T. FISHER UNWIN LTD
LONDON : ADELPHI TERRACE
First published in 1925
—•— v —•—
The letters here
presented to the reader, written by the Founder of the Theosophical Society
between the years 1880-1888, are intended to form a companion volume to the
recently published Mahatma
Letters,
and should be read in conjunction with that work. They have been
transcribed direct from the originals and without omission except for the
occasional deletion of a name where-ever for obvious reasons it was absolutely
necessary to do so. Contrary to the method employed in
The Mahatma Letters,
the
compiler has permitted himself to correct obvious errors of spelling and
punctuation, as these were too numerous to ignore, and no useful purpose could
be served by leaving them unedited. Here and there in the text a word appears in
square brackets. This always indicates that the word is either superfluous, or
has been added by the compiler to make the sentence comprehensible. It should be
understood that all footnotes are part of the original letters, unless signed
“Ed.,” in which case they
have been added by the compiler. With these necessary exceptions the letters are
presented to the reader, as already stated, unaltered.
In Section I are to be found exclusively the Letters of Madame Blavatsky arranged as far as possible in chronological order.
Section II contains all the Miscellaneous Letters of interest left by Mr. Sinnett, arranged under the names of the different writers in numbered sub-sections. Some of these have additional value owing to the marginal comments by the Mahatmas M. and K. H.
In Sub-section VIII are included some short notes from M. and K. H. which were overlooked in preparing The Mahatma Letters. They are now published not so much for their intrinsic value, but because in his Introduction to that volume the compiler stated that the whole of the Mahatma Letters left by Mr. Sinnett were then published, and his statement, inaccurate to this extent is hereby made good.
The Appendixes contain: I. An Article by Eliphas Levi on “Death,” which is of particular value because it has comments in Master K. H.’s writing in the margin of the printed page of the magazine in which it originally appeared.
—•—
vi THE
LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY
—•—
II. Cosmological Notes from Mr. Sinnett’s MS. Book. One version of these notes which does not agree exactly with the MS. book from which his copies were presumably drawn, has already been published by Mr. Jinarajadasa. Although the differences may possibly not be regarded as serious, it is thought that students would be glad to have the opportunity of reading them just as they were left by Mr. Sinnett, and for that reason they are included in the present volume. The material contained in the two volumes was left all together in one box by Mr. Sinnett, and the whole of its contents are now in print with the exception of some miscellaneous correspondence by various writers which is not of sufficient interest to warrant publication. There must be, however, scattered about the world a number of H.P.B.’s letters in the keeping of different people, and it is greatly to be hoped that in the interest of the Movement steps will be taken to publish them.
The compiler takes this opportunity of acknowledging his indebtedness to several friends for painstaking and careful work in checking the originals with the printed proofs, and also for the compilation of the Index.
A. T. B.
—•— vii —•—
Of all the problems
which confront the student of Theosophy, there is none more vital in the present
day than a thorough grasp and correct perspective not only of the personal
character of the Founder of the Theosophical Society, but of the nature of the
work she did and the true relationship it bears to the whole fabric of the
Theosophical Movement. It is now beginning to be recognised that her writings
contain the key to
the profoundest mysteries of Man and the Universe, and those who opposed her,
finding themselves unable to disprove the value and truth of her philosophy,
sought by means of personal slander and vilification to prejudice public
opinion, and thus divert attention from the treasure of knowledge which she was
the means of giving to the world, and which, if impartially considered on its
merits, must have carried with it the
conviction of the integrity of the writer. In
The Secret Doctrine
Mme. Blavatsky quoted the words of Gamaliel as being particularly applicable to
her own work: “If this doctrine is false it will perish of itself, but if true
then it cannot be destroyed.” Just as her work has stood the test of time and
public criticism, so will these two volumes provide the means for the
vindication of her personal character. The biassed and untrustworthy nature of
the Hodgson Report of the Society of Psychical Research, which has provided the
basis for so much ignorant and malicious criticism even down
to the present day, is clearly revealed in these pages. Much fresh light is also
thrown on the forgeries known as the Coulomb Letters, and also of her relation
with the notorious Solovioff, who, in his rage and resentment at being refused
the privilege of chelaship, did so much to injure her reputation. It would
require a volume to deal adequately with all the evidence on these important
questions; the reader is therefore left to form his own conclusions as to
whether the heroic figure which stands out so vividly in these pages was the
liar, the fraud, and worse than dishonest medium which the Society of Psychical
Research and the Spiritualists generally would have us believe, or whether she
was what she claimed to be—no medium indeed, but the conscious Agent of the
Masters who sent her forth, performing her prodigious task under conditions
which
—•— viii THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
would make the bravest halt; an occultist pledged to silence as to the true reasons for most of her actions, ever fearful of giving out too much, but yet through it all labouring so fiercely and whole-heartedly for the sake of the few who were entitled to her Master’s thanks. She wrote herself in Letter No. XLV—“Those who see no discrepancy in the idea of filthy lying and fraud even for the good of the Cause—being associated with work done for the Masters—are congenital Jesuits . . . or natural born fools. Had I been guilty once only—of a deliberately, purposely concocted fraud, especially when those deceived were my best, my truest friends, no ‘love’ for such one as I! At best, pity or eternal contempt. Pity if proved I was an irresponsible lunatic, a hallucinated medium, made to trick by my ‘guides’ whom I was representing as Mahatmas; contempt—if a conscious fraud.” Let those who are so limited as to believe that the Masters and their teaching are the invention of H. P. Blavatsky read the account of her journey into the wilds of Sikkim, in which she describes her meeting in propria persona with the Mahatmas M. and K. H. The real nature of these Adepts as living men, or, as H. P. B. called them, “superior mortals, not ignorant flapdoodle gods,” is here placed beyond the realm of speculation.
There is hardly one of these pages that does not throw some unexpected light on the mysteries of the relationship between Adept and chela, and it is thus possible to gain some comprehension of the life of those who, while living in the world, serve the purposes of the Great Lodge of Adepts whose headquarters are beyond the Himalayas of Northern India. Wherever those chelas may be, their hearts will give a warmer and quicker throb as they read the story of H. P. B.’s intimate association with her teachers. As they read further of the trials and torments which inevitably befell those other chelas of forty years ago, it is not they who will be tempted to condemn those who fell from their high estate, dragged into the mire by one or other of the weaknesses of human nature. But while there should be nothing but pity and compassion for the failures, let no student of the Sacred Science fall into the blunder of seeking in the name of “Brotherhood” to justify their indulgences, either ethically or morally.
There are several references to the writing of The Secret Doctrine which show to how great an extent the Masters were themselves responsible for that work. That is why the teaching of H. P. B. “remains for us the test and criterion of Theosophy,” by which all other teaching on the subject must be judged. After all, if the Masters do not know what Theosophy is, no one does, because in its essence, purity and completeness it is alone contained in the secret teaching of which the Guardians are the
Masters Themselves. That teaching, as stated by H. P. B., “is not the fancy of one or several isolated individuals, but the fruit of the work of thousands of generations of Adept Seers,” I through whom it was handed down from the first Divine Instructors of our Humanity. It is the substratum and basis of all the world-religions and philosophies, but its doctrines are the exclusive possession of none of them. It was the mission of Madame Blavatsky, under the instructions of those Adepts, to give to the world selected portions of that archaic teaching. It should be remembered that an Adept—a Master, is one who has achieved immortality, and therefore has the power to perceive truth as it is and at will to reflect it without distortion. It is because no one of lesser degree can claim that power always and with certainty that Their testimony must be regarded as the highest authority on all matters of occult doctrine and practice. And here it must be stated unequivocally that from the point of view of the “original programme” of the Society, no theosophical association has any raison d’etre if it does not remain true to the Masters and their teaching. There are some who seem to believe that it is possible to be faithful to the Masters while denying even the theoretical truth of their teaching. This is where the responsibility of the old Theosophical Society is so grave. In his Introduction to The Mahatma Letters the writer had occasion to point out in what important particulars that Society showed by its actions a serious divergence from the spirit and letter of the original teaching. That volume proves beyond question that H. P. B.’s writings are absolutely consistent with the Masters’ teachings, and in nothing is this more clearly discernible than in her exposition of the doctrines relating to the Life after Death. It is not the least serious aspect of the situation that the Theosophical Society bases its propaganda on this important subject not, as the public has a right to expect, on the message of H. P. B. and the Masters, but on the personal investigation of later students, whose views, for example, on the post-mortem survival of personal consciousness are so different as to represent the direct antithesis of the original teaching.
No serious students of H. P. B. will deny the force or the truth of these arguments, but there are many such who conceive it to be their duty to remain in the old Theosophical Society and at the same time to stand by the original teaching. They are at once faced with certain difficulties which have to be experienced to be understood, but which, fortunately, the constitution of the Society does not make it impossible to solve. Let the reader turn to Letter
I “That
is to say, men who have perfected their physical, mental, psychic. and spiritual
organisations to the utmost possible degree.”
—•— x THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
No. C in this volume, and he will there see how H. P. B. was faced with a very similar situation and of the measures she recommended to deal with it. She lays stress on the fact that the Society was founded as a Universal Brotherhood, in which no one has the right to force his own views on another, but each must be allowed free expression of opinion. She defines what a nucleus of Brotherhood is by quoting Master K. H. almost word for word: “A group or branch, however small, cannot be a theosophical society unless the members in it are magnetically bound to each other by the same way of thinking, at least in some one direction.” She urges that those who intend at all costs to remain true to the original programme of the Society—i.e. to the Masters and their teaching—should found Lodges devoted to that purpose alone. Exactly the same should be done in our own day as a solution of present difficulties.
Therefore, all the world over, let the lovers of the Wisdom of H. P. B. unite, whether they be in or out of the Theosophical Society; let them found Lodges which shall be places apart, sanctified by devotion to the Truth and the Cause of the Brotherhood of Humanity, while seeking their knowledge from her writings, I which contain all and far more than is necessary for the instruction of Theosophists, until the promised hour strikes at the beginning of the last quarter of this century, when another Messenger from the Great Lodge may be expected to appear and carry forward the work of H. P. Blavatsky to the next stage of unfolding.
A. TREVOR BARKER.
LONDON,
December,
1924.
I That is to say, The Secret Doctrine, Isis Unveiled, The Key to Theosophy, The Voice of the Silence, and her numerous magazine articles in Lucifer and The Theosophist; care should be taken to study these works wherever possible in the original editions or exact reprints of them—the later Revised Editions have been considerably altered and, in the opinion of many students, quite unwarrantably.
—•— xi CONTENTS—•—
COMPILER’S PREFACE . . . v
INTRODUCTION. . . . vii
LETTERS No I—CXX . . . 3-261
M.’s Instructions to Sinnett . . . 5
H. P. B.’s Attitude to K. H. . . . 7
K. H.’s Correspondence . . . 9
The Lamas of Toling . . . . 11
M.’s Methods with H. P. B.. . . 13
A Marriage is arranged . . . 15
“Confederate” Damodar . . . 17
Prestige of the Great Brotherhood . . . 19
The stuff of which Chelas are made . . . 21
Stainton Moses and Imperator . . . 23
The Septenary Term of Trial . . . 25
K. H.’s Portrait . . . 27
H. P. B. curses her Fate . . . 29
Hume’s Criticisms of H. P. B. . . . 31
The T.S. the Hope of Mankind . . . 33
H. P. B. is made to apologise . . . 35
M. is angry with Hume . . . 37
H. P. B. visits M. and K. H. . . . 39
Mr. Hume must ride his own Donkey . . . 41
An Infernal Power . . . 43
H. P. B. in “Society” . . . 45
Master K. H. . . . 47
The Power of the Chohan . . . 49
H. P. B. blames herself . . . 51
H. P. B. on the “ Phoenix” Venture . . . 53
Defence .of Sterling Qualities . . . 55
Col. Olcott’s Difficulties . . . 57
True Theosophists wanted . . . 59
In Praise of Col. Olcott . . . 61
The Chohan’s Karma . . . . 63
H. P. B. on Injustice . . . . 65
Comments on a Letter from A. K. . . . 69
M. and K. H. intervene . . . 71
—•— xii THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
LETTERS No. I—CXX—continued
Strange Happenings . . . 73
The Hodgson Investigations . . . 75
H. P. B. arrives in France . . . 77
The Masters and Their Teachings . . . 79
Anna Kingsford and K. H . . . 81
Russian Aristocrats and H. P. B . . . 83
Tibetan Chelas . . . 85
The Work of Mohini . . . 87
The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled . . . 89
Mrs. Holloway and K. H . . . 91
Mohini and the Writing of” Man” . . . 93
Subba Row lies about H. P. B . . . 95
The Crime of divulging Sacred Things . . . 97
The Coulomb Letters . . . 99
The Karma of an Occultist . . . l01
H. P. B.’s Martyrdom . . . 103
An Hour of Revelation . . . 105
On Books and Characters . . . 107
False Reasoning and Bigotry of S.P.R . . . 109
The Love of the Master . . . 111
Solovioff resigns from S.P.R . . . 113
The Forger Coulomb . . . 115
Solovioff protests to S.P.R . . . II7
“Guilty in One—Guilty in All” . . . 119
Dr. F. Hartmann . . . 121
Pure “ Vestals” . . . 123
M’s Corroboration. . . 123
In Defence of Mohini. . . 127
A Double Untruth about H. P. B. . . 129
Missionaries swear to ruin the T.S. . . 131
D. N’s Reluctance to meet H. P. B. . . 133
A List of Calumnies . . . 135
The Treachery of Hodgson . . . 137
The Truth about Hodgson and S.P.R . . . 139
The “Vase” Phenomenon. . . 141
The Metrovitch Incident. . . 143
The Private Part of H. P. B.’s Life . . . 145
H. P. B. never Mme. Metrovitch. . . 147
Myers of the S.P.R . . . 149
H. P. B. travels with the Master . . . 151
Mentana . . . 153
H. P. B. never a Medium . . . 155
The Countess sees M . . . 157
D.N.nearlymad . . . 159
The Opinion of a Hindu . . . 161
Col. Olcott’s” Temple of Humanity” . . . 163
The Letter of Hurreesinjhee . . . 165
D. N. a Fanatic . . . 167
Instructions to Sinnett re D.N . . . 169
The Laws of Occultism . . . 171
D.N.a”Chela” . . . 173
The Reason for Soloviofi’s Defection. . . 175
Medical Evidence on H. P. B . . . 177
—•— xii CONTENTS —•—
LETTERS No. I-CXX—continued
H. P. B. like a Boar at Bay. . . 179
Bowaji’s Deception . . . . 181
The Influence of Bowaji. . . 183
Mohini’s Indiscretions . . . . 185
The Dweller on the Threshold . . . 187
A Warning from Master Illarion . . . 189
Libels and the Law . . . . 191
A Family Embroglio . . . . 193
The Writing of The Secret Doctrine. . . 195
Subba Row and The Secret Doctrine . . . 197
The Policy of Masterly Inactivity . . . 199
Mr. Lane-Fox . . . 201
Valuable Evidence from Subba Row. . . 203
Lethargy in the London Lodge . . . 205
More about Solovioff . . . . 207
Evidence of the Berlin Graphologist . . . 209
A Duchess, a Fairy Tale, and Money. . . 211
The Last Alternative . . . . 213
Myers and Solovioff . . . . 215
The Memoirs . . . 217
Anna Kingsford . . . 219
The Purpose of the Masters’ Society . . . 221
The T.S. and Masters’ Protection . . . 223
High Opinion of Sir Wiffiam Crookes . . . 225
Sinnett very young in Occult Matters. . . 227
Politics and Opinions . . . . 229
The Ethics of Jesuitry . . . 231
The Will of the Jesuits . . . 233
“Those Accursed Memoirs” . . . 235
Col. Olcott acts like a Fool. . . 237
H. P. B. gossips . . . . . 239
The Buddha and Brahmanism . . . 241
Buddhas and Bodhisatwas. . . . 243
The Seven Worlds, Races, Globes . . . 245
Evolution and Involution . . . 247
Planets, Rings, Rounds . . . 249
Dimensions and Rounds . . . 251
Maya and Reality . . . . 252
Spirituality of Good and Evil . . . 255
The Power of Seeing and Knowing . . . 257
Man’s Growth and Evolution . . . 259
A Final Correction . . . . 261
MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS
I.—Countess Wachimeiste,
LETTERS No. CXXI-CLIV. . . 265/303
A Scandalous Statement. . . 267
Trials and Difficulties . . . . 269
The Sancharacharya and the T.S. . . . 271
A Chela’s Thanks . . . 273
—•— xiv THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
The “ Russian Spy” Calumny. . . 275
Perfection is to be found Nowhere. . . 277
Babaji’s Frenzy . . . 279
Criminal Charges . . . 281
Babaji and Hatha Yog . . . 283
H. P. B.’s Enemies . . . . 285
H. P. B.’s Second Marriage . . . 287
Continuous Persecutions . . . 289
Professor Selin makes Mischief . . . 291
H. P. B.’s Indiscretions . . . 293
H. P. B. must not be left alone. . . . 295
Personal Feelings must go . . . 297
The Cause of Walter Gebhard’s Death. . . 299
Foolish Credulity. . . 301
The T.S. throwing off its Linga Sarira . . . 303
II.—A. 0. Hume
LETTERS CLV-CLVII . . . . 304/311
Mr. Hume is dissatisfied . . . 305
H. P. B.’s Missing Principle . . . 307
Hume blasphemes . . . . 309
Hume knows better than Masters. . . 311
III.—William Q. Judge
LETTERS CLVIII-CLX . . . . 312/315
Judge received Letters from K. H.
. .
. 313
Persecutions and Trials in America
. .
. 315
IV.—T. Subba Row
LETTERS CLXI-CLXIV . . . . 316/323
The Adepts of India . . . . 317
Why it is impossible to teach Hume . . . 319
Subba Row’s Knowledge. . . 321
A Proficient in Occult Science . . . 323
V.—H. S. Olcott
LETTERS CLXV-CLXXI. . . . 324/334
Sancaracharya an Initiate . . . 325
Hume goes into Polities . . . 327
Col. Olcott “goes” for H. P. B. . . . 329
About Babajee . . . . 331
H. P. B.’s Expenses. . . 333
VI.—Babajee D. Nath
LETTERS CLXXII-CLXXIX . . . 335/344
Babajee loyal to Theosophy . . . 337
The “Mystic” Name of D. N. . . . 339
Brahman Customs . . . . . 341
A Letter through Babajee . . . 343
—•— xv CONTENTS —•—
VII.—The Gebhards.—Ernst Schutze.—Mohini.—Damodar.—Elliott Coues.— Anna Kingsford.—Eglinton
LETTERS CLXXX-CXCIV . . . . 345/362
Babajee’s Influence . . . 347
The Handwriting Expert’s Testimony. . . 349
H. P. B.’s Health . . . 351
How Hume received Letters . . . 353
Damodar is indignant . . . 355
Elliott Coues and H. P. B . . . 357
Anna Kingsford and K. H. . . . 359
Puja made to a personal God . . . 361
VIII.—Mahatma Letters
LETTERS CXCV-CCVIII . . . 363/366
Relative and Absolute Truth . . . 365
I.—Death. By Eliphas Levi. With Marginal Notes of K. H.
. .
. .
369—375
II.—Cosmological Notes. From A. P. Sinnett’s MS. Book . . . . . 376—386
III.—Cures effected by Col. Olcott in Calcutta by Mesmeric Passes . . . . 387—389
INDEX
391—404
A Typical Specimen of Mme. Blavatsky’s Handwriting
“. . . It was thy patience that in the waste attended still thy step, and saved MY friend for better days. What cannot patience do. . . . A great design is seldom snatched at once, ‘tis PATIENCE heaves it on. . . .”—K. H.
MY DEAR BOSS,
Going away to-morrow—THANKS to FATE!! The Disinherited tells me you are living in a damp place and that you will suffer from it. Do you live in a tent? Mr. Hume asks me to enclose this slip from the C. and M. Sewer for you. Did you receive Pce Dondoukof’s letter to me. M. wants me to tell you to show it to as many of your French speaking friends and my enemies as you possibly can, and to show it to Mr. Ratigan also. He says he will impress you what to do. Does he want to develop you into a Mejium? My boil aches fearfully yet I tell you I am a she Job!
My love to Mr. Tyrrell and Struit—or how do you spell his name? My best regards to Mrs. and Mr. Patterson.
Your orphaned friend and
-- ?
H. P.
B.
Just received your 20 Rupees. Oh Pioneer—protector of the “up-a-tree”occultists!
March 25th.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
You are right. All or nothing is their motto. And why should you subject yourself to daily torture? K. H. will correspond with you the same as he does now if it is all you want.
The “Vega”? Not Nordenskiold’s Vega that went North Pole and passed through Siberia but Eglinton’s Vega on which he sailed for England. By this time and as I write [to] you know all, since you received this morning Mrs. Gordon’s telegram about her having had a letter from Eglinton dropon her nose last night, with remarks from the Bosses and my humble self.Last night between 8 and 9 evening I received two letters from Eglinton
I There is a communication from K. H. written across the lines of H. P. B.’s letter. This appears here in bold type.—ED.
—•— 4 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
direct in the presence of 7 witnesses from the roof. One was for me, the other for Mrs. Gordon. He asked me to send it over to her in a natural way, but K. H. wanted me to send it off immediately and I did so. The letter from E. and my two visiting cards which I wrote before my guests last night at 8 ½ and the Boss’ remarks were all at Howra in a few seconds. That’s all. “Only that and nothing more.”
K. H. says he saw Eglinton and secured him. Now remains to be seen what kind of “guides” E. will hook on K. H.
I do not feel well. I am sick, bilious, dyspeptic and feel mad with the whole universe. I do not know how I can go to Madras with such a heat.
My love to dear Bossess. If I but knew to write as she does I would be a happy woman.
Yours in moonshine
H. P. BLAVATSKY.
Postcard addressed to A. P. Sinnett Esq.
TENDRIL,
SIMLA,
Aug. 9.
Savez-vous quel jour votre article Indo-British India a ete publie? Le Sept. Et savez-vous, que vous avez trouve un ami pour la vie dans Morya? Ces quelques bonnes paroles prononcies
—•— 5 M.’s INSTRUCTION TO SINNETT —•—
pour la premiere fois dans le Pioneer. Vous feront plus de bien que tout ce que vous avez fait jusqu’ici. Je ne comprenais pas pourquoi il montrait tant d’anxiete de vous envoyer son portrait. Je comprends tant maintenant.
I send you to-day the proofs of the two letters. Please send them back as soon as possible.
Yours in Indo-British
India,
H. P. B.
MULLIGAN.
Ordered by My Boss to tell Sinnett, Esq., the following: --
1. Not to lose the opportunity to night of acquainting R. S. with every detail of the situation he can think of, whether relating to the Society or his projected matrimonial ideas.
2. To insist upon having a true copy of the hitherto written sketches of Cosmogony with the Tibetan words, M.’s notes etc. H. P. B. is also ordered to have one, as she has to know thoroughly what Mr. Hume has noted and how much he has elaborated of the explanations. Otherwise when the reaction comes and Mr. Hume begins studying once more—either Mr. Sinnett nor H. P. B. will be au courant of his thoughts; and he will begin once more abusing—like the quartette of musicians in Aesop’s fable—the instruments on which he does not know to play.
3. Mr. Sinnett is advised, once he is in Allahabad, to announce the formation of the Allahabad Society, calling it “The Anglo Indian Investigation (Theosophical) Society” or some such name which would not jar upon the nerves of the unbelieving community. Let it be distinct from the other Branch in Allahabad called the “Prayaga Theos. Society” though the Hindus in it might be very useful to Mr. Sinnett and he will find wonderful mesmeric subjects in it, if he but searches.
4. Mr. Sinnett is advised by M. to make a special duty to prevent his little son being made to eat meat—not even fowls, and to write so to Mrs. Sinnett. Once the Mother has placed the child under K. H.’s protection let her see nothing pollutes his nature. The child may become a powerful engine for good in a near future. Let him be trained as his own nature suggests it.
