QUESTIONS AND CHALLENGES.
“Hath he said anything?”
“He hath, my lord; but, be you well assured,
No more than he’ll unswear.”—“OTHELLO.”
“Next in importance, or perhaps equal in value, to Devotion, is
Truth.”—Circular on “Occultism and Truth,” signed by H. S. OLCOTT,
ANNIE BESANT, B. KEIGHTLEY, &c., July, 1894.
In my first chapter I set out certain conclusions. In succeeding
chapters I have given the facts on which my conclusions were based. I
now assert that the evidence for those facts, be it good or bad, is that
of the Theosophical leaders themselves, written and signed as the case
against the Vice-President, and adopted by Mrs. Besant as true. If it be
not true, then Colonel Olcott, Mr. B. Keightley, Mr. W. R. Old, and the
other official witnesses must be guilty of a conspiracy, as I said at
the outset, “even more discreditable to the personnel of the society.”
It is not I who accuse Mr. Judge. It is Mr. Judge and his colleagues who
accuse each other. The rank-and-file of the Theosophists have paid their
money; they may now take their choice.
The fact is, before Mrs. Besant got hold of the evidence, at least one
set of complete and duly witnessed copies had been made, together with
facsimiles of the documents. It is these which lately fell into my
hands, under circumstances which left me free to take, as I do take, the
moral and legal responsibility of that publication which the president
first promised and afterwards shirked.
* * * * *
In regard to Mr. William Q. Judge, vice-president, I do not feel called
on to labour any theory of my own as to that gentleman’s character and
conduct. As the Society for Psychical Research long ago remarked, the
precise line between rogue and dupe in the Theosophical Society has
never been easy to draw. On any view of Mr. Judge I have at least as
much respect for him as for his virtuously vacillating superior, whose
mind seems to have been made up for him from one stage to another by
whatever party happened to be at the moment nearest and most peremptory.
With the facts of the preceding narrative before him, the reader can
form his own opinion about both officials.
Equally unable am I to state what Mr. Judge’s own version of Mr. Judge’s
acts may be. I have read and re-read his “statement” at the “Enquiry,”
and his circular issued just previously. In these I have groped—faint,
yet pursuing—among the mazes of that Theosophical verbiage which always
seems to be coming to the point; but for me at least it has never quite
got there. Where the denials are most explicit, the thing denied is
vaguest; where admission is most candid, the thing admitted is least
relevant to the issue. Mr. Judge admits, for instance, that he is a
“fallible human being”; he denies that he has “forged.” I, for one,
should never dream of disputing either position. The verb, to forge,
definitely connotes in English the imitation of the signature of a
person who really exists, and who has also an existent banking account.
The worst I should dream of imputing to Mr. Judge in this connexion is
the imitation of someone else’s imitation of the feigned signature of
somebody who never existed.
Mr. Judge must see that between the mere human fallibility to which he
confesses, and the felony of which no one has accused him, it does not
need a sensitive ear to distinguish whole octaves of intervening notes.
Thanks to Mrs. Besant, he has not yet been obliged to locate himself at
any one point of the gamut. But, for all I know, he may now come forward
and twit his associates with deficient humour for not seeing that the
whole thing was just a rollicking hoax. Throwing off the _rôle_ of an
interpreter of Tibet, he may appear as William Q. Judge, the American
Humorist. He might fairly claim that many have performed under a like
title much less divertingly. He might say that the joke was so obvious
that it never struck him his colleagues would take it seriously; that
their evident determination not to spoil sport was an invitation no
joker could have resisted; and that he only kept it up so long for the
fun of seeing, through a graduated scale of absurdity, how much they
really would stand. Of course, to carry through a big practical joke one
may be excused a few taradiddles, to which the moralist might apply a
harsher name. No doubt some might question the taste of making a
friend’s funeral the starting-point of even the most innocent _mauvaise
plaisanterie_. But American humour has never spared the cemetery.
* * * * *
From my own position, then, and Mr. Judge’s position, I now pass to Mrs.
Besant’s. This is interesting from its bearing on the curious
psychological puzzle offered by Mrs. Besant’s own mind, to the study of
which she herself continually invites the public. Let us accept the
invitation for a moment.
I take Mrs. Besant’s statement at the so-called “Enquiry,” that she
believed now that Judge wrote with his own hand the missives which he
had induced her, and she had induced the public, to regard as
precipitations from Tibet of the kind which “some people would call
miraculous.”
Apparently Mrs. Besant considers that this avowal sufficed to clear her
honour towards her colleagues and the public whom she had “misled.” To
me it appears admirably calculated to mislead them again. Remember, even
those whom Mrs. Besant was addressing—much more the outside public—were
ignorant of the facts. Mrs. Besant had taken good care of that.
_They_ did not know, as the reader does, the circumstances which
surrounded these various missives: The “Master Agrees” missive, the
Telegram missive, the Cabinet missive, the “Note the Seal,” the “Judge’s
Plan is Right,” the “Judge is the Friend,” the Envelope Trick, the
“Withold,” the “Master will Provide,” the Bank-note, the Inner Group,
the “Grave Danger Olcott,” the “Judge is not the Forger,” the “Follow
Judge and Stick,” and the Poison Threat missive—as I have severally
named them.
Referring to those circumstances, as the reader now knows them, I ask of
what did and does Mrs. Besant mean to convict Mr. Judge?
If Judge “wrote with his own hand” the answers got from the cabinet
oracle (May 23, 1891), did he also use sleight-of-hand or some similar
artifice to make her accept the answers as precipitated in a sealed
envelope in a closed drawer?
If Judge “wrote,” &c., the slip “Judge’s plan is right,” the sudden
appearance of which among Mrs. Besant’s papers made her and him joint
officials on May 27, 1891—did he also place it among those papers on
purpose to be so discovered?
If Judge “wrote” &c., Mrs. Besant’s message of July 12, 1891, which was
across the inside flaps of a closed envelope—did he also insert the
writing by the trick described in the chapter which I entitled “Every
Man his Own Mahatma”?
If Judge “wrote,” &c., all the various letters, notes, and endorsements
to which the “Mahatma’s” signature and seal were attached, missives
backing Judge’s own views, raising Judge’s own Theosophical status, and
bluffing other “servants” of that “Master,” to whom he and they cannot
allude without capital letters—did he also “with his own hand” take and
affix the seal which he has persistently denied having ever set eyes on?
If Mrs. Besant did _not_ mean all this, and much more which hangs by the
same logic, then her Statement grossly calumniated Mr. Judge to the few
who knew the tenor of the case against him.
If she _did_ mean it, then her Statement completely hoodwinked her
audience and the public.
For will anybody assert that _this_, which has just been outlined, or
anything like it, was the picture naturally called up by Mrs. Besant’s
carefully worded description of “Mr. Judge’s error” as the negative one
of “not mentioning” certain circumstances, her suggestion that personal
opinions might reasonably differ on the “legitimacy” of his methods, her
laudatory allusions to his general character and Theosophic services,
her public sanction of a statement on his part which on this theory must
have been utterly misleading, her eager lead in the attempt to cloak up
for ever the Great Mahatma Hoax, and to shield the hoaxer?
But there is another point. Mrs. Besant professes still to cling to the
belief that the Mahatmas had something to do with the letters. Mr. Judge
wrote them, she says, but what he wrote he had first “received
psychically from the Master.”
Faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast
To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last.
Nobody can prove that those missives, or, for that matter, these
articles, or Shakespeare’s plays, were not due to the Master’s
“psychical” authorship. Mr. Judge and Mrs. Besant are both quite free to
say so. But again I must point out to Mrs. Besant the logical inferences
from her position. In the attempt to hold on to one spar in the general
wreck, she just says enough to inculpate the Mahatma, and not enough to
exculpate Mr. Judge.
For, to apply theory once more to concrete fact: Does Mrs. Besant
attribute to the Mahatma the preposterous insinuations against Colonel
Olcott? And does she mean that the Mahatma made these insinuations and
various direct false statements in order to co-operate with Mr. Judge in
shielding from discovery a prolonged use of a bogus imitation of the
Mahatma’s own seal and signature?
