Theosophical Notes, January 1952, edited by Victor Endersby
Communications Problem
[This article is interesting as it goes into the famous '1900 letter'
by Mahatma Koot Hoomi to Annie Besant. Most theosophists have interpreted
this letter as genuine, but the author of this article goes into some very
good arguments why it cannot have been. I'll leave it for the reader to decide.
The article all through refers to the letter as published in Jinarajadasa's
Letters from the Masters of The Wisdom, First Series, letter 59 (in my sixth
edition). The text of this letter had some words deleted. The complete letter has been published on my website.
- Katinka Hesselink]
On Aug. 22, 1900, B.W. Mantri of Bombay,
wrote to Annie Besant in London as follows:
Dear Madam
I have long wished to see you but somehow I have been
so confused by many things I heard from several members of the Theosophical
Society that I really do not understand what are really the tenets and beliefs
of the Society. What form of Yoga do you recommend. I have
long been interested in Yoga studies and I send you the "Panch Ratna Gita"
by Anandebai who is much advanced in this science. I wish you could
see her. I am going to Kholapoor but hope to come back soon and pay
my respects to you when you come back to India.
Yours respectfully
B.W. Mantri
This letter was reproduced as Letter 46 in the Fourth Edition of Letters
From the Masters of the Wisdom, p.155. Upon receipt at London, there
was found written on it, in the known handwriting of the Master "K. H." the
following:
To Annie Besant
A PSYCHIC and a pranayamist who has got confused by the
vagaries of the members. The T.S., and its members are slowly manufacturing
a creed. Says a Thibetan proverb "credulity breeds credulity and ends
in hypocrisy". How few are they who can know anything about us.
Are we to be propitiated and made idols of ...The intense desire of some to
see Upasika reincarnate at once has raised a misleading Mayavic ideation.
Upasika has useful work to do on higher planes and cannot come again so soon.
The T.S. must safely be ushered into the new century ... no one has a right
to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience. Ask him not what
he believes. ... The crest wave of intellectual advancement must be taken
hold of and guided into Spirituality. It cannot be forced into beliefs
and emotional worship. The essence of the higher thoughts
of the members in their collectivity must guide all action in the T.S....
We never try to subject to ourselves the will of another. At favourable
times we let loose elevating influences which strike various persons in various
ways. It is the collective aspect of many such thoughts that can give
the correct note of action. We show no favours. The best corrective
of error is an honest and open-minded examination of all facts subjective
and objective ...The cant about "Masters" must be silently but firmly put
down. Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of
which each one is a part. Namelessly and silently we work
and the continual references to ourselves and the repetition of our names,
raises up a confused aura that hinders our work ... The T.S. was meant to
be the corner stone of the future religions of humanity. To accomplish
--- 5
this object those who lead must leave aside their weak
predilections for the forms and ceremonies of any particular creed and show
themselves to be true Theosophists both in inner thought and outward observance.
The greatest of your trials is yet to come. We are watching over you
but you must put forth all your strength.
- K.H.
"Upasika" refers to H.P. Blavatsky, who died in 1891.
Mr. Jinarajadasa, Editor of the Letters, comments as
follows:
"...The supposition that the K.H. script
is a forgery implies that the forgery was done by somebody familiar with
the K.H. script after Mr. Mantri posted it in Bombay and before it was delivered
in London. It should here be remembered that before I reproduced the
K.H. script in my Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom, Second Series,
in 1925, and one Letter of the Master was reproduced in Barker's The Mahatma
Letters to A.P. Sinnett in 1923, the only other reproductions were
(so far as I am aware) in the rare volume of the Society for Psychical Research
which investigated the charges of forgery against H.P.B.
"The parts in the Letter which I have omitted refer to
the occult life of Dr. Besant which only the Master could have known."
In our issue of January, 1951, we claimed this letter
to be a forgery, not by physical, but by phenomenal means, for the purpose
of confirming Annie Besant in her wrong conduct in the "Judge Case," and in
her then direction of affairs in the Theosophical Society. We claimed
that it was morally impossible for a Master to treat as a chela (which this
letter implies) one who had so conducted herself, and that the letter itself
was irrelevant to what was actually going on in the T.S. at the time.
The revised edition of The History of The Theosophical
Movement, issued by the Editors of Theosophy, reached us later. On pp.
296-297 this letter was reproduced in part, with the remark that it "has the
ring of authenticity," qualified somewhat by "whatever the source."
It is deplored that the Society had not followed the advice given in it.
In our June issue, we dealt further with it from our standpoint.
Theosophia had the following in its Sept.-Oct. issue,
1951: "...Careful comparison of the handwriting establishes the
genuineness of the communication, quite apart from the importance of the subject-matter,
the authoritative language and the character of the style, all of which are
further evidences of genuineness. It should be borne in mind that this
message was received nine years after the death of H.P. Blavatsky in 1891.
