Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00476)

Daniel C. Caldwell: Qustions for Brian...

Brian: Sure I will answer all your questions as soon you send a list of 
the quotes from The Mahatma letters about "last sub-race of the fifth"
and about "elder brothers." I could do that to, but if you yourself do it 
you wont say its all wrong, so I like to leave it at that and wait before 
proceeding for that first.

And in order to have this discussion not from the beginning go all over 
the place, I want to start with discussing SOLLELY the MAHATMA 
LETTERS for starters. You can make a list of next "Isis Unveiled" or 
which other Theosophical books or time periods (there is more then 100 
years of publication time involved here) I am to bussy with dozens of 
other unrelated subjects and projects independend of the topics on my 
website that I can and want to only discuss one thing at a time in each 
of the 14 mail groups I am a member of. And on theos talk apart from 
the related "stanzas of Dzyan" that I started with Steve for the 
remaining part I like to concentrate just on The Mahatma letters for the 
next ten days, those that want to address me.

http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Daniel H. Caldwell" <comments@b...> wrote:
> Brian, you write:
> 
> "'The Mahatma Letters' claim: 'The highest race (physical 
> intellectuality) is the last sub-race of the fifth -- yourselves the 
> white conquerors. The majority of mankind belongs to the seventh 
sub-
> race of the fourth Root race, -- the above mentioned Chinamen and 
> their off-shoots and branchlets (Malayans, Mongolians, Tibetans, 
> Javanese, etc., etc., etc.) and remnants of other sub-races of the 
> fourth -- and the seventh sub-race of the third race. All these, 
> fallen, degraded semblances of humanity.'" 
> 
> You then comment on this extract:
> 
> "So doesn't it seem wrote these letters clearly identified 
> himself/herself/'The White Brotherhood', with white 'Aryan' not even 
> Indian. (Mahatma Letters to Sinnet in INDIA): 'yourselves the white 
> conquerors' ?"
> 
> Brian, here is a serious question for you and I hope you will answer 
> it in a serious way.
> 
> What is your reasoning for coming to the above conclusion? I really 
> don't understand how you got to your conclusion.
> 
> The sentence right before the part you quote reads:
> 
> "I told you before now, that the highest people now on earth 
> (spiritually) belong to the first sub-race of the fifth root Race; 
> and those are the Aryan Asiatics. . . . "
> 
> Does this part of KH's statement which you did NOT quote throw 
> additional light on what you conclude above?
> 
> Also consider what KH says several pages prior in ML-23b to Mr. 
> Sinnett:
> 
> "Remember, you belong to the fifth Race, yet you [Sinnett as an 
> Englishmen, European]are but a Western sub-race. . . . During the 
> minority of a sub-race, it is preserved for it by its predecessor, 
> which disappears, dies out generally, when the former 'comes to age.' 
> At first, most of them squander and mismanage their property, or 
> leave it untouched in the ancestral coffers. They reject 
> contemptuously the advices of their elders and prefer, boy-like, 
> playing in the streets to studying and making the most of the 
> untouched wealth stored up for them in the records of the Past. Thus 
> during your transition period -- the middle ages -- Europe rejected 
> the testimony of Antiquity, calling such sages as Herodotus and other 
> learned Greeks -- the Father of Lies, until she knew better and 
> changed the appellation into that of 'Father of History.' Instead of 
> neglecting, you now accumulate and add to your wealth. As every 
other 
> race you had your ups and downs, your periods of honour and 
> dishonour, your dark midnight and -- you are now approaching your 
> brilliant noon. The youngest of the fifth race family you were for 
> long ages the unloved and the uncared for, the Cendrillon in your 
> home. . . ."
> 
> Certainly this prior extract gives better context to what KH writes 
> and which you only partially quote. I give the more complete extract 
> from KH to Sinnett:
> 
> "I told you before now, that the highest people now on earth 
> (spiritually) belong to the first sub-race of the fifth root Race; 
> and those are the Aryan Asiatics; the highest race (physical 
> intellectuality) is the last sub-race of the fifth -- yourselves the 
> white conquerors [the English, the Europeans]. The majority of 
> mankind belongs to the seventh sub-race of the fourth Root race, --
> the above mentioned Chinamen and their off-shoots and branchlets 
> (Malayans, Mongolians, Tibetans, Javanese, etc., etc., etc.) and 
