The first study from
an apologetic perspective as he himself admits were published one decade ago by
K. Paul Johnson where he initially stated that Blavatsky primarily modeled the
Masters upon actual people she had known and who had a great personal influence
on her in one way or another. Her Johnson distinguishes thirty-two historically
identifiable individuals as variously serving as prototypical models or sources
of inspiration for Blavatsky's creative embellishment.
Johnson suspends
judgment about such possible speculation and only concentrates on the
historical facts as best he can ascertain. His own hypotheses however are often
based on speculative leaps and logical inferences, at times connecting people
and events only through circumstantial evidence or conjecture. However, the
overall portrayal of Blavatsky's influences, teachers, sponsors, does merit
serious consideration in hypothesising about the
sources of her belief in, and portrayal of, the Masters.
If Madame Blavatsky
wanted to disguise or protect actual historical personages as Johnson suggests,
then incorporating what information was deemed important into the broader
ideational edifice was a matter of creative literary construction and careful
exposition, with clever concealment of sensitive data. He says that his theory
is not exhaustive, implying that there are other factors than the historical,
which collectively contribute to the final theosophical image of the Masters.
Johnson's efforts are specialised, concentrating only
on what can be discerned from the historical records about the possible
identities of the Masters.
Thus Johnson’s list
of direct and indirect contacts, friends, associates, teachers, and influences
reveals a wide source of possible models and prototypes for the finished
theosophical portrayal of the Masters. However, whatever the possible degree of
accuracy or error in Johnson's speculation, he himself concludes that the
historical dimension will unavoidably be blended with other constructive
factors. This is his assessment.
In fact, HPB' s life
provided continued encounters with spiritual teachers of various traditions
and nationalities. Her pilgrimage took her from Masonic Masters to Sufi
sheikhs, from Kabbalah to Vedanta, from Spiritualism to Buddhism in no
particular order. From early childhood to the end of her life, she was
constantly adding to her store of occult learning. Her Theosophy was a
brilliant synthesis of elements from dozens of unrelated sources. But she
mythologized her search for the Masters in such a way that her real quest
remained secret. Due to her adolescent fascination with the mysterious world of
occult Masonry, in which hidden Masters sent unquestioned orders from unknown
Oriental locations, she presented her experiences according to an elaborate
hierarchal model. In truth, her Masters constituted not a stable hierarchy but
an ever-evolving network.
Johnson's
acknowledgment that the theosophical presentation of the Masters may be based
on a fusion of different contributing elements still presumes that the
historical component is the root source of the composite. The
"ever-evolving network" primarily consists of the influences of real
people. This perspective, while illuminating and valuable, is one ofthe three major positions. We have already discussed the
orthodox theosophical vantage point, where the Masters are envisioned as part
of a grand hierarchal cosmic operation. The historical position of Johnson
accounts for people, events, diverse relationships and forms of human
interaction that strongly impressed Madame Blavatsky. And which collectively,
once treated through Blavatsky's creative faculties, may have contributed to
the personalisation of the image given to the
Masters.
A second
perspective has mostly been adopted by critics, both in depth where discussed,
and more commonly, in the superficial and casual stereotyping based on public
gossip and innuendo. That vantage point sees the Masters as purely or primarily
imaginative figures, with little or no historical substance. There in fact are
two versions of this perspective. The first is more hostile and accusatory,
claiming that the fiction was perpetuated mostly deliberately and consciously,
to further ulterior ends. The second would more likely equate the imaginative
creation of the Masters to largely unconscious or spontaneous processes and
motives. As well, opinions from these perspectives are not necessarily mutually
exclusive, as both unconscious and conscious factors could together produce the
kind of fictional product claimed by such critics.
There is no doubt
though, that in the history of the theosophical movement, the most serious,
far-reaching, and damaging accusations of intentional fraud came from the
investigation conducted by Richard Hodgson on behalf of the Society for
Psychical Research in 1884 as seen above. That investigation, and the questions
surrounding the origins and composition of the alleged communication by the
Masters to Society functionaries and associates (mostly the so-called
"Mahatma Letters" and other similar productions) polarized many in
the Society and further tarnished the public reputation of Blavatsky and the
movement. The explicit conclusions of fraud by Hodgson provoked a still active
defense based upon a different reading of events, as well as
counter-accusations of premeditated motives of revenge, an incompetent
investigator, and use of unreliable evidence.14 In the end, faith in Madame
Blavatsky's version of events and a point-by point refutation based on
criticism of the motives and methods of the accusers and the investigator
eventuated in further entrenching polarised
positions. The devout believers kept their faith, and claimed a
counter-conspiracy, based on motives of revenge, while the sceptics rested
their case on belief in Hodgson's original charge of a conspiracy initiated by
Blavatsky of manipulation and fraud.
Madame Blavatsky's
verbal and written assurances of personal connection to the Masters provided an
initial impetus of extraordinary and special credibility for the ideas and
beliefs she was proposing, and helped gain a degree of public interest and
attention. The importance of the idea of the Masters was substantiated by
claims that Blavatsky herself was in communication with them and directly
acting on their orders. This statement reflects that captivation of interest in
the early formative years of the movement.
H.P.B. in her first
challenges to public thought hinted at the existence of great and wise Men, who
are possessed of super-human knowledge and power. Presently she began to write
of a Great Brotherhood of such wise Men, with some of Whom she was in constant
touch... Visitors to H.P.B. soon became aware that in and through her were
displayed unusual phenomena, the power to accomplish which she attributed to
one or more of Those to Whom as Teachers, she looked for guidance, and Whom she
served with such intensity of purpose. Madame Blavatsky thus initially
established her own authoritative basis of credibility by claiming a real
relationship to the Masters that entailed the production of extrasensory
phenomena at hers and their discretion. However, to the coterie of early Society
associates, supporters, and workers who dealt with her directly or were
considered potentially valuable allies, the desire for continued direct and
tangible evidence and proof of the Masters existence persisted. During the
growth phase of the movement, there appeared a steady stream of seemingly
inexplicable phenomena alleged to be directly or indirectly produced by or
attributable to her or the Masters. These included alleged materialisations
and psychic delivery of messages to selected persons in diverse locations. As
well, what were thought to be similar sudden, secretive, unexpected and
mysterious appearances by the Masters themselves (or their "signs")
were also testified to on some occasions. For the most part, the significant
objects that were of most importance were allegedly produced by an occult
process of production called "materialization," in which tangible
objects seemingly appear and coalesce out of the air. The most frequent of
these items included letters, often addressed to important societal figures
like Colonel Olcott and A. P. Sinnett. Others who
were involved on a shorter-term basis were also occasional recipients or
observers of such messages and signs, believed to be coming from the Masters.
