THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT DESCRIBED BY COUNTESS WACHTMEISTER

(The following address was given by Countess Constance Wachtmeister at the eighth Annual Convention of the American Theosophical Section in 1894.)

The Theosophical Movement of the 18th Century

The Theosophical Society was organized in the last century by Count St. Germain, Cagliostro and others. At that time there was a powerful Lodge in Paris, one also in Denmark, another in Germany, and three in Italy. But the revolution of ‘93 came and swept all away. And that is one reason why we now, in this century, have such a terrible Karma to work out.

(Cid's note: Blavatsky explained that Mesmer, Cagliostro and Saint Germain were the agents of the Trans-Himalayan Masters in the 18th century, and consequently they led the theosophical movement in the 18th century, although in that century it was not called "theosophical".)

That organization was the physical basis of the Society, which is really, in itself, an entity, formed by all the members who belong to it. The Theosophical Society has its seven Principles, and has to work through all of these. In the last century it worked through the physical basis, and now, in this century, it has had to work through Kama, or through the psychic state.

We are now, happily, I think, emerging from that state, and hereafter we may hope to enter upon a condition of very great activity.

Blavatsky

In 1851, in this century, Madame H. P. Blavatsky went to London with her father to take lessons in music, in which she manifested great talent.

One day, while walking in the street, she saw coming towards her some Indian Princes, and, amongst these, a very fine looking Indian – a man of seven feet high – and to her great surprise, recognized in this man one whom she had always looked upon as her guardian angel.

Ever since childhood she had seen him, and in moments of trial he had helped her. She had great love and affection for this person, and when she saw him in the physical form in London, she wanted to rush up to him and tell him how delighted she was to see him. But he made a sign to her to move on, and she went home and told her father, and all that night was unable to sleep, thinking of this strange thing – of how she had met her guardian angel.

The next day, she went to Hyde Park, and while there this man came again to her, and said it was true that he had watched her from childhood, because he saw in her a good instrument for the formation of this Society. He said it was on account, first of all, of her psychical power, for she had been a medium. Secondly, on account of her great intellectual and mental powers, and because of her partly Eastern and partly Western birth, as, he said, she would have to work in all countries.

Then he told her he had this work given to him to do by those above him, and that therefore he was most anxious that she should accept this position he offered her, which was to form this Society. He told her to go home to her father, consult with him, and then, if she would undertake this work, to return in three days to the Park and tell him. He pointed out to her that it would be a position of great trial, that she would be persecuted, and told her many things which would happen to the Society, and to herself.

She went home, consulted with her father, who said she might do as she pleased, and that if she chose to take up the work, he himself would give her money and help her; but she was to decide for herself. After three days’ cogitation, she decided to accept this position offered her, and she returned to the Park and told this to her Master.

He then said she must go to Egypt, and that there she would have to stop for some time to be taught, so that she might be enabled to teach others. Then she went to India, and was taken, hidden in a hay cart, through a country where no European is ever permitted to pass. She lay in the cart, covered with hay, and was conducted safely through that part of the country by Indians. At last she reached the place where the Masters live, was received by the sister of one of Them, and lived in the Master’s house for three years.

 But these three years were years of very great trial. In the first place, she was taught how to use her will. She had to do lessons just like a child; had to get up early and work hard and learn mental lessons. At the end of three years she was told to go to Egypt, and there was placed under the charge of another Master, who taught her about the Book of the Dead and many other works. After that she was put in charge of a Jewish Rabbi and taught the Kabbala.

When she had passed through all these, she was told she was ready, and should go to America, and I know people who have told me it was a standing joke against her when she came, because whenever she met anyone she would ask: “Do you know anybody by the name of Olcott?” “Do you know a man called Olcott?”

They would say, no, they had never heard of such a person. But at last some one said, Yes, they had heard that Col. Olcott was with the Eddy Brothers, studying Spiritualism, and if Madame Blavatsky would go there she could meet him.

An hour later she was on the train which conducted her to the Eddy homestead, and there met Col. Olcott. She was quickly able to prove to him that all the phenomena witnessed at the Homestead, she could produce by will-power. She was able to tell him beforehand just what she was going to do. She was also able to duplicate any particular kind of phenomenon produced by the Eddy Brothers in a state of unconsciousness and passiveness, by mere will-power and in full possession of her own consciousness.

