Of course you ought to write your book. I do not see why in any case it should be impracticable. Do so, by all means, and any help I can give you I will. You ought to put yourself immediately in correspondence with Lord Lindsay, and take the Simla phenomena and your correspondence with me as the subject. He is intensely interested in all such experiments, and being a theosophist and upon the General Council is sure to welcome your overtures. Take the ground that you belong to the T.S., that you are the widely known Editor of the "Pioneer," and that, knowing how great an interest he takes in the "spiritual" phenomena, you submit to his consideration the very extraordinary things which took place at Simla, with such additional details as have not been published. The best of the British Spiritualists could, with proper management, be converted into Theosophists. But neither Dr. Wyld, nor Mr. Massey, seem to have the requisite force. I advise you to confer personally with Lord Lindsay upon the theosophical situation at home and in India. Perhaps you two might work together: the correspondence I now suggest will pave the way.
Even if Madame B. might "be induced" to give the A.I. Society any "practical instruction" I am afraid she has remained too long a time outside the adytum to be of much use for practical explanations. However, though it does not depend upon me, I will see what I can do in this direction. But I fear she is sadly in need of a few months of recuperative villegiatura on the glaciers, with her old Master before she can be entrusted with such a difficult task. Be very cautious with her in case she stops with you on her way down home. Her nervous system is terribly shaken, and she requires every care. Will you please spare me needless trouble by informing me of the year, date, and hour of Mrs. Sinnett's birth?
Every yours sincerely,
KOOT' HOOMI.
Letter No. 11 (ML-28) Rec. Dec. 1880
It is impossible to tell the exact date of this letter, and the date of receipt is somehow uncertain, it having been enclosed in Letter No. 10 (ML-5), which was received by Sinnett sometime after December 1, 1880. Sinnett indicates 1881 with a question mark, and notes, "Written toward the final break-off." This is incorrect; the final "break-off" with Hume came considerably later. However, it is easy to see how Sinnett may have made that assumption, since on p. 25 in Letter No. 10, the Mahatma K.H. does indicate that he is sending his "final epistle."
It has been conjectured earlier that Sinnett often did not date the letters until some time after they were received, and this would seem to be the case in this instance. It is noted also that, on this page (p. 29), K.H. mentions declining "for the present" (emphasis added) "any further correspondence." So the door was not finally closed.
On its own internal evidence, this letter is the answer to Hume' s reply to the Mahatma' s first letter to him. It will be remembered that K.H.'s first letter to Hume is not in The Mahatma Letters but is given in large part in The Occult World p. 110 et seq.25
K.H. to A.O. Hume written towards final break-off. (1881?)
My dear Sir,
If no other good ever came of our correspondence than that of showing us once more how essentially opposed are our two antagonistic elements — the English and the Hindu, our few letters will not have been exchanged in vain. Sooner can oil and water mingle their particles than an Englishman — however intelligent, noble-minded and sincere, be made to assimilate even the exoteric Hindu thought, let alone its esoteric spirit. This will, of course provoke you to a smile. You will say — "I expected this." So be it. But if so, it shows no more than the perspicacity of a man of thought and observation who intuitively anticipated an event which his own attitude must precipitate. . . .
You will pardon me if I have to speak frankly and sincerely of your long letter. However cogent its logic, noble some of its ideas, ardent its aspiration, it yet lies here before me a very mirror of that spirit of this age, against which we have fought during our whole lives! At best it is the unsuccessful endeavour of an acute intellect trained in the ways of an exoteric world, to throw light on, and judge of the modes of life and thought in which it is unversed, for they belong to quite a different world from that it deals with. You are no man of petty vanities. To you it is safe to say: "My dear friend, apart from all this, study your letter impartially; weigh some of its sentences, and on the whole you will not feel proud of it."
