Examining a Book Which Is
A Pot-Pourri of Truth and Lies
Jerome Wheeler
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Editorial Note:
The following article
was first published at the
Canadian
international magazine FOHAT in its Fall
2005 edition, pp.
58-59, and then at “The Aquarian
Theosophist”, in the edition
dated December 2005,
pages 14-16. The text
makes an evaluation of the
book “The
Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky”,
by Daniel Caldwell (Theosophical Publishing
House, T.P.H. /
Quest Books, USA, 2000, 452 pp.).
Jerome Wheeler is the founding-editor of
“The Aquarian
Theosophist”. He
makes a fine examination of the editorial
style followed by
those who attack both Theosophy and H.P.
Blavatsky from
inside the theosophical movement.
(CCA)
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The pot-pourri of lies and
truth which Daniel Caldwell has served up to the public entitled “The Esoteric
World of Madame Blavatsky”, needs a few comments to warn the unwary. This book
has items by Emma Coulomb, Moncure D. Conway, Solovyoff, and Richard Hodgson
scattered in its pages, usually WITH NO WARNING; as if this batch of known
liars were presenting a truthful picture of Madame Blavatsky’s so-called
milieu, or soirées.
Mr. Caldwell is
very careful to tell us about what animated him, and uses H.P.B.’s advice as a
cover for his policy:
“. . . Contrast
alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right value; and unless a judge
compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision.”
(H. P. Blavatsky, “The Theosophist”, July, 1881, p.218)
He even adds that
he wants the reader to be able to compare notes and hear both sides. What is
wrong with that?
Daniel is proud to
say he “CHOSE” the enemies and liars found in his book; that moreover he did
this as a way of creating contrast and thereby arriving at the truth.
But does the use
of evidence in the book actually support this claim?
From the dust
jacket onward the volume takes a parlor-game approach to Madame Blavatsky’s
life. The reader is treated to phenomena, phenomena, and more phenomena until
he is transformed into a veritable thaumaturgical sot, drunk on the wonders of
his emotional thirst for marvels.
Emma Coulomb’s
disgusting description of the Master is presented with the casual almost
offhand comment that it was untrue. Then why present it!!
Again and again
similar incidents of known liars are presented as they were respectable sources
of evidence, though eventually proven untrue.
If you go to the
biography “H. P. B. , The Extraordinary Life . . .”, by
Sylvia Cranston, a heavily documented volume, and look up words like, Coulomb,
Conway, Solovyoff, etc. you will see that Daniel Caldwell is using these
insertions as a way of poisoning the well of available information, of destroying
by innuendo - partly by what he uses for insertions, partly by what he
chooses to leave out.
Remember, Daniel
is presumably following H.P.B.’s advice that -
“Contrast alone
can enable us to appreciate things at their right value; and unless a judge
compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision.”
OK, but is the
reader getting an honest contrast, or a Hall of Mirrors?
If an editor
inserts a single sentence in the beginning of his book that he will be
presenting the views of both enemies and friends, but usually does NOTHING to
say which is which as the items actually turn up, is the editor
presenting contrast or confusion?
What about the
readers? You who have read this book, have you found a page of philosophy? Has
Daniel treated you to H.P.B.’s two-page article describing the rise and fall of
phenomena as part of his contrast¸ so that you, the reader, can hear
both sides? In fact, good reader, did you run across any ethics? Did Daniel
carefully leave out of his book those incidents of phenomena that would show
CONTRAST, that would give another view of this Spiritual Teacher than that
presented by the Conways and the Coulombs - something beyond growing tea-cups
and catching letters?
What about the way
Madame Blavatsky made her voyage to America? In steerage! In the 19th century
only cattle, slaves and immigrants traveled steerage. Was it a normal nightmare,
or an unusually bad one - this steerage trip?
According to
Lloyd’s of London it was an unusually trying voyage. What about the reason she
purchased her steerage ticket?
When purchasing
her first-class ticket, H.P.B. noticed a woman in tears. On asking the problem
she discovered that the lady had been sold bogus tickets. Thereupon H.P.B.
exchanged her first-class ticket for steerage tickets for herself and the woman
with children. Arriving in New York without money H.P.B. used her artistic
talents to survive, making ties and artificial flowers.
The ethical CONTRAST
is left in the shade. Hearing both sides is inconvenient when it
lends wings to the eagle.
In fact, the
greatest phenomena if you are thirsty for real occult phenomena
rather than the type presented in this book is the Theosophical Philosophy. The
18 and plus books written and published by Madame Blavatsky in 15 years, saving
millions of people from skeptical disbelief and the jungle of conflicting
religions is a phenomenon of the first order.
