# Letter Twenty



In your last, you question about memory. Memory is a large field. That

which we call “memory” must belong to “being” and relate to experience—

in fact, it might be said that “memory” and

“being” are synonymous, considering in this view of it that “being” is the

result of experience not necessarily remembered or recollected. It is also said

that memory of past lives is recoverable so that there must be a plane of

memory not accessible to us in our present plane of action. Yet these

memories are of other lives such as this one. Remember that every sound in

the visible world awakens its correspondence in every one of the so-far

developed elements; so, by inference, every thought on this plane awakens

its correspondence on inner planes. The real register, then, must be in the

more ethereal and more permanent substance. The physical brain does not

retain all the multifarious impressions received by it, for it is in constant

motion and change. While some impressions which are constantly repeated

appear to reside in the brain itself and to be of ready access, others, not

repeated, fall below the line of perception and have to be recalled through

association with some other present idea. H. P. B. said, “there is a constant

telegraphic communication going on incessantly—day and night—between

the physical brain and the inner man.” The brain is such a complex thing, both

physically and metaphysically, that it is like a tree whose bark you can

uncover layer by layer, each layer being different from all the others, each

having its own special work, function and properties.

Each plane has its own tablet of memory and produces the appropriate

effects on any other plane—being accessible, in fact, but not perceived on

account of other predominating perceptions. Memory per se must be on all

planes of being, each plane producing “kinds” of memory, or such as relate

to that plane only, in which case it is “being” on that plane. On all planes

“memory” must be the power of reproducing past experiences; it is manasic

because creative; on the highest manasic plane there is said to be neither past

nor future but all in Present Creation. The Soul is vision itself. Would not the

highest memory be superlative vision? The Seer is in no case the things he

sees.  


I am astounded at the infernal practices you speak of that the “New

Psychology” follows. One might as well give tests on the action of hasheesh,

opium, whiskey or any other thing that causes

formal accentuation of the organs and seats of sensation as those “emotional

tests.” No wonder the girl fainted! If the students themselves or their families

cannot be made to see the wrong and folly of it all, they cannot be helped, for

these “professors” are in the ascendant and no layman’s voice would be

listened to. The papers lately gave an account of experiments in observation

of the “human aura.” The medical men were greatly interested in the

wonderful discovery and, marvelous to relate, saw in it “a new mode of the

diagnosis of disease.” Was it not said by H. P. B. that “the psychic

idiosyncrasies of humanity” would undergo a great change?

You say that our attitude toward these things seems to many like

“condemning” others. It is the duty of esoteric students to unmask error and

hypocrisy; to face lie with truth; not as personal criticisms but as facts against

mis-statements. It is assumed in charity that one who wrongs the Truth does

so in ignorance; but the custodians of Truth voice it in the face of lie,

ignorance and error, and take every opportunity possible to correct erroneous

impressions. Theosophy is in the world for that purpose. We are not to be

self-assertive nor flabby; knowing the truth, we speak it and care only for it

and that it be as widely known as possible. All of which is entirely compatible

with charity to the weaknesses of others and abstention from condemnation

of others.

Does “death-bed repentance” do any good? Well, it depends on what is

meant by repentance. If it is recognition of wrong and a change in the mind

and nature that would look with abhorrence upon a repetition of the deed,

coupled with the desire to make every amend in one’s power, it must be good.

But if it is only a recognition and a consideration of the deed from the point

of view of the evil that fell upon the perpetrator because of it, it is no good at

all, being selfish and occasioning no change in disposition, or only such

change as regarded self-interest. The first kind, in the mind of one who knew

Theosophy, would be deeper and have a wider scope of action than in the

mind of one who regarded everything from the standpoint of one life. The

Karma is the same; the one who created Karma is affected by the results, but

the extent

and kind of results depend on the extent of change and the direction of the

change that may have taken place in the mind of such “repentant.”

The phrase, “right thinking brings everything,” should have been,

“thinking has brought everything that exists—right or wrong.” A man’s

thoughts may be a gulf apart from what he is constrained to do, and he is what

he aspires and desires to do—not his inabilities to perform. He might go

through a whole life without much apparent change, but if he has inwardly

relinquished, that which is left after he drops the body is his mind, and his

next embodiment will call forth the performance.  


[LETTER TWENTY](https://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/assets/Friendly_Philosopher74606.pdf) (Friendly Philosopher, Pg. 179-182) "In your last..." to "forth the performance"

  
(Slides 3, 4, 5) [THE MAMMON CALLED OPIUM](https://www.ultindia.org/s/ap/APFeb1933.pdf) (Aryan Path, Feb. 1933. Pg. 108-110) "Ellen N. La Motte..." to "...undermined by opium?"  


(Slides 6 & 7)  [THE EFFECTS OF INDIAN HEMP](http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/lucifer/lucifer_v9_n52_december_1891.pdf) (Lucifer.  Dec, 1891.  Pg.324-325)"In our October..." to "...anesthesia of the skin.”



OPIUM MEMORIES