No doubt but ye are
the people and wisdom
shall die with you.
JOB xii. 2.
But wisdom is justified of her children.
MATTHEW xi. 19.
IT is the privilege--as
also occasionally the curse--of editors to receive
numerous letters of advice, and the conductors
of Lucifer have not escaped the common
lot. Reared in the aphorisms of the ages they
are aware that "he who can take advice is
superior to him who gives it," and are therefore
ready to accept with gratitude any sound and practical
suggestions offered by friends; but the last letter
received does not fulfill the condition. It is
not even his own wisdom, but that of the age we
live in, which is asserted by our adviser, who
thus seriously risks his reputation for keen observation
by such acts of devotion on the altar of modern
pretensions. It is in defense of the "wisdom"
of our century that we are taken to task, and
charged with "preferring barbarous antiquity
to our modern civilization and its inestimable
boons," with forgetting that "our own-day
wisdom compared with the awakening instincts of
the Past is in no way inferior in philosophic
wisdom even to the age of Plato." We
are lastly told that we, Theosophists, are "too
fond of the dim yesterday, and as unjust to our
glorious (?) present-day, the bright noon-hour
of the highest civilization and culture"!
!
Well, all this is a question of taste. Our correspondent
is welcome to his own views, but so are we to
ours. Let him imagine that the Eiffel Tower dwarfs
the Pyramid of Ghizeh into a mole-hill, and the
Crystal Palace grounds transform the hanging gardens
of Semiramis into a kitchen-garden--if he likes.
But if we are seriously "challenged"
by him to show "in what respect our age of
hourly progress and gigantic thought"--a
progress a trifle marred, however, by our Huxleys
being denounced by our Surgeons, and the University
ladies, senior classics and wranglers, by the
"hallelujah lasses"--is inferior to
the ages of, say, a hen-pecked "Socrates
and a cross-legged Buddha," then we will
answer him, giving him, of course, our own personal
opinion.
Our age, we say, is inferior in Wisdom to any
other, because it professes, more visibly every
day, contempt for truth and justice, without
which there can be no Wisdom. Because our
civilization, built up of shams and appearances,
is at best like a beautiful green morass, a bog,
spread over a deadly quagmire. Because this century
of culture and worship of matter, while offering
prizes and premiums for every "best thing"
under the Sun, from the biggest baby and the largest
orchid down to the strongest pugilist and the
fattest pig, has no encouragement to offer to
morality; no prize to give for any moral virtue.
Because it has Societies for the prevention of
physical cruelty to animals, and none with the
object of preventing the moral cruelty practiced
on human beings. Because it encourages, legally
and tacitly, vice under every form, from the sale
of whiskey down to forced prostitution and theft
brought on by starvation wages, Shylock-like exaction,
rents and other comforts of our cultured period.
Because, finally, this is the age which, although
proclaimed as one of physical and moral freedom,
is in truth the age of the most ferocious moral
and mental slavery, the like of which was never
known before. Slavery to State and men has
disappeared only to make room for slavery to things
and Self, to one's own vices and idiotic
social customs and ways. Rapid civilization, adapted
to the needs of the higher and middle classes,
has doomed by contrast to only greater wretchedness
the starving masses. Having leveled the two former
it has made them the more to disregard the substance
in favor of form and appearance, thus forcing
modern man into duress vile, a slavish dependence
on things inanimate, to use and to serve which
is the first bounded duty of every cultured
man.
Where then is the Wisdom of our modern age?
In truth, it requires but a very few lines to
show why we bow before ancient Wisdom, while refusing
absolutely to see any in our modem civilization.
But to begin with, what does our critic mean by
the word "wisdom"? Though we have never
too unreasonably admired Lactantius, yet we must
recognize that even that innocent Church Father,
with all his cutting insults anent the heliocentric
system, defined the term very correctly when saying
that "the first point of Wisdom is to discern
that which is false, and the second, to know that
which is true." And if so. what chance is
there for our century of falsification, from the
revised Bible texts down to natural butter, to
put forth a claim to "Wisdom"? But before
we cross lances on this subject we may do well,
perchance, to define the term ourselves.
