The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett (Reading Group)

[obnoxion]

I will do two short letters, numbered 18 and 95, because these two form one unit that was received at Simla in June, 1882.

The letter no. 18 mostly deals with the evolutionary path of men, and the manvantaric rotation. This is one of the recurring themes of the letters. As KH says, “Well may you open wide your eyes, good friend, and feel puzzled – it is so”. For when you have less than 40 years under your pelt (like I do), is there really any way to form and understanding of such vast stretches of time. I’d like to mention one thing, however: There is a very beautiful thought in the letter no. 18, that the Purusha is like is like a luminous arc that proceeds to form a circle. If I understand the markings on the letter correctly, this sentiment is from the Isis Unveiled, chapter 1. Be as it may, it must be one of the most impressive ways to understand the most spiritual sense and purpose of man.

There is also in the letter no, 18 a memorable sentiment, that is more biting than beautiful. “Neither your knives nor forks, operas and drawing rooms will any more follow you in your onward progress than will the dead-leaf coloured robes of British Esthetics prevent the proprietors thereof and wearers from having been born among the ranks of those, who will be regarded – do what they may – by the forth coming sixth and seventh round men as flesh-eating and liquor-drinking savages of the Royal Society Period”. I feel this sort of thing is happening already in a small scale. There is much talk about progress, but it doesn’t seem like such a big deal when as a species we continue to be unable save ourselves or any of the living creatures that depend on our wisdom to survive.

In these letters there is mention of E., that is, English medium William Eglinton (1875 – 1933), and the Vega Incident. Eglington traveled to Simla, India, to research the Theosophical society. KH apparently had intended to meet Eglington in Calcutta, and to take him to Simla for a period of training. KH, however, changed his mind and left Eglington in Calcutta. After a while Eglington left Calcutta disappointed on a ship called S. S. Vega in march 1882. However, KH visited Eglingtgon on board the ship in his thought-body (mayavi-rupa). It is said they had a long conversation, but the Mahatmas decided not to let Eglington join the T.S. (Few years latet E. was revealed to be a fraud. The phenomenon in his seances were found out to be trickery).

Mr. Hume is mentioned, and KH says that pretty much that Hume’s dharma is to become a social reformer. Nowadays we know that this is exactly what mr Hume became, and he did a marvelous job at it.

Then there is a mention of Anna Kingford’s book “The Perfect Way” (and not, I assume, her other book “The Perfect Way in Diet”) which A.P. Sinnet had reviewed, and not without criticism. The point of the criticism seemed to be that Kingsford wrote that men might reincarnate as animals, and Sinnet don’t think that is the case. So I take it that KH sides with Sinnett in this matter.

Anna Kingsford was, among other things, quite formidable enemy of vivisectionists, that is, people who do animal testing by dissecting living animals without anesthesia. She went through six years of medical school (she was the only woman to do it in her time, and the men really dind’t make her feel welcome), and the main reason for this was that she could be the more credible advocate of animal’s rights. In Edward Maitlands’ biography of her it is said, that Kingsford believed she had killed by magical direction of will two vivisectionists – Claude Bernard and Paul Bert – and she was resolved to kill a third one, Louis Pasteur, the same way. It has been said that in 1886 (that is four years after the date of this letter) she went to take lessons in magical killing from an expert, who is believed to be MacGregor Mather of the Golden Dawn. But in two months she became fatally ill. One of her biographers (Alan Bert) actually wrote that she was on her way to Louis Pasteur’s lab in Paris, when she was cought in a torrential November’s rain. For some reason she spent hours in her wet clothes, and developed pneumonia and pulmonary tuberculosis. She died in 1888.

[RaktaZoci]

I have been quite busy during the weeks that have passed, mostly due to the preparation for the coming entrance exam I am taking for the university. There are a number of things that raised my interest in the past letters presented by fratres Nefastos and obnoxion, but, for the sake of atleast some chronology, I will remain in my analysis of the next letter.

Next letter, or letterS actually, consist of numbers 19 to 20 a-c. I will present these all, since they entail elements of pretty much the same whole.

Letter 19 is a short one (only half a page), in which KH (?) briefly explains, if I've understood correctly, what happens to souls after death in relation to their actions in the life they've just left. At first this appeared quite unattached in the light of the recent topics, but the coming letter will clear this out a bit.

