What Good has Theosophy done in India?

“The race of mankind would perish, did they cease to aid each other. From the time that the mother binds the child’s head, till the moment that some kind assistant wipes the death-damp from the brow of the dying, we cannot exist without mutual help. All, therefore, that need aid, have a right to ask it from their fellow-mortals. No one who holds the power of granting, can refuse it without guilt.”—Sir Walter Scott

Several correspondents and enquirers have lately asked us “What good have you done in India?” To answer it would be easy. One has but to ask the doubters to read the January Number, 1888, of` the Madras Theosophist—our official organ—and, turning to the report in it on the Anniversary Meeting of the Theosophical Society, whose delegates meet yearly at Adyar, see for himself. Many and various are the good works done by the 127 active branches of the Theosophical Society scattered throughout the length and breadth of India. But as most of those works are of a moral and reformatory character, the ethical results upon the members are difficult to describe. Free Sanskrit schools have been opened wherever it was possible; gratuitous classes are held; free dispensaries—homeopathic and allopathic—established for the poor, and many of our Theosophists feed and clothe the needy.

All this, however, might have been done by people without belonging to our Brotherhood, we may be told. True; and much the same has been done before the T.S. appeared in India, and from time immemorial. Yet such work has been hitherto done, and such help given by the wealthier members of one caste or religious community exclusively to the poorer members of the same caste and religious denomination. No Brahmin would have held brotherly intercourse even with a Brahmin of another division of his own high caste, let alone with a Jain or Buddhist. A Parsee would only protect and defend his own brother-follower of Zoroaster. A Jain would feed and take care of a lame and sick animal, but would turn away from a Hindu of the Vaishnava or any other sect. He would spend thousands on the “Hospital for Animals” where bullocks, old crippled tigers and dogs are nursed, but would not approach a fellow-man in need unless he was a Jain like himself. But now, since the advent of the Theosophical Society, things in India are, slowly it is true, yet gradually, becoming otherwise.

We have, then, to show rather the good moral effect produced by the Society in general, and each branch of it in its own district on the population, than to boast of works of charity, for which India has ever been noted. We shall not enter even into a disquisition upon the benefits to be reaped by the establishment of a Sanskrit, or rather an Oriental and European library at Adyar, which, thanks to the indefatigable efforts of the President-Founder and his colleagues, begins now to assume quite hopeful proportions. But we will draw at once the attention of the enquirers to the ethical aspect of the question; for all the visible or objective works, whether of charity or any other kind, must pale before the results achieved through the influence of the chief universal, ethical aim and idea of our Society.

Yes; the seeds of a true Universal Brotherhood of man, not of brother-religionists or sectarians only, have been finally sown on the sacred soil of India! The letter that follows these lines proves it most undeniably. These seeds have been thrown since 1881 into that soil, which, for thousands of years, has stubbornly and systematically ejected everything foreign to its system of caste, and refused to assimilate any heterogeneous element alien to Brahmanism, the chief master of the soil of Aryavarta, or to accept any ideas not based upon the Laws of Manu. The Orientalist and the Anglo-Indian, who know something of that tyranny of caste which has hitherto formed an impassable barrier, an almost fathomless gulf between Brahmanism and every other religion, know also of the great hatred of the orthodox “twice born,” the dwija Brahmin, to the Buddhist nastika (the atheist, he who refuses to recognise the Brahminical gods and idols); and they, above all others, will realize, even if they do not fully appreciate, the importance of what has now been achieved by the Theosophical Society. It took several years of incessant efforts to bring about even the beginning of a rapprochement between the Brahmin and Buddhist theosophists. A few years ago the President-Founder of the Society, Colonel H. S. Olcott, had almost succeeded in making a breach in the Chinese wall of Brahmanism. It was an unprecedented event; and it created a great stir among the natives, a sincere enthusiasm among the “Heathen,” and much malicious opposition, gossip, and slanderous denial from those who, above all men, ought to work for the idea of Universal Brotherhood preached by their Master—the good Christian Missionaries. Colonel Olcott had succeeded in arranging a kind of preliminary reconciliation between the Brahminical Theosophical Society of Tinnevelly and their brother Theosophists and neighbours of Ceylon. Several Buddhists had been brought from Lanka, led by the President, carrying with them, as an emblem of peace and reconciliation, a sprout of the sacred râja (king) cocoanut-tree. This actually was to be planted in one of the courts of the Tinnevelly pagoda, as a living and growing witness to the event. It was an extraordinary and imposing sight that day, namely October 25th, 1881, when, before an immense crowd numbering several thousands of Hindus and other natives, the Delegates of the Buddhist Theosophical Societies of Ceylon, met with their brother Theosophists of the Tinnevelly Branch and their Brahmin priests of the pagoda. For over 2,000 years an irreconcilable religious feud had raged between the two creeds and their respective followers. And now they were brought once more together on Hindu soil, and even within the thrice sacred, and to all strangers almost impenetrable, precincts of a Hindu temple, which would have been, only a few days previous to the occurrence, regarded as irretrievably desecrated had even the very shadow of a Buddhist nastika fallen upon its outward walls. Signs of the times, indeed! The cocoanut sprout was planted with great ceremony, and to the sounds of the music of the pagoda orchestra. After that, year after year, Hindus and Buddhists met together at Adyar, at the Annual Conventions for the Anniversary Meetings of the Theosophical Parent Society; but no Brahmin Theosophist had hitherto returned the visit to Ceylon to his Buddhist Brethren. The ice of the centuries had been split, but not sufficiently broken to permit anyone to dive deep enough under it to call this an entire and full reconciliation. But the impressive and long-expected and wished-for event has at last taken place All honour and glory to the son of Brahmins—the proudest; perhaps, of all India, the Northern Brahmins of Kashmir—who was the first to place the sacred duties of Universal Brotherhood above the prejudices, as potent as they are narrow, of caste and custom. We publish below extracts from his own address, which appeared in Sarasavisandaresa, the Singhalese organ of the Buddhists of Ceylon, and let the eloquent narrative speak for itself.