The Theosophical Society

Some time passed, and then she, with Col. Olcott and William Q. Judge, formed the nucleus of the Society, and Col. Olcott consented to become its President. Some time afterwards they went to India, and there established the Society.
Such was the beginning of this grand movement. At first but two or three meeting together in a drawing-room; then growing larger and larger, until it is what you now see it – a huge Society, with branches all over the face of the earth – in every country of the world.

We have members belonging to all nationalities and to every religion of the world. And all these people call themselves brothers; and this Theosophical Society is one vast brotherhood extending all over the globe. And it is a brotherhood not only in name, but in reality; for I, who have travelled in so many countries, can tell you that wherever I go I am received as a sister. In India, among the Hindus, I have been received as a sister, taken into their homes (where they are not accustomed to take strangers or Europeans at any time), and I have not only been treated as a sister, but as a much-loved sister.

And now I come over here to the opposite end of the world, and all receive me kindly; and wherever I travel, I feel I am welcome. This is a beautiful thought – to think we have created in the world such a brotherhood as this. I will not insist that it is a real brotherhood, but it is a nucleus which, as time goes on, will, I hope, become a real brotherhood.

(This speech was printed in The Irish Theosophist , Dublin, June 15, 1894, p. 127-129)

CONSTANCE WACHTMEISTER'S POSTHUMOUS TRIBUTE TO BLAVATSKY

(Countess Constance Wachtmeister cared for Blavatsky when Blavatsky was exiled to Europe, and when Blavatsky died the Countess wrote the following article in tribute to Blavatsky.)

AT WURZBURG AND OSTENDE

In the month of November, 1885, I went to Wurzburg to visit Madame Blavatsky; I had met her previously in both France and England, but had had only a casual acquaintance with her.

I found H. P. B. sick and weary of life, depressed both in mind and body, for she knew what a vast and important mission she had to fulfil, and how difficult it was to find those who were willing to give themselves up to the carrying out of the noble work which was her allotted task in life.

She used often to deplore the indifference of the members of the Theosophical Society in this respect, and she said that if she could only raise the veil for moment, and let them see into the future, what a difference it would make; but each had to work out his own Karma and battle through his difficulties alone.

Madame Blavatsky was settled in comfortable apartments with lofty rooms and with the quiet surroundings she so much needed for the stupendous work in which she was engaged.

Every morning at 6 a.m. she used to rise, having a good hour’s work before her breakfast at 8 a.m., then, after having read her letters and newspapers she would again settle to her writing, sometimes calling me into the room to tell me that references from books and manuscripts had been given to her by her Master with the chapter and page quoted, and to ask me whether I could get friends to verify the correctness of these passages in different Public Libraries.

For as she read everything reversed in the Astral Light, it would be easy for her to make mistakes in dates and numbers – and in some instances it was found that the number of the page had been reversed, for instance 23 would be found on page 32, etc.

Between one and two o’clock was Madame Blavatsky’s dinner hour, the time varying to accommodate her work, and then without any repose she would immediately set herself at her table again, writing until six o’clock, when tea would be served.

The old lady’s relaxation during the evening would be her “Patiences”, laying out the cards while I read to her letters received during the day or scraps from newspapers which I thought might interest her.

Between nine and ten o’clock H. P. B. retired to rest, usually taking some slight refreshment, and would read her Russian newspapers until midnight, when her lamp was put out, and all would be quiet until the next morning, when the usual routine recommenced.

And so, day after day, the same unvarying life went on, only broken by the malicious Hodgson report which caused waves of disturbance to reach us from all sides.

H. P. B. said to me one evening: “You cannot imagine what it is to feel so many adverse thoughts and currents directed against you; it is like the prickings of a thousand needles, and I have continually to be erecting a wall of protection around me”.

I asked her whether she knew from whom these unfriendly thoughts came, she answered: “Yes; unfortunately, I do, and I am always trying to shut my eyes so as not to see and know”; and to prove to me that this was the case, she would tell me of letters that had been written, quoting passages from them, and these actually arrived a day or two afterwards, I being able to verify the correctness of the sentences.

All who have known and loved H. P. B. have felt what a charm there was about her, how truly kind and loveable she was; at time such a bright childish nature seemed to beam around her, and a spirit of joyous fun would sparkle in her whole countenance, and cause the most winning expression that I have ever seen on a human face.

