The Hodgson Report: Report on Phenomena Connected With Theos

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

Re: The Hodgson Report: Report on Phenomena Connected With T

Postby admin » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:54 am

Part 3 of 4


About the same time, at the end of 1882, I was sitting with Madame
Blavatsky, Madame Coulomb, Norendra, Janaki, Nobin K. Bannerji, and
others in a verandah adjoining Madame Blavatsky's writing-room.

On one side was a hill gradually rising to a top. The lull was covered
with thorns. I saw something like a flash of light, and gradually it assumed the
figure of a person about 20 feet distant. Time between 7 and 8 p.m.
I cannot say whether it was moonlight or not. I did not recognise the figure;
cannot say whether it had a beard or not; cannot say whether it had a
turban or not. Madame went near the foot of the hill and exchanged some
signs with the figure. Madame then went to her room by the path on our
side, and the figure went in the direction of Madame's room by the other side.

Afterwards Madame came to us in great excitement and said that one of
the delegates had polluted the house, and it was for this reason the figure
could not come near us. Shortly after the figure again appeared on the hill,
and suddenly vanished, leaving a brightness which gradually faded away.

Account by Mk. Nobix Ejeoshita 3annebji (Deputy Magistrate and
Deputy Collector, and Manager-General of Wards' Estates in Moorshe-
dabad, Bengal).


On the occasion ol the seventh anniversary, in 1882, one evening before the
anniversary celebration, at about 7 p.m., I was sitting in the balcony of
the headquarters in Bombay, in company with Noreudni Kath Sen, Mohini,
Madame, Ramaswamier, and several others. We were talking when Madame
said, '* Don't move from your seat until I say," or something to that effect.
This made us expect that something was about to happen. Some were
standing near the railing of the balcony, others were seated a little back.
After a few moments those standing near the rails saw something, and made
some remarks which induced the rest of the party, excepting myself and
Norendra, to get up and go towards the rails, and look at the object. We
didn't stir, as nothing further was said by Madame, but kept turning our
heads in expectation of seeing something. But we didn't perceive anything.
Some four or five minutes after, we inferred from the remarks made,
that the others had seen some luminous astral figure walking to and fro
below the balcony on Uie side of the hill. It was not pitch dark. Objects
could be seen at a distance, but not distinguished clearly.


The same party with the addition of Mr. Ghosal were sitting together on
the north extremity of the bungalow facing the sea, at about 7.30 p.m.^
when some remark of Madame's made us expect to see something imme-
diately. Shortly after we saw a form standing on a rock close to the
adjoining bungalow, about 10 yards distant. The light was about the same
as on the previous occasion. There was no tree near and the figure could
be seen clearly. The figure was dressed in a white flowing garment, with
a light coloured turban, and a dark beard. The figure was that of a man
of apparently ordinary size, but I- could not recognise who it was. From
my description Colonel Olcott recognised one of the Mahatmas. He men-
tioned the name, which we aftorwards found to be correct, as
Madame and Damodar corroborated it. The figure seemed faintly luminous,
but I aoi unable now fco recollect any further details concerning its
description. The figure gradually vanished, and for a minute or two after-
wards the place where it had been seemed to be gleaming with a
milky brightness. The rock itself has some date and other trees upon it,
buc the spot where the figure appeared was bare. The figure was standing
still when we saw it.


Account by Mr. Chandra Sekhara (Teacher in High School, Bareilly,


In 1882 I went to Bombay in November, reaching there on^e morning
of 26th inst The anniversaiy was postponed from November 27th to
December 7th. On the evening of the 27th, about 8 p.m., we, i.e., about
10 or 11 of us, including the delegates, were seated in the balcony with
Madame B. and Colonel Olcott. Mohini M. Cliatterji, Bishen Lall, and
Janaki Nath Ghosal were present. We were chatting together, and Madame
Blavatsky, witli some other brethren, quickly rose up, and looked towards the
garden below the balcony. I rose up and looked out, but not in the proper
direction. J. N. Ghosal pointed me to the proper quarter, and I saw a
luminous figure walking to and fro below the balcony, on the third terrace
field. [This was explained to mean that there were two fields and a portion
of a third between the speaker and the figure.] Each field is about 10 yards
wide. The third field is full of thorny trees, so that it Js difficult for a man
to walk freely. The trees varied in size, and the foliage occupied a good
deal of space. The figure was upright. I saw him walk three times over
a distance of about 40 yards, and then disappear. There was no moonlight.
The figure appeared nearly 6ft. high, well-built, but I could not distin-
guish the features. I could not tell whether he had a beard. My sight is


The following day we were seated in the verandah near the Occult
Boom, when Madame said that she felt something extraordinaiy. The time
was between 7 and 8 p.m. Suddenly we saw the luminous body of one
who was explained to me to be another Mahatma, on the high rock adjoin-
ing the Occult Boom. The distance of the figure was about 16 yards.
Madame Coulomb was with us. I could not distinguish the features clearly,
not sufficient for recognition. I cannot say whether the figure had a beard.
As soon as we saw the figure, Madame Coulomb exclaimed, in a nervous
manner, '* There! There! " And in a minute Colonel Olcott said, ''Madame
[Blavatsky], go to the foot of the rock, and talk to the Mahatma.'* Madame
went to the rock, and in a short time after she came back shivering, and said
the Mahatma would be willing to come forward to talk to the audience, but
there was some man in our company whose sin was so great that it would be
difficult for the Mahatma to approach, and therefore he had to go away.
The figure disappeared suddenly before Madame returned.

Account by Mr. J. N. Ghosal (Allahabad).

One evening, at the Bombay headquarters, on the 27th or 28th of
November, 1882, about 9 or 10 p.m., Madame Blavatsky, Mohini, Chandra
Sekhara, Damodar, Nobin Krishna Bannerji, Norendi*a Nath Sen, and a
few others besides myself, were sitting in the balcony. Some of them had
been called there by me, as I was then expecting that some phenomenon
would take place. My attention was drawn by a sound among some trees
down below, about 10 yards from the balcony. The sound was like the
stirring of leaves. Immediately after I saw the tall figure of a man
apparently more than 6ft. in height, clad in white, near the trees. It was
a clear moonlight night. The figure was well-built. I could not distinguish
the features very well, saw something like a beard, but not very distinctly.
A white turban was on the head. The figure began to walk backwards and
forwards for two or three minutes. Madame Coulomb joined the g^oup,
and the figure disappeared, making the same kind of sound, like stirring of
leaves, which I heard before the appearance of the figure. But it appeared to
mo, and a few of those present were of the same opinion, that the figure
walked over one of the trees and suddenly disappeared. Not being able to
distinguish the features, I inquired of Madame, and was told it was the
Astral appearance of her Master.

