A Plea for Brotherhood
A challenge has been put forward by Daniel Caldwell, a respected colleague, to come clean on some editorial comments written in the Fall 2004 issue of Fohat. The challenge was at first perplexing as it was uncertain why Daniel was presenting the magazine with a series of straw men to knock down, but when another respected colleague made a few comments (unfortunately off the record), it all became clear as to what was wanted and why. Fohat can only appeal to all that is sacred that it is up to the challenge as the principles that are to be examined are crucial for the future of the Theosophical Cause.First on Daniel's trail of breadcrumbs is the question as to whether base motives have been attributed to John Algeo for the printing of the questionable letters. How can anyone know what motivates John Algeo. The human condition is one in which motivations are often very obscure. The motives of others lie in the dark recesses of their own minds and are for them alone to figure out. For all anyone knows, John Algeo could be the greatest ally that Theosophy has from within the institution that is based in Wheaton. Why should there be any attempt to alienate him?
The editorial clearly identifies Adyar and Wheaton as the problem. Over the last century an organizational culture has grown up in these Theosophical Societies with many secrets to hide (hence the inaccessible archives many researchers complain about), and this culture is self-protective. Their fear is that if the secrets get out, their organizations could face destruction. This is the base motive referred to (the Societies' self-preservation) that members of these organizations have to battle with if they are to do any good. Unfortunately, secrets are poisonous and will ultimately destroy any good that can be done by these organizations. We can see how John Algeo could be in a no-win situation. On the one hand he might desperately be trying to do good by HPB while on the other the organization is trying to limit any information that might get out shedding further light on its unsavory past. The solution to his dilemma is radical and clear: open the archives wide and weather the storm. The first thing that might be asked of John Algeo then is why he does not do this? If this were done, The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky would have been handled much differently and this debate would not be occurring.
To give some basis to the above claims concerning Adyar and Wheaton, consider the following. In his latest book, Krotona of Old Hollywood Volume II, Joseph Ross points to the inaccessibility of certain archives at Adyar and Wheaton:
Lesser depositories such as major public libraries, for example the Huntington Library, University of California, The Philosophical Research Society, and State Library of Victoria, the British Library, the Theosophical Society Library in Pasadena, California Historical Society, and Edmonton Theosophical Society contain a remarkable amount of material that is accessible. E.S. material in The Olcott Library and Research Center, Wheaton, Illinois, is not currently available. The Adyar Esoteric Archives are also closed to research. Some lesser information can be found at the Adyar Library of the Theosophical Society. (p. 502)
Why do Adyar and Wheaton feel compelled to close off parts of their archives? It is because of these types of actions that Edmonton Theosophical Society has made such an effort to collect rare material and republish it -- so that it is not lost to future generations. There has been at least one member of the inner circle of the above Adyar-Wheaton connection who has criticized the president of ETS for this very thing. What are they hiding you might ask?
Let us look to Beatrice Hastings in her periodical publication, New Universe: "Try" where she quotes a reviewer from the Adyar Theosophist, who signs as "J.R.", concerning her Defence of Madame Blavatsky series. The reviewer makes several snooty comments concerning her efforts and then in an offhand manner states, "Mrs. Hastings has no access to the many private documents at Adyar"(No. 3 pp. 3-4). Are the august members of Adyar trying to say that their archives have the material that we need to clear up some or all of the charges, once and for all, against HPB? If so, why don't they come forward with them? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it does not serve their purpose to do so. Then what purpose does the Theosophical Society at Adyar serve? If not the program of theosophy set forth by HPB, then it must have some other purpose that it parades about in the clothing of Theosophy. Perhaps that purpose is the continuation or evolution of the purpose that Alice Cleather identified in her work, H.P. Blavatsky: A Great Betrayal. Cleather's aim in the book was to show:
(a) That under Mrs. Besant's guidance the T.S. has long ceased to represent H.P. Blavatsky's teaching, or the thought of its Founders.
(b) That it is now completely dominated by the deluded, impure, and poisonous ideas of an acknowledged sex pervert, to whom this unhappy and misguided woman believes and openly declares herself to be bound by indissoluble and age-long ties.
(c) That in adopting and conniving at the promulgation of the teachings of this man, and allowing him virtually to control her Society, Mrs. Besant most impiously gives out that she is acting under the orders of the Trans-Himâlayan Masters of Wisdom, and H.P. Blavatsky's directions. (pp. 5-6)
Besant has a lot to answer for in allowing the Society to be used in the way that it was. Read the Society's history and learn its 'glorious' past!
Next, on this trail of breadcrumbs is the point that John Cooper published these controversial letters in his dissertation, and would have printed them in his publicly offered "Letters". If John Cooper, a non-member of any Theosophical Society, published the exact same volume through a private publishing company, it would be much less upsetting. John, for all of his sympathies to the Society, was an outside academic motivated by the concerns of the academic; from him this volume would be excusable. However, John Cooper visited Edmonton Theosophical Society, and a kinder and fairer man there never was. His dissertation, it can be quite certain, contained a strong editorial line that would have given a fair perspective to the letters in question.
The next breadcrumb is left at the doorstep of Boris de Zirkoff, a theosophist who it is claimed was also intent on printing the letters. First of all, although some of Fohat's readers seemed to indicate the letters should not have been included in this volume, I suspect they meant that the letters should not have been included in the way that they were. The letters must be dealt with, as Paul Johnson points out, but it is obvious in this case that they were not handled very prudently. It would have been expected that Boris would have included a strong editorial line with these letters explaining the problems that many have with them. The executor of Boris de Zirkoff's literary estate, Dara Eklund, who provided many of the letters in question to the Society could possibly shine more light on this issue. The Collected Writings provide evidence that this would be the case. An example can be found in the Fall 2004 issue of Fohat where an article ("Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Its Connection to The Theosophical Publication Society") looks at an editorial line that was taken by Boris, and then argues against it. That Boris may have been wrong only shows that no-one is perfect.
