Notice: I have written in other languages, many interesting articles that you
can read translated in English in this
link.

THE FIRST LETTER FROM MASTER KUTHUMI TO ALLAN HUME




This is the first letter that Master Kuthumi sent to Mr. Allan Hume, who was a high-ranking English civil functionary in the British government in India.

Messrs. Hume and Sinnett proposed creating an institution guided by Mahatmas who would explain and teach their occult knowledge, particularly regarding paranormal phenomena. And in this letter, Master Kuthumi gives his response to this proposal.

I added subtitles to specify the different topics that Kuthumi addresses.

--oOo--


Amritsur, November 1, [1880].

Dear Sir,

Availing of the first moments of leisure to formally answer your letter of the 17th ultimo, I will now report the result of my conference with our chiefs upon the proposition therein contained; trying at the same time to answer all your questions.

I am first to thank you on behalf of the whole section of our fraternity that is especially interested in the welfare of India for an offer of help whose importance and sincerity no one can doubt.

Tracing our lineage through the vicissitudes of Indian civilization to a remote past, we have a love for our motherland so deep and passionate, that it has survived even the broadening and cosmopolitanizing (pardon me if this is not an English word) effect of our studies in the hidden laws of nature. And so I and every other Indian patriot feel the strongest gratitude for every kind word or deed that is given in her behalf.

Imagine then, that since we are convinced that the degradation of India is largely due to the suffocation of her ancient spirituality; and that, whatever helps restore that higher standard of thought and morals must be a regenerating national force; every one of us would naturally and without urging be disposed to push forward a Society whose proposed formation is under debate; especially if it really is meant to become a society untainted by selfish motive, and whose object is the revival of ancient science and tendency to rehabilitate our country in the world's estimation.

Take this for granted, without further asseverations. But you know, as any man who has read history, that patriots may burst their hearts in vain if circumstances are against them. Sometimes, it has happened that no human power, not even the fury and force of the loftiest patriotism, has been able to bend an iron destiny aside from its fixed course, and nations have gone out like torches dropped into water in the engulfing blackness of ruin.

Thus, we who have the sense of our country's fall though not the power to lift her up at once, can not do as we would either as to general affairs or this particular one. And with the readiness but not the right to meet your advances more than half way we are forced to say that the idea entertained by Mr. Sinnett and yourself is impracticable in part.

It is in a word impossible for myself or any Brother or even an advanced neophyte, to be specially assigned and set apart as the guiding Spirit or Chief of the Anglo-Indian Branch.

We know it would be a good thing to have you and a few of your selected colleagues regularly instructed and shown the phenomena and their rationale.

For though none but you few would be convinced, still it would be a decided gain to have even a few Englishmen of first-class ability enlisted as students of Asiatic Psychology. We are aware of all this and much more; hence we do not refuse to correspond with and otherwise help you in various ways. But what we do refuse is to take any other responsibility upon ourselves than this periodical correspondence and assistance with our advice; and, as occasion favours, such tangible, possibly visible proofs as would satisfy you of our presence and interest.

To "guide" you we will not consent. However much we may be able to do, yet we can promise only to give you the full measure of your deserts. Deserve much and we will prove honest debtors; little and you need only expect a compensating return.

This is not a mere text taken from a school boy's copybook, though it sounds so, but only the clumsy statement of the law of our order; and we can not transcend it.

Utterly unacquainted with Western, especially English modes of thought and action, were we to meddle in an organization of such a kind you would find all your fixed habits and traditions incessantly clashing, if not with the new aspirations themselves, at least with their modes of realisation as suggested by us. You could not get unanimous consent to go even the length you might yourself.

I have asked Mr. Sinnett to draft a plan embodying your joint ideas for submission to our chiefs, this seeming the shortest way to a mutual agreement.

Under our "guidance" your Branch could not live, you not being men to be guided at all in that sense. Hence the Society would be a premature birth and a failure, looking as incongruous as a Paris Daumont drawn by a team of Indian yaks or camels.

You ask us to teach you true Science, the occult aspect of the known side of nature: and this you think can be as easily done as asked. You do not seem to realize the tremendous difficulties in the way of imparting even the rudiments of our Science to those who have been trained in the familiar methods of yours.

You do not see that the more you have of the one the less capable you are of intuitively comprehending the other, for a man can only think in his worn grooves, and unless he has the courage to fill up these and make new ones for himself he must perforce travel on the old lines.

Allow me a few instances.




Difference between materialist science and metaphysical science

1. In conformity with exact modern Science you would define but one cosmic energy, and see no difference between the energy expended by the traveller who pushes aside the bush that obstructs his path, and the scientific experimenter who expends an equal amount of energy in setting a pendulum in motion!

We do. For we know there is a world of difference between the two. The one uselessly dissipates or scatters force, the other concentrates and stores it. And here please understand that I do not refer to the relative utility of the two as one might imagine; but only to the fact, that in the one case, there is but brute force flung out without any transmutation of that brute energy into the higher potential form of spiritual dynamics, and, in the other there is just that.

Please do not consider me vaguely metaphysical. The idea I wish to convey is, that the result of the highest intellection in the scientifically occupied brain is the evolution of a sublimated form of spiritual energy, which, in the cosmic action, is productive of illimitable results, while the automatically acting brain holds or stores up in itself only a certain quantum of brute force that is unfruitful of benefit for the individual or humanity.

The human brain is an exhaustless generator of the most refined quality of cosmic force, out of the low, brute energy of nature; and the complete adept has made himself a centre from which irradiate potentialities that beget correlations upon correlations through Aeons to come.

This is the key to the mystery of his being able to project into and materialise in the visible world the forms that his imagination has constructed out of inert cosmic matter in the invisible world.

The adept does not create anything new, but only utilises and manipulates materials which nature has in store around him; a material which throughout eternities has passed through all the forms; he has but to choose the one he wants and recall it into objective existence.

Would not this sound to one of your "learned" biologists like a madman's dream?


You say there are few branches of science with which you do not possess more or less acquaintance, and that you believe you are doing a certain amount of good, having acquired the position to do this by long years of study.

Doubtless you do. But will you permit me to sketch for you still more clearly the difference between the modes of — physical called exact — often out of mere politeness — and metaphysical sciences?

The latter, as you know, being incapable of verification before mixed audiences, is classed by Mr. Tyndall with the fictions of poetry. The realistic science of fact, on the other hand, is utterly prosaic. Now for us poor and unknown philanthropists, no fact of either of these sciences is interesting except in the degree of its potentiality of moral results, and in the ratio of its usefulness to mankind.

And what, in its proud isolation, can be more utterly indifferent to every one and everything, or more bound to nothing, but the selfish requisites for its advancement than this materialistic and realistic science of fact?