Next morning I went to the spot where the figure appeared, and found
the spot so low that any one walking on the ground could not have been en-
tirely seen from the balcony.

[This is the only "astral figure" Mr. Ghosal has seen.]

Account by Mr. NORENDRA Nath Sen (Editor of the Iiidian Mirroi; Calcutta).

I saw the astral figure on the rock at the Bombay headquarters. It was
7 or 8 p.m., and the figure was about 20 yards distant. I recognised no more
than that it appeared to be the figure of a man, who came down from the
rock and went with Madame Blavatsky into her room.



Mr. MoHna: The third instance which I will describe was the last that
occurred just before my leaving India. We were sitting in the drawing-
room on the first floor of the house at Adyar. It was about 11 o'clock at
flight. The window looks over a terrace or balcony. In one comer of the
room there appeared a thin vapoury substance of a shining white coloiur.
OraduaUy it took shape, and a few dark spots became visible, and after
A short time it was the fully-formed body of a man, apparently as solid as
4in ordinary human body. This figure passed and repassed us several times,
Approaching to within a distance of a yard or two from where we were
standing near the window. It approached so near that I think if I had put
out my hand I might have touched it.

Mr. Stack: Did you see the face clearly?

Mr. Mohini: Oh, yes; very clearly.

Mr. Myers: And it was Mr. Sinnett's correspondent?

Mr. Mohini: Yes.

Mr. Stack: How did you identify him as Koot Hoomi?

Mr. Mohini: Because I had seen his portrait several times before.

Mr. Stack: Had you ever seen him in the flesh?

Mr. Mohini: I cannot answer that. I explained to you the reason
why I could not. Colonel Olcott can, but I cannot.

Mr. Myers: Are we to understand, then, tliat, when favours are
accorded by a Mahatma for the sake of the Chela's own spiritual advance-
ment, there is a rule which forbids the Chela to describe them, with the
view of preventing spiritual pride?

Mr. Mohini: I have not been told the reason, but that is, I believe, iho

Mr. Myers: Will you continue your account?

Mr. Mohini: After a while I said that as I should not see him for a long
time, on account of my going to Europe, I begged he would leave somd
tangible mark of his visit. The figure then raised his hands and seemed ta
throw something at us. The next moment we found a shower of rose&
falling over us in the room — roses of a kind that could not have been pro-
cured on the premises. We requested the figure to disappear from that side
of the balcony where there was no exit. There was a tree on the other side,
and it was in order to prevent all suspicion that it might be something thai
had got down the tree, or anything of that kind, that we requested him to
disappear from the side where there was no exit. The figure went over to
that spot and then disappeared.

Mr. Myers: You saw its disappearance?

Mr. Mohini: Oh yes, it passed us slowly until it came to the edge of
the balcony, and then it was not to be seen any more.

Mr. Myers: The disappearance bemg sudden?

Mr. Mohini: Yes.

Mr. Gurney: Was the height of the balcony such tliat any one could
have jmnped down from it?

Mr. Mohini: The height was 15 or 20 feet, and, moreover, there wero
people downstairs and all over the house, so that it would have been impossi-
ble for a person to have jumped down without being noticed. Just below
the balcony there is an open lawn. There were several persons looking at
the moment, and my own idea is that it would have been perfectly impossible
for a person to have jumped down.

Mr. Stack: Why?

Mr. Mohini: There is a small flight of steps just below the balcony, and
if a man had jumped from the balcony ho must have fallen upon the stepa
and broken his legs. When the figure passed and re-passed us we heard
nothing of any footsteps. Besides myself, Damodar and Madame Blavatsky
were in the room at the time.

Mr. Myers: Did this figure speak?

Mr. Mohini: Not on that occasion. What it did could not be called

Mr. Stack: Were you all in the room when this occurred, or out on the

Mr. Mohini: In the room, with the window open.

Mr. Myers: What light was there on the balcony?

Mr. Mohini: The moonlight, and the figure came to within so short a
distance that the light, which was streaming out of the window, fell upon
it. This was at the Madras headquarters, about either the end of January
(»r the beginning of February last; in fact, just before I left Madras.

Mr. Stack: What kind of roses were they that they could not be grown
at Madras?

Mr. Mohini: I said that they could not have been procured on tho
premises, though, indeed, I have not seen any such roses at Madras.

Mr. Stack: What was the colour of the figure? Was it perfectly

Mr. Mohini: When it came, it was just like a natural man.

Mr. Myers: Can you give any reason why this figure was different in
colour and aspect from those which you saw on the former occasions?

Mr. Mohini: The luminosity [54] depends upon whether all the principles
which go to make up a double are there, without any gross particles being

Mr. Myers: Gross matter is present when the figure is non-luminous?

Mr. Mohini: Yes.

Mr. Stack: This figure looked like an ordinary man? If you had not
believed that it was the Mahatma Koot Hoomi, you would have thought it
was an ordinary man?

Mr. Mohini: I never would have thought Uiat it was an ordinary man,
because it was such a striking figure.

[See the comments on this case pp. 241-244.]

Letter received at Paris.

[See comments on this case, p. 245.]

Account by Mr. Mohini.

Mr. Mohini: I was staying in Paris, occupying apartments at No.
4G, Rue Notre Dame des Champs. Mr. Keightley and Mr. Oakley
were in the house with mo. On that morning we were discussing as to
whether we should go into the country, to a place where Madame
Blavatsky was then staying, and we decided upon doing so. The two gentle-
men I have named went to their respective rooms to get ready to start by the
next train. I was sitting in the drawing-room. Within a few minutes, Mr.
Keightley came back from his room, and went to that of Mr. Oakley. In
doing so ho passed me, and I followed him.

Mr. Stack: Was the drawing-room between the two bedrooms?

