30 CONCLUSION
In this study we have wished above all to provide a source of information and to gather for this purpose documentation whose elements up to now have been scattered everywhere; some of it has even been quite difficult of access for all who have not been favored in their research by rather exceptional circumstances. As to the doctrines themselves, if we have not thought it useful to dwell on them longer than we have in fact done because of their only too evident inconsistency, and if here too we have above all given citations, this is because we think, in agreement with another adversary of theirs, that 'the surest method of refuting [these doctrines] is to state them briefly by letting the masters themselves speak'; [1] and we will add that the best way to fight Theosophy is, in our opinion, to display its history for what it is. We can then therefore leave to the reader the task of drawing all the conclusions that it is only too easy to draw, for we have certainly said enough about this for anyone who has the patience to follow us to the end should be in a position to bring to Theosophy definitive judgment. To all who are unprejudiced, Theosophy will probably appear more like a bad joke than something serious; but unfortunately this bad joke, far from being inoffensive, has taken many victims and continues to take more and more (according to Mrs Besant, the Theosophical Society properly so called, not to speak of its numerous auxiliary organizations, included twenty thousand active members in 1913), [2] and this is the
principal reason we decided to undertake this work. It must also be said that the history of the Theosophical Society is not without interest in itself, for it is quite instructive in various respects; it even raises many little known questions that we have only been able to note in passing because to treat them a bit more deeply it would have been necessary to enter into considerations far exceeding the extent and import of the particular subject being treated.
Our account does not claim to be absolutely complete on every point; but such as it is, it is largely sufficient for men of good will to be fully informed, and for the Theosophists themselves to see that we are very well informed about most of the particulars of their history; and we can also assure them that we know as well as they do, and much better than many of them, the bases of their own theories. They can therefore dispense with digging up again the reproach of 'ignorance' which they habitually direct toward their adversaries, for it is generally to 'ignorance' that they attribute attacks against their Society, and in truth we have sometimes noted with regret that some have opened themselves to this reproach, either from the historical point of view or as regards their theories. In this connection we must say a few words regarding a recent brochure entitled L'Eglise et la Théosophie which reproduces a lecture given by a Theosophist in response to certain attacks, [3] and in which is mentioned without
comment a study bearing the same title as the present volume but much less developed, that we published in the Revue de Philosophie, [4] and that was then only at the beginning of its preparation. [5]
The adversary whom the author of the brochure had particularly in mind was reproached bitterly among other things for having expounded the doctrines of reincarnation and 'karma' without once mentioning the word 'evolution'; we think this complaint is well justified, but it certainly cannot be levied against us, for far from committing such a lapse of memory we have on the contrary presented the idea of evolution as constituting the very core of the entire Theosophical doctrine. This idea ought to be attacked before
anything else, for if its inanity is demonstrated all the rest will crumble of itself; this is a much more effective refutation than that which consists in developing sentimental arguments against 'karma' and reincarnation that are worth just as much as the arguments Theosophists themselves offer in favor of the same theories. Naturally we cannot undertake a detailed critique of evolution here; but we wanted to establish that this critique, which can be easily made, is particularly valid against Theosophy because at root it is only one of the many forms which evolution has put on, the starting-point for almost all specifically modern errors, whose prestige in our time is due to no more than a monstrous mass of prejudice.
Another reproach we encounter in the same brochure is that of 'a confusion as to the nature of the methods of knowledge to which Theosophical documentation is attributed.' Without going to the root of the question and without seeking to know whether this confusion is as grave as claimed, we offer this simple remark: the adversary in question was wrong first of all in attributing 'a theory of knowledge' to Theosophy, for in reality this does not correspond to their point of view, so that the resulting confusion he caused, it seems to us, is above all between the point of view proper to Theosophy and that of philosophy, or more precisely modern philosophy; and certainly the Theosophists have enough follies to their credit that they do not need in addition to be hit with those of others! Here we think that there is another observation to make: some will probably be astonished that in all of our narrative we have not mentioned the word 'pantheism', and yet it is intentionally that we have refrained from doing so. We are well aware that Theosophists, or at least some of them, readily declare themselves 'pantheists'; but this term is equivocal and has been applied to so many different doctrines that one sometimes ends by not knowing precisely what is meant when it is used, and it requires many precautions to give it back a precise meaning and to avoid all confusion. Further, there are people for whom the mere word 'pantheism' seems to take the place of any serious refutation; once they have rightly or wrongly given this name to some doctrine, they believe they are dispensed from any further examination; these are methods of argument that can never be ours.
