{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/mahatma-letters/08-a-o-humes-reply-to-khs-first-letter-letter-99.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "mahatma-letters",
    "name": "Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett"
  },
  "parents": [],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 7,
    "slug": "08-a-o-humes-reply-to-khs-first-letter-letter-99",
    "title": "A. O. Hume's Reply to K.H.'s First Letter (Letter 99)",
    "of": 10,
    "words": 3910,
    "text": "## A. O. Hume's Reply to K.H.'s First Letter (Letter 99)\n\n\n#### A. O. Hume’s Reply To K.H.’s 1st Letter\n\n{Unedited text of Letter 99. K.H.’s # and numbers in\nboldface refer to his comments in Letter 98. Most, but not all of Hume’s\nend-of-sentence periods appear as small dashes.\n\nSimla\n20-11-80\n\nMy dear Koot Humi\n\nI have sent Sinnett your letter to me & he has kindly sent me yours to\nhim –  I want to make some remarks on this not by way of cavil, but\nbecause I am so anxious that you should understand me –  Very likely\nit is my conceit – but whether or no I have a deep rooted conviction that\nI *could* work effectually if I only saw my way & I cannot bear\nthe idea of your throwing me over under any misconception of my views – \nAnd yet every letter I see of yours, shows me that you do not as yet realize\nwhat I think & feel –** #**  To explain this I venture\nto jot down a few comments on your letter to Sinnett –\n\nYou say that if Russia does not succeed in taking Tibet, it will be due to\nyou & herein at least you will deserve our gratitude –  I do not\nagree to this in the sense in which you mean it –** (1)** \nIf I thought that Russia would on the whole govern, Tibet or India, in such\nwise as to make the inhabitants on the whole happier than they are under\nthe existing Gov ts , I would myself welcome & work for her\nadvent.  But so far as I can judge the Russian Gov t is a\ncorrupt despotism, hostile to individual liberty of action & therefore\nto real progress – & it would only be in common with all well wishers\nof mankind & not as an English man (& indeed I have no nationality)\nthat I should feel gratitude to you or any one else who by legitimate means\n(& what are under different sets of circumstances legitimate & illegitimate\nmeans may be a matter open to argument) prevented the further extension\nof a power, which is essentially hostile to the highest interests of humanity.\n\nThen about the English speaking Vaquil –  Was the man so much to blame?\n–  You & yours have never taught him that there was any thing in\nYog-vidya –  The only people who have taken the trouble to educate\nhim at all have in so doing taught him materialism –  You are disgusted\nwith him, but who is to blame?  he who having no teaching but a materialistic\none, rejects as dreams, the vague rumours that have reached him as to spiritual\npossibilities, or you (I mean your brotherhood) who knowing all about these\nhave failed to popularize the knowledge, have in fact failed to teach him\nbetter?  I judge perhaps as an outsider but it does seem to me, that\nthe impenetrable veil of secresy by which you surround yourselves, the enormous\ndifficulties which you oppose to the communication of your spiritual knowledge,\nare the main causes of the rampant materialism which you so much deplore\n–  You are the only people who possess any real, experimental knowledge\nof things spiritual – doubtless millions upon millions possess a sort of\nknowledge of these thro faith, pure life, meditation & in fact the higher\ndiscipline of all religions worthy of the name –  But this knowledge\nof theirs tho sufficing to their own souls, is not of a character to produce\nobjective results, or tangible arguments, that they can appeal to in order\nto lead others by nature less spiritually minded to similar convictions\nto their own –  You alone do possess the means of bringing home to\nthe ordinary run of men, convictions of this nature but you, apparently\nbound by ancient rules, so far from zealously disseminating this knowledge,\nenvelop it in such a dense cloud of mystery, that naturally the mass of\nmankind, disbelieve in its existence.\n\n And this veil of secresy is I submit an anachronism –  It may\nhave been very necessary in former days when the exhibition of the powers\npossessed by adepts might have led to prosecutions & persecutions, but\nnow when in the most highly civilized countries, such exhibitions would\nat worst entail ridicule & abuse, (both of which the inexorable logic\nof facts would surely even tho slowly strangle) there can be no justification\nfor not giving clearly to the world the more important features of your\nphilosophy, accompanying the teaching with such a series of demonstrations\nas should ensure the attention of all sincere minds.\n\nThat you should hesitate to confer hastily great powers too likely to be\nabused, I quite understand – but this in no way bars a dogmatic enunciation\nof the results of your psychical investigations, accompanied by phenomena,\nsufficiently clear & often repeated to prove that you really did know\nmore of the subjects with which you dealt than Western Science does.