Radha Burnier – India
[Recognizing regeneration as the kernel of all Theosophical work, the International Theosophical Centre at Naarden, the Netherlands, jointly with the Federation of Theosophical Societies in Europe, organized two seminars in July 1990, with a number of office bearers, workers and members of the Society from different countries as participants. Proceedings of the seminar were published as a book under the title Human Regeneration: Lectures and Discussion (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij der Theosofische Vereniging in Nederland, 1990). This chapter (discussions) is here slightly revised.]
Radha Burnier
In ‘Practical Occultism’, HPB writes of some basic ideas of Theosophy. The second article is on ‘Occultism versus the Occult Arts’. The occult arts are sometimes confused with Theosophy. Could we go into this problem?
RB: The occult arts are basically concerned with the siddhis. The Hindu books have classified them, for the people of India, Tibet and some of the oriental nations are very fond of classifying everything. The siddhis include the ability to become very small or large, very light or heavy, control over others, clairvoyance and so on. The word ‘siddhi’means basically: perfection, accomplishment. If you use the plural, siddhis, it means all these things. It can also be used in the singular to mean attainment, attainment of perfection. A Siddha is a perfected man; it is then a synonym for Mahatma or Mukta, a liberated man. Thus the word 'siddhi' refers to spiritual realization. Now let us go back to occultism and the occult arts.
RH: Occultism is the knowledge of all that is not perceptible to the usual physical senses. It is the perception of the realities of a subtler world than the physical. As for occult arts, you have to consider every art separately.
EA: Perhaps it is the difference between self-centered action and action which is not self-centered.
IH: Occultism is the science of the hidden side of Nature. What we perceive is very, very little of the totality of Nature and so treading the occult path is the pursuit of the reality that lies beyond the superficial form or the forms which our senses and our everyday mind are able to perceive. The simplest definition of occultism is: The science of the hidden side of nature.
With regard to the occult arts, I would refer you to HPB's essay on occultism and the occult arts. The term ‘occult arts’ is usually applied to the use, or the abuse, of power for selfish ends. It does not mean that one has to use it like that, but that is how the word ‘occultism’ in the West has taken a pejorative meaning. It has a bad flavor, a bad connotation. Occultism is often confused with occult arts. It is neither good nor bad; it is the science of the unseen. Just as with the study of the seen side of nature, e.g. chemistry, once you have discovered the of a chemical, you can use it to poison people or heal them. Occultism is neutral; it is the science of the hidden side. What you do with results of your study can be either good or bad, helpful or harmful to humanity.
RB: Would you explain why HPB used the phrase ‘the great renunciation of the self’ in connection with this?
IH: I can tell you something about that, because of the way in which the word ‘self’ is written. You have 'self' written in small letters, you have ‘Self’ written with a capital S, and you have ‘SELF’ written with four capital letters. What is the self that has to be renounced? At the beginning of the Path, where most of us are, we have to renounce the small self. At a later stage on the Path, we have to renounce even what we like to call the higher Self, because we have to lose all sense of separateness at every level. So there must be a renunciation also of that, otherwise we cling to the thought that, when the universe is wound up and put away at the end of time or the end of its cycle, somewhere there will be a little spark of light which is ‘me.’ As long as that remains we are making a terrible mistake, it is only a temporary construction. It may last a great many millennia but, at the very end, that also must go.
RB: There is a series of questions about the Masters. We shall take the whole lot together.
RB: There is a statement of HPB's (which you can find in TheCollected Writings) to the effect that those who say that they want to see the Masters do not know what they mean. And she said if it is the body of the Master people want to see, it is a mere shell or mask they ask for. Even our bodies are part of the personality, which is a mask. When we see each other's physical features, we do not see the real inner being. We do not know a person by knowing his appearance. That is even truer of the Masters. HPB mentions the Master is essentially his higher principles. His consciousness is everywhere, unlimited by space. If we merely see physical forms, we miss the real Master. We may see a dignified form, but the essential would be missed. It is 'like seeing a flower, and not responding to the beauty of the flower, but only seeing something material. This has no particular significance.
