Theosophy Cardiff’s

Gallery of

Great Theosophists



Annie Besant

1847 - 1933

President of the Theosophical Society  1907-1933


Return to Homepage



A fragment of Autobiography


Annie Besant






Annie Besant, on Sunday evening, the 30th of August,

delivered an address on “1875 to 1891: a Fragment of

Autobiography,” at the Hall of Science, Old Street, St.

Luke’s. The occasion was her last appearance on the platform

of this Hall, which has now passed entirely under the

control of the National Secular Society. There was a very

crowded and very interested audience.


Mrs Thornton Smith presided and, after making various

announcements, said: “Tonight my friend [Mrs Besant] speaks

from this platform for the last time.” Annie Besant, who was

greeted with most cordial and prolonged cheers, said:


On the 28th of February, 1875, I stood for the first time

on the platform of the Hall of Science to speak from that

platform to a Freethought audience. I spoke then,

announced under my own name, but with another name added

thereto — one under which, since the preceding August, I

had written in the National Reformer. It was the name of

“Ajax,” and I used that name for writing in the Reformer

because when the darkness came down upon him and his army,

the words which were said to have broken from his lips

expressed my own feeling then, as they express it now. Out

of the darkness and the danger, his voice is said to have

rung over the battlefield; “Light, more light.” It is that

cry for “light” which has been the key-note of my own

intellectual life, then and ever since, light —

whithersoever the light may take one; light, through

whatever difficulties the light may lead one; light,

although in its brightness it should blast the eyes that

gaze upon it; I would rather be blinded by the light, than

sit wilfully in the twilight or the dark. Months before —

in the August of the preceding year — I had come to the

Hall for the first time to receive my certificate of

entrance into the National Secular Society. I received it

then from the greatest president that Society has had or

is likely to have. From that time there dated a friendship

to which no words of mine can do justice, or speak the

gratitude I feel — a friendship that was only broken by

the grave. Had he lived, this lecture would, probably, not

have needed to be given, for, if there was one thing that

Charles Bradlaugh did, it was to keep free the platform

which was given him in charge, and to permit no test of

doctrine or of belief to claim a right to bar the platform

that was free in name and in deed as well.



I pass hurriedly — for I have but brief time tonight — I

pass hurriedly over many years, taking but one point after

another that seems to me to be of interest in the

retrospect of tonight. Not very long after I came on to

this platform, in the May following, I was elected a

vice-president of the National Secular Society, and that

position I laid down when the late president gave up his

office. I began my service in the Society under him, and I

could serve under no lesser man. From that time forward —

from the time, that is, of the commencement of my service

— I constantly occupied the platform here and elsewhere.

And they were rougher days then with the Freethought party

in the provinces, than those they have now to face. During

my first year of lecturing work I can remember some rough

scenes that now it would not be easy to parallel. Stones

that were thrown as the most potent argument to use

against a lecturer, even though that lecturer were a

woman; the broken windows of a hall; a bruised neck at one

place; a walk through waving sticks and a cursing crowd at

another place — these were the kind of arguments which

Christians were readier to use then than they are now. The

party has grown very much stronger during the sixteen and

a half years which have passed from then to now. I well

remember, looking backward, and recalling incident after

incident that marked those passing years, the memorable

Conference in 1876, when there was present on the platform

a miner of Yorkshire who, a member of the Society and an

Atheist, was the first to spring into a cage to go down

where 143 of his comrades lay dead and others were in

danger of death after a colliery explosion — the cage into

which none dared to spring until the Atheist set the

example and stimulated the courage of others. My

experience in the National Secular Society has taught me

that you have the most splendid courage, the most absolute

self-devotion, the most heroic self-sacrifice, that those

virtues can exist without possessing faith in God or

belief in a hereafter: they are, indeed, the flowers of

man’s nature springing up fragrant and beautiful in every

creed and in none.



