Love to both of you
Yours quand même
H. P. BLAVATSKY.
Spirit is strong but flesh is weak; so weak sometimes that it even overpowers the strong spirit "which knows all truth." And now having almost shaken off its control this poor body raves. Since even I am not above suspicion in her sight, you can hardly be too indulgent or use too many precautions until this dangerous nervous crisis is passed. It was brought on by a series of unmerited insults (which of course such men as you and Col. Olcott would not have even noticed but which none the less put her to the torture) and can be cured only by rest and peace of mind. If you are ever to learn any lesson about man's duality and the possibility through occult science of awakening from its dormant state to an independent existence the invisible but real I am, seize this chance. Observe and learn. It is cases like this which puzzle the biologist and physiologist. But as soon [as] one learns this duality all becomes as clear as day. I am sorry to say I can now only act thro' her upon very rare occasions and under the greatest precautions. Mr. Hume's letter to her, a letter full of suspicion and benevolent insult — proved the "one drop too much." Her Punjab fever — once the typhoid symptom removed is no worse in itself than many a European has passed through; while I may tell you now that the crisis is over — her reason as well as her life were in peril on Saturday night. As for myself you must always believe me your true and sincere friend.
KOOT HOOMI LAL SINGH.
LBS-20 Dec. 11, 1881
In a letter to Sinnett, H.P.B. writes in a postscript: "And yet the 'Boss' always said that the Fragments was a magnificently written article." The comment of M. follows.
And the "Boss" says so still. But the "Boss" will ask no more Mr. Hume to do anything for either Society or humanity. Mr. Hume will have henceforth, to ride his own "donkey" and we too remain satisfied with our own legs.
M.
LBS-29 Nov. 17, 1883.
This is a note by K.H. on a letter by H.P.B. to Sinnett. The first half of the letter refers to the Kiddle incident and a portion of the letter has apparently been erased and the following note precipitated in K.H.'s writing.
True proof of her discretion! I will tell you all myself as soon as I have an hour's leisure.
K. H.
LBS-30 Dec. 1883
The first paragraph in the following notes by M. refers to a part of H.P.B.'s letter to Sinnett that states: "Let the Karma of this fall upon Boss — for I have been solely and only the weapon or irresponsible agent in all this. I suppose Mahatma K.H. played first fiddle and my Boss second as usual. I have as you say but to obey." The second paragraph appears at the end of the letter.
Quite so for it is the best policy.
Sinnett Sahib — you must not wonder. We have the good of the whole Movement and Society at heart. Even the wishes of the majority shall not prevail — the feelings of the less enlightened minority having also to be consulted. The day must come when all will know better. Meanwhile the akhu tries to fascinate K.H. by her portraiture!
M.
LBS-34 Mar. 1884
In a letter by H.P.B. to Sinnett regarding the London Lodge, the word "Correct." was appended by M. on a long paragraph that ended as follows:
I believe you misunderstood Mahatma K.H.'s telegrams and letters — so Mohini tells me. For they wanted her to remain President so far as They were concerned and to show They did not care a rap for her implied and even expressed insults. Mahatma K.H. had to make it a sinequanon of his teaching you so long as there was but one L.L. and one Society. But since the Chohan is desirous there should be two, on the strength of Art. I (Rules) i.e. "composed solely of co-religionists" — let her preside over her "London Lodge" and Esoteric Christians — and you over the "Tibetan Lodge" and Esoteric Buddhists. DIXIT.
Correct. M.
LBS-50 Sent Oct. 9th
Comment of Mahatma M. written on the letter of H.P.B. to Sinnett. The letter speaks about the management of the Theosophist and about D.N.
Approximately true copy of one 8th of the whole truth.
LBS-155257 Sept. 1882
Extracts of a letter from A. O. Hume to K. H.
. . . "I not only do not dislike your exercise of this right, but I crave for it -and should be glad indeed if you were always to speak your mind far more freely than you do. I object to rudeness — some people are rude (1) — and this without offending me,
(1)Does he call his letters to M. and H. P. B. polite?
grates against my feelings as a gentleman, just as a bad smell offends my
olfactory nerves.
. . . "As to the particular point that you urge, viz. my great changeableness — I quite think you have a prima facie ground for attack; but yet the case is not exactly as you think. I am not really so very changeable!! . . . I cannot rely solely on you — you have too little time and the only manner in which you appear able to teach me, by letter, is so slow and so unsatisfactory, that it would not be right for me to look nowhere else."(2)
(2)C. C. M. would perhaps call this "candid"?
. . . "Circumstances have prevented . . . your placing me in such a position that I could feel certain you were correct in what you teach. Very probably you are — but others of the highest learning who have apparently gone over a good deal the same ground as yourself — traverse your views to a -treat extent. In the first place they seem to hold you Arhats all are on the wrong road — that you are but refined and highly cultured tantrikists striving for the Upasana of Shakti or Kamarupa instead of that of Pranava or Brahman!! . . ."
They equally disagree as to your view that there is no God.(3)
(3)Vedantin Adwaitas?
. . . Now I do not pretend to say which of you are right. As far as I can judge
their learning and voq powers are not inferior to yours.(4)
(4)His "good old Swami" having no powers whatever — the logical inference would be that we have none at all?
But my dear friend . . . supposing that you are right — then I greatly fear that a philosophy crowned by the bald, crude atheism, that you insist on in your notes (for you would not have my veiled enunciation of this),(5) will not be accepted even In this sadly
(5)Is this candid? And should we accept such a policy?
materialistic age. Europe will not have it neither will Asia. . . . But moreover
even could we diffuse it, would it be productive of good in the present state of the world? . . . To you and men of your purity and elevation of character — even to men low down in the scale like myself, pure atheism may do no harm — but to the untaught and spiritually wholly unawakened classes it would I fear bring evil.(6)
(6)And can a superstitious fiction, belief in a pure myth, be ever productive of good? We are called by him Jesuits and yet his policy would be purely — Loyolian.