Mahatma Letter No. 8 - Revision history

SysopJ: /* Context and background */

2023-04-18T20:57:05Z

Context and background

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 18 April 2023
Line 291:		Line 291:
	== Context and background ==		== Context and background ==

	According to [[George Linton]] and [[Virginia Hanson]], "[[Allan Octavian Hume\|AOH]] was probably in Simla. [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|APS]] was in Allahabad. The [[Founders]] were on tour in Northwest India. While in Lahore, HPB became ill with a fever. See ODL 2:266 for HSO's account of this illness."<ref>George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson, eds., ''Readers Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett'' (Adyar, Chennai, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1972), 47.</ref>		According to [[George Linton]] and [[Virginia Hanson]], "[[Allan Octavian Hume\|AOH]] was probably in Simla. [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|APS]] was in Allahabad. The [[Founders]] were on tour in Northwest India. While in Lahore, HPB became ill with a fever. See [[Old Diary Leaves (book)\|ODL 2:266]] for HSO's account of this illness."<ref>George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson, eds., ''Readers Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett'' (Adyar, Chennai, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1972), 47.</ref>

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>

SysopJ: /* Context and background */

2023-04-16T22:29:16Z

Context and background

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:29, 16 April 2023
Line 290:		Line 290:

	== Context and background ==		== Context and background ==

			According to [[George Linton]] and [[Virginia Hanson]], "[[Allan Octavian Hume\|AOH]] was probably in Simla. [[Alfred Percy Sinnett\|APS]] was in Allahabad. The [[Founders]] were on tour in Northwest India. While in Lahore, HPB became ill with a fever. See ODL 2:266 for HSO's account of this illness."<ref>George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson, eds., ''Readers Guide to The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett'' (Adyar, Chennai, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1972), 47.</ref>

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>

Pablo Sender at 21:27, 17 May 2021

2021-05-17T21:27:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 17 May 2021
Line 132:		Line 132:
	{{Col-break\|width=30%}}		{{Col-break\|width=30%}}
	'''NOTES:'''		'''NOTES:'''
			* '''cui bono''' Latin expression meaning, "to whom (is it) a benefit?"
	* '''bévues''' is a French word indicating errors committed inadvertently or in ignorance.		* '''bévues''' is a French word indicating errors committed inadvertently or in ignorance.
	* "'''Magna est veritas et praevalebit'''" means "Truth is mighty, and will prevail."		* "'''Magna est veritas et praevalebit'''" means "Truth is mighty, and will prevail."
Line 168:		Line 169:
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''And here I must take my stand - as for physical matters, when where or what one eats or sucks, where or how one lives or sleeps, these are all accidentals - matters of no earthly consequence provided my health does not seriously suffer, I would as soon live on herbs & water & sleep & live in a cave or a mud hut if any good was to come of it, as in any other ways.''' But if it be intended that I shall ever, get instructions to do this or that and without understanding the why or the wherefore, without scrutinizing consequences, blind and heedless, straightway go and do it — then frankly the matter for me is at an end. I am no military machine. I am an avowed enemy of the military organization — friend and advocate of the industrial or co-operative system, and I will join no Society or no Body which purports to limit or control my right of private judgment. Of course I am not ~~'''~~a~~'''~~ doctrinaire, (!?) and do not desire to ride any principle as a hobby horse. '''Where a matter is immaterial, i.e. as far as my unaided judgement enables me to discern can do no harm - then if the persons who asked me to do it were persons in whose good faith & capacity I had confidence I should like [[H. S. Olcott\|Olcott]] be quite willing to obey & ask no questions. But if the thing was material, & either involves consequences which I could not clearly forsee, or appears to me wrong or unwise, then I should most distinctly refuse to obey unless the "hakims" were willing to explain to me the reasons for their "hukum" & make it clear to me that despite any previous doubts, it was really the right thing to do.'''		'''And here I must take my stand - as for physical matters, when where or what one eats or sucks, where or how one lives or sleeps, these are all accidentals - matters of no earthly consequence provided my health does not seriously suffer, I would as soon live on herbs & water & sleep & live in a cave or a mud hut if any good was to come of it, as in any other ways.''' But if it be intended that I shall ever, get instructions to do this or that and without understanding the why or the wherefore, without scrutinizing consequences, blind and heedless, straightway go and do it — then frankly the matter for me is at an end. I am no military machine. I am an avowed enemy of the military organization — friend and advocate of the industrial or co-operative system, and I will join no Society or no Body which purports to limit or control my right of private judgment. Of course I am not a <u>doctrinaire</u>,!? and do not desire to ride any principle as a hobby horse. '''Where a matter is immaterial, i.e. as far as my unaided judgement enables me to discern can do no harm - then if the persons who asked me to do it were persons in whose good faith & capacity I had confidence I should like [[H. S. Olcott\|Olcott]] be quite willing to obey & ask no questions. But if the thing was material, & either involves consequences which I could not clearly forsee, or appears to me wrong or unwise, then I should most distinctly refuse to obey unless the "hakims" were willing to explain to me the reasons for their "hukum" & make it clear to me that despite any previous doubts, it was really the right thing to do.'''

