Hello, All. I have exchanged turn with fra obnoxion and will be presenting
letter no. 28, which is a correspondence between Master KH and Mr.Hume. Once again, as the letter to which KH's letter is an answer to is not present, it was at first for me slightly difficult to follow the conversation. Quite soon, though, it was made apparent that the agrument was about the forming of the Anglo-Indian branch of the TS and the problems relating to both this act and to that of Mr. Hume's (and Sinnett's?) sincerity in the matter and as persons.
First KH discusses the differences between Eastern and Western mind sets, which remains a problem to this day. As a Westener it is hard for me to speak for anyone else, but from a philosophical point of view I'd find it important to atleast try to get "into the shoes" of the other person before making judgements. As Rawls' theory of justice points out, one wouldn't decide on rules which would suppress another party, if one wouldn't know to which party they themselves might belong to.
There are many important topics which KH discusses in this letter, but I will try to summarize a little bit and focus on what I think are the main points in this dialog. Firstly, it seems apparent that Hume has not been able to understand what KH (and the others) have meant by universal brotherhood and how the idea should be applied the working of the (A-I) branch. Instead, Hume seems to have a personal agenda, in which he wants to bolster his own importance and also be able to dictate the rules by which the branch would operate. This obviously is not accepted by the Masters, since each branch should work under the guidance of the parent society and thus also under its principles. (as shown clearly in the following quote:)
KH wrote:"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.""
As mere curiosity I'd like to ask if someone could name the previous mystery school in Europe to which KH is referring to here:
KH wrote:"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."
Further, KH states that he saw beforehand the nature of these two gentlemen (Hume & Sinnett) and that problems would arive, were they given the free hand in this operation (the branch founding). Madame B. was hasty, though, and managed to convince the Tibetans of their sincerity.
KH gives a short statement on the moral nature of Man. The motive is the running force, which gives birth to the "modes of action", as explained. This I find close to our (SoA's) philosophy of emphisizing intent, which can either cast a shadow or light over the action, be its nature of (almost) any sort.
Next Hume raises a peculiar racial issue where he states that:
A.O.Hume wrote:""You do not want this Branch (the Anglo-Indian) for work. . . . You merely want it as a lure to your native brethren."
This sounds a bit strange to be, but one should keep in mind the times when the texts were written in. England was a colonist country and ruled over India at the time (?) In this light it might be slightly more reasonable for Hume to made such accusations, but I still think it shows paranoia from his part. It also expresses quite vividly how he has failed to grast the very idea of universal brotherhood.
Hume continues with explaining how the English men of Science have supreme ability "to realize and assimilate transcendental truths", to which KH replies that "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. "
KH summarizes quite well waht kind of minds they are looking for:
KH wrote: "We want true and unselfish hearts; fearless and confiding souls, and are quite willing to leave the men of the "higher class" and far higher intellects to grope their own way to the light. Such will only look upon us as subordinates."
KH continues on the topic of morals and states:
KH wrote: "Since, in its empirical nature this kind of philanthropy is like love, but something accidental, exceptional, and like that has its selfish preferences and affinities; it necessarily is unable to warm all mankind with its beneficent rays. This, I think is, the secret of the spiritual failure and unconscious egotism of this age. And you, otherwise a good and a wise man, being unconsciously to yourself the type of its spirit, are unable to understand our ideas upon the Society as a Universal Brotherhood, and hence — turn away your face from it."
Next slightly more philosophical topic:
KH wrote:"..and as to your conscience — you then accept Kant's definition of it? You, perhaps, believe with him that under all circumstances, and even with the full absence of definite religious notions, and occasionally even with no firm notions about right and wrong at all, MAN has ever a sure guide in his own inner moral perceptions or — conscience?
The greatest of mistakes! With all the formidable importance of this moral factor, it has one radical defect. Conscience as it was already remarked may be well compared to that demon, whose dictates were so zealously listened to and so promptly obeyed by Socrates. Like that demon, conscience, may perchance, tell us what we must not do; yet, it never guides us as to what we ought to perform, nor gives any definite object to our activity."
Bear with me here, dear brethren.

I realize this to be a topic of metaphysical nature, but I'd be interested to know then what is the part that gives intention (object) to our activity, in Theosophical terms? Is it the monad or perhaps manas, if monad is something "beyond" and thus can't be count as active? Or is it the triad of atma-buddhi-manas? Please, enlighten me (Nefastos?).
PS. I had to check the reference to Socrates' demon, since I remembered only him referring to God (conscience?) and not to its counterpart (demon?). The main point being, however, that as he was on trial he said that he has a voice in his head that says that the purpose of his life is to philosophize and thus he will not cease it. For this reason he was sentences to death of impiety.