PART 3 d
The Documents.
On p. 6 Mrs. Besant writes, quoting a previous letter of hers (the “Simla Letter”):
“On June 7th [1906] I received an account of the acceptance by Mr. Leadbeater before the Committee of the facts alleged in the evidence.”
As this might give the unknowing reader the impression that Mrs. Besant had not had previously before her any of the “facts alleged in the evidence,” or any knowledge of the “acceptance by Mr. Leadbeater” of them, to make it clear we recite the facts.
In February, 1906, Mrs. Besant herself was the first to receive the charges and original evidence on which they were based, from America, drawn up and laid before her by the two chief officials of the Section (in their private capacity), and also by the two chief officers of the E.S. there, in a letter dated January 25.
Mr. Leadbeater, to whom also a copy had been forwarded, was then with Mrs. Besant at Benares. After consultation with her, Mr. Leadbeater wrote a letter of confession and excuse (dated February 27) to the then American General Secretary; and Mrs. Besant also sent a letter to the chief officer of the E. S. in which she repeated Mr. Leadbeater’s excuses, but expressed disagreement with his teaching; in view of Mr. Leadbeater’s promise to abstain from this teaching in future, however, she did not favour the “searching investigation” demanded, and said she saw no reason why he should be withdrawn from activity.
So far all had been kept as silent as possible. Mr. Leadbeater’s letter and Mrs. Besant’s reply being entirely unsatisfactory, the Executive Committee of the American Section then felt themselves compelled to lay the whole matter officially before Colonel Olcott, the President-Founder of the Society, who promptly called together an Advisory Committee consisting of the then Executive Committee of the British Section, to which Section Mr. Leadbeater belonged.
The members of this Committee were: Mr. Sinnett, Dr. Nunn, Mr. Mead, Mrs. Stead, Miss Ward, Miss Spink, Mrs. Hooper, Mr. Bertram Keightley, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Glass. There were also present Mr. Burnett, as representative and delegate of the Executive Committee of the American Section, and M. Bernard, the representative of the Executive Committee of the French Section.
The documents submitted by the American Executive consisted of:
(1) The charges and evidence already laid before Mrs. Besant;
(2) Mr. Leadbeater’s letter of confession and excuse;
(3) rebuttal statements of the boys to some of the statements made by Mr. Leadbeater in his letter and
(4) corroborative evidence and testimony in two further cases obtained after sending to Mrs. Besant the first evidence on which the charges were brought.
The original charges, based on the evidence of two boys, were:
FIRST: That he is teaching young boys given into his care habits of self-abuse and demoralizing personal practices.
SECOND: That he does this with deliberate intent and under the guise of occult training or with the promise of the increase of physical manhood.
THIRD: That he has demanded, at least in one case, promises of the utmost secrecy.
It was with regard to the rebuttal evidence (3) and the further corroborative evidence (4), that Mr. Leadbeater said at the beginning of the inquiry, as quoted by Mrs. Besant (p.7):
“I have only just now seen anything at all of the documents, except the [read “that”] first letter.”
This “first letter” is the first lengthy document containing the charges and evidence laid before Mrs. Besant in February. Below, in parallel columns, will be found Mrs. Besant’s version of what took place, together with the full text of the Minutes from which she is supposed to be quoting.
| MRS. BESANT’S LETTER (p. 7). | MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY BOARD. |
|
As to the “evidence,” he stated at the time: “I have only just now seen anything at all of the documents, except the first letter”; on his hasty perusal of them, he stated that some of the points “are untrue and others so distorted that they do not represent the facts”; yet it was on these points, unsifted and unproven, declared by him to be untrue and distorted, that he was condemned, and has since been attacked.
|
I have only just now seen anything at all of the documents except that first letter. There have been other supposed rebuttals and other documents which I had only seen to-day and while there are a number of points I should challenge as inaccurate, yet all those are minor points and do not affect the great question. It is simply that there are points of so-called rebuttal which are untrue and others so distorted that they do not represent the facts of the case but these do not affect the central points. |
It will be seen that the important qualifying phrases italicised by us are omitted by. Mrs. Besant.
