Writings of H P Blavatsky
Cardiff
Theosophical Society in Wales
206 Newport Road, Cardiff, Wales, UK. CF24 -1DL
Helena Petrovna
Blavatsky (1831 – 1891)
The Founder of
Modern Theosophy
"Esoteric Buddhism"
And The
"Secret Doctrine"
By
H P Blavatsky
CORRESPONDENCE
In reference to various remarks concerning "Esoteric Buddhism"
which appear in the course of your new work, "The Secret Doctrine," I
beg to call your attention to some passages on the same subject which appeared
on former occasions in the Theosophist at a time when that magazine was edited
by yourself.
In the Secret Doctrine you speak of Esoteric Buddhism as a work with
"a very unfortunate title," and in reference to a passage in my
preface, emphasising the novelty for European readers of the teachings then
given out, you say the error must have crept in through inadvertence. In the
last number of LUCIFER you discuss the same point in a note appended to a
correspondent's letter. Permit me to remind you of an editorial note, evidently
from your own pen, in the February Theosophist, 1884. This is in reply to an
objection raised by Mr. W. Q. Judge that nearly all the leading ideas of the
doctrine embodied in "Esoteric Buddhism" are to be found in
the Bhagavad Gita. You wrote:
We do not believe our American brother is justified in his
remarks. The knowledge given out in Esoteric Buddhism is most decidedly
given out for the first time, inasmuch as the allegories that lie scattered in
the Hindu sacred literature are now for the first time clearly explained to the
world of the profane.1 Since the birth of the Theosophical Society and the
publication of Isis, it is being repeated daily that all the esoteric wisdom of
the ages lies concealed in the Vedas, the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita; yet
unto the day of the first appearance of Esoteric Buddhism, and for long
centuries back, these doctrines remained a sealed letter to all but a few
initiated Brahmins who had always kept the spirit of it to themselves.
Thus, if I erred in my statement about the doctrine having been unknown
previously to Europeans, I erred in very good company – your own. Your note goes
on to say that certainly the teachings of "Esoteric Buddhism" lie
concealed in the Bhagavad Gita, "but" you say:
What of that? Of what good to W. Q. Judge or any other is the diamond
that lies concealed deep underground? Of course everyone knows that there is
not a gem now sparkling in a jewellery shop but pre-existed and lay concealed
since its formation, for ages, within the bowels of the earth. Yet surely he
who got it first from its finder, and cut and polished it, may be permitted to
say that this particular diamond is given out for the first time to the world.2
In regard to my "unfortunate title," which was (as you know, I
think) approved when first proposed without any question arising as to the. two
"d's" – you say in the Secret Doctrine:
It has enabled our enemies to find an effective weapon against Theosophy
because, as an eminent Pali scholar very pointedly expressed it, there was in
the volume named neither esotericism nor Buddhism.
It happens that you discussed the same criticism in an article in the
Theosophist for November, 1883. Your text on that occasion was an article in
the St. James' Gazette, which you attributed to Dr. Rhys Davids, and you wrote:
But before the Orientalists are able to prove that the doctrines, as
taught in Mr. Sinnett's exposition are "not Buddhism, esoteric nor
exoteric," they will have to make away with
the thousands of Brahminical Adwaita and other Vedantin writings – the
works of Sankaracharya in particular – from which it can be proved that
precisely the same doctrines are taught in those works esoterically.
You spoke, in the course of the article, of the very remark you now find
to be "very pointed,"3 as "such a spiteful and profitless
criticism" to attribute it to the pen of the great Pali scholar.The
propriety of the title given to my book was discussed in an article in the
Theosophist for June, 1884, when an editorial note was appended, in the course
of which the writer said:
The name given to Mr. Sinnett's book will not be misleading or
objectionable when the close identity between the doctrines therein expounded
and those of the ancient Rishis of India is clearly perceived.4
These extracts seem to show that the unfavourable view of Esoteric
Buddhism now presented to the readers of the Secret Doctrine can only have been
developed in your mind with comparatively recent period.5 Satisfied with the
assurance conveyed to me – as explained in the preface to the sixth edition –
by the reverend teacher from whom its substance was derived – that the book was
a sound and trustworthy presentation of his teachings as a whole, that would
never have to be remodelled or apologised for,6 I have been content, hitherto,
to leave unnoticed every other criticism that it has called forth. I have known
all along that it contained errors which initiates would detect, but by the
time any student might be in a position to appreciate these he would be
independent of its guidance, and till then he could not be embarrassed7
by them. Now, however, I regret to find that the Secret Doctrine is not merely
concerned to expand and develop the earlier teaching – a task which I should be
the first to recognise could be performed by no one more efficiently than by
yourself – but paves
the way for its expositions by remarks on Esoteric Buddhism which are
not in the nature of fresh revelations concerning what are, doubtless, its many
shortcomings, but are in the nature of disparagements8 which you have, on
former occasions rebuked others for putting forward.