May I not ask then without being taxed with a vain "display of science" what have the laws of Faraday, Tyndall, or others to do with philanthropy in their abstract relations with humanity viewed as an integral whole?

What care they for man as an isolated atom of this great and harmonious Whole, even though they may sometimes be of practical use to him?


Cosmic energy is something eternal and incessant, matter is indestructible, and there stand the scientific facts. Doubt them and you are an ignoramus; deny them, a dangerous lunatic, a bigot; pretend to improve upon the theories — an impertinent charlatan.

And yet even these scientific facts never suggested any proof to the world of experimenters, that nature consciously prefers that matter should be indestructible under organic rather than under inorganic forms; and that she works slowly but incessantly towards the realisation of this object — the evolution of conscious life out of inert material.

Hence their ignorance about the scattering and concretion of cosmic energy in its metaphysical aspects; their division about Darwin's theories; their uncertainty about the degree of conscious life in separate elements; and, as a necessity, the scornful rejection of every phenomenon outside their own stated conditions and the very idea of worlds of semi-intelligent if not intellectual forces at work in hidden corners of nature.


2. To give you another practical illustration. We see a vast difference between the qualities of two equal amounts of energy expended by two men, of whom one, let us suppose, is on his way to his daily quiet work, and another on his way to denounce a fellow creature at the police station, while the men of science see none.

And we — not they — see a specific difference between the energy in the motion of the wind and that of a revolving wheel.

And why?

Because every thought of man upon being evolved passes into the inner world and becomes an active entity by associating itself — coalescing, we might term it — with an elemental; that is to say with one of the semi-intelligent forces of the kingdoms.

It survives as an active intelligence, a creature of the mind's begetting, for a longer or shorter period proportionate with the original intensity of the cerebral action which generated it. Thus, a good thought is perpetuated as an active beneficent power; an evil one as a maleficent demon.

And so man is continually peopling his current in space with a world of his own, crowded with the offsprings of his fancies, desires, impulses, and passions, a current which reacts upon any sensitive or and nervous organisation which comes in contact with it in proportion to its dynamic intensity.

The Buddhist calls this his "Skandha," the Hindu gives it the name of "Karma"; the Adept evolves these shapes consciously, other men throw them off unconsciously.


The adept to be successful and preserve his power must dwell in solitude and more or less within his own soul.

Still less does exact science perceive that while the building ant, the busy bee, the nidifacient bird accumulate, each in their own humble way as much cosmic energy in its potential form as a Haydn, a Plato, or a ploughman turning his furrow, in theirs; the hunter who kills game for his pleasure or profit, or the positivist who applies his intellect to proving that + x + = -, are wasting and scattering energy no less than the tiger which springs upon its prey. They all rob nature instead of enriching her, and will all in the degree of their intelligence find themselves accountable.


Exact experimental Science has nothing to do with morality, virtue, philanthropy, therefore can make no claim upon our help, until it blends itself with the metaphysics. Being but a cold classification of facts outside man, and existing before and after him, her domain of usefulness ceases for us at the outer boundary of these facts; and whatever the inferences and results for humanity from the materials acquired by her methods, she little cares.

Therefore as our sphere lies entirely outside hers — as far as the path of Uranus is outside the earth's — we distinctly refuse to be broken on any wheel of her construction.

Heat is but a mode of motion to her, and motion developes heat; but why the mechanical motion of the revolving wheel should be metaphysically of a higher value than the heat into which it is gradually transformed — she has yet to discover.

The philosophical but transcendental (hence absurd?) notion of the mediaeval theosophists that the final progress of human labour aided by the incessant discoveries of man, must one day culminate in a process, which in imitation of the sun's energy — in its capacity of a direct motor — shall result in the evolution of nutritious food out of inorganic matter — is unthinkable for men of science.

Were the sun, the great nourishing father of our planetary System, to hatch granite chickens out of a boulder "under test conditions" tomorrow, they (the men of Science) would accept it as a scientific fact, without wasting a regret that the fowls were not alive so as to feed the hungry and the starving.

But let a Shaberon [higher adept] cross the Himalayas in a time of famine, and multiply sacks of rice for the perishing multitudes — as he could — and your magistrates and collectors would probably lodge him in jail, to make him confess what granary he had robbed.

This is [currently] exact science and your realistic world. And though as you say you are impressed by the vast extent of the world's ignorance on every subject, which you pertinently designate as "a few palpable facts collected and roughly generalized and a technical jargon invented to hide man's ignorance of all that lies behind these facts"; and though you speak of your faith in the infinite possibilities of nature — yet you are content to spend your life in a work which aids only that same exact science.

You cause a waste of cosmic energy by tons, to accumulate hardly a few ounces in your volumes — to speak figuratively. And despite your intuitive perceptions of the boundless reaches of nature, you take up the position that unless a proficient in arcane knowledge will waste upon your embryonic Society an energy which without moving from his place he can usefully distribute among millions, you, with your great natural powers will refuse to give a helping hand to humanity by beginning the work single handed, and trusting to time and the great Law to reward your labour.




Have the adepts had little effect on humanity?

Of your several questions we will first discuss, if you please, the one relating to the presumed failure of the "Fraternity" to "leave any mark upon the history of the world."

They ought, you think, to have been able with their extraordinary advantages to have "gathered into their schools a considerable portion of the more enlightened minds of every race."

How do you know they have made no such mark? Are you acquainted with their efforts, successes, and failures? Have you any dock upon which to arraign them? How could your world collect proofs of the doings of men who have sedulously kept closed every possible door of approach by which the inquisitive could spy upon them.

The prime condition of their success was, that they should never be supervised or obstructed. What they have done they know; all those outside their circle could perceive was results, the causes of which were masked from view.

To account for these results, men have in different ages invented theories of the interposition of "Gods," Special providences, fates, and the benign or hostile influences of the stars.

There never was a time within or before the so-called historical period when our predecessors were not moulding events and "making history," the facts of which were subsequently and invariably distorted by "historians" to suit contemporary prejudices.

Are you quite sure that the visible heroic figures in the successive dramas were not often but their puppets?

We never pretended to be able to draw nations in the mass to this or that crisis in spite of the general drift of the world's cosmic relations. The cycles must run their rounds. Periods of mental and moral light and darkness succeed each other, as day does night. The major and minor yugas must be accomplished according to the established order of things. And we, borne along on the mighty tide, can only modify and direct some of its minor currents.

If we had the powers of the imaginary Personal God, and the universal and immutable laws were but toys to play with, then indeed might we have created conditions that would have turned this earth into an Arcadia for lofty souls. But having to deal with an immutable Law, being ourselves its creatures, we have had to do what we could and rest thankful.

