The author
of this book (Peter Washington) has written with a
very scathing style which has led his book being attractive to many readers, as illustrated
by the comments that appear on Amazon, see link.
But
curiously, those who praise this book, we find that they do not really know, neither Blavatsky, nor Theosophy,
nor esotericism in general, nor the other instructors that Peter Washington
addresses.
On the other
hand, those who have given themselves the effort of studying more about this
theme, they affirm that Peter Washington's book is very badly done because that
individual did not investigate in a serious and impartial manner, but that he only
seeks to discredit intentionally, especially the theosophical instructors and
to a lesser extent also the other esoteric instructors he mentions, with the
exception of Rudolf Steiner whom he seems to revere.
But he
despises the other instructors in a tabloid way, without really informing
himself, but only slandering, telling falsehoods and making many mistakes,
which shows the mediocre research that this man carried out and that his purpose is purely derogatory.
And in this
chapter I am going to compile what people who know about these issues think on
this book.
Upasika Library
It was a digital library that
operated for many years on the Internet, sharing books on esotericism,
philosophy and spirituality, and about this book its manager said:
« "Madame Blavatsky’ Baboon" is a
review of contemporary spiritualist instructors but from a sensationalist
vision that does not seek truth but only scandal. »
James Santucci
James Santucci, PhD, is Chairman,
Department of Comparative Religion, California State University, Fullerton, and
is also the Editor-in-Chief of Theosophical History magazine, and of this book
he wrote:
« When Madame Blavatsky's Baboon first
appeared in the U.K. in 1993, many were dismayed at the number of inaccuracies
in the author's treatment of the Theosophical content of the book. It was hoped
that when Schocken Books published it in the U.S., the necessary corrections
would have been made. Such was not the case.
However, given the popularity of the book (there are numerous references
on the Internet), it is important that readers be aware that although the book
is entertaining (Robert Boyd in TH VI/6 wrote a more sympathetic review,
highlighting the scope and ideas contained therein), it is important that
readers —especially scholars— be made aware of the oversights and sometimes
inexcusable errors that are scattered in Mr. Washington's book.
Of course, the question arises, "If the book has this many errors
in reference only to Theosophy, how many more exist in the author's treatment
of the other movements?" Perhaps others will respond to this question.
All too often, this subject, when it is discussed in scholarly circles,
is presented in a most unscholarly fashion. Falsehoods are perpetuated and
original research is not actively pursued. A renewed interest in Theosophy is
appearing, however.
It is my hope that [a dispassionate historian of religion giving HPB her
due] will take place sooner rather than later. One way of doing so is for
scholars to reevaluate —or perhaps read for the first time— Blavatsky's
principal writings in the light of nineteenth century scholarship. Readers will
be surprised, in my opinion, at the depth and eclecticism that exist especially
in her masterworks Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine. »
(Theosophical
History, October 1997, p.309)
Will Thackara
Will Thackara served on the UCLA Committee on
Religious Studies 1970-72 as an Assistant Dean of Students and, since 1972, has
worked full time at the international headquarters of the Theosophical Society
(Pasadena). He is currently Manager of Theosophical University Press and
occasionally writes and lectures on theosophic and related subjects
He did an analysis in which he
details several of the errors and omissions made by Peter Washington, demonstrating
how badly and poorly is his book, and Thackara's article can be read here.
No comments:
Post a Comment