by Theosophy Wiki
Accessed: 3/5/21
Hurrichund Chintamon was a disciple of Dayanand and President of the Arya Samaj of Bombay in 1878, when the Theosophical Society formed an alliance with the organization. Soon after the Founders arrived in Bombay, they found out Chintamon had mishandled the funds sent by them from the USA and was expelled. He later was an important figure in the formation of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor.
Work in photography
Hurrichund Chintamon was a pioneer of photography in India. Martin W. Sandler wrote:
The early popularity of photography in India, particularly in Bombay, was also due in great measure to the contribution of one pioneer photographer, Hurrychind Chintamon. . . . Chintamon was the most masterful and most successful of the early Indian photographers who captured carte-de-visite images of literary, political, and business figures.[1]
Theosophical involvement
According to the Membership Register of the Theosophical Society, Chintamon was admitted as a member in 1877[2] The Readers Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett states:
Chintamon, Hurrychund, a chela of Dayanand of the Arya Samaj movement... While HPB and HSO were still in the USA they had correspondence with him and sent fees to the Arya Samaj through him. It was discovered that he had diverted these funds, amounting to about Rs. 600, to his own pocket. Later he attempted to arouse suspicion of HPB as a "Russian spy." He was expelled from both the TS and the Arya Samaj and decamped to England with Rs. 4,000 belonging to the latter body.
He was expelled from the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj on May 13, 1879.
Towards the end of 1882 Chintamon went to London and met with Mr. Massey. He produced some letters supposed to come from Mme. Blavatsky, incriminating her in the creation of a hoax in relation to the Mahatmas. In October 1882, Master K.H. wrote to A. P. Sinnett:
Hurrychund Chintamon of Bombay, now of Manchester and elsewhere; the man who robbed the Founders and Dayanand of Rs. 4,000, deceived and imposed upon them from the first (so far back as New York), and then, exposed and expelled from the Society ran away to England and is ever since seeking and thirsting for his revenge.[3]
Hurrychund Chintamon never failed once during the last three years to take into his confidence every theosophist he met, pouring into his ears pretended news from Bombay about the duplicity of the Founders; and to spread reports among the spiritualists about Mad. B’s pretended phenomena, showing them all as simply “impudent tricks” — since she has no real idea of the Yoga powers; or again showing letters from her, received by him while she was in America; and in which she is made to advise him to pretend — he is a “Brother” and thus deceive the British theosophists the better . . . H.C. is doing all this and much more[4]
Later years
Hurrychund Chintamon was an important figure in the origination of the "Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor". Eventually, he was forced to leave England (again for mismanagement of money) and seems to have disappeared in the USA.[5]
Online resources
• Hurrichund Chintamon at HistoryoftheAdepts.com
Notes
1. Martin W. Sandler, (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2002), 32
2. Membership Register. Theosophical Society Adyar Archives.
3. Vicente Hao Chin, Jr., The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett in chronological sequence No. 92 (Quezon City: Theosophical Publishing House, 1993), 291.
4. Vicente Hao Chin, Jr., The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett in chronological sequence No. 92 (Quezon City: Theosophical Publishing House, 1993), 291.
5. George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson, eds., Readers Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett (Adyar, Chennai, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1972), 223.
***********************************
Hurrychund Chintamon
by The Church of Light
November 24, 2010
One of the many mysterious elements in the origins of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor is the role of Hurrychund Chintamon as an advisor to its founders Burgoyne and Davidson. In Photography: an Illustrated History, Martin W. Sander writes “The early popularity of photography in India, particularly in Bombay, was also due in great measure to the contribution of one pioneer photographer, Hurrychind Chintamon…the most masterful and most successful of the early Indian photographers who captured carte-de-visite images of literary, political, and business figures, Chintamon’s most famous carte was a portrait of the Maharaja of Baroda. Thousands of these images were distributed throughout India.”(p.32) An online history of photography in the Indian subcontinent explains that Elphinstone College in Bombay began to offer instruction in 1855, “where classes consisting predominantly of Indian students were introduced to a wide range of photographic processes. Among the graduates of these classes was Hurrichund Chintamon, who thereafter established a successful studio in Bombay which survived until the 1880s.” Chintamon left a tremendous photographic legacy of which traces are found on the Web.