**\n(2)**\n\nPerhaps you will retort “How about Slades case?” but do not forget that\n*he* was taking money for what he did; making a living out of it\n–  Very different would be the position of a man, who came forward\nto teach gratuitously, manifestly at the sacrifice of his own time, comfort &\nconvenience what he believed it to be for the good of mankind to know –\n\nAt first no doubt every one would say the man was mad or an imposter – but\nthen when phenomenon, on phenomenon was repeated & repeated they would\nhave to admit that there was something in it, & within three years,\nyou would have all the foremost minds in any civilized country intent upon\nthe question & tens of thousands of anxious enquirers out of whom ten\npercent might prove useful workers, & one in a thousand perhaps develop\nthe necessary qualifications for becoming ultimately an adept –  If\nyou desire to react on the native thro’ the European mind that is the way\nto work it –  Of course I speak under correction & in ignorance\nof conditions, possibilities &c, but for this ignorance at any rate\n“*I* am not to blame –\n\nThen you say – “It *is not possible* that there should be much more\nat best than a benevolent neutrality shown by your people towards ours – \nThere is so very minute a point of contact between the two civilizations\nthey respectively represent that one might almost say they could not touch\nat all”  Now is this correct? –  Is it not in the first place\nmisleading to talk of *two* civilizations?  All civilizations\nhave the same necessary ingredients, mental & moral (or if you prefer\nit, spiritual) culture –  The one element may predominate here, the\nother there, but in both cases there must be a vast amt in common – \nEssential to every civilization in any way deserving of the name is the\nintellectual culture necessary for the discrimination of the good, the true &\nthe beautiful & the moral culture essential to the adherence at all\ncost to these in preference to their opposites –\n\n In the one country there may be less intellectual capacity & a\npurer devotion to the more dimly perceived truths, in the other it may be\nmore of “Meliora videon proboque, deteriora sequor” {\"I see and approve\nof the better, but I follow the worse\"} but in both the essentials are the\nsame & it appears to me to be a contradiction in terms to talk of the\ntwo civilizations which may almost be said not to touch at all –  Nor\nis this a mere matter of words, for starting with such idea’s failure is\na certainty, whereas if the vast amt that is common to both be realized &\nrecognized & if we seek to build on this common foundation, an active\ncooperation in lieu of a benevolent neutrality becomes not only a possibility,\nbut a thing that may be commanded – **(3)**\n\nThen I come to the passage – “Has it occurred to you that the two Bombay\npublications if not influenced may at least have not been prevented by those\nwho might have done so because they saw the necessity for that much agitation\nto effect the double result of making a needed diversion after the brooch\ngrenade & perhaps of trying the strength of your personal interest in\noccultism & theosophy? I do not say it was I but enquire whether the\ncontingency ever presented itself to your mind.” Now of course this was\naddressed to Sinnett, but still I wish to answer it in my fashion – \nFirst I should say, *cui bono* throwing out such a hint? You must\nknow whether it was so or not –   If it was not, why set us speculating\nas to whether it *may* have been, when you know it was *not*\n–  But if it was so, then I submit, that in the first place, an idiotic\nbusiness like this could be no test of any *mans* (there are of course\nlots of human beings who are only a sort of educated monkey,) personal interest\nin any thing –  Would any *man*, who felt even the slightest\ninterest in *any* thing, suffer this interest to be affected by the\nfact that some other person made themselves ridiculous in connection therewith? \nIn the second place if the brothers did deliberately allow the publication\nof those letters, I can only say that from my worldly non initiated standpoint,\nI think they made a sad mistake – a cause may involve murder & robbery &\nyet not be wholly discredited, but make it ridiculous & you may write\nits epitaph. Mind I do not for one moment defend this – it is monstrous\nthat it should be so – but it is unfortunately a fact, & the object\nof the Brothers being avowedly to make the T.S. respected, they could hardly\nhave selected any worse means than the publication of these foolish letters\n–  I do not of course attach any very great importance to them – if\nthere be a real vital [breath?] underlying the T.S. (& it is this I\nam vainly trying to arrive at), it will outlive & smother a hundred\nsuch bévues – Magna est veritas et prevalebit {\"blunders – Great is the\ntruth and it will prevail\"} – but still when the question is broadly put,\ndid you ever consider whether the brothers allowed this publication, I cannot\navoid replying, if they did not, it is futile wasting consideration on the\nmatter & if they did, it seems to me that they were unwise in so doing\n– **(4)**\n\nThen come your remarks about Col. Olcott – Dear old Olcott, whom everyone\nwho knows must love –  I fully sympathise in all you say in his favour\n– but I cannot but take exception to the terms in which you praise him,\nthe whole burthen of which is that he never questions but always obeys – \nThis is the Jesuit organization