Mr. Mohini: The hall also intervened, I think. To go from one bed-
room to another the easiest way was through the drawing-room. Arriving
in the bedroom we found Mr. Oakley talking with Madame Blavatsky's Indian
jBervant. Mr. Keightley inquired if Mr. Oakley had called. Mr. Oakley
replied in the negative, and Mr. Keightley then returned to his own room,
followed by myself. There was a table in the middle of the room occupied by
Mr. Keightley. He had passed the edge of the table nearest the door,
and was about one foot and a-half distant — I had not yet entered the room —
when, on the edge of the table nearest the door, I saw a letter. The
envelope was of the kind always used by one of the Mahatmas. Many
4such envelopes are in my possession, as well as in the possession of Mr.
Sinnett and others. The moment I caught sight of it I stopped short and
called out to Mr. Keightley to turn back and look. He turned back and
at once saw the letter on the table. I asked him if he had seen it there
before. He answered in the negative, and said that hsA it been there he
must have noticed it, as he had taken his watch and chain out and put them
on the table. He said that he was sure the letter was not there when he
passed the spot, as the envelope was too striking not to have caught his

Mr. Stack: What are these envelopes? Are they peculiar to the use
of Mahatmas? Or are they ordinary Tliibetan envelopes? [55]

Mr. Mohini: I have only seen them used by Mahatmas.

Mr. Stack: They are made of paper, and have Chinese characters on
them, I think?

Mr. Mohini: Yes.

Mr. Stack: The reason I ask is that Colonel Olcott, in his conversation,
spoke of them, I think, as if they were Thibetan envelopes. I thought
they might bo in general use in Thibet.

Mr. Mohini: I have never been to Thibet, nor have I ever received a
letter from thence. Indeed, I do not believe that there is any postal service
with Thibet.

Mr. Gurney: It would not be a hopeful place to communicate with,

Mr. Stack: But they might manufacture such envelopes for use among
the officials there.

Mr. Mohini: I have seen one Thibetan pedlar, but he did not offer me
any such article for sale. Returning to Mr. Keightley, he also said that he
had been looking for something on the table.

Mr. Myers: What other persons had been in the apartment?

Mr. Mohini: Myself, Mr. Keightley, Mr. Oakley, and Madame
Blavatsky's Indian servant.

Mr. Myers: Our object would be to ascertain whether anybody could
have placed the letter in the room during Mr. Keightley's absence. Do I
understand that while Mr. Keightley was absent from his room yourself,
Mr. Oakley, and the Indian servant were in his sight all the time?

Mr. Mohini: Yes.

Mr. Myers: Was the outer door of the house closed at the time?

Mr. Mohini: Yes.

Mr. Myers: Do you feel morally certain that nobody was secreted in the

Mr. Mohini: I do. The -letter was directed to myself, and it was opened
in their presence.

Mr. Myers: What were the contents of the letter?

Mr. Mohini: The letter referred to some matters of a private character,
and ended with a direction to me to take down my friends to the place in the

Mr. Myers: Thus appearing to show a knowledge of events of the

Mr. Mohini: Just so.

Mr. Myers: Could the letter have been written some days before,
and the allusion as to taking your friends into the country inserted after-

Mr. Mohini: No; because Mr. Keightley and Mr. Oakley only came to
the house by accident that morning.

Mr. Stack: On what floor were these rooms?

Mr. Mohini: On the first floor.

Mr. Myers: Upon what did the windows look?

Mr. Mohini: One of them looked out upon the yard.

Mr. Myers: Do you consider it impossible that somebody could have
climbed up to the window and thrown the letter into the room?

Mr. Mohini: Absolutely impossible. Mr. Keightley was only absent a
few seconds.

Mr. Myers: Could nobody have reached the window without a ladder?

Mr. Mohini: Certainly not.

Mr. Myers: Do you remember whether the window was open or not?

Mr. Mohini: Most likely it was not open.

Mr. Myers: Was the yard which you referred to the court-yard of the

Mr. Mohini: The back court-yard.

Mr. Myers: Had you observed any men moving about in the yard
during your stay?

Mr. Mohini: I had not observed any.

Mr. Myers: What language was the letter written in?

Mr. Mohini: In English, and I recognised the handwriting as that of Mr.
Sinnett's correspondent. Were I to show it to Mr. Sinnett he would at once
identify it.

Account by Mr. A. Coopeb-Oakley, B.A. (Camb.).

In reply to my inquiry: — Madame Blavatsky, Mr. Keightley, and Mr.
Mohini had been staying together for about 3 days in the rooms in question.
The day before the occurrence described, Madame B. had gone to Engliien.
Mr. Oakley went frequently to the Paris apartments, and might be
expected to call every day. On this particular morning he called at about
11.30 a.m., and after some conversation as to what they should do, they
decided to go to Enghien. Mr. Oakley went into a sort of spare room [to
shave]. Mr. Keightley went to his own room, and in 2 or 3 minutes
came in to Mr. Oakley, and asked if Mr. Oakley had called him. He had
heard his name called— Bert. [Bertram.] Mr. Keightley then left Mr.
Oakley, and after a short interval returned, and asked him to come and look
at something he had received. Mr. Oakley went back with him, and saw
upon a large round table, about 3 paces from the door of Mr. Keightley's
room, a letter. The letter was on the edge of the table, nearest the door.
It was addressed to Mohini, and asked liim to come with his friends to

Mr. Oakley is positive that no one was in his own room but himself when
Mr. Keightley entered. He believes that Babula was in a small washroom
between the two bedrooms, and is certain that Babula was on the same flat.
Mr. Oakley volunteered the remark that as a question of strict evidence, the
case was vitiated by the presence of Babula in the neighbourhood.

The two bedrooms and washroom opened on the same side into a
passage, and Mr. Mohini was in a sitting-room on the other side of th»
passage. The natural way of passing from one bedroom to the other was
along the passage past the wasliroom.

In a later conversation I learnt from Mr. Oakley that as Mr. Keightley
returned to liis room, Mr. Mohini passed into Mr. Keightley's room jast in
front of Mr. Keightley, and first saw the letter. Mr. Keightley explained
to Mr. Oakley that the letter was not on the table when he left Uie room, as
he had been placing some articles on the table, i&c., and must liavc observed
it liad it been there. Mr. Oakley remarked that he thought it possible for
Babula to have slii)ped into Uie room immediately after Mr. Keightley's leav>
ing it, and to have deposited the letter on the table, and departed without
having been seen in the act.

