Quest Magazine

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.

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.

NUMBER 95, NUMBER 1

CONTENT

Open Wide the Gates
By Betty Bland

The Theosophy of Immanuel Kant
By Robert Bonnell

The Powers of Truth and Discontent: Lessons from the Life and Work of H.S. Olcott
By Anton Lysy

Falling Awake: The Life and Message of Joe Miller
Richard Power and David Thompson

Beatrice Lane Suzuki: An American Theosophist in Japan
By Adele S. Algeo

Science and Theosophy: the Challenge of Unification Part I
By Michael Levin

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.

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

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.

By Anton Lysy

Originally printed in the JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007 issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation: Lysy, Anton  "The Powers of Truth and Discontent." Quest  95.1 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007):18-23.

What is it then, which makes me say what in deepest seriousness and a full knowledge of its truth I have said? What is it that makes me not only content but proud to stand for the brief moment as the mouthpiece and figure-head of this movement, risking abuse, misrepresentation, and every vile assault? It is the fact that in my soul I feel that behind us, behind our little band, behind our feeble, newborn organization, there gathers a MIGHTY POWER that nothing can withstand—the power of TRUTH!

(From H.S. Olcott's Inaugural Address in New York City, November 17, 1875.)

Long before Colonel Henry Steel Olcott (HSO) met Helena P. Blavatsky (HPB) at the site of ongoing spiritualist phenomena in Chittendon, Vermont in 1874, he had been developing his critical thinking skills in different areas of endeavor. Prior to the Civil War, Olcott worked in experimental agriculture and published a book and pamphlet on sorgho and imphee, the Chinese and African forms of sugar cane. While such studies were central to the growing development of the scientific method during this time period, this also gives us insight into the defining qualities of Olcott. His study and mastery of refining required both discernment and sensitivity for isolating variables relevant to his experimental work. And his insights reflected his humanitarian hope to help the economic development of the poor by teaching them to cultivate these foreign plants.

During the Civil War, Secretary of War Stanton appointed Olcott to investigate fraud among military suppliers. Olcott's success in collecting evidence of what he later called the "Carnival of Fraud" would establish his reputation as a competent, thorough, and fair reformer. With these plaudits from the field, he was appointed as "a special commissioner in the Bureau of Military Justice" selected to examine the alleged conspiracy behind the assassination of President Lincoln in 1865.

After the war, Olcott studied law and applied the forms of legal reasoning from precedent to areas ranging from insurance to taxation. Established professionally in New York City, he turned back to his earlier interest in Spiritualism as an investigative journalist for The New York Sun newspaper. When he first glimpsed HPB at the Eddy Farm in Chittendon, he was in the midst of utilizing various tests that he had developed to detect any possibility of fraud in producing the spiritualist phenomena seen there. He marked cabinets with tape, for example, to allow him to measure the height of the apparitions. He was thorough in looking for any covert space under floors, behind walls, or above the ceiling that could be used for faking the phenomena. He timed the intervals between the appearances and exits of different apparitions.

These methodical precautions and his experiences in Vermont were later collected and described in his People from the Other World. He was clearly at ease with the motley variety of apparitions he encountered and described one occasion when he filled his pipe with tobacco for the apparition of an Indian woman named Honto who wanted to smoke.

'there stood a smoking squaw before us, in feature, costume, and complexion the type of her race, and with no more appearance of spirituality about her than any of the women in the room, who sat there regarding her with amazement. (194)

A further strong indication of Olcott's commitment to a broad concept of scientific objectivity and verification is reflected in his dedication of this book to two prominent English scientists who had shown interest in Spiritualism, Alfred R. Wallace and William Crookes.

