theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Blavatsky's extremely wrong statement

May 27, 2005 07:36 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


Dear Anand, friends,

While I see little value in simply quoting from essays and declaring the statements to be right or wrong, a close analysis on an essay is important in order to correctly understand it. Therefore, I do believe that there is much value in analyzing, and criticizing Theosophical articles and books. In our study groups, we teach and encourage such a critical analysis. Such exercises are basic to accurately interpreting and evaluating what the writer is actually trying to communicate.
I have posted below a model (but not the last word) of how this kind of analysis can be done. This is sometimes called "a close reading" of the text, and is a necessary precursor to an intelligently done criticism of it. I chose "A Reply to our Critics," in order to contrast the previous criticism which was not done with a close reading in order to show how such a close reading reveals a tightly reasoned complex of inter-related ideas, the understanding of which brings a much more comprehensive presentation of ideas than could a mere selected quote, taken out of it's own context.
I recommend that you read the article for yourself before reading my rendering of it. That way, you will get more out of it. I welcome responses and invite you to compose close readings for yourself. It is a valuable exercise. Enjoy.


The article in question: "A Reply to Our Critics (Our final answer to several objections)" (BCW III:221-26) is one of HPB's many editorial-like articles where she is trying to defend Theosophy and the Theosophical Society from the criticism of the popular press, which writes mostly from misconceptions anyway. Such articles are different from those where she is trying to impart some deeper occult idea. Rather, in these editorial-like articles, she typically is busy simultaneously correcting mis-information and pointing to the faulty thinking which led to the errors in the first place.

The article thus begins by posing HPB's "final answer" to several repeated criticisms she and Olcott had received concerning The Theosophist:
1) That the use of the word "spiritualism" in the sub-heading of The Theosophist is intended to attract subscribers from the Spiritualists. 2) That The Theosophist neglects the use of scientific induction (222); 3) That the editors do not sufficiently exercise their "editorial right of selection." (225).
The first criticism (regarding spiritualism), HPB uses to distinguish the difference between spiritual perception and communicating with the "dearly departed."
The second criticism (scientific induction) leads into a discussion on discerning truth. This is the section upon where Anand posted his objection.

The third criticism (editorial right of selection) leads into a discussion on the editorial policy of The Theosophist.

1) The use of the word "spiritualism" in the sub-heading.

The phrase HPB is alluding to in this article but not quoting was on the title page of every issue of The Theosophist:

"THE THEOSOPHIST A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE AND OCCULTISM: EMBRACING MESMERISM, SPIRITUALISM AND OTHER SECRET SCIENCES."

Now, in this article, HPB refers to the practitioners and/or believers in the popular notion of spiritualism, i.e. communication with the dead, as "Spiritualists" (BCW III: 222) and those who follow her definition as "orthodox Spiritualists." Students of Theosophy are aware that HPB held a special definition of the word "spiritualism" (as she did of the word "occultism") i.e. "the state or condition of mind opposed to materialism or a material conception of things (Theos. Glossary 285).

Therefore, what HPB means by spiritualism and what her critics mean by spiritualism are two very different things. Note that in the heading of The Theosophist, spiritualism (i.e. her definition of it) is one of the "secret sciences." Spiritualism (HPB's definition) is a secret science because the true spiritualist perceives from a spiritual level of consciousness, as opposed to the material. I believe that HPB's definition is (or nearly is) what Anand means when he used below, the word "intuition." However, in the nineteenth century, "intuition" did not have the spiritual overtones which Anand is putting upon it.
HPB further quotes a critic for writing that The Theosophist is devoted to spiritualism (the critic's definition) "in the hopes that it should do us good service among the Spiritualists" (BCW III:221). HPB quickly dismisses the criticism by point out that "present day subscribers from 'Spiritual' quarters have not amounted to four percent of our subscription list (BCW III:221). She then distinguishes her definition from their's, and points out that her definition "is an insult to their [Spiritualist's] belief, and in turn [the Spiritualists] ridicule and oppose us" (BCW III:222).

Therefore, HPB's argument is that from her oft repeated use of the term "spiritualism" as spiritual perception, The Theosophist is a magazine concerning higher knowledge, not "Spiritualism" in the popular sense.