One of the marvels of her character was, that to everybody she was different. I have never seen her treat two persons alike. The weak traits in every one’s character were known to her at once, and the extraordinary way in which she would probe them was surprising.

By those who lived in daily contact with her the knowledge of Self was gradually acquired, and by those who chose to benefit by her practical way of teaching progress could be made. But to many of her pupils the process was unpalatable, for it is never pleasant to be brought face to face with one’s own weaknesses; and so many turned from her, but those who could stand the test, and remain true to her, would recognise within themselves the inner development which alone leads to Occultism.

A truer and more faithful friend one could never have than H. P. B., and I think it the greatest blessing of my life to have lived with her in such close intimacy, and until my death I shall try and further the noble cause for which she slaved and suffered so much.

I shall not speak of phenomena in this paper, for my personal testimony can be of no use to anybody but myself, except to satisfy curiosity; all I can say is, that phenomena occurred daily both in Wurzburg and in Ostende, where I spent a second winter with Madame Blavatsky.

In fact what people call phenomena seemed to me the ordinary natural occurrences of daily life, so used did I become to them; and true it is, that we only call phenomena that which we are unable fully to explain – and the shooting stars, the growth of trees, in fact all nature around us is one vast phenomenon which if witnessed but rarely would fill us with far more incredulity and astonishment than the ringing of astral bells, etc.

Our stay in Wurzburg was only interrupted by casual visitors, the last being Madame Gebhard and Miss Kislingbury in the month of May, 1886. I parted with H. P. B. at the station, leaving her with Miss Kislingbury, who was to accompany her to Ostende, while I went with Madame Gebhard to Kempten, where we were met by Dr. Franz Hartmann, who showed us that strange, weird and mystical town.

In October, 1886, I joined H. P. B. in Ostende, and found her settled in comfortable enough quarters; she welcomed me with all the warmth of her genial nature, and was, I think, as truly glad to have me as I was to be with her. We recommenced our monotonous but interesting life, the thread being taken up from where it was last broken, and I watched with delight how the piles of manuscript for the Secret Doctrine were increasing.

Our near vicinity to England caused people once more to come buzzing round H. P. B., and we received several visitors, amongst whom were Mrs. Kingsford and Mr. Maitland, and it was a pleasure to listen to the conversation of three such highly gifted intellects on all the points of resemblance between Western and Eastern Occultism, but still with my further and later experience of H. P. B. and her teachings it is marvellous to me how she kept safely locked within her own breast the occult knowledge which she has lately been permitted to give to a few of her pupils.

Towards the end of the winter H. P. B. became very ill; her kidneys were affected, and after some days of intense suffering the Belgian doctor told me that he despaired of her life. I telegraphed to Madame Gebhard, who had been a true and sincere friend of hers for many years, and also to Mr. Ashton Ellis, a member of the Theosophical Society and a clever doctor, both responded to my call and helped me through those trying and anxious days, and in the end Mr. Ellis’ wise treatment pulled her through the dangerous crisis.

As H. P. B. was slowly recovering other friends came. Dr. Keightley and also Mr. Bertram Keightley were among these, and they both persuaded Madame Blavatsky to go and spend the summer in England in a small cottage which was taken for her at Norwood.

I then left Ostende, Madame Gebhard kindly remaining with the old lady until she felt equal to undertaking the journey to London. During the same summer, while I was at home in Sweden, H. P. B. wrote to me that there was a proposal to take a house in London with the Keightleys, to form a centre for theosophical work in England; she wrote:

  “Now at last I begin to see my way clearly before me, and Master’s work can be done if you only agree to come and live with us. I have told the Keightleys that without you their project must fall to the ground,” etc., etc.

I replied that I would take a share in the house, and hoped that a nucleus of earnest members would be formed to carry on the work and her mission in life.

I came to England in August, 1887, found H. P. B. at Norwood, and shortly afterwards we moved into 17, Lansdowne Road, Holland Park, and then began a new, difficult and then painful life. Trials followed each other in quick succession, but the very outcome of all these trials and worries was the development of the Society and the spreading of theosophical truths.

