Re: Olcott's Postscript
Mar 12, 2006 08:09 PM
by krsanna
Bruce & All -- "The Compiler" may be of help on this reference. I
first read the letter in "The Theosophical Movement," with an
explanation of the context in which the letter was written. As I
recall, the lodge to which the letter was directed had refused to
accept the first object. Lodges were asked to accept at least one
object and the Prayag lodge had declined to accept the first
object. The Prayag lodge assumed a die-hard Brahman position that
embraced the caste system.
Members of the Prayag Lodge had complained that many other lodges
had received letters from the Mahatmas, but they still had received
nothing. If my memory is correct, this is the situation at the
Prayag lodge when the letter was written.
It must be noted that many Mahatma letters were precipitated,
including the one to Olcott on the Shannon, that affirmed that
Blavatsky was their agent and that no other communication had been
given to anyone in Europe or America since 1885, except through HPB.
The first line of the Prayag letters indicates that Blavatsky was
writing on behalf of "The Brothers." No fraud can be construed from
that introduction.
"The Brothers desire me to inform one and all of you natives..."
The Prayag lodge's complaint appears to have been that the TS was
Buddhist propoganda. Olcott was very active in the Buddhist world
and his courage in the face of opposition was never extolled by
anyone. HPB praised Olcott's hard work and dedication, but his
courage was not mentioned as a notable character trait.
Krsanna
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd"
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> [I have done some searching around in my database and managed to
pull
> out some of the files in question. I cannot guarantee that they
are
> clean of any errors, but I believe them to be close. Because of
the
> length of this post, it is a cut and paste jod. Therefore, some of
> the WordProcessing Coding may slip in. Please try to ignore it.
> Naturally these are just pieces in a much larger puzzle and are
> consequently not substitutes for our own researches into the
history
> of the movement. Perhaps Krsanna is on the right track and what
would
> be really valuable would be to take everyone who is interested
through
> the early history of the movement.
>
> In "The Path" of March 1895, W.Q. Judge provided the following]:
>
> A MAHATMA'S MESSAGE TO SOME BRAHMANS.
>
> A copy of the letter hereunder printed was sent me in 1893 by the
> Brahman gentleman mentioned therein, whose full name is Benee
Madhab
> Battacharya and who was at one time president of the Prayag T.S. at
> Allahabad. He sent it to me after the publication of my "Letter to
> the Brahmans" in order to try and show me that the T. S. was in
fact a
> Buddhist propaganda. The original is in the possession of
Mr.Sinnett,
> who informed me not long ago that he thought he had it among his
> papers but had no leisure to look for it. I print it now for
reasons
> which will appear. It reads:
>
> "Message which Mr. Sinnett is directed by one of the Brothers,
writing
> through Madame B[lavatsky], to convey to the native members of the
> Prayag Branch of the Theosophical Society.
>
> The Brothers desire me to inform one and all of you natives that
> unless a man is prepared to become a thorough Theosophist, i.e. to
do
> what D. Mavalankar didgive up entirely caste, his old
superstitions,
> and show himself a true reformer (especially in the case of child-
> marriage), he will remain simply a member of the Society, with no
hope
> whatever of ever hearing from us. The Society, acting in this
> directly in accord with our orders, forces no one to become a
> Theosophist of the Second Section. It is left with himself at his
> choice. It is useless for a member to argue `I am one of a pure
life,
> I am a teetotaller and an abstainer from meat and vice, all my
> aspirations are for good, etc.', and he at the same time building
by
> his acts and deeds an impassible barrier on the road between
himself
> and us. What have we, the disciples of the Arhats of Esoteric
Budhism
> and of Sang-gyas, to do with the Shasters and orthodox Brahmanism?
> There are 100 of thousands of Fakirs, Sannyasis, or Sadhus leading
the
> most pure lives and yet being, as they are, on the path of error,
> never having had an opportunity to meet, see, or even hear of us.
