Alan Bain: The C. W. Leadbeater Affair, 1906-1908

The President-Founder further declared:

“The authoritative and dogmatic value of statements as to the existence of Mahatmas, their relations with and messages to private persons, or through them to third parties, the Society or the general public, is denied; all such statements, messages or teachings are to be taken at their intrinsic value and the recipients left to form and declare, if they choose, their own opinions with respect to their genuineness; the Society, as a body, maintaining its constitutional neutrality in the premises.”

Until those decisions of the General Council, the Judicial Committee of 1894, and the President-Founder are annulled, I am bound by them, and cannot officially, nor can the General Council, express any opinion on the origin of Dr. van Hook’s “Open Letter”. By parity ofreasoning, no Sectional Council should express any opinion on such a matter. Dr. van Hook is perfectly free to assert publicly – though he has not done so – that the “Open Letter” was dictated verbatim by one of the Masters, and any other member is equally free to deny it.

This is apart from the undesirable nature of the precedent set by a Sectional Convention in its condemnation of the chief officer of another Section; every General Secretary is amenable to his own Section primarily, and this hasty setting of a dangerous precedent is another proof of the unwisdom of springing on an official body an important resolution without notice. While technically accepting this resolution as from “the British Section in Convention assembled,” I cannot but know that it is only the individual opinion of thirty-eight persons, unshared in by another twenty-six. It is not the deliberate opinion of theSection.

As regards the main problem:

The Theosophical Society, as a whole, cannot be committed to any special solution of this problem, and its members must be left free. Dr. van Hook, a medical man of high repute and for many years a university professor, has as much right to his view, without being charged with supporting solitary vice, as his assailants have a right to theirs, without being charged with favoring prostitution. Both accusations are equally foul and equally unjust, and people who fling them about are ipso facto disqualified from being judges.

These difficult and delicate questions of sex cannot be efficiently, or even decently, discussed in open conventions, in which young people are present. The conclusions arrived at under such conditions are inevitably those of passion, not of reason. We are all at one in condemning vicious practices, solitary or associated, and in desiring to rescue the young who have fallen into either form of vice. There is no approval of vice anywhere within the Theosophical Society; there is therefore no need for the Society to repudiate pernicious teaching on this matter any more than to repudiate assassination.

Mr. Leadbeater and myself labor as earnestly to help others to pure and noble living as do Mr. Sinnett, Mr. Mead, and their co-signatories, and there should be room enough in the Society we all love for us as well as for them. Mr. Leadbeater resigned two and a half years ago in the vain attempt to save the Society from this dissension; he does not ask to return. I am not at liberty to resign, being where I am by my Master’s order, nor am I at liberty to ask him again to take his place within the Theosophical Society without a vote of the Theosophical Society. If the TheosophicalSociety wishes to undo the wrong done to him, it is for the Convention of each Section to ask me to invite his return, and I will rejoice to do so.

Further, in every way that I can, outside official membership, I will welcome his co-operation, show him honor, and stand beside him. If the Theosophical Society disapprove of this, and if a two-thirds majority of members of the whole Theosophical Society demand my resignation because of this, I will ask my Master’s permission to resign. If not, is it not time to cease from warring against chimeras, and to devote ourselves wholly to the work?

The trouble is confined to a small number of American and a considerable number of British members; can they not feel that they have done their duty by two years and a half of protest, and not endeavor to coerce the remainder of the Society into a continual turmoil?

The vast majority of you affirmed last year that you regarded me as the President chosen by the Masters to steer what They have called “our Theosophical ship.” In Their name I call on all, who are loyal to Them and to Their choice, to work for Them, each in his own way, but in charity with all. Your faithful servant,

ANNIE BESANT,

President of the Theosophical Society.

P.S. – Since the above was written, Dr. van Hook has been re-elected as General Secretary, his Section’s answer to the British attack on him. In answer to a letter from England, he has repudiated the misrepresentation of his paper, and has made a statement similar to that made by me above, on pp. 9, I0. No unprejudiced person can read his paper in any othersense. I am glad to take this opportunity of rebutting a statement widely circulated, but utterly untrue, that Mr. Leadbeater ” deceived” me in his statement of the case at Benares. Neither then, nor at any other time, has he said anything to me which has deviated from truth in anyway. I have utter confidence in his candor.