You say – in objecting to my title – "the esoteric truths presented
in Mr. Sinnett's work had ceased to be esoteric from the moment they were made
public." Is not that an odd objection to appear on the first page of a
book called "The Secret Doctrine"? Has the doctrine ceased to deserve
that designation from the date at which your own book appeared?9
These questions however are all of minor importance, though it puzzles
me to understand why your view of them should have been so diametrically
reversed from what it was a few years ago.10 I might hardly have written this
letter at all, but for a passage in the Secret Doctrine referring to Esoteric
Buddhism that occurs on page 169. There you suggest that my own attempt to
explain planetary evolution fails for want of being sufficiently metaphysical,
and you quote a phrase from me – "on pure meta-physics of that sort we are
not now engaged" – in connexion with a passage from one of the
letters of instruction I received when the book was under preparation. "In
such case," you say, "as the Teacher remarks in a letter to him: 'Why this preaching of our
doctrines, all this uphill work and swimming in adversum flumen?'" Any
reader will imagine that the passage quoted from the letter had reference to
the passage quoted from the book.11 Nothing can be further from the fact. My
remark about not being "then" concerned with "pure
metaphysics" had a limited and specific application, and on the next page
I see that I have dealt with that period before the earliest manifestations of
Nature on the plane of the senses, when the work of evolution going on was
concerned "with the elemental forces that underlie the phenomena of Nature
so visible now and perceptible to the senses of Man."
From time to time, amongst criticisms of Esoteric Buddhism that have
appeared to me misdirected, I have heard this charge – that I have not
appreciated the great doctrine metaphysically, that I have materialised its
conceptions. I do not think I have ever before put pen to paper to combat this
idea, though it has always struck me as curiously erroneous; but when language
from yourself seems to fortify the impression I refer to, it is high time for
me to explain, at any rate, my own attitude of mind.12
The charge of materialising the doctrine seems to me to arise entirely
from the fact that I have partially succeeded in making some parts of it
intelligible. The disposition to regard vagueness of exposition as equivalent
to spirituality of thought is very widely spread; and multitudes of people are
unaccustomed to respect any phraseology that they find themselves enabled to
understand Unused to realise a thought with precision of imaginative insight,
they fancy if it is presented vividly to the mind that it must have lost caste
in the realms of idealism. They are used to regarding a brick as something with
a definite shape and purpose, and an idea as
a Protean shadow. Give the idea a specific plan in Nature, and it will
seem to them materialised, even if concerned with conditions of life as remote
from materiality as Devachanic emotion.
The succession of Cause and Effect seems itself materialised – in the
mental atmosphere I am discussing – if it is represented, in its most
interesting aspect, as forcing its way from one plane of nature to another.
For readers of this temperament Esoteric Buddhism may be materialistic;
but as I venture to believe that it has been a bridge which has conducted many,
and may bear many more, across the chasm which divides the interests and
materialism of this life, from the realms of spiritual aspiration beyond, I
have not yet seen reason to regret the mould in which it was cast, even though
some of those who have used it in their time now despise its materialistic
construction.13 It would load your paper too heavily if I quoted passages to
show how constantly I really emphasised the non-material aspects of its
teaching; but I may perhaps be allowed one from the closing sentences of the
chapter on "the universe," in which I say: – "It" – the
doctrine of the Esoteric Wisdom – "stoops to materialism, as it were to
link its methods with the logic of that system, and ascends to the highest
realms of Idealism to embrace and expound the most exalted aspiration of
spirit."
