Return to Who We Are
Return to The Philosopher's Stone Directory
Return to Home Page
Go to End Notes
(Reprinted with permission from Theosophical History: A Quarterly Journal of Research, Vol. 3, No. 6, April 1991, 160-166.)
by John H. Drais, Abbot
The Paracelsian Order was formed as "a theosophical monastic order" in 1975. It is a non-profit, religious, California, church, corporation. This is an essay on its founding and standing as a theosophical organization, and the criteria upon which such a decision is to be based. The question has long been labored as to what makes an organization "theosophical".
"There were theosophists and Theosophical Schools for the last 2,000 years, from Plato down to the medieval Alchemists, who knew the meaning of the term, it may be supposed. Therefore,...'the question is not whether the T.S. is doing good, but whether it is doing that kind of good which is entitled to the name Theosophy'...." (1)
So just what are these criteria? These words come from HPB [Helena Petrovna Blavatsky] in her writings published as The Original Programme of the Theosophical Society by C.J. Jinarajadasa, in which she states her guiding principles in establishing the Theosophical Society:
"(1) - The Founders had to exercise all their influence to oppose selfishness of any kind, by insisting on sincere fraternal feelings, the great diversity of creeds not withstanding; expecting and demanding ... a great mutual help in the research of truths in every domain - moral or physical - and even, in daily life.
"(2) They had to oppose in the strongest manner possible anything approaching dogmatic faith and fanaticism - belief in the infallibility of the Masters,... a great respect for the private views and creeds of every member was demanded.... The greatest spirit of free research untrammeled by anyone or anything, had to be encouraged." (2)
Simply stated these principles relate to brotherhood and dogmatism. The society must be all of the first and have none of the second. Furthermore, to be successful a practical difference must be made in man's "code of life".
"Theosophy must be made practical, and has, therefore, to be disencumbered of useless discussion... It has to find objective expression in an all-embracing code of life thoroughly impregnated with its spirit - the spirit of mutual tolerance, charity and love." (3)
That is, it must affect humankind's behavior, both ethically and materially. And she goes on to say:
"The problem of true theosophy and its great mission is the working out of clear, unequivocal conceptions of ethic ideas and duties which would satisfy most and best the altruistic and right feeling in us, and the modelling of these conceptions for their adaptation into such forms of daily life where they may be applied with most equitableness." (4)
There are, then, three criteria on which a decision as to a group's theosophical nature is to be based. The organization must make no distinctions as to better or best on the basis of prejudice. Every race, sex, social status, nationality, religion, creed, and cultural expression must be equal. Truth must be sought religiously. The organization must function in such a manner as to make a difference in man's behavior. It must be a model and working example of theosophical concepts, and it must provide a means for theosophical creativity. In short, these are the requirements: Universal brotherhood, Freedom from dogma, and a Code of life that is all embracing.
The Paracelsian Order was established to provide a practical example of these three theosophical principles as guides for everyday worldly activity. At a time when the world's theosophical societies have dogmatically fragmented into arguing sects held together by claims of apostolic succession, is not this the time to restate our theosophical intentions? Is it tenable for societies supposedly theosophical to be so intolerant of another's "private opinion"? Do we already have theosophical authority? If we do, it would seem we are doomed to argue papal infallibility yet again in this Messianic Cycle.
As an organization The Paracelsian Order is an universal brotherhood, open equally to everyone, and it is free of dogma, all opinions as to one's positive path to perfection are expressible. Does it have an all embracing code of life? And, if it does, is this code of life practical for daily right livelihood, without compromising any theosophical principles? The Paracelsian Order declares its theosophical intention with HPB: "You are Free-workers on the Domain of Truth, and as such, must leave no obstructions on the paths leading to it." (5) The Paracelsian Order, furthermore, agrees with the view of the Maha Chohan:
"For our doctrines to practically react on the so called moral code or the ideas of truthfulness, self-denial, charity, etc., we have to preach and popularize a knowledge of theosophy. It is ... the self-sacrificing pursuit of the best means to lead on the right path our neighbour, to cause as many of our fellow creatures as we possibly can to benefit by it, which constitutes the true Theosophist." (6)
In this statement the Maha Chohan gives us the principles on which a code's practicalness can be judged. In order to make a practical impact on the moral code of life, a system must be pursued and practiced according to what Buddhism calls "right livelihood". That is it will inculcate a compassionate, self- sacrificing, charitable and honest nature. Monks of The Paracelsian Order may be men or women, single or married, freed from the outside world or as yet having outside obligations. If freed they may reside at and be supported by their monastery, and volunteer their services to the order's healing and teaching purposes. Healing and teaching are broadly applied to all aspects of "man physical and man psychical" and to all beings, animate and inanimate. Monks of the order operate according to these principles, which become vows to full monks.