"We recommend the contents of this communication to the
most careful study of our readers and friends. It contains key-thoughts
only too often disregarded or ignored in the Theosophical Movement of the
present day. The text is reproduced from the facsimile where certain passages,
pertaining to private matters, have been blocked out. Editor"
--- 6
Private communications to Notes have suggested the following:
1. That the withheld portions of the letter contained
a vindication of Judge, and a "last warning" to Annie Besant, which she disregarded.
2. That in the interim after the Judge Case, she had
seen the error of her ways sufficiently to have become reinstated in the
Masters favor.
3. That the Masters are men of such wide compassion and
tolerance, and even the worst delinquents still have so much good in them,
that they could still use the good in Annie Besant to work their own ends.
That it failed of having any apparent beneficial effect,
is no sign that it was not from a Master; their work being to give people
chances, not to insure their being taken.
It will be noted that the above four propositions are
necessarily from people neutral or leaning toward the Judge side of the argument.
So far as any communications received indicate, Notes stands alone in its
opinion of the origin of the letter; save that some have not seemingly
arrived at fixed conclusions one way or the other.
Now we do not have any particular hope of "converting"
anybody; it would be rather unusual for anyone in the Theosophical Movement
who has taken a public stand, to recant it. However, the real issues
go far beyond the verity or otherwise of this letter and its individual effects.
They go into the whole matter of identification of communications "from the
other side," and some of the arguments put forth seem to us dangerous.
Dangerous, because by assuming that all supernormal communications necessarily
come from where they are supposed to, the possibilities of being disastrously
deceived by them are infinite. It is our firm opinion that the current
divisions in the Movement, which everyone wishes could be healed, are precisely
due to lack of information and lack of discrimination regarding "supernormal"
communications, whether written, precipitated, clairvoyant, or clairaudient.
We are proposing, therefore, to set forth these principles as associated with
this letter, not merely for the dubious pleasure of argument, but in the
hope that more thorough thinking will result, regardless of the conclusions
to which one comes. If there is ever to be any final "proof,"
it seems that it will have to come after 1975; and then that the nature
of it will be according to which "Messenger" one embraces.
The different reasons for which various persons consider
the letter authentic, are interesting and revealing. Jinarajadasa, because
to him it seems to establish the Society and Annie Besant as in good standing
after the "closure" date of Dec. 31, 1899. (We think he would agree
with us that no such letter could be received except by a chela in good standing.)
The Editors of Theosophy, because it seems to them to be a condemnation of
the course, then and afterward, of the Society, they being Judge adherents.
Theosophia, because it seems heartening evidence, independently of H.P.B.,
of the existence of Masters and their continued intervention, and condemns
trends to which it objects. (But the letter proves that, even if it
is an occult forgery; where
--- 7
one side is, there the other is also.) We, because it does not appear
to us to have had, or be intended to have, the effect of correcting the real
deviation in the Society at that time, and other reasons. Hence the
letter is ambiguous to say the least: its meaning lies in the circumstances
and attitudes of readers. But study of Letters From the Masters and
Mahatma Letters shows that their messages on errors have the ambiguity of
a pile-driver.
First let us deal with the numbered suppositions;
(these are of importance only to Judge adherents; Besant partisans holding
that she was impeccably right throughout, hence needing no excuses for getting
a Mahatma letter.)
1. If the letter was a "last warning" concerning Judge,
it was certainly disregarded. The whole history of Annie Besant shows
that she obeyed with implicit fidelity, at any cost to herself, anything that
she really thought came from a Master. Her trouble was poor discrimination
as to what did so come. Moreover, such an interpretation puts Jinarajadasa
in a very queer light. He still publicly condemns Judge and upholds
Besant. Such an interpretation would mean that he suppressed a favorable
statement about Judge, in a letter that he publicly recognizes as authentic,
and still publicly condemns Judge. He would not like that explanation,
and we do not believe it. We do not think Judge was directly mentioned
at all. Mr. Jinarajadasa is welcome to express himself on this point
in Notes.
2. Surely the barest of Theosophical ethics would show
that the least one can do, upon realizing a wrong done another, is to make
the fullest and most immediate reparation and restitution possible!
In this case it would consist of retracting the charges against judge and
trying to bring about a reunion of the Movement on that basis. No such
thing was ever done. Here again we have a case; where the record
of a character comes into the matter. Nothing in Annie Besant's career,
before or after her entry into Theosophy, indicates her to have been a moral
coward. In fact her embracement of Theosophy and her rejection of her
former agnostic associations, must have involved a trial of serious magnitude.
To our mind, there is internal evidence in some of her writings that she had
the necessary courage. On the other hand is the claim in the revised
Movement (p. 297) that in the 1920's she confessed a realization of the wrong
done Judge, to B.P. Wadia and demurred at announcing the fact on the grounds
that it was all long ago and too late to do anything about now. If so,
this indeed shows a vast degeneration of character, as well as perception;
because the issue is exactly what keeps the Movement divided today.
But this is in some doubt. The story of the Besant-Wadia interview,
as it came to us shortly after, rather directly, is that while at dinner,
Mr. Wadia asked her whether she could not have been mistaken about Judge.
