In this article, Blavatsky reflects
on charlatans who pretend to be in contact with masters and who create
fraudulent organizations to deceive people.
And so that you are not disconcerted,
I would like to point out that Blavatsky in this article talks about her in the
third person.
THE TALKING IMAGE OF URUR
(In this first part Blavatsky gives
her opinion on the satire novel that Franz Hartmann wrote to denounce these
fraudulent organizations, but which some Theosophists considered a mockery to
the Theosophical Society itself.)
Shall we winnow the corn, but feed
upon the chaff?
The presiding genius in the Daily
News Office runs amuck at “Lucifer” [magazine] in his issue of February
16th. He makes merry over the presumed distress of some theosophists who see in
our serial novel, “The Talking Image of Urur” – by our colleague, Dr. F.
Hartmann – an attempt to poke fun at the Theosophical Society. Thereupon, the
witty editor quizzes “Madame Blavatsky” for observing that she “does not agree
with the view” taken by some pessimists; and ends by expressing fear that “the
misgivings that have been awakened will not easily be laid to rest.”
(Observation: this novel was later
published in 1890 in book form by John W. Lovell Company, New York. For some
strange reason, the last chapter of this story, essential to the correct
understanding of the whole tale, was not published in the pages of Lucifer,
except for its closing paragraph.)
Ride, si sapis. [Laugh, if you are wise]
It is precisely because it is our desire that the “misgivings” awakened should
reach those in whom the sense of personality and conceit has not yet
entirely stifled their better feelings, and force them to recognize themselves
in the mirror offered to them in the “Talking Image”, that we publish the
“satirical” novel.
This proceeding of ours – rather
unusual, to be sure, for editors – to publish a satire, which seems to
the short-sighted to be aimed at their gods and parties only because they are
unable to sense the underlying philosophy and moral in them, has created quite
a stir in the dailies.
The various Metropolitan Press
Cutting Agencies are pouring every morning on our breakfast-table their load of
criticism, advice, and comment upon the rather novel policy. So, for instance,
a kindly-disposed correspondent of the Lancashire Evening Post (February
18) writes as follows:
« The editor of Lucifer has done
a bold thing. She is publishing a story called “The Talking Image of Urur,”
which is designed to satirise the false prophets of Theosophy in order that the
true prophets may be justified. I appreciate the motive entirely, but,
unfortunately, there are weak-minded theosophists who can see nothing in Dr.
Hartmann’s spirited talk but a caricature of their whole belief. So they have
remonstrated with Madame Blavatsky, and she replies in Lucifer that “the story
casts more just ridicule upon the enemies and detractors of the Theosophic
Society than upon the few theosophists whose enthusiasm may have carried them
into extremes”.
Unfortunately, this is not strictly
accurate. The hero of the tale, a certain Pancho, is one of these enthusiasts,
and it is upon him and upon the mock ‘adepts’ who deceive him that the ridicule
is thrown. But it never seems to have occurred to Madame Blavatsky and Dr.
Hartmann that the moment you begin to ridicule one element, even though it be a
false element, in the faith, you are apt to shake the confidence of many if not
most believers, for the simple reason that they have no sense of humour. The
high priestess of the cult [Blavatsky] may have this sense for obvious reasons,
but her disciples are likely to be lost if they begin to laugh, and if they
can’t laugh they will be bewildered and indignant. I offer this explanation
with all humility to Madame Blavatsky, who has had some experience of the
effects of satire. »
The more so as, according to those
members of the Theosophical Society who have read the whole story, it is
precisely “Madame Blavatsky” against whom its satire is the most
directed. And if “Mme. Blavatsky” – presumably “the Talking Image” – does not
object to finding herself represented as a kind of mediumistic poll
parrot, why should other “theosophists” object?
A theosophist above all men ought
ever to bear in mind the advice of Epictetus: “If evil be said of thee, and
if it be true, correct thyself; if it be a lie, laugh at it”. We
welcome a witty satire always, and defy ridicule or any efforts in this
direction to kill the Theosophical Society, so long as it, as a body, remains
true to its original principles.
As to the other dangers so kindly
urged by the Post, the “high priestess” acknowledges the benevolent
objections by answering and giving her reasons, which are these: The chosen
motto of the Theosophical Society has been for years – “There is no religion higher
than truth”; the object of Lucifer is in the epigraph on its cover,
which is “to bring to light the hidden things of darkness”. If the editor of
Lucifer [Blavatsky] and the Theosophists would not belie these two propositions
and be true to their colours, they have to deal with perfect impartiality,
sparing no more themselves than outsiders, or even their enemies. As to the
“weak-minded theosophists”- if any – they can take care of themselves in the
way they please.