5. Mr. S. is reminded to telegraph O. not to answer one word to M. Hume until he receives a letter from Mr. Sinnett.
6. Mr. S. is advised, now that he will be alone, to put himself in communication through Adytyarum B. with some Hindu mystics, not for the sake of philosophy but to find out what mental phenomena can be produced. At the Mela there is a number of such visiting the town.
—•— 6 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
7. Whenever he feels like writing or needs M. advice, Mr. Sinnett is invited to do so without hesitation. M. will always answer him, not only for K. H.’s sake but his own sake, as Mr. S. has proved that even an Anglo-Indian can have the true S---- SPARK in him, which no amount of brandy and soda and other stuff can extinguish and which will occasionally glitter out and very brightly.
Written Nov. 2nd, Lahore, 1880.
DEAR BOSS,
I am afraid I begin a task above my strength. But if I do not yet peg out I am determined to fight my way through and never leave one chance to my enemies to bother me. This is why I begged you to publish a few words in reply to a stupid and vile insinuation (and far better if it could be done in the shape of three or four lines in the Pioneer 1st page).
In Bombay Gazette Nov. 6 it is said that “A correspondent of the Englishman throws another ray of light upon the occultism at Simla. He says: In all the correspondence about the T.S. I do not think it has yet been mentioned that Mme B. is the correspondent of a Russian newspaper. A series of letters have appeared in the Anti-English newspaper the Moscow Gazette . . . purporting to be written from India by a lady member of the T.S. who signs herself Ruddha-Bai. The letters are headed “from the caves and forest-valleys of India.” The writer could not well have been other than Mme B. The snake tiger of India enchanted stories narrated in those letters are entirely theosophical and steeped in occultism.”
To this it is that I answered a few lines remarking that the only light which this fact (of my being the correspondent of a Russian newspaper however Anti-English) -- could ever throw upon the Simla phenomena was that of the possibility of some new hallucination on the part of the Govt. of India—perhaps a suspicion that it was the secret Russian political spies who were my confederates. That I never made a secret of my being a correspondent for the Russian newspapers none of which ever was but Anti-English (I would like to find one which is not!) or writing under the nom de plume of Radha Bai. And that so little was it a secret that in my last letter to the Russian papers
—•— 7 H. P. B.’s ATTITUDE TO K. H. —•—
from Simla it was from some of the officials themselves that I got the needed information etc. (You know about Ramchundra.)
This it was I sent to you fervently begging you to print it, for I was anxious to break the head of at least one of my idiotic enemies. To this K.H. remarked that it was far better if I should let you write a few words as an editorial remark upon the foolish para: (above cited). I said – no. I knew you did not like to be asked to write, besides my writing would be better and more appropriate. So I sent to you this. But it appears that he need have his own way. For how could my letter be lost otherwise? It was Mah. K. H. who played some trick of his only because he is wise and strong and healthy and I foolish and now weak and sick. I do not hold it as friendly on his part. If I am so useless and foolish why don’t they annihilate me? The doctor (Laurie) won’t permit me to start tomorrow. He advises me though to change locality. Strong nervous disease, fever and etc. he says. Oh I have enough of this old carcase!
Love to both of you
Yours quand meme
H.
P. BLAVATSKY.
Spirit is strong
but flesh is weak; so weak sometimes that it even overpowers the strong spirit
“which knows all truth.” And now, having almost shaken off its control this poor
body raves. Since even
I
am not above suspicion in her sight, you can hardly be too indulgent or use too
many precautions until this dangerous nervous crisis is passed. It was brought
on by a series of unmerited insults (which of course such men as you and Col.
Olcott would not have even noticed but which none the less put her to the
torture) and can be cured only by rest and peace of mind. If you are ever to
learn any lesson about man’s duality and the possibility through occult science
of awakening from its dormant state to an independent existence the invisible
but real I am, seize this chance. Observe and learn. It is cases like this which
puzzle the biologist and physiologist. But as soon [as] one learns this duality
all becomes as clear as day.
I am
sorry to say I can now only act thro’ her upon very rare occasions and under the
greatest precautions. Mr. Hume’s letter to her, a letter full of suspicion and
benevolent insult – proved the “one drop too much.” Her Punjab fever—once the
typhoid symptom removed is no worse in itself than many a European has passed
through; while I may tell you now that the crisis is over—her reason as well as
her life were in peril on Saturday night. As for myself you must always believe
me your true and sincere friend.
KOOT HOOMI LAL SINGH.
—•— 8 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
Tuesday Something.
Your two MSS. received. Well the readers will be stuffed this time and no mistake—with occult doctrine. Mr. Sinnett A.P.’s article, two letters 1 & 2 numbers, Mr. Hume A.O.’s Fragments 11 columns!!! Oxley’s trans-spookian elucubration -- 8 col!!!!! A criticism upon your Review by Maitland and Mrs. Kingsford—etc. etc. And finally a criticism upon Col. O.’s lecture “Is electricity Force or Matter” and an answer by Ma. K. H.—who is becoming a true penny-a-liner, a proof reader through astral light and what not. Only he is in a very sulky mood just now and I think I know why. Well I do not blame him. I would have stood on my head long ago to have my efforts and services thusly recognized.
Now what are you at with my irrepressible Boss? Three days ago he puts up an appearance so unexpectedly that I thought the mountain had tumbled on my head, and blows me up (!!) for not having sent you his portrait! Now what the devil have I to do with that? Olcott gave his crayon portrait to the photographer a month before leaving Bombay; and am I to be held responsible for the photographer’s sins likewise? I like that! I sent for it and got one with the greatest difficulty and he stood over my soul until I had packed and wrapped it up and addressed it to you. Too much love and fondling spoils the children’s temper. Won’t they catch it both—your Tibetan Orestes and his Pylades for cuddling you like two fools! And won’t I be glad of it. You bet my father’s daughter is right, and that the Chohan will snuff them nicely some day for all this. Now what do you want with his portrait? And it does not look at all like him, since he never wears now his white puggery, but simply sticks a yellow saucer on the top of his head like K. H. All this is vexation of spirit and vanity and nothing else. You better ask the Chohan to favour you with his picture, and then see how amiable he looks every Sunday morning.
I feel I am dying. Now are you satisfied? The heat and this working 26 hours out of the 24 is killing me. My head swims, my sight is becoming dim and I am sure I will drop some day on my writing and be a corpse before the T.S. says boo. Well I don’t care. And why the deuce should I? Nothing left for me here; then better become a spook at once and come back to pinch my enemies noses. I will send you your proof. Last night K. H. said that both you and Mr. Hume wrote about an identical thing and in an identical language he says about the fate of the suicides etc. Better look into it. But then again K. H.
—•— 9 K. H.’s CORRESPONDENCE —•—
with his criminal indulgence says it is better that Mr. Hume should cut it out of his Fragments, since it is 11 col. and yours only about 7 (the two). As soon as ready I will send you your proofs. I had no time to read them but it must be all right since K.H. says it is. But then, he will find good even the things you throw into your waste basket. I am losing my faith in him. Good bye,
H. P. B.
(that
was)
You need not trouble about asking me to forward your enclosed letters to K. H. He is a better hand in eliminating his correspondence from within closed envelopes than a Russian official in the Secret Police Dept. I found but your letter to me. He need not fear my curiosity. Your correspondence interests me very little and I have enough to read my own letters, which I heartily wish went down the hottest place the missionaries can think of. As you may love flattery now that K. H. stuffs you with it, you may perhaps like to read the opinion people have (Hindus) of your “Church Goers.”
SAHARANPUR.
Arrived last night, no, -- yesterday morning (it is Scott who came last night from Mooltan). Fisher and Williams met me, and are anxious to join. Last night dined with Mrs. and Mr. Fisher at their house and stopped till 1’OC. after midnight. Today will pass the whole day with Williams at his house and tomorrow morning will start for Dehradun with Scott.
Why do you call me lazy? Why do you reproach me with being silent and not writing? Why do you calumniate me and say I swear? I do not. I wrote to you the sweetest and most refined letter and got no answer from you for a fortnight. Saw “the Boss.” Of course I did. But how can I repeat you all he said since it is difficult for me to write a sane letter and you do not patronise insane ones. There never was a genius but was cracked. And I am a “genius”—so Williams says at least. And now I did not hear or see or smell the Boss for three days. He must have prigged your letter though for I see he knows what you do. How many times did you write to him? he is very cross—at least was when I last saw him at Lahore. Called me a lunatic also for wanting to say my mind to the editor of the C. and M. Sewer. The latter came out again not with a libellous
—•— 10 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
but a most stupid impertinent letter. Well I will not die happy unless I see him horsewhipped by someone, and there are several Englishmen who want to do it. What can I say about your initiating the Fellows immediately? Of course you ought to initiate them and send their applications to me, not to Olcott for I represent him now here. He is at Tinevelly with 50 Buddhist priests and creating a big sensation. As soon as I see the Boss I will ask his permission. But where the deuce is my Boss? Since he blew me up, I did not see him. I guess he must be roosting somewhere near our K. H. Mr. Hume? Why Mr. Hume never said a word about the “Brothers” since you left except to sneer at them once or twice. He said to me before leaving: “In a week I will have done my work of ‘Stray Feathers’ and I must receive a MS. from Morya if he wants me to go on.” That’s all and now there’s Mr. Williams after me to take me away. The Disinherited wants to write to you he says—if you permit him—through Damodar. The Boss said something about going to see Damodar. But D---- does not say a word.
Well goodbye I will write or try to write a more detailed and sane letter from Dehra.
Yours in Jesus,
H.
P. BLAVATSKY.
DEHRA,
Thursday.
MY DEAR Sub BOSS,
I proposed remaining here till Monday when suddenly this morning at dawn, I received orders to move onward on Saturday morning the 12th and be Meerut Sunday. Orders are no joke, so I obey and can do no better.
What possessed you to write to me as if I was coming decidedly to Allahabad? How can I come when I have to pass through Baroda and now I am more in the dark than ever. You do not write to me a word about Padshah. I was not aware he had already gone to Lucknow, and now I received a telegram from there asking for a Charter. I sent him one and remained perplexed. There are about 17 Fellows I hear, to be initiated at Bareilly, Fellows who joined long ago but are yet unbaptised unto the Holy Ghost. Therefore, I know not whether I have to go to Bareilly or not, whether I have to go to Lucknow or not, whether I will go this or that way to Bombay. Quien Sabe? It all depends on my boss’s whims; and I verily believe that notwithstanding his youthful appearance he becomes old and is
—•— 11 THE LAMAS OF TOLING —•—
falling into his dotage (with all respect due to him). You think me incapable of ever making up my mind; you are regarding me as quasi insane. And what can I do? How can I say I go there or elsewhere, when at the eleventh hour he usually puts in an appearance and changes all my plans—as in the Lahore case. And [what] I should go to Allahabad for? What help can I give you? None. If I go to you then must I give up Baroda—unless you can find a way for me to go there from Allahd without returning back to Toondla or Delhi which would be a fearful expense. Write me to Meerut. If you answer immediately there, it will find me there. Address care of Babu Baldeo Prasad F.T.S. Headmaster Government Normal School.
There’s Church, the Collector, and his wife (old Griffith’s spoon) here with Scott, and of all the foul-tongued, wicked, slandering, wicked women—she is the queen. Speak of me, occasionally uttering improper things owing to my natural innocence and imperfect knowledge of English. She tells things that made the root of my hair turn red and burn with shame! With one wag of her tongue she dishonours any woman with the greatest unconcern possible. Why she is a friend of Mrs. Patterson’s. We have a new Fellow, a Capt. Banon of the 39th of Gwalior. He is a great scholar, knows Sanskrit and other languages. A political officer. He is anxious to know you and be initiated by you and so Scott writes him a letter of introduction to you. He will come on purpose to Allahabad. He writes in his letter to Scott “I shall probably go to Gungotree next summer. There is a grand monastery at Toling where the head Lamas have great occult powers.” Toling is where K. H. was when he first wrote to you. But there are only chelas of the first degree there and I doubt whether they would tell or show him anything. However, it is a good thing if he goes there.
Thanks for what you did for us with the “Englishman.” It’s a skunk of a sewer like the C. and M. Gazette and a first cousin to it. What do you think Hume did? He ordered 200 Copies of Rules with the seal on the top and now when they sent him the bill Rs. 4 he refused to pay it, saying, that as it cost us nothing he would not pay for it. Well, I will, and surely I will not cry for 4 rupees poor as I am. But to say that the Rules “cost us nothing” is good. Why the Rules ordered and paid by Tookaram Tatia are without the seal and quite different from these. So also he ordered first a hundred and fifty and then 500 copies of the Fragments of Occult Truth, saying he would take 200. Then he went down (before your departure) to 100; then when I was going away he said that he thought “a dozen would do.” Now why in the name of wonder did he lead us into this unnecessary
—•— 12 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
expense? Of course they can be sold at 4 annas but it will take a year or more and the printer has to be paid. I wanted and would have never ordered more than 100. Well, I won’t say a word of course; only I will be more prudent in future. He is positively an extraordinary man: ready to throw thousands for a whim and when it is cooled off, “se faisant tirer par les cheveux” for a few rupees.
The poor
Disinherited
is very sick. He fell down a cud and nearly broke both his legs. Had
it not been for another chela with him who had time and the presence of mind of
doing what was needed to arrest
him in
the fall
he would have broken himself to pieces down an abyss of 2,800 feet—a
pic!
M. says it is a fiendish “Red Cap” who did it; who caught the boy
off his guard for an instant and positively took advantage of it in a wink; that
he roamed for weeks around the house where there is no adept now but only three
chelas
and a woman. Of course the
D.
will soon be better but it is one more proof that even a
chela
and of the 1st degree can be off his guard sometimes and
that accidents will happen in the best regulated families. Enclosed please find
another proof of the high virtues of our Christian brethren. I send you the
cover only, the contents consisting of the infamous
Saturday Review
article and another of last year from the
N. Y. Times.
Olcott’s portion of a letter will explain to you the thing.
I’ll write from Meerut if I have time. Did my boss write to you why?
Yours in Jesus,
H. P. B.
nee HAHN
VON
ROTTENSTERN—HAHN.
d---- it.
Ross Scott sends his love. I wish you heard Mrs. Collector Church swear!!
MEERUT,
14th.
Your telegram just received. Now what does that mean? I knew it was coming for M. hinted already that I would have to give up Baroda this trip and go there from Bombay. But why, in the name of mischief does he want me at Allahabad is more than I can make out. I can’t go to-morrow at any rate. I have to go to Bareilly first, as there [are] 11 theosophists to be initiated and they have been making preparation to receive me. And I have promised to the Meerutians to remain here till
—•— 13 M.’s METHODS WITH H. P. B. —•—
tomorrow night, as there are Delhi men who come from Delhi on purpose to see me. I can’t disappoint them, and I don’t suppose the Boss would want me to do such an insulting thing as to disappoint them all. I neither saw nor felt HIM for the last 48 hours. What ails him I know not. Why should he not tell me direct that he wanted me to go [to] you; and what business had he to go and make you an intermediary just as if I do so sooner for you than for him! He knows I am but a SLAVE and that he has the right to order me about without consulting my taste or desire. Very funny. Well, well, I will come. I’ll telegraph you whether it will be on the 18th or 19th.
Yours,
H. P. B.
Various Letters and
Notes sent by
A. P.
SINNETT
to
A. O.
HUME
May -
June 1882
Bombay
-
Simla.
To be read in order as arranged
to be intelligible.
MY DEAR HUME,
Herewith are sundry letters that it seems desirable for you to see. A few days ago I received the annexed from Damodar.
PUBLICATION
OFFICE
OF THE “THEOSOPHIST,”
BREACH
CANDY,
BOMBAY,
INDIA,
5th
June, 1882.
A. P. SINNETT
ESQ.,
ED.
“PIONEER”
SIMLA.
MY DEAR SIR,
When Mme Blavatsky left for Calcutta she left with me (March 30th) a letter for Mr. O’Conor with instructions to forward it to the addressee during the first week of June, if not otherwise ordered. I was accordingly to forward it by to-morrow’s mail but I have just been ordered to forward it to you. I therefore enclose it to you now. Please excuse haste—no time to lose—the mail is about to close.
I hope you have
received the two telegrams.
Yours
DAMODAR
K. M.
—•— 14 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
The enclosure was a fastened up envelope addressed to O’Conor. I telegraphed to know what I was to do with it. Then I was told to open, read and then destroy it. Afterwards however you will see that I get permission to show it to you. This is the letter: --
H. P. B. Corresponding Secretary of the T.S.A.S.
BOMBAY,
March 30.
MY DEAR MR. O’CONOR,
Your letter reaching me the same day that it was written by you, namely—March 24, did not surprise me in the least. But here I am brooding over it for a whole week. Shall I answer it now, or shall I not. If I do, there will be a great outcry about the phenomenon at first, and then the usual compliments of “fraud”—“imposture”—“humbug”—“confederacy.” Now, as you are a F.T.S. though not one of the most active, I regret to say, I do not want to lose you through sheer disgust. My best friends are wavering at the present moment between the “to be, or not to be,” between “Is she or is she not a fraud?” So that I rather wait for the appearance of “Hints on Esoteric Theosophy” which Mr. Hume is preparing to publish and see how the wind blows. If it is favourable—all right; if not—you will never receive this letter. I go to-morrow through Allababad to Calcutta where Mrs. Gordon has already received her letter from Eglinton. I merely write to her—“Is Mr. O’Conor, our F.T.S., a passenger on board the ‘Vega?’ I did not know he was gone.” I’ll see what she answers. Then, when at Calcutta, I may tell her what Koothoomi said to me, namely—how he laughed at your persisting to put a cabalistic sign on Mr. Eglinton’s envelope, and at your disgust when it was destroyed and what you thought of all this. Not very complimentary anyhow. Well, however, there was no fraud that time, though you may believe to the contrary I will tell her many things but not a word of your letter to me for I want to test “Ernest” myself. I leave Bombay and this letter in the hands of Guala K. Deb. with orders that if he does not receive from me orders to the contrary that he should forward this letter to its address in the first days of June. When you receive it—if you do—I will watch and see what you think of all this, and then—tell of it when I see you.
No; I did not receive your letter at the same time as that for Mrs. Gordon but an hour later, in the presence of two theosophists.
I hope your little girl has not forgotten her pretty little “d—d” expression she used when she fell over the threshold. Well may
—•— 15 A MARRIAGE IS ARRANGED —•—
our Lord Buddha’s glory shine upon you and yours. N’oubliez pas une vieille amie.
Your’s
H.
P. BLAVATSKY.
P.S. Of course I do not expect you to believe my story; but I want to watch the developments anyhow. What a fraud all round, mon doux Jesus!
Note by A. P. Sinnett on preceding and following letters.
Of course it is exasperating in the highest degree that this letter was not sent at the time it was written. Common sense would have dictated that it should have been sent through one of us, but to bottle it up in this way was simply conduct of a piece with so much else that is extraordinary not only on the part of the O.L. but even on that of their lordships, who seem to take an infinitude of trouble sometimes to provoke suspicions on the part of people half inclined to believe. That may be all right in one way: they may be anxious to turn away half-hearted inquirers, but then so much they do seems as if done for the sake of conveniencing the outsider!
But we can talk of this another time.
Last night I received from the Old Lady the next letter, in answer to one of mine enclosing a bit from Mr. Scott’s letter and O’Conor’s which you asked me to send on at the time we first heard of the letter from O’Conor.
SECRETARY’S
OFFICE
OF THE
THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY,
BREACH
CANDY,
BOMBAY,
INDIA,
Thursday,
8th May,
1882.
MY DEAR BOSS,
Just arrived home by the express train from Madras whence we started on Tuesday night—and the first letter I receive is yours with the agreeable enclosure from Mrs. Scott and Mr. O’Conor. Well, I can’t say it was precisely a thunder-bolt (the news that Ross Scott suspected me). I had anticipated it for over four months—in short since February. She owes her husband to the Brothers and me. What more natural than that she should traduce both the “Brothers” and myself! She is afraid in her little petty jealousy lest they or I should retain our hold upon her husband – hence the policy—des finesses comme de fil blanc! M. defined and foretold the situation four months since, one fortnight after his last letter to R. Scott. His very marriage was to serve a lesson hereafter for both of us, to show how human nature was variable. When I bothered them repeatedly to make R. Scott happy to cure him of his leg, I was told to provide him with a wife—“Miss Hume would do first rate for him”—and then said K. H. – “if he proves faithful and true and the influence of his wife leaves him unshaken in his beliefs and true to his old friends then we will attend to his leg.” Six months Probation
—•— 16 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
was allowed to Scott. Only six months—though he knew it not—and now behold the fruit! Did not M. write to him before his marriage that he would not correspond with him until after his marriage for reasons he could not tell him and which he did not divulge, even to me until their departure from here Jan. 12th. But, after dropping on Scott’s nose during dinner that letter of his (from M. in which he calls him “faithful throughout”) M. told me a few days later that it was the last letter Scott would ever receive from him, and a month later that Scott had been tested and found shaky. As to K. H. so far back as at Simla he asked me once the question, whether I would be willing to sacrifice Scott’s friendship – (until then a real genuine friendship) if thereby I could secure his happiness, get him a good wife and see his leg cured? I hesitated at first, but only for one second and answered from the bottom of my heart—“Yes, I am ready; for he is young and full of life and I—I am old and will not last long. Let him then he happy. “Very well” said K. H. “Be it so.” And now it has come to pass.
I do not know how much or in what Scott suspects me. Suffice that he does. Suffice that a drop of gall has fallen into the pure waters of our mutual friendship (forgive the stupidly poetic metaphor) -- to poison them for ever. I only feel a sincere sorrow for the poor young man; for now – THEY WILL NOT CURE HIS LEG as they would otherwise had he remained true to the cause only for one year, but for six months! And Mrs. Gordon’s prophecy is fulfilled. She is a true medium—tell her so.
As for O’Conor’s letter it is such a stupid transparent thing for me that it is not worth talking about. I did receive his letter one hour later than E.’s for Mrs. Gordon; and with it orders to do about it as I liked, to either answer it or not but to hold my tongue as to the fact of my having received it until further developments. I left it with Damodar and Deb on March 30th with instructions. And to prove it to you -- (about others I do not care) let me, my dear Boss, set your heart at ease. I happened to write to you about this O’Conor’s letter on Friday -- (at Madras) the Disinherited having advised me to do so. I sent my letter Friday. On Saturday, at 1:35 p.m. I received your telegram with your enquiry about O’Conor’s letter. I answered as I was ordered and wrote to you that I should telegraph to Damodar in whose possession I left my answer to O’Conor to send it to you immediately. I sent the telegram on Saturday evening, but whether sent or not that night, it reached Damodar but Sunday when it was too late to send you a registered letter as he always does. Well, he sent it on Monday and you must have received it. Do not send it to O’Conor. I will have nothing to do with Mrs. Scott’s
—•— 17 “CONFEDERATE” DAMODAR —•—
friends now. I will have no more tests, no more insults, no more humiliation and explanation. Tear it after showing it to Mr. Hume. You are at liberty to show him also this letter. If your friends and sceptics will insist that, after receiving your telegram of enquiry I had time between Saturday and Monday to send to my “confederate” Damodar instructions, well show them the telegram he received from me on Sunday. This will prove, at least, that he had O’Conor’s answer in his possession ever since March. And if it does not prove it well—
Qu’ils aillent se promener
Qu’ils aillent tous au diable
for what I care!
My love to dear Bossess. When does she or you think of going back on me and the Brothers? Methinks I hear the cock crowing . . . . I hope I will not hear him crow thrice, O Peter, for your own not my sake.
Yours for ever in all
the bitterness of my heart,
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
Yes; show this to Mr. Hume by all means. His is a family which has brought me luck ever since I crossed their threshold. Perhaps by this time Mrs. Minnie Scott will have remembered that it was she herself who gave me that last brooch? I would not wonder.
