I have very recently procured a copy of the fourth edition of "The
Occult World." As noted by "M. A. (Oxon."), two or three weeks ago, the
Appendix contains an explanation by Koot Hoomi of the above perplexing incident. Although
Mr. Sinnett tells us that the subject had lost its interest for all persons in England
whose opinion he valued, and that in the London Theosophical Society it was looked upon as
little more than a joke, I venture to think that the explanation deserves a more careful
examination than it seems yet to have received. I should certainly not offer to discuss
the subject before a society where it is treated as a joke, but as the readers of your
paper are interested in psychological problems, and this question has been already before
them, some of them may like to look a little more closely into the explanation now given
to the public in Mr. Sinnett’s book.
At first sight, nothing can be more intelligible, and at the same time
instructive, than the account given us. The adept has to impress the chela, and the chela
has to transmit the impression to paper. Upon the distinctness and vivacity of the
former’s impelling thought, on the one hand, and on the attentive apprehension by the
latter, on the other hand, depend the fidelity and clearness of the final representation
on the paper. Given a defect in the first condition, the chela will get only a confused
and blurred impression, and can pass nothing more on to the material vehicle. Given a
defect in the second condition -- imperfect attention to, or apprehension of, what is
conveyed -- and again the same result. In this case, taking the words and lines now
printed in italics, and which are those which had to be "restored" from the
original document, by reason of the chela’s inability to decipher and transcribe
them, I find that they amount to about thirty-one lines out of fifty-three. And they are,
as the Adept says, "precisely those phrases which would have shewn the passages were
simply reminiscences, if not quotations," and thus have precluded the suggestion that
passages taken without acknowledgment from the Banner of Light could not belong to
a letter dictated by a veritable "Mahatma" in India or Thibet. How came it,
then, that it was just these explanatory portions and none other that the Adept failed to
transmit, or his chela to receive, distinctly?
At first, and till I came to examine and compare the sentences in
detail, I was disposed to accept Koot Hoomi’s reply to this question as clear and
satisfactory, since the simpler solution (on occult principles, which had occurred to some
of us, was not the right one. The explanation is this: Koot Hoomi having, for reasons
stated, made himself acquainted with certain typical utterances of American Spiritualists
at Lake Pleasant, retained them in his memory for the purpose of comparison or contrast
with the true ideas of which they shewed a dawning but imperfect apprehension. His own
comments and interpolations, on the other hand, were excogitated at the moment, and when
he was in a state of physical exhaustion. The result was that though he could still
compose the well-framed sentences now "restored," and could even project a
tracing of them to the chela’s mind, they were in the back-ground, as it were, of his
consciousness, and were not propelled with the requisite energy. Whereas Mr. Kiddle’s
sentences, being clear in memory, stood out at the surface, and were more easily, and
therefore more distinctly, detached.
"While dictating the sentences quoted -- a small portion of the
many I had been pondering over for some days -- it was those ideas that were thrown out en
relief the most, leaving out my own parenthetical remarks to disappear in the
precipitation."
And again: --
"So I, in this instance, having, at the moment, more vividly in my
mind the psychic diagnosis of current spiritualistic thought, of which the Lake Pleasant
speech was one marked symptom, unwittingly transferred that reminiscence more vividly than
my own remarks upon it and deductions therefrom. So to say, the ‘despoiled
victims’ -- Mr. Kiddle’s -- utterances came out as a high light, and were more
sharply photographed (first in the chela’s brain, and thence on the paper before him,
a double process and one far more difficult than Thought-reading simply), while the rest,
my remarks thereupon and arguments, are hardly visible, and quite blurred on the original
scraps before me."
Now all this is quite intelligible on the face of it; and it is only
when we look into the matter more closely and compare the several texts that it becomes
less easy to accept the statement. Referring to the letter as originally printed, I find
that what we have of it (Mr. Sinnett giving only extracts from the correspondence)
occupies fifty-six lines of pp. 101-2 of the new edition of "The Occult World."