It was not so long after my entrance into the National

Secular Society — a little more than two brief years —

that that struggle came upon us in which Charles Bradlaugh

and I myself defended the right to publish, at a cheap

rate, information which we believed to be useful to the

masses of the poor and of the weak. What the upshot of

that struggle was you all know. How bitter the struggle

was some of you, perchance, may have gauged. I, who went

through it, know its results were that no amount of

slander or abuse could hereafter make much difference,

when one thought it right to take a particular line of

conduct; for in the years that followed that trial there

were no words too foul, no epithets too vile, to be used

in Christian and in Freethought journals, against my

co-defendant and myself. When one has once been through

that fire of torture, when everything that man and woman

hold dear, fame, good name, reputation, character, and all

else — when all have been sullied, slandered and maligned,

after such a hammering all subsequent attacks seem but

poor and feeble, and no words of reproach or unkindness

that later can be used avail to touch a courage that has

held through trials such as that. And I do not regret (I

have never regretted and don’t now) the steps that then I

took, for I know that both in the eyes of the wise today,

and in the verdict of the history that in centuries to

come shall judge our struggles, the verdict that then

shall be given will not be given on what one has believed

but on how one has worked: and I know that though one’s

eyes may often be blinded and one’s efforts wrong, the

courage that dares to speak, the courage that dares to

stand — those are the things that men remember, and if you

can never write “coward” on man or woman’s grave, their

place is safe in the hearts of men, whether their views

are blessed or banned in days to come.



I pass, however, to the theological position, for that is

one that interests all, is the most important, and the one

to which your thoughts and minds will most strongly turn

tonight. In 1872 I broke with Christianity, and I broke

with it once and for all. I have nothing to unsay, nothing

to undo, nothing to retract, as regards my position then

and my position now. I broke with it, but I am no nearer

to it in 1891 than I was when I first joined the ranks of

the National Secular Society. I do not say that my

language then was not harsher than my language would be

now, for in the first moments after a great struggle, when

you have paid such a price as I paid for intellectual

liberty, you do not always in the first moments of

freedom, in the reaction from a great conflict, you do not

always think of the feelings of others as charity and as

true toleration would command that you should think. I

spoke words bitterer than I should speak now; words

harsher and more critical than I should speak today; but

of the groundwork of my rejection then I have nothing to

alter, for I stand upon that ground today as I stood then.

I did not give up that Christian faith without much and

bitter suffering; and I do not know whether, if anyone set

to work to fabricate some physical apparatus which would

give the best opportunity for suffering during life — I do

not know that any ingenious artificer could do very much

more cleverly, than to weld together in one human body the

strong brain of a man and the warm heart of a woman: for

where a man can break with opinions where logic tells him

(not always, indeed, without bitter suffering), I doubt if

there can be any woman who can break with any faith she

has ever held, without paying some heart’s blood as the

price of alienation, some bitter meed of pain to the idol

which is broken.



In looking back, as I have been looking today over some of

my own past writing, I saw words with respect to the

giving up of Christianity which were true: true in the

feeling that they then depicted, and true in my

remembrance of it now; for the deity of Christ is the last

Christian doctrine, I think, to which we cling when we

leave Christianity. “The doctrine was dear from

association: there was something at once soothing and

ennobling in the idea of a union between man and God,

between a perfect man and a divine supremacy, between a

human heart and an almighty strength. Jesus as God was

interwoven with all art, with all beauty in religion; to

break with the deity of Jesus was to break with music,

with painting, with literature. The Divine Child in his

mother’s arms, the Divine Man in his Passion and in his

Triumph, the human friend encircled with the majesty of

the Godhead — did inexorable truth demand that this ideal

figure, with all its pathos, its beauty, its human love,

should pass into the pantheon of the dead Gods of the

past?” People speak so lightly about change in theological

belief. Those who speak lightly never felt deeply. They do

not know what a belief is to the life that has been

moulded round it, to the intellect that has accepted it,

to the heart that has worshipped it; and those are not the

feeblest but mostly the strongest Freethinkers who have

been able to break with the faith that they have outgrown

and still feel the pang of letting the intellect be master

of the heart. On that I have nothing more to say than

this: that, in the newer light into which I have passed,

return to Christianity has become even more impossible

than in my older days of the National Secular Society;