Account by Mr. B. Ejbiohtley, B.A. (Camb.).

In reply to my inquiries (June 24th, 1885): — Mr. Keightley says that he
was living in the rooms at the time, but that Mr. Oakley arrived unexpectedly,
Mr. Keightley being unaware that Mr. Oakley was even in Paris. Mr.
Oakley had not been to the n^oms previously. Mr. Keightley heard his
name called and left his own room to inquire if Mr. Oakley had called him.
Ho proceeded to the room where Mr. Oakley was engaged. There were
two ways of entering this room after passing a short distance along the
passage upon which Mr. Keightley's room opened.

One way was through the corner of a small dressing-room between Mr.
Keightley's ix>om and the room where Mr. Oakley then was; another way
was through the drawing-room where Mr. Mohini was seated. Mr.
Keightley is unable to recollect certainly which way was taken by him, and
he cannot be certain whether ho actually went into Mr. Oakley's room, but
thinks he went just inside. After asking Mr. Oakley whether he had
called his (Mr. Keightley's) name [Bert], and receiving Mr. Oakley's reply in
the negative, he returned immediately to his own room, and Mr. Mohini
followed him on liis return. Mr. Keightley on returning luid entered his
room and had not quite passed the table when Mr. Mohini, who was barely
inside the door, called out. He was about 3 paces from the table. Mr.
Keightley turned round and saw the letter lying on the table, between him-
self and the door, and at such a distance from him that he could reach the
letter by leanmg over. Mr. Mohini had not touched the letter, which waa
lying squarely on the table as though neatly placed there. The letter wa&
beyond the reach of Mr. Mohini. Mr. Keightley had been looking for some
object just before leaving his i*oom, and had cleared that end of the table
where the letter appeared, placing moreover liis ring and eyeglasses upon
the table; so that he is quite certain that the letter was not on the table
when he left his room. Ho feels sure also that the letter must have attracted
his attention had it been on the table when he entered his room on returning.
Mr. Keightley went back to Mr. Oakley to ask him to come and see the
letter, which until then he thinks had remained untouched. Mr. Keightley
thinks that Babula was in the dressing-room at the time. This dressing-
room opened into the comer room where Mr. Oakley was, but not into Mr.
Keightley 's room.

After I had read Mr. Oakley's account to him, Mr. Keightley thought he
could negative the possibility referred to by Mr. Oakley, that Babula could
have placed the letter on the table. Mr. Keightley thinks the time of his
absence was so short that Babula could not have escaped being seen by him,
somewhere in the room or in the passage, while he was returning.

Account written by Mr. Keightley, in June, 1884.

On the following day, [May 14th,] Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Judge
being both at Enghien, where they had gone the previous day, I was sitting
About 10.30 a.m., in the salon chatting with Mr. Oakley and Mr. Mohini.
We had decided not to go to Enghien, and the subject had been dropped,
when I felt a sudden impulse to go there. This suggestion of a cliange of
plan was accepted after a little hesitation, Mr. Mohini having the same
feeling. I therefore went to our room to get ready, and was engaged in
arranging my toilette when I thought I heard Mr. Oakley calling me. Going
out into the passage, just outside the door, I called to know what he wanted.
Finding that he had not called me, I re-entered the room, Mr. Mohini
following me from the salcn at a yard or two's distance. I had reached the
middle of the room when I heard him calling me from the doorway, and
turning round I saw him standing on the threshold. I must here state that
needing a certain article which I thought was on the table, I had thoroughly
searched everything on it, and had cleared a space at the end next the door
to put my ring and glasses on.

On turning lound then, I at once noticed a Chinese envelope l3ring as if
•carefully placed there, on the cleared end of the table next the door. This
envelope I at once recognised as being like those used by MahatmaK. H.,
and also recognised his writing in the address. Having called my friend Mr.
Oakley, Mr. Mohini opened the envelope, which contained a long letter from
his Master K.H. (of 3 pages), and concluded with an order to him to take
Mr. Oakley and myself with him to Enghien for a few hours, thus showing
an acquaintance with the question previously under discussion, and also the
fact, known only to three or four persons in London, and about the same
number in Paris, that my friend Mr. Oakley was then in Paris and actually
in the house. Mr. Oakley was staying with some friends about 20 minutes
walk distant, while he was in Paris.



[The following passage from Mr. Mohini's deposition nmy also be
worthy of note.]

Mr. Mohini: There is one other circumstance that I think I ought to state.
It seemed to me a crucial test. I was seated one night with Madame Blavatsky
in her room. I lutcl addressed a certain question to one of the Mahatnias,
and Madame Blavatoky told me I would have a reply, and should hear the
Mahatma's own voice.

Mr. Gurney: Had you asked him before?

Mr. Mohini: Yes, by letter. I had asked him the question; to which
Madame Blavatsky said I should have a reply in his own voice. Madame
Blavatsky said, '' You shall hear his voice." I thought how should I know
that it was not Madame Blavatsky ventnloquising. I began to hear some
peculiar kind of voice speaking to me from one comer of the room. It was
like the voice of somebody coming from a great distance through a long
tube. It was as distinct as if a person were speaking in the room, but it had
the peculiar characteristic I have indicated. As soon as I heard the voice I
wanted to satisfy myself that Madame Blavatsky was not ventriloquising.
A word was uttered and Madame Blavatsky would repeat it. It so
happened that before she liad finished speaking I heard another word
uttered by the voice, so that at one and the same time there were two
voices speaking to me. Madame Blavatsky, by whose side I was seated,
repeated the words for no particular reason, so far as I am aware, and I
came to the conclusion that the Mahatma had known what my thoughts

[Concerning this incident, I need only remind the reader of the hollow in
the wall, which was near the comer of Madame Blavatsky's room. The
confederate may have been Babula, previously instructed in the reply, and
with a mango leaf in his mouth to disguise his voice.]



As considerable importance has been attached to the experiences of Mr.
Ramaswamier, it will be best to give the reader full opportunity of judging^
for himself what they come to. His first sight of a ''Mahatma" is described
OS follows ("Hints on Esoteric Theosophy," No. 1, pp. 72-73): —


"Bombay, December 28th, 9p.m., 1881.

