A Collection of Esoteric Writings of T. Subba Row/Adwaita Philosophy
ADWAITA PHILOSOPHY.
[As the subjoined letter comes from such a learned source, we do not feel justified in commenting upon it editorially, our personal knowledge of the Adwaita doctorine being unquestionably very meagre when contrasted with that of a Paramahamsa. Yet we felt a strong suspicion that, whether owing to a mistranslation or an "original misconception" there was an error with regard to Tadpada, called heiein the 8th principle. Hence—the foot-notes by our learned brother T. Subba Row, to whom we turned over the MS. for reply. We know of no better authority in India in anything concerning the esotericism of the Adwaita philosophy.—Ed.]
The following few lines are from an Indian Hermit in the Himalayas—and these convey a mere hint which may help to eradicate by means of your valuable journal a very serious error which has been misleading the Western Philosophers for the past (nearly) nineteen hundred years—we mean the historical sense in which the Bible has been accepted by the Orthodox Christians of the day. We are surprised to find that the modern spiritualists in the West have ignored this very important subject and are sitting quite apathetic—while they profess to have pledged themselves to the establishment of truth.
We see that the British Government makes now and then a sudden and spasmodic effort to have the English version of the Bible revised and corrected; and still the good people of Christendom—(we mean that portion which is seeking after truth—and not the selfish and handsomely paid missionaries)—fail to reap the fruit they so long for. Now and again we find some correspondence on this subject in the Theosophist, but it does not seem to end in any tangible result. Up to this time we have been reading and hearing of only the literal Bible, but not a single word of the esoteric spirit to enliven it do we find therein. If the Bible, as interpreted by the bigoted missionaries, is really a book of history, or even of morality, then, it cannot be a book of divine inspiration; hence but little fit to form the foundation of State-religions. Unless a full view be taken of the Bible from different standpoints, it cannot be decided whether it be true or not. We will try to put its credibility to a test by a few points quoted from the New Testament, and see:—
1.—Whether the Bible speaks symbolically or literally, i.e., whether the Bible is Theosophy or History?
2.—Whether the guiding star which appeared to the wise men from the East was really a star or only a metaphor for something higher and nobler?
3.—Whether the powers ascribed to Christ in the Bible were physical, metaphysical, (supersensuous?) or spiritual?
4.—Whether a gijnasu (seeker after truth and salvation) can derive the smallest benefit from ths said Biblical history of the physical and incarnate Christ?
5.—What is the proper time to practise the teachings of the Bible? And who are the persons most fit to study the New Testament?
These are the few points in which the Bible ought to be examined.
On behalf of our sister Theosophy, we give our personal solutions upon the questions as above raised. We call upon all the spiritually inclined, right-thinking, pious and impartial men and Theosophists throughout the four quarters of the Globe to judge of, and to criticise, our answers, and to give their verdict in the matter. The subject is one of the greatest importance, and if need be, will be decided by appealing even to the verdict of the Spirit itself.
1.—As a book of Revelation the Bible cannot and ought not to be a book of history.
2.—Its utterances are almost entirely allegorical: and a spiritual commentary is urgently needed to make them acceptable to the students of Tbeosophy. Vedanta and the New Testament, if properly understood, mean the same thing in the abstract.
3.—The guiding star does by no means mean a real objective star; such a version is quite against the laws of Nature, Reason and Tbeosophy. Vedantists regard this star as Pranava, or Jivatma, the witness soul or Sakshi Chaitanya. It is the seventh principle of the Theosophists,*[1] Yoga-Acharyas, Tantrikas and Shivas, called in Brahmavidya or Mahavidya.†[2] The Mahomedan Theosophists believe and teach of the existence of this star before Creation, or before Táus (peacock) was prodnced. Temples dedicated to this allegorical Star are yet to be found among several nations of Asia; and some great Theologians speak of this star as "Spirit." We hermits—if any valae be attached to our words—regard it as kutastha and liable to be merged into the eighth principle or Tatpada‡[3] as such. We do not understand, how it can appear as a material substance to some particular persons (wise men) when it has existed from the unknown and unknowable time! How can it be possible that a material thing, unless compelled and then drawn back by some living-force, should stop of itself as described in the Bible? We are of opinion that the star in question is nothing but spirit and is identical with the entity meant in the Revelation. It is as if it were a condensed spirit (vîz. Soul); and this star ought to be taken as the real Christ, the Saviour and the guide.
