Theosophical Society,
Miscellaneous
Letters (Part 2)
H P Blavatsky
THE LETTERS OF
H P BLAVATSKY
to
A P SINNETT
and other miscellaneous
letters transcribed, compiled,
with an
introduction
By
A. Trevor
Barker
Section 5
Miscellaneous Letters Page 304 – 365
Appendices Page 369 – 391
General Index Page 391 - 404
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
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
APPENDIXES
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
SECTION II
MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS
II.
—A. O.
HUME
LETTER
No. CLV I
Extracts
of a letter from A. O. Hume to K. H.
.
. .”I not only do not dislike your exercise of this right, but I crave for
it—and
should be glad indeed if you were always to speak your mind far more
freely
than you do. I object to rudeness—some people are rude [1] -- and this
without
offending me,
1
Does he call his letters to M. and H. P. B. polite?
grates
against my feelings as a gentleman, just as a bad smell offends my
olfactory
nerves.
.
. . “As to the particular point that you urge, viz. my great changeableness—I
quite
think you have a prima facie ground for attack; but yet the case is not
exactly
as you think. I am not really so very changeable!! . . . I cannot rely
solely
on you—you have too little time and the only manner in which you appear
able
to teach me, by letter, is so slow and so unsatisfactory, that it would not
be
right for me to look nowhere else.” 2
2
C. C. M. would perhaps call this “candid”?
.
. . “Circumstances have prevented . . . your placing me in such a position
that
I could feel certain you were correct in what you teach. Very probably you
are—but others of the highest learning who have
apparently gone over a good deal the same ground as yourself—traverse your
views to a great extent. In the first place they seem to hold that you Arhats
all are on the wrong road—that you are but refined and highly cultured
tantrikists striving for the Upasana of Shakti
or
Kamarupa instead of that of Pranava or Brahman!! . . .”
They
equally disagree as to your view that there is no God. 3
3
Vedantin Adwaitas?
.
. . Now I do not pretend to say which of you are right. As far as I can judge
their
learning and yog powers are not inferior to yours. 4
4
His “good old Swami” having no powers whatever—the logical inference would be that
we have none at all?
I
The passages printed in bold type are K. H.’s comments, while those in
bold
type italics have been underlined by K. H.—ED.
—•—
305 MR.
HUME IS DISSATISFIED
—•—
But
my dear friend . . . supposing that you are right—then I greatly fear that a
philosophy
crowned by the bald, crude atheism, that you insist on in your notes
(for
you would not have my veiled enunciation of this), 5 will not be accepted
even
in this sadly
5
Is this candid? And should we accept such a policy?
materialistic
age. Europe will not have it neither will Asia. . . . But moreover
even
could we diffuse it, would it be productive of good in the present state of
the
world? . . . To you and men of your purity and elevation of character—even
to men low down in the scale like myself, pure
atheism may do no harm—but to the untaught and spiritually wholly unawakened
classes it would I fear bring evil.
6
And can a superstitious fiction, belief in a pure myth, be ever productive of
good?
We are called by him Jesuits and yet his policy would be purely—Loyolian.
.
. . . . . but the effect of early training as you will say, intuition as I
claim,
does not allow me to accept your view as proved. . . . . .
.
. . . . I cannot truly say that I believe that there is no God. I believe
rather
that there is a God. 7
7
“I am more of an Adwaitee than M. or K. H.” he wrote but yesterday.
.
. . I do not think you are correct in the view that you take of my
changeableness—I
am manysided and as I travel on I revolve and you see different sides at
different times—but you will find that my orbit barring minor mutations is
direct enough, and any apparent retrogressions are optical delusions due to your
standpoint.—At any rate that is an extremely ingenious explanation.
Yours ever sincerely,
A. O. HUME.
Of
course, no doubt he is very “ingenious.”
LETTER
No. CLVI I
SIMLA,
Jan.
4th, 1881.
MY
DEAR OLD LADY,
And
tho’ I am desperately inclined at times to believe that you are an impostor
I
believe I love you more than any of them.
I
have just got off the last pages of a pamphlet I am preparing.
I Marginal comments in M.’s handwriting are
printed in bold type. Passages
printed
in bold type italics have been underlined by M. The numbers in brackets
in
bold type refer to M.’s comments at the end of the letter.—ED.
