The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett

Letter No. 86

{Received with Letter 85, London, January, 1884}

Good friend, I take you at your word. In one of your recent letters to the "O.L." you express your readiness to follow my advice in almost anything I may ask you. Well — the time is come to prove your willingness. And since, in this particular case, I myself am simply carrying out the wishes of my Chohan, I hope you will not experience too much difficulty in sharing my fate by doing — as I do. "Fascinating" Mrs, K. has to remain President — jusqu'a nouvel ordre. Nor — can I conscientiously, — after reading her apologetic letter to H.P.B. — say that I do not side with her in much she has to say in her excuse. Of course much of it is — after thought; still her very eagerness to retain her post contains good hope for the future of the London Lodge, especially if you help me by carrying out the spirit of my instructions. Thus, the London Theos. Soc. will be no more "a tail for her to wag" at her own sweet pleasure and fancy, but she will become herself part and parcel of that "tail" — and, the more she helps to wag it — the better such activity for your Society. Minute explanations would be rather too long and tedious a job. Suffice that you should know that her anti-vivisection struggle and her strict vegetarian diet have won entirely over to her side our stern Master. He cares less than we do for any outward — or even inward — expression or feeling of disrespect to the "Mahatmas." Let her do her duty by the Society, be true to her principles and all the rest will come in good time. She is very young, and her personal vanity and other womanly shortcomings are to be laid at the door of Mr. Maitland and the Greek chorus of her admirers.

The enclosed paper is to be delivered by you sealed to one of the Councillors or Vice-Presidents of your Society — Mr. C. C. Massey, I believe, would be the best fitted person for the task, as he is the sincere friend of both parties concerned. The choice is left to your own discretion and judgment, however. All that you are asked to insist upon is that it should be read before a general meeting composed of as many theosophists as you can gather, and at the earliest opportunity. It contains and carries within its folds, and characters a certain occult influence that ought to reach as many theosophists as possible. What it is you may, perhaps, gather hereafter from its direct and indirect effects. Meanwhile — read and seal it; and allow no one to put the indiscreet question whether you have taken note of its contents, for you will have to keep the knowledge secret. In case the condition should appear to you dangerous, as it might necessitate a denial of fact — better leave it alone and unread. Fear not, I am there to watch over your interests. At all events the programme is as follows: the memo written by your humble correspondent must be read to the Theosophists assembled in solemn meeting and preserved in the Society's records. It contains a statement of our views in regard to the questions raised concerning its management and basis of work. Our sympathy with it will depend upon the carrying out of the programme therein contained and laid down after mature thought.

To turn to a few of your philosophical questions — (being on my way, I cannot answer them all). It is difficult to perceive what relations you wish to establish between the different stages of subjectivity in Devachan and the various states of matter. If it be supposed that in Devachan the Ego passes through all these states of matter, then the answer would be that existence in the seventh state of matter is Nirvana and not Devachanic conditions. Humanity, although in different stages of development, yet belongs to the three dimensional condition of matter. And there is no reason why in Devachan the Ego should be varying its "dimensions."

Molecules occupying a place in infinity is an inconceivable proposition. The confusion arises out of the Western tendency of putting an objective construction upon what is purely subjective. The book of Khiu-te teaches us that space is infinity itself. It is formless, immutable and absolute. Like the human mind, which is the exhaustless generator of ideas, the Universal Mind or Space has its ideation which is projected into objectivity at the appointed time; but space itself is not affected thereby. Even your Hamilton has shown that infinity can never be conceived by any series of additions. Whenever you talk of place in infinity, you dethrone infinity and degrade its absolute, unconditioned character.

What has the number of incarnations to do with the shrewdness, cleverness, or the stupidity of an individual? A strong craving for physical life may lead an entity through a number of incarnations and yet these may not develop its higher capacities. The Law of Affinity acts through the inherent Karmic impulse of the Ego, and govern its future existence. Comprehending Darwin's Law of Heredity for the body, it is not difficult to perceive how the birth-seeking Ego may be attracted at the time of rebirth to a body born in a family which has the same propensities as those of the re-incarnating Entity.

You need not regret that my restriction should include Mr. C. C. Massey. One point righted and explained would but lead to other still darker points ever arising in his suspicious, restless mind. He is a bit of a misanthrope your friend. His mind is clouded with black doubt, and his psychological state is pitiable. All the brighter intentions are being stifled, his Buddhic (not Buddhistic) evolution checked. Take care for him, if he will not — of himself! The prey of illusions of his own creation, he is slipping down towards a deeper depth of spiritual misery, and it is possible that he may seek asylum from the world and himself within the pale of a theology which he would once have passionately scorned. Every lawful effort has been tried to save him, especially by Olcott, whose warm brotherly love has prompted him to make to his heart the warmest appeals — as you know. Poor, poor, deluded man! My letters are written by H.P.B., and he has no doubt I got "defrauded Mr. Kiddle's" ideas out of her head! But let him rest as he is.

Our friend, Samuel Ward, regrets his friend Ellis's discomfiture; it should concern me and I must see, I suppose, when I return if a pair of horns — the "coveted horns" may not be picked up by some caravan, where dropped naturally by the animal. Unless in this way, "Uncle Sam" could not fairly expect me to help him out: for you would not have me shoulder a rifle and leave "Esoteric Buddhism" behind me at the foot of the chamois-crags!

I am sorry you took the trouble of posting me about Bradlaugh. I know him and his partner well. There is more than one trait in his character I esteem and respect. He is not immoral; nor could anything that might be said against or for him by Mrs. K. or even yourself, change or even influence my opinion of both himself and Mrs. Besant. Yet the book published by them — "The Fruits of Philosophy" is infamous and highly pernicious in its effects whatever and however beneficent and philanthropic the objects that led to the publication of the work. I regret — very deeply, my dear friend, to be obliged to differ widely in my views upon the said subject from you. I would rather avoid the unpleasant discussion. As usual, H.P.B. blundered greatly in rendering what she was told to say to Mrs. K., but on the whole she gave it out correctly. I have not read the work — nor ever will; but I have its unclean spirit, its brutal aura before me, and I say again in my sight the advices offered in the work are abominable; they are the fruits of Sodom and Gomorrah rather than of Philosophy, the very name of which it degrades. The sooner we leave the subject — the better.

And now I have to go. The journey before me is long and tedious and the mission nearly hopeless. Yet some good will be done.

Yours ever sincerely,

K. H.

Theosophical University Press Online Edition