This text is an analysis
made by the theosophist and professor emeritus Georges Méautis showing how
lousy is René Guénon's book “Theosophism:
History of a Pseudo-Religion”. The
Friends of the Theosophical Archives made an excellent pdf which you can download
here, but to
facilitate its diffusion I put it also in the blog where you can easily translate
it in many languages with the link that is above in the corner on the right.
Foreword
by the Editor of FOTA Newsletter
This Special Edition
of FOTA Newsletter, features Joscelyn Godwin’s translation —from French to
English— and introduction to Theosophy
and Theosophism: Response to a Criticism of Theosophy by René Guénon (1) written by Paul
Bertrand a pseudonym of Georges Méautis.
Godwin is a
remarkable multi-lingual researcher of musicology, esotericism and the occult.
Among his œuvre we find other papers, assessing Guénon, such as his translation
—from Italian to English— of Agarttha: A
Guénonian Manipulation? By Marco Baistrocchi, published on the Theosophical History Journal (see
Theosophical History Occasional Papers 2009: v. xii), as well as his
paper The Beginnings of Theosophy in
France (1989).
Godwin’s translation
and introduction to Theosophy and
Theosophism is a must read for researchers of Theosophical history.
Erica Georgiades
Preface by
the Translator
In June 1920, René
Guénon (1886-1951) finished writing Introduction
générale à l’étude des doctrines hindoues (General introduction to the
study of Hindu doctrines). (2) It would be his first published book, but by
no means his first publication, since he had been writing under various
pseudonyms for over a decade. He had high hopes for it. If it could be accepted
as a doctoral thesis, it might lead to an academic career, instead of the
school mastering which he had found almost unbearable.
For all his interest
and expertise in Hinduism, Guénon was now moving in a different direction.
Having already made the rounds of the Parisian occultist and masonic
underworld, he had gravitated to traditional Catholic circles of a neo-Thomist
variety, dominated by the celebrity philosopher and convert Jacques Maritain.
Whatever his personal commitment, this environment served him well. The book on
Hinduism was accepted for publication by Marcel Rivière, also the publisher of
a monthy Revue de philosophie with
Catholic and scholastic leanings. Soon afterwards, Guènon was invited to
contribute to the journal by its founder and editor, Révérend Père Peillaube,
and that is where his history of the Theosophical Society first saw the light.
Émile Peillaube was a
psychologist of international repute, superior of the Séminaire St.Thomas
d’Aquin, and professor at the Institut Catholique de Paris. We do not know
whether it was he who suggested an attack on Theosophy for Guénon’s next
project, or whether Guénon already had it in mind. At all events, the work went
forward quickly, as Guénon already owned, or was given, a large dossier of rare
materials, old spiritualist journals, and a small library of books in French
and English. He met Peillaube in October 1920 to formalize the plan. The first
installment appeared in the Revue de
philosophie of January 1921, to be followed by further parts through July.
In November 1921 the
whole work came out as a book, in a series under the general editorship of
Jacques Maritain himself. (3) Thus one motivation behind Le Théosophisme, histoire d’une
pseudo-religion (Theosophy, history of a pseudo-religion) was the distaste
with which Catholic intellectuals viewed the growing influence of the
Theosophical Society in the years following the First World War. Guénon’s
protest at the end of the book that “we are not associated with any organized
campaign; we do not even want to know whether one exists, and we rather doubt
it” (4) shows an
incredible blindness about his backers.
While his work on
Theosophy earned him patronage and led to the writing of a companion book
debunking spiritualism (L’erreur spirite,
published by Rivière in 1923), this was not a happy period for Guénon. In March
1921 the university turned down his thesis on Hindu doctrines, so that he
failed to gain his hoped-for doctorat ès
lettres. The experience soured him for ever after against the academic
world, though in retrospect it was his salvation, for he was now free to build
his own mental universe and to follow wherever his intuitions led.
The next development
deserves to be introduced in Guénon’s own words. In 1925 he issued the first of
several “augmented editions” of Le
Théosophisme, which included supplemental information, corrections, and
self-defence. There he writes:
« In
1922, the Theosophists published a brochure entitled Théosophie et Theósophisme and signed Paul Bertrand (the pseudonym
of Mr Georges Méautis, professor at the University of Neuchâtel and president
of the “Société Suisse de Théosophie”), intended as a reply to our book. In it,
the author brought up some supposed errors contained in our first hundred
pages, without giving a plausible reason for this arbitrary limit. We have
already replied in these notes to most of the criticisms in the brochure in
question, which is certainly the most pitiful defence imaginable, of which the
Theosophists have no reason to be proud. »
(p.321)
The Swiss scholar
Georges Méautis (1890-1970) had the sort of career that Guénon briefly aspired
to. A graduate of several European universities, he passed his doctorate in
1918 at the University of Neuchâtel, and by 1922 was already a professor there.
He held the chair of Greek language and literature from 1930 to 1961. Many
prizes and honors came his way, and it does not seem to have hurt his
reputation that he was a prominent Theosophist and a declared believer in
reincarnation, as befitted his speciality of Pythagoreanism. Méautis
contributed frequently to Le Lotus Bleu,
the journal of the French Theosophical Society, sometimes in the 1920s as “Paul
Bertrand” but more usually under his own name, so there was no question of
Guénon’s “outing” him by revealing his identity.