In this case, we are entitled to challenge Mrs. Besant to say whether
she herself now believes that the insinuations against Colonel Olcott
were justified. If yes, then I can only leave her to settle that matter
with the Colonel. If no, then what becomes of the supernal wisdom and
lofty character of “Those Who to some of us are most sacred”? Must it
not be confessed that They have made uncommon fools of Themselves?—not
to give a stronger name to the extremely shady methods of which Tibetan
diplomacy is thus found guilty.
The public will await satisfactory answers to these questions. It will
not, I hope, for a moment suspect Mrs. Besant of conscious fraud, or of
sordid motives. I most certainly do not. With some of the lesser fry,
who would be bankrupt in every sense if Theosophy failed them, the
consideration of pleasant board and lodging at other people’s expense
may be a governing one. With Mrs. Besant, who brings far more to the
organisation in the shape of gate-money, no doubt, than she ever
condescends to accept from it, the motives are subtler. Had she boldly
cut herself free from the rottenness at the core of the Theosophic
movement as soon as it was shown to her, she might have saved her
reputation for straightforwardness, if not for intelligence. In choosing
instead the equivocal policy of hushing up a scandal at all costs, she
doubtless convinced herself that she was acting only for the ends of
edification and the good of her church. That is the old, old story of
priestcraft, and Mrs. Besant has been playing the high priestess now for
three years. But were there not also some more personal motives at work?
There is one thing which even the most candid hate to confess—and that
is, that they have been thoroughly bamboozled. It does not improve
matters when they have themselves helped in their own bamboozlement. To
confess how recklessly inaccurate were her statements about “the same
handwriting,” the “semi-miraculous precipitation,” the absolute
assurance of her own senses, and so forth; to let the public see for
itself the childish twaddle which she accepted, and helped to force upon
others, as profound and oracular: all this would have been a sad
come-down from the Delphic tripod. I do not wonder the poor lady shrank
from it. I do wonder that Mrs. Besant cared to evade it at the expense
of a sort of confidence-trick. To this has come the woman whom we once
thought, whatever her other faults, at least fearless and open—the woman
whose epitaph, so she tells us, is to be—
_She Sought To Follow Truth!_
Lastly, a few words to the rank-and-file of the Theosophical Society, a
large proportion of whom are now gathering open-mouthed at Adyar. In
Madame Blavatsky few of the better-informed of the flock nowadays affect
to believe—except in public. They cling to her gifts, perhaps; they have
thrown over her morals. For fresh evidence has been coming to light,
ever since that strange woman died, as to the tricks to which she
condescended, and encouraged her _chelas_ to condescend; and poor
Colonel Olcott, though he continues to work the old gold-mine in print,
has been driven even there to enunciate the theory that Madame Blavatsky
herself was really killed at the battle of Mentana, and her body
thereafter occupied by seven distinct spirits who, of course, are not
responsible for contradicting each other. Till May, 1891, Madame was the
principal witness to the objective existence and attributes of Mahatmas.
Since that date, the principal witness is William Q. Judge. Soon the
faithful at Adyar will be filing into the Occult Room to gaze through
peep-holes at the two August Portraits, illuminated and set off by all
the artifices associated here with exhibitions by M. Jan van Beers. Will
they dare, any of them, to ask their officials plainly what evidence
they can now offer that either of the subjects of those fancy portraits
ever existed?
And if on this and other questions suggested by these chapters, Mrs.
Besant, President Olcott, and Vice-President Judge do not succeed in
satisfying their followers——what next? No doubt each member of the
trinity will sit secure in his or her autocracy in his or her own
continent, owning there, as I understand, the official organ and the
publishing plant which the society as a whole has built up into
prosperity. Yet something, surely, may be done by those who do not care
to remain unwilling parties to the Great Mahatma Hoax, to recover their
own self-respect, if not to save the Theosophical Society.
It is for them to decide whether the society, on its non-fraudulent
side, is worth saving. It may be a kind of university extension for the
popularising of Eastern philosophies. Or it may be, as some rather
think, a mere smattering of catch-words out of cribs for the use of
Mutual Mystification clubs, tending to a certain indigestion in the
mental processes and a flatulent style of English composition. In either
case there is no reason why the organisation should revolve about a
vortex of tomfoolery and legerdemain into which honest members are apt
to be sucked before they realise its true nature.
PART II.
“THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE.”
LETTERS ON VARIOUS SIDES FROM THEOSOPHISTS.
The foregoing chapters appeared in the _Westminster Gazette_, of October
29th, and nine succeeding issues. They attracted wide notice and
comment, and were the subject of allusion in a large part of the London
and provincial press. In accordance with their usual custom, the
official Theosophists in England are said to have cabled to their
leaders abroad to know what line they should take; but, if so, they do
not appear to have got any clear answer.
A mass of correspondence was addressed to the _Westminster Gazette_, and
to the author of the articles, some of it from officials, most of it
from private members; some admitting that “much is, and all may be
true,” others denying everything—in general terms; some throwing over
the Vice-President, others lauding him as a model of Theosophic
rectitude; some rejoicing (“in confidence”) at the “cleaning-out of this
Augean stable of trickery,” others declaring that, proved or disproved,
the charges do not matter a pin.
In regard to the repeated accusations that the assailant of the society
“waited” till its three Theosophic chiefs were at a distance before
challenging them on their “Enquiry,” it was pointed out that they gave
nobody any chance to wait, the official Report of the Enquiry being sent
round almost on the very day that Mrs. Besant sailed for Australia.
The following is a representative selection from the letters:—
I.—LETTERS FROM OFFICIALS.
FROM THE EUROPEAN SECRETARY: “DESERVING OF NO ANSWER.”
SIR,—I have forwarded the copies of your paper containing the series
of articles entitled “Isis Very Much Unveiled” to my friends Colonel
Olcott, Mrs. Besant, and Mr. Judge, who are respectively at their
posts and carrying out their engagements in India, Australia, and
the United States of America.
The mass of insinuations and misrepresentations with which these
articles abound is deserving of no answer.
I enclose you a copy of the Enquiry held in July last, to which the
full statements of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Judge are appended. This was
months ago issued to every member of the Theosophical Society and
published in full in our magazines. You can thus allow your readers
to form their own opinion, instead of relying on the insinuations of
your contributor, if you choose to do so.
The writer of the articles has several times made reference to a
private body of students, and endeavoured to involve it in his
attack. The informant of your contributor knows that he can with
impunity make any allegation he likes against that body, and that,
although it is in a position to give, and has already given to its
own members, a denial to his allegations with regard to its council,
it must, nevertheless, remain silent in public because of
obligations of honour.
For the rest, of the truth or falsity of the most serious
allegations I am without any knowledge, and do not propose to enter
the arena of mere opinion.
But of this I am confident—that my friends Colonel Olcott, Mrs.
Besant, and Mr. Judge, together with the best part of the
Theosophical Society, are not only ready and glad to face any
obloquy in upholding their individual ideals, but also that they are
also willing to sacrifice everything for the cause they hold so
dear, except the privilege of working heart and soul for its final
triumph.—I am, Sir, faithfully yours,
G. R. S. MEAD.
19, Avenue-road, Regent’s Park, N.W.
[The pamphlet forwarded by Mr. Mead is the so-called “Enquiry into
Certain Charges,” which was the starting-point of our articles, and
which was very fully dealt with in the last two of the series.—ED.
_W. G._]
FROM THE VICE-PRESIDENT’S REPRESENTATIVES: “WE COULD AN IF WE WOULD.”
SIR,—You appear to have expected an immediate reply to the series of
articles entitled “Isis Very Much Unveiled.” This expectation is
astonishing in view of the fact that, while the three persons mainly
attacked by you were together in London for some weeks this summer,
you waited until Mrs. Annie Besant and Colonel Olcott are now
respectively in Australia and India, and Mr. W. Q. Judge is on a
lecturing tour in the United States, as your informant knows. His
time for attack is well chosen, but no just measure of surprise can
be felt, either that their replies—should they care to make any—are
delayed, or that we should have intended originally to await the
close of your series before making our present brief remarks.
Your informant holds the position held among Freemasons by a brother
who has broken his Masonic pledge. Those who refuse to enter further
into this subject follow the traditions of all private societies in
like circumstance. Englishmen will take at its proper valuation all
information on whatever subject from such a source. We beg to take
distinct issue with you on the point of the minor importance of
sources of information. Our whole legal system is based upon the
contrary fact. Character of witnesses has primary weight with all
civilised juries.
