Masonic, Occult and Esoteric Online Library
The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett - 1923
By A. T. Barker
Letter No LIV
Received Simla, October, 1882.
My dear friend : —the deposition and abdication of our great** I am ** is one of the most agreeable events of the season foryour humble servant. Mea culpa!—I exclaim, and willinglyplace my guilty head under a shower of ashes—from the Simlacigars if you like—for it was my doing ! Some good has comeof it in the shape of excellent literary work—(though, indeed,Iprefer your style)—for the Parent body, but none whatever forthe hapless " Eclectic." What has he done for it? He complains in a letter to Shishir Koomar Gosh (of the A.B. Patrika)that owing to his (?) Hume's incessant efforts, he had nearly*' converted Chesney to Theosophy " when the great anti-Christian spirit of the Theosophist threw the Colonel violentlyback. This is what we may call—tampering with historical facts.I send you his last letter to me, in which you will find himentirely under the influence of his new guru—** the good VedanticSwami " (who offers to teach him the Adwaita philosophy with a god in it by way of improvement)—and of the Sandaram Spirit. His argument is, as you will find, that with the '* good old Swami " he will at any rate learn something, while with us, it is impossible for him to "ever learn anything." I —** never gave him the assurance that all the letters were not evolved out of the Old Lady's fertile brain." Even now, he adds, when he has obtained subjective certainty, that we are distinct entities from Mad. B—'* I cannot tell what you are—you might be Djual Kul, or a spirit of the high Eastern plane "—etc. in like strain. In the letter enclosed he says—we " may be tantrikists " (better ascertain the value of the compliment paid)—and, he is preparing, nay—all prepared—to plunge from extreme Ad'waitism into transcendental theism, once more. Amen. I hand him over to the Salvation Army.
I would not like to see him sever his connection with the Society altogether, though ; first for his intrinsic literary worth, and then—because you would be sure to have an indefatigable though a secret enemy, who would pass his time in writing out his ink dry against theosophy, denouncing all and everyone in the Society to all and everyone outside of it, and making himself disagreeable in a thousand ways. As I once said before, he may seem to forgive, and he is just the man to bamboozle himself before his own reflection in the looking-glass into magnanimous forgiveness, but in reality he neither forgives nor ever forgets. It was pleasant news for M. and all of us to hear how unanimously and quietly you were elected President, and we all—*' masters " and chelas—greet fraternally and warmly your ascension to the office ; an accomplished fact which reconciles us even with the sad and humiliating tidings that Mr. Hume expressed his utter indif- ference to chelas and even to their masters, adding that he cared very little to meet either. But enough of him who may be better described in the words of the Tibetan proverb :
. . Like the bird of night : by day a graceful cat, in darkness an ugly rat."
One word of advice—an earnest warning from both of us : trust not little Fern—beware of him. His placid serenity and smiles when talking to you of the ** mild scolding tempered with mercy," and that it is better to be scolded than cast off—are all assumed. His letter of penitence and remorse to M—which he sends you to keep—is not sincere. If you do not watch him closely, he will mix the cards for you in a way that may lead the Society to ruin, for he swore a great oath to himself that the Society will either fall or rise with himself. If he fails next year again—and with all his great gifts, how can such an incurable little Jesuit and liar help failing?—he will do his best to pull down the Society with him—as regards belief in the " Brothers least. Try to save him, if possible, my dearest friend ; do yourbest to convert him to truth and unselfishness. It is real pity thatsuch gifts should be drowned in a mire of vice—so stronglyengrafted upon him by his early tutors. Meanwhile, beware ofever allowing him to see any of my letters.
And now to C. C. Massey and your letters. Both answer andyour reply are excellent. Doubless a more sincere, truthful oramore noble minded man (S. Moses not excepted) could hardly befound among the British theosophists. His only and chief faultis—weakness. Were he to learn some day how deeply he haswronged H.P.B. in thought—no man would feel more miserableover it than himself. But of this anon. If you remember in myletter to H. upon the subject I ** forbade all arrangements " forthe simple reason that the Bsh. Theos. Soc. had collapsed, andvirtually was no more. But, if I remember right I added—thatif they re-established it on a firm basis with such members as Mrs.K. and her scribe—that we would have no objection to teach themthrough you—or words to that effect. I certainly objected havingmy letters printed and circulated like those of Paul in the bazaarof Ephesus—for the benefit (or perchance derision and criticism)of isolated members who hardly believed in our existence. ButIhave no objection, in case of an arrangement, as proposed byC.C.M. Only let them first organize, leaving out such bigots asWyld—strictly out in the cold. He refused to admit Mr. Hume'ssister Mrs. B. because, having never seen any mesmeric phe-nomena she disbelieved in mesmerism ; and refused to admitCrookes, recommended by C.C.M., as I was told. I will neverrefuse my help and co-operation to a group of men sincere andardent to learn ; for if again, such men as Mr. Hume are to beadmitted, men who generally delight in playing in every organizedsystem they get into, the parts played by Typhon and Ahrimanin the Egyptian and Zoroastrian systems—then the plan hadbetter be left aside. I dread the appearance in print of ourphilosophy as expounded by Mr. H. I read his three essays orchapters on God (?)cosmogony and glimpses of the origin ofthings in general, and had to cross out nearly all. He makesofus Agnostics! ! We do not believe in God because so far, wehave no proof, etc. This is preposterously ridiculous : if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual Khool deny thewhole thing ; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be sodisfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may bea*• loving Father and creator of All in heaven " our philosophy willbe rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear ofour doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the wholetruth and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find us—(at any rate)—compromising with, and pandering- to public prejudices. Do you call this " candid " and—honest ** from a European standpoint " ? Read his letter and judge. The truth is my dear friend, that notwithstanding the great tidal wave of mysticism that is now sweeping over a portion of the intellectual classes of Europe, the Western people have as yet scarcely learned to recognise that which we term wisdom in its loftiest sense. As yet, he only is esteemed truly wise in his world, who can most cleverly conduct the business of life, so that it may yield the largest amount of material profit—honours or money. The quality of wisdom, ever was, and will be yet for a long time—to the very close of the fifth race—denied to him who seeks the wealth of the mind for its own sake, and for its own enjoyment and result without the secondary purpose of turning it to account in the attainment of material benefits. By most of your gold worshipping countrymen our facts and theorems would be denominated fancy-flights, the dreams of madmen. Let the Fragments and even your own magnificent letters now published in Light, fall into the hands, and be read by the general public—whether materialists or theists or Christians ; and ten to one every average reader will curl his lip with a sneer ; and with the remark—** all this may be very profound and learned but of what use is it in practical life? "—and dismiss letters and Fragments from his thoughts for ever.
