Ποικίλες αναρτήσεις μου στο Facebook σχετικά με την Blavatsky

 

Ποικίλες αναρτήσεις μου στο facebook σχετικά με την Blavatsky

1. Κάποιος σήμερα μου θύμισε αυτές τις ασυναρτησίες :

Είναι φυσικό -ακόμη και από την άποψη του νεκρού γράμματος- να βλέπουμε τον Σατανά, το φίδι της Γένεσης, ως τον πραγματικό δημιουργό και ευεργέτη, τον Πατέρα της πνευματικής ανθρωπότητας. Διότι είναι αυτός που ήταν ο "προάγγελος του Φωτός", ο φωτεινός ακτινοβόλος Εωσφόρος, ο οποίος άνοιξε τα μάτια του αυτόματου που δημιούργησε ο Ιεχωβά, όπως ισχυρίζεται, και αυτός που ήταν ο πρώτος που ψιθύρισε: "την ημέρα που θα φάτε από αυτό, θα γίνετε σαν τον Ελοχίμ, γνωρίζοντας το καλό και το κακό' - μπορεί να θεωρηθεί μόνο υπό το φως ενός Σωτήρα. Ένας "αντίπαλος" του Ιεχωβά, το "προσωποποιητικό πνεύμα", εξακολουθεί να παραμένει στην εσωτερική αλήθεια ο πάντοτε αγαπητός "αγγελιοφόρος" (ο άγγελος), τα Σεραφείμ και οι Χερουβείμ που και γνώριζαν καλά και αγαπούσαν ακόμη περισσότερο και που ανέθεσαν στον πνευματική, αντί για φυσική αθανασία - η τελευταία ένα είδος στατικής αθανασίας που θα μετέτρεπε τον άνθρωπο σε έναν αθάνατο "περιπλανώμενο". Εβραίο". (. (Blavatsky 1888a, Vol. II, 243.)

Ο "Σατανάς", μόλις πάψει να αντιμετωπίζεται με το δεισιδαιμονικό, δογματικό, αντιφιλοσοφικό πνεύμα των Εκκλησιών, εξελίσσεται στη μεγαλειώδη εικόνα εκείνου που έκανε από γήινο έναν θεϊκό άνθρωπο- που του έδωσε, καθ' όλη τη διάρκεια του μακρού κύκλου της Μάχα-Κάλπα το νόμο του Πνεύματος της Ζωής, και τον απελευθέρωσε από το Αμάρτημα της Άγνοιας, άρα και του θανάτου (Blavatsky 1888a, Vol. I, 198).

2. Ένα βιβλίο που είχα προτείνει για ανάγνωση πριν μερικά χρόνια.

''Οι Roerichs άσκησαν αυστηρή κριτική σε όλους σχεδόν τους ηγέτες της δεύτερης γενιάς της TS και αποδοκίμασαν έντονα τους ηγέτες της ομάδας του Adyar, την Annie Besant (1847-1933) και του Charles Webster Leadbeater (1854-1934). Οι Roerichs δεν αναγνώριζαν την ηγεσία τους, ισχυριζόμενοι ότι μετά το θάνατο του Blavatsky, η Besant είχε χάσει την επαφή της με την Ιεραρχία. Κατά τη γνώμη τους, η "μαύρη ιδιοφυΐα" C.W. Leadbeater είχε διαστρεβλώσει και παραποιήσει τη διασκέδαση της διδασκαλίας- ως εκ τούτου, θεωρήθηκε "επιζήμιος". (Y. Rerih 2000-2009, II: 174, 322, 506, 241).''

3. The dangers of a mediumistic personality

This phenomenon leads up to much that has happened in a terribly psychologically-tragic way, one night call it, in the case of poor H.P. Blavatsky, who in the most eminent sense of the word, was a mediumistic personality. Her intellect was, however, never adequate to examine what was passed over to her by people who were not always honourable, but who could work precisely through Madame-Blavatsky. These persons concocted things which were not always irreproachable; in an egoistic sense and through the mediumistic intellect of Blavatsky they made this into something which then worked on people in a suggestive way.

[...]

You see, my dear friends, it happens all too often that one may become a member of the Anthroposophical Society, and yet carry into that Society all the various habits, inclinations, sympathies and antipathies that one had before becoming a member, and continue to exercise them. It is necessary to think this over. I have therefore today made the subject of our studies something that closely concerns us and that is real—and that is: how it is possible for imposters to appear who want to make propaganda for some one-sided world concept and make use of a mediumistic personality in order to introduce this one-sided world concept to the world. Just as the one who appeared in the place of the Master Kut-Humi stood there as an imposter and implanted a one-sided world concept in Blavatsky, so also was it possible for people not to see that behind her stood a grey magician who was in the pay of a narrowly circumscribed human society, and wished to promulgate a definite human world conception.

The Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

GA 162, 21 August 1915, Dornach, Lecture 4: Harmonizing Thinking, Feeling and Willing

https://rsarchive.org/.../English/TS1989/19150801p01.html

4. Isis Unveiled contains references to ca. 1400 titles, so Blavatsky’s erudition might seem impressive at first sight. However, we know that the book relied to a very great extent on largely unacknowledged borrowings and quotations that can be traced to just about one hundred nineteenth-century books and articles about religion and the occult. This fact was demonstrated conclu- sively by the researches of  William Emmette Coleman, who notoriously accused Blavatsky of  plagiarism in his much-noted article “The Sources of Madame Blavatsky’s Writings,” published in 1895 as an appendix to Vsevolod Sergyeevich  Solovyoff ’s A Modern Priestess of  Isis......

Και όπως μας λέει πιο κάτω και ο μελετητής :

Ωστόσο, ενώ η πολεμικές προθέσεις Coleman είναι προφανείς, δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει καμία αμφιβολία ότι η ανάλυση του ήταν ουσιαστικά σωστή. Όπως αποδείχθηκε πρόσφατα από τον Τζέικ Γουίντσεστερ, οι αναλύσεις του ήταν σχολαστικές και τα αποδεικτικά στοιχεία του ήταν πειστικά. 

The Theosophical Imagination από τον Wouter J. Hanegraaff (Correspondences 5 (2017) 3–39 )

5. Μια τραγική βλακώδης γενικευμένη τοποθέτηση :

The Christian religion – including its God, its Saviour, its Bible, and its 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. It could also be described as the most unphilosophical, unscientific, illogical, and hypocritical of religions, not to mention the one which has caused and instigated the most violence, destruction, and bloodshed in the world. It is “a parasitic growth” and it is “suicidal” for any country to adopt it as the national religion (“Five Messages from H.P. Blavatsky to the American Theosophists” p. 11).

6. Το Βιβλίο του Dzyan (ή "Dzan") είναι εντελώς άγνωστο στους φιλολόγους μας, ή εν πάση περιπτώσει δεν το άκουσαν ποτέ με το σημερινό του όνομα. Αυτό είναι, φυσικά, ένα μεγάλο μειονέκτημα για όσους ακολουθούν τις μεθόδους έρευνας που ορίζει η επίσημη Επιστήμη, αλλά για τους σπουδαστές του Αποκρυφισμού και για κάθε γνήσιο Αποκρυφιστή, αυτό έχει μικρή σημασία. 

Ο κύριος όγκος των Διδασκαλιών που παρατίθενται βρίσκεται διασκορπισμένος σε εκατοντάδες και χιλιάδες Σανσκριτικά MSS., μερικά ήδη μεταφρασμένα - παραμορφωμένα στις ερμηνείες τους, ως συνήθως, - άλλα περιμένουν ακόμα τη σειρά τους. Κάθε μελετητής, επομένως, έχει την ευκαιρία να επαληθεύσει τις δηλώσεις που γίνονται εδώ και να ελέγξει τα περισσότερα από τα αποσπάσματα. Μερικά νέα γεγονότα (νέα μόνο για τον βέβηλο Ανατολιστή) και αποσπάσματα που παρατίθενται από τα Σχόλια θα είναι δύσκολο να εντοπιστούν. Αρκετές από τις διδασκαλίες, επίσης, έχουν μέχρι τώρα μεταδοθεί προφορικά: όμως ακόμη και αυτές υπονοούνται σε κάθε περίπτωση στους σχεδόν αμέτρητους τόμους της Βραχμανικής, Κινεζικής και Θιβετιανής ναο-λογοτεχνίας.

