The letter begins with a reference to the chela, Dharbagiri Nath, probably Babaji, as this was about the time he had lent his body for the use of the Tibetan chela, Guala K. Deb, who used the mystical name Dharbagiri Nath.
Here the Mahatma speaks of him as "the little man" which almost certainly means that it was Babaji — at least the physical body was Babaji's. At the same time, the mystery deepens, as Babaji was a probationary chela and Deb was an accepted chela. It may have been Deb acting through Babaji, with a strange blending of identity which is very difficult to comprehend.
Also the Mahatma tells Sinnett: "My friend, I am afraid you too have again been imprudent." It will be remembered that the Mahatma had sent Sinnett a letter which he had written to Col. Chesney in response to a letter he had received from him. At the same time the Mahatma received a letter from Sinnett asking him not to correspond with the colonel. Sinnett had been trying to interest him in the Theosophical Society and had even gone to the length of asking that the Mahatma send him a portrait of himself. At any rate, he seems to have bungled the matter, and the colonel must have taken offense, with the result mentioned here. It seems that Col. Chesney became alienated because he thought some articles published in The Theosophist were anti-Christian and that Theosophy was hostile only to Christianity.
My dear friend —
May I trouble you to hand the enclosed Rs. 50 to Dharbagiri Nath when you see him? The little man is in trouble but has to be remonstrated; and the best punishment for an accepted chela is to receive the reproof through a "lay" one. On his way from Ghoom to Bengal through imprudence and indiscretion he lost money, and instead of addressing himself directly to me he tried to dodge the "Master's eye" and called upon a probationary chela upon whom he has not the slightest claim to help him out of his difficulty. So please tell him that Ram S. Gargya has not received his telegram from Burdwan but that it went direct into the hands of the Lama who notified me of it. Let him be more prudent in future. You now see the danger in allowing young chelas out of sight even for a few days. Money losses are nothing, but it is the results involved and the temptation that are terrible. My friend, I am afraid you too, have been again IMPRUDENT. I have a letter from Colonel Chesney — very polite and quite diplomatic. Several such messages may do for an excellent refrigerator.
Yours,
K. H.
P.S. — I am glad to find you reprinting in the Pioneer "A Day with my Indian Cousins" by Atettjee Sahibjee, etc., from Vanity Fair. Last year I had asked you to give some work to the author of those sketches after the manner of the once famous Ali Baba — but was refused. You thought he did not write well enough for the Pioneer. You distrusted a "native," and now his articles are accepted in Vanity Fair.
I am glad for poor Padshah. He is a madcap, yet of excellent heart and sincerely devoted to Theosophy and — our Cause.
I must consult you. Hume writes to H.P.B. (a most loving letter!). He sends her two corrected copies of a letter of his in the Pioneer of the 20th and remarking that the time has come when, if the native press all over the country will only following this, his lead, push the question strongly — material concessions will be obtained — he adds "you will of course reprint this in the Theosophist." How can she do it, without connecting her journal directly with politics? I would have extremely liked to have his letter on Education reproduced from your Pioneer in the Theosophist, but hesitated to tell her to do it, fearing it would give a new colouring to the magazine. Some of his articles are extremely able.
Well, and what are you to do about anniversary of "Eclectic" and cyclic conclusion?
She is better and we have left her near Darjeeling. She is not safe in Sikkim. The Dugpa opposition is tremendous and unless we devote the whole of our time to watching her, the "Old Lady" would come to grief since she is now unable to take care of herself. See what happened to the little man — he will tell you. You ought to take her in for October and November.
Yours again,
K. H.
This little wretch forced me to blush before you on account of his indiscretion — "from a European standpoint." I cannot be always looking after my Chelas in their travels — and their knowledge of your ways and usages amounts to cipher! It is but to-day that I learned of his borrowing from you Rs. 30 — through Djual Khool. He had no business and no right to do so; but you must pardon him for he has not the least conception of a difference between a Tibetan and a European chela and acted as unceremoniously with you as he would with Djual Khool. I send you back with thanks the money lent, hoping you will not take us all for savages!
I am writing you a long letter by fits and starts as usual. When that business letter will be on its way, I will send another with answers to your questions.
A ludicrous thing happened in connexion with C.C.M.'s letter that I will relate in my next.
Hail and success to the "new President" at last!!
Yours ever fondly,
K. H.
Pardon the unavoidable delay. This letter with the enclosed cannot reach Darjeeling before 4 or 5 days.
Letter No. 92 (ML-54) Rec. October 1882
This letter, written from Phari Jong, a large monastery in Tibet just across the Sikkim border on the route to Lhasa, is the letter mentioned in Letter No. 91 as being written by "fits and starts." It may be of interest that the original covers 17 full-sized sheets of paper. It seems probable that it was dictated mentally to a chela and then precipitated, if the prohibition against this method of communication had by that time been removed. It is understood that it was removed at some time but the precise time is not known. The method usually resulted in more corrections, and in this letter some words have been erased, some have been corrected, and some others have been scratched out.
The opening paragraph concerns Hume's resignation as President of the Simla Eclectic Theosophical Society.
Received Simla, October, 1882.
My dear friend: — the deposition and abdication of our great "I am" is one of the most agreeable events of the season for your humble servant. Mea culpa! — I exclaim, and willingly place my guilty head under a shower of ashes — from the Simla cigars if you like — for it was my doing! Some good has come of it in the shape of excellent literary work — (though, indeed, I prefer your style) — for the Parent body, but none whatever for the hapless "Eclectic." What has he done for it? He complains in a letter to Shishir Koomar Gosh (of the A.B. Patrika) that owing to his (?) Hume's incessant efforts, he had nearly "converted Chesney to Theosophy" when the great anti-Christian spirit of the Theosophist threw the Colonel violently back. This is what we may call — tampering with historical facts. I send you his last letter to me, in which you will find him entirely under the influence of his new guru — "the good Vedantin Swami"196 (who offers to teach him the Adwaita philosophy with a god in it by way of improvement) — and of the Sandaram Spirit. His argument is, as you will find, that with the "good old Swami" he will at any rate learn something, while with us, it is impossible for him to "ever learn anything." I — "never gave him the assurance that all the letters were not evolved out of the Old Lady's fertile brain." Even now, he adds, when he has obtained subjective certainty that we are distinct entities from Mad. B — "I cannot tell what you are — you might be Djual Kool, or a spirit of the high Eastern plane" — etc. in like strain. In the letter enclosed he says — we "may be tantrikists" (better ascertain the value of the compliment paid) — and, he is preparing, nay — all prepared — to plunge from extreme Adwaitism into transcendental theism, once more. Amen. I hand him over to the Salvation Army.