An interesting a bit of an off-topic idea was spawned in my head from this excerpt:

"their thoughts become living things, their wicked passions — real substance, and they receive back on their heads all the misery they have
heaped upon others.""

I recently had a discussion with a frater about the though forms, mentioned in Argarizim by Nefastos for example, which can "come to torment their creator", so to speak. I connected this idea to the mentioned quote and thought that the more we have these thoughts of ill intention, which don't necessarily even mean actions as aspirations of those thoughts, the more we create "our own demons", which can, and most likely will, come to torment us, if not sooner then later. We will come to the subject of the imperativity of intention later on..

Moving on, the coming letter, no. 20a, consists of a letter by Mr.Hume to Master KH (and others?), who sees that there are some contradictions in the teachings of the masters. These contradictions relate to the nature, and amount of, the "shells and spirits" residing in the "spirit world". He also inquires what happens to the souls of
the people who die an accidental death or by suicide and how it can be explained that yet "thousands of spirits" appear in "pure circles" to teach the "highest morality".

Further, letter no. 20b is a letter from Sinnett to HPB, which was apparently written in the back of the pages of another letter from Master KH (the next letter). Here Sinnett tries to offer some possible explanations and answers to Hume's questions, but is still not quite certain if KH would approve of his pondering. It is also quite short in length.

Alright, so finally o the last letter, 20c, which includes Master KH's answers to Hume (and some also to Sinnett). This letter was so heavy both in facts and its metaphysical nature that I found it suitable to read it with the Theosophical glossary in hand. Also, even though I find myself quite fluent in English, I still had to also use the dictionary a couple of times with this one. I most certainly would recommend this to others as well..

Firstly, KH replies to the question of what happens to the souls of those who die accidently. He says that they:

"die and are reborn in the Kama-Loka "without remembrance""

The Kama-Loka being the semi-material (astral?) space
to which the remnants of the kamarupa go to after physical death.
I think the mention of:

"Love and Hatred are the only immortal feelings, the only survivors from the wreck of Ye-damma, or the phenomenal world."

is, in a sense, very beautifully put. I couldn't find a detailed definition,
though, for the used term "Ye-damma"(?)

"Have you experienced monotony during — say — that moment which you considered then and now so consider it — as the moment of the highest bliss you have ever felt? — Of course not. — Well no more will you experience it there, in that passage through the Eternity in which a million of years is no longer than a second. There, where there is no consciousness of an external world there can be no discernment to mark differences, hence, — no perception of contrasts of monotony or variety; nothing in short, outside that immortal feeling of love and sympathetic attraction"

Do I interpret this correctly to say that in this stage, there is no time? But is there still thought? As we are taught by Heidegger, thought requires no space, only time, but if in Devachan (as I assume it talked of here) there is only "Eternal Now", as Augustine said is the time-form God is in, this should provide the means for an "Eternal Thought" to exist also?

"we create ourselves our devachan as our avitchi while yet on earth, and mostly during the latter days and even moments of our intellectual, sentient lives."

This is also a quote I found paramount. I wanted to raise a question, is avichi (in traditional theosophical terms) thought of also being a state after death or could this life, existence here on Earth, in some cases be considered as avichi?

As to the topic of contacting spirits he says:

"Those who know they are dead in their physical body — can only be either adepts or — sorcerers; and these two are the exceptions to the general rule. Both having been "co-workers with nature," the former for good, the latter — for bad,"

As of others than these two exceptions:

"His Mayavi rupa may be often thrown into objectivity, as in the cases of apparitions after death; but, unless it is projected with the knowledge of (whether latent or potential), or, owing to the intensity of the desire to see or appear to someone, shooting through the dying brain, the apparition will be simply — automatical; it will not be due to any sympathetic attraction, or to any act of volition, and no more than the reflection of a person passing unconsciously near a mirror, is due to the desire of the latter."

As for the accusation of Eliphas Levi's teaching being in contradiction with that of his, Master KH says:

"There are men who become such mighty beings, there are men among us who may become immortal during the remainder of the Rounds, and then take their appointed place among the highest Chohans, the Planetary conscious "Ego-Spirits." Of course the Monad "never perishes whatever happens," but Eliphas speaks of the personal not of the Spiritual Egos,"

Of the "spirits" appearing in the seances, it is said:

"Although not "wholly dissevered from their sixth and seventh principles" and quite "potent" in the seance room, nevertheless to the day when they would have died a natural death, they are separated from the higher principles by a gulf."

