LIST OF ARTICLES

SUBBA ROW MADE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT BLAVATSKY WAS CRAZY


 
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.
 
Whether this poor diseased body will hold together long enough for this purpose no one at present can predict. Of course this true explanation is useless for outsiders. But I think I can give even to them a satisfactory explanation of Madame’s contradictions without attributing intentional untruth to her, when I inform them that, as a Russian, she was prone to exaggeration, coupled with an unretentive memory and an excitable style of speaking; and especially when we consider that English is not her mother tongue and therefore she often makes mistakes. Poor old lady! her life has truly been a wonderful one, and who can say what will still come of it! »
 
(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