Subba Row was a very learned Brahmin, his knowledge of Sanskrit literature was so impressive that if one recited to him a verse from the Bhagavad Gîtâ , the Brahma-Sûtras
or the Upanishads, he could immediately tell where it had been taken from and the relation had been employed.*
Subba Row initially felt great admiration for Blavatsky to the point that he told his mother that Madame Blavatsky was a great Yogî; and he had seen many amazing phenomena in her presence.*
(* The
Esoteric Writings of T. Subba Row, The Theosophical Publishing House,
Adyar, 1980. First Edition 1895, Colonel Olcott's Preface, p. xiii)
But
Subba Row later became an enemy of Blavatsky because he did not want
her to spread to Westerners the knowledge that he considered reserved
only for Orientals.
And that is why Subba Row began
a campaign to discredit Blavatsky before the members of the
Theosophical Society in India, and this Blavatsky herself pointed out in
a letter:
Subba
Row declared "in a very serious manner to Mr. and Mrs. Cooper-Oakley,
that henceforth I shall be a deserted shell abandoned by the Masters." And when I complained to him about it, he replied:
“You have been guilty of the most terrible of crimes. You have divulged secrets of the Occult—the most sacred and the most hidden. It would be better for you to be sacrificed than to give what was never intended for European minds. People had too much faith in you. It was time to cast doubts in their minds." ( Letters from HP Blavastky to AP Sinnett, p.95-96)
The lies that Subba Row told about Blavatsky
convinced many members as witnessed by a letter written by Charles
Ledbeater who was sure that Blavatsky had become "a shell abandoned by
the Masters":
« June 14th, 1885:
Subba Row related to us recently more concerning Madame Blavatsky’s
remarkable complex character than I, at least, had previously known; and it
shows us plainly how foolish it would be to blame her for what in anyone else
would be called a want of common moral qualities.
We were right in believing that the original H.P. Blavatsky, who was by
nature clairvoyant and who had some knowledge of occultism, disappeared from
earth life some twenty years ago, and that a certain Adept, who in some way had
failed to reach his goal, voluntarily took possession of her body, or was
placed there — partly as a punishment, in order to do all in his power to
promulgate the truth through her. We likewise understood rightly that when
engaged on other business he was frequently absent from this body.
But now I come to a point about which I was completely in error. I
thought that during the absence of the Adept, the body was in a state similar
to that of Margrave in Bulwer Lytton’s "Strange Story," only animated
by its original lower constituents. But it seems this was not the case.
At her death, all the usual constituents of the body left it as with
that of others, and the present inhabitant had to supply the whole want from
his own organisation. For this purpose two Chelas [disciples], but little
versed in occultism, were selected to take the Adept’s place when necessary;
and as no Adept or Chela can enter into a woman’s body during times of illness,
at such times it had to be taken possession of by a terrible ill-tempered,
ignorant old Tibet woman, in place of the Adept or Chelas, as she was the only female available for this
purpose. It seems that when either of the four replaced one of the others, he
or she had no idea of what had been said or done by the predecessor, and thus
endless confusion occurred.
This explains the fact that Madame so often contradicts what she had
said a few hours previously, which fact naturally greatly excited Hodgson’s suspicions.
It likewise accounts for the fact that sometimes she seems to know less about
occultism than we ourselves do, while at others she speaks with the power and
authority of a Rishi. For months together, in consequence of her various
illnesses, the terrible old woman alone has inhabited her almost all the time,
and all around her have suffered from her ill-temper. Still the Adept maintains
his connection, in the hope, as we think, to be able to complete his
promulgation of the "secret doctrine" through her.
(The content of this letter was originally published by Professor CW Sellin in the German magazine Psychische Studien of January 1901, p.24-25. It was later translated into English and published in the London Spiritualist magazine Light of March 2, 1901, p.103.)
The case reached such a degree that Master Kuthumi had to send a
letter to Colonel Olcott on August 22, 1888, specifying that they, the
Trans-Himalayan Masters, had not abandoned Blavatsky:
« We employ agents — the best
available. Of these for the past thirty years the chief has been the
personality known as H.P.B. to the world (but otherwise to us). Imperfect and
very troublesome, no doubt, she proves to some, nevertheless, there is no
likelihood of our finding a better one for years to come — and your
theosophists should be made to understand it.
.
. .
Her fidelity to our work being
constant, and her sufferings having come upon her thro’ it, neither I nor
either of my Brother associates will desert or supplant her. As I once before
remarked, ingratitude is not among our vices. . . . this you must tell to all:
— With occult matters she has everything to do. We have not abandoned her; she
is not ‘given over to chelas’. She is our direct agent. »
(Letters from the Masters of Wisdom I, No. 19)
And
as you can see for yourself, Master Kuthumi specifically says in
his letter when referring to Blavatsky: "We have not abandoned her, we
have not given her to the chelas", which is a direct response against the malicious slander launched by Subba. row.
But
Colonel Olcott did nothing to remove those misconceptions that Subba
Row had been spreading, showing that Olcott himself also despised
Blavatsky.
No comments:
Post a Comment