"The undersigned, returning a few moments since from a carriage ride
witli Madame Blavatsky, saw, as the carnage approached the house, a inan.
upon the balcony over the portt cochkrt^ leaning against the balustrade, and
with the moonlight shining full upon hiiii. He was dressed in white, and
wore a white Fthta on his head. His beard was black, and his long black
hair hung to his breast. Olcott and Damodar at once recognised him as the
'Illustrious.' [56] He raised his hand and dropped a letter to lu. Olcott jumped
from the carriage and i-ecovered it. It was written in Tibetan characters,
and signed with his familiar cipher. It was a message to Ramaswamier, in
reply to a letter (in a closed envelope) which he had written to the Btother
a short time befoi-e we went out for the ride. M. Coulomb, who was reading
inside the house, and a short distance from the balcony, neither saw nor
heard any one pass tlirough the apartment, and no one else was in \h»
bungalow, except Madame Coulomb, who was asleep in her bedroom.

''Upon descending from the carriage, our whole party immediately went
upstairs, but the Brother had disappeared.

"H. S. Olcott.
''Damodar K. Mavalankab."

''The undersigned further certifies to Mr. that from the time when
he gave the note to Madame Blavatsky until the Brother dropped the answer
from the balcony, she was not out of his sight.

''S. Ramaswamisr, F.T.S., B.A.
"District Registrar of Assurances, Tinnevelly.

"P.S. — Babula was below in ih^ porte-cochkrey waiting to open the
carriage door, at the time when the Brother dropped the letter from above.
The coachman also saw him distinctly.

''S. Ramaswamibb.
''Damodar K. Mavalankar.
"H. S. Olcott."

The following is Mr. Ramaswamier's accoimt of what subsequently
occurred to him in the North, published in The Theosophid for December,
1882, pp. 67-69. It is abridged from "How a * Chela 'found his *Guru."*
(Being extracts from a private letter to Damodar K. Mavalankar, Joint
Recording Secretary of the Theosophical Society.)

"When we met last at Bombay I told you what had happened to me at
Tinnevelly. My health liaving been disturbed by official work and wony, I
applied for leave on medical certificate and it was duly granted. One day in
September last, while I was reading in my room, I was ordered by the audible

voice of my blessed Guru, M Maharsi, to leave all and proceed

immediately to Bombay, whence I liad to go in search of Madame
Blavatsky wherever I could find her and follow her wherever sh&
went. Without losing a moment, I closed up all my afiairs and left th»
station.'* Mr. Ramaswamier then describes how after journeying about, he
at last foimd Madame Blavatsky at Chandemagore, and followed her to
Darjeeling. " The first days of her arrival Madame Blavatsky was living
at the house of a Bengalee gentleman, a Theosophist, was refusing to se»
any one; and preparing, as I thought, to go again somewhere on the bordera
of Tibet. To all our importunities we could get only this answer from her:
tlmt wo had no business to stick to and follow Afr, that she did not want us,
and that she had no right to disturb the Mahatmas with all sorts of questions
that concerned only the questioners, for they knew their own business best.
In deBimir I determined, come uhat might, to cross the frontier, which is about
a dozen miles from here, and find the Mahatmas, or — Die." He describes
how he started on October 5th, crossed the river *' which forms the boundaiy
between the British and Sikkhim territories," walked on till dark, spent
the night in a wayside hut, and on the following morning continued his

"It was, I think, between 8 and 9 a.m. and I was following the road
to the t-qynx of Sikkliim whence, I was assured by the people I met on the
Toad, I coilld cross over to Tibet easily in my pilgrim's garb, when I suddenly
saw a solitary horseman galloping towards me from the op|>08ite direction.
From his tall stature and the expert way he managed the anin^al, I tliought
he was some military officer of the Sikkhim Rajah. Now, I thought, am I
caught! He will ask me for my pass and what business I have on the inde-
pendent territory of Sikkliim, and, perhaps, have me arrested and — sent back,
if not worse. But, as he approached me, he reined the steed. I looked at
and recognised him instantly. . . I was in the awful presence of him, of
the same Mahatma, my own revered Qurn whom I had seen before in his
astral body, on the balcony of the Theosophical headquarters! It was he, the
* Himalayan Brother * of the ever memorable night of December last, who
had so kindly dropped a letter in answer to one I had given in a sealed
envelope to Madame Blavatsky — whom I had never for one moment during
the interval lost sight of — but an hour or so before! The very same instant
saw me prostrated on the ground at his feet. I arose at his command and,
leisurely looking into his face, I forgot myself entirely in the con-
templation of the image I knew so well, having seen his portrait (the one in
Colonel Olcott's possession) a number of times. I knew not what to say: joy
and reverence tied my tongue. The majesty of his countenance, w^hich
aeemed to me to be the impersonation of jxiwer and thought, held me rapt in
awe. I was at last face bo face with * the Mahatma of the Himavat ' and he
was no myth, no ' creation of the imagination of a medixim,' as some sceptics
suggested. It was no night dream; it is between nine and ten o'clock of the
forenoon. There is the sun shining and silently witnessing the scene from
above. I see Him before me in flesh and blood; and he speaks to me ik
accents of kindness and gentleness. 'NVhat more do I want? My excess of
happiness made me dumb. Nor was it until a few moments later that I was
drawn to utter a few words, encouraged by his gentle tone and speech. His _
complexion is not as fair as tliat of Mahatma Koot Hoomi; but never liave 1
«een a countenance so handsome, a stature so tall and so majestic. As in his
portrait, he wears a short black beard, and long black hair hanging down to
his breast; only his dress was different. Instead of a wliite, loose robe he wore
tt yellow mantle lined with fur, and on his head, instead of a pugri^ a yellow
Tibetan felt cap, as I have seen some Bhootanese wear in this country. When
the first moments of rapture and surprise were over, and I calmly compre-
hended the situation, 1 had a long talk with him. He told me to go mt
further, for I would come to grief. He said I should wait ]>atient]y if 1
^wanted to become an accepted Gfida: that many were those who offered
themselves as candidates, but that only a very few were found worthy; none
were rejected — but all of them tried, and most found to fail signally,
especially and . Some, instead of being accepted and pledged this
year, were now thrown off for a year » The Mahatma,
I found, speaks very little English-— or at least it so seemed to me — and
tpoke to me in my m>other tongue — Tamil. He told me that if the Chofmn ])er-
mitted Madame Blavatsky to go to Pari-jong next year, then I could come
with her. . . • The Beng^ilee Theosophists who followed the ^ Upasika *
^adame Blavatsky) would see that she was right in trying to dissuade them
from following her now. I asked the blessed Mahatma whether I could tell
what I saw and heard to others. He replied in the affirmative, and that.,
moreover, I would do well to write to you and describe all. ***