	To return to [[H. S. Olcott\|Olcott]] — <u>I</u> do not think his connection with the proposed Society would be any evil. '''[[A. P. Sinnett\|Sinnett]] thinks this I believe - I do not - given any real vital principle as a basis to the Society & nobody's connections with it could do any very permanent harm. So I quite agree in all you say about this. But when you go on to say "But if you now so dislike the idea of a purely nominal executive supervision by [[H. S. Olcott\|Col Olcott]] - an American of your own race - you would surely rebel against dictation from a Hindoo" you must entirely mistake my feelings at any rate.'''		To return to [[H. S. Olcott\|Olcott]] — <u>I</u> do not think his connection with the proposed Society would be any evil. '''[[A. P. Sinnett\|Sinnett]] thinks this I believe - I do not - given any real vital principle as a basis to the Society & nobody's connections with it could do any very permanent harm. So I quite agree in all you say about this. But when you go on to say "But if you now so dislike the idea of a purely nominal executive supervision by [[H. S. Olcott\|Col Olcott]] - an American of your own race - you would surely rebel against dictation from a Hindoo" you must entirely mistake my feelings at any rate.'''
Line 179:		Line 180:
	{{Col-break\|width=30%}}		{{Col-break\|width=30%}}
	'''NOTES:'''		'''NOTES:'''
			* '''<u>doctrinaire</u>,!?''' The underlining and punctuation marks have been added by the Master.
	* '''Hakim''' is a Muslim honorific title used for a leader or ruler of an area.		* '''Hakim''' is a Muslim honorific title used for a leader or ruler of an area.
			* '''Hukum''' or Hukam is a Punjabi word meaning "command" or "divine order."

	{{Col-end}}		{{Col-end}}
Line 206:		Line 209:
	{{Col-break\|width=30%}}		{{Col-break\|width=30%}}
	'''NOTES:'''		'''NOTES:'''
	* A '''"Vaquil"''' (more commonly spelled as "vakil") refers to an official or ambassador.		* '''Mookhtear''' may refer to the Nepali term "Mukhtiyar," meaning the "Executive Head of the State," or to the Arabic "Mukhtar," meaning the head of a village.
	* A '''"Khitmutgar"''' is a waiter.		* '''Vaquil''' (more commonly spelled as "vakil") refers to an official or ambassador.
			* '''Khitmutgar''' is a waiter.
	* '''Sifat''' means attributes, qualities in Arabic.		* '''Sifat''' means attributes, qualities in Arabic.
	* French '''"que voulez-vous?"''' translates as: "what can you do?"		* French '''"que voulez-vous?"''' translates as: "what can you do?"
Line 219:		Line 223:
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>
	'''to aim at. Old, mean? clothes are one thing (though when a man can dress in plain ones I cannot see why he should not), but dirtiness of body is another and I do not believe that <u>where this can be avoided</u>, it should be permitted. And in fact I am unable to believe that any adept can be really dirty or offensive. But even were this so, this would not in the smallest degree repel me, once I knew that it was really an adept I was dealing with and that as foul as the exterior husk might be, the true good seed was within.'''		'''to aim at. Old, mean, clothes are one thing (though when a man can dress in plain ones I cannot see why he should not), but dirtiness of body is another and I do not believe that <u>where this can be avoided</u>, it should be permitted. And in fact I am unable to believe that any adept can be really dirty or offensive. But even were this so, this would not in the smallest degree repel me, once I knew that it was really an adept I was dealing with and that as foul as the exterior husk might be, the true good seed was within.'''
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>

