In 1966, the
Leaders of the Adyar Society
Discuss Their
Tampering With Their Own Books
Carlos Cardoso Aveline
Ms. Radha Burnier (right) talks to Ms. Clara Codd
(left) during
the 1966 World Congress of the Adyar Society in
Salzburg. Photo
reproduced from “The Theosophist”, Adyar, October 1976
edition, p. 16.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The following text reproduces Chapter
Seventeen
of the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical
Literature”,
by Carlos Cardoso Aveline, The
Aquarian Theosophist, Portugal, 255
pp., 2013.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
As we
have seen in Chapter 10, ethical problems involving editorial policies within
the theosophical movement started in the 1890s, when Annie Besant published her
own version of “The Secret Doctrine”. We also saw that editorial mistakes were
not always about the founder of the theosophical movement. We will now observe
how one lie needs more falsehoods to be disguised and to resist for a longer
period of time: one fraud leads to another.
Decades ago, in a Conference in Austria, leaders from
different national sections of the Adyar Society openly discussed the editorial
policy of changing the originals of theosophical books. This time, it was in
order to avoid embarrassment and to “adapt” the books to the changing winds of
public opinion.
It was also as a result of such an editorial strategy
that Charles Leadbeater’s astral visits to Mars and Mercury disappeared from his
books. The closed meeting occurred during the World Congress of the
Theosophical Society held in Salzburg, in the summer of 1966.
In July 19 and 20, General Secretaries (national
presidents) from all over the world and a few invited persons held a conference
on “Presentation of Theosophy”. The international president, N. Sri Ram,
chaired the meeting. Extracts of the proceedings were published in “The
Theosophist” one year later. Its publication can be interpreted as an act of
resistance, if not moderate denunciation. From reading the published text, one
observes some central facts:
1) There is a general assumption among those present
that in the 1960s no one is able to write significant books on Theosophy.
2) Since no one can write, some members of the
Conference take for granted that they have the right to tamper with older texts
as they please, as long as it is done “for the good of the cause”.
3) The main “problem” was that the books by C.W.L. and
A. Besant were getting embarrassingly outdated, as many statements in them were
already clearly false.
4) The proposition of such an “editing” policy came from
members of the Adyar TS in the U.S.A.
5) From India, N. Sri Ram and his daughter Radha Burnier
(then India’s Secretary General) clearly resist the idea. A fact illustrates
this deep difference of views. During the conversation, N. Sri Ram ironically
asks whether the “text reformers” intend to re-write “The Voice of the
Silence”, too. That absurd suggestion was a joke - yet it was not taken as such,
and Sri Ram had to calmly explain to people that it was “not meant seriously”.
6) The very publication of the proceedings in the
magazine “The Theosophist” seems to show that Mr. Sri Ram, the international
president, was not happy with the idea of tampering with the texts.
Let’s see now a few excerpts from the proceedings. By
the end of each quotation, I give the page of the Adyar magazine which is my
source.[1]
Sri Ram opens the meeting and makes some general
remarks. After that, Mr. Felix Layton (USA) takes the floor. Among other
propositions, Mr. Layton says: “(...) Then there is the question of improving
the appearance of our books and up-dating them, eliminating references to a
World-Teacher, etc.” (p. 214)
Mr. Leslie-Smith, from England, says he generally
agrees with Felix Layton. But Geoffrey Farthing, also from England, points to a
fundamental problem in the theosophical literature:
“Then as regards the particular truths we claim to
have, there are some ideas in our literature which present grave
contradictions. I do not propose there should be crystallized dogmas. But as
regards the marginal truths, apart from truths like Reincarnation and Karma,
e.g., the nature of life after death, what was said in the middle period literature contradicts ‘The Mahatma Letters’.” (p.
215)
“Middle period literature” is, of course, a reference
to the literature of the Leadbeater/Besant period. To that, Mr. Sri Ram reacts
with his usual relativism, and says:
“As for Reincarnation, it may also be considered
marginal by some people. Whether it is marginal or central depends on one’s
understanding of himself. (…..) Some think Reincarnation and Karma are on the
circumference, some think in the centre. Perhaps they are somewhere in
between.” (pp. 215-216)
A few commentaries.
