My dear, good friend, you must not bear me a grudge for what I say to him of the English in general. They are haughty. To us especially, so that we regard it as a national feature. And, you must not confound your own private views — especially those you have now — with those of your countrymen in general. Few, if any — (of course with such exceptions as yourself, where intensity of aspirations makes one disregard all other considerations) — would ever consent to have "a nigger" for a guide or leader, no more than a modern Desdemona would choose an Indian Othello nowadays. The prejudice of race is intense, and even in free England we are regarded as an "inferior race." And this same tone vibrates in your own remark about "a man of the people unused to refined ways" and "a foreigner but a gentleman," the latter being the man to be preferred. Nor would a Hindu be likely to have such a lack of "refined ways" disregarded in him were he "an adept" twenty times over again; and this very same trait appears prominent in Viscount Amberley's criticism on the "underbred Jesus." Had you paraphrased your sentence and said: — "a foreigner but no gentleman" (according to English notions) you could not have added as you did, that he would be thought the fittest. Hence, I say it again, that the majority of our Anglo-Indians, among whom the term "Hindu" or "Asiatic" is generally coupled with a vague yet actual idea of one who uses his fingers instead of a bit of cambric, and who abjures soap — would most certainly prefer an American to "a greasy Tibetan." But you need not tremble for me. Whenever I make my appearance — whether astrally or physically — before my friend A.P. Sinnett, I will not forget to invest a certain sum in a square of the finest Chinese silk to carry in my chogga pocket, nor to create an atmosphere of sandal-wood and cashmere roses. This is the least I could do in atonement for my countrymen. But then, you see, I am but a slave of my masters; and if allowed to gratify my own friendly feeling for you, and attend to you individually, I may not be permitted to do as much for others. Nay, to tell truth, I know I am not permitted to do so, and Mr. Hume's unfortunate letter has contributed much to it. There is a distinct group or section in our fraternity who attend to our casual and very rare accessions of another race and blood, and who brought across the threshold Captain Remington and two other Englishmen during this century. And these "Brothers" — do not habitually use floral essences.
So the test of the 27th was no test phenomenon?20 Of course, of course. But did you try to get, as you said you would, the original MS. of the Jhelum dispatch? Though our hollow but plethoric friend, Mrs. B., were even proved to be my multum in parvo, my letter-writer, and to manufacture my epistles, yet, unless she were ubiquitous or had the gift of flying from Amritsar to Jhelum — a distance over 200 miles — in two minutes, how could she have written for me the dispatch in my own hand-writing at Jhelum hardly two hours after your letter was received by her at Amritsar? This is why I was not sorry that you said you would send for it, for, with this dispatch in your possession, no "detractors" would be very strong, nor even the sceptical logic of Mr. Hume prevail.
Naturally you imagine that the "nameless revelation" — which now re-echoes in England — would have been pounced upon far more eagerly than even it was, by the Times of India, if it revealed the names. But here again, I will prove you wrong. Had you first printed the account, the T. of I. could never have published "A day with Madame B.,"21 since that nice bit of American "sensationalism" would not have been written by Olcott at all. It would not have had its raison d'être. Anxious to collect for his Society every proof corroborative of the occult powers of what he terms the 1st Section, and seeing that you remained silent, our gallant Colonel felt his hand itch until it brought everything to light, and — plunged everything into darkness and consternation! . . . "Et voici pourquoi nous n'irons plus au bois,"22 as the French song goes.
Did you write "tune"?23 Well, well; I must ask you to buy me a pair of spectacles in London. And yet — out of "time" or out of "tune" is all one, as it seems. But you ought to adopt my old fashioned habit of "little lines" over the "m's." Those bars are useful, even though "out of tune and time" with modern calligraphy. Besides, bear in mind, that these my letters, are not written but impressed or precipitated and then all mistakes corrected.
We will not discuss, at present, whether your aims and objects are so widely different from those of Mr. Hume's; but if he may be actuated by "a purer and broader philanthropy," the way he sets to work to achieve these aims will never carry him beyond pure theoretical disquisitions upon the subject. No use now in trying to represent him in any other light. His letter that you will soon read is, as I say to himself, "a monument of pride and unconscious selfishness." He is too just and superior a man to be guilty of petty vanities; but his pride climbs like that of the mythical Lucifer; and, you may believe me — if I have any experience in human nature — when I say, that this is Hume — au naturel. It is no hasty conclusion of mine based upon any personal feeling, but the decision of the greatest of our living adepts — the Shaberon of Than-La.24 On whatever question he touches his treatment is the same; a stubborn determination to make everything either fit his own foregone conclusions or — sweep it away by a rush of ironical and adverse criticism. Mr. Hume is a very able man and — Hume to the core. Such a state of mind offers little attraction, as you will understand, to any of us who might be willing to come and help him.
No; I do not and never will "despise" any "feeling," however it may clash with my own principles, when it is expressed as frankly and openly as yours. You may be, and undoubtedly are, moved by more egotism than broad benevolence for mankind. Yet as you confess it without mounting any philanthropical stilts, I tell you candidly that you have far more chances than Mr. Hume to learn a good bit of occultism. I, for one, will do all I can for you, under the circumstances and restrained as I am by fresh orders. I will not tell you to give up this or that, for, unless you exhibit beyond any doubt the presence in you of the necessary germs it would be as useless as it would be cruel. But I say — TRY. Do not despair. Unite to yourself several determined men and women and make experiments in mesmerism and the usual so-called "spiritual" phenomena. If you act in accordance with prescribed methods you are sure to ultimately obtain results. Apart from this, I will do my best and — who knows! Strong will creates and sympathy attracts even adepts, whose laws are antagonistic to their mixing with the uninitiated. If you are willing I will send you an Essay showing why in Europe more than anywhere else a Universal Brotherhood, i.e., an association of "affinities" of strong magnetic yet dissimilar forces and polarities, centred around one dominant idea, is necessary for successful achievements in occult sciences. What one will fail to do — the combined many will achieve. Of course you will have — in case you organise — to put up with Olcott at the head of the Parent Society, hence — nominally the President of all the existing Branches. But he will be no more your "leader" than he is the leader of the British Theos. Society, which has its own President, its own Rules and Bye-Laws. You will be chartered by him, and that's all. In some cases he will have to sign a paper or two — 4 times a year the accounts sent in by your Secretary; yet he has no right to interfere either with your administration or modes of action, so long as these do not clash with the general Rules, and he certainly has neither the ability nor the desire of being your leader. And, of course, you (meaning the whole Society) will have besides your own President chosen by yourselves, "a qualified professor of occultism" to instruct you. But, my good friend, abandon all notion that this "Professor" can bodily appear and instruct you for years to come. I may come to you personally — unless you drive me off, as Mr. Hume did — I cannot come to ALL. You may get phenomena and proofs, but even were you to fall into the old error and attribute them to "Spirits" we could but show you your mistake by philosophical and logical explanations; no adept would be allowed to attend your meetings.