You do not seize the meaning at all. Ask Mr. Sinnett to do this for you; he'll see what the man means — and answer him. He himself volunteered last night for "something more difficult" — not two and two as he just said. Let him then — who acquitted himself so neatly of one thing do this one likewise and so oblige his
"illustrious" friend M.
D––––– better.
LBS-199 July 24, 1882
This precipitated note in the handwriting of K.H. was followed by the following comment by H.P.B.: "And now he must needs precipitate here too! Very much obliged to him anyhow, one trouble less on my shoulders. Found the precipitation on opening the wrapper. H. P. B."
At foot of letter to Theosophist from N.D.K. Recd. July 24th.
Send this to Mr. Sinnett. Having now received all the necessary explanations from me, he will not refuse me the personal favour I now ask him. Let him enlighten his brother-theosophists in his turn by writing an answer to this for the next Theosophist and sign himself — "A Lay Chela."
LBS-200 Feb. 1882
The rule is correctly interpreted. No member of one Soc. has any right to vote in another. Nor can members be such in two or several lodges unless specially requested to do so by the Council. Buddhists for instance could not be forced as members in a Brahmin Soc.
M.
LBS-201264 Rec. Aug. 22, 1882
Recd. 22.8.82
A.P. Sinnett, Esq.
Simla
I have made a few alterations and caused a footnote to be appended to your "Letters." Anyhow, there is always a danger I see, of finding our ideas substituted by concrete and false images in the minds of your readers. If you but succeed in giving them only relative, not absolute truth you will have conferred upon the public a great boon.
LBS-202 Jan., 1883
My honoured friend A. P. Sinnett is respectfully requested to carefully peruse, the contents of the two enclosed letters and give his honest and frank opinion thereon — from the English standpoint obliging thereby most greatly,
His friend,
K. H.
LBS-203 Jan. 7, 1882
TELL him what you have just heard from Upasika. I was with you. Members who have proved willing, after choosing a President will have to reorganise entirely and a new Charter on the new principle as delineated by you should be sent to them. Write to and consult Olcott. The new organization is a very poor one in numbers and yet not even 50, are good for the work in hand! Write to Mr. Massey and thank him from me. He will know why.
What can I say? Your presence at Bombay would save everything, and yet seeing how reluctant you feel I will not insist. To-night I hope to have more time for an answer.
K. H.
LBS-204 Nov. 25, 1880
Have patience. In a day or two I will be able to take your letters and answer them. I find that the best plan is to act thro' our mutual friend. Put your letters in her pocket or under her pillow at night. I see that our mutual friend still considers his original ground of claim to be irrefragable — as the clerks say.
In haste,
K. H.
LBS-205 Oct. 24, 1880
Private.
THANKS my friend. Your programme composed and written as I well know for my cognizance has been placed on record and we shall talk it over one of these days. Blame me not for delay, the situation is thrown into serious danger by recent wild indiscretions and the Khobilgan deeply incensed; whatever the results I will be true to my word with you but the time for our new efforts is not yet. Do what you can to check further mistakes.
Yours ever truly,
K. H.
LBS-206 No date
Did I not warn you in my letter that he would make some bad compliment and that it would be the only thanks you could expect to receive from a medium?
K.H.
LBS-207 No date
As good as everything he writes. Have you any objection to asking him whether he has any himself to have this published in the Theosophist? Thanks for writing the two articles
M.
LBS-Appendix I October 1881
* Article published in The Theosophist for October 1881. The page has marginal comments in K.H.'s writing which are printed here in small bold type parallel with the text of the article, and to which the numbers in brackets refer. [Underlined passages] have been underlined by K.H. — ED.
DEATH
BY (THE LATE) ELIPHAS LEVI
LBS-Appendix II Jan. 1882
The questions were put by A.P.S. or A.O.H. to their Teachers, and the bold type are the answers received.
Cosmological Notes from A.P. Sinnett's MS. Book.
(1) What are the different kinds of knowledge?
The real (Dgyu) and the unreal (Dgyu-mi). Dgyu becomes Fohat when in its activity — active agent of will — electricity — no other name.
(2) What is the difference between the two kinds of knowledge?
Real knowledge deals with eternal verities and primal causes. The unreal only with illusory effects.
Dgyu stands independent of the belief or unbelief of man. Dgyu-mi requires faith — rests on authority.
(3) Who possesses the real knowledge?
The Lhas or adept alone possesses the real, his mind being en rapport with the Universal Mind.
The Lhas has made the perfect junction of his soul with the Universal Mind in its fulness, which makes him for the time a divine being existing in the region of absolute intelligence, knowledge of natural laws or Dgyu. The profane cannot become a Dang-ma (purified soul), for he lacks means of perceiving Chhag, Genesis or the beginning of things.
(4) Is there any difference between what produces primal causes and their ultimate effects?
None. Everything in the occult universe, which embraces all the primal causes, is based upon two principles — Kosmic energy (Fohat or breath of wisdom), and Kosmic ideation. Thyan Kam (= the knowledge of bringing about) giving the impulse to Kosmic energy in the right direction.