But now your position with C.C.M. seems changing, and you are gradually bringing him round. He longs sincerely to give Occultism another trial and—is ** open to conviction " ; we must not disappoint him. But, I cannot undertake to furnish either them or even yourself with new facts until all I have already given is put into shape from the beginning, (vide Mr. Hume's Essays) and taught to them systematically, and by them learned and digested. I am now answering your numerous series of questions—scientific and psychological—and you will have material enough for a year or two. Of course I will be always ready with further explanations, hence unavoidably additions—^but I positively refuse to teach any further before you have understood and learned all that is already given. Nor do I want you to print anything from my letters unless previously edited by you, and put into shape and form. I have no time for writing regular "papers," nor does my literary ability extend so far as that.
Only how, about C.C.M. 's mind so prejudiced against the author of Isis and ourselves, who have dared an attempt to intro- duce Eglinton into the sacred precincts of the B.T.S. and to denominate + a "Brother"? Shall not our joint sins and transgressions *' from a European standpoint "—be sorely in the way of mutual confidence, and will they not lead to endless suspicions and misconceptions? I am not prepared just nowtoafford the British Theosophists the proof of our existence in fleshand bones, or that I am not altogether H.P.B.'s *' confederate "; for all this is a question of time and—Karma. But, even supposing it very easy to disprove the former, it would be far lesseasy to disprove the latter. A ** K.H.," i.e. a mortal of veryordinary appearance and acquainted tolerably well with the English, Vedanta and Buddhist philosophy, and with even a bit ofdrawing-room juggling—is easily found and furnished, so as todemonstrate his objective existence beyond doubt or cavil. Buthow about giving the positive, moral certitude that the individual,who may thus make his appearance is not a bogus K.H., a " confederate " of H.P.B.? Were not St. Germain, and Cagliostro,both gentlemen of the highest education and achievements—andpresumably Europeans—not ** niggers " of my sort—regarded atthe time, and still so regarded by posterity—as impostors, confederates, jugglers and what not? Yet I am morally bound toset his mind at rest—through your kind agency—with regard toH.P.B. deceiving and imposing upon him. He seems to think hehas obtained proofs of it absolutely unimpeachable. I say he hasnot. What he has obtained is simply proof of the villainy ofsome men, and ex-theosophists such as Hurrychund Chinta-mon of Bombay now of Manchester and elsewhere ; the manwho robbed the Founders and Dayanand of Rs. 4,000, deceivedand imposed upon them from the first (so far back as NewYork), and then exposed and expelled from the Society ranaway to England and is ever since seeking and thirsting for hisrevenge. And such other as Dr. Billing, the husband of thatgood, honest woman, the only really and thoroughly reliable andhonest medium I know of—Mrs. M. Hollis-Billing ; whomhemarried for her few thousands pounds, ruined her during the firstyear of his married life, went into concubinage with anothermedium; and when vehemently reproached by H.P.B. and Olcott,—left his wife and Society and turned with bitter hatred againstboth women, and since then is ever seeking to secretly poison theminds of the British Theosophists and Spiritualists against his wifeand H.P.B. Let C.C.M. put all those facts together; fathomthe mystery and trace the connection between his informants andthe two traducers of the two innocent women. Let him investi-gate thoroughly and patiently, before he believes in certain reports—and even proofs brought forward—lest he overloads his Karmawith a heavier sin than any. There is not a stone these two menhave unturned in order to succeed in their evil design. WhileHurrychund Chintamon never failed once during the last threeyears 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 Yog-a 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; while H.C. is doing all this and much more, Billing is "working" the London mystics. He attitudinizes before them as a victitn of his over confidence in a wife who he found out as a false tricky medium, helped and supported in this by H.P.B. and H.S.O. ; he complains of his cruel fate and swears on his honour ( !) he left her only because he had found her an impostor his honesty revolting at such a union. Thus, it is on the strength and authority of the reports of such men, and the too confiding persons, who, believing in them help them that C.C.M. came gradually to disown and repudiate the disgusting and deformed changeling which was imposed upon him under the guise of H.P.B. Believe me—it is not so. If he tells you he was shown documentary proof—answer him that a letter in his own handwriting and over his own signature which, if placed in the hands of law would send him in 24 hours on the bench of criminals, may be forged as easily as any other dbcument. A man who was capable of forging on a bogus will the signature of the testator and then getting hold of the hand of the already dead man, put a pen into it and guide it over the ready signature, to afford the witnesses a chance of taking their oath that they had seen the man sign it—is ready to do more serious work than simply slandering an unpopular foreigner.
