The remaining hours of my visit at Adyar were occupied with study of

the subjects of Madame's hypnotic powers,--as I supposed them to be.

The young Hindus, with their refined faces and symbolical draperies,

conveyed an impression of being like the magical mangoes which the

jugglers evoke, looking at them from time to time to see how they are

growing. There were phases of chelahood, with precise terms for each.

I was invited to visit the shrine. It was in a small room, and stood

against the wall, reaching nearly to the ceiling. It was decorated

with mystical emblems and figures, and a breath of incense came when

the doors were opened. The Hindus prostrated themselves on the floor,

and hid their faces; it was explained as their oriental custom, but it

is certainly favorable to Thaumaturgy. Two days afterwards I was told,

being then at sea, that while we visited the shrine a mysterious bell

had sounded. No such incident was mentioned at the time, and I felt

quite sure that Madame Blavatsky and myself were the only persons

present whose testimony would be trustworthy. The interior of the

shrine was inlaid with metal work. There were various figures, Buddha

being in the centre, and framed "portraits" of Mahatmas Koothoomi and

Moria. Each portrait was about seven inches high, and if drawn, as I

understood, by astral art, it may be hoped the process will remain

occult. Koothoomi, who somewhat resembled an old London portrait I

have of Rammohun Roy, holds a small barrel-shaped praying-machine on

his head.

A considerable company surrounded the dinner table, and included one

or two whom I had not seen. Madame Blavatsky was a genial hostess.

When a disciple told some miraculous experience she would turn to me

and say, "Now think of that!" She ate little, but smoked a cigarette

during the repast. Late in the evening, as I insisted on leaving, she

ordered her carriage for me, and promised me an astral apparition of

herself after I should reach London. I did not find in Madame

Blavatsky the coarseness of which I had heard, and suspect it is

mainly due to a prejudice against ladies smoking.

Our ship between Madras and Calcutta was a floating epitome of the

world. There were missionaries contending with pundits, and world

travellers lazily amused by discussions involving the eternal welfare

of the human race. But the disputes had a hollow and perfunctory

sound, and the cultured Englishmen stood apart. Mozoomdar, of the

Brahmo-Somaj, preached us an ordinary Unitarian sermon. In private he

expressed to me a horror of Madame Blavatsky, but he did not appear to

me possessed of such religious enthusiasm as Norendranath Sen, whom I

had met at Adyar. The latter reproved me for wishing to see Madame

Blavatsky's wonders, instead of recognizing in Theosophy a movement

that was saving India from being dragged into revolting dogmas called

Christianity, its superstitions, discords, inhumanities. Even

admitting that some delusions, or impositions, have been connected

with the movement, they would pass away if liberal men did not make so

much of them, and would help to develop Theosophy into a religion

related to the devout and poetic genius of the oriental world. The

words of this thoughtful Hindu impressed me much. I need only look

about me on the ship to recognize the fact that the West is

overturning the deities and altars of the East, but has no religion to

give these instinctive worshippers. The scholarly English Church would

appear to have become conscious of this, and is leaving the work of

propagandism to vulgar and ignorant sects. There seems to be nothing

offered the young Hindus graduated in the universities of India except

a repulsive "Salvationism" on the one hand, and a cold Agnosticism on

the other. I had conversed with a company of students at Madras, and

found them hardly able to understand the interest with which I

followed the processions of "idols" about the streets, such things

being looked on by them much as a march of the Salvation Army might be

regarded by Oxonians. They had little interest in Christianity, but

some of them spoke reverently of Buddha, and probably Theosophy has

done something to revive in India love for that long banished teacher.

On the whole, I found the little company in their beautiful retreat at

Adyar becoming more and more picturesque in the distance. It seems a

hard, precipitous fall from visions of Indra's paradise to a

materialistic world of predatory evolution. The youth at Adyar,

dreaming of Mahatmas in mystical mountains, and evolving a natural

supernaturalism, may be dwelling amid illusions; but, as Shakespeare

tells us, our little life is rounded with a sleep,--a dreamland. If

Madame Blavatsky had recovered Prospero's buried wand, and amid the

dry and dusty realism of our time raised for her followers a realm of

faerie, beguiling them from scenes of falling temples and fading

heavens, were it not cruel to break her wand, even though it be

glamour? I remember at Concord, in my youth, a little controversy in

which miracles were critically handled, some ladies present being

distressed. Emerson had remained silent, and on our way home said,

"After all it appears doubtful whether, when children are enjoying a

play, one must tell them the scene is paint and pasteboard, and the

fairy's jewels but glass."