> Their forefathers have driven the followers of the only true
> philosophy upon earth away from India, and now it is not for the
> latter to come to them, but for them to come to us, if they want
us.
> Which of them is ready to become a Budhist, a Nastika, as they call
> us? None. Those who have believed and followed us have had their
> reward. Mr. Sinnett and Hume are exceptions. Their beliefs are no
> barriers to us, for they have none. They may have bad influences
> around them, bad magnetic emanations, the result of drink, society,
> and promiscuous physical associations (resulting even from shaking
> hands with impure men), but all this is physical and material
> impediments which with a little effort we could counteract, and
even
> clear away, without much detriment to ourselves. Not so with the
> magnetic and invisible results proceeding from erroneous and
sincere
> beliefs. Faith in the gods or god and other superstition attracts
> millions of foreign influences, living entities and powerful Agents
> round them, with which we would have to use more than ordinary
> exercise of power to drive them away. We do not choose to do so.
We
> do not find it either necessary or profitable to lose our time
waging
> war on the unprogressed planetaries who delight in personating gods
> and sometimes well-known characters who have lived on earth. There
> are Dhyan Chohans and Chohans of darkness. Not what they term
devils,
> but imperfect intelligences who have never been born on this or any
> other earth or sphere no more than the Dhyan Chohans have, and who
> will never belong to the `Children of the Universe', the pure
> planetary intelligences who preside at every Manvantara, while the
> Dark Chohans preside at the Pralaya."
>
> Now this is a genuine message from the Master, allowing, of course,
> for any minor errors in copying. Its philosophical and occult
> references are furthermore confirmed by the manuscript of part of
the
> third volume of the Secret Doctrine, not yet printed. We know also
> that Master K. H. informed Mr. Sinnett and others that he was an
> esoteric Budhist; H.P.B. declared herself a Buddhist; on my asking
her
> in 1875 what could the Masters' belief be called she told me they
> might be designated "pre-Vedic Budhists", but that no one would now
> admit there was any Buddhism before the Vedas, so I had best think
of
> them as Esoteric Buddhists.
>
> But I am informed that Mrs. Besant has several times privately
stated
> that in her opinion the letter first above printed was a "forgery
or
> humbug" gotten up by H.P.B. I know that Mr. Chakravarti has said
the
> same thing, because he said it to me in New York. It is for Mrs.
> Besant to deny the correctness of my information as to what she
said:
> she can affirm her belief in the genuineness of the letter. If she
> does so, we shall all be glad to know. If she merely denies that
she
> ever impugned it, then it will be necessary for her to say
> affirmatively what is her belief, for silence will be assent to its
> genuineness. I affirm that it is from one of the Masters, and
that,
> if it be shown to be a fraud, then all of H.P.B.'s claims of
> connection with and teaching from the Master must fall to the
ground.
> It is now time that this important point be cleared up.
> William Q. Judge. (TJC, Pt.2, 138-
39)
>
> [Pelletier, in "The Judge Case" traces this dialogue back further,
but
> it is this publication that drew H.S. Olcott to answer as follows]:
>
> POSTSCRIPT.