Let me just assure that is this talk of principles referring to the theosophic principles, i.e. atma, buddhi, manas etc.? It gets, now again again, confusing, since their is reference to the principles as "the fourth and fifth" but as well to the "rounds" in the same manner. I must confess, that at times I'm a little bit lost with KH's explanation here. However, as a conclusion to the question, he says:

"the victims whether good or bad sleep, to awake but at the hour of the last Judgment,"

and

"In no case then, — with the exception of suicides and shells, is there any possibility for any other to be attracted to a seance room. And it is clear that "this teaching is not in opposition to our former doctrine" and that while "shells" will be many, — Spirits very few."

(Slightly hazy quote on the subject, but with the rest of the text it makes sense)

As of the topic of intention I mentioned in the beginning of this tet, in relation of being responsible (the ethical question):

Motive is everything and man is punished in a case of direct responsibility, never otherwise. In the victim's case the natural hour of death was anticipated accidentally, while in that of the suicide, death is brought on voluntarily and with a full and deliberate knowledge of its immediate consequences. Thus a man who causes his death in a fit of temporary insanity is not a felo de se to the great grief and often trouble of the Life Insurance Companies. Nor is he left a prey to the temptations of the Kama Loka but falls asleep like any other victim."

Returning to the topic if the spiritists are communication with spirits of shells, it is said:

"Do those you love communicate with you during their sleep objectively?"

and

"But how can an unconscious 5th principle impress or communicate with a living organism, unless it has already become a shell?"

In the end KH simply states:

"..unless he (Hume) has a strong desire to live, he need not trouble himself about Deva-Chan. Unless a man loves well or hates as well, he will be neither in Deva-Chan nor in Avitchi. "Nature spews the luke-warm out of her mouth" means only that she annihilates their personal Egos (not the shells, nor yet the sixth principle) in the Kama Loka and the Deva-Chan."

[Smaragd]

Let me just assure that is this talk of principles referring to the theosophic principles, i.e. atma, buddhi, manas etc.? It gets, now again again, confusing, since their is reference to the principles as "the fourth and fifth" but as well to the "rounds" in the same manner.

I think it's the theosophic principles. The arrangement confuses a bit more as it goes from down to up and prana is before kama when ascending.

[Smaragd]

Letter No. 21 starts with Sinnets part where he goes through points of some K.H.'s letters which Sinnet have sent forth to Stainton Moses (the medium from letter No. 9, who had a connection to a guide called Imperator) to be published in a periodical; Light. One of the letters in discussion points to letter No. 16, where skandhas were briefly on the table. Skandhas, being an aggregation of personality aspects forming karma ensembles (the empty shells?) that wait "at the threshold of Devachan" for the essential core to be reborn, can be messed up by mediums own skandha set. I suppose when an empty shell gets lured in by a medium, the interaction which occurs on the basis of the mediums and other participants more whole set of principles leaves it's mark on the skandhas of the empty shell. This means there might be unjust karma out there. Although this is once again a human relapse and does not differ much from casual human failures affecting others negatively.
The whole thing kind of reminds me of the Matrix trilogy, where Mr. Smith copies himself over the matrix projections of different individuals or monads.

On the latter part of the letter KH has answered Sinnets scrutinizing.

But we must really beg that you should not jump at hasty conclusions. I do not blame you, my dear faithful friend, I would rather blame myself, were anyone here to be blamed except our respective modes of thought and habits so diametrically opposed to each other. Accustomed as we are to teach chelas who know enough to find themselves beyond the necessity of "if's " and "but's" during the lessons — I am but too apt to forget that I am doing the work with you generally entrusted to these chelas. Henceforth, I will take more time when answering your questions.

It seems Sinnet in his tireless working emphasizes kama manas rather than manages to bring forth the manasic principle with a calm touch of the buddhi – a common challenge ecspecially for the westerner and prolly stressed by the threshold between East and West Sinnet has to work in.

The majority — neither very good nor very bad, the victims of accident or violence (including murder) — some sleep, others become Nature pisachas ——

In the Theosophical view the pisachas are known as "shells", that is, the Kāmarūpa plus the remnants of the fifth principle left behind in kāmaloka after the Ego entered in devachan.

Pishachas are commonly described as flesh-eating demons and as a part of the empty shells do their deeds under the hierarchy of Shiva, bringing forth destruction. Though as they lack the 6th and 7th principle thus their connection to will. I guess they get directions from living people and entities who redirect pishachas according to their will and workings. Pishachas also having their set of skandhas get magnetized to gnaw the part of a psyche their path is opening towards or have been opening during their past lives. Or this is atleast what I got from trying to understand these creatures.