Helena Blavatsky

7. Gurdjieff and Blavatsky: Western Esoteric Teachers in Parallel 

by Johanna Petsche

Το παρόν άρθρο ασχολείται με τις σε μεγάλο βαθμό ανεξερεύνητες αλληλεπιδράσεις μεταξύ των βιογραφιών (πραγματικών και μυθολογικών), των δημόσιων προσώπων και των διδασκαλιών της Μαντάμ Έλενα Πετρόβνα Μπλαβάτσκυ (1831-1891) και του Τζορτζ Ιβάνοβιτς Gurdjieff (περ. 1866-1949). Αν και οι ζωές τους συμπίπτουν στα τέλη του δέκατου ένατου αιώνα, η Μπλαβάτσκυ και ο Γκουρτζίεφ δεν συναντήθηκαν ποτέ. Τα χρόνια που είναι πιο προφανές ότι τους συνδέουν είναι μεταξύ 1912 και 1916, μετά το θάνατο της Μπλαβάτσκυ, όταν ο Γκουρτζίεφ εδραιωνόταν ως πνευματικός δάσκαλος και διατύπωνε τις διδασκαλίες του στο Μόσχα και την Αγία Πετρούπολη. Εκείνη την εποχή η Θεοσοφία ανθούσε στη Ρωσία, ιδιαίτερα σε αυτές τις πόλεις, οι οποίες αποτελούσαν σημαντικά κέντρα της αποκρυφιστικής αναγέννησης. Θα υποστηριχθεί ότι ο Γκουρτζίεφ επωφελήθηκε από τη δημοτικότητα της Θεοσοφίας με το να φορώντας μια εικόνα σαν του Μπλαβάτσκι και χρησιμοποιώντας αναγνωρίσιμες θεοσοφικές ορολογία προκειμένου να προσελκύσει οπαδούς στη Ρωσία.

Literature & Aesthetics 21 (1) June 2011

8. Blavatsky το Besant:

Child,’ she said to me long afterwards, ‘your pride is terrible; you are as proud as Lucifer himself.

9. That Blavatsky wrote Isis “with a little help from her friends,” as suggested above, is in fact an understatement. It is clear that without the labors of  her long-suffering collaborator Henry Steel Olcott and Bouton’s editor, the classical scholar Alexander Wilder – in addition to various other people who were involved in the process at some point and to some extent – the book would never have seen the light of  day. 30 The manuscript went through an enormously complicated and chaotiprocess of  writing, re-writing, correcting, cutting and pasting, editing, re-editing,and revising; but even so, with characteristic candor Blavatsky herself  would lateadmit that the published version still had “no system in it” and looked “as if  mass of  independent paragraphs having no connection with each other, had beewell shaken up in a waste-basket, and then taken out at random and – published.”

The Theosophical Imagination

Wouter J. Hanegraaff

10. Δεν θέλω να κακολογήσω αλλά για να υποστηρίζεις όλα αυτά τα παρακάτω θα πρέπει να έχεις μαλάκυνση εγκεφάλου και μια σατανική καρδιά.

Είναι "ο Σατανάς που είναι ο θεός του πλανήτη μας και ο μοναδικός θεός", και αυτό χωρίς καμία υπαινικτική μεταφορά στην κακία και τη διαφθορά του. Διότι είναι ένα με τον με τον Λόγο, "ο πρώτος γιος, ο μεγαλύτερος των θεών "59 . Σε αυτή την περίπτωση δεν είναι παρά φυσικό -ακόμη και από τη σκοπιά του νεκρού γράμματος- να δούμε τον Σατανά, το φίδι της Γένεσης, ως τον πραγματικό δημιουργό και ευεργέτη, τον Πατέρα της πνευματικής ανθρωπότητας. Διότι είναι αυτός που ήταν ο "προάγγελος του φωτός", ο φωτεινός λαμπερός Εωσφόρος, που άνοιξε τα μάτια του αυτόματου που δημιούργησε ο Ιεχωβά, όπως ισχυρίζεται- και αυτός ήταν ο πρώτος που ψιθύρισε: "την ημέρα που θα το φάτε, θα το φάτε... θα γίνετε σαν τον Ελοχίμ, γνωρίζοντας το καλό και το κακό"- μπορεί να θεωρηθεί μόνο στο φως ενός Σωτήρα.60 Ο Σατανάς, ο εχθρός του Θεού, είναι στην πραγματικότητα, το ύψιστο θείο Πνεύμα61. Ο Εωσφόρος είναι το θεϊκό και το επίγειο φως, το "Άγιο Πνεύμα" και ο "Σατανάς", σε ένα και την ίδια στιγμή.62

Blavatsky, Helena. The Secret Doctrine. Vol. 2, Theosophical University

Press, 1888.

11. THE BOOK OF DZYAN: THE CURRENT STATE OF THE EVIDENCE 

BY DAVID  REIGLE

The Secret Doctrine, H. P. Blavatsky's 1888 magnum opus, is based on stanzas allegedly translated from a secret 'Book of Dzyan.' In 125 years, not a single one of these stanzas has been traced in any known book. While we  would  not  expect to  trace  verses  from  a secret book in known books, this has nonetheless been taken to confirm the widely held view that the Book of Dzyan is a product of Blavatsky's imagination. Indeed, it is practically impossible to verify the authenticity of a book when we have only alleged translations from it, and not an original language text. On the expectation that  a  Sanskrit  or  Tibetan  original  would  become available in my lifetime, I have devoted the past few decades to preparing for this. In the course of doing so, I have come across significant circumstantial evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Book of Dzyan. Until conclusive evidence in the form of an original language manuscript  becomes  available,  it may be worthwhile  to present the current state of the circumstantial evidence.

From among this circumstantial evidence, five distinctive parallels between the teachings of the Book of Dzyan and those of known books stand out. The first of  these  parallels  is  of  something described as being neither non-existent nor existent, yet breathing, when there was only darkness. This parallel is to Rgveda X.129, the so-called 'Hymn of Creation.' This text was already available in Blavatsky's time. The remaining four are to texts that were not available in her time. The second of these parallels is the highly,) unusual idea of four modes of birth for humans: the self-born or parentless, the sweat-born, and the eggborn, preceding the womb-born as at present. This parallel is to the Abhidharma-kosa and Bhasya by Vasubandhu, chapter 3, verses' 8-9. This fundamental Buddhist text did not become available in any European language until its 1923-193 ] French translation from the Chinese and Tibetan translations, while its Sanskrit original was not discovered until the mid-1930s, and not published until 1946 (kosa-karika) and 1967 (bhasya).

12. Some time ago, a Theosophist, Mr. R***, was travelling by rail with an American gentleman, who told him how surprised he had been by his visit to our London Headquarters. He said that he had asked Mdme. Blavatsky what were the best Theosophical works for him to read, and had declared his intention of procuring Isis Unveiled,* when to his astonishment she replied, “Don’t read it, it is all trash.”

Now I did not say “trash” so far as I remember; but what I did say in substance was: “Leave it alone; Isis will not satisfy you. Of all the books I have put my name to, this particular one is, in literary arrangement, the worst and most confused.” And I might have added with as much truth that, carefully analysed from a strictly literary and critical standpoint, Isis was full of misprints and misquotations; that it contained useless repetitions, most irritating digressions, and to the casual reader unfamiliar with the various aspects of metaphysical ideas and symbols, as many apparent contradictions; that much of the matter in it ought not to be there at all and also that it had some very gross mistakes due to the many alterations in proof-reading in general, and word corrections in particular. Finally, that the work, for reasons that will be now explained, has no system in it; and that it looks in truth, as remarked by a friend, as if a mass of independent paragraphs having no connection with each other, had been well shaken up in a waste-basket, and then taken out at random and—published.

Such is also now my sincere opinion. The full consciousness of this sad truth dawned upon me when, for the first time after its publication in 1877, I read the work through from the first to the last page, in India in 1881. And from that date to the present, I have never ceased to say what I thought of it, and to give my honest opinion of Isis whenever I had an opportunity for so doing.

MY BOOKS

[Lucifer, Vol. VIII, No. 45, May, 1891, pp. 241-247]

