Mr. Will Thackara is an important member of the Theosophical
Society Pasadena, and in this article he demonstrates how Peter Washignton did
a bad investigation whose aim was to intentionally discredit the leaders of the
Theosophical Society, regardless of what he resorted to use mistakes and lies.
GENERAL APPRAISAL
Written in a witty and engaging style, the book contains sufficient
facts and insights, some quite good, to make it appealing to a wide readership
— beguilingly so, perhaps, for it has been cited as a source reference in
magazines such as the Smithsonian (May 1995), and Peter Washington has
been interviewed on British television as an "authority" on
theosophic history.
On superficial examination the book appears to be well-researched and
objective. But a more careful inspection — especially of the theosophic
section, to which these remarks are limited — discloses serious errors and
omissions. Aside from fairly obvious use of innuendo and half-truths to bolster
his negative conclusions about H. P. Blavatsky and Katherine Tingley, the
author is frequently inaccurate, misrepresents theosophic teaching, relies on
uncorroborated assertion (often from unfriendly secondary and tertiary
sources), omits rebuttal evidence, garbles dates, events, and attributions,
downgrades, trivializes, and generally gives a one-sided account. Whatever
merit the book may have is defeated by its unreliability and prejudice.
One would expect any author who writes on historical subjects to use
primary sources as far as possible. We have no record of Peter Washington
contacting the Theosophical Society (Pasadena) and its considerable historical
resources, either to verify facts or to interview staff members and living
witnesses who are perhaps better informed about Blavatsky, Tingley, Purucker,
and theosophical history. Washington's scholarly competence and objectivity may
be deduced from the following list of errors and omissions. It is not exhaustive,
but representative.
SOME EXAMPLES OF ERRORS AND
OMISSIONS
First example
Peter Washington in his book wrote:
« According to Blavatsky's later description of
the Brotherhood, this hierarchy is headed by the Lord of the World, who lives
at Shamballa in the Gobi Desert. (11) The Lord of the World came originally from Venus with
several helpers and now inhabits the body of a sixteen-year-old boy. In
descending order of authority, his helpers are the Buddha, the Mahachohan, Manu
and Maitreya.
. . .
Manu's assistant is Blavatsky's original visitor, Master Morya, often
referred to as Master M or simply M. His special duty in the distribution of
cosmic responsibilities is to preside over the qualities of Power and Strength,
with particular regard to the guidance of nations.
. . .
Maitreya's assistant is Master Koot Hoomi . . . whose past incarnations
include Pythagoras. . . . He is a cultured fellow, a linguist and musician
whose work takes in the supervision of Religion, Education and Art. »
(p.34e-35b)
In this description there are misinformation; misattribution;
evident reliance on secondary or tertiary sources; undocumented (Chapter note
11 is a reference to Shambhala by Rene Guenon and Marco Pallis).
This misleading description is not to be found in Blavatsky's writings,
but may be traced to a divergent tradition which gained prominence among some
theosophists many years after Blavatsky's death in 1891. A careful scholar
reasonably conversant with theosophic history and doctrine would not confuse
the two. Peter Washington in fact gives very little description of theosophy as
presented by HPB and her teachers, and what he does mention is often inaccurate
or out of context (see Note 13 below).
Second example
« Madame Blavatsky's baboon signaled her own
posture in this debate as an adamant anti-Darwinian. . . . But involved with
this lofty dismissal of Darwinism . . . is the further message that anyone who
thinks as Darwin does must be no better than a baboon, i.e. crude and crafty,
foolish, vulgar, greedy, gross, and deceitful. »
(p.45a)
This is inaccurate and misleading. The first statement could easily, but
incorrectly be taken to mean that HPB was anti-evolutionist. On the contrary,
HPB's Secret Doctrine is premised on an evolutionary paradigm, and she
was sufficiently versed in the subject to articulate the difference between the
principle of evolution and the Darwinian model which purports to
explain its mechanism. Having translated at least a portion of The Origin of
Species in early 1875, she was undoubtedly aware of Darwin's chapter 6,
"Difficulties on the Theory" — fundamental problems which are
unresolved today (fossil gaps, hybrid limits, instinct, etc.).