Blavatsky's explanation was that they were "precipitated" directly
by, or on the orders of, the Masters. Messages to Olcott and Sinnett were much more frequent and sustained, while most
communications to others occurred during particular moments when they were
actively involved with specific critical issues pertaining to the Society.16
The contents of most of these letters dealt with both abstract theoretical and
philosophical questions, as well as opinionated commentary concerned with the
minutiae of the society. The individually addressed letters were personal in
tone, often referring to private concerns and questions of the recipient. The
most well known of these letters were compiled and
classified as The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett,
and have been the object of extensive scrutiny and analyses from first
appearance until the present day.
A number of
incongruities, inconsistencies, and suspicions about the authenticity of these
letters and other manifestations arose and were voiced in due course. One case
involved what appeared to be an act of direct plagiarism on the part ofthe Masters. An article written by Mr. Henry Kiddie and
published in the spiritualist journal The Banner of Light was later reproduced
virtually verbatim in one of the letters from a Master. At first this was
dismissed as irrelevant, but when demand for an explanation persisted, a
response was forthcoming. The obtuse, laboured, and
convoluted explanation given in another Mahatma letter is a cleverly crafted
exercise in excuse making. Written with a seeming air of nonchalance, the blame
is attributed to a combination of carelessness, imperfect psychic operational
procedure, and accidental transference of words.
The letter in
question was framed by me while on a journey and on horse-back.
It was dictated
mentally, in the direction of, and "precipitated" by, a young chela
not yet expert at this branch of Psychic chemistry, and who had to transcribe
it from the hardly visible imprint. Half of it, therefore, was omitted
and the other half more or less distorted by the "artist." When asked
by him at the time, whether I would look it over and correct I answered,
imprudently, I confess-"anyhow will do, my boy-it is of no great
importance if you skip a few words." I was physically very tired by a ride
of 48 hours consecutively, and (physically again)-half asleep. Besides this
I had very important business to attend to psychically and therefore
little remained of me to devote to that letter. It was doomed, I suppose. When
I woke I found it had already been sent on, and, as I was not then anticipating
its publication, I never gave it from that time a thought...
Two factors are
needed to produce a perfect and instantaneous mental telegraphy-close
concentration in the operator, and complete receptive passivity in the
"reader"-subject. Given a disturbance of either condition, and the
result is proportionately imperfect. The "reader" does norsee the image as in the "telegrapher's"
brain, but as arising in his own. When the latter's thought wanders, the
psychic current becomes broken, the communication disjointed and incoherent. In
a case such as mine, the chela had, as it were, to pick up what he could from
the current I was sending him and, as above remarked, patch the broken bits
together as best he might ... So I, in this instance, having more vividly in my
mind the psychic diagnosis of current Spiritualist thought, of which the Lake
Pleasant speech was one marked symptom, unwittingly transferred that
reminiscence more vividly than my own remarks upon it and deductions therefrom.
So to say, (the "despoiled victim's"-Mr. Kiddie's utterances) came
out as a "high light" and were more sharply photographed (first in
the chela's brain and thence on the paper before him, a double process and one
far more difficult than "thought reading" simply) while the rest-my
remarks upon and arguments-as I now find, are hardly visible and quite blurred
on the original scraps before me...
Well, as soon as I
heard of the charge-the commotion among my defenders having reached me across
the eternal snows-I ordered an investigation into the original scraps of the
impression. At the first glance I saw that it was
I, the only and most
guilty party-the poor little boy having done but that which he was told...
I transcribe them with my own hand this once, whereas the letter in your
possession was written by the chela. I ask you also to compare this
hand-writing with that of some of the earlier letters you received from me.
Bear in mind, also
the "O.L.'s" emphatic denial at Simla that
my first letter
had ever been written by myself I felt annoyed at her gossip and remarks
then; it may serve a good purpose now.
In this explanation,
a complex chain of causal factors, especially the difficulties of occult
transmission methods, are proposed. As well, the fallibility of human conduct
also is blamed for the mistake. Other suspicions about such purported Mahatma
letters included questions about inconsistencies in handwriting, or the methods
of delivery and reception. Blavatsky consistently claimed that the communications
were legitimate messages from the Masters, and developed a standard explanation
with some minor variations. Her story echoed the basics of the explanation
proffered by Master Morya in the last citation. This
was that the Masters expressed their thoughts indirectly or directly via the
occult means most appropriate at the moment. This involved telepathically
imprinting their thoughts directly onto paper or fIrst
transmitting them psychically to a chela, who later would commit them to
writing. Madame Blavatsky herself often claimed to be the psychic amanuensis,
serving as the passive receptacle to the thoughts ofthe
Master, who transmitted them through the ether, onto the permanent psychic
database of cosmic memory, or "akashic record," where she could fIrst cognise their content, and
then translate them to words and transcribe them herself. Delivery of these
letters usually was via the process of psychic osmosis called precipitation, in
which occult techniques defying the constraints of space and time were used to
disassemble and reassemble the atoms of the letter. Often these messages would
seemingly appear out of thin air, found dropping from ceilings, hidden under
cushions, behind other objects, in unusual or unexpected locations. And at
times, they seemed to display foreknowledge and private information about the
intended recipient. Sinnett was the benefIciary of many of those letters, and confessed that
the entire process was not the unequivocal and indisputable form of
communication he had envisaged. He noted that Madame Blavatsky often played a
direct role in the production of the letters.
The letters were not,
in the beginning, what I imagined them to be - letters actually written by the
Master and then forwarded by occult means either to Madame Blavatsky or
deposited somewhere around the house where I should fInd
them. They were certainly inspired by Koot Hoomi (all in the beginning bore his signature) but for the
most part, if not always, were dictations to a competent clairaudient
amanuensis, and Madame Blavatsky was generally the amanuensis in question.1
Such phenomena and
explanations provoked cynicism and suspicion, or reverence and awe, depending
on the perspective of the individual. However, the onus on Blavatsky to prove
that she was not the primary originating source of those communications
became much more urgent after public accusations of fraud. A former
acquaintance ftom Egypt, Emma Coulomb and her husband
Alexis, accused her of being the mastermind of a hoax in which they were
accomplices doing her bidding.2 In desperate financial straits, they had sought
help ftom Blavatsky, and had been reluctantly hired
as household workers at the Theosophical Society headquarters at Adyar, India.
In their accusations, they claimed that Blavatsky had engineered a number ofthe phenomena attributed to the Masters, and revealed
details about the alleged method of operations. As well, they discussed a
wooden cabinet built by Mr. Coulomb adjacent to Blavatsky's living quarters at
Adyar. They alleged that manipulative mechanisms were used in deceiving
visitors into believing that occult forces were operative. These included the
building of secret compartments and false walls, the use of cracks in ceilings
to drop letters ftom, and so forth. Another claim
they made was that an improvised human-shaped bust manipulated on a pole was
constructed on Blavatsky's orders and used under certain difficult lighting
conditions to convey the appearance of a materialised
Master. This Mahatma replica was referred to as "Christfolo,"
and allegedly brought out at opportune moments to reinforce impressions and
suggestions of occult visitations. As well, the Coulombs' confessed to using
other accomplices and methods of operation during their tenure with Blavatsky.