Alejandro Daniele at 14:42, 9 May 2021

2021-05-09T14:42:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 9 May 2021
Line 313:		Line 313:
	[[Category:ML with images]]		[[Category:ML with images]]
	[[Category:ML needs commentary]]		[[Category:ML needs commentary]]

			[[es:Carta de los Mahatmas No. 8]]

Pablo Sender: /* Page 4 */

2021-04-28T21:58:52Z

Page 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 28 April 2021
Line 97:		Line 97:
	'''NOTE - Long ellipsis in printed text has been added back from letter image, printed in boldface.'''		'''NOTE - Long ellipsis in printed text has been added back from letter image, printed in boldface.'''
	<br><br>		<br><br>
	for this ignorance at any rate <u>I</u> am not to blame. '''Then you say - "It <u>is not possible</u> that there should be much more at best than a benevolent neutrality shown by your people towards ours. There is so very minute a point of contact between the two civilizations they respectively represent that one might almost say they could not touch at all" Now is this correct? Is it not in the first place misleading to talk of <u>two</u> civilizations? All civilizations have the same necessary ingredients, mental & moral (or if you prefer it a spiritual) culture. The one element may predominate here, the other there, but in both cases there must be a vast am[oun]t in common. Essential to every civilization in any way deserving of the name is the intellectual culture necessary for the discrimination of the good, the true & the beautiful & the moral culture essential to the adherence at all cost to these in preference to their opposites. In the one country there may be less intellectual capacity & a purer devotion to the more dimly perceived truths, in the other it may be more of "Meliora videon proboque, deteriora sequor" but in both the essentials are the same & it appears to me to be a contradiction in terms to talk of two civilizations which may almost be said not to touch at all. Nor is this a mere matter of words, for starting with such ~~idea's~~ failure is a certainty, whereas if the vast am[oun]t that <u>is</u> common to both be realized & recognized & if we seek to build on this common foundation, an active cooperation in lieu of a benevolent neutrality becomes not only a possibility, but is a thing that may be commanded.''' [[Mahatma Letter No. 9#Page 1 transcription, image, and notes\|(3)]]		for this ignorance at any rate <u>I</u> am not to blame. '''Then you say - "It <u>is not possible</u> that there should be much more at best than a benevolent neutrality shown by your people towards ours. There is so very minute a point of contact between the two civilizations they respectively represent that one might almost say they could not touch at all" Now is this correct? Is it not in the first place misleading to talk of <u>two</u> civilizations? All civilizations have the same necessary ingredients, mental & moral (or if you prefer it a spiritual) culture. The one element may predominate here, the other there, but in both cases there must be a vast am[oun]t in common. Essential to every civilization in any way deserving of the name is the intellectual culture necessary for the discrimination of the good, the true & the beautiful & the moral culture essential to the adherence at all cost to these in preference to their opposites. In the one country there may be less intellectual capacity & a purer devotion to the more dimly perceived truths, in the other it may be more of "Meliora videon proboque, deteriora sequor" but in both the essentials are the same & it appears to me to be a contradiction in terms to talk of two civilizations which may almost be said not to touch at all. Nor is this a mere matter of words, for starting with such ideas failure is a certainty, whereas if the vast am[oun]t that <u>is</u> common to both be realized & recognized & if we seek to build on this common foundation, an active cooperation in lieu of a benevolent neutrality becomes not only a possibility, but is a thing that may be commanded.''' [[Mahatma Letter No. 9#Page 1 transcription, image, and notes\|(3)]]

