Charles Leadbeater
spoke publicly very flatteringly of Blavatsky, but in private he had a very
different opinion of her. And this is shown in a letter he wrote from Adyar,
Madras, where he mentioned the following:
« June 14th, 1885:
Subba Row related to us recently more concerning Madame Blavatsky’s
remarkable complex character than I, at least, had previously known; and it
shows us plainly how foolish it would be to blame her for what in anyone else
would be called a want of common moral qualities.
We were right in believing that the original H.P. Blavatsky, who was by
nature clairvoyant and who had some knowledge of occultism, disappeared from
earth life some twenty years ago, and that a certain Adept, who in some way had
failed to reach his goal, voluntarily took possession of her body, or was
placed there — partly as a punishment, in order to do all in his power to
promulgate the truth through her. We likewise understood rightly that when
engaged on other business he was frequently absent from this body.
But now I come to a point about which I was completely in error. I
thought that during the absence of the Adept, the body was in a state similar
to that of Margrave in Bulwer Lytton’s "Strange Story," only animated
by its original lower constituents. But it seems this was not the case.
At her death, all the usual constituents of the body left it as with
that of others, and the present inhabitant had to supply the whole want from
his own organisation. For this purpose two Chelas [disciples], but little
versed in occultism, were selected to take the Adept’s place when necessary;
and as no Adept or Chela can enter into a woman’s body during times of illness,
at such times it had to be taken possession of by a terrible ill-tempered,
ignorant old Tibet woman, in place of the Adept or Chelas, as she was the only female available for this
purpose. It seems that when either of the four replaced one of the others, he
or she had no idea of what had been said or done by the predecessor, and thus
endless confusion occurred.
This explains the fact that Madame so often contradicts what she had
said a few hours previously, which fact naturally greatly excited Hodgson’s suspicions.
It likewise accounts for the fact that sometimes she seems to know less about
occultism than we ourselves do, while at others she speaks with the power and
authority of a Rishi. For months together, in consequence of her various
illnesses, the terrible old woman alone has inhabited her almost all the time,
and all around her have suffered from her ill-temper. Still the Adept maintains
his connection, in the hope, as we think, to be able to complete his
promulgation of the "secret doctrine" through her.
Whether this poor diseased body will hold together long enough for this
purpose no one at present can predict. Of course this true explanation is useless for outsiders. But I think I
can give even to them a satisfactory explanation of Madame’s contradictions
without attributing intentional untruth to her, when I inform them that, as a
Russian, she was prone to exaggeration, coupled with an unretentive memory and
an excitable style of speaking; and especially when we consider that English is
not her mother tongue and therefore she often makes mistakes. Poor old lady!
her life has truly been a wonderful one, and who can say what will still come
of it! »
This letter was
originally published by Professor C.W. Sellin in the German magazine Psychische Studien, January 1901,
p.24-25. And later it was translated into English and published in the London spiritualist
magazine Light, March 2, 1901, p.103.
Subba Row was a Brahmin scholar who
initially showed great admiration and appreciation for Blavatsky, but later
became her enemy because he did not want her to pass on to Westerners the
occult knowledge that he considered was reserved solely for Easterners.
And that is why Subba Row began to
spread the false idea among the members of Adyar that Blavatsky was "a
deserted and abandoned shell by the masters which had been given to the
chelas" with the aim of destroying the faith that many students had in her.
Leadbeater's letter shows that he
did believe this, and this is because contrary to what Leadbeater later
claimed, he knew Blavatsky very little. Just a few meetings in London, then he
traveled with her to India, and once in Asia he spent most of the time in
Ceylon.
Therefore, what he heard about
Blavatsky from Subba Row left an indelible imprint on him that motivated him to
think that what Blavatsky had taught was incorrect, and that prompted him to
elaborate his own interpretation of theosophy, which is plagued of errors,
falsehoods and misrepresentations.
But Leadbeater was not the only one
who believed that lie, since even the president of the Theosophical Society,
Colonel Olcott, was also subject to the influence of Subba Row; to the extent
that Master Kuthumi later had to write to him to specify that Subba Row assertion
was not true.
In a letter on August 22, 1888, the master said the following:
« We employ agents — the best
available. Of these for the past thirty years the chief has been the
personality known as H.P.B. to the world (but otherwise to us). Imperfect and
very troublesome, no doubt, she proves to some, nevertheless, there is no
likelihood of our finding a better one for years to come — and your
theosophists should be made to understand it.
.
. .
Her fidelity to our work being
constant, and her sufferings having come upon her thro’ it, neither I nor
either of my Brother associates will desert or supplant her. As I once before
remarked, ingratitude is not among our vices. . . . this you must tell to all:
— With occult matters she has everything to do. We have not abandoned her; she
is not ‘given over to chelas’. She is our direct agent. »
As you can see, Master Kuthumi
clearly says in his letter when he referring to Blavatsky: "We have not
abandoned her, we have not given her to the chelas," which is a direct
answer to the malicious rumors launched by Subba Row and that later many people
believed them including Leadbeater.
No comments:
Post a Comment