She however categorically denied all accusations and claimed that all the
stories had been fabricated, based on motives of resentment and jealousy.
Theosophical supporters pointed out that the couple had a history of
impropriety and were also working in conjunction with local missionaries, known
enemies ofBlavatsky and eager to discredit her.
Critics ofBlavatsky countered by accusing her of
calculated deceit.
While this conflict
was unfolding, the Society for Psychical Research sent firsttime
investigator Richard Hodgson to investigate the situation. After a methodical
but controversial examination (his first for the Society), Hodgson concluded
that Blavatsky had indeed been the perpetuator of ftaud.
He opined that the Masters were mere imaginative fictions, invented by Blavatsky,
who, with other co-conspirators, set about the process for the purpose of
deception.
The moralising may be left to the reader, who will see how
collusion with a few confederates has been sufficient for the generation of a
large mass of Theosophical phenomena, and who will no doubt be wondering what
has induced Madame Blavatsky to live so many laborious days in the fantastic
work of imposture we have exemplified. This last problem was much more
difficult of determination than the problem of how the Mahatma letters were
integrated. Was the Theosophical Society but the aloe blossom of a woman's
monomania? Was this strange, wild, passionate, unconventional being
"finding her epos" in the establishment of some incipient world
religion? Such a hypothesis was strongly negatived upon a better understanding
of her character. There are forms of personal sacrifice and aspiration, the
absence of which from Madame Blavatsky's conduct absolutely precluded any
classifications where she might appear as belonging to the St. Theresa type.
She is indeed a rare psychological study, almost as rare as a Mahatma (with
whom she confused herself on one occasion, saying, "I had to correct"
instead of "The Mahatma had to correct"). She was terrible exceedingly
when she expressed her overpowering thought that perhaps her "twenty
years' work" might be spoiled through Madame Coulomb, and she developed a
unique resentment for the "spiritualistic mediums" whose trickeries
she "could so easily expose," but who continued to draw their
disciples while her own more guarded and elaborate scheme was in danger of
being turned inside out. And I dare prophesy that the Theosophical Society will
survive any process of turning, notwithstanding Madame Blavatsky's own sad
utterance concerning herself that she was "played out." See:
Hodgson's report was
detailed, entailing two hundred pages, mostly devoted to investigation of the
handwriting of selected Mahatma letters, the physical quarters at Adyar,
interviews with Blavatsky, members, associates, critics, and accusers. It seems
though his conclusions were to some degree conditioned by his personal
impression of Blavatsky, whom he saw as a "rare psychological study."
A seeming lack of empathy with her ambitions perhaps left him at a loss to
account for the motives of ' 'the wild, passionate unconventional being"
In trying to determine the grounds for her behaviour
and comprehend her persona, he was forced to veer away from more obvious lines
of hypothesis and grasp for speculative explanations. His instincts led him to
deduce a theory in which Madame Blavatsky was believed to be a Russian spy. By
trying to make an argumentative link between Blavatsky's reactions to, and
commentary on Russian current affairs, and the pattern of her past travels, he concluded
that her activities were motivated by unknown political ends. Such logic has
been used as an example of his fallacious reasoning and prejudice. At the time
though, it was not altogether an unreasonable line of speculation given
Blavatsky's intentional mystification about her past, her sympathetic (and
often patriotic) references to Russian life, and some of her politically active
acquaintances. However, the mass of investigative data compiled by Hodgson does
not necessarily depend on this line of speculative reasoning to make a case
suggesting episodes of fraud. And accusing Hodgson of a premeditated vindictive
agenda seems a somewhat simplistic dismissal of his work. Before he began his
investigation it was surmised that he approached his task with a
non-confrontational attitude. Hodgson had been recognised
as at least vaguely sympathetic or neutral to the theosophical orientation
beforehand, and even was considered to be acting without malice by Blavatsky in
the course of his questioning.
In all fairness to
Hodgson, it should be repeated that when he arrived in India to commence his
investigations at the TS headquarters in Adyar, his attitude was one of
friendliness, not scepticism and suspicion. British
friends who knew him just before he came to India said he carried around in his
bag Sinnett's Occult World and spoke with enthusiasm
as to its Theosophical teachings.
It would seem likely
that suspicions of deception must have been aroused for Hodgson to develop
signs of hostility and distrust during the course of the investigation, Or
awareness of incongruities and inconsistencies may have occurred as details
were discovered, testimony was taken, and conclusions were formed. Perhaps some
of his suspicions were reinforced by the actions ofBlavatsky's
associates at Adyar too. For instance, a crucial piece of evidence in the
charge of deception was the presence of a wooden cabinet with a secret
compartment that her accusers say Blavatsky utilised
in staging false phenomena. However, it was quickly destroyed almost
immediately upon notification of the charges by a group of Theosophical Society
officials, thus reinforcing suspicions of guilt by this kind of tampering with
potential evidence.
In an article written
after Blavatsky's death entitled The Defence of the
Theosophists, he confronts theosophical objections issued by Besant, Judge,
Olcott and others directly, refuting their objections issue by issue, and
pointing out the vestedinterest perspective that they
wished to impose upon his investigation. This article has largely been
neglected by critics, who maintain that his methodology and mindset were
prejudicial and selective from the outset, and thus that his conclusions only
reveal those presumptions. However, in the article Hodgson vehemently states
that he attempted to be as objective as possible, and only came to his
conclusions reluctantly through overwhelming accumulation of incriminating
evidence. He summarises his conclusions in four
points.
The first was
that the primary testimony about the existence of a Brotherhood of Adepts with
occult powers came from Blavatsky and her associates Damodar
K. Mavalankar, Bhavani Shankar, and Babajee D. Nath. Hodgson concludes that they deliberately
made false statements in their testimony. The second point was his conclusion
that the handwriting allegedly of the Masters appeared to be that ofBlavatsky and of Damodar in
imitation of her. His third point was that no evidence of genuine occult
phenomena could be adduced in his investigation in India because many of the
witnesses revealed inaccurate memories and weren't stringent enough in
accounting for the potential of fraud. And in the case of some witnesses, there
were conscious misstatements and efforts to mislead and deceive. His final
point was that not only was there insufficient evidence supplied by witnesses,
but that his own investigation led him to the conclusion that the phenomena in
question were perpetuated through fraudulent means.
