In this article William Judge indicates the difference how theosophy is
perceived by Westerners and Orientals.
The Rev. Mr. Ashburner, in the Independent of a recent date, indulged in
very congratulatory reflections upon the collapse in India of theosophy since
the learned report of the London Psychical Research Society. Mr. Ashburner
styles himself. a missionary to the heathen of the blessed religion of Jesus
the Jew, and pleasantly supposes that because the London expert, in a truly
British style, declares that Madame Blavatsky invented the Mahatmas and adepts,
therefore the Hindus will now abandon this new delusion called theosophy.
This idea, although ridiculous, leads us to a point which ought to be
cleared up in our inquiry into the cultivation of theosophy in Hindustan.
Theosophy presents itself in one aspect to the Hindu, and in quite a different
one to the European and American.
In this country and in Europe, the doctrines which have filtered out to
the world, through theosophical literature, seem to us new. They are in fact
quite novel to us, so they color our conception of what theosophy is,
representing themselves to us to be theosophy. And, as we have nothing in our
past, in our literature, or in our ideas like them, it is quite natural that an
ignorant missionary, learned in Christian rhetoric, should imagine, when a
reputable Englishman declares the Mahatmas to have been evolved from
Blavatsky’s brain, that therefore there are no Mahatmas, because his first knowledge
of them came from her.
Even the learned Swedenborg, who saw many things clearly, did not speak
of these great Beings. He only said that, “if the Freemasons desired to find
the lost word, they must search for it in the deserts of Tibet.” However, he
did not explain himself; and our only conclusion must be, that in some way he
found out that in Tibet exist persons who are so far advanced in knowledge that
they are acquainted with that much-sought-for lost word.
The aspect in which theosophy presents itself to the Oriental is quite
different from our appreciation of it. He sees in it that which will help him
to inquire into his own religion and philosophy. The numerous books which have
issued from our various presses here, would make him laugh in their endeavors
to lay before readers, subjects which, with him, have been household words for
ages.
If Marion Crawford’s novels, Mr. Isaacs, and Zoroaster, were
respectively translated into Persian and Sanskrit or Singhalese, the Hindus,
Ceylonese, and Parsees would burst with laughter at such struggling with an ancient
plot, as if it were new.
So a thousand reports of the Psychical Society would not for an instant
shake the faith of Hindus that there are Mahatmas. The word is a common one,
derived from two others (Maha and Atma) meaning together Great Soul. In some
parts of India, it grew so common, in the lapse of centuries, that now and then
it is used in derision of blusterers or those who are given to placing
themselves on a pinnacle.
Many Hindus have told me of various Mahatmas whom they had heard of in
various parts of India. One lived on an island, another in a forest, another in
a cave, and so on.
In Bombay, a Hindu related to me a story, whether false or true I know
not, of a man whose wife was dying. In despair, he went into the forest where a
Mahatma was said to live, and had the happiness to meet a man of calm and
venerable aspect. Convinced that this was the one he had heard of, he implored
him to cure his wife. The sage repulsed him; and, in sorrow, he returned home,
to find that the wife had suddenly completely recovered at the time when he had
been refused by the sage. Next day, he returned to the forest to offer thanks,
but the so-called Mahatma had disappeared.
This is only one of a thousand such stories, many of them being filled
in with details of a highly sensational character, and all of them very old.
The very children know that their forefathers believed in Mahatmas or Arhats or
Rishees, or whichever be the name, all meaning the same.
If, then, we assume, as some malignant persons have asserted, that
Blavatsky, aided by Olcott, introduced this cult into India with a design of
mere personal aggrandizement, it must be further admitted that they displayed a
deep knowledge of Indian life and manners in thus adopting the Mahatmas. But
neither of them can be proved to have been in India before 1878. Certainly,
Olcott had, up to that year, to my certain knowledge, but a limited knowledge
of the subject.
Yet at the same time there were many Brahmins who had about given up
beliefs in Mahatmas now; for they said, “This is Kali Yuga (the dark age), and
no Mahatmas will work with men until the next yuga.” So, of course, they, while
thoroughly appreciating the object which theosophy had in the revivification of
Aryan thought, remained agnostics as to Arhats and Mahatmas being in the
society.
Others had never lost their faith in them; and a great body of Hindus,
unknown before the advent of the society, for years had had personal knowledge
of those great beings, had been in their company, and now have, in several
instances, publicly declared their belief. Some of these declarations are
contained in protests published in India, deprecating the constant degradation
of the names of their teachers. To this last class belonged a Brahmin friend of
mine, who said to me, in Central India, “I have been for fifteen years
personally convinced of the existence of Mahatmas, and have had messages from
them.”
And the class of agnostics mentioned above, is fitly described in a
letter, now in print, from a Brahmin holding an official position, running
thus:
“Many of my friends, out of sheer love to me, take me to task for being
a member of the Theosophical Society. ... Theosophy means “a science of divine
things.” ... The society has no Pope, no Grand Lama, no Saviour, no Mohammed,
no Buddha, no Sankara Chariar, no Ramanuja Chariar, no Madhwa Chariar. ... It
is a society for the inculcation of universal brotherhood and its actual
practice. Of this society I am a member, and shall continue one so long as the
object of the society is not changed, whether I be blamed or pitied or loved in
consequence.”
Among this class of men, then, the society was hailed as a benefactor
just as soon as they became convinced by deeds of the founders, that it was not
another European trick for acquiring money, or territory, or power. And, in
consequence of the old-time knowledge of the various doctrines which seem new
to the Western mind, the Hindu section of our society regards theosophy as a
power which has begun to make it respectable once more to be an Aryan who
believes in Aryan literature.
It rose upon the devoted minds of India as a lamp which would help them
and their fellows to unearth the ancient treasures of the golden age, and has
now become, for even the young men who had begun to follow the false gods of
English money and English culture, a society, the initials of which, “F.T.S.” (Fellow
of the Theosophical Society) can be appended to their names as an honorable
title.
(Boston Index, June 3, 1886; Echoes III, p.129-132)
No comments:
Post a Comment