PART 3 a


This is the first printed reaction of the British Section to the events of the Leadbeater Affair following upon Annie Besant’s November letter mentioned below. The “Enclosed reply” is aseparately published pamphlet, and will be reproduced, possibly in 2 parts, as CWL03b.TXT and CWL03c.TXT. At first sight one supposes that the RESOLUTIONS are the same as those published in CWL01.TXT – in fact there are many differences.
————————

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

Especially to the Members of the British Section.

THE LEADBEATER CASE

Enclosed will be found a Reply to the President’s recent Letter of November, 1908, to theMembers of the Theosophical Society, in which she refuses to act in accordance with the Resolution passed at the last Convention of this Section – calling upon her to take such action as would make the repudiation by the Society of the pernicious teachings given by Mr. Leadbeater to young boys, unequivocal and final.

At a largely attended and representative Meeting of Members, held in London on November 13th, it was decided, among other things, to ask for the cooperation of all those Members who are opposed to the reinstatement of Mr. Leadbeater in the Society, without public repudiation of the teaching which determined his resignation, and for that purpose the accompanying RESOLUTIONS have been drawn up. If, after reading our Reply to Mrs. Besant, you are in favour of these Resolutions, please sign the perforated slip and return it at once to Mr. Mead.

A petition for the reinstatement of Mr. Leadbeater is being circulated by some of his supporters. If you should have already signed that Petition, but now see reason to alter your opinion, will you kindly write to its promoters and withdraw your name? – and inform Mr. Mead of your having done so.

G. R. S. MEAD. HERBERT BURROWS. W. KINGSLAND. EDITH WARD. 16, SELWOOD PLACE, ONSLOW GARDENS, LONDON, S.W. November, 1908.

————————

RESOLUTIONS


THAT WHEREAS, at the last Convention of the British Section of the Theosophical Society, a Resolution was passed calling upon the President and General Council of the Society to take such action as would ensure “that the repudiation by the Society of this pernicious teaching [the teaching which determined the resignation of Mr. C.W. Leadbeater] may be unequivocal and final”:

AND WHEREAS the President has replied to this resolution in a printed Letter to the members of the Theosophical Society, dated November, 1908:

AND WHEREAS, in that Letter, the President explicitly declines to take such action, stating that she herself only disagrees with the teaching, but that her “condemnation no longer applies to Mr. Leadbeater’s advice”:

AND WHEREAS, in that Letter, the President fully admits that Mr. Leadbeater did give the said teaching

(a) previous to his connection with the Theosophical Society, “when a priest of the English Church,”

(b) to boys not yet addicted to the practice, but in whom “certain symptoms had already shown themselves either on the physical plane or in the aura,” and

(c) that “even though in one or two instances this may have taken place before what is commonly called puberty”:

AND WHEREAS the President declines to put an end to the scandalous state of affairs involved in the identification of this teaching with the Theosophical Society – through the acclaiming of the man who stands self-convicted of it, as one worthy to he placed in the highest rank as a Theosophical teacher and guide, and also through an explicit statement by a member of the General Council that “no mistake was made by Mr. Leadbeater in the nature of the advice he gave to his boys”:

AND WHEREAS, further, the President declares that she will rejoice to welcome Mr. Leadbeater back to actual membership, and ignores the condition of public repudiation by him of his teaching:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED –

1. That we, the undersigned members of the Theosophical Society, reaffirm the opinion expressed by the British Section at its last Convention, and embodied in the following resolution, which was carried nem. con., that. “This Convention looks on the teaching given by C.W. Leadbeater to certain boys as wholly evil, and hereby expresses its judgment on this matter”.

2. That we, the undersigned, record our opinion that no person who has given such teaching should be a member of the Theosophical Society, so long as that person has not absolutely,unequivocally, and publicly repudiated the said teaching and practice.