To
From
Malabar Hill
Madras St. Thome
To From
Damodar K. Mavalankar H. P. Blavatsky
c/o Theosophical Society
Breach Candy
Letter to
Oconor
given you March
thirty send Sinnett.
By Malabar Hill: 4-6-82.
LETTER No. XE
Poor Old Lady! I shall come up and see you to-morrow afternoon.
Yrs.
A. P.
SINNETT.
—•— 18 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
BARODA,
June 20.
MY DEAR BOSS,
I got your second letter of June 13 with traces of the bitter tears shed upon the paper, and it is this letter I mean to answer before proceeding to talk business. We will leave aside the “coarse fibered” one, as you call Scott—this course fiberness is not what would ever trouble me, but it is the thought that he has himself through his own fault lost all chances of recovery and protection. Yet I feel as much friendship and affection for him as I did heretofore. I no more accuse him of having fallen a prey to an evil influence than I would were he to catch the small pox by showing devotional care to his wife (unworthy of it as she may be) when she was afflicted with the disease. He will repent, mark my word, and when I come to Bombay I will send you something that will make you change your opinion of him.
But it is something else that troubles me on your account and this is a twofold matter. 1st your obstinate, determined plan of taking the public in general and the Anglo-Indians in particular into the confidence of every phenomenon that takes place; and 2nd your entirely mistaken position, and preeminently antagonistic attitude towards those who rule the destinies as yet of both K. H. and M.
Maybe I am now speaking under inspiration and you better not pooh-pooh my advice. First then, and concerning the first question: I most decidedly, emphatically and uncompromisingly kick against your eternal desire to do everything I do (in the way of stupid phenomena) with an eye to public enlightenment upon the subject. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION. I despise thoroughly and with all my heart Mrs. Grundy, and do not care a snap of my finger whether the Wm. Beresfords and the Hon. “What d’ye call them” think well or bad of me as regards the phenomena produced. I refuse to proselytise them at the expense of the little self-respect and dignity that my duty to those beyond, and to the Cause have left in me. I rather not convert them, wherever the Brothers’ names are mixed up with a phenomenon. Their names have been sufficiently dragged in the mud; they have been misused and blasphemed against by all the penny-a-liners of India. Nowadays people call their dogs and cats by the name of “Koot-hoomi” and “the dear old lady” has become with the “Himalayan Brothers” a ousehold-caricature. Now, neither the “dear old lady” per se, nor K. H. and M.—less than all THEY—care about this mocking fiendishness; but we have others behind our backs who, on a general principle would rather not allow
—•— 19 PRESTIGE OF THE GREAT BROTHERHOOD —•—
names connected with the great Brotherhood to be besmeared in the eyes of the native multitudes (about the Pelings they do not care in the least). For over two years we fight you and I for this question; you have always insisted that without the Brothers there was no salvation for the T.S., that to take out their names from the concern was like throwing out the part of the Prince of Denmark from Hamlet and—you were wrong. You may insist till doomsday that you were and are right, I will always dispute the point, for I know what I am talking about and I know my actors behind the scenery, while you do not. Therefore, whenever I can avoid giving the public a bone to pick over my and the Brothers’! heads, I will do so.
O’Conor’s letter was not bargained for, and no one expected it. O’Conor—had I sent him an immediate reply—would have but sneered, even while believing it and would have attributed it at best to mediumship, to the sweet “Ernest” & Co., and that is what I will NEVER consent to. If, after seeing what he has seen R. Scott, the best, the most honest and sincere of men, turns round against the Brothers and abuses and now and then even disbelieves entirely their existence, what could I ever expect from a land leaguer, -- a friend of Miss Minnie Hume Scott!! Oh do, “shut up”!; excusing myself for my rude “coarse fibered” expression. You know I love and respect you above all other Englishmen in India. I love you personally for what you have done for me, and I respect you for your firm, fearless and independent attitude in fighting for the Brothers and the Society. But there is that unreasonable, most dangerous feature in you which is liable some day to ruin all irretrievably and that is that thirst of throwing that which is holy to the dogs and scatter pearls before swine, and the utterly fatal idea, that you can ever bring the CHIEFS—beyond—to your way of thinking and writing. Hundred times have I told you and, even K. H. has hinted at that in his letters to you, that, notwithstanding all his personal regard for you, at the first motion of the Chohan’s finger he would vanish out of your reach for ever and ever: you would never hear of him so long as you lived. How mistaken is your notion that there can be no Theos. Soc. without showing the Brothers “like a red rag before a bull’s face” as they express it—will be proved to you in the forthcoming Supplement of the Theosophist. If its contents will not show to you the real practical good the Society is doing—every Brother put aside—for the Natives, (and remember, this is the main object of K. H. and M.) then nothing will.
No. 2. “All this testing and probation business” . . . Well, suppose it is “so repulsive to the straight forward European natures” (you might, perhaps, not identify so thoroughly
—•— 20 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
all European
natures with your nature and thus be nearer to truth), suppose it is, can
you help it? And do K. H.’s and M.’s chiefs care for your or even my
kicking? Is it they who ever tried to fight their way to you, or
is it you who went after them? Did they ever encourage you or any one else? Did
they ever show the slightest favour even to Olcott—their humble, submissive,
patient, never murmuring slave? It is a “to be, or not to be”—for
you. You have either to accept them as they are or else—leave them. It is
[as] though you lectured the peak of Mount Everest, for its coldness and
ruggedness. Such ideas and complaints as expressed in your letter to me will not
shorten the distance between you and K. H. but rather widen the gulf. You are
“surrounded by meshes of tests and probations wrapped in invisible threads”—you
may bet your life on it. Well, why don’t you make an effort and disentangle
yourself by a supreme effort? Break them, it is very easy—only with them
you will break the thread that connects you with K. H. that’s all. It is not at
his hands, that you have to submit to the “loathsome” horror of being (not)
probably (but for a certainty) on probation, for he himself may be said
to be on probation—only a far higher and far more difficult one. The
CHIEFS do not make any difference during the first years between “Englishmen of
the better sort” and any other Englishman or native. In fact, their hearts are
rather for the natives. They fear and mistrust (as a nation) the English nation,
and in their eyes a Russian, a Frenchman, an Englishman or any other son of
Christendom and civilisation is an object to be hardly, if ever trusted. And do
you know who it is, who at the present moment is set the deadliest
against you English theosophists among the Shaberons? An Englishman, my
dear Boss, a countryman of yours, a victim of your British laws and Mrs. Grundy;
one who was once upon a time some forty years ago, a highly educated Squire,
rich, and a Chief justice in his county, a Greek and Latin scholar. So much -- 
permits me to say to you, and he is at my elbow—and who now is the deadliest enemy of civilisation and Christo-star as he calls Europe. It is he and not the Tibetan or Hindu born Shaberons who mistrusts the rulers of the “Eclectic T.S.” and that’s all I am allowed to tell you.
“And now choose ye, this day, oh sons of Israel” whether you will worship the gods of your fathers or the new god found by you in the Wilderness.
And to think that you have chosen for your unjust recriminations against their rules and statutes and their time honoured policy just the time when poor K. H. is negotiating as hard as
—•— 21 THE STUFF OF WHICH CHELAS ARE MADE —•—
he can, permission to help the Eclectic in Mr. Hume’s and your persons, and that of having Eglinton to furnish power without expanding their own! A nice diplomat you, my Boss. Then go and complain if you have the conscience to do so, when we receive instead of consent—REFUSAL. I wonder only, how it is possible that a man of your intellectual calibre should be unable to judge fairly and impartially of the situation. Is it they or you who want them? Is it you or they who cares for further intercourse? They may be, and, I have no doubt are quite alive to the good you can do the Eclectic and the Theosoph. Society proper. But you ought to know by this time that you will ever be useless to them personally, to their Fraternity. That you are not of the stuff they make the chelas with, and that, if you are allowed even a correspondence with K. H. it is absolutely out of regard for him, the best, the most promising of their candidates for Buddhaship or rather Boddhisatwaship; and that you make his work far more difficult and even endanger his personal position by such a contemptuous criticism upon their actions. But you are a true Englishman; and as you would treat a Burmah politically, imposing [on] it your will and interference, so you think you can treat occult Tibet—by interfering with its psychological internal policy. Well, you are arrogant and conceited as a nation, I must say, if you, one of the best of its sons do not seem to realize the utter uselessness of what you do, and to instinctively so to say, seek to bring to bear even upon the Tibetan Adepts the weight of your universal interference! I hope you will forgive me the rudeness of my remarks—if rudeness there is, which I hope not—for I speak with a view to your own good and fearing lest you should throw new difficulties in the way of your connection with K.H. and my “Boss”.
Your question I cannot give to K. H. for I do not see him at all nowadays—hardly for a second or two sometimes and for that reason see as little of Djual Kul. But I have Tibetan MSS. just being translated for the Theosophist upon that question and I will make Deb write them out for you as soon as I return to Bombay. I cannot understand how you did not. ........I The remainder of this letter is missing.—ED.
There’s a love chit for you just received. I guess my Boss splits himself owing to Eglinton’s haut fait de magie and explains as promised. Of course you would not believe me—if the card was such a “good imitation of my handwriting” and I am sure
—•— 22 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
Mr. C. C. M. must
have strengthened your belief that it was some new fraud concocted between Mrs.
Billing and myself. Well there’s a letter from Mahatma K. H. also. All Mr.
Massey’s doings, was it not he, and he alone who proposed and had her elected as
the only possible Saviour of the British Theos. Society? Well now thank him and
keep her to turn all of you into a jelly. Of course she will wag you as her tail
more than ever. I know it will end with a scandal. Well Olcott is coming and
then you will have nolens volens to accept the decision of the “nominal”
President. My boss gave him instructions and hurries him on.
Yours—but not Mrs. Kingsford’s,
H. P. B.
21st July.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
Consummatum est!
Mail arrived and I was ordered by M. to open Massey’s letter and to send it to
you to read before forwarding it to Olcott. Fine finale! But what else could be
expected with such a bigoted ass as Wyld at their head. My “atheism” and
Olcott’s were perfectly known to them for the last five years since they knew we
were Buddhists. Pretext all that, and Divine or godly Wisdom is not “Wisdom of
God.” Well, what shall we do? It is on Massey and S. M. that the whole edifice
rested. Massey—prejudiced against me as he is by three things he entirely
misunderstands – can yet be won, but only by you and not even by Olcott—saith
Boss. On S. M.—no use to count upon. Read his last “Spirit Teachings” in Light
and tell me, whether a high disembodied Spirit will speak of St. Paul and even
of the “Elementary Spirits”—a term coined by me in Isis, for shells, never used
but by us, since for ages and in the Kabalistic and Occult books in the West the
term stood for Salamanders, Gnomes, etc. that which we call Elementals and in
the existence of which no Spirist and S. M. less than they, believe. Read
carefully p. 319 Light and tell me whether the dialogue between
+
I and S. M. is not a mental dialogue between himself and
himself—his emotional self and his intellectual reasoning self. Massey says that
S. M. declares the statement of
+
being a Brother “to be a downright, palpable absolute falsehood”—all right. But
K. H. and M. and the old Chohan say that the + of his early mediumship is a
Brother, and I will assert it over and over again on my death bed. But assuredly
the
+
of then is not the + of today! Passons. No use quarrelling.
I
This + designates Imperator, the “guide” of Stainton Moses.—ED.
—•— 23 STAINTON MOSES AND IMPERATOR —•—
Oh why did you ever have the unfortunate idea of writing to him what K. H. said! He was a theosophist, lukewarm still open to conviction then and now he is an inveterate enemy of K. H.; and you do not, cannot know how bitterly he laughs and scoffs at the very name of K. H.! It is he S. M. (as Mrs. B. writes me) who set all the Theos. Spirts who look up to him as an authority, a leader, against K. H. Well no use as you say to cry over spilt-milk.
I deceived him. C. C. Massey!! Yes, I “deceived” him as I have Scott and so many others by telling them the truth—though but a part of the whole truth for which I am not to be held responsible. But see what Massey says of K. H.’s visit to Eglinton. Oh my prophetic soul! How I did feel this. How right he is then Massey, and how fallen down must be our K. H. in their short-sighted estimation. K. H. laughs at this and so does M. They may indeed. But what shall you say to Massey? Shall you let him labour under this dreadful (dishonouring to all of us) impression that K. H. the brightest, best, purest of all the Tchutuktus actually went in his own person to see that conceited fool. He wrote to you (K. H.) several times on the subject. Is it possible that he should not have mentioned to you, given you an inkling to the truth? How he did laugh at Eglinton’s conceit. How easy it is, he said to me, to show that the best medium in the world is as likely to become a subject to hallucination to Maya. Why Morya said only yesterday, that Stainton M., his “guardian” and guide + notwithstanding, could be made to mistake our Poodi (an Elemental spook) for Christ—if they wanted to. And that after that S. M. would bamboozle involuntarily the whole world of Spiritualists with his assurance that he did see Christ and that Mr. Jesus told him that, this and the other. Is Massey so blind as not to feel that K. H. in giving Egl. his “testimonials” only laughed at him? Is this K. H.’s usual style? Is this gush whose mocking tone was so strong that Olcott felt obliged to modify and let out half of it—when publishing it in the Psychic Notes, is this gush I say like what K. H. writes seriously. Why, fools of London, don’t they see that there was a motive in all this? A motive which will be shown in further combinations, and which may lead to the greatest blow that Spm. has ever received yet and to its partial destruction. Ask Eg.—it is absolutely necessary—why does K. H. look. Let some of our friends (Massey) put him the question, how is K. H. in appearance and judge by the portrait you have. Why Egl. shows Mengens K. H. He is putting Mengens in direct communication with K. H. and the “Illustrious” etc. And from elemental, mocking spooks he may come down to old rags—Mrs. Nichols white nightgown and her husband’s
—•— 24 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
nightcap to make up K. H. Koothoomi tried without approaching Eg. personally to save him, for, as he says, he is a wonderfully powerful medium. But, he found out that the man though naturally honest enough, as soon as he was under control became a liar, a cheat, deceiving people wilfully and then forgetting all about it. He would submit to nothing; and K. H. who hoped that by bringing him to Simla he could do good to the Society, at least to the phenomenalists, stopped abruptly, for he found out that the power that he would have to use to keep clear of the Elementals and especially the Shells would be more, far more than he would be allowed to use for such a purpose. Yet Massey is right; and even Banon is right, for the high ideal that they had in their minds is broken and K. H. must appear to them as fallen down. Go to S. M.? and why? What good would it do? If one of our Brothers appeared to him during his normal state, then S. M. would take him for a liar, a calumniator, the spirit of a sorcerer who dared to contradict him in his knowledge of +. And if they went while S. M. was under control, then he would remember nothing and mix up and make things still worse. “He (S. M.) is too far gone” they say. “In Maya he lives, in Maya he will die, and in Maya he will pass a long period before his next rebirth.” So let us drop it.
When Eg. was in England already, K. H. told me to do as E. asked me: to send him an obligation and application, and to Olcott’s objection my Boss told him that E. would never be allowed to become a theosophist. And they have kept their word. All that has been done was done with a determined object and motive. I repeat to you the words of my Boss, and you may tell so to Massey. But aren’t you going to defend your friendK. H.? Mr. Sinnett, will you be so ungrateful as to allow K. H. who has sacrificed more than you will ever know of, for the future of both of you and the Society, to be so spoken of by Massey? I am sure you will not—you cannot. Let the whole world revile and suspect me, let them call me names and dishonour the very ground I walk on—but let them not profane our Brothers names—and, oh gods, -- this is just what I expected! You see where it leads to, for them, the holy and the blessed to deal with you civilised, proud Pelings. And you would want them to come out publicly and throw their personalities to the dogs to rent them! I wish I were dead, before I found our K. H. so reviled! I wish they would turn all their rabid wrath upon me with my strong back, rather than to suffer what I do suffer now in the face of such a profanation. It is Mr. Hume’s doubts and suspicions, his challenge to Olcott that have led K. H. and M. to prove to him that it was the easiest thing in the world for them
—•— 25 THE SEPTENARY TERM OF TRIAL —•—
to convince a medium of their existence. And see how many times have not you said that if only Mr. Hume could be made sure that K. H. and I were not identical, and that they really had powers and could exercise them far away from me then he would ask for nothing more. And now read his despairing letter to me. See—is he satisfied to let things go quietly and progressively? And is it reasonable of him to ask K. H. to give him at once, rightaway, the whole doctrine that it takes years to the adepts themselves to learn? And, since they will not give it to him then will the Eclectic go down and disappear as the British T.S. has. No Sir; human nature and especially Western, British nature is insatiable. Do what our Brothers may—I do not say you, since you seem to have forced yourself to become an exception—the other theosophists will never be satisfied. With every new concession they will clamour for more. Buss ---.
And now what shall we do? Read Massey’s letter and Mr. Hume’s and judge for yourself of the situation. And November is close at our heels. The British Theosophists have postponed their final decision until November—does this suggest nothing to your mind? In November comes the end of our Septenary and I see but little hope. The Chohan is there, and he is not to be propelled by any offerings. He is as stern and impassionate as Death itself.
Pardon me for this long letter but I never write unless there is strict necessity and—we are drowning. And believe me, that it would have been far better had our Brothers never been suggested anything or advised. K. H. is too good; too actively humane and kind yet, and it may be his ruin. He suffers—I know it—whenever he has to refuse you two, anything, and that you do not seem to understand that if he does so it is because there is no help for it—it lies outside of his power. Oh unlucky, unhappy day when I first consented to put you two in correspondence and he through his kindness, his divine charity, did not refuse my request! Better perish the Theosoph. Society and we two—Olcott and I—than that we should have been the means of so lowering in the public estimation the holy name of the Brotherhood!
Turning from the sublime to the ridiculous, behold C. C. M.’s letter in Light. See the shaft thrust by that once devoted, friendly hand. Well I have answered it in the Theosophist which comes out tomorrow. Your “letter of an A. I. T. to a London Theosophist” is splendid but it comes too late for this month. We printed it earlier this month. It will go in the next.
There’s our salvation. To overflood the world with occult publications and our doctrines so far as allowable and so bring conviction to their hearts. K. H. and M. will help of course. But
—•— 26 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
will they be there to help after November? That is the question.
J. Kool says that the T.S. ought to be composed in London solely of mystics and not to allow in it one single biassed sectarian. Mrs. Kingsford, Maitland, Isabel de Steiger F.T.S., Miss F. Arundale F.T.S., Massey, Palmer, Thomas, and have Seers in it; then would the chelas be sent to develop them at every meeting, to train them, and that the effect would be visible. K. H. was so kind as to dictate to me last night nearly all of my answer to Massey. Send me back Massey’s letter when done with it.
May our Karmas protect and save us.
Yours,
H. P. B.
August 4, 1882.
MY DEAR YOUNG BOSS,
And now you will catch it, and aren’t I glad you will. You see truth is a dangerous thing to tell especially to seers inspired by John the Baptist and Hermes. In the paper addressed to the Theosophist (you will find it already announced in Light, by Maitland and Mrs. K.) you are called “your reviewer” (my, the Theosophist’s reviewer) and my poor reviewer who is no masked stranger to the authors of the Perfect Way, is treated in a polite yet very rough way especially for his having left Christianity before he could understand its hidden esoteric beauty. Fuss, fuss. Then an interminable article from that blind bat W. Oxley—versus Subba Row, whom he calls a bigoted orthodox Brahmin!! He had three visits from K. H. “by astral form” he tells the public!!! and the philosophic doctrine therein propounded (in the article by K. H.) is hardly calculated to enlighten the poor mortals or strengthen their esteem for the powers of the Brothers. I was going to reject the MSS. but K. H. ordered me not to and D. K. just brought in a long foot note to be appended to the article which as it is given to me in a double copy I send to you as ordered. K. H. tells you to make alterations in it if you like it, and send them before the thing is printed. Well, as I say to Mr. Hume, it will be a coup de theatre when received in London. Your church goers nearly all distributed. Will send again what remains to American subscribers and to our fellows for judicious distribution. I have insisted that it should be printed as you wanted it and not as Olcott had prearranged it in his Yankee pumpkin. I find that I am a far better business
—•— 27 K. H.’s PORTRAIT —•—
woman than he is when left alone and not bossed by him. I sent Deb to the Bombay Gazette Press and had no difficulty in having it printed in such a way. I do not know what the bill will be, I think 15 rup. and I will pay it out of your Occult World sums—which sell (the O. W. not the sums) like hot cakes. You who have accused me so often for my innacuracy you are a nice one to talk. D. Khool pointed out to me a mistake of yours and laughed at you jolly. See pp. 200 and 201. Collect your memory, my son, and try to remember that the details of K. H.’s portrait painting were quite different from what you give. We were sitting—Mrs. S. you and I in the drawing-room when I said something about K. H.’s portrait but added I did not think you would get it. Right away you teased me to try. I told you all right but that I doubted. You gave me first a sheet of note or letter paper and it was left in the scrap book. Nothing happened before lunch, but something happened during lunch on the same day and no “that day nor that night” passed between. I was dissatisfied with the portrait and paper and asked you to give me two Bristol boards marked and took it into my room. After its all right. But you see if you can forget with your young memory the fact that both were asked for by you and produced on the same day – why should not I, with my old and impaired brain forget often things and—like Paul—be “held as a sinner” when I do not lie like him even for the glory of God! All of you are backbiters and calumniators.
Poor Beatson. You will not say, I hope, that he was not treated in the most shabby and mean way. The poor fellow comes to study his Persian for examination, settles quietly down, and then suddenly receives from General MacPherson an offer to accompany him on his staff to Egypt; consents, prepares, spends money, breaks and gives up his study, and now, when all is ready is left out in the cold! It is disgusting such injustice. Why he even let me announce his departure in our theosophical items in the Supplement. And now through a brat, a Vice-regal favourite he is insulted and will be laughed at. I told him he would not go I felt it, but he would not believe. And now he not only does not go to Egypt and loses his chance of promotion but has lost time and will not be able to pass his Persian examination this year. It is terribly mean, and the poor fellow looks very downhearted. You ought to give it them in the Pioneer if you had anything like a heart and any love or feeling for any brother theosophist except your K. H. who refused going to Egypt and thereby displeased his authorities.
He is determined, he says, to leave the Service, buy an occult library, build himself a hut in Cashmere somewhere, and devote
—•— 28 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
his life to theosophy. But this of course is a “moonshine of vexation” as Deb expresses it. Beatson is in love with Deb. He says he never saw a more charming ideal face than that boy’s face. A “boy” of 30! Poor Damodar is still at Poona, but is all right now in health. The brothers picked him up and even endowed him with such a mesmeric force that he cured several desperate cases (one blindness in a boy) in a few days. Whether it will last or not I do not know. But the Poona Fellows craved for something phenomenal and he gave it to them. I want to run up to Poona for a few days to dry my bones and get out the dampness from every pore of my body I got during this monsoon. To all kinds of insects we have the rats to boot. They are eating up everything in the house from my dresses to cupboards and iron bedsteads. I slew seven of them since yesterday to the great horror and disgust of Deb. But they have devoured my poor little canary bird and I had to get my revenge and did get it by means of cunningly devised traps. I feel I am becoming wicked and cruel, and that if the “old one” will keep me off for some time yet from going home I will become a Marat if not a Maratta Brahmin.
Oh my Karma! Mr.
Hume’s letter to Miss Green—something is, as he says, “velvet gloved.” Ye gods
of the infernal regions, wouldn’t I have given [it] her if they would only let
me! I begin to think our brothers chicken-hearted for refusing to make the most
they can of my present warlike disposition. Why you sent me back the MS of
Khandallavalah is more [than] I can tell. K. H. says you do know and have to
know, and that it is only your viciousness that prevents you from admitting that
you do know but won’t tell. To tell truth, it is not K. H. who says so, but I
know that he must think so, and that’s the same thing. However he carried it off
* in disgust with you, I feel sure of it. Goodbye.