over again – & this renunciation of\nprivate judgement, this abnegation of ones own personal responsibility,\nthis accepting the dictates of outside voices as a substitute for ones own\nconscience, is to my mind a *sin* of no ordinary magnitude; &\ninvolves a principle inimical to *all* true civilization – \nMoreover I venture to predict that such a system of passive obedience will\nnever obtain the cooperation of the highest minds in any society – \nNay further I feel bound to say that if as I seem to gather from many incidental\npassages in your letters, this doctrine of blind obedience is an essential\none in your system, I greatly doubt whether any spiritual light it may confer,\ncan compensate mankind for the loss of that private freedom of action, that\nsense of personal individual responsibility of which it would deprive them\n–  Nay further state, unless I wholly misread the teachings of history &\nthe spirit of the age, any organization, which has for its key note passive\nobedience is itself doomed – **(5)**\n\n Now for the first time I begin to get a glimpse of what you probably\nmean by what you so often allude to as the irreconcilable nature of Eastern &\nWestern Ideas –  Truly despotism is of the East, Freedom of the West\n– but I confess that I have hitherto been unable to conceive of the possibility\nof a brotherhood like yours accepting as a tenet the principle that underlies\nall despotisms –  Yet when your highest praise is bestowed, not on\nsomeone who wisely & cleverly works out a good end but on one who amidst\ninnumerable errors “always obeys & never questions” what else can I\nconclude?\n\nAnd here I must take my stand –  as for physical matters, when where\nor what one eats or sucks, where or how one lives or sleeps, these are all\naccidentals – matters of no earthly consequence provided my health did not\nseriously suffer, I would as soon live on herbs & water & sleep &\nlive in a cave or a mud hut if any good was to come of it, as in any other\nways.  But if it be intended that I shall ever, get instructions to\ndo this or that & without understanding the why or the wherefore, without\nscrutinizing consequences, blind & heedless, straightway go & do\nit – then frankly the matter for me is at an end –  I am no military\nmachine –  I am an avowed enemy of the military organization – a friend &\nadvocate of the industrial or cooperative system & I will join no society\nor no body which purports to limit or control my right of private judgement. \nOf course I am not a hukum\ne ,**!?** & do not\ndesire to ride any principle as a Hobby Horse –  Where a matter is\nimmaterial, i.e. so far as my unaided judgement enables me to discern can\ndo no harm – then if the persons who asked me to do it were persons in whose\ngood faith & capacity I had confidence I should like Olcott be quite\nwilling to obey & ask no questions.  But if the thing was material, &\neither involved consequences which I could not clearly forsee, or appeared\nto me wrong or unwise, then I should most distinctly refuse to obey unless\nthe “*hakims*” {\"rulers\"} were willing to explain to me the reasons\nfor their “*hukum*” {\"ruling\"} & make it clear to me that despite\nany previous doubts, it was really the right thing to do –\n\nTo return to Olcott – I do not think his connection with the proposed Society\nwould be any evil –  Sinnett thinks this I believe –  I do not\n– given any real vital principle as a basis to the Society & nobody’s\nconnections with it could do any very permanent harm –  So I quite\nagree in all you say about this but when you go on to say “But if you now\nso dislike the idea of a purely nominal executive supervision by Col Olcott\n– an american of your own race – you would surely rebel against dictation\nfrom a Hindoo” you must entirely mistake my feelings at any rate –\n\nIn the first place I should not object in any way to dear Old Olcotts supervision,\nbecause I know it would be nominal as even if he tried to make it otherwise,\nSinnett & I are both quite capable of shutting him up if he interfered\nneedlessly –  But neither of us could accept him as our real guide ,**\n(6)** because we both know that we are intellectually his superiors\n–  This is a brutal way as the French would say of putting it, but\nque voulez vous?  Without perfect frankness there is no coming to an\nunderstanding –\n\nTruly I should object to the *dictation* not only of a Hindoo but\nof any human being –  I allow no man to dictate to me –  But if\na Hindoo comes to me & gives me good advice, & shows me reasons\nwhy I should do this or should not do the other, I should be as readily\nguided by that advice as tho it had come from an English man or a French\nman –\n\nSo far as I am concerned the words “whose race you have not yet learnt even\nto tolerate let alone to love or respect” have no application –  I\ndo not love the low lying Mookhtears, & vaquils, the khitmatgars &\nthe bulk of the lower class officials & employe’s, Hindoo's or Mahomedans\n–  Nor do I love any more the similar classes in Germany France or\nEngland –  Nor do I love the self seeking, fawning, money lenders &\nthe like, who constitute the majority of those who crowd about us official\nEnglishmen –  I am civil to them, I try, to be kind to them, but I\ndo not like or respect them, *not* because they are Hindoo’s or