Beatrice Lane Suzuki: An American Theosophist in Japan

By Adele S. Algeo

Originally printed in the JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007 issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation: Algeo, Adele S. "Beatrice Lane Suzuki: An American Theosophist in Japan." Quest  95.1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007):
13-17.

Theosophical Society - Adele Algeo Mrs. Algeo was a longtime editorial collaborator with Dr. Algeo in both Theosophical and linguistic pursuits. Regarding the latter, she assisted Dr. Algeo in the publication, Among the New Words: A Dictionary of Neologisms: 1941–1991 (1991), based upon the column appearing in American Speech, “Among the New Words.” Beatrice Lane Suzuki was the American wife of D. T. Suzuki, the well-known philosopher, Buddhist scholar, and Zen popularizer in the West. Her name is familiar to few Theosophists, yet she played an important role in Japanese Theosophy.

In a 2003 lecture in London titled "Japanese Buddhism and the Theosophical Movement," Professor Shinichi Yoshinaga mentioned the reported participation of D. T. Suzuki, about which little was known. In response to that clue, I consulted the archives at Adyar, which contain much information concerning Theosophical work in Japan, including the participation of the Suzukis during the 1920s and 1930s. The Suzukis had married in 1911 in Yokohama, at which time Beatrice became a Japanese citizen. They spent much of their married life in Japan, teaching at various universities, publishing an English-language quarterly, The Eastern Buddhist, and interpreting Buddhism for the West through their many translations.

Beatrice Lane Suzuki was an American from New Jersey who had graduated from Radcliffe (and while there took courses from William James, an early member of the Theosophical Society). She also did graduate work at Columbia University, where she earned a Master of Arts and a certificate in social work in 1908. She worked with her husband in all his enterprises, but the year before her death in 1939, she published her own work, Mahayana Buddhism, which is well regarded and still in print today.

There is no evidence that either of the Suzukis were Theosophists before they joined the Tokyo International Lodge in 1920. That is also true of Beatrice's mother, Dr. Emma Erskine Hahn, who lived with the Suzukis and joined the lodge at the same time. In fact, in her first letter to Adyar, dated June 1924, Beatrice states that the three of them joined at the time the Tokyo Lodge was formed.

After Colonel Olcott's visits to Japan in the late nineteenth century, no further work by the Adyar Theosophical Society occurred until Dr. James H. Cousins spent a year in Japan in 1919-1920 as a professor of modern English poetry at Keio University in Tokyo (Cousins and Cousins, 348-69). At this time, he helped form the Tokyo International Lodge. In a letter dated February 15, 1920, Cousins wrote to the international headquarters at Adyar about the lodge's beginnings with eleven members: five Japanese and six international members from America, Korea, Greece, and India.

Cousins himself did not remain in Japan much longer, leaving in March to return to Adyar. It is unclear if Cousins knew the Suzukis at this time, as they are not mentioned in his autobiographical account of his year in Japan. They may have been among the Japanese members who were recruited after his departure, as they were not among the original eleven.

The membership list sent to Adyar, dated May 12, 1920, contained twenty-one names, the first being Captain B. Kon, secretary of the lodge, the second, J. R. Brinkley, and the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth, Mrs. Erskine Hahn, M.D., Mrs. B. L. Suzuki, and Mr. T. Suzuki. In a letter of September 1920 to the international secretary of the Theosophical Society at Adyar, Jack Brinkley wrote that Captain B. Kon had to retire for personal reasons and that he had been elected to fill the vacancy. He also mentioned that the lodge had been reorganized to ensure there were enough officers to do the necessary work and enclosed a list of the officers which included Mr. T. Suzuki as President and Mrs. B. L. Suzuki on the Lodge Committee (along with four other members, including J. Brinkley as Secretary and Treasurer).

Things did not go smoothly for the new lodge, however, and in July 1921, Maurice A. Browne, a member of the Council, wrote to the recording secretary at Adyar that Jack Brinkley "has been absent in Europe for many months. Mrs. B. L. Suzuki, 572 Zoshigaya, Takatamachi, Tokyo-fu, has been Acting Secretary in his absence."

In a second letter, dated October 1921, Browne reported that "The Acting Secretary, Mrs. B. L. Suzuki, is going to Kyoto soon, but I have no doubt she will write to you about it and make such arrangements as are necessary until the return of the Secretary, Mr. Jack Brinkley."

A third letter from Browne, dated January 1922, indicated that he and his wife were moving to Shanghai. He continued: "The Secretary of the Tokyo International Lodge, Captain Jack Brinkley, has not returned to Japan, and the Lodge here is in a poor way. . . No doubt the Acting Secretary, Mrs. Suzuki, has notified you of her new address, c/o Professor Suzuki, Otani University, Muromachi, Kyoto, but of course at that distance she cannot do much for Tokyo."

In a letter received at Adyar in December 1923, Mr. K. R Sabarwal, number twelve on the original list of members, reported: "There is no Lodge of the Theosophical Society in Tokyo now. Can you let me know what formalities I shall have to undergo for becoming a member of Adyar?"

On moving to Kyoto, the Suzukis formed a new lodge of the Theosophical Society called the Mahayana Lodge. In a series of six handwritten letters and reports dating from 1924 to 1928, Beatrice Lane Suzuki outlined the formation of the lodge, its membership, problems encountered in keeping it going, and her understanding of the Japanese religious sensibility that made it difficult for Theosophy to have a long-term appeal among the Japanese (Algeo).

