nontheistic religions and the esoteric teachings of Hinduism are also nontheistic, although the exoteric and popular Hinduism certainly isn’t.

The Master Koot Hoomi writes in the famous Letter #10 of “The Mahatma Letters” – “Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God. … Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute immutable law … The word “God” was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and that we are able to prove what we claim – i.e. the knowledge of that cause and causes we are in a position to maintain there is no God or Gods behind them. The idea of God is not an innate but an acquired notion, and we have but one thing in common with theologies – we reveal the infinite.”

There are many people who would like to cling on to the word “God” and to keep using it whenever they can, even if they don’t believe in any type of personal or anthropomorphic God. But That which we have been talking about throughout this article cannot be correctly thought of or referred to even as an “impersonal God.”

“There is…no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal,” says the Adept Teacher, also adding amongst many other things that “If people are willing to accept and regard as ‘God’ our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic misnomer. … We are not Adwaitees [adherents of the Advaita Vedanta], but our teaching respecting the one life is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And no true philosophically brained Adwaitee will ever call himself an agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every respect with the universal life and soul – the macrocosm is the microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on it and become agnostics.”

In that letter, the Master K.H. even goes as far as to say that it is the Brotherhood’s “CHIEF aim” to deliver humanity from the belief in God and then “to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery.” It shouldn’t be surprising for us that these things just mentioned and quoted are the viewpoint and teaching of the Masters, seeing as they make it quite clear that they are strictly Buddhist and this thoroughly non-theistic perspective is exactly what Buddhism has always held to. H.P. Blavatsky, too, described herself as “a Buddhist by profession of faith” and “a professed admirer and student of Hindu philosophy, and as professed a follower of Buddhism years before Isis [i.e. “Isis Unveiled,” her first book, published in 1877] was written,” having been initiated into the secret esoteric teachings of Buddhism whilst in Tibet (see the section titled “Blavatsky and Buddhism” in the article Basics of Buddhism).

But does it really matter whether we use the term “God” when speaking of the Eternal Essence? In response to such a query, the Master K.H. wrote along the lines of, “You say it matters nothing if you use the word ‘God’; I say it matters everything.”

The dictionary definition of “God” is “supreme being, creator and ruler of the universe.” Let us drop the word “God” from our vocabulary if we do not believe in such a personal, anthropomorphic Entity. To insist – as many well-intentioned spiritual people do – on using the term “God” in a completely different sense from what 99.9% of the world’s population understand by that term, invariably leads to misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and confusion. Not only that but “God” has truly become a dirty word because of its association with all sorts of atrocities, enforcements and perpetuations of ignorance and closed-mindedness, and so many other things carried out “in God’s name” and purportedly under the auspices of this non-existent big man up in the sky. There is no God but there is the One Absolute Infinite Omnipresent Divine LIFE or ENERGY.

In another Mahatma Letter, this time coming from the Master Morya, we learn that there is “magnetism and invisible results proceeding from erroneous and sincere beliefs.” He goes on to say that “Faith in the Gods and God, and other superstitions attracts millions of foreign influences, living entities and powerful agents” (italics mine) around those people who have such beliefs but those influences, entities, and agents are far from good, pure, divine, or holy. They are “unprogressed Planetaries who delight in personating gods.” They are the Ma-Mo Chohans, which are Dark Chohans or Chohans of Darkness, and have been described as “black magicians on a COSMIC scale” who spread ignorance and destruction. The Master Morya says that “these are the gods the Hindus and Christians and Mahomed and all others of bigoted religions and sects worship” and HPB adds, “The Dhyan Chohans answer to Buddh, Divine Wisdom and Life in blissful knowledge, and the Ma-mos are the personification in nature of Shiva, Jehovah and other invented monsters with Ignorance at their tail.”

“The Absolute knows Itself not”

Earlier we saw where the Master K.H. spoke of “the One Life, immutable and unconscious in its eternity.” On the surface of it, it may sound peculiar and even offensive to speak of the Divine as being unconscious but let us briefly consider the matter more closely and intuitively.

