This letter has been edited in terms of setting out paragraphs to emphasise the thinking of KH. The first sentence has been cut. Some changes in expression have been inserted and appear in comic sans HBG.
Last KH-letter; to Annie Besant
… The T.S. And its members are slowly manufacturing a creed. Says a Tibetan proverb “credulity breeds credulity and ends in hypocrisy.”
How few are they who can know anything about us. Are we to be propitiated and made idols of? Is the worship of a new trinity made up of the blessed Moya, Upasika (Madam Blavatsky) and yourself (Annie Besant) to take the place of exploded creeds? We ask not for the worship of ourselves. The disciple should in no way be fettered. Beware of an esoteric popery.
Popery – The doctrines, practices and ceremonials associated with the pope; the papal system. Shorter Oxford.
Is the current E.S. (2013) Free of this or has the E.S just adopted a new set of rituals? There is no worship within clear thinking. HBG
The intense desire to see upasika reincarnate at once has raised a misleading mayavic ideation. Upasika has useful work to do on higher planes and cannot come again so soon. The T.S. must safely be ushered into the new century. You have for some time been under deluding influences. Shun pride, vanity and love of power. Be not guided by emotion but learn to stand alone. Be accurate and critical rather than credulous. The mistakes of the past in the old religions must not be glossed over with imaginary explanations.
The E.S.T. must be reformed so as to be as un-sectarian and creedless as the T.S.. The rules must be few and simple and acceptable to all.
No one has a right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience.
“Ask him not what he believes. All who are sincere and pure minded must have admittance.” The disciple is … “guided into spirituality”. There is no “forcing into beliefs and emotional worship”.
“The essence of the higher thoughts of the members in their collectivity must guide all action in the T.S. and E.S. We never try to subject to ourselves the will of another.
Both the TS and ES should note this HBG
“At favourable times we let loose elevating influences which strike various persons in various ways. It is the collective aspect of many such thoughts that can give the correct note of action.”
We show no favours. The best corrective of error is an honest and open-minded examination of all facts subjective and objective.
Misleading secrecy has given the death blow to numerous organizations.
The cant about “The Masters ” must be silently but firmly put down. Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part.
Supreme Spirit – This is something UN-named of which we are all part; certainly not a lean on external GOD!
The continual references to ourselves and the repetition of our names sets up a confused aura that hinders our work.”
Thoughts have wings HBG
KH advises Annie Besant :
“You will have to leave a good deal of your emotions and credulity before you become a safe guide among the influences that will commence to work in the new cycle. The T.S. was meant to be the cornerstone of the future religions of humanity.
To accomplish this object, those who lead must leave aside their weak predilections for the forms and ceremonies of any particular creed and show themselves to be true Theosophists both in inner thought and outward observance. The greatest of your trials is yet to come.
We watch over you but you must put forth all your strength. K.H.
Reference: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/lastkh.htm#twee; first published in its entirety in the Sept. 1987 issue of the Eclectic Theosophist
Letter number ten to A O Hume
Transcribed from a copy in Mr. Sinnett’s handwriting. — ED
NOTES BY K.H. ON A “PRELIMINARY CHAPTER” HEADED “GOD” BY HUME, INTENDED TO PREFACE AN EXPOSITION OF OCCULT PHILOSOPHY (ABRIDGED).
Received at Simla, 1881
>Note: This text extract has been edited in terms of splitting into additional paragraphs and underlining for clarity only H.B.G.
“Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H. Our philosophy falls under the definition of Hobbes. It is pre-eminently the science of effects by their causes and of causes by their effects, and since it is also the science of things deduced from first principle, as Bacon defines it, before we admit any such principle we must know it, and have no right to admit even its possibility.
Your whole explanation is based upon one solitary admission made simply for argument’s sake in October last. You were told that our knowledge was limited to this our solar system: ergo as philosophers who desired to remain worthy of the name we could not either deny or affirm the existence of what you termed a supreme, omnipotent, intelligent being of some sort beyond the limits of that solar system.
But if such an existence is not absolutely impossible, yet unless the uniformity of nature’s law breaks at those limits we maintain that it is highly improbable. Nevertheless we deny most emphatically the position of agnosticism in this direction, and as regards the solar system. Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth.
Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of Avidya and Maya, ignorance based upon the great delusion.
The word “God” was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and that we are able to prove what we claim – i.e. the knowledge of that cause and causes we are in a position to maintain there is no God or Gods behind them.
The idea of God is not innate but an acquired notion, and we have but one thing in common with theologies — we reveal the infinite. But while we assign to all the phenomena that proceed from the infinite and limitless space, duration and motion, material, natural, sensible and known (to us at least) cause, the theists assign them spiritual, super-natural and unintelligible and un-known causes.
The God of the Theologians is simply and imaginary power, unloup garou as d’Holbach expressed it — a power which has never yet manifested itself. Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery.
Pantheistic we may be called — agnostic never. If people are willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE Life immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that there is not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than God; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his fourteenth proposition, “practer Deum neque dari neque concepi potest substantia” — and thus become Pantheists . . . . who but a Theologian nursed on mystery and the most absurd super-naturalism can imagine a self existent being of necessity infinite and omnipresent outside the manifested boundless universe. …”