This was Mr. Leadbeater’s statement at the beginning of the inquiry, before he was questioned and had to make some damaging further admissions.
Mrs. Besant’s statement that it was on the points in the second batch of documents only that “he was condemned and has since been attacked” is not the fact.
The Committee unanimously advised Col. Olcott to accept Mr. Leadbeater’s resignation, which was written only just before it met, because of his own confession in the first place, and because to their amazement he still persisted in defending his teaching, and made even further admissions.
At that time in the Society we were unanimous that it was wrong. Mr. Leadbeater’s teaching had not yet been introduced into the “thought of the Theosophical world.”
Denunciation of the Committee.
To weaken this unanimous advice Mrs. Besant now denounces some of the members of the Committee as unfit to advise Colonel Olcott, with whom the ultimate decision rested and whose impartiality Mr. Leadbeater freely acknowledged at the end of the inquiry.
In reply to the late President-Founder’s question: “I should like to ask Mr. Leadbeater if he thinks I have acted impartially?” – Mr Leadbeater replied: “Absolutely.” (See Minutes.)
Mrs. Besant, nevertheless, declares that “the so-called trial of Mr. Leadbeater was a travesty of justice” (p. 7), and so asperses the memory of the late President-Founder.
Mr. Leadbeater was not tried judicially; the nature of the Committee was twice laid down by Colonel Olcott as follows:
“(a) Of course you know the executive power is vested in me. You are here to advise me and to hear what Mr. Leadbeater has to say, and to act according to your judgment after hearing him.”
“(b) We should not keep in anything, but have frank disclosure. You are not sitting judicially, but to advise me what to do.”
Mr. Leadbeater was given every opportunity to explain his position and justify his conduct; unless, of course, questioning him on the evidence is to be considered unfair and a “travesty of justice.”
To show the baselessness of Mrs. Besant’s denunciation, it may be stated that the apparently most telling point she tries to make – the shooting story – seems to have arisen from a rumour we heard at the time, that if the matter became public, and Mr. Leadbeater were to return to America, it was likely that a relative of one or the boys might “go for him with a shot-gun.” (E. W., G. R. S. M.).
As to psychic influence, though this is quite news to the two of us who sat on the Committee, we may be permitted to remark that it is hardly consistent of Mrs. Besant to denounce belief in psychic testimony as a disqualification.
The unanimous opinion of the Committee was that such teaching should not be given under any circumstances whatever, not even to depraved boys, much less therefore to boys who had no knowledge of such practices.
The only real difference of opinion among the members of the Committee was as to whether they should advise expulsion or acceptance of resignation only, as commensurate with the offence, after Mr. Leadbeater’s further admissions. They finally took the more lenient course.
The unanimous decision of the Committee was given in the following resolution:
“That having considered certain charges against Mr. Leadbeater, and having listened to his explanations, this Committee recommend the acceptance by the President-Founder of his resignation already offered in anticipation of the Committee’s decision.”
On p. 8, Mrs. Besant now expressly withdraws the condemnation of Mr. Leadbeater’s advice which she had put on record in her very important letter of June, 1906, on the ground that the “information” on which she had based it was “false.” It‘s falsity is alleged on two points.
First Point of Alleged “Falsity.”
(1) With regard to the first (the “fouling” of the mind), it is sufficient to quote Mrs. Besant’s own words of condemnation, in parallel columns with Mr. Leadbeater’s own admissions before the Advisory Committee.
It will thus be seen that Mrs. Besant’s original condemnation was based not on “false information,” but on her own interpretation of Mr. Leadbeater’s admissions.
That the reason for giving the “advice” was sometimes other than that professed, may he seen from the fact that, in his letter of confession, Mr. Leadbeater admitted that he had told one of the boys “that physical growth is frequently promoted by the setting in motion of these currents, but that they need regulation.” The boy’s evidence on this point (“the promise of the increase of physical manhood”) formed the basis of one of the charges. The cipher letter further corroborates this evidence.
In the face of the opinion she placed “on record” in 1906, Mrs. Besant now denies (p. 8) that there was any “fouling” of the “imagination” even of the “minds of boys innocent of all sex-impulses.” Yet (on p. 9) she admits it was taught not only to boys not yet addicted to the practice, but also to one or two “before what is called the age of puberty.”
