Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
17,091
edits
незначительные правки
(незначительные правки) |
(незначительные правки) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Style P-Align center|1={{Style S-Lost|…}}HIC INQUIRER.}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
| item = 1 | | item = 1 | ||
| type = fragment | | type = fragment | ||
| status = | | status = ok | ||
| continues = | | continues = | ||
| title = pride himself on being Infidel unless he be a seeker and lover of truth… | | title = pride himself on being Infidel unless he be a seeker and lover of truth… | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
| author signed = | | author signed = | ||
| source title = Philosophic Inquirer, The | | source title = Philosophic Inquirer, The | ||
| source details = | | source details = December 10, 1882; concluding fragment above the next heading; preceding text not located | ||
| publication date = 1882-12-10 | | publication date = 1882-12-10 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style P-No indent|pride himself on being Infidel unless he be a seeker and lover of truth. Freethinking is not loose thinking: true religion is simply goodness, and Infidelity, the crown of a well-rounded manhood, is freedom to think and liberty to utter our best thought for truth and humanity.}} | ||
{{Style P-Align center|1=THE PHILOSOPHIC INQUIRER.<br>SUNDAY, December 10, 1882.}} | |||
{{HPB-CW-separator}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 32: | Line 37: | ||
| item = 2 | | item = 2 | ||
| type = article | | type = article | ||
| status = | | status = ok | ||
| continues = | | continues = | ||
| title = The Theosophical Society and the National Secular Society. | | title = The Theosophical Society and the National Secular Society. | ||
| hide = yes | |||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| Line 40: | Line 46: | ||
| author signed = P. R. | | author signed = P. R. | ||
| source title = Philosophic Inquirer, The | | source title = Philosophic Inquirer, The | ||
| source details = | | source details = December 10, 1882; ending on inlay 82.1; signed A Member of N. S. S. | ||
| publication date = 1882-12-10 | | publication date = 1882-12-10 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style P-Title|THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY<br>AND<br>THE NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY.}} | ||
{{Style S-Small capitals|In}} the ‘National Reformer’ of the 6th November 1882, we find as was expected, the article that was written in vindication of the principles of the Theosophical Society and as a corrective of certain misapprehensions of the Editor of that freethought Journal, in regard to the objects and principles of that society, of which also we have the honor to be a member. In protestation of the same, a copy of which was already published in these columns (in the 1st October issue,) a quite uncalled-for and impudent rejoinder was also published in a maiden Anglo-Tamil weekly over the signature of ‘''a Madras Member of N. S. S.,''’ apparently for reprint in the ‘National Reformer.’ In reply to which another letter from the pen of our well-known friend, was sent to the same journal, with a view to counteract the prejudice that that frothy letter of the ‘Madras Member’ might create in the minds of the readers of N. R., if published in that paper. But Mr. Bradlaugh was too wise to suffer to be taught by the Madras ‘pigmies,’ and declined to publish the letter in question, being quite uncalled-for, if not impudent, in the following words:— | |||
{{Style P-Quote|“We have received yours and two other letters, but do not see any utility in opening out a discussion. Having expressed our editorial opinion, it was only fair to insert a reply which we have done, but as this reply has not in any degree modified our original judgment, no further discussion would be useful. Religionists, whether Theosophists or Trinitarians, are not Secularists. On outside topics of social or political reform, we are pleased when they work with us. On theology there cannot and ought not to be any point of union.”}} | |||
We are not here particularly concerned about whether the Editor of N. R. has, or has no, reason to modify his original judgment in regard to the Theosophical Society, and he has a perfect right, as any other person has, to stick closely to his well or ill-conceived opinion. What we now intend to point out is the misapprehension of the principles of that non-sectarian Society, even by such an acute thinker as the Editor of N. R. is known to be. To say, after having had occasion to know the principles of that Society from one who is officially connected with it, that ‘religionists whether Theosophists or Trinitarians, are not Secularists,’ in other words, that the members of the Theosophical Society being also religionists, are not Secularists, is simply inexcusable. It is as much to say that Secularists are also Religionists, for no declaration of belief in the ‘''Supernatural''’ is required for membership in the N. S. S. The truth is no such declaration is required for becoming a member of the Theosophical Society, which in this respect, is as un-sectarian as the National Secular Society, and is open to extreme freethinkers such as materialists, agnostics, atheists. | |||