—•—
306 MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS
—•—
These
last pages are an extract from your letter about Madame * Thekla
Lebendorff † But your explanation in this case is not
intelligible—so after
trying
to make out what you meant—I have entirely rewritten this out of my inner
consciousness—Buddha knows if I have
got on the right scent—I do not—but you will see the proofs and you or the
Brothers,? must correct any blunders.
*
As there are perverted natures which come to love physical deformity as a
contrast
to beauty, so also there are those who find a rest in the moral
depravity
of vitiated persons. Such would consider imposture as cleverness.
†
Mr. Sinnett has to use his influence to forbid such breach of trust. Her
letter
to Mr. Hume was a private one. The case may be given fully. The
publishing of names—names of persons whose kin
survive and live to the present day in
This
pamphlet consists of (1) a long letter denouncing theosophy as a sham, and
setting
forth all the objections to it and the Brothers, put forward by the more
intelligent
men who do not disbelieve in the facts of spiritualism.
Such
as Mr. Chatterjei—for instance?
(2)
A very much longer letter alas, an awfully long letter, picking the first to
pieces
and turning it inside out.
I
have in this done my very best. I think it reads fairly well—it is not
conclusive
-- (for that you must thank the Brothers) (1) but it puts the very
best
face possible on every awkward fact, and gives the fullest view of all the
favourable
ones. The facts being as they are I defy anyone to do more. I mean
anyone
short of a brother, and my hope is that if there are brothers, some of
them may when the proofs are before you favour us
with some hints by which I may strengthen the case. I have taken this
opportunity to let in a lot of light upon
the principles of Esoteric Theosophy and on matters
connected with the Brothers and their modi operandi etc. etc. There is a great
deal in this letter (2).
But
tho’ I think I have made out a good case; though I may convince others—I
have
almost unconvinced myself (3). Never till I came to defend it, did I
realise
the extreme weakness of our position. You, you dear old sinner (and
wouldn’t you have been a reprobate under normal
conditions?) are the worst
breach
of all—your entire want of control of temper—your utterly un-Buddha and un-Christlike
manner of speaking of all who offend you—your reckless statements form together
an indictment that it is hard to meet—I have I think got round it
(4).
But though I may stop others’ mouths, I personally am not satisfied. Now
perhaps
you will say “Are you any better?” “I shall reply at onc
—•—
307 H.P.B.’S MISSING
PRINCIPLE —•—
certainly not—probably in other ways ten times
worse.” But then I am not the
chosen messenger of the embodiment of all purity and
virtue—I am a mudstained soul that, though a cat may look at a king, may not
even look at a Brother.
(5)
Now I know all about the Brothers’ supposed explanation (6), that you are a
psychological cripple, one of your
seven principles being in pawn in
It
ain’t the Hoola sariram, the body—that’s clear for you might truly say with
Hamlet
“Oh that this too solid flesh would melt!”
And
it can’t be the linga sariram, as that can’t part from the body, and it
ain’t
the kama rupa and if it were, its loss would not account for your
symptoms.
Neither
assuredly is it the Jivatma, you have plenty of life in you. Neither is
it
the fifth principle or mind, for without this you would be “quo ad” the
external
world, an idiot. Neither is it the sixth principle for without this you
would
be a devil, intellect without conscience, while as for the seventh that is
universal
and can be captured by no Brother and no Buddha, but exists for each
precisely
to the degree that the eyes of the sixth principle are open.
Therefore
to me this explanation is not only not satisfactory—but its having
been
offered—throws suspicion on the whole thing.
Very
clever—but suppose it is neither one of the seven particularly but all?
Every
one of them a “cripple” and forbidden the exercise of its full powers? And suppose
such is the wise law of a far foreseeing power!
And
so in many cases the more one looks into things, the less they seem to hold
water.
The more they bear the look of contrivances thrown out on the spur of the moment
to meet an immediate difficulty.
If
as is quite possible, everything could be explained—then I only deplore the
fatuity
of the superior beings who send you to fight the world armed with only a
part
of your faculties, and carefully surround you with a network of such
contradictory
and compromising facts, as to render it impossible for your most
loving
and by no means least intelligent friend to avoid at times grave doubts
not
only as to their existence but also as to your good faith. (7)
In
letter No. 2 I have doubtless answered
every objection—after a fashion—but
if
I was to write a No. 3 on the other side couldn’t I make mincemeat of some at
least
of No. 2’s arguments. No one outside can perhaps.
