Vol 4 Page 148

AN “HONEST” ENQUIRY INTO THE AIMS OF OUR SOCIETY

[The Theosophist, Vol. III, No. 10, July, 1882, p. 258]

(A Pamphlet published by a good and Holy Man.)

We have been kindly favoured with a copy of a little pamphlet entitled: “THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY AND ITS FOUNDERS; an honest Enquiry into their Aims and Proceedings.” MAGNA EST VERITAS (!!).
We have no doubt that the compiler is a good, simple man, very modest—since his compilation is published anonymously—and means well, as his production is sold by the Christian Tract Society, evidently under the auspices of the good missionaries. But good intentions alone will not

Page 149

unfortunately suffice to produce a useful, or even a readable, pamphlet; some mental capacity is requisite to understand the points at issue, and some judgment to avoid reproducing, under the belief that they are facts, fictions, and forgeries, put forward by less well-intentioned persons than himself and patrons. That the compiler is well intentioned (to his own party) no one can doubt. He is well intentioned—for, he writes pro bono publico; that his character is saintly, may be inferred from the holy horror he shows at the undeniable deceit, perversity, and ungodliness of the heroes of his exposé—the Founders of the Theosophical Society; and that he is a man of culture—who can doubt—since he calls Madame Blavatsky “a liar”? She is a liar, he says, since she publicly denies in print that “the Theosophical Society was ever a Branch of the Arya Samaj.” And yet her above-given statement is proved by documentary evidence over the signature of Swami Dayanand himself in the Extra Supplement to this issue (which please read). Among the many truthful statements in this “Honest Enquiry” into the proceedings of the leading Theosophists, we find such sensational news as the following:
“Mr. Sinnett before bringing out his book, entitled The Occult World, had several private interviews with the Pandit (Dayanand) from whom he borrowed many ideas respecting ‘Yog Vidya’ (i.e. Occult Science). Accordingly, Mr. Sinnett cannot lay claim to the originality of the work”!! If the good compiler, who winds up by begging (vain prayer, we fear!) that the world may hear no more of Theosophy, could only realize the number and extent of the misstatements that he has succeeded in embodying in his little pamphlet, we fear that his remorse would prevent him from undertaking any such literary work in the future, which—would be a pity.