for, whilst then I rejected, seeing the logical

impossibilities, now I understand why that faith has held

men for centuries as I never understood before; and if you

want to be safe against a superstition, know the human

truth that underlies it, and then no fresh name can ever

take you back to it, no sort of new label can ever make

you accept as true the myth that covers the truth you




To pass from that to the other two great points around

which the struggle of the age today is raging: belief in a

personal God and belief in the persistency of life after

death. As regards the first, belief in a personal God, I

have again nothing to say different from that which I

wrote many years ago: “Existence evolving into endless

forms, differing modes, changing phenomena, is wonderful

enough; but a God, self-existing, who creates out of

nothing who gives birth to an existence entirely diverse

from his own — ‘matter’ from ‘spirit’, ‘non-intelligence’

from ‘intelligence’ — who, being everywhere, makes the

universe, thereby excluding himself from part of space,

who being everywhere, makes the things which are not he,

so that we have everywhere and somewhere else, everything

and something more — such a God solves no question of

existence, but only adds an unnecessary riddle to a

problem already sufficiently perplexing.” Those were the

words with which I summed up an argument against a

personal God outside nature. By those words I stand today,

for the concept is as impossible to me now as it was to me




Some years later, in 1886, I came across a phrase which

shows how at that time my mind was beginning to turn

towards a different conception. I was speaking of the

various religions of the world, and alluded to those of

Hinduism and Buddhism as dealing with the problem of

existence, and then went on to say: “These mystic Oriental

religions are profoundly Pantheistic; one life pulsing

through all living things; one existence bodying itself

forth in all individual existences; such is the common

ground of those mighty religions which number amongst

their adherents the vast majority of human kind. And in

this magnificent conception they are in accord with modern

science; the philosopher and the poet, with the

far-reaching glance of genius, caught sight of that unity

of all things, the ‘one in the many’ of Plato, a belief

which it is the glory of modern science to have placed on

the sure foundation of ascertained fact.” I do not mean

that when I wrote those words I was a Pantheist; but I

mean that you have in them the recognition of that unity

of existence which is common to Pantheism and to

Materialism, the great gulf between the two being this:

that whereas Pantheism speaks of one universal life

bodying itself forth in all lives, Materialism speaks of

matter and of force of which life and consciousness are

the ultimate products and not the essential fact. That is

the difference in the opinions that I held, and that I

hold now. I still believe in the unity of existence, but I

realise that that existence is a living force, and not

only what is called “matter” and “energy”; that it is a

principle of life, a principle of consciousness; that the

life and the consciousness that pulse out from its centre

evolve from that one eternal life without which life and

consciousness could never be. That is the great difference

which separates the position of the Materialism that I

once held from the position I hold today; and that has its

natural corollary that, as the essence of the universe is

life, so the essence of each man is life as well; that

death is but a passing phenomenon, as simple and as

natural as that which is spoken of as life; that in the

heart of man as of the universe, life is an eternal

principle fulfilling itself in many forms, but immortal,

inextinguishable, never to be either created or destroyed.



Now, glancing back to the Materialism to which I clung for

so many years of life, glancing back over the training it

gave me, and the steps by which slowly I left it behind,

there is one point that I desire here to place on record.