In the same year as
the present brochure, Méautis published a short but dense book, Recherches sur le Pythagorisme
(Neuchâtel: Paul Attinger, 1922). Its object was to show that there was
continuity between the Neo-Pythagoreanism of the post-Christian centuries and
the original movement of six centuries before. Méautis reproaches the scholars
who swallow any anecdote about Pythagoras, yet ignore the principle of
esotericism (p.26). He emphasizes the practical side of the Pythagorean life,
and takes seriously their use of dreams, music, and perfumes as methods of
access to alternate realities (p.31-37).
He analyzes the
different parts of the human being (body, soul, spirit, daimon, p.99) and the
misunderstandings of other scholars, drawing parallels from Brahmanism and the Bhagavad Gita (p.100), from
Neo-Platonism and Hermetism. Among recent instances of similar ideas, he cites
the English writers Algernon Blackwood and Rudyard Kipling (p.37). While the
book is a fine display of classical erudition, to the alert reader it
exemplifies the Theosophist’s confidence in the continuity of esoteric currents
and the concordance between traditions.
The present brochure
of 32 pages was published from 4, Square Rapp, the headquarters of the
Theosophical Society in Paris, and was thus a quasi-official rejoinder to
Guénon’s book. Guénon’s flippant dismissal of it (belied by his careful
“augmentation”) was somewhat justified, for as refutations go, Méautis’s is not
a powerful case. Nor does the closing section, with its appeal to the emotions,
sit well with the previous scholarly demolition.
Perhaps it was too
early for Méautis to spot the essential weakness of Guénon’s work, which was to
lump together Blavatskian Theosophy —already an entity with distinct
evolutionary stages— with later developments by Annie Besant and Charles W.
Leadbeater that some call “Neo-Theosophy”.
Méautis’s strength
lies in pointing out Guénon’s selective use of available sources; by picking
out the most egregious examples, he saps the whole foundation and demonstrates
that Le Théosophisme, in short, is no
“history.” In Leslie Price’s words, “Guénon is a case study in the misuse of
archival material. He was given a dossier, but employed it not as a historian,
weighing up the contents, but as a polemicist.” (5)
That said, historians
of the Theosophical movement have had Guénon to thank for alerting them to that
dossier, especially concerning the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor and
developments in France. Every chapter contains signposts inviting further and
more impartial research. Likewise, historians of the Traditionalist movement
(if not the Traditionalists themselves) recognize how much Guénon owed to
Theosophy. Richard Smoley writes, in a balanced evaluation of Guénon’s book:
« Ironically,
one reason for Guénon’s attitude may be that he and Blavatsky were in many ways
not so far apart. In fact scholar Mark Sedgwick, whose book Against the Modern
World is the best introduction to the impact of Guénon’s thought, sees
Theosophy as one of Guénon’s chief influences (Sedgwick, p.40-44). (6)
We have already seen
that Blavatsky and Guénon agreed about the existence of a universal esoteric tradition.
They both made liberal use of Sanskrit terms in expounding their ideas, and
they agreed about the dangers of spiritualism, arguing that spiritualistic
séances do not enable one to make contact with dead individuals but merely with
their astral shells, which have been shucked off as the spirit ascends to
higher planes. » (7)
To these common
grounds we could add the reconciliation of religious differences through their
esoteric roots; a cyclical concept of history including a former, more subtle state
of matter; the encouragement of Oriental studies as giving access to a wisdom
largely lost in the West; the analysis of the multiple states of the human
being; and the use of symbolism, especially geometric, to explain metaphysical
realities.
I thank Leslie Price
for the suggestion of translating Méautis’s brochure, and Muriel
Pécastaing-Boissière
for providing a photocopy.
Joscelyn Godwin
THEOSOPHY
AND THEOSOPHISM
Any religious
movement can be studied in two different ways. One can envisage it from the philosophical
point of view, examining its doctrines and theories, seeing what is original in
them and how they satisfy the religious needs of an epoch or a people. One can
also study it from the historical standpoint alone, collecting and sorting the
documents relating to its origins or its progress, criticizing the authenticity
or the authority of witnesses. The essential condition for every study of this
kind is not necessarily sympathy, for that cannot be made to order, but at
least impartiality. A work that is
partial to one side or the other carries no guarantee of scholarly objectivity.
If too favourable to the movement that it purports to study, it becomes more of
an apology than a history. If hostile, it is no more than a polemical pamphlet,
unworthy of serious attention.
Under the title le Théosophisme, histoire d’une
pseudo-religion [Theosophism, history of a pseudo-religion], Mr René Guénon
has published a volume of over three hundred pages which aims to inform the
public about the history of the Theosophical Society. We will say straight away
that it contains documentation which, if not very serious, is at least
plentiful, and more so than in any of the articles or books against the
Theosophical movement published in recent years.
It is extremely
regrettable, then, that this book is inspired solely by documents hostile to
Theosophy. It quotes them without a moment’s doubt about their truthfulness,
while systematically passing in silence over everything that could show
Theosophy in even the least favourable light.