About the shell-like nature of pischachas I found this view from a book called When We Die by theosophist named Geoffrey Farthing:

Unhappy shades, if sinful and sensual they wander about - (not shells, for the connection with their two higher principles is not quite broken) - until their death-hour comes. Cut off in the full flush of earthly passions which bind them to familiar scenes, they are enticed by the opportunities which mediums afford, to gratify them vicariously." They are, "The demons of thirst, gluttony, lust and avarice, - elementaries of intensified craft, wickedness and cruelty; provoking their victims to horrid crimes, and revelling in their commission!

Could you but know how I write my letters and the time I am enabled to give to them, perchance you would feel less critical if not exacting. Well, and how do you like Djual Khool's ideaand art?

I'm not sure what the idea and art refer to but these sentences are interesting considering Theosophy Wiki wrote "Variant spellings include Djual Khul, Gjual Khool, DK, or GK. Koot Hoomi referred to him as his "Alter Ego"". Although referring DK as his Alter Ego might be due DK being Koot Hoomis discipline and acting partly under his will.

[Nefastos]

Could you but know how I write my letters and the time I am enabled to give to them, perchance you would feel less critical if not exacting. Well, and how do you like Djual Khool's idea and art?

I'm not sure what the idea and art refer to but these sentences are interesting considering Theosophy Wiki wrote "Variant spellings include Djual Khul, Gjual Khool, DK, or GK. Koot Hoomi referred to him as his "Alter Ego"". Although referring DK as his Alter Ego might be due DK being Koot Hoomis discipline and acting partly under his will.

Could this be reference to the project where an artist drew picture of Koot Hoomi while being magnetized by Djual Khul in his "astral body"?

Later, Djual Khul is said to have taken more of his master's work while Koot Hoomi moved onwards i.e. inwards (which of course is the usual custom), and e.g. gave straight teaching via his pupil Alice Bailey.

I really like DK's statement given in the beginning of all of AB's books:

Extract from a Statement by the Tibetan

Suffice it to say, that I am a Tibetan disciple of a certain degree, and this tells you but little, for all are disciples from the humblest aspirant up to, and beyond, the Christ Himself. I live in a physical body like other men, on the borders of Tibet, and at times (from the exoteric standpoint) preside over a large group of Tibetan lamas, when my other duties permit. It is this fact that has caused it to be reported that I am an abbot of this particular lamasery. Those associated with me in the work of the Hierarchy (and all true disciples are associated in this work) know me by still another name and office. A.A.B. knows who I am and recognises me by two of my names.

I am a brother of yours, who has travelled a little longer upon the Path than has the average student, and has therefore incurred greater responsibilities. I am one who has wrestled and fought his way into a greater measure of light than has the aspirant who will read this article, and I must therefore act as a transmitter of the light, no matter what the cost. I am not an old man, as age counts among the teachers, yet I am not young or inexperienced. My work is to teach and spread the knowledge of the Ageless Wisdom wherever I can find a response, and I have been doing this for many years. I seek also to help the Master M. and the Master K.H. whenever opportunity offers, for I have been long connected with Them and with Their work. In all the above, I have told you much; yet at the same time I have told you nothing which would lead you to offer me that blind obedience and the foolish devotion which the emotional aspirant offers to the Guru and Master Whom he is as yet unable to contact. Nor will he make that desired contact until he has transmuted emotional devotion into unselfish service to humanity--not to the Master.

The books that I have written are sent out with no claim for their acceptance. They may, or may not, be correct, true and useful. It is for you to ascertain their truth by right practice and by the exercise of the intuition. Neither I nor A.A.B. is the least interested in having them acclaimed as inspired writings, or in having anyone speak of them (with bated breath) as being the work of one of the Masters. If they present truth in such a way that it follows sequentially upon that already offered in the world teachings, if the information given raises the aspiration and the will-to-serve from the plane of the emotions to that of the mind (the plane whereon the Masters can be found) then they will have served their purpose. If the teaching conveyed calls forth a response from the illumined mind of the worker in the world, and brings a flashing forth of his intuition, then let that teaching be accepted. But not otherwise. If the statements meet with eventual corroboration, or are deemed true under the test of the Law of Correspondences, then that is well and good. But should this not be so, let not the student accept what is said.