In the first letter, written in June 1924, she described the formation of the Mahayana Lodge on May 8 (White Lotus Day) with fourteen members: nine new ones, two who had joined in America, and the Suzukis and Beatrice's mother from the Tokyo Lodge. She mentioned that almost all the members were professors at either Otani University or Ryukoku University, both Buddhist institutions, and indicated their intention to have regular meetings in the fall. She was serving as secretary of the lodge and thus sent yearly reports to the headquarters at Adyar.

Beatrice's second letter was written in October 1924, in which she again described the formation of Mahayana Lodge and discussed business matters like dues, the charter, and the number of Adyar Bulletins to send the members. She stated, "As yet we have not elected any president but have a committee consisting of Mr. Yamabe, Mr. Utsuki and myself to perform the duties of president at present. I understand that Mr. Labberton of Orpheus Lodge, Tokyo, wrote you that I was the president of the Mahayana Lodge, but this is not correct. I have been asked to be the president, but being a woman and a foreigner I thought it wiser not to accept the position. We have had three meetings so far of the new lodge, two of them before the summer vacation and one since."

Beatrice went on to discuss a matter weighing on her mind: she still possessed the charter for the now-defunct Tokyo International Lodge and wished to send it back to Adyar. A new lodge, Orpheus, had been formed in Tokyo, with a new president, D. van Hinloopen Labberton. She wrote, "The International Lodge broke up when almost all of its members left Tokyo in 1921. . . . As I am no longer in Tokyo nor likely to be and now doing what work I can for Theosophy in connection with the Mahayana Lodge, I presume it is best to consider the International Lodge no more in existence. While it lasted, it was quite flourishing and had many interesting meetings and its members belonged to many different nationalities and it certainly is the seed from which both the present Orpheus and Mahayana lodges have sprung, three old members of the International being now in the Mahayana and two of them in the Orpheus. I feel that we owe to Mr. Cousins the spark which started the fire of Theosophy in Japan."

The third letter, written in November 1925, discussed a number of matters relating to the Lodge and also included, in a separate report, a brief history of Theosophy in Japan. Beatrice wrote of sending a painting to Adyar in response to a request of her friend Madame de Manziarly for a contribution to the Arts and Crafts Exhibition to be held there during Convention: "The subject of the picture is a Buddhist one and represents the Buddha Shakamuni with Manjushri and Samantabhadra and the guardian Bodhisattvas. It is a copy (but the copy is also old) of a famous painting 750 years old which is in the temple of Enryakuji of Mt. Hiei near Kyoto. Please have the picture exhibited during the Arts and Crafts Exhibition and then afterwards given in my name to either the Museum or the Library. I wanted very much to come to the Convention but it was impossible so I send the picture in my place."

Her report of the year's work stated: "The plan of the lodge is now to have papers prepared by the members on subjects connected with Buddhist and Theosophical subjects and later to have these papers published in a book, this book to be the contribution of the Mahayana Lodge to the cause of Theosophy. The lodge is a small one and circumstances and conditions here do not permit great activities but the aim of the members is to keep the light burning here in Japan and even though the light may not be such a bright one, never to permit it to go out."

In the fourth letter, written in November 1926, Beatrice hoped that she was not too late to get her report delivered in time for the annual Convention held at the end of December. Because of her own ill health, the Lodge had been very quiet during 1926. She wrote, "We have lost three members and gained two: Mrs. Hibino of Sendai (as absent member) and Mr. Jugaku whose application I herewith enclose. We have now therefore fourteen members. During 1927 we hope to be more active. My husband and I have offered our home to be used for lodge meetings. At the last meeting held a few days ago, Professor Izumi of Otani University spoke on 'Life After Death.' "

The fifth letter, written in February 1928, reported: "We have now twelve members ... My mother, Dr. Emma Erskine Hahn, one of our members, died on August 22. Prof Akamatsu moved to Korea and has not kept up his membership. Mrs. Hibino moved to Kyoto from Sendai in June 1927, and has become an active member of the Society.... Mrs. Hibino and I have started a little centre for the Order of the Star and we are about to distribute a booklet in Japanese on the work of the Star (Ransom). During 1928, we hope to distribute one on Theosophy."

This letter also included a separate report on Lodge activities for 1927: "During 1927 very few meetings were held. Mrs. Suzuki, the Secretary, spent some time in a hospital and her mother, Dr. Emma Erskine Hahn, a member of the Lodge, after an illness of several months died on August 22. These two events made it difficult to arrange meetings as they are generally held at the home of Prof. and Mrs Suzuki and the circumstances did not permit meetings at their home during most of the year. But in October 1927, the lodge resumed meetings. At the October gathering, Mrs. Setti Line Hibino spoke upon 'The Order of the Star'; at the November meeting Rev. B. Jugaku gave an interesting lecture upon 'The Poetry and Mysticism of William Blake.' In December Professor Teitaro Suzuki addressed the lodge on the subject 'What Appeals to Me in Buddhism.' All these meetings were well attended, a number of non-members being invited. In December the first meetings in Japan of the Order of the Star were held and it is hoped to do some work for the Star: this work has been started by two members of the Mahauna Lodge."