Let us premise by saying that Wisdom is, at
best, an elastic word --at any rate as used in
European tongues. That it yields no clear idea
of its meaning, unless preceded or followed by
some qualifying adjective. In the Bible, indeed,
the Hebrew equivalent Chokmah (in Greek,
Sophia) is applied to the most dissimilar
things--abstract and concrete. Thus we find "Wisdom"
as the characteristic both of divine inspiration
and also of terrestrial cunning and craft; as
meaning the Secret Knowledge of the Esoteric Sciences,
and also blind faith; the "fear of the Lord,"
and Pharaoh's magicians. The noun is indifferently
applied to Christ and to sorcery, for the witch
Sedecla is also referred to as the "wise
woman of En-Dor." From the earliest Christian
antiquity, beginning with St. James (iii, 13-17),
down to the last Calvinist preacher, who sees
in hell and eternal damnation a proof of "the
Almighty's wisdom," the term has been
used with the most varied meanings. But St. James
teaches two kinds of wisdom; a teaching with which
we fully concur. He draws a strong line of separation
between the divine or noëtic "Sophia"--the
Wisdom from above--and the terrestrial, psychic,
and devilish wisdom (iii, 15). For the true Theosophist
there is no wisdom save the former. Would that
such an one could declare with Paul, that he speaks
that wisdom exclusively only among them "that
are perfect," i.e., those initiated
into its mysteries, or familiar, at least, with
the A B C of the sacred sciences. But, however
great was his mistake, however premature his attempt
to sow the seeds of the true and eternal gnosis
on unprepared soil, his motives were yet good
and his intention unselfish, and therefore
has he been stoned. For had he only attempted
to preach some particular fiction of his own,
or done it for gain, who would have ever singled
him out or tried to crush him, amid the hundreds
of other false sects, daily "collections"
and crazy "societies"? But his case
was different. However cautiously, still he spoke
"not the wisdom of this world" but truth
or the "hidden wisdom . . . which none
of the Princes of this World know (I Corinth.
ii.) least of all the archons of our modern
science. With regard to "psychic" wisdom,
however, which James defines as terrestrial and
devilish, it has existed in all ages, from the
days of Pythagoras and Plato, when for one philosophus
there were nine sophistae, down to
our modern era. To such wisdom our century is
welcome, and indeed fully entitled, to lay a claim.
Moreover, it is an attire easy to put on; there
never was a period when crows refused to array
themselves in peacock's feathers, I if the opportunity
was offered.
But now as then, we have a right to analyze
the terms used and inquire in the words of the
book of Job, that suggestive allegory of Karmic
purification and initiation rites: "Where
shall (true) wisdom be found? Where is the place
of understanding?" and to answer again in
his words: "With the ancient is wisdom
and in the length of days understanding"
(Job xxviii, 12 and xii, 12) .
Here we have to qualify once more a dubious
term, viz: the word "ancient," and to
explain it. As interpreted by the orthodox churches,
it has in the mouth of Job one meaning; but with
the Kabalist, quite another; while in the Gnosis
of the Occultist and Theosophist it has distinctly
a third signification, the same which it had in
the original Book of Job, a pre-Mosaic
work and a recognized treatise on Initiation.
Thus, the Kabalist applies the adjective "ancient"
to the Manifested WORD or
LOGOS (Dabar) of the
forever concealed and uncognizable deity. Daniel,
in one of his visions, also uses it when speaking
of Jahve--the androgynous Adam Kadmon. The Church
man connects it with his anthropomorphic Jehovah,
the "Lord God" of the translated
Bible. But the Eastern Occultist employs the
mystic term only when referring to the reincarnating
higher Ego. For, divine Wisdom being diffused
throughout the infinite Universe, and our impersonal
HIGHER SELF being an integral part of it, the atmic light of the
latter can be centered only in that which though
eternal is still individualized--i.e., the
noëtic Principle, the manifested God within
each rational being, or our Higher Manas at
one with Buddhi. It is this collective
light which is the "Wisdom that is from above,"
and which whenever it descends on the personal
Ego, is found "pure, peaceable, gentle."
Hence, Job's assertion that "Wisdom is with
the Ancient," or Buddhi-Manas. For
the Divine Spiritual "I," is alone eternal,
and the same throughout all births; whereas5
the "personalities" it informs in succession
are evanescent, changing like the shadows of a
kaleidoscopic series of forms in a magic lantern
It is the "Ancient," because, whether
it be called Sophia, Krishna, Buddhi-Manas or
Christos, it is ever the "first-born"
of Alaya-Mahat, the Universal Soul and
the Intelligence of the Universe. Esoterically
then, Job's statement must read: "With the
Ancient (man's Higher Ego) is Wisdom, and in the
length of days (or number of its re-incarnations)
is understanding." No man can learn true
and final Wisdom in one birth; and every new rebirth,
whether we be reincarnated for weal or for woe,
is one more lesson we receive at the hands of
the stern yet ever just schoolmaster-- KARMIC
LIFE.
