5 THE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH AFFAIR
The Professor Kiddle incident was the first blow to hit the Theosophical Society publicly. Sinnett, who had at first remained silent over this affair, decided in the fourth edition of The Occult World to present a rather awkward explanation given by Koot Hoomi himself. [1] According to him, the fact that it looked like plagiarism was due to the clumsiness and negligence of a 'chela' (disciple) charged with 'precipitating' and transmitting his message who had omitted precisely the part showing the incriminating passage to be merely a quotation. The 'Master' was forced to admit that he had been 'careless' in letting his letter be sent without having proofed it for corrections. It seems he was very tired, and one must believe him, for he was strangely lacking in 'clairvoyance' on this occasion. [2]
After having restored what was supposed to be the complete version of the message and having presented a much belated apology to Kiddle, Sinnett made the best of his misfortune, closing in these terms:
We must not regret the incident too much, because it provided an opportunity to offer some useful explanations and thus enabled us to know more intimately details, which are full of interest, relating to the methods which the adepts sometimes use for their correspondence. [3]
Sinnett was referring to the explanations of the so-called Koot Hoomi regarding the methods of 'precipitation'. But the methods that were really used for this correspondence began to be made known around this time, in the statements of Allen O. Hume. If the phenomena occurred more easily and were more plentiful in the headquarters of the Society than anywhere else, the causes behind this were probably not
the constant presence of Madame Blavatsky and one or two other persons of highly sympathetic magnetism, the purity of life of all habitually resident there, and the constant influences poured in by the Brothers themselves. . . .4
The truth is that in Adyar, Blavatsky was surrounded by accomplices she could not have brought everywhere with her without arousing suspicion. Not to mention Olcott, there was first of all the Coulomb couple, her former associates of the 'miracles club' of Cairo, whom she met in India shortly after her arrival. There was also a certain Babula who had been in the service of a French conjurer and who had himself boasted of having 'fabricated and shown Mahātmās out of muslin' in the same manner as fake mediums with their 'materializations'. There were also several so-called 'chelas', such as Damodar K. Mavalankar, Subba Rao, and Mohini Mohun Chatterjee, who helped Mme Blavatsky write the 'precipitated letters', as she herself
admitted later on to Solovioff. [5] Finally, when all these conscious aides were not sufficient, there were still the unconscious and unwitting accomplices, such as Dhabagiri Nath Bavaji, who according to his own written declaration dated September 30, 1892, was totally under the magnetic influence of Mme Blavatsky and Damodar K. Mavalankar, believing everything they told him and doing everything they suggested. Given such an entourage, many things were possible, and Blavatsky knew perfectly well how to make use of her wonders when it came to converting people to her theories or even to drawing from them tangible profits: 'Now my dear,' she wrote to Mrs Coulomb one day while speaking of a certain Jacob Sassoon, 'let us change the program; he is willing to give ten thousand rupees if only he sees a little phenomenon. [6]
However, the very multiplicity of accomplices was bound to create certain problems, for it was difficult to ensure their full discretion, and it seems that in this respect the Coulombs were not above reproach. Thus, on noticing that things were turning out badly, Blavatsky embarked for Europe along with Olcott and Mohini Mohun Chatterjee after forming a board of governors composed of Saint-George, Lane Fox, Dr Franz Hartmann, Devan Bahadur Ragunath Rao, Srinivas Rao, and T. Subba Rao. She had asked Lane Fox to get rid of the Coulombs for her. This was done under some pretext or other in May 1884, at the very moment when Blavatsky had just proclaimed in London: 'My mission is to overthrow spiritualism, convert the materialists, and prove the existence of the Brothers of Tibet. [7] It was not long before the infuriated Coulombs took their revenge. It is said that they sold the Blavatsky letters they had in their possession to missionaries; in any event, these letters were soon after published in a Madras newspaper. [8] Apparently, Mme Blavatsky was extremely sensitive about this counterattack, for as
soon as she received the earliest reports of it she sent Olcott to Adyar in order to 'set things right' and wrote to Solovioff:
I am ready . . . to give up not only my life but my honour. I have sent in my resignation, and shall retire from the scene of action. I will go to China, to Thibet, to the devil, if I must, where nobody will find me, where nobody will see me or know where I am; I will be dead to everyone but two or three devoted friends like you, and I wish it to be thought that I am dead; and then in a couple of years, if death spares me, I will reappear with strength renewed. This has been decided and signed by the 'general' [Morya] himself. . . . The effect of my resignation publicly announced by myself will be immense. [9]
A few days later, she wrote again:
I have resigned and now there is the strangest mess. The general ordered this strategy, and he knows. I have, of course, remained a member, but merely a member, and I am going to vanish for a year or two from the field of battle.... I should like to go to China, if the Mahatma will permit; but I have no money. If it is known where I am, all is lost.... But my programme, if you approve, is this: let us as be heard of as mysteriously as possible, and vaguely too. Let us Theosophists be surrounded now by such mystery that the devil himself won't be able to see anything, even through a pair of spectacles. [10]
However, she had a sudden change of mind: from Paris, where she had been staying, she went to London for a fortnight, and then left for Adyar, where she arrived at the beginning of December 1884.
