A Protest against “Condoning.”
Sir,—Having read the revelations your correspondent has been pleased to give to the public, and presuming them to be correct, it seems to me that there are now three parties at fault in place of two as I had supposed, viz., Mr. Judge for imposing (whether consciously as a deceiver or unconsciously) as a medium obsessed by a spirit of ambition and the communicator of the facts (if a member of the inner circle) for breaking his solemn pledge not to reveal or betray the affairs of that circle. The recent correspondence now adds others as condoning the offence of Mr. Judge—and all this has come from the love of pre-eminence and the mere dabbling (child’s play) with the occult. Clearly, if the offence was proved, the officers of the society were bound in truth and honour to expel the offender, and all would then have been clear and straight. My advice to the society would be to stick to their programme, which is a highly laudable one, and let no word from an invisible and unknown be taken as of any external value, but judged only by its internal worth.
The society, it seems to me, can no longer pretend to condemn the communication with Spirits as a dangerous thing, nor cry out against the occasional frauds of mediums, in conscious or unconscious state, seeing how heavily they have fallen into the same snare, nor can they point the finger to frauds or delusions in other bodies whether Catholic or non-Catholic. A greater strictness and more uniform abstinence from flesh-eating and tobacco, as well as alcohol (which last they eschew) should be enjoined on all its members by their authorised officers, and their own three objects steadily pursued—separating from the third all spurious imitations of magical wonders; and, above all, the spirit of truth which accepts nothing on this or that authority without careful verification should be cultivated. A want of bravery to do the right, to tell the truth, and face the consequences, is the only thing that can be laid to the charge of the presiding officers of the Indian and English sections. Are all societies and Churches free from this? Has not a natural tenderness from long friendship, and sympathy in noble and useful work, been often the cause of much to be deplored? And in this instance, is not such over-tenderness of noble, unsuspicious, and honourable souls, worthy rather of regret than of too severe censure.—Yours,
A Theosophist.
“Abandon the T.S. in Disgust.”
Sir,—I see Mr. Mead is reported as saying that “what the articles [in The Westminster Gazette] would do, if they did anything, was to sift the society of those who had simply joined for the sake of the marvellous.”
This remark shows the same utter oblivion of the appreciation of truth that has unhappily shown itself in the society’s record before. It is not a question of phenomena; it is one of good faith; and if this is the line taken, not the phenomena-hunters merely, but seekers for truth and respecters of it, who expected to find it in the Theosophical Society, will abandon that body in disgust.
Mr. Mead continues:—“Theosophists could no more divulge secrets without violating every sense of honour than a Mason could.”
To compare the Theosophical Society, as at present constituted, with an honourable body like the Masons, is an insult to the latter, goose-guzzling and luxuriant as they may have tended to become in these latter days.
There is a profound difference between hiding secrets, which are entrusted to one, and which concern certain (perhaps) important facts in the nature of man, and taking part in proceedings to gull a number of fellow-students and the outside public. This is practically what has been done before, and the dissatisfied either disappeared altogether or were well howled at as traitors to “the cause,” whereas, in verity, they were doing their best for the disowned cause of truth; or, again, they were coerced by the solemn warning of “your pledge, take care of your pledge,” and thereby intimidated from seeing that they were making themselves parties to a continuous misrepresentation of facts and a deliberate fraud upon their less-informed fellow-members, not to mention the public. “What have our troubles to do with the public?” has been the question. I reply, “Everything,” for it is to the public that constant appeal is made and amongst its ranks that proselytes are sought.