Did Caldwell
recount to you the mysterious phenomena that occurred when H.P.B. was forced
out of India by the betrayal of Col. Olcott [1] and other fair-weather
friends? On the voyage to Italy the Masters went into high gear on behalf of
their betrayed, almost dead, but doggedly loyal AGENT. For you
see, good reader, ingratitude is not one of their vices. Every morning sheaves
of MSS [2] for the forthcoming Secret Doctrine were appearing on her
work area - an area quite bare on retiring.
A book of this
type does not create CONTRAST or aid one to hear both sides of the
story. On the contrary, by ignoring the ethical and the philosophical, you
create a poison stream for future pilgrims, and leave us in a HALL OF MIRRORS.
Every circus has one. They are built by the misuse of contrast.
The dust jacket of
“The Esoteric World of Madame Blavatsky” carries a quote from the
well-known lecturer and editor Joy Mills, as one supporting its publication. If
this is so, I can only conclude that she has not read the contents. If she has,
are we to conclude that this past-president of the American T.S. supports the
practice of mixing lies with truths? Mr. Algeo, the immediate past-president,
has also issued a similar volume of lies mixed in with truths. Is this to be
standard practice in the future for a Society whose motto is “There is no
religion higher than Truth”?
Truth cannot be
permanently stifled by such one-sided efforts. The transmission of real theosophy
will continue as the new cycle gains strength with every passing day.
The detractors may throw up a smoke-screen, BUT THEY CANNOT STOP IT. Those who
planted the causative seed for this new beginning were far too wise to be
hood-winked by the “money-changers.”
Mr. Crosbie
pointed out, in one of his letters, this age-old process of destruction from
within:
“The article made
me think of the way the Jesuits side-tracked Masonry. They entered it, obtained
its secrets, invented ‘higher degrees’ to draw attention from what lay hidden
in the original ones, and gradually made it innocuous and incapable of leading
to the knowledge that they feared. Much that is going on and has gone on in the
. . . . . society has the appearance of leading into innocuous desuetude. This
is the mode of working of Brahmano-Jesuitical forces, and the ordinary thinker
is unable either to perceive, or credit it if warned. It is not believed that
there are Dark Forces and their agents in the world, and that they war within
that which they would destroy; that they dress themselves up in ‘sheep’s
clothing’ so as to be unsuspected.” (“The Friendly Philosopher”,
Theosophy Co., Los Angeles, p. 161)
In the forthcoming
volume (.....) [3] to be issued by
the HPB Defense Fund, there
will be a warning to serious students about such dishonest methods of slanting
history to suit one’s own prejudices.
NOTES:
[1] Or
in Colonel Olcott’s own words: “She kept urging me to take her to a judge, or
solicitor, or barrister, no matter which, for her to file her affidavit and
begin our action [against the Coulombs], but I positively refused (.....). She
fretted and stormed and insisted, but I would not stir from my position, and,
when she threatened to go by herself and ‘wipe this stain off her character,’ I
said that I should, in any case, resign my office and let the Convention decide
between us.” (“Old Diary Leaves”, by Henry S. Olcott, T.P.H.,
India, third series, pp. 197-198.)
Vernon Harrison,
of the Society of Psychical Research, summed up the betrayal most succinctly, a
century later. In discussing the decision not to initiate a court case against
the Coulombs, Dr. Harrison remarks that he cannot exonerate them [the delegates
at the 1883 convention] from failing “to allow their founder [a] fair defense.
They seemed concerned only with saving their own reputations. Whether she was
impostor or not, HPB was entitled to a fair hearing. She never had it. Had she
been allowed the legal and expert help she begged for, both Hodgson and the
Society for Psychical Research would have been in dire trouble,” and the
Coulombs too. (“J’Accuse: An Examination of the Hodgson Report of 1885,”
an essay by Vernon Harrison, at the “Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research”, April 1986, p. 309.) (J. Wheeler)
[2] According
to Dr. Hartmann and those traveling with her.
(J. Wheeler)
[3] Note by the editor: We have updated
this 2005 sentence. “Forthcoming volume” is a reference to the book then
intended as a defence of H. P. B., and which was published in October 2013 by “The Aquarian Theosophist” under the
title of “The Fire and Light of
Theosophical Literature”. (CCA)
000
On
the defence of H. P. Blavatsky and the difference between truth and falsehood
in the esoteric movement, 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
