Theosophical Encyclopedia

Excerpt from “Personal Recollections of Sir Richard Francis Burton, K.C.M.G., F.R.S., F.R.G.S.”

(Frank Leslie’s Popular Monthly, Vol. XXXIV, No. 5 [November 1892], pp. 572–574)

A. L. Rawson

Sir Francis Richard Burton (1821-1890)

INTRODUCTION:

[The following is an excerpt that appeared in Theosophical History XVIII, no. 3-4 (July-October 2016): 190–94. It includes a brief episode in Madame Blavatsky’s early life wherein Rawson and Sir Richard Burton meet a “pretty young (grass) widow,” i.e., a “married woman whose husband is absent from her” (OED). The event took place in Egypt, between the latter part of 1852—following Rawson’s release from jail[1]—and May 1853—when Burton left Cairo for Mecca.  In an email dated December 31, 2016, Mr. Deveney remarks:

We know two facts here: Rawson got out of jail in New Jersey in mid-1852 (June) and Burton left Cairo for Mecca in May 1853.  So, this little snippet, if it occurred, took place in that period.  It’s funny that Rawson insists that he had by the time he encountered Burton in Cairo already been to Mecca—where he learned H.P.B. had preceded him.  He was certainly a busy beaver and careful to one-up Burton. 

In reading through all of Rawson’s pieces on H.P.B. it’s hard to determine what he actually thought about her and what he was trying to portray her as.  He certainly was under no illusions about her or her “powers”, but he seems at great pains to try not to utterly call her, flat-out, a phony.  He also was very careful to show that, whatever she was, he was greater! 

Rawson’s piece is very disjointed and reads like some editor cut a lot out: H.P.B. just appears, without introduction, and there are loose ends everywhere: who was her “Russian friend” and was it a man or woman?  Was she in the group that went around Cairo after the séances at Shepheard’s Hotel?  The visit to the snake charmer is obviously the same as that described in Theosophical Occult Apology, in which Rawson is obviously the young American artist. 

This complete article appears on pages  565–576 of Frank Leslie’s Popular Monthly.

James Santucci, Editor of Theosophical History]

Curuppumullage Jinarājadāsa (16 December 1875 – 18 June 1953), was a Sri Lankan scholar, lecturer, and writer who served as the fourth President of the Theosophical Society based in Adyar, Chennai, India from 1945 to 1953. An accomplished linguist, he traveled extensively for fifty years as an international lecturer, speaking in English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese, as well as Sinhalese and Tamil. He was known to his wide circle of friends as "Raja", "Brother Raja", or "CJ"

[This article originally appeared in Theosophical History II, no. 1 (January 1987): 4–22. It provides additional information on H. N. Stokes that could not be included in my original article, “H. N. Stokes and the O. E. Library Critic,” which appeared in Theosophical History I, no. 6 (April 1986): 129–39. Since the reproduction of the original was very poor, due to my poor choice of formatting, this is the first opportunity of displaying the article in a readable format. As with my previous article that appeared in Theosophical History I, no. 6 (April 1986), some minor revisions were made in order to correct the text.] 

H.N. Stokes’ Early Contact with The Theosophical Society

 By Dr. James Santucci 

Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies 

California State University 

Fullerton, CA 92834-6868  

“Dr. Roastem Stokes”, 1 “Paprika-Tabasco - Stokes” 2 : fitting names for an individual who was identified as perhaps the most outspoken detractor of the leaders of the Theosophical Society. (Adyar). For those familiar with Dr. Henry Newlin Stokes (1859–1942) and his O. E. Library Critic, he either was the doyen of derogators—a villifier, a falsifier, a vilipender—or the guardian of Truth and exposer of purulence, deception, and hypocrisy. 3 For those on the receiving end of his vituperations, Dr. Stokes was considered to be an individual incapable of engaging in or even, for that matter, of suggesting constructive endeavors. He was the censurer par excellence, a Cain, a scourge, a Hun on the rampage, and when there was nothing left to despoil, a “Shiva without a job” 4 on the lookout for new territory to plunder.