AUGUST 1934

[Yinlong]

Yeah, I know it's a tad over midnight, but better late than pregnant Let's continue to the letter number 22: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-22.htm.

This is a letter from Koot Hoomi to Mr. Hume.

The letter mostly discusses the following topics: 1. The consciousness and unconsciousness - As in microcosm and macrocosm 2. Concepts of God - Christian "Governor of the Universe" God vs. God as an absolute, "force" etc. 3. Theism vs. atheism, acosmism - Maya 4. The relationship of spirit and matter

Did it ever strike you, — and now from the standpoint of your Western science and the suggestion of your own Ego which has already seized up the essentials of every truth, prepare to deride the erroneous idea — did you ever suspect that Universal, like finite, human mind might have two attributes, or a dual power — one the voluntary and conscious, and the other the involuntary and unconscious or the mechanical power. To reconcile the difficulty of many theistic and anti-theistic propositions, both these powers are a philosophical necessity. The possibility of the first or the voluntary and conscious attribute in reference to the infinite mind, notwithstanding the assertions of all the Egos throughout the living world — will remain for ever a mere hypothesis, whereas in the finite mind it is a scientific and demonstrated fact. The highest Planetary Spirit is as ignorant of the first as we are, and the hypothesis will remain one even in Nirvana, as it is a mere inferential possibility, whether there or here.

The consciousness and the more mysterious unconscious are probably hot topics in the late 19th century. To my understanding the real popularization hasn't happened yet. It also seems that the author treats the unconscious more like the autonomic or involuntary nervous system of the brain. In any case, if I understand the logic right, here the concepts of conscious and unconscious (or rather autonomic nervous system) is likened to the concepts of conscious and more mechanical, law-like unconscious "force" God.

Take the human mind in connexion with the body. Man has two distinct physical brains; the cerebrum with its two hemispheres at the frontal part of the head — the source of the voluntary nerves; and the cerebellum, situated at the back portion of the skull — the fountain of the involuntary nerves which are the agents of the unconscious or mechanical powers of the mind to act through.
...
Contrary in that to the finite, the "infinite mind," which we name so but for argument's sake, for we call it the infinite FORCE — exhibits but the functions of its cerebellum, the existence of its supposed cerebrum being admitted as above stated, but on the inferential hypothesis deduced from the Kabalistic theory (correct in every other relation) of the Macrocosm being the prototype of the Microcosm.

Then more on God (treating the supreme deity) as an intelligent being and curiously about the concept of evil. The first quote is from the beginning of the letter and the second and third quote is later in the letter. I put them all here since they kind of treat the same topic:

To regard God as an intelligent spirit, and accept at the same time his absolute immateriality is to conceive of a nonentity, a blank void; to regard God as a Being, an Ego and to place his intelligence under a bushel for some mysterious reasons — is a most consummate nonsense; to endow him with intelligence in the face of blind brutal Evil is to make of him a fiend — a most rascally God. A Being however gigantic, occupying space and having length breadth and thickness is most certainly the Mosaic deity; "No-being" and a mere principle lands you directly in the Buddhistic atheism, or the Vedantic primitive Acosmism.

And now to your extraordinary hypothesis that Evil with its attendant train of sin and suffering is not the result of matter, but may be perchance the wise scheme of the moral Governor of the Universe. Conceivable as the idea may seem to you trained in the pernicious fallacy of the Christian, — "the ways of the Lord are inscrutable" — it is utterly inconceivable for me. Must I repeat again that the best Adepts have searched the Universe during milleniums and found nowhere the slightest trace of such a Machiavellian schemer — but throughout, the same immutable, inexorable law.

I do not protest at all as you seem to think against your theism, or a belief in an abstract ideal of some kind, but I cannot help asking you, how do you or how can you know that your God is all wise, omnipotent and love-ful, when everything in nature, physical and moral, proves such a being, if he does exist to be quite the reverse of all you say of him? Strange delusion and one which seems to overpower your very intellect.

This kind of reminds me of a relatively recent clip of Gay Byrne interviewing Stephen Fry in The Meaning of Life / RTÉ https://youtu.be/-suvkwNYSQo

Gay Byrne: “Suppose it’s all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God. What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?”

Stephen Fry: “I’d say, bone cancer in children? What’s that about?

How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil.
“Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That’s what I would say. ”

and so on….

