 |
vol. title: Vol Four of The Theosophical Society of The Arya Samaj of Arya-wart vol. period: Sept 1878 – Sept 1879 pages in vol.: 350 |
The Indian “Public” and Theosophy
Sir,—Before entering upon the main question that compels me to ask you kindly to accord me space in your esteemed paper, will you inform me as to the nature of that newly born infant-prodigy which calls itself the Bombay Review? Is it a bigoted, sectarian organ of the Christians, or an impartial journal, fair to all, and unprejudiced as every respectable paper styling itself “Review” ought to be, especially in a place like Bombay, where such a diversity of religious opinions is to be found? The two paragraphs in the number of February 22nd, which so honour the Theosophical Society by a double notice of its American members, would force me to incline toward the former opinion. Both the Editorial which attacks my esteemed friend, Miss Bates, and the apocalyptic vision of the modern Ezekiel, alias “Anthroposophist”,—who shoots his rather blunt arrows at Col. Olcott—require an answer, if it were but to show the advisability of using sharper darts against Theosophists. Leaving the seer to his prophetic dream of longotis and cow-dung, I will simply review the editorial of this Review which tries to be at the same time satirical and severe and succeeds but in being nonsensical. Quoting from another paper a sentence relating to Miss Bates, and which describes her as “not a Christian”, it remarks in that bitter and selfish spirit of arrogance and would be superiority, which so characterises Christian Sectarianism, “The public might have been spared the sight of the italicised personal explanation.” What “public” may I ask? The majority of the intelligent and reading public—especially of native papers—in Bombay as throughout India is, we believe, composed of non-Christians—of Parsis, Hindus, etc. And this public instead of resenting such “wanton aggressiveness”, as the writer pleases to call it, can but rejoice to find at least one European lady, who, at the same time that she is not a Christian, is quite ready as a Theosophist to call any respectable “heathen” her brother, and regard him with at least as much sympathy as she does a Christian. But this unfortunate thrust at Theosophy is explained by what follows:—“In the young lady’s own interest” adds the writer, “the insult ought not to have been flung into the teeth of the Christian public.” Without taking into consideration the old and wise axiom, that “honesty is the best policy,” we can only regret for our Christian opponents, that they should so soon “unveil” their cunning policy. While in the eyes of every honest “heathen” Theosophist, there can be no higher recommendation for a person than to have the reputation of being truthful even at the expense of his or her “interest,” our Christian Review unwillingly exposes the concealed ropes of the Mission machinery, by admitting that it is in the interest of every person—here, at least—to appear a christian or a possible convert, if he is not one de facto. We feel really very, very grateful to the Review for such a timely and generous confession! The writer’s defence of the “public” for which it speaks as one having authority is no less vague and unsatisfactory, as we all know that among the 240 millions of native population in India, Christians count but as a drop in an ocean. Or is it possible that no other public but the Christian is held worthy of the name, or even of consideration. Had converted Bramhans arrived here instead of Theosophists, and one of these announced his profession of faith by italicising the words not a heathen, we doubt whether the fear of hurting the feelings of many millions of Hindus would have ever entered the mind of our caustic paragraphist!
Nor do we find the sentence, “India owes too much to Christianity” anything but arrogant and presumptuous talk. India owes much and everything to the British Government, which protects its heathen subjects equally with those of English birth, and would no more allow the one class to insult the other than it would revive the Inquisition. India owes to Great Britain its educational system, its slow but sure progress, and its security from the aggression of other nations; to Christianity it owes nothing. And yet perhaps I am mistaken, and ought to have made one exception. India owes to Christianity its mutiny of 1857, which threw it back for a century. This we assert on the authority of the general opinion and Sir John Kay who declares in his “Sepoy War” that the mutiny resulted from the intolerance of the crusading missions and the silly talk of the Friend of India.
I have done, adding but one more advice to the Review. In the last quarter of the 19th Century when the latest international revision of the Bible—that infallible and revealed Word of God!—reveals 64,000 mistranslations and other mistakes, it is not the Theosophists—a large number of whose members are English patriots and men of learning—but rather the Christians who ought to beware of “wanton aggressiveness” against people of other creeds. Their boomerangs may fly back from some unexpected parabola and hit the throwers.
Bombay, 25th February.
By way of news I am unable at present to send you any delectable gossip, but I do mean to supply your readers in this letter with what I consider to be the news of the day. We have now in our midst the exponents of the doctrines of modern Theosophy in the persons of Madame H. G. Blavatsky who has flung her hereditary title of countess to the winds, and Col. Henry Olcott, late special commissioner of Army and Navy in United States. For once, as you must notice, we have nothing to do with adventurers, with German Princes and Italian Marquises, but we have to do with people who have divested themselves of all meretricious ornaments, who have made a sacrifice of their private interests, and left their homes and countries—for India—for the regeneration of her races, for the revival of her ancient religion and philosophy, and for raising, as it were, a new phœnix out of the ashes of the country, which Mahomedanism and Christianity in their turns have managed to twist and torture out of shape and out of all recognition.
These, you will acknowledge, are grand and noble aims; and even if they fall short of actual accomplishment, they are sure to consign the names of these noblest of men to immortality.
But difficult as is the task which Madame Blavatsky has undertaken she is the woman to accomplish it if her life is spared her, and I speak not without good grounds. I have had the privilege of seeing and speaking to her. I went to her full of wise resolves not to budge an inch from the ground I was to have taken: why, I might as well have expected to be able to deny my own identity as to have struggled against the torrent of overwhelming proofs with which she greeted me from day to day. And I was not the only man, who went home wiser and better from her presence. People of all classes and all denominations have been visiting her place—she calls it Liberty Hall in her own humorous way—and I am sure I am not very far from the mark when I affirm that ninety out of a hundred felt as I did—felt how high and how safely man could soar—felt how many impossibilities, to use a paradox, were possible for him—felt in our inmost selves the omnipotence of man’s own immortal spirit!
But, I think, I should endeavour to give an idea of what Theosophy is with which Madame Blavatsky and Col. Olcott are inseparably connected as the founders of the Theosophical Society. To begin, then, Theosophy aims at making a universal brotherhood of men, to bind mankind together with chains, which are none the less strong for being not forged of steel. Theosophy forbids the use of wine, and enjoins total abstinence as well as a life of strict morality. One who can, safely pledge himself to fulfil these conditions, is qualified to become a Theosophist. Theosophy does not interfere with the creeds of men—Hindoos, Mahomedans, Parsees, all are at liberty to join the ranks of the Theosophists so long as they drink not wine, lead a strictly chaste and moral life, and are ready to make the greatest sacrifices for their brother Theosophists. I should, perhaps, mention here that Madame Blavatsky, familiar as she is with the hidden ropes of Christian machinery, appears to me prefer the doctrines of the ancient Vedas to all others that ever were written or preached.
Before I bring this letter to an end let me say, that I have read with much interest a letter signed by “A member” referring to the Arya Samaj and the Theosophical Society. The writer seems to be a fairly well-informed individual. But he has raised a question, which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. He has heard that the Theosophists believe in magic. Let me tell you that they believe in nothing of the kind. I am not prepared at this stage to enter into the merits of the question, for to say the truth, my acquaintance with these people has been very short. But I can tell you that they do not encourage, to use the mildest term, popular superstition, nor do they believe any more in modern spiritualism, and that is the reason why they have twenty millions of spiritualists for their enemies.
Editor's notes