|
III. Why did Helena Roerich speak in a number of cases about Alice Bailey without appreciation?
Someone may have a question: why are there unappreciated statements about Alice Bailey in the letters of Helena Roerich? Why did she not express her thoughts about the harmfulness and dark inspirations of American society in all her letters? The reader is offered several, as it seems to us, natural considerations. E x p l a n a t i o n 1. Those who know the style of work and communication of Helena Roerich, the variety of her formulations about Alice Bailey does not bother at all. With each person, she spoke in accordance with the level of their consciousness and taking into account many circumstances (which we may not even guess at now). When discussing the same topic, she could give some people a few cautious phrases or not hint at all about her opinion or the opinion of the Master M., and for someone she could fill several pages with fervent appeals and warnings. A typical example is the statements of Helena Roerich about the work of C.W.Leadbeater. Charles Webster Leadbeater (1854–1934) was a vicar of the Church of England, a prominent member of the Theosophical society (since 1883), a lecturer and writer, the author of more than 50 books, pamphlets and articles. He actively collaborated with the President of the Theosophical society, Annie Besant. He developed the concept of the coming of the World Teacher, which became widespread in connection with the Messianic status of young Jiddu Krishnamurti, who, according to Leadbeater, was to become a "guide" for the incarnation of Maitreya. He claimed to have clairvoyance, through which he allegedly described scenes from the lives of Great Masters, explored past events, subtle planes of the universe, previous incarnations, life on other planets, etc. So, in some cases, Helena Roerich can speak about the books of C.W.Leadbeater sharply and categorically, i.e. to analyze his absurd fantasies in details, call his texts "an ugly mix of truth, lies and even blasphemy"1, to say that "most of his works are absolutely untrue"2, etc. And in other cases, she may choose a completely different intonation, as evidenced by the advice to the same correspondent to speak much more smoothly: "All the information that I have previously given about Ledb[eater], keep only for yourself. Of course, you can say that some of the works of Ledb[eater] are not perceived by you, but refrain from sharp condemnation»3. Can this approach be called a changeable attitude? Obviously not. This is expediency – in other words a deep understanding of who, when and how much you can tell, so as not to complicate the Path (karma) for yourself and the other person. This constant attitude of Helena Roerich is well known to those who study her correspondence and are familiar with the teaching of Living Ethics. E x p l a n a t i o n 2. Probably, in some cases, the restrained tone of Helena Roerich was dictated by the principles that she repeatedly pointed out in correspondence and which Living Ethics speaks about many times. It is the principles of expediency, wise distribution of forces and correct attitude to the enemies. In the difficult circumstances in which the evolutionary work of the Roerichs was conducted, it was necessary to minimize the harm from the possible reaction of the dark patron of Alice Bailey, and to prevent the unreasonable expenditure of energy. In addition, we cannot now know all the negative consequences of full awareness of Alice Bailey and her followers about the attitude of the Roerichs to the "Arcane School". Recall how Helena Roerich urged some of her correspondents not to go into any discussion of Alice Bailey's activities (23.03.1943, 24.03.1944, 27.03.1952), to show their polite indifference (24.03.1944) and not to explain "the reasons for our abstinence" (27.03.1952), because every careless word could contribute to the multiplication of strong enemies (24.03.1944, 23.01.1952). E x p l a n a t i o n 3. Another possible explanation is the Roerichs' special attitude to the word. In particular, they avoided without having to pronounce the Names (the names) of the Great Masters and of the representatives of the dark brotherhood. The vibrations produced by the word, according to the deep conviction of the Roerichs, can have serious consequences. Therefore, statements about the activities of Alice Bailey and her Tibetan teacher (whom Helena Roerich considered a very strong representative of the black brotherhood) could be made very carefully. E x p l a n a t i o n 4. Finally, let the reader think – does he equally openly express his opinion to each interlocutor on any occasion? Does he himself have such situations in life when he has to express his thoughts with restraint, avoiding personal evaluations? We are sure that most people will remember such examples from their own experience. And this, note, is our ordinary earthly life – the life of ordinary people. And what to say about the Roerichs, who were in an incomparably more difficult situation: communicating with hundreds of different people and organizations, they had to carry out the Plan of the Masters, direct the work of numerous associations and spread the Teachings! In such circumstances, discussing the issue in all its details with each interlocutor, regardless of any circumstances, would undoubtedly be destructive. One of the most important factors in building a dialogue is the degree of familiarity with a person and the level of trusting them. If we take only the published correspondence of Helena Roerich, this is about 140 correspondents. She knew some of them personally, felt well, for many years maintained a lively correspondence, worked closely together, and showed great confidence in discussing intimate topics. She knew others only remotely and in absentia, from isolated letters, sometimes she didn't even know their first names. Of course, there were many intermediate gradations, or "degrees of intimacy," between these extreme "formats" of acquaintance. Let's try to trace the relationship (if there is one at all) between the attitude of Helena Roerich to the addressee's personality and the information about Alice Bailey communicated to him. Helena Roerich wrote about Alice Bailey and/or the organization "Arcane School" to many people, including: N.K.Roerich, G.N.Roerich and the closest disciples Z.G.Lichtman (Fosdick – by the second husband), M.Lichtman, D.Fosdick, K.Campbell and E.P.Inge. These names are well known to everyone who is familiar with the letters of Helena Roerich. She trusted the listed correspondents unconditionally. As for other employees to whom Helena Roerich wrote about Alice Bailey and/or about the organization "Arcane School", it was necessary here to read more closely into the correspondence and draw up a "portrait" of each recipient separately, this research is done in the Appendix. There all the correspondents to whom Helena Roerich wrote about Alice Bailey and/or her school was divided into 6 categories:
Realizing the approximation and arbitrariness of this classification, we will construct a table through which we will try to establish whether there is a correlation between the level of trust Helena Roerich to the correspondent and the nature of the reported information.
As we can see, the only letter of Helena Roerich with a hint of approval of Alice Bailey's activity was written to correspondents, to whom Elena Ivanovna did not feel confidential feelings (31.07.1937). At the same time, all the openly negative statements of Helena Roerich about Alice Bailey are given in letters to people with whom she has developed quite trusting relationships. ******* We do not insist that the reticence of Helena Roerich observed in a number of cases in the assessments of Alice Bailey was dictated exactly by these considerations. It is possible that there were some other, deeper and less obvious for us reasons for this. However, the possible explanations already given for this restraint, in our opinion, are enough to understand one important thing: the presence of unappreciated statements can not serve as proof that the attitude of Helena Roerich to Alice Bailey has ever changed in any way. Why did the Roerichs not break off relations with Alice Bailey? What does this relationship mean? Read the next paragraph. Notes: 1 Е.И.Рерих – А.М.Асееву от 21 июля 1934 года // Рерих Е.И. Письма. Т. 2. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. / Ред.-сост., примеч. Т.О.Книжник. М.: МЦР; Благотворительный Фонд им. Е.И.Рерих; Мастер-Банк, 2013. С. 248. 2 Е.И.Рерих – А.М.Асееву от 21 июля 1934 года // Рерих Е.И. Письма. Т. 2. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. / Ред.-сост., примеч. Т.О.Книжник. М.: МЦР; Благотворительный Фонд им. Е.И.Рерих; Мастер-Банк, 2013. С. 249. 3 Е.И.Рерих – А.М.Асееву от 22 июня 1936 года // Рерих Е.И. Письма. Т. 4. М.: МЦР, 2002. С. 248. |