Mahatma Letter No. 85b
This is Letter No. 24b in Barker numbering. See below for Context and background.
< Prev letter chrono
Next letter chrono >
< Prev letter Barker
Next letter Barker >
Page 1 transcription, image, and notes
|
[A] At this stage of our correspondence, misunderstood as we generally seem to be, even by yourself, my faithful friend, it may be worth our while and useful for both, that you should be posted on certain facts — and very important facts — connected with adept-ship. Bear in mind then, the following points. (1) An adept — the highest as the lowest — is one only during the exercise of his occult powers. (2) Whenever these powers are needed, the sovereign will unlocks the door to the inner man (the adept,) who can emerge and act freely but on condition that his jailor — the outer man will be either completely or partially paralyzed — as the case may require; viz: either (a) mentally and physically; (b) mentally, — but not physically; (c) physically but not entirely mentally; (d) neither, — but with |
NOTES: |
Page 2
|
an akasic film interposed between the outer and the inner man. (3) The smallest exercise of occult powers then, as you will now see, requires an effort. We may compare it to the inner muscular effort of an athlete preparing to use his physical strength. As no athlete is likely to be always amusing himself at swelling his veins in anticipation of having to lift a weight, so no adept can be supposed to keep his will in constant tension and the inner man in full function, when there is no immediate necessity for it. When the inner man rests the adept becomes an ordinary man, limited to his physical senses and the functions of his physical brain. Habit sharpens the intuitions of the latter, yet is unable to make them supersensuous. The inner adept is ever ready, ever on the alert, and that suffices for our purposes. At moments |
NOTES: |
Page 3
|
of rest then, his faculties are at rest also. When I sit at my meals, or when I am dressing, reading or otherwise occupied I am not thinking even of those near me; and, Djual Khool can easily break his nose to blood, by running in the dark against a beam, as he did the other night — (just because instead of throwing a "film" he had foolishly paralyzed all his outer senses while talking to and with a distant friend) — and I remained placidly ignorant of the fact. I was not thinking of him — hence my ignorance. From the aforesaid, you may well infer, that an adept is an ordinary mortal, at all the moments of his daily life but those — when the inner man is acting. Couple this with the unpleasant fact that we are forbidden to use one particle of our powers in connexion with the Eclectics (for which you have to thank your President and him alone — ) and that the little |
NOTES: |
Page 4
|
that is done, is, so to say, smuggled in — and then syllogize thusly: — K.H. when writing to us is not an adept. A non-adept — is fallible. Therefore, K.H. may very easily commit mistakes; — Mistakes of punctuation — that will often change entirely the whole sense of a sentence; idiomatic mistakes — very likely to occur especially when writing as hurriedly as I do; mistakes arising from occasional confusion of terms that I had to learn from you — since it is you who are the author of "rounds" — "rings" — "earthly rings" — etc. etc. Now with all this, I beg leave to say, that after having carefully read over and over our "Famous Contradictions" myself; after giving them to be read to M.; and then to a high adept whose powers are not in the Chohan's chancery sequestered by Him to prevent him from squandering them |
NOTES: |
Page 5
|
upon the unworthy objects of his personal predilections; after doing all this I was told by the latter the following: "It is all perfectly correct. Knowing what you mean, no more than any other person acquainted with the doctrine, can I find in these detached fragments anything that would really conflict with each other. But, since many sentences are incomplete, and the subjects scattered about without any order, I do not wonder that your "lay chelas" should find fault with them. Yes; they do require a more explicit and clear exposition." Such is the decree of an adept — and I abide by it; I will try to complete the information for your sake. In one and only case — marked on your pages and my answers |
NOTES: |
Page 6
|
(I2A) and (12B), the last — is the "plaintiff" entitled to a hearing, but not to a farthing even — for damages; since, as in law, no one — either plaintiff or defendant — has a right to plead ignorance of that law, so in Occult Sciences, the lay chelas ought to be forced to give the benefit of the doubt to their gurus in cases, in which, owing to their great ignorance of that science they are likely to misinterpret the meaning — instead of accusing them point blank of contradiction! Now I beg to state, that, with regard to the two sentences — marked respectively 12A and 12B — there is a plain contradiction but for those who are not acquainted with that tenet; you were not, and therefore I plead "guilty" of an omission, but "not guilty" of a contradiction. And even as regards the former, that omission is so small that, like the girl accused of infanticide, who when brought before |