There have been times when "a considerable portion of enlightened minds" were taught in our schools. Such times there were in India, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome. But, as I remarked in a letter to Mr. Sinnett, the adept is the efflorescence of his age, and comparatively few ever appear in a single century.

Earth is the battle ground of moral no less than of physical forces; and the boisterousness of animal passions under the stimulus of the rude energies of the lower group of etheric agents, always tends to quench spirituality.

What else could one expect of men so nearly related to the lower kingdom from which they evolved?

True also, our numbers are just now diminishing but this is because, as I have said, we are of the human race, subject to its cyclic impulse and powerless to turn that back upon itself.

Can you turn the Gunga or the Brahmaputra, back to its sources; can you even dam it so that its piled up waters will not overflow the banks?

No, but you may draw the stream partly into canals and utilize its hydraulic power for the good of mankind. So we, who can not stop the world from going in its destined direction, are yet able to divert some part of its energy into useful channels.

Think of us as demi-gods and my explanation will not satisfy you; view us as simple men — perhaps a little wiser as the result of special study — and it ought to answer your objection.




What is the purpose of studying ancestral wisdom?

"What good," say you, "is to be attained for my fellows and myself (the two are inseparable) by these occult sciences?"

When the natives see that an interest is taken by the English and even by some high officials in India in their ancestral science and philosophies, they will themselves take openly to their study. And when they come to realise that the old "divine" phenomena were not miracles, but scientific effects, superstition will abate. Thus the greatest evil that now oppresses and retards the revival of Indian civilisation will in time disappear.

The present tendency of education is to make them materialistic and root out spirituality. With a proper understanding of what their ancestors meant by their writings and teachings, education would become a blessing whereas now it is often a curse.

At present the non-educated as much as the learned natives regard the English as too prejudiced, because of their Christian religion and modern science, to care to understand them or their traditions. They mutually hate and mistrust each other. This changed attitude toward the older philosophy would influence the native Princes and wealthy men to endow normal schools for the education of pundits; and old MSS. hitherto buried out of the reach of the Europeans would again come to light, and with them the key to much of that which was hidden for ages from the popular understanding; for which your skeptical Sanscritists do not care, which your religious missionaries do not dare, to understand.

Science would gain much — humanity every thing. Under the stimulus of the Anglo Indian Theosophical Society, we might in time see another golden age of Sanscrit literature. Such a movement would have the entire approbation of the Home Government as it would act as a preventive against discontent; and the sympathy of European Sanscritists who, in their divisions of opinion need the help of native pundits, now beyond their reach in the present state of mutual misunderstanding.

They are even now bidding for such help. At this moment two educated Hindus of Bombay are assisting Max Müller; and a young Pundit of Gu{j}erat a Fellow of the T.S. is aiding Prof. Monier Williams at Oxford and living in his house. The first two are materialists and do harm; the latter single handed can do little, because the man whom he is serving is a prejudiced Christian.

If we look to Ceylon we shall see the most scholarly priests combining under the lead of the Theos. Society in a new exegesis of Buddhistic philosophy and — at Galle on the 15th of September, a secular Theosophical school for the teaching of Singhalese youth opened, with an attendance of over 300 scholars: an example about to be imitated at three other points in that island.

If the Theosophical Society "as at present constituted," has indeed no "real vitality" and yet in its modest way has done so much of practical good, how much greater results might not be anticipated from a body organized upon the better plan you could suggest!

The same causes that are materialising the Hindu mind are equally affecting all Western thought. Education enthrones skepticism but imprisons spiritualism. You can do immense good by helping to give the Western nations a secure basis upon which to reconstruct their crumbling faith. What they need is the evidence that Asiatic psychology alone supplies. Give this and you will confer happiness of mind on thousands.

The era of blind faith is gone; that of enquiry is here. Enquiry that only unmasks error, without discovering anything upon which the soul can build, will but make iconoclasts. Iconoclasm from its very destructiveness can give nothing, it can only raze. But man can not rest satisfied with bare negation. Agnosticism is but a temporary halt.

This is the moment to guide the recurrent impulse which must soon come, and which will push the age toward extreme atheism, or drag it back to extreme sacerdotalism, if it is not led to the primitive and soul-satisfying philosophy of the Aryans.

He who observes what is going on today, on the one hand among the Catholics, who are breeding miracles as fast as the white ants do their young, on the other, among the free thinkers, who are converting by masses into agnostics — will see the drift of things.

The age is revelling at a debauch of phenomena. The same marvels that the spiritualists quote in opposition to the dogmas of eternal perdition and atonement, the catholics swarm to witness as the strongest proof of their faith in miracles. The skeptics make game of both. All are blind and there is no one to lead them!

You and your colleagues may help furnish the materials for a needed universal religious philosophy; one impregnable to scientific assault because itself the finality of absolute science; and, a religion, that is indeed worthy of the name, since it includes the relations of man physical to man psychical, and of the two to all that is above and below them.

Is not this worth a slight sacrifice?

And if after reflection you should decide to enter this new career, let it be known that your Society is no miracle-mongering or banqueting club, nor specially given to the study of phenomenalism. Its chief aim is to extirpate current superstitions and skepticism, and, from long sealed ancient fountains to draw the proof that man may shape his own future destiny, and know for a certainty that he can live hereafter, if he only wills; and that all "phenomena" are but manifestations of natural law, to try to comprehend which is the duty of every intelligent being.

You have personally devoted many years to a labour benevolently conceived and conscientiously carried out. Give to your fellow creatures half the attention you have bestowed on your "little birds," and you will round off a useful life with a grand and noble work.

Sincerely your friend.








HISTORY OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS LETTER

1)  The original of this letter is not preserved, but fortunately Mrs. Sinnett made a copy (probably at her husband's request).

2) Most of the text appeared in Alfred Sinnett's book "The Occult World" (1881).

3) It is unknown why it was omitted in the book "The Mahatma Letters" (1923), we can only assume that Trevor Barker did not have this letter when he transcribed the Masters' letters because otherwise he would undoubtedly have included it.

4) It appeared as Appendix I in later publications of "The Mahatma Letters"

5) The handwritten copy of Patience Sinnett held in the British Museum (Mahatma Papers, Vol. VII, Additional MS. 45289 B) features numerous blue pencil corrections, indicating that Mr. Sinnett edited it before publishing it in his book.






FACSIMILE

One page of the original was published in the "Hodgson Report" (1885).









THE THIRD LETTER FROM MASTER KUTHUMI TO ALFRED SINNETT

 



This is the third letter that Master Kuthumi wrote to Alfred Sinnett.




BACKGROUND

Colonel Olcott thought that Sinnett should immediately publish in The Pioneer newspaper reports on all the phenomena that Blavatsky (with the help of the Masters) had produced in Simla.