Nobody’s
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
• Your letter and MS.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
As K. H. just kindly flopped on my nose a whole Iliad to your address you will not care much to read my letter. Anyhow I have nothing good to say. My plans are burst. The “Old One” won’t let me go, doesn’t want me. Says all kind of “serenades”—bad times; the English will be behind me, (for they believe more in the Russians than in the brothers); their
—•— 29 H. P. B. CURSES HER FATE —•—
presence will
prevent any Brother to come to me visibly and invisibly I can just as well see
them from where I am; wanted here and elsewhere but not in Tibet, etc. etc. Well
I can only beg pardon to have disturbed you and the rest. I had all ready, the
whole itinerary was sent from Calcutta, M. gave me permission, and Deb was
ready—Well you won’t prevent me from saying now at least from the bottom of my
heart—DAMN MY FATE, I tell you death is preferable. Work, work, work and no
thanks. I do not blame Mr. Hume—he is right. Well if I do feel crazy it is
theirs not my fault—not poor M. or K. H.’s but theirs, of those heartless dried
up big-bugs, and I must call them that if they had to pulverise me for this.
What do I care now for life! Annihilation is 10,000 better. I leave Bombay for
Madras for ever the Headquarters I mean in December if I live.
Yours,
H. P. B.
BOMBAY,
August 26th, 1882.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
I send you a letter just received from Mr. Hume. Read it if you please and judge. Now, I positively and emphatically decline to receive such letters. He may or may not remain in the Society—it’s the Brothers’ business. He may or may not do it and me under the pretext of philanthropy all the injury he can think of, but he will not do it through me, nor will he take me as his mouthpiece to repeat to K. H. messages which are the most impudent ones in the world. If they have not, I have enough of him and his generous benefactions he forces upon us, if I have to pay such a price as that for it. Why the dickens does he not write all this to K. H. himself? or, have they again quarrelled and the correspondence is stopped? I expected as much and knew it would come to this. He sends me an article for publication; it has and must be absolutely published he says. Now I would have thrown the article into the fire not for what it contains of me, or against Isis—which he calls the most inaccurate work full and teeming with practical errors (much he knows of it!) but what it says of the Brothers, when he calls them “selfish Asiatics” blames and criticises them, warns the public against them etc. I certainly would have thrown it into the fire but K. H. sent word with Morya that he wanted it absolutely published and I have of course but to shut up. But he will receive a nice protest from Subba Row and seven or more chelas at the end of it, and he will make himself hated by all the Hindus who
—•— 30 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
believe in the Brothers that’s all. I must say, that if his desire is to obtain knowledge from K. H. he takes funny ways to get it.
In his letter as you will see he gives me two more messages. Tell D. K. not to make a goose of himself with sham phenomena! I think he made a goose of himself rather. Djual K. had nothing to do with the face dubbed on the margin of his proof. I did it and by no occult means either, but simply with the finger and some blue pencil before a roomful of visitors who interrupted my proof reading, and then in the evening when Deb received a letter from D. K. I tried for fun to imitate D. K.’s handwriting and failed. It was my proof not his; and it was sent to him (I forgetting entirely that dubbed face was there) because the printers upset or spilled the type that was loosely tied up in the form and there was no time to strike off another proof. I gave my proof then to Deb and he, I suppose, did not notice that the caricature was there, and Hume takes it immediately for a “sham occult phenomenon” and Damodar will write to Fern to decline receiving his letters to M. henceforth. He will not run the risk of being called a forger, and impostor and what not. Damodar a deceiver!! I may as well suspect Olcott or yourself of forgery or deceit as him. I won’t have him insulted and that’s all. I had always said that notwithstanding all his gush and benefactions, he Mr. Hume would become the evil genius of the Society and so he is now. He does that which was never done before; he washes what he imagines to be—and succeeds in making other people imagine—the dirty linen of the sacred Brotherhood publicly in the town bazaars, and criticises in print what he cannot, is unable with his egotistical nature to understand. Why don’t you quarrel with K. H? Why is it that he the mildest of mortals likes you so much and comes to nearly feel sick at the mention of Hume’s name? I do not protest against the cruel, humiliating treatment of myself for I have sacrificed my individuality long ago. But I must say, that ever since he began to write for the alleged good of the Society and assumed the role of its benefactor, father and patron, I have received more insults, more kicks from him than from any body I know of. He made of me a consummate liar, a chronic humbug in the Hints (which he hung and burnt in hell-fire); and now he forces me to publish against myself, against my book with which hundreds and thousands of people, as intellectual as he is himself, are in raptures and well satisfied with and would never have noticed my bad English and vague statements except on the whole as uninitiates—and so will prevent its sale for the last three or four months the only gagne pain of the Society, that
—•— 31 HUME’S CRITICISMS OF H. P. B. —•—
which makes it live and pull on without debts. His calling me a liar and a chronic humbug brought its fruit in the shape of a pamphlet from a Rev. Theophilus in which he calls it “an official document confirmed by and published under the auspices of the T. Society.” But I would ask you why should I, to satisfy the doubts and displeasure of the few like C. C. M. and St: Moses, etc.—why should I be sacrificed, be offered in a holocaust to the Lord God of Israel who is Mr. Hume himself in his opinion, I suppose. Our Society lived and thrived well without him whether it was little or much thought of, whether it made, or made no mistakes, and until he came in I was good enough for the masses, except for half a dozen of “choice intellects” like his and yours. And I would rather have preferred to die in my mediocrity than too much celebrity as he makes it now. The higher a position the greater the fall. I only laboured to establish the Society firmly so that after my death—which fortunately is not very far off—it would thrive and a better one than I should come and take my place. Why then should he come in like an African Simoon, blasting and destroying all on his passage, impeding my work, showing my mediocrity in a blaze of light, criticising all and everything, finding fault with everybody and forcing the whole India to point a finger of scorn at me—call me a liar, and that’s him, who is never himself spoken of (see Mrs. and Mr. Watson of Baroda) but as the biggest liar in creation whether rightly or wrongly I don’t know. Is there no salvation for the Society outside of him, the great Hume, the Mount Everest of intellect, as he believes himself? Do you think he does well in disgusting the Europeans with the Brothers -- (to screen himself alone, in future events if any) -- and raising the hatred of the Hindus against him? The Europeans would have neither offered themselves nor would they be accepted as chelas without his pointing them the submarine rocks. The Brothers have enough of Europeans by this time, I guess. You alone have never insulted never quarelled with them, disgusted as you may often feel at the state of things. For even I, a half Asiatic and with none of your niceties and English pruderie and fidgetiness, even I felt disheartened more than once at the crumbling of my ideals. But that was long ago; years since; and since then I learned to know them better, and if they lost in my fiction, they won the more in my real reverential respect. I do not judge them any more on appearances as you do. I know there are many things in their reality which does not agree with our European sense or notions of right—as Hume says in his articles, but then, my dear Mr. Sinnett they have a hundred times more of that which you will never get or have in Europe, nor have they any of our horrible vices and small faults. Their
—•— 32 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
ways are repugnant he says! Well why does he go after them then? They do not want him; nor are they inclined to bow before him for his Hints and Sundra Iyer’s Essay, of which he makes so much, and which the Sundra Iyer will perhaps refuse to recognise as his own in its new dress. The Brothers do not care a snap of their finger what he thinks of them, and I suspect his letter sent for publication is a great relief to them, in one sense. It is a cruel, cold, rebellious and haughty letter, at best, and the chelas are preparing a protest with Subba Row at the head. I would have never NEVER published it, but M. and K. H. want me to do so and I have but to obey. This letter is a magnificent answer to the ever recurring question “why do not the Brothers favour the Europeans.” They favour more a man who calls them as good as asses, who, he says contradict themselves, are unintelligent or what is the same “intellectually lower” than the European as he says in his article. You are a “baby” for liking their portraits. Mr. Hume would do better? No doubt he would with time given him and materials, and if he knows drawing, especially, he would certainly do it better than Dj. Kh. who has no idea of European drawing, who could hardly make a conception with his Chinese notions of perspective of a face en face in his mind. But let him do it instantaneously as we do. Let him do a fakir’s head, and have it spoken of as a unique by the best painters and art critics, without knowing the first rule of drawing as I did. He can also forge. I have no doubt he can. But had he the slightest conception how their “forging” is done he would not have made a fool of himself when speaking of his big miscroscope. His miscroscope will often show him several layers of various stuffs—black lead, and powder and ink, etc. for I have often seen M. sit with a book of most elaborate Chinese characters that he wanted to copy, and a blank book before him and he would put a pinch of black lead dust before him and then rub it in slightly on the page; and then over it precipitate ink; and then, if the image of the characters was all right and correct in his mind the characters copied would be all right, and if he happened to be interrupted then there would be a blunder, and the work would be spoilt. I did not see the letter with Fern’s name forged on it, therefore I cannot say. But if he thinks of detecting forgery because his microscope shows him several layers of material then—I pity his intellectual perceptions. And, no doubt when K. H. writes naturally, then Mr. Hume can write better than he does. So can you. But let him try to run a race not with K. H. but with a simple chela when a writing or letter is really phenomenally produced and then he will be nowhere. Nor will he be shown anything if he treats the Brothers as if they
—•— 33 THE T.S. THE HOPE OF MANKIND —•—
were native clerks. No; they are no GENTLEMEN but they are ADEPTS. I do not now wonder that he (Hume) would never know a Christian, since if Jesus ever lived there’s 99 to 100 to bet that he was an unwashed Jew and no “gentleman” in his manners. Nevertheless he is a God for 300 millions among whom there are intellects as good as Hume’s. I knew he was too haughty to bear with our Brothers. He offering himself as a chela and you innocently believing in his conversion! Fiddlesticks. A Jupiter offering himself as a goat-herd to the God Hermes, to teach the latter manners! Verily—if it came easy to him to prove me an inaccurate fool, a liar, he will find it more difficult in K. H.’s case. Why a chela would hardly be liable to contradict himself “to say one day black and on the other white” on such rudimentary matters as you are taught, as I find from your writings. If K. H. said that the T.S. was the hope of mankind, and then that but two Brothers cared for it, I know what he meant. The T.S. is not going to die with us, and we all of us are but the diggers of its foundations. Where’s the contradiction? He laughs at their desire to make him swallow the idea that they are all “angels and Buddhas”!!! much they care for his opinion. And if they are but weak, boasting fools why the devil does he accept K.H. for his Guru. Why does he not throw him overboard and be done with it. I will be the first to feel the greatest relief. If he has his pride, self-dignity and his ideals, I have them too; and I consider his letter to me worse than a slap on my face. I will not receive, nor will I read any more of his letters. I wrote to him all I write to you and K. H. forbid me to send it to him. He may revile and insult the Brothers, Society and me publicly and privately, he can do no worse than he did already. Of course Mr. Hume is a British ex-official and a gentleman and the Brothers no gentlemen, and I but a poor Russian adventuress a chronic liar in the eyes of Anglo-India, thanks to him. He “loves the Brothers and especially K. H.” He bathes in the milk of his kindness the whole Brotherhood and the “poor, dear old lady” he loves all and everything, and those he loves so well he treats them like the God of Israel who loved his son so well that he sent him to be crucified. He is like the Count Ugolino “qui a devore ses propres enfants pour leur conserver un pere!” He is a Pecksniff your Hume and now, behold! he has become an Adwaitee; a believer in no God. He was an Adwaitee for the last twenty years and what becomes of Mrs. Gordon’s, Mrs. Sinnett’s your’s, mine, Davison, his wife and daughter’s statements to the effect that hundreds of times he maintained last year his P.G. Did he not quarrel with M. in letters and with me in the museum for his Creator and Governor, and moral ruler and guide
—•— 34 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
of the Universe? Of
course we are now all fools, we did not understand him, he does not contradict
himself. And why the devil does he write to me tell this and that to K. H., why
does he not write himself? And what the deuce does he mean by his l Etre est
Etre of E. Levi, and his seeming answers to questions I know nothing about! I
verily suspect he took my name but as a screen, a sham and that he was writing
to K. H. in his head – and if so, what has happened? Have they quarrelled? And
he—HE (!!!) calls the Brothers and K. H. SELFISH! Oh, Jesus son of the nun and
uncle of Moses! He calling K. H. the grandest, noblest, purest of men—selfish! a
truer and better than whom never existed outside the walls of their low asrum;
one who young as he is may have become Chohan and perfect Boddhisatwa long ago,
were it not for his really divine pity for the world. Oh the sinner and
blasphemer! He is not satisfied with their system, he “wanted many times to
break with them.” Oh the irreparable blow to the Fraternity—if he does. A poor
dry weed rolling down the Cheops Pyramid would be as likely to hurt the Pyramid
as he the Brotherhood by breaking with them. Well look out for yourself. I have
done with him. If he injures the Society we will go—to China or Ceylon instead
of going December to Madras—that’s all.
Yours sincerely,
H. P. B.
(Private, not for Mr. Hume.)
Monday.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
This morning I got up from my bed for the first time this week. But never mind me. Your letters enclosing copy to Mr. Hume yesterday and today’s enclosing his answers to it show only that you are of the true stuff, and I hope only I won’t die before you have been rewarded for all your devotion and affection for K. H. by seeing him. And how easy—oh gods! to see him! Read this:
I will remain about
23 miles off Darjeeling till Sep. 26th—and if you come you will find
me in the old place. You misunderstood entirely what I shouted to you this
morning - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - in
the Theosophist
stands as tho’ it were - - - - - - - I
K. H.
I
Undecipherable Tibetan characters appear here in the original. This note in K.
H.’s writing is pasted on to H. P. B.’s letter.—ED.
—•— 35 H. P. B. IS MADE TO APOLOGISE —•—
I received this yesterday after the operation. Neither of the two answers by Hume astonished me. I sent them off for the delectation of M. and chelas. Only mark my word: Hume is beginning to be off his head. My last illness brought me back several years and I now see what I could never have seen without their help a fortnight ago. “K. H. knows” he says what he Hume knows. Well I guess he does, and mighty more. He bamboozles himself into the insane belief that he is fast becoming an adept and he sees sights and believes in them as revelations. But he is not delicate enough to comprehend that K. H. will to the last be kind and polite. The day I sent you my letter with his “Notes” K. H. had prevailed upon me not to write to him but to send to you instead. I did so; but feeling that I suffocated I got up from bed and wrote him a short letter where I told Hume what I thought of him. To this K. H. did not object but said that as Hume was necessary to them for some purposes yet, he would send him an antidote to soothe his anger against me. The antidote went to Hume in the shape of a telegram from K. H. from somewhere out of Bombay telling Hume as I see . . . “a foolish letter sent against my advice, you must pardon the passion of an old and very, very sick woman,” and then on the following day advised me for the good of the Society to sacrifice my feelings and since he Hume had once offered me his excuses, asked me that I should do the same. I wrote him therefore, another letter, telling him that since K. H. and M. thought I better apologize for some of my rude expressions I do so. At the same time, having devoted half a page to express sorrow if I had hurt his feelings I believe I told him worse things on the three other pages than the day before. But now—I will abuse him no more. When in Tibet a criminal is going to receive just punishment they try to make him as happy as possible during the interval between sentence and the day of his doom. I know he is doomed AND BY HIS OWN ACTIONS.
He “behind the veil”! Behind Magy’s nightcap. He knows and K. H. knows he knows! Oh holy Moses! How grand and mysterious. He thinks “it very possible that nothing but your personal relations with these Brothers may survive and yet the movement, the real spirit of it, may make no less rapid progress. There are other powers coming on the stage—as they know—if the O. L. don’t.” Now please compare this very mysterious sentence, prophetic and blood-chilling, with that other phrase which winds up the 8-column long article of Oxley in the Theosophist . . . “with profound respect and acknowledgment of a power, which, though about to be changed, is as yet as much in its proper place, as that which preceded and will follow” (p. 303, 1st Col.).
—•— 36 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
Hume must be in correspondence with Oxley surely. I tell you he is off his head, and will yet become a spiritualist. Perhaps he may find out some day that “the other powers” are the Dugpas, who are in a dangerous proximity with himself. Let him remember the universal Kabalistic axiom. “To know, to dare, to will and be silent.” Let him read the impressive phrase translated by Eliphas Levi from the Book of Numbers in Vol. I of “Dogme de la Haute Magie,” p. 115.
“Dans la voie des hautes sciences, il ne faut pas s’engager temerairement, mais, une fois en marche, il faut arriver ou perir. Douter c’est devenir fou; s’arreter, c’est tomber; reculer, c’est se precipiter dans un gouffre.”
You have chosen the right path and you will learn all that a “lay chela” can learn and more without any danger. He wanted to force the hand, to out-Brother the Brothers. Well, well, well, we will see.
The Theos. Soc. will of course prosper “the movement, the real spirit of it, will of course make no less rapid progress.” But it will be our Society or rather M. and K. H.’s Society, and not his—the new one that he has taken it into his head to found in India, with the help of a few insane mystics—spiritualists, whom he will go on bossing.
That’s the secret. He wants to sink “the old Society” and inaugurate a new movement against the Brothers. He took it into his head last March and April. I know all now. Yes, K. H. knows, “if the O. L. don’t”—and K. H. trembles! Bon voyage.
Yes. September, October and—then buss—the last round of the Wheel of the Cycle “Connu!” and it can never frighten me. The “O. L.” may be a fool one side of her; but when the other side awakes even the monstrous intellect of the Opposing power called Hume, does not affect her much.
Well adieu. He corrects and calls it “a letter not an article.” Well, for me and those who are not so literary as he is, article or letter is one thing in a magazine when it has a heading. In my editorial protest I call it a letter, and the chelas call it in theirs indifferently—“article” and “letter” and I did not correct the word.
Good-bye, you, the
only English gentleman I know in India; the only true and faithful friend. I now
see the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal!! Oh Jesus.
My sincerest fondest love to
Mrs. Sinnett and Den.
Yours ever,
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
—•— 37 M. IS ANGRY WITH HUME —•—
Received about September 19th
BOMBAY.
MY DEAR FRIENDS MRS. AND MR. SINNETT,
I am afraid you will have soon to bid me goodbye—whether to Heaven or Hell—connais pas. This time I have it well and good—Bright’s disease of the kidneys; and the whole blood turned into water with ulcers breaking out in the most unexpected and the less explored spots, blood or whatever it may be forming into bags a la Kangaroo and other pretty extras and et ceteras. This all primo brought by Bombay dampness and heat, and secundo by fretting and bothering. I have become so stupidly nervous that the unexpected tread of Babula’s naked foot near me makes me start with the most violent palpitations of the heart. Dudley says—I forced him to tell me this—that I can last a year or two, and perhaps but a few days, for I can kick the bucket at any time in consequence of an emotion. Ye lords of creation! Of such emotions I have twenty a day—how can I last then? I give all the business over to Subba Row. In Dec. or Jan. we shift our Headquarters to Madras and so how can I come to Allababad!
Boss wants me to prepare and go somewhere for a month or so toward end of September. He sent a chela here Gargya Deva from Nilgerri Hills, and he is to take me off, where I don’t know, but of course somewhere in the Himalayas. Boss is fearfully mad with Hume. He says he has spoilt all his work (!?). But really—miserable as I was and shocked over his stupid and “bumptious” (as you say) letter I was sick for weeks before, and so it is not Hume who did all the mischief but M. is nevertheless black as night over him. Ah well, it is my poor old aunt that I pity the most and—poor Olcott what will he do without me! Well I can hardly write I am really too weak. Yesterday they drove me down the Fort to the doctor—I got up with both my ears swollen thrice their natural size!! -- and I met Mrs. Strut and sister—her carriage crossing mine slowly. She did not salute nor make a sign of recognition but looked very proud and disdainful. Well I was fool enough to resent it. I tell you I am very very sick. Yes, I wish I could see you once more and dear Mrs. Gordon and my old Colonel whose “Grandmother” I may meet in some of the lower hells whither I will go – unless I am picked up by Them and made to stick in Tibet.
Well good bye all; and when I am gone—if I go before seeing you—do not think of me too much as an “impostor”—for I
—•— 38 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
swear I told you
the truth, however much I have concealed of it from you. I hope Mrs. Gordon will
not dishonour by evoking me with some medium. Let her rest assured that it will
never be my spirit nor anything of me—not even my shell since this is gone long
ago.
Yours in life yet,
H. P.
B.
When are you sending your reply to Perfect Way? Aren’t you going to give a Letter No. III for this. True I have your “Evolution of Man.”
DARJEELING,
October 9th.
How did you know I was here? You seem to be surrounded by very gossiping friends. Well now that there is no more danger from your blessed Government and its officials, I was going to write to you myself and explain the motive for the secrecy “which is so very repulsive generally to your European feelings.” The fact is that had I not left Bombay in the greatest secrecy—even some Theosophists who visit us believing me at home but busy and invisible as usual—had I not gone incognito so to say till I reached the hills and turned off the railway to enter Sikkim I would have never been allowed to enter it unmolested, and would not have seen M. and K. H. in their bodies both. Lord, I would have been dead by this time. Oh the blessed blessed two days! It was like the old times when the bear paid me a visit. The same kind of wooden hut, a box divided into three compartments for rooms, and standing in a jungle on four pelican’s legs; the same yellow chelas gliding noiselessly; the same eternal “gul-gul-gul” sound of my Boss’s inextinguishable chelum pipe; the old familiar sweet voice of your K. H. (whose voice is still sweeter and face still thinner and more transparent) the same entourage for furniture—skins, and yak-tail stuffed pillows and dishes for salt tea etc. Well when I went to Darjeeling sent away by them—“out of reach of the chelas, who might fall in love with my beauty” said my polite boss—on the following day already I received the note I enclose from the Deputy Commissioner warning me not to go to Tibet!! He locked the stable door after the horse had been already out. Very luckily; because when the infernal six or seven babus who stuck to me like parasites went to ask passes for Sikkim they were refused point blank and
—•— 39 H. P. B. VISITS M. AND K. H. —•—
the Theos. Society abused and jeered at. But I had my revenge. I wrote to the Deputy Commissioner and told him that I had permission from Government—the fact of Government not answering for my safety being of little importance since I would be safer in Tibet than in London; that after all I did go twenty or thirty miles beyond Sikkim territory and remained there two days and nothing happened bad to me and there I was. Several ladies and gentlemen anxious to see “the remarkable woman,” pester me to death with their visits, but I have refused persistently to see any of them. Let them be offended. What the d---- do I care. I won’t see anyone. I came here for our Brothers and Chelas and the rest may go and be hanged. Thanks for your offer. I do mean to pay you a visit but I cannot leave Darjeeling until my Boss is hovering near by. He goes away in a week or ten days and then I will leave D. and if you permit me to wait for you at your house I will do so with real pleasure. But I cannot be there much before the 20th so if you write to tell them it will be all right.
I have received via
Bombay a long article by Mr. Hume. The most impudent and insulting I ever read.
If he thinks I will print it, he may whistle for it. I will send it to you
to-morrow with my letter for him as Boss advises me to do. If you find my letter
good send it to him, and the article keep please and return to me when you see
me. I am very weak and must stop. Boss gives you his love—I saw him last night
at the Lama’s house.
Yours
ever,
H. P. B.
December 7th.
MY DEAR BOSS,
‘Pon my honour could not tell. Tried in America where they had stolen old millionaire Stewart’s body, and Brothers said then it was no concern of mine, but that the body would never be found and—it never was, all manner of stories notwithstanding to the effect that it was found.
Your books for review arrived yesterday and with them my BOSS, who put up an appearance. Says—he would try to dictate to me the reviews himself, were it not for the fact—a quite and utterly impossible feat—required, to write as if I (he) belonged to the Church of England! Thanks.
Olcott telegraphed for I had
telegraphed him to ask to announce
I A comment in M.’s writing appears in bold type.—ED.
—•— 40 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
to you the day of his arrival as you wanted him for Mrs. Sinnett. The Theosophist not out yet and we are the 8th to-day! Why? Because without me all went topsy-turvy and 2,000 Rupees of subscription money spent for what—better ask the wind. Damodar is as loony as a March hare.