In another place the Editor of N. R., makes the following answer to a correspondent, one Mr. Fish:— | |||
{{Style P-Quote|‘Colonel Olcott has been misinformed. A Secularist can join any such society if he pleases. Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant personally consider that belief in ‘''Supernatural''’ phenomena is inconsistent with Secularism, but no such declaration is required for membership. The gentleman spoken of by Colonel Olcott is a Vice-President of N. S. S., and has most certainly ''not been expelled,'' because in the exercise of his discretion, he joined the Theosophical Society.’}} | |||
We need not say to whom the allusion is made. The leader of the Secularists is far wiser than some of the Madras recruits to his ranks, in the matter of the expulsion referred to above. If supernaturalism is inconsistent with Secularism, and if Theosophy is also opposed to Supernaturalism, the conclusion is inevitable. Theosophy is ''not'' inconsistent with Secularism, whatever Mr. Bradlaugh, as Editor of the ‘National Reformer,’ might say to the contrary. His judgment delivered sometime ago, which some unthinking men made much of in some quarters, ''viz.,'' that Secularists ought not to join the Theosophical Society, seems to be his own individual opinion and not given as President of the National Secular Society. For otherwise he will be open to the charge of being inconsistent with himself. | |||
{{Style P-Signature custom|1=<div style="display:table; margin-left:auto; text-align:left;"><span style="display:inline-block; padding-left:7em;">P. R.</span><br>''(A Member of N. S. S.)''</div>|1 style=plain|align=right}} | |||
{{HPB-CW-separator}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 52: | Line 74: | ||
| item = 3 | | item = 3 | ||
| type = report | | type = report | ||
| status = | | status = ok | ||
| continues = | | continues = | ||
| title = What Can God Do? | | title = What Can God Do? | ||
| hide = yes | |||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| Line 60: | Line 83: | ||
| author signed = H. | | author signed = H. | ||
| source title = Philosophic Inquirer, The | | source title = Philosophic Inquirer, The | ||
| source details = | | source details = December 10, 1882, inlay 82.1; reported dialogue of Babu Chandy Churn Banerjee and Nym Cusho | ||
| publication date = 1882-12-10 | | publication date = 1882-12-10 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style P-Title|WHAT CAN GOD DO?}} | ||
{{Style P-No indent|[{{Style S-Small capitals|The}} following is a report of an interesting discourse between Babu Chandy Churn Banerjee, Sub-Post Master of Jaghotee, and Nym Cusho, a Buddhist pilgrim.]}} | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—Whenever I meet liberal Hindus, I feel called upon to vindicate the cause of Buddhism.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—You are now, Sir, with a Hindu who loves fair play. Yours is a godless religion, and there is no common ground for us to meet. However I am as much a Truth-Seeker as yourself. I shall be quite willing to be convinced.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—If you can set aside the twaddles of religion, we can reason logically enough. Do you believe in ''Karma''?</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—We do, as much as yourself.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—Then you do not deny that if a man does good or bad actions, he is liable to be rewarded or punished for them strictly.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—Otherwise, the moral law to which all men are subject in this life, would be subverted. Why, in order that the happiness of mankind may be secured and our individual rights inviolably maintained, it is absolutely necessary to admit your statement. Thus far, even the Freethinkers are right.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—Can the Laws of Nature be partial?</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—No. God is just. He can be never kind to one more than to another. He deals with every one just as he deserves. Even ''Bhaktas'' (those who believe in him and are pious) are known to have undergone troubles, notwithstanding the favour of God, if you will believe our Puranas. They have suffered for the deeds they had committed in this or some past life. He does not interfere. He can save them, if he will. But he never goes against the operation of the law of merit.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—Even your Rama and Seeta had to yield to the iron rod of justice.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—Just so.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—If all beings are to be dealt with impartially, can God interpose, supposing I commit some wicked action, and then earnestly enough pray to Him to forgive me; or bathing in the Ganges, can I wash away my sins?