The sixth letter, written in November 1928, is the last letter by Beatrice Lane Suzuki in the Adyar Archives and, in fact, contains the last reference to the Kyoto Mahãyãna Lodge. In it, Beatrice talked about some of the difficulties of spreading Theosophy in Japan:

It seems difficult for Theosophy to make much growth here just for this reason that it is so similar in its teachings to Buddhism. There seems to be a general idea, especially among Theosophists, that the Japanese are not a spiritual people and do not care for spiritual things. In my opinion this idea is entirely wrong. I consider the Japanese very spiritual; all that is best in their culture is based upon religion. No one could pass through this period of the Emperor's coronation without feeling how near the spiritual world is to the Japanese. But with regard to Theosophy, Theosophy comes not as something new but as a variant of their own Buddhist teaching and for this reason they are slow to come to it. The appeal of Universal Brotherhood is the note that must be struck by Theosophists for the Japanese. It is just the same too in regard to the Order of the Star. Their own great teachers like Kobo Daishi [774-835, founder of the esoteric Shingon school of Buddhism], Shinran Shonin [1173-1262 or 1263, founder of the True Pure Land school of Buddhism], and others stand still too close to theirs in time and they feel that they have not yet fully absorbed the teachings of these great ones, and therefore they do not feel the call to look elsewhere. In my opinion it is not because of their unspirituality that they fail to do so but on account of their strong religious feeling for their own religious leaders. Personally I should like to have a larger membership for I am deeply interested in the Society, but at the same time I appreciate the reasons why it is more difficult than it is in Western countries.

What happened to the Mahayana Lodge after this time is not known, but judging from Mrs. Suzuki's letters and reports, the lodge probably became inactive at some point, though it was still meeting in 1929 when Dr. James Cousins and his wife, Margaret E. Cousins, spent two weeks in Japan, where Dr. Cousins introduced his wife to many of the friends he had made during his earlier stay in Japan. Mrs. Cousins, who was an ardent worker for women's rights, reported: "We were in Kyoto next day (October 5) at the other end of the 400-mile road from Tokyo. We were put up in the hospitable home of Professor T. Suzuki of Otani Buddhist University, noted writer on Buddhism, and his western wife whom he had met while mutually studying in a German University. She had formed a Lodge of The Theosophical Society, and a meeting with the members gave me another centre from which to radiate the Women's Conference idea." (Cousins and Cousins, 504)

The last mention of the Suzukis in the Adyar Archives is from the late 1930s. When C. Jinarajadasa, who later became international president of the Theosophical Society, made a short visit to Tokyo in 1937, he gave two lectures at Miroku Lodge. These lectures were translated into Japanese by Dr. Suzuki.

The later history of the Theosophical lodge in Tokyo, however, is rather different from that of the one in Kyoto. The first two Tokyo lodges (Tokyo International and Orpheus) seem to have been dependent on a few foreign members who did not stay long, and whose departure caused the groups to become inactive. A third group (Miroku), founded in the late 1920s, was more lasting, and Theosophical activities continued in Japan right up to the start of World War II. After that war, a Theosophical group was reactivated in Tokyo in 1947, and it continues until the present day. Membership in Japan has never been large, but there has always been a core of dedicated people.

When Beatrice Lane Suzuki died in 1939, Miriam Salanave, a friend who had known her in Japan, wrote in an obituary for her in the American Theosophist (v. 27, no. 9, September 1939):

Although a Buddhist Mrs. Suzuki never lost her interest in Theosophy and once was head of the T.S. in Japan. She told me that Prof. Suzuki's first gift to her was the "Voice of the Silence" which he wrote her was "pure Mahayana Buddhism." He was a student at Oxford at the time and she was at Columbia University. Mrs. Suzuki was devoted to Dr. Besant and Theosophical notables visiting Japan were always welcome guests....

It was her interest in esoteric Theosophy that attracted her to the esoteric teachings of the Shingon Buddhist sect. When I was living in Kyoto she urged me to take the Bodhisattva-Sila with her, an opportunity considered to be a rare privilege. Accordingly special arrangements were made at Toji, an important Shingon temple, for this impressive ceremony which I cherish among numerous other unforgettable Eastern experiences.

The vows taken during the Bosatsukai are indeed solemn and toward the end of the long ritual candidates ask that whatever merits accruing from taking these Bodhisattva vows may be distributed among all beings. I quote in part: "I pray that this merit will extend everywhere so that not only we, but all other beings may attain to the path of Buddhahood ... All these merits I wish to extend all over the world and after my death, together with all beings I wish to be born in that Buddha land, where, listening to the Dharma, I may come to the realization of it . . ." The dying wish of Beatrice Lane Suzuki, I am sure, must have been the same wish expressed above. "There is but one road to the Path, at its very end alone the 'Voice of the Silence' can be heard."

References

Algeo, Adele S. "Beatrice Lane Suzuki and Theosophy in Japan." Theosophical History 11.3 (July 2005). This article contains the complete text of the letters. I am grateful to the editor of that journal, James Santucci, for permission to use the article as the basis for this one.

Cousins, James H. and Margaret E. Cousins. We Two Together. Madras: Ganesh, 1950. See chapter 33, "A Japanese Year," and page 504.

Ransom, Josephine. A Short History of the Theosophical Society. Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1938. Pages 390-1 and 415 contain information on the order of the Star in the East, founded by Annie Besant in 1911.


