Customer Reviews

Madame Blavatsky's Baboon: A History of the Mystics, Mediums, and Misfits Who Brought Spiritualism to Ameri ca

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

A few years ago I went to a spiritually oriented week-long conference where there were a lot of New Age ideas being discussed and taught. I was open to some of these ideas, but what struck me as odd were the teachers themselves. Very few seemed to have learned the art of critical thinking, but no matter--their lack of intellectual depth was clearly compensated for by the strength of their belief in their special calling and powers.

I wondered about the evolution of these so-called "spiritual teachers" and their teachings, and I believe I have found in this book a good portion of what I wondered about. Peter Washington delves into the beliefs of the Theosophists, many of which ideas are quite similar to some of the current New Age ideas (such as the teaching of the Ascended Masters). He presents evidence that most of these ideas were made up by Madame Blavatsky herself. After being propounded by Madame, they were eagerly gobbled up by a large number of credulous followers. These followers were so taken with their new spiritual leaders that they refused to believe any evidence that they were being duped by tactics such as staged seances or missives from the Masters materialized out of thin air. They even held their tongues when it came out that those leaders were practicing child abuse. This book is not just a study in the power grabbing that often goes on among professional spiritual teachers, it also digs into the willingness of seekers to turn over their power to these teachers. In that sense it is a rather painful, sad study of human nature, yet written in a way that is sarcastic, and at times wickedly witty. I recommend this book to any reader who considers him/herself to be on a spiritual path, as there are many valuable lessons in it.

To track the spoor of the Western guru from the late nineteenth century onward is the prodigious challenge which Peter Washington gamely accepts. Whether he is the right man for the job is another question. His study's title, Madame Blavatsky's Baboon, signals an unfortunate tendency to reduce issues of psychological, historical and metaphysical complexity to a tract about twisters and duffers. Extrapolating his forgivable disdain for the turquoise track suit of David Icke, he cheerfully deconstructs major progenitors of the New Age: Madame Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Rudolph Steiner, Piotr Ouspensky, Krishnamurti, Aldous Huxley and Gurdjieff; seven at one blow. That Icke is to Krishnamurti as a nail is to requiem goes unremarked.

Resta's famous "Sphinx" photo of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky ensures a splendid book cover. What a woman! Much is to be forgiven a mystic who, apart from owning a stuffed baboon
"claimed to have ridden bareback in a circus, toured Serbia as a concert pianist, opened an ink factory in Odessa, traded as an importer of ostrich feathers in Paris, and worked as an interior decorator to the Empress Eugénie." But forgiveness is not Washington's strong suit. Just a spell of remission from his remorseless subtext écrasez l'infame would have doubled the value of this ambitious historical study. Almost everyone here is a "baddie"; it is only a question of degree. Blavatsky's obesity is grotesque, her cigarettes foul, her merits non-existent. Julia Ostrowska ("I think she is splendid", wrote Katherine Mansfield) is simply "a Polish prostitute". Young Krishnamurti is a wash-out intellectually, but, in any case, "the Oxford of the 1920s was unlikely to accept a black man who had not only been proclaimed the Messiah but also accused of sodomy by his own father". Gurdjieff, "shocking, disgusting and rude", stands for the "fascination with barbarism and primitivism which colours the politics of Fascism". Such eruptions of authorial bile are disturbing; shades here of Freud's insistence on sexual dogma as a bulwark against "the black tide of occultism". Theodor Adorno's assault on esotericism ("The offal of the phenomenal world becomes, to the sick consciousness, the mundus intelligibilis") strikes a similar note of morbid intensity.

What links Washington's galère of Western gurus and, in his view, reduces their overlapping endeavours to a baboon-like "comedy of passion, power and gullibility", is their reliance on a secret brotherhood or Hidden Directorate, tucked away in Central Asia or on some supernal plane. For Mme Blavatsky and Annie Besant, this seems a fair cop. (It would be a fair cop too for Alice Bailey, whose twenty-five books written as an amanuensis of "the Tibetan Master Djwhal Khul"" seem curious omissions from the charge-sheet.) But for Steiner? For Krishnamurti? The link allows the author his forgivable fun and intellectual indignation, but at the price of an entirely false emphasis. What this singular platoon do have in common is that all were fervently concerned, in discrepant ways, with the evolution of consciousness and the transformation of being.