When, smarting under the exposure and bent upon revenge H. Ch. arrived three years ago from Bombay, C.C.M. would neither receive nor see him, nor would he listen to his justification, for Dayanand—^whom he recognised and accepted at that time as his spiritual chief—had sent him word to hold no communication with the thief and traitor. Then it was that the latter and C. Carter Black, the Jesuit expelled from the Society for slandering in the PaZl Mall Gazette both Swami and Hurrychund—became fast friends. Carter Black had for over two years moved heaven and earth to get readmitted into the Society but H.P.B. had proved a Chinese Wall against such readmission. Both the ex-fellows made peace, put their heads together and worked since then in a most charming accord. This made secret enemy—No. 3. C.C.M. 's devotion was in their way—they went to work to break the object of that devotion—H.P.B. —by shaking his confidence in her. Billing who could never hope to achieve success in that direction —for C.C.M. knew him too well, having legally defended his ruined and forsaken wife—succeeded to arouse his suspicions against Mrs. Billing- as a medium and against her friend H.P.B. who haddefended and supported her against him. Thus was the groundwell prepared for sowing in it any kind of weed. Then came—like a thunderbolt Swami's unexpected attack upon the Foundersand proved the death-blow to C.C.M.'s friendship. BecauseSwami had been represented by her to them as a high chela, aninitiate, he imagined he had never been one, and that in her misguided zeal to advance the cause H.P.B. had deceived them all ! After the April row, his and her enemies made an easy prey ofhim. Take Light; compare dates and the various cautious andcovered attacks. Behold C.C.M.'s hesitation, and then his suddenpouncing upon her. Cannot you read between the lines, friend?
But what of S. Moses? Ah—he at least, is never the mantoutter a deliberate falsehood, much less repeat a slanderous report.He, at least, as well as C.C.M., is a gentleman, every inch ofhim and an honest man. Well; and what of that? You forgethis profound, sincere irritation with us and H.P.B., as aSpiritualist the chosen vessel of election of Imperator? C.C.M.is ignorant of the laws and mysteries of mediumship and he is hisstaunch friend. Take again Light and see, how plainly his irrita-tion grows and becomes louder in his Notes By The Way. Hehas entirely misconceived your meaning, or rather quotations (fol-lowed by no explanations) from a letter of mine to yourself, who,in your turn have never correctly understood the situation. WhatI then said I now repeat : —There is an abyss between the highestand lowest degrees of Planetaries (this to your query—Is + a Planetary Spirit?) and then my assertion that—**+ is a Brother." Butwhat is a ** Brother," in reality—do you know? For what H.P.B.has added out of the depths of her own consciousness, perhaps, I do not hold myself responsible ; for she knows nothing for a deadcertainty about +, and often *' dreaming dreams " she draws herown original conclusions therefrom. Result: S.M. regards us asimpostors and liars, unless we be but a fiction; in which case thecompliment returns to H.P.B.
Now what are the facts and what the accusations against H.P.B.Many are the shadowy points against her in C.C.M's mind and,with every day they become blacker and uglier. I will give youan instance. While in London, at the Billings, Jan. 1879, H.P.B.who had produced a china pot from under the table, was askedby C.C.M. to give him some phenomenally produced object too.Consenting she caused a small card-case, as carved in Bombaytoappear in the pocket of his overcoat hung in the hall. Inside—whether then or later in the evening, was found a slip of paper,with the facsimile of Hurrychund C's signature on it. At thetime, no suspicion entered his mind, since there really was noground for any. But now you see he believes it—if not all a trick, at any rate a half-deception. Why? Because at that time he beheved H.C. a chela, all but a great adept, as allowed and led to suppose by H.P.B. ; and now he knows that H.C. was never a chela—since he himself denies it ; that, he never had any powers, denies any knowledge of, or belief in such ; and tells to everyone that even Dayanand has never been a Yogi but is simply ** an ambitious impostor " like Mohamet. In short so many lies brought and left at the Founders' door. And then her letters, and the reports by trustworthy witnesses of her confederacy with Mrs. Billing. Hence—confederacy between her and Eglinton. She is proved, at any rate an arch plotter, a deceiver, a crafty character; either that—or a visionary lunatic, an obsessed medium ! European, western logic. Letters? Very easy to alter words, mix the whole meaning of a sentence in letters. So has the Swami letters from her, which he freely translates, quotes from and comments upon in the face of the July Supplement. Now pray, oblige me by carefully reading over again the ** Defence." Note the bare-faced lies of India's '* great Reformer." Remember what was admitted to you and then denied. And if my word of honour has any weight with you, then know that D. Swami was an initiated Yogi, a very high chela at Badrinath, endowed some years back with great pK>wers and a knowledge he has since forfeited, and that H.P.B. told you but the truth, as also that H.C. was a chela of his, who preferred to follow the '* left path." And now see what has become of this truly great man, whom we all knew and placed our hopes in him : There he is—a moral wreck, ruined by his ambition and panting for breath in his last struggle for supremacy, which, he knows we will not leave in his hands. And now, if this man—ten times greater morally and intellectually than Hurrychund—could fall so low, and resort to such a mean course, of what his