[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Anand: "I have not read any better explanation." ??????

Sep 18, 2008 11:30 AM
by danielhcaldwell


Concerning the 1885 Leadbeater letter published
on my Blavatsky Archives website at:

you write:

Many serious students of spirituality found big problems in
personality and work of Madame Blavatsky. This letter of Mr. C.W.
Leadbeater seems to explain that incredible complexity. If this letter
is not accepted, there is required some other explanation of her
complex personality and work. I have not read any better explanation.
This is most surprising information to students of Theosophy.

Well, Anand, there is at least one "other explanation" and
I would suggest that it is a "better explanation" than the
one apparently given by T. Subba Row via C.W. Leadbeater.

It is the explanation given by Mahatma Koot Hoomi and Mahatma

Maybe Charles W. Leadbeater and T. Subba Row in 1885 were NOT aware of
this explanation by HPB's own teachers but I would think that
you should be aware of this explanation here in 2008.

I lay out below the explanation given by KH and M.:

In "K.H.'s Confidential Memo about Old Lady." which was received 
according to Mr. Sinnett at Simla in the autumn of 1881, Mahatma Koot 
Hoomi wrote to Sinnett and Hume:

I am painfully aware of the fact that the habitual incoherence of her 
statements -- especially when excited -- and her strange ways make 
her in your opinion a very undesirable transmitter of our messages. 
Nevertheless, kind Brothers, once that you have learned the truth; 
once told, that this unbalanced mind, the seeming incongruity of her 
speeches and ideas, her nervous excitement, all that in short, which 
is so calculated to upset the feelings of sober minded people, whose 
notions of reserve and manners are shocked by such strange outbursts 
of what they regard as her temper, and which so revolt you, -- once 
that you know that nothing of it is due to any fault of hers, you 
may, perchance, be led to regard her in quite a different light. 
Notwithstanding that the time is not quite ripe to let you entirely 
into the secret; and that you are hardly yet prepared to understand 
the great Mystery, even if told of it, owing to the great injustice 
and wrong done, I am empowered to allow you a glimpse behind the 
veil. This state of hers is intimately connected with her occult 
training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out alone into the world 
to gradually prepare the way for others. After nearly a century of 
fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only 
opportunity to send out a European body upon European soil to serve 
as a connecting link between that country and our own. You do not 
understand? Of course not. Please then, remember, what she tried to 
explain, and what you gathered tolerably well from her, namely the 
fact of the seven principles in the complete human being. Now, no man 
or woman, unless he be an initiate of the "fifth circle," can leave 
the precincts of Bod-Las and return back into the world in his 
integral whole -- if I may use the expression. One, at least of his 
seven satellites has to remain behind for two reasons: the first to 
form the necessary connecting link, the wire of transmission -- the 
second as the safest warranter that certain things will never be 
divulged. She is no exception to the rule, and you have seen another 
exemplar -- a highly intellectual man -- who had to leave one of his 
skins behind; hence, is considered highly eccentric. The bearing and 
status of the remaining six depend upon the inherent qualities, the 
psycho-physiological peculiarities of the person, especially upon the 
idiosyncracies transmitted by what modern science calls "atavism." 
Acting in accordance with my wishes, my brother M. made to you 
through her a certain offer, if you remember. You had but to accept 
it, and at any time you liked, you would have had for an hour or 
more, the real baitchooly to converse with, instead of the 
psychological cripple you generally have to deal with now. 
Quoted from:

Several months later, A. O. Hume refers to what Mahatma Koot Hoomi 
had written and gives his opinion as follows:

Now I know all about the Brothers' supposed explanation ... that you 
are a psychological cripple, one of your seven principles being in 
pawn in Tibet -- if so more shame to them keeping other people's 
property to the great detriment of the owner. But grant it so, then I 
ask my friends the Brothers to "precisez" as the French say -- which 
principle have you got old chaps?

It ain't the Hoola sariram, the body -- that's clear for you might 
truly say with Hamlet "Oh that this too solid flesh would melt!"

And it can't be the linga sariram, as that can't part from the body, 
and it ain't the kama rupa and if it were, its loss would not account 
for your symptoms.

Neither assuredly is it the Jivatma, you have plenty of life in you. 
Neither is it the fifth principle or mind, for without this you would 
be "quo ad" the external world, an idiot. Neither is it the sixth 
principle for without this you would be a devil, intellect without 
conscience, while as for the seventh that is universal and can be 
captured by no Brother and no Buddha, but exists for each precisely 
to the degree that the eyes of the sixth principle are open.
Therefore to me this explanation is not only not satisfactory -- but 
its having been offered -- throws suspicion on the whole thing.

To these comments by Hume, Mahatma Morya replied as follows:

Very clever -- but suppose it is neither one of the seven 
particularly but all? Every one of them a "cripple" and forbidden the 
exercise of its full powers? And suppose such is the wise law of a 
far foreseeing power!

Blavatsky Study Center

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application