>
> We stop the press to make room for some needed comments on an
article
> by Mr. Judge in the March number of the Path, of which advanced
proofs
> have been kindly sent us from New York. Under the title "A
Mahatma's
> Message to some Brahmans," the author quotes an alleged "message
which
> Mr. Sinnett is directed by one of the Brothers, writing through
Madame
> Blavatsky, to convey to the Native Members of the Prayag
[Allahabad]
> Branch of the Theosophical Society." It was written, if I remember
> aright, about 1881, and a copy was sent to Mr. Judge, he tells us,
in
> 1893 by a Brahman Theosophist‒‒an old and respected
friend of ours, to
> whom the original was shown and a copy furnished by Mr. Sinnett at
the
> time of its issue. The message is one of the most transparently
> unconvincing in the history of Mahatmic literature. It bears upon
its
> face the seal of its condemnation. It is an ill-tempered attack
upon
> the Brahman gentleman's orthodoxy, under the guise of a general
threat
> that none of his caste can approach the Masters save by "giving up
> entirely caste,". . . "old superstitions" . . "faith in the gods or
> god," etc.; it repudiates all interest by the Adepts in "Shasters
and
> orthodox Brahmanism," and asks "which of them is ready to become a
> Buddhist, a Nastika, as they call us." Mr. Judge asserts
that "this is
> a genuine message from the Masters, allowing, of course, for any
minor
> errors in copying;" and concludes his comments on the document by
saying:
>
> "But I am informed that Mrs. Besant has several times privately
stated
> that in her opinion the letter first above printed was a `forgery
or
> humbug' gotten up by H. P. B. I know that Mr. Chakravarti has said
the
> same thing because he said it to me in New York. It is for Mrs.
> Besant to deny the correctness of my information as to what she
said:
> she can affirm her belief in the genuineness of the letter. If she
> does so, we shall all be glad to know. If she merely denies that
she
> ever impugned it, then it will be necessary for her to say
> affirmatively what is her belief, for silence will be assent to its
> genuineness. I affirm that it is from one of the Masters, and
that,
> if it be shown to be a fraud, then all of H. P. B.'s claims of
> connection with and teaching from the Master must fall to the
ground.
> It is now time that this important point be cleared up."
>
> It certainly is time; and, since this does not bear upon the
pending
> issues which the undersigned will shortly have to judicially
dispose
> of in London, he will help towards the clearing up so far as he
can.
> He picks up the gauntlet for the honor of the Masters and the
benefit
> of the Society.
>
> In so many words, then, he pronounces the message a false one, and
if
> this is likely to shatter H. P. B.'s oft-declared infallibility as
the
> transmitter of only genuine messages from the Masters, so let it
be:
> the sooner the monstrous pretence is upset the better for her
memory
> and for a noble cause. For many years past, the writer has been
> battling for this principle, and though rewarded for his good
motive
> and true loyalty to his old colleague, with secret hatred and
public
> protest, he reiterates, for the hundredth time, that H. P. B. was
as
> human and fallible as either one of us, and that what she wrote and
> taught, and what was written through her, should be judged
strictly on
> its intrinsic merits and by no standard of presumed authority. If
the
> message be really fictitious, it does not follow that H. P. B.
> consciously falsified; the simple theory of mediumship has
explained
> many equally deceptive and even more exasperating messages from the
> invisible world: and she herself has written and said to the spy
> Solovioff, that at times she was possessed by evil influences. We
> know all the weight that such a suggestion carries, and yet repeat
it
> in the full conviction that the discoveries of hypnotic science
have
> already furnished proof of its entire reasonableness.
>
> The putative `message,' moreover, grossly violates that basic
> principle of neutrality and eclecticism on which the Theosophical
> Society has built itself up from the beginning ; and which the
> self-sacrificing action of the Judicial Committee, at London last
> summer, vindicated, to the satisfaction of all the Sections. Is it
> not absurd, then, to imagine that any Master, in even the most
casual
> relations with the Society, would indulge in this insulting attack
> upon Brahmanic philosophy‒‒the embodied quintessence
of his own Secret
> Doctrine‒‒and demand, as the price of intercourse with
the Lodge, that
> the Brahman should repudiate his religious beliefs, cast aside his
> splendid Scriptures and turn Buddhist? How Mr. Judge could have
> overlooked this palpable proof of fraudulency is
incomprehensible. It
> was a cruel disservice to the dead to revive the letter. Can it be
> that his imagined `loyalty' to H. P. B. has ended in making him as
> blind to her human weaknesses as certain most honorable and
> well-meaning Spiritualists are to the staring falsity of many
> pretended spirit photographs, drawings and letters? Be this as it
> may, the moment that the dogma is established that the genuineness
of
> H. P. B.'s, series of Mahatmic letters depends upon the acceptance
of
> such a fraud as the above, the Society will have to find another
> President, for it would soon become the game-preserve of rogues.
