go to:
HPB AND HER
'MASTERS' OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
AN EXTENDED FAMILY:
EXTRAMURAL MASTERS
THE ADYAR YEARS
During the first years
of the 1880s the Theosophical Society expanded commensurately with the fame
which adhered to the Mahatma letters. Sinnett's
publications of The Occult World (1881) and Esoteric Buddhism (1883), in
which he included excerpts of the correspondence as well as a sometimes
breathless commentary, became instant best-sellers and garnered many
enthusiastic converts. The removal of the Society to a new and spacious
headquarters at Adyar, Madras, further contributed to the sense of stabilisation. The pervasive calm of the early 1880s
was not to last, however, and the Masters proved to be the catalysts for a
brewing storm.
The 'Kiddle Incident'
A portion of an early
Mahatma letter of 10 December, 1880, was included in Sinnett's
The Occult World, published in June, 1881. In his letter to Sinnett, the Master Koot Hoomi had stated the following:
Plato was right:
ideas rule the world; and, as men's minds will receive new ideas, laying aside
the old and effete, the world will advance; mighty revolutions will spring from
them; creeds and even powers will crumble before their onward march crushed by
the irresistible force. It will be just as impossible to resist their
influx, when the time comes, as to stay the progress of the tide.
An American
Spiritualist, and one time president of the American Spiritualist Alliance,
Henry Kiddle, had found himself somewhat taken aback
upon reading the Master's prediction, as he recognised
not just the sentiment, but the words themselves. In a lecture he had
given on the fifteenth of August, 1880, to a Spiritualist assembly at Lake
Pleasant, Massachusetts, entitled 'The Present Outlook of Spiritualism', he had
opined the following:
My friends, ideas
rule the world; and as men's minds receive new ideas laying aside the old and effete,
the world advances. Society rests upon them; mighty revolutions spring
from them; institutions crumble before their onward march. It is just as
impossible to resist their influx when the time comes, as to stay the progress
of the tide.
Kiddle,
having received no reply to his letter to Sinnett (via
the latter's publisher), decided to publish his consternation in the
English Spiritualist journal, Light:
I was very greatly
surprised to find in one of the letters presented by Mr. Sinnett
as having been transmitted to him by Koothoomi ... a
passage taken almost verbatim from an address on Spiritualism by me at
Lake Pleasant, in August 1880, and published the same month by the Banner of
Light ... How then did it get into Koothoomi's
mysterious letter?
How indeed!
After much comment in The Theosophist, sometimes of a rather fatuous
nature, Sinnett decided to enquire of the source
how such an apparent plagiarism may have occurred. Koot
Hoomi's reply is rather reminiscent of Blavatsky's
indignant rejoinder regarding accusations levelled at her over passages she was
supposed to have mined in the writing of Isis Unveiled: Masters,
too, store images, words, and texts, in their minds, having precipitated them
from the Astral Light. At the time in question, Koot
Hoomi had been overwrought from a 48 hour journey on
horseback, and had entrusted the dictation of the letter to a junior chela,
and had inadvertently failed to edit the missive prior to its psychic/physical
transmission. Thus had whole passages inadvertently been reproduced from
the Lake Pleasant Spiritualist camp address, which the Master had been
psychically overseeing as a result of his interest in 'the intellectual
progress of the Phenomenalists'.
The 'Kiddle incident', as this episode is termed in Theosophical
publications, has become notorious as the pivotal moment during which much
public sentiment turned against the Masters and their amanuensis,
Blavatsky. Certainly, a number of prominent Theosophists resigned from
the Society, as much on the basis of insufficient explanation of the event, as
from the suspicion of Blavatskian
plagiarism. Perhaps the most significant result of the incident was
the arousal of interest in the phenomenal aspects of the Mahatma correspondence
by the newly-formed Society for Psychical Research; its own subsequent
investigation, though hardly a model of methodological impartiality itself, was
to provide a damning indictment of Blavatskian
Theosophy as nothing less than, and certainly nothing more than, ingenious
fraud.