Sikhs\nor Mahomedans, but because they are self seekers – mean, base, – & because\ntheir presence sets on me like a nightmare & weighs down my own thoughts\n–  But there have been natives Hindoo’s & Mahomedans, whom I have\nloved & respected as much as I could have loved & respected any\nEuropean –  There is no question of race or colour or creed at all\n– it is a mere question of intrinsic qualities – “*sifaten*” –\n\nWhen you say that your highest adepts are “greasy Tibetans & Punjabi\nSinghs” & that “the lion is proverbially a dirty & offensive beast”,\nI presume you are joking –  If not, tho a diamond is a diamond, &\nI should prize it equally however badly set –  I should prefer to get\nit suitably set – & tho purity of soul is *the* one great first\nrequisite, & all other things comparatively insignificant yet in its\nway purity & cleanliness of body is not to be despised & I confess\nthat I think the perfect jewel, the pure soul set in the pure clean body,\n*the* thing to aim at –  Old, mean, clothes, are one thing (tho\nwhen a man can dress in good plain ones I cannot see why he should not),\nbut dirtiness of body is another & I do not believe that *where this\ncan be avoided*, it should be permitted –  And in fact I am unable\nto believe that any high adept can be really dirty or offensive – \nBut even were this so, this would not in the smallest degree repel me, once\nI knew that it was really an adept I was dealing with & that foul as\nthe exterior husk might be, the true good seed was within –\n\nI am quite sure that if you are true & genuine, as I believe you to be\nthe kindly feelings that this correspondence has engendered toward you would\nbe in no way weakened, but rather strengthened by personal intercourse with\nyou –  I hardly see peoples outsides –  I often know & care\nfor people without hardly knowing what they are like in body –  Men\nmostly think a great deal of womens looks – & I have been some times\nsurprised when promising a woman to a man, at being told “look she may be\nvery good but she is awfully plain” & then again on looking carefully\nat my lady friend to discover, tho I had never known it that she *was*\nawfully plain –  So I am quite certain that nothing in your external\npersonal appearance could in the smallest degree affect *my* sentiments.\n\nAs for your dear dirty neophyte, I wish he had been sent to me, dirty pagri &\nall, & it would have gone hard with me, if while learning from him higher\nthings, I had not been able to convert him to my views of the beauty &\ngoodness of cleanliness –\n\nThe most important point of your letter to me is that where in you say “Powerless\nto send to you a neophyte before you have *pledged* yourself to us”\nHere perhaps is the real *Crux* –  What is the pledge you require?\nall seems to turn upon this –  If it is merely to preserve entire secresy\nas to all that we may learn, & as to yourselves, & your followers,\nnever without permission to utilize any knowledge gained from you, &\nalways to act in accordance with your wishes in all cases in which it did\nnot seem to us wrong to do so, I at least think that if satisfied on the\npoints refer'd to in former letters, I could give it – *&* if\nI did give it I would abide by it come what might; but if it is the old\nsurrender of “dhun, man, Fan,” proposed to me twenty years ago, then I for\none will never give it –  I feel that I am responsible to higher than\nearthly intelligences –  I don't pretend to know what they are – but\nI *know* that they exist, as certainly as I know that sugar is sweet\nto my taste, tho I can prove neither fact to anyone else – & I will\nresign that responsibility into no earthly hands\n\nOn the other hand, I do not care to play at Theosophy –  Either I go\nin for it in real earnest or not at all – if my retention of the right of\nprivate judgement renders the real earnest impossible under your rules –\nwell & good – the thing must be at an end for me –\n\nIt seems to me useless to discuss articles of association & the like\nunless these fundamental questions are first settled – \n\nSinnett is deeply interested in the phenomena as such, I am not he thinks\nit marvellous that things should be done which can not be accounted for\nby any laws known to Western Science –  I, as I have explained in former\nletters do not – perhaps I realize more acutely the vastness of our ignorance.\n\nI do not care two straws for the powers or the phenomena, except as a means\n–  I do not see the slightest prospect of any good coming of the Society,\nunless it is to be a real & certain stepping stone to higher spiritual\nknowledge –  He does – each man must judge for himself – he I know\nwill wholly disagree with me on many points – but this letter I send thro’\nhim & he will speak for himself – \n\nI am almost sorry that I have wearied you with these long letters for I seem\nto feel, that I am too essentially a radical at heart, to be acceptable\nto your naturally conservative order – but you will forgive me in that I\nam in earnest & tho' nothing further ever come of our interchange of\nthoughts, think kindly of me as I always shall of you as being fellow workers\nin the same cause, albeit under different flags, & you an officer &\nengineer & I a mere day labourer,\n\n  Yours sincerely,\n\n  A O Hume",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}