Whether or not you will ever fully appreciate my motives, or misconceive the true causes which make me decline for the present any further correspondence, I yet am confident that some day you will confess that this last letter of yours under the garb of a noble humility, of confessions of "weakness and failings, shortcomings and follies" was yet — no doubt quite unconsciously to yourself — a monument of pride, the loud echo of that haughty and imperative spirit which lurks at the bottom of every Englishman's heart. In your present state of mind, very likely even after reading this answer, you will hardly perceive, that not only have you entirely failed to understand the spirit in which my last letter was written to you, but even, in some instances to catch its evident sense. You were preoccupied by one single, all-absorbing idea: and, failing to detect any direct reply to it in my answer, before taking time to think it over, and see its general, not personal applicability, you sat down and accused me right away of giving you a stone when you asked for bread! No need of being "a lawyer" in this or any previous existence to state simple facts. No need to "make the bad appear the better cause" when truth is so very simple and so easily told. My remark — "you take up the position that unless a proficient in arcane knowledge will waste upon your embryonic Society an energy . . ."etc.: — you applied to yourself, whereas it was never so meant. It related to the expectations of all those who might desire to join the Society under certain conditions exacted beforehand and that were firmly insisted upon, by yourself and Mr. Sinnett. The letter as a whole was meant for you two, and this special sentence applied to all in general.
You say that I have "to a certain extent mistaken" your "position," and that I "clearly misunderstand" you. This is so evidently incorrect that it will suffice for me to quote a single paragraph from your letter to show that it is you who have entirely "mistaken my position" and "clearly misunderstood me." What else do you do but labour under an erroneous impression, when, in your eagerness to repudiate the idea of having ever dreamt of originating a "school" you say of the proposed "Anglo-Indian Branch" — "it is no Society of mine. . . . I understood it to be the wish of yourself and chiefs that the Society should be started and that I should assume a leading position in it." To this I replied that if it has been constantly our wish to spread on the Western Continent among the foremost educated classes "Branches" of the T.S. as the harbingers of a Universal Brotherhood it was not so in your case. We (the Chiefs and I) entirely repudiate the idea that such was our hope (however we might wish it) in regard to the projected A.I. Society. The aspiration for brotherhood between our races met no response — nay, it was pooh-poohed from the first — and so, was abandoned even before I had received Mr. Sinnett's first letter. On his part and from the start, the idea was solely to promote the formation of a kind of club or "school of magic." It was then no "proposal" of ours, nor were we the "designers of the scheme." Why then such efforts to show us in the wrong? It was Mad. B. — not we, who originated the idea; and it was Mr. Sinnett who took it up. Notwithstanding his frank and honest admission to the effect that being unable to grasp the basic idea of Universal Brotherhood of the Parent Society, his aim was but to cultivate the study of occult Sciences, an admission which ought to have stopped at once every further importunity on her part, she first succeeded in getting the consent — a very reluctant one I must say — of her own direct chief, and then my promise of co-operation — as far as I could go. Finally, through my mediation, she got that of our highest CHIEF, to whom I submitted the first letter you honoured me with. But, this consent, you will please bear in mind, was obtained solely under the express and unalterable condition that the new Society should be founded as a Branch of the Universal Brotherhood, and among its members, a few elect men would — if they chose to submit to our conditions, instead of dictating theirs — be allowed to BEGIN the study of the occult sciences under the written directions of a "Brother." But a "hot-bed of magick" we never dreamt of. Such an organization as mapped out by Mr. Sinnett and yourself is unthinkable among Europeans; and it has become next to impossible even in India — unless you are prepared to climb to a height of 18,000 to 20,000 amidst the glaciers of the Himalayas. The greatest as well as most promising of such schools in Europe, the last attempt in this direction, — failed most signally some 20 years ago in London. It was the secret school for the practical teaching of magick, founded under the name of a club, by a dozen of enthusiasts under the leadership of Lord Lytton's father. He had collected together for the purpose the most ardent and enterprising as well as some of the most advanced scholars in mesmerism and "ceremonial magick," such as Eliphas Levi, Regazzoni, and the Copt Zergvan Bey. And yet in the pestilent London atmosphere the "Club" came to an untimely end. I visited it about half a dozen of times, and perceived from the first that there was and could be nothing in it. And this is also the reason why the British T.S. does not progress one step practically. They are of the Universal Brotherhood but in name, and gravitate at best towards Quietism — that utter paralysis of the Soul. They are intensely selfish in their aspirations and will get but the reward of their selfishness.