ex-friend and pupil Hurrychund may not be capable to satisfy his thirst for revenge ! The former has at least an excuse—his ferocious ambition that he mistakes for patriotism ; his once alter ego has no excuse but his desire to harm those who exposed him. And, to achieve such results he is pre- pared to do anything. But you will perhaps enquire, why we have not interfered? Why we, the natural protectors of the Founders, if not of the Society, have not put a stop to the shameful conspiracies? A pertinent question; only I doubt whether my answer with all its sincerity will be clearly understood. You are thoroughly unacquainted with our system, and could I succeed in making it clear to you, ten to one your ** better feelings "—the feeling of a European—^would be ruffled, if not worse, with such a " shocking " discipline. The fact is, that to the last and supreme initiation every chela—(and even some adepts)—is left to his own device and counsel. We have to fight our own battles, and the familiar adag-e—'* the adept becomes, he is not made " is true tothe letter. Since every one of us is the creator and producer of thecauses that lead to such or some other results, we have to reap butwhat we have sown. Our chelas are helped but when they areinnocent of the causes that lead them into trouble; when suchcauses are generated by foreign, outside influences. Life andthe struggle for adeptship would be too easy, had weallscavengers behind us to sweep away the effects we have generatedthrough our own rashness and presumption. Before they areallowed to go into the world they,—the chelas—are everyone ofthem endowed with more or less clairvoyant powers ; and, withthe exception of that faculty that, unless paralyzed and watchedwould lead them perchance to divulge certain secrets that mustnot be revealed—they are left in the full exercise of their powers—whatever these may be : —why don't they exercise them? Thus,step by step, and after a series of punishments, is the chela taughtby bitter experience to suppress and guide his impulses ; he loseshis rashness, his self sufficiency and never falls into the sameerrors. All that now happens is brought on by H.P.B. herself;and to you, my friend and brother, I will reveal her shortcomings,for you were tested and tried, and you alone have not hithertofailed—at any rate not in one direction—that of discretion andsilence. But before I reveal her one great fault to you—(a fault,indeed, in its disastrous results, yet withal a virtue) I must remindyou of that, which you so heartily hate : namely, that no onecomes in contact with us, no one show^s a desire to know moreofus, but has to submit being tested and put by us on probation.Thus, C.C.M. could not more than any other escape his fate. Hehas been tempted and allowed to be deceived by appearances, andto fall but too easily a prey to his weakness—suspicion and lackof self-confidence. In short he is found wanting in the firstelement of success in a candidate—unshaken faith, once that hisconviction rests upon, and has taken root in knowledge, not simplebelief in certain facts. Now C.C.M. knows that certainphenomena of hers are undeniably genuine ; his position withregard to that being precisely the position of yourself and yourlady, in reference to the yellow ring-stone. Thinking you hadreasons to believe the stone in question was simply brought (likethe doll) not doubled—as she asserted, and disliking in the depthsof your soul such a useless deception—as you always thought—onher part, you have not repudiated her for all that, nor exposedor complained of her in the papers as he has. In short, evenwhen refusing her the benefit of the doubt in your own hearts, youhave not doubted the phenomenon but only her accurac>' in ex-plaining it; and while being utterly wrong, you were undeniablyright in acting with such a discretion in that matter. Not so, in his case. After entertaining during- the period of three years a blind faith, in her, amounting- almost to a feehng of veneration, at the first breath of successful calumny, he, a staunch friend and an excellent lawyer falls a victim to a wicked plot, and, his regard for her is changed into positive contempt and a conviction of her guilt ! Instead of acting as you would have acted in such a case, namely either never mentioning the fact to her or else, asking her for an explanation, giving the accused the opportunity of defending herself, and thus acting consistently with his honest nature, he preferred giving vent to his feelings in public print and to satisfy his rancour against herself and us by adopting an indirect means of attacking her statements in Isis. By the by, and begging your pardon for this digression, he does not, it seems regard her answer in the Theosophist—'* candid "? Funny logic, when coming from such an acute logician. Had he proclaimed in all the pap>er5 and at the top of his voice that the author or authors of Isis have not been candid while writing the book ; that they often and purposely mislead the reader by withholding the necessary explanations and have given but portions of the truth, had he even declared, as Mr. Hume does—that the work teems with "practical errors" and deliberate misstatements—^he would have been gloriously acquitted, because he would have been right —** from a European standpoint," and heartily excused by us—again because of his European way of judging—something innate in him and that he cannot help. But to call a correct and truthful explanation—not '* candid " is something I can hardly realize, though I am quite aware that his view is shared even by yourself. Alas, my friends, I am very much afraid that our respective standards of right and wrong will never agree together, since motive is everything for us, and that you will never go beyond appearances. However, to return to the main question.