Madame Blavatsky was at home every Saturday afternoon, and visitors came every evening, crowds of people; some out of curiosity, others with a true desire to learn about Theosophy, and a few attracted by her personality. To watch the varied way in which H. P. B. would receive each new arrival was in itself a study, and later events have proved that her knowledge of character was unique.

At times she would seem to grow and expand in intellect and the force and power with which she would put forward her vast knowledge would seize those present with awe; at other times she only talked of the most trivial things, and her hearers would go away quite satisfied with themselves, feeling that they were vastly her superiors. But I have only a certain space allotted to me and must close these few lines.

The house in Lansdowne Road became to small for the requirements of the workers who had gathered around us, and so in July, 1890, we moved into 19, Avenue Road, which became the Headquarters of the European Theosophical Society.

Other having gradually shared with me in the daily care and attention with which it had hitherto been my privilege and pleasure to surround H. P. B., I must leave it to their eloquence to give you a description of her life, and slowly declining health; and now our beloved friend and teacher has gone, but H. P. B.’s work still remains to be finished, and it is only by the way in which we carry on that work that we can prove to the world how intense has been our love and gratitude to the noblest and grandest woman this century will have produced.

(First published in Lucifer, London, June 15, 1891, p.282-285. Reprinted in book HPB: In Memory of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky by Some of Her Pupils, 1891, p.18-21)

WILLIAM JUDGE EXPLAINS WHAT IS THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT

 

 

 

THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT

 

There is a very great difference between the Theosophical Movement and any Theosophical Society.

 

The Movement is moral, ethical, spiritual, universal, invisible save in effect, and continuous. A Society formed for theosophical work is a visible organization, an effect, a machine for conserving energy and putting it to use; it is not nor can it be universal, nor is it continuous.

 

Organized Theosophical bodies are made by men for their better cooperation, but, being mere outer shells, they must change from time to time as human defects come out, as the times change, and as the great underlying spiritual movement compels such alterations.

 

The Theosophical Movement being continuous, it is to be found in all times and in all nations. Wherever thought has struggled to be free, wherever spiritual ideas, as opposed to forms and dogmatism, have been promulgated, there the great movement is to be discerned.

 

Jacob Boehme’s work was a part of it, and so also was the Theosophical Society of over one hundred years ago*; Luther’s reformation must be reckoned as a portion of it; and the great struggle between Science and Religion, clearly portrayed by Draper, was every bit as much a motion of the Theosophical Movement as is the present Society of that name – indeed that struggle, and the freedom thereby gained for science, were really as important in the advance of the world, as are our different organizations.

 

And among political examples of the movement is to be counted the Independence of the American colonies, ending in the formation of a great nation, theoretically based on Brotherhood.

 

One can therefore see that to worship an organization, even though it be the beloved theosophical one, is to fall down before Form, and to become the slave once more of that dogmatism which our portion of the Theosophical Movement, the Theosophical Society, was meant to overthrow.

 

Some members have worshipped the so-called “Theosophical Society”, thinking it to be all in all, and not properly perceiving its de facto and piecemeal character as an organization nor that it was likely that this devotion to mere form would lead to a nullification of Brotherhood at the first strain.

 

And this latter, indeed, did occur with several members. They even forgot, and still forget, that H. P. Blavatsky herself declared that it were better to do away with the Society rather than to destroy Brotherhood, and that she herself declared the European part of it free and independent. These worshippers think that there must be a continuance of the old form in order for the Society to have an international character.

 

But the real unity and prevalence, and the real internationalism, do not consist in having a single organization. They are found in the similarity of aim, of aspiration, of purpose, of teaching, of ethics. Freemasonry – a great and important part of the true Theosophical Movement – is universally international; and yet its organizations are numerous, autonomous, sovereign, independent

 

 The Grand Lodge of the state of New York, including its different Lodges, is independent of all others in any state, yet every member is a Mason and all are working on a single plan. Freemasons over all the world belong to the great International Masonic Body, yet they have everywhere their free and independent government.

 

 

When the Theosophical Society was young and small, it was necessary that it should have but one government for the whole of it. But now that it has grown wide and strong, having spread among nations so different from each other as the American, the English, the Spanish, the Swedish and others in Europe, and the Hindu, it is essential that a change in the outward form be made.