The Hodgson report
has been passionately scrutinised for over a hundred
years, and today is still the object of intensely polarised
opinion. Amongst theosophical supporters, Hodgson was rebuked for both his
alleged personal deficiencies as the chosen investigator, for his presumed
unsympathetic approach to the investigation, and for virtually every conclusion
he reached. A number of critics of Hodgson's investigation have appeared over
the years, but the most diligent and closely argued refutation came from Vernon
Harrison in 1985, timed to correspond with the hundred year anniversary
of the initial public release of the report. Harrison evaluates Hodgson's
efforts this way whereas Hodgson was prepared to use any evidence, however
trivial or questionable, to implicate HPB, he ignored all evidence that could
be used in her favor. His report is riddled with slanted statements,
conjectures advanced as fact or probable fact, uncorroborated testimony of
unnamed witnesses, selection of evidence and downright falsity.
Harrison basically
says that Hodgson started the investigation with his mind already made up,
intent to prove ftaud, unwilling to allow for a
sympathetic or neutral approach to the outstanding issues, and therefore
conducted the investigation as a prosecutor. The bulk of Harrison's critique centres on the questionable way Hodgson treated the
handwriting materials. Harrison concludes that the handwriting analysis of the
letters in question does not lead to a justified charge of forgery or
imposture.
I find no evidence of
common origin of the KH and M scripts and HPB's ordinary, consciously-made
handwriting. That is to say, I find no evidence that the Mahatma Letters were
written by Madame Blavatsky in a disguised form of her ordinary writing made
for fraudulent purposes. What may have come through her hand in trance,
dislocation, or other forms of altered consciousness is another matter.
By identifying the
definitive criterion as "HPB's ordinary, consciously-made
handwriting" Harrison isolates one significant factor, but allows for
possible mitigating circumstances. He rules out calculated intentional efforts
at handwriting manipulation and forgery, but admits that during an altered
state of consciousness such a conclusion cannot be ascertained. Therefore, it
would seem that handwriting analysis by itself is not necessarily a definitive
way of revealing the subjective nexus of energies that may possibly have been
active in the psyche during the actual process of writing. Blavatsky was
experienced with automatic writing, and admitted that she served as amanuensis,
as well as volitionally inserting her own thoughts on occasion when giving
shape to Mahatma communications. So absolute blanket conclusions seem somewhat
inconclusive. Johnson quotes Blavatsky about her admitted active role in the
shaping of content.
HPB herself admitted
in reference to other K.H. letters, "It is very rarely that Mahatma K.H.
dictated verbatim," and confessed further that "when I thought my
authority would go for naught, when I sincerely believed acting agreeably to
Master's intentions and for the good of the cause" she had "insisted
that such a note was from the Master" although it was "often
something reflected from my own mind."
Johnson distinguishes
between the physical writing of the letters and their conceptual composition,
noting that she could have composed them and had them copied by a confederate,
or else have written them but not necessarily been the composer.
The a priori
dismissal of Hodgson's conclusions by for example the editor of Theosophical
History James Santucci, is largely because of questions surrounding the
handwriting analysis is ironic, because Hodgson explicitly states that this
issue was a minor factor, and that the major suspicions arose through the
cumulative evidence of his overall investigation and through testimony
furnished by theosophists of the time. See also : http://www.theohistory.org/
And refusal to
even consider testimony given a century earlier because it is "no longer
extant" seems a dubious way of ignoring all of Hodgson's investigative
work with the assumption it was all based on a bad-faith vindictive campaign.
Which Blavatsky and others theosophists did not themselves feel at the time.
Presumption that Hodgson misrepresented or misconstrued evidence, or that he
ought to have taken an entirely different tact in his approach ignores the fact
that such criticism appeared only after the publication of the investigation.
In the duration between the investigation and the publication, there was no
overt indication that Hodgson was perceived to have been pursuing a vindictive
agenda. As well, considering this wasn't a criminal case involving the legal
system, Hodgson's first-hand in-field examination did in fact take place
relatively quickly once accusations against Blavatsky were made public. It was
not a later reconstruction, though a certain amount of deduction was
unavoidable because of tampering with evidence by Blavatsky's associates and
reluctance ofindividuals to selfincriminate.
Regardless of Hodgson's personal speculation about possible motives, and
possible errors with facets of the case, the methodical amassing of accusatory
details remains difficult to simply "explain away" as entirely built
upon premeditated malice, conspiracy, or incompetent procedure. Even if only a
portion of his report is accepted as the most probable explanation, the
implications yet point to intentionally deceptive and manipulative behaviour on the part of Blavatsky and/or those involved in
the machinations.
The theosophical
efforts to deligitimise the conclusions of the report
by attempting to discredit the investigator provided a counter strategy. If
Hodgson's report was believed to be flawed even somewhat, then all of it could
be considered refuted and worthy of dismissal. So beliefthat
Blavatsky was exonerated and purely a passive victim of circumstances or
conspiracy became a common theosophical position and justification for
sympathetic revisions. The consensus belief amongst loyal theosophists was that
Blavatsky herself was personally vindicated and proven innocent of intentional
fraud. That process of attempted rehabilitation by supporters has been ongoing
ever since the initial report was issued. And though conceivable arguments have
been made to show that Hodgson did not conduct a perfect investigation and
could have taken other approaches for particular issues, it is yet a leap of
faith to assume that Blavatsky was entirely above board and the innocent victim
of a prosecutorial agenda. In addition to his enunciation of problematic
detail, Hodgson suggests that his final conclusions were influenced by his
person-to-person interviews and discussions with Blavatsky. Regardless of the
assessments of his motives by others, or the accuracy of his speculative
hypothesis about ultimate intentions, he in fact did actively engage the main
figures conversationally and inquisitively, and take into account their
counter-claims and explanations. So his intuitions and instincts about
Blavatsky's character and trustworthiness (and of her associates) factored into
his conclusions. Regardless of their ultimate accuracy, they at least were
closer to the source and based on personal observation ~nlike
those oflater critics who only have documentary and
anecdotal data to use in attempted deconstruction of his arguments. In the end,
contemporary supporters ofBlavatsky made their
counterarguments and the public was given a choice of which side to take.
Hodgson's critical
estimation had the most widespread and enduring influence on public consciousness.
During the time frame the report was first circulated, the repercussions for
Blavatsky and the movement were severe. Particularly in terms of mainstream
reputability and legitimacy. The controversy engendered by the Hodgson
investigation most dramatically affected the credibility of the Theosophical
Society itself as a purported objective, truth-seeking organisation.
And it especially engendered even more severe deflation of Madame Blavatsky's
public reputation amongst those of the academic, scientific, and intellectual
community and the press who had been at least somewhat neutral beforehand.
Although the ensuing notoriety added to an already disreputable mainstream
image, theosophy itself yet retained its footing for those willing to look past
such controversies and empathise with the belief
system. For some, the sense of sympathy and willingness to accept Blavatsky's
explanations added to her image as a victim of an unjust conspiracy, and
enhanced her charismatic appeal. As a perceived victim of unmerited
persecution, chronically misunderstood and under-appreciated by an
unsympathetic and unenlightened mainstream consensus of cynics and scoffers,
Blavatsky was able to elicit renewed sympathy from those yet loyal, who placed
implicit trust in her character and integrity, and faith in her charismatic
persona.