So I bore away from Adyar a slight sprinkle of Madame Blavatsky's

moonshine. But it was rudely dispelled in Calcutta and Bombay, where

the priestess had worn out her welcome by attempts at fraud. One of

these instances was related by Mr. J. D. Broughton, a gentleman

connected with the Indian government, to whom I carried a letter of

introduction. Unwilling to accept any such fact without verification,

I afterwards corresponded with those cognizant of the facts, and have

before me now their letters establishing the statements of the

following from Mr. Broughton.

"I was in Calcutta, and a friend was staying with me, Mr. H.

Blanford, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and head of the

Meteorological Department,--a practical man, not, I think,

disposed to judge wrongly one way or the other. We both know Mrs.

Gordon [a spiritualist] the lady to whom Mr. Eglinton [a

spiritualist medium of London] wrote--or says he wrote--from the

Vega, while at sea; and I am on friendly terms with her, as is

Mr. Blanford to the best of my belief. She called at my house a

day or two after the Vega had left Colombo, and produced a

letter, an envelope, and two or three cards. The letter was from

Mr. Eglinton. It was not in the envelope, but was attached to it

by a string in the corner, which was passed through the corner of

the cards. These cards had writing upon them, which we were told

was the writing of Madame Blavatsky, then at Poona. The writing

on the cards referred to the contents of the letter. The envelope

had three crosses on the back of it. Mrs. Gordon stated that

these letters had been brought to her the day before by what are

called astral means, having been conveyed from the Vega, then on

the way from Colombo to Aden, first to Poona, and then from Poona

to her residence in Housah, a suburb of Calcutta. I have not the

slightest doubt that Mrs. Gordon firmly believed this, and I am

under the impression that she believes it still. Mr. Blanford and

I, however, ventured to ask a few questions as to the

circumstances under which the letters made their appearance at

Housah, and the replies led us to form an opinion that the lady

might have been imposed upon. The circumstances, which were, I

believe, considered to amount to strong proof in favor of the

astral theory, were published in a paper called _Psychic Notes_,

in Calcutta.

"I wrote to my wife [who had travelled on the Vega to England]

and sent this account to her. She replied that Mr. Eglinton had

brought a letter to her [during the voyage] to be marked,--that

it had a cross upon it, and that she had been asked to mark

another or others, and that she did so, crossing the first

cross.

"I will add that when my wife left Calcutta I accompanied her in

a steam launch, and she embarked on board the Vega at Diamond

Harbor. I was the bearer of a letter to Mr. Eglinton. It was

given to me for him by Mrs. Gordon, I think, but I won't be

positive. I had known Mr. Eglinton; he was in the habit, when in

Calcutta, of giving exhibitions of his powers in private houses,

for a fee. He came to our house in this way, but nothing

occurred; I think he considered it a failure."

Mrs. Broughton writes that she was with her friend Mrs. Eddis when

Eglinton brought the letter. Both ladies observed that the letter

which Koothoomi was to convey across the sea contained no allusion to

anything that had occurred since they left--nothing that might not

have been written before they started. Instead of marking the

envelope, for identification, in the way Eglinton suggested, she made

his cross into an asterisk. But the envelope published in India to

prove the power of Koothoomi was marked, as Eglinton had requested,

with three separate crosses. All efforts to obtain explanation of the

difference between the marks on the letter sent and the letter

received were vain. In reply to my question Mr. Sinnett said, "All I

can tell you now is that Mrs. Broughton acted very badly." I was

present when the Hon. Mrs. Pitt Rivers pressed Colonel Olcott for an

explanation. He replied, "The tone of your question suggests collusion

between the Theosophists of India and Mr. Eglinton. To such a charge I

am, of course, dumb." It was the only prudent answer he could make.