Thus C.C.M. knows ; he is too intelligent, too acute an observer of human nature to have remained ignorant of that, most important of facts, namely that the woman has no possible motive for deception. There is a sentence in his letter which, framed in a little kinder spirit would go far to show how well he could appreciate and recognise the real motives, had not his mind been poisoned by prejudice, due, perhaps, more to S. Moses' irritation, than to the efforts of her three above enumerated enemies. He remarks en passant—that the system of deception may be due to her zeal, but regards it as a dishonest zeal, And now, do you want to know how far she is guilty? Know then, that if she ever became guilty of real, deliberate deception, owing to that " zeal," it was when in the presence of phenomena produced, she kept constantly denying—except in the matter of such trifles as bells and raps—that she had anything to do with their production personally. From your ** European standpoint" it is downrig-ht deception, a bigthundering lie; from our Asiatic standpoint, though an imprudent,blamable zeal, an untruthful exaggeration, or what a Yankeewould call * * a blazing cock-a-hoop ' ' meant for the benefit of the** Brothers," —yet withal, if we look into the motive—a sublime,self-denying, noble and meritorious—not dishonest—zeal. Yes;in that, and in that alone, she became constantly guilty ofdeceiving her friends. She could never be made to realize theutter uselessness, the danger of such a zeal ; and how mistakenshe was in her notions that she was adding to our glory, whereas,by attributing to us very often phenomena of the most childishnature, she but lowered us in the public estimation and sanctionedthe claim of her enemies that she was '* but a medium " ! Butit was of no use. In accordance with our rules, M. was not per-mitted to forbid her such a course, in so many words. She hadto be allowed full and entire freedom of action, the liberty ofcreating causes that became in due course of time her scourge,her public pillory. He could at best forbid her producingphenomena, and to this last extremity he resorted as often as hecould, to her friends and theosophists great dissatisfaction. Was,or rather is, it lack of intellectual perceptions in her? Certainlynot. It is a psychological disease, over which she has little ifany control at all. Her impulsive nature—as you have correctlyinferred in your reply—is always ready to carry her beyond theboundaries of truth, into the regions of exaggeration ; nevertheless without a shadow of suspicion that she is thereby deceivingher friends or abusing of their great trust in her. The stereotypedphrase : *' It is not 7; I can do nothing by myself . . . it isall they—the Brothers. ... I am but their humble anddevoted slave and instrument " is a downright fib. She can anddid produce phenomena, owing to her natural powers combinedwith several long years of regular training and her phenomenaaresometimes better, more wonderful and far more perfect than thoseof some high, initiated chelas, whom she surpasses in artistictaste and purely western appreciation of art—as for instanceinthe instantaneous production of pictures : witness—her portrait ofthe "fakir" Tiravalla mentioned in Hints, and compared withmy portrait by Djual Khool. Notwithstanding all the superiorityof his powers, as compared with hers; his youth as contrastedw^ith her old age; and the undeniable and important advantageshe possesses of having never brought his pure unalloyed magnetism in direct contact with the great impurity of your worldand society—yet do what he may, he will never be able to producesuch a picture, simply because he is unable to conceive it in hismind and Tibetan thought. Thus, while fathering upon us allmanner of foolish, often clumsy and suspected phenomena, she has most undeniably been helping us in many instances ; saving us sometimes as much as two-thirds of the power used, and when remonstrated—for often we are unable to prevent her doing it on her end of the line—answering that she had no need of it, and that her only joy was to be of some use to us. And thus she kept on killing herself inch by inch, ready to give—for our benefit and glory, as she thought—her life-blood drop by drop, and yet in- variably denying before witnesses that she had anything to do with it. Would you call this sublime, albeit foolish self-abnegation—** dishonest "? We do not; nor shall we ever consent to regard it in such a light. To come to the point : moved by that feeling, and firmly believing at the time (because allowed to) that Hurrychund was a worthy chela^—of the Yogee Dayanand, she allowed C.C.M. and all those who were present to labour under the impression that it was Hurrychund who had produced the phenomena; and then went on rattling for a fortnight of Swami's great powers and of the virtues of Hurrychund, his prophet. How terribly she was punished, every one in Bombay (as you yourself)—well knows. First—the ** chela " turning a traitor to his Master and his allies, and—a common thief; then the "great Yogin,*' the *' Luther of India " sacrificing her and H.S.O. to his insatiable ambition. Very naturally, while Hurrychund' s treason —shocking as it appeared at the time to C.C.M. and other theosophists—left her unscarred, for Swami himself having been robbed took the defence of the ** Founders " in hand, the treachery of the •' Supreme Chief of the Theosophists of the Arya Samaj " was not regarded in its true light ; it was not he that had played false, but the whole blame fell upK>n the unfortunate and too devoted woman, who, after extolling him to the sky, was compelled in self-defence to expose his mala fides and true motives in the Theosophist.
Such is the true history, and facts with regard to her '* deception " or, at best—" dishonest zeal." No doubt she has merited a ix>rtion of the blame ; most undeniably she is given to exaggeration in general, and when it becomes a question of *' puffing up" those she is devoted to, her enthusiasm knows no limits. Thus she has made of M. an Apollo of Belvedere, the glowing description of whose physical beauty, made him more than once start in anger, and break his pipe while swearing like a true—Christian ; and thus, under her eloquent phraseology, I, myself had the pleasure of hearing myself metamorphosed into an " angel of purity and light "—shorn of his wings. We cannot help feeling at times angry, with, oftener—laughing at, her. Yet the feeling that dictates all this ridiculous effusion, is too ardent, too sincere and true, not to be respected or even treated with indifference.
I do not believe I was ever so profoundly touched by anythingI witnessed in all my life, as I was with the poor old creature'secstatic rapture, when meeting us recently both in our naturalbodies, one—after three years the other—nearly two years absenceand separation in flesh. Even our phlegmatic M. was thrownoff his balance, by such an exhibition—of which he was chiefhero. He had to use his power, and plunge her into a profoundsleep, otherwise she would have burst some blood-vessel includingkidneys, liver and her '* interiors "—to use our friend Oxley'sfavourite expression—in her delirious attempts to flatten her noseagainst his riding mantle besmeared with the Sikkim mud ! Weboth laughed ; yet could we feel otherwise but touched ? Ofcourse, she is utterly unfit for a true adept : her nature is toopassionately aff^ectionate and we have no right to indulge inpersonal attachments and feelings. You can never know her aswe do, therefore—none of you will ever be able to judge herimpartially or correctly. You see the surface of things ; and whatyou would term '* virtue," holding but to appearances, we—judgebut after having fathomed the object of its profoundest depth, andgenerally leave the ap{>earances to take care of themselves. Inyour opinion H.P.B. is, at best, for those who like her despiteherself—a quaint, strange woman, a psychological riddle : impulsive and kindhearted, yet not free from the vice of untruth. We,on the other hand, under the garb of eccentricity and folly—^wefind a profounder wisdom in her inner Self than you will ever findyourselves able to perceive. In the superficial details of herhomely, hard-working common-place daily life and affairs, youdiscern but unpracticality, womanly impulses, often absurdity andfolly ; we, on the contrary, light daily upon traits of her innernature the most delicate and refined, and which would cost anuninitiated psychologist years of constant and keen observation,and many an hour of close analysis and eff^orts to draw out of thedepth of that most subtle of mysteries—human mind—one of hermost complicated machines,—^H.P.B.'s mind^—and thus learn toknow her true inner Self.