Despite the
controversy however, one significant point was not in dispute. That was the
admission that in many instances, the actual substantive contents of the
Mahatma communications appeared in writing directly or indirectly through the
issuance of Madame Blavatsky. The point of contention is whether she was, as
claimed in the letters and by her, a virtually passive medium of psychic
transmission, or as claim critics, the wilful
originator and composer. That some unascertainable percentage of the letters
did indeed manifest and filter through her mental/psychological apparatus is
not in doubt. And assuming an independent originating source, many of the other
communications purportedly were given linguistic form and transmitted through
the psychic work of secondary parties (the chelas ofthe Masters), and therefore also would be subject to the
intrusion of influences of personality, possibly diluting or altering the full
intentions of the assumed primary Mahatma source. Therefore, whether the
Hodgson claims of fraud apply and thus negate the entire supernatural
explanation, or Blavatsky and/or others had at least an indirect role in the
actual construction of those letters, it seems that the belief in a clear,
direct, incontestable, personal line of communication from the Masters must be
at least treated with caution.
Accusations of
conspiracy from both sides seem to be a lasting legacy. Hodgson concluded that
Blavatsky and her cohorts conspired to perpetuate the fraud of the Masters.
Theosophical sympathisers claim the Coulombs' had
personal motives and conspired with missionaries to frame Blavatsky. Later day
attempts to rehabilitate Blavatsky's reputation and discredit Hodgson
unavoidably depend entirely on secondary materials and can only be considered
as possible hypotheses, reflecting the vested interests presumed in the very
attempt to rehabilitate. And even making a plausible argument for questioning
any of Hodgson's methods or conclusions does not automatically legitimize the
orthodox theosophical narrative. Even if he drew particular unverifiable
conclusions on some points, or conducted somewhat of a flawed examination,
enough serious doubts were raised to treat the orthodox theosophical response with
caution. Hodgson dealt with real issues of contention, which defy simplistic
sophistic rationalisation. As well, simply
reiterating Hodgson's conclusions without acknowledging the problematical
circumstances under which they were formed likewise simplifies a complex issue.
Another line of
thought that shares belief that the Masters were non-existent as autonomous,
self-sufficient, independent entities can be found implicit in the speculation ofthose who profess a primarily psychological basis for the
concept. From this perspective, Blavatsky may have not intentionally
invented fraudulent beings, however, she still would have to be
considered as a purveyor of a complex imaginative notion, most likely deriving
from unconscious energies and objectified through the creative faculties. The
Jungian theory of archetypes is perhaps the most obvious generic psychological
model for this form of explanation, which becomes even more hypothetical and
speculative when treated ftom more radical offshoots
of the Jungian school of thought. Jung's own thoughts about the nature of
archetypal manifestations and the appeal of theosophy would appear to lead to
the inference that Madame Blavatsky may very well have been subject to such
intrusions.
When ... psychic
energy regresses, going even beyond the period of early infancy, and breaks
into the legacy of ancestral life, the mythological images are awakened: these
are the archetypes. An interior spiritual world whose existence we never
suspected opens out and displays content which seem to stand in sharpest
contrast to all our former ideas. These images are so intense that it is quite
understandable why millions of cultivated persons should be taken in by
theosophy and anthroposophy. This happens simply because such modem gnostic
systems meet the need for expressing and formulating the wordless occurrences
going on within ourselves better than any of the existing forms of
Christianity, not excluding Catholicism ... The syncretism of theosophy goes a
long way towards meeting this need, and this explains its numerous successes.
Thus it might be that
the particular theosophical doctrine of the Masters originally may have been
the result of Blavatsky's attempt to incorporate the substance of what may have
been subjective numinous experience with a broad assortment of residual occult
information gleaned from a lifetime of travel, study, instruction, and
speculation along similar lines. As well, in perusing the profiles of the
Masters, it appears likely that certain of their traits and characteristics
would be drawn from knowledge of real people, such as the list of sponsors and
influences enunciated by Johnson. When combined with more purely imaginative
contents, the final image appears less easy to define. The creativity
of an imaginative process drawing together and assembling disparate sources of
imagery, information, and emotionally laden psychic materials to create a novel
and personalised cultural product.
Creativity is
imagination pure and simple, ever and anon producing its own The idea of
the theosophical Masters that emerged from Blavatsky's articulation presented
"its own shapes and configurations," possibly based on both conscious
and unconscious energies.
A more tenuous
line of speculation deriving from the same sort of evaluation can be found in
the hypothesis put forth by Hilary Evans in Visions. Apparitions. Alien
Visitors. Evans believes that the experience of seemingly veridical
extraordinary entities occurs as a result of deep psychological processing,
mostly occurring at the subconscious level though exhibiting characteristics of
purposefulness and meaningfulness for the individual subject. She calls this
source "the producer," a personification of these purposeful
subconscious forces. The seemingly authentic and self-subsistent vision or
apparition appears to the perceiver as a distinct autonomous entity, even
though hypothesised to be originating purely in the
psyche of the percipient. The creative and imaginative faculties help shape and
define the form the image takes, but this occurs spontaneously rather than
through intentional conscious manipulation. It is after such numinous visions
are experienced that some more captivating and powerful images later become
assimilated culturally and available for imaginative and creative
representation and embellishment. The manifestation of veridical imagery is
believed to be an intrinsic possibility of the human psychological condition,
given the necessary triggering stimuli, though it is more likely to occur for
those individuals who are more emotionally and imaginatively sensitised and susceptible (whether voluntarily induced or
spontaneously occurring) to the abnormal states of consciousness enunciated by
Gowan. Evans' theory presumes a number of causal factors all seamlessly
integrated in the process of visionary manifestation.
Within our minds
there exists a creative, intelligent, sympathetic and understanding
capability, whose function is to fabricate non-real scenes and scenarios, for
purposes only some of which can be guessed at. This capability, which for the
sake of convenience we may call the producer, may plausibly be conceived as a
parallel personality to our conscious personality.
The producer has
access not only to all our sensory input, both conscious and unconscious, but
also to our mental and emotional attitudes and concerns; he also has access,
whether constant or when the need arises, to information not available to our
conscious minds...
Using this material,
the producer creates fantasies consisting largely of representations of people;
these may be persons, living or dead, known to the percipient; or stereotypes
whose identity is evident though they are not personally known to the
percipient .. .or persons who, so far as the conscious mind can tell, are total
strangers. They may appear as isolated figures or in realistic settings: in
either case the manifestation is managed so skilfully
that the entity is frequently assumed to be real at the time.
