The Franklin Merrell-Wolff Fellowship

This file contains an exchange of letters between Peter Geshell and Franklin Merrell-Wolff. Mr. Gehsell writes concerning some Assembly of Man coursework he has undertaken, and he notes that he finds reading The Secret Doctrine difficult. He then asks a series of questions, to which Wolff responds in the letter that follows. Briefly stated, Mr. Geshell’s questions are:

1. Has Wolff’s book, “Point-I to Space-I,” been published? (This book would be published as Pathways Through to Space).  
2. What relation do moons revolving around other planets bear to their respective planets?
3. Was the earth a “sun” at one time to our moon?
4. What kind of machine did J. W. Keeley of Philadelphia invent?
5. Is there a concise list of tenets of the Assembly of Man, including a “code of conduct” for its members?

In response to this last question, Wolff offers that the “practical morality of the Brotherhood is substantially that of Buddhism, which is the one side of Buddha’s teachings which have come down with a high degree of purity.” Wolff then presents what he calls a “partial outline” of this code:

In the bulk of the remainder his letter, Wolff attends to some difficulties in adhering to this code. (6 pages)

1. 1. Non-lying.
   2. Non-killing.
   3. Regarding the good of another as highly as one’s own good.
   4. Cultivation of all conduct, speech and thought which tends to weaken the focus of desire upon the object and to strengthen its focus toward the Subject or Truth in the abstract.
   5. Cultivation of an attitude of mercy toward all creatures.
   6. Conscientiousness in relation to all problems and relationships, material or spiritual.
   7. An energetic, as opposed to a passive, attitude.
   8. Willingness to assume responsibility of decision.
   9. Loyalty to the Brotherhood, the representatives and to the doctrine which is accepted.
   10. Scrupulous honesty.
   11. Dealing justly, to others and to one’s own different functions.
   12. To give to the “I should do” first place, as compared with the “I would like to do.” (In time the “I should do” tends to become identical with the “I would like to do,” but when there is conflict the individual’s judgement of right-action must take priority over the individual’s private wishes. But here, the “I should do” is determined by the individual’s own conscience rather than by a formula laid down by someone else.)

In the bulk of the remainder his letter, Wolff attends to some difficulties in adhering to this code. (6 pages)