—•—
308 MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS
—•—
As
said before—a good reason for it. For the arguments on both sides are faulty
and
easily made “mincemeat” of.
All
I can say is—if as I still believe on the balance of evidence the Brothers
do
exist—entreat and pray them so to strengthen you as to make you more what a great
moral reformer—should be—and so strengthen our hands to defend you and advance
their cause.
(8)
Well No. 3 is Olcott’s letter from Ceylon—with one passage left out and a few words
modified—to me an excellent letter—the passage which the world would at once
hit upon as pointing to a transcendental flirtation between Morier and his “most
exquisite specimen of perfect womanhood” K. H.’s sister, I have naturally elided—also
the one about his supposed exit from the body in New York, which is weak and
explicable as simple somnambulism. I Mr.
Hume acted judiciously in eliding that passage in O.’s letter though the writing
of the three words would not be covered by the theory of somnambulism, as
somnambulists do not pass through solid walls. As for the sentence about my
brother’s
sister, no one with any delicacy would have thought of giving it to
the
public. The public, represented so brutally indecent in thought, that even
one
of its most accomplished leaders could not read of the pure sisterly
friendship
of a holy woman for her brother’s lifelong brother in occult research
without
descending to the grovelling thought of a sensual relationship, must be
but
a herd of swine. And still that same leader wonders that we do not come to
his
study and prove we are not fictions of a mad fancy!
No.
4 is your story about Thekla—rewritten—I only hope it is quite true—and that when
it gets round to
not
contradict.
There
is a preface in big type which anyone who likes may suppose to be written
by
the Brothers—or by you or the President, saying that these letters though by
no
means entirely free from errors and misconceptions are yet published as
throwing
some light upon difficulties which have been felt by many interested in
Theosophy.
The proofs will come to you in due course—strengthen the defence if you or they
can—don’t attempt to weaken the attack—the strongest position is always gained,
by putting out yourself all that can possibly be said against
you.
By
the way how many copies should be printed of the Bengali translation of the
Ladies
Rules etc. Sinnett only printed 100 of the English and there appear to be
none
left now! It is no use printing more of the Bengali rules than are likely
to
be of use—but I think 100 too few. Please tell me how many—I am paying for the
printing of this, and S. K. Chatterjee who is
I This passage is scored through in red
ink in the original by M.—ED.
—•—
309 HUME BLASPHEMES
—•—
going
down to Calcutta—and who has taken great pains with the translation, will
see
it through the press, and I have to write to him there to say how many
copies,
so please, don’t forget to answer sharp, how many copies.
Chatterjee
is a very clever fellow but though he does not disbelieve in
spiritualism,
or spiritual science, I can’t get him to swallow the Brothers
nohow!
I have just sent him on Olcott’s letter and Ramaswamier’s certificate
with
Morier’s postcript—to the effect that you are all dzing dzing. Most people
are
dzing dzing in the opinion of the illustrious.
If
they don’t exist what a novel writer you would make! (9A) You certainly make
your
characters very consistent. When is our dear old Christ—I mean K. H., again to
appear on the scene—he is quite our favourite actor (9B) -- well I suppose they
know their own business best, but humanly speaking they make a mistake in crippling
my energies by leaving me without any certainty of their existence, and thus
harassing me with doubts whether I may not be preaching doctrines which however
pure in themselves may be founded on a fraud—and which if so founded can never
do any good—by doubts whether I am not wickedly wasting my time and brains over
a chimera, time and energies that I might devote to some humbler but possibly
truer and more good producing cause (9C). However I engaged for one year—and
during that shall do all I can, honestly and fairly—but if within that period I
can acquire no certainty I shall retire from the Society feeling that true or
false, it is no truth for me. I shall not give up the life (10) for that imperfectly
perhaps as I may as yet have succeeded in living it, commends itself wholly to
me—but I shall withdraw from the Society; if founded on truth I shall at least
have done it some good by all I have written and done—if not so, I cannot have
done much harm and I have not so far as I know gone beyond what I do believe.
You
will say that this is nicely complimentary [to] you—but between you and I
there
must be no euphemisms if put into a witness box to-morrow. I could swear, that
as at present advised—I believe you to be a perfectly true woman—but I could
not swear that the whole story about the Brothers was not a fiction,
though
I could swear that on the whole I believed it to be more likely to be
true
than false.