But when this did not happen, he wrote an article entitled "A Day with Madame Blavatsky" in which he described some of these phenomena. In this  article, he mentioned the names of several prominent Englishmen who had been present at the event. He sent the account to Bombay, to Damodar, who was in charge of the headquarters during the founders' absence, so that he could reproduce and distribute it among the local members of the Theosophical Society.

Unfortunately, the Times of India newspaper obtained a copy and published it, along with some offensive comments.

The people whose names Colonel Olcott had mentioned in his article were deeply ashamed and disgusted at being drawn into this quarrel, and the whole affair turned against Blavatsky, who became frantic and sent a distress call to Master Kuthumi. She and the colonel were in Amritsar at that time.

At that time Kuthumi was physically on his way through Ladakh, returning from a visit to his boss Serapis to consult him about some events mentioned in the first paragraph of this letter, as well as about the letter he had received from Hume.

Upon hearing Blavatsky's desperate cry for help, he decided to change his route and go see her.





THE CONTENT OF THE LETTER

Sinnett wrote in a blank space on the letter:

“Mrs. [Blavatsky] and Colonel O. [Olcott] arrived at our house in Allahabad on December 1, 1880. Colonel O. left for Varanasi on the 3rd; Mrs. joined him on the 11th. They both returned to Allahabad on the 20th and remained there until the 28th.”

Sinnett wrote that he received this letter on November 5, 1880.

I added subtitles to specify the different topics that Kuthumi addressed.

--oOo--


Amrita Saras, October 29 [1880].

My Dear Brother:

I could assuredly make no objection to the style which you have kindly adopted, in addressing me by name, since it is, as you say, the outcome of a personal regard even greater than I have as yet deserved at your hands.

The conventionalities of the weary world, outside our secluded "ashrums," trouble us but little at any time; least of all now, when it is men not ceremony-masters, we seek, devotion, not mere observances.

More and more a dead formalism is gaining ground, and I am truly happy to find so unexpected an ally in a quarter where, hitherto there have not been too many — among the highly educated classes of English society.

A crisis, in a certain sense, is upon us now, and must be met. I might say two crises — one, the Society's, the other for Tibet. For, I may tell you in confidence, that Russia is gradually massing her forces for a future invasion of that country under the pretext of a Chinese war. If she does not succeed it will be due to us; and herein, at least we will deserve your gratitude.

You see then, that we have weightier matters than small societies to think about; yet, the T.S. must not be neglected. The affair has taken an impulse, which, if not well guided, might beget very evil issues. Recall to mind the avalanches of your admired Alps, that you have often thought about, and remember that at first their mass is small and their momentum little.

A trite comparison you may say, but I cannot think of a better illustration, when viewing the gradual aggregation of trifling events, growing into a menacing destiny for the Theosophical Society.




Kuthumi went to help Blavatsky

It came quite forcibly upon me the other day as I was coming down the defiles of Kouenlun — Karakorum you call them — and saw an avalanche tumble. I had gone personally to our chief to submit Mr. Hume's important offer, and was crossing over to Lhadak on my way home.

What other speculations might have followed I cannot say. But just as I was taking advantage of the awful stillness which usually follows such cataclysms, to get a clearer view of the present situation and the disposition of the "mystics" at Simla, I was rudely recalled to my senses. A familiar voice, as shrill as the one attributed to Saraswati's peacock — which, if we may credit tradition, frightened off the King of the Nagas — shouted along the currents:

[It was Blavatsky who, through her thoughts, told me]

 "Olcott has raised the very devil again! . . . The Englishmen are going crazy. . . . Koot'hoomi, come quicker and help me!"

And in her excitement forgot she was speaking English. I must say, that the "Old Lady's" telegrams do strike one like stones from a catapult!

What could I do but come?

Argument through space with one who was in cold despair, and in a state of moral chaos was useless. So I determined to emerge from a seclusion of many years and spend some time with her to comfort her as well as I could.

But our friend is not one to cause her mind to reflect the philosophical resignation of Marcus Aurelius. The fates never wrote that she could say: "It is a royal thing, when one is doing good to hear evil spoken of himself."

I had come for a few days, but now find that I myself cannot endure for any length of time the stifling magnetism even of my own countrymen. I have seen some of our proud old Sikhs drunk and staggering over the marble pavement of their sacred Temple.

I have heard an English-speaking Vakil declaim against Yog Vidya and Theosophy, as a delusion and a lie, declaring that English science had emancipated them from such "degrading superstitions," and saying that it was an insult to India to maintain that the dirty Yogees and Sunnyasis knew anything about the mysteries of nature; or that any living man can or ever could perform any phenomena!

I turn my face homeward tomorrow.




Various matters

The delivery of this letter may very possibly be delayed for a few days, owing to causes which it will not interest you for me to specify. Meanwhile, however, I have telegraphed you my thanks for your obliging compliance with my wishes in the matters you allude to in your letter of the 24th inst.

I see with pleasure, that you have not failed to usher me before the world as a possible "confederate." That makes our number ten, I believe? But I must say, that your promise was well and loyally fulfilled. Received at Umritsur on the 27th inst., at 2 p.m., I got your letter about thirty miles beyond Rawul Pindee, five minutes later, and had an acknowledgment wired to you from Jhelum at 4 p.m. on the same afternoon.

Our modes of accelerated delivery and quick communications are not then, as you will see, to be despised by the Western world, or even the Aryan, English-speaking and skeptical Vakils.


I could not ask a more judicial frame of mind in an ally than that in which you are beginning to find yourself.

My Brother, you have already changed your attitude toward us in a distinct degree: what is to prevent a perfect mutual understanding one day!


Mr. Hume's proposition has been duly and carefully considered. He will, no doubt, advise you of the results as expressed in my letter, to him. Whether he will give our "modes of action" as fair a trial as yourself — is another question.

Our Maha (the "Chief") has allowed me to correspond with both of you, and even — in case an Anglo-Indian Branch is formed — to come some day in personal contact with it.

It now depends entirely on you. I cannot tell you more. You are quite right as to the standing of our friends in the Anglo-Indian world having been materially improved by the Simla visit; and, it is also true, though you modestly refrain from saying so, that we are mainly indebted to you for this.

But quite apart from the unlucky incidents of the Bombay publications, it is not possible that there should be much more at best than a benevolent neutrality shown by your people toward 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. Nor would they but for the few — shall I say eccentrics? — who, like you, dream better and bolder dreams than the rest; and provoking thought, bring the two together by their own admirable audacity.

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, and, perhaps, of trying the strength of your personal interest in occultism and theosophy?

I do not say it was so; I but enquire whether the contingency ever presented itself to your mind.

I have already caused it to be intimated to you that if the details given in the stolen letter had been anticipated in the Pioneer — a much more appropriate place, and where they would have been handled to better advantage — that document would not have been worth anyone's while to purloin for the Times of India, and therefore no names would have appeared.




