ammonius saccas: dejerufi1t9 a tlleosopflical history · and help support its efforts. additional...

Volume X, Number 4 Winter 2006

Ammonius Saccas: Dejerufi1t9 a TlleosopfLicaL

History

Tile Dark. side ofOr9a1l

Transplants

Tile SacredWe6: Recappi1t9 tile

Edmonton 2006 Conference

A Vehicle for the Ancient Wisdom Tradition

FROM A COLLECTION OF QUOTATIONS COMPILED BY MARK JAQUA

The Past! What is it? Nothing. Gone! Dismiss it. You are the past of yourself. Therefore it con-cerns you not as such. It only concerns you as you now are. In you as now you exist, lies all thepast. So follow the Hindu maxim: “Regret nothing; never be sorry; and cut all doubts with thesword of spiritual knowledge. Regret is productive only of error. I care not what I was, or what any-one was”. I only look for what I am each moment. For as each moment is and at once is not, it mustfollow that if we think of the past we forget the present, and while we forget, the moments fly by us,making more past. Then regret nothing, not even the greatest follies of your life, for they are gone,and you are to work in the present which is both past and future at once. - W.Q.J.

- Quoted in Canadian Theosophist, 1-15-1950

We have entered on the dim beginning of a new era already. It is the era of Western Occultism andof special and definite treatment and exposition of theories hitherto generally considered. We haveto do as Buddha told his disciples: preach, promulgate, expound, illustrate, and make clear in de-tail all the great things we have learned. That is our work, and not the bringing out of surprisingthings about clairvoyance and other astral matters, nor the blinding of the eye of science by discov-eries impossible for them but easy for the occultist. The Master’s plan has not altered. He gave itout long ago. It is to make the world at large better, to prepare the right soil for the growing out ofthe powers of the soul, which are dangerous if they spring up in our present selfish soil. It is not theBlack Lodge that tries to keep back psychic development; it is the White Lodge. The Black wouldfain have all the psychic powers full flower now, because in our wicked, mean, hypocritical, andmoney-getting people they would soon wreck the race. This idea may seem strange, but for thosewho will believe my unsupported word I say it is the Master’s saying.

- William Quan Judge, Irish Theosophist, Vol. III, January 1895and Theosophia, No. 140, Fall 1974

What of the darkness? What of the light? They are one to those who see. How plain these mattersare in higher moments, how drearily obscure at other times. This will show you the value of highermoments, perhaps, and what those always living in them enjoy.

Be what you love. Strive after what you find beautiful and high, and let the rest go. Harmony, sac-rifice, devotion, take these for keynotes, express them everywhere and in the highest possible way.The beauty of a life like that, the power of it, who can measure or set bounds to?

- Attributed to William Quan JudgeFrom Theosophia No. 141

In ethics all these religions are the same, and no new ethic is given by any. Jesus was the same ashis predecessor Buddha, and both taught the law of love and forgiveness. A consideration of thereligions of the past and today from a Theosophical standpoint will support and confirm ethics. Wetherefore cannot introduce a new code, but we strive by looking into all religions to find a firm ba-sis, not due to fear, favor, or injustice, for the ethics common to all. This is what Theosophy is forand what it will do. It is the reformer of religions, the unifier of diverse systems, the restorer of jus-tice to our theory of the universe. It is our past, our present, and our future; it is our life, our death,our immortality.

- Closing words of an address delivered by W. Q. Judge, April 17, 1894,before the Parliament of Religions, San Francisco, California

��

FOHATA Quarterly Publication of Edmonton Theosophical Society

ContentsEditor

Robert Bruce MacDonald

Managing EditorJoAnne MacDonald

Assistant EditorsRogelle PelletierDolorese Brisson

PublisherEdmonton Theosophical

Society

The pages of Fohat are an openforum dedicated to the pursuit ofTruth, and consequently theviews and opinions expressedherein are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect theviews of the publisher unlessotherwise specifically stated.

Send articles or correspondence to:

FOHATBox 4587

Edmonton, AlbertaCanada T6E 5G4

E-mail: [email protected]: (780) 436-0804

www.theosophycanada.com

Subscription Rates:1 year (4 issues)

$15.00 Cdn in Canada$15.00 US in U.S.A.$20.00 US international

Become anAssociate of Edmonton TS

and help support its efforts.Additional $10.00

��

Cover Design: Donna Pinkard

ISSN 1205-9676

Publications Mail Agreement No.40044514

Volume X, No. 4Winter 2006

Editorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Letters to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

To live, to LIVE, to LIVE!: Organ Transplants

and Cellular Memory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

��

Traditionalism in Edmonton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

��

Concerning Ammonius Saccas - Part I. . . . . . . . . 89

��

Theosophical Friends Remembered . . . . . . . . . . 93

William Dallas TenBroeck

Book Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

�� by Grace Knoche

HAPPY

HOLIDAYS

76 FOHAT

The Orthodox - Heterodox Tension

In this issue of Fohat, John Robert Colombo in his article“Traditionalism in Edmonton” introduces an idea that islatently present in most of the articles of this issue. Howcan we hold on to the truths of our traditions while at thesame time add new truths and deepen our understand-ing of older truths? On the one hand there is the dangerinherent in orthodoxies of their sliding into religiousfundamentalism, and on the other hand we have hetero-doxies with their inevitable gravitation towards secularmaterialism. Is there a right relationship between theorthodox and the heterodox that will allow the two towork together within the human psyche dynamicallyspurring it on towards spiritual truth?

The truth of any assumption must be tested with the hu-man heart. Our intuition is a product of the interactionbetween the human heart and the brain-intellect, andwhen we learn to quiet our brain-intellect we can reflectthe insight of the heart onto that brain-mirror madespotless. This is the assumption of this editorial andwhat is to follow will stand or fall on whether the readeraccepts or rejects this assumption. In the same way allpersons who are neither blind nor color-blind can agreethat a particular color is “red”, there will come a time inMan’s far distant future where he will sensorially intuit astatement to be true or not true. Man will be able to de-tect whether the “vibrations” of a particular statement orthesis are in harmony with its archetypal father. If itdoes not harmonize closely enough, then it will be theduty of the word-artist to beautify the object under con-sideration to reflect more perfectly its spiritual principle.

J. Ramón Sordo, in his article “Concerning AmmoniusSaccas”, looks at how assumptions are used injudi-ciously in the world of historians. Sordo looks at howone historian creates an entire argument based on anassumption as to when Ammonius was born. Such anassumption is not the type of assumption whose truthcan be brokered by the human heart. This assumptionmust find its harmony with the written records of thepast. If Man had evolved to the point where he couldcheck the Akasic records, then might the human heartcome into play, but that is not the case at this time.Sordo points out that not only is there no justificationgiven for this assumption based on the historical record,but also that a look at the historical record actually un-dermines the assumption. If this is the case then whywould any historian argue otherwise? If not motivatedby some new evidence for the assumption, then theremust be some other motivating force, else why write? Insuch a case we must ask cui bono — who benefits? Someinstitutional orthodoxy has won out over simple truth.What made the article compelling was that although theassumption had no foundation, the arguments wereperfect. The reader’s mind sympathizes with the ele-gance of the arguments and their conclusions and is dis-tracted into overlooking the falsity of the assumption.

Rogelle Pelletier in her article, “To live, To L��, ToLIVE!”, on organ transplants looks at the whole world ofhidden assumptions. Research scientists seem to be-lieve, in the words of one researcher that “Few would ar-gue any longer that organ transplantation per se crossesany ethical boundaries. Its benefits, balanced againstan almost certain fatal outcome in its absence, are sim-ply too compelling.” Pelletier goes on to show that wherethis assumption might have some legs in the mechanis-tic world of scientific materialism, it falls flat on its facewhen you introduce a spiritual hierarchy. In addition,the assumption overlooks the frequent fatal conse-quences to the organ donor and how this is made fuzzyby arbitrary legal definitions of death. We all like to helpothers, and this is the sentiment that is being playedupon by advocates of organ transplants. However, whenyou are given the full story, even without the metaphysi-cal consequences, does organ transplantation still siteasy with one’s intuitions? In addition, given what thescientist claims above, has the belief in the ethical good-ness of organ transplants become a societal orthodoxy?

When we speak in terms of orthodoxy, we are often refer-ring to religious orthodoxy, articles of faith. The collec-tive mind of the members of a particular religion make oftheir common intuitions on spirituality a set of articlesof faith upon which they all agree. Invariably into thisset of intuitions are placed articles that are not true butrather politically expedient for that certain religion.Consequently, the orthodoxy becomes a barrier forthose who bring their own intuitions to bear on it. Thisleads to a breaking away from the group orthodoxy andas more and more people break away, a heterodox soci-ety is established. Each individual is responsible for hisown personal orthodoxy while at the same time feelingthe challenge of the competing orthodoxies of the rest ofthe community.

The dynamic is now set up. Each individual of the com-munity has broken from institutional thought in favourof truth. Yet, for a community to act, it must agree onsome things. Consequently, the orthodoxies of eachmember are challenged by the heterodox community inwhich they live. Each member must decide which arti-cles of faith are not negotiable, and which ones their in-tuitions are less sure about. The members of thecommunity are driven to introspection and debate in or-der to agree on how to proceed. The institutional ortho-doxies that compete in a community of truth seekersmust cease to exist at some point or else purge them-selves of any self-serving articles if they wish to survive.

The Theosophical Society was set up to appeal to a com-munity of truth seekers. If it was not successful on thisattempt, there will be other attempts where the efforts ofthis past attempt will add to the success of the effort tocome. Then the orthodox and the heterodox will be theengine that drives humanity to a glorious future.

Editorial

WINTER 2006 77

Letters to the Editor:“The Betrayal of Judge”, Fall 2006

This article vindicates W.Q. Judge, while condemn-ing Katherine Tingley as a by product. I don’t see anauthor shown for the article. Reason?

My familiarity with the character of KatherineTingley, has been garnered from an association withthose who knew her. Principally, Emmett andCarmen Small, Gordon Plummer, Boris de Zirkoff,Iverson Harris, etc. Her chief detractors have beenAlice Cleather and Robert Crosbie, the latter perpet-uating a negative aura that infects the ULT, exactlyas the negativity about WQJ in the Adyar Society.Each of these odious traditions diminishes theirrespective group.

Consider the times. Judge dead, the Society split,Adyar in the grip of Besant and Leadbeater foment-ing inane fantasies inimical to Theosophy by 1900,the future bleak. Only in breakaway America did aflicker of hope remain. Forget arguments of succes-sion by WQJ to Tingley. Time has shown her to havebeen the best to carry on the tradition. By strength ofpresence, an uncanny ability to see into people, aphilanthropic nature, and unrelenting dedication,she drew quality people together at Point Loma.When one is aware of all the factors, that communitycould only have occured when and where it flour-ished. The result should be obvious, the major con-tributors to real Theosophy all came from Point Lomain the 20�� century. Even ULT owes its existence toRobert Crosbie, a former Point Loma member, ru-mored to have been ejected by Tingley for plinking atrabbits with a pellet gun. Narrow exponents of the-osophy criticized her Greek theater in which themyths and traditions were played out and explainedas allegories as in the Mysteries of old. They saw heras too autocratic and monetarily irresponsible. Per-haps so, but look at the results. Idiosyncrasies colorus all, is that justification for rejection? Mahatmasoften selected those who could provide some neededaspect, though imperfect personally. Look at MabelCollins, or Hume, etc. As to Alice Cleather, refer toBCW XIV, p.521:

Mrs. Cleather was an outstanding musician andorator with a penchant for total dedication that al-lowed for fewer variations in theosophy than hercontemporaries, as well as possessing a fearlessand adamant outlook.

Cleather believed that her way was the only correctway, and abandoned the movement to work on her

own, having little interaction after teaming with BasilCrump.

On a related subject, G. de Purucker was living inSan Diego, conducting classes in The Secret Doctrine,when visited by WQJ on April 11, 1894. I have seen aletter written in green ink on 6x9 stationary describ-ing the meeting, and which states that Judge took G.de P. into the esoteric section without probation atthat time. April 16th WQJ addressed the ReligiousParliament in San Francisco. In 1897, while in Swit-zerland, it was G. de P. who told Tingley of the PointLoma property.