In her Secret Doctrine, HPB gave Darwin due credit for the
partial correctness of his theory in regard to variation, as distinct
from speciation. But she criticized it as insufficient to explain the
underlying causes of evolution, and Darwinians as being ethically
culpable for putting "in the place of a conscious creative force .
. . a series of natural forces working blindly (or we say) without aim,
without design" (2:652 — here she quotes Ernst Haeckel so as not to
misrepresent the Darwinist position).
As for "lofty dismissal," HPB merely summarized the pertinent
criticisms of contemporary scientists such as Darwin's co-theorist A. R.
Wallace and French anthropologist A. de Quatrefages — issues which are still
debated in scientific circles. Her position vis-a-vis Darwinism is echoed
nearly a century later in the 1973 comment of zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse
(late president of the French Academy of Sciences):
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often
ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. . . . the
explanatory doctrines of [Darwinist] biological evolution do not stand up to an
objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality
or else incapable of solving the major problems involved" (Evolution of
Living Organisms, NY: Academic Press, 1977, pp. 6, 202).
There is a considerable difference between lofty dismissal and informed
criticism.
Thirst example
« After that [the closing of Gerry Brown's Spiritual
Scientist] Blavatsky established a Miracle Club, devoted to investigating
occult phenomena. »
(p. 49c)
Here there is an error of fact, evident reliance on
faulty secondary source. Olcott organized the Miracle Club (with HPB's
concurrence) in New York in May 1875, while HPB lived in Philadelphia. The Club
failed almost immediately, but Brown continued publishing the Spiritual
Scientist for another few years. PW's source is most likely V. Solovioff's Modern
Priestess of Isis (1895, pp. 249, 255) which makes the same error (see Note
10 below regarding Solovioff's credibility).
Forth example
« Isis
Unveiled is an exposition of Egyptian occultism and the cult of the
Great Mother. »
(p. 52b)
Here, Peter Washington misrepresents and trivializes. This
characterization of Isis Unveiled is novel, but entirely misleading. He amplifies
his description in the paragraph which follows, but this, too, diminishes the
scope of the 1,317-page two-volume work enormously. He cites only negative
reviews, omitting several positive ones.
Fifth example
« . . . another critic identified over two thousand
unacknowledged quotations [in Isis Unveiled]. »
(p.52e)
It is a questionable source; he omits rebuttal evidence. The critic —
whom Peter Washington fails to identify (perhaps intentionally so, given his
lack of credibility) — is HPB's long-time adversary, William Emmett Coleman, an
ardent spiritualist who was a clerk in the US Army Quartermaster's Office at
Ft. Leavenworth in the 1870s and later in San Francisco. In spite of his claim,
Coleman never produced satisfactory documentation. For credentials he listed
himself as a member of several learned societies — including the American
Oriental Society, the Royal Asiatic Society, and the Pali Text Society.
According to historian Michael Gomes, investigation has revealed no
contributions from him in these fields. Gomes also examined Coleman's criticism
and, allowing for errors in manuscript preparation and typesetting, concluded
that nearly every instance of quotation in Isis is acknowledged in one
way or another (there are some 2,400 footnotes).
Moreover, Dr. Graham Hough, Emeritus Professor of English, University of
Cambridge, grudgingly admitted in The Mystery Religion of W. B. Yeats
(1984, p.36) that "when she [HPB] cites an identifiable authority — a
Neoplatonic philosopher, for example — it generally turns out that she gives a
fair representation of what he actually said."
One must also account for the testimony of Professor Hiram Corson of
Cornell University, who was amazed by HPB's ability to quote "long
verbatim paragraphs from dozens of books of which I am perfectly certain there
were no copies at that time in America, translating easily from several
languages." (see Michael Gomes, Dawning of the Theosophical Movement,
p.143-55, 113.)
Sixth example
« . . . where nudism and dietary reform linked arms
with universal brotherhood and occult wisdom. »
(p.53c)
Here, Peter Washington makes a false
association, innuendo. Theosophy may recommend sensible dietary reform, but to
my knowledge says nothing about nudism.
Seventh example
« Mr. J. G. Felt. »
(p.53d)
Carelessness, probable reliance on secondary or tertiary source. John
Symonds (1960, p.75) and Gertrude M. Williams, Priestess of the Occult
(1946, p.101) both give it as J. H. Felt. Should be G. H. [George Henry] Felt.