Sinnett
however—lucky fellow, has no shade of doubt—and with his
conviction—position
and abilities he will be a tower of strength to you—and to
Theosophy—so
that I shall have less compunction in washing my hands of the
business than I should have had were you left
without a champion in the hands of the Philistines.
—•—
310 MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS
—•—
I
shall take up Terry’s letter next and see what I can make of it. I have not
had
time to consider it yet properly.
I
wish you would put me in communication with your Triplicane Pundit, and induce him
to favour me with a few more letters like that last. If I had only had that before
I wrote that Fragments!
Love
to Olcott.
Ever
yours affectionately,
A. O. HUME.
(1)
Who refuse to send their portrait—photos to illustrate the forthcoming
revised
and corrected edition of Hume’s “Essays on Miracles.”
(2)
So there is. But great intellectuality does not always go hand in hand with
great
discernment of right and wrong.
(3)
Quite so. There are natures also so much psychologised with their own
eloquence,
so completely subjugated by their own great oratorial powers that
they
are the first to fall under the charm. Mr. Hume will as easily bamboozle
himself
into as out of any belief, provided he is allowed to take all the points
himself.
(4)
Yes—but at what a price!
(5)
Hypocrisy is not always “the necessary burden of villainy—“ but often the
outcome
of vain coquetry with one’s own nature. The inner Hume assuming
attitudes
before the mirror of the outer Hume.
(6)
He is mistaken—he does not.
(7)
Never for those who know her well.
(8)
Nor shall we fail to do so when the time comes.
(9A)
Yes; and what a sculptor and painter she must be as she justly remarked.
(9B)
The man blasphemes! K. H. will never be an actor for the gratification of
anyone.
Let him doubt it, he will not doubt much longer but soon find out his
mistake.
(9C)
If he has the slightest doubt and yet does so he is no honest man.
(10)
Let me draw your attention to a sentence in my letter to Scott in which I
allude
to certain implied threats. The date of Mr. Hume’s letter is Jan. 4th. I
projected
myself before Scott on the 5th and wrote to tell him that I was glad I
could
do so without appearing to yield to implied threats. Whoever else will see
us
it will never be Mr. Hume. He can retire but Mr. Sinnett need not break with
him.
Finally
we do not approve in its present form of Mr. Hume’s pamphlet.
Comparatively
few of the members of the Society
—•—
311 HUME KNOWS
BETTER THAN MASTERS
—•—
occupy
themselves with Occult study or believe in our existence. His pamphlet
commits
the whole body to both. Therein he errs as plainly as Wyld of London in giving
out his private views and his preface suggesting us as its authors must
but
compromise the Society the more.
Your
proposal to compile a manual for the instruction of young members is
approved
by K. H. Consult with Moorad Ali and Olcott. K. H. desires me to say
that
he has no objection to your bringing out 2nd edition provided you include
[in]
an appendix and the different proofs that have since accumulated. He
desires
you to stay here as long as you possibly can. He will write through the
Disinherited.
M.
LETTER
No. CLVII
Original
Telegraph Form
To:
A. O. Hume:
Rothney
Castle, Jakko, Simla.
From:
H. P. Blavatsky:
Bombay,
Byculla.
SIMLA, 5.9.82.
Our
ways not their ways. Brothers may not care but dare not go against oldest
rules.
Two Chohans Chelas protested and ten more signed Subba Row first.
Dangerous
experiments.
Letter
Written on Back of Above.
DEAR
OLD LADY,
Just
received this—not sure if I understand it—if the Brothers understand things
so
little that they allow not only you, but all their Chelas to misconceive
wholly
alike the purport, spirit and practical bearing of a thing, so that they
protest
against what they ought to give thanks for—I really think the thing is
hopeless—and
I give it up—no ship can make anything of a voyage unless the
captain
knows navigation—his being a great chemist will not help the matter and
the
great powers and virtues of the Brothers will not help the Society, if they
the
Captains are so ignorant as this incident seems to indicate of the
navigation
of the ocean of worldly life. Ta-ta.
Yours
ever,
A. O. Hume.
—•— III. —WILLIAM Q.
JUDGE —•—
312
LETTER
No. CLVIII
71, BROADWAY, N.Y.,
Augt. 1st,
1881.
A.