But the world--the Western world, at any rate--knows
nothing of this, and refuses to learn anything.
For it, any notion of the Divine Ego or the plurality
of its births is "heathen foolishness."
The Western world rejects these truths, and will
recognize no wise men except those of its
own making, created in its own image, born within
its own Christian era and teachings. The only
"wisdom" it understands and practices
is the psychic, the "terrestrial and devilish"
wisdom spoken of by James, thus making of the
real Wisdom a misnomer and a degradation.
Yet, without considering her multiplied varieties,
there are two kinds of even "terrestrial"
wisdom on our globe of mud--the real and the apparent.
Between the two, there is even for the superficial
observer of this busy wicked world, a wide chasm,
and yet how very few people will consent to see
it! The reason for this is quite natural. So strong
is human selfishness, that wherever there is the
smallest personal interest at stake, there men
become deaf and blind to the truth, as often consciously
as not. Nor are many people capable of recognizing
as speedily as is advisable the difference between
men who are wise and those who only seem wise,
the latter being chiefly regarded as such because
they are very clever at blowing their own trumpet.
So much for "wisdom" in the profane
world.
As to the world of the students in mystic lore,
it is almost worse. Things have strangely altered
since the days of antiquity, when the truly wise
made it their first duty to conceal their knowledge,
deeming it too sacred to even mention before the
hoi polloi. While the mediæval Rosecroix,
the true philosopher, keeping old Socrates
in mind, repeated daily that all he knew was that
he knew nothing, his modern self-styled successor
announces in our day, through press and public,
that those mysteries in Nature and her Occult
laws of which he knows nothing, have never existed
at all. There was a time when the acquirement
of Divine Wisdom (Sapientia) required the
sacrifice and devotion of a man's whole life.
It depended on such things as the purity of the
candidate's motives, on his fearlessness and independence
of spirit; but now, to receive a patent for wisdom
and adept-ship requires only unblushing impudence.
A certificate of divine wisdom is now decreed,
and delivered to a self-styled "Adeptus"
by a regular majority of votes of profane
and easily caught gulls, while a host of magpies
driven away from the roof of the Temple of Science
will herald it to the world in every marketplace
and fair. Tell the public that now, even as of
old, the genuine and sincere observer of life
and its underlying phenomena, the intelligent
co-worker with nature, may, by becoming an expert
in her mysteries thereby become a "wise"
man, in the terrestrial sense of the word, but
that never will a materialist wrench from
nature any secret on a higher plane--and you will
be laughed to scorn. Add, that no "wisdom
from above" descends on any one save on the
sine quâ non condition of leaving
at the threshold of the Occult every atom of selfishness,
or desire for personal ends and benefit--and you
will be speedily declared by your audience a candidate
for the lunatic asylum. Nevertheless, this is
an old, very old truism. Nature gives up her innermost
secrets and imparts true wisdom only to
him, who seeks truth for its own sake, and who
craves for knowledge in order to confer benefits
on others, not on his own unimportant personality.
And, as it is precisely to this personal benefit
that nearly every candidate for adept-ship
and magic looks, and that few are they, who consent
to learn at such a heavy price and so small a
benefit for themselves in prospect--the really
wise Occultists become with every century
fewer and rarer. How many are there, indeed, who
would not prefer the will-o'-the-wisp of even
passing fame to the steady and ever-growing light
of eternal, divine knowledge, if the latter
has to remain, for all but oneself--a light under
the bushel?
The same is the case in the world of materialistic
science, where we see a great paucity of really
learned men and a host of skin-deep scientists,
who yet demand each and all to be regarded as
Archimedes and Newtons. As above so below. Scholars
who pursue knowledge for the sake of truth and
fact, and give these out, however unpalatable,
and not for the dubious glory of enforcing on
the world their respective personal hobbies--may
be counted on the fingers of one hand: while legion
is the name of the pretenders. In our day, reputations
for learning seem to be built by suggestion on
the hypnotic principle, rather than by real merit.