2) The Theosophists neglects the use of Scientific induction.
HPB counters that "in the face of the many crucial and strictly scientific experiments made by our most eminent savants, it would take a wiser sage than King Solomon himself, to decide now between fact and fiction." As we are all familiar, science is not a oracle of "truth," but is a methodology (which HPB calls here "scientific induction") for the seeking after truth. In her day, as in ours, scientific theories are constantly in a state of evolution and constantly challenged by competing theories.
HPB, therefore, raises the question: "What is truth?" Then examines different, so called, sources of "truth":
1. Seership (i.e. spiritual perception) (222)
2. prejudicial society (i.e. popular opinion) (223)
3. "exact Science" (223)
4. Religion and theology (223)

1. Seership. HPB alludes for her example Brutus' vision of his 'evil genius" promising to "meet him [and defeat his army] in the planes of Philippi" (BCW III:222-23).
she points out that while a true vision to Brutus, it was "but a dream to his slaves." She further points out that the insights of Columbus (an antipodal continent) and Galileo (the heliocentric system) were denied until proven. Actually HPB's example of Columbus is technically a poor choice, since Columbus was apparently ignorant of an antipodal continent (e.g. America) and thought he had landed in India. However, she does make her point.
2. Prejudicial society. She asks: "Are we to abandon it [i.e. truth] to the mercy and judgment of a prejudiced society constantly caught trying to subvert that which it does not understand; ever seeking to transform sham and hypocrisy into synonyms of 'propriety' and 'respectability'?" I think her argument speaks for itself for those who will hear.

3. Exact science: She here raises the argument about changing hypothesis. However, she also warns that scientists, being human, also have their "...prejudice and preconception" as any other mortals (223).
4. Religion and theology: She dismisses with "...her 'seventy-times seven' sects, each claiming and none proving its right to the claim of truth..." and concludes: "...we decline accepting anything on faith" (224).

This discussion of truth open into the consequent policy of the editors of The Theosophist. That the Editors are not responsible for opinions of the contributors. HPB concludes that "no mortal man is infallible, nor claiming that privilege for ourselves, we open our columns to the discussion of every view and opinion, provided is is not proved absolutely supernatural."

HPB, at this point distinguishes opinion (society), hypothesis (science), and faith (religion) from fact. She states: "Fact is the only tribunal we submit to and recognize it without appeal. And before that tribunal a Tyndall and an ignoramus stand on a perfect par." In other words, no one has a monopoly on truth because of their education or scientific training.
Therefore, HPB is paving the way to make the point that we can discern facts by contrasting ideas. She writes: "Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things in their own right value and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision." Notice that HPB is not guaranteeing a correct decision. She has previously discussed human shortcomings such a prejudice, which bring her quote from Horace: "Dum vitant stuli vitia, in contraria current (while striving to shun one vice, fool run to its opposite)" (225). Basically she is asking her critics to keep an open mind and hear all sides of the story.
From here, she enters into discussing the consequences of being closed
minded, i.e. "dogmatic" and argues:

"For one man to demand from another that he shall believe like himself, whether in a question of religion or science is supremely unjust and despotic. Besides, it is absurd. For it amounts to exacting that the brains of the convert, his organs of perception, his whole organization, in short, be reconstructed precisely on the model of that of his teacher, and that he shall have the same temperament and mental faculties as the other has....Mental slavery is the worst of all slaveries."
A solid warning against cult-like behavior where everyone conforms to the thinking of the leader.

Her final argument, answering the criticism that the editors do not sufficiently exercise their "editorial right of selection." This she denies. Rather, she says that the editors do not control and censor The Theosophist in such a way as to force their opinions "for recognition upon others" (226). She argues:

"To follow every article from a contributor with a Editor's Note correcting "his erroneous ideas" would amount to turning our strictly impartial journal into a sectarian organ. We decline such an office of 'Sir Oracle'" (226).
Further, the defines the Theosophical Society, which The Theosophist represents: "an absolute and uncompromising Republic of Conscience, preoccupation and narrow-mindedness is science and philosophy have no room in it." She denounces this as much much "as dogmatism and bigotry in theology" (226).

Her theme here is one which she often repeats to her critics--that she hold truth itself over the various beliefs systems of the world, whether they be scientific, philosophical or religious. She aptly closes by quoting Hugo: "In the name of RELIGION we protest against all and every religion!"

Conclusion. While HPB, in the article, was interested in answering her critics, it is also evident that she was also using her answers as an opportunity to address her larger reading audience concerning the more important and underlying questions of truth, fact, dogmatism, freedom of thought, and open mindedness in light of the pitfalls and errors we can fall into in our quest for truth. It is also interesting to note how carefully HPB avoided putting the spotlight upon herself as an authority to be followed, and skillfully made it known that her position as Editor did not include the forcing of her opinions upon others. This is a position she took through her life, variously as Editor, author and teacher, and is evident in her writing and teaching style when she appeals to reason (as opposed to authority) by arguing her points based upon what is known. She was careful to write from a reference within our verifiable experiencs. Even when she wrote about other planes, globes, etc. she argued from the world's sacred texts, which were, to a greater or lessor extent, available for verification.

Jerry









Anand Gholap wrote:

Here is Blavatsky's wrong statement.
". . . Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their
right value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides
he can hardly come to a correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky, The
Theosophist, Volume II, July, 1881, p. 218; reprinted in H.P.B.'s
Collected Writings, Volume III, p. 225.

Intuition knows truth directly. Intuition does not require comparison with other notes and it does not require hearing of both sides. Above quotation of Blavatsky is just one example of how wrong statements Blavatsky made.





Yahoo! Groups Links











[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application