Αποδόμηση του Γκουρτζίεφ από τον Tobias Churton - σχετικά με την Blavatsky

6 

Τρελός για το κορίτσι

Ή πώς να πάω στην Τιφλίδα βιαστικά

Η Θεοσοφική Εταιρεία μπορεί να μην είχε υπάρξει ποτέ αν ο παππούς της Έλενας από τη μητέρα της, ο πρίγκιπας Pavel Dolgorukov (πέθανε το 1838), δεν είχε στην κατοχή του εκατοντάδες βιβλία και χειρόγραφα για την αλχημεία, μαγεία, τον τεκτονισμό και τον ροδοσταυρισμό. Μετά τον θάνατο της Έλενα το 1842, η Έλενα Πετρόβνα εντάχθηκε στο σπίτι της γιαγιάς της και απέκτησε απεριόριστη πρόσβαση στη βιβλιοθήκη του αείμνηστου πρίγκιπα. Σύμφωνα με το K. Paul Johnson στο The Masters Revealed, η απορρόφηση στη βιβλιοθήκη έφερε την Έλενα στην ιδέα των " Unknown Superiors " που ήταν γνώριμα στην " Strict Observance" Ναϊτών και του νεο-Ροδοσταυρικού Τεκτονισμού. Η νεαρή Έλενα βίωσε άμεσα την αντίληψή της για τους "Διδασκάλους". 9 Το 1847, η δεκαεξάχρονη Έλενα Πετρόβνα μετακόμισε με την οικογένειά της στο Τιφλίδα όταν ο παππούς της, ο Αντρέι, έγινε μέλος του Συμβουλίου της Μυστικής Διακυβέρνησης για την περιοχή της Υπερκαυκασίας. Εκεί, ο κάτοικος της Τιφλίδας πρίγκιπας Aleksandr Golitsyn, μασόνος, μάγος και μάντης, επισκέφθηκε τους παππούδες της Έλενας, εντυπωσιάζοντας πολύ τη νεαρή Ελένη. Σύμφωνα με τα απομνημονεύματα της Madame Ermolov, συζύγου του κυβερνήτη της Τιφλίδας, ένα τέτοιο πάθος είχε αναφλεγεί μέσα από τις μακρές συνομιλίες τους, ώστε το ζευγάρι το έσκασε, μια περιπέτεια που οδήγησε την οικογένεια της Ελένης να συγχωρέσει τον βιαστικό γάμο της εγγονής του στρατηγού Fedeev με τον αρκετά μεγαλύτερό  Nikifor Vladimirovich Blavatsky, υποδιοικητή του Ερεβάν της Αρμενίας, στις 7 Ιουνίου 1849. Ο Ermolov πρότεινε ήταν ο πρίγκιπας Golitsyn που έδωσε στην Έλενα τα στοιχεία επικοινωνίας με τον Κόπτη μάγο Paolos Metamon, που θεωρείται ο πρώτος "Δάσκαλος" της Μπλαβάτσκυ στον αποκρυφισμό. Στο αυτό το σημείο, η ζωή της Μπλαβάτσκυ γίνεται κάτι σαν προ-αντίλαλος της ζωής της δομής που έδωσε στον εαυτό του ο σημαντικά πιο ταπεινός Γκουρτζίεφ, ή ο ίδιος... ως "alter-ego", στις Συναντήσεις.

Ξεφεύγοντας από το γάμο, η Έλενα πήγε πρώτα στους συγγενείς της στην Τιφλίδα και στη συνέχεια στην Οδησσό, όπου πήρε το Αγγλικό ιστιοφόρο Commodore για το Κερτς, πριν μεταβεί στην Κωνσταντινούπολη. Στην Κωνσταντινούπολη γνώρισε τη Ρωσίδα κόμισσα Kiseleva, με την οποία ταξίδεψε στην Αίγυπτο, την Ελλάδα και την κεντρική Ευρώπη. Στο Κάιρο το 1851, η Μπλαβάτσκυ γνώρισε τον Αμερικανό συγγραφέα, καλλιτέχνη, μασόνο και αρχαιολόγο Albert Leighton Rawson (1828-1902). 

Γοητευμένος από την αρχαία και εσωτερική θρησκεία, ο Rawson ήταν μέλος αμερικανικών περιθωριακών μασονικών ταγμάτων (95ου βαθμού Rite of Memphis- 32ου βαθμού Scottish Rite- Societas Rosicruciana Americae, μεταξύ άλλων περιθωριακών δογμάτων). Στη μετέπειτα ζωή του ο Rawson θυμήθηκε τις συναντήσεις τους -η Blavatsky και ο ίδιος ήταν μαζί στο Παρίσι και στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1850- λέγοντας ότι το πεπρωμένο της ήταν να απελευθερώσει τον ανθρώπινο νου, ένα έργο όχι δικό της αλλά "αυτού που με έστειλε", μια φράση από το ευαγγέλιο του Αγίου Ιωάννη που αποδίδεται στον Ιησού.

Το 1871 η Μπλαβάτσκυ ξεκίνησε μια πνευματιστική, μαγική εταιρεία στο Κάιρο για τη μελέτη των νοητικών φαινομένων, εμπνευσμένη από τον Πάολο Μέταμον, τον οποίο ο Ρόουσον και η Μπλαβάτσκυ συνάντησαν για πρώτη φορά στο Κάιρο το 1851 και ο Κ. Πολ Τζόνσον υποθέτει ότι είναι η πραγματική ταυτότητα πίσω από τον "Δάσκαλο Σεράπις" της Μπλαβάτσκυ.  

Οι αναγνώστες που είναι εξοικειωμένοι με τις Συναντήσεις θα σημειώσουν φυσικά ότι ο Γκουρτζίεφ κατευθύνεται προς την Κωνσταντινούπολη με τον Πογκόσιαν, μετά από ένα ταξίδι στην Αρμενία και τη βόρεια Μεσοποταμία, όπου στη συνέχεια παίρνουν ένα Αγγλικό πολεμικό πλοίο (!) για την Αίγυπτο, όπου ο Πογκόσιαν οραματίζεται ένα Αγγλικό πεπρωμένο για τον εαυτό του ως μηχανικός και παίρνει το δρόμο του, και όπου, σε μια ξεχωριστή αναφορά, ο Γκουρτζίεφ θα συναντήσει έναν Ρώσο πρίγκιπα και αρχαιολόγο ενώ εργάζεται ως ξεναγός στο Κάιρο, προσπαθώντας να κατανοήσει τη Μεγάλη Σφίγγα. Πόσο το να ακολουθεί ο Γκουρτζίεφ τα βήματα της Μπλαβάτσκυ ήταν φυσικό και πόσο φανταστικό είναι αδύνατο να εξακριβωθεί.

Η Μπλαβάτσκυ έφυγε από το Κάιρο το 1872, περνώντας από την Παλαιστίνη, τη Συρία και την Κωνσταντινούπολη πριν εγκατασταθεί για λίγο στην Οδησσό, όπου άνοιξε ένα κατάστημα πώλησης τεχνητών λουλουδιών. Οι αναγνώστες των Συναντήσεων θα σημειώσουν και πάλι τον ισχυρισμό του Γκουρτζίεφ ότι όταν διατηρούσε ένα εργαστήριο στο Ασκαμπάντ, ειδικεύτηκε στην κατασκευή τεχνητών λουλουδιών, μεταξύ άλλων κερδοφόρων δραστηριοτήτων. Ο ξάδελφος της Μπλαβάτσκυ, Σεργκέι Βίτε, θυμήθηκε το κολοσσιαίο ταλέντο της να αφομοιώνει οτιδήποτε πολύ γρήγορα και ότι είχε τα πιο τεράστια μπλε μάτια που είχε δει ποτέ στη ζωή του. Και οι δύο δηλώσεις θα μπορούσαν να γίνουν εξίσου και για τον Γκουρτζίεφ, φυσικά.

H.P. Blavatsky - The first message to William Q. Judge 1888

H.P. Blavatsky - The  first  message to  William Q. Judge 1888

The  First  Message 1888

To  William Q. Judge,

General  Secretary of the American Section of the Theosophical Society.

MY  DEAREST BROTHER  AND  CO-­FOUNDER OF THE  THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY :

In addressing to you this letter, which I request you to read to the Convention summoned for April 22d, I must first present my hearty congratulations and most cordial good wishes to the assembled Delegates and good Fellows of our Society, and to yourself ­the heart and soul of that Body in America. We were several, to call it to life in 1875. Since then yon have remained alone to preserve that life through good and evil report. It is to you chiefly, if not entirely, that the Theosophical Society owes its existence in 1888. Let me then thank you for it, for the first and perhaps the last, time publicly, and from the bottom of my heart, which beats only for the cause you represent so well and serve so faithfully. I ask you also to remember that, on this important occasion, my voice is but the feeble echo of other more sacred voices, and the transmitter of the approval of Those whose presence is alive in more than one true Theosophical heart, and lives, as I know, preeminently in yours. May the assembled Society feel the warm greeting as earnestly as it is given, and may every Fellow present, who realizes that he has deserved it, profit by the Blessings sent. 

Theosophy has lately taken a new start in America which marks the commencement of a new Cycle in the affairs of the Society in the West. And the policy you are now following is admirably adapted to give scope for the widest expansion of the movement, and to establish on a firm basis an organization which, while promoting feelings of fraternal sympathy, social unity, and solidarity, will leave ample room for individual freedom and exertion in the common cause that of helping mankind. 

The multiplication of local centres should be a foremost consideration in your minds, and each man should strive to be a centre of work in himself. When his inner development has reached a certain point, he will naturally draw those with whom he is in contact under the same influence; a nucleus will be formed, round which other people will gather, forming a centre from which information and spiritual influence radiate, and towards which higher influences are directed. 

But let no man set up a popery instead of Theosophy, as this would be suicidal and has ever ended most fatally. We are all fellow-students, more or less advanced ; but no one belonging to the Theosophical Society ought to count himself as more than, at best, a pupil-teacher-one who has no right to dogmatize. 

