The above declaration and statement to be appended as a footnote to Mr. Oxley's published statement.
By order,
DJUAL-KHOOL. M. xxx.
Letter No. 84 (ML-111) Rec. Mid-September 1882
This letter is really a "cover letter" for the one to follow.
Dharbagiri Nath was a mystical name for one of the Mahatma K.H.' s chelas, Gwala K. Deb. But there is also a strange connection with another individual — a probationary chela of the Mahatma K.H. — known in the literature as Babaji, or sometimes Bawajee. This very odd situation is explained by Sven Eek in Damodar, p. 537 (see also LBS, from 135 to 140, also p. 336, et seq.) See the notes to Letter No. 53 (ML-136).
At about the time of this letter and probably in connection with it — the Mahatma K.H. desired to send two chelas to Sinnett, then at Simla. He selected one of his pupils, Gwala K. Deb, who was probably a Tibetan, and R. Keshava Pillai, an Inspector of Police at Nellore, who had become a probationary lay chela and who was known as Chandra Cusho — a name given him by the Mahatma K.H. Deb was in Tibet at the time, undergoing certain occult training, and was unable to go in his physical body. Babaji consented to have Deb use his body for the occasion. This was much to his credit and spiritual benefit. It was, however, Deb's mystical name which was Dharbagiri Nath, and it seems that Babaji continued to use the name after the experience was ended. The mix-up is a strange one, and when one meets with the name Dharbagiri Nath, as one does several times in the letters, it is difficult to know whether it is really Gwala K. Deb, the Tibetan Chela, or Babaji. However, when the Mahatma refers to him as "the little man" or "my little man" he is probably referring to Babaji (whether as Deb or as himself) as he was of very small stature.
Chandra Cusho was a Tibetan name given by the Mahatma to R. Keshava Pillai. He was put on probation by the Mahatma but progressed no further. Later, he lost interest in the Theosophical Society. He received several letters from the Mahatma which, some years later, he gave to Olcott. They are included in LMW, Series 2, pp. 115-119. One letter of the group has some connection with Letter No. 84. The Mahatma tells him that he is sending "Deb" to Simla with some letters for Mr. Sinnett (whom he calls "the best of all") and asks whether Brother Keshu (Chandra Cusho) will accompany and help him. "The task is easy," says the Mahatma, "and there will not be much for either to do but be silent, and successfully play their parts. The Mahatma promises him that if he carries out this mission successfully, he (K.H.) will take him under his special protection and permit some of the secrets to be taught to him. Undoubtedly the mission was to deliver Letters No. 84 and 85A and 85B.
My dear friend,
The present will be delivered at your house by Dharbagiri Nath, a young Chela of mine, and his brother Chela, Chandra Cusho. They are forbidden to enter anyone's house without being invited to do so. Therefore, I pray you to pardon our savage customs and, at the same time to humour them by sending them an invitation in your name, either now — if you can receive them privately and without risking their meeting at your place with any stranger; or — at any other time during the evening, or late at night.
I have not the slightest objection to Mrs. S. your lady seeing either of them but I pray her not to address them, since they are forbidden by our religious laws to speak with any lady — their mothers and sisters excepted — and that she would otherwise greatly embarrass them. I pray her to do so in my name, and for my sake. I trust also to your friendship that none but you will speak with them. They have their mission and beyond that they must not go (1) to deliver into your hands my "answers to the famous contradictions" and (2) to interview Mr. Fern. If you have an answer for me, Dharbagiri Nath will come for it whenever you are ready. I also entreat you most earnestly not to inflict upon them Mr. Hume. Do not think of what has happened until everything is explained.
Ever yours,
K. H.
P.S. — They are also forbidden to shake hands with any man or woman i.e., to touch anyone; but you can invite my little man to come and talk with you as much as you like provided you are discreet.
Letter No. 85A189 (ML-24A) Rec. Mid-September 1882
This two-part letter was enclosed in Letter No. 84 (see notes) and delivered to Sinnett by two chelas of the Mahatma K.H.: Dharbagiri Nath (probably Babaji) and Chandra Cusho.
Both Hume and Sinnett had accused the Mahatma of contradicting themselves. The Mahatma K.H. had asked them several times to make a list of the items in question, as he had no time to go searching back through all the letters he had written. Sinnett finally got around to making the list. He had sent it to K.H. some time earlier and received it back with the Mahatma's comments (this letter, No. 85) sometime in September.
Letter No. 85A consists of the items listed by Sinnett. Letter No. 85B contains the Mahatma's answers, plus comments on some other matters. The numbers in brackets in the Mahatma' s answers refer to those in Sinnett's letter.
THE FAMOUS "CONTRADICTIONS"
Received Autumn 1882.
I hope you will give me great credit for obedience in having laboriously and against my inclination endeavoured to compile a case for the plaintiff in re the alleged contradictions. As I have said elsewhere these appear to me not much worth worrying about; though for the present they leave me cloudy in my ideas about Devachan and the victims of accident. It is because they do not fret me that I have never hitherto acted on your suggestion that I should make notes of them.
(1)
Hume has been inclined to trace contradictions in some letters referring to the evolution of man, but in conversation with him I have always contended that these are not contradictions at all, — merely due to a confusion about rounds and races — a matter of language. Then he has pretended to think that you have built up the philosophy as you have gone on, and got out of the difficulty by inventing a great many more races than were contemplated at first, which hypothesis I have always ridiculed as absurd.
(2)
I have not re-copied here the passages about victims of accident quoted in my letter of the 12th August and in apparent conflict with the corrections on the proof of my Letter on Theosophy. You have already said apropos to these quotations, on back of mine dated August 12th: —
(3)
"I can easily understand we are accused of contradictions and inconsistencies aye even to writing one thing to-day and denying it to-morrow. 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 — "
(4)
This passage it was which led me to think it might be that some of the earlier letters had been perhaps the "victim of accident" itself.
But to go on with the case for the plaintiff: —
(5)
"Most of those whom you may call, if you like, candidates for Devachan die and are reborn in the Kama loka without remembrance. . . . You can hardly call remembrance a dream of yours, some particular scene or scenes within whose narrow limits you would find enclosed a few persons . . . etc., call it the personal remembrance of A. P. Sinnett if you can." Notes on back of mine to Old Lady.