The Theosophical Society has no concern with the beliefs of its
members, nor with questions of Thaumaturgy. The endeavour to spread
a contrary belief, to confuse the issue by slanders, or attacks
against individual members, to belittle and misrepresent the objects
and work of the society, must alike fail in the face of general
disproof. The society pursues its way unaffected by all such
attempts.
The Committee of Investigation appointed to consider the charges
made against Mr. Judge threw out the indictment on the ground that
the constitution of the Theosophical Society rendered illegal all
charges involving questions of creed or belief. Mr. Judge came from
the United States in readiness for their investigation, and his
defence had to be abandoned for the preservation of the freedom of
our platform. We do not, therefore, propose to bring the case to
“trial by newspaper.” As representatives respectively of the
American Section of the T.S. and of the general secretary of that
Section on the Committee of Investigation, we are aware of the
rebuttal evidence held in readiness by Mr. Judge. He holds
affidavits from persons of unblemished reputation disproving a
number of the charges made then and now by you, of which evidence
detail is for the present reserved for the reasons above given. We
need not further emphasise the danger of conclusions formed from
“plaintiff’s evidence” only.
In conclusion, we beg to state our long acquaintance with, and our
confidence in the integrity and standing of, Mr. Judge, a confidence
shared, to our personal knowledge, to the fullest extent by the
American Section of the T.S., as the reports of its last Convention
prove. The American is the largest and the most active of our three
Sections, one which not only carries on an enormous work, but which
also assists the other two Sections. It is in it that Mr. Judge’s
long labour and personal sacrifices have won for him the respect of
the community.—Yours very truly,
ARCHIBALD KEIGHTLEY.
JAMES M. PRYSE.
30, Linden-gardens, Bayswater, W.,
November 6.
EDITORIAL NOTE APPENDED IN _Westminster Gazette_.
In regard to Dr. Keightley’s remarks on “the character of the
witnesses,” from which, in view of the law of libel, we have had to omit
one or two phrases, it is only fair to state that this letter was
received before it had been made clear in the articles that the chief
witnesses were, in fact, not Mr. Old, who has resigned office, but the
President and Dr. Keightley’s brother, who retain it.
ANOTHER AVENUE-ROAD OFFICIAL: “VOLUMINOUS LITERATURE” v. HARD FACTS.
SIR,—Now that you have had the only answer it is possible for the
present to make in connexion with that part of your articles which
professes to disclose the affairs of a secret body, I am at liberty to
make some remarks on that part of them which deals with the public
affairs of the Theosophical Society, if you will grant me the
opportunity of reply which, as a member of an attacked society, I have
the right to demand.
In spite of all implications and assertions to the contrary, I must
emphatically assert it as my opinion that the majority of members of the
society do _not_ join on account of phenomena; and I regard any attempt
to prove the contrary as a conscious or unconscious misrepresentation of
the actual state of affairs. A large mass of the public know well by
this time that the chief activity of the society consists in making
known and advocating a certain system of philosophy, and that appeals
are made to the judgment and intellectual sense of the people as to
whether they shall accept or reject it. I do not know whether your
intelligent readers will consider themselves flattered when they read
your contributor’s notion of the kind of procedure that is necessary to
captivate them; but I am inclined to think that most of them must have
common-sense enough to prefer judging a philosophy by its own merits to
accepting or rejecting it according to the evidence for and against
phenomena wrought in connexion with it. However, if there be any who,
indifferent to all questions of ethical and philosophical truth, choose
their faith according to its thaumaturgic properties alone, the society
will not be sorry to lose them, for such weak natures are a source of
weakness to every body in which they enrol themselves.
While declaring here my own belief in the integrity and sincerity of the
persons attacked in your articles, and regretting my inability lo
communicate all of that faith to others, I maintain, Sir, that Theosophy
will not stand or fall by any personal scandals, whether true or false,
and that the Theosophical Society will not cease to exist in Europe so
long as there are even a few who believe as I do.
Your contributor has sought to convey the impression that the
Theosophists, or at all events those who reside at the various
headquarters, live in an atmosphere of constant thaumaturgy and
intrigue; ever in expectation of some new wonder, ever ready to alter
their deepest convictions at a moment’s notice in accordance with some
enigmatical message or some trumpery sign. I call upon those who know
the society, are habitués at its meetings, or have lived at
headquarters, to say whether there is a grain of truth in this, or
whether, on the contrary, we are a body of earnest students, living a
prosaic life, and exhausting our energies in the endeavour to place
before others the truths we have found so helpful to ourselves.
Your contributor makes much of his contention that the adepts were
_invented_ by Madame Blavatsky. What does he expect to gain by this? If
he can succeed in discrediting Madame Blavatsky in the eyes of a few
persons, he cannot disprove the existence of adepts for them unless he
is also prepared to discredit every one of the other sources of
information from which the evidence for the existence of such exalted
men is drawn. Madame Blavatsky has _reminded_ the world of the reality
of those beings in which the more enlightened of its denizens have
always believed. Of the few who may have accepted the belief on her
testimony alone I would say, better they had taken the trouble to
substantiate it from other sources. Whether Madame Blavatsky invented
the adepts or not, at all events I here and now advance the theory, and
refer for my evidence to the Theosophical literature on the subject,
which is plentiful.
Let our critics, after reading it, come forward and publicly refute us.
We await their onslaught with pleasure. Many points I am obliged to
leave untouched on account of the length my letter would otherwise
assume; but I must just note the absolute futility of the statement that
“Max Müller has edited the only series of English translations of the
Sacred Books of the East with which I am acquainted,” and the complete
falsity of the statement that “there is no reason to believe that any
member of the society in Europe could pass an examination in any
Oriental language whatever.” Let these serve as samples of the quality
of the rest of the attack.
In conclusion, sir, I would call your readers’ attention to the
fantastically absurd position of an opponent who hopes to discredit, by
his so-called “exposure” of a certain group of manifestations, the whole
sacred science of true magic. I maintain that such a science as magic
(in its true sense) exists, that it teaches the mysteries of nature and
of man, that the voice of the ages endorses it, and that it is worthy of
study to-day. I am prepared to support these contentions publicly if
called upon, and can meanwhile refer your readers to the voluminous
literature of the subject.—Yours truly,
HENRY T. EDGE.
19, Avenue-road, Regent’s Park, London, N.W., November 7.
II.—LETTERS FROM PROMINENT THEOSOPHISTS.
FROM MR. HERBERT BURROWS: “A REPLY WE MUST HAVE, OR I LEAVE THE
SOCIETY.”
“What do you think of THE WESTMINSTER GAZETTE articles? What are the
Theosophical Society and what are its members going to do about them?”
This is the question which is asked me on all hands. I recognise that
not only my own personal friends but the public generally have a right
to ask this question, and to expect an answer, and I have asked the
permission of the Editor to give the answer from my own point of view,
without in the smallest degree pledging anyone else. Without the
smallest tinge of egotism, I may say that, next to Mrs. Besant, I am
perhaps better known to the public generally than any other English
member of the Theosophical Society. I have tried to bring a good many
people into the fold of the faith, I know intimately the currents of
thought inside the society, and while no one is responsible for the
opinions I express, I believe that they represent the feelings of a
large number of members.
The Old “Exposure” and the New.
When I read Mr. Garrett’s opening chapters, I said to myself,
“Chestnuts!” We had heard it so often before. All the while Mr. Garrett
was writing about the “S.P.R.” he was probably asking himself, How is it
that this business did not kill the Theosophical Society? The answer is,
Because it was not conclusive. When Mrs. Besant and I joined the
society, apart from each other, I joining a few days before her, Madame
Blavatsky said to both of us, “You had better read what there is against
me,” and referred us to the Psychical Report. We read it separately,
analysed it, and joined. I brought to it my Civil Service training, what
business faculties I had, and a fair knowledge of the laws of evidence.
I am a sceptic by nature, and I was then a materialist, and the honest
conclusion that I came to was that the case for the prosecution was far
too weak to warrant a conviction. That opinion I still hold. If I
thought differently I should be outside the Theosophical Society instead
of in it. I suppose that nine out of ten people who talk glibly about
the report have never seen even the covers of it.