The plea of justification now urged for this extraordinary change of opinion is that “certain symptoms had already shown themselves either on the physical plane or in the aura.”
The giving of this teaching then even to children Mrs. Besant now refuses to condemn in Mr. Leadbeater’s case; and thus opens the way for any psychic in the Society to justify the teaching of it on his bare assertion that he has seen this or that “symptom” in a child’s aura.
All such excuses and subterfuges we emphatically reject, for the practice under any circumstance can never lessen lust but only enhance it.
Second Point of Alleged “Falsity.”
(2) The second point on the “falsity” of which Mrs. Besant withdraws her condemnation is the question of frequency. Here Mr. Leadbeater’s denial, quoted by Mrs. Besant (p. 9), and the testimony of the mother of boy No. 3 as to the “original interval” are in direct conflict.
In the letter to the boy, the genuineness of which Mr. Leadbeater acknowledges, he writes:
“There may be this much reason in what he [the Doctor] says, that while you are not quite well we should spend no force that can be avoided. You will remember that when we met in — I suggested longer intervals until you were completely recovered.”
It is to be noted that this “suggestion” was made because the boy was ill. The “original” interval to which the mother refers was advised prior to this meeting.
The most striking point in Mrs. Besant’s plea is her appeal for “utter confidence” in Mr. Leadbeater’s statements and denials; frequently she says with regard to evidence “it is not true that . . . ,” when this simply means “Mr. Leadbeater says it is not true.” Mr. Leadbeater is always to be believed no matter what the testimony against him of the boys and mothers (or even of his own letters) may be, for Mrs. Besant has “utter confidence in his candour.”
But one of the main points against Mr. Leadbeater is that he taught these practices without the knowledge of the parents and bound the boys to secrecy, as has been fully admitted by himself. Mrs. Besant writes, in her Simla letter of June 9, 1906:
“Nothing can excuse giving to young boys instructions on sexual matters to be kept from their parents, the rightful protectors of their children.”
Why then, if Mr. Leadbeater is so candid with Mrs. Besant, did he not breathe a word to her of his teaching before he was detected? For in the same letter Mrs. Besant writes:
“This was the first time I had heard of such a method of meeting the sexual difficulty let alone Mr. Leadbeater’s recommendation of it. I had always regarded self-abuse as one of the lowest forms of vice, and a thing universally reprobated by decent people. To me it was not arguable.”
Now we are not labouring this point as to precisely “daily” practice, but Mrs. Besant knows, as we know, that the cipher letter says, “twice a week is permissible,” preceded and followed by words that make it impossible to put a curative construction upon the “advice.”
How then does Mrs. Besant deal with this most important document, which, unfortunately, came into the hands of the American Executive only a day before the meeting of the Advisory Committee in London, too late to be included in the evidence? No contemptuous words can brush aside this document.
The Cipher Letter.
The “fragment of paper” is sufficient to accommodate not a note only but a letter of 229 words, beginning with “My own darling boy,” and ending with ” Thousand kisses darling” (in cipher). It is true that the first half of this letter refers to a psychic experience, but the second, of equal length, begins with the words “Turning to other matters,” and these matters are sexual; it is in the latter part that the Cipher sentences occur, and it is in the body of the cipher, towards the end, that the sentence referred to by Mrs. Besant (“glad sensation is so pleasant”) is found.
If, as Mrs. Besant says (p. 11), the boy replied to the letter (though his reply was not sent), the letter can hardly be a forgery to “go with the Coulomb and Pigott letters.” If the boy himself did not understand the sentence in the sense implied, as Mrs. Besant says – the mother (in a covering letter addressed to one of the members of the Investigating Committee in America) says she so understands it, and makes it an additional ground of complaint.
As the letter stands it is impossible to read the sentence otherwise than as applying to its immediate context. It could not apply to the psychic experience, for that was not of a pleasant nature.
Mrs. Besant, however, says that Mr. Leadbeater states he does not “recognise it [the letter] in its present form.” Who then has changed the “form” of the letter – the boy or the mother? And if so, what possible purpose could be served thereby? Will Mr. Leadbeater himself venture to assert that the letter or any part of it is a forgery?