3. That we, the undersigned, call upon the President to adhere to the pledge given at the time of her election to the Presidency, that she would not readmit Mr. Leadbeater to membership till two years after his public repudiation of the said teaching, and then only on a large majority request of the whole Society. {Our copy lacks the perforated slip referred to, as presumably, the recipient completed it and sent it to Mr. Mead.}


PART 3 b


This is the first part of the REPLY mentioned in [Part 3], and may end up as three, rather than two files. Mead and his colleagues had a great deal to say… [Footnotes in the original have been incorporated in the text in square brackets]
Alan Bain
————————


To the Members of the Theosophical Society:
For Private circulation among members only.

THE LEADBEATER CASE A REPLY TO THE PRESIDENT’S LETTER Of November, 1908

Printed by E.E. MARSDEN, Carr Street, Manchester; and Published by G.R.S. MEAD, HERBERT BURROWS, W. KINGSLAND, & EDITH WARD, at 16, Selwood Place, Onslow Gardens, London. S.W.
————————

NOTE

At a representative meeting of many of the older and well-known members or the Theosophical Society, held in London, on November 13th, the present situation with regard to the Leadbeater Case was fully discussed. The President’s Letter in answer to the request of the Convention of the British Section that she should take steps to put an end to the scandalous state of affairs which now obtains in the Society, was carefully considered.

In view of the fact that she refuses to take any steps, but on the contrary would welcome the reinstatement of Mr. Leadbeater, and that, too, without the public repudiation which she promised should be exacted of him, it was decided that a Reply to Mrs. Besant’s Letter should be issued, and Miss Edith Ward, Mr. Mead, Mr. Kingsland, and Mr. Herbert Burrows were appointed a Committee to draw up the Reply.
————————

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.

The recent Letter of Mrs. Besant, as President of the Theosophical Society, which has been sent to all the members of this Section (and also to all the other Sections of the Society), purports to be her reply to an earnest appeal, by the British Section in Convention assembled, to the members of the Theosophical Society, and especially to the President and members of the General Council – to unite in putting an end to the scandalous state of affairs which now exists in the Society with regard to what is known as the Leadbeater teaching, so that the repudiation by the Society of this pernicious teaching may be unequivocal and final.

By formal direction of the Convention (held in London, July 4 and 5, 1908), a Special Report of the resolutions and of the proceedings which led up to them (including a full statement of the facts which necessitated the appeal and the debate on the subject) was prepared, by a Special Committee (whom the Convention unanimously appointed), to be issued to the members of the Section.

This Committee consisted of Miss Edith Ward, Messrs. G. R. S. Mead, Herbert Whyte, Herbert Burrows, and Mrs. Sharpe, General Secretary of the Section. An account of the proceedings of the Committee will be found in The Vahan of October, 1908.

————————

THE REPLY

This Report, which was duly prepared and passed by the whole Committee, has been suppressed by the General Secretary, who has been supported by a majority of the Executive Committee – nine to five. The nine are: Miss Bright, Miss Green, Mrs. Larmuth, Mr. Leo, Miss Mallet, Mr. Hodgson Smith, Mr. Wedgwood, Mr. Whyte, and Mrs. Sharpe. (Mrs. Sharpe did not vote on the actual resolution supporting her action, but voted on all other resolutions in the same sense.) The five are: Mr. Burrows, Mr. Glass, Mr. Kingsland, Mr. Mead, and Miss Ward.

Against this solid majority the minority who have endeavoured to carry out the wishes of the Convention have been powerless. This policy of suppression has been vigorously maintained; and now, more than four and a half months after the Convention, the members are still in ignorance of these important proceedings. In spite of a resolution unanimously passed at the Convention that The Vahan, the sectional organ, should be open to the free discussion of all matters of interest to the Section, Mrs. Sharpe refused to print even the following document:

The Report of the Debate, for which two additional sessions of the recent Convention of the British Section of the Theosophical Society were required, and which culminated in the passing of two very important Resolutions, has now been agreed to unanimously by the Special Committee appointed by the Convention to prepare it for publication.

The General Secretary, however, refuses to publish the document, and is supported in her refusal by a majority of the Executive Committee. We, the undersigned members of the Special Committee (of five), are prepared to carry out the instructions of the General Council in Convention duly assembled.