There is nothing but the One Absolute Infinite Omnipresent Divine Life…it is the Divine Allness itself…it is the One and Only. The Upanishads speak of Brahman as being “ONE without a second.” HPB speaks of It as the secondless, attributeless Reality, the Source and Basis of all. If there is only the One, then what is there for the One to be conscious of? If only ONE exists, then how can this One Existence perceive or conceive of anything whatsoever? It cannot perceive or conceive of anything other than Itself because the fact is that there is nothing other than Itself. But It also cannot be conscious of Its own Oneness because Absolute Oneness cannot be conscious. There is nothing for It to be conscious of, seeing as It is the One Infinite All. What would It need to be conscious of? How could It be conscious of anything? There is nothing but Itself.

In the Proem of “The Secret Doctrine,” it is said that the Only One can know nothing, for It is the ALL, i.e. there is nothing for It to know because there is nothing separate or distinct from It in any way. In this vein, Adi Shankaracharya wrote that “Spirit is the unconscious Cause.”

HPB told a group of Theosophists, as transcribed in “The Secret Doctrine Commentaries” – “We say that Parabrahman is perfect, absolute unconsciousness. By saying that it is absolute unconsciousness, we say it is absolute consciousness. Now, can you imagine absolute consciousness? The Vedantins will. If it is absolute unconsciousness, it must be absolute consciousness; but, as it is absolute, it can have no relation to the finite consciousness or to finite unconsciousness. Do try and understand that difference. You see those enormously difficult and abstruse ideas in the Occult philosophy.”

So the Unconsciousness we are talking about is an entirely different kind of unconsciousness than that which is automatically suggested to our human brains by the everyday word “unconscious.” Absolute Unconsciousness IS Absolute Consciousness.

This may seem paradoxical and grossly contradictory but it only seems that way if we are unfamiliar with philosophy and unacquainted with the sense in which certain terms – such as “absolute” and “relative” for example – are used in philosophy. Theosophy is described as the synthesis of religion, philosophy, and science and it is intended to sow the seeds for the religion, philosophy, and science of the future. “Philosophy” literally means “Love of Wisdom” and I would even go so far as to say that spirituality divorced from philosophy is often little more than idiocy.

~ ~ ~

“Space is the one eternal thing that we can most easily imagine, immovable in its abstraction and uninfluenced by either the presence or absence in it of an objective Universe. It is without dimension, in every sense, and self-existent. Spirit is the first differentiation from THAT, the causeless cause of both Spirit and Matter. It is, as taught in the esoteric catechism, neither limitless void, nor conditioned fulness, but both. It was and ever will be.” – H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine

“We say and affirm that that motion – the universal perpetual motion which never ceases, never slackens nor increases its speed not even during the interludes between the pralayas, or “nights of Brahma” but goes on like a mill set in motion, whether it has anything to grind or not (for the pralaya means the temporary loss of every form, but by no means the destruction of cosmic matter which is eternal) – we say this perpetual motion is the only eternal and uncreated Deity we are able to recognise.” – Master K.H., The Mahatma Letters

“Esoteric Theosophists are gnostics, not agnostics. They affirm that they can know by spiritual perception Parabrahman or Adi Buddha, which is the universal spiritual principle, the origin and the basis of all Cosmic Evolution. It is the one element and the one energy of which every form of existence is but an expression and a manifestation. And there is no personality or God beyond this principle.” – T. Subba Row, T. Subba Row Collected Writings Volume II

“Space is the ever Unseen and Unknowable Deity in our philosophy. … Absolute, Divine Spirit is one with absolute Divine Substance: Parabrahm and Mulaprakriti are one in essence. Therefore, Cosmic Ideation and Cosmic Substance in their primal character are one also.” – H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine

~ ~ ~


Q. Madame Blavatsky frequently said that the universe and everything in it is just illusion. Did she mean this in the same sense in which it is meant by the modern day illusionists such as the followers of “A Course in Miracles” who are always saying that “it’s all illusion”?