And were they all quite the dunderheads implied here? To shuffle off as "fearsomely complex" Gurdjieff's integrated cosmology (Richard Rees, incidentally, shuffled it off as "bewilderingly simple") is to miss entirely its sophistication. Whether licensed theologians like it or not, here is an unconsidered by-product of esoteric spirituality which tackles audaciously the "ghost in the machine" dilemma of Cartesian dualism; bridges the discontinuity between creation and an ultra-transcendent Creator (the "Wholly Other" of Kierkegaard and Barth); eschews, conversely, the puerilities of interventionist "Thought for the Day" theism; and reconciles the suffering of sentient beings with God's putative benignity, by denying his omnipotence at the law-constrained periphery of creation (God himself cannot beat the ace of trumps with the two of hearts).
Like any tour d'horizon of modern esotericism, this book affords some entertaining cameos. Yet the genre is hardly novel. In the past twenty years, we have had James Webb's scholarly study, The Occult Establishment, Colin Wilson's amiable potboiler, The Occult, Christopher Evans's sardonic Cults of Unreason, not to mention a clutch of profound French texts by Antoine Faivre, Professor of the History of Esoteric and Mystical Trends in Modern and Contemporary Europe, at the Sorbonne. With these, as well as primary biographies, conveniently on tap, Washington lofts the art of synthetic paraphrase to new altitudes. If in these 470 pages there nestles some smidgen of original research, it is well camouflaged. Sportingly enough, the author mentions my own recent biography of Gurdjieff as one "to which the present book is much indebted". This could explain my recent feeling - almost occult in its intensity - of déjà vu.

The Western guru phenomenon does offer many delightful moonbeams from the larger lunacy; it is palpably a sector where dereliction of intellectual vigilance is commonplace and perfectly fair game. But such lunacy and dereliction are also commonplace in politics, consumerism and institutional religion. Even Voltaire nods: A.R. Orage edited the New Age, not the Little Review; Sufis do not "combine the roles of priest, magician and teacher"; Ernst Haeckel was not an Australian; Gurdjieff's birthplace, Alexandropol, is not in Central Asia; the Theosophical Society was not officially founded on September 13, 1875 (but on November 17); Upton Sinclair and Sinclair Lewis were different chaps; and Dr Vernon Harrison is a sight more germane to theosophy than George Harrison, the Beatle.

James Moore is Gurdjieff's biographer.
He undertook the Gurdjieff module in the
Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism.

This book starts out well but becomes bogged down in details. Do we really need to know everything about J.G. Bennett's business partners, his mining projects, or learn the exact chronology of Gurdjieff's movements? Eventually the cast of minor characters becomes so confusing that the more important figures are obscured. Careful editing could have removed perhaps 100 pages of useless information and replaced it with more interesting material. Ironically, despite the author's almost pedantic attention to the obscure, several important literary and religious figures who deserved attention were left out.

Though confusing, Washington's focus is extremely narrow. He does very well at describing his characters, but seems unable to explain what really made them tick, or why others chose to follow them. In religious/intellectual terms, the big picture becomes lost in the details. I came away with no real sense of where these characters fit into the history of their time. Washington tells us, for example, every aspect of the foibles of gurus like Ouspensky and Gurdjieff with their tiny bands of disciples in the 20s and 30s, but explains nothing of the wider, pervasive effects of spiritualism on European and American society in those decades. Washington is no historian, and it shows in his floundering descriptions of events like the Great Depression and the world wars.

The most obvious issue is bias. Washington tries. Despite his criticism, I think he actually admires Steiner and Krishnamurti, and tweaks them reluctantly. But his often ribald mockery of the characters he dislikes - Blavatsky, Leadbeater, etc. - grows tiresome. I don't particularly care for them either, but find critiques without sneers more effective.

This is a history that needed to be written. The story of the New Age movement and its collection of frauds and lost souls is enough to make outsiders laugh and cry at humanity's need for truth and endless gullibility. I only wish Washington had written about his subject with more clarity and sympathy.