Sri Ram’s relativism in the above quotation, as he
says that the Law of Karma “may be” unimportant, is rather far-fetched. In the
opening of the Letter 10, in the Mahatma Letters[2] , the Master defines Occultism as the knowledge of the causes
by their effects, and of the effects by the study of their causes. Occultism is
therefore the study and knowledge of the karmic law, as it works in Nature and
in Man.
One reason for such a strained intellectual relativism
in Adyar was that Sri Ram was fond of Krishnamurti, and Krishnamurti openly
ignored the theosophical teachings on Karma and Reincarnation, besides
rejecting central concepts like Adepthood or Discipleship. By means of his
radical ambiguity, Sri Ram was in fact trying to keep a sort of political
harmony. He just wanted to reconcile different views about Theosophy.
Although such a policy dates to Annie Besant, it was
somewhat perfected in the 1930s by C. Jinarajadasa, who in 1934 had taken
responsibility for the “inner” or esoteric section of the Adyar Society. The matter of the fact is that truthfulness
is the only lasting foundation for brotherhood. All attempts to keep harmony
through the use of ethical and political ambiguity must end in hypocrisy, as
History has shown.
Since the 1930s, there have been three main currents
in the Adyar Society:
1) The students of HPB and the Masters, whose
inspiration is in the “classical” period (1875-1891);
2) The Leadbeater/Besant ritualistic devotees, who are
mainly inspired by the “middle period” (1894-1934); and
3) The followers of Krishnamurti, who gradually gain
strength in the later period (from the 1930s).
Jinarajadasa’s strategy consisted in a relativistic
acceptance of these three currents of thought, while preserving the centralized
power-structure created by Leadbeater. The top-down structure was based in
Leadbeater’s “clairvoyant” ritualisms - namely Christian messianism, Masonry
and pseudo-theurgy, alongside with the popish version of the Esoteric Section
which HPB had created in 1888.
It is in this context that, during the 1966 Salzburg
meeting, Geoffrey Farthing (clearly a Blavatsky student) mentioned the deep
contradiction existing between Leadbeater/Besant literature and the HPB/Masters
teachings.
There was a great difference between the two
teachings, and it was the Besant/Leadbeater literature which needed urgent
changes. HPB students could easily see how deep and lasting was their
“classical” literature. Krishnamurti followers in India - the most recent of the
three currents of thought - also were not worried about changes in literature.
But North-Americans cared much more about Leadbeater and Besant, and they were
in a hurry to have changes in their texts.
Thinking of the wider public, Miss Helen Zahara (USA)
candidly says:
“People are going less and less to lectures. Our
greatest contact is probably through literature. We should make a concerted
effort in relation to having books written in a contemporary style. Even while
the literature of the past is represented, it could be revised and the dogmatic
statements eliminated. Could we have a concerted effort between the Sections to
tap writing talent for editing work and improving our literature? The sales of
books are increasing and there is less attendance at meetings.” (p. 216)
Ms. Zahara seems to have forgotten a few facts.
Tampering with originals is intellectually dishonest. Each new generation has
the right to write its own books, but it has also the duty to preserve the best
books of older generations, and to accept the fact that bad books deserve
oblivion.