Richard RobbSan Diego, CA

“Chelas and Truth”, Fall 2006

Referring to Fohat (Fall 2006) I wish first of all to com-mend you for an exceptionally interesting and excit-ing issue. In particular the paper on “Chelas andTruth” impressed me, perhaps the more so becauseit brings up topics and teachings we have been con-cerned with in our own study group.

However, having stated the above, I was dismayed toread the letter from C.H. Collings included in the arti-cle on “The Betrayal of W.Q.Judge” and feel com-pelled to make at least a few comments in defense ofAlice Cleather.

In all fairness I hasten to add that the HPB Librarywas approached by the editors and gave permissionfor its publication, which publication does not de-tract in any way from the worthy content of Fohat,but may even add enhancement. One should nothold back from printing what one believes to be thetruth because of personal sentiments, for in secretsthat are kept hidden there often lurks the scorpionicsting. Expression of diverse views are a stimulationto search deeper and examine one’s possible fixity ofmind.

Alice L. Cleather as a loyal and perceptive pupil ofHPB has always been an important example to me. Iadmire her great strength in remaining true to herconvictions, her courage in speaking her truth whenit was contrary to the popular opinions of the time,and her clear insight into the real mystical heart of

78 FOHAT

the theosophical teachings. As an occultist her intu-itions and explanations are of great value.

Mr. Collings is anything but impartial in his assess-ments, and though I can sympathize with his ardourin defending the teacher in whom he has great trust, Itake exception to the vehemence of his statements inregards to ALC. He speaks of her as bitter. Bitter shewas not: disappointed — yes — in the failure of theos-ophists to recognize the unique opportunity offeredby HPB, in which failing she included herself, as ex-pressed on p.26 of H.P.Blavatsky As I Knew Her.

We are looking back in retrospect on a drama whereall the parts have been played, and it is easy to passjudgements. At the time, all the pieces were sepa-rated, distances more spread out, communicationstook longer, and the individual players were unawareof the inner psychological changes driving the other.After the death of HPB there was confusion, espe-cially among those who had lived within the magne-tism of her aura. When a great light goes out theshadows become active entities. It was a necessity inthe atmosphere of that period following for those whounderstood the inevitable reactions from the darkforces to speak out. ALC saw it as her duty to opposeforcibly in strong words the mistaken concepts andmisdirected actions of the later theosophical leaders,in order to keep alive the original spirit of the move-ment initiated by the Mahatmas.

Perhaps she was hard on Judge, but she did havegreat respect for his position as an occultist. We eachhave our favourite translations of the Bhagavad Gitaand I was told that ALC particularly valued the ver-sion by Judge. It was because she trusted his opin-ion that she turned to Katherine Tingley, and shemerely presents this assertion as a fact. It is not forme to speculate whether WQJ really did fall underthe spell of Tingley’s mediumship or not. It has beenasserted by other theosophists that her hypnoticskills were powerful, and ALC speaks of her own psy-chic struggle under that influence. Mr. Collingsseems to be desperately weaving intricate webs of at-tributing suspicious motives to plain innocent state-ments, but perhaps that too was a practical need atthe time. I do believe he is genuinely motivated inclearing away some of the negativity surroundingJudge when few others were ready to do so.

In my opinion the article redeems itself in finishingwith the long description by Jasper Niemand of oneman’s spiritual journey through inner commitment.

This has always been an immensely inspiring expla-nation for me of how to put into practice the self-in-duced and self-devised efforts outlined in the thirdfundamental proposition of the SD. Consequently Iagree wholeheartedly with the fact that WQJ’s namebeing suggested as a guiding force shows the highstanding he occupies on the evolving path of the eter-nal pilgrim.

Actually this whole section is the very essence ofwhat ALC lived and taught. In her books she speaksof the great cycles converging at the end of the 19��

century, and expresses the opinion that the depar-ture of HPB before that occasion indicates the with-drawal of the Mahatmas’ direct contact with the T.S.as an organized body. In spite of what Mr. Collingsrather supercilliously suggests, this does not meanthat she was so shortsighted as not to recognize thepossibility of contact at the individual level. On thecontrary, as printed in The Canadian Theosophist�� she writes:

Any one may become a Chela at any time, withinhimself. Everyone of us (who is earnest and true)has a Master: One whose hand lifts the veil whenthe Voice, or call of the Soul, becomes strongenough to be heard. Logically and actually the re-lation of Master and disciple must exist, for thesoul in each one of us is a part of the Ray proceed-ing from the Star (“whose ray thou art”), which isthe Master. All these matters have nothing to dowith the personality, which must be got under,and the consciousness drawn inwards and up-wards into unison with that of the inner self orSoul (not even the Ego, but the “budding” soul).When aspiration within becomes intense enough,then the flame is lit automatically in the innerworld, and is seen by the invisible Guardians ofthe Race. But never mix up the personality in allthis, especially in the Kali Yuga. H.P.B.’s warningsare surely clear enough. The Way to the Masterscan never be closed — how could it! But it is not somuch a “way” as a becoming, assimilating Theirnatures, i.e. drawing help from Their plane of Be-ing, in order to encourage the growth of our owninner Being. Study what They are, and strive to letit sink in to such an extent that this Ideal coversour Leit-motif. One-pointedness is here to be real-ized and much has to be abandoned, even hope —

for the personality. For the goal is to become “amere beneficent force in Nature”, as H.P.B. says.

Joan SutcliffeToronto, ON

A free sample of Fohat will be sent to anyone you might suggest.Subscriptions can be purchased according to the rates on the Contents page.

WINTER 2006 79

To live, to LIVE, to LIVE!1

Organ Transplants and Cellular Memory

Rogelle Pelletier

Ancient medical texts describe attempts to replaceexternal parts of the body as early as several hun-dred years BCE. Attempts at transplantation of or-gans in recent history first proved successful in 1954when a kidney taken from a twenty-four year old manwas transplanted into his twin brother. Thus beganthe modern era of organ replacement. With the de-velopment of DNA screening and immuno-suppresant techniques and drugs, virtually any bodypart can now be transplanted. While the medicalethics of organ transplants are questioned in somequarters, at least one research scientist believes that

Few would argue any longer that organ transplan-tation per se crosses any ethical boundaries. Itsbenefits, balanced against an almost certain fataloutcome in its absence, are simply too compelling.The discussion now centers around what societycan or should do to increase the supply of donororgans.�

Many are in total agreement with this perspective,especially in the West where fear of death and thedogma that ‘you only live once’ prevail. While scien-tific/medical researchers strive to ease the misery ofdiseases, it seems that emphasis on extending lifethrough the technology of transplantation has rein-forced the refusal to accept death as a natural part oflife’s journey. However, many aspects of transplan-tation need to be examined. For example, from thepurely physical perspective of cadaveric (now called‘deceased’) harvesting, concerns exist as to when ac-tual complete death of the donor body occurs. De-spite these concerns, as the need increases fororgans there are movements currently at work tryingto declare a person clinically dead ever sooner. Indesperate attempts to help the living, there seems tobe more willingness to disregard the importance ofthe dying process for the one departing but not nec-essarily yet departed.

Numerous examples reveal how workers relocatingcemeteries in various parts of the world have foundscratch marks in the covers of caskets and twistedremains that indicate the bodies obviously were notdead when they were buried. With embalming this isless likely to happen now (although it does not re-move the question of whether or not people are to-tally dead prior to the embalming process). There arealso many reports of near-death experiences (NDEs)on record where persons were presumed officiallydead but were not. One particularly unusual inci-

dent is that of Dr George Rodonaia, a psychologist inthe Soviet Union who was murdered. Two days lateras medical personnel began cutting into him duringan autopsy, he opened his eyes and returned to life“with a very vivid NDE, one that transformed himfrom an atheist to a believer”.�

It became imperative after the heart transplant sur-gery performed by Dr Christiaan Barnard in 1967 toestablish a definition of death that would allow theharvesting of organs before the dying process dam-aged them. In August 1968 the Harvard MedicalSchool set up a thirteen-member Ad Hoc Committeeto Examine the Definition of Brain Death. A series ofreflex tests, called the Harvard Criteria of BrainDeath Test was proclaimed.� Death was redefined asirreversible coma with no discernible central nervousactivity and “brain death” was subsequently incorpo-rated into laws in various countries. Recently how-ever, the Harvard Medical School admitted that theconcept of brain death “fails to correspond to any co-herent biological or philosophical understanding ofdeath”. In the UK it has now been suggested thatpeople should be allowed to donate their organswhen they become “neurologically devastated or im-minently dying”, without first being declared dead.�

In The Nasty Side of Organ Transplanting authorNorm Barber opens chapter 1 with the following dis-turbing sentence: “Transplant surgeons just likemovie vampires and Frankenstein doctors, like theirbodies fresh and not quite dead.”� Further on, DrPhillip Keep, a consultant anaesthetist in the UK isquoted as saying:

Almost everyone will say they have felt uneasyabout it. Nurses get really, really upset. You stickthe knife in and the pulse and blood pressureshoot up. If you don’t give anything at all, the pa-tient will start moving and wriggling around andit’s impossible to do the operation. The surgeon al-ways asked us to paralyse the patient.�

The author adds that at another hospital it was dis-covered that the nurses recorded the time of death atthe end of the harvesting as if the donor had come into the harvest room alive, and that “even surgeonsare sometimes heard to say that the patient ‘sufferedbrain death’ one day and ‘died’ the following day”.Brain death is referred to as a legal and medical fic-tion by a professor of Neurology and Pediatrics from

80 FOHAT

the University of California (Los Angeles) School ofMedicine. Author Norm Barber further states:

Medical and government authorities in the UnitedKingdom are now trying to stifle professional de-bate and public knowledge by telling medical staffin the government health system not to definedeath and avoid terms like “brain death”. The newterm is “certified dead” which avoids uncomfort-able medical definitions that are difficult to defendor explain. Death is then when a doctor says thepatient is dead, regardless.

In 2005 a new organ harvesting policy was being con-sidered in Canada and other countries to expand“the limits of ‘ethics’ in organ transplants” to includecardiac arrest patients. This has now apparently be-come the principal source of organ donation in theU.S. and Europe. Donation after cardiac death in-volves patients who are terminally ill and on life sup-port. In some regions “life support” includesintravenous hydration and tube-feeding.* It is ar-gued that it is in fact the removal of the vital organsthat causes the death of the donor, and there hasbeen wider publicity in Canada about the fact thatorgan donation requires that the donor be “alive”when the extraction occurs. There is a major con-cern that “the need to wait until the patient is no lon-ger using his organs is being overlooked in the rushto get fresh organs to transplant patients”.

One can only imagine the after-death states result-ing from such a traumatic demise! In The MahatmaLetters KH wrote:

The man may often appear dead. Yet from the lastpulsation, from and between the last throbbing ofhis heart and the moment when the last spark ofanimal heat leaves the body — the brain thinksandthe Ego lives, over in those few brief seconds hiswhole life over again. Speak in whispers, ye, whoassist at a death-bed and find yourselves in thesolemn presence of Death. Especially have you tokeep quiet just after Death has laid her clammyhand upon the body. Speak in whispers, I say, lestyou disturb the quiet ripple of thought, and hinderthe busy work of the Past casting on its reflectionupon the Veil of the Future.

Most of us think of physical death as total disembodi-ment. In the process of disembodiment, the brain isthe last organ to die but even after the heart “dies”there remains a point of connection in the heart to“the active Akasa still functioning in the brain andproducing the panorama of the past life’s experi-ences”. The point in the heart vanishes an instant be-fore the last strand of the life-thread is irrevocablysnapped and disappears.�� At that moment there is aseparation of the three lower principles (physical,pranic, astral) from the middle principle (kamic)along with the higher triad (Manas-Buddhi-Atma),

with these last four being in Kama-Loka (the realm ofdesires) awaiting the second death (freeing of thehigher triad to a higher state of consciousness —Devachan). Meanwhile, the physical is disintegrat-ing atom by atom in the surrounding elements — orat least it should be.