You have Materialism of two very different schools. There

is the Materialism which cares nothing for man but only

for oneself; which seeks only for personal gain, personal

pleasure, personal delight; which cares nothing for the

race but only for self; nothing for posterity but only for

the moment; of which the real expression is: “Let us eat

and drink, for tomorrow we die.” With that Materialism

neither I nor those with whom I worked had aught in

common. With that Materialism, which is only that of the

brute, we never had part nor lot. That is the Materialism

that destroys all the glory of human life, it is the

Materialism that can only be held by the selfish and,

therefore, the degraded. It is never the Materialism that

was preached from this platform, nor which has been the

training school in which have been trained many of the

noblest intellects and truest hearts of our time.



For what is the higher Materialism after all? What is it

but the reason and thought which is the groundwork of many

a noble life today? It is that which, while it believes

that the life of the individual ends in death, so far as

he himself is concerned, recognises the life of the race

as that for which the individual is living, and to which

all that is noblest and best in him is to be devoted. That

is the Materialism of such men as Clifford, who taught it

in philosophy, and of such men as Charles Bradlaugh, who

lived it out in life. It was that Materialism which was

put into words by Clifford when, for the moment fearing he

might be misunderstood, he said: “Do I seem to say, ‘Let

us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’? Nay; rather let us

take hands and help, for today we are alive together.”

Against that Materialism I have no word of reproach to

speak now. Never have I spoken word of reproach against

it, and I never shall; for I know that it is a philosophy

so selfless in its noblest forms that few are grand enough

to grasp it and live it out, and that which I have brought

back as fruit from my many years of Materialism is the

teaching that to work without self as the goal is the

great object-lesson of human life. For there can be no

selflessness more complete than that which accepts a life

of struggle for itself that the race may have an easier

life in years to come, which is willing to die that, from

its death, others may have wider life; which is willing to

sacrifice everything, so that even on its own dead body

others may rise to greater happiness and a truer

intellectual life.



But — and here comes the difference — there are problems

in the universe which Materialism not only does not solve

but which it declares are insoluble, difficulties in life

and mind that Materialism cannot grapple with, and in face

of which it is not only dumb but says that mankind must

remain dumb for evermore. Now, in my own studies and my

own searching, I came to problem after problem for which

scientific Materialism had no answer — nay, told me that

no answer could be found. There were things that were

facts, and the whole scheme of science is not that you are

to impose your own will on nature, but that you are to

question nature and listen to her answer, whatever that

answer may be. But I came upon fact after fact that did

not square with the theories of Materialism. I came across

facts which were facts of nature as much as any fact of

the laboratory, or any discovery by the knife or the

scalpel of the anatomist. Was I to refuse to see them

because my philosophy had for them no place? Was I to do

what men have done in every age — insist that nature was

no greater than my knowledge, and that because a fact was

new it was, therefore, a fraud or an illusion? Not thus

had I learned the lesson of materialistic science from its

deepest depths of investigation into nature. And, when I

found that there were facts that made life other than

Materialism deemed; when I found that there were facts of

life and consciousness that made the materialistic

hypothesis impossible; then I determined still to study,

although the foundations were shaking, and not to be

recusant enough to the search after truth to draw back

because it wore a face other than the one I expected. When

I found that in the researches of men today, who still are

Materialists, there are many facts which they themselves

admit they cannot explain, and about which they will

endeavour to form no theory; when I found in studying such

branches of mental science as hypnotism and mesmerism,

that there were undeniable facts which had their place in

nature as much as any other facts; when I found that as

those facts were analysed and experimented on,

consciousness did not rise and fall with the pulsations of

the brain or the vibrations of the cells of the brain;

when I found that as you diminish the throb of physical

life your intellectual manifestations became more vivid

and more startling; when I found that in that brain in

which the blood ran freely, from which, on examination,

every careful instrument of science gave an average of the

lowest conditions that made life possible at all, when I

found that from the person with a brain in such a

condition thoughts could proceed more vividly than when

the brain was in full activity — then do you wonder that I

began to ask whether other methods of investigation might

not be useful, and whether it was wise for me to turn my

back upon any road which promised to lead towards a better

understanding of the subtlest problems of psychology?