"I must impress upon your mind the whole situation and ask you to keep
well in view that what I <atc was not the mere ' appearance ' only, the astnd
body of the Mahatma, as we saw him at Bombay, but the living man, in his
ot(7n physical body. He was pleased to say when I offered my farewell namcu-
harams (prostration) that he approached the British Territory to see the
Upasika.... Before he left me, two more men came on horseback, his
attendants, I suppose, probably Chelas, for they were dressed like lama-
gylonga, and both, like himself, with long hair streaming down their backs.
They followed the Mahatma, as ho left, at a gentle trot. For over an hour I
stood gazing at the place that he had just quitted, and then I slowly retraced
my steps. Now it was that I found for the first time that my long boots had
pinched me in my leg in several places, that I had eaten nothing since the
day before, and that I was too weak to walk further. My whole body was
aching in every limb. At a little distance I saw potty traders with country
ponies, taking burden. I hired one of these animals. In the afternoon I
came to the Rungit River and crossed it. A bath in its cool waters renovated
me. I purchased some fruits in the only bazaar there and ate them heartily.
I took another horse immediately and reached Darjeeling late in the evening.
I could neither eat, nor sit, nor stand. Every part of my body was aching.
My absence had seemingly alarmed Madame Blavatsky . She scolded me for
my rash and mad attempt to try to go to Tibet after this fashion. When I
entered the house I found with Madame Blavatsky, Babu Parbati Chum Roy,
Deputy CoUector of Settlements and Superintendent of Dearah Survey, and
his Assistant, Babu Kanty Bhushan Sen, both members of our Society. At
their prayer and Madame Blavatsky's command, I recounted all that had
happened to me, reserving, of course, my private conversation with the
Mahatma.... They were all, to say the least, astounded! . . After
all, she will not go this year to Tibet; for which I am sure she does not care,
since she saw our Masters, thus effecting her only object. But we,
unfortunate x>eople! We lose our only chance of going and offering our
worship to the * Himalayan Brothers' who — ^I Ariioto— will not soon cross over
to British territory, if ever again.

"I write to you tliis letter, my dearest Brother, in order to show how
right we were in protesting against ' H.X.'s' letter in The Theosophist, The
ways of the Mahatmas may appear, to our limited vision, strange and unjust,
even cruel — as in the case of our Brothers here, the Bengalee Babus, some of
whom are now laid up with cold and fever and perhaps murmuring against
the Brothers, forgetting that they never asked or personally permitted them to
come, but that they had themselves acted very rashly....

"And now that I have seen the Mahatma in the flesh, and heard his living
voice, let no one dare to say to me that the Brothers do not exist. Come now
whatever will, death has no fear for me, nor the vengeance of enemies;
for what I know, I Know!

"You will please show tliis to Colonel Olcott, who first opened my
eyes to the Qfiana Marga, and who will be happy to hear of the success
(more than I deserve) that has attended me. I shall give him details in

'' S. RABiASWAinxR, F.T.S.

'*Darjeeling, October 7th, 1882."

In reference to the above incident on p. 70 of the same number of The
Theosopkistj Mr. Ramaswamier says that he recognised the Mahatma '* on
account of his great resemblance to a portrait in Colonel Olcott's possession,
which I have repeatedly seen."

Now in Mr. Ramaswamier^s first experience, that of the figure on the
balcony, *' the whole force of the evidence," as we remarked in our First
Bepoi-t, '' depends on what value can be attached to a recognition by moon-
light of a person on a balcony above you. Apart from this recognition,
personation through the agency of tJie Coulombs would appear to be
X>eculiarly easy in this case." Mr. Ramaswamier*s account of it, in reply to
my questions, is as follows: —

"I had been a member of the Society about two months, when I went to
the headquarters at Bombay. After being there 2 or 3 days, Madame came
in to me one morning and said I was Uiinking of something special, and
that she had Master's orders to tell me to put it in writing and give it to her.
I wrote a letter during the day. Madame asked me to accompany her for a
drive — somewhere between 6 and 7 p.m. As we went downstairs to get
into the carriage, I gave her the letter. She put it into her pocket, and we
immediately got into the carriage. We got out at the telegraph-office, in
order that a telegram might be sent to congratulate some friends who were
being married. Either the Colonel or Damodar went alone to the telegraph-
office, but not out of my sight.

"Madame then said she felt the presence of the Masters at headquarters,
and wanted to go back directly. We usually walked up the road towards
the house, but on tliis occasion Madame would not allow us to leave the
carriage. As the carriage neared the portico, I saw the figure of a man
leaning on the railing of the balcony with a letter between finger and
thumb. We all remained motionless for a short time, the figure on the
balcony also. The letter was then thrown down by the figure. It fell
near the carriage, on the ground. Colonel Olcott got out and took it up,
and we all then ran up to the balcony. But no one was there. The night
was bright moonlight. The figure was tall, about 6ft., well-built, and the
face very handsome. The eyes were very calm and motionless, giving an
aspect of serenity. The hair was dark and long, the beard was short. He
had a fehta on his head, and did not speak. I had never seen the
figure before. Afterwards I recognised the resemblance between this figure
and the portrait in x>ossession of the Colonel, which I had not previously

"The letter was addressed to me, and contained words to the effect that
every man must have his own deserts, and that if I deserved well of the
Mahatmas they would assist me; also that my desire to become a pupil had
not been long in existence, and that I should wait to see whether it was a
mere passing thought or not. (In my letter I had expressed a desire,
among other things, to become a pupil.) This was the whole substance of
the letter, in my own words. Time — ^between 7 and 8 p.m."

During my examination of Madame Blavatsky, concerning some of the
letters in Madame Coulomb's pamphlet. Colonel Olcott gave an account of
the letter which Mr. Ramaswamier had given to Madame Blavatsky.
According to his account, Mr. Ramaswamier gave the letter to Madame
Blavateky in her own rooms, shortly before dinner. The letter was
placed by her on the table, and in a few minutes, on looking for it, it could
not be found. Madame Blavatsky confirmed this account; Mr. Damodar
also assented to it. Madame Blavatsky was alone with Mr. Ramaswamier at
the time, but Colonel Olcott and Mr. Damodar professed to hare heard the
details shortly after.

