It was on this text that I have been working.
If this is not to be maintained or if in some way that as yet I cannot understand the words bear a different signification from that which seems to belong to them, it might be better to cancel these two letters altogether or hold them over for complete alteration. The warning is delivered in too solemn a tone and the danger is made too much of if it is merely to apply to suicides, and in the last slip of the proof the elimination of "the accidents and" makes the rest rather ridiculous because then we are dividing suicides only into the very pure and elevated! and the medium people etc.
It seems to me that it would hardly do to let even letter (1) stand alone, — though it does not include the mistake, for it would have no raison d'être unless followed up by letter (2).
Both letters have gone home to Stainton Moses for transmission to Light — the first by the mail from here of July 21, the second by last mail — yesterday. Now if you decide that it is better to stop and cancel them I shall just be in time to telegraph home to Stainton Moses to that effect, and will do this directly I receive a telegram from you or from the Old Lady to that effect.
If nothing is done they will appear in Light as written — i.e., as the MS. sent with the present proof stood barring a few little mistakes which I see my wife has made in copying them out.
It is altogether a very awkward tangle. I was precipitate apparently in sending them home, but I thought I had followed the statements of your long devachan letter so faithfully. Awaiting orders,
Ever your devoted
A. P. S.
On margin I said "rarely" but I have not pronounced the word "never." Accidents occur under the most various circumstances; and men are not only killed accidentally, or die as suicides but are also murdered — something we have not even touched upon. I can well understand your perplexity but can hardly help you. Bear always in mind that there are exceptions to every rule, and to these again and other side exceptions, and be always prepared to learn something new. I can easily understand we are accused of contradictions and inconsistencies — aye, even to writing one thing to-day and denying it to-morrow. What you were taught is the RULE. Good and pure "accidents" sleep in the Akasa, ignorant of their change; very wicked and impure — suffer all the tortures of a horrible nightmare. The majority — neither very good nor very bad, the victims of accident or violence (including murder) — some sleep, others become Nature pisachas, while a small minority may fall victims to mediums and derive a new set of skandhas from the medium who attracts them. Small as their number may be, their fate is to be the most deplored. What I said in my notes on your MSS., was in reply to Mr. Hume's statistical calculations which led him to infer that "there were more Spirits than shells in the seance rooms" in such a case.
You have much to learn — and we have much to teach nor do we refuse to go to the very end. But we must really beg that you should not jump at hasty conclusions. I do not blame you, my dear faithful friend, I would rather blame myself, were anyone here to be blamed except our respective modes of thought and habits so diametrically opposed to each other. Accustomed as we are to teach chelas who know enough to find themselves beyond the necessity of "if's" and "but's" during the lessons — I am but too apt to forget that I am doing the work with you generally entrusted to these chelas. Henceforth, I will take more time when answering your questions. Your letters to London can do no harm, and are sure, on the contrary to do good. They are admirably written and the exceptions may be mentioned and the whole ground covered in one of the future letters.
I have no objection to your making extracts for Colonel Chesney — except one — he is not a Theosophist. Only be careful, and do not forget your details and exceptions whenever you explain your rules. Remember stilclass="underline" even in the case of suicides there are many who will never allow themselves to be drawn into the vortex of mediumship, and pray do not accuse me of "inconsistency" or contradiction when we come to that point. Could you but know how I write my letters and the time I am enabled to give to them, perchance you would feel less critical if not exacting. Well, and how do you like Djual Khool's idea and art? I have not caught a glimpse of Simla for the last ten days.
Affectionately yours,
K. H.
Letter No. 77 (ML-50) Rec. August 1882
This very short letter seems to be concerned with Hume's increasing complaints about Fern and his continued efforts to prove the Mahatmas in the wrong in everything they are doing. Apparently he had written another letter about Fern and the Mahatma is sending it to Sinnett. Along with it is apparently the Mahatma's reply, since he tells Sinnett to read the "two letters" before taking them to Hume; and he asks Sinnett to be present when Hume reads them.
However, it seems that no matter how difficult Hume might be personally, and how much he might try the Mahatma's patience, they feel he can help the Society — which, in many ways, he did for a time. He was at that time still president of the Simla Eclectic Society. He shortly afterward resigned from that position, however, and in 1884 resigned from the Theosophical Society.
Col. Chesney has been appearing in several of the most recent letters and the Mahatma indicates that DK has recently been doing something for him. This undoubtedly refers to the portrait which DK was given permission to do for the colonel. All the letters in this period of time came so closely together that it is impossible to be absolutely positive of their exact order.
Received August, 1882.
My dear friend,
I feel terribly pulled down (mentally) with this unceasing attitude of unavoidable opposition, and so continual attacks on our strongholds! During the whole of my quiet, contemplative life, I have never met with a man more tenacious and unreasonable! I cannot go on like that, passing my life in useless protest; and if you cannot bring to bear upon him your friendly influence, we will have all of us to part company, at some not distant day. I was with the Chohan when I received the letter I now enclose, and the Chohan was perfectly disgusted, and called the whole thing the Tibetan name for "comedy." It is not that he is anxious to "do good" or "help the progress of the T.S." It is simply, believe me or not — insatiable pride in him; a ferocious, intense desire to feel and show to others that he is the "one elect," that he knows that which all others are barely allowed to suspect. Do not protest for it is useless. We know, and you do not. The Chohan heard the other day the idiotic but painfully sincere lamentations of the "wife" and — took note of them. Such is not a man who aims at becoming a "perfect soul," and he who would write of a brother Theosophist what he has written to me of Fern — is no theosophist. Let this be strictly private, and do not let him know but what he will read himself in my letter. I want you to read the two letters before you take them to him, and I beg of you to be present when he reads them.
I will see what can be done for Colonel Chesney and I believe Djual Khool is after him. For the first time during my life I think I feel really disheartened. Yet for the sake of the Society, I would not lose him. Well I will do all I can, but I am seriously afraid that he will spoil the broth himself some day.