The masses cower before him who imposes himself
upon them: hence such a galaxy of men regarded
as eminent in science, arts and literature; and
if they are so easily accepted, it is precisely
because of the gigantic self-opinionated and self-assertion
of, at any rate, the majority of them. Once thoroughly
analyzed, however, how many of such would remain
who truly deserve the appellation of "wise"
even in terrestrial wisdom? How many, we ask,
of the so-called authorities" and "leaders
of men" would prove much better than those
of whom it was said--by one "wise" indeed--"they
be blind leaders of the blind"? That the
teachings of neither our modern teachers nor preachers
are "wisdom from above" is fully demonstrated.
It is proved not by any personal incorrectness
in their statements or mistakes in life, for "to
err is but human," but by incontrovertible
facts. Wisdom and Truth are synonymous
terms, and that which is false or well-known representative
of the Church of England, that the Sermon of
the Mount would, in its practical application,
mean utter ruin for his country less than three
weeks; and if it is no less
true, as asserted by a literary critic of science,
that "the knell of Charles Darwinism is rung
in Mr. A.R. Wallace's present book,"1
an event already predicted by Quatrefages--then
we are left to choose between two courses. We have
either to take both Theology and Science on blind
faith and trust; or, to proclaim both untrue and
untrustworthy there is however, a third course open:
to pretend that we believe in both at the same
time, and say nothing, as many do; but this
would be sinning against Theosophy and pandering
to the prejudices of Society--and that we refuse
to do. More than this: we declare openly, quand
mëme, that not one of the two, neither
Theologist nor Scientist, has the right in the face
of this to claim, the one that he preaches that
which is divine inspiration, and the other--exact
science; since the former enforces that, which is
on his own recognition, pernicious to men and states--i.e.
the ethics of Christ; and the other (in the person
of the eminent naturalist, Mr. A. R. Wallace, as
shown by Mr. Samuel Butler) teaches Darwinian evolution,
in which he believes no longer; a scheme, moreover,
which has never existed in nature, if the
opponents of Darwinism are correct.
Nevertheless, if anyone would presume to call
"unwise" or "false" the world-chosen
authorities, or declare their respective policies
dishonest, he would find himself promptly reduced
to silence. To doubt the exalted wisdom of the
religion of the late Cardinal Newman, of the Church
of England, or again of our great modern scientists,
is to sin against the Holy Ghost and Culture.
Woe unto him who refuses to recognize the World's
"Elect." He has to bow before one or
the other, though, if one is true, the
other must be false; and if the "wisdom"
of neither Bishop nor Scientist is "from
above"--which is pretty fairly demonstrated
by this time--then their "wisdom" is
at best--"terrestrial, psychic, devilish."
Now our readers have to bear in mind that note
of the above is meant as a sign of disrespect
for the true teachings of Christ, or true
science: nor do we judge personalities but
only the systems of our civilized world. Valuing
freedom of thought above all things as the only
way of reaching at some future time that
Wisdom, of which every Theosophist ought to be
enamored, we recognize the right to the same freedom
in our foes as in our friends. All we contend
for is their claim to Wisdom--as we understand
this term. Nor do we blame, but rather pity, in
our innermost heart, the "wise men"
of our age for trying to carry out the only policy
that will keep them on the pinnacle of their "authority";
as they could not, if even they would, act otherwise
and preserve their prestige with the masses,
or escape from being speedily outcast by their
colleagues. The party spirit is so strong with
regard to the old tracks and ruts, that to turn
on a side path means deliberate treachery to it.
Thus, to be regarded now-a-days as an authority
in some particular subject, the scientist has
to reject nolens volens the metaphysical,
and the theologian to show contempt for the materialistic
teachings. All this is worldly policy and practical
common sense, but it is not the Wisdom of
either Job or James.
Shall it be then regarded as too far fetched,
if, basing our words on a life-long observation
and experience, we venture to offer our ideas
as to the quickest and most efficient means of
obtaining our present World's universal respect
and becoming an "authority"? Show the
tender regard for the corns of every party's hobbies,
and offer yourself as the chief executioner, the
hangman, of the reputations of men and things
regarded as unpopular. Learn, that the great secret
of power consists in the art of pandering to popular
prejudices, to the World's likes and dislikes.
