190...
IN RE “BUSIRIS”[1]
We give room in this number to an interminably long paper—entitled “THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPIRIT—Hierosophy, Theosophy, and Psychosophy,” from the pen of Mr. W. Oxley—solely out of personal regard for the author. Highly instructive and interesting though it may prove to many we feel nevertheless compelled to seriously ask our correspondents—if they would see their contributions in print—to be more brief in future. Indeed, it is simply impossible for us at least as regards those articles that will not yield either to abridgment or division—to make room for such endless discussions. We are ever ready to allow our opponents the chance of being heard, and to present their side of the question before the impartial public in our magazine, but we have neither space nor means to insert voluminous articles. The more so, as in the present case, it is quite evident that Mr. Oxley has entirely misconceived not only Mr. Subba Row’s real position, but also based himself upon as mistaken a view of what he is pleased to term the “doctrines” and “teaching of the Theosophical Society.” He 191 addresses his “Reviewer,” as though he were an “orthodox Brahmin,” an intolerant bigot quite unacquainted with his forefathers’ esoteric views. Whereas, the truth, is that our Brother, Mr. Subba Row, although undeniably a Brahmin, is a VEDANTIN ADVAITEE, of the esoteric Aryan school—one of the least favoured by orthodox bigoted Brahminism, a highly advanced Chela and one, whose thorough knowledge of the real esoteric significance of the sacred books of his country—especially of the BHAGAVAD-GITA—no one who knows him, or of him, can ever doubt. But we will leave Mr. Subba Row to answer for himself in our next number.
Footnotes
- ↑ [A name which W. Oxley used in his work in connection with a ‘Spirit” who allegedly was the author of the Mahâbhârata. There is no historical evidence of this.—Compiler.]