The author
of this book (Peter Washington) knew how to write with a very scathing style
which has led to 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, it is clear that they do not really know
neither Blavatsky, nor Theosophy, nor esotericism in general, nor the other
instructors that Peter Washington addresses.
While, on
the other hand, those who have bothered to study in depth about it, they affirm
that Peter Washington's book is very badly done because this individual did not
investigate in a serious and impartial way, but only he seeks to discredit
intentionally, especially to theosophical instructors and to a lesser extent
also to the other esoteric instructors he mentions, with the exception of
Rudolf Steiner whom he seems to revere.
But if his
clear partisan point of view wasn't enough, he dismisses the other instructors
in a yellowish way, not really informing but just slandering, telling
falsehoods and making many mistakes, which shows the mediocre research that Peter
Washington did and that his aim is purely derogatory.
And below I
am going to compile what people who do know about these issues think about this
book.
Upasika Library
It was a
digital library that for many years was working on the internet sharing books
on esotericism, philosophy and spirituality, and about this book its leader
said:
« The book “Madame Blavatsky's
Baboon” is a
review of contemporary esoteric instructors but from a sensationalist vision
that does not seek the truth but only scandal. »
James Santucci
Dr. James Santucci is the Director
of the Department of Comparative Religion at California State University,
Fullerton, and he is also the editor of Theosophical
History magazine, and about this book he wrote:
« When the book “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. As a result, Mr. Thackara of the
Theosophical University Press (Theosophical Society, Pasadena) undertook the
task of itemizing and correcting some of the more significant errors. 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 [Theosophy and its offshoots], 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, Oct 1997, p.272)
Will Thackara
Will T. S. 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 theosophical and related subjects.
He did an
analysis in which he details several of the errors and omissions that Peter
Washington made, thus demonstrating how biased and poorly carried out his
investigation is, and you can read Thackara's analysis in this link.
No comments:
Post a Comment