About Olcott

Colonel Olcott is doubtless "out of time with the feelings of English people" of both classes; but nevertheless more in time with us than either. Him we can trust under all circumstances, and his faithful service is pledged to us come well, come ill.

My dear Brother, my voice is the echo of impartial justice. Where can we find an equal devotion? He is one who never questions, but obeys; who may make innumerable mistakes out of excessive zeal but never is unwilling to repair his fault even at the cost of the greatest self-humiliation; who esteems the sacrifice of comfort and even life something to be cheerfully risked whenever necessary; who will eat any food, or even go without; sleep on any bed, work in any place, fraternize with any outcast, endure any privation for the cause.




About the Anglo-Indian Society that Sinnett and Hume want to found

I admit that his connection with an A. I. Branch would be "an evil" — hence, he will have no more to do with it than he has with the British, (London Branch). His connection will be purely nominal, and may be made more so, by framing your Rules more carefully than theirs; and giving your organization such a self-acting system of Government as would seldom if ever require any outside interference.

But to make an independent A.I.B. with the self-same objects, either in whole or a part, as the Parent Society and with the same directors behind the scenes would be not only to deal a mortal blow at the Theos. Soc. but also put upon us a double labour and anxiety without the slightest compensating advantage that any of us can perceive.

The Parent S. has never interfered in the slightest degree with the British T.S., nor indeed with any other Branch, whether religious or philosophical. Having formed, or caused to be formed a new branch, the Parent S. charters it (which it cannot now do without our Sanction and signatures), and then usually retires behind the scenes, as you would say.

Its further connection with the subject branches is limited to receiving quarterly accounts of their doings and lists of the new Fellows, ratifying expulsions — only when specially called upon as an arbitrator to interfere on account of the Founders' direct connection with us — etc., etc.; it never meddles otherwise in their affairs except when appealed to as a sort of appelate court. And the latter depending on you, what is there to prevent your Society from remaining virtually independent?

We are, even more generous than you British are to us. We will not force upon, nor even ask you to sanction a Hindu "Resident" in your Society, to watch the interests of the Parent Paramount Power when we have once declared you independent; but will implicitly trust to your loyalty and word of honour.

But if you now so dislike the idea of a purely nominal executive supervision by Col. Olcott — an American of your own race — you would surely rebel against dictation from a Hindu, whose habits and methods are those of his own people, and whose race, despite your natural benevolence, you have not yet learnt to tolerate, let alone to love or respect.




Regarding the appearance and cleanliness of the followers

Think well before you ask for our guidance. Our best, most learned. and highest adepts are of the races of the "greasy Tibetans"; and the Penjabi Singhs* — you know the lion is proverbially a dirty and offensive beast, despite his strength and courage.

(* The Punjabis are an ethno-religious group from the Punjab region of South Asia who practice Sikhism.)

Is it certain that your good compatriots would more easily forgive our Hindu solecisms in manners than those of their own kinsmen of America?

If my observations have not misled I should say this was doubtful. National prejudices are not apt to leave one's spectacles undimmed. You say "how glad we should be, if that one (to guide you) were yourself," meaning your unworthy correspondent.

My good Brother, are you certain, that the pleasant impression you now may have from our correspondence, would not instantly be destroyed upon seeing me? And which of our holy Shaberons has had the benefit of even the little university education and inkling of European manners that has fallen to my share?

An instance: I desired Mad. B. to select among the two or three Aryan Punjabees who study Yog Vidya, and are natural mystics, one, whom — without disclosing myself to him too much I could designate as an agent between yourself and us, and whom I was anxious to dispatch to you, with a letter of introduction, and have him speak to you of Yoga and its practical effects.

This young gentleman who is as pure as purity itself, whose aspirations and thoughts are of the most spiritual ennobling kind, and who merely through self-exertion is able to penetrate into the regions of the formless worlds — this young man is not fit for — a drawing-room.

Having explained to him that the greatest good might result for his country if he helped you to organize a Branch of English mystics by proving to them practically to what wonderful results led the study of Yog, Mad. B. asked him in guarded and very delicate terms to change his dress and turban before starting for Allahabad — for, though she did not give him this reason, they were very dirty and slovenly.

"You are to tell Mr. Sinnett — she said — that you bring him a letter from our Brother K. [Kuthumi], with whom he corresponds. But, if he asks you anything either of him or the other Brothers answer him simply and truthfully that you are not allowed to expatiate upon the subject. Speak of Yog and prove to him what powers you have attained."

This young man who had consented wrote later on the following curious letter:

"Madam," he said, "you who preach the highest standard of morality, of truthfulness, etc., you would have me play the part of an imposter. You ask me to change my clothes at the risk of giving a false idea of my personality and mystifying the gentleman you send me to. And what if he asks me if I personally know Koot'hoomi, am I to keep silent and allow him to think I do? This would be a tacit falsehood, and guilty of that, I would be thrown back into the awful whirl of transmigration!"

Here is an illustration of the difficulties under which we have to labour. Powerless to send to you a neophyte before you have pledged yourself to us — we have to either keep back or despatch to you one who at best would shock if not inspire you at once with disgust!


The letter would have been given him by my own hand; he had but to promise to hold his tongue upon matters he knows nothing about and could give but a false idea of, and to make himself look cleaner. Prejudice and dead letter again.

For over a thousand years, — says Michelet, — the Christian Saints never washed themselves! For how long will our Saints dread to change their clothes for fear of being taken for Marmaliks and the neophytes of rival and cleaner sects!




The Anglo-Indian Theosophical Society

But these, our difficulties, ought not to prevent you from beginning your work. Colonel O. [Olcott] and Mad. B. [Blavatsky] seeming willing to become personally responsible for both yourself and Mr. Hume, if you yourself are ready to answer for the fidelity of any man your party may choose as the leader of the A.I.T.S. [Anglo-Indian Theosophical Society], we are content that the trial shall be made.

The field is yours and no one will be allowed to interfere with you except myself on behalf of our Chiefs when you once do me the honour to prefer me to the others. But before one builds the house he makes the plan. Suppose you draft a memorandum as to the constitution and policy of management of the A.I. Society you have in mind and submit it for consideration?

If our Chiefs agree to it — and it is not surely they who would show themselves obstructive in the universal onward march, or retard this movement to a higher goal — then you will at once be chartered.

But they must first see the plan; and I must ask you to remember that the new Society shall not be allowed to disconnect itself with the Parent Body, though you are at liberty to manage your affairs in your own way without fearing the slightest interference from its President so long as you do not violate the general Rules. And upon this point I refer you to Rule 9. This is the first practical suggestion coming from a Cis and Trans-Himalayan "cave-dweller" [i.e., Kuthumi] whom you have honoured with your confidence.