Eighth example
« William Judge, the lawyer's clerk, proposed the
colonel for President [of the Theosophical Society]. »
(p.54c)
Here, Peter Washington downgrades; relies
on secondary or tertiary source. He omits that Judge was a lawyer in his own
right, specializing in commercial law. (John Symond's biography of HPB,
frequently cited by PW, says "lawyer's clerk," as does Gertrude
Marvin Williams, an earlier negative biographer, whom Symonds appears to rely
heavily upon. Primary source is probably Olcott's "Old Diary Leaves"
article in The Theosophist, Nov. 1892, where he states that Judge was
"a lawyer's clerk" at the time — clerking was and is often the lot of
young attorneys. But Olcott also mentioned in the same article that Judge had
been admitted to the Bar in 1872).
Ninth example
« The Theosophical Society proper thus came into
being on 13 September, though it didn't hold its first official meeting until
the 17th, . . . »
(p.54e)
This is an inaccurate date: first "official" meeting of the TS
was held November 17th.
Tenth example
Peter Washington quotes the conclusion of the 1885 Hodgson Report of the
Society for Psychical Research (SPR), which branded HPB "as one of most
accomplished, ingenious, and interesting impostors in history."
(p.83)
But he omits rebuttal evidence. Although Peter
Washington points out that Hodgson withdrew his "conclusion" that HPB
was a Russian spy, he fails to mention the SPR Journal's April 1986
publication of "J'Accuse" by Dr. Vernon Harrison, an expert in
detecting forgery and a senior SPR member. From his analysis, Harrison
concluded that "whereas Hodgson was prepared to use any evidence, however
trivial or questionable, to implicate HPB, he ignored all evidence that could be
used in her favour. His report is riddled with slanted statements, conjecture
advanced as fact or probable fact, uncorroborated testimony of unnamed
witnesses, selection of evidence and downright falsity. . . . [p. 309] The
Hodgson Report is a highly partisan document forfeiting all claim to scientific
impartiality . . . the case against Madame Blavatsky is NOT PROVEN — in the
Scots sense" [p. 287].
Though not published at the time, Harrison's later study, H. P.
Blavatsky and the SPR (TUP, 1997), condemns the Hodgson Report as being
"worse than I had thought. . . . It is the work of a man who has reached
his conclusions early on in his investigation and thereafter, selecting and
distorting evidence, did not hesitate to adopt flawed arguments to support his
thesis" (p. viii). Like Hodgson, Peter Washington does not challenge the
unsubstantiated accusations of the Coulombs, whom he admits were seeking
revenge, but allows their allegations of fraud to stand, evidently because they
support his own conclusions. Similarly, he states (p. 90) that HPB confessed to
Vsevolod Solovioff that her phenomena were fraudulent, a statement from
Solovioff or possibly imported from John Symond's frequently-cited biography,
but omitting Symond's question: "To what extent can one believe Vsevolod
Solov'yov? There is only his word for it" (Symonds, Madame Blavatsky,
220).*
Absent here also is Vera Jelihovsky's reply to Solovioff that her sister
(HPB) sometimes "falsely accused" herself to escape annoyance, but
had said to her that she (HPB) "was sure that she had never made any
admission of the sort" (Solovioff, A Modern Priestess of Isis,
318). Throughout these chapters Peter Washington asserts trickery, sham, lying,
and deceit on the part of HPB but, when not giving garbled information, never
establishes anything more than hearsay, much if not all of it from hostile or
prejudiced witnesses.
* Even Solovioff’s translator, Walter Leaf, admitted that Solovioff used
HPB’s letters selectively: "the letters are not entire; they are selected
by a bitter personal enemy with the purpose of damaging their writer, . .
." Leaf points to one letter in particular which implies "a real
inconsistency with Mr. Solovyoff's narrative; it implies that he has not
correctly represented the mental attitude in which he found himself after the
Würzburg conversations. I confess that I am not satisfied with his own explanation
. . ." (Solovioff, xv).
Eleventh example
« Purucker, a suave, scholarly and ascetic fellow
almost thirty years younger than Tingley, soon became her surrogate son and
right-hand man. (7) »
(p.110b)
This is a misleading innuendo. Gottfried de
Purucker (GdeP), a lifelong bachelor, was ascetic and scholarly, but not
"suave" by most definitions. As a student of and the successor to
Katherine Tingley, he may be considered her "son" only in the sense
of spiritual and intellectual mentorship.
