OPINIONS OF EXPERTS ABOUT THE BOOK “MADAME BLAVATSKY'S BABOON”

 

 

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.