No exception is taken to the first thirty lines on the score of incompleteness, and we
have to suppose that the Adept’s inability to project his own composition accurately
and clearly began just when it got mixed up with Mr. Kiddle’s sentences -- the latter
half (twenty-six lines) of the letter. The tangle begins with "Plato was right"
at line thirty. Then suddenly there are nine lines (of Appendix print) clean dropped out,
the sentence continuing with Mr. Kiddle’s "Ideas rule the world;" and so it
goes on for a bit with Mr. Kiddle’s language, the Adept being just awake enough to
substitute the future for the present tense, and to insert "creeds and even
powers" among the things that are to crumble before the march of ideas. Again four or
five lines dropped (relating to the foolishness of the Spiritualists), and then by a
revival of energy we get three or four more lines of Koot Hoomi’s own upon the
congenial topic of sweeping away the dross left us by our pious forefathers. Next, bearing
in mind the explanation that it was all intended as a running commentary upon, and
correction of, the Spiritualistic utterances, partially reproduced, let us see how further
comparison bears that out. The key-note of the whole is, of course, Spiritualism and its
ideas, and Mr. Kiddle had said, "the agency called Spiritualism is bringing a new set
of ideas into the world," &c. Yet not in a single instance does the Adept succeed
in effectually projecting the word spiritualism or Spiritualists (though he tried four
times, as appears by the restored version), or anything whereby the chela would understand
what was meant. And, curiously enough, the omissions include not only Koot Hoomi’s
own new and less vividly represented words, whenever these words would have thrown
light on the subject-matter of the discourse, but also phrases of Mr. Kiddle’s,
which Koot Hoomi had so well pondered, and which stood out so sharply in his memory, whenever
these conflicted with the ideas of Occultism. Thus we have the above passage of Mr.
Kiddle’s about Spiritualism suppressed, and his expressions relating to the
"Divine Will," both of which we find, more or less complete -- with a commentary
-- in the restored version. Not less curiously, on the other hand, the chela, while
failing to catch such phases of Mr. Kiddle’s, is now and then exceptionally impressed
by the feebly transmitted words of the commentary, when these come in well to impart a
dash of Occultism or Adept philosophy to what is retained of Mr. Kiddle’s. In
addition to the instances of this already quoted, we have the reference to "previous
and future births") which should have been "future not previous
births"), the word "immutable" before "law," and the word
"uninitiated" before "mortals."
Similarly, a good deal of criticism might be expended on the sentence
tacked on to "Plato was right." From the sceptical point of view, one can see
what a difficulty there was here. "Plato was right" had to be retained, because
the chela would not have invented the words; but then it had to be separated from Mr.
Kiddle’s "Ideas rule the world," and some connection must be inserted
between the two, leading up to the Spiritualists, and so accounting for the quotation.
This could not be done in a few words, and so we have this monstrous lacuna of nine lines,
this sudden and long failure of power, where all before had gone smoothly.
Without a full reprint of all the three texts the improbability of the
third having ever been included or designed cannot be adequately appreciated. Seeing that
your space is limited, those who wish to master the question must be referred to the book
itself, now published at a very cheap rate.
Koot Hoomi thinks that Mr. Sinnett ought to have perceived a
discrepancy in the original version with the earlier part of the letter -- an indication
that something was wrong in the transcript he had received. But with submission, this is
not at all apparent. All seems fairly relevant, at least as relevant in the original as in
the reformed version. Indeed I think the transition is much more strange and violent in
the latter than in the former. The reference to the supremacy of ideas in the historical
development of the world seems to me more natural in regard to the great results just
before predicted for Occultism than is a comparison of the methods of Plato and Socrates,
and a criticism of the views and expressions of Spiritualists.
Literary criticism is by no means exhausted by the foregoing
observations. Take, for instance, the phrase "noumena, not phenomena," in the
restored version. We have all heard a great deal of "noumena," as distinguished
from phenomena, lately, and the word has become familiar. With Western metaphysicians, of
course, it has been long in use. And a Thibetan Adept might, no doubt, know all the words
that ever were coined, and their meaning. But recondite terms are only thrown out
incidentally when they are "in the air," and I confess I doubt whether nearly
four years ago, when this letter was written, such familiarity with metaphysical
terminology would have been assumed in a correspondence of this character. That, however,
is only one of several minor points to which little weight would be attached if they stood
alone. Yet it would be interesting to learn from Mr. Sinnett whether this word turns up
here for the first time in his correspondence with Koot Hoomi, or whether it occurs in the
strictly philosophical letters (wherein it would often be relevant) upon which
"Esoteric Buddhism" is founded.