The truth of the whole matter is admirably expressed in a comprehensive
sentence at the end of a long article on "The Metaphysical Basis of
Esoteric Buddhism," which appeared in the Theosophist for May, 1884, with
the suggestive signature, Damodar K. Mavalankar. This runs:"The reader
will now perceive that Esoteric Buddhism is not a system of materialism. It is,
as Mr. Sinnett calls it, 'Transcendental Materialism,' which is
non-materialism, just as the absolute consciousness is
non-consciousness."14
Any vindication of oneself must be a repulsive task. For many reasons I
would rather have left all such questions alone, but to ignore unfavourable
comments when these proceed from your own pen would be to treat them with less
respect than is embodied in my present remarks.
In conclusion, since the Secret Doctrine so frequently discusses what
Esoteric Buddhism meant to say as regards Darwinian evolution, let me endeavour
to elucidate that point. The teaching I received on the subject of race
evolution was very elementary. It was not exactly "fragmentary" (as
has sometimes been said), but it was a skeleton statement, as regards all the
problems of "Cosmogenesis," consequently it dealt merely with that
cosmic progress of the spiritual inquiry through the various kingdoms of Nature
which, beginning (on the material plane) with the mineral, culminates in Man.
It follows from this elementary statement that at some stage of the great
evolutionary process there is an ascent from the animal to the human kingdom,15
never mind where the transition is effected.
There the teaching vindicated the spirit of the Darwinian idea16 though
the further illumination now cast upon the subject by your present work shows
that many specific conjectures of Darwinism are erroneous, and its application
to the human evolution of this world period altogether misleading It is
needless to say that I was not
furnished with the later teaching on this subject when Esoteric Buddhism
was written, therefore of course my own impression at the time was that the doctrine
supported the Darwinian hypothesis, as a general idea. I never heard a word
breathed in India, when writing Esoteric Buddhism to the contrary effect.17
Nor was the point worth raising then. My readers had to be made
acquainted with the primary principles of Karma, reincarnation and cosmic
progress towards superior conditions of existence. All the cosmo-genesis that
was essential to the comprehension of these principles was supplied in the
teaching as given. Much was left for
further development, for later opportunities. The first book of Euclid
cannot also contain the second, third and fourth. In the Secret Doctrine I have
no doubt we are furnished with esoteric teaching, which is the analogue of the
more advanced geometry.
Probably it will be least appreciated by those who read its opening
pages as warning them off the subject of triangles.
Yours very respectfully,
A. P. SINNETT
OUR CLOSING REMARK
We thank Mr. Sinnett, with all of our heart, for this letter. Better
late than never. On page 186 of Vol. I. of our "Secret Doctrine," now
just published, we quote from a letter of a member of the T. S., who wrote:
"I suppose you realize that three-fourths of Theosophists, and even
outsiders imagine that, as far as the evolution of man is concerned, Darwinism
and Theosophy kiss one another" in "Esoteric Buddhism." We
repudiate the idea most
vehemently on the same page, but our negation would not go very far
without that of Mr. Sinnett. The letter containing the above quoted sentence
was written more than two and a half years ago; and our denial, notwithstanding
the same charge of Darwinism and materialism in "Esoteric Buddhism,"
was maintained by the same writer and supported by many others. Thus it was
indispensable for the good of the Cause that Mr. Sinnett should deny it over
his own signature. Our object is accomplished, for the author of "Esoteric
Buddhism" has now solemnly repudiated the charge, and we hope to receive
no more such flings at our philosophical beliefs.
We close by thanking our esteemed correspondent once more for the
indulgent spirit in which he deals with our remarks, but which, to our regret,
he very erroneously attributes to a personal feeling due to some unwarrantable
change in our attitude towards himself. We repudiate such a charge, and hope
that our explanations will dissipate the last vestiges of any such suspicion. –
[ED.
