HPB-SB-14-80

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 14, p. 80	volume 14, page 80 vol. title: vol. period: 1882 pages in vol.: 174
Legend HPB note HPB highlighted HPB underlined HPB crossed out <Editors note> <Archivist note> Lost or unclear SBT, DT Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

The Pioneer.
DECEMBER 12, 1882.

THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

Both Bombay papers report at considerable length the proceedings of the anniversary meeting of the Theosophical Society held at the Framjee Cowasjee Institute, Bombay, on Thursday last. The Hall, it appears, was filled with a large audience and decorated with nearly forty shields bearing the names of the various branches of the society scattered over India from Simla to Ceylon, and from Bombay to Calcutta. On the platform were assembled about twenty delegates from as many of these branches, who had come specially to attend the meeting from all parts of the country.

On the motion of Rao Bahadoor Gopalrao Haree Deshmookh, seconded by Mr. K. M. Shroff, Mr. Sinnett, President of the Simla Eclectic Theosophical Society, took the chair.

The Chairman said that the business of the evening was to celebrate the seventh anniversary of the foundation of the Society, and the fourth since its establishment at Bombay. The Society, he said, had now effectually lived down the misapprehensions by which its earliest efforts were attended. “Many friends of the society were indignant to find that any misapprehensions were possible; but although I certainly count myself among its warmest friends I do not see reason to be surprised at the development of mistrust and vague suspicion at first. Two foreigners coming to set up a large organization in India could hardly expect to escape suspicion at the outset of their operations, nor to avoid engendering, among ordinary worldly-minded people, an impression that they must have some private ends to gain, or some unexplained objects to serve. In a measure the natural uncertainty concerning their designs to which I refer, was shared by the constituted authorities, but to a much more limited extent I think than some exaggerated reports may have led some of you to imagine. It is the clear duty of constituted authorities in every country to watch the proceedings of foreign visitors who call public meetings and address the people. And the only way by which such watchfulness can be carried out is by means of the regular agents which constituted authorities employ. In the present case, however, I am confident in saying that the attention which the founders of the Theosophical Society excited, led in an exceedingly short time to the conclusion that their attitude and objects were altogether blameless, even if the philanthropic dreams by which they were animated might be vain and chimerical. Gentlemen, it is from a mistrustful generation, and not from a liberal-minded Government, that the founders of the Theosophical Society have had to encounter opposition. Amongst the representatives of authority, they have come to number many of their best friends; but among the people to whose welfare they have devoted their lives, they have encountered,—much cheering support it is true, but some hostility and opposition. This opposition seems to have sprung partly from the inability under which some persons find themselves to believe in a philanthropy that is perfectly pure-hearted, and in connection with which there are no personal objects to gain, and partly from the sensitive dislike which so many of us entertain for any philosophical views which can in any way be construed as hostile to our own particular religious faith. Now the Theosophical Society, as a society, though in no sense of the word an irreligious society, is a society of no specific religion. One of the ends it has in view is to promote a searching investigation into the original basis and foundations of all religions, with the idea rather of justifying all than of overthrowing any. But in the magazine which is the organ of the society, and in speeches which have been made from time to time by its representatives, criticisms have been put forward which have found fault with the external modern developments,—now of one religion and now of another. In this way it has come to pass that the devotees of more than one religion have resented the utterances of various members of the society as indicating a special hostility on the part of the society to their own particular faith. But no impression can be more erroneous than one which would picture the society as either the champion or the foe of any particular faith. That of which it is the champion is Truth, some portion of which underlies every religion which has ever won its way in the world; that of which it is the foe, is error, with which every religion after long use in the world becomes more or less encrusted.” The speaker then went on to describe the philanthropic objects of the society which were closely intermingled with its philosophy. Its foremost watchward was Universal Brotherhood; and if this idea has often been thrown out by Utopian dreamers before now, the philosophical views of the society would be found on examination to give it a special meaning in this case. “There never was a time or a country in which an effort in the direction of establishing a feeling of Universal Brotherhood was more urgently needed than in this country now (loud cheers.) Gentlemen, there is only one way in which you can bring together races of people who differ from each other in habits, tastes, and pursuits. You must show each that it really has something to gain from the other. Not in any ignoble sense of the term, but in the sense in which all men of real culture must necessarily gain from association with each other. A barren philanthropic desire to promote good feeling in India for good feeling’s sake is merely equivalent to saying the thing ought to be done. But the leaders of the Theosophical Society have this peculiarity as compared with all other philanthropists I know of who have declared for the same good object, that they go on to show how the thing can be done. They have discovered the true channel through which sympathies may flow between Europeans and Asiatics. That channel is philosophical study, in which the two main races which constitute the Indo-British nation are the complement of each other. The Theosophical Society shows European thinkers how the rich stores of ancient Aryan philosophy contains—disguised perhaps by symbology, but none the less intelligibly when the symbology is interpreted—that which I for one should call the absolute truth about spiritual things, and which at all events all intelligent students must recognise as a most valuable contribution to the purely speculative philosophies of the West. Let any European of culture, of any nationality, realise the true esoteric meaning of oriental philosophies—and further more by personal association with cultivated natives of this country, let him realise the great flexibility and acuteness of perception which characterise the Indian mind in regard to philosophical ideas, and he will certainly find a bond of sympathy with, and a motive of respect for, India that cannot fail to put him in a new attitude of mind towards the people of this country generally.” In conclusion the chairman explained the relations of the society with the great occult Brotherhood of which they had all heard so much. The society had its origin in that Brotherhood, because it was from that centre that Madame Blavatsky, who had spent all her life in occult research, was commissioned to return to the world and found an association, which should at the same time hold open the portals of occult knowledge to those who were ardently desirous of pursuing that branch of philosophy, but which should concern itself, as far as its own active operations were concerned, with the philanthropic work already referred to. Madame Blavatsky had been ready to make a complete sacrifice of her life to the noble undertaking in view, and she had been directed to associate herself for this purpose with Colonel Olcott, whose qualifications for the task had previously been ascertained by those from whom the movement had originated. The society was thus of occult origin, but its work in the world was that of practical philanthropy specially directed to the promotion of good feeling and the obliteration of barriers and prejudices between people of various races and creeds in this country. Its position was perfectly intelligible; its work was clearly marked out; it had so far been most successful; and looking at the meeting, he defied anybody to dispute that contention. (Applause.)