All this you are at liberty to tell C.C.M. I have closely watchedhim, and feel pretty certain that what you will tell him will havefar more effect upon him than what a dozen " K.H.'s " might tellhim personally. ** Imperator " stands between us two, and will,I am afraid, stand thus for ever. His loyalty to, and faith inthe assertions of a European living friend can never be shakenbythe assurances to the contrary, made by Asiatics, who to him—ifnot mere figments, are unscruplous ** confederates." But I would,if possible, show to you his great injustice, and the wrong doneby him to an innocent woman—at any rate—comparatively innocent. However crazy an enthusiast, I pledge to you my word of honour, she was never a deceiver; nor has she ever wilfully uttered an untruth, though her position often becomes untenable, and that she has to conceal a number of things, as pledged to by her solemn vows. And now I have done with the question.
I am now going to approach once more a subject, good friend, I know is very repulsive to your mind, for you have told and written so repeatedly. And yet, in order to make some things clear to you, I am compelled to speak of it. You have often put the question "why should the Brothers refuse turning their attention to such worthy, sincere theosophists as C.C.M. and Hood, or such a precious subject as S. Moses? Well, I now answer you very clearly, that we have done so—ever since the said gentleman came into contact and communication with H.P.B. They were all tried and tested in various ways, and, not one of them came up the desired mark. M. gave a special attention to ** C.C.M." for reasons I will now explain, and, with results as at present—known to you. You may say that such a secret way of testing people is dishonest ; that we ought to have warned him, etc. Well, all I can say is, that it may be so from your European standpoint, but that, being Asiatics, we cannot depart from our rules. A man's character, his true inner nature can never be thoroughly drawn out if he believes himself watched, or strives for an object. Besides, Col. O. had never made a secret of that way of ours, and all the Bsh. theosophists ought to—if they did not—know that their body was, since we had sanctioned it, under a regular probation. As for C.C.M. —of all the theosophists, he Was the one selected by M. and with a definite purpose, owing to H.P.B.'s importunities and his special promise, —** He will turn back on you some day, pumo ! " M. repeatedly told her, in answer to her prayers to accept him as a regular chela with Olcott—'* That he never, never will ! " she exclaimed in answer. ** C.C.M. is the best, most noble, etc., etc., etc."—a string of laudatory and admiring adjectives. Two years later, she said the same of Ross Scott. *' Such two staunch, devoted friends—I never had ! " she assured her ** Boss "—who only laughed in his beard, and bid me arrange the ** theosophical " marriage. Well ; one was tested and tried for three years, the other for three months, with what results I hardly need remind you. Not only no temptations were ever put in the way of either, but the latter was furnished with a wife amply sufficient for his happiness, and connections that will prove beneficent to him some day. C.C.M. had but objective, undoubted phenomena to stand upon ; R. Scott had moreover, a visit in astral shape from M. In the case of one—the revenge of three unprincipled men ; in the case of the other—the jealousy of a petty-minded fool made short work of the boasted friendship, and showed the " O.L." what it was worth. Oh, the poor, trusting-, credulous nature ! Take away from her her clairvoyantpowers, plug- up in a certain direction her intuitions—as in dutybound was done by M. —and what remains? A helpless, brokenhearted woman!
Take another case, that of Fern. His development, as occurringunder your eye, affords you a useful study and a hint as to evenmore serious methods adopted in individual cases to thoroughlytest the latent moral qualities of the man. Every human beingcontains within himself vast potentialities, and it is the duty ofthe adepts to surround the would-be chela with circumstanceswhich shall enable him to take the "right-hand path,"—if hehave the ability in him. We are no more at liberty to withholdthe chance from a postulant than we are to guide and direct himinto the proper course. At best, we can only, show him after hisprobation period was successfully terminated—that if he does thishe will go right ; if the other, wrong. But until he has passedthat period, we leave him to fight out his battles as best he may; and have to do so occasionally with higher and initiated chelassuch as H.P.B., once they are allowed to work in the world, thatall of us more or less avoid. More than that—and you better learnit at once, if my previous letters to you about Fern have notsufficiently opened your eyes—^we allow our candidates to betempted in a thousand various ways, so as to draw out the wholeof their inner nature and allow it the chance of remaining con-queror either one way or the other. What has happened to Fernhas befallen every one else who has preceded, will befall withvarious results every one who succeeds him. We were all sotested ; and while a Moorad Ali—failed—I, succeeded. Thevictor's crown is only for him who proves himself worthy to wearit; for him who attacks Mara single handed and conquers thedemon of lust and earthly passions ; and not we but he himselfputs it on his brow. It was not a meaningless phrase of theTathagata that *' he who masters Self is greater than he whocon-quers thousands in battle " : there is no such other difficultstruggle. If it were not so, adeptship would be but a cheapacquirement. So, my good brother, be not surprised, and blameus not, as readily as you have already done, at any developmentof our policy towards the aspirants past, present or future. Onlythose who can look ahead at the far remote consequencesofthings are in a position to judge as to the expediency of our ownactions, or those we permit in others. What may seem presentbad faith may in the end prove the truest, most benevolentloyalty. Let time show who was right and who faithless. One,who is true and approved to-day, may to-morrow prove, undera new concatenation of circumstances a traitor, an ingrate, acoward, an imbecile. The reed, bent beyond its limit of flexi- bility, will have snapped in twain. Shall we accuse it? No; but because we can, and do pity it, we cannot select it as part of those reeds that have been tried and found strong, hence fit to be accepted as material for the indestructible fane we are so carefully building.