> remnants of other sub-races of the fourth -- and the seventh sub-race 
> of the third race. All these, fallen, degraded semblances of humanity 
> are the direct lineal descendants of highly civilized nations neither 
> the names nor memory of which have survived except in such books 
as 
> Popalvul and a few others unknown to Science."
> 
> Therefore, if anything, I would conclude that the writer Koot Hoomi 
> would be a member of the Aryan Asiatics.
> 
> Surely the interpretation I am giving here fits in with much else 
> given in the letters of Master Koot Hoomi.
> 
> In one letter KH writes to Sinnett:
> 
> "But if you now so dislike the idea of a purely nominal executive 
> supervision by Col. Olcott -- an American of your own race -- you 
> would surely rebel against dictation from a Hindu, whose habits and 
> methods are those of his own people, and whose race, despite your 
> natural benevolence, you have not yet learnt to tolerate, let alone 
> to love or respect. Think well before you ask for our guidance. Our 
> best, most learned. and highest adepts are of the races of 
> the 'greasy Tibetans'; and the Penjabi Singhs -- you know the lion is 
> proverbially a dirty and offensive beast, despite his strength and 
> courage. Is it certain that your good compatriots would more easily 
> forgive our Hindu solecisms in manners than those of their own 
> kinsmen of America? If my observations have not misled I should say 
> this was doubtful. National prejudices are apt to leave one's 
> spectacles undimmed. You say 'how glad we should be, if that one (to 
> guide you) were yourself,' meaning your unworthy correspondent. My 
> good Brother, are you certain, that the pleasant impression you now 
> may have from our correspondence, would not instantly be destroyed 
> upon seeing me?"
> 
> Quoted from:
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-4.htm
> 
> Also from another letter from KH to Sinnett:
> 
> "My dear, good friend, you must not bear me a grudge for what I say 
> to him [Hume] of the English in general. They are haughty. To us 
> especially, so that we regard it as a national feature. And, you must 
> not confound your own private views -- especially those you have 
now -
> - with those of your countrymen in general. Few, if any -- (of course 
> with such exceptions as yourself, where intensity of aspirations 
> makes one disregard all other considerations) -- would ever consent 
> to have 'a nigger' for a guide or leader, no more than a modern 
> Desdemona would choose an Indian Othello nowadays. The prejudice 
of 
> race is intense, and even in free England we are regarded as 
> an 'inferior race.' And this same tone vibrates in your own remark 
> about 'a man of the people unused to refined ways' and 'a foreigner 
> but a gentleman,' the latter being the man to be preferred. Nor would 
> a Hindu be likely to have such a lack of 'refined ways' disregarded 
> in him were he 'an adept' twenty times over again; and this very 
same 
> trait appears prominent in Viscount Amberley's criticism on 
> the 'underbred Jesus.' Had you paraphrased your sentence and said: --
> 'a foreigner but no gentleman' (according to English notions) you 
> could not have added as you did, that he would be thought the 
> fittest. Hence, I say it again, that the majority of our Anglo-
> Indians, among whom the terms 'Hindu' or 'Asiatic' is generally 
> coupled with a vague yet actual idea of one who uses his fingers 
> instead of a bit of cambric, and who abjures soap -- would most 
> certainly prefer an American to 'a greasy Tibetan.' But you need not 
> tremble for me. Whenever I make my appearance -- whether astrally 
or 
> physically -- before my friend A. P. Sinnett, I will not forget to 
> invest a certain sum in a square of the finest Chinese silk to carry 
> in my chogga pocket, nor to create an atmosphere of sandal-wood 
and 
> cashmere roses. This is the least I could do in atonement for my 
> countrymen." 
> 
> Quoted from:
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-5.htm
> 
> Certainly all of the above which I have quoted helps to explain KH's 
> statement to Sinnett:
> 
> "The highest race (physical intellectuality) is the last sub-race of 
> the fifth -- yourselves the white conquerors." The English and the 
> Europeans.
> 
> Finally, contrast and compare the two statements by KH:
> 
> (1) "even in free England we [Hindu] are regarded as an 'inferior 
> race.'"
> 
> (2) "The highest race (physical intellectuality) is the last sub-race 
> of the fifth -- yourselves the white conquerors [the English, the 
> Europeans in India and other English and European colonies]" 
> 
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://hpb.cc