There is, still in the same reply, a third point that we can only note with great satisfaction, for it is a true admission that in a rather unexpected way corroborates our own manner of seeing things; it is in fact a protest against 'an abusive identification of Theosophy with Brahmanism and Hinduism.' The Theosophists have not always spoken this way-far from it-and they hardly have a right to complain, for they were the first to be responsible for this 'abusive identification', much more abusive originally than they proclaim today. If they have come to this point it is because this identification, instead of being to their advantage as it may have been at the beginning, has now become very embarrassing for their 'esoteric Christianity', whence a new contradiction to add to all the others. Without presuming to counsel anyone, we think that all adversaries of the Theosophists ought to take careful note of this in order to avoid committing certain faults in future; instead of using their criticism of Theosophy as a pretext for insulting Hindus, as we have heard, by odiously caricaturizing their doctrines of which they know nothing, they ought on the contrary to regard them as their natural allies in this struggle, for they are so in fact and cannot not be so. Beyond the more particular reasons that Hindus have for profoundly detesting Theosophy, it is no more acceptable to them than it is to Christians (we ought rather to say Catholics, since Protestantism accommodates itself to everything), or, in a general way, than it is to all who adhere to a truly traditional doctrine.
Finally, there is a passage that we are obliged to cite, so much the more in that it in part concerns ourselves. After affirming that Theosophy 'does not fight against any religion' (we have shown what ought to be thought of that), the lecturer continues in these words:
That is all very well, we will be told, but it is no less true that you most definitely attack religion by the very fact that you profess ideas contrary to the truths they proclaim. But why not address this reproach to official science, especially to biologists at the Faculty of Sciences who profess theories wherein materialism finds a total and definitive argument in favor of its thesis. . . ? Do you grant Science rights you refuse to Theosophy because in your mind Theosophy may above all be a religion, or rather a
pseudo-religion, as said by the author whose study is being serialized in the Revue de Philosophie? That is an opinion we cannot accept, and although we seek truth by methods other than those of modern Science, we have the right to claim the same privilege accorded to it, that of saying what we believe to be the truth. [6]
We do not know what others may wish to respond to this, but for ourselves, our response will be most simple: we do not profess the least respect for 'modern' and 'official' Science, its methods and its theories; we have demonstrated this already elsewhere, and what we just said regarding evolutionism is yet another proof. We therefore do not recognize for science or for philosophy any greater right than for Theosophy. And given the occasion, we are just as prepared to denounce, should there be occasion, the false opinions of 'official' scholars, in whom we must nevertheless generally recognize the merit of a certain frankness too often lacking among Theosophists. For those among the latter who are truly sincere we hope for nothing more than to enlighten the greatest number possible, for we know that many have entered the Theosophical Society from mere curiosity or idle fantasy, ignorant of its history and of nearly all its teachings, and these perhaps have not all undergone the mental deformation which, in the long run, inevitably results from frequenting such a milieu.
We will add only a few further words: if we are not among those who love to speak 'in the name of Science' and who place 'reason' above all else, neither do we claim to speak 'in the name of the Church', and moreover we have no qualification to do this. If some Theosophists have imagined something of this kind (and the lecture L'Eglise et la Théosophie would seem to indicate it), let them be undeceived. Besides, we do not believe that even their ecclesiastical contradictors have ever done this, nor that they have spoken or written other than in their own name. The Church, so far as we know, has intervened only once to condemn Theosophy and to formally declare that 'its doctrines cannot be reconciled with the Catholic
faith. [7]
In any case, for our part, the attitude we have taken in regard to what we know to be error, and a dangerous error for the contemporary mentality, has been adopted in full independence. We are not associated with any organized campaign and we do not even wish to know whether one exists, which we rather doubt. If Theosophists want to know the reasons for our attitude, we can assure them that there is no other reason than this: that, translating and applying better than they do the Hindu device which they have audaciously appropriated, we consider that 'there are no rights superior to those of the Truth'