[Illustration:
MRS. ANNIE BESANT.
(From a photograph by Messrs. Elliott & Fry, Baker-street, W.)
]
But I am bound to say that as Mr. Garrett went on with this newer case
the situation altered. The details are too precise, and supported by too
much evidence, for me honestly to escape from the conclusion that, if
the facts and documents are correctly set forth, a _primâ facie_ case
has been established against Mr. Judge.
“If Mr. Judge declines to answer.”
Some facts in the series of articles and many of the inferences are
wrong, as I shall have occasion to show; but enough is made clear to
imperatively demand an answer. The charge here is, of course, of no
offence known to the law; but were it otherwise, many men have been
found guilty on charges which were supported by less evidence than
these.
I am quite aware that a goodly number of my fellow Theosophists will
blame me exceedingly for saying this, especially some of our younger
members, whose moral sense seems somehow or other to have become
confused over this matter. Let me put myself quite straight with them.
My mind is perfectly open on the subject. I have no opinion yet one way
or the other as to Mr. Judge’s conduct, for I have not heard his
defence. For aught I know he may have a crushing, triumphant reply, and
Mr. Garrett and Mr. Old (and with them Mrs. Besant!) may all have to go
down on their knees to Mr. Judge. _But that reply we must have_, and as
a member of the Theosophical Society, whose motto is, “There is no
religion higher than Truth,” and who has appealed to the public to join
it because I believed that it was founded on truth, and that its chief
officials and leaders were upright, honourable people, I mean to use
every legitimate effort to get it. If Mr. Judge declines to give it, if
he refuses to come out into the open fully and squarely, or if his reply
does not meet the case, then sadly and reluctantly I shall have to leave
the Theosophical Society, for it will be impossible any longer to remain
in an organisation whose vice-president is in such a position.
An Appeal to all Honest Theosophists.
Now it depends on the members of the society as to whether Mr. Judge’s
reply shall be forthcoming. They can make such strong representations to
him as will be impossible for him to ignore, and I hold that it is their
duty to do so. Every member of the society has an indefeasible right to
know what manner of man their vice-president is, and it ought to be made
perfectly clear that the morality of the organisation is at least as
high as that of the best commercial morality, and is not based on
Jabez-Balfourism. If there is to be any talk, as there is already among
some members, of “letting by-gones be by-gones—saving the
situation—ignoring the attack for the sake of Theosophy, safeguarding
occultism,” &c., then self-respecting members will have to protest
strongly, and, if necessary, clear out. All such talk comes from mental
ostriches, and in this matter ostrich-tactics won’t work. It is not a
question of Mr. Judge, or of occultism, or the Theosophical Society, but
what is above and beyond all these, _Truth_, on which Theosophy itself
is based, as I firmly believe. If there is no religion higher than
truth, then truth must be had at all hazards. For the truth we shall
have to wait, perhaps, some months. Till we get it, minds should be
perfectly open and unbiassed. Only three people can give the truth—Mr.
Judge, Mrs. Besant, and Colonel Olcott. As far as lies in my power I
mean to see that the truth is forthcoming.
The Judicial Committee of Inquiry.
Over this Mr. Garrett has floundered somewhat. I was a member of it, and
know the facts. When Mr. Garrett says in his first article that “a few
people are aware ... that there was recently a Theosophic meeting at
which Mrs. Besant confessed to her friends that there had been something
wrong with the ‘communications,’” and that she persuaded those assembled
generally to hush the matter up, he does not know his case. This is what
really happened. After Mr. Old had been some time in India he came to
the conclusion that certain charges against Mr. Judge, which up to then
had been vaguely floating about, were true, and he said so. In England
we disbelieved them, for we had no real evidence, but when Mrs. Besant
reached India, and examined the evidence, she agreed with Mr. Old. She
formally adopted and formulated the charges, and the fact that she had
done so immediately became known all over the world. There was no
hole-and-corner work about it. An official investigation committee met,
but found itself blocked by the constitutional difficulties with which
your readers are now familiar.
Mrs. Besant and the Deadlock.
Then I proposed that we should resolve ourselves into a voluntary jury
of honour. Mr. Judge did not agree to this, and so there was a deadlock.
The evidence had not been heard, although Mrs. Besant was ready with it,
for the inquiry had not been made, neither had we heard Mr. Judge’s
defence. The next stage in the proceedings was the reading, to a very
full meeting of members from all parts of the world—for it was our
annual convention—of the statements by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Judge, to
which Mr. Garrett has so often referred. In her statement Mrs. Besant
said: “The vital charge is that Mr. Judge has issued letters and
messages in the script recognisable as that adopted by a Master with
whom H.P.B. was closely connected, and that these letters and messages
were neither written nor precipitated directly by the Master in whose
writing they appear.” That is pretty definite and precise. These two
statements by the accuser and the accused, together with all the
proceedings of the committee, were published in _Lucifer_ on August 15,
and they were reprinted in a pamphlet which was sent to every member of
the society, and I also know that the day before she sailed for
Australia Mrs. Besant made arrangements for that pamphlet to be sent to
all the principal papers of the United Kingdom. I have said all this at
length in order to dispel the idea that Mrs. Besant wished to bamboozle
the society or hush up charges of fraud. I know that it is asked why she
did not publish the whole of the evidence. If the official Enquiry had
been proceeded with the evidence would have been published with its
other proceedings. But Mrs. Besant felt, rightly or wrongly, that it
would be unfair of her to publish it without the defence, and this there
were no means of getting.
The Unsatisfactory Position of the Society.
But now see the unsatisfactory position of the society. The most serious
charge possible had been made by its chief member against its second
official, one of its founders, the tried and trusty friend of Madame
Blavatsky. The charges were still hanging over his head, his members in
America thoroughly disbelieved them, the members in India as thoroughly
believed them, and we in Europe did not know what to think. They had
been neither proved nor disproved. Colonel Olcott was going back to
India, Mr. Judge flitted back to America, and Mrs. Besant rushed off to
Australia to fulfil lecturing engagements made a year previously, and so
far as regards the society generally Mahomet’s coffin was not in it for
“floating.” Those of us who really took the thing to heart held our
hands. We fully recognised the gravity of the whole matter, but we
determined to wait till Mrs. Besant’s return before we moved, for
without the evidence we were powerless. But we reckoned without our
WESTMINSTER!
In concluding this article, I say frankly that THE WESTMINSTER has
really, although quite unconsciously, done Mr. Judge a good turn. I do
not for a moment flatter myself that Mr. Garrett wishes any good to
Theosophy! The tone of his articles precludes that idea. But his attack
on Mr. Judge puts the latter in this position, that if he chooses he can
defend himself without any fear whatever of pledging the Theosophical
Society to one jot or tittle of dogma with regard to Mahatmas. He is
attacked as a man, and as a man I sincerely hope that he will manfully
and satisfactorily reply.
HERBERT BURROWS.
FROM MR. W. R. OLD, EX-OFFICIAL: “A THOROUGH GRIP OF THE FACTS.”
SIR,—As my name has been publicly mentioned by Mr. Mead, general
secretary of the European T.S., in connexion with the series of articles
“Isis Very Much Unveiled,” I think it advisable to state my own position
and attitude in the matter.
The writer of those articles has named me, quite correctly, as having
taken the first step in forcing an inquiry into the case against Mr.
Judge. For this act of mine, I was suspended from my membership in the
Esoteric Section, under the authority of the joint signatures of William
Q. Judge and Annie Besant, Outer Heads of the E.S.T., and my name was
dishonourably mentioned before the members of the E.S., among whom I
numbered many an old colleague and friend. The mandate somehow found its
way into the public Press. However, there was one advantage. After her
official action in suspending me from membership Mrs. Besant was, of
course, bound to hear my justification. This happened at Adyar in the
winter of 1893. Mrs. Besant’s first remark to me after reading the case
and examining the documents was, “You were perfectly justified by the
facts before you.”
THE HEAD OFFICIALS PLEDGED TO PUBLISH THE FACTS.