A. No, she meant it in a very different sense to what many of the ACIM and other similar people mean by it. The reason the teachings of Theosophy describe the universe and everything in it as being “maya” – illusion – is because of the impermanence, the finite nature, the changeability and ultimate temporariness of the universe and everything in it. It is undeniable that everything around us currently objectively exists but it is equally undeniable that everything around us, everything manifested, is but finite and impermanent. Theosophy says that it is only that which is infinite, permanent, changeless, unchangeable, and eternal, which can be considered as being TRULY Real. And that is the Brahman which the Hindu scriptures speak of. The manifested universe has a definite life cycle…it had a beginning and it will have an ending…the dawn of Time and the end of Time. Then later it will appear again, exist again, and disappear again. The cyclic appearance and disappearance of the universe is an ever-ongoing process. But although the universe and the physical, material world does currently exist, we must always remember its utterly transient and evanescent nature and keep in mind the true Reality (with a capital “R”), the Infinite Brahman, and know that this is Who and What we are in the essential nature of our own Real Self.

So this is what HPB means when she talks of everything being illusion and maya. It makes perfect sense and is both logical and reasonable. Yet, from what I can gather from conversations with ACIM students, they insist that the universe does not even currently objectively exist and that it is all an illusion created by our ignorant minds! They say that as soon as one person will fully grasp and understand the illusory nature of everything then the universe will instantly disappear because it is just the illusory projection of our own ignorance. “When one understands it, all will understand it,” they claim. The ACIM teachings are hyperidealistic, unphilosophical, and utterly contrary to Theosophy and all Ancient Wisdom in almost every sense.

Q. In New Thought spirituality, such as Unity and Science of Mind, they often make statements such as “Only God exists and therefore only love and good exists.” I agree that only God exists but I can’t understand how it can be claimed that “only love and only good exists” when it is plainly obvious that both hate and evil are definite objective realities in this world.

A. The New Thought movement, although well intentioned, are also proponents of hyperidealistic and unphilosophical teachings and this is one of them. They use the phrase “New Thought, Ancient Wisdom” to imply that their teachings are firmly based on the Divine Wisdom of the Ages but the fact is that they are not. Read and study the Ancient Wisdom contained in all the world’s religions and great philosophies and I guarantee you will never find anything in any of them that resembles such central New Thought ideologies as the thing you’re talking about. Theosophy too holds firmly to the notion of non-duality and universal oneness but it has enough common sense as to make the necessary distinction between absolute existence and manifested existence.

As you say, it’s obvious that hate and evil are definite objective realities, along with many other unpleasant and awful things, and the fact is that they will always objectively exist to some extent as long as the objective universe, the manifested universe, exists. The New Thought people may try to fervently deny the existence of such things, through their “affirmations and denials,” but it is futile to do so. Evil and all its aspects are the automatic natural byproduct and result of the existence of MATTER. Evil is really “imperfection” because perfection belongs only to pure Spirit.

The manifested universe is pervaded by duality; the duality of spirit and matter, subjective and objective, etc. The universe cannot become manifest or remain manifest without the existence, interplay, and contrast of these two opposite poles. “Manifestation” itself implies and involves duality and naturally this gives rise to all the “dvandvas” or “pairs of opposites” such as those things which we call good and evil, love and hate, joy and sorrow, male and female, young and old, health and sickness, life and apparent death, and so on ad infinitum. But this duality applies solely to the manifested universe and there is no ULTIMATE duality. Why? Because the manifested universe is not the Ultimate Reality. The One Absolute Ultimate Reality is neither manifested nor manifestable and IT alone is eternal, while the universe, as we said, is only a temporary and impermanent phenomenon and thus little more than an illusion, a passing appearance. But it is always the case that where there is matter there is “evil” or “imperfection.” A slightly crude but memorable way of putting it would be, “Spirit = Good, Matter = Evil, Good = Spirit, Evil = Matter.” This is not saying that matter itself is inherently evil or devilish – since ultimately it comes from the same Source as spirit – but that the manifested existence of matter inevitably gives rise to imperfection.

More than one New Thought person has previously admitted to me that all this seems far more reasonable and sensible than the accepted New Thought stance on the matter.

Q. There seem to be strong traces of both Hindu and Buddhist philosophy in the teachings of Madame Blavatsky and the Mahatmas. I know that both she and the Masters of the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood described themselves as Buddhists but what actually is the Theosophical teaching? Is it a form of Buddhism or a form or Hinduism or a blend of the two or what?