Elsewhere, writing about victims of violent deaths(which organ harvesting in numerous instances cer-tainly appears to be), KH wrote:

The majority—neither very good nor very bad, thevictims of accident or violence (including mur-der)—some sleep, others become Nature pisachas,and while a small minority may fall victims to me-diums and derive a new set of skandhas from themedium who attracts them. Small as their num-ber may be, their fate is to be the most deplored.��

The Mahatma’s words relate to actual death and thepossibility of attraction to the physical realm of thetwo-principled (prana and astral) ‘shell’ of the de-ceased, particularly those of a more materialistic na-ture. �� ! "�#$�%%

��& ��'��( ��)*�+* � ��+��)� What, therefore, couldpossibly be the ramifications for donors who are notonly ‘not quite dead’ in the first place but, in addition,whose organ(s) have been given an extended life,usually to multiple recipients. In many ways organtransplants include an element of mediumship.

An example of the effects on the after-death stateswhere an organ transplant is involved is the follow-ing. An individual in the circle of this writer’s ac-quaintances sees in the astral. A five-year old girl inthe care of this individual’s neighbour was awaiting aliver transplant. An organ was found when a boy afew years younger was killed in a farm accident. Fol-lowing surgery, the astral body of the boy was seen inthe vicinity of the girl, still attached to his liver by acord. Over the next months, the little girl began dis-playing aggressive tendencies and other behavioursout of character from prior to her surgery. My ac-quaintance could see that the little boy’s astral wasbecoming enmeshed with the little girl’s physical/as-tral, until it became difficult to differentiate one fromthe other.

Early theosophical writings are very explicit aboutthe serious consequences of mediumship, that is, ofoffering an Upadana (vehicle) for the shell and ex-tending its life. Left to its own cycle it will weaken,break up and fade away, blending with the etherssurrounding our earth. However, by not allowingthis to proceed naturally and providing a physicalconnection (similar to the one just lost), a thirst forlife is awakened. A new set of skandhas is therebyset in motion “with far worse tendencies and pas-sions than was the one they lost”, in other words, ad-

� ��

WINTER 2006 81

ditional karmic circumstances and consequences��.KH explains that “the Skandhas represent not only amaterial but also a set of mental and moral quali-ties”. As to future incarnations:

All the future of this new body will be determinedthus, not only by the Karmaof demerit of the previ-ous set or group but also by that of the new set ofthe future being.��

Those who have died of natural causes at their ap-pointed hour suffer fewer consequences as a result oftheir shells being drawn to this so-called second life(the negative consequences being mostly the me-dium’s in this instance). The same cannot be said of“suicides and those killed by accident”.

As to the victims of accident . . . Unless they wereso good and pure, as to be drawn immediatelywithin the Akasic Samadhi, i.e., to fall into a stateof quiet slumber. . . until their natural life-term isfinished, when they find themselves born in theDeva-Chan — a gloomy fate is theirs. Unhappyshades, if sinful and sensual they wander about —(not shells, for their connection with their twohigher principles is not quite broken) — until theirdeath-hour comes.��

Further on KH adds:

Hence one of such Egos. . . who either killed him-self or was killed by some accident. . . would haveto pass in the KamaLoka not “a few years”. . . as anElementary, or rather an “earth-walker”; since heis not, unfortunately for him, even a “shell”. . . .And, woe to those whose Trishna [desire for life]will attract them to mediums, and woe to the lat-ter, who tempt them with such an easyUpadana.��

In response to Student’s questions about some of thedangers at séances Sage (HPB) explained that

elementaries — half dead human beings . . . fallupon the people like a cloud or a big octopus, anddisappear within them as if sucked in by a sponge.That is one reason why it is not well to attend themin general.��

This absorption of the astral remnants of the trans-planted organs likely accounts for the phenomenonof so-called “cellular memory” which is often one ofthe after-effects of the surgery. Books have beenwritten about the experiences of some organ recipi-ents. The most famous, A Change of Heart by ClaireSylvia details how her tastes, habits and interestschanged following her heart and lung transplant in1988. A health-conscious dancer/choreographer,she had an irresistible urge to go to a Kentucky FriedChicken outlet for chicken nuggets upon leaving thehospital. She became more aggressive and impetu-ous, which was uncharacteristic of her, and she de-veloped an interest in motorcycles. She later learnedthat her donor was a young male who had died in amotorcycle accident. He apparently loved chickennuggets and some were found in the pocket of his

jacket when he was killed. Among the many on re-cord who have undergone similar experiences: therecipient of the heart of a drowning victim who is nowafraid of water; the male teenager who received theheart of a fourteen-year old female vegetarian, possi-bly anorexic gymnast and who is now often nause-ated around food; the three-year old heart recipientwho recognized his former parents; the man who re-ceived the heart of a young classical violinist and de-veloped an interest in listening to classical music.��

The explanation lies in the evolution of physical‘life-atoms’ as we humans strive towards divinity. Gde Purucker explains it this way:

It is well to remember in this connexion that ineach succeeding rebirth into earth-life you pick upthe same physical life-atoms which were yours inyour former incarnations because they belong toyou; they are your children and are impressedwith your karman; in a sense they are the bearersof your physical karman. . . . [T]hese physicallife-atoms are returning to you, and you cast themforth again, and they will return to you again andagain, and they will accompany you through eter-nity, growing as you grow, evolving as you evolve.This is because they are your children, the off-spring of your essence; they follow in your train . . .so it is on every plane. . . .

The reunion of the physical life-atoms to the rein-carnated entity is inevitable; you cannot helpyourself. You have to take up the life-atoms whosefaces you have dirtied in the past, and wash themclean. It is a part of your karman, and you may bethankful that it is so; for if you had to work withthe life-atoms belonging to someone else, youwould be in a very disagreeable situation indeed.

It is true . . . that life-atoms from each of us arepassing through the bodies of all others constantly,but they are not permanent in location, they are intransit. They learn from you, and you learn in asense from them; but it is on your own physicallife-atoms that you mostly feed and it is throughthese that your body grows in bulk and weight; andyou take . . . very few alien life-atoms. . . .

Our life-atoms are parts of us, not so much ‘at-tached’ to us, but are integral parts of our streamof karmic existence, prânic children of the Brah-man within each one of us, which is for each one ofus respectively the inner god. . . . It means that youhave practically the same body that you had inyour last life: somewhat evolved, somewhat im-proved, somewhat better to be sure: but the same‘dear old body’ which you so loved — you have itagain! . . .�

H.P. Blavatsky points out in The SecretDoctrine that

as the individual Soul is ever the same, so are theatoms of the lower principles (body, its astral, orlife double, etc.), drawn as they are by affinity andKarmic law always to the same individuality in aseries of various bodies, etc., etc.�

82 FOHAT

To this she adds in the accompanying footnote re-garding monadic memory:

The collective aggregation of these atoms formsthus the Anima Mundi of our Solar System, thesoul of our little universe, each atom of which is ofcourse a soul, a monad, a little universe endowedwith consciousness, hence with memory.

G de Purucker does state that when the body breaksup at death, its life-atoms composing it transmigratethrough the kingdoms of Nature and are attracted toentities with the same rates of vibration. He refers tothis as psycho-magnetic attraction, which is also thebasic definition of heredity. These life-atoms areeventually “attracted back by the dominant magneticpull of the Reincarnating Ego to whom they belongedin the preceding earth-life”,�� adding further else-where that

The life-atoms are moved . . . by the great forces ofthe Universe, and hence they follow their instincts,their psycho-magnetic attractions, precisely as themagnet-needle points to the north. . . . They followautomatically the karmic attractions and the kar-mic movements which motivate them, and conse-quently no mistake can be made by them.��

HPB specifically indicates above that the atoms ofeach principle are re-drawn to the same individual.Here she also writes that “the Occultists are consis-tent with their doctrine of Spirit and Soul whenspeaking of memory in every atom”. Reference wasmade earlier to skandhas reflecting karma. In TheKey to Theosophy Blavatsky quotes from Buddhistteachings and lists five Skandhas or attributes.These are: material qualities (form or body), sensa-tion, abstract ideas, tendencies of mind, and mentalpowers:

Of these we are formed; by them we are consciousof existence; and through them communicate withthe world about us.

She adds that memory is one of these attributes.��

In “Psychic and Noetic Action” Blavatsky writes:

Occultism regards every atom as an “independententity” and every cell as a “conscious unit.” It ex-plains that no sooner do such atoms group to formcells, than the latter become endowed with con-sciousness, each of its own kind, and with free will

to act within the limits of law. . . . [M]emory has noseat, no special organ of its own in the humanbrain, but it has seats in every organ of the body.��

Paracelsus writing on the close sympathetic relation-ship between the remnants of the body and the astralform, helps to explain why the astral memory of theyoung boy’s body was still visibly attached to hisliver, as also the so-called “cellular memory” effect inso many transplant organ recipients. Writing aboutlife-essence in the body of man he stated:

Even the ignorant knows that man has a heart andlungs, a brain and a liver and stomach; but hethinks that these organs are independent things,that have nothing to do with each other; and evenour most learned doctors are not aware of the factthat these organs are only the material and bodilyrepresentatives of invisible energies that pervadeand circulate in the whole system; so that, for in-stance, the real “liver” is to be found in all parts ofthe body, and has its herd in that organ which wecall the liver. All the members of the body are po-tentially contained in the centre of the vital fluid,which has its seat in the brain, while the activitywhich propels it comes from the “heart”.��

Elsewhere he writes: “As each of the componentparts has its own life, so it has its own death.”��

As outlined above by G de Purucker, the strongestkarmic psycho-magnetism will attract the life-atomsto the new incarnation. Memories of one organ, butwith two participants in its lifetime, could possiblyresult in two individuals sharing the life-atoms of aparticular organ in future. There would tend to be apsycho-magnetic link between the two. With inputfrom an external source, namely the thoughts of two(separate) incarnated individuals interacting uponeach other, the possibility of neurological disordersor mental dysfunctions resulting from this commin-gling of the life-atoms and their accompanying mem-ories cannot be ruled out. Consider the effects oforgan harvesting from the body of a child who almostimmediately reincarnates into the same family circle,shortly after some of his vital organs have beentransplanted to another body. Although it does notreally matter what happens to the physical body afterdeath, upon re-entry into incarnation all the parts (inthe time and space which applies to the incoming in-dividual) are required for the entity to be fully func-tional. In the case of transplantation, organs thatshould have died with the body are kept alive beyondtheir time. Karma is altered and skandhas added tothe mix.

Equally unnerving is experimentation with xeno-transplantation, which is defined as “the transplan-tation of living cells, tissues or organs from one spe-cies to another.”�� During the last decade pigs arebeing bred with human genes in the hopes of foolingthe human immune system into accepting a foreignorgan. This is in fact creating animals that are parthuman, supposedly for the benefit of humanity, butdefinitely ,-� to the benefit of the transgenic animalswhich are born with various physical abnormali-ties.�� Transplanting animal parts into humans canonly eventually result in physical alteration of thebody and probable deformities as humans regress toanimal tendencies and features. The “Island of DrMoreau” may not be quite the fiction we supposed itto be! It is imperative that medical researchers andpractitioners eventually admit the reality and vital

WINTER 2006 83

importance of the invisible influences that are part ofall life forms.

However well-intentioned organ donors may be (andignorance is never an excuse according to the Mahat-mas), how seriously is organ transplantation mess-ing with the natural process? Is this retarding theprogress of humanity by confusing even further thecurrent process of its evolution? The transplantedorgan carries the life-atoms and, therefore, the astralimprint of the donor body. The recipient body istricked by artificial means (anti-rejection drugs) to

accept the alien part. The organ having been part ofa former whole, carries its own level of vibration ofthe body it originally supported. From an occultperspective, forcibly introducing an ‘alien’ organinto another human body appears to be a type ofblack magic — not unlike vampires which seek toprolong their life as long as possible. Tanha, whichis defined as the thirst for life, when carried to theextreme of organ replacement rather than throughthe refinement of one’s own atomic elements byright living, is not the destiny of a humanity aspiringto spirituality.

