(1) A Brother? Does he or even yourself know what is understood by the name of Brother? Does he know what we mean by Dhyan Chohans or Planetary Spirits, by the disembodied and embodied Lha?, by — but it is and must remain yet for some time a mere vexation of spirit for you all. My letter is private. You may use the arguments but not my authority or name. It will be all explained to you rest assured. A living Brother may show himself and be de facto ignorant of many things. But a Spirit, an omniscient Planetary show himself so completely ignorant of what is going around him: most extraordinary.
Letter No. 39 (ML-115) Received January, 1882
This was received while Sinnett was in Bombay in January 1882. Both Mahatmas seemed concerned that Sinnett should attend the anniversary celebration of the Theosophical Society. This was mentioned in an earlier letter (No. 24 [ML-71]).
In a letter written by the Mahatma K.H. shortly before he left for his retreat (LBS 203, p. 365) he said: "Your presence in Bombay would save everything, and yet seeing how reluctant you feel I will not insist." (See complete letter in Appendix). In this letter (No. 39) the Mahatma M. says "But neither of us would force a course of action — against your wish — upon you."
This meeting took place on January 12, 1882. Sinnett did not remain in Bombay for this meeting, giving as his excuse the interests of his wife and child; also he was apparently growing uneasy about his job with The Pioneer.
Received during brief visit to Bombay in January, 1882.
It was certainly K.H.'s and my great desire that since Scott could not attend the anniversary you should — not to take any part in its proceedings but simply — be present at it. This hapless organization will once more exhibit its representation without one single European of position and influence. But neither of us would force a cause of action — against your wish — upon you. Therefore what I say must not be construed into an order or urgent request. We think it good — but you must obey your own cool judgment — the more so as perhaps to-day marks a crisis. One reason for my calling you was K.H.'s wish that you should be brought under certain magnetic and other occult influences that would favourably act upon yourself in future.
I will write more to-morrow for I yet hope you will give us a day or two and so let us have time to see what can be done for you by Khoothoomi.
M.
Letter No. 4094 (ML-108) January 1882
This letter has to do with membership in the Society. It would seem that someone (no hint of who it was) had been expelled from the Society. The last sentence indicates that Sinnett had not approached the Mahatma on this matter but that the Mahatma himself was aware of events.
The man sent by me last night was a Ladakhee chela and had nothing to do with you. What you just said about "initiation" is true. Any Fellow who truly and sincerely repents ought to be taken back. As you see I am with you constantly.
Letter No. 41 (ML-109) January 1882
In Josephine Ransom' s Short History of the Theosophical Society p. 165, she relates that "During January and February the Master M. appeared often and was seen by many... One evening, when a group had gathered at the house, the Master M. appeared and was distinctly seen by Ross Scott, Bhavani Shanker, Damodar and others." She does not mention S. Ramaswamier, but it appears from this letter that he was present, since the Mahatma mentions him along with Scott. Ramaswamier was from Tinevelly and had been accepted by the Mahatma M. as a chela.
There is reference to the anniversary celebration in Bombay in what appears to be a note of regret that Sinnett did not attend. It is not clear what the reference to "personal risk" could mean. It may mean that the Mahatmas knew that the honesty of the founders was to be called in question and felt that Sinnett would have to take some "personal risk" in defending them.
I cannot make a miracle, or I would have shown myself fully to Mrs. Sinnett at least in spite of the matches95 of the French woman96 and to yourself in spite of the physical and psychical conditions. Kindly realize that my sense of justice is so strong that I would not deny you a satisfaction I gave Ramaswami and Scott. If you have not seen me it is simply because it was an impossibility. If you had gratified K.H. by attending the meeting no harm would as a matter of fact have been done to you, for K.H. had foreseen and prepared all, and the very effort you made to be firm, even at supposed personal risk, would have totally changed your condition. Now let us see what the future has in store.
M.
Letter No. 42 (ML-43) Rec. January 1882
This letter is from the Mahatma M. It takes Sinnett strongly to task, presumably for being too much influenced by Hume, whose judgment of "the Brothers" was always supercritical.
Apparently the Mahatma had been asked to review a pamphlet written by Hume and had been guilty of not praising it enough. Sinnett had shown the criticism to Hume and the latter had reacted negatively.
Received Allahabad, February, 1882.
Before another line passes between us we must come to an agreement, my impulsive friend. You will have first to promise me faithfully never to judge of either of us, nor of the situation, nor of anything else bearing any relation to the "mythical Brothers" — tall or short — thick or thin — by your worldly experience or you will never come at the truth. By doing so until now you have only disturbed the solemn quiet of my evening meals several nights running and made my snake-like signature what with your writing it and thinking about it to haunt me even in my sleep — as by sympathy I felt it being pulled by the tail at the other side of the hills. Why will you be so impatient? You have a life time before you for our correspondence; though while the dark clouds of the Deva-Lok "Eclectic" are lowering on the horizon of the "Parent" it has to be a spasmodic and an uncertain one. It may even suddenly break off owing to the tension given it by our too intellectual friend. Oy-hai, Ram Ram! To think that our very mild criticism upon the pamphlet, a criticism reported by you to Hume Sahib — should have brought the latter to kill us at a blow! to destroy, without giving us one moment to call a Padri in or even time to repent; to find ourselves alive, and yet so cruelly deprived of our existence is truly sad, tho' not quite unexpected. But it is all our own fault. Had we instead prudently sent a laudatory hymn to his address we might now have been alive and well, waxing in health and strength — if not in wisdom — for long years to come and finding in him our Ved-Vyasa to sing the occult prowess of the Krishna and Arjuna on the desolate shores of Tsam-pa. Now that we are dead and desiccated tho', I may as well occupy a few minutes of my time to write as a bhut to you, in the best English I find lying idle in my friend's97 brain; where also I find in the cells of memory the phosphorescent thought of a short letter to be sent by himself to the Editor of the Pioneer to soothe his English impatience. My friend's friend — K.H. has not forgotten you; K.H. does not intend breaking off with you — unless Hume Sahib should spoil the situation beyond mending. And why should he? You have done all you could, and that is as much as we ever intend asking of any one. And now we will talk.