First the good news. Its hard to find any book that looks at this history at all. For that, Peter Washington had the right idea, because origins are extremely important. Yet, he has fallen to the same mistakes as the 'misfits' that he describes in his book, and that is sensationalism. The author has chosen to accent only the shady and bizarre side of this group of alternative thinkers. Thank goodness we have them, even if 'some' of them are charlatans. From my own studies I know many of his facts were wrong. I am talking about hard facts. He is free to point the narrative to any subjective slant he prefers after all he wrote the book. But, I feel it was a narrow view. Particularly, his treatment of J. Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti has over the course of this century shown himself to be an unclassifiable teacher of the highest order. Not a guru to be followed. But, a respected mind whose teaching is simply sublime. Washington chose to take to heart too often one negative source on this teacher rather than the wealth of positve ones. Washington should revise this book for it's next printing getting his facts straight, being more even-handed and include others that could fit into this context like L. Ron Hubbard and Paul Winchell.

_Madame Blavatsky's Babboon_ by Peter Washington is a history of the various movements which arose out of spiritualism and the Theosophical Society of Madame Blavatsky in the Nineteenth Century. The book covers a great deal, but mostly it focuses on various schisms and scandals within spiritualism, theosophical, and proto-New Age movements. The book also shows the human side of the many spiritualists, magicians, cranks, and mediums - the western gurus who followed from theosophy.

The book begins by discussing various forms of spiritualism in the early Nineteenth century. Spiritualism developed as people grew disenfranchised with both materialism and scientism, brought on by modern progress in science, evolutionism (Darwinism), and developments in modern physics, as well as classical religion. Among the various spiritualist groups discussed include the Fox sisters, who allegedly made contact with the spirit world, various groups which grew out of Anglicanism and liberal movements within the church, Mormonism, and Christian Science. All these new religious movements promised contrast to both modern materialism and something different from classical religion. In addition, new doctrines from the East began to become popular.

It was in this environment, that Henry Olcott made contact with Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and out of this contact and friendship developed the Theosophical Society. Blavatsky, the daughter of a Russian aristocrat, made various outrageous claims regarding her early life and her travels. She claimed to have visited Tibet where she made contact with certain Hidden Masters. She was also to write two important works, _Isis Unveiled_ which argued against the materialism and scientism of her day and _The Secret Doctrine_ which outlined her system, revealed her racial doctrines, and expressed her belief in Hidden Masters. The headquarters of the Theosophical Society were subsequently moved from New York to India, where various conflicts between the temperamental and morbidly obese Blavatsky and other members arose.

One of the earlier converts to Theosophy was Charles Webster Leadbeater, a pedophiliac prelate who helped found the Liberal Catholic Church (a splinter sect off the Old Catholic Church which maintained allegiance to Theosophy). Leadbeater helped found a school for boys along with Annie Besant. Annie Besant, had begun as a radical - socialist and feminist - who developed an interest in Theosophy. She was subsequently to take over the position of Blavatsky within the society. Together Leadbeater and Besant took an interest in a young Indian child whose father had become a convert to Theosophy. This was Krishnamurti whose teachings eventually made their way to the West where he was schooled. Krishnamurti, himself, was involved in various scandals, including love affairs with older and married women.

Rudolph Steiner was another individual who took an early interest in Theosophy. He came from a background which included studies in German idealist philosophy and the writings of Goethe. Later, Steiner was to break off from the Theosophical Society and form his own movement, Anthroposophy. Steiner, always a polymath, had a wide range of interests and was to commission the building of a Goethaneum, modelled on the Wagnerian festivals in Bayreuth. In addition to Steiner, the esotericist Count Herman Keyserling also taught a blend of mysticism.

Two other important figures in the history of Western occultism are those of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, who had a brief alliance with each other. Gurdjieff, a native of Georgia in Russia, was an occult teacher who visited St. Petersburg where he met the intellectual Ouspensky to whom he taught his system. Gurdjieff later became known for his difficult teachings and excessive emphasis on hard work, leading to spiritual wakefulness, or so it was believed. It was always rumored that Gurdjieff was impossible to work with and excessively authoritarian leading many to madness or even suicide under his watch. Ouspensky was an intellectual who developed an interest in the occult through mathematics and modern physics. He was later to split with Gurdjieff though retaining Gurdjieff's system. Another individual who played some role in the history of Gurdjieff's teaching was that of Orage.