�� !��" #!��" $��%�& �� & '�� (& #�� )**+& ��),)�

��-�.�� / ��. �� 0�� 0�� .� �� 12�� 34 �� 5�2��6& -�� 7�� 8��& )99:& �� 6��6��

��;�� -�.�� #�� 2�� #� �� & ��<��.��& ��.�� & =�� +>>)�

��;� ?�� @�� 2�� ) �� A�� 0�� 1+

��& +>>(4&

�.�� <��.��<;;;2�);�?��@��B+>>C):�

��0�� @�� A�� @�� @� @�� & �.�� <��.��<0��@��?�A��@��B+>>:+>�

��;� ?�� @��& 2�� ) �� A�� 0��& �.�� <��.��<;;;2�);�?��@��B+>>C):�

�?��& 2�� + �@�� #�� A�� ;��

�� & %�� )C& +>>: 12�� 4 �� <��<+>>:<��<>:>9)C>,�� <+>>:<��<>:>+))>C�� <)999<;��<99>,+(>)��

�� & +

��& 8��&2;/ �� 7�� 8��& )93:& ��)3>D)3)�

��& ?E/,& �� +>>:& �@��/ �� @��. 8�� ;��/ �;��.�� @�� 7�� %��F� ��& �� & '��+& �� @�� 6��& %�� @��.�& 2;/ 8�� 8�� & ?� �& )9*>& ��,(+�

�� & ��)(C� �� 1%��6��4 �� 6��6� �� %�� / ��& ?E/,& �� +>>:&�@��/ �� @��. 8��

��?� �� & �� . �� %�� ! "� ��#��$ %&&$ '�� (�� (�� ) &&& %�� @��.�& 2;/ 8�� 8�� & ?� �& )9*3& ��))+�

�� & ��))(�

�� & ��)>9�

�� & ��))+D))(�

��*��+��#�! (�� & '�� ?E& ��& ?�/ �� 8��. G��& )93,& ��)>3�

�� ,��-� (�� 8�� 8��& 8��@� A� H��6/ 0�� 0��6�& )99*& ++* �� I ��& ��& 0��.�� ?�D�� %�� -�.�� 2�� #��& ��.��& )+/(& #��D=�� +>>:& ��+3D(+& *>D*+ ��.�J�� <�� <2��#��

� �� ! "� �� #��$ /&&&$ "��$ �� $ ��)��& %�� @��.�& 2;/ 8�� 8�� & ?� �& )9*3&��(>D()� %�� (*�

�� '�� & '�� ??& �� 7�� 8��& 8��& 2;& )93>& ��C3+�

�� ! "� �� #��$ /&&&& ��(3�

�� ! "� �� #��$ /&&&& ��,>�

�� 0�� & 8��& 2;/ �� 7�� 8��& )93+& ��)+9�

��*��+��#�! (�� & '�� E??& ��& ?�/ �� 8��. G��& )9*>& ��(C:�

�� $��J G��& #@& K��.�� 8��& �� & �� L 2�� & +

��&

��+)*D+)9� 8�� ),9(D):,)�

��?��& ��)9:�

��;�� / �� . �� 2�� D�� =�� 5� ��.�� =�� (� �� & =�� 9& +>>+& )C31)4& ��,>�

�� . �� E��B� � ��D��.<��.<��

84 FOHAT

Traditionalism in Edmonton

John Robert Colombo

My wife Ruth and I attended a two-day conference inEdmonton that came and went with little or no mediacoverage but that was nevertheless meaningful andsignificant to serious people. Its proceedings shouldbe of particular interest to Theosophists because thesessions were devoted to a discussion of Tradi-tionalism, a metaphysical movement that focuses onthe perennial philosophy, one that has also beencalled primordialism. Its metaphysical principles aredeeply embedded in man, in nature, in earth, and inthe heavens.

Here are a few details. The conference we attendedwas called “The Sacred Web: Tradition in the ModernWorld.” It was held at the Myer Horowitz Theatre onthe campus of the University of Alberta in Edmontonon Saturday and Sunday, September 23 and 24,2006. Its final day coincided with the first day ofRamadan.

It is amusing to note that the registration fee wasoriginally set at $150, so I sent the sponsors twicethat amount for seats for Ruth and myself. Two weeksbefore the commencement of the conference we re-ceived an email to the effect that “a major donation”had been received and that the registration fee hadbeen lowered to $20 per day ($10 for seniors and stu-dents with ID). I was relieved that the conference hadnot been canceled! But two questions immediatelyoccurred to me. First, who was the anonymous do-nor? Second, were advance registrations low? Inever did learn the answers to those questions but wewillingly accepted a rebate cheque for $220. So wewere able to attend the two-day function for $80. (Itshould have been $40, as we are seniors, but nevermind.) Whatever the right amount, we regarded it asa great investment as well as a great saving. There isa saying that no worthwhile initiative goes unre-warded; that was certainly true in this instance.

What follows are the notes that I made during theproceedings, combined with some of Ruth’s observa-tions. Please note that words, phrases, and sen-tences enclosed within quotation marks are notnecessarily the verbatim words uttered by the speak-ers, but an approximation or a condensation of thepoints that were being made. There are plans to pub-lish the proceedings of the conference, so this com-mentary on the philosophia perennis will besupplanted by the ipsissima verba. In the meantime,I hope these notes will give the interested readersomething of the force and flavour of the two days.

Let me add only that the interpretations are mine andmine alone.

I will reserve a description of the constitution of theaudience until after I have reviewed the proceedings.The audience was put into a meditative state of mindand emotion with a brief musical performance titled“Jugalbandi: A Dialogue between Traditions” whichfeatured three performers playing traditional instru-ments from the Middle East and India: bansuri (flute),ney (stringed instrument), and saragni (flute). The com-positions immediately put me in mind of the momentabout four years ago that I stepped into the Desert ofRajasthan and felt lost in the vastness of creation.

The welcoming address and the introductory re-marks were conveyed by M. Ali Lakhani who over thetwo days introduced and thanked all the contribu-tors. He did so with the right degree of masterfulmodesty. He briefly discoursed on the special mean-ing given to the word Traditionalism, which focuseson the “sense of the Sacred,” the timeless nature ofTruth, its transcendent nature, and the form ofinitiatic religion. He noted that an outer disharmonyreflects an inner malaise, one especially charac-teristic of this century.

Mr. Lakhani, a man of compact build, is elegant inmanner and precise in speech. An Ismaili Moslem, hewas born in Kent, England, is a graduate in law fromCambridge University, and conducts a legal practicein Vancouver. Noting the absence of a scholarly jour-nal devoted to Traditional studies, he founded thesemi-annual journal Sacred Web in Summer 1998. Itspecializes in the publication of scholarly andsemi-popular articles on the principles of primor-dialism, as it is sometimes called. I have been a sub-scriber to the journal for the last four years.

It was a coup to have as the first presenter HRH ThePrince of Wales. Prince Charles videotaped a specialmessage to the conference at St. James Palace on July18. (The text appears in the current issue of SacredWeb.) It is not general knowledge but certainly not ahidden fact that Prince Charles has been influencedby the ideas behind Traditionalism. Indeed, he is thepatron of the Temenos Academy in Ashford, Kent. Healso reads Sacred Web and the other semi-annualjournal Sophia. Prince Charles mentioned both publi-cations in his address; indeed, at times his enthusi-asm for Sacred Web sounded uncomfortably close to asales pitch! He spoke movingly about “creative imagi-nation” and about Traditionalist ideas which consti-

WINTER 2006 85

tute “a critique of the false texts of modernity” andabout “the knowledge of the heart,” a formulation fa-voured by Traditionalists and Sufi poets like Rumi. Henoted with regret the recent death of Martin Lings, anoted Traditionalist. Then he referred to Sir MartinRees, the Astronomer Royal, who has warned man-kind about the environmental crises that are facingthe natural world today. He quoted (from memory)lines by T.S. Eliot that ask the question, “Where is thelife we have lost in living?” Prince Charles spoke di-rectly to the camera in one continuous take that lastedabout fifteen minutes: quite an accomplishment. Hislast words were beautifully chosen: “I can only wishyou a most harmonious conference.”

The keynote address was delivered by SeyyedHossein Nasr, who is recognized to be the world’sleading contemporary Traditionalist thinker. Hethus takes his place alongside the three founders ofthe metaphysical, philosophical, and religious move-ment: René Guénon (1886-1951), AnandaCoomaraswamy (1877-1947), and Frithjof Schuon(1907-1998). Dr. Nasr is a man of considerable pres-ence and commanding erudition. Born in Iran, hewas educated in science and philosophy in the West,initiated in the East, and enjoyed the especial favourof the late Shah of Iran. He could be described as “liv-ing in exile” (in the metaphysical sense to be sure) ex-cept that he seems to be at home in the capital citiesof the world where he is in great demand as a speaker,writer, and spokesman. He is now in his seventiesand a professor at Georgetown University. One of hislesser-known accomplishments is contributing theforeword to a book of photographs of Iran taken bythe late Toronto photographer Roloff Beny. He is ofaverage height, is balding, has a light beard, andwhile he speaks with extraordinary fluency, he occa-sionally betrays some signs of exhaustion. He ex-plained that his cardiologist had warned him that ifhe insisted on lecturing he should do so sitting down.He compromised: he stood while he lectured but satwhile he received questions. For his presentations hedressed dramatically, all in black.

Dr. Nasr titled his talk “The Recovery of the Sacred.”He affirmed the importance of the present conferenceby noting that it is the first such international gather-ing to be held in North America and the second in theWestern Hemisphere. There was an earlier one inLima in 1985 and he had spoken there. He brieflyoutlined some typical Traditionalist concerns, nota-bly the need to recover the Sacred in the world today.The Traditionalist does not yearn to return to thepast, but does yearn for “the past in which the Sacredwas present.” He stressed the paradox: “Nothing ismore timely than the timeless.” Evil is related to themanifestation of the Sacred. He quoted a philosopherwho observed that “knowledge of substance is thesubstance of knowledge.” Modern man has largely

lost his sense of the Sacred, yet its lingering “taste”persists. Our verticality is a sign of the Sacred in us.There is no Traditional civilization that lacks its senseof beauty and there is no metaphysics without the ex-pression of beauty. Beauty may be considered thepresence of “pure knowledge.” “Where there is no er-ror there is no truth.” “‘The heart of the believer is thethrone of God,’ according to the Muslim saying.”

He looked back a century to the birth of Modernity orModernism as the historical period is sometimescalled. He sketched in the “landscape” of 1906, char-acterizing it as being dominated by “rationalism” and“irrationalism” along with “theosophy” (perhaps asan instance of a system of thought that is neither onenor the other). This was the sole reference made byany speaker to lower-case or upper-case theosophy.It was a concession to the fact that materialism doesnot entirely dominate men’s thinking, and perhapsan illustration of his statement is that “nothing wouldexist without some degree of truth.” Before the mod-ern period the cosmos was seen as a Sacred place ofhope. Since Galileo and the triumph of “scientism,”it has been depicted as dead matter, a spiritual void.There is no certain knowledge beneath the sun. “Sci-ence changes every ten years.” There is no place forconsciousness in Modernity. Modern man believesthat consciousness arises out of matter, whereasconsciousness does not evolve; it devolves, beingpresent at the beginning of the cosmos. Man is en-dangering the environment, a theme Dr. Nasr hasbeen reiterating for four decades. There is an ecologi-cal crisis. “Canada will become the only liveableplace on Earth. Canadians may like that, but notother people in the world.”

According to Dr. Nasr, Man must rediscover the Sa-cred within himself. He has not risen from animalsbut has descended from “perfect archetypes.” To thisend he stands vertically. To rediscover the Sacred inhistory is to make short work of the “exclusivist es-chatology” found among believers in the U.S. South,in Muslim countries, and in India. The Sacred mustbe recovered in all the traditional aspects of the socialorder which are being eroded by contemporary val-ues. The values of monarchy, family, cast, and politi-cal institutions have to be continually reaffirmed. Dr.Nasr agreed with the Swiss Traditionalist FrithjofSchuon: “The worst king is better than the best presi-dent,” for the reason that kingship flows from an ar-chetype but presidency does not. Reclaiming theSacred in art and music means reclaiming beautyand regarding the arts as spiritual utilities, not secu-lar luxuries. The Sacred in religion has largely beenmisplaced or lost. Dr. Nasr criticized the views of theCatholic expansionist Teilhard de Chardin, findingmuch of Vatican II in his theories, and then con-trasted them with the need for views that are inward,esoteric. “The more orthodox, the more universal.”

