Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00529)

Dear Dallas, dear Friends, 

This is the text I told you about a few days ago. In it I make an attempt to understand the dynamics of the three main currents of thought, inside the Adyar Society, in the 20th century and up to now. 

Note the historically established difference between Adyar-India and Adyar-USA, which explains why Radha Burnier does not legitimize  Algeo's slandering of HPB.

Best regards,   Carlos Cardoso Aveline




ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

IN 1966, ADYAR LEADERS FRANKLY DISCUSS 

TAMPERING WITH THEIR OWN LITERATURE

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Dear Friends, 

[This text is still subject to revision, but I can share it with you as it is. Commentaries and suggestions, in Theos-talk or to my individual e-mail, will be welcome.]

Ethical problems involving Adyar TS and its editorial strategies started in the 1890s, when Annie Besant published her own version of “The Secret Doctrine”. Having a historical view of such facts help us put in a wider perspective facts as the recent attempt, made by the TPH-USA, to include shameful libels against H. P. Blavatsky as part of the theosophical literature -- and to consider them as part of the very writings of H.P.B. 

Editorial mistakes were not always about the founder of the theosophical movement. 

Four decades ago, in a Conference in Austria, leaders from the different national sections of the Adyar Society openly discussed the editorial policy of changing the originals of theosophical books. This time, it was in order to avoid embarassament and to “adapt” the books to the wishes of changing public opinion. 

As a result of such an editorial strategy, Charles Leadbeaters’ astral visits to his imaginary physical plane civilizations in Mars and Mercury disappeared from his books, and many other “updating changes” occurred, some of which were, as we will see, candidly discussed by the Adyar leaders in the 1960s. 

The closed meeting occurred during the World Congress of the Theosophical Society held in Salzburg, in the summer of 1966 . In July 19 and 20, General Secretaries (national presidents) from all over the world and a few invited persons held a conference on “The Presentation of Theosophy”. International president N. Sri Ram chaired the meeting. Extracts of the proceedings were published in “The Theosophist” one year later. Its publication can be interpreted as an act of resistence, if not moderate denunciation. From reading the published text, one observes sokme central central facts: 


1) There is a general assumption among those present that in the 1960s no one is able to write significant books on Theosophy. 

2) Since no one can write, some members of the Conference take for granted that they have the right to tamper with older texts as they please, since it is done “for the good of the cause”. 

3) The main “problem” was that the books by C.W.L. and A. Besant were getting embarassingly outdated, as many statements in them were already clearly false. 

4) The proposition of such an “editing” policy came from members of the Adyar TS in the U.S.A. 

5) From India, N. Sri Ram and his daughter Radha Burnier (then India’s Secretary General) clearly resist the idea. A fact that illustrates this deep difference of views. During the conversation, N. Sri Ram ironically asks whether the “text reformers” intend to re-write “The Voice of the Silence”, too. That suggestiion was a joke – an absurd idea – yet it was not taken as such, and Sri Ram had to explain to people that it was “not meant seriously”. 

6)The very publication of the proceedings in “The Theosophist” seems to show Mr. Sri Ram, the international president and editor of the magazine, was not happy with the idea of tampering with the texts. 

Let’s see now a few excerpts from the proceeedings. By the end of each quotation, I give the page of the Adyar magazine which is my source. (1) 

N. Sri Ram opens the meeting and makes some general remarks. After that, Mr. Felix Layton (USA) takes the floor. Among other propositions, Mr. Layton says: “(...) Then there is the question of improving the appearance of our books and updating them, eliminating references to a World-Teacher, etc.” (p. 214) 

Mr. Leslie-Smith, from England, says he generally agrees with Mr. Layton. But Geoffrey Farthing, from England, points to a fundamental problem in the theosophical literature: 

“Then as regards the particular truths we claim to have, there are some ideas in our literature which present grave contradictions. I do not propose there should be crystallized dogmas. But as regards the marginal truths, apart from truths like Reincarnation and Karma, e.g., the nature of life after death, what was said in the ‘middle period’ literature contradicts ‘The Mahatma Letters’.” (p. 215) 

‘Middle period literature’ is, of course, the literature of Leabeater/Besant. To that, Mr. Sri Ram reacts with his usual relativism, and says: 

“As for Reincarnation, it may also be considered marginal by some people. Whether it is marginal or central depends on one’s understanding of himself. (...) Some think Reincarnation and Karma are on the circumference, some think in the centre. Perhaps they are somewhere in between” . (pp. 215-216) 


A few commentaries. Sri Ram’s relativism in the above quotation, as he says that Karma Law “may be” unimportant, is rather far-fetched. In the opening of the Letter 10, in the Mahatma Letters (2) , the Master defines Occultism as the knowledge of the causes by the their effects, and of the effects by the study of their causes. Occultism is therefore the study and knowledge of Karma Law, as it works in Nature and in Man. 

