Theos-Talk Archives (July 1998 Message tt00136)

SUBJECT:  E.O. =  K.H.
[ROUGH DRAFT]

Dallas T. wrote:

> >Well !  if "E.O." stands for "Eminent Occultist,"  someone is
> >either making or accepting claims.  Who can tell ?  And why
> >should such a thing be allowed ?  I wonder why, if a thing be
> >true, then why does it need any kind of "back-up" from anyone.
> >Sounds like someone is making claims of "authority."  The use of
> >a "name" does not automatically make a statement true.  A lot may
> >have happened since a statement was first used.  If this seems to
> >be a slow and plodding course, it is for all of us who are
> >beginners in the study of Nature's hidden ways.  As we gain
> >proficiency the process  of reasoning speeds up.  We have all
> >seen this happen in our own school days.
> >
> >To me this use of, say:  "E.O." is evidence of a desire for
> >haste.  How can anyone be sure unless one is given the logic of
> >any statement ?
> >It is symptomatic of our times that we tend to credit erudition
> >with selfless wisdom.  It is not always so, for the basis from
> >which the erudite teach may be a mistaken basis.  Look at the
> >changes in biology, electronics, astronomy, physics and
> >astro-physics in the past 75 years as an instance.  Much of what
> >we were taught in school has been changed and new Laws discovered
> >for general application.


Pam Giese commented on Dallas' words:

> So  Dallas,  you don't buy that the Master K.H. of the Mahatma Letters is
> the same E.O. that annotated Eliphas Levi's "The Paradoxes of The Highest
> Science"?  I always thought that the moniker E.O went along with some of the
> dry wit manifested in the letters.  Having read this work of Levi's on the
> heals of reading the Mahatma Letters, I thought there was a strong
> continuity of thought with K.H. and the E.O. notes.  [However, whatever
> Theosophist who translated the version I have was rather "clueless" when it
> comes to experiential occultism and experiential mysticism, IMHO.  Although,
> they were certainly more conversant than Levi on Eastern philosophy.  Only
> the initials of C.J. are given and Kesslinger's couldn't relate what the
> C.J. stood for.]  In the Mahatma Letters, K.H. makes several references to
> Levi, to the point that whenever Sinnett needed a remedial lesson on basic
> magic/occultism he was referred to Levi's works.


Daniel Caldwell replies:

Pam, you're on the right track!!

In August, 1882, Master Koot Hoomi wrote Mr. Sinnett as follows:

"To reconcile you still more with Eliphas [Levi], I will send
you a number of his MSS.---that have never been published, in
a large, clear, beautiful handwriting WITH MY COMMENTS ALL THROUGH.
Nothing beter than that can give you a key to Kabalistic puzzles."
(Mahatma Letters, Letter XXc in the first 3 editions) CAPS ADDED.

Later in Oct of the same year, Sinnett asked K.H. about these MSS. and
KH told Sinnett that they had been sent to A.O. Hume. (Letter XXIIIb)

Finally in 1883, Hume published (some of)these MSS as THE PARADOXES OF
THE
HIGHEST SCIENCE.

Hume (the translator of Levi's MSS) wrote in his introduction to this
book:

"An eminent occultist, E.O., had added a few notes to the MSS.
BEFORE it reached my hands, and these which I have reproduced
. . . . merit the most careful attention. . . . "  CAPS ADDED.

K.H. did not call himself E.O.  Apparently Hume decided not
to identify the writer of the notes as K.H., but simply
attributed them to an "eminent occultist", "E.O.", that is,
the Master KH.  I believe A.O. Hume had every right to
consider Master KH as an "eminent occultist".

More details can be found in H.P.B.'s COLLECTED WRITINGS,
Volume VI, pp. 258-260; see the footnote by Boris de Zirkoff.

In 1922, the Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madras, India
issued a "Second Edition".  A Foreword was added to this
edition by "C.J."  "C.J" is C. Jinarajadasa.

I could add more but will stop at this point.  I hope this
clears up any misunderstanding.  Any student of
THE MAHATMA LETTERS will also want to read E.O.'s notes to
Levi's MSS.