It is true that in the outer work of the T.S. the Masters are seldom spoken about. Belief in the Masters is not a condition for T.S. membership. So the Masters are not officially proclaimed by the Society. The only thing that the Society stands for are its objects.
It is important to realize that the state of consciousness, the inner being which is the real Master, is very holy. When we feel the sacredness, we cannot purvey it, talk much about it. If a person feels a certain sense of sacredness in relationship with anyone, wife or husband or somebody else, he does not like to wear his feelings on his sleeve, and tell everybody what he feels. Even at that level, it would not be right. But the Master is very sacred, and not to be talked about and advertised. One can speak generally about the evolutionary process which does not stop at the stage of man as he is today. There is the future possibility of becoming a liberated man. Certain people are ahead of us, examples can be found in certain historical figures, like the Buddha. But I feel that we should not speak of the Masters freely, and cheapen the whole thing. Then we miss the essence, and the possibility of really understanding that stage of progress when all that is crude and selfish in the human being has been totally left behind and there is a new flowering, the truly regenerated person.
A further question is: Are they sources of mew? Of course! That state of pure consciousness is one of high energy. But it is not of the kind we know. Compassion, love that is utterly selfless, universal, impartial, abundantly pouring itself forth, wisdom that is all-seeing – it is all energy. There is nothing more powerful than that. So the enlightened person, the Master is a source of wonderful energy.
I do not quite understand this question: The Masters are seldom spoken of, and if so, mostly through the Leadbeater-Hodson tradition, devotional testimonial... If at all we know what they are, how can we think of them in any way except with devotion and aspiration? If we think of a Master only as riding a horse or living in Tibet, it is image-making, and we miss the real quality. But if we obtain a sense of the quality of a perfect consciousness – wisdom, compassion, spotless purity, peace – the qualities which are those of the pure consciousness, what can we do except aspire towards it? I don't understand what other approach there is.
CB: The main approach to this, the question of the Masters who play a great role in the history of the T.S., is that of trying to understand the level of consciousness from which they function. We can do that in different ways, trying to understand what is compassion, what is love, what is real understanding. There is one book which cart help us, and that is Light on the Path. It starts with four sentences, one of them being: ‘Before the voice can speak in the presence of the Master, it must have lost the power to wound.’ If we can go into this and understand what is the state of consciousness which never wounds, we shall touch something of the state of consciousness which the Masters represent. I think that is the main way to understand what they represent and to approach this whole question.
RB: I wonder if there has not been too much talk about the Masters in the T.S. and too little about the Path and how to tread it. Apart from Light on the Path, we can get glimpses of the higher consciousness which is that of the Masters by reading The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett and Letters from the Mastersof Wisdom. There is Clara Codd’s Theosophy as the Masters See It which may be helpful. From such books we can glimpse their ideas, how they think, and what they consider to be the Path. It is much more worthwhile to ty and follow that way than talk about them. HPB said to her pupils to reverence them in their hearts and rise in aspiration towards them, because that is the only way of contacting them. We cannot bring them down to our level. One of them wrote in a letter that affinity alone can put a person in touch with them. How can we attune ourselves, like the strings of a musical instrument which respond when finely tuned? In the T.S. we should emphasize more the way of living which will open communication with the spiritual dimension of being and less the personalities of Masters, how they look, what they do, etc.
AR: If we want to study the deeper significance of the T.S., we come to the words of the Masters. We can let those words speak to us and then we ourselves are responsible. We are the researchers, and we are the seekers after truth. Truth at a certain moment transcends words and I think if we work in the spirit of the Masters, we may even transcend the Masters. They are not concerned about themselves and we think too much, not only of the Masters as personalities, but also of ourselves as personalities. But we should try more and more to focus on the subject. Two years ago Ianthe Hoskins gave us a short course, where she gave a guideline: Take simple keywords and proceed in your own way, and try to develop deeply your own way of study.
To be continued