A few examples will
serve to prove this. In order not to try the reader’s patience, I have chosen
them exclusively from the first hundred pages of the book, though I could
easily have multiplied the examples. If there is one important book for the
history of the Theosophical Society’s beginnings, it must be A.P. Sinnett’s Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky,
translated into French as la Vie de
Madame Blavatsky (Librairie de l’Art indépendant, 1921). The great value of
this book is that it largely reproduces the memoirs of Madame Jelihowsky, Madame
Blavatsky’s own sister, and gives a host of details and information that would
be difficult to find elsewhere. Guénon must have known the existence of this
book, since he cites it, but only once (p.87) (8) on a question of
detail. Yet in twenty pages he refers more than ten times to Solovyov’s
pamphlet, A Modern Priestess of Isis:
the work of a man who dishonourably abused the confidence that Madame Blavatsky
had placed in him. (9)
Elsewhere (p.18),
intending to characterize Colonel Olcott, the founding President of the
Theosophical Society, Guénon states that the title of colonel is easily
obtained in the United States, but carefully omits mentioning that after the
Civil War, Olcott was commissioned with the denunciation and pursuit of all
those who were guilty of misappropriating funds while supplying the armies. (10) Such a commission
could only have been given to a man whose honour and probity were beyond all
suspicion. The way Olcott discharged it is shown in the Assistant Secretary of
the United States Treasury’s letter to him, cited by Leadbeater (Occultisme dans la Nature, II, p.411),
which I cannot resist quoting here:
« I
wish to say that I have never met with a gentleman intrusted with important
duties, of more capacity, rapidity and reliability than have been exhibited by
you throughout. More than all, I desire to bear testimony to your entire
uprightness and integrity of character, which I am sure have characterized your
whole career, and which to my knowledge have never been assailed. That you have
thus escaped with no stain on your reputation, when we consider the corruption,
audacity and power of the many villains in high position whom you have
prosecuted and punished, is a tribute of which you may well be proud, and which
no other man occupying a similar position and performing similar services in
this country has even achieved. » (11)
We can add that when
Olcott went to India, he had the exceptional favour of receiving a personal
letter of recommendation from the President of the United States to the
American ministers and consuls. This is the man of whom Guénon wonders (p.19):
“whether he tries to deceive others, or whether he himself plays the part of
dupe,” and asserts that “his good faith is certainly subject to caution.”
Another example,
perhaps even more characteristic of the way Guénon uses documents, is on p.80.
Wanting to demonstrate Madame Blavatsky’s power of fascination, this is how he
quotes a passage from Olcott’s Old Diary
Leaves:
« No
one fascinated better than she when she wanted to, and she wanted to when she
desired to draw persons into her public work. Then she made herself caressing
in tone and manners, giving the person to feel that she regarded her (12) as her best, if not
her only friend. ... I could not say that she was loyal. ... We were for her, I
believe, nothing more than pawns in a game of chess, for she had no sincere
friendship. (13) »
Guénon does not cite
the page from which he has taken this passage, which does not simplify the
search through Old Diary Leaves’
three volumes of over 400 pages. It is in fact in the first volume of the
French translation (Histoire authentique
de la Société Théosophique, I, p.440), and I think is worth reproducing
despite its length:
« H.P.
Blavatsky made numberless friends, but often lost them again and saw them
turned into personal enemies. No one could be more fascinating than she when
she chose, and she chose it when she wanted to draw persons to her public work.
She would be caressing in tone and manner, and make the person feel that she
regarded him as her best, if not her only friend. She would even write in the
same tone and I think I could name a number of women who hold her letters
saying that they are to be her successors in the Theosophical Society and twice
as many men whom she declared her “only real friends and accepted chélas.”
I have a number of
such certificates, and used to think them treasures until, after comparing
notes with third parties, I found that they had been similarly encouraged, and
I saw that all her eulogies were valueless. With ordinary persons like myself
and her other intimate associates, I should not say she was either loyal or
staunch. We were to her, I believe, nothing more than pawns in a game of chess,
for whom she had no heart-deep love. . (14) She repeated to me the secrets of people of
both sexes —even the most compromising ones— that had been confided to her, and
she treated mine, such as they are, I am convinced, in the same fashion. But
she was loyal to the last degree to her aunt, her other relatives, and to the
Masters; for whose work she would have sacrificed not only one, but twenty
lives, and calmly seen the whole human race consumed with fire, if needs be. » (15)
As one can see, by
only quoting sentences or parts of them, Guénon has completely denatured the
meaning of the passage as found in Colonel Olcott’s volume. (16)
From what we have
seen, we can already tell what method Guénon is using: only citing documents
that can arouse in the reader’s mind the idea that he wants to give of the
Theosophical Society. And what is this idea? That its directors are either
crooks who stop at no fraud or hoax, or else the playthings of mysterious
unknown beings; that the Theosophists themselves are either victims of
suggestion, or extraordinarily credulous. There is nothing new in such a theory.
It goes straight back to the Encyclopedists, who also tried to explain
religious phenomena by “priestly deceit.” I do not think it necessary to point
out the shortcomings of such an explanation. The nineteenth century’s
discoveries have shown that the religious sentiment is something more complex,
more subtle, and also more lofty than anything Voltaire and Diderot could
imagine.
In order to make more
plausible the picture that Guénon seeks to draw of the Theosophical Society’s
evolution, he endeavours to show that it was much more the result of chance, or
of the various influences playing on Madame Blavatsky, than of a clearly
defined will. If there are any facts going against his theory, Guénon is
content not to mention them. Thus he asserts (p.43) that Madame Blavatsky did
not begin talking about the existence of the Tibetan Mahatmas until after
arriving in India. Before that she had only been under the influence of “spirit
guides” like those of mediums (p.21, 27). Yet in her famous reply to Hiraf,
published in the Spiritual Scientist
in July 1875, hence prior to the
foundation of the Theosophical Society, Madame Blavatsky affirmed the
existence “from her personal knowledge” of occult schools in India, Asia Minor,
and other lands.