</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—The transgression will be duly punished, though you can enjoy the fruits of your prayer and your pilgrimage to sacred shrines or ''Teerut.''</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—Be it so. I shall afterwards speak of the latter point. But, as you admit, there is a certain law which knows no exception. Nay, it would recognise no necessity for deviation; and God acts up to it.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—I object to your wording. God does not act up to any law. But all, except Him, must be governed by it.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—Very good. Thus there is an implied contract which God has made with the law—the terms of which are by no means favorable to Him. For though having the power to interfere with the operation of this law, he is obliged to keep quiet by a sad concession which he has foolishly made.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—You are far from the mark. As nothing can exist without God, I say, this law is in God; in other words, He made the law and acts up to it, as otherwise you might call Him unprincipled.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—Are then the law and God two distinct things?</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—Yes. But the former is of inferior importance to the latter.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Nym.}}—If the law is inseparable from God, then it is Buddhism. It is itself God. If separable, what will be God if stripped of it? No more than a mortal. For example, where I have to suffer from a calamity, as a punishment inflicted upon me by the law, God can no more retrieve than an ordinary mortal:—that is, he becomes impotent. Suppose, my father commits forgery and is sentenced, he must suffer. His friends, however rich or influential cannot save him from gaol, but can only assist him with money &c. Even so and no more can God do; if prayed to, He can only give him some blessings, apart from the miseries of the prison. Thus God without His law is not much. But the Law without God is still the same as if it were with God. Hence the essence of God is Law. God being therefore subservient to and second in importance to Law, Law is the superior of the two.</p> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—Here I dissent. I shall study the subject more carefully. I was not prepared for such arguments. I am however sure to convince you, if I can meet you again. But you are going away. Good-bye.</p> | |||
<div style="text-align:right;">[{{Style S-Small capitals|Exit Nym Cusho.}}</div> | |||
<center>''Enter other Babus:''</center> | |||
<div style="display:table;"><div style="display:table-cell; vertical-align:middle;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babus II,}}<br>{{Style S-Small capitals|III,}} &c.</div><div style="display:table-cell; vertical-align:middle;">}</div><div style="display:table-cell; vertical-align:middle;">What, Sir, of the discussion?</div></div> | |||
<p style="padding-left:2em; text-indent:-2em;">{{Style S-Small capitals|Babu.}}—I spoke to the last, The atheistic Buddhists are all so very—</p> | |||
{{Style P-Signature custom|H.}} | |||
{{HPB-CW-separator}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 72: | Line 149: | ||
| item = 4 | | item = 4 | ||
| type = notice | | type = notice | ||
| status = | | status = ok | ||
| continues = | | continues = | ||
| title = The Theosophical Society. | | title = The Theosophical Society. | ||
| hide = yes | |||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| Line 80: | Line 158: | ||
| author signed = Ed. Ph. Inq. | | author signed = Ed. Ph. Inq. | ||
| source title = Philosophic Inquirer, The | | source title = Philosophic Inquirer, The | ||
| source details = | | source details = December 10, 1882, inlay 82.1; separate editorial notice | ||
| publication date = 1882-12-10 | | publication date = 1882-12-10 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style P-Title|THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.}} | ||
{{Style S-Small capitals|On}} the 7th instant, at 5-30 {{Style S-Small capitals|p. m.,}} at the {{Style S-Small capitals|Framji Cowasji Institute,}} the Theosophical Society was to celebrate its Seventh Anniversary. Delegates from the Society’s Branches in Bengal, Madras, the N. W. P. and Oudh, the Deccan, the Panjab, Guzerat, Katiawar, Ceylon, and other districts were to be present and address the meeting. We too had the honor of being invited. Would that the meeting were a success.—{{Style S-Small capitals|Ed. Ph. Inq.}} | |||
{{Bookmark|82.1}} | {{Bookmark|82.1}} | ||
= Inlay = | = Inlay = | ||
{{Style P-Align center|1=THE PHILOSOPHIC INQUIRER.<br>December 10, 1882.}} | |||
[[File:SB-14-082.1.jpg|200px|thumb|right|SB, v. 14, p. 82, inlay]] | [[File:SB-14-082.1.jpg|200px|thumb|right|SB, v. 14, p. 82, inlay]] | ||
<div style="clear:both;"></div> | |||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||