And now—to other matters.
We have a reform in head, and I look to you to help me. Mr. H.'s annoying and indiscreet interference with the Parent Society, and his passion of domineering all and everything, have made us come to the conclusion that it would be worth our while to attempt the following. Let it be made known " to all concerned " through the Theosophist and circulars issued to every Branch that hitherto they have looked too often and too unnecessarily to the Parent Body for guidance and as an examplar to follow. This is quite impracticable. Besides the fact, that the Founders have to show themselves and try earnestly to be all to everyone and all things —since there is such a great variety of creeds, opinions and expectations to satisfy, they cannot p>ossibly and at the same time satisfy all as they would like to. They try to be impartial, and never to refuse one what they may have accorded to another party. Thus they have repeatedly published criticisms upon Vedantism, Buddhism and Hinduism in its various branches, upon the Veda Bashya of Swami Dayanand—their staunchest and at that time most valued ally ; but, because such criticisms were all directed against non-Christian faiths^ no one ever paid the slightest attention to it. For over a year and more, the journal came out regularly with an advertisement inimical to that of the Veda Bashya and was printed side by side with it to satisfy the Benares Vedantin. And now Mr. Hume comes out with his public castigation of the Founders and seeks to prohibit the advertisement of anti-Christian pamphlets. I want you, therefore, to please bear this in mind, and point out these facts to Col. Chesney, who seems to imagine that theosophy is hostile but to Christianity ; whereas it is but impartial, and whatever the personal views of the two Founders the journal of the Society has nothing to do' with them, and will publish as willingly criticism directed against Lamaism as against Christianism. At all events, willing as we both are, that H.P. B. should always and gratefully accept your advice in the matter, it was I, who advised her to '* kick " as she says against Mr. H's attempts at authority, and you are at liberty to inform him of the fact.
Now in view to mending matters, what do you think of the idea of placing the Branches on quite a different footing? Even Christendom, with its divine pretensions to a Universal Brotherhood has its thousand and one sects, which, united as they all may be under one banner of the Cross are yet essentially inimical to each other, and the authority of the Pope is set at naughtbythe Protestants, while the decrees of the Synods of the latter arelaughed at by the Roman Catholics. Of course, I would nevercontemplate, even in the worst of cases such a state of thingsamong the theosophical bodies. What I want, is simply a paperon the advisability of remodelling the present formationofBranches and their privileges. Let them be all chartered andinitiated as heretofore by the Parent Society, and depend ofitnominally. At the same time, let every Branch before it is chartered, choose some one object to work for, an object naturally,insympathy with the general principles of the T.S. —yet a distinctand definite object of its own, whether in the religious, educationalor philosophical line. This would allow the Society a broadermargin for its general operations ; more real, useful work wouldbe done ; and, as every Branch would be so to say, independentin its modus operandus, there would remain less room for complaint and par consequence—for interference. At any rate, thishazy sketch, I hope, will find an excellent soil to germinate andthrive in, in your business-like head ; and if you could, meanwhile,write a paper based on the aforesaid explanations of the Theosophist's true position, giving all the reasons as above-mentionedand many more for the December number if not for the Novembernumber you would, indeed, oblige M. and myself. It is impossible, and dangerous, to entrust with such a subject, whichrequires the most delicate handling—either one or the other of ourEditors. H.P.B., would never fail to break the padrVs headson such a good opportunity, or H.S.O. to turn a neat extra compliment or two to the Founders address, which would be useless,for I strive to show the two entities of Editor and Founder quitedistinct and apart from each other blended though they be in oneand same person. I am no practical business man and therefore, I feel utterly unable for the task. Will you help me, friend?It would be better, of course, if the ** feeler " would be madetoappear in the November, as though in answer to Mr. Hume'sveryimpolite letter, which, of course, I will not permit to be published.But you could take it for your ground-work and basis to frameyour editorial answer upon. To return to the reform of Branchesthis question will have of course to be seriously considered andweighed before it is finally settled. There must be no moredis-appointment in members once they have joined. Each Branchhas to choose its well defined mission to work for, and the greatestcare should be taken in the selection of Presidents. Hadthe•' Eclectic" been placed from the first, on such a footing of dis-tinct independence, it might have fared better. Solidarityofthought and action within the broad outline of the chief andgeneral principles of the Society there must always be between the Parent and Branch bodies ; yet the latter must be allowed each their own independent action in everything- that does not clash with those principles. Thus a Branch composed of mild Christians sympathizing- with the objects of the Society might remain neutral in the question of every other religion, and utterly indifferent to and unconcerned with the private beliefs of the ** Founders," the Theosophist making- room as willingly for hymns on the Lamb as for slokas on the sacredness of the cow. Could you but work out this idea, I would submit it to cur venerable Chohan, who now gently smiles from the corner of an eye, instead of frowning as usual—ever since he saw you become President. Had I not, last year, owing to the ex-President's truculence, been " sent to bed " earlier than at first contemplated, I was going to propose it. I have a letter of lofty reproach, dated October 8th, from the " I am." In it, he sends for you on the 5th and explains his *' unwillingness to continue to hold office " and his ** great desire " that you should take his place. He condemns '* altogether the system and policy," of our order. It seems to him ** quite wrong." He winds up by : ** Of course I shall ask you to get the O.L. to refrain from proposing me for the council of the Society." No fear, no fear of this; he may sleep soundly and undisturBed and see himself in dream the Dalai Lama of the Theosophists. But I must hasten to enter my indignant and emphatic protest against his definition of our ** faulty " system. Because, he succeeded in catching but a few stray sparks of the principles of our Order, and could not be allowed to examine and remodel the whole we must all need be—what he would represent us ! If we could hold such doctrines as he would impose upon us; if we in ought resembled the picture he has drawn ; if we could submit for a single hour to stand silently under the load of such imputations as he has thrown upon us in his September letter ; verily we should deserve to lose all credit with the Theosophists ! We ought to be dismissed and hunted out of the Society and people's thoughts as charlatans and impostors—wolves in sheep's clothing, who come to steal away men's hearts with mystic promises, entertain- ing all the while the most despotic intentions, seeking to enslave our confiding chelas and turn the masses away from truth and the ** divine revelation of nature's voice " to blank and ** dreary atheism " ;—i.e. a thorough disbelief in the " kind, merciful Father and Creator of all " (evil and misery, we must suppose?) who lolls from the eternity, reclining with his backbone supported on a bed of incandescent meteors, and picks his teeth with a lightning fork. . .