Lucifer, November, 1888
H. P. Blavatsky
1 The author of the "Secret Doctrine" begs to suggest that she
never denied to the doctrines expounded
by Mr. Sinnett the privilege of having been clearly "EXPLAINED," for
the first time, in print, in "Esot. Buddhism." All she asserts is,
that it is not for the first time that they were given out to a European, and
by the latter to
other Europeans. Between "publishing" and "giving
out" there is a decided difference; an admirable peg, at any rate, for our
common enemies to hang their captious cavils upon. It is not the writer of the
"Secret Doctrine," moreover, who was the first to put such a natural
interpretation upon the sentence used by our esteemed friend
and correspondent, but, verily, sundry critics outside of, as also
within the Theosophical Society. It is no personal question between Mr. Sinnett
and H. P. Blavatsky, but between these two individuals on the one hand and
their critics on the other; the former being both in duty bound – as
theosophists and believers in the esoteric teaching – to defend the Sacred
Doctrine from side attacks – via its expounders. – [ED.
2 This proves, firstly, that the desire to defend, in print, a friend
and co-worker quand même, even when he is not entirely right, is always
injudicious; and secondly, that experience comes with age. "The good
advocate not onley heares, but examines his case, and pincheth the cause where
he fears it is foundred" – Puller teaches.
We proved no "good advocate," and now bear our Karma for it;
from an "advocate" we have become a "defendant." – [ED.
3 So we say now. Not a word of what we wrote then do we repudiate here;
and the "Secret Doctrine" proves it. But this does not clash at all
with the fact that, once made public, no doctrine can be referred to any longer
as "esoteric." The esoteric tenets revealed – both in "Esoteric
Buddhism" and the "Secret Doctrine" have become
exoteric now. Nor does a remark cease to be "spiteful" for
being "very pointed," e.g., most of Carlyle's remarks. A few years
ago, at a time when our doctrines were hardly delineated and the Orientalists
knew nothing of them, any such premature discussion and criticism were
"profitless." But now, when these doctrines have spread throughout
the whole world, unless we call things by their true names, and admit our
mistakes (for it was one, to spell "Budhism," Buddhism – a mistake,
moreover, distinctly attributed to ourselves, "theosophists of
India," vide page xviii. Vol. I of the "Secret Doctrine," and
not at all to Mr. Sinnett), our critics will have an undeniable right to charge
us with sailing under false colours. Nothing more fatal to our cause could ever
happen. If we
would be regarded as theosophists, we have to protect THEOSOPHY; we have
to defend our colours before we think of defending our own petty personality
and amour propre, and should be ever ready to sacrifice ourselves. And this is
what we have tried to do in the Introduction to the "Secret
Doctrine." Poor is that standard-bearer
who shields his body from the bullets of the enemy with the sacred
banner entrusted to him! – [ED.
4 The Rishis having nought to do with "Buddhism," the religion
of Gautama Buddha, this question shows plainly that the mistake involved in the
double "d" had not yet struck the writer as forcibly as it has done
later. – [ED.
5 This is an error. What we say now in the "Secret Doctrine"
is what we knew, but kept silent upon ever since the first year of publication
of "Esoteric Doctrine"; though we confess we have not realised the
importance of the mistake as fully from the beginning as we do now. It is the
number of criticisms received in private letters and for publication in
LUCIFER, from friends as well as from foes, that forced us to see the question
in its true light. Had they (the criticisms) been directed only against us
personally (Mr. Sinnett and H. P. Blavatsky) they would have been left entirely
unnoticed. But as all such had a direct bearing upon the doctrines taught –
some persisting in calling them Buddhism, pure and simple, and others charging
them with being a new-fangled doctrine invented by ourselves and fathered upon
Buddhism – the danger became imminent, and a public explanation was absolutely
necessary. Moreover, the impression that it was a very materialistic teaching –
"Esoteric Buddhism" being accused of upholding the Darwinian
hypothesis – spread from the Indian and Vedantin to almost all the European theosophists.
This had to be refuted, and – we do so in the "Secret Doctrine." –
[ED.
6 No one has ever dreamt of denying that "Esoteric Buddhism"
was a "trustworthy presentation" of the Master's teachings as a
whole. That which is asserted is simply that some personal speculations of
its author were faulty, and led to erroneous conclusions, (a) on account
of their incompleteness, and (b) because of the evident anxiety to reconcile
them with modern physical science, instead of metaphysical philosophy. Very
likely errors, emanating from a desire diametrically opposite, will be found in
the "Secret Doctrine." Why
should any of us – aye, even the most learned in occult lore among
theosophists – pose for infallibility? Let us humbly admit with Socrates that
"all we know is, that we know nothing"; at any rate nothing in
comparison to what we have still to learn. – [ED.