Non-ownership and non-attachment I recognize that I own nothing and that non-attachment to things of this material world is important to my spiritual unfoldment. I accept the responsibility of being a caretaker for the bounty of the Universe.
Moral Chastity Recognizing freedom for all beings, I will strive not to impose on anyone to do anything against his or her highest consciousness, nor will I allow anyone to impose on my highest consciousness.
Obedience I will endeavor to be obedient to my Highest Self, my Godself. I seek to recognize the group mind of the monks, the church and the rule as a reflection of the Highest.
Root Digger I pledge all my energy to the work of the Order. I recognize that I am a channel for infinite abundance, and I accept the responsibility for meeting my material needs.
Openness and honesty I strive to be honest with myself and others and to encourage openness through positive and loving communication.
For a comparison, read the "Preliminary Memorandum" and "Rules" (7), published in Volume 12 of HP Blavatsky Collected Writings.
If a real change is to be effected in humankind's code of life, a means other than market forces must be found to provide for the needs of all. Each of us must provide for their own self; that is the lot of "the great orphan humanity". Maimonides, in the Guide of the Perplexed (8), while discussing this dilemma, advises a simplification of life style, so that only a minimum of time need be spent for personal maintenance. Thereby, the rest of one's time can be spent on spiritual development. If that minimum work period is spent in right livelihood, then the concept of work-for-pay vanishes. As right livelihood, the work becomes both karma yoga and satipatthana, a duty to give to this world and an awareness meditation to increase ability for skillful action, respectively. All extremes of association with the monastery are allowed, even to the extent of Monks at Large, who have no monastery affiliation, and Associate Members, who are merely supporters of the church's purposes and theosophical ideals. This broad association allows a maximum of individuals exposure to theosophical ideals and gives them all a steady process for development of those very traits expressed by the Maha Chohan as necessary theosophical criteria. They are also necessary for full monastic commitment.
The very thought of "monastic commitment" brings up archtypal fears in freedom loving people, but what we call "monastery", the Buddhist call sangha, the Hindus call ashrama, and Kabbalists call chabura. Clearly lacking in western society is the ability to provide a means for doing selfless work, sadhana. Although other monastic orders provide right livelihood and spiritual support, there certainly are few at which one might be eclectic in one's spiritual quest! Monks may volunteer their time and gain both good works through right livelihood and a sangha by unifying their efforts with like-minded theosophists of every persuasion. The theosophical creativity thus released will flow forth with blessing on all who contact and help it. This Order was conceived to provide both right livelihood and theosophical monasticism. Recall that monastic derives from Greek monas, meaning unity. Unity neither implies, nor desires, nor benefits from identity of its individuals. Diversity and fallibility are expressions of truth and are thus to be encouraged. Even Blavatsky held to "monastic" principles.
"Theosophy teaches mutual-culture before self-culture to begin with. Union is strength. It is by gathering many theosophists of the same way of thinking into one or more groups, and making them closely united by the same magnetic bond of fraternal unity and sympathy that the objects of mutual development and progress in theosophical thought may be best achieved." (9)
Could a better definition of monastic be found? Read Olcott's Old Diary Leaves for many comments on the "monastic" model of life at Adyar. Furthermore:
"...for the first year the Members of the T. [Theosophical] Body who, representing every class in Society as every creed and belief - ... - lived and met under these rules of peace and friendship." (10)
If the "monastic" hurdle has been passed, the next seems greater. Association of Theosophy with Religion has been abused, but one dogma is no better than another, and religion is after all the practice of "binding one's self back" to one's source. The Paracelsian Order is a religious, church, organization, and, indeed, HPB said:
"...the two Founders were told ... what they should never do, what they had to avoid, and what the Society should never become. Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects ...." (11)
However, this opinion is too narrowly stated. For, in the same article, HPB states her opinion more clearly:
"Our Society had never certainly any idea of rising superior to the brotherliness and ethics preached by Christ, but only to those of the sham Christianity of the Churches - as originally ordered to, by our Master." (12)
Even KH [Koot Hoomi], whose statement in Mahatma Letter No. 10, (13) blaming two-thirds of the world's suffering on the world's religions, only means those institutions who dogmatically define Truth. By disallowing personal integrity, the ability of each to gain knowingness is lost.