Once this principal condition complied with, he
who practices it is certain of attracting to himself
the educated and their satellites--the less educated--they
whose rule it is to place themselves invariably
on the safe side of public opinion. This will
lead to a perfect harmony or simultaneous action.
For, while the favorite attitude of the cultured
is to hide behind the intellectual bulwarks of
the favorite leaders of scientific thought, and
jurare in verba magistri, that of the less
cultured is to transform themselves into the faithful,
mechanical telephones of their superiors, and
to repeat like well-trained parrots the dicta
of their immediate leaders The now
aphoristical precept of Mr. Artemus Ward, the
showman of famous memory--"Scratch my back,
Mr. Editor, and I will scratch yours"--proves
immortally true. The "rising Star,"
whether he be a theologian, a politician,
an author, a scientist, or a journalist--has to
begin scratching the back of public tastes and
prejudices--a hypnotic method as old as human
vanity. Gradually the hypnotized masses begin
to purr, they are ready for "suggestion."
Suggest whatever you want them to believe, and
forthwith they will begin to return your caresses,
and purr now to your hobbies, and pander in their
turn to anything suggested by theologian, politician,
author, scientist, or journalist. Such is the
simple secret of blossoming into an "authority"
or a "leader of men"; and such is the
secret of our modern-day wisdom.
And this is also the "secret" and
the true reason of the unpopularity of
Lucifer and of the ostracism practiced
by this same modern world on the Theosophical
Society: for neither Lucifer, nor the Society
it belongs to, has ever followed Mr. Artemus Ward's
golden precept. No true Theosophist, in fact,
would consent to become the fetish of a fashionable
doctrine, any more than he would make himself
the slave of a decaying dead-letter system,
the spirit from which has disappeared for ever.
Neither would he pander to anyone or anything,
and therefore would always decline to show belief
in that in which he does not, nor can he believe,
which is lying to his own soul. Therefore there,
where others see "the beauty and graces of
modern culture," the Theosophist sees only
moral ugliness and the somersaults of the clowns
of the so-called cultured centres. For him nothing
applies better to modern fashionable society than
Sydney Smith's description of Popish ritualism:
"Posture and imposture, flections and genuflections,
bowing to the right, curtsying to the left, and
an immense amount of male (and especially female)
millinery." There may be, no doubt, for some
worldly minds, a great charm in modern civilization;
but for the Theosophist all its bounties can hardly
repay for the evils it has brought on the world.
These are so many, that it is not within the limits
of this article to enumerate these offspring of
culture and of the progress of physical science,
whose latest achievements begin with vivisection
and end in improved murder by electricity.
Our answer, we have no doubt, is not calculated
to make us more friends than enemies, but this
can be hardly helped. Our magazine may be looked
upon as "pessimistic," but no one can
charge it with publishing slanders or lies, or,
in fact, anything but that which we honestly
believe to be true. Be it as it may, however,
we hope never to lack moral courage in the expression
of our opinions or in defense of Theosophy and
its Society. Let then nine-tenths of every population
arise in arms against the Theosophical Society
wherever it appears--they will never be able to
suppress the truths it utters. Let the masses
of growing Materialism, the hosts of Spiritualism,
all the Church-going congregations, bigots and
iconoclasts, Grundy-worshippers, aping-followers
and blind disciples, let them slander, abuse,
lie, denounce, and publish every falsehood about
us under the sun-- they will not uproot Theosophy,
nor even upset her Society, if only its members
hold together. Let even such friends and advisers
as he who is now answered, turn away in disgust
from those whom he addresses in vain--it matters
not, for our two paths in life run diametrically
opposite. Let him keep to his "terrestrial"
wisdom: we will keep to that pure ray "that
comes from above," from the light of the
"Ancient."
What indeed, has WISDOM,
Theosophia--the Wisdom "full of
mercy and good fruits, without wrangling or
partiality and without hypocrisy" (James
iii, 17)--to do with our cruel, selfish, crafty,
and hypocritical world? What is there in
common between divine Sophia and the improvements
of modern civilization and science; between spirit
and the letter that killeth? The more so as at
this stage of evolution the wisest man
on earth, according to the wise Carlyle, is but
a clever infant spelling letters from a hieroglyphical,
prophetic book, the lexicon of which lies in eternity."
Lucifer, September, I890
_______________
1 See "The
Deadlock of Darwinism," by Samuel Butler,
in the Universal Review for April, 1890.
back to text
|