But even if the sentence in question were entirely eliminated, there is that in the rest of the letter which calls for the most searching inquiry, and its genuineness is further corroborated by the identity of its very peculiar phrasing with that of the other letter in evidence which Mr. Leadbeater has acknowledged as his.
It is, therefore, impossible to join Mrs. Besant in letting it “go with the Coulomb and Pigott letters.”
As to this document we agree with Miss Ward in her recent circular that:
“If it is genuine it settles for us [me] the whole question of Mr. Leadbeater’s attitude: if it is not genuine it is a piece of inconceivable wickedness, which leaves Mr. Leadbeater grossly wronged and of which the perpetrator should, by every code of honour and justice, be unveiled and punished.”
It is remarkable that Dr. van Hook himself has nowhere published this “repudiation,” but from a copy of a letter written by him to Mr. Whyte, which Mrs. Besant has had printed in “Theosophy in India” [Sept., 1908], we find that Dr. van Hook expressly states that “in the Letters published over his [my] signature” the “general problem” has not been dealt with, but only the “specific question” of Mr. Leadbeater’s “solution” of it.
We may here point out that it is not the fact that the Convention had before it only a “garbled account,” as Mrs. Besant says (p. 13), of Dr. van Hook’s utterances; every sentence that could he used to persuade the Convention that Dr. van Hook did not mean what he wrote, was insisted on by Dr. van Hook’s and Mr. Leadbeater’s supporters; his paragraphs were read repeatedly in full, and the sentences Mrs. Besant quotes (p. 12) were especially insisted on.
In his Open Letter (Addendum, May 5) Dr. van Hook speaks of nothing else but Mr. Leadbeater’s teaching and method and “solution” of the problem. And if the following paragraphs in it do not refer to Mr. Leadbeater’s “solution,” to his “system,” to the blessing he is conferring by it, then to what on earth do they refer?
Dr. van Hook’s “repudiation” of his own plain meaning simply makes nonsense of his whole contention. Dr. van Hook (or, if he prefers it, his “Master”) writes:
“Hence the “crime” or “wrong” of teaching the boys the practice alluded to was no crime or wrong at all, but only the advice of a wise teacher who foresaw an almost limitless period of suffering for his charge if the solution for his difficulties usually offered by the World were adopted and relief obtained by an associated instead of by an individual and personal act.
“The introduction of this question into the thought of the Theosophical World is but the precursor of its introduction into the thought of the outer World. Mr Leadbeater has been the one to bear the persecution and martyrdom of its introduction. The solution of the question can only be reached by those who study it from the Theosophic standpoint, admitting the validity of our teachings in regard to thoughts and their relations to acts. Hence the service of Theosophy to the world in this respect will be of the most far-reaching consequence, extending into the remote future of the progress of Man.
“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. Nor did he make any mistake in the just estimation of the consequences of any other solution of the terrible problem which was presented to him.
“If any mistake was made it was a mistake of judgment in trusting too much to the confidence of the parents of the boys who, he thought, knew and loved him so well that they would accept his judgment on matters about which ordinary people have little or no knowledge and about which he, by the nature of his occult training, had a full comprehension.
“Betrayal of confidence on the part of some parents of the boys resulted in the scandal which brought this problem to the attention of Theosophists as a preliminary to its introduction to the world. Woe to those who violated their vows in making disclosures in this case. All honor to those parents who, braving the opinion of the World, have boldly set themselves against the current of the World’s prejudice and have avowed themselves and their sons under undying obligation to the great teacher who aided their sons in overcoming difficulties which without his aid would not only have been insuperable in this life but would have led them into almost inconceivable complications in future lives.”
If this does not mean the introduction into the thought of the Theosophical Society, and thus into the thought of the outer world, of Mr. Leadbeater’s “solution” of the problem, what can it possibly mean? Mr. Leadbeater’s “martyrdom” is not because of his introducing the general sex problem with regard to young people; that has been introduced into the thought of the world for many many centuries.