"You and your colleagues may help furnish the materials for a needed universal religious philosophy; one impregnable to scientific assault because itself the finality of absolute science; and, a religion, that is indeed worthy of the name, since it includes the relations of man physical to man psychical, and of the two to all that is above and below them. Is not this worth a slight sacrifice?" (14)
Furthermore, in the "View of the Chohan on the T.S." [Theosophical Society], it is explicitly stated as a prime function of the theosophical movement that, "... the Theosophical Society was chosen as the corner stone, the foundation of the future religion of humanity." (15) Clearly the Maha Chohan is predicting a "universal religious philosophy" as the basis for religious expression in the ensuing messianic age. The Paracelsian Order accepts monks of all cultural expressions without prejudice, in order to accelerate their intercultural awakening. Its monasteries are theosophical expressions of its universal religious philosophy.
One of the cycles said to be beginning in our time, and in preparation of which Blavatsky was sent, is the Aquarian Messianic Age. There have been and always will be divergent opinions on our true date of entry into this Age. This diversity suggests that a broad transition period is more likely than an abrupt date. But the Kabbalistic tradition indicates the cycle is measured according to Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, H.P.B. tells us: "the sign of his (messiah's) coming 'is the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the sign Pisces.'" (16) As shown in previous publications, transition from the significant conjunctions of 1961 to that of 1981 marked the resurrection of the new Messianic Age. (17) H.P.B.'s remarks relative to the year 1975 are well known and, regardless of the actual date of entry into the Aquarian Age, 1975 was certainly between these conjunctions. We agree with H.P.B. that what mankind does in the next few years determines whether the next century is to be a relative heaven or hell. Current world wide politics would appear to corroborate this prediction. Universalism is the keynote of the Aquarian Age. The inception of The Paracelsian Order was auspiciously chosen as 1975. As in The Voice of the Silence, "Help Nature and work on with her; and Nature will regard thee as one of her creators and make obeisance." (18)
As we transit out of the Age of Pisces with its vicarious atonement for the "faithful" alone, we will correspondingly enter an age of universalism. The ancient order of Melchizedek (19) must continue as before, but priests now help prepare all people to share equally in the self-sacrifice and so celebrate their own christos illumination, as the Christians might say. This is astronomical and psychological fact, and the mystical truth will be equally expressible in all cultural types. Is there, then, to be a theosophical priestcraft? I hope not, but priests of all crafts can certainly become more theosophical. The Paracelsian Order has no priesthood, only monks of all expressions. All monks are equal. They may be priests or officers in any or all religious systems, but they have no priestly standing within the Order.
The Johannine Catholic Church is the founding, parent corporation of The Paracelsian Order. This church is apostolic, with accepted consecration stemming from Bishop Miendaarts of the Old Catholic See of Utrecht in 1739. The Old Catholics were excommunicated from Rome primarily over the question of papal infallibility. The Johannine Catholic Church is not a member of the Old Catholic or Liberal Catholic movements, it is independent, and it is eclectic. Members may be Christian as well as other expressions simultaneously, once they have gained intercultural awareness. It is a part of the ancient wisdom movement. It is lotus like, its roots are in the mud of the past, its stem is from the water now peaking, and its flowering is in the sunlight of the future. It has no dogma, for "there is no religion higher than truth." By establishing a theosophical monastic order, it has opened its heart in true Christ-like fashion, to allow the essence of the messianic avatar to inspire our universal (i.e., catholic) spirit. "These tears, O thou of heart most merciful, these are the streams that irrigate the fields of charity immortal." (20) But monks of The Paracelsian Order are not required to declare membership in the Johannine Catholic Church, and neither organization defines beliefs for its members. The message of the spiritual self immolation of the bodhisattvic and messianic avatar allows vicarious atonement to be replaced with individual responsibility.