86 FOHAT

Spiritual practice must be conducted by the “ortho-dox cadre.” (A couple of times he used the word“cadre,” an expression which, in English at least, isassociated most often with Communist Party: cadre,the apparatchiksof the Party.) “It’s impossible to statethe truth while error reigns.” One must discover “thegod within” and “the revelation without.” He recalledthe image of the spiritual path minted by AnandaCoomaraswamy: “All paths lead to the same sum-mit.” He added that it is necessary to take one ofthose paths. (This image contrasts neatly withKrishnamurti’s “Truth is a pathless land.”) “Thosewho do not find are not real seekers.” “The opposite oforthodoxy is heterodoxy.” Dr. Nasr declared that to-day we need “the Andalusian model,” a reference to14�� century Spain which saw religious tolerance andmutual understanding among Christians, Muslims,and Jews; the flowering of religion and the arts; andthe revival of Classical learning — all under enlight-ened Muslim rulers in Andalusia.

Dr. Nasr was an imposing presence at the conference;he was lauded and his presentations were ap-plauded, though its contents were in no way remark-able, but they struck the right notes for the audience.His was a “hard act” to follow, but that was the lot ofWilliam C. Chittick. A lean and lanky American, Pro-fessor Chittick speaks and lectures with gusto andalways finds a word or two to emphasize in each sen-tence. If Dr. Nasr spoke broadly, Professor Chittickspoke specifically: he read an academic paper on theway in which Chinese-speakers, upon being intro-duced to Islam, were able to relate its conceptions tothe Classical formulations of Chinese thought. WithMencius it was easy to “seek for the lost heart.” WithConfucius it was easy to “learn how to be human.”Muslim prophets were turned into Chinese sages,sages into prophets. Here was the philosophiaperennis in action. The presentation was a worthyand interesting one, though it seemed somewhat spe-cialized given the non-scholarly audience.

The afternoon session was advertised as a “Forum onthe Future of Tradition,” but flight delays preventedsome presenters from arriving in time, so the forumthat was mounted might have been retitled “Exegesisas the Search for Truth.” Dr. Maria Dakake of GeorgeMason University was the sole woman to present apaper. (It would have been helpful to have made morepresentations by women on feminine as well as femi-nist spirituality.) She spoke on “The Heritage of Fe-male Spirituality from the Traditionalist Perspective”by examining the story of Hagar, wife of Abraham,who became the first woman in the Bible to receive an“annunciation.” Islamic tradition tells us more thanthe Biblical account, for her declining years werespent living close to the Kaaba. She was passive withrespect to Abraham but in her submissiveness andresignation to God she found exceptional virtue. Dr.

Dakake noted that God specially favours women whoare mothers. The analysis was a portion of a longerpaper that examined God’s relationship with fourwomen, including St. Teresa and the Virgin Mary. Al-though God is one, God has made things in pairs.The gender dichotomy has biological, fraternal, andhierarchical consequences. She noted that Schuonobserved that at times these consequences appear tobe “excessively unilateral.”

“Tradition and Inter-Faith Dialogue” was the title ofthe talk by Professor Joseph Lumbard of Brandeis, aman of strength of character. The talk’s title soundsgeneral but its analysis was specific, for he lookedinto the concept of Sonship and the concept of Trinityin Christianity and Islam. In Christianity, Jesus is“the only begotten son”; in the Koran, God does nothave a Son. Perhaps it is not that simple because theprecise physical nature of Sonship was the subject ofdebate by the Church fathers and various interpreta-tions were repudiated by them as well as by Muslimsbefore they became part of the Christian creed. If theformula runs “emanated but not procreated,” Son-ship may be reconciled with Islam. Similar reasoninglies behind the notion of the Trinity. Both Christian-ity and Islam accept the unity of God, but if the Trin-ity is viewed as an “emanation” (perhaps in harmonywith one or other of the ninety-names of God), itwould be consonant with the spirit of the Koran.

Professor David Dakake, also of George Mason, spokeon “A Traditionalist Contribution to Christian-Mus-lim Inter-religious Dialogue: A Study of Two Perspec-tives on the Crucifixion.” Speaking with considerableease, he dealt with the thorny issue of the Crucifixionof Jesus, the core of the Christian creed, which is de-nied by the Koran: “no murder, no crucifixion.” But isthe Crucifixion really denied? Examining those pas-sages that deal with the subject (“they did not kill him. . . they did not crucify him”), Professor Dakake notedthat the key word is “they,” for it seems those pas-sages refer to the claim of the Jewish elders recordedin the Christian Gospels that they themselves wereresponsible for the act, whereas theologically anyCrucifixion that took place was not the responsibilityof any one people or any one group of people. There isa great mystery here. It is the body that dies and notthe spirit. Perhaps the interpretations of the Cruci-fixion may be reconciled in this fashion. Scholarshiphas its uses and consequences.

These three papers brought to my mind the story ofthe rabbi who came upon a sign on a door with thesewords of warning: “PRIVATE. NO ADMISSION.” Hedoubted their meaning and interpreted them as fol-lows: “PRIVATE? NO! ADMISSION!” So he openedthe door. Putting the joke to one side, these threeexegeses may be seen as instances of the operation ofthe spirit of Traditionalism.

WINTER 2006 87

A Question and Answer session with Drs. Nasr andChittick concluded the first day’s proceedings. Ques-tions were asked about “what to do” about the chal-lenges of political and religious pluralism today andabout the sustainability of the environment. Dr. Nasrhad scathing words to describe attempts to study re-ligion by secularizing it. He called this “misosophy”rather than “philosophy.” Traditionalism views thenatural world as an expression of the divine, so it isnot there to be despoiled by man. Dr. Nasr musedthat everything would be better “if Alfred NorthWhitehead was still teaching at Harvard.”

He and Professor Chittick discussed the fact that thecentre of the human being lies in the heart, “whereour being is unified.” Dr. Nasr said the heart is “theseat of the self which transcends mind and emo-tions.” He expressed dismay that ideas like theseseem not to have penetrated the minds of people inthe Western world. “It seems impossible to changethe minds of Americans,” he exclaimed. “Give meCNN for one week and I will do it.” This hyperbolegenerated a round of applause. “You can’t do goodwithout being good,” he affirmed. Professor Chittickspoke about the Islamic perspective on evolution andhow “every living being has a form, a direct divineform.” The questions and answers were mainly philo-sophical and theoretical although a few dealt withpluralism, secularism, and religious exclusivism inthe Western world. Neither speaker paused to con-sider the word “modern” itself, which has changed itsmeaning over the centuries: in Shakespeare’s day itmeant “mediocre.”

The first contribution on Sunday morning was “Tra-ditional Action in the Contemporary World” by Dr.Reza Shah-Kazemi, a compelling speaker and the au-thor of a widely admired study of Imam Ali. (Mr.Lakhani is also an authority on Imam Ali.) He statedthat the human being must “affirm the reality that isand reject what is not,” and therein lies his salvationand ultimately that of society. This salvation will beaccomplished by the Invocation of the Divine Name,which affirms the reality of God and confirms man’sobedience to the Divine. Dr. Shah-Kazemi drew at-tention to some common misconceptions of Tradi-tionalism. It is not concerned with the past; instead,it finds the Sacred in the past, metaphysical princi-ples in the present, and transformative powers in thefuture. The Kali Yuga or Dark Age fosters pessimism;yet, as the late Martin Lings affirmed, “There is a mes-sage of hope at the last hour.” The fascinating formu-lation was recalled: In the past, not one-tenth of theteaching could be neglected; in dire times, like ours,one-tenth must be honoured. “Each moment mustbe turned into a moment of mercy.” As for the con-templative life, while it is true that “one hour of reflec-tion equals seventy years of acts,” it is necessary todetach oneself from the fruits of one’s action. “Act

and be effaced in the act of acting.” “A good act be-comes part of the doer.” Light is one of the potentialsof oil. “What is potential becomes necessary, what isnecessary becomes possible, and what is possiblebecomes essential.” There was much more in thistalk than can be conveyed here.

“The ‘True Man’: Myth or Reality?” was the title of Dr.Jean-Louis Michon’s engrossing presentation, thefirst half of which was analytic, the second autobio-graphical. It is hard not to see Dr. Michon himself asa “True Man”: a white-bearded Frenchman, in hiseighth decade, with an avuncular manner and a twin-kle in his eye. He sought in the spiritual legacies of allmankind an image of man that transcends time,place, and the distortions of culture. In the Kaballah,he is Adam Kadmon, aka Metatron, aka Adam theFirst Man in the Edenic World. In Christianity, he isJesus, “true God and true man.” In the Islamic tradi-tion, he is “the Perfect Man,” “mirror of God,” a vitalprinciple present in every man. Interestingly he foundin the Ojibwa tradition a description of the “spontane-ous man.” (Privately he gave me the source for thisconception, the anthropologist W.J. Hoffman.)

He noted, “In all bad things there is something good,”and the good may be realized through initiatic insti-tutions. He talked anecdotally about his own spiri-tual journey. As a young man he so much wanted tostudy Zen in Japan that he enlisted as a paratrooper!His life took him from Nancy, France, to the AmericanUniversity in Beirut, to Cairo, where he knewGuénon, to Switzerland, where he spent time withSchuon. He quoted a line of hope: “With persistence[or perseverance] we shall all be saved.” He endedwith the injunction: “Prepare for your encounter withGod.” Let me add that Dr. Michon brought Frenchcharm and European erudition to the conference andto primordial studies.

Michael Fitzgerald, a television producer and a sensi-tive presenter, offered a video program titled “Beautyand the Sense of the Sacred: Schuon’s Antidote toModernity.” His spoken commentary wove into aseamless garment information about the life ofSchuon and passages from his writings on esthetics.I have always found Schuon’s essays on art to be va-porous, but when presented alongside exquisite im-ages of Gothic cathedrals and the Alhambra, theywere enchanting. There were also photographs of thechaste interiors of Schuon’s residence in Blooming-ton, Indiana, with fine paintings and sculptures. (Itstruck me that my favourite painting — Rembrandt’sself-portrait of 1658 now in the Frick — would be outof place here. Schuon’s taste in art favoured themetaphysical.) Fitzgerald concluded by quoting aline from one of Schuon’s last poems: “Blessed bethose who through beauty are ennobled.” Present inthe audience was Madame Catherine Schuon, the

88 FOHAT

prophet’s widow. In a brief conversation she ex-pressed pleasure that her late husband’s work wasbeing acknowledged.

After Sunday’s lunch break, Professor Caner Daglispoke on “The Changing Nature of Power and the Tra-ditionalist Response.” His thesis was that in the Westpower means control: by the use of force (the nationstate), by the economy (the corporation), and by ideas(the university and other institutions). These are“agents of the demon” for they seek to “control imagi-nation” and they result in servility.

Professor Waleed el-Ansary, financial adviser to theGrand Mufti of Egypt, spoke on “The TraditionalistCritique of Modern Economics.” We need to liberateourselves from “egocentricity” and then from “dehu-manization” and “deskilling” of work in the contem-porary world. He discussed the violent and coercivenature of modern society. There is no hierarchy ofvalues (modern world: bottom up; spiritual world: topdown). It pits secular values against Sacred values.It turns needs into wants, wants into tastes. Itstresses “mono-utility.” It offers high costs with lowbenefits. The abuse of man is mirrored in man’sabuse of the environment. He praised the insights ofthe philosopher Wolfgang Smith and concluded thatthe real questions are “questions economists cannotanswer qua economists” because they are philosoph-ical questions.

Professor Harry Oldmeadow came all the way from LaTrobe University, Melbourne, to deliver a rousing talktitled “Tradition Betrayed: The False Prophets ofModernism.” He is a curly haired man given to theuse of expressive language. He spoke about the ini-tial difficulty of gaining academic acceptance for histhesis on Schuon. “The wisdom of the ages is not al-ways welcome in the halls of the academy.” One of hisstudents called him not so much a teacher as “awannabe preacher,” and there is substance to thischaracterization. He noted the “spiritual crisis” ofmodern times and examined our “pseudo-mytholo-gies” which maintain that “a stone can turn into Mo-zart.” (If that is so, perhaps a rock can turn into rockmusic.) “The world of Traditionalism is a good whichentails some evil. The Modern world is an evil whichentails some good.” “The sense of the Sacred is anuisance in the Modern world!”