Other individuals covered in this book include Aldous Huxley, J. G. Bennett, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, and Idries Shah, all claiming to possess unique spiritual wisdom from the East. This book provides an interesting survey of the teachings of various spiritualists from the mid Nineteenth century to the beginning of the modern era. Nearly all reflect the teachings of Madame Blavatsky in their own teachings, especially her belief in Hidden Masters. Later, these individuals were to provide the basis for the beginnings of the New Age movement which owes much to them.

The problem with this book isn't the writing, which is delightful, nor the level of research, which is adequate and well-annotated, it is simply the fact that the author does't understand in the slightest any of the people or ideas he is writing about. For a non-mystic to write about Gurdjieff, Blavatsky or Krishnamurti is like someone writing a book about Einstein without bothering to learn anything about all that stuff about physics, or for someone tone-deaf from birth to do a bio of Beethoven. Nevertheless, anyone interested in the above biographical figures needs to check this out. His deconstruction of some of the worst of these idiots, like the Theosophists or Bennett, is delicious, though he doesn't understand the positives in the works of the two sanest figures he writes about (Krishnamurti and Ouspensky, both great thinkers with weaknesses).

A 'doubled-edged' book for learning about who did what and when among this amazing group of people. The only history I've heard of about them. But the attempt at fact often falls apart as Washington cynically distorts everything but bare outlines. Still, this period is so amazing that even a biased history is helpful. Obviously, anything can be ridiculed in the manner Washington uses if one's motive is low enough, but it just doesn't hold up. For instance, the 'Misfits' in the title (and tone throughout the book) is a misnomer. Nearly everyone profiled was a sociable success: statesmen, aristocrats, millionaires, leaders, capitalists, doctors, reputable artists, writers, thinkers, skeptics and famous editors. Many held down several of these roles at once, and were influential in them. But none were content to rest on their laurels. It's too hard for any amount of cynicism to totally squash the imposing nature of this group. Washington misses the fact that 'credulity' of a sort is required whenever one picks a guide for something new. Those who refuse to climb ever higher peaks can disparage as they please the risks and benefits involved. Also, there are huge content errors when it is (rarely) addressed---the summaries don't seem related to the material (e.g., the role of personality). Fortunately, cynicism is shallow and so quite a bit of substance can be detected between the lines. To sum: Interesting but overly gossipy history. If you want more there is better reading elsewhere.

In the section of this book mentioning the English mystic Anna Kingsford (1846-1888), many mistakes are made.The author says Anna's father was of French descent: no, it was Italian descent.Anna's father died in 1865, not 1867, and she died in 1888 not 1885 as stated.Her collaborator, Edward Maitland did not call her a "blonde goddess", he said she had flowing golden hair, the envy of a goddess.Anna did not dominate or boss Edward Maitland, as stated by the author, who also gets page references wrong.My information comes from"The Life of Anna Kingsford" by Maitland, a source misquoted by Washington.I havn't the inclination to investigate further errors in this book, which must be many judging from the eight pages I investigated.The author sensationalizes much of his subject matter, to the detriment of objectivity.If you read this book, take care.

This book begins well but begins to lose steam midway through and never recovers. Over half the book concerns people other than HPB (Krishnamurti, Besant, etc), and the earlier parts of the book that do focus on her are not all that extensive.

This book is about political infighting between early members of the Theosophical Society, its offshoots and similar groups. It bearly discusses the philosophies these various people espoused. I am neither a theosophist nor an anti-theosophist, but had heard of the people discussed in the book and was interested in learning more. I didn't learn what I wanted to know, though: What were these people's philosophies? How did they develop their teachings and how did one system compare to another? I guess Mr. Washington would perhaps call his book an expose. But I don't understand why an author who seems to sneer at these theories would even want to write a book tearing down other people's beliefs and religions. What happened to live and let live?