Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00457)

Following up my post about "opposing forces": what *are* the
"numerous books and articles in respected journals as well as
new `biographies' magazine articles and newspaper writeups
have been published reviling HPB and her theosophy calling her
a `mod con' a `Russian nobody who became an American
somebody' a `spiritual spin doctor' and the like?" There are
only three sources I know of that have outraged Theosophists:
Peter Washington's Madame Blavatsky's Baboon reviewed
favorably in Newsweek Wired and UK newspapers; my The Masters
Revealed the introduction of which appeared in Gnosis and
reviews of which have appeared in various places; and Edward
Hower's article in Smithsonian about Olcott and HPB. Is there
anything else? Joscelyn Godwin's The Theosophical
Enlightenment seems to have been completely ignored by
Theosophists which is a great pity. In what way do the
above-named works qualify as "the dirt of the earth" and
Cranston's as "the rays of the sun"-- to followup Grace's
proverb about the "opposing forces?" Hower was a TS member at
the time he wrote his article as was Washington while writing
his book; I don't know the current membership status of either
but can only conclude that they have absolutely no reason to
continue as members. Including myself the three betes noires of
"opposing forces" were Theosophists who just happened to see
HPB in a different light than Cranston's hagiography-- and paid
a heavy price.

So there aren't numerous books but only three max-- and only
one Washington's that has produced significant negative publicity for
Theosophy. The handful of reviews of said books are to the
best of my knowledge all there is of "numerous articles and
newspaper writeups" save for Hower's generally admiring
portrayal of the Founders in Smithsonian which generated 56
protest letters to the author. Grace encourages members to
write protest letters to editors of journals that publish
"derogatory" articles hoping that it will serve "a good
purpose by alerting the editor to the need to research primary
sources before publishing anything about HPB and theosophy." I
can only say that in the case of Gnosis and Smithsonian the
effect has been to convince said editors that Theosophists are
a bunch of hypersensitive cultists who can't stand to see
anything in print about HPB that doesn't agree in every detail
with their religious beliefs even when written by fellow
Theosophists and generally favorable. Hower did indeed read the
primary source in question Hodgson's report which I bet VERY
few of those protesting Theosophists ever had. He was
excoriated for not mentioning V. Harrison's article about it
which many Theosophists falsely imagine as an SPR "withdrawal"
of the Hodgson report. Certainly neither Hower Washington
nor I have attacked HPB or reviled her in the way many past
works have e.g. Meade Williams etc. although our
conclusions may seem like attacks on the version of HPB
promoted by the Theosophical organizations.

Now what about Cranston? Her book has been heavily promoted
by all three major Theosophical groups. The ULT
presumably subsidized it in light of its vast bulk and
hagiographic tone. Pasadena and Wheaton have been involved in
sales and translations. John Algeo was quoted in ads for it to
the effect that it "avoids speculation and rests firmly on
facts"!?!?. In short Wheaton Pasadena and ULT have agreed
for once that the Cranston version of HPB is the one they want
the world to accept. From the behavior of some members and
leaders it would seem they want to denounce all other
approaches as heretical-- or even emanating from the Black
Lodge. Rather than "opposing forces" from without might it
not be plain old karma/nemesis that brings forth plenty of
alternative approaches just as the Theosophical organizations
thought they had succeeded in Cranstonizing the world's
understanding of HPB?

The problem with Cranston's book which I think becomes
problematic karma for the entire movement that promotes it is
that it is blatantly distorted. To write a biography of HPB in
which her adoptive? son Yuri IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED to evade
all serious discussion of the men in her life to splice together pieces
of conflicting stories about the Masters without acknowledging
the conflicts all are indications that this is not a
biography but a hagiography. Meaning that the intent is not
to search through available sources trying to come up with an
objective reliable account of HPB's life but rather to
propagandize readers with a selective body of evidence for her
sainthood. Since over half of the book is direct quotes it is
more in the category of an anthology than a biography-- fine as
is but deceptive when packaged as something else. It was even
distributed misleadingly-- my library received a gift copy with
a cover letter signed by A. Edgar Atkins presumably some man
with no connection to the author. If free copies make it to
obscure corners like Halifax County there's obviously subsidy
somewhere.

Cranston's book came out in 1993 three years after my In
Search of the Masters and months after Washington's book came
out in England and the intro to TMR came out in Gnosis. Hower had
already arranged his research trip to India before he even laid eyes
on Cranston's book. So the three authors who have upset Theosophists could
not possibly have been motivated even unconsciously by wicked adepts by a
wish to counteract the "light forces" of Theosophical
orthodoxy as conveyed by Cranston's book. BUT there may very
well be "opposing forces" at work in an entirely different
sense. Truth will out. Any group that devotes great time
effort and money into promoting a blatantly biased and
distorted portrayal of its founder is sending out energy.
Perhaps it is inevitable karmic synchronicity that produces
other portrayals with more balance and depth that appear almost
simultaneously. This should be welcomed by Theosophists as
good news because the world now has several interpretations of
HPB to choose from. However those who think there's only one
allowable interpretation of HPB and Cranston is it are
karmically destined to be outraged by the inevitable balancing
energies that their own imbalance has evoked.