If the “false prophets of Theosophy”
are to be left untouched, the true prophets will be very soon – as they
have already been – confused with the false. It is nigh time to winnow our corn
and cast away the chaff. The Theosophical Society is becoming enormous in its
numbers, and if the false prophets, the pretenders (e.g., the
“H.B. of L.” [The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor] exposed in Yorkshire by
Theosophists two years ago, and the “G.N.K.R.” [The Genii of Nations,
Knowledges and Religions] just exposed in America), or even the weak-minded
dupes, are left alone, then the Society threatens to become very soon a
fanatical body split into three hundred sects – like Protestantism – each
hating the other, and all bent on destroying the truth by monstrous
exaggerations and idiotic schemes and shams.
We do not believe in allowing the
presence of sham elements in Theosophy, because of the fear, forsooth,
that if even “a false element in the faith” is ridiculed, the latter “is
apt to shake the confidence” in the whole. At this rate Christianity would be
the first to die out centuries ago under the sledge-hammer blows dealt to its
various churches by its many reformers. No philosopher, no mystic or student of
symbolism, can ever laugh at or disbelieve in the sublime allegory and
conception of the “Second Advent”- whether in the person of Christ, Krishna,
Sosiosh, or Buddha.
The Kalki Avatar [which is
how a future advent is known in the Orient] or last (not “second”)
Advent, to wit, the appearance of the “Saviour of Humanity” or the “Faithful” light
of Truth, on the White Horse of Death – death to falsehood, illusion, and
idol, or self-worship – is a universal belief. Shall we for all that
abstain from denouncing the behaviour of certain “Second Adventists” (as in
America)?
What true Christians shall
see their co-religionists making fools of themselves, or disgracing their
faith, and still abstain from rebuking them publicly as privately, for fear
lest this false element should throw out of Christianity the rest of the
believers?
Can any of them praise his
co-religionists for climbing periodically, in a state of paradisiacal detachment,
on the top of their houses, trees, and high places, there to await the
“advent”?
No doubt those who hope by stealing
a march on their slower Brethren to find themselves hooked up the first, and
carried bodily into Heaven, are as good Christians as any.
Should they not be rebuked for their folly all the
same?
Strange logic!
The wise man courts truth;
the fool, flattery
However it may be, let rather our
ranks be made thinner, than the Theosophical Society go on being made a
spectacle to the world through the exaggerations of some fanatics, and the
attempts of various charlatans to profit by a ready-made programme. These, by
disfiguring and adapting Occultism to their own filthy and immoral ends, bring
disgrace upon the whole movement.
Some writer remarked that if one
would know the enemy against whom he has to guard himself the most, the
looking-glass will give him the best likeness of his face. This is quite true.
If the first object of our Society be not to study one’s own self, but to find
fault with all except that self, then, indeed, the Theosophical Society is
doomed to become – and it already has in certain centres – a Society for mutual
admiration; a fit subject for the satire of so acute an observer as we
know the author of “The Talking Image of Urur” to be.
This is our view and our policy.
“And be it, indeed, that I have erred, mine error remaineth with myself.”
That such, however, is the policy of
no other paper we know of – whether a daily, a weekly, a monthly, or a
quarterly – we are quite aware. But, then, they are the public organs of the
masses. Each has to pander to this or that other faction of politics or
Society, and is doomed “to howl with the wolves”, whether it likes or not. But
our organs – Lucifer pre-eminently – are, or ought to be, the phonographs, so
to speak, of the Theosophical Society, a body which is placed outside and
beyond all centres of forced policy.
We are painfully conscious that “he
who tells the truth is turned out of nine cities”; that truth is unpalatable to
most men; and that – since men must learn to love the truth before they
thoroughly believe it – the truths we utter in our magazine are often as bitter
as gall to many. This cannot be helped. Were we to adopt any other kind of
policy, not only Lucifer – a very humble organ of Theosophy – but the
Theosophical Society itself, would soon lose all its raison d’être and
become an anomaly.
But “who shall sit in the seat of the scorner?”
Is it the timid in heart, who
tremble at every opinion too boldly expressed in Lucifer lest it should
displease this faction of readers or give offense to that other class of
subscribers?
Is it the “self-admirers”, who
resent every remark, however kindly expressed, if it happens to clash
with their notions, or fails to show respect to their hobbies?