Paprika-Tabasco - Stokes

Such observation, however blunt, cannot be disputed, for even a casual reading of the O. E.Library Critic from 1918 to its demise in 1942 exhibits this negative tendency well enough. Yet, when the Critic is read prior to 1917 in conjunction with Stokes’ private correspondence, especially from the years 1912 to 1914, one is struck—perhaps astonished is the more appropriate word—with the antithetical attitude of its Editor. A more diametrically opposed perspective vis-a-vis the Theosophical Society cannot be imagined. If he was a Leadbeater-phobe after 1917, he had been more of a “-phile” prior to this time; if he considered George Arundale more of a buffoon with overblown and fatuous designs for the Society from the 1920s on, he had had nothing but admiration for Mr. Arundale in 1914; if he was identified with the “Conservative Party” within the Theosophical Movement after 1917, he certainly had made it clear that he considered the “Progressive Party” as the more authentic representative of Theosophical ideals. Perhaps the most astounding revelation from his early correspondence is the impression that Dr. Stokes, the one responsible for coining the phrase “Back to Blavatsky” 5  in 1917, had not placed any reverential significance in the writings of Madame Helena P. Blavatsky a few years earlier. It is true that he [5] fully appreciated her role as a Founder of the Theosophical Society, but he considered Mrs. Annie Besant his role model, the one who inspired him to be a Theosophist, for it was she “who ...showed me the tremendous significance of Karma and that the universe is conducted on ethical principles .... “ 6

James A. Santucci* - USA

[author’s note: This article was first published in Theosophical History I, no. 6 (April 1986):129-39. The preponderance of information appearing herein originated from the archives of The Theosophical Society (Pasadena), which at the time of the writing of the article was accessible to Theosophists and non-Theosophists alike because of the policy advocated by its Leader, Ms. Grace Knoche. I was also very fortunate to have known the archivist, Mr. Kirby van Mater, who, together with his brother, John van Mater—the librarian of the Society—was personally acquainted with Dr. Stokes. Because of my numerous discussions with the van Maters, researching Stokes’ life became much more than a simple exercise of researching a distant figure. Little did I know that I would assume a role very similar to that of Dr. Stokes, an editor of an independent journal.]

Henry Newlin Stokes

Henry Newlin Stokes is a name familiar to none except perhaps those who are well-versed in the history of the Theosophical Society. Unfamiliarity, however, does not detract or diminish from the unique contribution that he made to the Society. He belongs to that vast, nameless group of individuals who in their own quiet and committed way contribute whatever talent and resources they possess to making their society more enlightened, humane, ethical, or materially better off than it was before their entry onto the human stage. He led a most unusual life that encompassed chemistry and occultism, agnosticism and theosophical ideals. He was a friend of the friendless and a contentious and outspoken antagonist of the powerful.

THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETIES

By Dr. James Santucci

Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies

California State University

Fullerton, CA 92834-6868

Adyar, part of Headquarters Building. Photo: © Richard Dvořák   

[Versions of this article have been published in Syzygy, vol. 6, no. 1–2 (Winter-Fall 1997): 221–45; The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, edited by James R. Lewis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998) [and second edition, 2002], 388–89 [2^nd ed.: 573] (“Point Loma Publications”), 476 [2^nd ed.: 722–723] (“Temple of the People”), 480–83 [2^nd ed.: 727–730] (“Theosophical Movement”), 483–87 [2^nd ed.: 730–734] (“Theosophical Society”), 503–505 [2^nd ed.: 760–762] (“United Lodge of Theosophists”), and 527–28 [2^nd ed.: 802–803 (“The Word Foundation”), and in Odd Gods, edited by James R. Lewis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001), 270–289.

