Teopedia

HPB-SB-13-89: Difference between revisions

Page Addition

HPB-SB-13-89 (view source)

Revision as of 22:35, 23 September 2026

309 bytes removed ,  23 September
Актуализировано оформление по правилам альбомов
(полная транскрипция и оформление по скану)
(Актуализировано оформление по правилам альбомов)
Line 5: Line 5:
  | notes =
  | notes =
}}
}}
<center>{{Style S-HPB SB. Archivist note|89}}<ref name="editor-album-page-89">The scrapbook page number “89”, written twice.</ref></center>
<center>{{Style S-HPB SB. Archivist note|89}}<ref name="editor-album-page-89" /></center>


{{HPB-SB-item
{{HPB-SB-item
Line 19: Line 16:
  | author signed =
  | author signed =
  | title = Mr. Bennett in India
  | title = Mr. Bennett in India
| hide = yes
  | subtitle =
  | subtitle =
  | untitled =
  | untitled =
Line 35: Line 33:
{{Style P-Quote|This famous Infidel agitator against Christian orthodoxy is a strong-built gentleman, of medium hight, with a large intellectual forehead and a pleasant voice. He was reared as a ‘Shaker,’ a sect of celebrated Christian mystics in America, who are universally esteemed for their pure moral character and industrious habits. His religious views having changed, Mr. Bennett at the age of 27 left them and went out into the world to fight a life-long battle for Freethought. Eight years ago he established ''The Truth Seeker'', a weekly journal, which now has 50,000 readers, and has written and published scores of tracts and leaflets besides ten or more books against Christianity. He became so dangerous an opponent that, at last, the orthodox party availed themselves of a convenient pretext, and had him sent to prison for selling a physiological work of which he was neither an author nor a publisher, and which the book trade were then selling, and are still selling, with impunity, thousands of copies! The fact appears in Mr. Bennett’s address.}}
{{Style P-Quote|This famous Infidel agitator against Christian orthodoxy is a strong-built gentleman, of medium hight, with a large intellectual forehead and a pleasant voice. He was reared as a ‘Shaker,’ a sect of celebrated Christian mystics in America, who are universally esteemed for their pure moral character and industrious habits. His religious views having changed, Mr. Bennett at the age of 27 left them and went out into the world to fight a life-long battle for Freethought. Eight years ago he established ''The Truth Seeker'', a weekly journal, which now has 50,000 readers, and has written and published scores of tracts and leaflets besides ten or more books against Christianity. He became so dangerous an opponent that, at last, the orthodox party availed themselves of a convenient pretext, and had him sent to prison for selling a physiological work of which he was neither an author nor a publisher, and which the book trade were then selling, and are still selling, with impunity, thousands of copies! The fact appears in Mr. Bennett’s address.}}


{{Style P-No indent|These proceedings made Joe Cook so angry that in his lectures in Bombay he went out of his way to defame the character of Mr. Bennett, Col. Olcott, and many native gentlemen of irreproachable character. He was immediately challenged to prove his statements by Pandit Dayanand Saraswati Swami, Col. Olcott, and Mr. Bennett, of whom the last mentioned sent the following challenge:}}
These proceedings made Joe Cook so angry that in his lectures in Bombay he went out of his way to defame the character of Mr. Bennett, Col. Olcott, and many native gentlemen of irreproachable character. He was immediately challenged to prove his statements by Pandit Dayanand Saraswati Swami, Col. Olcott, and Mr. Bennett, of whom the last mentioned sent the following challenge:


{{Style P-Quote|Crow’s Nest Bungalow, Mahalakshmi, Jan. 18, 1882.<br />
{{Style P-Quote|Crow’s Nest Bungalow, Mahalakshmi, Jan. 18, 1882.<br />
Line 43: Line 41:
Yours, etc.,|D. M. Bennett.}}
Yours, etc.,|D. M. Bennett.}}


{{Style P-No indent|Of course Cook failed to respond, but the meeting came off and “was the most overwhelming triumph the society has ever had in the Bombay presidency. The building was crowded to suffocation and the enthusiasm of the native audience knew no bounds.”}}
Of course Cook failed to respond, but the meeting came off and “was the most overwhelming triumph the society has ever had in the Bombay presidency. The building was crowded to suffocation and the enthusiasm of the native audience knew no bounds.”


{{Style P-No indent|The proceedings were reported and distributed in India, but have not yet reached us. That Cook’s vile aspersions fell upon rather steril soil is proved by the fact that at the next lecture in Bombay, as we learn from the ''Theosophist'', he “was more hissed than applauded, and a deputation of natives was sent to the Theosophical headquarters to ask the founders to reply to these aspersions. In accordance with this wish Col. Olcott and Madam Blavatsky, in company with Captain Banon, who was visiting them at that time, proceeded on the following day to hear Mr. Cook’s last lecture. Their appearance at the Town Hall was greeted with such a thundering and prolonged applause that it must have stirred up the lecturer’s guilty conscience, as he opened his discourse with the cowardly remark to the address of the native audience reminding them ‘of the presence of four policemen’ at the door of the hall. It was altogether, the simultaneous appearance in Bombay of Joe Cook and Mr. Bennett—falsehood and truth—made a pretty lively time for the native. Cook was probably a revelation to them of a hitherto unknown phase of Christianity, and undoubtedly created a sensation akin to what might be experienced by a colony of bees upon the sudden dropping into their midst of a rather overgrown and particularly vicious monkey.}}
The proceedings were reported and distributed in India, but have not yet reached us. That Cook’s vile aspersions fell upon rather steril soil is proved by the fact that at the next lecture in Bombay, as we learn from the ''Theosophist'', he “was more hissed than applauded, and a deputation of natives was sent to the Theosophical headquarters to ask the founders to reply to these aspersions. In accordance with this wish Col. Olcott and Madam Blavatsky, in company with Captain Banon, who was visiting them at that time, proceeded on the following day to hear Mr. Cook’s last lecture. Their appearance at the Town Hall was greeted with such a thundering and prolonged applause that it must have stirred up the lecturer’s guilty conscience, as he opened his discourse with the cowardly remark to the address of the native audience reminding them ‘of the presence of four policemen’ at the door of the hall. It was altogether, the simultaneous appearance in Bombay of Joe Cook and Mr. Bennett—falsehood and truth—made a pretty lively time for the native. Cook was probably a revelation to them of a hitherto unknown phase of Christianity, and undoubtedly created a sensation akin to what might be experienced by a colony of bees upon the sudden dropping into their midst of a rather overgrown and particularly vicious monkey.
 
