Blavatsky H.P. - Forlorn Hope: Difference between revisions

From that time forward adjectives such as “fraud deception and imbecility” became attached to the “Harmonial” Society and followed it everywhere, like a tail follows its comet. The theory struck deep roots in the hearts and minds of many non-theosophists and became at last part of the very being of the British public. This proverbially “fair minded” body had heard one side of the question and—felt satisfied. Its pioneer-gossips, full of Christian charity and 5 o’clock tea, had ransacked the contents of the “smart boy’s” travelling bag. Having greedily fed themselves upon the adulterated food which was like heavenly manna for their insatiate stomachs, they differentiated, and then shared it with all who were hungry and thirsty for such celestial nourishment. Thus, Grundy’s cackle-twaddle was kept up in loud and authoritative tones for some three years, until gradually it succeeded in making “Theosophy” a byword synonymous with every kind of iniquity. Theosophy was set up as a target for daily slander, verbal and printed; it was proclaimed a fallen idol whose feet of clay had at last given way, and it was hourly advertised dead as a {{Page aside|3}}door nail and buried for ever. But, lo and behold! a dark shadow has suddenly fallen across the face of this sweet and secure hope. . . . .

“Aye, right honourable, as well as right dishonourable opponents and enemies. Your Mrs. Grundy has filled me with ''wrinkles'' as Satan filled Job, but these are witness only against herself. ‘He teareth me in his wrath, who hateth me’—but I hate no one and only pity my blind slanderers. ‘He gnasheth upon me with his teeth’—and I only smile back. ‘Mine enemy sharpeneth his eyes upon me,’ and I offer to lend him mine to allow him to see clearer. ‘They have gaped upon me with their mouth wide open’; and, like Jonas swallowed by the whale, I have found no uncomfortable quarters for philosophical meditation inside my enemy, and have come out of his voracious stomach as sound as ever! What will you do next? Will you smite me ‘upon the {{Page aside|4}}cheek reproachfully’? I shall not turn to you the other, lest you should hurt your hand and make it smart and burn still worse: but I shall tell you a story, and show you a panoramic view, to amuse you. . . .”

{{Style P-Quote|Even Science herself, generally so steadfast in her progress, so logical in her conclusions, so firm in her pursuit of a sure result, has been made to tremble on her lofty perch by the shock given her by the discourse of Sir Monier-Williams at the Victoria Institute, last Monday. Sir Monier-Williams is Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Oxford, and regarded as the first Sanskrit scholar in the world. The announcement of the choice made by the learned professor of the subject of his discourse as being that of “Mystical Buddhism in Connection with the Yoga Philosophy of the Hindoos,” had created an immense degree of interest amongst the learned portion of the society of London. It was firmly believed that Sir Monier-Williams had chosen the subject for the express purpose of demolishing the errors and superstitions of a creed which has crept {{Page aside|5}}in upon us by degrees from the intrigues of sundry impostors who have worked upon the love of the marvellous so inherent to human<ref>The writer in his grief seems to have forgotten his commas. The subject, also, to produce the desired effect should have been handled in more grammatical English. [H.P.B.]</ref> nature to establish themselves as prophets of a new doctrine. This was the opinion of all learned men in general, and they had been watching with great eagerness for a refutation from the pen of Sir Monier-Williams of all the “sleight-of-hand principles,” as the experiments of the Theosophists were called. This refutation in writing had never come, and therefore it was with redoubled interest that the speech which would demolish the audacious pretensions of the conjuring philosophers was waited for. What, then, was the surprise of the assembly of wise men when Sir Monier-Williams, instead of denying, almost confirmed the truth of the assertions made by the Theosophists, and actually admitted that, although the science of modern Theosophy was imperfect, yet there are grounds for belief which, instead of being neglected as they have been by students of philosophy, ought to be examined with the greatest care.}}

While Theosophists should feel deeply thankful to Sir Monier-Williams for the excellent advertisement their society and philosophy have received at his hands, the Editors of ''Lucifer'' would fail in their duty were they to leave unnoticed several self-contradictions made in this lecture by “the greatest Sanskrit scholar in the world.” What kind of definite idea can an audience have on Buddhism when it hears the two following statements, which directly contradict each other:—