It is because of his “solution” of it that Dr. van Hook calls on us to exalt Mr. Leadbeater to the highest pinnacle of honour, for he gives “all honour” to the parents who entrust their children to Mr. Leadbeater to receive such teaching, and who avow their undying obligation for this high favour!
Against the introduction of this “solution” of the sex problem into the “thought of the Theosophical world” and against Dr. van Hook’s glorification of it, we protest with all our energy; we characterise the teaching of it in any case as a “corrupting practice” and “wholly evil,” no matter who gives it, not excepting occultists and psychics; and we call for the public repudiation of it by the man who has confessed to teaching it practically, before he is invited to return in triumph as a „wise teacher” to the Theosophical Society.
The Main Issue Evaded.
As to the main issue, then, Mrs. Besant evades it when she says (p. 14):
“The Theosophical Society, as a whole, cannot be committed to any special solution of this [the sex] problem, and its members must be left free.”
This we have not asked; what we do ask our fellow-members to do, is to condemn one special and corrupting practice as a solution of the problem. Advice to break off gradually this corrupting habit when once it had been contracted, is not the ground of our protest. It is the teaching of this thing to men who have never practised it, and to boys and children who have never heard of it even, against which we protest.
The Real Cause of the Present Dissension.
Mrs. Besant says (p. 15) that Mr. Leadbeater: “resigned two and a half years ago in the vain attempt to save the Society from this dissension.”
As to a magnanimous resignation there was little choice; the wording of the unanimous resolution of the Committee shows that clearly enough.
There was, however, only one way in which Mr. Leadbeater could save the Society from dissension, as he himself said before the Advisory Committee:
“Since this has come forward it would be undesirable that I should appear before the public.” [Italics ours.]
The trouble has not been made by those who accepted Mr. Leadbeater’s resignation as the natural sequence of his conduct, but by those who have persistently forced him into ever greater and greater prominence; and although he has once stated that he does not seek re-entry, he has lent himself in every way to being pushed forward publicly, and has thus aided most powerfully in keeping this scandal and this dissension alive in the Theosophical Society with ever greater and greater intensification.
The Letter of the President in answer to our earnest appeal will only bring more dissension, and help the more to ventilate the unsavoury subject of Mr. Leadbeater’s “solution” and methods in the Theosophical Society. Under such circumstances how can people be invited to join our ranks?
It is manifestly unfair to allow outsiders to involve themselves in such a scandalous state of affairs without warning, and that means stating the facts. Just the very people whom we desire to welcome will be kept out, and that, too, even with Mrs. Besant’s Letter alone before them, much more when they come to know the whole matter.
What folly is this to sacrifice the welfare of the Society in the vain attempt to re-establish the public reputation of an individual who has lost it on his own confession and by his persistent refusal to repudiate his pernicious teaching and practice!
Combined Action Necessary.
Already many have left because of the policy pursued by Mr. Leadbeater’s supporters. In America hundreds, it is said as many as a thousand, have gone out in the last two and a half years; and here, among a number of other good members, we have lost two old General Secretaries and one former Acting General Secretary.
Why, we ask, should old and valued members, or even the latest recruit, be driven out of the Society for the sake of one man, who has taught self-abuse to men, boys, and children, and refuses to repudiate his corrupting system?
Combined action being now forced upon us, we earnestly appeal to our fellow members not to resign individually, but to join us in our present protest, and register their names with us; so that if still further action is forced upon us we may take it together as a united body. We appeal not only to the members of our own Section, but also to all members of the Society who sympathise with our protest, to give us their support by also registering their names.
We would further ask our sympathisers to let our protest he known as widely as possible in the Society. For while the President has at her disposal not only the official organisation of the whole Society but also the good services of a widespread inner order, we are dependent on unorganised effort.
True Loyalty.
Finally, Mrs. Besant calls on us to be “loyal” to the Masters, and “to Their choice,” and “to work for Them.” Is it, we ask, loyalty to Masters to tolerate and to refuse to condemn the teaching of self-abuse?
