Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00116)

The worst onus that can be fastened upon any school or system of 
philosophy - aside from direct devaluation of the teachings 
themselves - is that, "it is well-known" that the school was founded 
and the system revealed by a "charlatan, a proven imposter" or a 
master of trickery, plagiarism and forgery.  If this is accepted - 
and, to begin with, most people today are not about to doubt 
the "impossibility" of genuine occult phenomena and Magic -, there is 
no use in pleading the high ideals of the school or the logic and 
beauty of the system, since any tentative desire for independent 
inquiry will have been killed before the prospective inquirer 
approaches the philosophic considerations, and even if these latter 
came forcibly to his attention, there will then be an immense barrier 
of agitated prejudice to be battered down. 

Realizing this, it is apparently thought by detractors that if they 
only throw sufficient mud at the woman who gave the teachings of 
Theosophy to the world they are thereby aptly discrediting the 
teachings themselves.  And as if to counter this kind of attack, 
objection has been made that if anyone wishes to prove that W. . . . 
S. . . . wrote bad plays, or R. . . . W. . . .  bad music, he surely 
does not do so by endeavoring to prove that the one was a poacher and 
the other an immoral man.  Now this may be so, but, here again, we 
have to face the unavoidable moral question of H.P.B.'s phenomena.  
It is unthinkable that a practised deceiver, stooping low in vile 
conspiracy to hoodwink her faithful followers by elaborate fraudulent 
devices, would at the same time be a chosen vessel for the highest 
kind of spiritual truth and moral guidance, or the occult-endowed 
associate of such exalted human beings as the Mahatmas of Theosophy!  
The mind revolts at so monstrous a reconciliation, for if there 
are "spirit-mediums" of genuine psychic talent who occasionally 
cheat, is it not said that they are will less automatons driven by un-
moral astral influences?  But one of the prime bases of the Theosophy 
of Mme. Blavatsky was the reputed occult powers of its Adepts; and 
so, if their acknowledged agent and representative had to rely upon 
fraud in absence of such powers but in order to "demonstrate" 
their "existence," who is there that would be such a fool as to 
believe that Mme. Blavatsky was the agent of Adepts or, indeed, that 
there were any Adepts at all? 

Faced with these difficulties, and the additional fact that 
the "destroyer" of Mme. Blavatsky was Dr. Richard Hodgson who is 
recognized as, perhaps, "the greatest" psychical researcher of "the 
Golden Age of Psychical Research in England", [6]  any would be 
apologist for H.P.B. cannot fall back on philosophical exposition in 
lieu of specific well-supported replies to what skeptics may bring in 
guise of concrete disproof and verified accusation against her.  That 
kind of reaction may appeal to a certain type of mind which can 
voluntarily blind itself to unpleasant short-comings while taking 
refuge in philosophic abstractions.  But such retreat is no 
substitute for knowledge and courage - or for whatever gratitude the 
followers of Mme. Blavatsky think they owe to their great Teacher.  
Neither is it the kind of answer the world respects or that Science 
demands.  What is required in a situation such as this are facts - 
incontrovertible facts founded on testimony which incredulous critics 
cannot assail, the testimony not of H.P.B. and her witnesses but of 
the principal prosecutor and his chief witnesses.  Nothing less than 
this ever satisfied the present writer, nor does he expect the reader 
to be content with anything else.  The commonplace facts of everyday 
experience seem too much against the possibility of real Magic and 
genuine occult or psychic phenomena to permit modern man to rely on 
less. 

It is safe to calculate that for every ten thousand persons who have 
heard and believe that Richard Hodgson "exposed" H.P. Blavatsky as a 
fraud and imposter, not more than one has read his "expose;" and, 
that for every thousand of his readers, hardly one has ever seen Emma 
Coulomb's pamphlet.  And yet, by logic and every rule of common 
sense, the latter document takes precedence over all others in 
standing at the very heart of the controversy raised by the Coulombs, 
comprising as it does the firsthand unadulterated testimony of the 
chief accusers, together with documentary "proofs" adduced for their 
claims.  Yet, strange to say, practically no attention was paid to 
this priceless pamphlet - least of all by indignant Theosophists who 
put no stock in what Mme. Coulomb might have to say! -, not until, 
that is, the appearance in 1937 of Mrs. Hastings' booklet, Defence of 
Madame Blavatsky (Volume II) The "Coulomb Pamphlet".  Unfortunately, 
Mrs. Hastings did not live to complete her promising study of the 
case. 

Quoted from:

http://blavatskyfoundation.org/obituary.htm