Though it is not the
objective of the present work to provide argument for the veracity of
Theosophical claims regarding the Masters' corporeal existence (nor indeed can
such an aim be attempted on the basis of an agnostic empirical methodology),
the Kiddle incident has broad implications for
Theosophical research. The apparent plagiarism of Kiddle
by Koot Hoomi is the point
of departure for virtually all scholarship devoted to the dismissal of the
Masters as Blavatskian fiction. The natural defence which confronts this often preordained axiomatic
position is yet again of a methodological nature: given the Masters'
self-revelation via the Mahatma letters, as well as the extraordinary claims
made in their behalf by their acknowledged chela, Blavatsky, there is no
means by which to justifiably falsify Koot Hoomi's account. He is a keeper of records and the
overseer of esoteric orders and, by his own admission, humanly
fallible. Certainly those commentators who choose to accept Blavatsky's
account of her 'borrowings' for Isis Unveiled are ipso facto required to
extend the same scholarly equanimity to her Masters. So too, those who
assume that the Kiddle incident is sensu lato proof of the
non-existence of Masters must reassess the limitations of their methodological
apparatus. The most that can be claimed for this incident is that Koot Hoomi knowingly plagiarised Kiddle; it says
nothing about the Master's ontic existence.
The treatment of such
occurrences of potential or probable fraudulence as the Kiddle
incident by much of the current analytical material reveals the degree to which
there is a detectable trend toward the 'psychologising'
of the Masters. It has become almost de rigueur for scholars to
reduce the Masters to the status of simple instantiations of Blavatsky's
over-abundant imagination, or indeed the product of psychological
illness. This methodological standpoint has its roots in the ex post facto
application of certain modern psychological theories in the assessment of
historical persons and movements. While such a methodological standpoint
may avail under certain circumstances, its inherent danger for the present
study is all too evident. Were Blavatsky, and perhaps Olcott, the only
individuals to claim to have met the Masters, then a case could be brought that
they undertook an exercise in Masters-mythopoeia either in mendacious self-aggrandisement, entirely mundane self-interest or as a
result of some species of subconscious psychological need, perhaps arising from
childhood romanticising or trauma. Such a
position becomes much more strained, however, when it is acknowledged (as few
scholars have done) that two dozen or more individuals claimed personal
commerce with the Masters. Aside from recourse to diagnostic notions such
as group hysteria, or to entirely unsupportable claims of elaborate
transcontinental conspiracy, there are few grounds upon which an exclusively
psychological interpretation of the Masters phenomenon can be
established. To emphasise this point, it is
worthwhile to note briefly a couple of incidents of the Masters appearing in
physical form.
The Masters in propriis personis
On one occasion the
Master Morya appeared to a group of seven:
We were sitting in the
moonlight about 9 o'clock upon the balcony which projects from the front of the
bungalow ... The library was in partial darkness, thus rendering objects in the
farther room more distinct. Mr. Scott suddenly saw the figure of a man
step into the space, opposite the door of the library; he was clad in the white
dress of a Rajput, and wore a white turban. Mr. Scott at once recognised him from his resemblances to a portrait in Col.
Olcott's possession ... He walked towards a table, and afterwards turning his
face towards us, walked back out of our sight ... when we reached the room he
was gone ... Upon the table, at the spot where he had been standing, lay a
letter addressed to one of our number.
On another occasion,
K. H. visited Olcott, Damodar, and William T. Brown
immediately outside Lahore in November, 1883:
Lahore has a special
interest, because there we saw, in his own physical body, Mahatma Koot Hoomi himself. On the
afternoon of the 19th November, I saw the Master in broad daylight, and
recognized him, and on the morning of the 20th he came to my tent, and said
'Now you see me before you in the flesh; look and assure yourself that it is
I,' and left a letter of instructions and silk handkerchief, both of which are
now in my possession ... On the evening of the 21st ... we were visited by Djual Khool (the Master's head
Chela, and now an Initiate), who informed us that the Master was about to
come. The Master then came near to us, gave instructions to Damodar, and walked away.