The official means of issuing the Report, however having been denied us, we now apply directly to the members of the Section for the necessary funds and addresses (which may be sent to any of the undersigned), in order that we may carry out the imperative duty of acquainting the Section with the present grave state of affairs.

(Signed) G. R. S. MEAD, HERBERT BURROWS, EDITH WARD.

It has thus been deliberately rendered impossible for the facts of the case to be placed before the members. And now with only Mrs. Besant’s letter before them, the members are being urged to sign a petition for Mr. Leadbeater’s reinstatement.
[Mr. Burrows and Mr. Mead have now printed their speeches themselves in a pamphlet, and copies may be obtained from them.]

Even in Mrs. Besant’s Letter, which has gone out to the whole Society, as well as to the members of this Section, the very resolution on which she bases that reply, is not given, and it was only at the last moment that the General Secretary of this Section found herself compelled to enclose the bare text of that resolution with Mrs. Besant’s Letter as sent out to the Section. [And yet Mrs. Besant (p. 3) claims that she is submitting “the whole case to the judgment of the Theosophical Society.”]

Even when this opportunity arose Mrs. Sharpe has still suppressed the following two very important decisions of the Convention.

By 33 votes to 31 the Convention rejected an amendment, moved by Mrs. Sharpe, and seconded by Mr. Ernest Wood (of Manchester):

Welcoming the President’s policy of collaboration with Mr. C. W. Leadbeater in any work which he is willing to do for the Society. This amendment was rejected on its merits before the debate on the Van Hook-Leadbeater resolution (moved as an amendment to Mr. Dunlop’s resolution) took place. After the protracted debate which resulted in the carrying of this resolution, Mr. Bell (of Harrogate) moved, and Mr. Wilkinson (of Nottingham) seconded:

That this Convention looks on the teaching given by C. W. Leadbeater to certain boys as wholly evil, and hereby expresses its judgment on this matter. This was carried nem. con. [nemine contradicente, unanimously, FR]

The Van Hook-Leadbeater resolution was carried by 38 votes to 4 (all the latter cast by one Belgian delegate), 22 declining to vote. This resolution, moved in the form of an amendment, was as follows:

This Convention of the British Section of the Theosophical Society while affirming its loyalty to the first Object of the Society – namely, “to form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity” – strongly protests against evoking the sentiment of brotherhood to countenance what is wrong.

Whereas Dr. Weller van Hook, the present General Secretary of the American Section, and so a member of the General Council of the Theosophical Society, in a recent Open Letter which he has subsequently stated to have been “dictated verbatim by one of the Masters,” has publicly claimed that the corrupting practices, the teaching of which determined the resignation of Mr. C. W. Leadbeater, are the high doctrine of Theosophy and the “precursor of its introduction into the thought of the outer world”: –

This Convention declares its abhorrence of such practice, and, in view of the incalculable harm to Theosophy and of the disgrace which this teaching must inevitably bring upon the Society earnestly calls upon all its members, especially the President and members of the General Council, to unite in putting an end to the present scandalous state of affairs, so that the repudiation by the Society of this pernicious teaching may be unequivocal and final.

Moved by Herbert Burrows; seconded by G. R. S. Mead; supported by A. P. Sinnett, C. J. Barker, J. S. Brown, Dr. C. G. Currie, H. R. Hogg, B. Keightley, W. Kingsland, W. Scott-Elliot, W. Theobald, B. G. Theobald, L. Wallace, C. B. Wheeler, H. L. Shindler, A. P. Cattanach, Dr. A. King, Baker Hudson, W. H. Thomas, A. B. Green, J. M. Watkins, E. E. Marsden, H. E. Nichol, by the delegates of the London and Blavatsky Lodges, and by many others.

Immediately after the vote was taken Miss Dupuis, of the H. P. B. Lodge, read the following declaration, in which the majority of the representatives who had declined to vote joined by standing with her: We cannot vote for this amendment as it is worded. We will not vote against it as it involves so much. We stand and hereby proclaim that we utterly condemn the practices alluded to, but refuse to condemn any individual.