The true Cabala, she
says, “is in possession, as I said before, of but a few oriental philosophers;
where they are, who they are, is more than is given to me to reveal... The only
thing I can say is that such a body exists, and that the location of their
Brotherhoods will never be revealed to other countries, until the day when
Humanity shall awake” (Cited by Olcott, Histoire
de la Société Théosophique I, p.112; see also p.64). (17) Moreover, in a
letter published in the Spiritual Scientist and quoted by Olcott (Histoire I, p.323), J.O. Sullivan, who
visited H.P. Blavatsky long before she left for India, already speaks of an adept
from Tibet. (18)
Colonel Olcott
himself speaks twice in his first volume of an Adept who, according to Guénon’s
theory, should not have appeared until after the arrival in India (p.236, 361).
Olcott even cites a fragment of a letter received on June 22, 1875, which
contains these words: “I am not a disembodied spirit, Brother, I am a living
man; gifted with such powers by our Lodge as are in store for yourself some
day.” (19) One can
see how unfounded is the hypothesis of Guénon, who would make H.P.B. a medium
like any other, “controlled” by “spirit guides” and not mentioning Mahatmas until
after her arrival in India.
All the testimonies I
have cited are easily accessible. A responsible historian, writing a serious
work, could not have passed them over in silence, whereas Guénon makes not the
slightest allusion to them.
Even more
characteristic of his method is the question of Madame Blavatsky’s various
travels before her departure for America in 1873. Guénon is extremely firm in
this regard. In his opinion, Madame Blavatsky had never been to India before
1878, and her initiation in Tibet is a “pure fable” (p.27). Guénon even
believes that he has proof of this. He cites (p.32) a letter of Colonel Olcott
which contains these words: “This lady (it’s a question of a certain Madame
Thompson) offers (Madame Blavatsky) money and everything if she will only go to
India and give her a chance to study and see for herself.” (20)
Anyone can see,
without being expert in the methods of historical criticism, that Olcott is
reproducing Madame Thompson’s idea, not that of Madame Blavatsky. This does not
prevent Guénon from writing: “Madame B. had never been to India before 1878;
this time we have the formal proof of it.” Yet Olcott (Hist. Soc. Théos. I, p.113) cites the letter from a woman who
certified to him that already in 1873, she had heard Madame Blavatsky assure
her that she had been in Tibet. The following passage in the same volume (p.255)
reveals even more strongly how much trust Guénon’s assertions deserve:
« How
easy it would have been for her, for example, to have told Mr. Sinnett that,
when trying to enter Tibet in 1854, vià Bhutan or Nepál, she was turned back by
Capt. (now Maj.-Genl.) Murray, the military commander of that part of the
frontier, and kept in his house in his wife’s company a whole month. Yet she
never did, nor did any of her friends ever hear of the circumstance until Mr.
Edge and I got the story from Major-General Murray himself, on the 3rd March
last, in the train between Nalhati and Calcutta, and I had printed it. » (21)
Here is a formal
evidence that neither Mr. Edge nor General Murray have ever denied. It is a
pity that Guénon never made use of it. True, it does fit the idea that he
wanted to give of Madame Blavatsky.
I fear that I would
overtax the reader’s patience if I listed all the cases where Guénon omitted to
mention important documents because they went against his thesis. Thus he
affirms (p.46) that the investigation of Hodgson, the emissary of the Society
for Psychical Research, “amply establishes” that the Masters’ letters were
faked by Madame Blavatsky with Damodar as accomplice. Guénon does not once
mention Madame Besant’s little work H.P. Blavatsky
et les Maîtres de la Sagesse (Paris, 1908), which is the clearest, most
illuminating, and most convincing refutation of the Hodgson Report.
No more does he cite
the Report on the Result of an Investigation
into the Charges against Madame Blavatsky (22) or Hartmann’s Report of Observations. (23). Guénon speaks (p.63)
of the correspondence between Madame Blavatsky and the Coulombs, “whose
authenticity is impossible to deny.” He does not point out that A.O. Hume, who
at the time was alienated from Madame Blavatsky but motivated by an admirable
feeling for justice, wrote to the Calcutta Statesman to confirm that Madame
Blavatsky could not have written those letters (letter reproduced in A. Besant,
H.P.B. et les Maîtres de la Sagesse, p.80).
Guénon also cites (p.64)
the opinion of English experts who affirmed that the Masters’ letters were the
work of Damodar and H.P.B., while passing in silence over another handwriting
expert who stated under oath that her handwriting had nothing in common with
that of the Masters (document reproduced in Sinnett, la Vie de Madame Blavatsky, p.199).
Guénon also states,
relying on a certain Cowes (24) that Baron de Palm’s manuscripts served
Madame Blavatsky for writing Isis Unveiled. He fails to mention that the editor
of the very newspaper that carried Cowes’ accusation expressed his regret for
having published it, and declared that it was unfounded. (Olcott, Histoire, p.161) As for the fact itself,
here is a letter that I believe will resolve the question once and for all
(Olcott, Histoire, p.162):
« Consulate
of the Argentine Republic, Augsburg, May 16, 1877.
No. 1130.
To William Q. Judge,
Attorney and
Counsellor at Law, 71 Broadway, New York.
From your letter of
the 7th ult., I gather that Baron Josef Heinrich Ludwig von Palm died in New
York in the month of May, 1876.