{{HPB-CW-separator}}


{{HPB-SB-item
{{HPB-SB-item
Line 59: Line 55:
  | author signed = M. A. (Oxon.)
  | author signed = M. A. (Oxon.)
  | title = Spirit Teachings
  | title = Spirit Teachings
| hide = yes
  | subtitle = Second Series
  | subtitle = Second Series
  | untitled =
  | untitled =
  | source title = Light
  | source title = Light
  | source details = v. 2, No. 68, April 22, 1882, pp. 191-92
  | source details = v. 2, No. 68, April 22, 1882
  | publication date = 1882-04-22
  | publication date = 1882-04-22
  | original date =
  | original date =
Line 85: Line 82:
{{Style P-Quote|We said only that we were not disposed to lay down any rule, save that we desire you to use discretion. Those which you have printed are but fragments, and imperfect. When we first began to communicate with you in this way we found your mind in a strange state. To you Orthodox Truth, as conceived of in your mind, was Truth Absolute. We had to make it Relative. The task, as you now see, was not easy. Had we rudely shocked your belief in things religious you would have turned away. Yet we were forced to break down error. How was it to be done? You see now the cautious and sparing hand with which the seeds of truth were sown. You see now that many answers to your queries contained only so much truth as you could understand and receive. Hence some statements made in answer to your queries contain only partial truth. None, mark you, are false: but many are only partly true. You must consider whether it is wise to put these forward. Again, your phase of mind was peculiar to yourself. We do not think that many would be in similar case. Consequently the arguments we addressed would not be applicable to others. We know indeed that many have found in our words new views of truth, and have assimilated them. But it has been because their minds had previously been drawn to similar opinions. And they would be but few comparatively. The mass of men would not understand nor appreciate them. Yet again, the end for which they have been put forward to others has been answered. They have demonstrated to such as can receive it the independent action of Spirit on your mind. An active mind ready to weigh and prove all that is said is seen in communion with an intelligence external to itself: and the fact of Spirit communion receives another proof. This is done, and it is the important point. Once more, the question is premature. You must first complete the series before you decide. From this you will gather our opinion that no publication should take place; assuredly not for the present. But we do not meddle with your world in these matters. You must decide as you see fit. Only if your position should be adverse to our opinions, we claim the right of revising and correcting what we have said. It will be well at any rate that this should be done; and you may well arrange the printed Teachings in a book, so that we may be able to comment on them when we deem it necessary. This done, you can settle finally.}}
{{Style P-Quote|We said only that we were not disposed to lay down any rule, save that we desire you to use discretion. Those which you have printed are but fragments, and imperfect. When we first began to communicate with you in this way we found your mind in a strange state. To you Orthodox Truth, as conceived of in your mind, was Truth Absolute. We had to make it Relative. The task, as you now see, was not easy. Had we rudely shocked your belief in things religious you would have turned away. Yet we were forced to break down error. How was it to be done? You see now the cautious and sparing hand with which the seeds of truth were sown. You see now that many answers to your queries contained only so much truth as you could understand and receive. Hence some statements made in answer to your queries contain only partial truth. None, mark you, are false: but many are only partly true. You must consider whether it is wise to put these forward. Again, your phase of mind was peculiar to yourself. We do not think that many would be in similar case. Consequently the arguments we addressed would not be applicable to others. We know indeed that many have found in our words new views of truth, and have assimilated them. But it has been because their minds had previously been drawn to similar opinions. And they would be but few comparatively. The mass of men would not understand nor appreciate them. Yet again, the end for which they have been put forward to others has been answered. They have demonstrated to such as can receive it the independent action of Spirit on your mind. An active mind ready to weigh and prove all that is said is seen in communion with an intelligence external to itself: and the fact of Spirit communion receives another proof. This is done, and it is the important point. Once more, the question is premature. You must first complete the series before you decide. From this you will gather our opinion that no publication should take place; assuredly not for the present. But we do not meddle with your world in these matters. You must decide as you see fit. Only if your position should be adverse to our opinions, we claim the right of revising and correcting what we have said. It will be well at any rate that this should be done; and you may well arrange the printed Teachings in a book, so that we may be able to comment on them when we deem it necessary. This done, you can settle finally.}}


{{Style P-Quote|''Yes, I will interleave them in a book. It will be good for me''}}
{{Style P-Quote|''Yes, I will interleave them in a book. It will be good for me''{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|13-90}}}}
 
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|13-90}}


{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/36378"