One reason for such a strained intellectual relativism in Adyar was that Sri Ram was fond of Krishnamurti, and Krishnamurti openly ignored the teachings on Karma and Reincarnation, just as he ignored the ideas of Adepthood or Discipleship. By means of his radical ambiguity, Sri Ram was but trying to keep a sort of political harmony and to reconcile different views about Theosophy. Such a policy had been inaugurated in the 1930s by C. Jinarajadasa, while he was responsible for the “inner” or esoteric section of the Adyar Society. 

There were three main currents in the Adyar Society: 1) the students of HPB and the Masters, whose inspiration was in the “classical” period (1875-1891) ; 2) the still dominant CWL/Besant ritualistic devotees, who were mainly inspired by the “middle period” (1892-1929) ; and 3) the followers of Krishnamurti, who referred to the later period (from 1929). Jinarajadasa’s strategy consisted in having respect for these three currents of thought, while preserving the centralized power-structure created by Leadbeater. That was based in Leadbeater’s various “clairvoyant” ritualisms – Christian messianism, Masonic and pseudotheurgic, alongside with his own adapted version of the Esoteric Section created by HPB. 

It is in this context that, during the 1966 Salzburg meeting, Geoffrey Farthing (clearly an HPB student) mentioned the deep contradiction existing between Leadbeater/Besant literature and the HPB/Masters teachings. 

Not only there was a great difference between the two teachings; but it was Besant/Leadbeater literature which needed urgent changes. HPB students could easily see how deep and lasting was their “classical” literature. Krishnamurti followers in India -- the most recent of the three currents of thought -- also were not worried about changes in literature. But North-Americans cared much more about Leadbeater and Besant, and they were in a hurry to have changes in their texts. 

Thinking of the wider public, Miss Helen Zahara (USA) candidly says: 

“People are going less and less to lectures. Our greatest contact is probably through literature. We should make a concerted effort in relation to having books written in a contemporary style. Even while the literature of the past is represented, it could be revised and the dogmatic statements eliminated. Could we have a concerted effort between the Sections to tap writing talent for editing work and improving our literature? The sales of books are increasing and there is less attendance at meetings.” (p. 216) 

Ms. Zahara seemed to have forgotten a few facts. Tampering with originals is intellectually dishonest. Each new generation has the right to write its own books, but it has also the duty to preserve the best books of older generations, and to accept that bad books deserve oblivion. 

The meeting was getting to the crux of the matter, and N. Sri Ram answers to Helen Zahara: 

“The Theosophical Publishing House in England has just brought out a summary of ‘The Secret Doctrine’. This is along the lines suggested. However, we must take care, in our editing and revising, not to destroy the meaning and beauty of the original. If ‘The Secret Doctrine’ were re-written in modern language, the depths would have gone.” (p.216) 

A little later, Mr. Felix Layton takes the floor again: 

“I agree with Sri Ram about the danger of changing any of our literature. But I hope this Conference will come to an agreement or form a competent committee to get something started. There must be something concrete as a result of this Conference..” (p. 217) 

To this, Sri Ram firmly replies: 

“This Conference is not meant to come to any particular agreement to be implemented by all Sections, but to discuss and produce more enlightenment in the minds of those present. It will depend on the Sections what they would implement. We must be clear what kind of revision or ‘updating’ we want, so that it does not destroy the spirit of the original work.”

John Coats, from the European Federation (3) , says: 

“Is it possible for Mr. Layton to suggest some book on which a person or persons might start work and produce the sort of result they have in mind? Then that could be submitted to the President and others. We will always have old books for reference.” (p. 218) 

To which Sri Ram adds a question: 

“ ‘The Voice of the Silence’? ” (p. 218) 

Mr. Coats takes it seriously and explains:

“No, I mean certain valuable books written fifty years ago, which mention the World Teacher’s coming and that is not of interest today.” (p. 218) 

Sri Ram has to clarify: 

“My suggestion regarding ‘The Voice of the Silence’ was not meant seriously.” (p. 218) 

Mrs. Radha Burnier raises an ethical question (4): 

“What is implied by this revising and re-editing? For instance, a book of Dr. Annie Besant revised and printed IN HER NAME would not be fair to her.” (p. 218) 

And Miss Joy Mills (5) tries to explain the “practical need” for tampering with the texts: 

“ (...) In the United States we use shorter sentences nowadays. Dr. Besant uses long ones. And many references in the old books are no longer applicable. We could perhaps form an editing Committee to give such books more ‘punch’ in the modern world. We must present the eternal in a contemporary setting. It is not intended to change what is magnificent and beautiful, but only to take out contemporary references of fifty years ago (6) and put in contemporary references of today.” ( p. 218) 

Mrs. Leslie-Smith, from England, then poses an embarassing question: 

“Surely if Theosophy is alive in us we should be able to produce our own literature. Could we not, in groups, produce up-to-date literature suitable for the modern generation, until a great writer appears? (pp. 218-219) 

Mrs. Nairn is now led to a logic conclusion: 

“If we begin to tamper with the writings of Dr. Besant and others, we might run the risk of losing valuable literature. We should be able to distill our own wisdom out of these books and re-present it.” ( p. 219) 

And Mr. Leslie-Smith adds more fuel to the contradictory dialogue: 

