Take another case, that of Fern. His development, as occuring under your eye, affords you a useful study and a hint as to even more serious methods adopted in individual cases to thoroughly test the latent moral qualities of the man. Every human being contains within himself vast potentialities, and it is the duty of the adepts to surround the would-be chela with circumstances which shall enable him to take the "right-hand path," — if he have the ability in him. We are no more at liberty to withhold the chance from a postulant than we are to guide and direct him into the proper course. At best, we can only show him — after his probation period was successfully terminated — that if he does this he will go right; if the other, wrong. But until he has passed that period, we leave him to fight out his battles as best he may; and have to do so occasionally with higher and initiated chelas such as H.P.B., once they are allowed to work in the world, that all of us more or less avoid. More than that — and you better learn it at once, if my previous letters to you about Fern have not sufficiently opened your eyes — we allow our candidates to be tempted in a thousand various ways, so as to draw out the whole of their inner nature and allow it the chance of remaining conqueror either one way or the other. What has happened to Fern has befallen every one else who has preceded, will befall with various results every one who succeeds him. We were all so tested; and while a Moorad Ali — failed — I, succeeded. The victor's crown is only for him who proves himself worthy to wear it; for him who attacks Mara single handed and conquers the demon of lust and earthly passions; and not we but he himself puts it on his brow. It was not a meaningless phrase of the Tathagata that "he who masters Self is greater than he who conquers thousands in battle": there is no such other difficult struggle. If it were not so, adeptship would be but a cheap acquirement. So, my good brother, be not surprised, and blame us not as readily as you have already done, at any development of our policy towards the aspirants past, present or future. Only those who can look ahead at the far remote consequences of things are in a position to judge as to the expediency of our own actions, or those we permit in others. What may seem present bad faith may in the end prove the truest, most benevolent loyalty. Let time show who was right and who faithless. One who is true and approved to-day, may to-morrow prove, under a new concatenation of circumstances a traitor, an ingrate, a coward, an imbecile. The reed, bent beyond its limit of flexibility, will have snapped in twain. Shall we accuse it? No; but because we can, and do pity it, we cannot select it as part of those reeds that have been tried and found strong, hence fit to be accepted as material for the indestructible fane we are so carefully building.
And now — to other matters.
We have a reform in head, and I look to you to help me. Mr. H.'s annoying and indiscreet interference with the Parent Society, and his passion of domineering all and everything, have made us come to the conclusion that it would be worth our while to attempt the following. Let it be made known "to all concerned" through the Theosophist and circulars issued to every Branch, that hitherto they have looked too often and too unnecessarily to the Parent Body for guidance and as an exemplar to follow. This is quite impracticable. Besides the fact that the Founders have to show themselves and try earnestly to be all to everyone and all things — since there is such a great variety of creeds, opinions and expectations to satisfy, they cannot possibly and at the same time satisfy all as they would like to. They try to be impartial, and never to refuse one what they may have accorded to another party. Thus they have repeatedly published criticisms upon Vedantism, Buddhism and Hinduism in its various branches, upon the Veda Bashya of Swami Dayanand — their staunchest and at that time most valued ally; but, because such criticisms were all directed against non-Christian faiths, no one ever paid the slightest attention to it. For over a year and more, the journal came out regularly with an advertisement inimical to that of the Veda Bashya and was printed side by side with it to satisfy the Benares Vedantins. And now Mr. Hume comes out with his public castigation of the Founders and seeks to prohibit the advertisement of anti-Christian pamphlets. I want you, therefore, to please bear this in mind, and point out these facts to Col. Chesney, who seems to imagine that theosophy is hostile but to Christianity; whereas it is but impartial, and whatever the personal views of the two Founders, the journal of the Society has nothing to do with them, and will publish as willingly criticism directed against Lamaism as against Christianism. At all events, willing as we both are, that H.P.B. should always and gratefully accept your advice in the matter, it was I who advised her to "kick" as she says against Mr. H.'s attempts at authority, and you are at liberty to inform him of the fact.
