Blavatsky difficulties

"Theosophy versus Neo-Theosophy" is a new edition of a book originally published "around 1924" by one Margaret Thomas. This obscure work was preserved for posterity by being serialized in a Theosophical magazine in 1952-53. The 1990 version is known as the Jaqua edition, and only reprints the first part of Thomas' original book. However, the entire work (plus appendices) is available free on the web.

After the death of Madame Blavatsky, the Theosophical Society split. The main factions were known as the Theosophical Society Adyar and the Theosophical Society Pasadena. Both still exist. The Adyar group, based in India, was led by Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater. They are mostly known for "discovering" and promoting Jiddu Krishnamurti as World Teacher. Well-known members of the Pasadena society included Katherine Tingley and Gottfried de Purucker. The author of "Theosophy versus Neo-Theosophy" was a supporter of Pasadena.

The main point of Margaret Thomas is that the Adyar society has deviated from the true and original teachings of Blavatsky, in effect creating a phoney "Neo-Theosophy". There is some truth in this accusation, since Besant and Leadbeater were more flexible in their approach than the old leadership. The Adyar group made forays into progressive politics, ecumenism, Freemasonry and Old Catholicism. Their approach seems to have been somewhat "populist", and they did manage to turn Theosophy (or Neo-Theosophy, if you like) into a mass movement. The promotion of Krishnamurti as a concrete, living "Messiah" figure was part of this outreach strategy. It seems that the Pasadena group rather preferred a static "Blavatsky orthodoxy" of sorts.

The bulk of Thomas' book consists of quotations from the original Theosophical scriptures juxtaposed with statements made by Besant, Leadbeater and other Adyar representatives. The differences are sometimes striking. Blavatsky was overtly hostile to Christianity and the clergy, even to the point of seeing Jesus as an ordinary mortal (and not a very important one, at that). Apparently, Blavatsky saw "Christ" as an abstract idea. She wasn't particularly enamoured of other world religions either, at least not their exoteric forms. Besant and Leadbeater took a seemingly more irenic approach, even to the point of creating their own "Christian" denomination, the Liberal Catholic Church. "Bishop" Leadbeater, supposedly using his clairvoyant powers, confirmed both apostolic succession and the original distinction between bishops and presbyters! This naturally necessitated an upgrading of Jesus and the Christ, the latter being an ascended master taking over the physical body of the former. The Adyar group regarded all exoteric religions as approved by the Masters and partially true, while Blavatsky regarded them as wholly false - at least if the quotations in this book are to be believed (I admit I haven't double-checked them).

Thomas also attacks Leadbeater for having introduced additional chakras and distorted the true meaning of kundalini. The original edition of the book contained exposes of the Krishnamurti affair and Leadbeater's supposed sexual impropriates.

But how do we know that Blavatsky's message is true, while that of her erratic successors is wrong? The Pasadena group distinguishes between "spiritual" communications (which are true) and "psychic" ditto (which are not). This distinction comes from Blavatsky herself, who criticized Spiritualism on the same basis. However, Blavatsky's own Masters or Mahatmas also communicated in a Spiritualist-like manner, making it difficult to see why we should believe them rather than, say, the spirit-guides of Allan Kardec? Pasadena can't really solve this conundrum either. They simply assume that Blavatsky's messages were "spiritual", while Besant's and Leadbeater's were "psychic". The real criterion of veracity is acceptance of Blavatsky's original writings. Thus, we have the classical conflict between conservatives for whom The Message is set in stone, and innovators who claim new revelations. Another classical problem might emerge, if somebody could prove that Blavatsky's own message changed over time... Rather than Bible difficulties, we would get "Blavatsky difficulties".

I don't have a good closing statement for this review, so I just close.