Since the Society was founded, a distinct change has come over the spirit of the age. Those who gave us commission to found the Society foresaw this, now rapidly growing, wave of transcendental influence following that other wave of mere phenomenalism. Even the journals of Spiritualism are gradually eliminating the phenomena and wonders, to replace them with philosophy. The Theosophical Society led the van of this movement; but, although Theosophical ideas have entered into every development or form which awakening spirituality has assumed, yet Theosophy pure and simple has still a severe battle to fight for recognition. The days of old are gone to return no more, and many are the Theosophists who, taught by bitter experience, have pledged themselves to make of the Society a "miracle club" no longer. The faint-hearted have asked in all ages for signs and wonders, and when these failed to be granted, they refused to believe. Such are not those who will ever comprehend Theosophy pure and simple. But there are others among us who realize intuitionally that the recognition of pure Theosophy-the philosophy of the rational explanation of things and not the tenets-is of the most vital importance in the Society, inasmuch as it alone can furnish the beacon-light needed to guide humanity on its true, path. 

This should never be forgotten, nor should the following fact be overlooked. On the day when Theosophy will have accomplished its most holy and most important mission-namely to unite firmly a body of men of all nations in brotherly love and bent on a pure altruistic work, not on a labor with selfish motives-on that day only will Theosophy become higher than any nominal brotherhood of man. This will be a wonder and a miracle truly, for the realization of which Humanity is vainly waiting for the last eighteen centuries, and which every association has hitherto failed to accomplish. 

Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. It is diversity of opinion, within certain limits that keeps the Theosophical Society a living and a healthy body, its many other ugly features notwithstanding. Were it not, also, for the existence of a large amount of uncertainty in the minds of students of Theosophy, such healthy divergences would be impossible, and the Society would degenerate into a sect, in which a narrow and stereotyped creed would take the place of the living and breathing spirit of Truth and an ever growing Knowledge. 

According as people are prepared to receive it, so will new Theosophical teachings be given. But no more will be given than the world, on its present level of spirituality, can profit by. It depends on the spread of Theosophy-the assimilation of what has been already given-how much more will be revealed and how soon. 

It must be remembered that the Society was not founded as a nursery for forcing a supply of Occultists-as a factory for the manufactory of Adepts. It was intended to stem the current of materialism, and also that of spiritualistic phenomenalism and the worship of the Dead. It had to guide the spiritual awakening that has now begun, and not to pander to psychic cravings which are but another form of materialism. For by "materialism" is meant not only an anti-philosophical negation of pure spirit, and, even more, materialism in conduct and action-brutality, hypocrisy. and, above all, selfishness,-but also the fruits of a disbelief in all but material things, a disbelief which has increased enormously during the last century, and which has led many, after a denial of all existence other than that in matter, into a blind belief in the materialization of Spirit. 

The tendency of modern civilization is a reaction towards animalism, towards a development of those qualities which conduce to the success in life of man as an animal in the struggle for animal existence. Theosophy seeks to develop the human nature in man in addition to the animal, and at the sacrifice of the superfluous animality which modern life and materialistic teachings have developed to a degree which is abnormal for the human being at this stage of his progress. 

Men cannot all be Occultists, but they can all be Theosophists. Many who have never heard of the Society are Theosophists without knowing it themselves; for the essence of Theosophy is the perfect harmonizing of the divine with the human in man, the adjustment of his god-like qualities and aspirations, and their sway over the terrestrial or animal passions in him. Kindness, absence of every ill feeling or selfishness, charity, good-will to all beings, and perfect justice to others as to one's self, are its chief features. He who teaches Theosophy preaches the gospel of good-will; and the converse of this is true also,-he who preaches the gospel of good-will, teaches Theosophy. 

This aspect of Theosophy has never failed to receive due and full recognition in the pages of the "PATH," a journal of which the American Section has good reason to be proud. It is a teacher and a power; and the fact that such a periodical should be produced and supported in the United States speaks in eloquent praise both of its Editor and its readers. 

America is also to be congratulated on the increase in the number of the Branches or Lodges which is now taking place. It is a sign that in things spiritual as well as things temporal the great American Republic is well fitted for independence and self-organization. The Founders of the Society wish every Section, as soon as it becomes strong enough to govern itself, to be as independent as is compatible with its allegiance to the Society as a whole and to the Great Ideal Brotherhood, the lowest formal grade of which is represented by the Theosophical Society. 

Here in England Theosophy is waking into new life. The slanders and absurd inventions of the Society for Psychical Research have almost paralyzed it, though only for a very short time, and the example of America has stirred the English Theosophists into renewed activity. "LUCIFER" sounded the reveille, and the first fruit has been the founding of the "Theosophical Publication Society." This Society is of great importance. It has undertaken the very necessary work of breaking down the barrier of prejudice and ignorance which has formed so great an impediment to the spread of Theosophy. It will act as a recruiting agency for the Society by the wide distribution of elementary literature on the subject, among those who are in any way prepared to give ear .to. it. The correspondence already received shows that it is creating an interest in the subject, and proves that in every large town in England there exist quite enough isolated Theosophists to form groups or Lodges under charter from the Society. But, at present, these students do not even know of each other's existence, and many of them have never heard of the Theosophical Society until now. I am thoroughly satisfied of the great utility of this new Society, composed as it is to. a large extent of members of the Theosophical Society, and being under the control of prominent Theosophists, such as you, my dear Brother W. Q. Judge, Mabel Collins, and the Countess Wachtmeister. 

I am confident that, when the real nature of Theosophy is understood, the prejudice against it, now so unfortunately prevalent, will die out. Theosophists are of necessity the friends of all movements m the world, whether intellectual or simply practical, for the amelioration of the condition of mankind. We are the friends of all those who fight against drunkenness, against cruelty to animals, against injustice to women, against corruption in society or in government, although we do not meddle in politics. We are the friends of those who exercise practical charity, who seek to lift a little of the tremendous weight of misery that rs crushing down the poor, But, in our quality of Theosophists, we cannot engage in any one of these great works in particular. As individuals we may so, but as Theosophists we have a larger, more important and much more difficult work to do. People say that Theosophists should show what is in them, that "the tree is known by its fruit. Let them build dwellings for the poor, it is said, let them open "soupkitchens" etc., etc., and the world will believe that there is something in Theosophy. These good people forget that Theosophists, as such, are poor, and that the Founders themselves are poorer than any, and that one of them, at any rate, the humble writer of these lines, has no property of her own, and has to work hard for her daily bread whenever she finds time from her Theosophical duties. The function of Theosophists is to open men's hearts and understandings to charity, justice, and generosity, attributes which belong specifically to the human kingdom and are natural to man when he has developed the qualities of a human being. Theosophy teaches the animal-man to be a human-man; and when people have learned to think and feel as truly human beings should feel and think, they will act humanely, and works of charity, justice, and generosity will be done spontaneously by all. 

Now with regard to the Secret Doctrine, the publication of which some of you urged so kindly upon me, and in such cordial terms, a while ago. I am very grateful for the hearty support promised and for the manner in which it was expressed. The MSS. of the first three volumes is now ready for the press; and its publication is only delayed by the difficulty which is experienced in finding the necessary funds. Though I have not written it with an eye to money, yet, having left Adyar, I must live and pay my way in the world so long as I remain in it. Moreover, the Theosophical Society urgently needs money for many purposes, and I feel that I should not be justified in dealing with the Secret Doctrine as I dealt with Isis Unveiled. From my former work I have received personally in all only a few hundred dollars, although nine editions have been issued. Under these circumstances I am endeavouring to find means of securing the publication of the Secret Doctrine on better terms this time, and here I am offered next to nothing. So, my dearest Brothers and Co-workers in the trans-Atlantic lands, you must forgive me the delay, and not blame me for it but the unfortunate conditions I am surrounded with.

I should like to revisit America, and sh.all perhaps do so one day, should my health permit. I have received pressing invitations to take up my abode m your great country which I love so much for its noble freedom. Colonel Olcott, too, urges upon. me very strongly to return to India, where he is fighting almost single-handed the great and hard fight m the cause of Truth; but I feel that, for the present, my duty lies in England and with the Western Theosophists, where for the moment the hardest fight against prejudice and ignorance has to be fought. But whether I be in England or in India a large part of my heart and much of my hope for Theosophy lie with you in the United States, where the Theosophical Society was founded, and of which country I myself am proud of being a citizen. But you must remember that, although there must be local Branches of the Theosophical Society, there can be no local Theosophists; and just as you all belong to the Society, so do I belong to you all. 

I shall leave my dear Friend and Colleague, Colonel Olcott, to tell you all about the condition of affairs in India where everything looks favorable, as I am informed for I have no doubt that he also will have sent his good wishes and congratulations to your Convention. 

Meanwhile, my far-away and dear Brother, accept the warmest and sincerest wishes for the welfare of your Societies and of yourself personally, and, while conveying to all your colleagues the expression of my fraternal regards, assure them that, at the moment when you will be reading to them the present lines, I shall-if alive-be in Spirit, Soul, and Thought amidst you all. 