Hurrichund Chintamon was the President of the Bombay Arya Samaj in 1878 when the Theosophical Society formed an alliance with Swami Dayananda Sarasvati, the Arya Samaj founder. Soon after the arrival in Bombay of Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky, Chintamon was expelled by the Arya Samaj and the TS for mishandling of funds sent from the latter to the former. The reason he could successfully link the TS and Arya Samaj with an assortment of rajas and maharajas is that he knew them by virtue of having photographed many of them. This helps explain a letter from HPB to Chintamon, which he shared with Richard Hodgson who quoted it in his Report on the Theosophical Society:
As for the future Fellows of our Indian branch, have your eyes upon the chance of fishing out of the great ocean of Hindu hated for Christian missionaries some of those big fish you can Rajahs, and whales known as Maharajahs. Could you not hook out for your Bombay branch either Gwalior (Scindia) or the Holkar of Indore—those most faithful and loyal subjects of the British (?). (SPR Report on the TS, p. 316)
Both of these maharajas did in fact support the TS, presumably through Chintamon’s influence. Mahatma Letter #54, allegedly from Koot Hoomi, refers to “the man who robbed the Founders and Dayanand of Rs. 4,000, deceived and imposed upon them from the first (so far back as New York), and then exposed and expelled from the Society ran away to England and is ever since seeking and thirsting for his revenge.” (Mahatma Letters, p. 306.) But in 1878, before meeting him, in an article “A Society Without a Dogma” HPB referred to “the famous commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita of our brother Hurrychund Chintamon”, and quotes him to the effect that “In Hindustan, as in England, there are doctrines for the learned, and dogmas for the unlearned; strong meat for men and milk for babes; facts for the few, and fictions for the many, realities for the wise, and romances for the simple; esoteric truth for the philosopher, and exoteric fable for the fool.”(Blavatsky Collected Writings, I:306) Within a few years Chintamon would accuse Blavatsky of adding to the stock of Indian fictions and fables, and produce documentary evidence that supported his accusation.
Even after Chintamon’s departure from India, Swami Dayananda and the TS continued in amicable relations for another three years, but in 1882 the Swami publicly denounced the Theosophists and called Blavatsky a fraud and juggler. The 1884 confessions of Emma and Alexis Coulomb to fraudulent delivery of Mahatma letters led to the investigation of the TS by Richard Hodgson, sponsored by the Society for Psychical Research. His 1885 Report relied in important details on the testimony of a correspondent of Blavatsky whose initials are H.C., and context makes it clear that Chintamon was his informant. A letter dated May 22, 1878 from Blavatsky to Chintamon was transcribed by Eleanor Sidgwick and is now the archives of the Society for Psychical Research. This date is highly significant as the official date of the amalgamation of the Theosophical Society and the Arya Samaj. The transcription was published in the first volume of the Letters of H.P. Blavatsky. Sidgwick paraphrases at times but mostly the letter seems to be directly transcribed. HPB acknowledges Chintamon’s last letter and discusses the amalgamation of the TS and the Arya Samaj. She writes that C.C. Massey, perhaps the most devoted member in England, is son of an MP and a congenital mystic, adding “I feel perfectly sure, that if Pundit Dayanand will write to him any request he will joyfully comply.” She then appeals to Chintamon to induce Dayananda to sign what might later be called two Mahatma letters, one to Massey and one to Emily Kislingbury, composed by HPB. She suggests that he is free to edit to his satisfaction:
C.C. Massey has for three years bravely defended theosophy, our Society and selves. But what can we do? He hungers after truth, and the sight of a fakir’s phenomenon (however fanatical and idolatrous) would make him do anything in the world. Another brave loyal heart is Miss Emily Kislingbury, secretary, guiding spirit and in fact soul of the B.N.A. of Spts (British National Association of Spiritualists.) She has courage enough to make herself a heroine, and her motives and character are as pure as gold. But, like most women her emotional nature calls for a proof to lean upon; and for lack of that (since we all repudiate mediumship) she feels as though she would turn to the Xn church for support… Here is a prize—or rather two—worth the having. This little woman gathers about her some of the first writers in England, and is a power for good under wise direction. We want you to secure her from her weaker self. Write to her in the name of the Arya Samaj and to C.C. Massey (I send you both addresses) and in the name of TRUTH save them both! A direct letter from India would fire the zeal of both, for it is what they have been waiting and hoping for for three years. They regard India as the land of mystery, wisdom and *Spiritual Power*. My devotion, love and enthusiasm for India has fired them both (for last year they have come both—C.C. Massey and Emily Kislingbury—across the ocean to see me and lived with me) but unfortunately I am but a white-faced IDIOT not a Hindu, what can I do more! In the name of truth then and the great Unseen, Power, help me to rescue both these enthusiasts either from Christianity—worse than that- Catholicism, in which both are diving rapidly and give them work to do— *real hard* work, for both are of the stuff that helps making MARTYRS. Show this letter to our revered pundit—perhaps, he will consent to help and advise me. The more mystery you can throw about the communication the better and deeper impression it will make. If it would not be deemed impertinent of me to suggest a form of a letter I would propose the following:Charles Carleton Massey Esq
Atheneaum Club—London
Dear Brother
The `Brothers’ in India look to you to take the Presidency of the British Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj. Great consequences may follow. After three years of expectation the WORD comes. Are you ready? If so—act.’ (Here let the Pundit write his name in *Sanskrit characters* and date
it from wherever he likes.)