The Modernity that dates from the Renaissance is allof a piece. Professor Oldmeadow discussed the defin-ing influences of four “mythographers.” Charles Dar-win had it wrong when he wrote that spirit emergesfrom matter when it is the other way round: matteremerges from spirit. (I felt he has not been readingmuch of Darwin, or even of neo-Darwinists like Ste-phen Jay Gould.) Karl Marx recognized only “mate-rial forces” and based his utopianism on materialism,

class struggle, etc. (He certainly took a simplifiedview of Marxist economics.) He quoted SigmundFreud as saying that a man has to be unbalanced todiscuss questions of meaning and the value of life be-cause neither exists, and he presented Freud’s viewthat art, philosophy, and religion are “science’s en-emy.” (Freud’s The Future of an Illusion is a more pro-found and disturbing work than that.) FriedrichNietzsche was an “exciting, disturbing” man with a“profound soul” but he was “demented.” The Germanphilosopher preached relativism and exhibited the“Promethean hubris” that “we must become as gods.”(I felt that Professor Oldmeadow rather appreciatedNietzsche’s way of writing.) What these thinkersshare is the premise of Modernism that “all views todate are wrong”; they show a contempt for traditionallearning and the achievements of the past, regarding“originality” not as a return to origins but as novelty.He quoted the words of an unidentified swami: “Godis. God can be realized. To realize God is the supremegoal of human life. God can be realized in many ways.”

Professor James S. Cutsinger followed this perfor-mance with the following statement, “I believe every-thing Professor Oldmeadow has said. And yet . . . .”There was some laughter. A dapper, articulate man,he spoke on “The Noble Lie.” He proceeded to read(very well) his own short story, a fabulation in whichthe spirit of Socrates appears to a present-day uni-versity professor who is attempting to prepare a pa-per to be delivered at a conference on the subject of“The Noble Lie.” The short story was not all thatshort, and somewhat overwritten, but the analysiswas philosophically sound, so that Socrates won allthe verbal skirmishes. It seems that the only way toconstruct a paper on the subject of “the Noble Lie” isto tell a useful lie and then construct an entertainingdialogue around it. (I had expected that ProfessorCutsinger would offer some discussion of dissimula-tion or deception: kitman or ketman, which CzeslawMilocz took from Sufism to characterize “officialese”in his classic study of Communist ideology in TheCaptive Mind; or some analysis of Leo Strauss’sviews; but there was no extension of the notion.)What took me by surprise was that ProfessorCutsinger used in place of the long word “esotericist”(pronounced “esso-terra-cist”) the shorter word “eso-terist” (pronounced “es-ought-erist”). Is this new?

The honour of being the final speaker fell on thebroad but bowed shoulders of Huston Smith. Thesage, born in 1919, is a beloved popularizer of studiesof the world’s religions. (It went unnoted, but amongProfessor Smith’s achievements is the fact that he es-tablished the Department of Comparative Religion atDalhousie University in Halifax.) Many concludingspeakers will attempt to summarize conference pro-ceedings, but Professor Smith chose to do something

. . . continued on page 94

WINTER 2006 89

Concerning Ammonius SaccasPart I

J. Ramón Sordo

Although the Theosophical History Occasional PaperVolume III, “Ammonius Saccas and his ‘Eclectic Phi-losophy’ as presented by Alexander Wilder” writtenby Dr. Jean-Louis Siémons, was published by Dr.James Santucci, editor of Theosophical History, in1994, and the original paper was delivered by Dr.Siémons in London in 1988; the importance andtimeless character of its content, despite the lapse of18 years will be enough reason for a few remarks ofmine concerning this important research.

Dr. Siémons’ pioneering research is very well struc-tured and has the merit of being the first and only in-quiry into the sources of The Key to Theosophy byH.P. Blavatsky. However I would like to point out thatnotwithstanding all this, his conclusions are not re-ally conclusive due to the fact that he was not able tosubstantiate the basis of his reasoning e.g., his as-sumption that Ammonius was born in the year 175A.D.

A contrived date

How does he arrive at that date?

In p.20 he says: “The date of his birth is approxi-mately 175 A.D.” Then on p.21 Dr. Siémons says:“And Theodoret of Cyrus (an ecclesiastical writer ofthe 5�� century) indicates that ‘in the reign ofCommodus [180-192] Ammonius left aside the sacksin which he carried wheat to embrace a philosopher’slife’. How long were the years of training during thereign of Septimius Severus (193-211) we don’t know.”

Here we find the first methodological problem in theinquiry of Dr. Siémons. Theodoret of Cyrus does notgive any precise date; he only gives a reference to thereign of Commodus. Theodoret was not a contempo-rary of Ammonius, he wrote in the 5�� century A.D.,but if provisionally we follow his reference, we have —from 180 to 192 A.D. — twelve years at our disposalto speculate about the probable time whenAmmonius embraced “a philosopher’s life”. Dr.Siémons has taken the end of this period and to rein-force his idea he immediately adds: “How long werethe years of training during the reign of SeptimiusSeverus (193-211) we don’t know.” Dr Siémons is as-suming that Ammonius was 17 years old in 192 A.D.;that is how he arrives at the year 175 as his date ofbirth. But with the same validity we could take thebeginning of Commodus’ reign and also assume that

by 180 A.D. Ammonius was 17 years old, and thiswould give us as his probable date of birth, the year163 A.D. Thus at the end of the reign of Commodushe would be 29 years of age instead of 17. Further-more in this speculation we should not forget that weare making two assumptions: (a) that the reference ofa Christian father who lived two centuries afterAmmonius is correct, and (b) that Ammonius em-braced “a philosopher’s life” when he was 17 yearsold.

But Dr. Siémons seems to have taken the year 175A.D. as something established and fixed, whereas inreality it is a mere speculation proposed by him. In-stead of maintaining an open mind he has closed anypossible way of arriving at the truth in a matter inwhich we lack the necessary elements to give definitedates and definite facts.

In connection with this date, while analyzingMosheim’s main propositions (p.8), he makes the fol-lowing bold assertion in square brackets:

3. The appearance of Ammonius Saccas, about theconclusion of this century [but, possibly, later, as

he has born �� 175] was an important event . . . ..�/��%�% /��0

So he is taking for granted that Ammonius was bornca. 175 A.D., but he has nothing to support this, andthe weakness of his premises invalidates most of hisscholarly deductions based as they are in the fixity ofthat date.

The Church Fathers

Let us see the consequences of this methodologicalbias:

In p.15 Dr. Siémons writes:

Concerning the Church Fathers, he [Dr. AlexanderWilder] gave credit to the erroneous version of theEncyclopedia. Consequently he wrote (p.9 of hispamphlet): “Countenanced by Clement andAthenagoras in the Church, he [Ammonius] ful-filled his labor by teaching a common doctrine forall.” Hence �� ) �: “. . . the great Philaletheianwas supported and helped [. . .] by two Church Fa-thers, Clement and Athenagoras.”

However, one moment of reflection reveals thatthis assertion of Wilder is untenable. Bearing inmind that the great Neo-Platonist was born ��

175, he must have been very young at the conclu-

90 FOHAT

sion of the 2 � century to be able to attract the at-tention of well established Christian masters likeClement (who was his senior by some 25 years),least of all to receive their approbation to carry outhis plans outside of Christianity (while he was stillperhaps a mere tyro in philosophy). .�/��%�% /��0

Then in a footnote on p.15, Dr. Siémons develops histheory:

He already has affirmed that Clement of Alexandriawas 25 years older than Ammonius, but if we — tak-ing his own source of information — consider theequally valid hypothesis that he was born in 163A.D., then, Clement was his senior by only 13 years.And if we take as another source the statement ofHPB �� 1#%%�� #' �� )��, thatAmmonius Saccas founded his school in 173 A.D.and we apply the same 17 years taken by Dr.Siémons, then the date of birth of Ammonius Saccaswould go back to 156 A.D. and in that case Clementwould be only 6 years his senior, assuming that hewas born in 150 A.D., although that date is also veryuncertain. Thus the whole reasoning of Dr. Siémons,being based on a very weak and rather personal as-sumption, is untenable.

In connection with Pantaenus Dr. Siémons says:

. . . Pantaenus who was at the head of the Alexan-drian Catechetical School, until his bishopDemetrius sent him on a long missionary tour inIndia, ca 189 — at that time, Ammonius was about14, perhaps still a Christian boy, working as asack-bearer, carrying wheat on Alexandrian quays. . . . .�/��%�% /��0

As we have said before, the source of informationused by Dr. Siémons gives us 12 years to speculate.His argument is invalidated if Ammonius was 26years of age at that date. We have to be very carefulnot to dogmatize with such meager information at ourdisposal.

Again referring to Clement’s work Miscellanies, whichhe says were published

probably from 194 (when Ammonius was about 19)to a date before 202. . . . Obviously in the year 200,Clement must have been a full grown master at theheight of his literary career, occupying an impor-tant position as a thoroughly convinced defenderof the Christian faith, whereas Ammonius, at theage of 25, was perhaps only emerging out of obscu-rity. ��)��

But the age of Ammonius — I repeat, using the samesource of information — could be 31 instead of 19; and37 instead of 25 and the whole story would change.

Then at the end of this footnote Dr. Siémons gives ushis own story about the relationship betweenAmmonius Saccas and the Church Fathers invertingthe statements of The Key to Theosophy:

The probability is far greater that Ammonius him-self was influenced by the trio of Christian Fathers— particularly by Clement, whose lessons he mayhave followed as a catechumen than the contrary.Moreover, it is most unlikely that the famous disci-ple of Pantaenus should have readily changed hismind to adopt the doctrines of a young apostatelike Ammonius, let alone to support him in his en-deavor. ��)�� .�/��%�% /��0

Thus we see that in this case “one moment of reflec-tion reveals” nothing when it is based on false pre-mises, because the assumption of Dr. Siémons is notsupported by any fact. The only basis he has to criti-cize Wilder and discredit the assertions in The Key toTheosophy is the date 175 A.D. established by him-self in an arbitrary way. As he cannot prove this, therest of his reflections fall to pieces.

Pot-Amun

In connection with Pot-Amun, Dr. Siémons pointsout the following:

Now, another confusion prompted Dr. Wilder to hischoice, as he gave credit to the (long discarded)theory that the Ammonian School “had a begin-ning much earlier,” being traced by DiogenesLaërtius to an Egyptian prophet or priest namedPot-Amun, who flourished in the earlier years ofthe dynasty of the Ptolemies’ — this Potamon beingunanimously acknowledged as a regular Eclectic.��)��

And in a footnote to the former, Dr. Siémons assertsthat “In fact there is nothing in Diogenes Laërtius’Lives about this mysterious Egyptian prophet namedPot-Amun” ��)��.

Well, maybe there is not much about him but enoughfor a mysterious Egyptian philosopher. One impor-tant fact is that he is mentioned in the Prologue of theFirst Book showing that he was a real personagewhose influence was alive at the time when the Pro-logue was written; even giving a short excerpt of hisElements of Philosophy, a work of Pot-Amun ��

�#) �� )��.

“Potamon the Alexandrian lived not long ago. . .” weread in the Lives. Diogenes Laërtius is dated by somescholars in the 2 � century A.D. and by others like Dr.Siémons in the 3�� A.D. He says that “it is more prob-able that he [Pot-Amun] was born later, perhaps inthe 2 � century [A.D.]” ��)�� discarding the GreekLexicon Suidas which says that Potamôn lived in thetime of Augustus (63 B.C. / 14 A.D.) So Dr. Siémonslays aside some sources and takes others, and this isnatural because all this is in the realm of conjecture.