This incident lowered my idea of Madame Blavatsky's powers. It was not

clever to rest so much on the pliability of a "society lady" with whom

she was unacquainted. I presently found that at Bombay she had failed

in several performances, but was shielded by a theosophistical

argument that mere jugglers never fail.[4] There was a pretty general

feeling in Calcutta and Bombay that no glamour or magnetic mystery was

needed for Madame Blavatsky's thaumaturgy, which would soon collapse

in Madras as elsewhere. Nearly the first thing I heard after reaching

London (1884) was of that collapse. Mr. and Mrs. Coulomb, the former a

skilled mechanic, had confessed at Madras that they had all along

been assisting Madame Blavatsky in frauds; elaborate contrivances were

discovered behind the shrine, and compromising letters written by the

high priestess were produced. Madame Blavatsky declared that the

contrivances were put in the shrine to ruin her; but Coulomb could

have done that by a small mechanism, whereas the arrangements were

extensive and expensive, requiring such time as must have assured

detection, and money which he had not. The letters, mainly efforts to

prevent the Coulombs from revealing the frauds, were pronounced

forgeries; but no expert reading them can fail to perceive that to

forge them would require a genius far beyond even that of Madame

Blavatsky. The letters are brilliant, and Mrs. Coulomb is sometimes

worsted in them. Mrs. Coulomb, after her confession, wrote me a long

letter, which shows no trace of the style or ability disclosed in the

Blavatsky letters. However, it was a sufficient confession that the

Theosophists receded from a proposal to test all these things,

including the handwriting of the letters, before a law court, for

which the Coulombs were eager. The result was that Madame Blavatsky

left India and established herself in London.

[4] Commissioner Grant was awakened by a telegram and requested

to look for a cigarette in a certain part of the Prince of

Wales' statue, in Bombay; he went and found nothing. Mrs.

Coulomb now says she was Madame B----'s confederate, and that

she was afraid of being taken up as a lunatic if she climbed

to the unicorn's horn where the cigarette was to be placed.

So she said the rain must have washed it away. Madame

Blavatsky showed mental weakness in not considering the

difficulties, and her fondness for cigarettes made her set

them too high in dignity as well as position.

At the very time that I was at Adyar, and despite a certain repugnance

to "occultism," sympathetically appreciating the serene harmony of the

Theosophists in their beautiful retreat amid the palms, the place was

turbid with discord, Madame Blavatsky at one end of the table and the

Coulombs at the other were even then in mortal combat. I have often

marvelled at the self-possession of the woman under the suspended

sword that presently fell.

The most curious thing about this turbaned Spiritualism is its

development of the Koothoomi myth. I asked Sir W. W. Hunter,

Gazetteer-General of India, and other orientalists, about the name of

this alleged Mahatma, or Rabat, and they declared Koothoomi to be

without analogies in any Hindu tongue, ancient or modern. I was

assured on good authority that the name was originally "Cotthume," and

a mere mixture of Ol-_cott_ and _Hume_, Madame Blavatsky's principal

adherents. Out of Madame's jest was evolved this incredible being, who

performed the part allotted to the aboriginal "John King" in America.

Sumangala, chief priest of the Buddhist world, though not unfriendly

to Theosophy, told me that it was a belief among them that there had

been Rahats in the early world. I gathered from him and others that

they are thought of as Enoch, Seth, Elias, etc., are in Christendom.

The Coulomb story is that a pasteboard doll, with half-shrouded head,

superimposed on the shoulders of Mr. Coulomb, himself orientally

draped, moved about in the dusk at Adyar when an "astral" apparition

was wanted. In an accession of conscience, Mrs. Coulomb, who is a

Catholic, smashed the effigy. She says she had not cared much so long

as Hindus only were cheated, because they believed such things anyway,

but she could not stand it when European gentlemen and ladies were

subjects of the imposture. Perhaps it was because of this moral

"strike" that Koothoomi was not tried on me.

