Aren’t we a lucky bunch? We have all sorts of things to play with these days  complete with all the bells and whistles– the alleged truth and non-truth, the inner voice and the outer voice, guides, spirits, inter-dimensional energies, ascended masters, bogey men and anything else we can conjure up when we want to. Don’t get me wrong, I am not knocking anyone’s personal fav and I enjoy the ‘variety’ myself, it’s just that sometimes something comes up that shakes a foundation or two and is worth a look. Allow me to share some information that came to my attention a while ago during some research. Those of you who know about it, don’t give the ending away…

For your personal discernment …

Background:

Russian esotericist Helena Petrova Blavatsky (1831-1891) is a widely recognized figure of nineteenth century occult revival and she is best known as the founder of the modern Theosophical  Movement. That movement is based upon “teachings” and “techniques” she claimed to have received from real acquaintances who she called “Masters” or Mahatmas.” As many are well aware, various types of organizations have incorporated these Masters into their beliefs and foundational credos and the media stream has been inundated with books, cards and all sorts of paraphernalia and “channeling” concerning them. Pretenders are everywhere claiming to be agents of the High Ones.  Blavatsky’s “Masters”  were incorporated directly into the teachings of her ‘spiritual descendants’ including such notaries as Gottfried de Purucker, Charles W. Leadbeater, Alice Bailey and Elizabeth Claire Prophet not to mention a further indirect effect on the Anthropological Society ( Rudolf Seiner), the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosae Crucis (H. Spencer Lewis) and the Rosicrucian Fellowship (Max Heindel), the Secret Chiefs of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the Ordo Templi Orientis and the teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff. Impressive aye?

The truth is these “hidden masters”  of Blavatsky have never been thoroughly investigated.  Were they real people as she claimed or simply a manifestation of her often theatrical nature? Where do you stand? Accept? Deny? Or are you on the fence in the gray area thinking they are put to best use via spiritual archetype?

Hypothesis:

Running with this supposition – The Masters were real people who were “fictionalized” and “glamorized” in all of Blavatsky’s accounts.  The “Masters” did undergo rapid changes in a few short years … “John King of Spiritualist fame to Tuitit and Serapis Bey of the Egyptian Brotherhood of Luxor  and finally Indian Mahatmas or ‘great souls’.” It was under the alleged influence of the Masters that Blavatsky and her associate Henry Steel Olcott traveled to India and it was there that the debate began over their existence.

Clues via back-up history:  It is well known that Blavatsky had a fascination with Tibet since her early childhood rooted in her experiences with the Kalmuck tribe (based in Astrakhan near southern Russia) which practiced Tibetan Buddhism. Her great grandfather practiced Rosicrucian Masonry and he had a vast occult library where she spent a lot of time. Her great grandfather also belonged to the Rite of Strict Observance (founded Germany 1754) which, “claimed to emanate from a worldwide network of Unknown Superiors. Great Grandpa was further rumored to have met, “… celebrated eighteenth century mages known as the counts Cagliostro (the last victim of the Inquisition he became a Masonic Martyr) and Saint Germain. She later became familiar with Sufism, Kabbalah, Coptic Christianity and the Druze and in truth had many teachers of varied experience. 

Stars of the show:

The top ranking Masters most involved with the Theosophical Society (established New York, 1875) were Koot Hoomi or Kuthumi and El Morya. Blavatsky claimed to have spent many years studying with them in Tibet and claimed that therefore they were able to perform amazing psychic feats through her. Converts soon followed among them, A.P. Sinnett who wrote The Occult World and Esoteric Buddhism based on “letters from the Mahatmas (Masters).” The letters would appear in mysterious and peculiar ways particularly when Blavatsky visited Sinnett and his wife. For example, one note was found high up in the branches of a tree. Other odd ( or not so odd) things would happen when the Mahatmas worked through Blavatsky such as a cup and saucer materializing under a bush and a missing broach materializing in Mrs. Sinnett’s pillow.  So far I’m not buying it.