It should be acknowledged that we have no certaintyregarding the time when the Lives of Eminent Philoso-phers by Diogenes Laërtius were written. “His date,

WINTER 2006 91

for example, can be estimated only by what he in-cluded or left out. He has been variously dated in ev-ery century A.D. from the first to the fourth” �2��3�� )

4#�!� ��#&5$��#� �# �� 4#�3 �&��#� #' �)4)� �#) �� )67��. Weknow very little about Diogenes Laërtius. “The rathermotley, fluctuating impression produced by Dioge-nes’ book as a whole derives, not particularly from hisown personality, but from the huge and variegatedmass of source materials that he transmitted to us.”�2��3�� ) 4#�!� #�) $��) �)67��. “Diogenes has acquired animportance out of all proportion to his merits becausethe loss of many primary sources . . .” ��3�&)� �)6�6�. “Incompiling his biographical encyclopedia of Greekphilosophy, Diogenes drew on a great many sourcesof varying quality. His work is especially valuable be-cause . . . he quotes many earlier writers, often verba-tim.” ��7�& 8�&��

"��% "��%%� 1��& 9��&%� �*:� �)��. In his 10 Books,Diogenes Laërtius presents 83 lives of philosophers;most of them belonging to the centuries B.C. “Hedoes not refer to Neo-Pythagorism nor — a morestriking omission — to Neo-Platonism.” �2��3�� )

4#�!� #�) $��) �)67��. We do not posses any original of theLives, and according to Robert D. Hicks translator ofthe work into English ��#&5$��#� �# �� 4#�3 �&��#� #'

�� the oldest MS of the Lives in possession of Euro-pean scholars is the Codex Borbonicus which datesfrom A.D. 1200. “For we may reasonably assume”says the same authority “that a single stray copy,brought to light in the ninth century, was the parentof all extant MSS.” Furthermore the same expert ac-knowledges that “this work in 10 books is a compila-tion from earlier compilations” e.g. it is a compilationof older sources. “Diogenes is a veritable tissue ofquotations from all sorts of authors. . . . Richard Hopecounted 1,186 explicit references to 365 books byabout 250 authors, as well as more than 350 anony-mous references: that is an average of nearly threereferences to a page of the Oxford Classical Text edi-tion” �2��3�� ) 4#�!� #�) $��) �)6�6�. Thus the phrase“Potamon the Alexandrian lived not long ago. . .” notnecessarily indicates the time in which DiogenesLaërtius flourished, but it could be an assertion writ-ten 500 years before him, and copied by him.

Then Dr. Siémons proceeds to give us a rather forcedetymology of the word Pot-Amun:

On the rather common Greek name Potamôn (re-

calling [?] Potamos = river), he [Wilder] has noth-ing to say concerning its Coptic or Egyptianderivation from Pot-Amun — possibly an etymol-ogy imagined by the learned Wilder. .�/��%�%

/��0

But the same could be said of Dr. Siémons derivationof Pot-Amun from a river.

Contrary to the speculations of Dr. Siémons,Blavatsky, quoting Wilder, “tells us that the name is

Coptic, and signifies one consecrated to Amun, theGod of Wisdom” �� )��.

Concerning the influence of Neoplatonism on theChristian Church and the antiquity of Pot-Amun,HPB had the following to say:

As to Ammonius,

Countenanced by Clement and Athenagorasin the church, and by learned men of the Syn-agogue, the Academy and the Grove, he ful-filled his labour by teaching a commondoctrine for all.’ �� +

�6��&�� &�� )*�

Thus it is not Judaism and Christianity that re-modelled the ancient Pagan Wisdom, but ratherthe latter that put its heathen curb, quietly and in-sensibly, on the new faith; and this, moreover, wasstill further influenced by the Eclectic Theosophi-cal system, the direct emanation of the Wis-dom-Religion. All that is grand and noble in Chris-tian theology comes from Neo-Platonism. [. . .]

Nor was the Eclectic Theosophical system — assome writers inspired by Rome would make theworld believe — developed only during the thirdcentury of our era; but it belongs to a much earlierage, as has been shown by Diogenes Laërtius. Hetraces it to the beginning of the dynasty of thePtolemies; to the great seer and prophet, the Egyp-tian Priest Pot-Amun, of the temple of the God ofthat name — for Amun is the God of Wisdom. Untothat day the communication between the Adepts ofUpper India and Bactria and the Philosophers ofthe West had never ceased. �� !��

"��# $%&� ��)��+��

Moreover, taking in consideration the works of twoimportant Egyptologists, Gustave Lefebvre and R. A.Schwaller de Lubicz, we can assume that Pot-Amunwas probably the last sage in a series of seers thatflourished in Egypt in earlier times, all of them wear-ing the name of Prophets of Amun. Gustave Le-febvre, in his work Histoire des Grands prêtresd’Amon dans Karnak has shown the successive lineof Prophets of Amun in Karnak; and Schwaller deLubicz in his monumental book The Temples of Kar-nak, �� &��#�%� 9#$��%�� /#�� comple-mented that research with the reproduction ofimages of a series of statues of priests and Prophets ofAmun extant in Karnak, going back to the 19�� Dy-nasty: Rome Roy, First Prophet of Amun (at the end ofthe reign of Ramesses II, and reign of Seti II, p.699;Plate 375); Ramessesnakht first Prophet of Amun(20�� Dynasty, at the time of Ramesses IV, p.690;Plate 356); Amenhotep, First Prophet of Amun, firsthigh priest of Amun (20�� Dynasty, at the time ofRamesses IX, p.699; Plate 374); Sheshonk First HighPriest of Amun (22 � Dynasty, pp.692-693; Plates358-359); Ahmose, High Priest of Amun (26�� Dy-nasty, p.692; Plate 357); Mentuemhet, Fourth

92 FOHAT

Prophet of Amun (26�� Dynasty, ca 660 B.C., p.716;Plates 442-443).

Therefore, this long tradition of Prophets,Hierophants, and Adepts in Egypt dedicated toAmun, the God of Wisdom (Theosophia?) being a his-torical fact supported by material evidence, givescredit to the assertions of Alexander Wilder and H.P.Blavatsky �� )�� that “in the early daysof the Ptolemaic dynasty” “lived Pot-Amun”, “anEgyptian priest” “consecrated to Amun, the God ofWisdom.” He taught the “Eclectic Theosophical sys-tem” or “Theosophy” in Alexandria — a Greek city onEgyptian soil — in which was prominent the Platonicphilosophy which in its turn was derived in greatmeasure from the Egyptian Wisdom, as can be shownby the next quotation:

Many philosophers and scholars of the ancientworld, drawn thither by the fame of Egypt, came toher temples to receive both scientific knowledgeand mystical illumination. Porphyry relates howPythagoras . . . presented himself to the priests ofHeliopolis, who sent him to those of Memphis, whoin turn directed him to those of Thebes, where hewas made to undergo hard painful trials. . . . Ac-cording to Iamblicus, the sage of Samos spenttwenty-two years in the temples of Egypt. There hestudied the science of Numbers, which he after-wards taught with celebrated brilliancy to his dis-ciples. Thales studied in the sanctuaries of Mem-phis. Democritus passed five years in the companyof Egyptian priests, thanks to whom he made athorough study of astronomy and geometry. Plato,accompanied by Eudoxus, spent thirteen years inHeliopolis, in whose temples both of them studiedgeometry, theology and the priestly science. Thegeographer Strabo relates how in Heliopolis he wasshown the house where Plato and Eudoxus hadstayed. ��##/#� 4��$�� '�� ( �� )��

�� ;�7��%< 4�$�5�� 4#�&#�� ::� ��)�+��

All the evidence presented above shows unmistak-ably, that it was not “a confusion” that “prompted Dr.Wilder to his choice,” giving “credit to the (long dis-carded) theory that the Ammonian School . . .” etc.etc., but his knowledge of the Occult tradition.

Until more information is discovered, the peripateticway of reasoning will always negate the Occult tradi-tion. For the moment the two positions are irreconcil-able regarding Pot-Amun.

The Eclectics

Now turning to the Eclectics.

Dr. Siémons says that

Dr. Wilder’s enthusiasm led him to a number ofimprudent generalisations and wrong assertionsthat he could have corrected by a direct referenceto the original Grecian literature.

Examples may be given as follows:

1. His too exclusive attribution to Neo-Platonists ofspecific terms like Eclectics and Eclectic Philosophy(chosen as the title of his pamphlet) is the apparentresult of a series of confusions or misinterpreta-tions. . . . ��)��

2. Taking for granted that the various denomina-tions enumerated in the Encyclopedia (Eclectics,Analogetici [Analogeticists] and Philalethes[Philaletheians]) applied to the Neo-Platonists. . . .��)�� .�/��%�% /��0

This long quotation shows that Dr. Siémons is underthe misapprehension that Dr. Wilder, one of thegreatest American Platonists of the nineteenth cen-tury, knew nothing about the original Platonic andNeoplatonic literature and had to resort to the Edin-burgh Encyclopedia to get his knowledge. But indeedhe is not the only one to refer to the Neoplatonists asEclectics. Isaac Preston Cory in the Introduction ofhis book Ancient Fragments published in 1826, talksthe same way about the Neoplatonists:

In the third century, Ammonius Saccas, univer-sally acknowledged to have been a man of consum-mate ability, taught that every sect, Christian,Heretic or Pagan, had received the truth, and re-tained it in their varied legends. He undertook,therefore, to unfold it from them all, and to recon-cile every creed. And from his exertions sprung thecelebrated Eclectic school of the later Platonists.Plotinus, Amelius, Olympius, Porphyrius, Jambli-chus, Syrianus, and Proclus, were among the cele-brated professors who succeeded Ammonius inthe Platonic chair, and revived and kept alive thespirit of Paganism, with a bitter enmity to the Gos-pel, for near three hundred years. �� *

�� %��$ "��%�#� =#� � '��%� �&) *� > ��#�#!��$

$#� #' *�� &) ��?��&% ;##<%��'� ��7�!� @,� �:��

��) ��+��) 8#� �� $5��% #' ��% ��#%#��$� ��%+

�$��#� %�� 1�33#�� .�� +�� ( �� ,��)�*

��0� =�) 6�

However we have to accept that there is a traditionwritten and unwritten about the School of AmmoniusSaccas coming down from antiquity, not necessarilyall recorded by the scholars, which refers to them asEclectics, Philaletheians, Analogeticists and Neopla-tonists. And here we encounter a paradox, Mosheim;an enemy of Neoplatonism collected many of the tra-ditions of that school with the purpose of criticizingthem. Part of his material went into the EdinburghEncyclopedia, and a Platonist like Wilder recognizingimmediately the truths buried in the text, like a goodEclectic, took what he thought was true and dis-carded what he considered to be false. This is noth-ing new; it is the way that many texts of antiquityburnt by the Christian Church have been recovered.The originals were burnt but many of their tenetshave survived in the works of their enemies. Dr.Wilder used this procedure, Blavatsky too. That is

. . . continued on page 95

WINTER 2006 93

William Dallas TenBroeck

December 20, 1922 – September 2, 2006

W. Dallas TenBroeck was born in Hollywood, CA in alittle house that is still standing to this day. His fam-ily moved to India while he was still very young and hespent most of his childhood and part of his adultyears there. Dallas ran a book and print shop busi-ness started by his father. He travelled extensively inthe Far East as a representative for a company thatsupplied college texts.

Upon his return to Los Angeles in 1969 he becameclosely involved at the United Lodge of Theosophistsheadquarters, all the while earning his living as an in-dependent businessman. His retirement from thebusiness world coincided with the emergence of theInternet. His whole thrust in life was to help spreadthe ideas of Theosophy through the teachings of H.P.Blavatsky and W.Q. Judge. He became very active onthe Internet theosophical discussion groups where

he freely passed along theosophical ideas and in-formation to as many people as possible.

Dallas always generously shared compilations ofinformation he had culled from theosophical writ-ings, sending them by mail and later electronicallyto anyone seeking information or who had posed aquestion on a particular idea. To the very end heworked to spread the philosophy which meant somuch to him. Many individuals have expressedtheir appreciation of his kindness in this regard.

Dallas had innumerable contacts around theworld, many of whom are very grateful to him forthe valuable information he so freely dissemi-nated. He, along with his practical Internet post-ings, will be missed.

Ernest Pelletier

Theosophy in the Qabbalah, by Grace F. Knoche. Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press, 2006, 179pp.Price $11.95 US paper, $17.95 US cloth.

Theosophical University Press has just publishedposthumously a book from the pen of Grace Knoche.Ms. Knoche’s Theosophy in the Qabbalah is a longoverdue addition for Secret Doctrine study groups ifour own local group is any indication. For students ofThe Secret Doctrine there has always been the diffi-culty of trying to master two different sets of terminol-ogy with Sanskrit and Qabbalistic terms seeking toconfuse the mind of the poor beleaguered student.What Ms. Knoche manages to do with this book is tomake simple the terminology of the Qabbalah andjuxtapose it against the more familiar Sanskrit sys-tem — at least for those who feel more comfortablewith that system.