[No!]
Surely we learn better and profit
more by criticism than by flattery, and we amend our ways more through the
abuse of our enemies than the blind pandering of friends. Such satires as the
“Fallen Idol”, and such chelas as Nebelsen, have done more good to our Society,
and certain of its members, than any “theosophical” novel; for they have shown
up and touched au vif the foolish exaggerations of more than one
enthusiast.
Self abnegation is possible only to
those who have learnt to know themselves; to such as will never mistake the
echo of their own inner voice – that of selfish desire or passion – for the
voice of divine inspiration or an appeal from their Master. Nor is chelaship
consonant with mediumistic sensitiveness and its hallucinations; and
therefore all the sensitives who have hitherto forced themselves into
discipleship have generally made fools of themselves, and, sooner or later,
thrown ridicule upon the Theosophical Society. But after the publication of the
“Fallen Idol” more than one such exhibition was stopped. “The Talking Image of
Urur” may then render the same, if not better, service.
If some traits in its various dramatis
personae fit in some particulars certain members who still belong to the
Society, other characters – and the most successful of them – resemble rather
certain EX-members; fanatics, in the past, bitter enemies now – conceited
fools at all times. Furthermore “Puffer” is a compound and very vivid
photograph. It may be that of several members of the Theosophical
Society, but it looks also like a deluded victim of other bogus Esoteric and
Occult Societies.
THE GNKR “ESOTERIC” SOCIETY
(In this second part Blavatsky
details about a fraudulent organization that was founded by two liars named
Hiram Butler and Eli Ohmart.)
One of such just sprung up at Boston
U.S.A., is now being nipped in the bud and exposed by our own Theosophists. These
are the “Solar adepts” spoken of in our January editorial, the âmes damnées of
shameful commercial enterprises.
No event could vindicate the policy
of our journal better than the timely exposure of these pseudo-adepts, those
“Sages of the Ages” who bethought themselves of trading upon the public hunger
for the marvelous ad absurdum. We did well to speak of them in the
editorial as we have. It was timely and lucky for us to have pointed to the
ringleaders of that shameful speculation – the sale of bogus occult knowledge.
For we have averted thereby a great and new danger to the Society – namely that
of unscrupulous charlatans being taken for Theosophists.
Misled by their lies and their
publications filled with terms from Eastern philosophy and with ideas they had
bodily stolen from us only to disfigure and misapply them – the American press
has already referred to them as Theosophists. Whether out of sheer flippancy,
or actual malice, some dailies have headed their sensational articles with
“Theosophic Knaves”, and “Pantognomostic Theosophs”, etc., etc.
This is pure fiction. The editor of
the “Esoteric” had never been at any time a member of our society, or of any of
its numerous Branches. “Adhy-Apaka, alias the Hellenic Ethnomedon and
Enphoron, alias the Greco-Tibetan, Ens-movens OM mane padmi AUM”
(sic) was our enemy from the beginning of his career. As impudently
stated by him to a reporter, we theosophists hated him for his “many virtues”!
Nor has the Sage “bent under the
weight of centuries”, the Vidya-Nyaika, said to be represented by a person
called Eli Ohmart, had anything to do with the Theosophical Society. The two
worthies had, like two venomous wily spiders, spread their webs far and wide,
and numerous are the Yankee flies caught in them. But thanks to the energy of
some of our Boston Members, the two hideous desecrators of Eastern philosophy
are exposed. In the words of the “Boston
Globe” newspaper:
« This is the weird tale which may have a sequel in court.
“If there
are no arrests made, I shall go right on with the work; but if they make
trouble, I shall stay and face the music.”
Hiram
Erastus Butler, the esoteric philosopher of 478 Shawmut avenue, uttered the foregoing
sentiment to a Boston Globe reporter last
evening as calmly as one would make a casual remark about the weather.
Thereby
hangs a tale, a long, complicated, involuted, weird, mystical, scientific,
hysterical tale – a tale of love and intrigue, of adventure, of alleged and to
some extent of admitted swindling, of charges of a horrible and unspeakable
immorality, of communion with embodied and disembodied spirits, and especially
of money. In short, a tale that would make your head weary and your heart faint
if you attempted to follow out all its labyrinthine details and count the cogs
on its wheels within wheels. A tale that quite possibly may find its sequel in
the courts, where judge, jury, and counsel will have a chance to cudgel their
brains over almost every mystery in the known universe. »
These are the heroes whom
certain timid Theosophists – those who raised their voices against the
publication of the “Talking Image of Urur” – advised us to leave alone. Had it
not been for that unwillingness to expose even impersonal things and deeds, our
editorial would have been more explicit.
Far from us be the desire to
“attack” or “expose” even our enemies, so long as they harm only ourselves,
personally and individually. But here the whole of the Theosophical body –
already so maligned, opposed, and persecuted – was endangered, and its
destinies were hanging in the balance, because of that impudent pseudo esoteric
speculation.
He, therefore, who maintains in the
face of the Boston scandal, that we did not act rightly in tearing off the
sanctimonious mask of Pecksniffian piety and the “Wisdom of the Ages” which
covered the grimacing face of a most bestial immorality, of insatiable
greediness for lucre and impudence, fire, water, and police proof – is no true
Theosophist.
How minds, even of an average
intelligence, could be caught by such transparent snares as these publicly
exhibited by the two worthies, to wit: Adhy-Apaka and Vidya Nyaika – traced by
the American press to one Hiram E. Butler and Eli Ohmart – passes all
comprehension!
Suffice to read the pamphlet issued
by the two confederates, to see at the first glance that it was a mere
repetition – more enlarged and barefaced, and with a wider, bolder programme,
still a repetition – of the now defunct “H.B. of L.” with its mysterious
appeals of four years ago to the “Dissatisfied” with “the Theosophical
Mahatmas”.
The two hundred pages of the wildest
balderdash constitute their “Appeal from the Unseen and the Unknown” and the
“Interior of the Inmost” (?) to “the Awakened”. Pantognomos and Ekphoron
offer to teach the unwary “the laws of Ens, Movens, and OM”, and appeal for
money. Vidya Nyaika and Ethnomedon propose to initiate the
ignorant into the “a priori Sambudhistic (?) philosophy of Kapila” and –
beg for hard cash. The story is so sickening that we dislike to stain our pages
with its details. But now to the moral of the fable.
Ye spurned the substance and
have clutched the shadow
THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
(In this third part Blavatsky
explains the great differences between these fraudulent organizations and the
Theosophical Society.)
For fourteen years our Theosophical
Society has been before the public. Born with the three-fold object of infusing
a little more mutual brotherly feeling in mankind; of investigating the
mysteries of nature from the Spiritual and Psychic aspect; and, of doing a
tardy justice to the civilizations and Wisdom of Eastern pre-Christian nations
and literature, if it did not do all the good that a richer Society might, it
certainly did no harm. It appealed only to those who found no help for their
perplexities anywhere else.
To those lost in the psychic riddles
of Spiritualism, or such, again, as, unable to stand the morbid atmosphere of
modern unbelief, and seeking light in vain from the unfathomable mysteries
taught by the theology of the thousand and one Christian sects, had given up
all hope of solving any of the problems of life. There was no entrance fee
during the first two years of the Society’s existence; afterwards, when the
correspondence and postage alone demanded hundreds of pounds a year, new
members had to pay one pound for their diploma.
Unless one wanted to support the
movement, one could remain a Fellow all his life without being asked for a
penny, and two-thirds of our members have never put their hand in their pocket,
nor were they asked to do so. Those who supported the cause were from the first
a few devoted Theosophists who laboured without conditions or any hope for
reward. Yet no association was more insulted and laughed at than was the
Theosophical Society. No members of any body were spoken of in more
contemptuous terms than the Fellows of the Theosophical Society from the first.
The Society was born in America, and
therefore it was regarded in England with disfavour and suspicion. We were
considered as fools and knaves, victims and frauds before the benevolent
interference of the Psychic Research Society, which tried to build its
reputation on the downfall of Theosophy and Spiritualism, but really harmed
neither.
Nevertheless, when our enemies got
the upper hand, and by dint of slander and inventions had most maliciously
succeeded in placing before the credulous public, ever hungry for scandals and
sensations, mere conjectures as undeniable and proven facts, it was the
American press which became the most bitter in its denunciations of Theosophy,
and the American public the most willing to drink in and giggle over the
undeserved calumnies upon the Founders of the Theosophical Society.
Yet it is they who were the first
told, through our Society, of the actual existence of Eastern Adepts in Occult
Sciences. But both the English and the Americans spurned and scoffed at the
very idea, while even the Spiritualists and Mystics, who ought to have known
better, would, with a few exceptions, have nothing to do with heathen Masters
of Wisdom. The latter were, they maintained, “invented by the
Theosophists”: it was all “moonshine”.
For these “Masters”, whom no member
was ever asked to accept, unless he liked to do so himself, on whose
behalf no supernatural claim was ever made, unless, perhaps, in the
too ardent imagination of enthusiasts; these Masters who gave to, and
often helped with money, poor Theosophists, but never asked anything of
the rich – these Masters were too much like real men.
They neither claimed to be gods nor
spirits, nor did they pander to people’s gush and sentimental creeds. And now
those Americans have got at last what their hearts yearned for: a bona fide
ideal of an adept and magician. A creature several thousand years old. A true-blue
“Buddhist-Brahmin” who appeals to Jehovah, or Jahveh, speaks of
Christ and the Messianic cycle, and blesses them with an Amen and an “Om mane
padmi hum” in the same breath, relieving them at the same time of 40,000
dollars before they are a month old in their worship of him . . . Wullahy! Allah
is great and – “Vidya-Nyaika” is his only prophet. Indeed we feel little pity
for the victims. What is the psychology that some Theosophists are
accused of exercising over their victims in comparison with this?
IGNORANCE NOT
ALTOGETHER BLISS
(In this
fourth part Blavatsky argues that, contrary to what the popular saying affirms,
ignorance is not a blessing but on the contrary it hurts, and especially in
matters of esotericism.)
It is true to say that the varieties
of infidels are many, and that one “infidel” differs from another infidel as a
Danish boar-hound differs from the street mongrel. A man may be the most
heterodox infidel with regard to orthodox dogmas. Yet, provided he proclaims
himself loudly a Christian, that heterodoxy – when even going to the length of
saying that “revealed religion is an imposture” – will be regarded by some as
simply “of that exalted kind which rises above all human forms.”
A “Christian” of such a kind may –
as the late Laurence Oliphant has – give vent to a still more startling theory.
He may affirm that he considers that “from time to time the Divine Influence
emanates itself, so to speak, in phenomenal persons. Sakyamouni was such;
Christ was such; and such I consider Mr. (Lake) Harris to be – in fact, he is a
new avatar”, and still remain a Christian of an “exalted kind” in the
sight of the “Upper Ten”. But let an “infidel” of the Theosophical Society
say just the same (minus the absurdity of including the American
Lake Harris in the list of the Avatars), and no contumely heaped upon
him by clergy and servile newspapers will ever be found too strong!
But this belongs properly to the
paradoxes of the Age; though the Avataric idea has much to do with Karma
and rebirth, and that belief in reincarnation has nothing in it that can
militate against the teachings of Christ. We affirm, furthermore, that the
great Nazarene Adept distinctly taught it. So did Paul and the Synoptics, and
nearly all the earliest Church Fathers, with scarcely an exception, accepted
it, while some actually taught the doctrine.
Do not start two hares at
once
From the sublime to the ridiculous
there is but one step, and Karma acts along every line, on nations as on men.
The Japanese Mikado is tottering towards his end for having played too long at hide
and seek with his worshippers. Hundreds of shrewd Americans have been taken
in through disbelieving in truths and lending a too credulous ear to bold lies.
(Lucifer
Magazine, March 1889, p.1-12, excerpts)
OBSERVATIONS
I am fully
agreed that charlatans must be fought to prevent people interested in
esotericism from being fooled by these scammers. However the way Blavatsky did
it does not seem me the most appropriate, since I agree with the journalist who
said that a satire can confuse people who are not very well versed in the
subject, and more if Blavatsky omits the last chapter of that novel that is
essential for a correct understanding of the whole story.
But that's
how Blavatsky was, impulsive, provocative and did not know how to structure her
strategies well; as evidenced by the fact that she called her magazine
"Lucifer" to vindicate the ancient deity who brought the light of
knowledge to humanity, but the vast majority of the public interpreted it as a
sign that she was a Satanist.
And
unfortunately the lack of verve on the part of the Theosophists in denouncing
the liars caused that after Blavatsky’s death, many pseudo-theosophical charlatans
arose who invaded practically the entire Western esoteric world, and among them
are: Charles Leadbeater, Rudolf Steiner, Max Heindel, Alice Bailey, Guy
Ballard, Elizabeth Prophet, Benjamin Creme, the metaphysicians, etc.
And that is
why people who do not know about this issue say that Blavatsky was the mother
of the New Age, but that is false since as you can see for yourself, she fought
against liars, only that her students no longer had the same momentum and that
caused the growth of numerous fraudulent organizations that have since
overshadowed and strangled true theosophical teaching.