She seemed rather stricken, laid down her knife and fork slowly, and said
in a low tone, "I may have been." We have no report
on the rest of the conversation. The above differs in meaning considerably
from the version given in the Movement. It may imply that Annie Besant
found herself in the terrible position of fearing
--- 8
that she had been wrong, yet not sure enough to precipitate the upheaval
that would be caused in the work by a recantation. At that date it would
have been somewhat comparable to what would happen in the Catholic Church
should the Pope suddenly proclaim a realization that his office was a fraud.
We would be glad to print any statement that Mr. Wadia cares to make on this
interview. * (We wish meantime to suggest to those who feel themselves
to have received great benefits through Annie Besant, that the best service
that could be rendered her memory would be, if she was wrong, to make certain
of the fact and set about the necessary repairs. To support anyone
in a wrong is not loyalty but disloyalty; it injures the karma of that
person to the utmost degree, as well as one's own.)
If Annie Besant had any doubts about Judge in August,
1900, they must have been of very recent origin. In the leading article
of The Review, which she controlled, for March, 1899, is the following kind
remark about Judge and his people:
"It is now an acquired fact of our experience that what
at the time were considered severe blows to our general well-being, have turned
out to be blessings in disguise. This is especially the case with the
secession of a few years ago from our body of a number of people who preferred
mystification and worse to straightforwardness. They followed their
leader and speedily became an object lesson. We were for a moment weakened
in number, but we learned a lesson that can never fade from our memory.
The conscience of the Society rose above the delusion of charlatan adeptship."
3. Without going into the matter of how far it
is possible for a Master, under the disciplinary rules about chelas which
they themselves have first and most rigidly to observe, to communicate with
a delinquent, the evidence is that the letter itself was not intended, and
could not have been intended, to cure what was wrong at that time. We
will deal with both these points later.
4. The answer is much the same. The question
is whether the letter was couched in such terms as to tend to produce the
effect at all. Before proceeding with the evidence, we will mention
another point brought up - how one may presume to say what a Master would
or would not do. To our mind they have left volumes of evidence as to
what they would do in certain cases; they have warned us about bogus
messages, and such a warning involves an admonition to learn enough about
true ones and their writers to distinguish; and we think one is expected
to work at it. The supposition that "no one knows what a Master might
do" seems to us to separate their understanding from ours, their morals from
what we are ourselves supposed to rise to; and in
-----------
* Mr. Wadia, then a prominent lecturer in the T.S., shortly
after left it and joined U.L.T., where he is still, at Bombay.
----------
--- 9
general to be largely a version of "the will of God is inscrutable."
In our own experience and observation, such a position has sometimes opened
the door to attempts to pretend the consent of the Masters to very dubious
propositions, as well as philosophical perversions of the teachings.
We cannot know all that a Master would do, and much of it would bewilder us;
but in some fundamental things the issues should be clear.
Before going into what seems to us the really solid evidence
about this letter, let us deal with the phenomenal and material aspect, which
so many seem to think is evidential if not conclusive. The message on
Mantri's letter may have been either written or precipitated. Only a
microscopic examination could settle that, and only in one direction:
i.e., it could show the fact if it were not written. It could not show
in any case that it was not precipitated. As to the mechanism:
precipitation, short of practically prohibitive effort for such a long letter,
has to be made through the magnetic forces of either a trained chela or a
medium in the vicinity. Mantri, being a pranayamist, would be a medium
by a hundred to one chance. Being such, he could unconsciously have
written the message and mailed it in trance, as well as unconsciously precipitating
it either in or out of the envelope. The same holds true at the other
end. Either a medium or a trained chela in London could have been the
agent of precipitation.
Now precipitation in itself can be accomplished by either
a white or black adept, and it can be accomplished by an elemental under direction
of either, if a medium is present; moreover, the style and habit of
mind, as well as the handwriting, of a given individual, can easily be reproduced.
We adduce four remarks, two by the Masters.
l. "I can now again say, as I have said publicly
before, and as was said by H.P. Blavatsky so often that I have always thought
it common knowledge among studious Theosophists, that precipitation of words
or messages is of no consequence and constitutes no proof of connection with
the Mahatmas; it is only phenomenal and not of the slightest value."
(Wm. Q. Judge, statement of July 12, 1894.)
2. "Nature is two-sided... the Black magician is
as powerful in the matter of phenomena as the white ...But what you should
understand is that the false man and the true can both be occultists.
'By their fruits ye shall know them.'.... the same forces are used by both,
and similar laws, for there are no special laws in this universe for any special
set of workers in Nature's secrets." (Conversations on Occultism, Wm.
Q. Judge reprinted in Theosophy, April 1949.)
3. "It may so happen that for purposes of our own,
mediums and their spooks will be left free not only to personate the 'Brothers'
but even to forge our handwriting. Bear this in mind and be prepared
for it in London. Unless the message or communication - or whatever
it may be is preceded by the triple words .... 'Know it
is not me, nor from me.'" (A letter written by Mahatma K.H.