As Vice-President and member of the Council you have to be notified of a certain thing. Mr. Padshah as I now find out, went Lucknow to open Branches and initiate Fellows without the sanction and even permission of the Council. He also took 125 Rupees of the subscription money – as there was no other—without asking either my or the Council’s permission, and innumerable complaints against him have been pouring in since I returned, from Dr. Dudley and Council to the effect that he cares about them as much as he cares about a passing donkey; that he, all the time bossed here and played the Master and insulted the Council etc. etc. The worst of all was his lecture, which he gave “in connection with the Bombay Branch” whereas neither its President (Dudley) nor any of the Council had given him sanction or permission to do so. Now what’s to be done in this case? My Boss orders me to notify you of this. With the exception of once 8 or 9 and at another as many lines, from Koot Hoomi, he never received one word from the Brothers, yet, he lowers down all other fellows and publicly boasted at his lecture Framji Hall—that he was one of the very few favoured ones by the Brothers, namely “Col. Olcott, Mr. Sinnett and himself!!” who were in constant communication with him. His behaviour is utterly untheosophical. Now will you, please, sign a paper we will send you (an official paper) blaming his conduct? He does not care a bit about native councillors and it will impress him far more if you sign it. We will send you the paper with his crimes detailed and you give your opinion thereon. M. says its about time to enforce respect for Rules; and if the Council is made so cheap then is the Society and its organisation a—farce. I am disgusted with all this for Padshah deceived me. He now goes on initiating Fellows and sends here neither obligations nor money, but spends it I suppose. Of course if we do not enforce the Rules, the Society is sure to be always in hot water. It is always K. H.’s kindness and extreme tenderness for everything suffering that brings on this. He pitied the Fellow who was disinherited by his Father, and had epileptic fits, and felt miserable and – wrote to him a few lines of consolation, and now, there’s the thanks. The Brothers are again and once more brought into ridicule.
Well, such is our and my fate. Salaam. Yours in hot water,
Veuve BLAVATSKY.
—•— 41 MR. HUME MUST RIDE HIS OWN DONKEY —•—
When do you want your reviews? Please say. Did the Silent and Scornful “Cynical one” receive Tibet from Trubners I just sent him in lieu of his? Please inform.
P.S. You were
mistaken in your supposition that the spiritualists would raise an outcry for
Mr. Hume’s Fragments. Not a paper has noticed it. Light not a word; Medium not a
breath; the Spiritualist alone had a stupid short para. and a long and as stupid
an article to-day about it. I sent to Mr. Hume, Terry’s article in answer to it
from Australia. He says that not a point is covered!! Well I have nothing more
to say. I told Mr. H. that I could not answer this new article from Terry as my
style would so clash with his in the Fragments. And yet the “Boss” always said
that the Fragments was a magnificently written article. Oh Jesus, what a life!
Yours again,
H.
P. B.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
I was just ordered to copy out the words (as they stand in Master’s letter) -- regarded as plagiarism. One whom you do not know (nor anyone in the West either, thank goodness!) wants me to draw your attention, that down to the words “our opponents” at the end of the first para. these are simply words that are daily used in writing if read separately by thousands. There is not one idea in them, and the last sentence: “Our opponents the wiseacres” (i.e. the spiritualists) has quotation marks made by the Mahatma in both its portions.
The second para. is the same—words and series of meaningless words by themselves down to “phenomenal elements undreamt of and previously unthought of,” which though a sentence is simply a series of words containing no thought or new idea in it.
He wants to know whether according to your canon of criticism and literary laws such words and sentences would if they were found (as they stand or very like them) -- in other books and works
—•— 42 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
scattered throughout a dozen of pages constitute a plagiarism? He says he wants your opinion upon the subject before he tells you why. It is only in the para. found out by Farmer and, as he says, which “immediately precedes the portion given above” that there is a long sentence at the end, that could be called “plagiarism” though there is still nothing new or brilliant in it, if there existed no precipitation.
When you answer this I
will send it on to this Mahatma.
Yours
H. P. B.
Also—when was “the other letter” you speak of—written? (p. 101 para. 2).
Borrowed Words by Mah. K. H. as italicised in Light, (Jy. 20.)
The terms I - - - - have hitherto been used in a very loose - way - - - - something - mysterious and abnormal, - - - -, - - - - - - - - - shed upon - - recipient minds - light upon - - , - - - - - - - - - as reducible to law as the simplest phenomena - the physical universe. - - “Our opponents” (the Spiritualists) 2 say “the age of miracles is past” but we (also) answer it “never existed.” 3
While not unparalleled or without - counterpart - - history - - - - - - - - overpouring influence - - - - - - -, - - - - both destructive and constructive - destructive - the - errors of the past, - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - -, - - - but constructive of - institutions, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - -. Phenomenal elements previously unthought of undreamt of, - - - manifesting themselves day by day, with constantly augmented force - disclose - - - secrets of their mysterious workings.
Additional Accusation by S. Farmer.
These truths - - - -
constitute indeed a body of - - spiritual - at once profound and practical - - -
- - - it is not as an addition to the - - of theory or speculation that they - -
given to - but for their practical bearing on the interests of mankind.
I
dashes here stand each for an original word.
2 He was thinking of the Spiritualists, hence the repetition and the word
Opponents
3 K. H. has put quotations.
—•— 43 AN INFERNAL POWER —•—
OOTACUMUND
NIGIRI
AND
BLUE
HILLS.
July Something.
BELOVED SHE-FELLOW AND SISTER,
To prove to you that you are as dear to my heart as ever (I beg leave to say that you are not “one so useless” and that it is a fishing fib) I answer your welcome “favour” “sharp and dry” as the Yankees say. But what shall I say? Since your departure I am eternally in hot water for that blessed paper. K. H. used me (I did not hear of him for nearly a fortnight) like a post-horse. I stirred up all our 69 Societies in India and letters sent to your dear Hub, will show to him and you that I have been kicking in this atmosphere like “un diable dans de l’eau benie.” This horrid, dirty agitation kills all. Every one seems to have lost his head over the Bill and this idol business! I wish to Heavens Ilbert and Ripon and your indigo planters got all drowned in their own dye! Your politics will drive me mad like a March hare; and if the Boss does not come to India I will emigrate “armes et bagages” to Ceylon or Burma—I won’t remain here with Hume.
You ask me, dear, whether “the money will come at all.” And how can I know! Goodness, what can I do when even K. H. seems to give it up in disgust and despair. There is some infernal power at work most assuredly, and one of these powers is our Jhut-Sing of Simla, the Seer of the mountains, the “pet chela” of Jacolet the Swami of Almora. Ah if the old Chohan only but permitted our Masters to exercise their powers for one day! But HE will never interfere with India’s punishment, its Karma, as he says, “for having killed so many Buddhists,” though History does not mention such killing. But History was most probably written by “Jhut-Sing,” when in another incarnation. Well, very little hope, I am afraid for us. Better not to deceive ourselves. My Boss M. says that Mr. Sinnett does “an immense good” in England. That a few months more and that the Theos. Soc. will be the great attraction. And behold! even that dear old and ever young Alice—the “lady-love” sticking her nose into politics and signing Protests. What even she be afraid of Native magistrates unless—well, silence is gold.
Olcott is at Ceylon. Had an interview with the Governor!! who called him to use his influence with the Buddhists in the matter of rows with the Roman Catholics. Has grown a beard to the seventh rib and hair floating in silvery locks like a Patriarch. He is going to London in January, I think; Buddhist clergy are sending him for some of their grievances. Well I still hope you
—•— 44 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
will not see him for you will be here. Oh hopes sweet and delusive! I am at the Morgans, General, the Generaless, six daughters and two sons with four sons-in-law constitute the family of the most terrible atheists and the most flapdoodlish or the most kind Spiritualists. Such care, such kindness and regards for my venerable self that I feel ashamed. Received a letter from Countess Catherine Duchesse de Pomar. Begs for a regular Diploma and a Charter. Is elected President of the new “Societe Theosophique d’Orient et d’Occident,” and writes on a paper with the Isis-Neith Mary Virgin on it “Nursing the Infant Soul” as she expresses it, calling the figure the “Divine Mother Theo-Sophia” surrounded by seven pigeons or “the Spirits of God.” Well, she’ll have her Charter.
Say dear, will do me a great favour? Try to get for me the portrait of the “Divine Anna” and of some other British Theosophist if you can, say I beg for them. Will you?
Poor Minnie Scott is getting blind, she is at the Jhut-Sing’s paternal residence. Davison is here. Keeps two hotels for his Mother and brother-in-law and gets 800 rupees a month. Hates Hume and keeps letter from him in which he tells him of his long conversations in the Museum with K. H. and M. and shows that now he tries to show that they do not exist!!! Davison is disgusted with him and so are all those who know him. Please give “Uncle Sam” the enclosed.
What does Mr.
Massey mean by passing “Resolutions” and sending to me remonstrances through
Kirby? Since when do the Branches remonstrate with Parent Societies? Well, I
like the check. Not to hurt people’s religious feelings! Does he know that the
Bishop of Madras proclaimed the Perfect Way “far more dangerous than the
atheistical Theosophist,” forbidding to read this work of Satan? It hurts far
more the feelings of Protestant Christianity than any advertisement or books of
the freethinkers. Bosh. Salaam and may the Lord Buddha love you. Give my love to
BOSS
I will write to him another time. Too tired.
H. P. B.
OOTY,
15th Aug.
MY DEAR BOSS,
Enclosed please find my private reply (so far) to the Remonstrance of the most honourable “London Lodge” & Co. You are a nice Jesuit to second such resolutions. Mrs. Grundy and her demands in the name of culture and refinement too much for you to oppose—eh? Were the Anti-Christian tracts to
—•— 45 H. P. B. IN SOCIETY —•—
proceed from one in odour of sanctity with that superanuated female, no objections would have been made. Allez donc! You are a lot of weak cowardly Grundyists, a flock of moutons de Panurge following your Jockey-club scented leaders and no more. The Official Reply to the remonstrances will be sent when the Council succeeds in putting in good English their “indignated feelings, and the fuming paroxysm of their towering choleric asperities” at this humiliation and new indignity put upon them by a Branch Society, whose members “even being Brothers WILL BE swelling and thundering rulers” (sic). This is a verbatim extract from a letter sent to Col. Olcott by one of the members of the General Council—a Madrassee Moodelyar—in answer to his opinion on the subject of anti-Christian tracts being asked.
Would not your friendly and still more Grundyish heart swell with pride and joy were you but to see “the old lady” presiding Juno and Minerva-like over the whole of the Ooty high officials, Carmichael and grand Muff with his Mrs. Muff included? Mrs. Carmichael, Mrs. G. Duff, Mrs. Kenney Herbert and Mrs. Everybody here, bombarding me with invitations to receptions, balls, dinners etc. and seeing that the Mountain will not go to Mahomet coming Mahomet-like to the mountain sitting at her foot, and—kissing my hands!!! Why, they have turned crazy—archi-crazy! and all this for a poor sapphire ring doubled from that of Mrs. Carmichael which became forthwith thinner and smaller the sapphire in her ring having positively become visibly smaller, (this is the thing par excellence that flabergasted and floored definitely Mr. Carmichael who could not be converted until then properly); and for a few paultry bells in Mr. F. Webster’s (Chief Secretary) pocket, and a letter written to him in his own handwriting which I had never seen and which he swears he cannot recognise as not being his though the flapdoodles therein are not surely his; and for some letters sent on the aristocratic noses of the paramount powers at Ooty by Jual-Khool (who salaams you) and etc. etc. etc. Well here I am, my rest destroyed, my existence a torture; my hopes of solitude blasted and—the lioness of the day. My name put on the Government Book in Govt. House in big letters before I had condescended to return Mrs. G. Duff’s visit. My graceful, stately person, clad in half Tibetan half nightdress fashion, sitting in all the glory of her Calmuck beauty at the Governor’s and Carmichael’s dinner parties; H. P. B. positively courted by the aide-de-camps! Old “Upasika” hanging like a gigantic nightmare on the gracefully rounded elbows of members of the Council, in pumps and swallow tail evening dress and silk stockings smelling brandy and soda enough to kill a Tibetan Yak!! On the other hand and as a shadow to the brilliant picture old H. P. B.’s poisonous
—•— 46 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
diabolic presence among the faithful flock killing by inches the Old Bishop; for H. P. B. with that refined cruelty that characterises heathen souls, had the excellent idea of announcing a tamasha in her suite of rooms (General Morgan’s) on Sunday morning or fore-noon between 10 and 12, just the morning prayer church hour, and on that blessed Sabbath, the poor Bishop had to preach salvation to the empty benches of the Ooty Church.
Well—and where’s the benefit of all this? Only that as soon as asked I obtained transfer for Rama Swami, M’s chela from Tinnevelly to Madras and got a situation or two in the Secretariat for my favourite Chettyars. They say I am doing good to the Society. I am doing bad to myself and Karma.
Well again—I wish your “London Lodge” new members should not write questions necessitating such ample answers. Why bless you only the half of the Replies fill up a whole form of the September Theosophist! and fancy the pleasure. It is I who had to copy most of the Replies written half by M., half by either chelas or handwritings that I see for the first time, and as no printer the world over could make out M’s handwriting. It is more red and fierce than ever! and then I do not like them a bit the replies. Where’s the necessity of writing three pages for every line of the question and explaining things that after all none of them except yourself, perhaps, will understand. Science, science and science. Modern physical science be hanged! and the October number having to devote 15 columns, perhaps, to answering the rest of the Questions and Objections by “an English F.T.S.” M. ordered Subba Row to answer his objection on the date of Buddha’s birth and Cunningham’s fanciful dates. I could not print more this month. With Subba Row’s reply it takes from 15 to 16 columns! Holy shadow!! and who is Mr. Myers that my big Boss should waste a bucket full of his red ink to satisfy him? And He won’t; see if he does. For Mr. Myers will not be satisfied with negative proofs and the evidence of the failings of European astronomers and physicists. But does he really think that any of the “adepts” will give out their real esoteric teaching in the Theosophist?
If you do so much good and have created such a stir with Theosophy in the London circles why don’t you give us something for the Theosophist or do you mean acting all the while sub rosa as K. H. says? “Well, they hate to have their doings commented upon even in the Theosophist—their own Magazine” said to me K. H. the last time I had a glimpse of him which was a long time ago more than a fortnight. What is he about? I think I could get you the 3 letters required now, that Mr. and Mrs. Carmichael adore me and that Vizianagram Rajah who adores them is coming up. But then K. H. told me not to move any more in the matter; that
—•— 47 MASTER K. H. —•—
he has changed his plans. I verily believe that you have exercised a most pernicious influence on our blessed K. H., for I be turned into a first class shell, if I recognise HIM even since he fell into bad company with you and the rest! There’s a chit apparently from him for “Uncle Sam” sent to me by post from Darjeeling by Bhola Sarma, who lives now in Tibetan and Sikkim flying from one place to another. Let him (Uncle Sam not Bhola Sarma Deva) bless himself with and be satisfied. K. H. becomes too worldly and it will be the ruin of Him. One of these fine days the Chohan will degrade Him to a simple Theosophist and—cut him off with a shilling—though if an occult one even this would be a boon for any one but him.
Well I have to
dress myself for a grand party at the Kenney-Herberts, where I mean to flirt
with the brandy and Jockey-club smelling aide-de-camps and be prepared to become
every one’s jeweller and bell-ringer. Nice social position. Don’t I see through
them all. I do, dear Boss, I do, and I despise more bitterly than ever I
did—your shallow-minded, back biting, ever shaming and ignorant Jezebel of Mrs.
Grundy. With these kinds words --
Yours truly,
H.
P. B.
Many salaams, many kisses to my “beloved sister” in Buddha Mrs. Sinnett and Denny, there’s a letter for him from Madame Coulomb. Can’t find it—mislaid somewhere—send it after.
P.S. If you want peace and
quiet and good understanding between the London Lodge and the Parent Society you
better take care that there should be no nonsensical pretensions, arrogance, or
uncalled for expression of superiority on its part. For, I swear to you if
Olcott shall, -- I WILL NOT STAND IT; and I will have no such untheosophical
flapdoodle. For months I have something that I have buried deep in my heart and
held my tongue hitherto merely out of pure veneration for Mahatma K.H. That HE
should be reviled and shown contempt by one who needs all the indulgence of the
pure and chaste for his past years of adultery himself; and that He – K. H.
should be sermonised in letters to Olcott by a Grandison with 8 illegitimate
children calling him father—is something that disgusted me profoundly. No one
cared more or loved and respected and made more of M. than I did. But since I
read his letters to
I This
postcript is in H. P. B.’s writing. It does not appear to have any connection
with the preceding letter—ED.
—•— 48 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
Olcott and saw him taking it on a tone of a Saint Chastity and Honour, appear to shrink nervously before an imaginary untruth or rather an appearance of untruth of K.H., when he himself had soiled his chaste wings in an action far worse than what he accuses of one so immeasureably higher than himself, I felt disgusted with him. Remember, that hitherto no one in the L. Lodge has done anything for Theosophy—unless you think it the greatest honour for having joined it. Remember that Mrs. K. does not believe, and if she believes she does not care one fig for the Brothers. That so far we had but a Wyld, an Oxon (the eternal opposing power), a Massey, a Dr. Carter Blake etc. to boast of in that Branch. That with the exception of yourself no one has lifted his finger for the Theos. Society in general. That the one who did the most after you for it, is an American – Uncle Sam. Then why the devil should we be salaaming them? Let them resign all to-morrow, for what I care. Let them show regard and respect to us and we will do ditto, not otherwise.
Brown and Parker are here. They quarrelled all the way, but I plainly told them they will not quarrel here for I won’t have Montecchis and Capullettis in the Society. I am ready to do all I can. I furnished and prepared a nice separate room for Mr. Brown with bath and veranda near Mme Colomb’s house. I do, and shall do, all I can for him, he is welcome to all we have, but quarrelling and airs I will have none. Basta I will say no more.
OOTY,
August 23.
Well, there’s three consecutive letters I receive from you blowing me up, as you say, and—worse; for I do not care one snap for blowing up but I do care and feel when I am unjustly treated. And you are unjust. First you blow me up and reproach me for feeling and knowing that this letter in Times would be made a pretext for upsetting the project. It is not that I blame or ever blamed you for the spirit of your letter or the views in it—for I have not yet become quite mad—but for its too early issue, for your writing it at all. It only proves that I knew Hindoos, better than yourself, and that you, with all your editorial and political finesse, you yet thought them better than they are. There’s the difference I cannot pretend to explain in English the situation; nor would I perhaps in any language since I never had the gift of the gab nor could I write unless dictated to. But I hope you will understand me. So then in a few words: Your letter was
—•— 49 THE POWER OF THE CHOHAN —•—
noble, generous, well meaning. It was all that and yet it was born out of time—either too late or too early. Had you written it when at Madras—it would have brought you thousands of friends; for it was but the beginning; the tuning of the orchestra and the curtain had not yet been raised. Written just amidst a hurricane, when the Hindoos insulted, reviled, spat upon publicly by the anti-Ilbert mob, men driven to desperation, frenzy and fury—it was untimely. They were just at one of those moments when any man—let alone a half-civilized Hindoo thinks and feels: Who is not with me heart and soul is AGAINST me. That is absurd, childish but it is human nature. Now all you say of Hindoos I know it and vastly more. No one knows better than I do, their suspiciousness, caused by centuries of slavery; their cunning—low cunning often from the same cause and their ingratitude to foreigners only, because there is no more grateful people on the face of the earth when they feel sure of a person—and this they can never do with regard to foreigners, especially Englishmen; for, for one good one, a gentleman—there are in India 9 snobs and no gentlemen—as you yourself know. I recognise all their faults but I cannot blame them for I pity them too much to do so. It was not from the masses though that we expected money but from the oppressors of the masses and the poor; from Zemindars and Rajahs, and these brutes wanted only a pretext. So Durbonga who solemnly promised 25,000 to Olcott, and Col. Massey his Manager with whom Olcott stopped at the city of Durbonga was the first to back out, when your letter appeared; and after him the Guikwar so there was 50,000 lost. And then the Rajahs of Vizianagram and Venkatajeri followed suit, and they were ready with the money. With them it was a pretext. But it is just what I feared, and it came to pass. Now you reproach me that I had solemnly promised, that I felt sure of success. So I did—aye and a far greater one than poor I—your K. H. and M.—though the latter was less confident. All this because they had the Tibetans against them; and—truth must be said—the Chohan himself. Had he permitted them to use their powers of course they would not have failed as they did. They would have foreseen the tremendous row in the future, the fathomless gap that was opening. You say you lost money. My dear Mr. Sinnett—we lost enough of it too; and to us one rupee is more than 100 for you. But neither what you or we lost or rather spent in sending Agents to all parts of India (even Subba Row spent a few hundred and Judge Moota Swami and a few others who were determined to serve the Mahatmas). All this is rot. All of us we shall lose a thousand times more if the last and supreme attempt of K. H. fails: for we are sure to lose Him in such a case. This I know and you must be prepared. Never shall He show
—•— 50 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
his face nor communicate with any of us. As he had very little if anything to do with us before that year at Simla, so will He relapse once more into unknowningness and obscurity. You do not know how he feels—I do. He never said one word to me about your letter but his alter ego D. Khool did, and he said just what I tell to you now. So if in my excitement I may have written you stupid things and said disagreeable ones, you ought to have attributed them to their right cause not to my disloyalty or anger against you. I nearly wept when I saw this unfortunate letter. I despised always and do despise Hume and for you I had always feelings of gratitude and affection. So if I said anything of Hume’s policy it was to show a parallel, I suppose, that even such a skunk as he is was more political than you aver. And you misunderstood me. Now of course I do not remember a word of what I wrote—as I will forget in a few days this letter -- (can’t help it such is my head); but I am sure I could not say anything bad to you. Nor could K. H. I am sure for I am certain he would have never written to you anything disagreeable. So why do you hint at him?
Then about “Uncle Sam’s” complaint—what the devil do I know about office doings? What have I to do with the business management of Damodar which is Olcott’s business. He sent to Ward this printed notice as he did to thousands, and as Olcott is an American business man, so is Ward, and it is not for a Yankee to kick at sharp business as they call it. I was furiously ashamed when I received your letter and Ward’s telegram. But I felt I was a fool; for Olcott, whom I blew up and skinned for it (he has just arrived here to form an Anglo-Indian Branch) says they send such printed compliments to everyone and Damodar did not know at that time that I had or rather was going to receive these 20 rupees Mr. Ward sent, enclosed in a private and even non-registered to me. Of course he ought to make a difference, but he does not because he is a boy and was not brought up for office business, and shall S. Ward think bad or any worse of me for it? Did I not send him the whole last year the Theosophist, and forbade Damodar to even ask the money for it. “What made me think he was ruined?” Himself—in several letters that I have preserved and can send to you. I never said he had nothing to eat. But I said he had lost a fortune if not all his fortune though such were his own words to me. If he said a fib, that he thought a good joke, then it does not speak in his favour. But then I know that he lost lots of money through Judge at New York and even Harrison his friend, and S. Ward said to me that it was lost through Ski, and thought, or at least wrote that he thought so, that it was perhaps a trial brought on by H. K.—when K. H. never meddled
—•— 51 H. P. B. BLAMES HERSELF —•—
in money matters until now—and never will I suppose. I felt very sorry for Ward and told you so; and D. K. if I remember right spoke of his having lost money, and I even believe (though I do not remember it for certain) that K. H. said something about it, that with or without money S. Ward was the best man living. And that K. H. told me that S. Ward had lost all his fortune more than once, that I remember quite well. But whether he lost much or all his money I do not know anything but what S. Ward wrote at the time himself to me. Ask him. But I suppose even K. H. never paid any attention to it; for M. asked me whether I had ever heard of Ski’s doings, and I gave him S. Ward’s letters to me to read. But whether They knew, or believed it I do not know, unless they look especially into something that interests Them—of course even They may believe sometimes, or labour under wrong impressions. Several times M. suspected me of telling him things wrongly until he had looked into my head and found out truth. So for everything else. But if S. Ward lost only a part of his fortune why should he have written to me such letters for? and forced me to write to him what I felt; namely that ruined I loved him best, for I bate and fear too rich people. But all this is bosh and I do not care a twopence whether he is a Croesus or a beggar. I have nothing to do with the miserable 8 rup. or 1 £ of subscription; and I do not see why you should reproach me as though I fearing that now he had lost his fortune would not pay his subscription! For I never meant that he should until he sent to Damodar that money himself. All this is far more “grievous” to me and more “shocking” than it is to you.
