THE OATH IN THEOSOPHY
One of the things for which secret societies, especially Freemasonry, are most often reproached, is that they compel their members to take an oath the nature of which varies, as also the extent of the obligations it imposes; it is in most cases an oath of silence, to which is sometimes joined an oath of obedience to the orders of leaders both known and unknown. The oath of silence may itself concern the means of recognition and the special ceremonial used in the association, or even its very existence, its mode of organization, or the names of its members; more often it applies to what is said and done, to the activities it is engaged in and to the teachings received there in one form or another. Sometimes there are also pledges of another kind, such as the promise to conform to a certain rule of conduct, which can, with good reason, appear abusive when it assumes the form of a solemn oath. We do not intend here to enter into even the least discussion of what can be said for or against the use of oaths, especially the oath of silence; the only thing that interests us at present is that if this is a subject of reproach valid against Masonry and other more or less secret societies-if not against all those which have this character-it is also valid against the Theosophical Society. This, it is true, is not a secret society in the full sense of the word, for it has never made a mystery of its existence and most of its members do not conceal their affiliation; but this is only one side of the question, and it would be necessary above all to agree on the different meanings to which the expression 'secret society' is susceptible, which is not especially easy judging by all the controversies revolving around this simple matter of definition.
Most often people make the mistake of taking too summary a view of things; they think exclusively of the characteristics of certain organizations, they use these to form a definition, and they then want to apply this definition to other organizations that have very different characters. However that may be, we shall accept here as more or less sufficient for the case that occupies us, the opinion that a secret society is not necessarily a society that conceals its existence or that of its members, but is above all a society that has secrets, whatever their nature. If this is the case, the Theosophical Society may be regarded as a secret society, since its division into an 'exoteric section' and an 'esoteric section' already offers sufficient proof. Of course, in speaking here of 'secrets' we do not mean signs of recognition-abolished today, as we said-but teachings reserved strictly for members, or even for some of them to the exclusion of others, and for which the oath of silence is required; in Theosophy, these teachings seem to be above all those relating to 'psychic development', since that is the essential aim of its 'esoteric section'.
There is no doubt that in the Theosophical Society there are the oaths of the different kinds that we have noted, for on this point we have the formal testimony of Mme Blavatsky herself; here in fact is what she says:
We have, strictly speaking, no right to refuse admission to anyone-especially in the Esoteric Section of the Society, wherein 'he who enters there is as one newly born.' But if any member, his sacred pledges on his word of honour and his immortal Self notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after that 'new birth', with the new man, the vices or defects of his old life and to indulge in them still in the Society, then, of course, he is more than likely to be asked to resign and withdraw; or, in the case of his refusal, he will be expelled. [1]
Here it is a question of the pledge to adopt a certain rule of life, and it is not exclusively in the 'esoteric section' that such a pledge is required: 'Even in some exoteric public branches the members pledge themselves on their "Higher Self" to live the life prescribed
by Theosophy.'[2^] In such conditions, it will always be possible, when one wants to be rid of a troublesome member, to declare that his conduct is not 'theosophical'; moreover, among faults of this kind are expressly listed any criticism that a member dares to make of the Society and its leaders, and it seems moreover that its effects must be particularly terrible in future existences. Leadbeater writes:
I have noted that some people, having shown at a given moment the greatest dedication to our President [Mrs Besant], have now changed their attitude completely and begin to criticize and slander her. This is a wicked deed of which the karma will be much worse than it would be if it were a matter of a person to whom they owed nothing. I do not wish to say that one does not have the right to change one's opinion.... But if, after having separated from our President, one starts to attack her and to spread scandalous calumny about her, as many people have done, then one commits a very serious error and one's karma will be extremely heavy. It is always serious to be vindictive and untruthful, but when applied to the one who has offered you the cup of life [sic], these faults become a crime whose effects are fearful. [3]
In order to form an idea of these effects, one need only refer to the two preceding pages, where one reads:
We discovered that the ignorant populace that tortured Hypatia in Alexandria reincarnated for the most part in Armenia, where the Turks submitted them to all kinds of cruelty. [4]
And since Mrs Besant claims precisely to be Hypatia reincarnated, the comparison is inevitable; and, given the mentality of the Theosophists, it is easy to understand that threats such as this must have some efficacy. But really, was it worth the trouble, in order to maintain this, to vehemently denounce the religions which,
from the point of view of religious speculation . . . find nothing more important or more highly practical than conjectures as to the attributes and probable intentions of the personal, terrible Jehovah, pictured as an omnipotent tribunal into whose presence the soul at its death is to be introduced for judgment? [5]
If it is not a 'personal God', it is 'karma' which is charged with safeguarding the interests of the Theosophical Society, and avenging the wrongs done to its leaders!
