Theos-Talk Archives (April 1995 Message tl00045)

> ************************
>
> Amritsur Nov. 1st [1880]
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Availing of the first moments of leisure to formally answer your
> letter of the 17th ultimo, I will now report the result of my
> conference with our chiefs upon the proposition therein contained;
> trying at the same time to answer all your questions.
>
> I am first to thank you on behalf of the whole section of our
> fraternity that is especially interested in the welfare of India
> for an offer of help whose importance and sincerity no one can
> doubt. Tracing our lineage through the vicissitudes of Indian
> civilization to a remote past, we have a love for our motherland so
> deep and passionate, that it has survived even the broadening and
> cosmopolitanizing (pardon me if this is not an English word) effect
> of our studies in the hidden laws of nature. And so I and every
> other Indian patriot feel the strongest gratitude for every kind
> word or deed that is given in her behalf.

It is striking that from the very first letter, KH's focus in
communicating with Hume is quite different from that in his
Sinnett letters.  Hume was indeed to carry out initiatives that
to this day earn him the strongest gratitude of Indian
patriots.  Sinnett, on the other hand, as (do I imagine this?)
hinted at by KH, remained until his death an unregenerate
racist ethnocentrist snob.

> of intuitively comprehending the other, for a man can only think in
> his worn grooves, and unless he has the courage to fill up these
> and make new ones for himself he must perforce travel on the old
> lines. Allow me a few instances.

True now as ever.  But Hume seems to have filled in his grooves
and made new ones (although not to the liking of HPB or KH) far
better than Sinnett.

> fates, and the benign or hostile influences of the stars. There
> never was a time within or before the so-called historical period
> when our predecessors were not moulding events and "making
> history," the facts of which were subsequently and invariably
> distorted by "historians" to suit contemporary prejudices. Are you
> quite sure that the visible heroic figures in the successive dramas
> were not often but their puppets? We never pretended to be able to
> draw nations in the mass to this or that crisis in spite of the
> general drift of the world's cosmic relations. The cycles must run
> their rounds. Periods of mental and moral light and darkness
> succeed each other, as day does night. The major and minor yugas
> must be accomplished according to the established order of things.
> And we, borne along on the mighty tide, can only modify and direct
> some of its minor currents...

> Think of us as demi-gods and my explanation
> will not satisfy you; view as simple men -- perhaps a little wiser
> as the result of special study -- and it ought to answer your
> objection.

These passages go to the heart of what I have called "the myth
of the Great White Lodge."  On one hand, KH is saying that
adepts of various traditions have been intricately involved in
many great historical events and changes.  From this nucleus
has grown a myth that in its most extreme form (E.C. Prophet??)
portrays the world as being controlled by a superhuman
hierarchy of Masters.  Theosophy has been touched by this,
too.  But while KH affirms the presence and influence of adepts
throughout history, he insists that they are not demi-gods, but
SIMPLE MEN-- PERHAPS A LITTLE WISER AS THE RESULT OF SPECIAL
STUDY.  Why not take him at his word-- even to the "perhaps"--
rather than take this as false modesty?