7 Not "embarrassed," but misled – and it is precisely this
which has happened. – [ED.
8 We demur to the expression. No "disparagement" whatever is
meant, but simply an attempt is made to make certain tenets taught in our
respective works more clear. Without such explanations, the statements made by
both authors would be unavoidably denounced as contradictory. The general public
rarely goes to the trouble of
sifting such difficult metaphysical questions to the bottom, but judges
on appearance. We have to acquaint first the reader with all the sides and
aspects of a teaching before we allow him to accept or even to see in one of
such a dogma. – [ED.
9 It has, most unquestionably, if logic deserves its name. Our
correspondent would have hardly made this query, intended as a hit and a
satire, had he paid attention to what is said on pages xvii – xviii (the first
and the second) of the Introduction to the "Secret Doctrine," namely
– "Esoteric Buddhism" was an excellent work with a
very unfortunate title, though it meant no more than does the title of
this work, the "Secret Doctrine"; which means, if anything, that no
more than "Esoteric Buddhism" are those portions of the
"Secret Doctrine" now
explained in our volumes any longer "secret" – since they are
divulged. We appeal to logicians and literary critics for a decision. – [ED.
10 Vide Supra notes: the reasons are now explained. – [ED.
11 This remark of the Master was made in a general not in any specific
application. But what of that? – [ED.
12 Once more we beg to assure our friend and colleague, Mr. Sinnett,
that in saying what is said in the "Secret Doctrine" we did not for
one moment contemplate the remarks as expressive of our own personal objections
– seeing we know our correspondent's ideas too well to have any. They were
addressed to and directed against our benevolent critics: especially those who,
with an impartiality most admirable, though worthy of a better fate, try to hit
us both, and through us to upset the Esoteric Doctrine. Has not the latter been
proclaimed by a number of well-wishers as an invention of H. P. Blavatsky's?
Did not even an admirably clever and learned man – the late W. C. King –
claim, in his "Gnostics and their Remains," to have "reasons for
suspecting that the sibyl of 'Esoteric Buddhism' (i.e. your humble servant)
drew her first notions from the analysis of the Inner man (to wit our seven
principles) as set forth in my (his) first edition"! This – because the
most philosophical Gnostic works, especially the doctrines of Valentinus and
Marcus – are full of our archaic esoteric ideas. Forsooth, it is high time that
the defendant, also, should "rise and explain" her attitude in the
"Secret Doctrine," regardless of any one's (even her own)
personality! – [ED.
13 No one we know of "despises," but many, on the other band,
rejoice, and very much so, at being able to refer to it as 'materialistic."
It was high time to disabuse and contradict them; and this letter from our
correspondent, setting forth his true views and attitude for the first time, is
one of the first good fruits produced by our remarks in, the "Secret Doctrine."
It is an excellent heck on our mutual enemies. – [ED.
14 These are the verbatim expressions of your friend and humble servant,
the Editor. Damodar only repeated our views. But the "Damodars" are
few, and there were, as our correspondent well knows, other Brahmins in
England, who were the first to proclaim "Esoteric Buddhism"
materialistic to the core, and who have always maintained
this idea in others. – [ED.
15 At the stage of the first Round, and partially at the second, never
during any stage of the Fourth Round. A purely mathematical or rather
algebraical reason exists for this: – The present (our) Round being the middle
Round (between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, and the 5th, 6th, and 7th) is one of
adjustment and final equipoise between Spirit and matter. It is that point, in
short, wherein the reign of true matter, its grossest state (which is as
unknown to Science as its opposite pole – homogeneous matter or substance)
stops and comes to an end. from that point physical man begins to throw off "coat
after coat," his material molecules for the benefit and subsequent
formation or clothing of the animal kingdom, which in its turn is passing it on
to the vegetable, and the latter to the mineral kingdoms. Man having evoluted
in the first Round from the animal via the two other kingdoms, it stands to
reason that in the present Round he should appear before the animal world of
this manvantaric period. But see the "Secret Doctrine" for
particulars. – [ED.