P. SINNETT, ESQ.
MY
DEAR SIR—AND BROTHER,
I
have had great pleasure in reading your Occult World, and in this country so
far
away from India, it has been for me a source of great profit as well as
encouragement.
I never have had the pleasure of speaking to you, but hope one
day
I shall; but there is, for me at least, between us a close bond of sympathy
in
that we both have been in the same current. Although I never had the name
given me I have when Mme. Blavatsky was here had the
honor of hearing from him viva voce, I
mean Koot Hoomi and also from others. And I would give much to see some of the
handwriting of those letters to you if it were only one word, because I have a handwriting here in a certain blue material with which I
would like to compare it.
You
certainly have been exceptionally honored, and why, they must have some
reason.
While H. P. B. was here, they came many and many a time and spoke with Olcott and
myself. But their identity was secure because neither of us at that
time
could pierce the wall of matter and see the true occupant. We had to depend entirely
upon changes of expression.
I
thank you for the book; it will be so much on the way, and will aid to
establish
the counter current now so much needed. For myself it serves to keep
vivid
and green the facts I once witnessed and which time perhaps might without
it,
render weak and maybe incredible.
I
am, fraternally yours,
because
“there is a spirit in man.”
WILLIAM Q. JUDGE,
N.Y.
Rec. Secy. T.S.
LETTER
No. CLIX
Feby. 5, 1886.
MY
DEAR H. P. B.,
So
they have reported on you. You are a corpse. You are squelched, you are a
mere
Mahatma fabrication. But they
—•—
313 JUDGE RECEIVED
LETTERS FROM K.H.
—•—
praise
you too, for you must ever remain the chief, the most interesting, the
hugest,
the most marvellous and the most able impostor and organiser of great
movements,
who has appeared in any age either to bless or to curse it. Not
Caglistro
had such honour as this! Well you deserve honour; I only wish it were
not
accompanied by such vile lies and trash as they put on you. You revisit
these glimpses of the moon, and these madmen
forthwith assail you and while they admit you have no motive they will not if
they can help it permit you to do the great work which without you, might have
waited longer yet for its beginning.
I
shall have written before you get this a letter to the Boston Index which
reprinted
the report. You must have observed that Hodgson has left me out. And yet I am
an important factor. I was there. I examine all, I had all in charge,
and
I say there was no aperture behind the shrine. Then as to letters from you
know
I have many that came to me which resemble my writing. How will they
explain
that? Did I delude myself? And so on.
You
can rely on me at this point for all the help that may be thought necessary.
You
will remember that I was at Enghien with you the day of one of the
phenomena.
They did not get those times when I got letters from the postman with messages
inside. I have here some old letters, and one of them relates to the
cremation
of De Palme.
But
people here are not distressed by this report. They see that truth runs
through
our whole movement and they are not so hidebound by reports and
authority
as in other places.
Gebhard
is my pupil! He and I have been crowding the mourners, and in
believer
and still explaining away what they call your “impostures.”
Mr.
and Mrs. E. Forbes Waters of Boston, have returned to the field. I
reinitiated
them the other night. They control many intellectual people and we
expect
to do something in Boston, great. We had meetings there night after night
and
you can imagine them plying poor Gebhard with questions who referred to me when
they desired to know all the laws of Occultism, the residences of Mahatmas, how
they appear, all the fine “ramifications” of Karma etc. etc. Well, as they know
nothing the little I do know seemed much to them. By the time they find themselves
with the same amount of knowledge perhaps I will have acquired more.
Now
as to me will you ask if there be
anything to say to me. I work all the
time.
How does he explain the meaning of his message through you that I “showed intuition
by leaving
—•—
314 MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS
—•—
India”?
If you do not care to bother with [it] it will not make any difference.
If
10 years have not made any change certainly failure to get this will not.
As ever yours,
WILLIAM Q. JUDGE.
LETTER
No. CLX I
May. 22, 1886.
DEAR
H. P. B.,
I
called on Bouton the other day and arranged that henceforth he should send you the
money in regular drafts on
The
explanation of the Holloway matter is, that you in 1884, appointed her your
attorney
and agent in writing to attend to Bouton. When she came back she
employed
a lawyer, and thus so far as that is concerned you are bound by your
own
acts. I thoroughly agree with what you say about her.