Meanwhile, the Society for Psychical Research of London, whose attention had been drawn by the propaganda spread throughout most of Europe by the Theosophical Society, had formed a commission to study the nature of Mme Blavatsky's 'phenomena'. Delegated by this commission, Dr Richard Hodgson traveled to Adyar. He arrived there in November 1884 and made a meticulous inquiry
lasting until April 1885. The result was a lengthy report in which all the 'tricks' Mme Blavatsky used were exposed in detail, and which ended with the formal conclusion that 'she is not the mouthpiece of clairvoyants unknown to the public, nor a common adventurer, but has won her place in history as one of the most accomplished, ingenious, and interesting imposters whose name deserves to go down in history. [11] This report was published only in December 1885, after careful examination by the Society for Psychical Research, which consequently declared Mme Blavatsky 'guilty with others of a long continued scheme to produce through ordinary means a series of apparent wonders in support of the Theosophical movement.' This new affair had far greater repercussions than the former ones. Not only did it bring about many more resignations in London, but it soon became known outside England, [12] and in conjunction with other incidents which we shall report further on it was the cause of the almost total ruin of the Paris branch.
Dr Hodgson's report was supported by a number of convincing documents, in particular the correspondence between Mme Blavatsky and the Coulombs, the authenticity of which can in no way be questioned. Alfred Alexander, who published these letters, [13] challenged Blavatsky to sue him in court. Later on, although ill, she hurried back to Europe upon being cited by the Coulombs as witness in a lawsuit they had filed against a member of the Theosophical Society (General Morgan against whom they had some grievance), this time leaving Olcott behind in Adyar; this was at the beginning of April 1885. Furthermore, this correspondence was carefully examined by two of the most skilful experts in England, who acknowledged its authenticity. It was also acknowledged by Mr Massey, former president of the London branch, who at the time of the Kiddle affair had discovered that the appearance of the 'precipitated letters' in his home was due only to the skills of a servant in the pay of
Mme Blavatsky. [14] In addition, the English experts also examined the letters by the 'Mahātmās' which Dr Hodgson had managed to acquire, and affirmed that they were written by Mme Blavatsky and Damodar K. Mavalankar, which is perfectly in keeping with the various statements we have already quoted. [15] Moreover, Mavalankar left Adyar at the same time as Blavatsky, and was alleged to have gone to Tibet.
We have just said that Mme Blavatsky was ill at the time of her departure. She took advantage of this circumstance to take Dr Hartmann along with her, as she wanted to keep him away from Adyar because of his very ambiguous role, even accusing him bluntly of double-dealing and of having provided weapons to her foes. She wrote of him:
This awful man has done me more harm by his defence, and often with his deceitfulness, than the Coulombs through their open lies. . . . He once defended me in his letters to Hume and to other Theosophists and then insinuated such vile things that all his correspondents turned on me. It is he who converted Hodgson, the representative sent by the London Psychical Society to investigate the phenomena in India, from friend into foe. He is a cynic, liar, shrewd and vindictive; his jealousy toward the Master [sic] and his envy of anyone who receives the least bit of attention from the Master are simply repulsive. . . . At present I have been able to rid the Society of him by agreeing to take him along with me on the pretext that he is a doctor. The Society with Olcott at its head was so afraid of him that they did not dare expel him. He
did all this with the intention of dominating me, to draw out of me all that I know, forbidding me to allow Subba Rao to write The Secret Doctrine, and instead to write it himself under my guidance. But he made a great mistake. I brought him here, and told him that I would not write The Secret Doctrine now but that I would write for the Russian reviews, and I refused to speak a single word of occultism to him. Seeing that I had decided to keep silent and not teach him anything, he has finally left. He will no doubt start spreading lies about me in the German Society, but I don't care any more now; let him lie. [16]
Really, one must admit that these apostles of 'universal brotherhood' have quite a charming way of treating one another! The facts which triggered Mme Blavatsky's accusations are rather unclear. Upon the order of the 'Mahātmās', Hartmann had prepared a response to Hodgson's report, but since General Morgan had threatened to raise a fuss because his name was mentioned, Olcott destroyed it. [17] The role of Morgan, a general from the British army of India, is again an enigmatic issue. A few years later, in 1889, Hartmann took his revenge by publishing (one wonders how he managed to do so) a short story entitled 'The Speaking Image of Urur', in Lucifer, the Theosophical review which was also Mme Blavatsky's mouthpiece: it was nothing but a bitter satire of the Society and its founders under the guise of an all too obvious allegory (Urur being the name of a place near Adyar).