This text was updated in 2013 through the efforts of Janet Kerschner (the Archivist at the Henry S. Olcott Memorial Library, The Theosophical Society in America, Wheaton, Illinois), S. Ramu (General Manager, Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar), Kenneth Small (Point Loma Publications), Herman C. Vermeulen (The Theosophical Society, Point Loma, The Hague, The Netherlands), Jan Nicolaas Kind (Theosophy Forward).  The 2013 edition was edited for Web publication by the late John Algeo, former President of the Theosophical Society in America and Vice President of the International Theosophical Society in Adyar, Chennai, India.  The presentation has been further updated in 2020.]

________________________________ 

THEOSOPHY

The modern Theosophical Movement is represented today in the U.S. primarily through seven organizations: the Theosophical Society, headquartered in Adyar, Chennai, India; the Theosophical Society, headquartered in Pasadena, California (U.S.A.); the United Lodge of Theosophists, formed in Los Angeles, California; the Temple of the People, with headquarters at Halcyon, near Pismo Beach, California; the Word Foundation of Dallas, Texas; and Point Loma Publications (now renamed as the Point Loma School of Theosophic Perennialism) in San Diego, California, and The Theosophical Society: Point Loma. Of these groups, the Adyar T.S. is considered by most Theosophists and scholars to be the parent organization. All claim to disseminate Theosophical teachings, “Theosophy” referring to a term popularized and defined by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831–1891) to denote the Wisdom of the Ages, embodying “higher esoteric knowledge”—hence, a “Secret Doctrine”—partially recoverable in imperfect and incomplete form in those portions of the scriptures of the world’s great religions that express mystical teachings and in those philosophies that display a monistic or pantheistic bent. 

THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETIES

By Dr. James Santucci

Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies

California State University

Fullerton, CA 92834-6868

Adyar, the front of Headdquarters Building. photo taken with a wide angle lens

HPB, photo taken in 1877

+++++++

In 1898, Mrs. Tingley renamed the T. S. in America the Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society,[1] and as its “Leader and Official Head” she pursued her activities in applied Theosophy, including an ambitious educational program, called Raja Yoga, that was initiated in 1900, and which emphasized an integration of physical, mental, spiritual training, and education. From the earliest student population of five, the number quickly jumped to 100 by 1902, two-thirds of whom were Cuban, owing to her abiding interest in Cuba arising from the Spanish-American War in 1898 and the support by Mayor Bacardí of Santiago of Mrs. Tingley’s objectives. In 1919 the educational program was expanded with the establishment of the Theosophical University. With the closing of the lodges in 1903, most of the committed and talented members were now at Point Loma engaging not only in this formal educational experiment but also in related activities such as agriculture and horticulture, writing, researching, publishing, dramatic, and musical productions.

THEOSOPHY AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETIES

By Dr. James Santucci

Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies

California State University

Fullerton, CA 92834-6868

Another look at Headquarters Building in Adyar

Well-known classic H.P.B. photo

+++++++

BELIEFS/PRACTICES 

The teachings promulgated by the Theosophical societies are ultimately those that have secured the attention of its members as well as what individuals understand Theosophy to be. As a rule, most Theosophists associate the basic teachings with the “three fundamental propositions” contained in the Proem of H.P. Blavatsky’s magnum opus, The Secret Doctrine. An overview of the development of Blavatsky’s and other Theosophists’ understanding of Theosophy reveal a variety of interpretations. In fact, the term ‘theosophy’, chosen to represent the aspirations and objects of the Society, had little to do with its later development. Theosophy was accepted as the name of the Society in accordance with the definition found in the American edition of Webster’s unabridged dictionary (published ca. 1875),[1] which is as follows:

supposed intercourse with God and superior spirits, and consequent attainment of superhuman knowledge by physical processes as by the theurgic operations of ancient Platonists, or by the chemical processes of the German fire philosophers.

The term, however, was not unknown prior to this period (September, 1875). Blavatsky employed the term in February 1875 in a letter to Professor Hiram Corson (“theosophy taught by the Angels”) and in her “A Few Questions to ‘Hiraf’” (“Theosophic Seminary”).