Open Wide the Gates

By Betty Bland

Originally printed in the JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007 issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation:  "Open Wide the Gates." Quest  95.1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007):4-5.

Theosophical Society - Betty Bland joined the Theosophical Society on April 30, 1970. She helped to establish the Mt. Gilead, North Carolina Study Center.  Mrs. Bland served as President of the Theosophical Society of America from 2002 to 2011. In the volatile region of the Middle East, what strange circumstance could result in a person of the Muslim faith being the gatekeeper for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, one of the holiest shrines in all of Christendom? Once again, we find that truth is stranger than fiction. Several years ago, the Associated Press told the story of Wajeeh Nuseibeh whose family has monitored those massive doors for more than a thousand years due to sectarian squabbling among the Christians.

 

A source of stability through centuries of discord has been an agreement made in 638 CE, between the conquering Muslim Caliph, Omar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Greek patriarch. In accordance with this agreement, a series of several families have assumed that gate keeping responsibility. The shrine, re-built by European crusaders in 1099, at the site purported to be the burial tomb of Jesus, has been the destination for holy pilgrimages of many different sects of Christianity since its earliest foundation. Yet, for the very reason that it is so revered, it continues to be a source of contention. Because many sects have had to share this most holy of sites, no one can agree as to who should maintain control. As recently as July 28, 2005, Coptic and Ethiopian monks engaged in rock-throwing and fighting over a perceived challenge of control over a courtyard in the shrine. Tensions run high among all the groups who want to worship there.

 

Only the long established ritual of gate keeping by our Muslim brothers maintains the peace. Every morning a Joudeh, another Muslim family who guards the ten inch iron key, hands the key to a Nuseibeh. Following his family tradition as he has done for the last twenty-five years, fifty year-old Wajeeh Nuseibah, then climbs a wooden ladder passed down by a priest from within the shrine, and opens the spring-loaded iron lock. Wajeeh has 400 year-old documents declaring his family's control of the gates, while the Joudeh family's management of the key dates back to the Ottoman rule, which began in 1517.

 

During the recent turmoil, the families have had to send surrogates to open the gates at four in the morning in order to avoid the dangers of the nighttime streets, but they still maintain enough control to keep peace among the various factions. Wajeeh says that these Muslim families act as a people of peace for the church.

 

Gates provide an access point. They are the way in and out. In the case of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher the gates control who goes in and out—and when. But just as importantly, gates also mark entry points. Gates provide the way to enter into another territory. The very presence of a gate indicates that there is more beyond. In our own lives we can see the importance of discovering the gate within that leads to deeper understanding.

 

Just as Wajeeh makes it possible for the Christians to enter the shrine in peace, each one of us can be a gatekeeper for Theosophy—not to keep people out (although by our poor example this may sometimes be the unintended result), but to indicate that there is an open door available to any earnest seeker. To the extent of our knowledge we can point out the way—the way to explore and grow in understanding, with abundant resources, which is unfettered by the narrowness of sectarian views. We can herald that entrance and hope that those who pass through on our watch will pay us the ultimate compliment for any teacher—that of surpassing us in knowledge and application of principles.

 

As Theosophists we may be cautious about giving out our views to others in any way that might be seen as proselytizing. In fact, we usually bend over backwards to be sure that we honor all approaches to religion and the riddles of life. This is as it should be if we are talking about imposing our views on others, but we have to face up to the awesome responsibility of sharing whatever level of understanding we have attained in order to benefit our fellows in this life journey. There are many people for whom our gate is virtually invisible unless we make it known.

 

Madame Blavatsky talks about this responsibility in The Key to Theosophy:

ENQUIRER: Is it the duty of every member to teach others and preach Theosophy?

THEOSOPHIST: It is indeed. No fellow has a right to remain idle, on the excuse that he knows too little to teach. For he may always be sure that he will find others who know still less than himself. And also it is not until a man begins to try to teach others, that he discovers his own ignorance and tries to remove it.

We might wonder, "How can I be a gatekeeper to point the way for others? What do I know that can point the way to the gate?" In notes from Light on the Path, the answer is given: "Hardness of heart belongs to the selfish man, the egotist, to whom the gate is for ever closed."

 

The gift of Theosophy is a worldview that forever shatters selfishness and hardness of heart. As given by Madam Blavatsky in The Secret Doctrine, the first fundamental principle takes us directly to the key for that gate. It states that there is one omnipotent boundless ALL, called God by some—and it leads us to an understanding that there is only one unitive principle within which all else, including ourselves, exists. If we take to heart this one factor, we will naturally open the gate within ourselves, and become a beacon to others.

 

We may not necessarily know the particular answers to another's questions, but with humility and open heart, we will be able to point the way. We can say, "There is a gate. Look inside and see if you find the way to the sense of completeness you seek." We can open wide the gate that will draw them toward their own inner truth.


The Theosophy of Immanuel Kant

By Robert Bonnell

Originally printed in the JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007 issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation:Bonnell, Robert  "The Theosophy of Immanuel Kant." Quest  95.1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007):30-31.