 

This is that it becomes like the Freemasons – independent in government wherever the geographical or national conditions indicate that necessity. And that this will be done in time, no matter what certain persons may say to the contrary, there is not the slightest doubt.

 

The American Group, being by geographical and other conditions outwardly separate, began the change so as to be in government free and independent, but in basis, aspiration, aim and work united with all true Theosophists.

 

We have not changed the work of H.P.B.; we have enlarged it. We assert that any person who has been admitted to any Theosophical Society should be received everywhere among Theosophists, just as Masons are received among Masons.

 

It is untheosophical to denounce the change made by the American Group; it is not Theosophy nor conducive to its spread to make legal claims to theosophical names, symbols and seals so as to prevent if possible others from using them. Everyone should be invited to use our theosophical property as freely as he wishes.

 

Those who desire to keep up H.P.B.’s war against dogmatism will applaud and encourage the American movement because their liberated minds permit; but those who do not know true Theosophy, nor see the difference between forms and the soul of things, will continue to worship Form and to sacrifice Brotherhood to a shell.

 

 

 

 

Note

 

* “The Theosophical Society of over one hundred years ago”. This is a reference to the theosophical movement of seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, since the present article was written in 1895.

 

This article was later compiled in William Q. Judge's “Theosophical Articles,” published by the Theosophy Company of Los Angeles in 1980, vol. II, p.124-126.

 

 

 

 

 

OBSERVATION

 

I agree with what William Judge wrote, but to avoid confusion I prefer to say that the theosophical movement (that is, the efforts made to spread theosophical teachings) is incorporated within a larger movement which is the movement for the progress of humanity (and that is what William Judge calls “The Theosophical Movement”).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT DID THINK KRISHNAMURTI ABOUT OSHO?

 

 

The researcher Galaxio, who has studied Krishnamurti extensively, commented on this matter as follows:

 

« I remember that Osho's followers used to say that there were only two masters in the world: Osho and Krishnamurti. Osho himself said this, because before becoming a guru, he had been a reader of Krishnamurti, and in fact, he is one of the first and foremost thieves of Krishnamurti's teachings.

 

But Krishnamurti had a different opinion of Osho; first, he went through various classifications of him as a false teacher and ended up calling him "evil."

 

When Osho heard of Krishnamurti's rejection, he probably flew into a rage and began to speak disparagingly of Krishnamurti. »

(Link)

 

 

 

 

It would have been good if Galaxio had provided the references so that they could be transcribed verbatim, but that Krishnamurti felt an enormous repudiation towards Osho has been corroborated by Hugh Milne, who was Osho's bodyguard, and who in his book "Bhagwan, the god who failed" recounted the following anecdote:

 

 

« During the month I spent working in Zurich I met Deeksha (a former disciple of Osho) who in her distress she had sought out Krishnamurti, the only person whom Bhagwan recognized as an equal. 

 

(Cid's note: Before the scandal he caused in the United States and which forced him to leave that country, Osho called himself Bhagwan, which in India is one of the names used to designate God.)

 

Krishnamurti had no time for Bhagwan and was particularly opposed to the use of the word Bhagwan (God).

 

“No one but God Himself should use that title,” Deeksha claimed Krishnamurti told her.

 

And also that Krishnamurti added:

 

“I've received hundreds of letters from all over the world asking why I don't speak out publicly against this man, but I will not, as it is not my way.

 

However, I reveal to you that this man is a criminal. You must understand this very clearly. What he is doing to people in the name of spirituality is a crime. Because no one should surrender to another human being, and besides, he is simply a human being.

 

The main manifestation of consciousness in a human is his ability to make decisions for himself.

 

You made a big mistake by giving that man so much power for twelve years, but understand this: no man has power except the power his followers give him, and that's why he needs people around him all the time, and the more the better, according to him.

. . .

When Krishnamurti called Bhagwan a criminal, I suspected that he did not mean disobedience of civil laws, but rather misuse of psychic and hypnotic powers. »

(Caliban Books, London 1986, p.275-276)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OBSERVATION

 

From everything I have studied about Jiddu Krishnamurti, I get the impression that Krishnamurti did indeed express this opinion, and I fully agree with what he said. And I also agree with Hugh Milne when he considers that Krishnamurti accused Osho of being a criminal because of the psychic, emotional, and mental manipulation that he exerted on his followers.