Then come your remarks about Colonel Olcott. Dear old Olcott, whom everyone who knows must love. I fully sympathize in all you say in his favour — but I cannot but take exception to the terms in which you praise him, the whole burthen of which is that he never questions but always obeys. This is the Jesuit organization over again — and this renunciation of private judgement, this abnegation of one's own personal responsibility, this accepting the dictates of outside voices as a substitute for one's own conscience, is to my mind a sin of no ordinary magnitude. . . . Nay further I feel bound to say that if. . .this doctrine of blind obedience is an essential one in your system, I greatly doubt whether any spiritual light it may confer can compensate mankind for the loss of that private freedom of action, that sense of personal, individual responsibility of which it would deprive them. . . . (5)
. . . But if it be intended that I shall ever get instructions to do this or that, and without understanding the why or the wherefore, without scrutinizing consequences, blind and heedless, straightway go and do it, — then frankly the matter for me is at an end — I am no military machine — I am an avowed enemy of the military organization — a friend and advocate of the industrial or co-operative system, and I will join no Society or no Body which purports to limit or control my right of private judgment. Of course I am not doctrinaire!? and do not desire to ride any principle as a hobby horse. . . .
To return to Olcott — I do not think his connection with the proposed Society would be any evil. . . .
In the first place I should not object in any way to dear old Olcott's supervision, because I know it would be nominal, as even if he tried to make it otherwise, Sinnett and I are both quite capable of shutting him up if he interfered needlessly. But neither of us could accept him as our real guide (6), because we both know that we are intellectually his superiors. This is a brutal way, as the French would say, of putting it, but que voulez vous?. Without perfect frankness there is no coming to an understanding. . . .
Yours sincerely,
A. O. HUME.
Letter No. 9 (ML-98) Rec. Dec. 1, 1880 or later
*I19 realized it perfectly. But however sincere, these feelings are too deeply covered by a thick crust of self sufficiency and egoistical stubbornness to awaken in me anything like sympathy.
(1) For centuries we have had in Tibet a moral, pure hearted, simple people, unblest with civilization, hence — untainted by its vices. For ages has been Tibet the last corner of the globe not so entirely corrupted as to preclude the mingling together of the two atmospheres — the physical and the spiritual. And he would have us exchange this for his ideal of civilization and Govt.! This is pure self-peroration, an intense passion for hearing himself discuss, and for imposing his ideas upon every one.
(2) Now really, Mr. H. ought to be sent by an international Committee of Philanthropists, as a Friend of Perishing Humanity to teach our Dalai Lamas — wisdom. Why he does not straightway sit down and frame a plan for something like Plato's Ideal Republic with a new scheme for everything under the Sun and moon — passes my poor comprehension!
(3) This is indeed benevolent in him to go so far out of his way to teach us. Of course, this is pure kindness, and not a desire to over-top the rest of humanity. It is his latest acquisition of mental evolution, which, let us hope, will not turn in to — dissolution.
(4) AMEN! My dear friend, you ought to be held responsible for not starting in his head the glorious idea to offer his services as a General School Master for Tibet, Reformer of ancient superstitions and Saviour of future generations. Of course, were he to read this, he would show immediately that I argue like an "educated monkey."
(5) Now just listen to the man jabbering about what he knows nothing. No men living are freer than we when we have once passed out of the stage of pupilage. Docile and obedient but never slaves during that time we must be; otherwise, and if we passed our time in arguing we never would learn anything at all.
(6) And whoever thought of proposing him as such? My dear fellow can you really blame me for shrinking from closer relations with a man whose life seems to hang upon incessant argumentation and philipics? He says that he is no doctrinaire when he is the very essence of one! He is worthy of all the respect and even affection of those who know him well. But my stars! in less than 24 hours he would paralyse any one of us who might be unfortunate enough to come within a mile of him, merely by his monotonous piping about his own views. No; a thousand times no: such men as he make able statesmen, orators anything you like but — never Adepts. We have not one of that sort among us. And that is perhaps why we never felt the necessity for a house of lunatics. In less than three months he would have driven half of our Tibetan population mad!
I mailed a letter for you the other day at Umballa. I see you did not receive it yet.
Yours ever affectionately,
KOOT HOOMI.
Letter No. 10 (ML-5) Rec. after Dec. 1, 1880
This is the first letter to be received by Sinnett in which the letter itself and the signature are in the same script. It seems doubtful that it was transmitted through H.P.B. It is possible that K.H. had a chela in Amballa who performed this service for him.
My Dear Friend,
I have your letter of November 19th, abstracted by our special osmosis from the envelope of Meerut, and yours to our "old lady" in its half empty registered shell safely sent on to Cawnpore, to make her swear at me. . . . . But she is too weak to play at the astral postman just now. I am sorry to see that she has once more proved inaccurate and led you into error; but this is chiefly my own fault, as I often neglect to give her an extra rub over her poor sick head, now, when she forgets and mixes up things more than usual. I did not ask her to tell you "to give up the idea of the A.I. Branch as nothing would come of it," but — "to give up the idea of the Anglo-Indian Branch in co-operation with Mr. Hume, as nothing would come of it." I will send you his answer to my letter and my final epistle and you will judge for yourself. After reading the latter, you will please seal and send it to him, simply stating that you do so on my behalf. Unless he asks the question you better not let him know you have read his letter. He may be proud of it, but — should not.