The meeting with HPB, however, would initiate Olcott into even more abstruse territory beyond the realms of law, taxes, insurance, philosophy, and science. Their contact had produced ignition—their chemistry as a compound had "stirred up a great and permanent fire," according to the Colonel. The pair embodied two contrasting poles of being; energy, experience, and insight had been brought together to dance alchemically as the "Two Chums"—"The Esoteric She" introduced to the "Worldly He." After years with HPB as his tutor, Olcott would describe an encounter with the astral body of an adept in Old Diary Leaves quite differently from his casual reactions to Honto and her peers:

' his eyes were alive with soul-fire; eyes which were at once benignant and piercing in glance; the eyes of a mentor and a judge, but softened by the love of a father who gazes on a son needing counsel and guidance. He was so grand a man, so imbued with the majesty of moral strength, so luminously spiritual, so evidently above average humanity, that I felt abashed in his presence, and bowed my head and bent my knee as one does before a god or a god-like personage. (379)

Clearly, determining the truth was extremely important to Olcott—honesty seemed to be part of his character as a seeker and not merely a policy. Together, Olcott and Blavatsky would form the hybrid heart of the nucleus of a grand plan for human development that would conceivably take centuries to unfold fully as our species slowly evolves and becomes all that it can be. For in getting to know her and to learn from and through her, an ongoing fire of creation had been generated that would be diffused through the society they were about to launch.

Olcott had started to learn in depth from the singular experiences of his Russian friend. Her guided travels around the world had provided her with firsthand knowledge of both esoteric and exoteric traditions. And, through the gnosis that radiated from her presence, an unprecedented vision of global interconnections and interdependencies slowly began to manifest in the interaction between these two humans who had both been born under the astrological sign of Leo. Olcott's own latent skills would later flourish as he traveled across the world for Theosophy and Buddhism.

This gnosis of transcendence was grounded on a distinction between the apprehension of absolute truth and the perception of relative truth. Knowing this difference firsthand was the fruit of the esoteric training HPB had received. She would later clarify this distinction in a paper entitled "What Is Truth?" originally published in Lucifer in February 1888.

To sum up the idea, with regard to absolute and relative truth, we can only repeat what we said before. Outside a certain highly spiritual and elevated state of mind, during which Man is at one with the UNIVERSAL MIND —he can get nought on earth but relative truth, or truths, from whatever philosophy or religion.

In his Inaugural Address, HSO alluded to this need for an elevated state of consciousness in what was probably an aside only understood by HPB:

Certainly the Theosophical Society cannot be compared to an ancient school of theurgy, for scarcely one of its members yet suspects that the obtaining of occult knowledge requires any more sacrifices than any other branch of knowledge.

As he proceeded with his Inaugural Address, Olcott expressed his understanding of the critical and systematic approach inherent in the new Theosophical Society:

If I rightly apprehend our work, it is to aid in freeing the public mind of theological superstition and a tame subservience to the arrogance of science.No, we are' but simply investigators, of earnest purpose and unbiassed mind, who study all things, prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good'We seek, inquire, reject nothing without cause, accept nothing without proof: we are students, not teachers.

Fourteen years later and still the president of the Theosophical Society, a well-seasoned Olcott would assess the progress of the work in his article "Applied Theosophy":

What the Society has hitherto done—its great merit in the eyes of some, and its terrible fault in the estimation of others—is to make people think. No one can for long belong to the Theosophical Society without beginning to question himself. He begins to ask himself: "How do I know that?" "Why do I believe this?" "What reason have I to be so certain that I am right, and so sure that my neighbours are wrong?" "What is my warrant for declaring this action, or that practice, to be good, and their opposites bad?"

The very air of Theosophy is charged with the spirit of enquiry. It is not the "skeptical" spirit, nor is it the "agnostic." It is a real desire to know and to learn the truth, as far as it is possible for any creature who is so limited by his capacities and so biased by his prejudices as is man. It is that which has raised the Theosophical Society above the level of all other aggregations or organizations of men, and which, so long as its Fellows abstain from dogmatizing, must keep it on an altogether higher plane.

The fact is that the Theosophical Society attracts persons who have got a natural disposition to examine, analyze, reflect; and when this tendency does not exist—when people join the Society from special sympathy with one or more of its Objects—they very soon begin to ponder over the problems of existence, for they find themselves involuntarily and instinctively subjecting their own pet theories and cherished weaknesses to the process of examination which is the slogan of the Society.