Note 7 (on p.415) is more serious. Here Peter Washington states that
"H. N. Stokes wittily dismissed Purucker's extensive writings as
'Theosophical Jabberwock'." Peter Washington in fact garbles a statement
in Emmett Greenwalt's California Utopia: Point Loma 1897-1914, where
Greenwalt writes: "One of [GdeP's] critics, the independent theosophical
editor, Dr. H. N. Stokes, called Purucker's vocabulary innovations 'Sanskrit
Jabberwock'" (p.118).
Peter Washington misrepresents both Stokes and GdeP. In the May-June
1935 issue of his OE Library Critic ("The Sanskrit
Jabberwock"), Stokes criticized what seemed to him to be a "fad"
in Sanskrit education at Point Loma. He does not mention GdeP by name in the
article and, to my knowledge, never accused GdeP of "Theosophical
Jabberwock" elsewhere, disagreeing only with GdeP's scholarly preference
for Sanskrit precision (correct spelling can hardly be considered an
"innovation"). On the contrary, Stokes was impressed with GdeP's teaching
and his clarity in writing and speaking. He eventually joined the TS under
GdeP's leadership, remaining an active member until his death on September 30,
1942, three days after GdeP died (Theosophical Forum, January 1943, p.
42).
Had Peter Washington gone to the primary source, he might also have
found there Stokes's description of his first meeting with GdeP in 1931 at a
theosophical meeting in Washington, DC:
« Naturally there were questions and answers, and
to my mind the most impressive was his reply to a lady who had been sorely perplexed
by reading Mahatma K.H.'s letter to A. O. Hume on God. . . . His reply, which I
cannot attempt to abstract, was one of the most lucid expositions of this topic
which I have ever listened to, and was something not to be forgotten.
Clearly, too, did he speak on the subject of non-resistance in relation
to the different stages of chelaship [discipleship]. Many, of course, have read
The Voice of the Silence and have realized the truth of its precepts in
a sort of fashion. Let G. de Purucker quote one of these precepts and make a
few comments on it, as he did on this occasion, and it ceases to be a rule or a
dictum and stands out before one's mental eye an indisputable and eternal
truth. With no great skill in speaking, yet in some way he makes one feel in a
new fashion the truth of what one has long known. . . . It has been years since
I have felt the tremendous significance of these precepts so forcibly; and it
was all done so modestly and simply!
. . .
His second, semi-public lecture, intended especially for theosophists,
on "The Theosophical Movement," was the most brilliant and convincing
theosophical talk I have ever listened to. He is a true genius in exposition
and, as stated above, carries conviction with a power which it is rarely the
good fortune of a mere reader to experience.
. . .
All in all, then, I have felt myself more than rewarded. I have seen or
heard nothing to which the most straight-laced theosophist of the old school
could object and I have found an earnestness backed by power of expression
which is only too rare and which, I think, places him in the very front rank of
present day theosophists and teachers. »
(OE Library Critic, July 1931)
Twelfth example
« By the outbreak of World War One things were
already on the slide. . . . The Purple Mother [Katherine Tingley] staggered on
for another fifteen years, . . . but within a very few years of her death the
community had been forced to close. »
(p.114c)
This asseveration is inaccurate and denigrating. The historical record
reads otherwise, including the chartering of Theosophical University in 1919
and a resurgence of membership in the 1930s under the leadership of G. de
Purucker (1929-1942). The Depression forced cutbacks at Point Loma, exacerbated
by new taxes and other financial burdens; but it was not until 1942, when San
Diego became a staging area for the Pacific Theater in WW2, that GdeP moved the
international headquarters — virtually debt-free — to Covina (Theosophical
Forum, December 1942, pp. 573-4), from where it was moved in 1951 to its
present location in Pasadena/Altadena.
"Staggering," moreover, implies senility and incompetence.