Theosophical Society - Robert Bonnell A lifetime fellow of the Theosophical Society in America, Robert Bonnell has been a lecturer and writer on esoteric themes for over 50 years. He is President and Program Chairman for the Long Beach Theosophical Society and has held these posts for the greater part of 45 years. In addition to his work with the Long Beach Theosophical Society, Robert served on the Board of Directors of the Theosophical Society in America for six years (1996-2002).Immanuel Kant, German Philosopher (1724-1804) and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Koneisberg, was a key figure in the period referred to as the German Enlightenment. In addition to his philosophical treatises, Kant wrote extensively on the theory of the heavens, origins of the planetary systems, effects of the tides upon the earth's rotation, causes of earthquakes, volcanoes on the moon, and other subjects. His treatise on eternal peace formed the basis for the United Nations Charter. Although he was raised Lutheran, he rejected conventional doctrine early in life and regarded independent spiritual integrity as the highest form of morality. In contrast to his brilliant intellect and Prussian rigidity, Kant confessed to moments of passive contemplation and listened to the music of the spheres on numerous occasions.

 

His intellectual prowess and lifestyle displayed a dedication to his calling, which remains beyond question. Despite occasional misinterpretations of his work by thinkers and politicians of questionable integrity, Kant is considered to be Europe's most respected philosopher. In fact, it's been said that all modern philosophy must orient itself to Kant.

 

Though Kant is not at the center of Theosophy, it might be helpful for theosophists, who value varied wisdom traditions, to understand the similarities between Kantian thought and theosophy. The terms at the top of the adjacent chart are Kant's terminology, while the terms in the parentheses below are the terminology most akin to that of the Wisdom or Theosophical Tradition.

 

Kant suggested that humans have two basic ways of knowing, a priori and a posteriori. These two kinds of knowledge are key to the development of human consciousness, instrumental in the pursuit of a moral and constructive state of being—which Kant calls "Pure Reason." Kant's "Noumenal Principle," what we might call the unknowable, is that which is beyond experience but somehow involved in it—something like H.P.B's "unutterable" or Thoreau's "impersonal spectator." According to Kant, a priori knowledge emerges from this Noumenal Principle, this "unknowable." It is, in effect, a representative of the Noumenal Principle deep within the human consciousness. And it recognizes a "voice from afar," independent of human experience as we know it. The a priori knowledge that emerges from the Noumenal Principle is innate knowledge akin to Theosophy's atmic influence. It precedes human experience and serves as a sort of judge and jury (conscience).

 

For Kant, it is possible for human beings to remain largely unaware of the a priori knowledge available to them. Manifestation of a priori knowledge is dependent in part upon Time, or the readiness (precision) to manifest, and Space, or the direction of its influence. It is also dependent upon moral development. People who adhere to certain moral principles allow a priori knowledge to unfold into consciousness and become available for use—much as etheric energies blend, by way of chakras, into electromagnetic states the body can use.

 

The first moral principle necessary for the unfolding of a priori knowledge is what Kant calls the "Transcendental Aesthetic." Similar to Theosophy's concept of innate goodness, metaphysical transcendence motivates the use of a priori knowledge and also becomes the modus operandi for its use.

 

The second moral principle is Synthetic Judgment, a deductive process by which one can move the a priori toward its objective. As theosophists note "I must believe before I can understand," Kant declares that a sense of "revelation" furthers synthetic judgment and opens the way to wisdom.

 

The third moral principle is Intuition, which has been defined by Spinoza as "higher knowledge." Intuition works with Synthetic Judgment and compounds into an array of invisible insights; perhaps akin to Theosophy's spiritual awareness!

 

The fourth moral principle is Descending Will, by which one makes use of Time and Space to develop the will to enter the exalted state of Pure Reason. As Theosophy celebrates the idea whose time has come, Kant celebrates the moment in which Will carries one deeper into knowledge.

 

For Kant, a posteriori knowledge, or knowledge gained by experience, is a product of the Phenomenal Principle. It is exoteric, shadowed by the world of sense perception, and regulated to a large extent by the basic instincts of Experience and Assimilation. These two represent the physical exposure to the elemental realities of the corporeal world and an intellectual growth of the world as it is; perhaps liken to Theosophy's psychophysical confrontations. Thus, a posteriori knowledge is incomplete and in need of things outside itself. Yet it proceeds upward toward the goal of Pure Reason. Like a priori knowledge, a posteriori knowledge requires adaptations in order to proceed toward Pure Reason.

 

The first adaptation is Earthly Tribulation, which represents the trials and tribulations of the emotional mind as it seeks to satisfy our moral obligations and fulfillments; we may liken it to Theosophy's karmic interludes.

 

The second adaptation, Analytical Judgment, is the brainchild, so to speak, of the empirical path and its inductive guidelines. Because analytical judgment moderates and refines a posteriori knowledge, it may the closest Kant gets to Theosophy's middle path.

 

The third Adaptation is what Kant calls Understanding, Proper. It represents the coming forth of accumulative knowledge in highly mechanical but necessary material form, similar to Theosophy's incarnated necessities.

 

The fourth Adaptation is Ascending Will, by which Experience and Assimilation form the path of both willfulness and wellness. Thus they allow the a posteriori to enter, in a practical manner, Kant's exalted state of Pure Reason. As Theosophy celebrates the need whose karmic time has come, Kant celebrates the path by which a posteriori knowledge is transformed.

 

The remaining aspect of Kant's exalted state of Pure Reason is assigned to the Aesthetical, which cradles within it ethics, morality, goodness, and beauty. In Kantian philosophy, these nearly synonymous terms underpin the Categorical Imperative. They are something like the Vedic Tattwas, in that they are fundamental to the awakened moral state in which a human being acts for the good of all humanity. They form the basis for a sort of Nirvana.