By the time of HPB's death in 1891, the mighty power of truth was tied to three expressions:

1. THERE IS NO RELIGION HIGHER THAN TRUTH
   (Theosophical Society Motto)
2. LOYALTY TO TRUTH
   Theosophical Society Creed)
3. TO HONOR EVERY TRUTH BY USE
   Theosophical Society Ritual)

Since its beginning, then, the Theosophical Society has been concerned with a global understanding of "truth" that would allow adjustments to be made for the different languages, myths, religions, philosophies, sciences, and theories that have emerged over the centuries of human history. The tradition recognizes the importance of esoteric spiritual practices that enable truth to "unveil" and surface internally and not merely be discovered through the senses. We must thus transform ourselves consciously, one by one, if the world is ever to embody the peace, wisdom, and knowledge that we can envision as the fruition of Brotherhood.

The importance of truth has continued to be diffused through the many disciplines that have emerged since the end of the nineteenth century. The TS had been one of the groups at the 1893 World's Parliament of Religions in Chicago. A century later, the American Section of the TS was active in planning its centennial, the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions.

Many things had changed over the hundred years, but the importance of the mighty power of truth had not diminished. Spiritual leaders from around the world in attendance were presented a Global Ethic to sign as a universal commitment. Truth was embedded within one of "Four Irrevocable Directives" of the Global Ethic:

1. Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life.
2. Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order.
3. Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness.
4. Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between women and men.

The mighty power that Colonel Olcott had felt in New York in 1875 was amplified in Chicago one hundred and eighteen years later, and compiled into a book by Dr. Hans Kung called A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of World's Religions:

Numberless women and men of all regions and religions strive to lead lives of honesty and truthfulness. Nevertheless, all over the world we find endless lies and deceit, swindling and hypocrisy, ideology and demagoguery:

Politicians and business people who use lies as a means to success

Mass media which spread ideological propaganda instead of accurate reporting, misinformation instead of information, cynical commercial interest instead of loyalty to the truth....

In the great ancient religious and ethical traditions of humankind we find the directive: You shall not lie! Or in positive terms: Speak and act truthfully! Let us reflect anew on the consequences of this ancient directive: No woman or man, no institution, no state or church or religious community has the right to speak lies to other humans....

Young people must learn at home and in school to think, speak and act truthfully. They have a right to information and education to be able to make the decisions that will form their lives. Without an ethical formation they will hardly be able to distinguish the important from the unimportant. In the daily flood of information, ethical standards will help them discern when opinions are portrayed as facts, interests veiled, tendencies exaggerated, and facts twisted....

We must cultivate truthfulness in all our relationships instead of dishonesty, dissembling, and opportunism...(29)

In his Inaugural Address, Olcott had also declared "'we found this Society in token of our discontent with things as they are and to endeavor to bring about something better. . ." Discontent with life has been a powerful source of motivation throughout history.

As a reformer in India, Olcott worked selflessly to bring the strands of Buddhism together. He designed a flag for Buddhism and wrote a catechism of the central tenets of the Buddhist tradition. He also worked to develop schools for the children of the Untouchable caste in India, the "Panchamas" who were neglected. There were improvements to be made in all aspects of life and he was ready to initiate reform wherever he saw it was needed.

As we celebrate Colonel Olcott's life this year, do we feel the mighty power of truth behind the Theosophical Society as strongly as he did in 1875? The challenges of life on earth may require us to reassess the assumptions we have made about the truth of many things. But the vision of brotherhood grounded in truth still has the mighty power to make us work to change ourselves and to help the children and elders—all beings—who share our planet.

If human consciousness is required to generate the next stage of our evolution as a species, more and more of us need to have a long range commitment to a vision of cooperation and peace that does not waver when the inevitable resistance to that vision is encountered. Transformation will not come easily, so it is not wise to be foolishly optimistic. And since it will not come without a sustained effort requiring courage and persistence, it is also unwise to be pessimistic.

Our President-Founder and his Russian Guide set us a high standard to follow in their actions as well as their words and writings. Let us honor them by simply being honest, kind, compassionate, and altruistic beings that know in their hearts that

ALL LIFE IS ONE AND EVEN THE HUMBLEST FORMS ENSHRINE DIVINITY.