The letter to Miss Kislingbury should be worded:–
Emily Kislingbury, 38 Great Russell Street London
Dear Sister
Only the weak need a crutch. There is no primal truth in Earthly writings outside the Vedas: all else is derivation. If you seek consolation seek it there; if support it is there to be found (or something to that effect—you know better what to say.) The reality of the Word made Flesh is to be found in humanity—The highest avatar of the Son. Have patience & work for your fellow creatures and you will see Light in the East. A true Theosophist of the Arya Samaj will not wait in vain.
(Follow again the pundits or any other signature in Sanskrit)
We know the mind to be worked upon and will guarantee results if the Pundit kindly permits the letters to be written. Deeply as C C Massey and Emily Kislingbury love us, good theosophists as they are, nothing that we could do will have such an effect as these letters from India. For the present, it will be far better that these two should not know who addresses them. Later when the London branch is actively working, we will put you in full communion. Do not think we are resorting to childish method. Believe me, we know what is best for these EX-Spiritualists—these half-born theosophists. There are others, in different parts of Europe to whom after a little we will ask you to address ourselves. (Letters, Vol. 1, pp. 435-437)
Massey and Kislingbury were the President and Secretary of the British TS. Blavatsky had found Olcott easily persuaded by letters from adept authority figures, and clearly hoped that Massey and Kislingbury would become equally devoted to Theosophy on the same basis. Dayananda had no interest in Mahatma letters and ended up denouncing Blavatsky and Olcott for their involvement in such phenomena. But instead of alerting Dayananda to the nature of the dubious requests made by HPB, Chintamon seems to have kept him in the dark. In November 1880 when Mahatma correspondence between Koot Hoomi and A.P. Sinnett was inaugurated, Dayananda was apparently taken by surprise and felt betrayed by this development. He wrote to her “Madame Blavatsky…whatever you had written to me from America, or discussed with me at Saharanpur, Meerut, Kashi, etc….does not seem to conform with your present activities.” (Autobiography of Dayanand Saraswati, p. 68) Chintamon himself lent a hand with HPB’s schemes to impress Massey, however. Olcott and HPB stopped in London in early 1879 en route to Bombay from New York, and during this visit they saw Massey at the home of a mutual friend, the medium Mary Hollis-Billing. As told by Marion Meade in Madame Blavatsky, “after dinner, at Mary’s instigation, Helena fished around under the table and `materialized’ a Japanese teapot and later, as Massey was preparing to depart, she told him to reach into his overcoat pocket. To his amazed delight, he withdrew an inlaid Indian cardcase containing a slip of paper that bore Hurrychund Chintamon’s autograph.”(p. 194) In 1884, after meeting Chintamon and hearing his account of his dealings with the TS, Massey announced his resignation as British TS President in the journal Light, writing “The evidence for the existence of Adepts — or “Mahatmas,” since that term is now preferred — and even of their connection with individual members of the Theosophical Society, need not here concern us. We may, and I do, accept it; and yet see in their methods, or rather in the things that are said and done in their names, such deviations from our Philistine sense of truth and honour as to assure us that something is very wrong somewhere.”
Explanation of the "Kiddle Incident" in the Fourth Edition of The "Occult World"
by C.C. Massey
Light (London), pp. 307-9
July 26, 1884
I have very recently procured a copy of the fourth edition of "The Occult World." As noted by "M. A. (Oxon."), two or three weeks ago, the Appendix contains an explanation by Koot Hoomi of the above perplexing incident. Although Mr. Sinnett tells us that the subject had lost its interest for all persons in England whose opinion he valued, and that in the London Theosophical Society it was looked upon as little more than a joke, I venture to think that the explanation deserves a more careful examination than it seems yet to have received. I should certainly not offer to discuss the subject before a society where it is treated as a joke, but as the readers of your paper are interested in psychological problems, and this question has been already before them, some of them may like to look a little more closely into the explanation now given to the public in Mr. Sinnett’s book.
At first sight, nothing can be more intelligible, and at the same time instructive, than the account given us. The adept has to impress the chela, and the chela has to transmit the impression to paper. Upon the distinctness and vivacity of the former’s impelling thought, on the one hand, and on the attentive apprehension by the latter, on the other hand, depend the fidelity and clearness of the final representation on the paper. Given a defect in the first condition, the chela will get only a confused and blurred impression, and can pass nothing more on to the material vehicle. Given a defect in the second condition -- imperfect attention to, or apprehension of, what is conveyed -- and again the same result. In this case, taking the words and lines now printed in italics, and which are those which had to be "restored" from the original document, by reason of the chela’s inability to decipher and transcribe them, I find that they amount to about thirty-one lines out of fifty-three. And they are, as the Adept says, "precisely those phrases which would have shewn the passages were simply reminiscences, if not quotations," and thus have precluded the suggestion that passages taken without acknowledgment from the Banner of Light could not belong to a letter dictated by a veritable "Mahatma" in India or Thibet. How came it, then, that it was just these explanatory portions and none other that the Adept failed to transmit, or his chela to receive, distinctly?
