Mahatma Letter No. 92
This is Letter No. 54 in Barker numbering. See below for Context and background.
< Prev letter chrono
Next letter chrono >
< Prev letter Barker
Next letter Barker >
Cover sheet
|
Received Simla, October, 1882. |
NOTES: |
Page 1 transcription, image, and notes
|
My dear friend: — the deposition and abdication of our great "I am " is one of the most agreeable events of the season for your humble servant. Mea culpa! — I exclaim, and willingly place my guilty head under a shower of ashes — from the Simla cigars if you like — for it was my doing! Some good has come of it in the shape of excellent literary work — (though, indeed, I prefer your style) — for the Parent body, but none whatever for the 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 violently back. This is what we may call — tampering with historical facts. I send you his last letter to me, in which you will find him entirely under the influence of his new guru — "the good Vedantin Swami" (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 |
NOTES: |
Page 2
|
paid) — and, he is preparing, nay — all prepared — to plunge from extreme Adwaitism, 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 own 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 indifference to chelas and even to their masters, adding that he cared very little to meet either. But enough of him who may better be 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. |
NOTES: |
Page 3
|
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" at least. Try to save him, if possible, my dearest friend; do your best to convert him to truth and unselfishness. It is real pity that such gifts should be drowned in a mire of vice — so strongly engrafted upon him by his early tutors. Meanwhile, beware of ever allowing him to see any of my letters. And now to C. C. Massey and your letters. Both answer and your reply are excellent. Doubtless a more sincere, truthful or a more noble minded man (S. Moses not excepted) could hardly be found among the British theosophists. His only and chief fault is — weakness. Were he to learn some day how deeply he has wronged H.P.B. in thought — no man would feel more miserable over it than himself. But of this anon. If you remember in my letter to H. upon the subject I "forbade all arrangements" for the simple reason that the Bsh. Theos. Soc. had collapsed, and virtually was no more. But, if I remember right I added — that if they re-established it on a firm basis with such members as Mrs. K. and her scribe — that we |
NOTES: |
Page 4
|
would have no objection to teach them through you — or words to that effect. I certainly objected having my letters printed and circulated like those of Paul in the bazaars of Ephesus — for the benefit (or perchance derision and criticism) of isolated members who hardly believed in our existence. But I have no objection, in case of an arrangement, as proposed by C.C.M. Only let them first organize, leaving out such bigots as Wyld — strictly out in the cold. He refused to admit Mr. Hume's sister Mrs. B. because, having never seen any mesmeric phenomena she disbelieved in mesmerism; and refused to admit Crookes, recommended by C.C.M., as I was told. I will never refuse my help and co-operation to a group of men sincere and ardent to learn; but if again, such men as Mr. Hume are to be admitted, men who generally delight in playing in every organized system they get into, the parts played by Typhon and Ahriman in the Egyptian and Zoroastrian systems — then the plan had better be left aside. I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by Mr. H. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?) cosmogony and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had to cross out nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe in God because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so |
NOTES: |
Page 5
|
disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be a "loving Father and creator of all in heaven" our philosophy will be rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth 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 |
NOTES: |
Page 6
|
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?" — 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 |
NOTES: |
Page 7
|
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 introduce 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 now to afford the British Theosophists the proof of our existence in flesh and 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 prove the former, it would be far less easy to disprove the latter. A "K. H.," i.e. a mortal of very ordinary appearance and acquainted tolerably well with the English, Vedanta and Buddhist philosophy, and with even a bit of drawing-room juggling — is easily found and furnished, so as to demonstrate his objective existence beyond doubt or cavil. But how 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 — and presumably Europeans — not "niggers" of my sort — regarded at the time, and still so regarded |
NOTES: |
Page 8
|
by posterity — as impostors, confederates, jugglers and what not? Yet I am morally bound to set his mind at rest — through your kind agency — with regard to H.P.B. deceiving and imposing upon him. He seems to think he has obtained proofs of it absolutely unimpeachable. I say he has not. What he has obtained is simply proof of the villainy of some men, and ex-theosophists such as Hurrychund Chintamon of Bombay now of Manchester and elsewhere; the man who robbed the Founders and Dayanand of Rs. 4,000, deceived and imposed upon them from the first (so far back as New York), and then exposed and expelled from the Society ran away to England and is ever since seeking and thirsting for his revenge. And such other as Dr. Billing, the husband of that good, honest woman, the only really and thoroughly reliable and honest medium I know of — Mrs. M. Hollis-Billing; whom he married for her few thousands pounds, ruined her during the first year of his married life, went into concubinage with another medium; and when vehemently reproached by H.P.B. and Olcott, — left his wife and Society and turned with bitter hatred against both women; and since then is ever seeking to secretly poison the minds of the British Theosophists and Spiritualists against his wife and H.P.B. Let C.C.M. put all those facts together; fathom the mystery and trace the connection between his informants and |
NOTES: |
Page 9
|
the two traducers of the two innocent women. Let him investigate thoroughly and patiently, before he believes in certain reports — and even proofs brought forward — lest he overloads his Karma with a heavier sin than any. There is not a stone these two men leave unturned in order to succeed in their evil design. While Hurrychund Chintamon never failed once during the last three years to take into his confidence every theosophist he met, pouring into his ears pretended news from Bombay about the duplicity of the Founders; and to spread reports among the spiritualists about Mad. B's pretended phenomena, showing them all as simply "impudent tricks" — since she has no real idea of the Yoga powers; or again showing letters from her, received by him while she was in America; and in which she is made to advise him to pretend — he is a "Brother" and thus deceive the British theosophists the better; while H.C. is doing all this and much more, Billing is "working" the London mystics. He attitudinizes before them as a victim of his over confidence in a wife whom 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. gradually came 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 document. A man who was capable of forging on a bogus will the signature of the testator and then getting hold of |
NOTES: |
Page 10
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 11
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 12
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 13
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 14
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 15
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 16
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 17
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 18
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 19
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 20
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 21
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 22
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 23
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 24
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 3
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 3
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 3
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 3
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
v
Page 3
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Page 3
|
TEXT HERE |
NOTES: |
Context and background
Physical description of letter
Publication history
Commentary about this letter
Notes