16 What did Darwin, or what Darwinians know of our esoteric teaching
about "Rounds"! The "Spirit" of the Darwinian idea, is an
Irish bull, in this case, as that "Spirit" is materialism of the
grossest kind. – [ED.
17 The reason for this also is stated in the "Secret
Doctrine."
______________________
Cardiff Theosophical Society in
Theosophy House
206 Newport Road, Cardiff, Wales, UK. CF24
-1DL
Find
out more about
Theosophy
with these links
The Cardiff Theosophical Society Website
The
National Wales Theosophy Website
If you run a Theosophy Group, please feel free
to use any of the material on this site
Theosophy Cardiff’s Instant Guide
One liners and quick explanations
H P Blavatsky is
usually the only
Theosophist that
most people have ever
heard of. Let’s
put that right
The Voice of the Silence Website
An Independent Theosophical Republic
Links to Free Online Theosophy
Study Resources; Courses, Writings,
The main criteria
for the inclusion of
links on this
site is that they have some
relationship
(however tenuous) to Theosophy
and are lightweight,
amusing or entertaining.
Topics include
Quantum Theory and Socks,
Dick Dastardly and Legendary Blues Singers.
A selection of
articles on Reincarnation
Provided in
response to the large
number of
enquiries we receive at
Cardiff
Theosophical Society on this subject
The Voice of the Silence Website
This is for
everyone, you don’t have to live
in Wales to make
good use of this Website
No Aardvarks were harmed in the
The Spiritual Home of Urban Theosophy
The Earth Base for Evolutionary Theosophy
A B C D EFG H IJ KL M N OP QR S T UV WXYZ
Complete Theosophical Glossary in Plain Text Format
1.22MB
________________
Preface
Theosophy and the Masters General Principles
The Earth Chain Body and Astral Body Kama – Desire
Manas Of Reincarnation Reincarnation Continued
Karma Kama Loka
Devachan
Cycles
Arguments Supporting Reincarnation
Differentiation Of Species Missing Links
Psychic Laws, Forces, and Phenomena
Psychic Phenomena and Spiritualism
Quick Explanations with Links to More Detailed Info
What is Theosophy ? Theosophy Defined (More Detail)
Three Fundamental Propositions Key Concepts of Theosophy
Cosmogenesis Anthropogenesis Root Races
Ascended Masters After Death States
The Seven Principles of Man Karma
Reincarnation Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
Colonel Henry Steel Olcott William Quan Judge
The Start of the Theosophical
Society
History of the Theosophical
Society
Theosophical Society Presidents
History of the Theosophical
Society in Wales
The Three Objectives of the
Theosophical Society
Explanation of the Theosophical
Society Emblem
The Theosophical Order of
Service (TOS)
Glossaries of Theosophical Terms
Index of Searchable
Full Text Versions of
Definitive
Theosophical Works
H P Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine
Isis Unveiled by H P Blavatsky
H P Blavatsky’s Esoteric Glossary
Mahatma Letters to A P Sinnett 1 - 25
A Modern Revival of Ancient Wisdom
(Selection of Articles by H P Blavatsky)
The Secret Doctrine – Volume 3
A compilation of H P Blavatsky’s
writings published after her death
Esoteric Christianity or the Lesser Mysteries
The Early Teachings of The Masters
A Collection of Fugitive Fragments
Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy
Mystical,
Philosophical, Theosophical, Historical
and Scientific
Essays Selected from "The Theosophist"
Edited by George Robert Stow Mead
From Talks on the Path of Occultism - Vol. II
In the Twilight”
Series of Articles
The In the
Twilight” series appeared during
1898 in The
Theosophical Review and
from 1909-1913 in The Theosophist.
compiled from
information supplied by
her relatives and friends and edited by A P Sinnett
Letters and
Talks on Theosophy and the Theosophical Life
Obras Teosoficas En Espanol
Theosophische Schriften Auf Deutsch
An Outstanding
Introduction to Theosophy
By a student of
Katherine Tingley
Elementary Theosophy Who is the Man? Body and Soul
Body, Soul and Spirit Reincarnation Karma
Guide to the
Theosophy Wales King Arthur Pages
Arthur draws the Sword from the Stone
The Knights of The Round Table
The Roman Amphitheatre at Caerleon,
Eamont Bridge, Nr Penrith, Cumbria, England.