Two or three years before, I had met with two books which

I read and re-read, and then put aside because I was

unable to relate them to any other information I could

obtain, and I could find no other method then of carrying

my study further along those lines. They were two books by

Mr Sinnett. One was Esoteric Buddhism and the other The

Occult World. They fascinated me on my scientific side,

because for the first time they threw an intelligible

light upon, and brought within the realm of law and of

natural order, a large number of facts that had always

remained to me unexplained in the history of man. They did

not carry me very far, but they suggested a new line of

investigation; and from that time onward, I was on the

look-out for other clues which might lead me in the

direction I sought. Those clues were not definitely found

until early in the year 1889. I had experimented, to some

extent, then, and many years before, in Spiritualism, and

found some facts and much folly; but I never found there

an answer, nor anything which carried me further than the

mere recordal of certain unexplainable phenomena. But in

1889 I had a book given to me to review, written by H. P.

Blavatsky, and known as The Secret Doctrine. I was given

it to review, as a book the reviewers of the paper did not

care to tackle, and it was thought I might do something

with it, as I was considered more or less mad on the

subjects of which it treated. I accepted the task, I read

the book, and I knew that I had found the clue that I had

been seeking. I then asked for an introduction to the

writer of that book, feeling that the one who had written

it would be able to show me something at least of a path

along which I might travel with some hope of finding out

more than I knew of life and mind. I met her for the first

time in that year. Before very long I placed myself under

her tuition, and there is nothing in the whole of my life

for which I am one tithe so grateful as the apparent

accident that threw her book into my hands, and the

resolution taken by myself that I would know the writer of

that book.



I know that in this hall there will not be many who will

share the view that I take of Helena Blavatsky. I knew

her, you did not — and in that may lie the difference of

our opinion. You talk of her as “fraud,” and fling about

the word as carelessly of one with whom you disagree, as

Christians and others threw against me the epithet of

“harlot” in the days gone by, and with as much truth. I

read the evidence that was said to be against her. I read

the great proofs of the “fraud”: how she had written the

letters which she said had come to her from the men who

had been her Teachers. I read the evidence of W

Netherclift, the expert, first that the letters were not

written by her, and then that they were. The expert at

Berlin swore that they were not written by her. I read

most carefully the evidence against her, because I had so

much to lose. I read it; I judged it false on the reading;

I knew it to be false when I came to know her. And here is

one fact which may, perhaps, interest you much, as rather

curious from the point of view that Madame Blavatsky was

the writer of those famous letters.