And to think that it was I, I horrid old fool, I the idiot of the age, who first brought K. H. into notice! I who have led Him to be now reviled and so abused by every old ass in Light! This is my work and I will not forgive my sin. Do you think that the Chohan and others do not hear every word of abuse against THEM. uttered and printed? That all of Them do not know when a malignant current is set against them? Speaking about malignant currents why did you invite malignant critics and fools at your Conversazione of the 17th—why did you throw pearls before so many swine? Why you had just 63 persons interested—theosophists with you, vegetarians with Mrs. K. and Spiritualists (some) with you both—and more or less friendly; and the rest—more than four times that number were all black enemies or sneering dissimulating hypocrites. And the ladies most of them so undressed that no one from here could look at them. There was but one of the female sex that can be looked at always without blushing in the crowd and that’s “Bossess,” (that’s a compliment to her address) next to her—Mrs. Kingsford. Say—why was she dressed
—•— 52 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
in a dress that looked like “the black and yellow coat of the zebras in the menagerie of the Rajah of Kashmir?” And is it true she had roses on her hair “which is like a flaming sunset, yellow gold”? And why—mercy on us! Why did she have “her hands and arms painted black, jet black—up to the elbows” for? or was it gloves? and then, is it true she had that night a brilliant metal pocket in front of her, with clasps and bells and something else; and “crescent—moon, tinkling earrings”—symbolical of the growing brilliancy of the “London Lodge.” This moon has borrowed light from the Satellite. And now speaking of moons why, should you in pity sake, speak of forbidden things! Did I not tell you a hundred times that They allowed no one to know or speak of this eighth sphere, and how do you know it is the moon, as we all see it? And why should you print about it, and now “an English F.T.S.” comes out with his question, and this ass Wyld calling it a dust bin. I called his head a dust bin in Light. You will both catch it in the answer you may bet your bottom dollar; for they (the answers) have arrived, the last ones tonight and vous ne l’aurez pas vole as the French say—your savonade. When Subba Row read the question discussed in your Book he nearly fainted, and when he read it (Mr. Myers question) in the galleys—Damodar writes that he became green. Well your business and K. H.’s not mine. But why—why had she “the mystic of the century” so much jewellery on her! How can she confabulate with the unseen Gods when she looks “like a Delhi English Jeweller’s front window.” Well, I too I think I saw her and would like to have her portrait to compare. For she was shown to me. Is she not tall rather, thin in the waist but broad in the shoulders, and very fair, and slightly rosy cheeks and with very red lips and a nose larger or thicker when she speaks than when she is at rest? Her eyes light blue. She is fascinating; but then, why make her beautiful hair look like “the mitre of a Dugpa Dashatu-Lama”? Well all this is bosh. I am sad to death, and do not care [for] joking. Give my love to dear Mrs. Sinnett and to all; to that Yankee humbug too—“Uncle Sam,” who pretends to have become a beggar in his letters. Was it to try me? A good idea. Why, now that you tell me that he is still rich I will never write to him again. You may tell him so. Olcott is going London I believe in January. Colonel Strong has joined and Mrs. Carmichael wants to join but her—“David” is afraid, and Mr. and Mrs. Kenny Herbert and Lady Souter.
Yes; another “No. 3” reproach. It is the carelessness of the “Theos. Office,” ingratitude for the £10 sent by Miss Arundale, that we forwarded no diplomas! Will you kindly ascertain first whether we had to send them to the London Scotland Yard, or
—•— 53 H. P. B. ON THE “PHŒNIX” VENTURE —•—
Dead letter
office—for we could hardly send diplomas to those whose very names we knew
nothing about? Had any one sent us in the names of the members, let alone their
applications? Damodar has never received one single application nor one name
from London. Till now we know nothing either of the number of the members or
their quality or even their names, as I say. Let them act officially and
according to our laws and we will do the same. “The London Lodge” ought to have
been called the criticizing T. S. Very easy to criticise. Nevertheless.
Yours
in God,
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
OOTY,
Sept. 14.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
For over two months I
have been ordered by K. H. not to meddle any further in the paper business
and—of course I obeyed. Some six weeks ago he came to send through me a letter
to you and, there were telegrams passed between Norendro Babu of the Mirror and
myself. I then felt very much surprised at Norendro’s hope that you would ever
consent to serve the cause of the Zemindars—one that K. H. himself had
pronounced INFAMOUS. Well, since I am a woman, ignorant of politics, probably as
you repeatedly said and hinted—“a fool” in many things—I kept quiet. But now
Norendro telegraphs that you consented and accepted the offer of the Zemindars,
and M. ordered Olcott to telegraph to Norendro not to send a single page to you
or offer without showing it first to Olcott. There are things and rumours that I
am sure did you but know them you would never degrade yourself in accepting such
a proposition. I have talked over with Carmichael and Forster Webster the
Secretary to Govt. and several other members of Council, and what I understand
this Zemindar business is a regular conspiracy to defraud and starve millions of
poor cultivators. If so, K. H. must know it, how can you then accept such a
terrible thing! I have left no stone unturned to raise the money, in the first
way, and (I think I have succeeded). No one desires more than I do that you
should return to India. But if you have to buy the return at the price of your
honour and reputation—then, well; I have nothing to say. I know one thing, and
that is, that my notions about honour and justice seem to
I
It is interesting to compare this letter with those in Secton IV of “The Mahatma
Letters.”—ED.
—•— 54 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
differ widely from other people’s notions. I have warned you what the people say here about this conspiracy of the rich to defraud the poor and do my duty I think. I would rather never see you any more in this life, rather ruin the Theos. Soc. than to be a party to such a horrid unjust, devilish transaction as that of starving the teeming millions to satisfy the greediness of a few Shylocks. I do not know whether you have really settled to accept the proposition or not. But this is what I receive just now. Bhawani Row was successful at last it seems and thus 2 lakhs are raised in the W. Provinces. I send you the telegrams. Had you patience the money WOULD be finally raised. And now I do not know what to do. M. told me to write to you so much about this and—to meddle no more—the same words as said by K. H.!
Je donne ma langue aux chiens. Do not blame me I have done my best, but since the Zemindars are preferred I have nothing more to say. And yet Bhawani Row is a chela of K. H. HE must know of it for B.R. acts under the orders of his master. What’s all this! Olcott also puts on airs of mystery. He telegraphed to you I know, and therefore you must know more than I do now. Buss.
A nice mess about that Elliot or Ellis or whatever his name is—business. What did I say to Mr. Ward of so terrible that he should kick up a row upon the subject? What do I care if whole London goes on the Himalaya and from there slides down to Tibet. If they let them in—it is their not my business. I simply said something to Ward about their catching it for taking life within the Lamasery precincts—shooting. That K. H. would vanish certainly or something to this effect. And now Ward complains to you, you blow me up, Mrs. K. (!) writes to K. H., and K. H. complains to M. and all falls on my head!
I will write no more. I have enough of this. If every action of mine is misinterpreted and I am to be held responsible for everything and be blown up by M. I better subside. Ward would do better to write to American papers to blackguard less the Theosophists, the Society, and especially me. Then came out some would-be very witty, satirical article about an ex-Theosophist—a Fr. Thomas who pretended to expose Slade and expose all and everything, and who now abuses us in the most Hungerford-fish-market way and gentlemen reporters put it down religiously as truth. Between the biography of Thomas’ parrot comes that of our Society and my own in the N. Y. Telegram, a penny paper. I am called there among other good things, “the most ignorant, blasphemous charlatan of the age.” And the Bombay Gazette reprints it in full. Now I have to go again to law. Mr. B. G. will have to prove whether I am “a charlatan.”
—•— 55 DEFENCE OF STERLING QUALITIES —•—
I must say that you
might do worse than borrow from Russia her laws for libel: and England does seem
in this respect a far more barbarous and uncivilised country than Russia. In the
latter any Editor would get 3 months prison for uttering such a libellous
insulting term and here gentlemen like Gretton Geary repeat the vulgar abuse
with the coolest indifference possible and, there seems no redress. I will see
though. It is the Statesman’s story over again.
Please give my love to all.
Yours
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
ADYAR,
Sept.
27.
Just returned home from Ooty through Pondichery, and the first thing waiting for me was your letter of new and fresh remonstrances. I have not my “feathers ruffled” as you call it for myself, but for others as in duty and honour bound, and I must certainly try to impress upon your mind to what extent they are ruffled.
When shall you remember, first of all, that in addressing me upon things done by Col. Olcott during his voyages—you are giving me simply news of which I know nothing; or that in speaking upon office business you are implying to me a knowledge of things I have no more an idea of than the man in the moon. Why should I be made responsible for everything that happens in the Society is something surpassingly strange. However, your letter is so full of unjust, cruel sentences, so unfair as I will prove it just now that I must try and point it out to you for the last time. You must have had dyspepsia while writing it—my dear Mr. Sinnett.—I answer your accusations seriatim.
1. What is it that “ruffles” you in Mrs. Parker? I know her for eight years nearly. She is an enthusiast, a lunatic in many things but no better, sincere, truthful, honest woman ever breathed in an Irish carcase. She is a true theosophist, unselfish and ready to part with her last clothing for the benefit of others. Not very cultured, “coarse fibred” as you call it! Perhaps so; but no more than myself. She was Miss Kislingbury’s greatest friend. And though Miss K. deserted us to become a Roman Catholic, still she is the best she theosophist London ever had. Always prejudice at first sight. Ever judging on appearance. The story with Bennet, Banon, Scott and some others over again.Oh Mr.
—•— 56 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
Sinnett, how little deep your theosophical insight! Mr. Brown could do no better, no worthier thing than take her under his protection—I respect him for it. (He arrived with her, I know him better now and—respect him less). He befriended the poor woman who gave all she had; became a beggar to save from starvation her poor countrymen in America. He was kind to her while others were harsh and cold to her in London, yourself to begin with, and Wyld that old ass who did all he could to set her against theosophy and us, etc. etc. No indeed: That which offends you does not often offend me and—pour cause. Let us drop it. We will hardly ever understand each other. But you ought to have known that while I care very little for theosophists loaded with jewelry like a Greek corpse and in tiger striped satin and velvet dresses, I care a good deal for those who have theosophy in their hearts not on their lips alone.
Nor is it less funny that though to my knowledge and for over two years and more Olcott corresponds with Mme. Gebhard in the most friendly amicable way; and that I know how deeply he respects and has affection for her, you should now find fault with him for his tone. Who told you this? Is it your own intuition or Mme. Gebhard? If the latter, then she is not the woman I supposed her to be. Again you speak to me of things for which I am not in the least responsible nor have I ever taken an interest in them. Except of the volume annotated on the margin by K. H. and sent to Hume and a MS. commented upon by Djwal Khool, I took no interest in Eliphas Levi’s MSS. Olcott’s manner dictatorial? So it may be to those who do not know him; as mine is very rude in the eyes of strangers, and your’s inexpressibly haughty and cold in those of the rest of the world who do not know you. Olcott asked her to send the MSS., for Olcott is ever thinking of benefiting the Society. And she did undertake the work, which was very kind and would have been quite generous in a non-theosophist but was only natural and her duty as a theosophist. That he thanked her for it and very warmly I know for I have read his letters at least two or three of them. That he may have forgotten or delayed to thank her and acknowledge receipt of the letter is quite possible and no such great sin. I guess had Mme. Gebhard been a Hindu instead of a European you would have never found fault with the delay. We are taken to task for not having published them yet? And who, pray, was there to translate them? Who, besides us two—broken down post horses is there to translate such things? They were not taken notice of? In what way? By publishing an acknowledgment in the Theosophist? But I did not know that the last had been sent at all, and besides they arrived here only hardly
—•— 57 COL. OLCOTT’S DIFFICULTIES —•—
two months ago and since Olcott was not here they were not even opened for a long time. And what’s the use of acknowledging something no one knows anything about until translated? “An illustration of the deplorable way in which the affairs of the Society are managed at Headquarters.” A very fair sentence passed, and quite in keeping with the rest. La critique est aisee mais l’art est difficile.” Do you forget that you are addressing two European beggars with two Hindu other beggars to help them in the management and not the rich Pioneer with lakhs behind it? I would like to see you undertake the management and editing of Phoenix with two pence in your pocket; with a host of enemies around; no friends to help you; yourself—the editor, manager, clerk, and even peon very often, with a poor half-broken down Damodar to help you alone for three years, one who was a boy right from the school bench, having no idea of business any more than I have, and Olcott always -- 7 months in the year—away! Badly managed, indeed! Why we have made miracles in rearing up alone, and in the face of such antagonism, paper, Society, and business in general. Is it Mrs. Gebhard who complained of his tone of authority? And what do you mean in making a difference, in saying—“First of all the constitution of the Society does not justify the assumption of any tone of authority on the part of the President in addressing any foreign members.” The constitution of the Society first of all, does not justify the smallest difference made in tone, privileges granted, or anything between foreigners or Hindus, foreign or local members. The President has no right to use an impolite peremptory tone with any branch or member. And he does not, as far as I know. His tone is his usual tone and may seem “authoritative” when it is simply friendly and outspoken. An American, of course, (or a Russian either, for the matter of that,) is not expected to have the cultured tones of a refined Englishman, nor do we pretend to anything of the sort. But to say that Olcott in writing to Mrs. Gebhard whom he makes so much of, “used a tone of authority” is as unjust as it is absurd on the face of it. As to the accusation of “laying it on a shelf and leaving the MS unfruitful”—will you kindly as a theosophist undertake the translation? And if neither your leisure nor your tastes permit it, then please remember that while you in the midst of all your arduous labours as the editor of the Pioneer used to leave your work regularly at 4 after beginning it at 10 a.m.—and went away either to lawn tennis or a drive, Olcott and I begin ours at five in the morning with candle light, and end it sometimes at 2 a.m. We have no time for lawn tennis as you had, and clubs and theatres and social intercourse. We have no time hardly to eat and drink.
Sorry also, that you should disapprove and “strongly” in the
—•— 58 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
bargain, “of the letter addressed to the Secretary of the London Lodge by Ramaswamier.” Nor do I see any good reason why, if the “London Lodge” notification was sent through the Secretary, Olcott’s answer could not be sent likewise through his Secretary?
You use very extraordinary words. For inst: you say that the “London Lodge having elected . . . that name pays Olcott as nominal (!!) head of the whole Society the courtesy (?) of a formal report of its action for his approval.” (1) If Olcott is no better in the eyes of the London Lodge than a nominal head, then the sooner it ceases to call itself “Theosophical Society” the better for all parties concerned. Let it call itself “Kingsford Society” if it will; but so long as it is chartered by us, and that the Masters keep Olcott as their agent and representative he is not a nominal but the actual head of the Society, if you please. And, unless you can find in the London Lodge one to replace him, with all his intrinsic rare virtues, and minus his few Americanisms (which few, if any, fair man among real theosophists can ever object to, since none of us is perfect) -- he will remain an actual President to his death day, I hope. The London Lodge “pays him the courtesy”!! The London Lodge did ITS DUTY, its bound duty and nothing more. In the London Lodge there are many persons cultured and of great intellectual value, and as individuals they are respected and appreciated for this by all of us—myself the first. But the London Lodge as a Branch is not a bit better or entitled to any more privileges than any other Branch. When it does theosophical work that will be higher and of more importance than all the rest of the nearly 100 Branches in India, America, and Europe, then can it claim extra privileges and an unusual respect for itself. It is a matter of the most profound wonder to me how you, a man of your intelligence can speak in such a way! How you can go in the way you did and jump at the throat of the very spirit of our Society—perfect equality, Brotherhood, and mutual toleration! If Olcott, instead of answering through his Secretary had, as you say, (while never answering but through his Secretary all other Branches) gone out of his way “to write a long, sympathetic and appreciative letter to the President of the London Branch” I would call it toadyism, flunkeyism and blown his head off for such a lack of self-respect, dignity and pandering to aristocracy. Olcott has written to Mrs. Kingsford and Mr. Maitland in answer to their letters, and appreciates them personally for their own worth as individuals. As “President and Vice-President of the London Lodge” they have no right to expect to be treated with more respect and sympathy than any other theosophists, -- though he denies such feelings to none. And who, in the name of Dickens are the British Theosophists
—•— 59 TRUE THEOSOPHISTS WANTED —•—
to claim such unprecedented honours? Are they gods or Emperors or what? I for one prefer for the Society any day a learned Sanskrit pundit, a Hindoo who works for theosophy to the Emperor of Russia or the Empress of India herself. To think that you would have a free born American, who has never bent his neck to the yoke of birth or wealth, but only to true personal merit, and a Russian who broke violently with all the aristocracy to accept her fate for better or worse with the disinherited, the poor, and the unjustly treated of the earth—who is a democrat in her soul—dancing on their hind legs and salaaming their English members—is preposterous!! They may resign all of them tomorrow, if they are not satisfied. And they will have to, if they or any of them ever state publicly that they consider Olcott only a “nominal” head of the Society. We want theosophists not aristocratic noodles who expect respect and honours only because their blood is crossed with that of lords and M.P.’s. What have they hitherto done to merit them? Made us the great honour of joining the Society? It is an honour to them, not in the least to the MASTERS, not even to us their faithful followers; least of all to me whose birth is not a bit lower than that of your Queen and perhaps, purer than hers, and who yet despises every claim based on such birth. Olcott shows “nonsensical affectation of the de haut en bas tone of an official superior addressing a subordinate”!! There are no superiors and subordinates in our Society; none but brothers and Fellow-members; but it is very doubtful whether any of our English members will ever show practically that they consider those lower than themselves by birth or education or race (as they think) as their brothers. What are the great achievements they have made in theosophy or for theosophy? There is not one in London that entered the Society on any other than purely selfish motives; to squeeze out what he can from the Mahatmas and then turn his back upon their hapless countrymen and, perhaps, laugh at them. As M. says, “remains to be seen how Mr. F. V. Myers will receive their Replies”—Whether he will not be the first one (and if not he, then other members) to call them ignorant fools, illiterate Asiatics “with a small Oriental brain” as Wyld expressed it, wanting to make believe, I suppose, that his Jesus was an Anglo-Saxon Aryan. I say that these Replies to “An English F.T.S.” are time lost; they will not accept the truth, and they occupy half of every number of the Theosophist that comes out, crowding off other matter. You have done for the Society more than all of them put together will ever accomplish. And yet even you, you have done it neither for Society nor Theosophy, but merely out of a personal devotion to K. H. And if HE were to abandon the Society
—•— 60 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
to morrow, or stop corresponding you would be the first to follow suit and we would hear of you no more.
“It looks silly the pretence of his being too busy to write with his own hand in a matter of the kind when something so important as the growth of the London Lodge Society at this juncture is at stake.” Answering the tail of the sentence first, I would ask what has the growth of the Society to do with the change of its name? And what is there so important about it? Simply your personal veneration for the President, I suppose, who has none at all neither for yourself nor the Brothers; on whom she certainly looks de haut en bas. I was from the first against her nomination but had to hold my tongue, since it is K. H.’s selection and that He perceives so wonderful germs in her, that he even disregards her personal flings at Him. And so I was against Wyld’s nomination and my valuation of him proved true. An ugly, bigoted, jealous, indelicate brute he is. The many hundreds of signatures of our Hindu fellows sent in their protest against his beastly criticism of Esoteric Buddhism will show them the veneration the Hindus have for their Mahatmas; and if he had not been kicked out of the London Lodge there would have been a revolution in our Branches against the Lodge itself. It threatened to become another Ilbert’s bill. Remains to be seen whether your fair Light with its presiding genius “M. A. Oxon” will take notice of these Protests. See the grin and fiendish sneer of M. A. Oxon in Light of Sept. 8, against the Kiddle accusation. Olcott has answered it before his departure and he gave it nice to the great medium of “Imperator” K. H. plagiarising from Kiddle!! Then I have a letter from him, written a year before I knew you and in Professor A. Wilder’s (Phrenological Journal) article written seven or eight months later I found about 20 lines verbatim from K. H.’s letter; and now Olcott found in the last Nineteenth Century (July I think, or August) an article “After Death” by Norman Pearson (or something like that) a passage about God something like 18 lines taken verbatim to every comma, from a letter of K. H. written three years ago. Has Norman Somebody plagiarised it from a letter he has never seen? It is a nasty, wicked, mean remark of Oxon’s, directed as much against you, his friend, as against me whom he secretly hates. And fancy, of what a philosophical importance these Kiddle lines, to be worthy of plagiarism! Next to “John, bring me my dinner,” “ideas that travel or rule the world,”—have been mentioned since the days of Plato thousands of times. The “ETERNAL NOW” is a sentence I can show to you in Mrs. Harding Britten’s lectures and in an article of mine in the Spiritual Scientist nine years ago, from which she took or perhaps and most probably did not take it, but simply
—•— 61 IN PRAISE OF COL. OLCOTT —•—
got it from astral impressions. It makes me sick all your Western wickedness and malice.
To return to nos moutons—it looks silly, does it, the pretence of Olcott’s being too busy to write with his own hand? Well, my dear Sir, allow me to tell you, that I, who have been just travelling with him for three weeks, I saw, and am a witness to it whether he has one moment of freedom from morning to night. At 5 o’clock in the morning the whole courtyard and veranda of the houses we stopped in were crowded with the lame and the cripple. At every station, the railway platforms were crowded with the sick lying in wait for him. I saw him curing a paralytic (both arms and one leg) between the first and last bell. I saw him begin curing the sick at 6 in the morning, and never sit down till 4 p.m.; and when stopping to eat a plate of vegetable soup have to leave it to cure a possessed woman and his plate of soup remaining unfinished at 7 p.m. and then he would sit down and dictate to his Secretary till 2 in the morning; having only three or four hours sleep, etc. etc. I would like to see your President of the London Lodge sacrificing herself for the lepers and the itchy as he does. I would be happy to find one member in your L.L. doing unremunerated one fourth of the work done by Damodar or Balloi Babu. You ask me to receive what you say “in the interests of the whole undertaking concerned,” and I know that the “whole undertaking” is centred for you in the London Lodge. And I say, that you have to receive what I say, in the interests of truth, justice and fairness—with “your feathers unruffled.” And I know that you won’t. I am pretty certain to be called a fool and an idiot by you in your “soul converse.” Welcome. But now you know at least what I think of all this. Of my friendship and gratitude for you and for what you have done you cannot doubt. But I would consider myself the meanest of creatures to read how you lower down poor Olcott—whose shoes none of your most cultured theosophists is worthy to untie—and not to tell you what I think of it. I say you are unjust and unfair. You always forget our penniless position; the helpless position of two people fighting alone and single handed the whole world, and that we have none to help us; and, forgetting Olcott’s rare devotion, unselfishness, blameless and pure life, his great philanthropy and most precious qualities you see but one thing! He is an American, a Yankee, while your English sympathies have been during the war for the South, and whom, I verily believe, you hate and cannot forgive only for their being Northern Yankees—and thus you see only the black (seeming) spots in the sun. Olcott is a thousand times higher and nobler and more unselfish than I am, or ever was. Therefore, I, knowing him as I do—say: there was
—•— 62 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
no “mistake of policy” on his part, nor shall he ever assume any other policy but that of most impartial justice to all, if I do know him. Nor has he ever suffered himself “to pose in an arrogant attitude”—for such is not his nature. That he may be lacking the cultured estheticism of your country—is but natural; he is not an Englishman but a true American, and I love him the more for it. Buss—as my Boss says. But your remark that he should answer himself reverentially every line of the London Secretary has cut me to the deep. It is simply an insult.