	Then I come to the passage, "Has it occurred to you that the two Bombay publications if not influenced may at least have not been prevented by those who might have done so because they saw the necessity for that much agitation to effect the double result of making a needed diversion after the brooch grenade, & perhaps of trying the strength		Then I come to the passage, "Has it occurred to you that the two Bombay publications if not influenced may at least have not been prevented by those who might have done so because they saw the necessity for that much agitation to effect the double result of making a needed diversion after the brooch grenade, & perhaps of trying the strength

Pablo Sender at 21:31, 23 October 2020

2020-10-23T21:31:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 23 October 2020
Line 145:		Line 145:
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>
	in his favour — but I cannot but take exception to the terms in which you praise him, the whole burthen of which is that he never questions but always obeys. This is the Jesuit organization over again. And this renunciation of private judgment, this abnegation of one's own personal responsibility, this accepting the dictates of outside voices as a substitute for one's own conscience, is to my mind a <u>sin</u> of no ordinary magnitude '''& involves a principle inimical to all true civilization. Moreover I venture to predict that such system of passive obedience will never obtain the cooperation of the highest minds in any society. ''' Nay further I feel bound to say that if '''as I seem to gather from many incidental passages in our letters,''' this doctrine of blind obedience is an essential one in your system, I greatly doubt whether any spiritual light it may confer can compensate mankind for the loss of that private freedom of action, that sense of personal, individual responsibility of which it would deprive them.''' Nay further I take, unless I wholly misread the teachings of history and the spirit of the age, any organization, which has for the key note passive obedience is itself doomed.''' [[Mahatma Letter No. 9#Page 2\|(5)]]		in his favour — but I cannot but take exception to the terms in which you praise him, the whole burthen of which is that he never questions but always obeys. This is the Jesuit organization over again. And this renunciation of private judgment, this abnegation of one's own personal responsibility, this accepting the dictates of outside voices as a substitute for one's own [[conscience]], is to my mind a <u>sin</u> of no ordinary magnitude '''& involves a principle inimical to all true civilization. Moreover I venture to predict that such system of passive obedience will never obtain the cooperation of the highest minds in any society. ''' Nay further I feel bound to say that if '''as I seem to gather from many incidental passages in our letters,''' this doctrine of blind obedience is an essential one in your system, I greatly doubt whether any spiritual light it may confer can compensate mankind for the loss of that private freedom of action, that sense of personal, individual responsibility of which it would deprive them.''' Nay further I take, unless I wholly misread the teachings of history and the spirit of the age, any organization, which has for the key note passive obedience is itself doomed.''' [[Mahatma Letter No. 9#Page 2\|(5)]]
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>

Anton Diachenko: /* Page 4 */

2020-08-02T13:00:13Z

Page 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, 2 August 2020
Line 97:		Line 97:
	'''NOTE - Long ellipsis in printed text has been added back from letter image, printed in boldface.'''		'''NOTE - Long ellipsis in printed text has been added back from letter image, printed in boldface.'''
	<br><br>		<br><br>
	for this ignorance at any rate <u>I</u> am not to blame. '''Then you say - "It <u>is not possible</u> that there should be much more at best than a benevolent neutrality shown by your people towards ours. There is so very minute a point of contact between the two civilizations they respectively represent that one might almost say they could not touch at all" Now is this correct? Is it not in the first place misleading to talk of <u>two</u> civilizations? All civilizations have the same necessary ingredients, mental & moral (or if you prefer it a spiritual) culture. The one element may predominate here, the other there, but in both cases there must be a vast am[oun]t in common. Essential to every civilization in any way deserving of the name is the intellectual culture necessary for the discrimination of the good, the true & the beautiful & the moral culture essential to the adherence at all cost to these in preference to their opposites. In the one country there may be less intellectual capacity & a purer devotion to the more dimly perceived truths, in the other it may be more of "Meliora videon proboque, deteriora sequor" but in both the essentials are the same & it appears to me to be a contradiction in terms to talk of two civilizations which may almost be said not to touch at all. Nor is this a mere matter of words for starting with such idea's failure is a certainty, whereas if the vast am[oun]t that <u>is</u> common to both be realized & recognized & if we seek to build on this common foundation, an active cooperation in lieu of a benevolent neutrality becomes not only a possibility, but is a thing that may be commanded.''' [[Mahatma Letter No. 9#Page 1 transcription, image, and notes\|(3)]]		for this ignorance at any rate <u>I</u> am not to blame. '''Then you say - "It <u>is not possible</u> that there should be much more at best than a benevolent neutrality shown by your people towards ours. There is so very minute a point of contact between the two civilizations they respectively represent that one might almost say they could not touch at all" Now is this correct? Is it not in the first place misleading to talk of <u>two</u> civilizations? All civilizations have the same necessary ingredients, mental & moral (or if you prefer it a spiritual) culture. The one element may predominate here, the other there, but in both cases there must be a vast am[oun]t in common. Essential to every civilization in any way deserving of the name is the intellectual culture necessary for the discrimination of the good, the true & the beautiful & the moral culture essential to the adherence at all cost to these in preference to their opposites. In the one country there may be less intellectual capacity & a purer devotion to the more dimly perceived truths, in the other it may be more of "Meliora videon proboque, deteriora sequor" but in both the essentials are the same & it appears to me to be a contradiction in terms to talk of two civilizations which may almost be said not to touch at all. Nor is this a mere matter of words, for starting with such idea's failure is a certainty, whereas if the vast am[oun]t that <u>is</u> common to both be realized & recognized & if we seek to build on this common foundation, an active cooperation in lieu of a benevolent neutrality becomes not only a possibility, but is a thing that may be commanded.''' [[Mahatma Letter No. 9#Page 1 transcription, image, and notes\|(3)]]