--- 10
to A.P. Sinnett, Nov. 23, 1883, Mahatma Letters, p. 419.)
4. "My humble Pranams Sahib. Your memory
is not good. Have you forgotten the agreement made at Prayag and the
passwords that have to precede every genuine communication coming from us
through a ... bhoot-dak * .... my message in a feigned hand when I am at
dead loggerheads with my own; again I am made to date
my supposed message from Ladhak December 16, whereas I swear I was at ...Lhassa
... A solemn evening, that Saturday, at Piccadilly over old Sutheran the
mouldy book-seller. Knew premises well and watched with
your leave .... Spooks worked remarkably well nothing abashed by my presence
... My attention was attracted by their forging H.P.B.'s handwriting... Too
much light for the creatures coming from a Piccadilly street though Sutheran
emanations helped a good deal. I would call your friend Mr. Myer's
attention to psychic fact of rotten emanations.** Raise a good bhoot
crop. Yes; the room with windows overlooking Piccadilly is a
good place for psychic development." (A letter from the Mahatma M.
to Sinnett, probably December, 1883. Mahatma Letters, p. 431.)
It is an ironic fact also that Judge once imitated several
handwritings to show how easily forgery was done on the physical plane, and
that this incident was used against him in the Judge Case to "prove" his proficiency
as a "forger!" As to style and content: there is another excerpt
from the Mahatma Letters, concerning a letter which we cannot indentify,
and which runs as follows:
"He (Mr. Massey) argues that 'even if otherwise conceivable
(the occult forgery) the later contents of the letter were inconsistent with
the supposed object, for it went on to speak of the T.S. and of the adepts
with as much apparently genuine devotion, etc. etc.' Mr. Massey, I see,
makes no difference between an 'occult' and a common forger such as his legal
experience may have made him acquainted with. An 'occult' forger, a
dugpa, would have forged the letter precisely in this tone. He would
have never become guilty of being carried away by his personal grudge, so
as to deprive his letter of its cleverest feature. The T.S. would not
be shown by him 'a superstructure upon fraud,' and it is 'the very opposite
impression' that is its crown. I say is for half of the letter is a
forgery and a very occult one."
----------
* Literal translation: "spook-hotel." This
word was printed "Choot-dak" but we think the Mahatma's "B", which looks like
a capital "C" caused misprint.
** F.W.H. Myers, charter member of the Society for Psychical
Research, and author of Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death.
--------------
--- 11
Here we have not merely the intimation of possible forgery
of style and spirit, but of the possibility of a letter being partly a forgery!
This surely ought to be warning enough of the uselessness of such evidence.
We ourselves need no convincing on the matter of "styles," because close acquaintance
with the operations of Theosophy magazine in former years demonstrated to
us how deceptive "styles" are and how likely to lead to mistaken identifications.
This was a good field - contemporary contributions are anonymous.
Moreover, the subject letter does not look to us authentic
in style even if that were an evidence. There are phrases in it which
sound much more like the "Master Hilarion," so-called, who for many years
wrote messages - volumes upon volumes - through a medium known to us.
But no party to the present contention would concede those messages to be
authentically Mahatmic - even plus the sandal-wood perfume.
Let us for the moment analyze the bearing of the disputed
letter on the situation as it was in the T.S. in 1900, examining what was
actually going on at that time, and seeing what relevance there is.
The Theosophical Review, which was the new name for Lucifer,
was edited by Annie Besant and G.R.S. Mead, being her chief organ. We
have analyzed, with fair accuracy, we think, contents of Vols. 22 to 25 inclusive,
running from April 1898 to Feb. 15, 1900, to an extent of 2,304 pages, which
should be enough for sampling the tendencies just preceding the period of
reference.
If words mean anything at all, the purport of the "Mahatma"
letter is to the effect that the Society was (a) talking too much about, and
trying to make people believe too much, in Masters; (b)
making too much of H.P.B. and that it should be made freer and less dogmatic
on these subjects. But what do we find? During that period, 107
historical and philosophical articles on religious traditions, ceremony, and
history, of a dry intellectual tone; (how those dusty bones rattle to
the modern ear!) 83 general essays on Theosophy, largely in the same
tone, with hardly any mention of H.P.B. or Masters; 16 political and
polemical articles on social questions, vivisection, prohibition, etc;
31 articles and items on psychic phenomena of various kinds;
not involving mention of Masters; 49 articles on scientific correlations;
132 mentions of the name of Annie Besant; 16 articles by Annie Besant;
67 mentions of Charles Leadbeater; 28 articles by Charles Leadbeater;
H.P. Blavatsky mentioned 40 times, articles by H.P.B. - zero. Masters
mentioned 11 times, Masters' letters unquoted.
The above numbering does not tell the whole story;
some of Leadbeater's articles, pontificating on psychic powers and their applications
and his own proficiency therein, run to great length in several installments;
in the above listing the mention of his name is given as once to each of
such articles. *
-------------
* Some of his remarks are direct incitations to develop
"psychic powers" and explore the astral world oneself.