Explain to you “a little more about Eliphas Levi”? And what the deuce do I know about him? I never saw him. All I know is what I was told. He was a most learned and erudite theoretical Kabalist and occultist. But who ever told you he was a practical adept? Not I. He himself says in his works that he never performed ceremonial magic but once in London evoking Apollonius of Tyana. He was a Roman Catholic Priest—hence his filth and dirt. He had been starved on fasting when in the Order—hence his gluttony and intemperance. In his books he tries to make the esoteric doctrine fit in with R. Catholicism—just as the “fair Anna” does now (and you will rue the day, unless the Chohan can, or rather will consent to break her.) That there is much esotericism in real Catholic Christianity is quite true; but there is still more of fictitious, artificial interpretations. Yet his learning and knowledge were undoubted, and for any one versed in Esotericism his writings are those of a recognised authority—in their theoretical teachings. Of himself he could say: “Do as I tell you, not as I do.” I have never heard before that he was so dirty and gluttonous. But if Mrs. Gebhard says so—she knows better, for I have never met him. My aunt went to see him in Paris and she had a bad impression for he took 40 francs for one minute of conversation and explanation of the Tarrot cards. Boss says—that he was a regular doug-pa with the knowledge of a gelukpa.
Olcott is gone day before yesterday on his northern tour. Maharaja of Kashmir sent for him and K. H. ordered him to go to a certain pass where he will be led to by a chela he will send for him. Brown is not here yet but I had a telegram from him from Colombo. They will be both here after to-morrow. I believe Mr. Brown will rejoin Olcott somewhere. Let him go with him by all means and thus see India and learn much for himself.
Well, are you coming out here or not? Or is it all over? K. H. tells me nothing, and if he does not so much the worse for everyone but I do not care. I am only glad that Olcott will see and converse with him. He is in raptures with the expectation. It appears that it is Maha Sahib (the big one) who insisted with the Chohan
—•— 63 THE CHOHANS’S KARMA —•—
that Olcott should
be allowed to meet personally two or three of the adepts besides his guru M. So
much the better. I will not be called perhaps, the only liar, when asserting
their actual existence. The best joke of all is, that Hume tells me repeatedly
that he knows now K. H. personally and denies the existence of M., though so
many more persons have seen him besides myself. I am really sorry for these
Replies that appear in the Theosophist. It does seem wisdom thrown out of the
window. Well—Their ways are mysterious.
My love to Mrs. Sinnett, and to yourself if you accept it.
Yours ever, faithfully but
never
SERVILELY.
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
ADYAR.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
I am very sick, suffering agony, and nearly killed two days ago with injected morphia. This accounts for my silence. It is with the greatest pain that I can write; ailing for the last month and more, and walking during Anniversary on crutches. Yesterday received a three yard long letter from Mrs. K. and her confidential address; first fruit of the kindness of K. H.! Well this is the Chohan’s Karma. However it may be, from Subba Row down to Brown everyone is inexpressibly shocked here with this most impertinent, insolent pamphlet or criticism of Maitland. She demands of K. H. to make her “the Apostle in Europe of Eastern and Western Esoteric Philosophy”!!!!! She has divined she says, the allegory. Everything including Atlantis (!) is an allegory. I am too sick to bother myself with her flapdoodle interpretations. But she can hardly be an infallible Seer, or else Maitland would not have attributed to “Mad. Blavatsky” a sentence written by the Tiravellum Mahatma in Reply No. 2 of October page 3, I have his MSS. I must be deuced clever to have written the “Replies” in the Theosophist, I do not understand ten lines in that occult and scientific jibberish. If it is true—as she complains, that you insist having given in Esoteric Buddhism the WHOLE Esoteric doctrine (which I do not believe) and that you would “force the London Theosophists to accept it au pied de la lettre” then of course she has a semblance of right in what she says. But I do not believe you ever did such a thing. You must know that instead of Esoteric Doctrine you have but half-a-dozen of stray pages, picked at random out of the six-and-thirty volumes of the secret books of Khinti; that there are gaps between every tenet
—•— 64 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
none of which is complete; and you have been told by the Mahatma in letters you showed us and told by me many times that you could not expect to be given that which pertains only to initiation. No Lay chela can get it nor can one understand the thing properly. Even about Devachan, something you have been explained more thoroughly than anything else, you have very vague ideas about it, I see. As “Fragments” of Occult Science you have succeeded admirably and can claim to have given out to the world crumbs of genuine occult doctrines. As a whole—Esoteric Buddhism cannot of course be considered such, nor have you ever claimed it as far as I know to be the alpha and the omega of our Doctrine. All this is very sad and perplexing. And now the outcome of it is, that I, crippled down and half dead, am to sit up nights again and rewrite the whole of Isis Unveiled, calling it The Secret Doctrine and making three if not four volumes out of the original two, Subba Row helping me and writing most of the commentaries and explanations. Why Mahatma K. H. should have inflicted upon your Society such a plaster as Mrs. K. seems to be, a haughty, imperious, vain and self-opinionated creature, a bag of Western conceit—“God” knows, I do not. My belief is that the Chohan has interfered suddenly as he often does. And now there will be a fine row. But what of the following? On December 7th, Mahatma K. H. sent a letter from Sanangerri to his chelas Damodar and Dharani Dhar Kauthumi with a copy of some passages from his big letter to you. In it He said—that he had notified you and those followers of his who had remained faithful to him that unless the L.L. Society should create a secret section with yourself at the head, while Mrs. K. would be the fair and glittering sign-board of the “Lodge” representing Esoteric Christianity or any other flapdoodle—they (the Mahatmas) would have nothing to do any more with the English Fellows. All Branches to be notified of the same and no chelas to write letters to her or the Lodge without the sanction of the Masters. My BOSS nailed me down very kindly in my effusion No. 2 to her, again, and entrusted Subba Row with the work—a humiliation to which I am becoming accustomed. Subba Row is mad and feels ferocious. He is preparing a pamphlet for private circulation addressed to the Fellows of the London Lodge and the esoteric students of all others. It will be sent to you next week. Pralaya, pralaya! a regular obscuration of the Secret Doctrine. As to the final conclusion of Maitland’s onslaught, delivered to you on Dec. 16th it is the faithful echo that has reached him from the Simla heights, the secret voice of Djoota-Sing—as it was prophesied to you that he should do, his gushing and sweet letters to me now—notwithstanding. Consummatum est.
—•— 65 H. P. B. ON INJUSTICE —•—
On February 17th Olcott will probably sail for England on various business, and Mahatma K. H. sends his chela, under the guise of Mohini Mohun Chatterjee, to explain to the London Theosophists of the Secret Section—every or nearly every mooted point and to defend you and your assumptions. You better show Mohini all the Master’s letters of a non-private character—saith the Lord, my Boss—so that by knowing all the subjects upon which he wrote to you he might defend your position the more effectually—which you yourself cannot do, not being a regular chela. Do not make the mistake, my dear boss, of taking the Mohini you knew for the Mohini who will come. There is more than one Maya in this world of which neither you nor your friends and critic Maitland is cognisant. The ambassador will be invested with an inner as well as with an outer clothing. Dixit.
As for me let me die
in peace among my household gods. I have become too old, too sick and broken
down to be of any use. I am dying by inches in my harness. Adieu and my love to
Mrs. Sinnett.
Yours ever, here and—there,
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
Sir Ch. Turner said at a public dinner that
you were quite crazy and that it would end
surely in your turning a Roman Catholic one ADYAR,
MADRAS,
day. He hates us bitterly.
Nov.
17, 1883.
MY DEAR BOSS,
Of course I am an old fool—as usual; but this does not prevent you from being a diplomat—a child of your age and civilisation. Your devotion, entire faith in, and love for K. H. I do not doubt, but I cannot get rid of the idea that all of us appear to you but objects immersed in the far off edges of that Koothoomian light. Well I do not complain, I am not vain; and am frank and sincere confessing my faults but ready to plunge and rear like an old Kalmuck horse whenever whipped unjustly. For some time there come letter after letter from you with nothing but remonstrances and pitching into me, as though I were responsible for all that bore the name of theosophy the world over; and claims (as I thought very unjustifiable) for respect to the L.L. Theos. Soc. which the latter did not merit at all in my eyes, for I knew all the time what an unbearable female snob was “the divine Anna.” I knew it, and repeated it and went on protesting from first to last until my BOSS M. called me a “nuisance” and a “short sighted female” (in a letter in the bargain, one of his
—•— 66 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
“scarlet letters” and through Subba Row) and ordered me “to shut up” an elegant expression he got, I suppose, out of Olcott’s store of Yankee words. Yet he never told me that I was wrong but simply that the zebra-clad Kingsford had been chosen by your guide and protector K. H. and that HE knew what He was about—notwithstanding all. Well I supposed it was one of their usual round about experiments in human nature and so shut up. But now, my tongue is once more untied. Fine doings! And hardly a month since, K. H. knowing certainly what she was after, said to me nevertheless—after telling me that she made the best use of my advertising Bradlaugh’s and Besant’s literature and would impede the circulating of the Theosophist in England—“Write to the Seeress of the London Lodge that you are ready to take out that obnoxious advertisement, if it so hurts their Christian feelings, but that you will not drop advertising free thought literature in general.” And He made me do it. For, of course what Mahatma K. H. says is divine authority for M. and I know it. Well, I had a right to think she had written to him complaining of us; but [I] now I suppose she has not. I am glad your Fellows have proved loyal. Become their President and there is nothing I will not do for you all. But the Anna was a snake, a horned aspic amongst roses and for the life of me I cannot see why she was chosen by K. H. unless indeed to show C. C. Massey’s intuition. Well, let them establish a Kingsfordian Society, and worship at the feet of their fetish. Massey is unsettled in his faith, poor, dear sensitive fellow. The impudent plagiarism has found a ready believer in him. K. H. plagiarised from Kiddle! Ye gods and little fishes. And suppose he has not? Of course they the subtle metaphysicians will not believe the true version of the story as I now know it. So much the worse for the fools and the Sadducees. If they knew what it was to dictate mentally a precipitation as D. Khool says—at 300 miles distance; and had seen as all of us—General Morgan, I, the chelas here (of whom we have three) -- the original fragments on which the precipitation was photographed from which the young fool of a chela had copied, unable to understand half of the sentences and so skipping them, then they would not be idiotic enough to accuse not only an Adept but even the two “Occidental Humourists” of such an absurd action. Plagiarise from the Banner of Light!! that sweet spirits’ slop-basin—the asses! K. H. blows me up for talking too much—says He needs no defence and that I need not trouble myself. But if He were to kill me I cannot hold my tongue—on general principles and as a sign of loyalty to them. Of course if He has said—nor explained this to you then he must have good reasons for it. But ever since Subba Row brought to
—•— 67 INGRATITUDE —•—
us the original scrap of Kashmir paper (given to him by my Boss) on which appeared that whole page from the letter you published—I understood what it meant. Why that letter is but one third of the letter dictated and was never published for you have not received it. There is no connection as it now reads between the first portion and that [on] which begins with the words “Ideas rule the world” and it looks . . . .I
True proof of her discretion! I will tell you all myself as soon as I have an hour’s leisure. K. H.
But since they don’t want me to speak of this I better not say a word more lest M. should again pitch into me!
To other matters. I was mad with you and therefore wrote about poor Brown that now “I knew, I respected him still less.” It’s all bosh. He is a fine young fellow and Olcott loves him dearly and he is very much attached to Olcott. Sarah Parker is an ungrateful, vain, selfish, ridiculous old mare. She pretends great fondness and devotion for me and maligns me behind my back—“wondering whether what old Wyld told her of Mme. B. was true.” She owes her visit to Brown and the £60 he gave her—and now calls him a cad, a “mean Scotch blackguard,” whose money can never repay what she has done for him (!) and taught him, he owing all his knowledge to her, etc. They had fights and quarrels daily here every time they met at table and so I packed him off to Olcott. And as I never go down stairs she became so obnoxious to the chelas that they would not have her in the house. She used to force herself into the offices and then sat there repeating “Oh, I am enjoying drinking their magnetism—it is so pure!!” And when Brown went to the Shrine and got a letter from K. H. and I would not let her in (for fear of their quarrelling again before the Shrine) she got so mad that she went into a passion, called them (the Masters) “ungrateful curs” (a la Hume) for whom she had worked in America and for whom she had come here and who now preferred to her that idiot Brown, etc. etc. At this the chelas were so outraged that they declared that if the Colonel would receive her into the Society they would all leave it. (She is not initiated nor ever will be). Dharani Dar Kautumi (K. H.’s chela) gave to her hard, so hard that she was terribly frightened, got the jaundice, and went straight off to Calcutta, where the first thing she did was to demand of Norendra Nath Sen that the Calcutta Society should take for her at their own (Society’s) expense magnificent lodgings, pay for them and keep her in style as the “Society’s Lecturer.” I had given her
I here several lines of H. P. B.’s writing have apparently been completely erased, and the following note precipitated in K. H.’s writing.—ED.
—•— 68 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
a few words of recommendation to Norendra, Gordans and Ghosal, pitying her, since she has neither money nor brains, nothing but enthusiasm and—cheek. Yet I warned them all what she was. Well then rejoice. You are a prophet and I am a fool. But still I say I will never turn my back on any woman who even seems devoted to our Cause. She was recommended to me by Miss Kislingbury, and she was all right in America. My Boss had said between two pipes—Try—and left me in the lurch as usual. And now They and you laugh at me. Welcome, gentlemen, do not mind old me. Of course I telegraphed to the Society at Calcutta not to spend one penny on her, since she would have no gratitude, but would only compromise the Society. And Olcott refused to have her initiated. So—there’s an end to it. Triumph with Brown, now.
I send you your trunk and contents through Allen. The paper sent to us by them for Theosophist is one inch shorter than our journal! and 800 rupees sent to them!! That’s Mr. Olcott’s and your doings. What will the subscribers say, I don’t know.
Brown seems to become the Master’s pet. Brown wrote to me a crazy letter from Jubolpore and Allahabad about having seen K. H. and recognised him too—at a lecture! Most extraordinary phenomena took place among the travellers—Olcott, Brown, Damodar and two Madrassee secretaries. Damodar has so developed that he can get out of his body at will. They sent him on the 10th to me, giving him a message and asking him to tell me to telegraph to them the message back as a sure sign he was indeed in his astral body. At the same hour Coulomb heard his voice in my room and I saw and heard him, and telegraphed what he had asked me immediately. You will find it in the Supplement. Then Brown puts letters and questions under Damodar’s pillow and receives answers a few minutes later, in K. H.’s handwriting and his usual paper and from my Boss too. Now they will say that it is Damodar the third humourist an “Oriental” one this once. Olcott saw K. H. at last and so will Brown at Jammu—D. K. says. Now ask Brown to write down what he sees for if you have not seen K. H. there then you will have one English witness at least that he is no myth—the lining of two Occidental Humourists. Harrison is a fool and Ditson F.T.S.—another. They are all fools and Carlisle was right. What do you mean by saying that “their Lordships” write too much for your London Society. It is my Boss and two others you do not know. It is against science, rot for your members that they write. And I always said it was useless and time lost for no one will believe and very few will understand, I don’t. What do you mean by abusing Subba Row? Why read his last against Cunningham—the old man wrote to him and
—•— 69 COMMENTS ON A LETTER FROM A. K. —•—
has made him hundred questions for the sake of science and archeology—which Subba Row says he will not answer. Amen.
Oh Lord, what asses write in Light! He is a fine fellow St: Moses. Very friendly to you. Poor unfortunate, irresponsible and vain medium. And now see—“ ‘Buddha’ is but another name for Lingam, the name of an idol”—according to some English flapdoodle. (See Light of the 27th October—Humphreys I think). Goodbye my leg is very bad again, and I can hardly hold the pen. My love to Mrs. Sinnett and Denny.
Yours, for your sorrow,
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
ADYAR,
Nov. 26/83.
MY
“DEAR
SIR
AND
BROTHER”
--
AND
RESPECTED
BOSS.
We are cooked, both you and I. Of course with that worldly prevision that characterises you so preeminently in the discovery of things well known and long discovered you must have had a prophetic premonition of my fuming, swearing, kicking, and plunging after the receipt of your letter of Oct. 26. Well I knew this, as I had told you, long before. In my sight she was always a selfish, vain, and mediumistic creature, too fond of adulation and dress and tinkling jewelry to be of the right sort. And then you, too, say that from the first you were painfully alive to her defects—whereas this is a moutarde apres diner—for you were fascinated with her like all the rest, July 1881. However, it may be noble theosophist, you and I are cooked beyond redemption—for SHE has the best of us, it seems. Listen. Three days ago I received a letter from her; 8 pages of her beautiful clear writing, with the usual celestial young lady surrounded with the seven pigeons and pressing to her heart the illegitimate offspring of her faux pas—stamped on the paper. A letter reasonable and refined, concise and clear to desperation; a letter breathing the spirit of devotion to theosophy (her “Theo-sophia” of the pigeons, of course); of reverence “profound and reasoned” for the Mahatmas, of “high consideration” for poor I—the whole signed and concluded “with cordial and sympathetic sentiments.”
Oh woman—cunning, besides frailty—is thy name! Now I knew and know that the whole letter is a humbug. The little “unpleasantness” between Maitland and the L.L. fellows, you write took place on the 26th I believe? Her letter is dated the
I M.’s comments appear in bold type.—ED.
—•— 70 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
30th of October. Evident what must have been her feelings, her true womanly spite when she wrote this reasonable plaintive letter against Mr. Sinnett’s “unreasonableness” his “eagerness to impress us with the paramount importance of the Mahatmas,” her struggles “to preserve the equilibrium of reasonableness upon this head” and her “admonitions” not being taken by any means “in good part by a considerable number of our Fellows.” She “feared, of late, to see our English Branch degenerating into a kind of idolatrous feeling towards these good and kind Adepts (italics mine) instead of preserving towards them an attitude of reverence only.” It “must be displeasing to the Mahatmas themselves.” It is “injudicious” because in a country “where the eye of criticism and unfriendly ridicule, is kept fixed upon every new movement” and it is “manifestly unwise of our Society to present itself before the World in the guise of a Sect having chiefs accredited with super-human powers of greatness.” All this led to the Standard calling “us a Society founded on the alleged feats of certain Indian jugglers.” (Ital. hers.) “This incident and other similar episodes have much annoyed and exercised” her. Much as she esteems Mr. Sinnett, she thinks that “he is making a mistake in carrying in this country the identical policy pursued by the Society in India. It will be fatally destructive to all our hopes of attracting the attention of the Leaders of Thought (Lankester and Donkin?) and Science whose cooperation would be invaluable to us” etc. etc. etc.
Now I have good reason to quote her language as you will see. Have patience then. Further she goes on saying that what she wants is, that the general public would understand “the basis of our Society to be that we are a Philosophical School, constituted on the ancient Hermetic basis, following scientific methods and exact processes of reasoning independent of any absolute authority of an extraneous kind, although accepting with reverence teaching from competent sources.” Otherwise, and though our such reverse policy in India is perfectly right, for here “the position and influence of Adepts and gurus is understood”—in London your Society under such a mistaken policy as yours—“is liable to be regarded on the one hand, as evincing uncommon credulity and ignorance of scientific methods; and on the other, as a system bearing—to the protestant mind—a striking resemblance to the Catholic system of Directors and confessors, the submission required of the catechumen towards his guru or Mahatmas . . . . I hope,” she concludes, “I have made my position quite clear without exposing myself to any misunderstanding. It would be a help and support to me if you would kindly lay this letter before K. H. himself and ask his Counsel.” She then complains that she had “endeavoured
—•— 71 M. AND K. H. INTERVENE —•—
personally to come into ‘rapport’ with Mahatma K. H. but have quite failed,” and winds up by asking K. H. to strengthen her by his influence, for which reason thinking that “it may be an aid—magnetically or otherwise—to Mahatma K. H. to see my face (!?!?) -- I send my photograph. . . . It may help him to a right analysis of my present personality . . .” etc. etc.
I believe the “analysis” is all made and long ago. At least I have rightly analysed the sweet, fascinating creature and thus I was going to answer accordingly. I prepared a long, polite and as I thought a diplomatic letter, defending you of course in one sense and blaming only for your thirst for phenomena and tests. Alas, alas! I had calculated without my host! I had no occasion to “submit it to Mahatma K. H.” for the same day he helped himself to it, without saying a word. Now a digression. You say in your last—that whatever K. H. would tell you [to] do, you would do accordingly and add—“and you too.” Well I say that in this case I am not sure I would. K. H. is not my Master however much I revere Him. But, no sooner had I finished copying my letter (English corrected by Mohini) an operation performed on my best paper and with new pen, which took me a whole forenoon to the detriment and neglect of other work, than the following occurred. My letter 8 pages—was quietly torn one page after the other by my BOSS!! his great hand appearing on the table under Subba Row’s nose (who wanted me to write quite differently) and His voice uttering a compliment in Telugu which I shall not translate though Subba Row seemed to translate it for me in great glee. “K. H. wants me to write differently” was the order. They (the Bosses) have put their heads together and decided that the “divine Anna” should be humoured. She is necessary to them; she is a wonderful palliative (whatever on earth the word means in the present case!) and they mean to use her. She must be made to remain the aureolic President, you the nucleus (or nucleatic?) President. Both of you have to face each other as the two poles, chance guided by Masters drawing finally the true meridian between you two for the Society. Now don’t imagine that I laugh or chaff. I am in a state of mute and helpless despair—for this once I be hung if I understand what they are driving at! I simply give you the expressions of Djual Khool as he gave them to me, not to write to her but in order that I should “realize and understand their (the Masters) policy.” The devil a bit I shall! Let Them make for me new brains then for I cannot for the life of me understand how after she has so irreverently abused them in her address—she can remain President! To this D. K. only laughed. “The words of a woman wounded in her physical vanity, angry at not being taken notice of by Master (K. H.) are less than
—•— 72 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
a passing breeze. She may say what she likes. The Fellows have done their duty to protest as they have, she will know better now, but she must remain, and Mr. Sinnett must become the leader and President of the inner ring.” This is as nearly verbatim as I can remember D. K.’s words whatever the inner ring means. I suppose it is this: Mrs. K. will be the President of the exoteric Theos. Soc. nominally that also of the inner Society, and within the general Society will be an inner esoteric or circle of the Fellows who pursue the study of the esoteric doctrines like yourself. Well I had to write to her in consequence and tell her all manner of pious and lying compliments I do not feel. Let the Karma of this fall upon BOSS—for I have been solely and only the weapon or irresponsible agent in all this. I suppose Mahatma K. H. played first fiddle and my Boss second as usual. I have as you say but to obey.
Quite so for it is the best policy.
That’s all and now I wash my hands. Since the Masters take this upon themselves what have I to say? They want her to write her occult experiences in the Theosophist—she says—and she kindly consents.
Really I do not know how to answer your question about Mrs. Gebhard. Of course she deserves if any to receive direct instructions from the Masters. But how can K. H. go to her—a woman? Don’t you know the strict prohibition? Besides Boss forbids me talking on those subjects. He blew me up several times for talking too much and telling you of things I knew nothing much myself—as about this darned “Moon” question. I was abused more than I ever was for this when the question of the moon—“dust bin” came out. It’s all that wretched Wyld. His answer is so stupid that I will not even notice it. “Mr. B.” indeed! Mr. B. is of course Dayanand who is referred to as Mr. B. in his silly letter in Light. Ah yes! “Mr. B . . . is rapidly disintegrating and become rotten and must no doubt shortly die out altogether,” and “Mr. B.” or Dayanand has very rapidly disintegrated and is just dead on Oct. 30th last as prophesied 18 months ago. Wyld may laugh. But he is disintegrating and rapidly dying out himself—the fool!
Well there’s news again. Day before yesterday I received telegram from Jummar from Olcott “Damodar taken away by the Masters.” Disappeared!! I thought and feared as much though it is strange for it is hardly four years he is chela. I send you both telegrams from Olcott and Mr. Brown’s second one. Why should Brown be so favoured—is what I cannot understand. He may be a good man, but what the devil has he done [of] so holy and good! That’s all I know about him that it seems to be K. H.’s second visit personally to him. He is expected here or in the
—•— 73 STRANGE HAPPENINGS —•—
neighbourhood by
two chelas who have come from Mysore to meet Him. He is going somewhere to the
Buddhists of the Southern Church. Shall we see him? I do not know. But there’s a
commotion here among the chelas. Well strange things are taking place.