I guess this is a course of thought probably many/most of us here on the forum has gone through - and of course SoA has explored the topic extensively both on the forums and in publications. However, I too always find it quite interesting how many people, who even tend to think themselves as religious or spiritual, lack to find or produce any better answer than "God works in mysterious ways".

Then little bit about the known unknowns and unknown unknowns as Donald Rumsfeld would probably put it.

What lies beyond and outside the worlds of form, and being, in worlds and spheres in their most spiritualized state — (and you will perhaps oblige us by telling us where that beyond can be, since the Universe is infinite and limitless) is useless for anyone to search after since even Planetary Spirits have no knowledge or perception of it.

...

But of that which lies within the worlds and systems, not in the trans-infinitude — (a queer expression to use) — but in the cis-infinitude rather, in the state of the purest and inconceivable immateriality, no one ever knew or will ever tell, hence it is something non-existent for the universe. You are at liberty to place in this eternal vacuum the intellectual or voluntary powers of your deity — if you can conceive of such a thing.

...

a creator cannot create or make himself. If the brain did not make itself, for this would be affirming that brain acted before it existed, how could intelligence, the result of an organized brain, act before its creator was made.

The following quote reminds me quite much on the paradigms in both philosophy and physics of emergentism. Also, at least to me, many occultist concepts of cyclistic or cycle-like progress of things is easier to think through emergentism.

The difficulty of explaining the fact that "unintelligent Forces can give rise to highly intelligent beings like ourselves," is covered by the eternal progression of cycles, and the process of evolution ever perfecting its work as it goes along. Not believing in cycles, it is unnecessary for you to learn that which will create but a new pretext for you, my dear Brother, to combat the theory and argue upon it ad infinitum.

Then on the relationship between spirit and matter and the concept of Maya:

Nor did I ever become guilty of the heresy I am accused of — in reference to spirit and matter. The conception of matter and spirit as entirely distinct, and both eternal could certainly never have entered my head, however little I may know of them, for it is one of the elementary and fundamental doctrines of Occultism that the two are one, and are distinct but in their respective manifestations, and only in the limited perceptions of the world of senses. Far from "lacking philosophical breadth" then, our doctrines show, but one principle in nature, — spirit-matter or matter-spirit, the third the ultimate Absolute or the quintessence of the two, — if I may be allowed to use an erroneous term in the present application — losing itself beyond the view and spiritual perceptions of even the "Gods" or Planetary Spirits. This third principle say the Vedantic Philosophers — is the only reality, everything else being Maya, as none of the Protean manifestations of spirit-matter or Purusha and Prakriti have ever been regarded in any other light than that of temporary delusions of the senses.

I was thinking, since I have often problems wholly grasp the concept of the May: Can the Maya be understood quite simplistically just the sensory illusion, the virtual world formed by our senses and thoughts and language etc. In other words, thinking the world we perceive as Maya is just a kind of reminder to understand that there is more to it (what we perceive normally) This would give at least one aspect of starting to understand the concept - or is this more “Blavatskian” interpretation? Is there more to it and putting it so simplistically would lead me to wrong tracks?

Then there's more on the relationship of spirit and matter.

And no better illustration could be afforded than in the very simple phenomenon of ice, water, vapour and the final dispersion of the latter, the phenomenon being reversed in its consecutive manifestations and called the Spirit falling into generation or matter.

So, if I understand correctly, spirit and matter are kind of manifestations of the same root stuff. Yes, ice/solid, liquid and vapour/gas states' surprisingly different qualities emerge when going past atomic level... and then they react differently with other molecules... I'm a bit lost here. Though, I don't think the phenomenon of ice, water and vapour is so simple. I think it is actually quite mind-bending how the qualities of different states emerge in this world, because they kind of cannot be predicted by just looking individual atoms. In any case, I'll surely be more lost when continuing:

Without spirit or Force, even that which Science styles as "not living" matter, the so-called mineral ingredients which feed plants, could never have been called into form. There is a moment in the existence of every molecule and atom of matter when, for one cause or another, the last spark of spirit or motion or life (call it by whatever name) is withdrawn, and in the same instant with the swiftness which surpasses that of the lightning glance of thought the atom or molecule or an aggregation of molecules is annihilated to return to its pristine purity of intra-cosmic matter. It is drawn to the mother fount with the velocity of a globule of quicksilver to the central mass. Matter, force, and motion are the trinity of physical objective nature, as the trinitarian unity of spirit-matter is that of the spiritual or subjective nature. Motion is eternal because spirit is eternal. But no modes of motion can ever be conceived unless they be in connection with matter.