Information for Sinnett

And now about yourself personally. Far be it from me to discourage one so willing as yourself by setting up impossible barriers to your progress. We never whine over the inevitable but try to make the best of the worst.

And though we neither push nor draw into the mysterious domain of occult nature those who are unwilling; never shrink from expressing our opinions freely and fearlessly, yet we are ever as ready to assist those who come to us; even to — agnostics who assume the negative position of "knowing nothing but phenomena and refuse to believe in anything else."

It is true that the married man cannot be an adept, yet without striving to become a "Raja Yogi" he can acquire certain powers and do as much good to mankind and often more, by remaining within the precincts of this world of his.

Therefore, shall we not ask you to precipitately change fixed habits of life, before the full conviction of its necessity and advantage has possessed you. You are a man to be left to lead himself, and may be so left with safety. Your resolution is taken to deserve much: time will effect the rest.

There are more ways than one for acquiring occult knowledge. "Many are the grains of incense destined for one and the same altar: one falls sooner into the fire, the other later — the difference of time is nothing," remarked a great man when he was refused admission and supreme initiation into the mysteries.

There is a tone of complaint in your question whether there ever will be a renewal of the vision you had, the night before the picnic day. Methinks, were you to have a vision nightly, you would soon cease to "treasure" them at all. But there is a far weightier reason why you should not have a surfeit — it would be a waste of our strength.

As often as I, or any of us can communicate with you, whether by dreams, waking impressions, letters (in or out of pillows) or personal visits in astral form — it will be done. But remember that Simla is 7,000 feet higher than Allahabad, and the difficulties to be surmounted at the latter are tremendous. I abstain from encouraging you to expect too much, for, like yourself, I am loathe to promise what, for various reasons, I may not be able to perform.

The term "Universal Brotherhood" is no idle phrase. Humanity in the mass has a paramount claim upon us, as I try to explain in my letter to Mr. Hume, which you had better ask the loan of. It is the only secure foundation for universal morality. If it be a dream, it is at least a noble one for mankind and it is the aspiration of the true adept.

Yours faithfully,

Koot' Hoomi Lal Singh






HISTORY OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS LETTER

1) Alfred Trevor Barker published it in full in the book "The Mahatma Letters" (1923), it is letter nº 4, pp. 11-17. 

2) Currently the original letter is located on folio 1 of the British Library.






FACSIMILE

You can see the color photos of the sixteen pages that make up this letter on the Theosophy Wiki website (see link).

Below I've only put the last page:









PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THIS CARD

George Linton and Virginia Hanson, in their book "A Guide to Reading Mahatma's Letters to A.P. Sinnett," say the following about this letter:

« It is written in matte black ink on both sides of eight full-size sheets of white paper. The calligraphy varies slightly in thickness and appearance. The signature consists of four separate parts. The 'K' has an inverted curve at the top of the arm. Below the signature, in Devanagari script, is the transliteration of 'Koot Hoomi Lal Singh'. »
(p.41)







HUME'S COMMENTS ON WHAT KUTHUMI WROTE

Allan Hume was an English civil servant, a friend of Mr. Sinnett, who was also interested in the teachings of the Mahatmas. Mr. Hume sent a letter to Kuthumi containing his comments regarding the letter mentioned above.

This letter from Hume was partially published in the book "The Mahatma Letters" as letter 99 (p.435-438).

The Theosophical Society in Pasadena published the full text on their website (they did not specify where they obtained it from), and  below I have translated it and added subheadings to specify the different topics that Mr. Hume addressed.

--oOo--


Simla
November 20, 1880

My dear Koot Humi,

I have sent Sinnett your letter to me and he has kindly sent me yours to him –  I want to make some remarks on this not by way of cavil, but because I am so anxious that you should understand me –  Very likely it is my conceit – but whether or no I have a deep rooted conviction that I could work effectually if I only saw my way and I cannot bear the idea of your throwing me over under any misconception of my views –  And yet every letter I see of yours, shows me that you do not as yet realize what I think and feel – #  To explain this I venture to jot down a few comments on your letter to Sinnett.




Russia's invasion of Tibet

You say that if Russia does not succeed in taking Tibet, it will be due to you and herein at least you will deserve our gratitude –  I do not agree to this in the sense in which you mean it. (1)

If I thought that Russia would on the whole govern, Tibet or India, in such wise as to make the inhabitants on the whole happier than they are under the existing Govts, I would myself welcome and work for her advent.  But so far as I can judge the Russian Governement is a corrupt despotism, hostile to individual liberty of action and therefore to real progress.

And it would only be in common with all well wishers of mankind and not as an English man (and indeed I have no nationality) that I should feel gratitude to you or any one else who by legitimate means (and what are under different sets of circumstances legitimate and illegitimate means may be a matter open to argument) prevented the further extension of a power, which is essentially hostile to the highest interests of humanity.




Objection to the secrecy of masters

Then about the English speaking Vaquil –  Was the man so much to blame? –  You and yours have never taught him that there was any thing in Yog-vidya –  The only people who have taken the trouble to educate him at all have in so doing taught him materialism –  You are disgusted with him, but who is to blame?  he who having no teaching but a materialistic one, rejects as dreams, the vague rumours that have reached him as to spiritual possibilities, or you (I mean your brotherhood) who knowing all about these have failed to popularize the knowledge, have in fact failed to teach him better?

I judge perhaps as an outsider but it does seem to me, that the impenetrable veil of secresy by which you surround yourselves, the enormous difficulties which you oppose to the communication of your spiritual knowledge, are the main causes of the rampant materialism which you so much deplore –  You are the only people who possess any real, experimental knowledge of things spiritual – doubtless millions upon millions possess a sort of knowledge of these thro faith, pure life, meditation and in fact the higher discipline of all religions worthy of the name.

But this knowledge of theirs tho sufficing to their own souls, is not of a character to produce objective results, or tangible arguments, that they can appeal to in order to lead others by nature less spiritually minded to similar convictions to their own.

You alone do possess the means of bringing home to the ordinary run of men, convictions of this nature but you, apparently bound by ancient rules, so far from zealously disseminating this knowledge, envelop it in such a dense cloud of mystery, that naturally the mass of mankind, disbelieve in its existence.

And this veil of secresy is I submit an anachronism –  It may have been very necessary in former days when the exhibition of the powers possessed by adepts might have led to prosecutions & persecutions, but now when in the most highly civilized countries, such exhibitions would at worst entail ridicule & abuse, (both of which the inexorable logic of facts would surely even tho slowly strangle) there can be no justification for not giving clearly to the world the more important features of your philosophy, accompanying the teaching with such a series of demonstrations as should ensure the attention of all sincere minds.