The undersigned,
Consul Max Obermayer (late United States Consul at Augsburg from 1866 to 1873),
happens by chance to be in a position to give you the information desired
regarding the deceased in a thoroughly exhaustive manner, and is very willing
to do so.
Baron von Palm was in
his youth an officer in the Bavarian army, but was forced on account of his
many shady transactions and debts to leave the service. He then betook himself
to other parts of Germany, but could not remain long anywhere, because his
great frivolity, his love of good living and his debaucheries constantly led
him to incur fresh debts and involve himself in shady transactions; so that he
was even condemned by the courts and sent to jail.
After it became
impossible for him to remain longer in Germany, he went to Switzerland to enter
on a new course of swindling, and he actually succeeded, by false promises and
misrepresentations, in persuading the owner of Schloss (Castle) “Wartensee” to
sell him that property, which he forthwith occupied. His stay there, however,
was short; not only was he unable to raise the purchase money, but he could not
even pay the taxes, and in consequence the property was sold for the account of
the creditors and Palm fled to America.
Whether or not he
supported himself in America by frauds is not known here.
Of property in Europe
he possesses not one cent’s worth;
all that may be found among his effects to that purport is a pure swindle.
The only property on
which he had any claim whatever, before he went to America, was a share in the
Knebelisher inheritance in Trieste. When he left he had already taken much
trouble to obtain immediate payment of this amount, but in vain.
Towards the end of
the year 1869, Palm addressed himself to the undersigned in his then capacity
of United States Consul, with the request to arrange for the payment to him of
his share in the Knebelisher estate mentioned above.
This request was at
once complied with, and, as appears from the enclosed copy of his receipt, the
sum of 1,068 Thalers 4/6 = $3247.53 was placed at Palm’s disposal by a consular
letter of Jan. 21, 1870, and he availed himself thereof through the banking
house of Greenbaum Bros. & Co., as appears from his letter to the consulate
of Feb. 14, 1870.
I can only repeat
that Palm possessed in Europe neither a single dollar in money, nor a single
foot of ground, and that everything which may be found among his papers to the
contrary is based solely upon fraudulent representation.
Palm’s only known
relatives are the two Baroness Van T__ domiciled in Augsburg, both families in
every way most respectable, and to whom Palm in the last year of his residence
in Europe caused much scandal and annoyance.
The above gives all
that is to be known about the deceased Palm in the most exhaustive manner, and
probably more even than you may have expected.
(Signed) Max
Obermayer.
Consul Argentine
Republic. » (25)
One can see how
likely it is that this German officer, cashiered from the army, swamped in debt
and something of a crook, could have written a work as original and powerful,
for all its unevenness, as Isis Unveiled. (26) It is regrettable
that a writer as upright and sincere as Maeterlinck should have repeated this
accusation in his Grand Secret probably
following Papus— without taking the trouble to verify it. Guénon makes no
mention of the official declaration that I have transcribed, which is both
important and easily accessible.
As one can see from
the preceding examples, chosen only from the first hundred pages of Guénon’s
book, it could never pass as an impartial and complete history of the
Theosophical movement. It is strange that an author privileged to have at his
disposal those minor spiritualist papers that are almost unfindable today, and
who assures us that his only motive for taking up the pen is that “there are no
rights higher than truth” (p.307) (27) should have omitted to cite these important
and easily accessible documents because they could give a favourable impression
of Theosophy.
There are many other
facts that could show how Guénon’s documentation, which seems so sure and
precise, is really a trompe-l’oeil.
We have seen how he works: choosing among the facts at his disposal those which
serve the idea that he has formed a
priori of the genesis of the Theosophical Society, and systematically
ignoring all that does not fit his construct. Thus for him, John King, who was
involved with the beginnings of the Society, is a living man who, with Henry de
Morgan, is supposed to have “commissioned Madame Blavatsky and prepared her
meeting with Olcott” (p.20). However, we read in Olcott’s Histoire (p.20):
« I
thought it a veritable John King then. ... But now ... I am persuaded that “John
King” was a humbugging elemental, worked by her like a marionette and used as a
help towards my education. » (28)
As for Morgan, Olcott
adds when speaking of John King:
« Later
on, it said it was the earth-haunting soul of Sir Henry Morgan, the famous
buccaneer. » (29)
Another passage (Histoire, p.431-432) shows quite
obviously what John King and de Morgan were, but Guénon prefers to see them as
mysterious unknowns. Likewise, he makes it clear that he thinks that John King
is the demon behind the Theosophical Society, as well as being the cause of the
spiritualist phenomena. (30)
There is the same odd
confusion (p.46) when Guénon, speaking of the Mahatmas, states:
« The
very word “Mahatma” has never had the meaning in Sanskrit that she (Madame Blavatsky)
attributes to it, because what this word really denotes is a metaphysical
principle, and it cannot be applied to human beings. »
And yet the Revue de Paris on April 1, 1922 devoted
an article to “Mahatma Gandhi,” in which we read among other things (p.642):
« Gandhi
is the Mahatma, the great inspired one, believed to possess extraordinary
powers and to command the forces of nature. »
We see that in modern
India this word can perfectly well apply to a person, and does not just refer
to a metaphysical principle.