What will be the future of Theosophy? Its age of miracles has passed,

and is more likely to be repudiated than renewed. It may easily be

held that even if Madame Blavatsky was sometimes tempted, in the

absence of her potent Guru, to satisfy the demand for signs and

wonders with devices, she performed wonders not so explicable. In one

of Madame Blavatsky's letters to Mrs. Coulomb, she says, defiantly, "I

have a thousand strings to my bow, and God Himself could not open the

eyes of those who believe in me." Elsewhere she quotes a letter she

(Blavatsky) has from Colonel Olcott, saying: "If Madame Coulomb, who

has undeniably helped you in some phenomena, for she told this to me

herself, were to proclaim it on the top of the roof, it would change

nothing in my knowledge, and that of Dr. Hartmann, Brown, Sinnett,

Hume, and so many others, in the appreciation of Theosophy and their

veneration for the brothers. You alone would suffer. For even if you

yourself were to tell me that the Mahatmas do not exist, and that you

have tricked in every phenomenon produced by you, I would answer you

that YOU LIE, for we know the Mahatmas, and know that you cannot--no

more than a fly on the moon--have produced certain of the best of your

phenomena." It should be stated here that, in the whole correspondence

revealed by Mrs. Coulomb, Colonel Olcott appears as the dupe of Madame

Blavatsky, and in no case accessory to imposture unless by an amazing

credulity.

We may assume that Colonel Olcott will continue his propaganda, and it

remains only to consider what vitality there is in Theosophy, apart

from its "occultism," and what competency its leader has for such

work. I gathered up in India a number of Colonel Olcott's addresses,

circulated in cheap form, and find them much like "The Veiled Isis"

ascribed to Madame Blavatsky. They contain a medley of Buddhist,

Brahmanic, and Zoroastrian traditions, interpreted in a mystical and

moral way, the only thing systematic being a Buddhist catechism. This

catechism was printed by the favor of a Singhalese lady, and approved,

for use in schools, by the Buddhist high priest Sumangala. Colonel

Olcott's theosophy on the negative side aims to combine all oriental

religions against Christianity. He has not "any belief in, or

connection with, Christianity in any form whatsoever." (_Theosophy and

Buddhism_, p. 2.) But he maintains the oriental philosophies, and to

some extent the mythologies, of eras corresponding to the discredited

biblical doctrines and legends. It is not, indeed, a literal

restoration; but no esoteric interpretation can make it very different

from an attempt to rationalize for Europeans ancient Druidism, or for

Americans Aztec fables and symbolism. This kind of revival appeals in

a certain way to the Rajahs whom English rule has reduced to

antiquarian curiosities; they too are survivals from primitive

religious and social systems. Colonel Olcott had patrons among the

Rajahs who used to send elephants to meet him, and entertain him in

their palaces. But young India is not going that way. English freedom

and English colleges have emancipated Hindu youth, and they look upon

the cruel idolatry under which their fathers groaned as Colonel Olcott

does on the Puritanism he fiercely denounces.

But if Colonel Olcott should give up his Rajahs and elephants, and fix

his headquarters in Ceylon, there would be, I believe, fair prospect

of a fruitful alliance of Theosophy with Buddhism. In this island, now

the centre of the Buddhist world, I found Madame Blavatsky

comparatively unimportant, the great personage being Colonel Olcott.

The Buddhists are a mild, speculative, unambitious people, easily

overborne by the aggressive missionaries, and were without any leader

to defend their rights before Olcott came. He came to their rescue in

a case where their procession was attacked by Catholics, while

enshrining relics of Buddha,--the Catholics thinking it a mockery of

their own processions. Colonel Olcott appealed to the government and

obtained redress. The Catholics (Portuguese) presently found some

holy well, pointed out, I believe, by a vision, where ailing pilgrims

were said to be healed,--among these a number of Buddhists who were

deserting their temples. Colonel Olcott announced that he would try

and heal sufferers in the name of Buddha, and it is said his success

quite eclipsed the holy well. Several eminent Buddhists told me that

he had healed members of their families. He is a robust man, of

powerful will, and in these days of hypnotism his influence over the

most passive of people may appear less wonderful to us than to them.

No Christian was found willing to meet him in debate. By lectures, in

which Ingersollism blends with Arnold's "Light of Asia," the Colonel

brought about a sort of Buddhist revival. The Singhalese saw the

Theosophists as wise men from the West, bringing frankincense and

myrrh to the cradle of their prophet. Although their high priest,

Sumangala, expressed disbelief in the Mahatmas, he valued the services

of Colonel Olcott. He was especially moved by a request from this

American for his permission to administer the _pansala_ to another

American. The ceremony took place at Madras. The two Americans, amid a

crowd of witnesses, went through formulas unheard there since the

ancient banishment of the Buddhists. "I take refuge in Buddha! I take

refuge in religion! I take refuge in Truth!" The Colorado doctor

(Hartmann) pledged observance of the Five Precepts (_pansala_):

