Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
17,091
edits
HPB-SB-14-88: Difference between revisions
незначительные правки
(незначительные правки) |
(незначительные правки) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{Style P-Quote|If we were to go through with Mr. Cook’s volumes in detail we should find little else but misrepresentations of facts, misconceptions of principles, and floods of tawdry rhetoric. . . . . . . I have not treated him seriously, or with courtesy, because there is nothing in his matter, or in his manner, that would justify, or even excuse, a serious method of treatment. The only aspect of his career, which really affords matter for grave reflection, is the ease with which he succeeded for the moment in imposing on the credulity, and in appealing to the prejudices of his public.}} | {{Style P-Quote|If we were to go through with Mr. Cook’s volumes in detail we should find little else but misrepresentations of facts, misconceptions of principles, and floods of tawdry rhetoric. . . . . . . I have not treated him seriously, or with courtesy, because there is nothing in his matter, or in his manner, that would justify, or even excuse, a serious method of treatment. The only aspect of his career, which really affords matter for grave reflection, is the ease with which he succeeded for the moment in imposing on the credulity, and in appealing to the prejudices of his public.}} | ||
This article has been published in pamphlet form, and many thousands have been sold. Every person should procure and read this pamphlet | This article has been published in pamphlet form, and many thousands have been sold. Every person should procure and read this pamphlet* as it will give them a good idea, to use one of his own vulgar words, [see Lecture on “Future Punishment”] of Mr. Cook’s blatherskyte. | ||
When in England, Mr. Cook refused to discuss with Mr. Bradlaugh, under the plea that he had no wish to advertise infidelity. Really this is rather amusing that the “''great'' Champion of Orthodoxy” should make such a ''weak excuse''. Would he not advertise Christianity, even more so, had he discussed and vanquished Bradlaugh and infidelity for ever at a blow. Even Mr. Cook’s orthodox admirers cannot fail to see what a splendid chance he missed. This is a good example of the way he strengthens instead of weakens unbelief. | When in England, Mr. Cook refused to discuss with Mr. Bradlaugh, under the plea that he had no wish to advertise infidelity. Really this is rather amusing that the “''great'' Champion of Orthodoxy” should make such a ''weak excuse''. Would he not advertise Christianity, even more so, had he discussed and vanquished Bradlaugh and infidelity for ever at a blow. Even Mr. Cook’s orthodox admirers cannot fail to see what a splendid chance he missed. This is a good example of the way he strengthens instead of weakens unbelief. | ||
Having gone through his repertoire of lectures in England, we next find him in India, where he was politely requested to discuss the merits of his orthodoxy by five different persons, ''viz.''—Mr. D. M. Bennett, Colonel Olcott, Madame Blavatsky, the Editor of the Philosophic Inquirer, and Pandit Dayanand Saraswati, to all of whom he sent a pitiable excuse, or one of his usual insulting replies. What was the consequence? Before he left India, he was posted up as a coward and a slanderer, and articles appeared in the press, headed, “The Pious Slanderer,” refuting aspersions he had cast upon the reputation of well-known citizens. Even Christians wished he had never visited India for Christianity’s sake, as he had done more harm to Christianity than all the infidels could do in double the time. He refused to debate with the editor of the Philosophic Inquirer, giving the curious reason that he was only ''an humble clerk on a very small salary''. “I cannot deal with a man who is only a writing clerk in the bank on Rs. 20.” | Having gone through his repertoire of lectures in England, we next find him in India, where he was politely requested to discuss the merits of his orthodoxy by five different persons, ''viz.''—Mr. D. M. Bennett, Colonel Olcott, Madame Blavatsky, the Editor of the Philosophic Inquirer, and Pandit Dayanand Saraswati, to all of whom he sent a pitiable excuse, or one of his usual insulting replies. What was the consequence? Before he left India, he was posted up as a coward and a slanderer, and articles appeared in the press, headed, “The Pious Slanderer,” refuting aspersions he had cast upon the reputation of well-known citizens. Even Christians wished he had never visited India for Christianity’s sake, as he had done more harm to Christianity than all the infidels could do in double the time. He refused to debate with the editor of the Philosophic Inquirer, giving the curious reason that he was only ''an humble clerk on a very small salary''. “I cannot deal with a man who is only a writing clerk in the bank on Rs. 20.”* [See Theosophist, Bombay, April, 1882.] | ||