Thus when it is
possible to verify Guénon’s documentation, we can see how little real value it
has, for all its apparent certainty. And how many passages we could cite in
which he is content to throw out an affirmation or an accusation without any
supporting fact or reference, making verification impossible! (31)
In truth, if Guénon
took the trouble to collect his materials himself, we must admit that his
choice was neither sound nor impartial. If as he says in his conclusion, thanks
to “somewhat exceptional circumstances” he had at his disposal documents that
some organization had patiently collected, we cannot say that he rose to the
task and fulfilled the hopes placed in him.
But these omissions
and unsourced affirmations, serious as they may be, are as nothing beside
another passage that, I believe, demonstrates the level of trust that his book
deserves. In the chapter where he studies Madame Blavatsky’s sources, Guénon
writes (p.95):
« We
will add a word that especially concerns the origin of the Tibetan texts,
supposedly very secret, that Madame Blavatsky has cited in her works, notably
the famous Stanzas of Dzyan
incorporated into The Secret Doctrine.
These texts contain many passages that are manifestly ‘interpolated’ or even
invented from scratch, and others that have at least been ‘arranged’ to fit Theosophical
notions. As for their authentic portions, they are simply borrowed from a
translation of fragments of the Kandjur
and Tandjur published in 1836 in the
twentieth volume of the Calcutta Asiatic Researches by Alexandre Csoma de Körös. » (32)
No one could overlook
the gravity of the accusation. If Madame Blavatsky were really content to
borrow the Stanzas of Dzyan, which
she always maintained were an esoteric work of the greatest antiquity, from a
volume published in 1836, one could well find it strange that she had never
indicated where she took these texts from.
The Asiatic Researches of Calcutta are a
very rare series, owned by very few European libraries. However, they are to be
found in the Musée Guimet (no. 7060). Moreover, since the French translation of
Csoma’s work to which Guénon alludes has been published in volume II of the Annales du Musée Guimet (1881), pages
131-573, by Léon Feer, it is quite easy to verify. Readers who wish to take the
trouble to do so may assure themselves that Guénon’s affirmation is entirely
and materially false. Csoma’s work consists almost solely of analyses, not of
translations, and none of the latter are concordant with the text of the Stanzas of Dzyan or The Voice of the Silence.
This is not the sole
flagrant inexactitude that we could produce; there are more. On p.20, note 1,
Guénon states “that he was unable to have any confirmation of Madame
Blavatsky’s second marriage,” whereas the account of this marriage fills a
whole chapter of Olcott’s Histoire
(I, p.58), and that author affirms that the relevant papers are in his
possession.
Another fact of the
same type. We saw above that Guénon accepted without checking or verification
the statement that Isis Unveiled was
composed with the help of Baron de Palm’s manuscripts, and we showed how
unlikely this hypothesis was, given the man’s character and life. Guénon
assures us (p.93) that Baron de Palm bequeathed his library to the Theosophical
Society, and also writes (p.86): “Sinnett claimed that apart from his library,
he left nothing.” If one turns to Vie de Mme Blavatsky, p.121, one will see
that there was no question of a library. (33)
It was not our
intention to undertake a refutation of Guénon’s whole work. That would be to
grant his book an importance and a value which it does not deserve. We have
simply wished to show the impartial reader that he would be mistaken to pass
judgment on the Theosophical movement after reading that book alone, without seeking
to complete his knowledge by reading others, such as Olcott’s Histoire de la Société Théosophique or
Sinnett’s La Vie de Madame Blavatsky, which we have often mentioned; also Madame
Besant’s Vers le Temple or La Sagesse
Antique, or Mabel Collins’ La Lumière
sur le Sentier. We also wished to show that Guénon’s work is incomplete and
biased, and does not deserve the name of “history” because it lacks objective
and scholarly methods as well as the secure and clear-viewed criticism that one
has a right to expect from a work of that type.
Besides, if the
Theosophical movement were what Guénon claims it to be, it would not have
enrolled more than 40’000 members in every part of the world, nor given so many
souls the strength and light that they could not find elsewhere; it would not
have given them a clearer answer to the problems of human destiny. Guénon, in
fact, has done for the Theosophical movement what a malicious historian might
have done for the Catholic Church if he had only recounted the cruelties of the
Inquisition, studied the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew’s Day in minutest
detail, and completely ignored the magnificent surge of religious faith that
built the cathedrals, caused the Crusades, and sent missionaries to evangelize
the world.
I can scarcely
summarize in a few lines the essentials of Theosophical theories, and prefer
for the reader to consult the works mentioned above. Suffice it to say that the
fundamental object of the Theosophical Society is “To form a nucleus of the
brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of sex, race, rank, or creed.” It
is this ideal of understanding, of broad tolerance, of sympathy for all that
lives, that constitutes the basis of Theosophy. It teaches that each religion
is an expression of the divine life, more or less perfect in accordance with
the race and the evolutionary point attained. To comprehend the grandeur, the
beauty of all that lives, to feel the divine in everything: such is the
principal goal of Theosophy.
Obviously such a
conception can expect no sympathy from those who claim to possess the plenary,
entire, and definitive revelation of divine truth, and who disdainfully or
sometimes bitterly reproach those who do not think exactly like them for their
“errors.” The conception of those who seek to understand what is best in every
race, who believe that the commonality of races, with all their religious and
artistic manifestations, is summoned to form a harmony (like the harmony of the
spheres that the Pythagoreans heard), and that the history of humanity, like
that of each human soul in the course of its reincarnations, is the history of
spirit evolving in matter — all this is opposed to the conception of an
omniscient, transcendent God creating a man for a test that, in his
omniscience, he knows the man will fail, and making the whole human race
responsible for this unique fault.