 

As our chart illustrates, the pragmatic value of Kant's philosophy lies in its exploration of the relationship between Thought, a well-adjusted thinking process and attitude, and Action, rational behavior under all circumstances. Immanuel Kant might leave the esoteric mind somewhat unfulfilled, but we must realize the reactionary atmosphere at the time and place in which he made his ideas known. These ideas made a profound and expansive impact upon the somewhat crystallized boundaries of academic philosophy which resulted in the popular adage, "If you do not know Kant, you do not know Philosophy." Western philosophy and theology have been forced to acknowledge the basic fact of our incarnation and the sources of wisdom that lie therein.


Science and Theosophy: The Challenge of Unification Part 1

By Michael Levin

Originally printed in the JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007 issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation: Levin, Michael. "Science and Theosophy: The Challenge of Unification Part 1." Quest  95.1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007):
25-29.

Theosophical Society - Michael Levin attended Tufts University, where he received dual B.S. degrees, in CS and in Biology. He earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University for the first characterization of the molecular-genetic mechanisms that allow embryos to form consistently left-right asymmetric body structures in a universe that does not macroscopically distinguish left from right (1992-1996); this work is on Nature's list of '100 Milestones of Developmental Biology of the Century'.

Those of us who consider ourselves "hard-core" theosophists have a commitment to a large package of ontology, or specific beliefs about the world. We not only take the general suspicions of the existence of "something important beyond the physical" seriously, as some famous scientists, noetic theorists, and New Agers do, but we also take seriously a considerable amount of detail about planes, non-corporeal beings, rounds, and chains from theosophical thinkers such as Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater. In this sense, Theosophy is one of the most naturalistic and, in a way, scientific of the various spiritual paths. Because Theosophy has so much to say about the world, it is important to consider how this set of claims meshes or conflicts with modern science—the other major way of describing and understanding the outside world.

 

As the Nobel prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann said, "A theory is like an animal—it is only alive as long as it is in danger." Our theosophical heritage of specific claims is at once a huge leg-up, but also potential baggage. Some systems, like Zen, are free of positive claims. They can accommodate any scientific world-view whatsoever because they have nothing to say about how the world is organized (although they offer important content along other lines, such as how one ought to relate to the world.) In this arena such systems are safe and not in danger of falsification from the advances of science, but may also be seen as sterile, to the extent that they don't contribute much positive information. They cannot be falsified but may be limited in the kind of insight they provide in regard to understanding the world. In contrast, Theosophical beliefs that there are entities living among us unseen by physical senses; that there is one soul per human body; and that our actions set in motion karmic forces which play out over lifetimes are in danger in so far as they might potentially conflict with future discoveries. As any scientist knows, propositions that are endangered in this way are the most valuable because they afford us the possibility, at least in principle, of determining whether they are true or false.

Does this matter? Maybe the important thing is just to be kind to each other and the details of how the world works are unimportant. But it does matter a great deal, even for those who are not personally driven to seek to understand the world in this fashion. If our favorite claims are found to be false, does that not throw the whole enterprise into question? As an example, consider the Christian church during the Middle Ages. When its positive claim that the Earth was at the center of a universe consisting of fixed spheres was shown to be false, it had to back off to a position where it could make no comments about the real world, but speak only to normative or moral issues—how one ought to act, rather than how the world is. This is a weak position; one theosophists cannot afford to take. One of the things that make our tradition different from many others is that it is based on a naturalistic description of important features about the universe, including the existence of a super-physical world, other sheaths/bodies, Kundalini, rebirth, karma, Masters, other entities, chains, and rounds. If all of this was disproved or shown to be conceptually useless, perhaps we could still lead a moral life, but it would hardly be Theosophy.

Worse yet, it is likely that leading a moral existence is impossible without understanding the world. Surely, knowing the right thing to do depends critically upon the facts of how things are now, and how they are likely to be changed by one's actions. In an increasingly complex society where the goals of various people and groups are often mutually incompatible, making the best choice (even without selfish motives) can be very difficult. For example, knowledge of the facts surrounding the events leading to the conception, gestation, and birth of human beings, along with aspects such as ensoulment, life plans, and karma would seem crucial to making rational decisions about the ethics of abortion, whether on the personal or societal levels. Any philosophy worth dedicating one's time to has to be based on a realistic understanding of the universe in which we live.

In the last two hundred years, science has been the way that we learn about the world. In general, Theosophy has had a very scientific attitude in the sense that the classics exhort us to not take things on faith but rather to study diligently, keep an open mind, perfect the necessary qualities, and determine the truth for ourselves. All of these strategies, without exception, are directly applicable to the modern study of science. Blavatsky's "There is no religion higher than truth" summarizes this commitment nicely. But how are those who do not have direct spiritual perception of specific details to judge the truth-value of various claims? Science has done extremely well in that department, and this suggests that it might be profitable to examine the relationship between Theosophy and science.

It is not necessary to get into the issues of precisely which Theosophical claims are more valid than others. People with varying degrees of spiritual perception disagree on particulars, of course, and there has been some disagreement and argument among the classical Theosophists themselves. My explanation is based on the fundamental Theosophical package, the works of Blavatsky, Purucker, Leadbeater, Besant, and Judge; and expanded with the works of Steiner, Bailey, Heindel, and Ouspensky.