NOTES: |
Page 7
|
the Judge said in her excuse that the baby was so very very little that it was not worth his while calling it a "baby" at all — I could plead the same for my omission, had I not before my eyes your terrible definition of my "exercising ingenuity." Well, read the explanation given in my "Notes and Answers" and judge. By the bye, my good Brother, I have not hitherto suspected in you such a capacity for defending and excusing the inexcusable as exhibited by you in my defence, of the now famous "exercise of ingenuity." If the article (reply to C. C. Massey) has been written in the spirit you attribute to me in your letter; and if I, or any one of us has "an inclination to tolerate subtler and more tricksy ways of pursuing an |
NOTES: |
Page 8
|
end" than generally admitted as honourable by the truth-loving, straight-forward European (is Mr. Hume included in this category?) — indeed you have no right to excuse such a mode of dealing, even in me; nor to view it "merely in the nature of spots in the sun," since a spot is a spot whether found in the bright luminary or upon a brass candlestick. But you are mistaken, my dear friend. There was no subtle, no tricky mode of dealing, to get her out of the difficulty created by her ambiguous style and ignorance of English, not her ignorance of the subject — which is not the same thing and alters entirely the question. Nor was I ignorant of the fact that M. had written to you previously upon the subject since it was in one of his letters (the last but one before I took the business off his hands) in which he touched upon the subject of "races" for the first and spoke of reincarnations. If M. told you to beware trusting Isis too implicitly, it was because he was teaching you truth and fact — and that at the time the passage was written we had not yet decided upon teaching the public indiscriminately. He gave you several such instances — if you will but re-read his letter — adding that were such and such sentences written in such a way they would explain facts now merely hinted upon, far better. Of course "to C.C.M." the passage must seem wrong and contradictory for it is "misleading" as M. said. Many are the subjects treated upon in Isis that even H.P.B. was not allowed to become thoroughly acquainted with; yet they are not contradictory if — "misleading." To make her say — as she was made by me to say — that the passage criticized was "incomplete, chaotic, vague . . . clumsy as many more passages in that work" |
NOTES: |
Page 9
|
was a sufficiently "frank admission" I should think, to satisfy the most crotchetty critic. To admit "that the passage was wrong," on the other hand, would have mounted to a timeless falsehood, for I maintain that it is not wrong; since if it conceals the whole truth, it does not distort it in the fragments of that truth as given in Isis. The point in C.C.M.'s complaining criticism was not that the whole truth had not been given, but that the truth and facts of 1877 were represented as errors and contradicted in 1882 and it was that point — damaging for the whole Society, its "lay" and inner chelas, and for our doctrine — that had to be shown under its true colours; namely that of an entire misconception due to the fact that the "septenary" doctrine had not yet been divulged to the world at the time when Isis was written. And thus it was shown. I am sorry you do not find her answer |
NOTES: |
Page 10
|
written under my direct inspiration "very satisfactory," for it proves to me only that up to this you have not yet grasped very firmly the difference between the sixth and seventh and the fifth, or the immortal and the astral or personal "Monads — Egos." The suspicion is corroborated by what H — X gives in his criticism of my explanation at the end of his "letter" in the September number; your letter before me completing the evidence thereupon. No doubt the "real Ego inheres in the higher principles which are reincarnated" periodically every one, two, or three or more thousands of years. But the immortal Ego the "Individual Monad," is not the personal monad which is the 5th; and the passage in Isis did not answer Eastern reincarnationists — who maintain in that same Isis — had you but read the whole of it — that the individuality or the immortal "Ego" has to |
NOTES: |
Page 11
|