Yours ever, in the truth of the GREAT CAUSE we are all working for, 

H.P. BLAVATSKY. 

London, April 3d, 1888.

From the book :

Five  Messages from H.P.   BLAVATSKY to  the American   Theosophists

In  Convention  Assembled: 1888  -  1889  -    1890  -   1891

WITH  A  FOREWORD 

THE   THEOSOPHY COMPANY LOS ANGELES 1922

Was Cagliostro a Charlatan? by Helena P. Blavatsky

Was Cagliostro a Charlatan? by Helena P. Blavatsky

WAS CAGLIOSTRO A " CHARLATAN "?

To send the injured unredressed away,

How great soe'er the offender, and the wrong'd

Howe'er obscure, is wicked, weak and vile Degrades,

defiles, and should dethrone a king.

Smollett

THE mention of Cagliostro's name produces a two-fold effect. With the one party, a whole sequence of marvelous events emerges from the shadowy past ; with others the modern progeny of a too realistic age, the name of Alexander, Count Cagliostro, provokes wonder, if not contempt. People are unable to understand that this " enchanter and magician " (read " Charlatan ") could ever legitimately produce such an impression as he did on his contemporaries. This gives the key to the posthumous reputation of the Sicilian known as Joseph Balsamo, that reputation which made a believer in him a brother Mason say, that (like Prince Bismarck and some Theosophists) " Cagliostro might well be said to be the best abused and most hated man in Europe." Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the fashion of loading him with opprobrious names, none should forget that Schiller and Goethe were among his great admirers, and remained so to their deaths. Goethe while travelling in Sicily devoted much labour and time to collecting information about " Guiseppe Balsamo " in his supposed native land ; and it was from these copious notes that the author of Faust wrote his play " The Great Kophta." Why this wonderful man is receiving so little honour in England, is due to Carlyle. The most fearlessly truthful historian of his age-he, who abominated falsehood under whatever appearance-has stamped with the imprimatur of his honest and famous name, and thus sanctified the most iniquitous of historical injustices ever perpetrated by prejudice and bigotry. This owing to false reports which almost to the last emanated from a class he disliked no less than he hated untruth, namely the Jesuits, or-lie incarnate. The very name of Guiseppe Balsamo, which, when rendered by cabalistic methods, means " He who was sent," or " The Given," also " Lord of the Sun," shows that such was not his real patronymic. As Kenneth R. H. Mackenzie, F.T.S., remarks, toward the end of the last century it became the fashion with certain theosophical professors of the time to transliterate into Oriental form every name provided by Occult Fraternities for disciples destined to work in the world. Whosoever then, may have been Cagliostro's parents, their name was not  Balsamo." So much is certain, at any rate. Moreover, as all know that in his youth he lived with, and was instructed by, a man named, as is supposed, Althotas, "a great Hermetic Eastern Sage " or in other words an Adept, it is not difficult to accept the tradition that it was the latter who gave him his symbolical name. But that which is known with still more certainty is the extreme esteem in which he was held by some of the most scientific and honoured men of his day. In France we find Cagliostro,-having before served as a confidential friend and assistant chemist in the laboratory of Pinto, the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta-becoming the friend and protege of the Prince Cardinal de Rohan. A high born Sicilian Prince honoured him with his support and friendship, as did many other noblemen. " Is it possible, then," pertinently asks Mackenzie, " that a man of such engaging manners could have been the lying impostor his enemies endeavoured to prove him ? " The chief cause of his life-troubles was his marriage with Lorenza Feliciani, a tool of the Jesuits ; and two minor causes his extreme good nature, and the blind confidence he placed in his friends-some of whom · became traitors and his bitterest enemies neither of the crimes of which he is unjustly accused could lead to the destruction of his honour and posthumous reputation ; but all was due to his weakness for an unworthy woman, and the possession of certain secrets of nature, which he would not divulge to the Church. Being a native of Sicily, Cagliostro was naturally born in a family of Roman Catholics, no matter what their name, and was brought up by monks of the " Good Brotherhood of Castiglione," as his biographers tell us ; thus, for the sake of dear life he had to outwardly profess belief in and respect for a Church, whose traditional policy has ever been, " he who is not with us is against us," and forthwith to crush the enemy in the bud. And yet, just for this, is Cagliostro even to-day accused of having served the Jesuits as their spy ; and this by Masons who ought to be the last to bring such a charge against a learned Brother who was persecuted by the Vatican even more as a Mason than as an Occultist. Had it been so, would these same Jesuits even to this day vilify his name ? Had he served them, would he not have proved himself useful to their ends, as a man of such undeniable intellectual gifts could not have blundered or disregarded the orders of those whom he served. But instead of this, what do we see ? Cagliostro charged with being the most cunning and successful impostor and charlatan of his age ; accused of belonging to the Jesuit Chapter of Clermont in France ; of appearing (as a proof of his affiliation to the Jesuits) in clerical dress at Rome. Yet, this " cunning impostor " is tried and condemned-by the exertions of those same Jesuits-to an ignominious death, which was changed only subsequently to life-long imprisonment, owing to a mysterious interference or influence brought to bear on the Pope ! Would it not be more charitable and consistent with truth to say that it was his connection with Eastern Occult Science, his knowledge of many secrets--deadly to the Church of Rome-that brought upon Cagliostro first the persecution of the Jesuits, and finally the rigour of the Church ? It was his own honesty, which blinded him to the defects of those whom he cared for, and led him to trust two such rascals as the Marquis Agliato and Ottavio Nicastro, that is at the bottom of all the accusations of fraud and imposture now lavished upon him. And it is the sins of these two worthies-subsequently executed for gigantic swindles and murder-which are now made to fall on Cagliostro. Nevertheless it is known that he and his wife (in 1770) were both left destitute by the flight of Agliato with all their funds, so that they had to beg their way through Piedmont and Geneva. Kenneth Mackenzie has well proven that Cagliostro had never mixed himself up with political intrigue -the very soul of the activities of the Jesuits. " He was most certainly unknown in that capacity to those who have jealously guarded the preparatory archives of the Revolution, and his appearance as an advocate of revolutionary principles has no basis in fact." He was simply an Occultist and a Mason, and as such he was allowed to suffer at the hands of those who, adding insult to injury, first tried to kill him by life long imprisonment and then spread the rumour that he had been their ignoble agent. This cunning device was in its infernal craft well worthy of its primal originators. There are many landmarks in Cagliostro's biographies to show that he taught the Eastern doctrine of the " principles " in man, of " God " dwelling in mao-as a potentiality in actu (the " Higher Self")-and in every living thing and even atom-as a potentiality in posse, and that he served the Masters of a Fraternity he would not name because on account of his pledge he could not. His letter to the new mystical but rather motley Brotherhood the (Lodge of) Philalethes, is a proof in point. The Philalethes, as all Masons know, was a rite founded in Paris in 1 773 in the Loge des A mis Reu1zis, based on the principles of Martinism, and whose members made a special study of the Occult Sciences. The Mother Lodge was a philosophical and theosophical Lodge, and therefore Cagliostro was right in desiring to purify its progeny, the Lodge of Philalethes. This is what the Royal Masonic Cyclopcedia says on the subject :-

“. . . on the 15th of February, 1785, the Lodge of Philalethes (or Lovers of Truth), in solemn Session – with Savalette de Langes, royal treasurer; Tassin, the banker, and Tassin, an officer in the royal service – opened a Fraternal Convention at Paris . . . Princes (Russian, Austrian, and others), fathers of the Church, councillors, knights, financiers, barristers, barons, Theosophists, canons, colonels, professors of magic, engineers, literary men, doctors, merchants, postmasters, dukes, ambassadors, surgeons, teachers of languages, receivers general, and notably two London names – Boosie, a merchant, and Brooks of London – compose this Convention, to whom may be added M. le Comte de Cagliostro, and Mesmer, ‘the inventor’, as Thory describes him (Acta Latomorum, Vol. II. p. 95), ‘of the doctrine of magnetism!’ Surely such an able set of men to set the world to rights, as France never saw before or since!” 