Now in view to mending matters, what do you think of the idea of placing the Branches on quite a different footing? Even Christendom, with its divine pretensions to a Universal Brotherhood has its thousand and one sects, which, united as they all may be under one banner of the Cross are yet essentially inimical to each other, and the authority of the Pope is set to naught by the Protestants, while the decrees of the Synods of the latter are laughed at by the Roman Catholics. Of course, I would never contemplate, even in the worst of cases such a state of things among the theosophical bodies. What I want, is simply a paper on the advisability of remodelling the present formation of Branches and their privileges. Let them be all chartered and initiated as heretofore by the Parent Society, and depend on it nominally. At the same time, let every Branch before it is chartered, choose some one object to work for, an object, naturally, in sympathy with the general principle of the T.S. — yet a distinct and definite object of its own, whether in the religious, educational or philosophical line. This would allow the Society a broader margin for its general operations; more real, useful work would be done; and, as every Branch would be so to say, independent in its modus operandi, there would remain less room for complaint and par consequence — for interference. At any rate, this hazy sketch, I hope, will find an excellent soil to germinate and thrive in, in your business-like head; and if you could, meanwhile, write a paper based on the aforesaid explanations of the Theosophist's true position, giving all the reasons as above-mentioned and many more for the December, if not for the November number you would, indeed, oblige M. and myself. It is impossible, and dangerous, to entrust with such a subject, which requires the most delicate handling — either one or the other of our Editors. H.P.B. would never fail to break the padris' heads on such a good opportunity, or H.S.O. to turn a neat extra compliment or two to the Founders address, which would be useless, for I strive to show the two entities of Editor and Founder quite distinct and apart from each other, blended though they be in one and same person. I am no practical business man and therefore, I feel utterly unable for the task. Will you help me, friend? It would be better, of course, if the "feeler" would be made to appear in the November, as though in answer to Mr. Hume's very impolite letter, which, of course, I will not permit to be published. But you could take it for your ground-work and basis to frame your editorial answer upon. To return to the reform of Branches, this question will have of course to be seriously considered and weighed before it is finally settled. There must be no more disappointment in members once they have joined. Each Branch has to choose its well-defined mission to work for, and the greatest care should be taken in the selection of Presidents. Had the "Eclectic" been placed from the first on such a footing of distinct independence, it might have fared better. Solidarity of thought and action within the broad outline of the chief and general principles of the Society there must always be between the Parent and Branch bodies; yet the latter must be allowed each their own independent action in everything that does not clash with those principles. Thus a Branch composed of mild Christians sympathizing with the objects of the Society might remain neutral in the question of every other religion, and utterly indifferent to and unconcerned with the private beliefs of the "Founders," the Theosophist making room as willingly for hymns on the Lamb, as for slokas on the sacredness of the cow. Could you but work out this idea, I would submit it to our venerable Chohan, who now gently smiles from the corner of an eye, instead of frowning as usual — ever since he saw you become President. Had I not, last year, owing to the ex-President's truculence, been "sent to bed" earlier than at first contemplated, I was going to propose it. I have a letter of lofty reproach, dated October 8th, from the "I am." In it, he sends for you on the 5th and explains his "unwillingness to continue to hold office" and his "great desire" that you should take his place. He condemns "altogether the system and policy," of our order. It seems to him "quite wrong." He winds up by: "Of course I shall ask you to get the O.L. to refrain from proposing me for the council of the Society." No fear, no fear of this; he may sleep soundly and undisturbed and see himself in dream the Dalai Lama of the Theosophists. But I must hasten to enter my indignant and emphatic protest against his definition of our "faulty" system. Because he succeeds in catching but a few stray sparks of the principles of our Order, and could not be allowed to examine and remodel the whole, we must all need be — what he would represent us! If we could hold such doctrines as he would impose upon us; if we in aught resembled the picture he has drawn; if we could submit for a single hour to stand silently under the load of such imputations as he has thrown upon us in his September letter; verily we should deserve to lose all credit with the Theosophists! We ought to be dismissed and hunted out of the Society and people's thoughts as charlatans and impostors — wolves in sheep's clothing, who come to steal away men's hearts with mystic promises, entertaining all the while the most despotic intentions, seeking to enslave our confiding chelas and turn the masses away from truth and the "divine revelation of nature's voice" to blank and "dreary atheism"; — i.e. a thorough disbelief in the "kind, merciful Father and Creator of all" (evil and misery, we must suppose?) who lolls from the eternity, reclining with his backbone supported on a bed of incandescent meteors, and picks his teeth with a lightning fork. . . .