-----------
--- 12
Subdividing the mention of H.P.B., we find the most significant
the following: 4 personal anecdotes of brief nature; 1 review
of a book which mentions her; 4 remarks that she has been mentioned
in White Lotus commemorations; 2 mentions of progress since her time;
3 mentions of publication and translations of the Secret Doctrine; 1
mention of her portrait as frontispiece of a journal; notices of reproductions
of her writings in other journals (usually Theosophia, Holland;) 2
mentions of S.D. in connection with Keely's Force; 2 critical items;
3 mentions of study classes in her works in local Lodges; 1 on her being
confused with another author; 1 on her relation with the Masters;
1 notice of mention of the S.D. by another journal; 1 briefly respectful
not on her work; 2 mentions of her scientific predictions; 1 mention
of the Coulomb case. These are all brief.
The way in which she is mentioned is illuminating.
In Vol. 24, pp. 484-487, she is defended against
the charge of having been "taken in" by Keely, quite competently; then
this "gimmick" is hooked in: "The attempt made by some Theosophists
to set up this truly wonderful and splendid book as an inspired revelation
dictated by the revered Masters, accurate in every detail, and free from any
error, is ill-judged and mischievous. It contains an extraordinary number
of occult truths, and we can never be too grateful to her for the selfless
and laborious efforts she made to present these truths accurately to the
world ... But she often, in her humility, buttresses her own true statements
with a mass of rubbish from inferior writers, picked up haphazard; on
minor points she often speaks hastily and carelessly; and further she
confuses her teachings with excessive digressions." She is then quoted
against herself in admitting the presence of errors in Isis Unveiled, and
the probability of some in the S.D.; and is finally designated as "Greatest,
strongest, and humblest is she of the teachers sent to our age." (Italics
ours.)
The preceding phrasing is slanted to indicate that she
herself would be against any attempt to class her books as accurate.
But a Master wrote concerning the S.D. that "That she has not annotated from
other works was dictated to her directly by us." Mr. Mead seems as oblivious
of this remark as of the possibility that his classification of various writers
as "inferior" may rest entirely upon the fact that he (a scholar of antiquities
of lordly pretensions himself) disagrees with them in various respects;
the opinions of the Masters might differ from his. All that does not
do away with the possibilities of errors of various minor kinds, but certainly
does not support the idea of "hasty and careless selection" at "haphazard."
The prevailing tone during those days may be fairly represented by the remark
on p. 225, Vol. 25: "Up to the present time Theosophists have been
chiefly occupied in the study of the grand teachings given to them by H.P.
Blavatsky, and of those which have been added thereto by other advanced students."
The aforesaid showing hardly bears out that the "chiefly" applies to H.P.B.
to any great extent.
--- 13
On p. 575, Vol. 24, occurs the following: "June number
of Mercury... the leading article is a useful one ... in which it is said
'we may now confidently study all human problems, without any chance of error,
provided we keep close to our H.P.B.'s teachings.' - a well-meant but exaggerated
statement, since H.P.B. only laid down general principles, and infinite possibilities
of error arise in their application."
Mr. Mead is very, very careful indeed not to let get
started any notion of H.P.B.'s "infallibility." But he
seems quite confident that the "other advanced students" - Besant and Leadbeater
- are subject to no such fallibility. Rivers of their product and doings
- their books, their lectures; their articles; their answers to
questions, their comings and goings - flow through these four volumes, with
not one critical or cautionary word allowed. Indeed, the
remarks thereon are fulsome and flattering from start to finish, and in great
contrast to the prompt vigilance with which any similar sentiments about
H.P.B. are slapped down.
In one issue, H.P.B.'s ideas on evolution are attacked
by a correspondent, and Darwinism upheld. Mr. Leadbeater rushes to the
rescue on p. 300, Vol. 23, citing Annie Besant's Ancient Wisdom in
"corroboration" of H.P.B.: but adds a mightier evidence than that;
he himself, it seems, has read the astral light and checked H.P.B.
He then remarks that he doesn't care whether he has proved the
point: "occult students care very little about argument ... no Theosophical
view can be more than the best possible hypothesis to any man until he has
learnt how to verify it for himself at first hand." (Like Mr. Leadbeater.)
There is liberal mention of the activities of various
Lodges; among which (p. 281, Vol. 23) we find the following cold and
curt note: "Mr. Baly has started a Secret Doctrine class." Nothing
more about Mr. Baly, whoever that well-meaning soul may have been; or
about the desirability of studying the S.D. either publicly or privately.
But well-touted Ancient Wisdom classes are all over the place.
(We do not consider the S.D. very practical for class study; but much
less the Ancient Wisdom, with its "personal god slant" and ostentatious exhibition
of great - and dubious - knowledge on many details that H.P.B. and the Masters
did not go into.)
The record concerning the Masters is equally interesting.