The grievance of the Lodge was that Cagliostro, who had first promised to take charge of it, withdrew his offers, as the " Convention " would not adopt the Constitutions of the Egyptian Rite, nor would the Philaletlus content to have its archives consigned to the flames, which were his conditions sine qua non. It is strange that his answer to that Lodge should be regarded by Brother K. R. H. Mackenzie and other Masons as emanating " from a Jesuit source." The very style is Oriental, and no European Mason-least of all a Jesuit-would write in such a manner. This is how the answer runs':- 

. . . " The unknown grand Master of true Masonry has cast his eyes upon the Philaletheans ... Touched by the sincere avowal of their desires, he deigns to extend his hand over them, and consents to give a ray of light into the darkness of their temple. It is the wish of the Unknown Great Master, to prove to them the existence of one God-the basis of their faith ; the original dignity of man,· this powers and destiny ... . It is by deeds and facts, by the testimony of the senses, that they will know GOD, MAN and the intermediary spiritual beings (principles) existing between them,· of which true Masonry gives the symbols and indicates the real road. Let then, the Philalethes embrace the doctrines of this real Masonry, submit to the rules of its supreme chief, and adopt its constitutions. But above all let the Sanctuary be purified, let the Philalethes know that light can only descend into the Temple of Faith (based on knowledge), not into that of Scepticism. Let them devote to the flames that vain accumulation of their archives ; for it is only on the ruins of the Tower of Confusion that the Temple of Truth can be erected." In the Occult phraseology of certain Occultists " Father, Son and Angels " stood for the compound symbol of physical, and astra-Spiritual MAN.* John G. Gichtel (end of XVIIth cent.), the ardent lover of Boehme, the Seer of whom St. Martin relates that he was married " to the heavenly Sophia," the Divine Wisdom-made use of this term. Therefore, it is easy to see what Cagliostro meant by proving to the Philalethes on the testimony of ·their " senses," " God, man and the intermediary Spiritual beings," that exist between God (Atma), and Man (the Ego). Nor is it more difficult to understand his true meaning when he reproaches the Brethren in his parting letter which says : " We have offered you the truth ; you have disdained it. We have offered it for the sake of itself, and you have refused it in consequence of a love of forms. · · Can you elevate yourselves to (your) God and the knowledge of yourself,es by the assistance of a Secretary and a Convocation ?" etc.

Many are the absurd and entirely contradictory statements about Joseph Balsamo, Count de Cagliostro, so-called, several of which were incorporated by Alexander Dumas in his Memoires d'un Medicin, with those prolific variations of truth and fact which so characterize Dumas pert's romances. But though the world is in possession of a most miscellaneous and varied mass of information concerning that remarkable and unfortunate man during most of his life, yet of the last ten years and of his death, nothing certain is known, save only the legend that he died in the prison of the Inquisition. True, some fragments published recently by the Italian savant, Giovanni Sforza, from the private correspondence of Lorenzo Prospero Bottini, the Roman ambassador of the Republic of Lucca at the end of the last century, have somewhat filled this wide gap. This correspondence with Pietro Calandrini, the Great Chancellor of the said Republic, begins from 1784, but the really interesting information commences only in 1789, in a letter dated June 6, of that year, and even then we do not learn much. It speaks of the " celebrated Count di Cagliostro, who has recently arrived with his wife from Trent vid Turin to Rome. People say he is a native of Sicily and extremely wealthy, but no one knows whence that wealth. He has a letter of introduction from the Bishop . of Trent to Albani... So far his daily walk in life as well as his private and public status are above reproach. Many are those seeking an interview with him, to hear from his own lips the corroboration of what is being said of him." From another letter we learn that Rome had proven an ungrateful soil for Cagliostro. He had the intention of settling at Naples, but the plan could not be realised. The Vatican authorities who had hitherto left the Count undisturbed, suddenly laid their heavy hand upon him. In a letter dated 2 January, 1790, just a year after Cagliostro's arrival, it is stated that : " last Sunday secret and extraordinary debates in council took place at the Vatican." It (the council) consisted of the State Secretary and Antonelli, Pillotta and Campanelli, Monsignor Figgerenti performing the duty of Secretary. The object of that Secret Council remains unknown, but public rumour asserts that it was called forth owing to the sudden arrest on the night between Saturday and Sunday, of the Count di Cagliostro, his wife, and a Capuchin, Fra Giuseppe Maurijio. The Count is incarcerated in Fort St. Angelo, the Countess in the Convent of St. Apollonia, and the monk in the prison of Araceli. That monk, who calls himself ' Father Swizzero,' is regarded as a confederate of the famous magician. In the number of the crimes he is accused of is included that of the circulation of a book by an unknown author, condemned to public burning and entitled, ' The Three Sisters.' The object of this work is ' to pulverize certain three high-born individuals.' " The real meaning of this most extraordinary misinterpretation is easy 'to guess. It was a work on Alchemy ; the " three sisters " standing symbolically for the three " Principles " in their duplex symbolism. On the plane of occult chemistry they " pulverize " the triple ingredient used in the process of the transmutation of metals ; on the plane of Spirituality they reduce to a state of pulverization the three " lower" personal " principles " in man, an explanation that every Theosophist is bound to understand. The trial of Cagliostro lasted for a long time. In a letter of March the 17th, Bottini writes to his Lucca correspondent that the famous " wizard " has finally appeared before the Holy Inquisition. The real cause of the slowness of the proceedings was that the Inquisition, with all its dexterity at fabricating proofs, could find no weighty evidence to prove the guilt of Cagliostro. Nevertheless, on April the 7th I 79 I he was condemned to death. He was accused of various and many crimes, the chiefest of which were his being a Mason and an " Illuminate," an " Enchanter " occupied with unlawful studies ; he was also accused of deriding the holy Faith, of doing harm to society, of possessing himself by means unknown of large sums of · money, and of inciting others, sex, age and social standing notwithstanding, to do the same. In short, we find the unfortunate Occultist condemned to an ignominous death for deeds committed, the like of which are daily and publicly committed now-adays, by more than one Grand Master of the Masons, as also by hundreds of thousands of Kabbalists and Masons, mystically inclined. After this verdict the " arch heretic's " documents, diplomas from foreign Courts and Societies, Masonic regalias and family relics were solemnly burned by the public hangmen in the Piazza della Minerva, before enormous crowds of people. First his books and instruments were consumed. Among these was the MS. on the Maconnerie Egyptienne, which thus can no longer serve as a witness in favour of the reviled man. And now the condemned Occultist had to be passed over to the hands of the civil Tribunal, when a mysterious event happened. A stranger, never seen by any one before or after in the Vatican, appeared and demanded a private audience of the Pope, sending him by the Cardinal Secretary a word instead of a name. He was immediately received, but only stopped with the Pope for a few minutes. Jli"o sooner was he gone than his Holiness gave orders to commute· the death sentence of the Count to that of imprisonment for life, in the fortress called the Castle of St. Leo, and that the whole transaction should be conducted in great secresy. The monk Swizzero was condemned to ten years' imprisonment ; and the Countess Cagliostro was set at liberty, but only to be confined on a new charge of heresy in a convent. But what was the Castle of St. Leo ? It now stands on the frontiers of Tuscany and was then in the Papal States, in the Duchy of I: rhino. It is built on the top of an enormous rock, almost perpendicular on all sides ; to get into the " Castle " in those days, one had to enter a kind of open basket which was hoisted up by ropes and pulleys. As to the

criminal, he was placed in a special box, after which the jailors pulled him up " with the rapidity of the wind." On April 23rd 1792 Giuseppe Balsamo-if so we must call him-ascended heavenward in the criminal's box, incarcerated in that living tomb for life. Giuseppe Balsamo is mentioned for the last time in the Bottini correspondence in a letter dated March off 1792. The ambassador speaks of a marvel produced by Cagliostro in his prison during his leisure hours. A long rusty nail taken by the prisoner out of the floor was transformed by him without the help of any instrument into a sharp triangular stiletto, as smooth, brilliant and sharp as if it were made of the finest ;;teel. It was recognized for an old nail only by its head, left by the prisoner to serve as a handle. The State Secretary gave orders to have it taken away from Cagliostro, and brought to Rome, and to double the watch over him. And now comes the last kick of the jackass at the dying or dead lion. Luiggi Angiolini, a Tuscan diplomat, writes as follows : " At last, that same Cagliostro, who made so many believe that he had been a contemporary of Julius cesar, who reached such fame and so many friends, died from apoplexy, August 26, 1795. · Semironi had him buried in a wood-barn below, whence peasants used to pilfer constantly the crown property. The crafty chaplain reckoned very justly that the man who had inspired the world with such superstitious fear while living, would inspire people with the same feelings after his death, and thus keep the thieves at bay .... " But yet-a query ! Was Cagliostro dead and buried indeed in 1792, at St. Leo ? And if so, why should the custodians at the Castle of St. Angelo, of 1Rome show innocent tourists the little square hole in which Cagliostro is said to have been confined and " died "? Why such uncertainty or-imposition, and such disagreement in the legend ? Then there are Masons who to this day tell strange stories in Italy. Some say that Cagliostro escaped in an unaccountable way from his aerial prison, and thus forced his jailors to spread the news of his death and burial. Others maintain that he not only escaped, but, thanks to the Elixir of Life, still lives on, though over twice three score and ten years old ! " Why " asks Bottini, " if he really possessed the powers he claimed, has he not indeed vanished from his jailors, and thus escaped the degrading punishment altogether ?" We have heard of another prisoner, greater in every respect than Cagliostro ever claimed to be. Of that prisoner too, it was said in mocking tones, " He saved others ; himself he cannot save. . . . . let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe ... .'' How long shall charitable people build the biographies of the living and ruin the reputations of the dead, with such incomparable unconcern, by means of idle and often entirely false gossip of people, and these generally the slaves of prejudice ! So long, we are forced to think, as they remain ignorant of the Law of Karma and its iron justice. 