There is no evidence
so show that the creation of these imaginary scenes and entities is a
continuous process, but unquestionably some are created at specific times for
specific purposes.
The non-real scenes
are substituted for the reality reported by the senses; the substitution takes
place somewhere between the sense organs and the part ofthe
brain concerned with visual imagery. Or is effected so neatly that there is
generally no discontinuity between reality and fiction. There is no reason to
suppose it uses anything but the normal channels of communication, employing
encoded signals.
While the most
memorable instances of this process are the made-to-order experiences that
relate to a crisis or other event with a strong emotional overloading,
'accidental' tuning in to the material can be obtained in a number of mental
states, which are not those of everyday consciousness - when intoxicated or
drugged, in trance, delirium or mystical ecstasy...
There is no evident
limit to the range of material of the experience, but its nature will be
determined by the percipient's personal preoccupations, his cultural
background, and by the immediate situation. It will also be adapted to the
context of time and place in which it occurs. (
This theory makes a
number of hypothetical assumptions, particularly the belief that veridical
encounters with the numinous arise from a value-oriented, causal interaction
between conscious and subconscious levels of the psyche. This theory somewhat
restates what would be seen in Jungian terms as a synchronistic underlying
order of reality. The inherent drive towards realization of the potential of
the Self through individuation would provoke, when appropriate, compensatory
archetypal manifestations via visionary forms of experience. What is
distinctive though is the premise that strong emotional overloading or
equivalent accidental trigger functions are the stimulus for the creation of
fantasies that predominantly feature "representations of people." If
these numinous fantasies feature the fabrication of "non-real scenes"
highlighting these veridical entity representations, then any number of
seemingly profound or solemn scenarios could appear subjectively authentic.
Such visions would locate the numinous figure(s) in a congruent setting
befitting their perceived status. The wide variety of people potentially
represented through such internal operations of the psyche obviously derives
from personal and cultural sources, whether historical, legendary, fictional,
or imagined. The cultural and historical milieu will shape the form the vision
takes, but more critical, is "the percipient's personal
preoccupations." Thus, the framework of familiar and personal ideational
and emotional concerns and interests of each individual, and the worldview of
his specific environment will shape the contents of his vision. Therefore,
using this line of reasoning for hypothetical conjecture, it would stand that
Blavatsky's visionary excursions would produce representations of persons that
embodied her personal ideas, values, and beliefs. And these were mostly drawn
from her absorption in occult and mystical matters and familiarity with the
extensive resources and subject matter of those fields. Combined with residual
imagery and associations from her past and her ongoing pursuits, it appears
that her description ofthe Mahatmas, their eclectic
esoteric ism, secretive Himalayan base, astral and transcendent operations,
etc. etc. would be logical extrapolations utilised by
her own subconscious "producer," or (Jungian) Selffunction.
When her statements
about experiencing visions of a guardian (later interpreted as her Master)
during crises situations earlier in her life are factored in, it would not be
unreasonable to speculate that early in her life that such numinous visions
served as the defining prototype by which later more mature visionary episodes
were interpreted and classified. As well, the inclusion of detail drawn ftom actual historical personages, incorporated for
immediate ulterior ends, and embellished by an active creative imagination
could plausibly be seen to integrate with the primary numinous, visionary
datum. With this hypothesis, Blavatsky's thoughts and actions concerning the
Masters would justifY both her proclamations of
sincerity regarding belief in contact with spiritual entities as well as charges
of manipulation and deceit. The issue becomes a question of degree, and of quantifYing the admixture. What percentage of her portrayal
and doctrinal representation ofthe Masters was based
on the sincere assumption that she was engaged in authentic communication with
self-subsistent spiritual entities? And what quotient was intentionally
fabricated and utilised fraudulently? And, further,
what portion of her theosophical career was motivated by beliefthat
her communications with the Masters was active and efficacious, and when
did she feel the need to maintain the mythical apparatus through contrivance
and manipulation, without visionary reinforcement? Even granting the prominence
of visionary experience on an ongoing basis, can the numinous portion be
separated from the self-delusional? These rhetorical questions are
proposed to illustrate the difficulty in treating the complexities of
subjectively based claims of extraordinary experiences. Especially deriving
from someone who engaged in continued intentional mystification and revision.
Any hypothesis can only be tentative, based on evidence and logic that seems to
provide a reasonable interpretation of the materials at hand. In any event, it
must be noted that to Madame Blavatsky and orthodox theosophical exponents, the
Masters have consistently been envisioned as autonomous existent humans,
supremely evolved and oriented to a dimensionality inaccessible to the
uninitiated and unqualified, but profoundly real nonetheless. Any hypothesis
suggesting less than this advanced state of self-sufficiency would be regarded
as heretical. Although allowance was made by Blavatsky and others to think: ofthe Masters as ideals and symbols, the great thrust of
the theosophical initiative was to emphasize their historicity and influence in
world affairs and organizational concerns.
Yet, any speculation
about whether Madame Blavatsky's purported encounters with the Masters can be
definitively accounted for through such a hypothetical framework of
interpretation can only be tentative, although highly suggestive. Blavatsky's
familiarity with esoteric traditions would provide a background of information
about the theory of a secretive brotherhood of Masters. With Johnson's study,
it seems that real historical figures played at least some role in the
descriptions of the Masters, providing idiosyncratic personalised
detail and imagery. As well, with a known propensity for engaging in a variety
of altered states of consciousness, and a vivid and fecund imagination, it
would seem plausible that numinous visionary episodes may have occurred in
which the belief in the objectivity of the Masters was felt to be verified. And
through application of the general Jungian methodology, the possibility ofthose numinous experiences being archetypal in quality
may be postulated. So through the stimulus of crises situations or other
triggers, the continuity of such visions would appear to confirm their
veridical status. As well, ftom anecdotal accounts
and the implications of the Hodgson investigation, it would be naive to believe
that no degree of fabrication or embellishment took place when it suited
Blavatsky's purposes. Thus, factoring in all these contributing elements, it
would seem that the formal theosophical doctrine of the Masters as enunciated
by Blavatsky was a product of a number of discrete sources of input, giving the
doctrine of the Masters wider socially legitimating authority and serve
Blavatsky's personal agenda when required.
The Functional Utility of the Idea of the Masters
Regardless of their
origins, the Mahatma messages served an important supportive purpose for
Blavatsky by regularly confirming the special role she played as liaison, as
well as the generally correct way her activities conformed to Masterly
intentions. The Mahatma letters in particular were a mix of theoretical and
philosophical ideas and specific concrete organizational concerns.