On p. 214, Vol. 22, we find: "It is true the Master when He looks at
our heart would fain find it clean - void of all offence; but no more
than the Master of Nazareth would He have it 'empty, swept, and garnished,'
as we are too apt to leave it. The pattern of our virtue is furnished
by the Masters Themselves; the constant effortless, natural flow of
power and love from out of us, as it flowed from Jesus of Nazareth in His
life on earth, as it flows from the Masters on those who lift up their hearts
to Them now."
On p. 283, we find a brief reference to the task set
by "A Master of Wisdom" as printed by H.P.B. in Lucifer, first volume.
On p. 425 occurs: "A word may be said here to guard against one error
that
--- 14
might arise with regard to the Spiritual Hierarchy before mentioned, the
guardians of the world's religions. It is from this Great Lodge that
the World-Saviors have from time to time come forth, and from this centre
have sprung all the 'Sons of God."' Here we have an excellent agreement
with the apparent spirit of the phrase in the 1900 letter: "The T.S.
was meant to be the corner-stone of the future religions of humanity."
(The obvious interpretation of this statement of the Maha Chohan, made both
by the writer of the Review extract above (Mrs. Cooper-Oakley) and the current
Adyar clique, is that the Society should forthwith foster any and every kind
of religious creed that chose to fasten on it. Here there is no need
for "correction;" the Society seems already to have been heading the
way indicated.)
On p. 56, Vol. 23, is: "Between the oyster's freedom
from desire and that of the Master lies the whole scale of human progress...
there is absolutely nothing that can bring you up to the Master's level but
desires - ever more and more purified as you rise, I admit, but desire still."
On p. 59, "We are not in the least more worthy in the Master's eyes for merely
being without this desire or that." On p. 364 is a remark
on the visit to Tibet of an Indian Theosophist, who did, or did not, as the
case may be, see a Master; and an argument on the connection therewith
of the meaning of some Tibetan words. (This has appeared elsewhere.)
On p.548 begins a page or two on the "Master Jesus" as related to Masters
in general. There is a little more on the same line beginning p, 58,
Vol. 24, ending with a paragraph on Mrs. Besant's "truly marvelous expositions
of the ideal Christianity," and her collateral adherence to Buddhism;
"one who has reached that height of vision can never limit himself to a single
creed, a single Master, however good and noble; and that point each
one of us must strive to reach." (This is in line with the general tendency
in the T.S. to represent all religions as true, and beneficial, in spite
of the Master's recorded viewpoint on that.) In the eyes of this disciple,
has or has not Annie Besant substituted herself as the ideal to be striven
for?
On p.170 is another identification of Jesus as the "most
accessible" of the Masters; in the discussion following, Mr. Leadbeater
makes it clear that: (a) he knows all about it; and (b) no statement
in Theosophy can ever be accepted as final "because those who make the statements
are themselves all the while gaining new points of view and new faculties
which enable them to add to or modify their previous knowledge on any and
every subject." (This thought bore a lot of fruit in later years.
It led, among other things, to the teaching that the Masters themselves were
correcting, through later "agents," errors They had held when the S.D. was
written. The twists and turns, the devious devices of this pride and
vanity run mad, would fill several books. Even the later fiasco of the
"Coming Christ," and Leadbeater 's scandals, seem not by any means to have
cured the situation. This issue becomes a little confused
in a review by Mead of Leadbeater's book Clairvoyance, in which it
is said of the author: "He himself is a first-hand investigator of
numerous phases
--- 15
of consciousness beyond the threshold of physical sensation, and in the
second he is a pupil in a School whose highest teachers know all that our
humanity can know of consciousness in the Solar System .... Clairvoyance
is an outline of the subject as far as he himself has seen and learned.....
no more competent Theosophical writer could have been chosen for the task."
(Poor, befuddled H.P.B.!) The modesty of these claims can best be judged
by reading that book itself. This is the last reference to the Masters
in Vol. 24, which had only three to begin with.
On pp. 3 and 4, Vol. 25, is a brief reference to a supposed
Lodge of high initiates in Central America; the whole subject then flickers
out; this as of September 1899. So far from "continued references
to ourselves," there is no mention from beginning to end of the names of
the Theosophical Mahatmas; almost nothing quoted from them. References
are indirect and casual, and nothing is said, other than as above, on any
direct actions of Theirs. This is about as much as one can find in
2304 pages, along the line of "the cant about Masters that must be silently
and firmly put down."
As reflected in this enormous official output, was there
a "creed" being built upon too much talk about Masters and H.P.B., too much
mention of Masters' names? Or was the tendency exactly the opposite,
the substitution of Annie Besant and Leadbeater for them?
What of other aspects of the T.S. at that time?
The Review is replete with mention of the contents of other Theosophical periodicals,
many in number, and of innumerable lectures and classes. Either mention
of H.P.B. and the Masters is boycotted by The Review about every time it
occurs, or it very seldom occurs. We do not know the actual contents
of the innumerable Leadbeater and Besant speeches and books which are mentioned
but not reviewed; but if they were leaning too much on Masters and
H.P.B., it should show up somewhere; also they would be highly out
of line with this publication, which was being run by Besant and Leadbeater,
through Mead.