“To give a bit of history: About fifteen or twenty years ago a group asked me to take two books of Annie Besant and edit them. I tried to do it. What I did was to leave her words, but perhaps only half of them, just as in ‘An Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine’. I presented it, and later was told that if we do this, we take away the real spirit that Dr. Besant put into this. I am in full sympathy with Mr. Layton about new literature, and group work might be able to produce it. If so, ONE person must be responsible for the final editing. A modern version of ‘Hamlet’ would not be very valuable. (p. 219) 

Professor J. Meyer-Dohm (Germany): 

“I feel re-writing old authors is not the right thing, but could we not add an introduction to the works of classical authors, with explanatory remarks?” (pp. 219-220)

Against any obstacles, Mr. Geoffrey Hodson (New Zealand), supports the North-Americans proposition: 

“Our members apparently are in favour of a modernization of such Theosophical literature as needs it. Statements in earlier books which no longer apply or are false should no longer be presented from our book stalls (7).” (p. 221) 

Mr. James Perkins (international vice-president) tries to come back to reality. He says: 

“Re-writing classical works is not necessarily the thing to do. Every student must have the source-material untouched. It would be an error of ignorance to re-write under the same title and with the same name the material originally put there. If Dr. Besant spoke of a World Teacher, we should keep this in the context of the time when it was said, the audience addressed, and the inner urge playing through her, what it revealed. We should not touch any of this. We can re-write in the sense that we can WRITE books based on original works. This demands creative writing, devotion to the cause, delicacy, perceptivity, and reference to the source.” (pp. 221-222) 

Yet Mr. Geoffrey Hodson insists in the ne ed for taking out any “embarassing portions”: 

“I think what is needed is less re-writing of our valuable ealier literature than perhaps elision, taking out that which does not apply.” (p. 222) 

The word “elision’ was certainly an extreme understatement made by Hodson. The term means only “the omission of a vowel, a consonant or sillable in pronunciation”, while Mr. Hodson meant much more than that. He wanted the omission of all absurds which were already obvious in the Leadbeater/Besant literature, while preserving all absurds which were still not obvious to the public. 

By now it was about time to end the meeting, and N. Sri Ram tried to get to some conclusions: 

“ (...) There can be no objection to a summary or abridgement of an old work which does not change the language of the writer and is not summarized in such a way as to leave out material portions and give a wrong idea. We can say in the preface that this is an abridgement. That will not be tampering. What we object to is anything that would change the thought of the writer. There may be in just a few words a very deep meaning.” (p. 223) 

In the proceedings of the conversation, one can see the clear difference in editorial views between USA leaders (with some support from England and New Zealand) and India-based leaders (Sri Ram, Radha Burnier and the vice-president James Perkins). 

The same difference materialized again some forty years later with the publication of “The Letters of H.P.Blavatsky, volume I” by the USA TPH (2003). Mr. John Algeo included numerous forged and libellous letters in the volume, calling them only “doubtful”. Soon af ter that, Mrs. Radha Burnier wrote in 2004 a letter to me from India, saying that those texts are “obviously spurious”. She added that all responsibility over their publication belongs to the USA TPH, as she was not consulted over the issue. 

Some of the Adyar TS leaders in the USA seem to have a decades-old historical tendency to act as Sophists, by allowing themselves to adapt to their own short-term interests whatever they say or publish. 

Perhaps they may ignore that there is a huge difference between Sophists and Theosophists, or “Philosophers” (in the classical sense of the term). Theosophists and philosophers are ‘Friends of Truth and Wisdom’. As they challenge Sophistry, they pay the price for their truthfulness. This is called “probation path”. 

Paradoxically, the oceanic difference between Sophists and Theosophists is often difficult to discern, because Sophists act in a disguised way, often through self-delusion and by the use of intellectual ambiguity. 

In his Dialogues “Prothagoras” and “Sophist”, Plato describes in the most eloquent terms the challenging contrast between Wisdom and Sophistry. These Dialogues help explain much of the ethical problems the theosophical movement has to face in the 21st century. 

Best regards, Carlos Cardoso Aveline. 


NOTES:

(1) “The Theosophist”, Adyar, Madras (Chennai), India, Vol. 88, July 1967, pp. 211-225. The text was published under the title “The Presentation of Theosophy”. 

(2) Letter 88 in the Chronological Edition (TPH-Philippines). 

(3) John Coats was later to be the international president of the Adyar Society, from 1973 through 1980. 

(4) N. Sri Ram’s daughter, Ms. Radha Burnier is the Adyar international president since 1980. 

(5) Joy Mills was the international vice-president during John Coats’ term in the presidency (1973-1980).

(6) “Fifty years ago” -- that confirms they are talking about Besant and Leadbeater books, not HPB literature. 

(7) Mr. Hodson himself wrote about human civilizations at the physical life in Mercury and Mars. In this he followed the lines of C. W. Leadbeater’s imaginary clairvoyance. G. Hodson also considered himself a claivoyant. 


O o o O o o O o o O o o O o o O 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]