Indeed, indeed, we have enough of this incessant jingle on the Jew's harp of Christian revelation !
M. thinks that the Supplement ought to be enlarged if neces- sary, and made to furnish room for the expression of thoughtofevery Branch, however diametrically opposed these may be. TheTheosophist ought to be made to assume a distinct colour andbecome a unique specimen of its own. We are ready to furnishthe necessary extra sums for it. I know you will catch myideahowever hazily expressed. I leave our plan entirely in your ownhands. Success in this will counteract the effects of the cycliccrisis. You ask what you can do? Nothing better or moreefficient than the proposed plan.
I cannot close without telling you of an incident which, however ludicrous, has led to something that makes me thankmystars for it, and will please you also. Your letter, enclosing thatof C.C.M. was received by me on the morning following thedate you had handed it over to the *' little man." I was theninthe neighbourhood of Pari-Yong, at the gun-pa of a friend, andwas very busy with important affairs. When I received intimation of its arrival, I was just crossing the large inner courtyardof the monastery ; bent upon listening to the voice of LamaTondhijb Gyatcho, I had no time to read the contents. So, aftermechanically opening the thick packet, I merely glanced at it, andput it, as I thought, into the travelling bag I wear acrosstheshoulder. In reality though, it had dropped on the ground ; andsince I had broken the envelope and emptied it of its contents,the latter were scattered in their fall. There was no one near meatthe time, and my attention being wholly absorbed with the conversation, I had already reached the staircase leading to the librarydoor, when I heard the voice of a young gyloong calling out froma window, and expostulating with someone at a distance. Turning round I understood the situation at a glance ; otherwise yourletter would never have been read by me for I saw a venerableold goat in the act of making a morning meal of it. The creaturehad already devoured part of C.C.M. 's letter, and was thoughtfully preparing to have a bite at yours, more delicate and easyforchewing with his old tooth than the tough envelope and paperofyour correspondents epistle. To rescue what remained of it tookme but one short instant, disgust and opposition of the animalnotwithstanding—but there remained mighty little of it ! Theenvelope with your crest on had nearly disappeared, the contentsof the letters made illegible—in short I was perplexed at the sightof the disaster. Now you know why I felt embarrassed : / hadno right to restore it, the letters coming from the *' Eclectic "andconnected directly with the hapless ** Pelings " on all sides.What could I do to restore the missing parts ! I had alreadyresolved to humbly crave permission from the Chohan tobeallowed an exceptional privilege in this dire necessity, when I sawhis holy face before me, with his eye twinkling in quite an unusual manner, and heard his voice : " Why break the rule? I will do it myself." These simple words Kam mi ts'har—" I'll do it," contain a world of hope for me. He has restored the missings parts and done it quite neatly too, as you see, and even trans- formed a crumpled broken envelope, very much damag^ed, into a new one—crest and all. Now I know what great power had to be used for such a restoration, and this leads me to hope for a relaxation of severity one of these days. Hence I thanked the goat heartily ; and since he does not belong to the ostracised Peling race, to show my gratitude I strengthened what remained of teeth in his mouth, and set the dilapidated remains firmly in their sockets, so that he may chew food harder than English letters for several years yet to come.
And now a few words about the chela. Of course you must have suspected that since the Master was prohibited the slightest tamasha exhibition, so was the disciple. Why should you have expected then, or *' felt a little disappointed " with his refusing to forward to me your letters via Space—in your presence? The little man is a promising chap, far older in years than he looks, but young in European wisdom and manners and hence committing his several indiscretions, which, as I told you put me to the blush and made me feel foolish for the two savages. The idea of coming to you for money was absurd in the extreme ! Any other Englishman but you would have regarded them after that as two travelling charlatans. I hope you have received by this time the loan I returned with many thanks.
Nath is right about the phonetic (vulgar) pronunciation of the word ** Kin-ti " ; people usually pronounce it as Kin-to, but it is not correct ; and he is wTong in his view about Planetary Spirits. He does not know the word, and thought you meant the ** devas " —the servants of the Dhyan-Chohans. It is the latter who are the ** Planetary " and of course it is illogical to say that Adepts are greater than they, since we all strive to become DhyanChohans in the end. Still there have been adepts " greater '* than the lower degrees of the Planetary. Thus your views are not against our doctrines, as he told you, but would be had you meant the " devas " or angels, *' little gods." Occultism is certainly not necessary for a good, pure Ego to become an ** Angel " or Spirit in, or out of the Devachan since Angelhood is the result of Karma. I believe you will not complain of my letter being too short. It is going to be soon followed by another voluminous correspondence "Answers to your many Questions." H.P.B. is mended, if not thoroughly at least for some time to come.
With real affectionate regard,
Yours, K.H.