I asked Madame Coulomb if she knew anything of this letter. She said
that Madame Blavatsky retired to the bath-room, where she (Madame
Coulomb) was; that Madame Blavatsky was in a great hurry, saying
" Quick! Quick! " and wrote the reply in a few seconds, which she gave to
Madame Coulomb, to be dropped by M. Coulomb disguised as a Mahatma.
There was ample time for M. Coulomb to have doffed his disguise,
and to be found reading ''a short distance from the balcony,"
and I may remark that an expression used by Mr. Ramaswamier
seems to me especially applicable to the eyes of a dummy head, like that
exhibited to me by M. Coulomb. '^ The eyes were very calm and motion-
less, giving an aspect of serenity." The *' Mahatma " communication is
described as ** written in Thibetan characters," and Mr. Hume has informed
me that he ascertained that Madame Blavatsky had some knowledge of
Thibetan, though how far her knowledge extends he was unable to say, not
being himself a Thibetan scholar.

I have had many conversations with Mr. Ramaswamier, and I questioned
him closely concerning the '^Mahatma" he saw on the borders of Thibet.
A loose robe covered most of the Mahatma's body. The feet and legs were
not bare. The feet were enveloped in a sort of leather used in that district.
The Mahatma talked to him for about half-an-hour, spoke to him of Chelas
who had failed, of the duties of a Chela, — told him he should work for the
Theosophical Society, and gave him certain communications by which per-
sons in high standing in the Society could be assured he had seen the Master
himself. Among these persons was Colonel Olcott, and I understood that the
knowledge communicated implied something equivalent to a password.

Mr. Ramaswamier could not describe the Chelas, who passed quickly on

I see no improbability in supposing that the Mahatma was personated by
one of Madame Blavatsky's confederates, and it is not impossible that Mr.
Babajee and Mr. Casava Pillai may have been concerned in the scheme, as
Madame Coulomb implies in her pamphlet. They are both familiar with
districts where Tamil is commonly spoken. Mr. Babajee had not been
accused of actually playing the Mahatma on that occasion, but he was
nevertheless particularly anxious to prove to me how absurd it was that he,
the Httle Mr. Babajee, could be mistaken for a majestic Mahatma. Mr.
Casava Pillai, who had been on a contemporaneous visit to the North, I
have not had an opi>ortunity of cross-examining; but I obtained incidentally
some curious information from Mr. Muruganunthum Pillai, who was present
when Madame Blavatsky was conversing with his brother-in-law, Mr.
Casava, after the latter*s return from the North and when he was on a visit
to Madras. Madame Blavatsky had ''chaffed" Mr. Casava Pillai on the
loss of his beard. Upon inquiry I learnt that Mr. Casava Pillai habitually
wore no beard; he eeems, therefore, to have temporarily acquired a beard
in the course of his journey north! Mr. Daniodar, who was present when I
was questioning Mr. Muruganunthum Pillai, was evidently disconcerted
when this piece of suggestive conversation was innocently reproduced by the
witness. It appeared to us in our First Report that ^' hallucination*' would
be an easier hypothesis to apply to Mr. Ramaswamier's experience
than *' personation''; but my acquaintance with Mr. Ramaawamier, taken
with the evidence for the reverence displayed by the natives towards the
*' Mahatmas," which would interfere with any careful scrutiny, has
convinced me that he might easily have been deceived by a confederate of
Madame Blavatsky's in disguise.


From " Hints on Esoteric Theosophy," No. 1, p. 103.

"On another night a Brother came in his own physical body, walking
through the lower garden (attached to Colonel Olcott's bungalow) and stood
quiet. Madame Blavatsky then went down the wooden staircase leading
into the garden. He shook hands with her and gave her a packet. After
a short time the Brother disappeared on the spot, and Madame coming up the
stairs opened the packet and found in it a letter from Allahabad. We saw
the envelope was quite blank, i.e., unaddressed, but it bore *a triangular
stamp of Allahabad Post Office of December the 3rd, 1881, and also a circular
postal stamp of the Bombay Post Office of the same date^ o/s., 3rd December.
The two cities are 860 miles apart.

"I have seen letters, or rather envelopes containing letters, coming or
falling from the air in different places, without anybody's contact, in pre-
sence of both Theosophists and strangers. Their contents related to subjects
that had been the topics of our conversation at the moment.

"Now I aver in good faith I saw the Brothers of the first section and
phenomena, in such places and times, and under such circumstances, tliat
there could be no possibility of anybody playing a trick.

''Martandrao Babaji Nagnath.

"Bombay, 14th February, 1882."

In our First Report we said, with regard to this statement, that we
thought it must '*be regarded as of small value, because postmarks can be
imitated, and it seems improbable that an unaddressed letter would have
been stamped at the post-office and not subsequently missed. It is, of
eourse, curious that a Brother should seem to ' disappear on the spot,' bat
Mr. Martandrao does not seem to have been very near. It seems curious in
another way, that the 'brother' should think it worth while to have the
letter scamped at the post-office, when he was going to deliver it himself."
Its value has certainly not been increased by Mr. Martandrao's later account
in reply to my inquiries. He said: —

"One day we were sitting in the small verandah at Bombay. There were
present Madame, Bhavani Shankar, MuUwarman Nathwarman, and myself.
We were talking on variouB Biibjecte with Madame^ Madame'a attention on
a Budden was abstracted. She stood up and began to stare far towards the
8ea« After looking for a while, she sat down and went on talking. This
happened twice or thrice. There was no moonlight; a dear starlight night.
Talking was going on. On a sudden, at about 10 or 11 at night, a white
dad figure was coming through the garden from the brow of the hill [down-
which, Colonel Olcott interposed, there was no path leading to the
common road at the foot].