Please, help.

Anyways, I found it funny that Blavatsky through Koot Hoomi (or other way around) makes sure to mock Hume's hobby of birdwatching even two times:

It is not "the ways of the Lord" but rather those of some extremely intelligent men in everything but some particular hobby, that are to me incomprehensible.

The secret chemical, electric or odic properties of plants, herbs, roots, minerals, animal tissue, are as familiar to him as the feathers of your birds are to you.

Though, have to admit, I have find those binocular guys quite in their own league too. First they claim to be so nature loving and then they can drive 500 km to some corner of a field just to see a glimpse of a rare bird, haha.

[Nefastos]

I really enjoyed this deep letter (XXII). In many ways it even sums up quite a few of my most underlined personal interests in occultism:

- Concept of nirvana: its finitude (in a way) and thus possibility of attainment, instead of being simply some euphemistic cloudcuckooland
- Theurgy (our possible communion with divine beings)
- Twain attitude to theism (strong criticism towards personal God) including:
- "evil God" (insurmountable problem of theodicea)
- Doctrine of Unity
- Holy Ghost as the immaterial essence
- The tenuous but ultimately (in the end) rewarding life of the adept disciple

Note (from the quote already shared above) that even acosmism in mentioned.

I was thinking, since I have often problems wholly grasp the concept of the May: Can the Maya be understood quite simplistically just the sensory illusion, the virtual world formed by our senses and thoughts and language etc. In other words, thinking the world we perceive as Maya is just a kind of reminder to understand that there is more to it (what we perceive normally)

Underlining mine. In the theosophical cosmology, no. Maybe to some more modern minded Hindus or Buddhists. But in "Blavatskian" theosophy (thus including this "Koothoomian" theosophy, or vice versa) Maya is all that belongs to the lower threefold world of physics, emotions and even to the lower, calculating intellect. Actually, this whole trinity IS maya per se, since it is the surface of the water whereto the higher, timeless trinity is thus reflected. From this stems that quite interesting "dualistic philosophy of unity" where everything is one... and yet is not. The very fundamentals of fundamental being in time are in esse false. To perceive anything truly at all one must first rise above the whole of that which he has until that seen as reality - only excluding the very core, the spirit, of things both physical & mental. Pretty demanding, one might say.

So, if I understand correctly, spirit and matter are kind of manifestations of the same root stuff. Yes, ice/solid, liquid and vapour/gas states' surprisingly different qualities emerge when going past atomic level... and then they react differently with other molecules... I'm a bit lost here. Though, I don't think the phenomenon of ice, water and vapour is so simple. I think it is actually quite mind-bending how the qualities of different states emerge in this world, because they kind of cannot be predicted by just looking individual atoms. In any case, I'll surely be more lost when continuing:

Without spirit or Force, even that which Science styles as "not living" matter, the so-called mineral ingredients which feed plants, could never have been called into form. There is a moment in the existence of every molecule and atom of matter when, for one cause or another, the last spark of spirit or motion or life (call it by whatever name) is withdrawn, and in the same instant with the swiftness which surpasses that of the lightning glance of thought the atom or molecule or an aggregation of molecules is annihilated to return to its pristine purity of intra-cosmic matter. It is drawn to the mother fount with the velocity of a globule of quicksilver to the central mass. Matter, force, and motion are the trinity of physical objective nature, as the trinitarian unity of spirit-matter is that of the spiritual or subjective nature. Motion is eternal because spirit is eternal. But no modes of motion can ever be conceived unless they be in connection with matter.

Please, help.

KH says that there is no "spirit" (without matter) or "matter" (without spirit) at all, but these two names just refer to the occult "density" of being. A New Ager would say that "everything is vibration" (without usually having the slightest idea what he's talking about). Which is, actually, once again the Shaivist doctrine.

Thus, when either seeming polarity escapes the whole of any being or creature (which are the same: rock, for an occultist, is a living being infused by certain kind of fohatic living spirit) the other polarity alone cannot exist either. When the fundamental power structure of any being is collapsed, the rest literally ceases to exist (as itself). Think about splitting an atom, for example.