Let us return to Mme Blavatsky's statements, and see now what is meant by the oath of silence:
As regards the inner section, now called the Esoteric, the following rule has been laid down and adopted, so far back as 1880 : 'No Fellow shall put to his selfish use any knowledge communicated to him by any member of the first section (now a higher "degree"); violation of the rule being punished by expulsion.' Now, however, before any such knowledge can be imparted, the applicant has to bind himself by a solemn oath not to use it for selfish purposes, nor to reveal anything said except by permission. [6]
Elsewhere it speaks of these teachings that must be kept secret:
But though we do give out to the world as much as is lawful, even in our doctrine [there is] more than one important detail which those who study the esoteric philosophy and are pledged to silence are alone entitled to know [it is Mme Blavatsky herself who emphasizes the last words]. [7]
And in another passage allusion is made to a mystery
directly connected with the power of projecting one's double [or astral body] consciously and at will . . . which is never given to anyone, with the exception of irrevocably pledged chelas, or those, at any rate, who can be safely trusted. [8]
Mme Blavatsky especially insists on the obligation to always observe this oath of silence, an obligation that remains even for people who, voluntarily or not, have ceased to belong to the Society; she poses the question in these terms: 'is a man expelled or forced to retire from this section free to reveal things which have been taught him or to break one or the other clause of the oath that he has taken?' And she replies:
His expulsion or resignation only relieves him from the obligation of obedience to the teacher, and from that of taking an active part in the work of the Society, but surely not from the sacred pledge of secrecy.... To any man or woman having the slightest honourable feeling a pledge of secrecy taken even on one's word of honour, much more to one's Higher Self'-the God within-is binding till death. And though he may leave the Section and the Society, no man or woman of honour will think of attacking or injuring a body to which he or she has been so pledged. [9]
She concludes with this citation from a Theosophist journal, where the threat of 'karmic' vengeance is again expressed:
An oath once taken is irrevocable, both in the moral and the occult world. Having violated it once and having been punished, we are not however justified in violating it again; for as long as we do so, the powerful lever of the law [of karma] will again fall upon us. [10]
We also see through these texts that the oath of silence taken in the 'esoteric section' doubles as an oath of obedience to Theosophist 'teachers'; this obedience must go very far, for there are examples of members who when ordered to surrender a good part of their fortune in favor of the Society did so without hesitation. The pledges just spoken about exist still, as does the 'esoteric section' itself, [11]
which as we said adopted the name 'Eastern Theosophical School', and which would not be able to survive in other conditions. It even appears that members who want to pass to the higher grades are obliged to make a sort of general confession in which they express in writing the state of their 'karma', that is, an assessment of what is good and bad in their own existence. The Society thinks thereby to control them, just as Mme Blavatsky thought to control them by the signatures she made them append to records of her 'phenomena'. Furthermore, the habit of accepting orders from the directorship without ever discussing them sometimes produces truly extraordinary results; here is a typical case: in 1911 a congress was to have taken place in Geneva, and a large number of Theosophists traveled there, some coming from very far away; now, on the day before the meeting everything was cancelled without it being thought fitting to give any reason, and everyone returned as he had come, without protest and without asking for explanations, so much is it true that in such a milieu any independence is entirely abolished.
Before leaving the Theosophical Society, which I feel should be completely reorganized or else disappear, I am obliged to warn those who thirst after 'Universal Brotherhood' that they will find there only hate, personal ambition, slander, feminine title-tattle (ohl those gossips! for the feminine element dominates), national jealousies (the English especially believing themselves superior to the rest of the Theosophists), etc., etc. All these pleasantries stem from the 'esoteric sections' into which the naive are introduced, who believe they can learn there something other than can be read in current books of science and in that other book that is found everywhere-Nature. These 'esoteric sections', whose members swear passive allegiance to the sovereign, stir up misunderstanding and trouble, being allowed to play at the occult sciences with some success; but what is most regrettable is the tarnishing of the reputation of a person who, being followed by an invisible enemy, can no longer defend herself, especially if she loves full daylight. I have said enough about this and hope that the serious-minded members of the Theosophical Society will put it in order (Le Lotus, March 1889, p711).