The namesake for this organization is, appropriately, Phillipus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, called Paracelsus, the father of modern medicine. This controversial figure, contemporary to Martin Luther and Huldreich Zwingli, differed with the practitioners of his time. He insisted on treating the whole being, not merely the part displaying disease. This holistic philosophy of Paracelsus lead him to introduce, controversially, allopathy, homeopathy, dosage, chemotherapy, hypnotism, mesmerism and faith healing into the practice of medicine. Religiously he tolerated both Protestants and Catholics. Scientifically he researched the traditions of the common person, the alchemy of the mystics, and the chemistry of the modern. He used astrology, charms, magic, and faith, whatever it took to make the cure. He drew on every source from the east and west and acted in concert with his understanding of each. He dedicated his life and bequeathed his money to the cause of the poor, who he treated for free as much as possible. This pioneer of holism left no stone unturned in his search for truth. He was, furthermore, recognized as a Theosophist by H.P.B.
"...although there had been alchemists before the days of Paracelsus, he was the first who had passed through the true initiation, that last ceremony which conferred on the adept the power of traveling toward the 'burning bush' over the holy ground, and to 'burn the golden calf in the fire, grind it to a powder, and strow it upon the water." (21)
The Paracelsian Order provides a theosophical response to dogmatic theosophy. As an intercultural religious expression, free from dogma, it provides means for theosophists of every persuasion to occupy themselves in truly theosophical selfless service and support themselves by right livelihood at the same time. It is a universal brotherhood with Truth as its religious path. It has also worked out a model that allows "as many of our fellow creatures as we possibly can to benefit by it." This code engenders "the altruistic and right feeling in us" in "clear, unequivocal conceptions of ethic ideas and duties". It is indeed justified in its claim as a theosophical organization.
Return to Why We Are
Return to The Philosopher's Stone Directory
Return to Home Page
Go back to Beginning
(1) H.P. Blavatsky, The Original Programme
of the Theosophical Society, (Adyar, Madras, India: The Theosophical
Publishing House, 1966), 44-45.
(2) Ibid., 4-6.
(3) Ibid., 45.
(4)
Ibid., 46-47.
(5) Ibid., 47.
(6) Margaret Conger, Combined Chronology for use
with The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett and The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky
(Pasadena: Theosophical University Press, 1973), 43.
(7) "Preliminary Memorandum" and Rules",
in H.P.Blavatsky Collected Writings: Volume XII, compiled by Boris de
Zirkoff (Wheaton, IL.: Theosophical Publishing House, 1980), 488- 498.
(8) Moses Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed.
Trans. by M. Friedlander (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., n.d.), 126.
(9) Original Programme, 28.
(10) Ibid., 6.
(11)
Ibid., 3.
(12) Ibid., 20.
(13) The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett,
edited by A. Trevor Barker (Pasadena, Theosophical University Press, 1975
[facsimile edition]), 57.
(14)
Combined Chronology, 38.
(15) Original
Programme, 44.
(16) H.P. Blavatsky, Isis
Unveiled Volume II (Los Angeles: The Theosophy Company, 1968) [centenary
anniversary edition]), 256.
(17) John H.
Drais, "Age of Aquarius - 1981, Part I & II", The Eclectic
Theosophist, No. 62 (Jan/Feb 1981) and No. 63 (Mar 1981).
(18) H.P. Blavatsky, The Voice of the Silence,
(Springfield Rd, Vernon, B.C.: The H.P.B. Lending Library, 1978), 14.
(19) "Epistle to the Hebrews", The New
Testament, Chapter 5, vv. 1-10 and Chapter 7, vv. 1-3.
(20) The Voice of the Silence, 13.
(21) Isis Unveiled, 349.
Return to Who We Are
Return to The Philosopher's Stone Directory
Return to Home Page
Go back to Beginning
Go to End Notes
This document is certified to be an exact reproduction of the original. Please report errors to John H. Drais - drais@madregrande.org.