The meeting is now getting to the crux of the matter,
and N. Sri Ram answers to Helen Zahara:
“The Theosophical Publishing House in England has just
brought out a summary of The Secret
Doctrine. This is along the lines suggested. However, we must take care, in
our editing and revising, not to destroy the meaning and beauty of the
original. If The Secret Doctrine were
re-written in modern language, the depths would have gone.” (p.216)
A little later, Mr. Felix Layton takes the floor
again:
“I agree with Sri Ram about the danger of changing any
of our literature. But I hope this Conference will come to an agreement or form
a competent committee to get something started. There must be something concrete
as a result of this Conference.” (p. 217)
To this, Sri Ram firmly replies:
“This Conference is not meant to come to any
particular agreement to be implemented by all Sections, but to discuss and
produce more enlightenment in the minds of those present. It will depend on the
Sections what they would implement. We must be clear what kind of revision or
‘up-dating’ we want, so that it does not destroy the spirit of the original
work.” (pp. 217-218)
John Coats, from the European Federation[3], says:
“Is it possible for Mr. Layton to suggest some book on
which a person or persons might start work and produce the sort of result they
have in mind? Then that could be submitted to the President and others. We will
always have our old books for reference.” (p. 218)
To which Sri Ram adds a question:
“The Voice of
the Silence?” (p. 218)
Mr. Coats takes it seriously and explains:
“No, I mean certain valuable books written fifty years
ago, which mention the World Teacher’s coming and that is not of interest
today.” (p. 218)
Sri Ram has to clarify:
“My suggestion regarding The Voice of the Silence was not meant seriously.” (p. 218)
Mrs. Radha Burnier raises an ethical question[4]:
“What is implied by this revising and re-editing? For
instance, a book of Dr. Annie Besant revised and printed in her name would not be fair to her.” (p. 218)
And Miss Joy Mills[5]
tries to explain the “practical need” for tampering with the texts:
“(...) In the United States we use shorter sentences
nowadays. Dr. Besant uses long ones. And many references in the old books are
no longer applicable. We could perhaps form an editing Committee to give such
books more ‘punch’ in the modern world. We must present the eternal in a
contemporary setting. It is not intended to change what is magnificent and
beautiful, but only to take out contemporary references of fifty years ago[6] and put in contemporary references
of today.” (p. 218)
Mr. Leslie-Smith, from England, then poses an
embarrassing question:
“Surely if Theosophy is alive in us we should be able
to produce our own literature. Could we not, in groups, produce up-to-date
literature suitable for the modern generation, until a great writer appears?”
(pp. 218-219)
Mrs. Nairn is now led to a logic conclusion:
“If we begin to tamper with the writings of Dr. Besant
and others, we might run the risk of losing valuable literature. We should be
able to distill our own wisdom out of these books and re-present it.” (p. 219)
And Mr. Leslie-Smith adds more fuel to the
contradictory dialogue:
“To give a bit of history: About fifteen or twenty
years ago a group asked me to take two books of Annie Besant and edit them. I
tried to do it. What I did was to leave her words, but perhaps only half of
them, just as in ʻAn Abridgement of The
Secret Doctrineʼ. I presented it, and later was told that if we do this, we
take away the real spirit that Dr. Besant put into this. I am in full sympathy
with Mr. [Felix] Layton about new
literature, and group work might be able to produce it. If so, ONE person must
be responsible for the final editing. However, one must be careful. A modern
version of ‘Hamlet’ would not be very valuable.” (p. 219)
Professor J. Meyer-Dohm (Germany):
“I feel re-writing old authors is not the right thing,
but could we not add an introduction to the works of classical authors, with
explanatory remarks?” (pp. 219-220)
Against any obstacles, Mr. Geoffrey Hodson (New
Zealand), supports the North-Americans proposition:
“Our members apparently are in favor of a
modernization of such Theosophical literature as needs it. Statements in
earlier books which no longer apply or are false should no longer be presented
from our book-stalls [7].” (p. 221)
Mr. James Perkins (international vice-president) tries
to come back to reality. He says:
“Re-writing classical works is not necessarily the
thing to do. Every student must have the source-material untouched. It would be
an error of ignorance to re-write under the same title and with the same name
the material originally put there. If Dr. Besant spoke of a World Teacher, we
should keep this in the context of the time when it was said, the audience
addressed, and the inner urge playing through her, what it revealed. We should
not touch any of this. We can re-write in the sense that we can WRITE books
based on original works. This demands creative writing, devotion to the cause,
delicacy, perceptivity, and reference to the source.” (pp. 221-222)
Yet Mr. Geoffrey Hodson insists in the need for taking
out any “embarrassing portions”:
“I think what is needed is less re-writing of our
valuable earlier literature than perhaps elision, taking out that which does
not apply.” (p. 222)
The word “elision” was certainly an extreme
understatement made by Hodson. The term means only “the omission of a vowel, a
consonant or syllable in pronunciation”, while Mr. Hodson meant much more than
that. He wanted the omission of all
absurdities which were already obvious in the Leadbeater/Besant literature,
while preserving all absurdities which were still not obvious to the public.