But after reading the extracts let not our critics rise once more against the policy of the Theosophical Society, and take the opportunity of calling it intolerant and uncharitable only as regards one creed, namely Christianity because facts will be found in this Address which speak loudly against its vicious system. No Theosophist has ever spoken against the teachings of Christ, no more than he did against those of Krishna, Buddha, or Sankaracharya; and willingly would he treat every Christian as a Brother, if the Christian himself would not persistently turn his back on the Theosophist. But a man would lose every right to the appellation of a member of the Universal Brotherhood, were he to keep silent in the face of the crying bigotry and falseness of all the theological, or rather sacerdotal, systems—the world over. We, Europeans, expatiate loudly and cry against Brahminical tyranny, against caste, against infant and widow marriage, and call every religious dogmatic rule (save our own) idiotic, pernicious, and devilish, and do it orally as in print. Why should not we confess and even denounce the abuses and defects of Christian theology and sacerdotalism as well? How dare we say to our “brother”—Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye, and refuse to consider “the beam that is in our own eye”? Christians have to choose—either they “shall not judge that they be not judged,” or if they do—and one has but to read the missionary and clerical organs to see how cruel, unchristian, and uncharitable their judgments are—they must be prepared to be judged in their turn.

These are portions of an address delivered at the Theosophical Hall, Colombo, on January 29th, 1888, by Pundit Gopi Nath, of Lahore.¹

I am a Kashmiri Brahmin; and Kashmir, as you know, is some three thousand miles away from Ceylon, so you may imagine it was not very easy for me to come here to see you. And the difficulty of the journey represents only a very small part of the real difficulty, for the barriers of caste and custom in India make it a serious matter to depart from the ordinary course of the life of one’s neighbours. What was it then that gave me strength and courage to over leap those barriers, and to undertake such a long and weary pilgrimage? It was the influence of the Theosophical Society and of its teaching—that influence which led me to realize my brotherhood with you, the Buddhists of Ceylon, and put into my heart such an earnest desire to make your acquaintance. And now at last I am here among you; and, wonderful to say, though I am of another race and another religion, yet I feel as much at home here as I do in Kashmir. To what do I owe this happiness ? I have again to thank the Theosophical Society—this great and noble organization—for this, and the magnificent work which it has done. My very presence here is a proof of that work, and I can testify that I have travelled through many parts of India, and everywhere found myself received as a dearly-loved brother by the members of this beneficent Association. Go to India, and you also will find it so—-you will find that what was long thought the Utopian dream of universal brotherhood, is now being rapidly realized by the work of this glorious Society, to which India’s greatest sons esteem it an honour to belong. I know that various Christian missionary organs have thought it expedient to attack the Society, and to vilify its revered founders, . . . . . . . . . . but in India we know better than to pay any attention to the nonsense and falsehood which emanate from such sources. They have said that Colonel Olcott is a strange sort of person, who tries to please every body—that with the Hindoos he calls himself a Hindoo, with the Buddhists a Buddhist, with the Parsecs a Parsec, with the Mohammedans a Mohammedan. From my own personal knowledge I am happy to be able to deny this utterly, and to affirm that in whatever part of India Colonel Olcott may be, he always unhesitatingly proclaims himself a Buddhist. Therefore, my advice to you is, in this matter as in all others, not to mind what the missionaries say, but to stick fast to your own religion, and stand by those who are working so nobly for it.