You have known me in this Hall for sixteen and a half

years. You have never known me lie to you. My worst public

enemy, through the whole of my life, never cast a slur

upon my integrity. Everything else they have sullied, but

my truth never; and I tell you that since Madame Blavatsky

left, I have had letters in the same writing and from the

same person. Unless you think that dead persons write —

and I do not think so — that is rather a curious fact

against the whole challenge of fraud. I do not ask you to

believe me, but I tell you this on the faith of a record

that has never yet been sullied by a conscious lie. Those

who knew her, knew she could not very well commit fraud,

if she tried. She was the frankest of human beings. It may

be said: “What evidence have you beside hers?” My own

knowledge. For some time, all the evidence I had of the

existence of her Teachers and the existence of those

so-called “abnormal powers” was second-hand, gained

through her. It is not so now, and it has not been so for

many months: unless every sense can be at the same time

deceived, unless a person can be, at the same moment, sane

and insane, I have exactly the same certainty for the

truth of those statements as I have for the fact that you

are here. Of course you may be all delusions, invented by

myself and manufactured by my own brain. I refuse — merely

because ignorant people shout fraud and trickery — to be

false to all the knowledge of my intellect, the

perceptions of my senses, and my reasoning faculties as




And so I passed out of Materialism into Theosophy, and

every month that has gone since then has given me reason

to be more and more grateful for the light which then

came; for it is better to live in a universe you are

beginning to understand than in one which is full of

problems never to be solved; and if you find yourself on

the way to the solution of many, that gives you at least a

reasonable hope that you may possibly at last be able to

solve those that are at the moment beyond your grasp. And,

after all, those with whom I stand are not quite the

persons whom it is the part of wise men merely to scoff at

and make a jest of. Amongst them are men well able to

investigate; many are men of the world, doctors and

lawyers — the two professions which are just the two which

ought to be able to deal with the value of scientific and

logical evidence. Already you may find the ranks of

Theosophy winning day by day thoughtful and intellectual

adherents. Even in the ranks of my own party I have not

gone over quite alone, for my friend and colleague, Mr

Herbert Burrows, went over with me; and since then, Dr.

Carter-Blake has joined us.



Are you quite wise to be so sure that you are right and

that there is nothing in the universe you do not know? It

is not a safe position to take up. It has been taken in

all ages, and has always proved mistaken. It was taken by

the Roman Catholic Church centuries ago, but they have

been driven back. It has been taken by the Protestant

Church time after time. They also have proved mistaken. If

it is taken by the Freethought party now, is that to be

the only body in human history that is the one and final

possessor of the truth and knowledge that never in all the

centuries to come may be increased? For, friends, that,

and nothing else than that, is the position that you are

taking in this Hall at the present time. [“Quite Right,”

and “No,” “No”.] You say “no”. Listen for a moment, and

let us see if it be not so. What is the reason I leave

your platform? Because your society shuts me off it [“No,”

and “Yes”.] When you have done shouting “no,” I will

finish my sentence. The reason, that this is my last

lecture in this Hall is because the condition which was

placed upon my coming on the platform, after the hall

passes into the hands of the National Secular Society, is

that I shall not in my lectures say anything that goes

against the principles and objects of the Society.



Now I will never speak under such conditions. I did not

break with the great Church of England, and ruin my social

position, and break with all that women hold dear, in

order to come to this platform and be dictated to as to

what I should say. Your great leader would never have done

it. Imagine Charles Bradlaugh standing upon this platform

and, when he went up to the room of the Committee of the

National Secular Society, their coming to him and saying:

“You should not have said so and so in your lecture.” And

do you suppose that I, who have spoken on this platform so

long, will place myself in that position? Mind, I do not

deny the right of your Society to do it. I do not

challenge the right of your Society, or any other, to make

any conditions it pleases round its platform. You have

exactly the right that every church and sect has to say:

“This is my creed and, unless you accept it, you shall not

speak within my walls.” You have the right; but, O my

friends and brothers, is it wise? Think. I have no word

today to say against the Society; no word to say against

its committee; but I have sat upon that committee for many

a year, and I know on it are many young men sent up by

their societies — when they have only been members a very

short time — to take part in the deliberations. Are these

young fellows, who are not my equals in training or

knowledge, of the world, of history or theology — are they

to have the right to come and say to me, when I leave the

platform: “Your lecture went beyond the limits of the

principles and objects of our Society”? It is not thus I

hold the position of a public teacher, of a public




I will only speak from a platform where I may say what I

believe to be true. Whether it be true or not, it is my

right to speak it; whether it be correct or not, it is my

right to submit it to a tribunal of my fellows. But you,

what is it you are saying? That you will have no word from

your platform save that which you already know, echoing

back from your brains to the brain of the speaker the

truth you have already discovered. While one more truth

remains in the universe to be discovered, you do wrong to

bar your platform. Truth is mightier than our wildest

dreamings; deeper than our longest plummet-line; higher

than our loftiest soarings; grander than you and I can

even imagine today. What are we? People of a moment. Do

you think centuries hence, millenniums hence, your

principles and objects will count in the truth which our

race then will know? Why bar your platform? If you are

right, discussion will not shake your truth. If you are

right, you ought to be strong enough to hear a lecturer

put views you don’t agree with. I never dreamt that from

this platform, identified with struggles for human

liberty, a platform on which I have stood with half the

world against me, I never thought I should be excluded

from it by the barrier of objects already accepted; and

while I admit your right to do it, I sorely misdoubt the

wisdom of the judgment that so decides.