Such visitations by
Masters in propriis personis
were not uncommon in the early years of the 1880s. As skepticism about the
existence of the Masters mounted, a number of those who claimed to have been
the subject of such visits signed testimonials to emphasise
the veracity of their accounts. It is interesting to note that a
number of highly critical analyses of Blavatsky and Theosophy regularly omit
any reference to such encounters: Peter Washington included in his Madame
Blavatsky's Baboon only those claims to contact made by Blavatsky and
Olcott, thus improperly strengthening his thesis that the Masters were invented
by Blavatsky simply to shore up her authoritarian control over the movement,
and that Olcott was her unwitting dupe. Marion Meade's assertion
that '[i]n all, about nine or ten persons testified
to having seen the Mahatmas: Annie Besant, Henry Olcott, Damodar
Mavalankar, Isabel Cooper-Oakley, William Brown, Nadyezhda Fadeyev, S. R. Ramaswamier, Justine Glinka and Vsevolod
Solovyov' falls significantly short of the mark. Daniel Caldwell has
properly noted the figure to be in the vicinity of twenty five.
While the present work does not (and, indeed, cannot) devolve upon the physical
existence of the Masters, such testimonials are instructive for those who too
rapidly dismiss Theosophical claims as fraud or hysteria. Indeed, were
such visitations from Masters to be proved somehow to be a remarkable mass
hallucinatory delusion, it would only emphasise the
significance of this phenomenon of esotericism as a potent symbolic force
deserving of critical analysis. The tendency to focus on the possibility
of Blavatskian intrigue entirely evades the question
of the remarkable reception which the Masters received; the latter remains the
far superior enquiry.
Occident or Orient?
By the end of 1883,
as has been noted, murmurings of discontent over the position of the Masters
within the Theosophical Society, and also the ever-Orientalising
direction of its gaze, caused the London lodge to fracture. Concerned at
the level of discontent, Blavatsky journeyed to England and oversaw the
division between the Sinnett-influenced and
Masters-oriented members, and those loyal to the Christian Hermeticism of the
lodge president, Anna Bonus Kingsford (1846-1888). According to the
newly-elected member, Charles Webster Leadbeater, the occasion of Blavatsky's
visit to the London lodge created the sort of uproar to be expected of the
prime chela of the Masters:
[A] stout lady in
black came quickly in and seated herself at the outer end of our bench.
She sat listening to the wrangling on the platform for a few minutes, and then
began to exhibit distinct signs of impatience. As there seemed to be no
improvement in sight, she then jumped up from her seat ... [Sinnett]
spoke in a ringing voice the fateful words: 'Let me introduce to the London
Lodge as a whole - Madame Blavatsky!' The scene wass
indescribable; the members, wildly delighted and yet half-awed at the same
time, clustered round our great Founder, some kissing her hand, several kneeling
before her, and two or three weeping hysterically. After a few minutes,
however, she shook them off impatiently.
Olcott, as
Founder-President of the Society, and certainly with the goodwill of Blavatsky,
agreed to allow Kingsford to establish a Hermetic Lodge of the Theosophical
Society, to be devoted specifically to the study of Western esoteric themes and
motifs. Kingsford, no great respecter of Blavatsky's claims to
supramundane revelation, ultimately led her followers outside of the ambit of
Theosophy by constituting a separate body, the Hermetic Society.
The schism in the
London lodge is rarely granted the importance it deserves in Theosophical
histories. The London fracas is often, and rightly, interpreted as the
opposition occasioned by conflicting Occidental and Oriental emphases; less
well acknowledged is the the implication which such a
break had for the concept of the Masters in Theosophy. Until the schism,
belief in the Masters was widely interpreted as an individual's prerogative in
accordance with the Society's affirmed stance on anti-dogmatism. Though
never enunciated afterwards, the result of the split was
that Masters-Theosophy became a de facto doctrine of the Society,
belief in which amounted in many cases to a sine qua non for membership.