But what the theosophists never actually say in clear words, but which can be deducted from the teachings of both Blavatsky, Koot Hoomi and Bailey (the others theosophical luminaries usually lack the metaphysical sense to actually give teaching on these things) is that the KH's "perfect equilibrium" - which, as he says in this letter, is "the only law" - is not perfect in actual manifestation, but rather an ideal against which everything happens: even the longest manvantaras (the cosmic ages of billions of years). That is why even in pralaya or cosmic night of dissolution the mineral planets can survive: they still hold some semblance of spirit, id est, karma: and this is the "cosmic evil" spoken by Bailey. The eternal or almost-eternal (lasting beyond even the cosmic periods of time) un-equilibrium.

Though, have to admit, I have find those binocular guys quite in their own league too. First they claim to be so nature loving and then they can drive 500 km to some corner of a field just to see a glimpse of a rare bird, haha.

KH's snide remarks on Hume's ornithological hobbies were also based on the fact that the birds were (as they still are) often killed in the process of study. This comes up in one of the letters.

[obnoxion]

"An ideal against which everything happens"

As I know that you are versed in Kashmir Shaivism, fra Nefastos, I assume it is ok to ask one detailed question:

In the second sutra of Pratyabhijna-hrdayam, sage Ksemaraja writes that the Citi (simply put this is a female personification of consciousness) "unfolds the universe (visvam unmilayati) upon a wall-like surface that is a portion of herself (svabbittau)".

Are these two concepts related (seems to me they are)? Could you elaborate, please, if you have the time?

[Smaragd]

Thought I'd chip in on the maya topic because it points towards another part of the letter I find very interesting.
Human understanding of the world where even sex needs to be explained or we might not even know how to reproduce is how I see the Maya. Misunderstanding and ignorance as aspects of the Goddess, who's dance is mesmerizing. Our lust can drive us away from the books and rational ponderings, but that can be seen not just an interruption but invitation to really listen in practice. This erotic imagery and the world of force with it's polarities are intriguing images to ponder. I remember as a kid when I learned how babies are made I wondered how come I've not known this, and how animals know how to do it when their communication is not so literal. Without carefully listening through the reflections that are the lower trinity we are blinded by the maya. I recall some documentation of a tribe that had no understanding of the cause and effect chain of sex and progeny. KH's describtion of the way from chela to adepthood touches on the subject:

The world of force, is the world of Occultism and the only one whither the highest initiate goes to probe the secrets of being. Hence no-one but such an initiate can know anything of these secrets. Guided by his Guru the chela first discovers this world, then its laws, then their centrifugal evolutions into the world of matter.

In other words by frater Nefastos (worth repeating): "To perceive anything truly at all one must first rise above the whole of that which he has until that seen as reality".

I see an idea of contemplative practice emerging. Great letter and proper for the time and weather we're having in Finland. Holidays, lot's of sun and creative projects unfolding. Empowering.

[Nefastos]

As I know that you are versed in Kashmir Shaivism

Better to say that I'm in love with it, in a similar way that I fell in love with Secret Doctrine back in the days. It simply seems to be everything I had intuited cast into mold as detailed as one could hope. But because of that, my knowledge of such a vast subject is extremely limited. I try to answer, though.

In the second sutra of Pratyabhijna-hrdayam, sage Ksemaraja writes that the Citi (simply put this is a female personification of consciousness) "unfolds the universe (visvam unmilayati) upon a wall-like surface that is a portion of herself (svabbittau)".

Are these two concepts related (seems to me they are)? Could you elaborate, please, if you have the time?

In his Doctrine of Vibration, Dyczkowski quotes Utpaladeva from Pratyabhijna school:

The man blinded by ignorance (Maya) and bound by his actions (karma) is fettered to the round of birth and death, but when knowledge inspire the recognition of his divine sovereignty and power (aisvarya) he, full of consciousness alone, is a liberated soul.

Italicized terms are from the original, but I underlined the parts interesting to the matter at hand.

So, yes, it seems that the precisely same paradox is seen in the metaphysics of the Pratyabhijna school. The "female personification of consciousness" (that whose metamorphoses Patanjali warned us...) is both the true identity of Lord Shiva as para-consciousness ("wall" here, also the background of the "paper and ink" in Polyharmonia) and that which can be perceived as something, being thus necessarily more or less bound by karmic modifications. I think we might think of her as Shakti sitting on the lap of Shiva, one side touching his breast and one side turned to the world of form. Of course, the intermediate states exist (and are the Shakti herself as a whole!), since there are worlds laden more and less heavily by karma~maya.