---

The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett - 1925

By A. T. Barker

---

Letter No. 13

{Bombay}

21st July.

Mr 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 + [This + designates Imperator, the "guide" of Stainton Moses. — Ed.] 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.

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 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 friend K. 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 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 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.