In the presence of the president-founder Colonel Olcott, Mrs. Besant,
Countess Wachtmeister, Mr. E. T. Sturdy, together with Mr. Edge and
myself, it was decided that the task of officially bringing the charges
should devolve upon Mrs. Besant, and that the whole of the evidence
should be published. Consequently, the documents were handed over to
Mrs. Besant for the purpose of drawing up her charges, and the president
sent an official letter—or, as Colonel Olcott now claims, a “private
letter” in official form—dated at Agra, February 12, 1894, to Mr. Judge
as vice-president, in which he said (I re-quote from a circular issued
by Mr. Judge, March 15, 1894):—“I place before you the following
options:—
1. To retire from all offices held by you in the T.S., and leave me
to make a merely general public explanation; or,
2. To have a Judicial Committee convened ... and make public the
whole of the proceedings in detail.
In either alternative, you will observe, a public explanation is
found necessary: in the one case, general; in the other, to be full
and covering all the details.”
It was the second alternative which was adopted, with the abortive and
disingenuous result already known. But what of the “full publication of
all the details”? What of us Theosophists who had brought these charges
against Mr. Judge? Were we not left in the position of persons who had
brought charges without proving them? The position was one which I felt
to be intolerable. Mrs. Besant had the full evidence in her hands by
which to justify all the charges she had engaged to bring against Mr.
Judge, but for some reason best known to herself involved the whole
society in countenancing a systematic attempt to bolster up a delusion
by concealment of facts. Mrs. Besant was also in honour bound to publish
the facts, to all members of the society at least, since they were of a
nature to vitally affect the beliefs of Theosophists the world over. She
was, in short, bound to give them the same publicity as her former
professions of occult intercourse obtained.
“MORALLY BOUND TO GIVE PUBLICITY TO THE TRUTH.”
The T.S. is an organised body with a wide system of propaganda, and has
taken the public into its confidence in cases where its special claims
appear to have been supported by facts, and while the public are invited
to join the society it is only right and honest that they should know
what of those claims are true and what of those “facts” have stood the
test of inquiry. This responsibility cannot be avoided, and as I have
personally been instrumental in the inquiry into these claims and facts,
I am morally bound to give what publicity I can to the truth when
arrived at. To rectify what I believed to be a fatal policy on the part
of those concerned with the charges against Mr. Judge, I resigned from
all offices held by me in the T.S., and left myself free to speak openly
of the matter whenever occasion presented itself. I do not believe that
a system of truth can be raised from a fabric of fraud. In the course of
my travels I met with my friend Mr. Garrett, to whom, upon inquiry, I
gave the reasons of my resignation from official connexion with the
society. He asked my permission to publish the facts. My reply was that
although I could not unsay what I had said, I had not intended such
publication as he contemplated, and doubted whether the case could be
put forth with sufficient clearness and fairness by a “Philistine.” I
soon found, however, that he had a thorough grip of the facts; and on
his representation, the truth of which I had to admit, that the society
had closed the inquiry, and would not open its journals to a full
discussion of the evidence, I let him take his own course.
Certain persons, who seem unable to conceive that a man may act on
principle and without interested motives, have suggested that I was
moved by some petty personal grudge, or even by some pecuniary
inducement. I repudiate both these insinuations as lies. My independent
action in this matter has involved certain pecuniary sacrifices; I have
in no way used it, and should scorn to use it, for pecuniary gain.
MR. JUDGE AND MRS. BESANT.
It will, therefore, be clear to all members of the T.S. and the public
generally that I am responsible for the facts occurring in Mr. Garrett’s
articles only so far as they apply to the charges against Mr. Judge, and
for these I have documentary evidence produced under a legal hand, and
duly witnessed. With Mr. Garrett’s method of presenting the facts I am
by no means in sympathy. I do not lose sight of the fact that, however
mistaken or misled many of the Theosophical Society may be, as regards
the traditional “Mahatmas” and their supposed “communications,” they are
nevertheless as sincere in their beliefs as many of their more orthodox
fellows, and have as much right to respectful consideration. I regret
particularly that Mrs. Besant should have been placed in this awkward
public position by the present exposure. Her intention I believe to have
been perfectly honest, but I think she made a fatal mistake in avoiding
the publication of the full facts, and in allowing the misconception to
endure concerning her own and Mr. Judge’s connexion with the Mahatmas.
MME. BLAVATSKY AND THE MAHATMAS.
Of Madame Blavatsky I speak as I knew her. At the time I made her
acquaintance she had forsworn all “phenomenalism,” so that I never saw
any occult phenomena at any time. I believe that _for her_ the Mahatmas
existed, and I believe she thought them to be embodied personalities.
Colonel Olcott has another theory, and others have their own.
Personally, I believe in the extensibility of human faculty, and in the
existence of an order of intelligences higher than our own, but I do not
require that they are embodied or terrestrial in any sense of the word.
Finally, I have been through the Theosophical Society with my eyes open,
and for more than five years have been, officially and unofficially, as
fully “in the Theosophical Society” as one can well be; and while I am
certain that many are fully convinced of the truth of their own beliefs
in these matters, I am also fully assured that a large number are in the
position of persons self-deceived, who have unfortunately committed
themselves too far to review their position without almost disastrous
consequences to themselves and others. But that of which I have the
fullest conviction and the greatest amount of presentable proof is the
fact that no such thing as evidence of the existence (in an ordinary
sense) of the Mahatmas, or of their connexion with the T.S. as a body or
with its members individually, is obtainable by a person pursuing
ordinary methods of investigation.
For those who are willing to found their beliefs upon the mere statement
of another, without question of possible interestedness on the one hand,
or self-deception on the other, the position is of course otherwise. For
such persons _proofs_ have no value whatever, what they are pleased to
call their “beliefs” and their “knowledge” being determined or
determinable from the moment they sign away their independence of
judgment and freedom of thought.—Yours sincerely,
WALTER R. OLD.
P.S.—One misstatement of fact appears in your issue of November 3. What
Mr. Garrett refers to as “Madame Blavatsky’s Rosicrucian signet-ring”
was not a ring, but a jewel, used as a pendant. Also, the “dark
gentleman” who delivered the two £10 notes to Mr. Judge made his call
(so we were told) in the early afternoon, not in “the evening” as stated
in Mr. Garrett’s text. I am bound to add that, whatever may be my
annoyance and regret at the tone of the articles and of some of the
inferences, as regards that part of the evidence which is known to
myself, I have noticed so far no other substantial error of _fact_.
* * * * *
[These slight corrections have been made in this reprint.—_F. E. G._]
FROM MR. A. P. SINNETT: “OCCULTISTS MAY NOT TELL FIBS.”
SIR,—The circular bearing this title—referred to in your leading columns
yesterday—was issued last July, and directly affects some questions you
have lately been discussing. Under the circumstances, I hope you will
kindly consent to give it fuller publicity. It was addressed to students
of Occultism, and ran as follows:—
The inevitable mystery which surrounds Occultism and the Occultist
has given rise in the minds of many to a strange confusion between
the duty of silence and the error of untruthfulness. There are many
things that the Occultist may not divulge; but equally binding is
the law that he may never speak untruth. And this obligation to
Truth is not confined to speech; he may never think untruth, nor act
untruth. A spurious Occultism dallies with truth and falsehood, and
argues that deception on the illusory physical plane is consistent
with purity on the loftier planes on which the Occultist has his
true life; it speaks contemptuously of “mere worldly morality”—a
contempt that might be justified if it raised a higher standard, but
which is out of place when the phrase is used to condone acts which
the “mere worldly morality” would disdain to practise. The doctrine
that the end justifies the means has proved in the past fruitful of
all evil; no means that are impure can bring about an end that is
good, else were the Good Law a dream and Karma a mere delusion. From
these errors flows an influence mischievous to the whole
Theosophical Society, undermining the stern and rigid morality
necessary as a foundation for Occultism of the Right Hand Path.
Finding that this false view of Occultism is spreading in the
Theosophical Society, we desire to place on record our profound
aversion to it, and our conviction that morality of the loftiest
type must be striven after by every one who would tread in safety
the difficult ways of the Occult World. Only by rigid truthfulness
in thought, speech, and act on the planes on which works our waking
consciousness, can the student hope to evolve the intuition which
unerringly discerns between the true and the false in the
supersensuous worlds, which recognises truth at sight and so
preserves him from fatal risks in those at first confusing regions.