We say that it is because of our loyalty to all the Masters of Morality who have taught the world throughout the ages that we protest, and that in so doing we work for Theosophy, and should fail in our plain duty were we not to protest. It is the best loyalty, therefore, to the Theosophical Society, and also to its elected President, no matter how “chosen,” to protest, and resist the introduction of this teaching into the thought of the Theosophical world, and therewith also the reinstatement of Mr. Leadbeater in the Society without his full public repudiation of this teaching.
We cannot do better than conclude with the following words, quoted from the leaflet entitled Occultism and Truth, issued in 1894, at the time of the Judge crisis, and signed by H. S. Olcott, A. P. Sinnett, Annie Besant, Bertram Keightley, W. Wynn Westcott, E. T. Sturdy, and C. W. Leadbeater:
“A spurious Occultism dallies with truth and falsehood, and argues that deception on the illusory physical plane is consistent with purity on the loftier planes on which the Occultist has his true life; it speaks contemptuously of “mere worldly morality” – a contempt that might be justified if it raised a higher standard, but which is out of place when the phrase is used to condone acts which the “mere worldly morality” would disdain to practise.
The doctrine that the end justifies the means has proved in the past fruitful of all evil; no means that are impure can bring about an end that is good; else were the Good Law a dream and Karma mere delusion. From these errors flows an influence mischievous to the whole Theosophical Society, undermining the stern and rigid morality necessary as a foundation for Occultism of the Right Hand Path.”
G. R. S. MEAD.
HERBERT BURROWS.
W. KINGSLAND.
EDITH WARD.
16, Selwood Place,
Onslow Gardens,
London, S. W., Nov., 1908.
[Copies of all the documents may be seen by Members of the Theosophical Society on application to Mr. Mead or Miss Ward.]
PART 4
[The next series of documents to be uploaded in this historical study will be made up from carbon copies of original transcripts, together with transcripts of original handwritten letters.
Apart from the first item, these will be the letters of Helen I. Dennis, who, in 1906, wasthe Corresponding Secretary of the Esoteric School of Theosophy, American Division, writing from 218 East 60th Street, Chicago. The Assistant Secretary was listed at an address in Phildelphia, so one may suppose that they worked from home. – A.B., ed.]
————————
THE LEADBEATER “CIPHER LETTER”
Authentic copy from the original, written by C. W. Leadbeater to one of his pupils about 1906, with explanatory letter from the boy’s mother. The cipher letter was typewritten on paper identified by color and watermark as that used by him in other communications, and was received as an enclosure with another letter.
The “Cipher Letter”
PRIVATE
My own darling boy, there is no need for you to write anything in cipher, for no one but I ever sees your letters. But it is better for me to write in cipher about some of the most important matters; can you always read it easily? Can you describe any of the forms in rose-colour which you have seen entering your room? Are they human beings or nature spirits?
The throwing of water is unusual in such a case, though I have had it done to me at a spiritualistic seance. Were you actually wet when you awoke, or was it only in sleep that you felt the water? Either is possible, but they would represent different types of phenomena. All these preliminary experiences are interesting, and I wish we were nearer together to talk about them. Turning to other matters, I am glad to hear of the rapid growth, and the strength of the results. Twice a week is permissible, but you will soon discover what brings the best effect.*
The meaning of the sign [Circle with dot in center] is osauisu. Spontaneous manifestations are undesirable, and should be discouraged. Eg ou dinat xeuiiou iamq, ia oaaet socceoh nisa iguao. Cou oiu uii iguao, is ia xemm oiu dina xamm. Eiat uiuu iuqqao xiao zio usa utmaaq; tell me fully. Hmue taotuueio et ti qmautuou. Uiiotuoo lettat eusmeoh.
(The following paragraph is the boy’s translation of the paragraph written in cipher – beginning with the first *)
The meaning of the sign [Circle with dot in center] is urethra. Spontaneous manifestations are undesirable and should be discouraged. If it comes without help, he needs rubbing more often, but not too often or he will not come well. Does that happen when you are asleep? Tell me fully. Glad sensation is so pleasant. Thousand kisses darling.
Key to the cipher.
Cipher a b c d e f g h i j k l m
Translation e a b c d,i e f g h,o i j k l
Cipher n o p q r s t u v w x y z
Translation m n,u o p q r s a,t u v w x y
[Continued next page]