re-appear in every cycle — but the Western especially the French reincarnationists, who teach that it is the personal, or astral monad, the "moi fluidique" the manas, or the intellectual mind, the 5th principle in short, that is reincarnated each time. Thus, if you read once more C.C.M.'s quoted passage from Isis against the "Reviewer of the Perfect Way," you will perhaps find that H.P.B. and myself were perfectly right in maintaining that in the above passage only the "astral monad" was meant. And, there is a far more "unsatisfactory shock" to my mind, upon finding that you refuse to recognise in the astral monad the personal Ego — whereas, all of us call it most undoubtedly by that name, and have so called it for millenniums — than there could ever be in yours when meeting with that monad under its proper name in E. Levi's Fragment on Death! The "astral monad" is the "personal |
NOTES: |
Page 12-13
|
Ego," and therefore, it never reincarnates, as the French Spirites, will have it, but under "exceptional circumstances;" in which case, reincarnating, it does not become a shell but, if successful in its second reincarnation will become one, and then gradually lose its personality, after being so to say emptied of its best and highest spiritual attributes by the immortal monad or the "Spiritual Ego," during the last and supreme struggle. The "jar of feeling" then ought to be on my side, as indeed it only "seemed to be another illustration of the difference between eastern and western methods," but was not — not in this case at any rate. I can readily understand, my dear friend, that in the chilly condition you find yourself (mentally) in, you are prepared to bask even in the rays of a funereal pile upon which a living sutti is being performed; but why, why call it a — Sun, and excuse its spot — the corpse? The letter addressed to me, which your delicacy would not permit you to read, was for your perusal and sent for that purpose. I wanted you to read it. Your suggestion concerning G.K.'s next trial in art — is clever, but not sufficiently, as to conceal the white threads of the Jesuitically black insinuation. G.K. was however caught at it: Nous verrons, nous verrons! says the French song. G. Khool says — presenting his most humble salaams — that you have "incorrectly described the course of events as regards the first portrait." What he says is this: (1) the day she came" she did not ask you "to give her a piece of" etc. (page 300) but after you had begun speaking to her of my portrait, which she doubted much whether you could have. It is but after half-an-hour's talk over it in the front drawing room — you two forming the two upper points of the triangle, near your office door, and your lady the lower one (he was there he says) that she told you she would try. It was then that she asked you for "a piece of thick white paper" and that you gave her a piece of a thin letter paper, which had been touched by some very anti-magnetic person. However he did, he says, the best he could. On the day following, as Mrs. S. had looked at it just 27 minutes before he did it, he accomplished his task. It was not "an hour or two before" as you say for he had told the "O.L." to let her see it just before breakfast. After breakfast, she asked you for a piece of Bristol board, and you gave her two pieces, both marked and not one as you say. The first time she brought it out it was a failure, he says, "with the eyebrow like a leech," and it was finished only during the evening, while you were at the Club, at a dinner at which the old Upasika would not go. And it was he again G.K. "great artist" who had to make away with the "leech," and to correct cap and features, and who made it "look like Master" (he will insist giving me that name though he is no longer my chela in reality), since M. after spoiling it would not go to the trouble of correcting it but preferred going to sleep instead. And finally, he tells me, my making fun of the portrait notwithstanding, the likeness is good but would have been better had M. sahib not interfered with it, and he, G.K. allowed to have his own "artistic" ways. Such is his tale, and he therefore, is not satisfied with your description and so he said to Upasika who told you |
NOTES: |
Page not found ???????????????
|
something quite different. Now to my notes. |
NOTES: |
Page 15
|
(1) (1) Nor do they fret me — particularly. But as they furnish our mutual friend with a good handle against us, which he is likely to use any day in that nasty way, so pre-eminently his own, I rather explain them once more — with your kind permission. (2) Of course, of course; it is our usual way of getting out of difficulties. Having been "invented" ourselves, we repay the inventors by inventing imaginary races. There are a good many things more we are charged with having invented. Well, well, well; there's one thing, at any rate, we can never be accused of inventing; and that is Mr. Hume himself. To invent his like transcends the highest Siddhi powers we know of. And now good friend, before we proceed any further, pray read |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Context and background
Physical description of letter
Publication history
Commentary about this letter
Notes