To one sin though I do plead "guilty." That sin was a very acute feeling of irritation against Mr. Hume upon receiving his triumphant statistical letter; the answer to which you found incorporated in yours when I wrote for you the materials for your answer to Mr. Khandalawala's letter that you had sent back to H.P.B. Had I not been irritated I would not have become guilty of the omission, perhaps. This now is my Karma. I had no business to feel irritated, or lose my temper; but that letter of his was I believe the seventh or the eighth of that kind received by me during that fortnight. And I must say, that our friend has the most knavish way of using his intellect in raising the most unexpected sophisms to tickle people's nerves with, that I have ever known! Under the pretext of strict logical reasoning, he will perform feigned thrusts at his antagonist — whenever unable to find a vulnerable spot, and then, caught and exposed, he will answer in the most innocent way: "Why, it is for your own good, and you ought to feel grateful! If I were an adept I would always know what my correspondent really meant," etc., etc. Being an "adept" in some small matters I do know what he really means; and that his meaning amounts to this: were we to divulge to him the whole of our philosophy, leaving no inconsistency unexplained, it would still do no good, whatever. For, as in the observation embodied in the Hudibrasian couplet:
"These fleas have other fleas to bite 'em,
And these — their fleas ad infinitum. . . ."
— so with his objections and arguments. Explain him one, and he will find a flaw in the explanation; satisfy him by showing that the latter was after all correct, and he will fly at the opponent for speaking too slow or too rapidly. It is an IMPOSSIBLE task — and I give it up. Let it last until the whole breaks under its own weight. He says "I can kiss no Pope's toe," forgetting that no one has ever asked him to do so; "I can love, but I cannot worship" he tells me. Gush — he can love no one, and nobody but A.O. Hume, and never has. And that really one could almost exclaim "Oh Hume, — gush is thy name!" — is shown in the following that I transcribe from one of his letters: "If for no other reason, I should love M. for his entire devotion to you — and you I have always loved (!). Even when most cross with you — as one always is most sensitive with those one cares most about — even when I was fully persuaded you were a myth, for even then my heart yearned to you as it often does to an avowedly fictitious character." A sentimental Becky Sharp writing to an imaginary lover, could hardly express her feelings better!
I will see to your scientific questions next week. I am not at home at present, but quite near to Darjeeling, in the Lamasery, the object of poor H.P.B.'s longings. I thought of leaving by the end of September but find it rather difficult on account of Nobin's boy. Most probably, also, I will have to interview in my own skin the Old Lady if M. brings her here. And he has to bring her — or lose her for ever — at least, as far as the physical triad is concerned. And now good-bye. I ask you again — do not frighten my little man; he may prove useful to you some day — only do not forget — he is but an appearance.
Yours,
K. H.
Letter No. 86 (ML-112) Rec. September 1882
Sinnett had been very eager to interest Colonel Chesney in Theosophy and had rather pressed the Mahatma to pay some attention to him — even to the extent of sending him a portrait of himself. But Sinnett seemed to change his mind completely. Here the Mahatma implies that the Colonel had lost interest in the Society — and this may have been due to Fern since he seems to have had something to do with the situation.
In LMW 3, pp. 142-144, there is a letter to Fern from the Mahatma M. which is a masterpiece of irony. He had received a letter from Fern which, he says, "upset my usual placidity" and added that "two or three sentences it contained . . . are well calculated to make even an adept scratch his head."
One gathers from this letter that Fern had told the Mahatma M. that he belonged to a certain secret society "in which no one member knows the other, and one that neither practices nor tolerates deceit." This, says the Mahatma M., filled him with "awe and admiration," especially since, although there was no possibility of one member knowing another, Fern apparently knew several of them. The Mahatma implies: how could they practice deceit if no member knew who any other member was?
"I must naturally infer," the Mahatma says to Fern, "that you are very high in it — its President perhaps, the 'High Venerable Master?' He comments that no doubt Fern no longer cared to belong to a Brotherhood that both practiced and tolerated deceit with respect to probationers. However, says the Mahatma M., he assumes Fern hasn't entirely thrown them overboard and that everything done by him (Fern) was not to keep on the safe side of the Brotherhood, but with the laudable motive of "serving the cause." The Mahatma M. closes his letter with the words: ". . . do not think of me any the worse if I close this letter with sending you a SECOND WARNING." So apparently Fern had been warned before that his tactics were not thoroughly approved by the Mahatma M.
There is an addendum to the letter which concerns W. Oxley. It will be remembered that he had claimed to have conversed astrally with the Mahatma K.H. [See notes on Letter No. 83 (ML-125)] which the Mahatma denied.
My reply to Colonel Chesney in answer to his letter was already written and ready to be forwarded by my little man, when I received yours advising me not to correspond with him. Therefore I forward it to you to be read, and should you think it expedient — to deliver it to its address. It seems rude to leave his letter without any acknowledgement — whether he is or is not in sympathy with the movement.
But good friend I leave this entirely in your hands and pray you to use in the matter your own discretion. You ought to know that decidedly young Fern is a little humbug and worse — a congenital though often an irresponsible liar. He tries in his last to bamboozle M. and make him believe he, Fern, is a new Zanoni en herbe. He is testing us in every way and manner, and constant skirmishes notwithstanding has a certain and very strong influence on Hume, whom he bamboozles with imaginary "powers" whose mission is to supplant the Brothers.
He made him believe indirectly he belonged to a Society whose "name is un mentionable" a Society that seeks no one, whose one member knows not who the other is, nor will he know till the real nature of the "Brothers" is made public, though the system on which it works precludes all deception, etc. etc. To M. he writes that he confesses he "ought not to have put temptation" in his (Hume's) way. For having over-estimated his strength, he has "unwittingly caused him to fall."!! This individual is at the bottom of much that has happened. Watch and beware of him. One thing is certain though. These are not times for visiting with severity the offences of the too indiscreet and but half faithful "lay chelas." Now that Mr. Hume alienated the Chohan and M. I remain alone to carry on the difficult work. You read H.'s letter. How do you like that huge shadow of a Yogi191 with solemnly stretched out hand, and defiant haughty eyes disavowing with contemptuous gesture the intent of hurting the Society.