Reply to the President’s Letter.

This serious and earnest appeal to safeguard the good name of the Society and to assist in preserving Theosophy from harm, the President now rejects with all her strength. Mrs. Besant’s reply takes the form of special pleading in defence of Mr. Leadbeater; she withdraws her former unequivocal condemnation of his teaching and substitutes for it equivocal phrases; humbly apologises to him; and finally invites the Society to vote for Mr. Leadbeater’s triumphant reinstatement without further guarantee.

The change in Mrs. Besant’s attitude is amazing, but still more astonishing is her forgetfulness of her emphatic pledges given to the Society at the time of her election to the Presidency.



PART 3 c



In continuing the scanning of the REPLY to the President’s Letter begun as [Part 3 a], I have had to work with a very poor copy, and the work is taking much longer than anticipated. This pamphlet is about half finished.

Some readers may wonder (again) what point there is in dredging up these past “scandals” in the Theosophical Society. The view of masturbation as “self-abuse” would raise few supporters today, and the fact that the British Section make such strong condemnation of it simply reflects the views of the Victorian era of which they were a part.

This, however, although mentioned at length in the literature, is not the major concern, when one looks beneath the surface of the circumstances. The real problems arose because the International President, together with other officials of the T.S., lied to her own members, denied them full access to all the relevant documents, and, with CWL, could be said to appear to manipulate the Society and its members to her own purposes.

It has been argued, in very recent times, that a similar attitude has prevailed within the T. S. in America, and it would not be the first time in the history of the Society that similar allegations have been made.

My task here, however, is not to draw conclusions, but to present as much of the evidence as is available in a case which was crucial to the future (and therefore the present) nature of the Theosophical Society itself. No doubt, at the end of this exercise, which will be a long one, I shall offer some more thoughts and opinions.

For the moment, let us read some more of the REPLY to Annie Besant made by some members of the British Section in November, 1908: ————————


The President’s Pledges.

In April, 1907, in answer to a telegram from the Council of the Blavatsky Lodge in these words: “Would you as President permit X’s [Mr. Leadbeater’s] readmission?” – Mrs. Besant replied:

“If publicly repudiates teaching, two years after repudiation on large majority request of whole Society, would reinstate; otherwise not.”

What Mrs. Besant meant by “repudiation,” and what we have all understood her to mean, is quite clear from her public letter to the members of the British Section, dated March 24, 1907 (p. 5).

[This was written nine months after Mrs. Besant had received the official Minutes of the Advisory Committee, and her opinion, therefore, was then not based on alleged “false information.”]

“As regards his [Mr. L.’s] readmission to the Society – I do not know that he wishes readmission – I shall continue to oppose it, as I have hitherto done, until he says publicly that theteaching is wrong [italics Mrs. Besant’s], not only that he will refrain from it, as he promised to do in February, 1906, and also before the Advisory Board in London.” [In his letter to The Vahan (May, 1907), Mr. Leadbeater himself says that he does not wish to rejoin.]

At the Convention of the American Section, 1906, Mrs. Kate Buffington Davis read the following from a letter of Mrs. Besant’s, dated from Benares, August 9, 1906. [Mrs. Besant had also already received her official copy of the Minutes by this date.]

Any proposal to reinstate Mr Leadbeater in the membership of the T. S. would be ruinous to the Society. It would be indignantly repudiated here and in Europe, and I am sure in Australia and New Zealand, if the facts were known. If such a proposal were carried in America – I do not believe it possible – I should move all the T.S. Council, the supreme authority, that the application of membership should be rejected. But I am sure that Mr. Leadbeater would not apply.

Why Mrs. Besant italicises the word “wrong” in the last quotation but one is quite evident to all who remember her exceedingly strong, unequivocal, and repeated acceptance of the phenomenal pronouncements published by the late President-Founder just prior to his decease.

In his Presidential Address at the Adyar Anniversary Meeting, December 29, 1906 (see General Report, p. 3), referring to the Leadbeater case, and to the specific question as to whether Mr. Leadbeater’s teaching was right or wrong, Col. Olcott stated:

“So when Mahatma M. came to me last Friday night I asked Him the question, and He replied “wrong.”