In bidding you farewell, I have no words save words of

gratitude to say in this Hall; for well I know that for

seventeen years I have met with a kindness that has never

changed, a loyalty that has never broken, a courage that

has always been ready to stand by me and defend me.

Without your help I had been crushed many a year ago;

without the love you gave me, my heart would have been

broken many long years since. But not even for love of

you, shall a gag be placed upon my mouth; not even for

your sake will I promise not to speak of that which I know

to be true. Although my knowledge may be mistaken, it is

knowledge to me. As long as I have it, I should commit the

worst treachery to truth and conscience if I allowed

anyone to stand between my right to speak that which I

believe I have found to those who are willing to listen to

me. And so, henceforth, I must speak in other Halls than

this; henceforth in this Hall — identified to me with so

much of struggle, so much of pain, so much of the

strongest joy that anyone can know — after having tried to

be faithful, after having struggled to be true, henceforth

in this Hall my voice will not again be heard. To you,

friends and comrades of so many years, of whom I have

spoken no harsh word since I left you, and of whom through

all the years to come no words save of gratitude shall

ever pass my lips — to you, friends and comrades, I must

say farewell, going out into a life that is shorn indeed

of its friends, but has on it that light of duty which is

the polestar of every true conscience and brave heart. I

know — as far as human being can know—that Those to Whom I

have pledged my faith and service are true and pure and

great. I would not have left your platform had I not been

compelled; but if I must be silent on what I know to be

true then I must take my dismissal, and to you now, and

for the rest of this life, to you I bid ---- FAREWELL.




[As attempts are being made to misrepresent what is above

said, I add here that the above Farewell was meant, as was

plainly said, for the Hall of Science and its audience. In

future, as since May, 1889, when I joined the Theosophical

Society, I shall speak to any Branches of the National

Secular Society, as I do to Spiritualists and others with

whom I disagree, so long as they do not claim a censorship

over what I say.]



Writings of Annie Besant

Autobiographical Sketches

History of the Theosophical Society

Theosophy and The Great War

Cardiff Blavatsky Archive

Cardiff Theosophical Archive

Instant Guide to Theosophy

Theosophical Society Cardiff Lodge

Dave’s Streetwise Theosophy Boards

The Theosophy Website that welcomes Absolute Beginners


Blavatsky Blogger

Taking Theosophical ideas

into the 21st Century


Return to Homepage



Cardiff Theosophical Society

206 Newport Road,

Cardiff, Wales, UK, CF24 – 1DL.



For more info on Theosophy

Try these



Cardiff Theosophical Society meetings are informal

and there’s always a cup of tea afterwards




The Cardiff Theosophical Society Website




The National Wales Theosophy Website


Dave’s Streetwise Theosophy Boards

The Theosophy Website that

Welcomes Absolute Beginners

If you run a Theosophy Group then please

Feel free to use any material on this Website


Theosophy Cardiff’s Instant Guide to Theosophy


Cardiff Theosophical Archive


Theosophy UK


Cardiff Theosophical Order of Service (TOS)


Ocean of Theosophy

William Quan Judge



Ernest Egerton Wood





Theosophy in the UK


Within the British Isles, The Adyar Theosophical Society has Groups in;




Folkstone*Glasgow*Grimsby*Inverness*Isle of Man*Lancaster*Leeds*Leicester

Letchworth*London*Manchester*Merseyside*Middlesborough*Newcastle upon Tyne

North Devon*Northampton*Northern Ireland*Norwich*Nottingham

Perth*Republic of Ireland*Sidmouth*Southport*Sussex*Swansea*Torbay

Tunbridge Wells*Wallasey*Warrington*Wembley*Winchester*Worthing


Cardiff Blavatsky Archive

A Theosophy Study Resource


Cardiff Theosophy Start-Up

A Free Intro to Theosophy


Blavatsky Blogger

Independent Theosophy Blog


Quick Blasts of Theosophy

One Liners & Quick Explanations




Visit the Feelgood Lodge

The main criteria for the inclusion of

links on this site is that they are 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.




