Changes

EDITOR’S NOTE.—This new and unexpected testimony comes this moment, as we are correcting the proofs of Brother Mohini M. Chatterji’s evidence about the same Brahmachari. We had it from him 14 months ago, but, at the advice of Mr. Sinnett, withheld it from publication at the time. Evidently our Bareilly Brothers have not heard, as we have, of this first account now published by us on pages 83 et seq. If this is not an independent and strong testimony in our favour, then we do not know that any more proofs can be given. Whether the “elderly” looking “Kauthumpa” as the Brahmachari calls the sadhu seen by him is our Mahatma Koothumi or not (we doubt this, for he is not “elderly” looking) it is shown at any rate that there are men known by the name of Kauthumpa (or the disciples, lit. men, of Koothumi) in Tibet, whose master’s name must, therefore, be Koothumi, and that we have not invented the name. Most probably the person seen by the Brahmachari was Ten-dub Ughien, the lama next to our Mahatma—and the chief and guide of his chelas on their travels. He is an elderly man and a great book-worm. The polemics that have taken place on these pages some months back between the venerable Almora Swami and our Brother T. Subba Row during which the Swami came down in his wrath upon the innocent editor—are a good warrant that neither the respected Sadhu of the Almora Hills nor his pupil would be likely to corroborate us, unless they could not help it. Still, the Brahmachari may have seen quite a different person. There are in Tibet many sects—and one of these is the sect of the Kah-dâm-pa—a name bearing a close resemblance to that of Kauthumpa. There are among the former many learned lamas and adepts, but they are not our Mahatmas, who belong to no sect.

EDITOR’S NOTE.—This new and unexpected testimony comes this moment, as we are correcting the proofs of Brother Mohini M. Chatterji’s evidence about the same Brahmachari. We had it from him 14 months ago, but, at the advice of Mr. Sinnett, withheld it from publication at the time. Evidently our Bareilly Brothers have not heard, as we have, of this first account now published by us on pages 83 et seq. If this is not an independent and strong testimony in our favour, then we do not know that any more proofs can be given. Whether the “elderly” looking “Kauthumpa” as the Brahmachari calls the sadhu seen by him is our Mahatma Koothumi or not (we doubt this, for he is not “elderly” looking) it is shown at any rate that there are men known by the name of Kauthumpa (or the disciples, lit. men, of Koothumi) in Tibet, whose master’s name must, therefore, be Koothumi, and that we have not invented the name. Most probably the person seen by the Brahmachari was Ten-dub Ughien, the lama next to our Mahatma—and the chief and guide of his chelas on their travels. He is an elderly man and a great book-worm. The polemics that have taken place on these pages some months back between the venerable Almora Swami and our Brother T. Subba Row during which the Swami came down in his wrath upon the innocent editor—are a good warrant that neither the respected Sadhu of the Almora Hills nor his pupil would be likely to corroborate us, unless they could not help it. Still, the Brahmachari may have seen quite a different person. There are in Tibet many sects—and one of these is the sect of the Kah-dâm-pa—a name bearing a close resemblance to that of Kauthumpa. There are among the former many learned lamas and adepts, but they are not our Mahatmas, who belong to no sect.

{{Page aside|39}}[In his historically-important article, “A Great Rittle Solvet,” The Theosophist, Vol. V, Nos. 3-4, December-January, 1883-1884, pp. 61-62, Dâmodar K. Mavalankar, who was a pupil of Master K H., throws some light upon the story of the Brahmachârin. Dâmotar was at Jammu, in Kashmir, together with Col. Henry S. Olcott and his party, at the end of November, 1883. On November 25th, he went for a couple of days to the Âśrama of his Teacher. His disappearance had been very sudden and unexpected, resulting in a great deal of anxiety on the part of both H. P. B. and Col. Olcott, as to whether he would return at all. He did return on November 27th, greatly changed and in much more robust health.

{{Page aside|39}}{{HPB-CW-comment|[In his historically-important article, “A Great Rittle Solvet,” The Theosophist, Vol. V, Nos. 3-4, December-January, 1883-1884, pp. 61-62, Dâmodar K. Mavalankar, who was a pupil of Master K H., throws some light upon the story of the Brahmachârin. Dâmotar was at Jammu, in Kashmir, together with Col. Henry S. Olcott and his party, at the end of November, 1883. On November 25th, he went for a couple of days to the Âśrama of his Teacher. His disappearance had been very sudden and unexpected, resulting in a great deal of anxiety on the part of both H. P. B. and Col. Olcott, as to whether he would return at all. He did return on November 27th, greatly changed and in much more robust health.}}

Regarding this visit, Dâmodar writes as follows:

{{HPB-CW-comment|Regarding this visit, Dâmodar writes as follows:}}

“The fact is, that I had the good fortune of being sent for, and permitted to visit a Sacred Ashrum where I remained for a few days in the blessed company of several of the much doubted MAHATMAS of Himavat and Their disciples. There I met not only my beloved Gurudeva and Col. Olcott’s Master, but several others of the Fraternity, including one of the Highest. I regret the extremely personal nature of my visit to those thrice blessed regions prevents my saying more of it. Suffice it that the place I was permittet to visit is in the HIMALAYAS, not in any fanciful Summer Land and that I saw Him in my own sthula sarira (physical body) and found my Master identical with the form I had seen in the earlier days of my Chelaship. Thus, I saw my beloved Guru not only as a living man, but actually as a young one in comparison with some other Sadhus of the blessed company, only far kinder, and not above a merry remark and conversation at times. Thus on the second day of my arrival, after the meal hour I was permitted to hold an intercourse for over an hour with my Master. Asked by him smilingly, what it was that made me look at Him so perplexed, I asked in my turn:—‘How is it MASTER that some of the members of our Society have taken into their heads a notion that you were “an elderly man,” and that they have even seen you clairvoyantly looking an old man passed sixty?’ To which he pleasantly smiled and said, that this latest misconception was due to the reports of a certain Brahmachari, a pupil of a Vedantic Swami in the N. W. P.—who had met last year in Tibet the chief of a sect, an elderly Lama, who was his (my Master’s) travelling companion at that time The said Brahmachari having spoken of the encounter in India, had led several persons to mistake the Lama for himself. As to his being perceived clairvoyantly as an ‘elderly man,’ that could never be, he added, as real clairvoyance could lead no one into such mistaken notions; and then {{Page aside|40}} he kindly reprimanded me for giving any importance to the age of a Guru, adding that appearances were often false, &c. and explaining other points.”]

{{HPB-CW-comment|“The fact is, that I had the good fortune of being sent for, and permitted to visit a Sacred Ashrum where I remained for a few days in the blessed company of several of the much doubted MAHATMAS of Himavat and Their disciples. There I met not only my beloved Gurudeva and Col. Olcott’s Master, but several others of the Fraternity, including one of the Highest. I regret the extremely personal nature of my visit to those thrice blessed regions prevents my saying more of it. Suffice it that the place I was permittet to visit is in the HIMALAYAS, not in any fanciful Summer Land and that I saw Him in my own sthula sarira (physical body) and found my Master identical with the form I had seen in the earlier days of my Chelaship. Thus, I saw my beloved Guru not only as a living man, but actually as a young one in comparison with some other Sadhus of the blessed company, only far kinder, and not above a merry remark and conversation at times. Thus on the second day of my arrival, after the meal hour I was permitted to hold an intercourse for over an hour with my Master. Asked by him smilingly, what it was that made me look at Him so perplexed, I asked in my turn:—‘How is it MASTER that some of the members of our Society have taken into their heads a notion that you were “an elderly man,” and that they have even seen you clairvoyantly looking an old man passed sixty?’ To which he pleasantly smiled and said, that this latest misconception was due to the reports of a certain Brahmachari, a pupil of a Vedantic Swami in the N. W. P.—who had met last year in Tibet the chief of a sect, an elderly Lama, who was his (my Master’s) travelling companion at that time The said Brahmachari having spoken of the encounter in India, had led several persons to mistake the Lama for himself. As to his being perceived clairvoyantly as an ‘elderly man,’ that could never be, he added, as real clairvoyance could lead no one into such mistaken notions; and then {{Page aside|40}} he kindly reprimanded me for giving any importance to the age of a Guru, adding that appearances were often false, &c. and explaining other points.”]}}

The account of Rajani Kant Brahmachari himself, signed Almora, 3rd June, 1884, was published in The Theosophist, Vol. V, August, 1884, p. 270, with an Editorial Note signed by Damodar. It is titled, “Interview with a Mahatma.” No additional information of any importance is furnished therein, as compared with Damodar’s own statement, the account of Mohini M. Chatterji, and the story of Preo Nath Banerjee which appears above.—Compiler.]

{{HPB-CW-comment|The account of Rajani Kant Brahmachari himself, signed Almora, 3rd June, 1884, was published in The Theosophist, Vol. V, August, 1884, p. 270, with an Editorial Note signed by Damodar. It is titled, “Interview with a Mahatma.” No additional information of any importance is furnished therein, as compared with Damodar’s own statement, the account of Mohini M. Chatterji, and the story of Preo Nath Banerjee which appears above.—Compiler.]}}

{{Footnotes}}

{{Footnotes}}