Earthquakes, and blue and green sun; Damodar spirited away and Mahatma coming.
And now what shall we do in the office without Damodar! Ye gods and powers of
Heaven and Hell we didn’t have work and trouble enough! Well, well
THEIR
Will be done not mine.
Yours ever in hot water,
H.
P. BLAVATSKY.
Give my love to dear Mrs. Sinnett and a kiss to Denny. How is he and the Bossess? Who is Mr. Finch? A candidate for chelaship? What does Mr. Myers say to the Replies? Disgusted I suppose? I thought as much. Well that’s all the Adepts will get for their trouble. Adieu!
Sinnett Sahib—you must
not wonder. We have the good of the whole Movement and Society at heart. Even
the wishes of the majority shall not prevail—the feelings of the less
enlightened minority having also to be consulted. The day must come when
all
will know
better. Meanwhile the
akhu
tries to
fascinate K. H. by her portraiture!
M.
ADYAR,
MADRAS,
January
25th,
1884.
By order of my BOSS I send you the Kingsford letters to fondly read and preserve for Olcott when he comes—he will be with you about March 15th or 20th. Subba Row’s answer (by order) to the President and the Vice-President of the London Lodge T.S. is ready and I hurry on the printer to finish it this week. It was impossible to finish it as the Boss wanted the same week, for it is three times as long as the attack and wanted careful revision, Subba Row having lavished such uncultured words as “stupid,” “absurd,” “misrepresentation” etc. that would never do in a pamphlet destined for the refined ears of the members of the L.L. But I do believe he has settled them both the Vice-President and vicious President—whose shadow be trampled upon! It shows what fools they are with all their culture and genius and conceited idea of themselves. As Boss says she is the most foolish woman to open at once all her weakest points, and thus the fittest to be the President of most of the western would be members.
—•— 74 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
Last night when I wrote this I was so ill that I could not proceed, and now I am not much better but determined to write if it were to tell you many things. Yesterday Subba Row showed me a letter to him in Telugu from our mutual Boss M. (as you know) with instructions to say some more things in the answer to K. and M. Among other things there was a funny news. It appears that you go against my Boss’s advice that there should be 14 councillors in your Lodge -- 7 for you and 7 for Kingsford, for it is his dodge. He writes the particulars now for Subba Row’s information in writing the pamphlet and his words are: “I thought my Peling friend, Sinnett Sahib more perspicacious—tell him I have advised only 7 councillors on the side of the yellow haired woman because I knew that it was four too many. She is needed in the Society, but not as the head of it if it can be helped.”
Now what does all this mean? Do they or do they not want Mrs. K. for je suis au bout de mon Latin, and gave it up long ago. They tell me nothing and—I ask nothing.
And now something that is sure to astonish you, then make you angry and finally cause you to blow me up but I cannot help it.
It appears that I am mortally sick and, as the Masters have cured me repeatedly and have no time to bother with me, and that besides what I want is constant air charged with something (some scientific flapdoodle word) that cannot be got here in India—my Boss ordered Olcott to take me to Southern France—to some secluded village, on the sea shore or to the Alps for a long and entire rest of three months at least. Well I kicked, but the Society wept and cried and asked me to remain alive with them as they did not want me dead, and therefore to go and return. Ragonath Row and Subba Row are to take charge of the Theosophist and Damodar and a new chela who will be sent here in my absence. So I consented with the following condition (imposed upon them moreover by my Boss) I must not, shall not, and will not, go to London. Do whatever you may. I will not approach it even. Had my Boss ordered it to me even—I think I would rather face his displeasure and—disobey him. With the exception of you two, whom I sincerely love, the very idea of London and your groups (Theosophical and Spiritualistic) -- is loathsome to me! As soon as I think of M.A. Oxon, of C.C.M., of Wilde, Kingsford, Maitland and some others I feel a feeling of horror, of inexpressible magnetic disgust creep over me. In short I would not approach London to save 17 lives of mine, so, do not ask me to. I will stop at Marseilles for a fortnight or so, go to Paris to meet some cousins and then right to some secluded spot in the Mountains where I can catch hold of my Boss’s astral tailcoats whenever I choose.
—•— 75 THE HODGSON INVESTIGATIONS —•—
If I die, I will be put out of the way without fuss or scandal and—“addio.” If I get better I will come back via the same way Italy or France and resume my work. We will sail towards the 20th of February from Bombay, for I have promised to go to . . .I before leaving.
Give my love to dear Mrs. Sinnett and kiss “Morsel.” I hope he has not turned a Dissenter as yet. Write me to Marseilles, my name Poste Restante—to await arrival. When Mohini has done his work with the Colonel in London he will join me to be my Secretary—the Madras and Calcutta Societies paying his expenses.
And now goodbye. Send
you my photo—the last one I will ever take. Do not speak nonsense. My Memoirs
will
NEVER appear.
Yours Tibetanly,
H.
P.
BLAVATSKY.
ADYAR. 27.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
I am compelled to write to you once more. My own reputation and honour I have made a sacrifice of, and for the few months I have to live yet I care little what becomes of me. But, I cannot leave the reputation of poor Olcott to be attacked as it is, by Hume and Mr. Hodgson who have become suddenly mad with their hypotheses of fraud more phenomenal than phenomena themselves. Others will write and explain to you why such a sudden revulsion of feeling. I with thousand other theosophists, protest against the manner and way the investigations are carried on by Mr. Hodgson. He examines only our greatest enemies—thieves and robbers like Hurrychund Chintamon who has returned here to serve the Gaikwar, and being shown by him some new letters (!! I must have written thousands!) received by him as he assures Hodgson, 7 years ago from America. Hodgson copies some paragraphs from them that he believes the most damaging and builds on that a theory of my being a Russian spy besides being a fraud and hoodwinking Olcott from the first. For instance in a letter about the Arya Somaj I say, probably this I do not deny: Never mind Olcott and what he says (about the blending of the two Societies) I will make him do it. I can “psychologise the old man with one look” etc. Something of the kind in fun, of course. This is construed by Mr. Hodgson to show clearly, on my own confession that from the first I have bamboozled Olcott, psychologised him and therefore that his testimony is worthless. Then
I This word indecipherable.—ED.
—•— 76 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
Hodgson assures Oakley that he has seen a letter from me to the same Hurrychund in which the following words occur: “Find me a few members not loyal but disloyal” (to the A. I. Govt., of course).
Now these words, if ever written, could never have been written seriously. You know how I tried to conciliate the Hindus with the English. How I did all in my power to make them realize that their Govt. bad as it seemed to them was the best they could ever have, etc. I defy to find one respectable trustworthy Hindu who will say that I ever breathed a disloyal word to them. Let Hurrychund show to Mr. Hodgson a certain letter I wrote to him in reply to his question in his: “Dear Sister, tell me, is the Russian Govt. as bad as ours? Are they as cruel with the conquered people as our rulers are with us?” etc. I answered him—“May heaven protect and save you of the Russian Govt. Better for every Hindu to drown himself at once than to ever find himself under the Russian Govt.” or words to this effect—but I remember perfectly the spirit I wrote them in. And yet because of this letter and of a certain paper stolen from me by Mme. Coulomb and that the missionaries have shown to him, a paper partially or wholly written in cipher, -- he says—Mr. Hodgson has publicly proclaimed me a Russian spy. Read the enclosed letter that I want to send to him, and you will understand the situation. Oakley says he has gone mad! At a public dinner to call one a Russian spy when these d—d countrymen of mine are playing their tricks beyond the Himalayas is enough to have me locked up by the Ang: In: on mere suspicion. Even Hume was horrified at his language and warned him that he was not in England. And now that a lawyer and Subba Row cross-examined him and Oakley and Olcott went to him demanding an explanation the whole evidence for my being a Russian spy does not amount to a crock. Coulomb stole a “queer looking paper” and gave it to the missionaries with the assurance this was a cipher used by the Russian spies (!!) They took it to the Police Commissioner, had the best experts examine it, sent it to Calcutta for five months moved heaven and earth to find out what the cipher meant and—now gave it up in despair. “It is one of your flapdoodles” says Hume. “It is one of my Senzar MSS,” I answer. I am perfectly confident of it, for one of the sheets of my book with numbered pages is missing. I defy any one but a Tibetan occultist to make it out, if it is this. At all events, the missionaries have done their best to prove me a Russian spy and have failed—while Mr. Hodgson has proclaimed me one publicly.
Is this fair and noble or honest? please ask Mr. Myers. And now on the theory of Mr. Hume that there are no Mahatmas the whole Head Quart: is implicated. We are all frauds and all
—•— 77 H. P. B. ARRIVES IN FRANCE —•—
forgers of Mahatma K. H.’s handwriting. Poor Olcott is ready to commit suicide. There’s an end to the phenomena for ever—at least to their publicity—and you may all say good bye to teaching and Mahatmas now. Subba Row repeats that the sacred science was desecrated and swears he will never open his lips to a European about occultism. Oakley will write to you. Mrs. O. is so ill that she returns to London and Mr. O. remains here.
Well, I knew all this before I left. I felt it and said so to Mr. Stead or Stake or whatever his name is at your party.
Good bye all, London
Lodge and Occultism, the P. R. S. will kill you. Let them go to Eglinton and
investigate the secrets of nature on his slate.
Yours ever,
H. P. B.
Please give my love if she accepts it still to dear Mrs. Sinnett.
At this very instant, I receive a letter for you. I enclose it—pardon me but I do hope—it is the last, for I have no more strength to suffer.
NICE,
March 17.
MY DEAR FRIENDS,
I have received the kind invitation of yourselves, of Mrs. and Miss Arundale, of Mrs. Going and several others. I am deeply touched by this proof of the desire to see my unworthy self, but see no use to kick against fate and try to make the realisable out of the unrealisable. I am sick, and I feel worse than I felt when leaving Bombay. At sea I had felt better, and on land I feel worse. I was laid up for the whole day on my first landing at Marseilles, and am laid up now. At the former place it was I suppose the vile emanation of a European civilised first class hotel with its pigs, beef and old cats mixed with frogs; and here—well, here it is due to the kind hand of providence. Anyhow I am falling to pieces; crumbling away like an old sea biscuit and the most I will be able to do, will be to pick up and join together my voluminous fragments and gluing them together carry the ruin to Paris. What’s the use asking me to go to London? What shall I, what can I do amidst your eternal fogs and the emanations of the highest civilisation? I left Madras a mon corps defendant. I did not want to go—would return this minute, if I could. Had not “father” ordered it, I would not have stirred from my rooms and old surroundings. I feel ill, miserable, cross, unhappy. My poor uncle, General Fadeyef, is just dead and I suppose I have to go in mourning. Then I expect
—•— 78 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
my sister to come and see me somewhere after 20 years of separation and perhaps the old folks—my two aunts. I would not have come to Nice but for Madame A. Hammerle, our dear Theosophist from Odessa. Lady Caithness is the embodiment of kindness. She does everything in creation to humour me, and I came for two days instead of the six weeks she wanted me to stop with her. But I had reckoned without my host—the Mistral of Provence and the cold winds of Nice. And now I am laid up. Mohini and Bowajee (the two soit disant “Secretaries”) are gone to Paris yesterday—and Olcott and I came here feeling we had no right to disregard the kind invitation, expressed in 36 telegrams and letters. She is a dear good friend, she will be a real friend shortly—yet even for all that I feel I have no right to stop here beyond a few days, and as soon as I am better we mean (Olcott and I) to join the “Secretaries” in Paris, only to begin fidgetting as soon as I am there and wishing myself sooner in Jericho than horrid Paris. What kind of company am I to civilised beings like yourselves? It is very, very kind of Mrs. and Miss Arundale to invite me, I am unworthy of such a warm expression of kindness and sympathy. I would become obnoxious to them in 7 minutes and a quarter, were I to accept it and land my disagreeable bulky self in England. Distance lends its charm, and in my case my presence would surely ruin every vestige of it. The “London Lodge” is in its sharpest crisis. Olcott with his instructions from his Mahatma (father), and Mohini with his orders from Mahatma K. H. are the best calculated persons to set things right. I would do the reverse. I could not (especially in my present state of nervousness) stand by and listen calmly to the astounding news (from Gough!!) that Sankara Charya was a theist and Subba Row knows not what he is talking about, without kicking myself to death; or that other still more astounding declaration that Masters are evidently “Swabhavikas”! Oh sweet Jesus, and shall I begin contending against the Goughs and Hodgsons who have disfigured Buddhism and Adwaitism even in their exoteric sense, and risk bursting a blood vessel in London upon hearing these arguments reiterated? Not I. I have the greatest respect for Mr. Massey’s enormous powers of “clear and unimpeachable logic” but can only wonder that such a keen metaphysician hangs his faith—after rejecting the authority of even Subba Row—upon the flapdoodle dicta of the unutterably ignorant translation and dead-letter interpretations of the Gough and Co. Vade retro Satanas. Let me die in peace—if I have to die, or return to my Lares and Penates in Adyar, if I am ever doomed to see them again. You shall have Olcott and Mohini—buss. Please do not be angry with me. Really and indeed I do
—•— 79 THE MASTERS AND THEIR TEACHINGS —•—
not feel like going to England. I love you all at a distance, I might hate some of you of the L.L. were I to go there. Don’t you understand why? Can’t you realise with all you know of me and of the truth, (the latter is ignored only by those who will not see it) that it would be an inexpressible suffering for me to see how the Masters and their philosophy are both misunderstood. How shall I stand there, and see Their teachings tested and rectified by the sublime absurdities of a Hodgson who acquaints his readers so coolly with a creature he calls “God, that is, of an absolutely immaterial being.” A “being” and one absolutely IMMATERIAL!! (see p. 22 of C.C.M.’s new pamphlet The Metaph. Basis of E. Buddhism) Ye gods and “immaterial” nothings! I rather plunge for ever into eternal Nirvritti myself.
However, this will do. You must understand my position, otherwise I cannot say more.
Please call in a small meeting at your place of all those who have kindly remembered me by welcoming my arrival in Europe. It is really very kind of them and I will never forget the truly sympathetic feelings expressed in their letter. And tell Mrs. and Miss Arundale, Mrs. Going, Mme. Isabel Steiger, Mrs. Golindo, Mrs. E. C. Knowles, Messrs. Finch and Ed. Wade, how deeply I thank them for their invitation and welcome. Also how deeply sorry I am that I am unable, for the present, at any rate, to avail myself of all this and thus realise their desire to see me. But do also tell them all, that indeed it is rather a gain than a loss to them not to come into closer proximity with my unattractive self than they now are. Every one is not blessed with my “beloved sister’s” (Patience Sinnett) disposition to overlook my many vices and shortcomings. Therefore, tell to my other would be “beloved brethren and sistern” that it is in sheer love for them and out of regard for their civilized feelings, that I refuse to show myself by “day light” little as there may be of the latter article in London.
And now—goodbye.
Behave yourselves like true theosophists—children of Light and Pragna, and
accept the sincere blessings and good wishes of your
fast departing, hapless friend and
brother
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
Love to Morsel. Mea
culpa. Your friend and Master sent you through me (at least I had it second hand
from Djual Khool) a lock to replace the one Dennie had, (what ails the said
lock, did he lose or damage it?) but I do not know where I have put it. It’s
somewhere in my trunk. I will find and send it to you.
H. P. B.
—•— 80 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
NICE,
Friday.
MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,
Every body in the house is gone to the theatre—even Olcott. Sick and ill—humoured I am sitting alone in my quiet room with that new “Reply to Subba Row” by the irrepressible “Perfect Way Twins”—lying before me. And now, I am distinctly ordered by BOSS to pen for your benefit the following questions:
(1) Are you, in the presence of this literary farago, of this jungle of sleight-of-hand logic and wrangling going to remain silent?
(2) If we wait for Subba Row’s Reply to this Reply—then we will have to eat our livers for over three months; and even then ten to one he will only laugh, and as I am not there to stand over him and make him write an answer—he will pay no attention to it.
(3) No one will undertake to go over again (not I, at all events) the whole ground of misconceptions and, as I now see, wilful misrepresentations that begun with their Manifesto No. 1, and now ends with this new “Reply.” The ground was well covered by Subba Row; he explained the whole situation and their mistakes as clearly as one could put it in English; and yet, even now they find holes to pick in, and S.R. is made to appear inconsistent—if not worse. May be, possibly, I am not English scholar enough to take in correctly and in every case, the profound logic and the objections made by both—Messrs. Maitland and Kingsford and L.C. Massey; -- but I consent to be hung if there is a fool, in this world, fool enough to fail perceiving that the whole thing is a hopeless case of the most stupid wrangling, under the garb of logic and philosophy. Besides which the latter production contains a clear misstatement of our beliefs. When, where, how, and what is there in the combined writings of the Mahatma -- (may He forgive me for having thus thrown His holy Name in pasture to the 19th century Seers and Initiates!) -- Subba Row, myself, or any one else that gives them the right to say that we believe in an actual Satan? (pp. 16, 17 et seq.). We, who reject with all our powers the absurd idea of a personal God, we will believe in a personal Satan!! Do they joke or are they in dead earnest? Do they really believe that such is our belief, or is it a mere literary ruse? Hang me if I know!
(4) And then, what do they mean by—“the Master has not yet attained to the highest Mysteries, and does not know the
—•— 81 ANNA KINGSFORD AND K. H. —•—
truth on this point” (i.e. Satan). Now this, I would call simply “cheek” and “impudence” (see p. 16).
(5) And what is the implied meaning of the last para. on page 17, and the first on p. 18? Do they mean to suggest that while Mahatma K. H. may not have reached as yet “the degree of initiation to which the disclosure of such truth belongs”—he, Mr. M. and she Mrs. K. have reached that degree? And do you mean to tell me that there may be found even one person among your theosophists in England fool enough to rely more on the assumed initiation in a preceding life, and therefore infallible illumination in the present life of Mrs. K.—than on the teachings of Mahatma K. H.? Proh pudor! -- my dear “Brethren and Sistern” enjoy your Karma for having elected her President. It is your and Mr. Massey’s (your friends) doings. And now even he goes against you and your Master. Vade retro Satanas! How can I ever face a Society some of whose members harbour such insulting thoughts and express them in print? This is why I cannot come to London. Were I to follow the dictates of my affection for both of you and my desire to get personally acquainted with such charming members as Mrs. and Miss Arundale, Mr. Finch, Mr. Wade and others I know the results. I would either jump up and tear heaven and hell at the first opportunity, or have to explode like a bomb-shell. I cannot keep calm. I have accumulated bile and secreted gall for over six months during this Kingsford-Sinnett embroglio; I have held my tongue and been forced to write civil letters which are now represented in the light of “sympathetic and encouraging correspondence.” I—well, never mind what, and how much I suffered of these coleres rentrees; my present illness is more than partly due to them. But, I am not born for a diplomatic career. I would spoil the broth, and do no good—at any rate, not till after the whole thing is settled and the equilibre-theosophique est retabli.
But now, why should not you call in a meeting before Olcott’s arrival? Why should not you draw the attention of every sensible man to the transparent humbug of the last Reply? Why should not you try and smooth his way? The worst of it is, those eternal references to Gough’s translations of Sanskrit texts! Is it possible that Mr. Massey should rely upon the dead letter, disfigured renderings of Gough or even a Max Muller, of Sanskrit texts, the inner meaning of which can be understood only by initiates! But all this is hopeless. Lillie is “an authority” now—and Gautama Buddha shown by him a theist, and Gough has transfigured Sankaracharya into a believer of Iswara, a personal God, a Being!!!
I do not know what it is that Master ordered Olcott to do.
—•— 82 THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY —•—
He keeps his own counsel and says nothing. But I feel sure that even the Chohan would not force her upon the Society against the will of the majority. Let her found a Society apart from yours—a distinct “Esoteric Christianity London Lodge,” and you establish a Society of your own. How is it possible to accept the proposed farce of a Theos. Society alleged to draw its teachings from our Mahatmas, when, as soon as the latter will say anything that does not quite agree with Mrs. K.’s inspiration and prophetic utterances—their teachings will be forthwith attributed to either “a wilful misrepresentation of doctrine,” or, from the fact that the teacher has not as yet reached the degree of initiation to which disclosure of such truth belongs.” Who is to check the utterances and denials of Mrs. K.? Who can control her assumptions and assertions. She will say—“It is not so, I know it, for I have been initiated during the reign of Psametichus or Sesostris,” and the people will have to open their mouths and hold their tongues. Impossible! Funny position. Oh how inexpressibly higher than her stands in her intuitional knowledge, kindness, and modesty my dear Lady Caithness.
Well tata.
Yours in rags,
H. P.
BLAVATSKY.
You may read this to our friends, to all if you like.
P.S. Another thing. She represents you as an awful fanatic, an intolerant materialist and one who will force his Esot: Buddhism as a complete system, now this is bosh—Master says. I know through him that you do nothing of the kind. You are a loyal, faithful and uncompromising friend and chela of Mahatma K. H. and you stand by him, as I now see, as true as any of his immediate chelas. But I also know that the “Celestial Gemini” correspond with A. O. H. (who has now lost his guru by death, the Almora Sage who was to expose our Masters as Dugpas) and I recognise more than one solitary stroke of his pen in their writings and gratuitous insulting assumptions about what our Masters may be. Why then—BOSS asks, don’t you write and refute all her fibs and expose the malevolent charges. “He hurts the Society and his own cause”—says BOSS—“Tell him so from me.” Now, my BOSS wants her—since the old Chohan is in love with her vegetarianism and her love for animals—to remain President—but not necessarily of your Society. The Chohan wants her in the Society, but would not consent to force the opinion or vote of a single member of the L.L. He will not influence the last of them, for he then would be no better than the Pope who thinks
—•— 83 RUSSIAN ARISTOCRATS AND H. P. B. —•—
he can enforce implicit obedience and then avoid to take upon himself the person’s Karmas. This is what BOSS has just been telling me to write to you. Hence you better prepare and seek the opinion and advice of every member who is of your way of thinking and get ready to split yourselves in two Societies, for this is what the Colonel has to do—I am told. I believe you misunderstood Mahatma K. H.’s telegrams and letters—so Mohini tells me. For they wanted her to remain President so far as They were concerned and to show They did not care a rap for her implied and even expressed insults. Mahatma K. H. had to make it a sinequanon of his teaching you so long as there was but one L.L. and one Society. But since the Chohan is desirous there should be two, on the strength of Art. I (Rules) i.e. “composed solely of co-religionsts”—let her preside over her “London Lodge” and Esoteric Christians—and you over the “Tibetan Lodge” and Esoteric Buddhists. DIXIT. Correct. M.
Two words of myself. In Marseilles upon landing—a gastritis; in Nice upon leaving the train—a bronchitis (dragged to the French theatre where I went to sleep in a corner of the Ducal box, slept during 3 acts, and caught cold through the opened door). Now, gum boils, neuralgia, rheumatics and sciatica, with fever in my ears and diptheria in my toes. A pretty specimen of healthy humanity! On the 26th we go to Paris and on the 4th or 5th Olcott has orders to go to London. Uncle Sam has pneumonia and is laid up in Rome, he telegraphs me. Karma. Ever since my arrival I fell in with a colony of Russian aristocrats—the Tchelishtchof—the Demsdofs, Lvofs, Count Koshkela Dolgorouki and the tutti quanti of titled stars. They exasperated me, and gum boils notwithstanding, drag me to their dinners and lunches, their sumptious palaces and etc. accepting my dressing gowns and evening deshabilles, cigarettes, and compliments with a Christ like forbearance doing great honour to their patriotic feelings. They are proud of me they say; they invite me back home (I wish they may get it) and invite Babula and admire him, permitting him even to kick against the indispensable pair of white cotton gloves at dinner for the sake of admiring his flaming yellow livery and earrings. I will have an extra earring put in his nose before I go to Paris. I met here also a lady, with whom I used to