Received at Bombay on return to India, July, 1881.
Thanks. The little things prove very useful, and I gratefully acknowledge them. You ought to go to Simla. TRY. I confess to a weakness on my part to see you do so. We must patiently await the results, as I told you, of the Book. The blanks59 are provoking and "tantalizing" but we cannot go against the inevitable. And as it is always good to mend an error I already did so by presenting the Occult World to the C—'s60 notice. Patience, patience.
Yours, ever
K. H.
Letter No. 20 (ML-49) Rec. Aug. 5, 1881
The first letter to be received by Sinnett after his arrival at Simla is not in the Mahatma Letters but is found in the Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett (See Appendix III, LBS-204).
The reference to Hume and his "original ground" may have had to do with the establishment of the new branch of the T.S. at Simla, for that was to be the program of this gathering at his home. Originally this branch was to have been called the Anglo-Indian Theosophical Society, but the name under which it was finally to be established was the Simla Eclectic Theosophical Society. As finally organized, its objects were:
1. To support and countenance the Theosophical movement by demonstrating to the native community that many Europeans respect, sympathize, and are desirous of promoting it.
2. To obtain through the assistance of the Adept Brothers of the First Section of the Parent Society a knowledge of the psychological truths which they have experimentally ascertained, and thus acquire a means of successfully combating the materialism of the present age. The Society shall only admit as members persons already Fellows of the T.S.
The officers elected were Hume, as President, Sinnett as Vice-President, and Ross Scott61 as Secretary.
From K.H. Received at Umballa on the way to Simla, August 5, 1881.
Just home. Received more letters than I care to answer — yours excepted. Having nothing particular to say, I will simply attend to your questions; a task which may seem an easy one, but is not so, in reality, if we but remember that similar in that to the deity described in Upanishad "Sokâmayata bahuh syâm prajâye yeti" — they "love to be many and to multiply." At any rate, thirst for knowledge was never regarded as a sin and you will always find me prompt to answer such queries — that can be answered.
Certainly I am of opinion that since our correspondence was established for the good of the many it would prove very little profitable to the world at large unless you do recast the teachings and ideas contained therein "in the form of an essay," not only on the occult philosophical view of creation but upon every other question. The sooner you begin your "future book" the better; for who can answer for unexpected incidents? Our correspondence may break off suddenly, the obstacle coming from those who know best. THEIR mind — as you know, is a sealed book for many of us, and which no amount of "art magic" can break open. Further "aids to reflection" will however come in good time; and the little I am permitted to explain may, I hope, prove more comprehensive than Eliphas Levi's Haute Magie. No wonder you find it cloudy, for it was never meant for the uninitiated reader. Eliphas studied from the Rosicrucian MSS. (now reduced to three copies in Europe). These expound our eastern doctrines from the teachings of Rosencreuz, who, upon his return from Asia dressed them up in a semi-Christian garb intended as a shield for his pupils, against clerical revenge. One must have the key to it and that key is a science per se. Rosencreuz taught orally.
Saint Germain recorded the good doctrines in figures, and his only cyphered MS. remained with his staunch friend and patron the benevolent German Prince from whose house and in whose presence he made his last exit — HOME. Failure, dead failure! Speaking of "figures" and "numbers" Eliphas addresses those who know something of the Pythagorean doctrines. Yes; some of them do sum up all philosophy and include all doctrines. Isaac Newton understood them well; but withheld his knowledge very prudently for his own reputation, and very unfortunately for the writers of Saturday Review and its contemporaries. You seem to admire it — I do not. However talented from the literary point of view, a paper which gives vent to such unprogressive and dogmatic ideas as the one I came across in it, lately, ought to lose caste among its more liberal confrères. Scientific men, it thinks — "do not make at all good observers" at exhibitions of modern magic, spiritism and other "nine days wonders." This is certainly not as it should be, it adds: for, "knowing as well as they do the limits of the natural (?!!) they should begin by assuming that what they see, or what they think they see, cannot be done, and should next look for the fallacy" etc. etc. Circulation of the blood, electric telegraph, railway and steamer argument all over again. They know "the limits of the natural"!! Oh, century of conceit and mental obscuration! And we are invited to London, among these academical rags whose predecessors persecuted Mesmer and branded St. Germain as an impostor! All is secret for them as yet in nature. Of man — they know but the skeleton and form; hardly are they able to outline the paths through which the invisible messengers they call "senses" pass on their way to man's perceptions; their school science is a hot-bed of doubts and conjectures; it teaches but for its own sophistry, infects with its emasculation, its scorn for truth, its false morality and dogmatism, and its representatives would boast knowing "the limits of the natural." BUS — my good friend; I would forget you belonged to this generation, and are an admirer of your "modern Science." Her behests and oracular verdicts are on a level with the papal — non possumus. Yes; the Saturday Review has let us off easily enough to be sure. Not so the Spiritualist. Poor perplexed, wee paper! You gave it a tremendous blow. Losing its footing on mediumistic ground, it fights its death struggle for supremacy of English adeptship over Eastern knowledge. I almost hear its sub rosa cry: "If we Spiritualists are shown to be in the wrong box so are you — theosophists." The great "Adept," the formidable J.K. is certainly a dangerous enemy; and I am afraid our Bodhisatwas will have to confess some day their profound ignorance before his mighty learning. "Real Adepts like Gautama Buddha or Jesus Christ did not shroud themselves in mystery, but came and talked openly," quoth our oracle. If they did it's news to us — the humble followers of the former. Gautama is qualified the "Divine Teacher" and at the same time "God's messenger"!! (See Spt., July, 8th, p. 21. para 2.) Buddha has now become the messenger of one, whom He, Shakya K'houtchoo, the precious wisdom, has dethroned 2,500 years back, by unveiling the Tabernacle and showing its emptiness. Where did that cockney adept learn his Buddhism, I wonder? You really ought to advise your friend Mr. C.C. Massey to study with that London Jewel who so despises Indian occult knowledge "The Lotus of the Good Law," and "Atma Bodha" — in the light of Jewish Kabalism.