In fact along with
Blavatsky’s writings, The Mahatma Letters have maintained their authoritative
status for most traditional factions of the theosophical movement. The Masters
sketched out many of the particulars about specific issues in their letters
Included were comments about the nature and destiny of the individual; the
procedures and stages of emanation from God/the Absolute to the lowest material
planes; the characteristics or conditions by which the gods/cosmic
energies/entities etc. may be identified or distinguished; the operations of
subtle and material cosmic and natural forces and powers; the metamorphoses
through different kingdoms; the dynamics of karma, etc. etc. The letters of the
Masters served the purpose of providing first Sinnett
and his Theosophical Society associates, and later, indirectly through his
books, a wider public, specific doctrinal content upon which the broader
worldview was built.
However, despite the
possible attractiveness or plausibility of the worldview itself as a self-contained
system ofthought and Itamework
of belief, it yet retained its defining allure because it was alleged to have
the special legitimating status of the Masters. Acceptance of the premise that
the Masters were authentic representatives of a transcendentally grounded
spiritual hierarchy of real and proven efficacy sanctified and romizati the contents of their teachings. Even if the
worldview itself was found to be internally consistent, logical, emotionally
satisfying, and a credible option, it was not presented as merely a product of
human thought or insight. From its very first enunciation, it was inexorably
linked with the necessary belief in a wisdom tradition maintained by an
extraordinarily evolved and spiritually advanced elite brotherhood.
Their directive
purpose was said to have continuously endured through the history of the
species and even, the preceding evolutionary rounds and cycles. Thus, although
efforts to romizati the theosophical worldview purely
on grounds of plausibility, logic, and emotional persuasiveness have at times romizat the transcendent and
occult characteristics of the Masters and their hierarchy, the original impetus
was dramatically dependent on just those elements to establish a position of
special status for the emergent Theosophical Society. If the Society was
especially founded on their behest, then that would give it a distinguished and
noble legitimacy, inviting to those inspired by its ideals and objectives and
desirous of joining the ranks of a spiritually pioneering vanguard.
The special elite
status of the Masters and the occult system of knowledge they sanctioned helped
inculcate a feeling of unique purpose for front-line Theosophical Society
organizers, theoreticians, and activists. As well, the Masters apparently took
more than a detached and impersonal overview of Society operations and
strategies. Despite their lofty spiritual roles within the hierarchy of the
Brotherhood of Adepts, they seemed to spend an inordinate amount of attention
and thought concerned with all aspects of the movement. Through their letters
and communications they seem extraordinarily alert, concerned, and sensitive to
every subtle or explicit nuance relating to individuals or situations involving
the organization. They were apparently aware of diverse conversations, written
correspondences, secretive motives of various individuals, and did not hesitate
in bold and blunt judgment and recommendations. From their secret retreat in
the Himalayas, they try to micromanage the movement through suggestions,
warnings, and entreaties to follow, reject, or modify particular lines of
action. The tendency to manipulate operations of the Theosophical Society or
related enterprises through advisement and judgment about others is found
constantly in their presumed correspondence. For example, here advice is given
in which the motives of one party are virtually romizat
by the suggestion that they in fact reflect hidden malignant influences.
A cloud does lower
over your path... He whom you made your confidant-l advised you to become but
his co-worker, not to divulge things to him that you should have kept locked
within your bosom-is under a baleful influence, and may become your enemy. You
do right to try and rescue him from it, for it bodes ill to him, to you, and to
the Society. His greater mind fumed by vanity and charmed by the pipings of a weaker but more cunning one, is for the time
under a spell of fascination. You will easily detect the malign power that
stands behind both and uses them as tools for the execution of its own
nefarious plans. The intended catastrophe can be averted by redoubled vigilance
and increased fervour of pure will ... (1)
Warnings of caution,
planting the seeds of distrust and suspicion, petty and cynical character observations
for those opposed to a Blavatsky endorsed line of conduct appear as common
threads of Masterly advice.
One word ofadvic~an earnest warning from both of us: trust not
little Fernbeware of him. His placid serenity and
smiles when talking to you... are all assumed. His letter of penitence and
remorse to M-which he sends you to keep-is not sincere. If you do not watch him
closely, he will mix the cards for you in a way that may lead the Society to
ruin, for he swore a great oath to himselfthat the Society
will either fall or rise with himself. If he fails next year again-and with all
his great gifts, how can such an incurable little Jesuit and liar help
failing?-he will do his best to pull down the Society with him... (2)
Disgust and
disappointment in those who have either rejected their overtures or have turned
from actual or potential supporters to critics is also evident throughout the
Mahatma correspondences. Often expressed as a steady undercurrent of gossip and
innuendo.
Mr. Humewho once promised to become a champion fighter in that
Battle if Light against Darkness-now preserves a kind of armed neutrality
wondrous to behold... C.C. Massey? But then he is the hapless parent of about
half a dozen of illegitimate brats... Dr. Wyld?-a
Christian to the backbone. Hood?-a sweet nature... yet, no worker. S. Moses?
Ah! Here we are. S.M. has nearly upset the romizat.
Ark set afloat three years back: and he will do his level best to do it over agam.(3)
And here we see a
proposed Machiavellian plan to appease those restless with the Society as it
stood, and desirous of instituting a competing romization.
The threat of a cessation of communication is issued if a solution is not
found.
Shall I tell you the
future of that new body? It grow and develop and expand and finally the Theos.
Soc. Of London will be swamped in it, and lose first its influence then-its
name, until Theosophy in its very name becomes a thing of the Past. .. The evil
may yet be averted-let the Society exist in name till the day it can get
members with whom we can work de facto-and by the creation of another
counteracting cause we may save the situation. The hand of the Chohan alone can bridge it, but it must be yours that
places the first stone for the work. How can you do it? Think of it well if you
care for further intercourse. They want something new. A Ritual to amuse them.
(4)
And most
interestingly, Mahatma Koot Hoomi
took a very proactive position in advising Sinnett to
continue with his plan in founding a new esoterically oriented Anglo-Indian
journal, The Phoenix. The Master involved himself extensively with financial
and logistical advice. However, despite original encouragement, when the
venture showed signs of being unsuccessful, he denied any blame or
responsibility, professing discomfort and distaste for involvement with the
enterprise. And when facing questions of accountability, he charged Sinnett with racist motives.
I stepped outside our
usual limits to aid your particular project from a conviction of its necessity
and its potential usefulness: having begun I shall continue until the result is
known. But in this uncongenial experience of meddling in a business affair, I
have ventured within the very breath of the world’s furnace. I have suffered so
much from the enforced insight at short distance into the moral and spiritual
condition of my people; and been so shocked by this nearer view of the selfish
baseness of human nature ... I have seen so distinctly the certainty that it
cannot be helped-that I shall henceforth abstain rom
any repetition of the unbearable experiment. Whether your paper should succeed
or not-and if the latter, it will be due to yourself exclusively ... I shall
have no more to do with the financial side ofthese
worldly affairs; but confme myself to our prime duty
of gaining knowledge and disseminating through all available channels such
fragments as mankind in the mass may be ready to assimilate. ... The great pain
that you have afflicted upon me, shows clearly that either I understand nothing
in the fitness of political duties and therefore, could hardly hope to be a
wise business and political “control” or that the man whom I regard as a true ftiend, however honest and willing, will never rise above
English prejudices and the sinful antipathy towards our race and colour. (5)
Another theme found
in the purported communications of the Masters was the admixture of minor
criticisms and thankful gratitude directed towards the figure of Madame
Blavatsky. On the one hand, her fallibilities, temperamental personality, and
physical debilitations are noted as constraining factors for the cause. On the
other hand, admiration for her loyalty, dedication, gumption, effort, and
willpower is expressed.
