An answer to the

Diffamation of Mme Blavatsky

by René Guénon



We are only concerned, in this page, with the fact that Guénon has spent considerable time and effort to discredit the person and the work of Mme Blavatsky. Guénon's motivation has been studied elsewhere, and there is no reason to re-enter the subject, excepted maybe to highlight the most important facts.

Simply by quoting writers of inchallenged reputation, and by exposing the controlable facts, Guénon's reputation of competence and vast knowledge shall be shattered and his ignorance of the oriental culture exposed, and the arrogant judgments he made based on his claim as well. The analysis of a few of his aberations will suffice to demonstrate that the "Great Codifier of Esotericism" as he called himself, is a name he doesn't deserve. His oracles about Mme Blavatsky, are an excellent example of his inability to conduct an impartial inquiery, and of the inadequacy of his conclusions.

" ... it is established that Mme Blavatsky never went to India before 1878, and that, until that time, she never spoke of the "Mahatmas"; sufficent evidence will follow."

René Guénon, Théosophism or the History of a Pseudo-Religion.



Guénon, of corse, never produced the promised evidence, not in that book, nor in any other. He is guilty of dishonesty, from the very beginning of his study, and earned him the label: "sycophant whose dishonesty is equaled only by his bias and the ignorance of his topic." (Noël Richard-Nafarre)

In reality, Madame Blavatsky went to India from 1854 to 1856, according to the testimony of a friend of Colonel Hahn, Helena's father who was quite concerned about the vagancy of his daughter. It is in Lahore, the capitol of Punjab, that this friend met with the young woman in 1856. They traveled together for a while and settled in Amritsar. She described to her compagnon the details of her trip in Northwest India: Islamabad, Benares, Cawnpore, Agra and Delhi. She also reported an unsuccesful attempt to visit Thibet in 1855. She stayed in India until 1857. It is difficult to know the exact dates from the various articles she wrote and were published in various Russian magazines as romanticized narratives, not as a travel diary.

Dr. A.L. Ranson testified that in 1855, "... several of my connections have met Madame Blavatsky in the Far East; others have heard about her stay over there. As an example, the eminent doctor and surgeon David E. Dudley M.D. of Manilla, in the Philippines and Mr. Frank A. Hill of Boston, Mass., stayed in India for several years. These two gentlemen have corroborate her statements and her presence in this part of the world."

But there is absolute proof of her attempt to enter Thibet in 1854-1855 in the archives of the British army as the Officer in charge, who stopped her from crossing the border, reported the incident, and that report has been found. Madame Blavatsky was thus at that frontier more that twenty years before Guénon's claim.

Mme Blavatsky made two interesting statements about her trip in India in 1855-1856:
" From the age of seventeen to fourty, when traveling, I have hidden , with great care, all the tevidence of myself wherever I was."
" I went to India in 1855 only because I hoped to see the Master again. I traveled from place to place, never tellin anyone I was Russian, the people believed what they wanted.... if I would describe my visit to India , that year only would fill an entire book". (The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett, Pasadena California USA, Theosophical University Press, 1973)
 Helena's purpose is obviously to go to Thibet. In her eyes, India is only a passage. She travels straight to the North of Deccan. But men, if not the Gods who are numerous in these region, put an end to her project. Indeed the frontier of the British Empire is not safe. The year before, two French missionaries were killed. The British Governor of Nepal has given the precise order to Captain C. Murray, the commander of a regiment of infantry: No european shall cross the river Runjit, which is the border with the forbidden kingdom of Lhassa, the heart of Thibet.
Several reports from these archives indicate that Helena was arrested at the Punkabaree Border Post and that Captain Murray and his wife hosted the young woman to convince her to return to India.

Thirty-seven years later, he testified in writing that he, and his wife Eliza, "had to join diplomacy and firmness, to the most laudable sense of hospitality" before seeing her depart towards Benares. He will hear about her for the last time, when she reached Dinajpore, South of Darjeeling.

This inquiery in the archives of the British Empire were made by Mrs Jean Overton Fuller and is reported in her book: Blavatsky and her Teachers, an investigative Biography , London, East-West Publications, 1988, and denies, of course, Guénon's unsubstanciates allegations.

The results of Mrs Overton Fuller also corroborate the testimony recieved by Olcott (whose integrity was never questionned, not even by Guénon), about Mme Blavatsky's voyage of 1856. During a trip he made with her to Darjeeling and Bénarès, around 1880, Olcott met an old Indian man, who recognized "the young woman he invited in his home, after her failed attempt to enter Thibet, many years before". This testimony was reported in The Theosophist,   of April 1893.

What regards the accusation of fraud, Guénon copies litterally the diffamatory report by Richard Hodgson of the Psychic Research Society of London /I> published in December 1885. This report was publically retracted in 1986 and the judges of the time criticized for their partiality and intolerance.

There is no doubt that, after considering this abundance of proof, that two alternatives present themselves: or we have to accept that Guénon has accused his victims without controling his sources, and then his entire work is suspected of negligence; or he has accused by resentment and has manipulate the facts to serve his vengeance, and his entire work is suspected of bias. After careful analysis, it seems that the second alternative must be retained.