Colonel Arthur L. Conger (whom General George C. Marshall regarded as "one
of the best minds in the army"*) wrote to H. N. Stokes on August 8, 1932,
as follows:
I have received your letter of the 6th in which you quote a
correspondent as having alleged: "It is on unimpeachable authority I have
that Mrs. Tingley was by no means 'the brilliant head' to the day of her
passing. She suffered from brain affection for several years prior to her
death." In reply I wish to deny most emphatically that your correspondent
has any such "authority" — "unimpeachable" or otherwise —
for any such ridiculous assertion. I have known Mrs. Tingley intimately since 1896.
In 1926 I was her guest at Nurnberg. In 1927 she was my guest at Berlin [where
he was the US Military Attache]. In 1928 I joined her at Visingso [Sweden] and
was with her until April 1929. . . . Based on the above contacts I assert that
there was . . . no lessening of Katherine Tingley's brilliant intellectual
powers up to the very end of her life [on July 11, 1929]" — OE Library
Critic, August 1932
* According to John Gilbert Winant in his Letters from Grosvenor
Square: An Account of a Stewardship, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1947, p.
135. Winant was Governor of New Hampshire and, during WW2, U.S. Ambassador to
Great Britain.
Thirteenth example
« HPB's great-nephew, Boris de Zirko. »
(p.406, note 3)
This is inaccurate. "de Zirko" should be spelled de Zirkoff.
This could be a typesetting error, but more likely the author's inattention to
detail. More importantly, I have found only this one mention of de Zirkoff —
nothing in the index or bibliography. It is curious that there is no reference
to the monumental 15-volume H. P. Blavatsky: Collected Writings, edited
by de Zirkoff, in the bibliography — as any competent author relying on primary
source material would surely include. One can only wonder how much of
Blavatsky's writings Peter Washington has actually read or comprehended.
Fourteenth example
Dust jacket (English edition) said:
« In 1875 the Theosophical Society was founded in
New York by a renegade Russian aristocrat and a superannuated American colonel.
Its stated objectives were to promote the brotherhood of man and encourage the
study of comparative religion and psychic phenomena, but it was really the
vehicle whereby one of the founders, Madame Blavatsky, could exercise her
occult powers. »
(front flyleaf)
In this description there is misrepresentation; insinuation of motive.
Although probably written by the publisher's advertising staff, this passage
reflects the author's style and conclusions. The publisher represented the book
to Theosophical University Press (TUP) as "undoubtedly skeptical, but it
is an objective study of the theosophical movement."
In its March 24, 1994, reply to them, TUP requested an explanation as to
"why in the very first sentence of the book's flyleaf, Colonel Olcott
should be considered 'superannuated' at age 43 — when, for example, he
subsequently received a personally-signed [U.S.] Presidential letter and special
passport recommending him to all U.S. Ministers and Consuls abroad, with a
commission to report 'upon the practicability of extending the commercial interests
of our country in Asia.' "
The statement regarding HPB needs no comment.
Fifteenth example
Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) Autumn 1995 Resource listing:
« . . . an itinerant Russian expatriot [sic] of dubious
nobility (Helena Blavatsky)." [HPB's aristocratic heritage is well
documented on both sides of her family: von Hahn and de Fadeyev.] ". . .
With incisive wit, this book enlightens on many levels — as intellectual
history, as a panorama of human fancy and folly, as an exercise in how to
separate fiction from fact, message from messenger. »
(p.11)
Snide and inaccurate — a further example of how easily a
reviewer/copywriter can be misled. Were he more conversant with the actual
historical record, he might better characterize the book as an intellectual
deception — one which infuses fact with half-truths and separates the message only
by ignoring or misrepresenting it. An earlier draft of these Notes was sent
October 25, 1995, to the late Dr. Willis Harman, then president of IONS, who
replied on November 6th: "We had no intention to denigrate H. P.
Blavatsky. . . . We are removing Washington's book from future catalogs. Thank
you for calling this to our attention."
CONCLUSION
Judging only by this relatively
small sampling, Peter Washington's treatment of theosophical history is seen to
be heavily biased as well as dependent on faulty sources, raising legitimate
doubts about his accuracy and objectivity in the rest of the book. Vernon
Harrison's criticisms of the Hodgson Report (Note 10 above) could justifiably
be applied to Mr. Washington's Baboon.
(Source: www.theosociety.org/pasadena/ts/hpb-notesbab.htm)
No comments:
Post a Comment