Qualities of the Scientific Approach

There are some important qualities of the scientific approach to highlight at the forefront. The first would be consilience, The quality of consilience is of preeminent importance, and has been written about by scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Heinz R. Pagels, and Edward O. Wilson. Space constraints prevent the full transmission of the truly wondrous import of this quality in modern science, but it can be roughly pictured as the way all of the parts of the scientific edifice—facts, methodology, conceptual structures, and so on—"hang together." Everything is connected to everything else and attaches perfectly at the seams. Often, results from one field enable progress in a completely different field, giving us reason to believe that we are indeed successfully investigating a coherent reality. For example, the results of logic, game theory, and statistics when applied to the data of molecular biology, genetics, and biochemistry within the Darwinian paradigm, provide a powerful edifice encompassing embryonic development, altruistic behavior, and animal communication. Descriptions of reality on completely different levels, from molecules to behavior, merge nicely to provide a coherent picture of the world we observe. For example, models from quantum theory have shed light on the largest issues concerning the origin of the universe (Greene, 2005). Though this effort is far from complete, despite claims to the contrary, the different areas of science share a coherent vision centering on reproducibility, intelligibility and rationalism, objective third-person descriptions, simplification, hierarchical emergence, and mechanistic models based on exchange of energy or information (Horgan, 1996).

Another important quality of the scientific approach is the predictive, or controlling, power of science. However one might be tempted to criticize Western society as a whole, and whatever possible harm technology may have done to some aspects of our lives, there is no denying that any system that can allow the average person the opportunity to construct a laser beam, perform heart transplants, or send objects to the moon is surely on to something real and profoundly important. No need for lifetimes of apprenticeship or secrecy here. Is there any other system, religion, or philosophy that results in even a remotely similar level of efficacy? It might be useful to step back and consider one's own intuitive expectations. If an engineer is hired to build a computerized control system for a house, it is expected to work correctly and every single time. Contrast that with the situation when someone is ill or has some sort of problem in life. A rabbi or priest will generally pray for that person, which may be comforting, but what does one realistically expect in terms of any ability to actually affect the outcome? We are told the Masters hold powers that dwarf our accomplishments and can use them at will, but it is quite clear that in terms of the ability to reliably and reproducibly understand, predict, and control the outside world, the methodology and conceptual constructs of science are the best tools we have, that is until we all become Masters ourselves.

Two more important qualities that need to be looked at are fundamental principles and specific scientific paradigms. Examples of fundamental principles include materialism, Occam's razor, the basic properties of position, energy, and mass, and the use of mathematics as the language of description. These principles have no specific proof, and are not generally at odds with Theosophy. In contrast to these general principles that guide method and theory-building in science, there are specific scientific theories that have varying degrees of evidence in their favor. Note the cumulative nature of science. Theories are discarded when better ones, which explain why the old ones worked to the extent they did, are developed and provide a more accurate or more complete explanation. A classic example is Einstein's work which showed nicely why the older Newtonian scheme worked at slow speeds and moderate sizes of objects, but then extended our ability to understand the very large and the very fast. In contrast to philosophy, where not a single issue has been satisfactorily put to rest in thousands of years even by the greatest minds, science always moves forward. The net movement of science is always towards deeper understanding and more functional control over its domain.

In time, scientific theories can of course be rejected and one ought not to throw away Theosophy just because it happens to disagree for example, with the current model of how many dimensions the universe has. In cosmology, as in other fields, such radical issues are not only hotly debated but the majority opinion can change within a few years. Nevertheless, the amazing success of science from the perspective of engineering and medicine shows that we have gotten many of the basics right. Thus, for Theosophists, there are a number of specific issues with which we have to reconcile.

One possibility is that this strategy is backwards, that Theosophy must most crucially be reconciled with the primary and very successful basic "limiting principles" of science, while the specific paradigms of today are unimportant, since their relevance changes over time (Broad, 1949). However, the basic principles are not a problem; they will serve us well if properly understood, and can be expanded as needed since no specific data hinges on their truth or falsity. In contrast, some of the conceptual structures of science are highly unlikely to be overthrown and must surely be dealt with by any Theosophist wishing a consistent world-view. Most importantly, by directly confronting these possible inconsistencies, we may begin to discard them and reach a more profound understanding of both.

A Cautionary Note

 

How has science made so much progress while completely ignoring what we are told the majority of reality is, that is six out of seven major planes being non-physical? Of course, science has made progress mostly on the physical side of reality; but it seems odd that one need know nothing whatsoever about those topics which Theosophists discuss, in order to harness nuclear energy, transplant hearts, or induce normal eyes to be formed exactly where we want them on a tadpole's tail. Perhaps we are on the verge of a great scientific entry into the spiritual dimensions. Various theosophists suggested that this was to have happened in the last century, but maybe their timing was off a bit and a unification will still occur.
 