The situation seems to have been so well in hand with
regard to too much about H.P.B. and the Masters, that one wonders why it was
necessary for even a black adept to forge a letter on the subject. Our
deduction is that most probably there was a strong underground movement against
this submersion of the original modulus, and an attempt to get back to fundamentals;
and that this letter was to help Besant suppress it.
The tendencies are as interesting as the actual contents.
Between the first and last pairs of volumes, historical articles decrease
from 55 to 52; general essays increase 21 to 62; politics and
polemics climb from 3 to 13; psychic matters, 12 to 19; science
decreases from 10 to 6 but increases in length; mentions of Leadbeater
remain about constant; Leadbeater articles increase from 10 to 18, and
increase in length; mention of H.P.B. gains from 17 to 23. (Couldn't
she have been allowed that pitiful little extra six notices without a Mahatma
having to write a whole letter to suppress her?) Her articles remain
constant at zero; she gets two brief quotes in
--- 16
each section, and is criticized only once in the second instance, instead
of twice in the first. Mention of Masters drops from 7 to 4, vanishing
entirely from the last volume, a few months before the "Mahatma" letter decrying
against too much talk about them, was written. As we said, from the
viewpoint of said letter, Annie Besant and the Society were doing all right
already - barring underground insurgency. Where in that letter is an
indication of a rebuke for making virtually infallible Masters of Besant and
Leadbeater; for suppression and corruption of what they had taught in
their own letters and through the Secret Doctrine? We would like our
opposition to point out to us what, in view of this record, they think the
Society was doing then that it shouldn't have been doing; what the
consequent necessity of this letter from their point of view; and what
action was taken because of it. And please be as specific as we have
been.
The letter makes no sense in its contemporary relationships;
it would have been very applicable years later, when a tremendous amount of
nonsense about Masters did build up, having as a main theme the close association
of Besant and Leadbeater with them. The letter is intelligible as part
of a competent psychic plot to wean the members away from the real Masters
and their Agents, and to substitute therefore, these meretricious presentments.
There are other aspects perhaps as serious. Judge
pointed out that the work became weak whenever the Masters were put in the
background, out of heart and mind as living Presences. Also, the great
initiatory system of which they are part, is the only road even approximately
safe through supernormal states of consciousness. The mystic who tries
to attain these states except through chelaship is almost certain to fall
into the Dharmakaya path, into that of the Star Rishis, or into various other
psychic states of the "lower Iddhi" which he has no means of telling from
spiritual ones. It should also be evident that conscious chelaship cannot
be attained by one who sets Them aside to rely merely on the (to him) amorphous
and intangible power of whatever he may choose to call the "Supreme Spirit."
"The Masters are the Bridge," * various selfish, emotional, and religious
conceptions of Them notwithstanding. This letter laid the axe to the
"Bridge."
--------------
* ...How few of the many pilgrims who have to start without
chart or compass on that shoreless Ocean of Occultism reach the wished for
land. Believe me, faithful friend, that nothing short of full confidence
in us, in our good motives if not in our wisdom, in our foresight, if not
omniscience - which is not to be found on this earth - can help one to cross
over from one's land of dream and fiction to our Truth land, the region of
stern reality and fact..." (Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, p. 358.)
--------------
--- 17
It may be asked why, if the letter was so far off the
contemporary mark, Annie Besant herself did not recognize the fact.
Well - it is common human experience that an inflamed egotism such as exhibited
in her journal, makes a mountain out of any mole-hill of opposition.
Set on the course of displacing H.P. Blavatsky and the real Masters in her
own favor, a few expressions of over-enthusiasm in behalf of H.P.B., such
as we have quoted, could look to her and the proud, coldly intellectual Mead,
personally inimical to H.P.B., like "manufacturing a creed." .
Again we say, prove that any "creed" was being "manufactured"
other than Besant-Leadbeater worship. In the context and under the conditions,
the "creed" objected to seems to have been H.P.B.'s Theosophy itself, which
was that of the real Masters.
Of course the existence of the Masters, much less their
names or imagined personal doings, should never be the subject of cheap chatter
- as they were during the period of folly beginning years after the receipt
of the 1900 letter. We suggest that the handling of the subject in The
Ocean of Theosophy, and Judge's other works be studied.
Now let us consider a very important point for examination
by those who may think chelaship still attainable and themselves possibly
capable of it; for even if not before 1975, that may be an issue for
many now living.
There is surely no dispute that any chela must strive,
to the best of his ability, not only to observe the rules of ethical conduct
recognized in the world, but to transcend them. At the time of the Judge
case, Annie Besant was pledged on the most sacred of all oaths, to certain
rules of conduct known to every Theosophist who is or has been a member of
the Esoteric Section or its descendants. One of those Rules obligated
the defense of a fellow-member against charges or derogatory remarks, unless
known to be true, in which case silence was prescribed. Annie Besant
listened to and accepted such charges without knowing them to be true.