	Then I come to the passage, "Has it occurred to you that the two Bombay publications if not influenced may at least have not been prevented by those who might have done so because they saw the necessity for that much agitation to effect the double result of making a needed diversion after the brooch grenade, & perhaps of trying the strength		Then I come to the passage, "Has it occurred to you that the two Bombay publications if not influenced may at least have not been prevented by those who might have done so because they saw the necessity for that much agitation to effect the double result of making a needed diversion after the brooch grenade, & perhaps of trying the strength

SysopJ at 18:52, 1 March 2020

2020-03-01T18:52:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 1 March 2020
Line 309:		Line 309:
	<references/>		<references/>

	[[Category:ML from Hume]]		[[Category:ML from A. O. Hume]]
	[[Category:ML to A. P. Sinnett]]		[[Category:ML to A. P. Sinnett]]
	[[Category:ML with images]]		[[Category:ML with images]]
	[[Category:ML needs commentary]]		[[Category:ML needs commentary]]

SysopJ at 20:22, 29 February 2020

2020-02-29T20:22:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 29 February 2020
Line 310:		Line 310:

	[[Category:ML from Hume]]		[[Category:ML from Hume]]
	[[Category:ML ~~needs publication history~~]]		[[Category:ML to A. P. Sinnett]]
			[[Category:ML with images]]
	[[Category:ML needs commentary]]		[[Category:ML needs commentary]]

SysopJ at 16:42, 15 December 2019

2019-12-15T16:42:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 15 December 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~[[Category:ML from Hume]]~~
	~~[[Category:ML needs publication history]]~~
	~~[[Category:ML needs commentary]]~~
	{{Infobox MLbox		{{Infobox MLbox
	\| header1 = People involved \|		\| header1 = People involved \|
Line 16:		Line 13:
	\| vialocation = unknown{{pad\|9em}}		\| vialocation = unknown{{pad\|9em}}
	}}		}}
	'''~~This is~~ Letter No. 99 in Barker numbering.''' See below for [[Mahatma Letter No. 8#Context and background\|Context and background]].		This is '''Letter No. 8''' in''' [[The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett (book)\|''The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett'']], 4th chronological edition'''. It corresponds to '''Letter No. 99''' in '''Barker numbering.''' See below for [[Mahatma Letter No. 8#Context and background\|Context and background]].
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>
Line 311:		Line 308:
	== Notes ==		== Notes ==
	<references/>		<references/>
	~~<br>~~
			[[Category:ML from Hume]]
	~~== Additional resources ==~~		[[Category:ML needs publication history]]
			[[Category:ML needs commentary]]