To cloud the delicate sense of truth here is to keep it blind there;
hence every teacher of Occultism has laid stress on truthfulness as
the most necessary equipment of the would-be disciple. To quote a
weighty utterance of a wise Indian disciple:—
“Next in importance, or perhaps equal in value, to Devotion is
TRUTH. It is simply impossible to over-estimate the efficacy of
Truth in all its phases and bearings in helping the onward evolution
of the human soul. We must love truth, seek truth, and live truth;
and thus alone can the Divine Light which is Truth Sublime be seen
by the student of Occultism. When there is the slightest leaning
towards falsehood in any shape, there is shadow and ignorance, and
their child, pain. This leaning towards falsehood belongs to the
lower personality without doubt. It is here that our interests
clash, it is here the struggle for existence is in full swing, and
it is therefore here that cowardice and dishonesty and fraud find
any scope. The ‘signs and symptoms’ of the operations of this lower
self can never remain concealed from one who sincerely loves truth
and seeks truth.”
To understand oneself, and so escape self-deception, Truth must be
practised; thus only can be avoided the dangers of the “conscious
and unconscious deception” against which a Master warned his pupils
in 1885.
Virtue is the foundation of White Occultism; the Pàramitàs, six and
ten, the transcendental virtues, must be mastered, and each of the
Seven Portals on the Path is a virtue, which the Disciple must make
his own. Out of the soil of pure morality alone can grow the sacred
flower which blossoms at length into Arhatship, and those who aspire
to the blooming of the flower must begin by preparing the soil.
H. S. OLCOTT, A. P. SINNETT, ANNIE BESANT, BERTRAM KEIGHTLEY, W.
WYNN WESTCOTT, E. T. STURDY, C. W. LEADBEATER.
I do not propose to discuss the merits of the case against Mr. Judge,
but we who signed this paper—without prejudging in their personal aspect
accusations which it had then been found impossible to thresh out
thoroughly—conceived it desirable to remind all fellow-students of
Occultism that no beneficial results along that path could possibly be
attained except by a course of life which, whatever else it might be,
should be strictly in harmony with the dictates of ordinary morality.
The Theosophical Society has grown in a few years to such extraordinary
proportions, and is so loosely jointed, that it cannot be correctly
thought of as a homogeneous association all parts of which are equally
represented by the officers nominally at its head. But it ought at this
crisis to be generally understood that the many persons of culture and
earnest purpose to whom spiritual progress along the original lines of
Theosophic teaching is the main object of existence are guided by
evidence concerning the possibilities of their higher evolution that is
of a kind utterly unlike that which you not unreasonably discredit. A
great block of such evidence is in our possession concerning not merely
the existence but also the attributes of the great initiates, and to
those of us in a position to appreciate this the foundations of
Theosophic knowledge are quite unshaken by such incidents as those on
which you have been commenting.—I am, Sir, yours, &c.,
A. P. SINNETT.
November 17.
WHOM DID THE CIRCULAR REFER TO
[In reference to the subject of Mr. Sinnett’s letter, the following
is an extract from the _Westminster Gazette_ under the
heading;—“More Theosophistry: A Belated Piece of Bluff.”]
In the current number of the _Review of Reviews_ a letter appears signed
by the Dr. Keightley who lately wrote to THE WESTMINSTER GAZETTE as a
professed representative of Mr. W. Q. Judge, Vice-President of the
Theosophical Society. The letter is worthy of some attention as an
illustration of the tactics of Mr. Judge’s friends, and of the line
which they were taking towards any allusion in the Press to certain
events before the appearance of the recent exposure in this journal.
The letter is dated October 25, and was therefore written at the time
when the Theosophists still hoped to maintain the great “hush up”
inaugurated at the Convention of last July, and before they dreamed that
all London would presently be discussing the facts which had been so
industriously buried.
The occasion of the letter appears to have been a comment of Mr. Stead’s
in the last number of the _Review_ on a circular lately issued under the
title of “Occultism and Truth.” This circular was issued just after the
so-called “Enquiry into Certain Charges against the Vice-President,” and
(to this office, at any rate) it was enclosed under one cover with the
pamphlet report of that “Enquiry.” The substance of it is an assurance
to the Theosophical world, on the part of some prominent Theosophists,
that occultists have no more right than ordinary people to fib. Coming
at the time when it did, and signed as it was by all the principal
official Theosophists, with the one exception of the vice-president, the
Editor of the _Review of Reviews_ very naturally interpreted it as
having some connexion with the charges against the last-named gentleman,
and with what his colleagues evidently felt to be their apparent
condonation of the “occult methods” ascribed to him.
The following is the substantial passage in the letter thereupon
addressed to the _Review of Reviews_ by Mr. Judge’s representatives:—
Allow us to make a very necessary correction.... Mrs. Besant, who
originated the circular, was asked directly whether it was connected
with the charges or whether it was in any way aimed at Mr. Judge.
She gave an emphatic denial to both questions to many who took the
same view expressed by you.
Another fact is not generally known, and leads people—yourself among
others—into unconsciously committing an injustice. The charges
against Mr. Judge were never substantiated, and the committee
appointed to inquire into them declared that they were illegally
laid.
(The letter then concludes with a high tribute to Mr. Judge’s character
for truthfulness and every other virtue.)
Now, as regards the statement about the intention of the Circular, we
will only say that one co-signatory of it at least has committed himself
to the precise view of it which this letter denies. Nor is it obvious
why the heads of any society should issue a round robin to say it is
naughty to tell taradiddles, unless some current reference were intended
to the affairs of the society.
Besides this, however, there is unmistakably conveyed the impression
that Mr. Judge’s accusers failed to substantiate their case, and that
there was something actually “illegal,” in the ordinary sense of the
word, about some part of their conduct.
As readers of “Isis Very Much Unveiled” are aware, both these things are
absolutely untrue. The simple fact was that, owing to the objections
raised by Mr. Judge, no opportunity was given for the charges to be
either substantiated or the reverse; while the only justification for
the statement that they were “illegally laid” is such as can be squeezed
out of the fact that the Theosophical Pickwickians were persuaded by Mr.
Judge that inquiry was forbidden by the constitution of their society.
It only remains to add, to complete the disingenuousness of this very
Theosophistical letter, that its signatories authenticate its statements
by flaunting the title of “Members of the Committee of Investigation”;
the committee referred to being the one which met only to decide that it
could not investigate, and the members of it as such having no knowledge
whatever of the evidence either on one side or the other!
III.—LETTERS FROM MINOR OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE MEMBERS.
What matters “Truth or Falsehood?”
SIR,—My husband and myself are two of the officials in one of the local
branches of the Theosophical Society. I write in his name and my own to
say that we have read with some interest your voluminous attack on the
personal characters of some of our leading members.
We were also amused by the ingenuous surprise of your reporter, that the
Blavatsky Lodge meeting in London, which he attended, was spent in
philosophic study, not in the discussion of psychic phenomena or of the
personal characters of members.
You say (Chapter II.):—“This society as such must stand or fall with its
Mahatmas.” This is not so. The Theosophical Society is entirely neutral
on the question of the existence or non-existence of such beings, and
the reason why the charges, of which you have published a more or less
correct statement, were not gone into by the authorities of the T.S.
was, that to have done so would have entailed an infringement of that
neutrality.
The question whether Mrs. Besant was misled when she made the statement
at the Secular Hall in 1891 has been answered by her own clear
withdrawal of that statement.
The question as to Mr. Judge is entirely one as to his own truth or
falsehood, and may be well left to him to answer or not. It is not
necessary for the public or for the members of the Theosophic Society to
judge him.—Faithfully yours,
SARAH CORBETT.
Manchester, November 6.
A Protest against “Condoning.”
SIR,—Having read the revelations your correspondent has been pleased to
give to the public, and _presuming them to be correct_, it seems to me
that there are now three parties at fault in place of two as I had
supposed, viz., Mr. Judge for imposing (whether consciously as a
deceiver or unconsciously) as a medium obsessed by a spirit of ambition
and the communicator of the facts (if a member of the inner circle) for
breaking his solemn pledge not to reveal or betray the affairs of that
circle. The recent correspondence now adds others as condoning the
offence of Mr. Judge—and all this has come from the love of pre-eminence
and the mere dabbling (child’s play) with the occult. Clearly, if the
offence was proved, the officers of the society were bound in truth and
honour to expel the offender, and all would then have been clear and
straight. My advice to the society would be to stick to their programme,
which is a highly laudable one, and let no word from an invisible and
unknown be taken as of any external value, but judged only by its
internal worth.