In a letter to Mr. Leadbeater, dated January 12, 1907, Colonel Olcott writes on his death-bed:

“Both Mahatma M. and Mahatma K.H. assured me you did well to resign; that it was right to call a Council to advise upon the matter, and that I did right in accepting your resignation; but They said we were wrong in allowing the matter to be made public, for your sake and the good of the Society. They said you should have stated in your resignation that you resigned because you had offended the standard of ideals of the majority of the members of the Society by giving out certain teachings which were considered objectionable. They have told both Annie and myself that your teaching young boys to . . . is wrong.”

In Colonel Olcott’s report of one of the Adyar “interviews,” dated January 11, 1907, in reply to a leading question, the answer reported is:

“No, we cannot tell you this, for that concerns himself alone, but it is different when he teaches things to others that will harm.”

And in answer to another question:

“Write and ask him, it is not for us to say. We do, however, affirm that these teachings are wrong.”

Moreover, in her pamphlet on The Testing of the Theosophical Society (one of her Election addresses), Mrs. Besant writes (p.7), in reference to Col. Olcott’s “Conversation with the Mahatmas”:

“I may add that the “Conversation” in no way suggests Mr. Leadbeater’s reinstatement, and that we at Adyar could not read that into it, as we were told at the same time that the Master, in answer to a suggestion to that effect, has sternly refused his approval.” We do not cite these utterances as authoritative for ourselves, nor do we pause to criticise them, we simply place them on record to show why Mrs. Besant emphasised the word wrong.”

On this point at least we thought we were all agreed on ordinary grounds of morality whether we accepted or rejected the authority of the phenomenal answers reported by Colonel Olcott. The thing was unquestionably wrong under any circumstances.


“Mahatmic” Contradictions.

In May, however, of this year, Dr. van Hook, the General Secretary of the American Section, and as such a member of the General Council of the Society, in Open Letters to his Section, declared that Mr. Leadbeater’ s teaching on the point was right in every respect. (Addendum, May 5th, 1908, p.6):

“No mistake was made by Mr. Leadbeater in the nature of the advice he gave his boys. No mistake was made in the way he gave it.”

It was at the same time widely circulated privately on his own declaration, that these Letters were not really his, but “dictated verbatim by one of the Masters.” These astounding statements obtained the widest credence, and the result was that Mr. Leadbeater was invited to take the post of editor of part of the official organ of the American Section, by a large majority referendum vote.

In face of this, many of the members of the British Section could no longer remain silent; they were bound to protest, and call attention to the very grave danger that threatened the Society, and in which it is now actually involved. These “Mahatmic” pronouncements, however, were not the ground of that protest; it may be left to those who believe in their authenticity to reconcile their glaring contradictions. No decision on such manifest incongruities was asked for, and therefore, Mrs. Besant’s argument as to official ruling on pp. 13 and 14 of her Letter is quite beside the point.


The Logical Consequence of Dr. van Hook’s Contention.

What was strongly objected to and most energetically protested against was the public declaration by a responsible officer of the General Council that Mr. Leadbeater’s teaching is right. If Mr. Leadbeater’s teaching is right, and he made no mistake in any way whatever, as Dr. van Hook (or his “Master” if he prefers it) contends, why should not Mr. Leadbeater continue such teachings, as they have proved, according to Dr. van Hook, of the greatest value; and by a parity of reasoning, why should not any pupil of Mr. Leadbeater’s or anyone else in the Society who wishes to follow his footsteps, do the same?

Against this hideous prospect we protested and do protest. If Mr. Leadbeater’s teaching is right, then it should he followed. That is the only logical position. Mr. Leadbeater himself says it would be “dangerous” only “If promiscuously given”; he as an occultist knows when it should be given, he claims. It is not really dangerous for him to give it; and he simply bows to Mrs. Besant’s “opinion that it is dangerous.”

Mr. Leadbeater is consistent in this, that he has never recanted; he has defended this teaching in the face of everything. What conclusion is likely to be drawn from this by those who believe that Mr. Leadbeater is a high adept? Simply that he knows on this subject; and has only promised not to do it again because of prudish convention, ignorant “hysterical” uproar, and “insane prejudices.”