The book is laid out in a simple step by step processbeginning with an “Introduction to Qabbalistic Liter-ature”. This introduction reminds the reader thatH.P. Blavatsky described the Kabalah as “seven dif-ferent systems applied to seven different interpreta-tions of any given Esoteric work or subject.” “Thus, ifKabalah as a word is Hebrew, the system itself is nomore Jewish than is sunlight; it is universal” ��!"

:�� *�. After describing the relationship of the Qab-balah with the Torah or Pentateuch and the Talmud,the chapter goes on to survey the origin of the modernliterature that we have come to call Qabbalah.

In subsequent chapters the emanation of the Sef-irothal Tree is examined, looking into its variousforms from different traditions around the world, andthe Tree’s triadic nature. The reader is introduced toconcepts step by step, never feeling overwhelmed andif the reader is willing to put in some work, there ismuch to be accessed. Further chapters look at thefour and seven planes of Nature or the four Worlds(Lokas) and the four corresponding Adams. Thethemes continue, in a manner not unlike The SecretDoctrine, where worlds are developed and then peo-pled by the Races and looking at the intimate rela-tionship between both. Finally, sticking with thetheme of correspondences, “The Fourfold Nature ofMan” is explored and the journey inward back to thesource of ALL.

The book also contains four appendices which in-clude a “Hebrew Pronunciation Guide”, a “Glossary ofQabbalistic Terms”, a “Glossary of TheosophicalTerms”, and a list of “Zoharic Writings”. Ms. Knochehas put together a valuable tool for students of theos-ophy wanting a good foundation in the dizzying worldof Qabbalistic terminology.

Robert Bruce MacDonald

��

BOOK REVIEW

94 FOHAT

else. In fact, the subject he originally proposed to ad-dress was daunting: “Can God’s/Allah’s InfiniteGoodness and Power Accommodate the Reality ofEvil?” He said on reflection that this was “too easy,”so he decided to share with the audience awork-in-progress titled “The Universal Grammar ofWorld Views.” He added that this might be “too diffi-cult.” He explained that his use of the word “gram-mar” was inspired by the notion of “deep grammar”advanced by his one-time MIT colleague, NoamChomsky. Professor Smith recalled attending the in-augural session of the United Nations and being in-spired by the hope that the institution would mark a“new beginning” for mankind. Instead, he stated, “Asa United States citizen, I am deeply embarrassed ournation has flouted the United Nations.” Thesecomments received applause.

He stressed modern man’s need for orientation:where we are and how we are to proceed. “I will bra-zenly attempt to lay out a road map to reality, thelargest we can manage in thirteen pieces.” The thir-teen became fourteen, as the summary here shows.The words are mainly Professor Smith’s, the summa-ries mine. (1) Reality is infinite. (2) The infinite in-cludes the finite. (3) The contents of finitude are or-dered hierarchically. (4) Causation is from top-down.(5) The one becomes the many, as infinitude de-scends into finitude. (6) Virtues ascend and merge,pyramids being our representations of them. (7) Vir-tues converge and establish world views. (8) TheGreat Chain of Being (Lovejoy’s formulation) needs tobe extended to include more spiritual levels: asabove, so below; body, mind, soul, spirit. (9) Humanbeings cannot know the infinite, only intimations ofit. (10) Intimations of the infinite have to be inter-preted and there are four levels of exegesis: literary,ethical, allegorical, and anagogical. (He describedthe latter as the type that inspires you to aspire.) (11)Symbolism is the science of relationships of the mul-tiple levels of reality. (12) There are two distinct andcomplementary ways of knowledge, the rational andthe intuitive. (Here he gave special emphasis toPascal’s statement that “the heart has its reasons.”)(13) As walnuts have shells that house kernels, a reli-gion has an exoteric form that houses an esotericcontent. (14) What we know is ringed around in dark-ness that is ringed around in light. “We cannot un-derstand our situation any more than a single proteincan understand a simple cell on a finger.” He offeredtwo contrasting or complementary formulae: “We areborn in ignorance, we live in ignorance, and we die inignorance.” “We are born in mystery, we live inmystery, and we die in mystery.”

With a few well-chosen words, Mr. Lakhani con-cluded the conference. He said that ways are being

explored to publish the proceedings and there areplans to continue the initiative of Edmonton.

So it is time for me to conclude this log of events andexperiences. Some of the presentations assumedprior knowledge of the Koran, of Hadith, and ofSharia; others did not. Naturally I fared better withthe latter than with the former. I am aware that myformulations of these presentations may be faulted,yet they should be judged in light of my aim, which isto convey the taste if not the flavour of these ideasand insights. So the conference was a “box ofall-sorts” for Ruth and me. But was it a conference?It was certainly not an academic conference like theones that we have attended in the past because therewere no presenters who were critical of the criticalperspectives on offer. So I view the event in terms of acolloquium, a platform for people of like mind to ex-change research, reinforce mutual views, and en-courage les autres.

The conference (or colloquium) met some of the dailyneeds of the members of the audience but certainlynot some of their most pressing ones. Let me com-ment on the nature of the audience. We found itsmembers to be an unexpected treat and a genuinetreasure. Approximately 350 people were registered.It was a youthful, spirited gathering of people: ma-ture, bright-eyed students and earnest, middle-agedcouples from business and the professions. The at-tendees impressed us with their friendliness, intelli-gence, interest, courtesy, and dignity. Ruth and Inumbered among a score of non-Muslim attendees.All the youthful volunteers were Ismailis. From whatI could see, the majority of the Muslims in attendancewere members of the Ismaili communities of Edmon-ton and Vancouver. (The Ismailis belong to the Shiawing of Islam; their imam is the Aga Khan, who is oneof the few non-Canadian members of the Order ofCanada; I have always found Ismailis to be the epit-ome of a progressive people.) Muslims in the audi-ence were making considerable efforts to reconcileIslam with pluralism, secularism, and religiousexclusivism. Unhelpfully and unfeelingly, I felt, Pro-fessor Smith dismissed the notion of “the clash of cul-tures” in favour of their “complementary” nature. (Nodoubt this may be justified sub specie aeternitatis butit is hardly helpful nunc.)

We noted that the presentations discussed the com-monality or mutuality of interests among Hindus,Buddhists, Christians, and Moslems. Missing wereovert references to Jews, Hebrews, Israelis, etc. It istrue the Hebrew prophets of the scriptures were men-tioned, and there were references to the Kaballah,but Israeli scholars were conspicuous by their ab-sence. I do not recall hearing the word “Israel” spo-ken even once. This is Traditionalism? Are there no

. . . Sacred Web continued from page 88

Jewish perennialists? (Maybe there aren’t; if not,why not?) Where, come to think of it, are the Cana-dian scholars of Traditionalism? (William Stoddart isa long-time resident of Windsor, Ont.)

No Muslim country was singled out for its share ofshame or acclaim, except indirectly Dr. Nasr’s home-land, Iran. I wonder if there was a tacit agreement tokeep the proceedings free of politics — except for a lit-tle U.S. bashing and, as it happened, Pope-bashing. Iwas quite disappointed with Dr. Nasr’s extemporizeddismissal of Pope Benedict XVI’s speech inRegensburg, Germany, September 14, when the Pon-tiff quoted an ugly characterization of the Prophet bya 14�� century Byzantine emperor. “It set the Mos-lem-Christian dialogue back fifty years,” Dr. Nasrcomplained; the audience applauded. At least twicehe had explained it was not his writ to instruct Catho-lics or members of other religions on their beliefs. YetI feel that as both a distinguished scholar and a manof discernment he owed it to this audience, if not tohimself, to allude to the context in which the offensivepassage was used, as well as to suggest that the re-sponses in the Arab world were disproportionate ifnot unfortunate.

I am left with a few questions of my own. No. 1. Isthere a special relationship these days between theTraditionalists and the Ismailis? Are members ofboth groups outcasts in the Islamic world (despite thefact they may be said to constitute its beating heart)?I may pose this question but I cannot answer it.

No. 2. Traditionalism sees itself as timeless; but inthe contemporary world does it find itself playing therole of a new Bahá’í or a new Unitarianism? (I sensehere a couple of “no” answers.) Is perennialism, inother words, a critique and a corrective? Does it, asDr. Nasr suggested, in an intriguing image, provide

an aerial perspective, so that one is able to rise aboveground level and regard from an aerial perspectivethe walls that enclose each initiatic organization —walls that protect the truth of one from the truth ofanother, walls that preserve one orthodoxy from an-other orthodoxy, walls that preserve any orthodoxyfrom heterodoxy, as the Talmud erects walls aroundthe Torah. Thus each may have its own magisterium.(Here I am introducing the word Stephen Jay Gouldhas revived for the purpose of distinguishing the au-thority of religion from the authority of science; noSacred science for him.) Again, I have no answer tothis question but I can raise it.

Off and on since the early 1960s, I have been readingGuénon’s books, and for the last four years I havebeen pondering the editorials, essays, articles, andreviews in Sacred Web and other books and journals.It was not until this conference (or colloquium) that Iheard anyone ever pronounce the names FrithjofSchuon and Titus Burkhardt. (Watch out for the pro-nunciation of Titus!) So for forty years I saw Tradi-tionalism as offering a critique of the largely veiledassumptions of the Western world. May I be forgivenfor now seeing it as constituting, as well, a welcomecritique of the largely veiled assumptions of the worldof the Middle East?

John Robert Colombo is known as “the Master Gath-erer” for his innumerable publications devoted to thelore and literatureof Canada. He is the recipient of anhonorary doctorate from York University and is aMember of the Order of Canada. He is the author, edi-tor, or translator of more than 180 books, includingstudies devoted to the supernatural and the paranor-mal. He has devoted three books to the Anglo-Frenchthinker Denis Saurat (who absorbed from childhoodthe folk traditionsof the Pyrenees). Some recent publi-cations include The Native Series (a set of six booksdevoted to Native studies) and The Penguin Dictio-nary of Popular Canadian Quotations.

why we shouldn’t be surprised to find in The Key toTheosophy quotations from Mosheim and the Edin-burgh Encyclopedia.

Dr. Siémons says that because Diogenes Laërtius“never spoke of Ammonius” in connection with thePhilaletheians, the Eclecticsand the Analogeticists, “itseems clear that he had in mind other philosophers ofthe past” ��)��. Yes, on this we agree completely withhim, only pointing out that if Diogenes Laërtius doesnot speak of Ammonius Saccas it is because, as I saidabove, he wrote his Lives before Ammonius was bornor was known; but he mentions the Philaletheians,the Eclectics and the Analogeticistsshowing their ex-istence at that time in the past, and for some reasonhe puts them together. “These philosophers of the

past” as Dr. Siémons puts it, represent a longphilosophical tradition to which Ammonius Saccasbelonged, and it is from them — although we don’tknow who his master was — that he started his initialphilosophical inquiry, launching later on his ownschool, and calling it with the various terms dis-cussed above, which are in consonance with this tra-dition of many centuries.

As Blavatsky has remarked:

Between the secrecy imposed, the vows of silenceand that which was maliciously destroyed by everyfoul means, it is indeed miraculous that even somuch of the Philaletheian tenets has reached theworld. �!"# $%&� �)��

[To be continued in next issue of Fohat]

. . . Saccas continued from page 92

30hat is the Steed, 71wught is the 2?ider

,Jtis the "bridge" by which the ",Jdeas" existing in the "rnivine 71wught" are impressed on Cosmic substance as the "laws of ::Nature." 30hat is thus the dynamic eneroy of Cosmic ,Jdeation; or, regarded from the other side, it is the intelligent medium, the guiding power ofall mani~station. ... 7hus from Spirit, or Cosmic ,Jdeation, comes our consciousness; from Cosmic Substance the several vehicles in which that consciousness is individualized and attains to self - or r4f.ective - consciousness; while 30hat, in its various manifestations, is the mysterious link between ~ind and ~tter, the animating principle electrifying every atom into life. - Secret rnoctrine I, 16

/-- - " FOHAT ,/ ' ~- -- Box 4587 .~~ Edmonton, Alberta ~ Canada, T6E 5G4

@Recycled Paper

ammonius saccas: dejerufi1t9 a tlleosopflical history · and help support its efforts. additional...

Documents