I must now advert to another point invalidating, I think, the whole
supposition which struck me at first so plausibly. Would the relative mental prominence of
the ideas and phrases to be conveyed, and therefore their relative facility of
transference, be such as is alleged in this case?
Certainly, a passage with which I am very familiar -- a favourite one
from Shakespeare, for instance -- will stand out in my mind more easily and distinctly
than the context of my own words in quoting it. But is that the case when I am dealing controversially
with the language of another, however clearly I may have committed it to memory? I
think then that my consciousness, my thought, gives as much prominence to my own
characterisation of the passage I quote as to the passage itself. Were I a
thought-transferer, I doubt if I could pass on the words quoted to the recipient without
verbal colour of my own -- unless that was my intention. Or rather, I do not think that
could happen when, as in this case, the quotation and the commentary are not kept apart,
but the one interlaces the other, so that the quoted words are not allowed to run on
continuously, the comment being postponed, but the latter, with its nay, nay, is
intruded into the fabric of the sentence. In that case, I submit, there is almost
necessarily a mental vehemence or emphasis which must present my own words at least as
vividly as mere memory presents the quoted ones. To suppose that in such a mixed
composition nearly all that to which I myself attach importance, which is the motive
of the whole composition, can be neatly and exactly eliminated as here described, passes
my understanding, and therefore, I frankly avow -- having regard to all the facts that
seem to me relevant in this case -- my present belief.
I do not presume to follow the question into the mystery of
"precipitation," that final process as to which the analogy of our
"Thought-transference" experiments will not help us. All these omitted
thirty-one lines, consisting of whole long passages, short sentences, fragments of
sentences, and single words, though not intelligibly impressed on the chela’s
consciousness, nevertheless so far reached it that some trace of them, recognisable by
their author, got transferred to the paper. The restoration is not from memory alone of
what was dictated, but from memory aided and suggested by a faint and blurred record. That
sufficiently appears from Koot Hoomi’s statement of the facts. It further appears
that the rapport between Adept and chela is such that the latter can telegraph back
to the former, since Koot Hoomi was actually asked "at the time," by his chela,
to "look over and correct" the imprint. Being very tired, he declined. But one
would have thought that when the chela found the word-pictures or sounds, as the case may
be, of whole sentences coming blurred and unintelligible, he would have at once, and
before or at the time of precipitation, intimated that fact to his chief, so as to arrest
a communication which must prove so defective as a whole. But as to this, we are not
qualified by knowledge of all the conditions and circumstances to judge with confidence.
We have finally to consider the value of the evidence of Mr. T. Subba
Row and of General Morgan. Both these gentlemen say they have seen the original
"precipitation proof" -- "scraps," according to the latter of them --
"in which whole sentences, parenthetical and quotation marks are defaced and
obliterated and consequently omitted in the chela’s clumsy transcription." That
is to say, they were shewn something -- by whom we do not learn -- which they were
told was the original "precipitation proof." How they could possibly know it to
be so, except on the assumption of somebody’s good faith -- the chela’s, I
suppose -- on an assumption which begs the whole question, I cannot see; and this
evidence, therefore, seems to leave the case just where it was.
And what, then, should be our judgment on the whole matter? Most minds
will follow a mere bent of inclination in accepting or putting aside the considerations
which seem so weighty to me. I am used to adopt a method with myself which I find to be a
sort of chemical test, as it were, of prejudice, and to be very effectual in checking
hasty conclusions. I imagine that I have to state my opinion before some invisible but
infallible tribunal, under a heavy and immediate penalty, something that I should most
fear, for being wrong. How sudden a silence would thus fall upon those who "deliver
brawling judgments, unashamed, on all things all day long!" But had I to encounter
this risk in judging of the case before us, I should commit my fate to the opinion that
these passages were copied out of the Banner of Light, everything being excluded
which would indicate a Spiritualist origin, and a word or sentence being inserted here and
there to adapt them to other ideas; that they were appropriated without any view to
general publication (as, indeed, we learn that the letters were not written with such
intention, which disposes of the improbability arising from the "stupidity" of
the act), and that the defective precipitation and the subsequent "restoration"
are alike mythical. It will thus be seen that I do not accept the Thibetan origin of the
act or of the letter itself, and that, therefore although I have throughout written of the
letter and explanation as "Koot Hoomi’s," that was only for convenience,
and to avoid circumlocution. I do not know, and am not prepared to offer any definite
theory as to who is responsible for one and the other. Mr. Sinnett’s sense of the
absurdity of a "Mahatma," and a Mahatma "who inspired the teachings of
‘Esoteric Buddhism,’" plagiarising, if he will pardon me for saying so,
begs the question. It even reminds me of the reasoning of those Christians who are
accustomed to meet Biblical criticism with an appeal to "the Word of God."