abstinence from theft, lying, taking life, intoxicating drink,

adultery. All of this has profoundly impressed the Buddhist world, but

that is a world of humble people. It remains to be seen whether

Theosophy, which has hitherto shown an affection for titles in India

and London, is willing to take its place beside Buddha under his Bo

tree, and share the lowliness of his followers. This may be rather

hard after the rapid success of Theosophy in India, where in four

years from its foundation (1879) it counted seventy-seven flourishing

branches; but these are withering away under the Blavatsky scandals,

and if Theosophy is to live it must "take refuge in Buddha!"

EMANCIPATION BY NATIONALISM.

BY T. B. WAKEMAN.

The usually very liberal and skeptical Reverend Minot J. Savage has

become astonishingly, and it may be prematurely, certain on one

subject. In THE ARENA for August (p. 321) he declares that,

"Nationalism, freely chosen, would be the murder of liberty, and

social suicide." To which the usually impartial editor cries Amen,

thus:--

"I most heartily _and_ cordially endorse Mr. Savage's position." For

this sudden and decisive foreclosure of the future and of THE ARENA

upon Nationalism the world was not prepared. We enter a protest and an

appeal! Able "Gladiators are ready to fight for it," with aid and

sympathy from the leading reformers--the world over. The contest has

hardly begun. A Bunker Hill or a Bull Run does not end the war.

He who opened _an Arena_ must keep it open, and like "the God of

battles" wait for the best cause to win.

Suppose it be found, as we propose to begin to show here and now, that

Nationalism, under the laws of Sociology, is not the murder, but in

fact and theory, the only condition of liberty, and the only way out

from social suicide,--what then? Would it not have been better for THE

ARENA to have been kept open, as if by the aforesaid Deity, with a

level head and a stiff and silent upper lip?

For the Reverend and exultant Mr. Savage his exasperating situation is

his excuse. For, with the inbred and lethal instinct of a Theolog he

was put upon the trail of a brother Theolog to bring in his scalp. To

return without _some_ scalp would be a disgrace. But on coming up with

his reverend brother Bellamy, instead of finding him ready for fight

or "treed, like Capt. Scott's coon," he finds him already down and

explaining in the blandest style: That, whereas, "this difficulty" was

a secular one, not at all theological, but quite within the bounds of

"the Knowable," there was really no necessity for one brother to scalp

the other, although both were clergymen. He even proposed ways by

which the manifest benefit of both, and of all, could be secured if

they should hunt together, being sure to go no further than such

benefit justified. But an accommodation was just what the Reverend

Savage was not out to find. Shaking his war feathers, he says, "You

are too fair,--I must kill you, _or something_, though it may be

'cruelty to animals.' Stop,--I sniff 'paternalism'! It must be you or

yours!" And without waiting for an answer he bangs away at that old

skunk which hasn't a friend on this side of the world. Then, inflamed

by smell of powder, blood, or something worse, he goes it wild,

mistakes even the good social domestic animals for wild beasts, and

his reverend friend as their protector. His slaughter of these purely

imaginary enemies is accompanied by a self-approving wit, which only

exhales when, as Mephisto says, the Parson and Comedian are happily

combined, and inspire each other. But, alas! neither prayers nor

laughter can settle the industrial and political difficulties of our

day. They may do, and are doing, much to prevent such settlement,

which must come from people who do not live in another world, and

therefore are not free to ignore or to make a joke of this. There is

hope, therefore, when our reverend friend "ties his legs," and in his

said article settles down to steady numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4. For by them,

we can at least get hold of him, and all points in his prior antics

can be thereunder disposed of.

He delivers his first fire, thus:--

"1. The world began in Socialism. In the barbaric period the tribe was

all, the individual nothing. Every step of human progress has kept

pace with the rise of the individual."

Most true! But that is half of the truth. If you had told the other

half your article could not have been written, for it would have been

answered beforehand from a to z. The other half is: That the rise of

the individual has always been because of, and the result of, the

concomitant and ever-increasing Socialism. The two have ever gone, and

must ever go, hand in hand. Integration is the inevitable counterpart

of individuation.

The Arena, Volume 4, No. 23, October, 1891 · 第 6 / 11 段