By now it was about time to end the meeting, and N.
Sri Ram tried to get to some conclusions:
“(...) There can be no objection to a summary or
abridgement of an old work which does not change the language of the writer and
is not summarized in such a way as to leave out material portions and give a
wrong idea. We can say in the preface that this is an abridgement. That will
not be tampering. What we object to is anything that would change the thought
of the writer. There may be in just a few words a very deep meaning.” (p. 223)
In the proceedings of the conversation, one can see
the clear difference in editorial views between USA leaders (with some support
from England and New Zealand) and India-based leaders (Sri Ram, Radha Burnier
and the vice-president James Perkins).
The same difference materialized again some forty
years later with the publication of “The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky, volume I”,
as we will see in the next Chapters. Some of the Adyar TS leaders in the USA
seem to have a decades-old tendency to act as Sophists, by freely adapting to
their own short-term interests whatever they say or publish, and even what
others wrote long time before.
Perhaps they ignore that there is a huge difference between
Sophists and Theosophists. Students of the ancient esoteric science are
“Philosophers” in the classical sense of the term. Both theosophists and
philosophers are “Friends of Truth and Wisdom”. As they challenge Sophistry,
they must pay the price for their truthfulness. This is called “probation
path”.
Paradoxically, the oceanic difference between Sophists
and Theosophists is rather difficult to discern, because Sophists act in a
disguised way, often combining unconscious self-delusion with the conscious use
of intellectual ambiguity.
In his Dialogues Protagoras
and Sophist, Plato describes in the
most eloquent terms the challenging contrast between Wisdom and Sophistry.
These two Dialogues help explain the ethical problems the theosophical movement
must face and solve in the 21st century.
In Sophist,
for instance, Theaetetus says:
“Yet the Sophist has a certain likeness to our
minister of purification [id est, the
philosopher].”
And a Stranger answers:
“Yes, the same sort of likeness which a wolf, who is
the fiercest of animals, has to a dog, who is the gentlest.” [8]
Having examined editorial policies adopted by the
theosophical movement during the 19th and 20th centuries, we must
now observe the state of the chessboard
during the present century. [9]
NOTES:
[1] “The Theosophist”, Adyar, Madras (Chennai), India,
vol. 88, July 1967, pp. 211-225. The title of the text is “The Presentation of
Theosophy”.
[2] Letter number 10 in the T.U.P. Edition
(Pasadena) and the T.P.H. Adyar edition of “The Mahatma Letters”. It is Letter
88 in the Chronological Edition (TPH-Philippines).
[3] John Coats was later to be the international president
of the Adyar Society, from 1973 until his death in December 1979.
[4] N. Sri Ram’s daughter, Ms. Radha was elected as the
Adyar international president in 1980.
[5] Joy Mills was the international vice-president during
John Coats’ term in the presidency (1973-1980).
[6] “Fifty years ago” - that confirms they are
talking about the books by Besant and Leadbeater, not HPB literature.
[7] Mr. Hodson himself wrote about human civilizations on
the physical plane in Mercury and Mars. In this he followed the lines of C.W.
Leadbeater’s imaginary clairvoyance. G. Hodson also considered himself a
clairvoyant.
[8] “Sophist” [231], in “The Dialogues of Plato”, Great
Books of the Western World, Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Chicago/London/Toronto, 1952, 814 pp., see p. 559.
[9] An initial version of the above Chapter was first
published as an article at “Fohat” magazine, Canada, Fall 2006 edition, at the
pages 64, 65, 66 and 71. Original title: “In 1966, Adyar Leaders Openly Discuss
Tampering With Their Own Literature”.
000
In September 2016, after a careful analysis of the state of the
esoteric movement worldwide, a group of theosophists decided to form the Independent Lodge of Theosophists,
whose priorities include the building of a better future in the different
dimensions of life.
000