It is the rule of the Theosophical Society that its members, whatever their creed may be, shall treat the religions of other members with deference; and its principle is that all religions have some truth underlying them—at least at first—for the founders of all faiths give out some truths, each in his own way, however much the followers may afterwards distort and depart from the original teachings. But between Brahminism and Buddhism we may have something much greater than mere toleration-we must have the deepest mutual esteem and reverence, for all learned people know that there is but little difference between our philosophies. Why then, you may ask, was there such bitter opposition between them in India since long ago? I think recent history provides us with the answer. For several years it happened that the Mohauram Festival of the Mohammedans coincided with one of our great Hindoo festivals; and I am sorry to say that in consequence there were frequent quarrels between the rival processions, and quite serious rioting occurred. But who were the people who took part in this rioting? Always and exclusively the most ignorant and uneducated of both religions; never once the learned men or the real leaders on either side; for these always agreed in sincerely deploring all such illiberality and folly. So, surely, must it have been with Buddhism and Brahminism; since the learned men on both sides must always have known how slight the differences are between them, the quarrels must have been fomented only by ignorant and interested people. And for the fact that men of both religions are now beginning to realize this, and draw closer together in the bonds of mutual esteem, we have again very largely to thank for it the Theosophical Society and its noble Founders.

One thing has surprised me very much during my visit to Ceylon, and this is that I find so many good Buddhists called by purely Christian names. That shows of course that Christian influence has been at work among you, and I am informed that it is due chiefly to the tyranny of the Dutch and Portuguese govern m ents of this Island But now under the English government this is quite unnecessary, and it should at once be changed. Do not for a moment imagine that you are more respected by the Europeans because you use Christian names or adopt the Christian religion—far from it. Indeed just the reverse is the fact, and I will relate to you some anecdotes from my own personal experience to prove what I say.

The Europeans sometimes denounce our caste system, but it seems to me—and I am speaking from observed facts—that they have a much worse kind of caste among themselves. Now I am a Kashmiri Brahmin, and every other Brahmin, no matter how poor he may be, or how ragged his clothes are, is my brother, and I could never dream of treating him otherwise; but among Christians this does not appear to be so. At the installation of the Maharajah of Kashmir, some time ago, at Jummoo, I was present, along with many other native gentlemen, some few Europeans, and some half-caste or Eurasian men what you, in this country, call Burghers. Of course the officers of the Maharajah treated all the guests alike, and set them down to one table; but the Europeans, headed by the Resident, refused to eat with the Eurasians, though they were all Christians, and these latter had to be driven away to another table. I recollect another incident. When I went to the great exhibition at Jeypore, Rajputana, in the year 1883, I and some other students went to play cricket in the gardens. After a time a European gentleman came and asked if he might join us, and of course we were very glad to allow him to do so; but after a time, discovering from the name of one of our companions that he was a Christian Eurasian, the European at once left the game, saying that he was perfectly willing to join with Hindoo gentlemen, but would not play with an Eurasian!

I once knew a leading Mahommedan pleader who was favourably impressed by Christianity, and, in fact, was about to become a Christian. But suddenly he broke off all connection with that faith, and retained his own religion. Upon my enquiring his reason for so sudden a revulsion of feeling, he told me that a few days before he had called upon a missionary, and been as usual hospitably received and offered a seat. But while he was there, an old and reverend-looking Mahommedan gentleman entered. My friend at once rose to yield him the place of honour; but he was much surprised to see that no seat was offered to the old gentleman, and that he was allowed to sit on the floor among the missionary’s dogs! On asking the reason of this unseemly neglect, the missionary carelessly replied: “Oh! he is a Christian!” This opened my friend’s eyes, and he understood that the respect paid to him now was only to induce him to become a Christian, and would cease as soon as its object was attained.