At first, and till I came to examine and compare the sentences in detail, I was disposed to accept Koot Hoomi’s reply to this question as clear and satisfactory, since the simpler solution (on occult principles, which had occurred to some of us, was not the right one. The explanation is this: Koot Hoomi having, for reasons stated, made himself acquainted with certain typical utterances of American Spiritualists at Lake Pleasant, retained them in his memory for the purpose of comparison or contrast with the true ideas of which they shewed a dawning but imperfect apprehension. His own comments and interpolations, on the other hand, were excogitated at the moment, and when he was in a state of physical exhaustion. The result was that though he could still compose the well-framed sentences now "restored," and could even project a tracing of them to the chela’s mind, they were in the back-ground, as it were, of his consciousness, and were not propelled with the requisite energy. Whereas Mr. Kiddle’s sentences, being clear in memory, stood out at the surface, and were more easily, and therefore more distinctly, detached.
"While dictating the sentences quoted -- a small portion of the many I had been pondering over for some days -- it was those ideas that were thrown out en relief the most, leaving out my own parenthetical remarks to disappear in the precipitation."
And again: --
"So I, in this instance, having, at the moment, more vividly in my mind the psychic diagnosis of current spiritualistic thought, of which the Lake Pleasant speech was one marked symptom, unwittingly transferred that reminiscence more vividly than my own remarks upon it and deductions therefrom. So to say, the ‘despoiled victims’ -- Mr. Kiddle’s -- utterances came out as a high light, and were more sharply photographed (first in the chela’s brain, and thence on the paper before him, a double process and one far more difficult than Thought-reading simply), while the rest, my remarks thereupon and arguments, are hardly visible, and quite blurred on the original scraps before me."
Now all this is quite intelligible on the face of it; and it is only when we look into the matter more closely and compare the several texts that it becomes less easy to accept the statement. Referring to the letter as originally printed, I find that what we have of it (Mr. Sinnett giving only extracts from the correspondence) occupies fifty-six lines of pp. 101-2 of the new edition of "The Occult World." No exception is taken to the first thirty lines on the score of incompleteness, and we have to suppose that the Adept’s inability to project his own composition accurately and clearly began just when it got mixed up with Mr. Kiddle’s sentences -- the latter half (twenty-six lines) of the letter. The tangle begins with "Plato was right" at line thirty. Then suddenly there are nine lines (of Appendix print) clean dropped out, the sentence continuing with Mr. Kiddle’s "Ideas rule the world;" and so it goes on for a bit with Mr. Kiddle’s language, the Adept being just awake enough to substitute the future for the present tense, and to insert "creeds and even powers" among the things that are to crumble before the march of ideas. Again four or five lines dropped (relating to the foolishness of the Spiritualists), and then by a revival of energy we get three or four more lines of Koot Hoomi’s own upon the congenial topic of sweeping away the dross left us by our pious forefathers. Next, bearing in mind the explanation that it was all intended as a running commentary upon, and correction of, the Spiritualistic utterances, partially reproduced, let us see how further comparison bears that out. The key-note of the whole is, of course, Spiritualism and its ideas, and Mr. Kiddle had said, "the agency called Spiritualism is bringing a new set of ideas into the world," &c. Yet not in a single instance does the Adept succeed in effectually projecting the word spiritualism or Spiritualists (though he tried four times, as appears by the restored version), or anything whereby the chela would understand what was meant. And, curiously enough, the omissions include not only Koot Hoomi’s own new and less vividly represented words, whenever these words would have thrown light on the subject-matter of the discourse, but also phrases of Mr. Kiddle’s, which Koot Hoomi had so well pondered, and which stood out so sharply in his memory, whenever these conflicted with the ideas of Occultism. Thus we have the above passage of Mr. Kiddle’s about Spiritualism suppressed, and his expressions relating to the "Divine Will," both of which we find, more or less complete -- with a commentary -- in the restored version. Not less curiously, on the other hand, the chela, while failing to catch such phases of Mr. Kiddle’s, is now and then exceptionally impressed by the feebly transmitted words of the commentary, when these come in well to impart a dash of Occultism or Adept philosophy to what is retained of Mr. Kiddle’s. In addition to the instances of this already quoted, we have the reference to "previous and future births") which should have been "future not previous births"), the word "immutable" before "law," and the word "uninitiated" before "mortals."