The Coulombs and the 'Hodgson Report'
Blavatsky's 1884
European travels are significant for two further reasons. Back at the Society's
headquarters in Adyar, a simmering disputation, which Blavatsky's presence had
hitherto constrained, finally boiled over with the result that Alexis and Emma
Coulomb (nee Cutting) were called upon to quit the compound. Blavatsky
had known Emma Cutting in Cairo in the early 1870s and had subsequently offered
the penurious Coulombs accommodation and work with the Society, first in Bombay
and then at Adyar. (There are some indications that Blavatsky offered the
positions to the Coulombs for fear that Emma may have exposed details of
her Cairene adventures to public scrutiny). Though granted the grandiose
appellations of Librarian and Assistant Corresponding Secretary, the tasks
amounted to little more than domestic overseer for Emma and general factotum
for Alexis, a circumstance much to the displeasure of Madame Coulomb.
During Blavatsky's
absence, Emma had been entrusted with the keys to her mistress' private suite
and also to the Shrine room, so-called for Blavatsky's installation of a
specially-appointed room set apart for the veneration of the
Masters. Arguments arose between Emma and resident Theosophists about
access to these apartments, and as the insults volleyed from one party to the
other, Emma began to voice extraordinary accusations about fraud and mendacity
on the part of Blavatsky, culminating in her allegation that the Masters were a
fiction - indeed, Emma claimed to possess documentary evidence in support of
her contentions. Incensed at Emma's umbrage and apparent slander, the Board
of Control (established by the Founders to represent their interests during
their European sojourn) demanded that the Coulombs be expelled both from
membership and the headquarters; ultimately charges of slander, extortion, and
profligacy were brought by the Executive Committee of the General
Council. Following a tense impasse, the couple finally departed for
Madras on 23 May, 1884.
Apart from fielding
an incessant correspondence from indignant Society members, and wondering
whether Emma would seek her revenge by publishing letters which she claimed
incriminated her mistress, Blavatsky was occupied in London by the
fascinated curiosity which the Mahatma letters had aroused in members of the
newly-formed Society for Psychical Research. The SPR, as it is known, had
been constituted in 1882 with the stated aim: 'to examine without prejudice or
prepossession and in a scientific spirit those faculties of man, real or
supposed, which appear to be inexplicable in terms of any generally recognized
hypotheses'. The SPR has suffered much under the hand of revisionist
historians who have tended to interpret it as a rationalist foil to the general
'flight from reason' which characterised the latter
nineteenth-century. In reality, the SPR at the time of its origin was less
concerned with the measurement of specific extra-sensory potentialities, than
with investigating the philosophico-religious
questions aroused by the necromantic activities of Spiritualism. As James Webb
has noted, 'it is difficult to escape the conclusion that in certain cases the
SPR fulfilled the function of Spiritualist church for intellectuals.
On 2 May, 1884, the
SPR convened a committee to investigate the phenomena produced by Blavatsky:
the committee comprised the President, Henry Sidgwick, and members E. Gurney,
F. W. H. Myers, F. Podmore, and J. H. Stack (soon
thereafter completed by Mrs. Eleanor Sidgwick and Richard Hodgson). The
SPR committee interviewed Olcott, Sinnett, and an
Indian Theosophist named Mohini Mohun Chatterji (1858-1936); last of all they met with Blavatsky,
who was much overcome with a sense of foreboding. The resultant report,
entitled First Report of the Committee of the Society for Psychical
Research, Appointed to Investigate the Evidence for Marvellous
Phenomena Offered by Certain Members of the Theosophical Society, proved to
be a rather innocuous document, failing to arrive at substantial conclusions.
There is the sense that the committee maintained strong reservations about the
extraordinary breadth of claims made in Blavatsky's half, but were somewhat
overcome by the strength of testimonial support. It was agreed that the
phenomena required further examination.
In an effort to
broaden the investigation and, it seems, to create of it an exemplar for the
burgeoning industry of psychical research, the SPR dispatched one of its
young recruits, the Australian Richard Hodgson (1855-1905), to India.
Hodgson was eager to begin his investigation, surprising staff at Adyar by
arriving before their mistress had returned from Europe. Although he had
been granted a broad brief by his superiors, centred
primarily around Blavatsky's Spiritualistic phenomena (raps, mysterious music,
and so on) and the generation and delivery of the Mahatma letters, Hodgson soon
began to focus upon the Masters, having correctly divined their centrality to
the Theosophical movement. Hodgson's investigations lasted three
months; by the end of his sojourn he had come to believe that Blavatsky was an
inveterate fraud, her Masters were mythical, and the premises upon which the
Society rested were illusory. His final report (Report of the Committee
Appointed to Investigate Phenomena Connected with the Theosophical Society)
was devastating for the entire membership.