A. Speaking on the superficial level it would be reasonably correct to describe the teachings of Theosophy as the perfect blend of Hinduism and Buddhism. Gandhi met HPB in London and later said that it was her book “The Key to Theosophy” which helped him to realise the greatness of his own Hindu religion and which saved him from being converted by the Christian missionaries in India. It is also a little known fact that his first introduction to the Bhagavad Gita, which became his most beloved scripture, was through Blavatsky’s associates and colleagues in London. He wrote that “Theosophy is Hinduism at its best.” On the other hand, the famous Buddhist scholar D.T. Suzuki described the teachings of Blavatsky as “the real Mahayana Buddhism.” So which is it? It is certainly true that none of the hundreds or thousands of popular books about Buddhism and Hinduism which flood the market today contain anywhere near the deep perfection and explanation of the living philosophies of those religions as is found in Theosophy. Of course I’m referring to the original and genuine Theosophy and not the westernised Christianised pseudo-Theosophy which came about in some quarters following Madame Blavatsky’s death.

Theosophy distinctly states that Hinduism and Buddhism are the two “truest” religions in the world, yet the motto of the Theosophical Movement is “There is no religion higher than Truth.” Truth transcends all religions and cannot be contained or put in a box. The word “Theosophy” comes from “Theo-sophia,” literally meaning “Divine Wisdom.” It is asserted that there is a primeval, archaic philosophy or doctrine or body of Knowledge – for want of a better word – which is not just a truth but which is the Truth itself. All the different religions have contained and presented some portion of the Truth, some to a greater extent or degree than others.

Theosophy maintains that TRUTH exists and it uses aspects of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy to help it present some of this Truth to the world, since in many aspects those teachings express Truth perfectly as well as exquisitely.

“The Secret Doctrine” says that “the Esoteric philosophy is alone calculated to withstand, in this age of crass and illogical materialism, the repeated attacks on all and everything man holds most dear and sacred, in his inner spiritual life. The true philosopher, the student of the Esoteric Wisdom, entirely loses sight of personalities, dogmatic beliefs and special religions. Moreover, Esoteric philosophy reconciles all religions, strips every one of its outward, human garments, and shows the root of each to be identical with that of every other great religion. It proves the necessity of an absolute Divine Principle in nature. It denies Deity no more than it does the Sun. Esoteric philosophy has never rejected God in Nature, nor Deity as the absolute and abstract Ens. It only refuses to accept any of the gods of the so-called monotheistic religions, gods created by man in his own image and likeness, a blasphemous and sorry caricature of the Ever Unknowable.”

The teachings of Theosophy go further than the known teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism though and alongside such fundamentals as Karma, Reincarnation, and the Oneness of All Life, they also present certain esoteric spiritual teachings which had never been given out to the public before, such as those about the origin, nature, and future of Earth and humanity (including planetary chains, globes, rounds, root races etc.), Atlantis and Lemuria, the true details of the afterlife state and what happens between death and rebirth, the sevenfold nature of man, the true nature and system of evolution, and the birth, origins, and structure of the Universe.

So Theosophy is said to not only be the perfect synthesis of religion, philosophy, and science and the esoteric teaching which underlies all the world’s religions but it is further said to be the SOURCE of all the Truth in all the religions, philosophies, and sciences of the world. So we have Theosophy as the Theosophia – the Ageless Divine Wisdom and Timeless Truth – and then we have Theosophy in the sense of the particular teachings that were permitted by the Masters of the Wisdom (the guardians of Truth) to be given to the world through the Theosophical Movement. If you can understand my meaning, Theosophy is a presented portion of THEOSOPHY. Although it has not been widely recognised or properly appreciated as such, the making available to the public of previously secret and carefully guarded aspects of the Esoteric Teaching – by the Masters and through their direct agent Helena Blavatsky – was a unique and monumental world event.

By MW, March 2013

“The God of theology, we say – and prove it – is a bundle of contradictions and a logical impossibility. Therefore, we will have nothing to do with him. We believe in a Universal Divine Principle, the root of ALL, from which all proceeds, and within which all shall be absorbed at the end of the great cycle of Being.”
- H.P. Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy -


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers