An Attempt to Prevent the
Publication of “The Secret
Doctrine”
Helena P. Blavatsky
Helena P.
Blavatsky
A 2011 Editorial Note
The following material includes three letters. The
first one was written by H.P.B. to Judge in 1887. The second letter was written
by W.Q. Judge and others: it is addressed to H.P.B. and dated 10th January
1888. The third one was sent by H.P.B. to W. Q. J. in the second semester of
1888.
The first and the third letter are reproduced from “Theosophical History” magazine, volume V, Number 7, July 1995, pp.
222-224. Their originals are part of the Blavatsky Letters collection in the Andover-Harvard Divinity School
Library. The second one is reproduced from
“The Path” magazine, February 1888,
pp. 354-355.
1. A Buddhic Editorial Alliance
In the 1887 letter to Judge, H. P. B. proposes an editorial alliance
between her militant theosophy and his purely buddhic line of
theosophical work.
She warns Judge: if he can’t see the need for mutual trust and
cooperation between both viewpoints, then his intuition “must be
wool-gathering”. She mentions the
difference between the two styles, and adds: “I am not born for meek & conciliating
literature!” In the same letter, H.P.B. makes it clear, once more, that the
future of the movement depends very much on Judge. While asking him to make an alliance in the
U.S.A. with the “militant” Coues, she says:
“But Judge, if you love theosophy & the Cause, if you would save the
unfortunate building, trembling & splitting on all its seams put that strong
indomitable character over the movement. Work with him be the palliative.”
Although short term events did not work out as H.P.B. wanted, longer
term facts showed that the preservation of her work after her death did depend
on William Judge and his associates. In the 1890s, Annie Besant (Europe) and
Henry Olcott (India) would be allies in their fight against Judge (U.S.A.) and
the original teachings of theosophy as given by H.P. Blavatsky. Besant and
Olcott thus caused the first formal separation within the movement.
2. Subba Row and Others at Adyar Try to Prevent Publication
of the SD
The second and extraordinary document reveals the fact that influential
sectors in Adyar tried to prevent the publication of “The Secret Doctrine”(SD).
First published in February 1888, the text
is a collective letter expressing the wish of North-American students to see the
SD published at once, in spite of the opposition of “pundits” in Adyar - a
reference to T. Subba Row and his followers.
The letter significantly says “we well know that it is from the West the
chief strength of the Theosophical Society is to come, although its knowledge
and inspiration may and do reach us from the East.” And it closes with these vigorous words:
“We therefore earnestly entreat you not to be moved
from your original purpose and plain pledge that, before passing away from our
earthly sight, you would lay before us the Secret
Doctrine.”
Such an open support to “The Secret Doctrine” was to be “the last straw”
which, according to H.P.B., led to Subba Row’s resignation from the
theosophical society. The Secret Doctrine was published later in that
same year.
3. HPB Examines Subba Row’s Crisis and Sees a Collapse
at Adyar
The third letter was written in the second semester of 1888. The date is clear from the fact that in it H.P.B.,
who was in London, mentions a note published by H.S. Olcott in the June 1888
edition of “The Theosophist”, in India.
An interesting question is how to approach Mr. T. Subba Row’s chain of mistakes
in opposing H.P.B.s work, boycotting her and “The Secret Doctrine”, producing
imaginary contacts with Masters and finally giving up Theosophy only to die at
an early age. These actions can be better understood if one takes into consideration that Subba Row was not
the only one to fail in trying to understand the essentially impersonal and
transcendent (i.e. Buddhic) nature of any real contact between
Masters and Disciples.
In a letter to a group of London Theosophists, H.P.B. had already
written in 1887:
“I can do you no good if you yourselves fail to place yourselves in the
atmosphere of Theosophy and the Masters; or rather, if you still fail to sense Them around yourselves - as you have
done so far.” [1]
Such an atmosphere does not need words. The student must strive
to hear his own conscience, instead of hearing words from Masters. One can
infer that this is the basic process with regular chelas too.
Subject to the fire of probation, which even advanced disciples must
face, T. Subba Row began to “get messages from Masters”. These were in reality the
products of his own mind. Such “Masters” told him (in Sanskrit language) what his
lower self would like to hear: that he was so wise and had so many talents that
he should completely reorganize the theosophical movement as he liked best.
Subba Row’s nationalistic pride, which had first made him oppose H.P.B.,
had now become personal pride, and he fell. The loss of common sense in
his lower self quickly led him to make further and equally serious mistakes. This
ended up causing his premature death in 1890, when he was 33 years old.
Perhaps he was protected from a long life of mistakes (whose karma would
have been much worse) by the fact that he was an advanced disciple. His higher
self had to get rid of the lower self who had failed, and so it did.
At the time of Subba Row’s death, H.P.B. wrote a note in her London
magazine, “Lucifer” [2]. Under the
title of “Death of Subba Row”, the short text said:
000
It is with the deepest possible regret and sorrow that
we have to announce the “death” of our learned and gifted brother, T. Subba
Row, B.A., B.L., on June 24th, at the early age of 33 years. There
are few members of the Theosophical Society who have not heard of Subba Row,
the great Vedantin scholar; few readers of the Secret Doctrine who are not familiar with his name, as the talented
author of the Lectures on the Bhagavad
Gita. And yet, with the exception of these lectures and his contributions
to the pages of the Theosophist, as
remarked in the latter journal, he has left scarce any literary monument of his
extraordinary ability.
“Our great Vedantin”, writes Colonel Olcott, “was of
the Nyogi caste of the Smartha (Advaita) Brahmans”, and practiced as a Vakil
(Pleader) of the High Court. Strangely enough he showed little promise in early
days of his extraordinary philosophical ability, and it was not until he made
the acquaintance of H.P.B., H.S.O., and Damodar, in 1882, that he began to
devote himself to metaphysics and Occultism. “It was then as though a store house of occult experience, long forgotten, had
suddenly opened to him . . . his stored-up knowledge of Sanskrit literature
came back to him . . . and if you would recite any verse of Gita,
Brahma-Sutras, or Upanishads, he could at once tell you whence it was taken, and
in what connection employed.”
The cause of his death was a mysterious cutaneous
disease which resulted in a terrible outbreak of boils, of so painful a nature
that all sleep was denied to the sufferer. Karma has mysterious ways of working
out its ends, which to the profane must remain for ever unfathomable. We can
only feel profound regret that such Karma has reached one by whose death Madras
has been deprived of a giant-intellect, and India has lots one of her best
scholars.
May his next rebirth be speedy and his life-span
longer, and, above all, may he be reborn in Aryavarta still.
“Sit tibi terra levis.”
000
4. On the
Transcription
In the following texts, underlined words are thus in the original.
Sometimes, they are underlined with a double line in the transcription made by
Mr. Michael Gomes. We don’t take that into consideration. Words in square brackets,
followed by question marks, are attempts by the transcriber to understand the
original. We add a few explanatory notes.
(Carlos Cardoso Aveline)
NOTES:
[1] “Extract of a
Letter from H.P.B. to a London Group, 1887”, with an introduction by Michael
Gomes, “The Theosophist”, India, July
1988, pp. 386-389, see p. 387.
[2] The word “Lucifer”
is an ancient name for the planet Venus, which has been distorted since the
Middle Ages by ill-informed theologians. The following note by HPB is
reproduced from the August 1890 edition of “Lucifer”, p. 509.
Letters Between Blavatsky and Judge - 12
Helena P. Blavatsky
[Letter One - 1887]
My dearest W.Q.J.
If I thought for one moment that “Lucifer” will “rub out” Path
I would never consent to be its editor. Now listen to me my good old friend:
Once that the Masters have proclaimed your “Path” the best the most theosophical
of all theosophical publications - surely it is not to allow it to be rubbed
out!! I know what I am saying & doing, my “commanding genius”
notwithstanding. To prove this - (which will be proven to you by the first number
of “Lucifer” when you see its polemical contents) I will write every
month regularly for “Path” occult, transcendental & theosophical
articles. I give you my word of honor
of HPB. I will force people to subscribe for Path & this will never
hurt “Lucifer”. One is the fighting combative Manas - the other (“Path”)
is pure Buddhi. Can’t both be
united in an offensive & defensive alliance in one [rupa ?] or Sthula
Sarira - theosophy? “Lucifer”
will be Theosophy militant - “Path” the shining light, the Star of
Peace. If your intuition does not whisper to you - it is so: then that
intuition must be wool-gathering. No Sir, the “Path” is too well, too
theosophically edited for me to interfere. I am not born for meek & conciliating
literature!
Now for C. [1] What I thought
of him I say so still. But he will hence forward have an iron hand upon him
unconsciously to himself. He too, is Theosophy militant & the
General in chief thereon in the U.S. I thought reflected, pondered, till I nearly
became mad. I never thought he would give up the Society in giving up that d____d
Board of Control. But Judge, if you love theosophy & the Cause, if you
would save the unfortunate building, trembling & splitting on all its seams
put that strong indomitable character over the movement. Work
with him be the palliative. But unless we place that Atilla as the
“Angel of the Sword” no one, not even Olcott is up to that task in America. See,
Adyar is collapsing.[2] I just
received another letter from O. [3]
He sends me a letter to him from Cooper-Oakley who brought [the?] Council to
vote for my not returning this year to Adyar. I will send you this specimen of
foul plot & intrigue & you will judge. Beware of C.O.! He is determined
to make away with me & has enrolled Subba Row with him by lies, slanders
& insinuations. Believe me my Son, Hystaspes [4] “Lucifer” & the “Path”, are barely sufficient as an army to
hold in check dark intrigues & plot. They all want to get into my shoes.
May they never hurt their favorite corns!
Be quick, hurry on, whatever you do. Be ready, if you would go to the
end & force by conquering it the kingdom [5] of Heaven .[6] [ ] to
be [ ] chela
[ ] has
to regard [ ] as [ ] guru. Such are the orders.
Yours in haste
HPB
[Letter Two – February 1888]
[Published at “The Path”, February 1888]
000
[ Note by W.Q. Judge, Editor of “The Path” and main
author of the text: ]
The following letter has been sent to Madame Blavatsky
from New York. It is not intended to reflect upon the East Indians as a body in
any way; but solely to show why the signers desire that the Secret Doctrine should not be held back
because some Indian pundits are against it.- [ED.]
000
New York, January
10, 1888.
Madame H.P. Blavatsky,
Respected Chief: - We have just heard that you have been asked
to withdraw from publication the Secret
Doctrine.
This extraordinary request emanates, we are told, from
members of the Theosophical Society, who say that if the book is brought out it
will be attacked or ridiculed by some East Indian pundits, and that it is not
wise to antagonize these Indian gentlemen.
We most earnestly ask you not to pay heed to this
desire, but to bring out the Secret
Doctrine at the earliest possible day.
It is a work for which we, and hundreds of others all
over the United States, have been waiting for some years, most of us standing
firmly on the promise made by yourself that it was being prepared and would
appear.
While the West has the highest regard for the East
Indian philosophy, it is, at the same time, better able to grasp and understand
works that are written by those acquainted with the West, with its language,
with its usages and idiom, and with its history, and who are themselves
westerns. As we well know that it is from the West the chief strength of the
Theosophical Society is to come, although its knowledge and inspiration may and
do reach us from the East, we are additionally anxious that you, who have
devoted your life to this cause and have hitherto granted us the great boon
found in Isis Unveiled, should not
now stop almost at the very point of giving us the Secret Doctrine, but go on with it in order that we may see your
pledge fulfilled and another important stone laid in the Theosophical edifice.
Further, we hasten to assure you that it makes but
small difference - if any whatever - here in the vast and populous West what
anyone or many pundits in India say or threaten to say about the Secret Doctrine,
since we believe that although a great inheritance has been placed before the
East Indians by their ancestors they have not seized it, nor have they in these
later days given it out to their fellow men living beyond the bounds of India,
and since this apathy of theirs, combined with their avowed belief that all
Western people, being low-caste men, cannot receive the Sacred Knowledge, has
removed these pundits from the field of influence upon Western thought.
And lastly, knowing that the great wheel of time has
turned itself once more so that the Powers above see that the hour has come
when to all people, East and West alike, shall be given the true knowledge, be
it Vedantic or otherwise, we believe that the Masters behind the Theosophical
Society and whom you serve, desire that such books as the Secret Doctrine should be written.
We therefore earnestly entreat you not to be moved
from your original purpose and plain pledge that, before passing away from our
earthly sight, you would lay before us the Secret
Doctrine.
Receive, Madame, the assurances of our high esteem and
the pledge of our continued loyalty.
Signed:
WILLIAM Q. JUDGE, J. CAMPBELL VER PLANCK, SAMUEL HICKS
CLAPP, ALEXANDER FULLERTON, EDSON D. HAMMOND, ABNER DOUBLEDAY, GEORGE W. WHEAT,
JNO. W. LOVELL, GEORGE W. SALTER, LYDIA BELL, MRS. J. C. GRIFFIN, ALEX. O.
DRAGICSEVICS, E. H. SANBORN, E. M. TOZIER, E. DAY MACPHERSON, JNO. F. MILLER,
M. D., WILLIAM M. GATES, EMILY G. FLEMING, E. B. GRAY, JR., HADJII ERINN, for himself and 26 others.
[Letter Three - Second Semester of 1888]
My dear Judge,
A few words but most serious. Subba Row, Cooper Oakley N. Cook have
resigned from the T.S. & left Adyar. Olcott with his usual tact having, on
S.R.’s request, to announce this in the Theosophist[7], wrote to say in a brief para “non committal as possible” as he
expresses it, that the reason for it is “the strained relations between him
(S.R.) & yourself” (me!). Well, that’s probably done. All I know is, that
at the first word about S.R. or C.O. or any of them S.R. will come down heavily
upon myself, Olcott & the S. Doctrine. It will be a new
scandal worse than that of Coulomb. It is your address to me in “Path” [8] that broke the last straw. Well I
ask you in the name of the Masters, for my sake & that of the Cause
not to mention their resignations by one single word in “Path.” Let it pass
unnoticed. He is ready to pounce on us, supported by C.O. & N.C. &
others. I will not say one word in Lucifer, just as if he had never existed.
You know that S.R. claimed for the two past years to be in communication with
my Master; actually with M 
!!! That he showed Sanskrit
letters from Him (no handwriting no indiscrete calligraphy - in Sanskrit!) to
himself & translated them to C.O. The letters were to the effect that he,
S.R. had to reform the Society & hinted that I, HPB, had been given
up by the Masters!! C.O. who has chosen S.R. for his guru, who worships him as
does N. Cook, believes in him explicitly. What are the “muslin & bladder Mahatmas”
of the Coulombs compared to such doings!!
!!! That he showed Sanskrit
letters from Him (no handwriting no indiscrete calligraphy - in Sanskrit!) to
himself & translated them to C.O. The letters were to the effect that he,
S.R. had to reform the Society & hinted that I, HPB, had been given
up by the Masters!! C.O. who has chosen S.R. for his guru, who worships him as
does N. Cook, believes in him explicitly. What are the “muslin & bladder Mahatmas”
of the Coulombs compared to such doings!!
Bus, bus [9] - I must
say nothing, however much I may be disgusted. But, as the ranks thin around us,
& one after the other our best intellectual Forces depart to turn bitter
enemies - I say - Blessed are the pure
hearted who have only intuition for intuition is better than
intellect. I will copy your paper [&] send it to you this week.
Yours ever, HPB
NOTES:
[1] Mr. Elliott Coues.
[2] “Adyar is collapsing”. H.P.B. does not refer here to any sort
of political or institutional collapse. It was an ethical collapse, the
collapse of loyalty to truth, to theosophy, and to the Masters that was taking
place. An occult and moral collapse is much more serious than a merely
institutional one.
[3] Henry Olcott.
[4] The transcriber of the letter,
Michael Gomes, reports that Hystaspes was a name Coues had given himself. It’s
a reference to the Persian conqueror Darius Hystaspes. In this passage,
therefore, H.P.B. counts on an alliance between Coues and Judge and says that
even this alliance is hardly strong enough to face the challenges ahead.
[5] “Conquering the kingdom of
Heaven”. This idea appears in
expanded form in the Letter 2 of the Mahatma Letters:
“He who would lift up high the banner of mysticism and
proclaim its reign near at hand, must give the example to others. He must be
the first to change his modes of life; and, regarding the study of the occult
mysteries as the upper step in the ladder of Knowledge must loudly proclaim it
such despite exact science and the opposition of society. ‘The Kingdom of
Heaven is obtained by force’ say the Christian mystics. It is but with armed
hand, and ready to either conquer or perish that the modern mystic can hope to
achieve his object.” (“The Mahatma Letters”, TUP edition, Pasadena, California,
1992, pp. 6-7)
[6] In the following sentence, the transcriber has used
empty square brackets to mark the places where words have been scratched out in
ink.
[7] The transcriber
writes at this point: “The
Supplement to ‘The Theosophist’ for
June 1888, p. xli, carried a brief three line note to the effect that T. Subba
Row and J.N. Cook had resigned their membership in the Theosophical Society.”
[8] See the open
letter published in the February 1888 edition of “The Path” and reproduced
above.
[9] “Bus, bus”. A
note by the transcriber explains that this is a Hindi expression meaning
“enough” or “that will do”.
000
On the role of the esoteric movement in the
ethical awakening of mankind during the 21st century, see the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical Literature”, by
Carlos Cardoso Aveline.
Published in
2013 by The Aquarian Theosophist,
the volume has 255 pages and can be obtained through Amazon Books.
000