> H. S. Olcott. (TJC, Pt.2, 140-41)
>
> [As this post is already getting too long, I am going to inclue
Franz
> Hartmanns comments on this incident rather than the lengthier one
by
> Basil Crump. Hartmann has the added advantage of having spent some
> time at Adyar thereby coming to know many of the players. Again in
> "The Path" of June 1895 Hartmann provides the following]:
>
> CORRESPONDENCE.
> DR. HARTMANN READS THE "POSTSCRIPT."
>
> "My dear Judge:‒‒What is the matter? Has the world
become struck with
> blindness, and does the President of the T. S. not know what
Theosophy
> is? Have all the lectures of Mrs. Besant been after all nothing
but
> eloquence mixed with gush? Do our own Theosophical writers only
> repeat parrot-like what they hear, but without understanding?
>
> "I ask these questions because I received a letter from Col.
Olcott,
> in which he calls my attention to a certain
presidential "postscript"
> in the April number of the Theosophist, and having at last sent for
> that journal, I find that the "postscript" refers to the well-known
> "Mahâtmâ Message to some Brahmans" published in the Path. It seems
> almost incredible how anybody, to say nothing of a president-
founder,
> could misconstrue and confound that message so as to understand it
to
> mean that the Brahmans should "repudiate their religious beliefs,
cast
> aside their splendid scriptures, and turn Buddhists!" in other
words,
> that they should give up one orthodox creed for the purpose of
> assuming another. I never imagined it possible that anybody could
not
> see the plain meaning of that letter to some Brahmans, in which the
> Master asks them to strive to outgrow their orthodox beliefs and
> superstitions, faith in gods or a (separate) god, and to attain
real
> knowledge.
>
> "Great must be the power of Mr. Chakravarti and his orthodox
> colleagues, if they can spread so much darkness over Adyar. The
very
> air in that place seems to be reeking with envy, jealousy, conceit
and
> above all ingratitude. Persons (such as Hübbe Schleiden) who for
many
> years have been making a living by huckstering the truths they
learned
> from H. P. Blavatsky and trading them off as their own inventions,
> now turn upon their benefactors like wolves.
>
> "For years it has been preached and written in all theosophical
> papers, that blind belief in a doctrine (based upon the supposed
> respectability of the person who teaches it), is not self
knowledge;
> that we should neither reject a doctrine nor blindly believe it,
but
> strive to attain to the true understanding of it. And now after
these
> many years the cry is heard among the "prominent" members of the T.
> S.: `Where, oh where is a person whose respectability is so much
> assured, that we may blindly believe what he says and save
ourselves
> the trouble of thinking for ourselves?'
>
> "It seems to me, that the present row in the T. S. is an absolutely
> necessary test, to show who are and who are not capable of grasping
> the spirit and essence of theosophy, and to purify the T.S. of
those
> elements incapable of receiving the truth. Let those who need
> doctrines, be they brahminical or otherwise, depart in peace. Let
> them rejoice in the conviction of their own superior morality,
which
> is the product of the delusion of self. The true theosophist knows
> that the condition necessary for the interior revelation of truth
is
> neither the acceptance nor the repudiation of doctrines, nor the
> belief in the respectability of Peter or John, but the sacrifice of
> self and that love of the Master which alone forms the link of
> sympathy between the Master and the disciple, and whose purity
> consists in being unselfish.
>
Yours very sincerely,
> F. H." (TJC, pt.2, 152)
>
> [I hope this helps all those unable to access the information
through
> local archives/libraries. What do you make of it? If there is
> anything about the context that is unclear, please ask.
>
> Sincerely, Bruce]
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