No Aardvarks were harmed in the

preparation of this Website


Great Theosophists

The Big Names of Theosophy


The Theosophical Order of Service


Pages About Wales

General pages about Wales, Welsh History

and The History of Theosophy in Wales


H P Blavatsky and The Masters

Her Teachers Morya & Koot Hoomi


The Blavatsky Blogger’s

Instant Guide To

Death & The Afterlife


The Most Basic Theosophy Website in the Universe

If you run a Theosophy Group you can use

this as an introductory handout



The New Rock ‘n Roll


The Voice of the Silence


The Key to Theosophy


The South of Heaven Guide

To Theosophy and Devachan


The South of Heaven Guide

To Theosophy and Dreams


The South of Heaven Guide

To Theosophy and Angels


Theosophy and Help From

The Universe


Death & How to Get Through It

Lentil burgers, a thousand press ups before breakfast and

the daily 25 mile run may put it off for a while but death

seems to get most of us in the end. We are pleased to

present for your consideration, a definitive work on the

subject by a Student of Katherine Tingley entitled

“Man After Death”



Wales! Wales! Theosophy Wales

The All Wales Guide To

Getting Started in Theosophy

For everyone everywhere, not just in Wales


Hey Look!

Theosophy in Cardiff


Theosophy in Wales

The Grand Tour


Theosophy Avalon

The Theosophy Wales

King Arthur Pages


Theosophy and the Number Seven

A selection of articles relating to the esoteric

significance of the Number 7 in Theosophy


The Tooting Broadway

Underground Theosophy Website

The Spiritual Home of Urban Theosophy


The Mornington Crescent

Underground Theosophy Website

The Earth Base for Evolutionary Theosophy


Classic Introductory Theosophy Text

A Text Book of Theosophy By C W Leadbeater


What Theosophy Is  From the Absolute to Man


The Formation of a Solar System  The Evolution of Life


The Constitution of Man  After Death  Reincarnation


The Purpose of Life  The Planetary Chains


The Result of Theosophical Study



Elementary Theosophy

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


The Seven in Man and Nature


The Meaning of Death



A Study in Karma

Annie Besant


Karma  Fundamental Principles  Laws: Natural and Man-Made


The Law of Laws  The Eternal Now  Succession  Causation


The Laws of Nature  A Lesson of The Law  Karma Does Not Crush


Apply This Law  Man in The Three Worlds  Understand The Truth


Man and His Surroundings  The Three Fates  The Pair of Triplets


Thought, The Builder  Practical Meditation  Will and Desire


The Mastery of Desire  Two Other Points  The Third Thread


Perfect Justice  Our Environment  Our Kith and Kin  Our Nation


The Light for a Good Man  Knowledge of Law  The Opposing Schools


The More Modern View  Self-Examination  Out of the Past


Old Friendships  We Grow By Giving  Collective Karma  Family Karma 


National Karma  India’s Karma  National Disasters



Try these if you are looking for a

local Theosophy Group or Centre


UK Listing of Theosophical Groups


Worldwide Directory of Theosophical Links


International Directory of 

Theosophical Societies




Pages about Wales

General pages about Wales, Welsh History

and The History of Theosophy in Wales



Wales is a Principality within the United Kingdom

and has an eastern border with England.

The land area is just over 8,000 square miles.

Snowdon in North Wales is the highest mountain at 3,650 feet.

The coastline is almost 750 miles long.

The population of Wales as at the 2001 census is 2,946,200.












 Web  Theosophy Cardiff’s  Gallery of Great Theosophists