Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tl00334)

At 10:00 AM 6/15/97 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 kymsmith@micron.net wrote:
>
>> Doss offered a quote:
>>
>> >  "I told you before now, that the highest people on earth (spiritually)
>> >belong to the first sub-race of the fifth root Race, and those are the Aryan
>> >Asiatics; the highest race (physicial intellectuality) is the last sub-race
>> >of the fifth -- yourselves the white conquerors."
>> >
>> >ML to APS, 3rd & Revised Edn. Adyar 1962. Letter No. 23B, pp. 151.
>>
>>
>> How can someone who's supposed to be so astute make a blanket statement like
>> that?  To begin, it would be way too easy to find "Aryan Asiatics" who are
>> clearly 'unspiritual' and a "white conqueror" who is weak in "physical
>> intellectuality."
>>
>> These kind of statements are prime for misinterpretation.  If I were
>> anything other than a "Aryan Asiatic" or a "white conqueror," I'd think
>> Theosophists were a bunch of bedlamites. (!)  And dangerous.
>>
>> Either APS misreckoned while transcribing or ML needs to come down from the
>> mountain for awhile - breathing too much rarefied air can make you woozy.
>>
>> What's a "white conqueror" anyway?
>>
>>
>> Kym
>>
>>
>>
>The above quote was posted because P stated that this country is the most
>spiritual nation in the world. His source was SD.
>
>Each one of us should come to their own conclusion.
>
>This reminds me of the one of the basic problems in all our actions is
>comparison -- why compare?
>
>...........doss
>

Having addressed the topic, here is another quote:

You may be, and most assuredly are our superiors in every branch of physical

knowledge; in spiritual sciences we were, are and always will be your --

MASTERS.

(ML-28)

The full text of the letter is quoted below. (Posted in 2 parts due to length)


============-
Letter No. 28

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 to 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 "weaknesses 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 before-hand 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 Kopt 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.

 Nor did we begin the correspondence upon this subject. It was Mr. Sinnett
who, of his own motion addressed to a "Brother" two long letters, even
before Mad. B. had obtained either permission or promise from any of us to
answer him, or knew to whom of us to deliver his letter. Her own chief
having refused point blank to correspond, it was to me that she applied.
Moved by regard for her, I consented even telling her she might give you all
my Thibetan mystic name, and -- I answered our friend's letter. Then came
yours -- as unexpectedly. You did not even know my name! But your first
letter was so sincere, its spirit so promising, the possibilities it opened
for doing general good seemed so great, that if, I did not shout Eureka
after reading it, and thrown my Diogenes' lantern into the bushes at once,
it was only because I knew too well human and -- you must excuse me --
Western nature. Unable, nevertheless, to undervalue the importance of this
letter I carried it to our venerable Chief. All I could obtain from Him,
though, was the permission to temporarily correspond, and let you speak your
whole mind, before giving any definite promise. We are not gods, and even
they, our chiefs -- they hope. Human nature is unfathomable, and yours is
perhaps, more intensely so than any other man I know of. Your last favour
was certainly if not quite a world of revelation, at least, a very
profitable addition to my store of observation of the Western character,
especially that of the modern, highly intellectual Anglo-Saxon. But it would
be a revelation, indeed, to Mad. B. who did not see it, (and for various
reasons had better not) for it might knock off much of her presumption and
faith in her own powers of observation. It might prove to her among other
things that she was as much mistaken in relation to Mr. Sinnett's attitude
in this matter as your own; and that I, who had never had the privilege of
your personal acquaintance as she had, knew you far better than she did. I
had positively foretold to her your letter. Rather than have no Society at
all, she was willing to have it upon any terms at first, and then take her
chances afterwards. I had warned her that you were not a man to submit to
any conditions but your own; or even take one step towards the foundation of
an organization -- however noble and great -- unless you received first such
proofs as we generally give but to those, who by a trial of years have
proved themselves thoroughly trustworthy. She rebelled against the notion
and assured that were I but to give you one unimpeachable test of occult
powers you would be satisfied, whereas Mr. Sinnett never would. And now,
that both of you have had such proofs what are the results? While Mr.
Sinnett believes -- and will never repent of it, you have allowed your mind
to become gradually filled with odious doubts and most insulting suspicions.
If you will kindly remember my first short note from Jhelum you will see to
what I then referred in saying that you would find your mind poisoned. You
misunderstood me then as you have ever since; for in it, I did not refer to
C. Olcott's letter in the Bombay Gazette but to your own state of mind. Was
I wrong? You not only doubt the "broach phenomenon" -- you positively
disbelieve it. You say to Mad. B. -- that she may be one of those who
believe that bad means are justified by good ends and -- instead of crushing
her with all the scorn such an action is sure to awaken in a man of your
high principles -- you assure her of your unalterable friendship. Even your
letter to me is full of the same suspicious spirit, and that which you would
never forgive in yourself -- the crime of deception -- you try to make
yourself believe you can forgive in another person. My dear Sir, these are
strange contradictions! Having favoured me with such a series of priceless
moral reflexions, advice, and truly noble sentiments, you may perhaps, allow
me in my turn, to give you the ideas of an humble apostle of Truth, an
obscure Hindu, upon that point. As man is a creature born with a free will
and endowed with reason, whence spring all his notions of right and wrong,
he does not per se represent any definite moral ideal. The conception of
morality in general relates first of all to the object or motive, and only
then to the means or modes of action. Hence, if we do not and would never
call a moral man him, who following the rule of a famous religious schemer
uses bad means for a good object, how much less would we call him moral who
uses seemingly good and noble means to achieve a decidedly wicked or
contemptible object? And according to your logic, and once that you confess
to such suspicions, Mad. B. would have to be placed in the first of these
categories, and I in the second. For, while giving her to a certain extent
the benefit of the doubt, with myself you use no such superfluous
precautions and, you accuse me unequivocally of setting up a system of
deceit. The argument used in my letter, in regard to "the approbation of the
Home Government" you term as "such very low motives"; and you add to it the
following crushing and direct accusation: "You do not want this Branch (the
Anglo-Indian) for work. .

----------------- end of part 1 of 2 -----------------------