KATINKA HESSELINK COMMENTARY
[Adressed to Fohat, Daniel Caldwell, et al ] (Oct 30):
Hi all,
The below was written without the benefit of the more nuanced supplement to the latest Fohat. The points are still relevant, but I do agree that for readers who aren't aware of the place of Solovyoff in the history of the TS this point should probably have been elaborated. Or in other words: make the issue just a tad bit clearer in either the source-mentioning itself or in a footnote at the end of the book, or something. In reading the book it wasn't clear to me that these letters were probably fabrications. If it isn't automatically clear to me, the same goes for other readers, I'm sure. Especially the kind of critical theosophical historians the editors of Fohat
are worried about are pretty sure to miss the nuances here. A simple introductory to the first of the solovyoff-letters might fix it for many of them and for readers like me. Then at each next letter a note might be added referring to that first introductory note. Something like that. Though fleshing it out like this may feel a bit like overdoing itto the editors. As I am trying to picture it, it feels overdone to me.(thinking out loud here)
Katinka
Original Letter from Katinka (Oct 4):
Hi Daniel,
I strongly agree with you. I haven't yet received the last issue of Fohat, so I don't know why the Solovyof letters should not be included according to the writers of the below quoted letters. Still, the source is mentioned so people who question the veracity of Solovyov, can simply ignore them, whereas others can judge for themselves. I don't think HPB needs to be handled with kid gloves: As long as the reader is informed of both the source of a letter and its reputation amongst researchers, it certainly need not be sensored out. We can think for ourselves! Once a letter is sensored out, the majority of the readers can't find it anymore. Whereas it is very easy to not read a letter that IS included. So when in doubt - letters should be included. Also - from a historical perspective - even letters of which most theosophists do not doubt they are fabrications (the Coulomb letters come to mind) are still interesting. The reader can compare style and content for themselves and see for themselves how different they are.
It is curious to find that in advance people were worried that Algeo might leave OUT sensitive passages. Now that the book is out, he is criticized for leaving IN sensitive letters. Without a doubt it would have been impossible for him to make this book without receiving criticism.
I really fail to see how Algeo could have benefitted from a 'spy letter' in this volume. It is only prejudice and lack of knowledge that places Algeo in an anti-HPB corner in this debate. Algeo has written numerous articles and given numerous classes from the standpoint of a respectful student of HPB. That he has also indulged in lighter articles of the kind that compares HPB to Tolkien for instance, still doesn't make him anything other than Blavatsky-based. In the Adyar-spectrum (which is very wide, including Besant, Leadbeater, Blavatsky, Krishnamurti and I.K.Taimni as major focuss points) Algeo needs to be classed in the Blavatsky-corner.
The Back to Blavatsky movement has left major traces in TS Adyar. Geoffrey Farthing may have failed to get the TS to include a formal statement to the effect that Blavatsky is central to the TS-work, but he and others like him (Barborka, Henk Spierenburg and Sven Eek come to mind) did succeed in bringing HPB back to the centre of theosophical studies within TS Adyar. And it is perhaps necessary to remind readers that Sven Eek and Barborka both published their later works with TS-Adyar publishers. Henk Spierenburg has Point Loma publications as his primary publisher of English books, but is still a regular speaker for the Dutch section and is also a member of TS Adyar.
Just some thoughts,
Katinka Hesselink
Response to Bruce's Letter of Oct 27 (Oct 30):
Hi Bruce,
My objection is not to your disagreeing with Paul, but with the fact that you automatically read motives into his actions and opinions. That there are motives there is not something I disagree with. People are people and usually not saints (I believe one of the Mahatmas made that point as well, somewhere). But why not simply ignore the motives and stick to the facts as presented and known? Is it necessary and helpfull to go into presumed negative motives? I really don't think it is. It takes you into an area of speculation, instead of fact. The fact is: you do not know what Paul Johnsons motives are. Nor do you know what John Algeo's motives are. So why even comment on motives? The facts of the matter are clear enough: it would have been better if these letters had been accompanied with a more fleshed out introduction explaining the suspect nature of the source they come from and the contradictions involved. That's all. Paul would probably agree with that and John Algeo might feel that that would have been a bit forced. But even so, it is quite a reasonable position. Reading motives where you don't know what they are is simply unbrotherly, in my opinion.
As to theosophists living up to ideals, the issue is more difficult than you seem to think. First of all: theosophists too are people first. An ideal is never quite achieved. Also the ideal John Algeo lived up to was completeness - whereas those critical of his being on this project in the first place expected him to fail on that score. Now that he has included everything known from that period, the man is criticised for being too thorough. One can never expect someone else to do a project in precisely the same way that one would have done it themselves. Your plea for using intuition in this case is in my opinion simply inapplicable.
In a work that tries to live up to scientific standards, something one can expect from John Algeo, intuition can only be used if thoroughly founded in fact. Had he used intuition he might have left out crucial passages that you feel he should have left in. Intuition isn't an exact science. And though John Algeo isn't the Besant-based neo-theosophist you seem to think he is, he is still based in the Adyar-TS and therefore has a different vision on what theosophy means than you do. He has different conditioning, to use Krishnamurtian terminology. It seems to me that you write about a 'range' he might have stayed into, but that range is really a point. Stand on the circle, or stand outside of it. He didn't quite make it up to your ideal, so he has to be criticised
... Katinka
RETURN TO COMMENTS ON LETTERS OF HPB, VOL. I