The Show begins:

In 1882, the Theosophical Society moved its headquarters to Adyar and by 1884, the society began to attract many Europeans along with Indian disciples. This two year time period is when the Mahatma letters really made their debut. They would frequently appear in cabinet known as the “Shrine” which was located in the “Occult Room” conveniently located adjacent to Blavatsky’s bedroom. It is reported that they, “also fell from the ceiling in various places and appeared in the margins of sealed correspondence.” Despite this wondrous affair  there was trouble. Two disgruntled employees of the society claimed they had participated in ‘faking’ psychic phenomena connected to verifying the existence of the Mahatmas (big surprise there).  Alexis and Emma Coulomb claimed the, “Shrine was designed to allow letters to be inserted through a sliding panel in the back, making them appear to have materialized paranormally (P.T. Barnum anyone?). The accusations received plenty of  attention.

The Plot thickens:

Enter Richard Hodgson of the British Society for Psychical Research who was sent to India to investigate. Upon conclusion, Hodgson claimed the whole affair to be fraudulent and the Theosophists refuted stating that his report was based on “lies” and could not be taken seriously. There is fraudulence here if you consider that in June 1883, Olcott received  letters giving instructions to forge letters intended for Sinnett allegedly from Master Koot Hoomi stating, “… put your whole soul in answer to A.P.S. (Sinnett) from K.H. (Koot Hoomi). Upon this  letter are hinged the fruits of the future. Let it be one that can be shown with honour to everyone… Be careful about letter to Sinnett. Must be a really adeptic letter.”  We got em now or do we?  After Hodgson’s investigation, Blavatsky stopped performing paranormal feats associated with the “Masters.” Did she let followers go on believing because she was trying to protect the identities of real men?

More Soup:

In the midst of all the brouhaha of Hodgson’s investigation, Olcott began blaming Blavatsky for the “disgrace caused by phenomena she had performed in the Masters’ names.”  By 1885, Blavtsky complained to Sinnett that Olcott had been “cautiously admitting that I have substituted  bogus for real phenomena; that I am suffering at times from mental aberration.”  She believed Olcott was professing himself to be “the first chief confederate in the alleged bogus phenomena.” 

How had the whole ‘idolatry’ of real men gotten out of hand?  Was the denial of the Masters by investigator Hodgson was actually preferred by Blavatsky in lieu of the truth behind the disguises being revealed?

Blavatsky… Olcott … who’s to blame?

Blavatsky states: “Is it Olcott’s fault? Perhaps to a degree. Is it mine? I absolutely deny it, and protest against the accusation. It is no one’s fault. Human nature alone, and the failure of modern society and religions to furnish people with something  higher and nobler than craving after money and honors – is at the bottom of it. Place this failure on one side, and the mischief and havoc produced in people’s brains by modern spiritualism, and you have the enigma solved.”

She later recanted and said: “If anyone is to blamed, it is I. I have desecrated the holy Truth by remaining too passive in the face of all this desecration, brought on by too much zeal and false ideas.”

Dessert:

It is important to note  that in 1986, the Society for Psychical Research published a critique by handwriting expert Vernon Harrison that discredited “crucial elements” of Hodgson’s report. Accordingly, the Theosophists took it as complete vindication.

Hindsight aperitif:

• It is believed that her mentor of twenty years, Copt Magician Paolos Metamon was probably the inspiration for Master Serapis Bey.
• Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia, the founding president of the Amritsar Singh Sabha relates to the Master Koot Hoomi via the writings of  Olcott and Blavatsky.
• Maharajah Ranbir Singh of Kasmir resembles El Morya because he was committed to promoting brotherhood. His subjects were Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, and Sikhs

“No man can teach another truth if the truth does not manifest itself in and through him. Do not follow those that in a loud voice claim to be able to show you the truth, but seek for the truth for itself ..."  ~ The Talking image or Urur by Franz Hartmann