The society, it seems to me, can no longer pretend to condemn the
communication with Spirits as a dangerous thing, nor cry out against the
occasional frauds of mediums, in conscious or unconscious state, seeing
how heavily they have fallen into the same snare, nor can they point the
finger to frauds or delusions in other bodies whether Catholic or
non-Catholic. A greater strictness and more uniform abstinence from
flesh-eating and tobacco, as well as alcohol (which last they eschew)
should be enjoined on all its members by their authorised officers, and
their own three objects steadily pursued—separating from the third _all
spurious imitations_ of magical wonders; and, above all, the spirit of
truth which accepts nothing on this or that authority without careful
verification should be cultivated. A want of bravery to do the right, to
tell the truth, and face the consequences, is the only thing that can be
laid to the charge of the presiding officers of the Indian and English
sections. Are all societies and Churches free from this? Has not a
natural tenderness from long friendship, and sympathy in noble and
useful work, been often the cause of much to be deplored? And in this
instance, is not such over-tenderness of noble, unsuspicious, and
honourable souls, worthy rather of regret than of too severe
censure.—Yours,
A THEOSOPHIST.
“Abandon the T.S. in Disgust.”
SIR,—I see Mr. Mead is reported as saying that “what the articles [in
THE WESTMINSTER GAZETTE] would do, if they did anything, was to sift the
society of those who had simply joined for the sake of the marvellous.”
This remark shows the same utter oblivion of the appreciation of truth
that has unhappily shown itself in the society’s record before. It is
not a question of phenomena; it is one of good faith; and if this is the
line taken, not the phenomena-hunters merely, but seekers for truth and
respecters of it, who expected to find it in the Theosophical Society,
will abandon that body in disgust.
Mr. Mead continues:—“Theosophists could no more divulge secrets without
violating every sense of honour than a Mason could.”
To compare the Theosophical Society, as at present constituted, with an
honourable body like the Masons, is an insult to the latter,
goose-guzzling and luxuriant as they may have tended to become in these
latter days.
There is a profound difference between hiding secrets, which are
entrusted to one, and which concern certain (perhaps) important facts in
the nature of man, and taking part in proceedings to gull a number of
fellow-students and the outside public. This is practically what has
been done before, and the dissatisfied either disappeared altogether or
were well howled at as traitors to “the cause,” whereas, in verity, they
were doing their best for the disowned cause of truth; or, again, they
were coerced by the solemn warning of “your pledge, take care of your
pledge,” and thereby intimidated from seeing that they were making
themselves parties to a continuous misrepresentation of facts and a
deliberate fraud upon their less-informed fellow-members, not to mention
the public. “What have our troubles to do with the public?” has been the
question. I reply, “Everything,” for it is to the public that constant
appeal is made and amongst its ranks that proselytes are sought.
Nothing has, so far, been exposed in these articles that any
right-thinking truth-seeker would wish to have cloaked. The public are
not being made acquainted with any arcane wisdom; but if one-third of
the statements made in THE WESTMINSTER GAZETTE are supported by
documentary and other evidence, then the world certainly ought to be
warned against a society that takes as its motto, “There is no religion
higher than TRUTH” and forthwith allows its leading members to play such
antics and engage in such grotesque jugglery without bringing them
sternly to book. As for continuing to work with these people in the
establishment of a “universal brotherhood,” rather will it become a
universal imposture to expose which were a service to the glorious old
Wisdom of the Venerable East, which it dishonoured by its sham Mahatmas.
Those who are publishing the facts, if facts they be, are doing a
service to the cause of truth, and should have the thanks and gratitude
of all of us in the Theosophical Society whose motive in being there is
to seek TRUTH, and to combat error and fraud in religion, mysticism, or
anything else.—I am, &c.,
A FELLOW OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY AND
MEMBER OF THE E.S.T.
“It all comes of not Sticking to Vegetables.”
SIR,—With every word of Brother Old’s letter of to-day’s issue I beg to
express my fullest sympathy. I deprecate the tone of the “revelations,”
but of the necessity of making the public fully acquainted with the
facts I have not the least doubt. As to the existence of “Mahatmas,” I
can only say I _do_ believe in the existence on this earth of a higher
order of beings who, by total abstinence from and abhorrence of
flesh-eating, alcohol, and tobacco, and other evil and impure customs,
and by adherence to a fixed rule of life, retiring early and early
rising, with daily ablutions, and by certain studies and training of
body and mind, have acquired certain attributes and powers so far in
advance of ordinary human beings as to be regarded by them as
miraculous. Of this I have had evidence, not from Theosophists, but from
personal friends resident in India before ever they heard of the name of
Theosophy. Whether any of these have anything to do in the direction of
the Theosophical Society is quite another matter. There is Theosophy and
Theosophy, and one of these I would rather term “Theophilosophy,”
_i.e._, “the love and wisdom of God,” or “love and wisdom religion”—and
not wisdom only as is implied in the term “Theosophy.” Readers of “The
Perfect Way” and its companion volume, “Clothed with the Sun,” by that
noble woman Anna Kingsford and her colleague, will know what I mean.
Now, what about the future of the Theosophical Society? I believe its
officers may fall, but its work must endure. No doubt of that. The
founders have had their weaknesses and foibles like other mortals, but I
hope none will ever forget the gratitude they owe to Madame Blavatsky,
especially to the blessings she has conferred in founding the
Theosophical Society and giving through its means to all hungry and
thirsty souls such priceless stores of knowledge and suggestive thought
(from the Oriental religions and philosophies which have made such deep
impress on the millions of the East) as are contained in the grand
volumes of “The Secret Doctrine,” with its index and glossary, and her
other publications. None can read these volumes, but must ask
themselves, What manner of woman must she have been who devoted so many
long years of labour, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, in their production,
and that amidst incredible difficulties and opposition and worry? Nor
must we forget the debt that we owe to Colonel Olcott and Madame Besant
for having made this knowledge accessible to all minds and conditions by
their lectures and booklets.
What can be more noble than the promotion of universal brotherhood
irrespective of sex, colour, caste, or creed, united in the study of the
ancient religions of East and West, and of all that pertains to the
hidden powers in man, and their development for the good of the race?
But these last, I say again, will not be attained in purity but by
prayer, and abstinence from flesh meal, alcohol, and tobacco, and other
evil customs of society, and the disuse of all things gotten by cruelty
to, or oppression of, our fellow-creatures the lower animals, and by
pure surroundings.—Yours,
I. G. OUSELEY, O.G.A. and F.T.S.
Evelyn-terrace, Brighton,
November 9.
“Folly and Fraud: but of such is the Kingdom.”
SIR,—No one should blame you, or resent the publication of the facts.
_Truth_ is the first consideration, and though we who have interested
ourselves in the philosophy promulgated by the society may bitterly
regret that folly and fraud are to be found within its fold—as
elsewhere—yet we can rest assured that whatever there is in this
philosophy which appeals to the enlightened intelligence of mankind will
remain when the superstructure raised by designing intriguers or unwise
enthusiasts shall have crumbled away. It is in consequence of this
belief that the writer, with others in the society, can read with
calmness, and not without some sense of amusement, this unpleasant
disclosure; not doubting but that a great deal of it is true, and that
all may be so; and while feeling unmixed contempt for the “informer,”
can acknowledge that any editor is well within his rights, and a public
benefactor, when exposing fraud wherever it is found.
Would that this feature were more pronounced in journalism generally,
and not indulged in only when such exposures fall in with public
prejudice!
