Vol 4 Page 400

TO THE “DISSATISFIED”

[The Theosophist, Vol. IV, No. 8, May, 1883, p. 181]

We have belief in the fitness and usefulness of impartial criticism, and even at times in that of a judicious onslaught upon some of the many creeds and philosophies, as we have in advocating the publication of all such polemics. Any sane man acquainted with human nature, must see that this eternal “taking on faith” of the most absurdly conflicting dogmas in our age of scientific progress will never do, that it is impossible that it can last. Our journal being devoted to the presentation of every creed in all its naked truthfulness, and resolved to favour none in preference to another, its columns are therefore open to writers of all and nearly every creed known—at least on hearsay—to the civilized world. Thus there is some chance for all getting, by comparing notes, to the bottom of more than one mystery, and of eliminating a few truths out of this jungle of more or less philosophical and metaphysical concepts. We have seen the folly of the system of favouritism and sectarianism to the exclusion of all other opinions prevalent among most of the periodicals in India; and we are resolved that in the management of The Theosophist the rule of religious impartiality shall be strictly observed. We form the circle of its contributors from the ranks of Heathen and Christian, of Materialists and Spiritualists, Theists, Atheists, and Polytheists, men of ability, in short, wherever to be

Page 401

found, without enquiring into their faith and without the smallest preference given to personal partialities or antipathies. Nevertheless, we have not hitherto been able to satisfy all our readers, nor our correspondents either. In the opinion of the former, our columns and editorials which are expected to acquaint our subscribers with every newfangled doctrine, with the exposition of every religion old or new for the necessity of comparison, has, at the same time, to remain “goody goody,” never treading upon the toes of the creed under analysis, nor expressing an honest opinion upon its professors. With our contributors it is still worse. We are either to be deluged with the rubbish that can find admission to the columns of no other periodical, or stand accused of “favouritism,” something we have altogether and strenuously avoided. To those contributors whom the present cap will fit, we can answer but the following: “Gentlemen, our Magazine is by no means intended to be a refuge for the destitute, an omnium gatherum for those who have to satisfy an old grudge; nor is it a receptacle for any and everything which may not be able to find hospitality even in its own sectarian journals. The Theosophist does not take for its foundation-principle the idea that because an atheistical article has been rejected by a paper conducted by a Theist, it must, therefore, find room in these impartial columns, in order that justice be strictly dealt out; but it rather proceeds to have the MS., handed to it for publication, opened and carefully read before it can consent to send it over to its printers. An able article has never sought admission into our pages and been rejected for its advocating any of the religious doctrines or views to which its conductor felt personally opposed. On the other hand, the editor has never hesitated to give any one of the above said religions and doctrines its dues, and speak out the truth whether it pleased a certain faction of its sectarian readers, or not. We neither court nor claim favour. Nor to satisfy the sentimental emotions and susceptibilities of some of our readers do we feel prepared to allow our columns to appear colourless, least of all, for fear that our own house should be shown as “also of glass.”