H. P. B.

Blavatsky and magic 2

Blavatsky and magic 2

Η προηγούμενη καριέρα της στον πνευματισμό έχει εγκαταλειφθεί (ή ίσως όπως αυτή ενδέχεται να είπε, ξεπεράστηκε), η Blavatsky έτεινε στο να βλέπει τις πρακτικές εκφράσεις του αποκρυφισμού, άλλο παρά από μια πνευματική ζωή, ως ανεπιθύμητη και επικίνδυνη.

Ακόμα και η τελετουργία που προοριζόταν να είναι συμβολική παρά μαγική θα έπρεπε να αποφεύγεται.

Αυτή η θέση μπορεί να θεωρηθεί αντιφατική, δεδομένης της φήμης της Blavatsky η οποία θα μπορούσε να θεωρηθεί σαν μαγική, η φαινομενική παραγωγή των επιστολών από τους Δασκάλους ή ακόμη και ένα κύπελλο τσαγιού.

Εξήγησε αυτά τα γεγονότα ως «Master's κόλπα "- δηλαδή, όπως έχει κατακρημνιστεί από έναν από τους Δασκάλους και όχι σαν συνέπεια των δικών της μαγικών δυνάμεων.

Η Μπλαβάτσκυ εξέφρασε την απογοήτευσή της για τη θεουργία ή την «πρακτική μαγεία» στις αρχές της Θεοσοφικής σταδιοδρομίας. Το 1879, γράφοντας με τίτλο «Τι είναι η Θεοσοφία» στο περιοδικό Θεοσοφιστής, σχολίασε:

Η Πρακτική θεουργία ή η «τελετουργική μαγεία», που τόσο συχνά κατέφυγαν μέσα από τους εξορκισμούς τους ο Ρωμαιοκαθολικός Κληρικός απορρίφθηκε από τους Θεοσοφιστές. 

Όταν αγνοεί την αληθινή έννοια των εσωτερικών θεϊκών συμβόλων της φύσης, ο άνθρωπος είναι ικανός να υπολογίσει εσφαλμένα τις δυνάμεις της ψυχής του και αντί να επικοινωνεί πνευματικά και διανοητικά με τα ανώτερα, ουράνια όντα, τα καλά πνεύματα (οι θεοί των θεουργών της πλατωνικής σχολής), θα καλέσει ασυνείδητα τις κακές, σκοτεινές δυνάμεις που κρύβονται γύρω από την ανθρωπότητα, τους απέθαντους, τις ζοφερές δημιουργίες των ανθρωπίνων εγκλημάτων και κακών, και έτσι θα πέσει από την θεουργία μέσω της μαγείας στην γοητεία ή την μαύρη μαγεία. 

Η αγνότητα των πράξεων και των σκέψεων μπορεί μόνη της να μας ανυψώσει μέσα σε μια επικοινωνία "με τους Θεούς" επιτυγχάνοντας τον στόχο τον οποίον επιθυμούσαμε.

Modern Western Magic and Theosophy

Gregory Tillett - University of Western Sydney 

ARIES 12 (2012) 17-51 BRILL

Blavatsky about magic from Lucifer, in May, 1888

Blavatsky about magic

Magic is a dual power nothing is easier than to turn it into Sorcery an evil thought suffices for it. Therefore while theoretical Occultism is harmless, and may do good, practical Magic, or the fruits of the Tree of Life and Knowledge, or otherwise the ‘Science of Good and Evil’, is fraught with dangers and perils. 

For the study of theoretical Occultism there are, no doubt, a number of works that may be read with profit, besides such books as the Finer Forces of Nature, etc., the Zohar, Sepher Yetzîrâh, The Book of Enoch, Franck’s Kabalah, and many Hermetic treatises. These are scarce in European languages, but works in Latin by the mediaeval Philosophers, generally known as Alchemists and Rosicrucians, are plentiful. But even the perusal of these may prove dangerous for the unguided student. 

If approached without the right key to them, and if the student is unfit, owing to mental incapacity, for Magic, and is thus unable to discern the Right from the Left Path, let him take our advice and leave this study alone; he will only bring on himself and on his family unexpected woes and sorrows, never suspecting whence they come, nor what are the powers awakened by his mind being bent on them. Works for advanced students are many, but these can be placed at the disposal of only sworn or ‘pledged’ chelas (disciples), those who have pronounced the ever-binding oath, and who are, therefore, helped and protected. 

For all other purposes, well-intentioned as such works may be, they can only mislead the unwary and guide them imperceptibly to Black Magic or Sorcery—if to nothing worse.

Lucifer, in May, 1888

Some notes on "The Secret Doctrine" By Charles J. Ryan

Some notes on "The Secret Doctrine" By Charles J. Ryan

Strong evidence for changes, additions and omissions in the so-called Third Volume is provided by Mrs. Alice L. Cleather in The Canadian Theosophist, December 1937. Mrs. Cleather was one of H. P. Blavatsky's Inner Group of pledged students and she possessed a copy of the original report of the oral teachings received directly from H. P. B. These oral teachings form part of the private Instructions published in the "Third Volume" between pages 433 and 594, which Mead cynically said that he "persuaded" Annie Besant to insert in order to fill it out, and incidentally, as he hoped, to break up her Esoteric School. These Instructions had been entrusted to the recipients under the seal of strict secrecy — perhaps with the object of testing their worthiness!

Mrs. Cleather published a facsimile of page 559 in The Canadian Theosophist mentioned above, on which she marked the large number of alterations made on that single page. They consist of changes in arrangement, construction of sentences, capitalizing, the use of synonyms in place of original words, and above all of omissions and additions. One addition is significant as it seems to reflect psycho-occult teaching that Mrs. Besant is believed to have received from Brahmans after she threw off the restraining influence of William Q. Judge. This addition reads: "The head should not be covered in meditation. It is covered in Samadhi." Hardly one line on this page is left without some alteration.

On summing up all the information to hand on the subject of the so-called "Volume III" it is not easy to find any valid justification for calling this collection of miscellaneous writings by H. P. Blavatsky an integral part of The Secret Doctrine as conceived by H. P. B. and the Masters, although as said it contains most valuable and obviously authentic H. P. B. material. We are, however, in no position accurately to judge how seriously the matter has been revised and altered, or whether H. P. Blavatsky would have permitted much of it to be published without a great number of alterations and additions which she alone was qualified to make.

For more :   http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/forum/f23n03p97_some-notes-on-the-secret-doctrine.htm

Blavatsky and Hermes and Hermes

Blavatsky and Hermes

In her books Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine, Blavatsky refers to Hermes on at least sixty pages. In fact, Hermes occupies a prominent position in all the early Theosophical teachings. We already saw, in the opening citation of this chapter, that the hermetic philosophy is proposed as the only key to knowledge of the inner essence of things........

The archaic wisdom primarily presented by Blavatsky that everything contains consciousness and there is therefore no “dead” matter was a cry in the materialistic wilderness in those days. With broad agreement, Blavatsky quotes Hermes in another fragment from Stobaeus:
So Hermes says, the Thrice-Greatest Trismegistus: “O’ my son, matter becomes; earlier she was; for matter is the vehicle of the becoming. Becoming is the activity of the not yet created Deity.
After the matter has been endowed with the germ of becoming, she is born, for the creative force models her according to the ideal forms. Matter not yet brought forth has no form; she becomes, when she is put into motion.”......................

The Poimandres, the first treatise of the Corpus Hermeticum, made an especially deep impression on Blavatsky, and she refers to it many times:
In the “Book of Hermes” Poimandres appears to Hermes, the oldest and the most spiritual of the Logoi of the western continent, in the shape of a fiery Dragon of “Light, Fire, and Flame.” Poimandres, the personified “Divine Thought,” says: “The Light is me, I am the Nous, I am thy God, and I am far older than the human principle which escapes from the shadow…”

From  : Jacob Slavenburg - The Hermetic Link

INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO H.P.B.’s COMMENTARY ON THE PISTIS SOPHIA.*

 

CONVENTION OF THE T.S., LONDON, 1891

INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO H.P.B.’s COMMENTARY ON THE PISTIS SOPHIA.*

The Codex Askewianus in the British Museum is known as the Pistis Sophia.
This Coptic manuscript is complete, except as noted below, in excellent state of preservation, and contains material of the Valentinian or Ophite schools of Gnosticism. Pistis Sophia is written in the dialect of Upper Egypt, called Thebaidic or Sahidic. It is a translation from the Greek, as Greek words—mostly technical terms and names—abound throughout the manuscript. This is thought to be the result of the translator being unable to find suitable terms in the Coptic (Thebaidic or Sahidic) to express the ideas found in a Greek manuscript. Such terms and names are simply transliterated from the Greek. The date of the Pistis Sophia manuscript is not agreed upon by the various competent scholars who have studied it, but it is generally placed in the 2nd and 3rd century A.D. The many quotations from the Old and New Testament provide no clue to the exact dating.