{{Style P-Quote|“A public meeting was held in the Framji Cowasji Institute, Bombay, on January 30th, where, before a crowded audience, statements made by Mr. Cook, were by documentary and other evidence thoroughly refuted, the Indian papers publishing accounts of the exposure. The proceedings of this meeting were published in pamphlet form, and widely circulated throughout India.”}} | {{Style P-Quote|“A public meeting was held in the Framji Cowasji Institute, Bombay, on January 30th, where, before a crowded audience, statements made by Mr. Cook, were by documentary and other evidence thoroughly refuted, the Indian papers publishing accounts of the exposure. The proceedings of this meeting were published in pamphlet form, and widely circulated throughout India.”}} | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
The following letter was sent to Mr. Cook while at Calcutta, and was published in the Amrita Bazar Patrika, dated March 2:— | The following letter was sent to Mr. Cook while at Calcutta, and was published in the Amrita Bazar Patrika, dated March 2:— | ||
{{Style P-Quote|{{Style S-Small capitals|My Dear Sir}},—It was an unfortunate day for you in India when, in one of your lectures at the Town Hall in our city (Bombay), you tried to revile the Theosophical Society and run down the spiritualists. The Society in many parts of India is more powerful than you can ever imagine. By saying a lot of nonsense about it you have disturbed a nest of hornets, and you remember how you felt the stings both during your next lecture in the same Hall and also at Poona. Although out of sight for about three weeks, you are not out of our mind. You have simply made us diligent by your aspersions. In a week’s time five thousand copies of a pamphlet will be distributed ''gratis'', in which we have shown what the Society really is, and posted you up as a coward and a slanderer. I send you by to-day’s post a copy of the Bombay Gazette, of the 17th February, in which we have shown to the public of Bombay what character you have. You seldom dreamt that a statement you signed in March, 1880, in Boston, would be held up against you in Bombay in February, 1882, after you had reviled the experiments of a body you had the honor to sit together with. | {{Style P-Quote|{{Style S-Small capitals|My Dear Sir}},—It was an unfortunate day for you in India when, in one of your lectures at the Town Hall in our city (Bombay), you tried to revile the Theosophical Society and run down the spiritualists. The Society in many parts of India is more powerful than you can ever imagine. By saying a lot of nonsense about it you have disturbed a nest of hornets, and you remember how you felt the stings both during your next lecture in the same Hall and also at Poona. Although out of sight for about three weeks, you are not out of our mind. You have simply made us diligent by your aspersions. In a week’s time five thousand copies of a pamphlet will be distributed ''gratis'', in which we have shown what the Society really is, and posted you up as a coward and a slanderer. I send you by to-day’s post a copy of the Bombay Gazette, of the 17th February, in which we have shown to the public of Bombay what character you have. You seldom dreamt that a statement you signed in March, 1880, in Boston, would be held up against you in Bombay in February, 1882, after you had reviled the experiments of a body you had the honor to sit together with.* This is your Christian veracity. Remember that by your orations you have degraded Christianity in the eyes of the Indians instead of making them appreciate it. Even true Christians in Bombay say, in reference to you, “Save us from our friends.” I wish for the cause of Christianity you had stayed away at Boston. You will be perhaps leaving our shores after you have gone through a few of your obstreperous dramatic performances which you call lectures. So let me wish you a hearty farewell and a ''bon voyage'', and assure you that you have left Christianity as remote, or perhaps remoter, from the hearts of educated natives than it ever was. India will never be Christian, try to prove it how you may with all your learning.}} | ||
We next hear of him in Sydney, N. S. W., where he was received with open arms by his so-called Christian friends, and lectured to crowded houses at 3, 2, and 1, of course his only object is to save souls, the 3, 2, and 1 have nothing to do with it. The Sydney Bulletin, a fearless and out-spoken journal published every week in that city, contained some very truthful paragraphs in the issue during his stay in Sydney. In the issue of July 22nd we find the following:— | We next hear of him in Sydney, N. S. W., where he was received with open arms by his so-called Christian friends, and lectured to crowded houses at 3, 2, and 1, of course his only object is to save souls, the 3, 2, and 1 have nothing to do with it. The Sydney Bulletin, a fearless and out-spoken journal published every week in that city, contained some very truthful paragraphs in the issue during his stay in Sydney. In the issue of July 22nd we find the following:— | ||