That you should hesitate to confer hastily great powers too likely to be abused, I quite understand – but this in no way bars a dogmatic enunciation of the results of your psychical investigations, accompanied by phenomena, sufficiently clear & often repeated to prove that you really did know more of the subjects with which you dealt than Western Science does. (2)

Perhaps you will retort “How about Slades case?” but do not forget that he was taking money for what he did; making a living out of it –  Very different would be the position of a man, who came forward to teach gratuitously, manifestly at the sacrifice of his own time, comfort and convenience what he believed it to be for the good of mankind to know.

At first no doubt every one would say the man was mad or an imposter – but then when phenomenon, on phenomenon was repeated and repeated they would have to admit that there was something in it, and within three years, you would have all the foremost minds in any civilized country intent upon the question and tens of thousands of anxious enquirers out of whom ten percent might prove useful workers, and one in a thousand perhaps develop the necessary qualifications for becoming ultimately an adept.

If you desire to react on the native thro’ the European mind that is the way to work it –  Of course I speak under correction and in ignorance of conditions, possibilities, etc, but for this ignorance at any rate “I am not to blame".




The English and the Indians

Then you say – “It is not possible 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 two civilizations?

All civilizations have the same necessary ingredients, mental & moral (or if you prefer it, spiritual) culture –  The one element may predominate here, the other there, but in both cases there must be a vast amt 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 and the beautiful and 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” {"I see and approve of the better, but I follow the worse"} but in both the essentials are the same & it appears to me to be a contradiction in terms to talk of the 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 amt that is 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 a thing that may be commanded. (3)




Hume's opinion on the publication of some letters

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 of your personal interest in occultism & theosophy? I do not say it was I but enquire whether the contingency ever presented itself to your mind.”

Now of course this was addressed to Sinnett, but still I wish to answer it in my fashion –  First I should say, cui bono throwing out such a hint? You must know whether it was so or not –   If it was not, why set us speculating as to whether it may have been, when you know it was not.

But if it was so, then I submit, that in the first place, an idiotic business like this could be no test of any mans (there are of course lots of human beings who are only a sort of educated monkey,) personal interest in any thing –  Would any man, who felt even the slightest interest in any thing, suffer this interest to be affected by the fact that some other person made themselves ridiculous in connection therewith?

In the second place if the brothers did deliberately allow the publication of those letters, I can only say that from my worldly non initiated standpoint, I think they made a sad mistake.

A cause may involve murder and robbery and yet not be wholly discredited, but make it ridiculous & you may write its epitaph. Mind I do not for one moment defend this – it is monstrous that it should be so – but it is unfortunately a fact, & the object of the Brothers being avowedly to make the T.S. respected, they could hardly have selected any worse means than the publication of these foolish letters.

I do not of course attach any very great importance to them – if there be a real vital [breath?] underlying the T.S. (anf it is this I am vainly trying to arrive at), it will outlive and smother a hundred such bévues – Magna est veritas et prevalebit {"blunders – Great is the truth and it will prevail"} – but still when the question is broadly put, did you ever consider whether the brothers allowed this publication, I cannot avoid replying, if they did not, it is futile wasting consideration on the matter & if they did, it seems to me that they were unwise in so doing. (4)



About Henry Olcott

Then come your remarks about Col. Olcott – Dear old Olcott, whom everyone who knows must love –  I fully sympathise in all you say 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 judgement, this abnegation of ones own personal responsibility, this accepting the dictates of outside voices as a substitute for ones own conscience, is to my mind a sin of no ordinary magnitude; and involves a principle inimical to all true civilization.

Moreover I venture to predict that such a 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 your 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 state, unless I wholly misread the teachings of history & the spirit of the age, any organization, which has for its key note passive obedience is itself doomed. (5)

 Now for the first time I begin to get a glimpse of what you probably mean by what you so often allude to as the irreconcilable nature of Eastern & Western Ideas –  Truly despotism is of the East, Freedom of the West – but I confess that I have hitherto been unable to conceive of the possibility of a brotherhood like yours accepting as a tenet the principle that underlies all despotisms –  Yet when your highest praise is bestowed, not on someone who wisely & cleverly works out a good end but on one who amidst innumerable errors “always obeys and never questions” what else can I conclude?


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 did not seriously suffer,

I would as soon live on herbs and water and sleep and 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 & without understanding the why or the wherefore, without scrutinizing consequences, blind & heedless, straightway go & 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 – a friend & advocate of the industrial or cooperative system and I will join no society or no body which purports to limit or control my right of private judgement.

Of course I am not a hukum e,!? & do not desire to ride any principle as a Hobby Horse –  Where a matter is immaterial, i.e. so 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 and capacity I had confidence I should like Olcott be quite willing to obey and ask no questions.

But if the thing was material, and either involved consequences which I could not clearly forsee, or appeared to me wrong or unwise, then I should most distinctly refuse to obey unless the “hakims” {"rulers"} were willing to explain to me the reasons for their “hukum” {"ruling"} & make it clear to me that despite any previous doubts, it was really the right thing to do.


To return to Olcott – I do not think his connection with the proposed Society would be any evil –  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 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.




Hume gives his opinions

In the first place I should not object in any way to dear Old Olcotts supervision, because I know it would be nominal as even if he tried to make it otherwise, Sinnett & I are both quite capable of shutting him up if he interfered needlessly –  But neither of us could accept him as our real guide, (6) because we both know that we are intellectually his superiors –  This is a brutal way as the French would say of putting it, but que voulez vous?  Without perfect frankness there is no coming to an understanding.

Truly I should object to the dictation not only of a Hindoo but of any human being –  I allow no man to dictate to me –  But if a Hindoo comes to me & gives me good advice, & shows me reasons why I should do this or should not do the other, I should be as readily guided by that advice as tho it had come from an English man or a French man.

So far as I am concerned the words “whose race you have not yet learnt even to tolerate let alone to love or respect” have no application –  I do not love the low lying Mookhtears, and vaquils, the khitmatgars and the bulk of the lower class officials & employe’s, Hindoo's or Mahomedans.

Nor do I love any more the similar classes in Germany France or England –  Nor do I love the self seeking, fawning, money lenders & the like, who constitute the majority of those who crowd about us official Englishmen –  I am civil to them, I try, to be kind to them, but I do not like or respect them, not because they are Hindoo’s or Sikhs or Mahomedans, but because they are self seekers – mean, base, – and because their presence sets on me like a nightmare & weighs down my own thoughts.

But there have been natives Hindoo’s & Mahomedans, whom I have loved & respected as much as I could have loved & respected any European –  There is no question of race or colour or creed at all – it is a mere question of intrinsic qualities – “sifaten” –.