Hodgson was
serendipitously provided with ample material to declare the Masters a fiction
by the disaffected Emma Coulomb. Having sought vengeance upon the Adyar
Theosophists since the disgrace of her departure, Madame Coulomb had ultimately
fulfilled her promise by publishing her correspondence with Blavatsky in the Madras
Christian College Magazine. Beginning in September, the magazine
published the letters in two instalments, entitled, tellingly, 'The Collapse of
Koot Hoomi'. Taken on
face value the letters are highly incriminating; they document several
occasions when Blavatsky had solicited the couple's help in producing
fraudulent phenomena or masquerading as Masters. The question of the
veracity of these letters is a vexed one. Certainly, Blavatsky claimed
that portions of the correspondence were genuine, but that interpolations had
corrupted the text and perverted her meaning. It is unlikely that the
controversy over these pivotal documents will ever be resolved: the originals
of the letters appear subsequently to have been destroyed.
Having arrived at the
a priori conclusion that the Masters were illusory, Hodgson proceeded to
dismantle what he saw as the apparatus of the deception. He concluded
that the fabled Mahatma letters had been penned by Blavatsky (with the probable
assistance of Damodar), and that the shrine was
an elaborate artifice specifically designed to obscure common conjuring
tricks. Recent investigations, as previously noted, have summarily
rejected his findings, at least with regard to the authorship of the Mahatma letters. Unfortunately,
the shrine itself had been dismantled by Hartmann and William Quan Judge
(1851-1896) prior to Hodgson's arrival in India. It is now impossible to
ascertain whether the shrine apparatus was originally intended to facilitate
deception, or whether Alexis Coulomb altered it so as to implicate Blavatsky in
fraud. Hodgson departed for Europe 26 March, 1885, having informed
Blavatsky and Olcott of his general conclusions.
By this time life in
India was becoming untenable for Blavatsky. She had become extremely
ill, often requiring confinement in bed; her relationship with Olcott had
deteriorated markedly on account of his growing suspicion of possible duplicity
on her part; the General Council of the Theosophical Society had intervened in
the dispute with the Coulombs, preventing her from prosecuting her defamers in
court; and now she faced sure ignominy once the final report was
tabled. As a consequence, five days after Hodgson's departure from Adyar,
Blavatsky left for Naples aboard the SS Pehio,
never to return to India.
Hodgson read a
synopsis of his report to the SPR on 29 May and tabled his findings before the
General Meeting of 26 June, 1885. By December the Report had received the
imprimatur of the SPR and was published in their Proceedings. The
opinion of Hodgson, one ratified by members of the SPR, is best summed up in
the oft-quoted Committee's conclusion which prefaces the Report:
For our own part, we
regard her neither as the mouthpiece of hidden seers, nor as a mere vulgar
adventuress; we think that she has achieved a title to permanent remembrance as
one of the most accomplished, ingenious, and interesting imposters in history.
The 'Hodgson Report'
caused major scandal for the Theosophical Society. Not only had Blavatsky
been summarily condemned as yet another Spiritualist fraud, but the Masters had
been exposed to ridicule as a vast conceit:
I must express my
unqualified opinion that no genuine psychical phenomena whatever will be found
among the pseudo-mysteries of the Russian lady alias Koot
Hoomi Lal Singh alias Mahatma Morya
alias Madame Blavatsky.
A more penetrating
observation was offered by F. W. H. Myers, a member of the investigating
committee. His comment suggests the significance and ramifications of the
'Hodgson Report':
Madame Blavatsky (one
may say) was within an ace of founding a world-religion, merely to amuse
herself and to be admired.
go to:
HPB AND HER 'MASTERS'
OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
AN EXTENDED
FAMILY: EXTRAMURAL MASTERS
For updates
click homepage here