4.—To call the powers ascribed to Christ, physical or metaphysical, is sheer ignorance and an insult to Spirit. Hitherto many adepts have been seen and heard of, to possess extraordinary powers of various kinds, more marvellous than those described in the Bible; and these were all spiritual. The Tantras, Yoga and other Aryan occult works will tell how they can be acquired. We have already stated that, unless a spiritual commentary is added to the Bible, it is worse than useless to a follower of Theosophy; and no spiritual benefit whatever can ensure from it, except perhaps the idea of an imaginary and external "Heaven and Hell."
5.—The Old Testament is the Karma Kanda; and the New Testament, the Gyana Kanda of Theosophy. Those only who have prepared themselves after going through the routine of the Old Testament are entitled to practise the teachings of the New Testament; and not the schoolboys or the low castemen to whom it is now-a-days offered by the missionaries. The former, i. e., boys and low castes, are not fit persons for it.
In conclusion, we earnestly request Mr. Oxley, who have been so good as to take such a kind notice of the Bhagavat-Gita, and who is so eminently qualified for the task; and also appeal to the fellows of the Theosophical Society, who have spiritual Gurus to consult, and with whom they ought to communicate on the subject, to take in hand this arduous task of interpreting the Bible esoterically. For, nothing will better help the growth of Theosophy in both East and West.
Firstly, we make an appeal to the "Comforter" (the Holy Ghost of the Bible) itself, to decide whether the Bible has an allegorical, spiritual or a literal dead-letter meaning. We may also remark here that some of the Brothers whom we find occasionally mentioned in the Theosophist, and whom we have the pleasure of knowing by another name,*[4] would approve of our plan if asked. But the star itself—our every-day guide—has directed us to write this. All the seekers of truth ought to enquire into this solemn subject, without the least prejudice or bias. Millions of generations are interested in this question; and to solve it for the good of humanity should be the aim of every true Theosophist.†[5]
|
PARAMAHAMSA SWAMI. |
- ↑ * Strictly speaking Pranaca is not Jivatma or the 7th principle in man. It represents the condition or the aspect of the 7th principle in the highest state of Nirvana—T. Subba Row.
- ↑ † The 7th principle itself can never be called by either of tbose names, though it may be the subject of Brahmavidya or Mahavidya.—T. S. R.
- ↑ ‡ The statement is not quite in accordance with the doctrines of Adwaita philosophy. If the star in question is taken to indicate the 7th principle in man as above stated,—it is not Kutastha from the standpoint of a real Adwaitee. As is well-known to learned Adwaitee a clear line of distinction is drawn between Kutastha and Uttamapurusha (otherwise called Paramatma) in a well-known Sloka of Bhagavat-Gita:—
द्वाविमौ पुरुषौ लोके क्षरश्चाक्षर एवच ॥
क्षरः सर्वाणि भूतानि कूटस्थोऽक्षरउच्यते ॥अध्या॰ १५ श्लो॰ १६.
Now if Kutastha means the 7th principle in man, the distinction thus drawn will really be a distinction between Paramatma and Jeevatma. This distinction or separation is denied by real Adwaitees. Hence, as is clearly pointed out by Sankaracharia in his able Commentary on the above-mentioned Sloka, as well as in the other portions of his "Bhashyam," Kutastha is not the 7th principle in man. It is merely called Vignanatma by Sankarachariar and corresponds with the 7th spiritual Ego or the 6th principle of the Theosophists.
It is absurd to say that the "Tatpada" is the 8th principle. Now, this Tatpada is either identical with the 7th principle or it is not. If it is really identical with the Tawampada of the Mahavakya it is impossible to understand why it should be described as the 8th principle. If it is not, the views of the learned Hermit are opposed to the fundamental doctrine of the Adwaita philosophy and the grand truth indicated by the Samaveda Mahavakyam alluded to. I invite the great Paramahamsa Swami of Almora to explain what he really means.
T. SUBBA ROW.
- ↑ * Not that of "refined Tantrikas"—we hope, as they were once called?—T. S. R.
- ↑ † Those who have any knowledge of the "Brothers" are well aware that they have ever and most emphatically insisted upon the esoteric interpretation of the ancient Scriptures of every great religion. "Isis Unveiled," by H. P. Blavatsky, is full of the real meaning—as interpreted by the Kabalists—of the Jewish and Christian Bible. And now, there has just been published that wonderfully clever book written by two English seers—"The Perfect Way," a work of which it can be truly said that it is more inspired than the book it interprets. But, why should the learned Swami of Almora insist upon the esoteric interpretation of the Bible alone without any concern for the Vedas, the Tripitakas and the Upanishads, all three far more important, is something we fail to comprehend.—T. S. R.