Need we add that the
daily progress of historical sciences, through which we learn to better know
and appreciate the civilizations of the past, fortifies the Theosophical
thesis?
The doctrine of
reincarnation and karma far better satisfies the need for justice which lies at
the base of every heart than the hypothesis that a brief human life is followed
by an eternal heaven or hell. An eternity of punishments or rewards would
prevent any further progress, make everything depend on one’s last moment, and
put the hooligan and the elite soul on the same footing. “Be ye perfect, as
your Father in heaven is perfect.” How could we understand that marvellous
saying if a single life were all we were granted?
The belief in the
evolution of the individual and of the race, which is what Theosophy holds,
imposes certain duties on man. He must “turn the wheel,” as a great Instructor
has said, by lending all his strength to the evolution of the human race,
favouring all the attempts and efforts that seek to bring more brotherhood,
more solidarity among classes and races.
This is why one finds
Theosophists in so many movements to further justice, to raise and to educate
the lower classes. Mr. Guénon finds these attempts ridiculous and stigmatizes
them as “moralism.” If moralism truly consists in wanting to raise the intellectual
and moral level of humanity, and to make every man conscious of his solidarity
and duties towards others, because all have a spark of the divine life in them,
then yes, the Theosophists are “moralists”.
But who would dare to
reproach them for it? Does one reproach those who struggle against alcoholism?
Is that not one of the worst curses afflicting France? Does one reproach those
who work for the League of Nations? Isn’t the lack of understanding between
races the constant cause of wars, and can’t one hope that the Theosophists’
ideal of understanding and collaboration should become that of all men?
Certainly ending wars
will not end the effort, the struggle against evil; the goal of the Theosophical
Society is not a static well-being, a sort of earthly paradise, because the
Theosophist knows that in all domains, as one rises new horizons open up before
one. “You will enter the light, but you will never touch the flame,” says Light
on the Path, one of the most beautiful books ever given to men. (34)
Theosophy has brought
many beings a new life: the man of action finds motives there for acting more
nobly; the intellectual finds a system that reconciles his religious needs with
the rigorous demands of the scientific method; the religious man sees before
him an ideal of abnegation and love which lifts him above himself and teaches
him to realize a higher life. This is what Theosophy has brought to a certain
number of souls. May these few lines teach those who know little of it, or who
think evil of it, to judge it with more equity.
Paul Bertrand.
Notes
1. Paul Bertrand, Théosophie et théosophisme, réponse à une critique de la théosophie de Mr René Guénon, Paris, Publications théosophiques, 1922, 32 pages.
2. Historical sketch based on Marie-France James, Esotérisme et Christianisme autour de René Guénon (Paris: Nouvelles Éditions Latines, 1981), I, p.194; Jean-Pierre Laurant, Le sens caché dans l’œuvre de René Guénon (Paris: L’Age d’Homme, 1975), p.66-67, 265.
3. René Guénon, Le Théosophisme, histoire d’une pseudo-religion (Paris: Nouvelle Librairie Nationale, 1921). In the present work I cite the posthumous edition which includes all Guénon’s supplementary notes as well as his other writings on the subject: Le Théosophisme, histoire d’une pseudo-religion. Réédition augmentée de textes ulterieurs (Paris: Éditions Traditionnelles, 1982), hereafter “Théosophisme.” There is an English translation: Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion, trans. Alvin Moore, Jr., Cecil Bethell, Hubert and Rohini Schiff (Hillsdale, NY: Sophia Perennis, 2003).
4. Théosophisme, p.308.
5. Personal communication, 16 December 2016.
6. Reference is to Mark Sedgwick, Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Cen- tury (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
7. Richard Smoley, “Against Blavatsky: René Guénon’s Critique of Theosophy,” Quest Magazine 98/1 (Winter 2010), p.28-34.
8. References to sources and page numbers are as given in the original, to facilitate checking against the French editions used by Méautis. Likewise his titles are retained, e.g. Olcott’s Histoire authentique de la Société Théosophique for Old Diary Leaves. However, the quotations that originate in English are given in their original versions. The translator’s additions and notes are indicated as “Tr.”
9. Guénon responded as follows in the later edition of his book: “We have been reproached for making ample use of what is called ‘Solovyov’s pamphlet, A Modern Priestess of Isis: the work of a man who dishonourably abused the confidence that Madame Blavatsky had placed in him.’ We reply that Solovyov was at least a phi- losopher of some worth, perhaps the only one that Russia has ever had, and that persons who knew him well have assured us that his intellectual probity was above all suspicion. His very Slavic tendency towards a certain mysticism has sometimes been held against him, but one would certainly not be supported from the Theosophical side in making that reproach.” Théosophisme, p.319-320.
Guénon mistakenly conflated Vsevolod Sergueyevich Solovyov (also transliterated Solovyoff, Soloviof, Solovieff, etc., 1849-1903), novelist, poet, and author of A Modern Priestess of Isis (trans. Walter Leaf, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1895), with his more famous brother, the philosopher Vladimir Sergueyevich Solovyov (1853-1900) who wrote a favourable review of Blavatsky’s Key to Theosophy for the Russkoye Obozreniye (Russian Review), vol. IV, August, 1890. See Boris de Zirkoff’s annotations in Blavatsky: Collected Writings (Wheaton: Theosophical Publishing House, 1966-1991), vol. VI, p.446; vol. VII, p.334n.Tr.