Similarly, a good deal of criticism might be expended on the sentence tacked on to "Plato was right." From the sceptical point of view, one can see what a difficulty there was here. "Plato was right" had to be retained, because the chela would not have invented the words; but then it had to be separated from Mr. Kiddle’s "Ideas rule the world," and some connection must be inserted between the two, leading up to the Spiritualists, and so accounting for the quotation. This could not be done in a few words, and so we have this monstrous lacuna of nine lines, this sudden and long failure of power, where all before had gone smoothly.
Without a full reprint of all the three texts the improbability of the third having ever been included or designed cannot be adequately appreciated. Seeing that your space is limited, those who wish to master the question must be referred to the book itself, now published at a very cheap rate.
Koot Hoomi thinks that Mr. Sinnett ought to have perceived a discrepancy in the original version with the earlier part of the letter -- an indication that something was wrong in the transcript he had received. But with submission, this is not at all apparent. All seems fairly relevant, at least as relevant in the original as in the reformed version. Indeed I think the transition is much more strange and violent in the latter than in the former. The reference to the supremacy of ideas in the historical development of the world seems to me more natural in regard to the great results just before predicted for Occultism than is a comparison of the methods of Plato and Socrates, and a criticism of the views and expressions of Spiritualists.
Literary criticism is by no means exhausted by the foregoing observations. Take, for instance, the phrase "noumena, not phenomena," in the restored version. We have all heard a great deal of "noumena," as distinguished from phenomena, lately, and the word has become familiar. With Western metaphysicians, of course, it has been long in use. And a Thibetan Adept might, no doubt, know all the words that ever were coined, and their meaning. But recondite terms are only thrown out incidentally when they are "in the air," and I confess I doubt whether nearly four years ago, when this letter was written, such familiarity with metaphysical terminology would have been assumed in a correspondence of this character. That, however, is only one of several minor points to which little weight would be attached if they stood alone. Yet it would be interesting to learn from Mr. Sinnett whether this word turns up here for the first time in his correspondence with Koot Hoomi, or whether it occurs in the strictly philosophical letters (wherein it would often be relevant) upon which "Esoteric Buddhism" is founded.
I must now advert to another point invalidating, I think, the whole supposition which struck me at first so plausibly. Would the relative mental prominence of the ideas and phrases to be conveyed, and therefore their relative facility of transference, be such as is alleged in this case?
Certainly, a passage with which I am very familiar -- a favourite one from Shakespeare, for instance -- will stand out in my mind more easily and distinctly than the context of my own words in quoting it. But is that the case when I am dealing controversially with the language of another, however clearly I may have committed it to memory? I think then that my consciousness, my thought, gives as much prominence to my own characterisation of the passage I quote as to the passage itself. Were I a thought-transferer, I doubt if I could pass on the words quoted to the recipient without verbal colour of my own -- unless that was my intention. Or rather, I do not think that could happen when, as in this case, the quotation and the commentary are not kept apart, but the one interlaces the other, so that the quoted words are not allowed to run on continuously, the comment being postponed, but the latter, with its nay, nay, is intruded into the fabric of the sentence. In that case, I submit, there is almost necessarily a mental vehemence or emphasis which must present my own words at least as vividly as mere memory presents the quoted ones. To suppose that in such a mixed composition nearly all that to which I myself attach importance, which is the motive of the whole composition, can be neatly and exactly eliminated as here described, passes my understanding, and therefore, I frankly avow -- having regard to all the facts that seem to me relevant in this case -- my present belief.
I do not presume to follow the question into the mystery of "precipitation," that final process as to which the analogy of our "Thought-transference" experiments will not help us. All these omitted thirty-one lines, consisting of whole long passages, short sentences, fragments of sentences, and single words, though not intelligibly impressed on the chela’s consciousness, nevertheless so far reached it that some trace of them, recognisable by their author, got transferred to the paper. The restoration is not from memory alone of what was dictated, but from memory aided and suggested by a faint and blurred record. That sufficiently appears from Koot Hoomi’s statement of the facts. It further appears that the rapport between Adept and chela is such that the latter can telegraph back to the former, since Koot Hoomi was actually asked "at the time," by his chela, to "look over and correct" the imprint. Being very tired, he declined. But one would have thought that when the chela found the word-pictures or sounds, as the case may be, of whole sentences coming blurred and unintelligible, he would have at once, and before or at the time of precipitation, intimated that fact to his chief, so as to arrest a communication which must prove so defective as a whole. But as to this, we are not qualified by knowledge of all the conditions and circumstances to judge with confidence.