The manuscript consists of 346 pages, written on both sides of vellum in two columns, and is bound much like a modern book. The pages are numbered in Coptic characters, establishing the fact that only four leaves—eight pages—are missing since the manuscript was bound. It contains parts of five “books,” none of which are complete. The manuscript is the work of more than one scribe which may account for the lacunae and repetitions found in several places. It was called “Pistis Sophia” because at the head of one page, apparently without reason, was written in Coptic,“The Second Tome of the Pistis Sophia.”

This manuscript was acquired in 1785 by the British Museum with the purchase of the library of Dr. Askew. Where Dr. Askew himself obtained the manuscript remains a mystery.*
The earliest reference to the Pistis Sophia manuscript is a statement—unverified —that in 1770, C. G. Woide published an article in a British Theological Magazine on the Pistis Sophia. G. R. S. Mead tried in vain to trace such a magazine or any article on the subject near that date. C. G. Woide was the editor of the New Testament
according to the famous Codex Alexandrinus. He placed the date of the Pistis Sophia manuscript in the third century. 

In 1773 and 1778 articles by Woide on the Pistis Sophia appeared in journals published in France and Germany. In 1779 Woide copied by hand the whole of the Askew and Bruce manuscripts but no translation was published. In 1838-40 the manuscripts were copied by the French savant Dulaurier,but no translation ever came to light.

In 1848 M. G. Schwartze copied the Pistis Sophia manuscript and made a Latin translation, which was edited after his death by J. H. Petermann, and published in 1851 All the early English translations of the Pistis Sophia are translations of Schwartze’s Latin version.
The first partial English translation published was that of C. W. King in the second edition (1887) of his Gnostics and their Remains.* This fragment consisted of a few pages translated from Schwartze’s Latin text. An anonymous translation in French appeared in Migne’s Dictionnaire des Apocryphes, which G. R. S. Mead calls “. . . . a sorry piece of work, more frequently a mere paraphrase from Schwartze’s version than a translation.”† 

Many learned articles appeared between the publication of the Latin text and the end of the century. In 1895 É. Amélineau published a French translation from the Coptic. In 1905 C. Schmidt published what is considered to be a very fine German translation of the Coptic text, and in 1924 an excellent English translation from the Coptic was published by George Horner. This was the first translation directly from the Coptic into English. It is designated as a “literal translation,” and while this does not always make for as easy and smooth a reading as some of the freer translations, it does preserve, as nearly as possible in English, the exact wording, and in some cases definite clues to the meaning of the original writers.
Horner’s English translation contains a very fine and thorough Introduction by Francis Legge.

In 1890-91 G. R. S. Mead published in H. P. Blavatsky’s magazine Lucifer a translation into English of the first two “books,” about half of the Pistis Sophia. This was again a translation of Schwartze’s Latin text. It was the first English translation, except for the several pages published in the second edition of King’s Gnostics and their Remains. In Lucifer, voluminous footnotes and commentaries are appended to the text of the translation In 1896 Mead published a complete translation of this work with an excellent Introduction, but without notes or commentaries on the text.

In the Introduction (p. xxxv) he says: “I went over the whole again and checked it by Amélineau’s version,” and on p. xxxvi: “In 1890 I had already translated Schwartze’s Latin version into English and published pages l to 252, with a commentary, notes, etc., in magazine form from April, 1890, to April, 1891.” The magazine referred to is,of course, Lucifer, edited by H. P. Blavatsky, and the above is the only mention made by Mead anywhere of the commentaries and footnotes in Lucifer.

In Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, p. 456, Mead writes: “When, in 1896, I published a translation of the Pistis Sophia, I had intended to follow it up with a commentary, but I speedily found that in spite of the years of work I had already given to Gnosticism, there were still many years of labour before me, ere I could satisfy myself that I was competent to essay the task in any really satisfactory fashion; I have accordingly reserved that task for the future.”
After Mead’s death in 1933, a careful search through his unpublished manuscripts by John M. Watkins, his literary executor, failed to uncover anything dealing with the Pistis Sophia.

A “New and Completely Revised” edition of the Pistis Sophia was published by Mead in 1921, also without notes or commentary. This version was thoroughly compared and checked with Schmidt’s German translation* from the Coptic (1905).
In the Preface, p. xx, Mead says: “The second edition is practically a new book.” There exists also a manuscript by P. A. Malpas, (1875-1958) a life-long student of Theosophy, containing a translation of the Pistis Sophia, together with the notes and commentaries from Lucifer and extracts from the writings of the Church Fathers.
Mr. Malpas’ translation of the Pistis Sophia is apparently a recension of Latin, German and French translations.

As already pointed out, the translation of the Pistis Sophia published in Lucifer has been superseded by better translations, including Mead’s own later edition of 1921. The text which appeared in Lucifer (Vols. 6, 7 & 8) is not complete; contains many abridgments and summaries of repetitive passages.
Students wishing to make a study of the complete text of the Pistis Sophia are referred to the 1921 edition of Mead’s Pistis Sophia, or to George Horner’s Pistis Sophia, with Introduction by F. Legge. The introductions to both of these volumes are very valuable as showing the viewpoints of two quite different scholarly approaches
to the Pistis Sophia itself, and Gnosticism in general.
Only sufficient material will be quoted from Mead’s recension in Lucifer to make H.P.B.’s footnotes and commentaries clearly intelligible.

The quotations from the Bible in the present Introduction are according to the Authorized (King James) Version, Oxford University Press. The quotations from the Church Fathers are from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D., editors, (American reprint of the Edinburgh Edition). The extracts from the writings of the Church Fathers included in H.P.B.’s Commentaries are from some other English edition, or possibly translated from a French edition. The references given by H.P.B. with regard to Book, Chapter, and Section do not always correspond to the place where the quotations are found in the American Edition. As far as is known, no English translation of the Panarion of Epiphanius is available, and it is very likely those passages from it have been translated from Migne’s original texts.

Quotations from The Secret Doctrine are based on the original edition of 1888. A helpful definition of the title’s meaning has been supplied by P. A. Malpas.
“Title: Pistis-Sophia is a combination of two Greek substantives, usually translated Faith and Wisdom. But H. P. Blavatsky plainly shows that Faith in the modern sense is quite an inadequate rendering of the term Pistis.

It is better described as Intuitional Knowledge, or knowledge not yet manifest to the mere intellect, though felt by the Soul to be true. This definition leaves the way open for dogmatists to say that it means precisely what they call faith, and the genuine enquirer needs to be careful in accepting dogmatic definitions of the soul and intellect and to beware of thinking that Pistis has anything to do with “believing” things that are not otherwise known. “Faith” is too often merely another name for “self persuasion,” which may not be, but usually is, delusion, in one of its fascinating forms. The whole book is highly instructive as to what Pistis really is. 

The importance of the correct understanding of the word cannot be overestimated for students of the New Testament, when it is realised that Paul was a Gnostic using the Gnostic term in its technical sense, and that however pleasing it may be to attach quite another sense to it, it did not and does not mean what it is usually taken to mean by Europeans of our own day. In the drama of Pistis-Sophia and her sufferings it is clear that her unshakeable intuition that she will be saved by her divine part is the link that enables that divine part to save her. It is the actual testimony that she is not yet finally lost, and in the end it is fully vindicated. Job, another drama of initiation, teaches the same lesson in an ancient Egyptian setting. 

Gnosticism was a syncretistic philosophico-religious movement which included all the manifold systems of belief prevalent in the first two centuries of the Christian era. Originating somewhat prior to Christian times, it combined various elements of Babylonian, Judaic, Persian, Egyptian and Greek metaphysics with certain teachings of dawning Christianity.

As a name, Gnosticism is derived from the Greek gnosis (Γνώσις) “knowledge,” more specifically spiritual knowledge or esoteric wisdom, a knowledge not attainable by ordinary intellectual processes, and only to be gained by mystical enlightenment or the awakening of the Buddhic elements in man. The emphasis on knowledge as the means of attaining a higher evolutionary stage, and the claim to the possession of this knowledge in ones own doctrine, are common features of the numerous groups in which the Gnostic movement historically expressed itself, even though there were only a few of these groups whose members expressly called themselves Gnostics (Gr. gnostikos—(γνωστικός Lat. gnosticus), the “Knowing Ones”*—Compiler.]

pdf link  https://www.mediafire.com/?exvgw11ob9dfs29