(History of the Kings of Britain)
The reliabilty of this work has long been a subject of
debate but it is the first definitive account of Arthur’s
Reign
and one which puts Arthur in a historcal context.
and his version’s political agenda
According to Geoffrey of Monmouth
The first written mention of Arthur as a heroic figure
The British leader who fought twelve battles
King Arthur’s ninth victory at
The Battle of the City of the Legion
King Arthur ambushes an advancing Saxon
army then defeats them at Liddington Castle,
Badbury, Near Swindon, Wiltshire, England.
King Arthur’s twelfth and last victory against the Saxons
Traditionally Arthur’s last battle in which he was
mortally wounded although his side went on to win
No contemporary writings or accounts of his life
but he is placed 50 to 100 years after the accepted
King Arthur period. He refers to Arthur in his inspiring
poems but the earliest written record of these dates
from over three hundred years after Taliesin’s death.
Mallerstang Valley, Nr Kirkby Stephen,
A 12th Century Norman ruin on the site of what is
reputed to have been a stronghold of Uther Pendragon
From
wise child with no earthly father to
Megastar
of Arthurian Legend
History of the Kings of Britain
Drawn from the Stone or received from the Lady of the Lake.
Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur has both versions
with both swords called Excalibur. Other versions
5th & 6th Century Timeline of Britain
From the departure of the Romans from
Britain to the establishment of sizeable
Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms
Glossary of
Arthur’s uncle:- The puppet ruler of the Britons
controlled and eventually killed by Vortigern
Amesbury, Wiltshire, England. Circa 450CE
An alleged massacre of Celtic Nobility by the Saxons
History of the Kings of Britain
Athrwys / Arthrwys
King of Ergyng
Circa 618 - 655 CE
Latin: Artorius; English: Arthur
A warrior King born in Gwent and associated with
Caerleon, a possible Camelot. Although over 100 years
later that the accepted Arthur period, the exploits of
Athrwys may have contributed to the King Arthur Legend.
He became King of Ergyng, a kingdom between
Gwent and Brycheiniog (Brecon)
Angles under Ida seized the Celtic Kingdom of
Bernaccia in North East England in 547 CE forcing
Although much later than the accepted King Arthur
period, the events of Morgan Bulc’s 50 year campaign
to regain his kingdom may have contributed to
Old Welsh: Guorthigirn;
Anglo-Saxon: Wyrtgeorn;
Breton: Gurthiern; Modern Welsh; Gwrtheyrn;
*********************************
An earlier ruler than King Arthur and not a heroic figure.
He is credited with policies that weakened Celtic Britain
to a point from which it never recovered.
Although there are no contemporary accounts of
his rule, there is more written evidence for his
existence than of King Arthur.
How Sir Lancelot slew two giants,
From Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur
How Sir Lancelot rode disguised
in Sir Kay's harness, and how he
From Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur
How Sir Lancelot jousted against
four knights of the Round Table,
From Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur
Try these if you are looking for a local
Theosophy Group or Centre
UK Listing of Theosophical Groups
Cardiff
Theosophical Society in Wales
Cardiff, Wales, UK. CF24 – 1DL
_____________________________
Cardiff Picture Gallery
Cardiff
Millennium Stadium
The Hayes Cafe
Outside Cardiff Castle Circa 1890
Church Street
Cardiff View
Royal
The Original
Norman Castle which stands inside
the Grounds of
the later
Inside the
Grounds at
Cardiff Street
Entertainment
Cardiff Indoor
Market
All
Wales Guide to Theosophy Instant Guide to
Theosophy
Theosophy
Wales Hornet Theosophy Wales Now
Cardiff
Theosophical Archive Elementary Theosophy
Basic
Theosophy Theosophy in Cardiff
Theosophy in Wales Hey Look! Theosophy in
Cardiff
Streetwise Theosophy Grand
Tour
Theosophy
Aardvark Theosophy
Starts Here
Theosophy 206 Biography of William Q Judge
Theosophy Cardiff’s Face Book of Great Theosophists
Theosophy Evolution Theosophy Generally Stated
Biography of Helena Petrovna
Blavatsky
Cardiff
Theosophical Society in Wales