Again; in Madras a few days ago I entered a Christian church in order to see its services, and took a seat on a chair. An official at once came and drove me away, telling me that the chairs were only for Europeans, and that native Christians must sit on mats in another part of the building! You see, even in the house of their god they must have their distinctions; and surely this is worse than anything in our caste system.

So you see, if you think you will be respected by Europeans for becoming Christians, or adopting Christian names, you are very much mistaken. Quite the contrary; when you abandon your ancestral faith and become a renegade for the sake of gain, they despise you, and they are right in doing so. What would you think of an old servant of twenty years’ standing, if you found he was ready at a moment’s notice to abandon his old master in order to make a little more money in your service? Of course you would feel that you could place no reliance upon him, since if it suited him he would be equally ready to abandon you in turn. No ; if you wish to be respected, first respect yourselves; if you wish men of other religions to respect your creed, first respect it yourself.

The missionaries often ask us why we should follow or obey our priests, since they possess no supernatural powers; yet we do not hear that the missionaries themselves possess any, though the founder of their faith specially promised that various wonderful signs should follow all who believed in him. We need never shrink from a comparison between our priests and those of the Christians; at least the former are not seen living like princes, and being guilty of all kinds of extravagance, as the latter are.

* * * * * * * * *

Never be afraid to speak boldly in contradiction to falsehoods and to answer them. Remember you are now living under a Government which is impartial to us all. A few days ago when I landed at this harbour I met two Christians who asked m e where I was going. I told them that I was coming to the Headquarters of the Theosophical Society to see Mr. Leadbeater. They thereupon asked who he was, and when I told them that he had been a Church of England clergyman, but had now embraced Buddhism, they at once said that he must have had some interested motive for giving up his old religion something connected with money matters, perhaps. Knowing how absurdly untrue such a suggestion was, I became annoyed, and replied: “If that be your logic, then every native Christian must also have had interested motives in giving up Iris old religion.” I do not wish to speak against Christianity; as a Theosophist it is not my business to speak against any religion; but I do speak against bigotry and selfishness, whenever and wherever they are to be found. Let every man defend his own religion-that is well and good; but the missionaries spend time, labour, and money to bring other religions into contempt. What I say is not by way of attack, but simply as a defence.

I should like to say a word about the religious education of our ladies, which I consider a most important point. The child is influenced more by its mother than even by its father ; if the mother be religious, then the child will be so too. The Christians know that well, and that is why they take so much trouble about their zenana mission, to teach our girls and women. Look at the primers they have prepared for use in their zenana missions, and you will perpetually find hints as to how cruel the Hindoos are to women, how they treat them like slaves, give female children fewer ornaments than the male, and so on; in every way endeavouring to make the girls hate their own homes and religion, and become Christians. My last and most special advice to you as your Indian brother is this : don’t trust your ladies—don’t trust your children in the hands of the missionaries. These foreigners do not come here and spend money for our benefit; no—they have one, and only one, great object always in view, and that is to make proselytes. However fair may be the outward apearance of their work, that design underlies everything they do, like a snake hidden under a flower, and for this object they will hesitate at no misrepresenta tion of your religion. . . .

This sincere and unpretentious address shows better than pages written by ourselves could, the work that the Theosophical Society has done in India, as also the reason why the missionaries in that country bear to us such a mortal hatred, hence—why they slander us. They degrade the pure ethics of Christ by their Jesuitical and deceptive attitude towards the natives; and we protect the latter against such deception by telling them: “There is but one Eternal Truth, one universal, infinite and changeless Spirit of Love, Truth and Wisdom, impersonal, therefore bearing a different name with every nation, one Light for all, in which the whole Humanity lives and moves, and has its being. Like the spectrum in optics, giving multicoloured and various rays, which are yet caused by one and the same sun, so theologies and sacerdotal systems are many. But the Universal religion can only be one, if we accept the real, primitive meaning of the root of that word. We, Theosophists, so accept it; and therefore say: We are all brothers—by the laws of Nature, of birth, and death, as also by the laws of our utter helplessness from birth to death in this world of sorrow and deceptive illusions. Let us, then, love, help, and mutually defend each other against this spirit of deception; and while holding to that which each of us accepts as his ideal of truth and reality—i.e., to the religion which suits each of us best—let us unite ourselves to form a practical “nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, creed, or colour.”