We have finally to consider the value of the evidence of Mr. T. Subba Row and of General Morgan. Both these gentlemen say they have seen the original "precipitation proof" -- "scraps," according to the latter of them -- "in which whole sentences, parenthetical and quotation marks are defaced and obliterated and consequently omitted in the chela’s clumsy transcription." That is to say, they were shewn something -- by whom we do not learn -- which they were told was the original "precipitation proof." How they could possibly know it to be so, except on the assumption of somebody’s good faith -- the chela’s, I suppose -- on an assumption which begs the whole question, I cannot see; and this evidence, therefore, seems to leave the case just where it was.
And what, then, should be our judgment on the whole matter? Most minds will follow a mere bent of inclination in accepting or putting aside the considerations which seem so weighty to me. I am used to adopt a method with myself which I find to be a sort of chemical test, as it were, of prejudice, and to be very effectual in checking hasty conclusions. I imagine that I have to state my opinion before some invisible but infallible tribunal, under a heavy and immediate penalty, something that I should most fear, for being wrong. How sudden a silence would thus fall upon those who "deliver brawling judgments, unashamed, on all things all day long!" But had I to encounter this risk in judging of the case before us, I should commit my fate to the opinion that these passages were copied out of the Banner of Light, everything being excluded which would indicate a Spiritualist origin, and a word or sentence being inserted here and there to adapt them to other ideas; that they were appropriated without any view to general publication (as, indeed, we learn that the letters were not written with such intention, which disposes of the improbability arising from the "stupidity" of the act), and that the defective precipitation and the subsequent "restoration" are alike mythical. It will thus be seen that I do not accept the Thibetan origin of the act or of the letter itself, and that, therefore although I have throughout written of the letter and explanation as "Koot Hoomi’s," that was only for convenience, and to avoid circumlocution. I do not know, and am not prepared to offer any definite theory as to who is responsible for one and the other. Mr. Sinnett’s sense of the absurdity of a "Mahatma," and a Mahatma "who inspired the teachings of ‘Esoteric Buddhism,’" plagiarising, if he will pardon me for saying so, begs the question. It even reminds me of the reasoning of those Christians who are accustomed to meet Biblical criticism with an appeal to "the Word of God." "Esoteric Buddhism" is certainly a remarkable, in some respects, I think, a great book; but sincerely as I respect Mr. Sinnett’s own profound conviction of its origin, I would rather not found any intellectual estoppels on it for the present. I doubt if Mr. Sinnett has fathomed the mystery of his real correspondent.
And as to the "intellectual temptation" of the latter to borrow from Mr. Kiddle -- which Mr. Sinnett thinks so preposterous -- we need not doubt his ability; but every one knows that the best writers quote aptly from others. Nor would there have been anything amiss in that in this case, were it not that the incongruity of a Thibetan Adept making approving extracts from the Banner of Light prevented it being done with due acknowledgment. For no one could suppose that Koot Hoomi "took in" that newspaper, regularly as it is received at the office of the Theosophist. And is it not somewhat curious that whereas Koot Hoomi was intellectually present at Lake Pleasant when the lecture was delivered, and had for some time been in correspondence with Mr. Sinnett, he should have waited to impart his reflections upon these Spiritualistic utterances until after the published report of them had reached India? We learn that "some two months" intervened between the delivery of the lecture and Koot Hoomi’s letter; a period not unimportant in estimating the probability of a very vivid recollection of the exact phrases used. And if, on the one hand, the delay is significant, so, on the other, is the fact that the references occurred so soon after the arrival of the American newspaper containing the report. The lecture was delivered on August 15th, 1880; and Mr. Kiddle tells us that it was reported in the Banner of Light "the same month." Allowing for this slight interval, the date of Koot Hoomi’s letter would probably be found to tally pretty closely with the arrival of the newspaper at Bombay or Madras. The exact dates ought to be ascertained.
There will still be such a thing as common-sense, even when the facts of Occultism are admitted and understood; and that does not point to a Thibetan origin of the celebrated "Kiddle letter."
The evidence for the existence of Adepts -- or "Mahatmas," since that terms is now preferred -- and even of their connection with individual members of the Theosophical Society, need not here concern us. We may, and I do, accept it; and yet see in their methods, or rather in the things that are said and done in their names, such deviations from our Philistine sense of truth and honour as to assure us that something is very wrong somewhere. For this is by no means a singular case. The repeated necessity for explanations -- which are always more formidable than the things to be explained -- must at length tire out the most patient faith, except the faith superseding all intelligence, the credo quia impossibile.
I have only to add that while preserving all the interests, and much of the belief which attracted me to the Theosophical Society, and which have kept me in it up to now, notwithstanding many and growing embarrassments, I do not think that the publication of the conclusions above expressed is consistent with loyal Fellowship. The constitution, no doubt, of the Society is broad enough to include minds more sceptical than my own in regard to the alleged sources of its vitality and influence. But let any one try to realise this nominal freedom, and he will find himself, not only in an uncongenial element, but in an attitude of controversy with his ostensible leaders, with the motive forces of the Society. That is not consistent with the sympathetic subordination or co-operation which is essential to union. If anything could keep me in a position embarrassing or insincere, it would be the noble life and character of the president, my friend, Colonel Olcott. But personal considerations must give way at length; and accordingly, with unabated regard and respect for many from whom it is painful to separate, I am forwarding my resignation of Fellowship to the proper quarters.
July 22nd, 1884.
C. C. MASSEY.
By contrast, Kislingbury was one of the dozen members of Blavatsky’s Inner Group formed in 1890 and continued to be a Theosophist after the death of HPB.
According to the compilers of The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, Chintamon was in England from 1879 or 1880 through 1883. The Reverend William Alexander Ayton, an early member of the HBofL “claimed very clearly and repeatedly that he had proof of Burgoyne’s being in company with Chintamon.”(HBofL, p. 35) This has led to confusion, because T.H. Burgoyne worked for a time as Max Theon’s medium or seer and it was mistakenly thought that Theon was Chintamon. As their photographs and historical documentation indicate, they were quite distinct individuals, but both had some association with the leaders of the HBofL. Theon and Chintamon were both former associates of Blavatsky who became mentors of Burgoyne, which is part of the complicated relationship between the HBofL and the TS. Next month’s blog post will feature another man who served as the first intermediarybetween the TS and the Arya Samaj, American Spiritualist leader James M. Peebles.
What can we conclude from the brief involvement of Chintamon successively in the Arya Samaj, the TS, and the HBofL? Any simple classification of 19th century occultists as heroes and villains is confounded by this episode. Olcott and Dayananda both entered into the TS/Arya Samaj affiliation in good faith, believing what they were told by HPB and Chintamon respectively. But HPB and Chintamon both acted in bad faith for different reasons and in different ways. Since Dayananda could not read English and the TS founders could not read Hindi, by acting as an intermediary Chintamon had the power to shape each group’s perception of the other. In his enthusiasm to promote the alliance he portrayed each group as being more compatible with the other in goals and beliefs than they actually were; it took several years for the resulting confusion to work itself out in a series of conflicts as Dayananda got better acquainted with Olcott and HPB. HPB approached the situation in bad faith in that her words indicated vast respect for the Swami as a spiritual teacher, yet at the same time she was concocting Mahatma letters to manipulate and deceive her closest supporters in England and intending that the Swami legitimize this fraud by signing the letters.
Chintamon was a whistle-blower in his role as informant to Richard Hodgson, as well as in his involvement with the HBofL founders. One of the greatest influences of his exposure of the 1878 correspondence with Blavatsky is that it drove a wedge between her and Olcott. When Hodgson repeated to him some of the disparaging statements that she had made to Chintamon about Olcott’s credulity, the Colonel was so despondent that he contemplated suicide by drowning. He steered a more independent course thereafter. Whether motivated by revenge or a guilty conscience, Chintamon provided evidence that persuaded the SPR of the fraudulent nature of the Mahatma phenomena. But his attitude was not simply destructive towards the TS; apparently he also wanted to help bring about an alternative that would not be based on Blavatsky. Burgoyne’s writings evince a strong anti-Theosophical bias, and this antagonism was likely encouraged by Chintamon’s revelations. The compilers of the HBofL conclude that in England “Chintamon allied himself with the rising Western opposition to esoteric Buddhism exemplified by Stainton Moses, C.C. Massey, William Oxley, Emma Hardinge Britten, Thomas Lake Harris, and others. From this formidable group, Burgoyne first contracted his hostility to Blavatsky’s enterprise that would mark all his writings.”(HBofL, p. 36) But Chintamon was also the source of genuine Sanskrit learning, and thus was able to serve as an instructor to Burgoyne on Hindu occultism.
When Elbert Benjamine took on the task of reformulating the HBofL teachings as the Brotherhood of Light lessons, he was faced with a legacy of extremely discordant 19th century occultist sources many of whom considered one another enemies. To a remarkable degree he succeeded in creating an integrated harmonious teaching free of sectarian antagonisms. Blavatsky was always treated with friendly respect in his writings and no one is ever vilified in 20th century CofL sources in the manner found in TS and HBofL literature of the 19th century. Now, a century since Benjamine accepted the task of systematizing and restating the Hermetic teachings, we can look back at the 19th century origins of the Church of Light with sympathetic respect for all the conflicting players in the drama. Heroes, villains, mistakes, quarrels, revenge—all standard elements in any melodrama—make the story intriguing, if not always inspiring. But there were genuine spiritual inspirations and aspirations mixed up with all the international intrigue, and the closer we examine any of the major characters in the story the more apparent this becomes.