The question then, that Daniel has been leading us all to is: Why did the president of one of the major Theosophical bodies publish through a Theosophical publisher a series of dubious letters without commentary that reflect poorly on the spiritual cornerstone and Founder of the Society that he is elected to represent? Political arguments aside, how does this represent the best interests of the Theosophical Cause? Remember, Theosophists are publishing these letters, not academics. Cannot Theosophists plead their own case through their own representatives through their own publishing companies? By not doing so, are they not giving tacit assent to the authenticity of these letters to the entire world? What was John Algeo, or the forces behind John Algeo, thinking? There are much worse letters coming up. Are they going to be exhibited in the same way?
Do not be fooled by Paul Johnson's line that the honest thing to do is to print the letters as they are, and allow people to make up their own minds as to their authenticity (Naturally, the fact that 20 different academics will create 20 different truths with these letters shouldn't alarm Theosophists). Johnson is not a promoter of theosophy, he is an academic, and as such it is better for him and his world to have the letters without attachments. The last thing an academic wants to do is try to undermine arguments before using the material, especially weak and suspect material. An academic would rather waltz in, accept John Algeo's tacit assent of their authenticity and then use them to further muddy the waters. By not appending poison pills to these letters (and there is no better poison than the truth), John Algeo has opened up Blavatsky to a whole new round of attacks. Is it any wonder people are up in arms?
Think of all the work that Daniel Caldwell has done in putting together his web site, and all the work that others have done in putting together works of Theosophical literature. They are hoping that the Letters might attract some more people to their work and instead they open the pages and read a work that is only going to lead to the further character assassination of HPB. Daniel, as a member of the editorial board, must have been both embarrassed by and deeply upset at the lack of editorial comment. It is little wonder that he had such a quick reaction to Fohat's editorial. Caldwell's "Blavatsky Archives" are dedicated to vindicating HPB in the eyes of her detractors and yet here comes another volume published by the Theosophical Society that can only make matters worse. From the Blavatsky Archives web page we read:
It was inevitable that H.P.B. should make enemies on every hand who published slanderous untruths as to her dishonesty, the fraudulence of her psychic phenomena, the non-existence of her Masters, and the worthlessness of Theosophy. But how much of truth is there in these accusations? Careful, detailed research into the primary source documents clearly shows that the attacks on H.P.B. lack a solid basis.
Now here comes the Letters apparently sanctioning all these questionable letters as primary source material. What a let down!
There have been people muttering about a lack of brotherhood in the society and Fohat would like to echo that. Think of the very few people who now enjoy the bright light that shines through works such as The Secret Doctrine, The Mahatma Letters, The Voice of the Silence, and Echoes of the Orient. The only thing between these bright spiritual lights and the mass of humanity is the sullied reputations of Judge, HPB, and the Masters. People look at Theosophy and what they see first is a dark fog that consists of all the crap hurled at the aforementioned over the years. They see this ugly haze, turn away in disgust and look for purer sources. Can anyone blame them? The unfortunate thing is that in order to clear away this haze and allow a suffering humanity in, we are going to have to ruffle each others' feathers in an ungentlemanly manner. Who lacks brotherhood: those fighting for the benefit of all humanity, or those quietly and selfishly accepting the fruits of these great works without concern for others? I know which party is in need of a courageous heart, and heart is what we need now most of all. Our intellects should be clear now as to what the duty is that lies before us.
Again, Beatrice Hastings points to a quotation in the Mahatma Letters, to give credence to the above. When asked "Can you do anything to help on the Society?", Master M. responded:
Want me to speak frankly? Well, I say No: neither yourself nor the Lord Sang-Yias Himself -- so long as the equivocal position of the Founders is not proved due to fiendish malice and systematic intrigue -- could help it on. (p. 254)
There you have it very clearly from a Master. Only after the Founders' names are cleared will the Society once again move forward. Even for those who doubt the existence of the Masters, the plain common-sense truth of the statement rings out. It does not need the verification of the Mahatma to be understood as true.
Sadly, this is only a sparse outline of what has to be said. There is every intention to release a supplement to Fohat filling in some further details and arguments. In the meantime we should all give Daniel Caldwell and the rest of the editorial board our proxies to call on the editor of the Letters and demand an explanation for this ill- advised release. What was the hurry? We have waited many years for this; a few more would not have killed us if it meant that the job would have been done right. May I be the first to offer him my proxy so that he can undergo this task on behalf of "Blavatsky Archives" and all theosophists still loyal to the Cause. To be fair, my "off the record" source has indicated that it is the intent of John Algeo to expand the commentary in future editions of this first volume and in future volumes. We must aid the board in ensuring there is more than intent, that intent results in action, and that that action is the right action. We need strong editorial arguments clearly stating the Theosophical position on these letters. Much of the work is already done, by the likes of Beatrice Hastings, K.F. Vania, and others. These arguments need only be collected, assembled together and then tightened for delivery. The heart of all theosophists should go out to suffering humanity and we should all be working feverishly to clear the Founders' names.
Dallas TenBroeck, Michael Gomes, Jerome Wheeler, and all others who are within earshot of this plea, send in your proxies to arm Daniel, and call on others within your e-mail directories to do the same. Fohat will contact who it can through e-mail and subscription. Give Daniel and the board the means with which to breach this thickening fog, and I for one will be at the head of the wave that rushes by these courageous souls to disperse and keep dispersing this unwholesome fog until it is gone forever. Lead on Daniel, LEAD ON!
Contact Daniel Caldwell with your encouragement at: danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com