For several years the writer of this letter has been absent from the
Avenue-road centre: among other reasons, from a feeling of disapproval
of certain follies which may be called incipient relic worship, and
which no sensible person could tolerate for long. So it will be seen
that all Theosophists have not fallen under the spell of Mrs. Besant’s
rash enthusiasm, which has done, and is doing, so much to discredit her,
now as heretofore, in the eyes of the world. Yet, in spite of her
indiscrimination and lack of sound judgment, which has alienated many,
the writer would rather stand in the pillory of public opprobrium with
her than sit at a banquet with the “informer” and those who can rejoice
over the failings of a beautiful soul. For it may be said of her, and a
few others, “Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” That there is to be
found even one of these among Theosophists may lead a few to suspect
that there is something more in Theosophy than can be discovered in your
articles, and that, though fraud should be proved, there may
nevertheless be real occultists and true phenomena. Thus, what at first
sight appears a serious blow to our cause will perhaps induce further
inquiry among your readers, while doing useful work in destroying errors
and growing superstition.
F. T. S.
PART III.
LAST SHREDS OF THE VEIL OF ISIS.
A REVIEW OF SOME THEOSOPHISTRIES.
As yet, “Isis Very Much Unveiled” remains very much unanswered. The
oracles are dumb. “No Dolphin rose, no Nereid stirred”; no Mahatma
“precipitated” a reply (as one of them did with such edifying results in
the case of the Kiddle plagiarism), nor disintegrated by psychic force
the damaging documents in my possession; Mrs. Besant, whose “astral
body” has flitted across oceans to visit Mr. Herbert Burrows “on
pre-arranged evenings,” gave no sign from Australia; Colonel Olcott,
president, in India, disdained the more commonplace agency of the cable;
and Mr. William Q. Judge, vice-president, whose official adytum is but
five days away at New York, neglected to avail himself of the ordinary
post, whatever he may have done about the astral one.
Moreover, accustomed as are all these three officials to scouring the
earth, with all expenses paid, no intimation has been made public as to
the date when we may expect to receive anyone of them back from the
various regions to which they sped immediately after launching the
report of their peculiar “Enquiry.” Their colleagues in England continue
to speak as if a trip to New York carried one to the bourn from which no
traveller returns.
But what of these colleagues themselves? Where is the “Voice of the
Silence” of Avenue-road, St. John’s Wood? At point after point, the
Story of the Great Mahatma Hoax touched matters to which one or other or
all of them must have been privy. It told of missives which they had
accepted as genuine, orders which they had acted upon, decisions in
which they had agreed, fact after fact of which they had full
cognisance. When Mr. Mead, the European secretary, gave out that he did
not reply because he was not attacked, I did my best to oblige him; I
began at the beginning, and challenged him at once as having been
present and taken part in the “Judge’s-plan-is-right” decision; and I
added that when he had denied my version of that I would supply him with
further matter for denial. Whereupon the discreet European secretary
subsided altogether.
The “Sacred Oath” Humbug.
Of course, some excuse had to be offered, and we have been told that
what happens at meetings of the Esoteric Section is sacredly secret.
Now, first, that only covers a small part of my story, some of which
dealt with circumstances surrounding official acts of the society or its
three sections. Secondly, the excuse is eminently one that accuses, by
implying that what I say happened at those meetings _did_ happen; for
presumably members take no oath to keep secret what does _not_ occur?
But, thirdly, this alleged secrecy is a mere pretext; else how could
Mrs. Besant publicly refer on platforms to “supernatural” experiences at
those meetings; and Messrs. Old and Edge (the latter to this day holding
office) raise questions about one such matter in print in Colonel
Olcott’s journal; and Mrs. Besant, the Colonel, and a full council of
officials notify Mr. Judge that in a certain eventuality (which did
afterwards occur) they would make a “_full publication covering all the
details_” of that matter, and others concerning the sacred Mahatma
messages?
Whatever may be the “quasi-Masonic oath” of which we now hear, _they_
evidently held that it did not bind them to conceal, with their eyes
open, a fraud upon their fellow-members; and those who do so interpret
it only throw a very suggestive light on their own action in willingly
taking such an oath. Was Mrs. Besant quite right when she gave the
public what she confesses was a “misleading account” of these secrets,
and only in the wrong when, along with Colonel Olcott and the rest, she
proposed to give what she now knew to be the correct one? Is the
position that a Theosophist may “tell”—anything he likes, except the
truth?
A Survey of the Present Situation.
The absence of Colonel Olcott and Mrs. Besant does not alter the fact
that he with others made, and she publicly adopted, certain charges
against Mr. Judge, vice-president. And the silence of their colleagues
in England does not disguise the fact that my account of the details has
not been challenged as to one single event, letter, or facsimile. The
published “Report of an Enquiry” cries aloud for some explanation: the
explanation of “Isis Very Much Unveiled” holds the field untouched. It
leaves the vice-president only able to exculpate himself, if at all, by
further inculpating them. The “full rebuttal evidence held in reserve,”
therefore, at which his professed representative in England hints, can
be formidable only to the Theosophical Society, not to its critics. I am
bound to say, however, that if the would-be impressive fragments of it
which have been privately adumbrated to me are fair samples of the rest,
it is not calculated to be formidable to anybody. When the “affidavits”
hinted at have been published, or otherwise submitted to examination, I
can promise them all the attention they deserve. To say that any
affidavit, until cross-examined upon, is worth exactly as much as the
paper it is written on would be an uncalled-for slight upon the
paper-maker.
The Excommunication of “Brother Old.”
A word or two about the attempt to create a diversion by attacking the
character of the one Theosophical official who has had the honesty to
resign office rather than shut his eyes to a fraud on the public. The
attack on Mr. Old cannot in any case discredit the story I have
narrated. First, because the largest and most important part of that
story is from the undenied written evidence of persons still holding
office in the society, and especially of its “President-Founder.”
Secondly, because, even as regards Mr. Old’s part, the character of a
witness is only a relevant consideration where the truth of his
testimony is disputed. What I am now about to say is said, therefore,
merely in justice to Mr. Old himself. The attack on him has two lines.
It is said that he had to perjure himself to give any information
whatever. It is hinted that what information he did give was given for
money. The former charge turns entirely on the “sacred oath” humbug,
which I have discussed already. As to the latter, it is true to my
knowledge that for the part he has taken in fulfilling what he regards
as a public duty to truth, Mr. Old neither asked nor received any
consideration whatever. My own acquaintance with Mr. Old began in an odd
way, not without bearing on the question of his sincerity. At the time
of the Salvation Army riots at Eastbourne, a gallant old Englishman, who
could not bear that women, under any provocation, should be publicly
assaulted in English streets, went down there to stand up for the
“Hallelujah lasses.” He asked, through the _Pall Mall Gazette_, for five
hundred Englishmen to help. He got five. This Quixotic gentleman, this
modern Sieur de Marsac, was my friend Mr. Charles Money, of Petersfield.
I went myself to see that he did not get his head broken more than was
necessary. His company, as seedy a lot of knights-errant as ever I saw,
consisted mainly of Cockney journalists who did not believe in God. But
one—a spruce, slight youth—declared himself a Theosophist. The
adventurers spouted to a yelling mob, got off with whole skins, and by
testimony of the local police actually achieved their end. But Mr. Money
and one other were knocked about a bit in the crowd. That other—he
quitted himself like a man—was Mr. W. R. Old, Theosophist. I may be
wrong: it was but a street row; but I regard that as a more practical
service on Mr. Old’s part to the “Universal Brotherhood of Humanity”
than all the hundredweights of vapid moralising on the subject ever
vomited from “The H.P.B. Press.”
Stewing in the Judge Juice.
Except Mr. Old, one prominent Theosophist, and one alone, has so far
publicly faced the facts. Mr. Herbert Burrows has had the honesty and
the courage to say out that this thing must be answered by Mr. Judge,
and fully, or he for one will quit the society. Mr. Burrows forgets that
others besides Mr. Judge have made themselves answerable. Other
correspondents, again, represented other factions, and showed how the
society is seething with distrust and shame. But the mass of the letters
only serve to prove that, whatever else the “occult powers” of the
Theosophists may be, they do not include a command either of plain
English or of straight argument. If “Isis” does not yet stand before us
absolutely like Hans Breitmann’s “maiden mit nodings on,” it is a
painfully thin fabric of Theosophistries which alone shelters her from
the cold wind of public contempt. Let us examine it.
The Theosophistry about Proving a Negative.
“_After all, you have not proved that Mahatmas do not exist, nor that
occult phenomena cannot occur._”