10. In a note to the second edition of Théosophisme, Guénon acknowledges this omission, but adds that “if the Theosophists find the function of a denunciator ‘honour- able,’ we regret not being of the same opinion on this point.” Théosophisme, p.312. Tr.
11. C.W. Leadbeater Theosophical Talks at Adyar, second series (Chicago: Rajput Press, 1911), p.386-387. Tr.
12. The reference in Guénon’s French version is to personne, which is a feminine noun, hence obliges the following pronoun to be feminine, too. The author howev- er translates “person” as quelqu’un, which incurs the masculine pronoun, as in the original English. In translating this extract I have kept as closely as possible to Guénon’s version of the English text, whose original appears below. Tr.
13. In original: amitié sincère. Tr.
14. In original: profonde affection. Tr.
15. H.S. Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, first series (Adyar: Theosophical Publishing House, 1941), p.462-463. Tr.
16. Guénon responded in the augmented edition of his book as follows: “[Bertrand’s book] contains ‘rectifications’ of the clumsiest kind, especially concerning the pas- sage from Old Diary Leaves which we have cited here. The claim is that we ‘completely denatured’ the sense of this passage, which is restored as follows, from the French translation in three volumes published under the title Histoire authentique de la Société Théosophique.[the relevant passage follows, with minor differences both from Guénon’s and the author’s French versions. Tr.] This more complete text contains phrases that are even harder on Madame Blavatsky than the ones we reproduced from a partial translation that appeared in the Lotus Bleu!” Théosophisme, p.321-322. Tr.
17. As explained in note 1, references in parentheses are the author’s. The source of this quotation is Blavatsky: Collected Writings, vol. 1 (Wheaton: Theosophical Publishing House, 1977), p. 112. Tr.
18. “I believe (though not quite certain) that her idea, and Olcott’s is that these phenomena are produced in some way by a great brother ‘adept’ in Thibet.” Old Diary Leaves, first series, p. 337. Quotation given as a footnote in the original. Tr
19. Old Diary Leaves, first series, p. 237. Tr.
20. Parentheses inserted by the author in his reproduction of Guénon’s already adapted quotation. Source of letter: Letter no. 8 in W. Stainton Moses, “The Early Story of the Theosophical Society,” Light, July 9, 1892, pp. 330-32; July 23, 1892, pp. 354-57. Tr.
21. Old Diary Leaves, first series, p.265. Tr
22. Published Madras: Theosophical Society, 1885. Tr.
23. Franz Hartmann, Report of Observations Made During a Nine Months’ Stay at the Headquarters of the Theosophical Society at Adyar (Madras), India (The Scottish Press and Graves Cookson and Co. 1884). Tr.
24. I.e. Dr. Elliott Coues. See Old Diary Leaves, first series, p. 162. Tr
25. Old Diary Leaves, first series, p.163-65. Tr.
26. In the augmented edition ot Théosophisme, Guénon writes: “Mr Paul Bertrand declares that ‘it is improbable that this German officer… could have written a work as original and powerful, for all its unevenness, as Isis Unveiled’.” We never said anything of the sort. On the contrary, we have always said that this work may well have been written by Madame Blavatsky, with the collaboration of Olcott and doubtless others, and it was merely a question of the sources which she used to compile it. Has our contradictor misread us so badly, or should we suspect his good faith?” Théosophisme, p. 324. Tr.
27. Echoing the Theosophical motto “There is no religion higher than truth.” Tr.
28. Old Diary Leaves, first series, p. 11. Tr.
29. Old Diary Leaves, first series, pp. 10-11. Tr.
30. Théosophisme, p.280. “We do not believe that the Theosophists, nor
the occultists and spiritualists, are up to succeeding completely in such an
enter- prise” (preparing the coming of the Antichrist), “but is there not
something equally dreadful behind all these movements, of which their very
leaders may be unaware, yet they in turn are nothing but its simple
instruments?”
On p.129, after speaking of the dangers of mediumism and the obsession by certain entities, against which Sinnett warns his readers, Guénon adds “These ‘beings floating in the atmosphere’ are above all, for the author, ‘astral shells,’ but they could well be quite another thing in reality: one needs to know enough about the true nature of the ‘powers of the air’.”
31. It is piquant to record, for example, that the idea of replacing the term Théosophe by Théosophiste to designate the members of the Theosophical Society, an idea that Guénon develops at the start of his book, was already to be found in an article by Commandant Courmes in the Lotus Bleu, 1894-1895, p.335, under the title “Théosophe et Théosophiste.” Curiously, they both bring up similar arguments, such as the use of the term “Theosophist” in English. Guénon does not cite this article, which he may very well not have known. It is still piquant to see a fierce opponent of Theosophy taking up the ideas of the Theos- ophists themselves.
32. Théosophisme, p. 97. Tr.
33. This is correct; see A. P. Sinnett, Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky (London: Theosophical Publishing Society, 1913), p. 156. However, Guénon also cites Elliott Coues’ letter to the New York Sun, 20 July 1890, as his source for Palm’s reputed library, and in the augmented edition adds: “…it seems that the properties mentioned in his will were nonexistent, but whatever the Theosophists say, that didn’t prevent Madame Blavatsky from being able to use the contents of his library, as Dr Coues has affirmed, which is the only thing that matters here.” Théosophisme, p. 324. Tr
34. Mabel Collins, Light on the Path (n.p: The Yogi Publication Society, n.d.; first ed. 1885), p.8. Tr
No comments:
Post a Comment