Mahatma Letter No. 128

From Theosophy Wiki
(Redirected from MLB63)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Quick Facts
People involved
Written by: Koot Hoomi
Received by: A. P. Sinnett
Sent via: unknown
Written on: unknown
Received on: Summer 1884
Other dates: unknown
Sent from: unknown
Received at: London
Via: unknown 

This is Letter No. 128 in The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett, 4th chronological edition. It corresponds to Letter No. 63 in Barker numbering. See below for Context and background.

< Prev letter chrono  Next letter chrono >  
< Prev letter Barker  Next letter Barker >

Cover sheet

Received London, Summer, 1884.



Page 1 transcription, image, and notes

Good friend —

When our first correspondence began, there was no idea then of any publications being issued on the basis of the replies you might receive. You went on putting questions at random, and the answers being given at different times to disjointed queries, and so to say, under a semi-protest, were necessarily imperfect, often from different standpoints. When the publication of some of these were permitted for the Occult World, it was hoped that among your readers some may be able, like yourself, to put all the different pieces together and evolve out of them the skeleton, or a shadow of our system, which, although not exactly the original — this would be an impossibility — would be as near an approach to it as could be made by a non-initiate. But the results have proved quasi-disastrous! We had tried an experiment and sadly failed! Now we see that none but those who have passed at least their third initiation are able to write upon those subjects comprehensively. A Herbert Spencer would have made a mess of it under your circumstances. Mohini is certainly not quite right, in some details he is positively wrong, but so are you my old friend, though the outside reader is none the wiser for it and no one, so far, has noticed the real vital errors in Esoteric Buddhism and Man; nor are they likely to. We can give no further information on the subject already approached by you and have to leave the facts already communicated to be woven into a consistent and systematic philosophy by the



Page 2

chelas at the Headquarters. The Secret Doctrine will explain many things, set to right more than one perplexed student.

Therefore, to put before the world all the crude and complicated materials in your possession in the shape of old letters, in which, I confess, much was purposely made obscure, would only be making confusion worst confounded. Instead of doing any good thereby to yourself and others it would only place you in a still more difficult position, bring criticism upon the heads of the "Masters" and thus have a retarding influence on human progress and the T.S. Hence I protest most strongly against your new idea. Leave to the Secret Doctrine the task of avenging you. My letters must not be published, in the manner you suggest, but on the contrary if you save Djual K trouble copies of some should be sent to the Literary Committee at Adyar — about which Damodar has written to you — so that with the assistance of S. T. K. Charya, Djual K., Subba Row and the Secret Committee (from which H.P.B. was purposely excluded by us to avoid new suspicions and calumnies) they might be able to utilise the information for the realization of the object with which the Committee was started, as explained by Damodar in the letter written by him under orders. It is neither new "Kiddle developments" that I seek to avoid, nor criticism directed against my personality, which indeed can hardly be reached; but I rather try to save yourself and Society from new troubles which would be serious



  • In the shape of old letters. In his article, "Esoteric Teachings" (The Theosophist, September 1893) Sinnett explains that after the publication of Esoteric Buddhism he used to read portions of the correspondence at TS meetings, and many members pressed him for permission to take copies of them. For this reason, he referred the matter to the Master.

Page 3

this time. The letters, in short, were not written for publication or public comment upon them, but for private use, and neither M. nor I will ever give our consent to see them thus handled.

As regards your first letter Dj.K. has been instructed to attend to it. In such delicate matters I am still less competent to give advice than to satisfy aspiring "chelas" of the "L.C.H." sort. I am afraid the "poor, dear Mrs. Holloway" is showing her white teeth and would hardly be found now "a charming companion". Under instructions Olcott wrote a letter to Finch — which gives the key to the little problem. It is Fern, Moorad Ali, Bishen Lal and other wrecks, over again. Why shall "would-be" chelas with such intense self personalities, force themselves within the enchanted and dangerous circle of probation! Pardoning my short letter, I am very busy just now with the coming new year.

K. H.



Context and background

Apparently Sinnett had asked the Mahatma K.H. about the possibility of publishing the letters received from him and from the Mahatma M. Herein we find the most specific prohibition against this course to be found in the book.

Physical description of letter

The original is in the British Library, Folio 3. George Linton and Virginia Hanson described the letter this way:

KH script in blue pencil on two sheets of paper.[1]

Publication history

Commentary about this letter


  1. George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson, eds., Readers Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett (Adyar, Chennai, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1972), 198.