It is important that we not fall for superficial similarities. A number of very popular New Age authors such as Capra, Dossey, Goswami, Wolf, and others make it seem as though science is moving towards the spiritual. This is a comforting thought because it allows us to have it both ways since it has been said that in time, science will move towards and embrace the spiritual. This is a dangerous attitude because without concerted effort along those lines, it simply will not happen in the necessary time-frame. The main thesis of this paper is that as things stand, science is NOT moving towards the spiritual. E=mc2 does not have anything to do with Theosophy's ether; rates of vibration and subtle energies are not in any clear way compatible with our understanding of energy; and quantum mechanics does not help with the problems of consciousness. Not to say they are incompatible, but it does nothing to help us understand what consciousness is or to solve the main problem of cognitive science--that is explaining how any third-person account of events, quantum or classical, gives rise to a conscious first person perspective. Complementarity, non-local interactions, and all the other wonders of modern physics may sound similar to various claims about psychical matters, but this analogy does not stand up to logical scrutiny of the details. Indeed, materialism, in its modern wider sense, is ever more firmly considered a fundamental pillar of science because of its increasing methodological success.

 

There is no indication that science is moving away from that direction. There are specific examples of people attempting such a unification, but generally the consilience of science and the arrow of its progress is pointing directly toward the elimination of anything non-physical when we look at the theories of such scientists as Bose, Jahn and Dunne, Laszlo, Stevenson, and others. The high-quality work along the lines of unification is a small speck in the sea of pseudoscientific and pseudo-spiritual writing on "soul physics" and such. To consider how theosophy and science might intersect, it is necessary to suspend the scientific disbelief and ignore the fact that almost any scientist will think the issues discussed in this paper are utter nonsense. To make progress along these lines, it is necessary to take both sides, thought forms as well as tensors, seriously. It is hoped that a critical, hard-nosed look at the gulf between science and theosophy may galvanize the community out of their state of blissfully optimistic patience and into useful activity driven by the opportunity of crisis.

Where Science and Theosophy Intersect: Areas of Exploration and Integration

Here is a brief overview of the scientific edifice to establish some boundaries for what it is that Theosophy must be integrated.

Physics encompasses many aspects. Basic Newtonian mechanics describes how things work at medium scales of speed and size. Thermodynamics describes the laws governing collections of objects, provides a unified view of steam engines and animal metabolism, and shows why all isolated systems eventually run down if left to their own devices. Quantum mechanics describes, with incredible precision, the action of subatomic particles. It has taught us that fundamental unpredictability is a main ingredient in the events taking place at small scales. Relativity theory covers very large and very fast-moving objects. Special relativity has shown that space and time are inextricably linked as two faces of a single entity; most strikingly, it has shown us that there is no special "now" for all observers. General relativity gives a satisfying geometrical picture of how space-time can be bent, and together with quantum cosmology, is beginning to give a detailed picture of the shape, structure, and evolution of our universe. We have learned about black holes, quasars, gravity lenses, inflationary expansion, and the big bang.

Chemistry allows us to explain the behavior of materials and make new compounds with predictable properties. Biology now comprises a synthesis of genetics, biochemistry, and cell biology that shows, on all scales, how physiological processes result from chemical reactions driven by protein blocks encoded by DNA. We now understand much of this process from the smallest scale, being able to manipulate the structure and function of living forms as desired, to the largest scale, as we uncover and understand the dynamics of the evolutionary history of the physical forms of animals from the very first cells on Earth. Computer models of Darwinian evolution demonstrate that complexity can indeed be generated by processes involving no teleological component.

Cognitive science is beginning to tackle thought and behavior. We now understand how brain mechanisms process information at many levels, from signals impinging on individual neurons in the retina to whole behavioral repertoires generated by large neural networks. The best current model for human thought is a "multiple-drafts" theory, which postulates that different structures in the brain generate behavior based on their own processing of the data they have. Investigations, of normal brains and people with revealing injuries suggest that there is no homunculus in the brain—there is no place where it all comes together and no central "I" at the base of it all who has a unified perspective (Sacks, 1998; Stich, 1996). Studies on confabulation, subconscious processing, and split-brain experiments suggest that a coherent central thinker at the center of our being is a fiction—a "narrative center of gravity" according to Daniel C. Dennett in his book Consciousness Explained.

Some important results have come from the foundations of mathematics. Turing, Gödel, and Chaitin have developed rigorous proofs concerning the limits of knowledge and predictability. While these limits are applicable within very narrow contexts, it is important to know that here, as in quantum limits on predictability, the evidence does not come from our being unable to predict something (which would then give hope that someday with better techniques we could predict it.) Instead, the unpredictability is a mathematically-derived feature and is a base axiom from which other successes are made, suggesting that it is real and not contingent on current limitations. Game theorists and work from cellular automata computer models have shown how incredible complexity and apparent design can be developed from simple systems with very few components interacting according to fixed rules.

The Consilience of Theosophy and Science Is Crucial

It is simply not tenable to say that all scientific knowledge applies only to the physical world and that other laws apply to mind-stuff and spirit. Eventually, everything has to intersect and integrate. If the spirit world has a reality and a relevance to physical life, it has to interact with the world of matter, and thus its laws must somehow be relevant for some aspect of physics. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the places where such intersections may exist, determine whether there are contradictions, and then see if the contradictions can be resolved.

References

Broad, C. D. "The Relevance of Psychical Research to Philosophy." Philosophy 24, 291-309, 1949.

Greene, Brian. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. Boston: WGBH Boston Video, 2005.

Horgan, John. The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1996.

Sacks, Oliver W. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Stich, Stephen P. Deconstructing the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.


Subcategories