I
understand that she is writing a book on the theosophical movement, to be
embellished
with pictures. She is great on catching the passing emotions of the
people,
for a sale.
Now
will you do me the favour of sending me an authoritative letter stating that
you
do not send ambiguous telegrams to W. Q. J., and that any such message to
have
any effect on W. Q. J. will contain a sign he will understand. For some
person
has been sending me telegrams from various parts of U.S. signed “H. P.
B.”
with ridiculous orders in them. The last was the other day from Baltimore
reading
“Your enemy is a woman; now as then she has betrayed you. Now you know why the
Master did not cure you in
know!) I shall certainly expect from you an article
for my Magazine, The Path. It is going to create a buzz here, and if H. P. B.
redivivus appeared there, great
benefit
would result to the Cause. This journal will help the Theosophist and
all
theos. literature. So look kindly on it and take higher advice.
The
“Oregon” sunk off this coast the other day and I think had some letters of
mine
on board.
I
will write again soon regarding Bouton and duly inform you.
Your
Secret Doctrine ought to be protected here. As you are an
American citizen that can be done. Have Sinnett attend to that from his
side. If you do not he may neglect it.
I The passages printed in bold type are
comments in H. P. B.’s handwriting;
those
printed in bold type italics have been underlined by her.—ED.
—•—
315 PERSECUTIONS AND
TRIALS IN AMERICA
—•—
The
Mohini affair is not good. I do not know the facts and refrain from any
judgment.
Is he at fault?
Can’t understand Babajee unless in carrying out
orders to suppress phenomena he has erred in his method. I notice he does NOT
say you are in with Dugpas. But that accusation about money is the most
reprehensible part of it.
Well
I stick to what I do know and let the rest slide.
As ever yours,
WILLIAM Q.
Persecutions
and trials are now beginning in America. Poor Judge and poor Coues.
May
Masters help them!
H.
P. B.
Send
me back both those letters.
—•— IV. —T.
SUBBA ROW —•—
316
LETTER
No. CLXI I
TRIPLICANE,
MADRAS,
3rd
February, 1882.
To
Madame H. P. Blavatsky.
RESPECTED
MADAME,
I
thank you for your letter of the 28th ultimo. I think it is highly desirable
that
you should come here, if circumstances permit, by the time Colonel Olcott
comes
here from Calcutta. No doubt, I individually am very anxious to see you;
but
that is not the important reason for asking you to come here. Though no
Branch
Theosophical Association has yet been established here, there are a good many
gentlemen here who sincerely sympathise with your aims and objects and who would
be very glad to see you. They know very little of Colonel Olcott except what
they have gleaned from his public speeches. But your “Isis Unveiled” has made a
very strong impression on their minds. I have already informed some of these
gentlemen that Col. Olcott would be coming here before the end of this month
and they have earnestly asked me to write to you requesting you to come here
also. I am very glad to hear that you have almost succeeded in converting Mr.
R. Raghunatha Row to theosophy. He is a man of very strong convictions and an
earnest seeker of truth and he is likely to prove very useful in course of time,
in promoting the cause of theosophy. There are, I believe, some Europeans also,
here, who are very anxious to see you. Please see therefore, if you cannot spare
a few days to gratify the expectations of these gentlemen.
To
tell you the truth, it is my “sincere belief” that India has not yet lost its
adepts
and its “INEFFABLE NAME”—the lost Word!
I The passages in bold type are comments in the
handwriting of Mahatma M.;
those
in bold type italics have been underlined by M.—ED.
—•—
317 THE
ADEPTS OF INDIA
—•—
have
almost reached the shores of the ocean of Nirvana. We still have the clue
in
our hands to understand the teaching of our old Rishis and the doctrines of
every other system of Philosophy which has sprung up
from the Ancient Wisdom Religion. And I venture to affirm (though you may doubt
it) we still have the clue to find out the “LOST FORMULA,”—if it is indeed
already lost. This is not a vain boast, I assure you. The real truth will come
to light when the proper time arrives for it. It should be strongly impressed
on the minds of the English theosophists that these men are not very anxious to
get their existence
recognised
by them. It is of very little importance to them whether India is
governed
well or ill by English officials, whether natives are treated with
haughty
contempt by Europeans or not, and whether the truth of Yoga Vidya is
admitted
by modern sceptics or not. They have, I believe, adopted every
conceivable precaution to conceal their existence. It is onl