The treasurer then read the financial report of the society, which showed that its expenses were still chiefly provided for out of the private resources of the founders.

Baboo Norendronath Sen, Editor of the Indian Mirror, was introduced by the chairman as a delegate from the Bengal branch of the Theosophical Society. In the course of a long address, he extolled the objects of the society, and exhorted the people to shake off provincial jealousy, and working hand in hand, contribute to the great work of national progress. (Cheers.) They had received proofs of the most incontrovertible character of the existence of the Himalayan brotherhood. (Applause.) There was no institution in all India more useful, and cherishing higher and nobler objects, than the Theosophical Society, founded by men to whom they were deeply indebted for working at an enormous sacrifice from the purest and noblest motives. (Cheers.) The illustrious founders of the society were not adventurers, as some silly people would call them. Let them recall to mind the glorious past of India, and let them not be so unpatriotic and heartless as to withhold from them the right hand of fellowship. The speaker was convinced that India could not have better and more sincere friends. (Cheers.) They were reviled and laughed at by people—sometimes even by his own countrymen—who knew little about these personages. As a Hindu he was ashamed of such conduct. India was not dead, but asleep, and educated natives must devote all their energy to rouse her from her lethargy. As a humble journalist, who had taken to that profession at an early age, solely with the desire of doing some good to his country, he had allied himself with a movement in which he had found all the important factors of the future advancement of this country.

Several other delegates having addressed the meeting, Colonel Olcott then gave a brief summary of the working of the society. He said he wished, in the first place, to give expression to the feeling, which prevailed throughout Aryavart, of gratitude to the gentleman who occupied the chair (loud cheers), for his loyal devotion and his kindly sympathy with this country. (Cheers.) The society had been struggling against great difficulties, great misconceptions, and much unkindness; but it was a proud day, indeed, for the founders of the society that they could see around the platform men from the four quarters of India and Ceylon, to testify, each on behalf of the society which he represented, the interest and affection inspired by theosophy throughout the land. Colonel Olcott then referred to the practical steps taken by the Theosophical Society to revive the ancient literature of India. He also spoke of the Sanskrit schools established by him in Ceylon, Barailly, Guntoor, and other places. Many of the theosophists were engaged in studying mesmerism, and Shree Hunsraj of Kathiawad, having learnt this science, had effected a number of cures. At London some of their prominent members had united themselves with men like Professor Balfour Stewart and Henry Sedgwick for the purpose of making investigations into matters which were objects of derision with many people. But the society which had Balfour Stewart in it could not be a society of chimerical dreamers.

A great many delegates then addressed the meeting, and a vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the proceedings.

–––––––

The Bombay Gazette
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1882.

A CORRECTION.

To the Editor of the “Bombay Gazette.”

Sir,—Will you please correct a slight, but at the same time a serious, mistake which has crept into your issue of the 9th instant? In your account of the 7th anniversary of the Theosophical Society, celebrated on the 7th instant at the Framjee Cowasjee Institute, it is stated that a “Mussulman delegate from Lahore spoke in Hindi,” or something to that effect. I am the delegate from Lahore, and I spoke in Hindi, but I am not a Mussulman. A Hindu, an orthodox Brahman, and at the same time a Kashmiri Pundit, as I certainly am, might have taken offence at being called a Mussalman; but I assure you there is no such thing with me. As an F.T.S. I do not hate Mussulmans, but at the same time I do not want to be called one, when I am not. As I believe you have many subscribers in Lahore, whence I come, and where the remark will have created some confusion among my friends, I think a correction of the mistake is a necessity.

PUNDIT GOPINATH,
Editor, Mittra Vilasa, Lahore.

Editor's notes