She not only listened to them and accepted them but engaged in consultation,
behind Judge's back, with his enemies, for the purpose of doing something
about it; namely, driving Judge out of the Society. Secondly,
she had sworn, not only not to listen to such charges without protest, but
under no circumstances to make any of her own except under a prescribed rule
which she completely ignored. Members of the old esoteric section and
some present ones know the nature of that rule. It was of such nature
that had her charges been so made, Judge himself would have been the first
to know of them and in a position to explain to her if he chose. Instead,
she went to others. It ought to be evident to members of any ethical
perception at all, that these are among the more important of possible rules.
In addition to that, she exposed to the membership E.S. documents in regard
to which she had sworn secrecy. This was an offense for which suspension
from the E.S. was prescribed. Her final turning against Judge was due
to a "vision of the Master" which followed her acceptance of "occult instruction"
and "magnetization" by the Brahmin Chakravarti; a proceeding forbidden
under the oath she had
--- 18
taken. Finally, when Judge offered to prove himself an agent of the
Masters before an open tribunal, she and her group evaded the hearing and
continued the campaign against Judge by other means, which finally involved
the splitting of the whole Society and the long sequence of evils, perversions,
and diversions, which followed. To cap the climax, Judge was never allowed
to see the so-called evidence against him. Olcott first promised him
copies, then withheld them, stating that in court of law a criminal had no
right to examine evidence against him before the trial; and then Olcott
evaded a trial. All this is of record and Annie Besant connived at
all of it.
These proceedings are not honorable or honest even by
worldly standards; far less by those supposedly accepted by one who
had pledged himself to the Highest. Since they were the actions of one
who was, in previous days, honorable and high-minded, the evidence is that
something psychic had happened to her. Such changes are not unusual
in a chela under probation, with all the hidden evils of the past being violently
boiled out. At the time when these deeds were done, she was still within
the minimum seven year probationary period. The only possible interpretation
of this conduct, other than that of a probationer in failure under stress,
must rest upon a notion by the interpreter that Annie Besant was so high as
to be "beyond the law" applying to all other chelas. The law of the
occult - and what should be the exoteric law - is that the higher one is,
the more he is bound by law. To take any other view seems to us to
indicate a moral fog that we could not hope to penetrate with any argument
of ours. Well - set it down as a failure - did Annie Besant ever redeem
it? The record is public; she did not.
If Annie Besant did realize her injustice, or even suspect
it, it was her duty, even under the standards of any honorable man of the
world, to say so, to spare no pains to make clear the truth and to live to
heal the wounds in the Movement that had been caused. Many a man, with
no knowledge of Theosophy or its ethics, has done as much. Her failure
to do so is most incompatible with continuance as a Chela; for here
we have the picture of a woman who broke all the most important rules to which
she had pledged herself; rules for whose breakage others were
dismissed from the opportunity of Chelaship; in so doing, she commits
the gravest of personal injustices, destroys the reputation and essentially
the life of H.P. Blavatsky's "only friend;" wrecks his life-work;
splits the Movement and sets it on a course of disunity and folly; and
here, four years afterward, a Master is supposed to come after her, she unrepentant,
with a letter of instructions, of trust and confidence, and directions as
to her "occult life!"
As incredible to us as her continued chelaship, would
be the plainly implied continuance of the T.S., which was her captive, as
the chosen agency. (H.P.B. herself said that after 14 years it had become
a "dead failure.") Indeed Jinarajadasa admitted that, but claimed that
it had been taken back after 1900, apparently on the strength of this letter.
In our opinion, its following of Annie
--- 19
Besant in 1896, and the sterile condition of The Review in 1888-89 simply
confirm the adandonment.
The rules and requirements, the stern obligations, trials
and sufferings of real chelaship are the most serious matter possible.
It is our opinion that the tendency toward the idea of "Christian forgiveness"
of "absolution" without restitution, of broad-minded and charitable tolerance
of the Masters toward everything and anything, is a primary danger to the
future of real Chelaship and the Movement itself. However merciful and
charitable, They are themselves bound by inexorable laws.
There are some students, at least, who know what happened
to D.K. Mavalankar; that for offenses very trivial in comparison, he
was put through an immeasurable hell that nearly killed him. He
finally won through, and forever vanished from the cognizance of the world;
but in his heart was never at any time, pride, hatred, ambition,
vindictiveness or the shadow of injustice. Since a man never knows
when he may tread unwittingly upon the rim of the "circle of probation," and
be hopelessly engulfed into something that he has not the
moral will to cope with, acting through laws that even a Master cannot stop
nor stay, it is well to take heed of the rigors of the chela road.
It is evident that the verity of this letter, like every
other serious cause of difference and division in the Movement, rests upon
the truth about the Judge case. It is from this that stemmed the fight
over personalities; from it, proceeded the other successive splits;
from it came the coexistence today of conflicting systems of thought called
"Theosophy." There is little prospect of unity, up to 1975, or beyond
it, until the full facts and the consequences of that case are faced.
This is the abiding unity of Karma.
|