Additional comment: this post was recently doubly misconstrued as “Church of Light bashes Blavatsky” which requires two emphatic disclaimers on my part. The content of blog posts here is entirely my own and no one in the Church of Light reviews them in advance or necessarily agrees with them. The Church of Light is not the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, 1884-1909. It is not the Earlier Theosophical Society, 1875-1878. It is not a Hermetic lodge in Alexandria, circa 150. Yet it is in various ways the heir of all three of these extinct organizations, as well as now-extinct nineteenth century groups labeled Rosicrucian, Spiritualist, and Masonic. No one is ever bashed in any Church of Light publication, as in the twentieth century this group did not engage in the kind of polemics that its nineteenth century predecessors enjoyed. In the twenty first century, I hope we can look back at the various feuding players of those predecessor organizations without special pleading on behalf of any of them, or the attitude that they can be sorted into mutually exclusive columns of heroes and villains.
********************************
Hurrichund Chintamon
by Maddifycation
September, 2020
Hurrichund Chintamon / Harishchandra Chintaman, was a pioneer of photography in India and who setup an early studio in Bombay (Mumbai) as early as 1860. Hurrichund Chintamon was a disciple of Dayanand and President of the Arya Samaj of Bombay in 1878.He attended the photography class at the Elphinstone Institution under the tuition of W.H.S. Crawford, in 1855, and was awarded the first prize of Rs.50 in the government-sponsored competition held at the end of that year. He showed his photographs to the Bombay Photographic Society in 1856 and also contributed photographs to the Archaeological Survey of India. His Photographs on castes and tribes were exhibited in Paris in 1867.
Dr. Narayan Daji and Hurrichund Chintamon were among the first few from Bombay to master the art of photography. He had established a large studio in the Bombay fort and in due course he also published Marathi books on science of Photography. By the late 1860s, his was the oldest photographic studio in Mumbai.
Carte-de-visite was introduced into India in 1950s, and it became extremely popular, particularly among the wealthy people of Bombay. Chintamon was among the first few who mastered the art successfully and captured carte-de-visite images of literary, political and business figures.
In 1860s photography was a popular means of representation in the princely states. Many princes relied on British photographers such as Bourne and Shepherd or Johnston and Hoffman to take their portraits whenever they visited Calcutta, but a few chose Indian as their official photographer.
Around 1869 Maharaja Malhar Rao of Baroda selected Hurrichund Chintamon;as his official photographer and Chintamon became famous because of his carte-de-visite portrait of the Maharaja of Baroda.
Large body of photography work created by Hurrichund Chintamon, were found thought out British India in 19th century.
Hurrichund Chintamon‘s carte–de-visite albumen prints were a novel way of sharing a photographic studio portrait. Countless prints were sent to places as far away as China, where they may well have been the first photograph many encountered by people.
A carte-de-visite is a piece of thick board measuring 4 ¼” x 2 ½” with a photograph mounted on it. Usually the subject is a single person photographed in studio setting, either standing or sitting; often it’s only a view of the head and shoulders. These prints were immensely popular in the nineteenth century, surpassed only by tintypes (an image mounted on metal) in popularity. The photograph mounted as a carte-de-visite is almost always an albumen print, a photographic process that resulted in a slightly glossy, warm-toned and clear.
Albumen prints are also always mounted on thick cards, because without support they roll up into cylinders. Albumens almost universally fade and yellow with age, and also develop minute cracks. Some experts say that up to 80% of prints, in nineteenth-century historical collections are albumens.
The popularity of cartes-de-visite peaked between 1860 and 1866, when the “cabinet card,” and other forms of card-mounted albumen photographs became more popular. These types of photographs are easily identified by their size. A card-mounted photograph that is 4 ½” x 6 ¼” is called a “cabinet card.” The “Victoria” was 3 ¼” x 5″, the “promenade” was 4″ x 7″; the “boudoir” was 5 ¼” x 8 ½”, the “imperial” was 6 7/8″ x 9 7/8″ and the “panel” was 8 ¼” x 4.”
Full-length standing portrait of Manickjee Antarya, the celebrated Parsee traveler, Bombay.
Reference
Govind Narayan’s Mumbai: An Urban Biography from 1863, By Govinda Nārāyaṇa Māḍagã̄vakara
Photography an Illustrated history, By Martin W. Sandler, 2002, Published by Oxford University Press, USA.
The Indian Princes and their States
By Barbara N. Ramusack, Published by Cambridge University press 2004
https://www.college-optometrists.org/th ... isite.html
History of the Adepts, Spiritual Ancestors of the Brotherhood of Light Lessons (https://adepts.light.org/)
Cartes-de-Visite – the first pocket photographs By Georgen Charnes (https://nha.org/)
https://www.bl.uk/