Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00473)

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