He is the “martyr” occultist persecuted for his knowledge! What results? That his pupils will think as he thinks; that they will do as he has done. Why not, if he was and is right?

This view, that Mr. Leadbeater is right, is already being adopted far and wide in the Society at this moment. In what way does Mrs. Besant’s Letter help us to stem the tide?


Mrs. Besant’s Contradictions.

Mrs. Besant’s view (pp. 5 and 6) emphasised to a final utterance for those who accept her authority (“I speak as Occultist. ‘He that is able to receive it, let him receive it'” leaves the door wide open for Mr. Leadbeater’s teaching. But at the expense of what contradiction! Mr. Leadbeater has taught it, and refuses to repudiate the teaching; yet he is said by Mrs. Besant at the same time to be “at one” with her in condemning it as being “degrading, unmanly, unwomanly” (p. 61, while he himself declares that it is “dangerous” only “if promiscuously given” (The Theosophist, Feb., 1908), and Mrs. Besant herself elsewhere in her Letter (pp. 7 and 8) expresses only disagreement and withdraws condemnation.

But H. P. B. did not equivocate on the subject – and she, we suppose – could speak with as much authority on occultism as Mr. Leadbeater and Mrs. Besant. (She characterised it to me as “the sin against the Holy Ghost” – G. R. S. M.) [See The Secret Doctrine, III, 445 (Diagram).] Mrs. Besant has now entirely changed her former view on the subject, for in her Letter,* of June 9, 1906, she writes of her first impression on hearing the charges in February:

* {This is the “Simla Letter” sent to the E.S. wardens and sub-wardens, with a covering note in which occur the words: “You may use publicly my view of the fatal nature of the teaching, should need arise.” [The italics are Mrs. Besant’s.]}

“This was the first time I had heard of such a method of meeting the sexual difficulty, let alone of Mr. Leadbeater’s recommendation of it. I had always regarded self-abuse as one of the lowest forms of vice, a thing universally reprobated by decent people. To me it was not arguable. But I have since heard that it is sometimes practised and recommended by ascetics, otherwise good men, for the sake of preserving chastity – as though self-abuse did not destroy chastity as much as prostitution, and in an even more degrading way!”

But Mrs. Besant now asserts (pp.5 and 6) that “Occultism” “condemns solitary vice as only less harmful than prostitution.” To us it still remains “not arguable,” and to this we make no exception, either on the ground of the lesser of two evils, or on the perverted ground of doing evil that good may come. and therefore we protest and appeal to all who love the good name of the Society, to pronounce unmistakably on this subject, and to resist the triumphant reinstatement Into the Society as an injured “martyr” of the man who has brought all this sorrow and suffering upon us.

In a Society like ours, just because of the deference his many pupils, adherents, and admirers pay to Mr. Leadbeater’s assertions, his obstinate insistence that his teaching is right is the most potent means of erecting it into a generally recognised Theosophical doctrine, of the first importance. This is proved by the fact that Dr. Weller van Hook in one of his Open Letters (Addendum, May 5, pp. 5 and 6) appeals to the doctrines of reincarnation and karma, as expounded by Mr. Leadbeater especially to suit his teaching, in justification of it.

The boys’ statements also that it was taught as “Theosophical” formed the basis of one of the charges.

This pernicious teaching is not merely “ascribed” to Mr. Leadbeater, as Mrs. Besant says in her opening words, it is fully and freely confessed by him and strenuously defended. In what way this teaching, which Mrs. Besant now refuses to condemn, when taught by Mr. Leadbeater, can make for “purity” and for “the Society’s good name” (p. 3) is beyond us.

This concludes the REPLY to the President’s Letter of November 1908 begun as [Part 3]. The various sections have now been collated and will be available shortly on request as a single file.

Mention is made in this section of “The Cipher Letter,” which was, not surprisingly, separately printed in its entirety for those who wished to avail themselves of its contents. This will [Part 4]. It is quite short. A.B. (Ed.)


[Continued next page]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »
Scroll to Top