Essentially, the
criticisms appear superficial in light of the spirited admiration reflected for
her as an agent of the Masters. To the recipients of the contents of these
messages, Madame Blavatsky is portrayed as absolutely trustworthy and fully
authenticated as a representative of the Masters. Although her flaws may be
irritating, and her behaviour embarrassing or
detrimental at times, in the long run her importance is unequivocally
confirmed. Blavatsky’s mission is given special status and sanctification
through the Masters supernatural authority, while her own seemingly
discomforting approach is revealed to be the result of a mysterious occult
process. A theosophical tenet was that the effects of personal karmic debt
became compacted and intensified as one advanced further along the spiritual
path. So her personal idiosyncrasies, while not condoned, are excused as
inevitable and unavoidable side effects or by-products of the accelerated
training she was undergoing under the auspices of her Master.
Here we see her being
portrayed in both her exasperating and endearing modes, shown as a complex
individual who is not fully understood or appreciated. However, for all the
external flaws of personality, the qualities of her inner self are revealed to
be much more substantial and estimable. The contrast between the “eccentric”
and the “most delicate and refined” aspects of “HPB’s mind” indicate a tendency
towards inner struggle, and thus provides a likely explanation for the
discrepancies of her behavior.
Of course she is
utterly unfit for a true adept: her nature is too passionately affectionate and
we have no right to indulge in personal attachments and feelings. You can never
know her as we do, therefore-none of you will ever be able to judge her
impartially or correctly... In your opinion, HPB is, at best, for those that like
her despite herself-a quaint, strange, woman, a psychological riddle: impulsive
and kindhearted, yet not free from the vice of untruth. We, on the other hand,
under the garb of eccentricity and folly-we find a profounder wisdom in her
inner Self than you will ever find yourselves able to perceive. In the
superficial details of her homely, hard-working, common-place daily life and
affairs, you discern but impracticality, womanly impulses, often absurdity and
folly; we, on the contrary, light daily upon traits of her inner nature the
most delicate and refined, and which would cost an uninitiated psychologist
years of constant and keen observation, and many an hour of close analysis and
effort to draw out of the depth of that most subtle of mysteries-human mind-and
one of her most complicated machines-HPB’s mind-and thus learn to know her true
inner Self. (6)
1) The Mahatma
Letters p. 268. 2) Ibid. p. 303. 3) Ibid. p. 39. 4) Ibid., pp. 265-266.
5) Ibid., pp.
384-385. 6)Ibid., p. 314.
The functional utility
of the Masters for Theosophical Society loyalists and organizers lay in
providing supernatural legitimating for the content of their communications and
credibility to their suggested plans and advisements. As well, the personal
relationships of teacher/mentor to pupil/advocate often was phrased in terms
and with references mostly applicable to only a small selective group of
people. Advice about possible lines of private conduct, steps to be taken
towards fuller spiritual development, potential actions involving the Society,
all presumed a degree of confidentiality. The wider circle of theosophical
supporters and sympathizers as well as the mildly curious public-at-Iarge could not presume to be privy to such direct
communications. What they knew of the Masters and their message came from
indirect secondary proliferation of such information and the explicit written
or verbal commentary of those claiming first hand contact, such as Sinnett, Olcott, Blavatsky.
Only by achieving
that level of awareness and insight for example, can the Masters be recognized
for who they really are, not just superficially or partially envisaged. The
gulf between the Masters and the average non-committed inquirer is revealed to
be qualitative in terms of the contrast in levels of development and
maturation, as well as quantitative in terms of the amount of time and number
of incarnations needed to reach comparable status. Only be intensified effort
and radical reprioritization of values can the average theosophical sympathizer
or members ever hope to attract personal attention from a Master. However, once
commitment is given to chelaship, the opportunities become more of a tangible
possibility. By establishing the Mahatmas as both supremely evolved entities as
well as ideals of the spiritual evolutionary process, they serve as both
paradigmatic role models and case examples of those who followed the prescribed
path to evolutionary perfection.
Creating Scripture
Besides for
legitimization purposes another significant component of the theosophical
ideational construct necessary for sustaining confidence and justifying belief
was the presence of a body of authoritative writings produced by Madame
Blavatsky. In particular, her major books Isis Unveiled, The Secret Doctrine,
and The Voice of the Silence. These served to define the field of inquiry and
consolidate theosophical doctrine. In effect, serving as the equivalent of
"sacred texts" for the movement, intended to enlighten, provoke
interest, and proffer an extensive alternative worldview.
In conclusion we can
say that a major stimulus to the very inception of the Theosophical
Society was the public fascination with what was popularly called
"phenomena." Particularly the kinds of presumed extrasensory
experiences that regularly manifested within the spiritualist milieu.
By incorporating and
consolidating into the theosophical program the idea that psychic powers and
mystical realization were attainable and demonstrable even to a limited extent,
the movement would acquire another source of possible credibility for those
willing to consider the arguments and accept the claims made. Belief that
trustworthy exponents could vouch for and verify their own similar experiences
would insure more interest in the theosophical assertions about the psychic and
spiritual potentialities of human experience.
And even if not
actually demonstrated indisputably, the suggestion and speculation that it
undeniably was at least a viable and conceivable possibility still served an
important function. Put more succinctly in the theosophical context, if it was
surmised and assumed that Madame Blavatsky had spontaneously exhibited, or
intentionally utilized, authentic supersensory powers, whether privately or
publicly, it would augment the appeal of the purely theoretical formulations of
the system of belief. Just the hint that psychic phenomena were, or could be,
genuine natural occurrences, and that individuals such as Madame Blavatsky
could exercise such faculties, provoked interest and curiosity, both positive
and negative.
And also in
conclusion there are very strong arguments suggesting that much, if not the
vast majority of assumed paranormal experiences attributed to, reported about,
or having been allegedly demonstrated by Madame Blavatsky are not strictly
reliable or trustworthy. And when the subjective interpretative filter is
applied (by participant as well as observer) to what is essentially private and
subjective, the problematical nature of the enterprise is magnified even more.
So, rather than simply avoid dealing with the issue because of the inherent
difficulties, and dismissing all claims as either delusional or fraudulent, or
naively accept claims of the literal accuracy of all reports.
For updates
click homepage here