Correspondence selections by T. B. Hartbottle in response to J.C.V.P. | Notes by H.P.B.
. . .
If J.C.V.P. will turn to p. 3 of the same paper, he will read in the second paragraph,in reference to the Devachanic state, “It is purely a state of bliss, in which man receives compensation for the undeserved misery o f his past life.”1
1. Quite correct; but it is not the injustice or mistakes of Karma which are the causes of such “undeserved misery,” but other causes, independent of the past Karma of either the producer or the innocent victim of their effects, new actions generated by the wickedness of men and circumstances; and which arouse Karmic law to fresh activity, i.e., the punishment of those who caused these new Nidânas (or causal connections), and the reward of him who suffered from them undeservedly.—Ed [H.P.B.]
To be consistent, J. C. V. P. should object to this also, yet I have herein only embodied the idea which I have gathered, and I believe accurately, from one whom I venture to look upon as an authority. I appeal to the Editors of Lucifer to uphold me, or to contradict me; in the latter event my whole contention falls to the ground.
It is, however, my conviction, that this statement as to Devachan is not a glaring error,2 and that being so I contend that the paragraph objected to by J. C. V. P. is a natural corollary to the other.
2. Explained in this sense it is not.—Ed.
. . .
I will not pursue the subject further because I feel that I have some claims in this instance to the good offices of those who are responsible for the publication of my paper, and should my case not be arguable, or my defence weak, I ask, and think I have a right to ask, for instruction on the point at issue.
T. B. Harbottle.
[Note: it is not clear if the following Editor’s Note was penned by H.P.B.]
Editors’ Note.—For one acquainted with the doctrine of Karma, and after this explanation, the objection taken by our American correspondent seems to rest on a misconception of Mr. Harbottle’s meaning in his article. But no more can the correspondent be taken to task for it. Removed several pages from the said justifying paragraph, and standing by itself, the sentence under criticism did seem to imply and warrant such a construction. One can never be too cautious and too explicit, when writing upon such abstruse subjects. As the defendant has risen and explained, however, the short debate may be closed. Both plaintiff and defendant now stand accused: one of judging too hastily and on appearance; the other, of having written too loosely, and without due caution, upon a subject of the utmost importance. Both, therefore, may be left to their respective Karma.