According to Mme Blavatsky, all that happened was the fault of the Society she had founded and of its members who were unceasingly asking her for wonders. To Countess Wachtmeister she said:
This is the karma of the Theosophical Society, and it falls upon me. I am made to bear all the sins of the Society. . . . O! cursed phenomena, which I only produced to please private friends and instruct those around me. . . . [18]
People were continually bothering me. It was always, 'Oh! do
materialize this,' or, 'do let me hear the astral bells,' and so on, and then I did not like to disappoint them. I acceded to their requests. Now I have to suffer for it! [19]
A little later she again wrote to the Countess:
These accursed phenomena have ruined my character, which is a small thing and welcome, but they have also ruined Theosophy in Europe. . . . Phenomena are the curse and ruin of the Society. [20]
However unhappy Mme Blavatsky may really have been at the time, it may be assumed that if her 'phenomena' were genuine, on her return to Europe she would not have missed the opportunity of asking to demonstrate them in front of the Society for Psychical Research, which had not yet rendered its final judgment, and of which moreover several of its members were simultaneously members of the London branch of the Theosophical Society. [21] But she carefully avoided such an experiment even though it would have been the only valid answer she could have furnished to her accusers. Instead, she was content to say that 'if she were not restrained' and 'if these questions were not among those she had solemnly vowed never to answer,' she would sue them in court. Now that she was far away from them she simply called the Coulomb's revelations 'lies', [22] and the 'phenomena' ceased almost completely, whereas they had been abundant during her stay in Europe the preceding year. [23]
In this connection we may add that some people believe there is no role today in Theosophy for these occult phenomena which played such an important role at the beginning, either because the study thereof has lost interest or because basically they only serve to
attract members-a function attributed to them by Mme Blavatsky, according to Countess Wachtmeister-and are therefore now useless. [24] Indeed, if Blavatsky's mishaps had put an end to the showy displays, since it had been shown only too clearly how dangerous certain blunders could be for the reputation of their authors, the Theosophists nevertheless continued to take an interest in the 'development of the latent powers of the human organism,' as this had always been the essential goal of the 'esoteric section', or the 'Eastern Theosophical School'. As proof, here is an excerpt from the statement of principles of the Theosophical Society (which is quite different from the initial proclamation made in New York):
The goal of the Theosophical Society is: (1) to form the nucleus of a universal brotherhood without distinction of gender, color, race, rank, creed, or party; (2) to promote the study of Aryan and Eastern literature, religions, and sciences; (3) to examine in depth the unexplained laws of nature and the latent psychic powers in man. The first two objects are exoteric and are based on the oneness of Life and Truth beyond all differences of form and epoch. The third one is esoteric and is based on the possibility of realizing this unity and understanding this truth.
Besides, in order to convince oneself that such is still the case, it is enough to go through Leadbeater's works, even those that are most recent, which make repeated references to 'clairvoyance', manifestations of 'Adepts', 'elementals', and other entities of the 'astral world'. These matters are indeed of very limited interest as such, but the Theosophists have a different view; they hold the most keen attraction for the majority of Theosophists and there are even those who have no interest in anything else. In any event, in comparison with theories even of a low order, these phenomena have the great advantage of being within the reach of all levels of intelligence and of being able to give seeming satisfaction to the most coarse and limited minds. [25]
There are those who believe that the 'esoteric section' no longer exists in the Theosophical Society, but this is not so. The truth is that in order to allay suspicion it has been turned into an organization that is nominally distinct from the Society, but is nevertheless subject to the same leadership. Following the example of Masonry and many other secret societies, it was deemed preferable to do away with the signs of recognition formerly in use among the members of the Theosophical Society and commonly regarded, although wrongly, as one of the essential characteristics of any secret society. We say 'wrongly' because we know that there are certain organizations, especially in the East, which are clearly among the most closed of all, and do not use any external means of recognition; perhaps the Theosophists are unaware of this, and their organization can in no way be compared to these. We wish only to make the point that the suppression of signs proves absolutely nothing, and that no importance need be attached to this, all the more so in that these signs, contrary to situations elsewhere-within Masonry for instance-could never have the least traditional symbolic value in this so recently created society.