"Esoteric Buddhism" is certainly a remarkable, in some respects, I think, a
great book; but sincerely as I respect Mr. Sinnett’s own profound conviction of its
origin, I would rather not found any intellectual estoppels on it for the present. I doubt
if Mr. Sinnett has fathomed the mystery of his real correspondent.
And as to the "intellectual temptation" of the latter to
borrow from Mr. Kiddle -- which Mr. Sinnett thinks so preposterous -- we need not doubt
his ability; but every one knows that the best writers quote aptly from others. Nor would
there have been anything amiss in that in this case, were it not that the incongruity of a
Thibetan Adept making approving extracts from the Banner of Light prevented it
being done with due acknowledgment. For no one could suppose that Koot Hoomi "took
in" that newspaper, regularly as it is received at the office of the Theosophist. And
is it not somewhat curious that whereas Koot Hoomi was intellectually present at Lake
Pleasant when the lecture was delivered, and had for some time been in correspondence with
Mr. Sinnett, he should have waited to impart his reflections upon these Spiritualistic
utterances until after the published report of them had reached India? We learn that
"some two months" intervened between the delivery of the lecture and Koot
Hoomi’s letter; a period not unimportant in estimating the probability of a very
vivid recollection of the exact phrases used. And if, on the one hand, the delay is
significant, so, on the other, is the fact that the references occurred so soon after the
arrival of the American newspaper containing the report. The lecture was delivered on
August 15th, 1880; and Mr. Kiddle tells us that it was reported in the Banner of Light "the
same month." Allowing for this slight interval, the date of Koot Hoomi’s letter
would probably be found to tally pretty closely with the arrival of the newspaper at
Bombay or Madras. The exact dates ought to be ascertained.
There will still be such a thing as common-sense, even when the facts
of Occultism are admitted and understood; and that does not point to a Thibetan origin of
the celebrated "Kiddle letter."
The evidence for the existence of Adepts -- or "Mahatmas,"
since that terms is now preferred -- and even of their connection with individual members
of the Theosophical Society, need not here concern us. We may, and I do, accept it; and
yet see in their methods, or rather in the things that are said and done in their names,
such deviations from our Philistine sense of truth and honour as to assure us that
something is very wrong somewhere. For this is by no means a singular case. The repeated
necessity for explanations -- which are always more formidable than the things to be
explained -- must at length tire out the most patient faith, except the faith superseding
all intelligence, the credo quia impossibile.
I have only to add that while preserving all the interests, and
much of the belief which attracted me to the Theosophical Society, and which have kept me
in it up to now, notwithstanding many and growing embarrassments, I do not think that the
publication of the conclusions above expressed is consistent with loyal Fellowship. The
constitution, no doubt, of the Society is broad enough to include minds more sceptical
than my own in regard to the alleged sources of its vitality and influence. But let any
one try to realise this nominal freedom, and he will find himself, not only in an
uncongenial element, but in an attitude of controversy with his ostensible leaders, with
the motive forces of the Society. That is not consistent with the sympathetic
subordination or co-operation which is essential to union. If anything could keep me in a
position embarrassing or insincere, it would be the noble life and character of the
president, my friend, Colonel Olcott. But personal considerations must give way at length;
and accordingly, with unabated regard and respect for many from whom it is painful to
separate, I am forwarding my resignation of Fellowship to the proper quarters.
July 22nd, 1884.
C. C. MASSEY.