Hume's views on cleanliness and appearance

When you say that your highest adepts are “greasy Tibetans & Punjabi Singhs” & that “the lion is proverbially a dirty & offensive beast”, I presume you are joking –  If not, tho a diamond is a diamond, and I should prize it equally however badly set –  I should prefer to get it suitably set.

And tho purity of soul is the one great first requisite, and all other things comparatively insignificant yet in its way purity and cleanliness of body is not to be despised and I confess that I think the perfect jewel, the pure soul set in the pure clean body, the thing to aim at –  Old, mean, clothes, are one thing (tho when a man can dress in good plain ones I cannot see why he should not), but dirtiness of body is another and I do not believe that where this can be avoided, it should be permitted.

And in fact I am unable to believe that any high 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 foul as the exterior husk might be, the true good seed was within.

I am quite sure that if you are true and genuine, as I believe you to be the kindly feelings that this correspondence has engendered toward you would be in no way weakened, but rather strengthened by personal intercourse with you.

I hardly see peoples outsides –  I often know and care for people without hardly knowing what they are like in body –  Men mostly think a great deal of womens looks – and I have been some times surprised when promising a woman to a man, at being told “look she may be very good but she is awfully plain” and then again on looking carefully at my lady friend to discover, tho I had never known it that she was awfully plain –  So I am quite certain that nothing in your external personal appearance could in the smallest degree affect my sentiments.

As for your dear dirty neophyte, I wish he had been sent to me, dirty pagri & all, & it would have gone hard with me, if while learning from him higher things, I had not been able to convert him to my views of the beauty & goodness of cleanliness.




Regarding the required commitment

The most important point of your letter to me is that where in you say “Powerless to send to you a neophyte before you have pledged yourself to us” Here perhaps is the real Crux –  What is the pledge you require?

All seems to turn upon this –  If it is merely to preserve entire secresy as to all that we may learn, & as to yourselves, & your followers, never without permission to utilize any knowledge gained from you, & always to act in accordance with your wishes in all cases in which it did not seem to us wrong to do so, I at least think that if satisfied on the points refer'd to in former letters, I could give it – and if I did give it I would abide by it come what might.

But if it is the old surrender of “dhun, man, Fan,” proposed to me twenty years ago, then I for one will never give it –  I feel that I am responsible to higher than earthly intelligences –  I don't pretend to know what they are – but I know that they exist, as certainly as I know that sugar is sweet to my taste, tho I can prove neither fact to anyone else – and I will resign that responsibility into no earthly hands.

On the other hand, I do not care to play at Theosophy –  Either I go in for it in real earnest or not at all – if my retention of the right of private judgement renders the real earnest impossible under your rules – well & good – the thing must be at an end for me.

It seems to me useless to discuss articles of association & the like unless these fundamental questions are first settled.




Final note

Sinnett is deeply interested in the phenomena as such, I am not he thinks it marvellous that things should be done which can not be accounted for by any laws known to Western Science –  I, as I have explained in former letters do not – perhaps I realize more acutely the vastness of our ignorance.

I do not care two straws for the powers or the phenomena, except as a means –  I do not see the slightest prospect of any good coming of the Society, unless it is to be a real & certain stepping stone to higher spiritual knowledge –  He does – each man must judge for himself – he I know will wholly disagree with me on many points – but this letter I send thro’ him & he will speak for himself – 

I am almost sorry that I have wearied you with these long letters for I seem to feel, that I am too essentially a radical at heart, to be acceptable to your naturally conservative order – but you will forgive me in that I am in earnest & tho' nothing further ever come of our interchange of thoughts, think kindly of me as I always shall of you as being fellow workers in the same cause, albeit under different flags, & you an officer & engineer & I a mere day labourer,

Yours sincerely,

A O Hume



Cid's observation

I perceive that Mr. Hume, although he had noble aspirations, was very egocentric and quite contemptuous.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have argued with the trans-Himalayan masters, but rather tried to obtain as much information as possible from them.








KUTHUMI'S COMMENTS ON WHAT HUME WROTE

Later, Mr. Sinnett received a copy of this letter written by Mr. Hume, and Master Kuthumi sent Sinnett his comments on what Hume wrote.

This letter from Kuthumi was published in the book "The Mahatma Letters" as letter 98 (p.434-435).

Sinnett received it in Allahabad, around December 1, 1880.

The numbers correspond to the sections listed in Hume's letter.

--oOo--


I realized it perfectly. But however sincere, these feelings are too deeply covered by a thick crust of self sufficiency and egoistical stubbornness to awaken in me anything like sympathy.

(1) For centuries we have had in Thibet a moral, pure hearted, simple people, unblest with civilization, hence — untainted by its vices. For ages has been Thibet the last corner of the globe not so entirely corrupted as to preclude the mingling together of the two atmospheres — the physical and the spiritual. And he would have us exchange this for his ideal of civilization and Govt! This is pure self peroration, an intense passion for hearing himself discuss, and for imposing his ideas upon every one.

(2) Now really, Mr. H. ought to be sent by an international Committee of Philanthropists, as a Friend of Perishing Humanity to teach our Dalai Lamas — wisdom. Why he does not straight-way sit down and frame a plan for something like Plato's Ideal Republic with a new scheme for everything under the Sun and moon — passes my poor comprehension !

(3) This is indeed benevolent in him to go so far out of his way to teach us. Of course, this is pure kindness, and not a desire to overtop the rest of humanity. It is his latest acquisition of mental evolution, which, let us hope, will not turn in — dissolution.

(4) Amen! My dear friend, you ought to be held responsible for not starting in his head the glorious idea to offer his services as a General School Master for Thibet, Reformer of ancient superstitions and Saviour of future generations. Of course, were he to read this, he would show immediately that I argue like an "educated monkey."

(5) Now just listen to the man jabbering about what he knows nothing. No men living are freer than we when we have once passed out of the stage of pupilage. Docile and obedient but never slaves during that time we must be; otherwise, and if we passed our time in arguing we never would learn anything at all.

(6) And whoever thought of proposing him as such? My dear fellow can you really blame me for shrinking from closer relations with a man whose whole life seems to hang upon incessant argumentation and philipics? He says that he is no doctrinaire when he is the very essence of one! He is worthy of all the respect and even affection of those who know him well. But my stars! in less than twenty four hours he would paralyse any one of us, who might be unfortunate enough to come within a mile of him, merely by his monotonous piping about his own views. No; a thousand times no: Such men as he make able statesmen, orators anything you like but — never adepts. We have not one of that sort among us. And that is perhaps why we never felt the necessity for a house of lunatics. In less than three months he would have driven half of our Thibetan population mad!

I mailed a letter for you the other day at Umballa. I see you did not receive it yet.

Yours ever affectionately,
Koot' Hoomi



Cid's observation

I agree with what Kuthumi said about Allan Hume.