 |
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 |
As to the list of things, that were given by the New York Theosophists to Mr. Hurichand Chintamon as President of the Samaj they desired to join I can only satisfy you as to those things that I handed to him personally. There were photographic portraits of fellows both of America and England who had sent their likeness to their brothers of the Arya Samaj and had all written on the back of the cards to that effect, professing their faith and signing their names. If I mistake not, there were five or six of these, namely D. H. J. Billing, Mrs. Billing, M. C. (Corletor) Massey, President of the London Branch, Rev. Dr. Ayton, Palmer Thomas, W. S. Judge and a few others which were sent from America. Also, a large (gold and turquois cover) with five musical pieces, to place therein the photographic cards of all the fellows of the Arya Samaj was brought by one from America and presented to Mr. Hurichand Chintamon for the Samaj. But, as I had the imprudence never dreaming that his name would be struck off so soon, as president and then member of our Samaj—to have engraved upon the plate of the Album not the name of the Arya Samaj but that of its president as follows:—
from
H. P. B.”
Legally he has the right to keep it, notwithstanding that when delivering it to him on the first day of our arrival, in the presence of Colonel Olcott and others I distinctly stated that the Album was for the Samaj to place in it the likenesses of its Western Members, some of whom had already forwarded with me their portraits and greetings to their Eastern Brothers.
I have no doubt thought, that if called upon to deliver the Album to those for whom it was originally intended, Mr. Hurichund Chintamon will give it up, unless he desires to furnish an additional proof to the world how right was the Samaj to expel him from the midst of its members. I cannot yet believe, that for the sake of getting final possession of an object hardly worth 75 dollars, any one calling himself a gentleman would ever condescend to do such a thing legally. I repeat it again—he has a right to it; but, if he avails himself of this right, then it will remain with us, American Theosophists to regret the more, that we should ever have placed our confidence and given our brotherly affection to one so little worthy of it.
Mr. Harichandra has neither given the Album over to the Samaj nor he has shown it to the members.
In order to throw dust into the eyes of the public Mr. Harichandra states that “the amount thus accumulated was kept by me as a separate fund at the written and express instruction of Pandit Dayanand.” He did neither speak a word about this at the meeting of the Managing Committee nor he has published in his letter the written instruction of Pandit Dayanand.
He also states that when Mr. Harichandra learnt that the Theosophists would shortly arrive in Bombay, he thought it prudent (after nearly 8 months, since the money was remitted to him) to keep the money until he and Pandit Dayanand had a personal conference with them as regards the respective differences of opinion on religious views which he subsequently knew from corresponding with them. Col. Olcott states in his letter “that the President of the Bombay Arya Samaj has no right to say that we differ from the Swamee upon cardinal tenets, nor do I understand that we do.” Even supposing there were differences of opinion on religious views, yet Mr. Harichandra had no right whatever to keep the money with him for so many months and to return it, when he was called upon to account for. Since it was expressly remitted for the benefit of the Samaj without any condition on the part of the Theosophists; and also it was not the part of his duty to keep the money with him. He is, therefore, guilty of the violation of his duty, indiscretion and discourtesy in returning the money remitted to him for the benefit of the Arya Samaj of Aryavart.
The members of the Samaj did not accuse Mr. Harichandra of embezzling the money, what they wanted from him, was an explanation in respect to the contents of the letter from Col. Olcott which he distinctly evaded to give. He calls some of the members of the Managing Committee who were present at the meeting ungentlemanly and rude. On the contrary he was himself ungentlemanly and rude to which all the members who were present at the meetings will testify.
As regards admitting strangers to the meetings of the Samaj which are held for transacting ordinary private business, there is no practice of admitting them. I need not write much about this, suffice to say that Mr. Harichandra himself objected to some members admitting Madam Blavatsky and Col. Olcott to one of such meetings and his objection was allowed. The funny remark made by Mr. Harichandra about Mr. Atmaram Bapu Dulvie, was unjust and uncalled for; because he, Mr. Dalvie, neither insulted the strangers who attended the meeting the other day, nor treated them badly.
I also regret, that Mr. Harichandra left for Europe without returning the books of the Samaj and that he is not here to reply to this letter.
The above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I shall deem it a great obligation, if Dr. Pandurang Gopal, Mr. Narayen Anand rao, Mr. Balaji Sitaram and Mr. Harichandra’s other adherents who have gratuitously come forward to defend him through thick and thin, disprove them at their convenience.
The Theosophical Society
A contemporary strangely enough calls in question the propriety of characterising the principles of the Theosophical Society as “a strange compound of paganism and Atheism,” and its creed, a creed as comprehensive as it is incomprehensible,” and thinks that this opinion is uncharitable and gives a bit of advice to all critics of religion, concluding with the remarkable words of our Saviour “judge not that ye be not judged.”
As far as ourselves are concerned we think there is not the slightest breach of charity in calling things by their proper names when in so doing we protest against a principle, a policy which is highly detrimental to the highest interests of man. Our Lord’s teaching must be taken in connection with his example, because the one must throw light on the other. And when we put this most necessary teaching couched in the remarkable words “judge not that ye be not judged,” side by side with his emphatic and stirring denunciation of moral evil that presented to him in diverse form, then and then only can we understand the deep significance of the saying quoted above. Let us only without any bias and prejudice reflect whether the Theosophical Society has merited the epithets employed about it by the Friend of India.
How otherwise can we characterise the principles of this society of American growth? In this age of enlightenment and progress, not only to revert to the days of darkness, polytheism or pantheism, but to profess such a mortal hatred for Christianity and its Divine Founder, bespeaks a moral degradation which has been scarcely equalled. We have read of European infidels, sceptics or Atheists but if we have read of them aright, we must have seen that in spite of their doubts and difficulties expressed in their philosophic moods, they have had in their heart of hearts, a reverence for whatever was left to them of Christianity. Doubters sometimes have longed for the peace and deep and profound tranquility in Jesus Christ which the believers’ experience.
As an illustration of this we would quote from a preface to Hume’s moral, political and literary essays. The circumstance under which the conversation given below took place was the death of Hume’s mother: David and the Hon’ble Mr. Boyle, brother of the Earl of Glasgow were both in London at the period when David’s mother died. Mr. Boyle hearing of it soon after went into his apartment, for they lodged in the same house, when he found him in the deepest affliction, and in a flood of tears. After the usual topics of condolence Mr. Boyle said to him, My friend, you owe this uncommon grief to having thrown off the principles of religion; for if you had not you would have been consoled with the firm belief that the good lady, who was not only the best of mothers, but the most pious of Christians, was completely happy in the realms of the just. To which Hume replied. Though I throw out my speculations to entertain the learned and metaphysical world, yet in other things, I do not think so differently from the rest of the world as you imagine. If this be true, one feels sorely tempted to adopt Blakey’s opinions of the motives of Hume’s startling philosophical speculations and to believe that his <... continues on page 8-237 >
Editor's notes