"The figure wore a fehta, seemed rather tall, and had a beard. I could
see the man clearly, and could distinguish his features, but did not know
him. He came fast walking tow&rds us. When he came within 6 or 7
yards of us, Madame went down the wooden staircase, and met the figure
and appeared to shake hands with him. I saw a packet delivered by the
figure to Madame. After some minutes' talk with the figure Madame
remounted the staircase with the packet in her hand, and told us to go into
the bungalow and shut the door. We went inside, dosed the door, and Sat
on a couch close to the right of the door. We heard Madame talking outside^
but we did not know the language. It was not French or English. After
some minutes Madame came in and showed us the packet. The packet was
intact, and had three postal marks, Calcutta, Allahabad, and Bombay«
[Interrupted by Colonel Olcott, who persuaded him there were only two
postmarks.] One stamp was triangular, —Allahabad. These postmarks were
of the same date. The letter was without any address. It was opened in our
presence. Madame read the letter. I believe it was from Mr. Sinnett. It
came from Allahabad."

Colonel Olcott, who was present at this interview with Mr. ICartandrao,
said there was no path leading from the brow of the hill to the common road
at the foot. I found, however, that there were two such paths, which apt>eared
to be very old, and which I definitely ascertained were in existence when
Crow's Kest Bungalow formed the headquarters of the Society. Moreover
I found upon trial that the hill could be ascended where no path had
been made.

In Mr. Martandrao's oral account there appears to be some confusion
between the incident quoted above from *' Hints on Esoteric Theosophy,'^
and a different inddent, of wliich the account previously given by Mr.
Martandrao in the same pamphlet, p. 104, is as follows: —

''In the month of April, 1881, on one dark nighty while talking in
company with other Theosophists with Madame Blavatsky about 10 p.m. in
the open verandah of the upper bungalow, a man, 6 feet in height^ clad in
a white robe, with a white roonud or phetta on the head, made his appearance
on a sudden, walking towards us through the garden adjacent to the bungalow
from a point — a predpice — where there is no path for any one to tread*
Madame then rose up and told us to go inside the bungalow. So we went
in, but we heard Madame and he talking for a minute with each other in an
Eastern language unknown to us. Immediately after, we again went out
into the verandah, as we were called, but the Brother had disappeared."

The same absurd statement that there was no path occurs in this account
also. Mr. Martandrao (Clerk in Examiner's Office of Public Accounts,
Bombay,) is, I believe, a very honest witness, though not gifted with a great
amount of shrewdness, and not able to describe his experiences with any
fluency in English. It was quite impossible for him to have written the
account of his experiences, as it stands above his name in *' Hints on Esoteric
Theosophy." Colonel Olcott in my presence lias corrected — as to absurd or
faulty expressions — the written accounts of witnesses; and he may have
erroneously *' corrected " Mr. Bfartandrao's account in the above particular
concerning the path, just as he made the addendum when Mr. Martandrao
was giving the oral account to myself. The reader will see that either
account is perfectly valueless for proving that the figure was other than an
ordinary man, — unless the brow of the hill, accessible without difficulty on the
farther side beyond the observation of the witnesses, were first transformed
into the summit of a pathless precipice. I may here say that the grounds
which form the environment of Crow*s Nest Bungalow, with their many
paths and easy hiding-places, formed an admirable stage for the display
of ''astral figures," which appear to have been seen much more frequently at
Crow's Nest Bungalow than elsewhere. The next account is interesting in
the way of suggesting exactly how the '' astral figures" were pre-arranged
in that particular case for the purpose of enabling the witnesses to testify to
the existence of the *' Brothers."

Mr. Martandrao's Account published in ''Hints on Esoteric Theosophy," p. 105.

"Similarly, in a strong moonlight on another night, I, in company with
three Brother Theosoplusts, was conversing with Madame Blavatsky.
Madame Coulomb was also present. About 8 or 10 yards distant from
the open verandah in which we were sitting, we saw a Brother known to us
as Koot Hoomi Lai Sing. He was wearing a white loose gown or robe, with
long wavy hair and a beard; and was gradually forming, as it were, in front
of a shrub or a number of shrubs some 20 or dO yards away from us,
until he stood to a full height. Madame Coulomb was asked in our presence
by Madaine Blavatsky: ' Is this good Brother a devil? ' as she used to think
and say so when seeing the Brothers, and was afraid. She then answered:
' No; this one is a man.' He then showed his full figure for about 2
or 3 minutes, then gradually disappeared, melting away into the shrub.
On the same night again, at about 11 p.m., we, about 7 or 8 in
number, were hearing a letter read to us, addressed to the London SpiriUtalist
sbout our having seen Brothers, which one of our number had drafted, and
which wo were ready to sign. At this instant Mr. and Madame Coulomb
called out and said: ' Here is again our Brother.' This Brother (Koot
Hoomi Lai Sing again) was sometimes standing and walking in the garden
here and there, at other times floating in the air. He soon passed into and
was heard in Madame Blavatsky's room talking with her. On this account,
after wo had signed the letter to the London 8pirit\wl%$i^ we added a postscript
that we had just seen him again while signing the letter. Koot Hoomi was
in his Mayavi rupa on that evening."
Site Admin
Posts: 30830
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Hodgson Report: Report on Phenomena Connected With T

Postby admin » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:55 am

Part 4 of 4

Mr. Martandrao's accotint in reply to my viquirUs: — "At about 7 or 8
p.m., in Bombay headquarters— it was either in 1881 or 1882 — we were
sitting in the verandah upstairs, Bhavani Shankar, Padshah (elder brother
of Padshah in England), Madame, Mulwarman Nathwarman, and Damodar.
We were talking together when Madame suddenly became abstracted. She
got up and went to the railing, and stood looking towards the sea. We
thought something would happen. Madame told us to go on talking; then she
sat down. Again we were talking. Again she stood up; and at once we also
stood up, and saw a figure in the garden among the shrubs, about 30 yards ofi^
on the brow of the hill. It was moonlight, and the moonlight shone upon the
figure. I saw first half a figure, and then a full figure approaching a few
steps, then standing. Then the figure seemed gradually to melt away.
While this figure was standing, Madame sent for Madame Coulomb from
downstairs, as she was always saying the place was haunted by devils.
Madame Coulomb came, and was told to look at the figure, and Madame
Blavatsky asked in a challenging tone, 'Is that the devil, or a man?*
She said quietly, ' This is a man, not a devil.' The figure was very tall,
5^ or 6 feet. The figure had on a loose white gown, and wore a beard. I
do not now recollect whether the figure had a turban, or not. I did not
recognise the person as one whom I had known before. The figure remained
7 or 8 minutes.

^'We went on again talking, and at 9 or 9.30 we went into another
verandah, and Damodar and Padshah drafted a reply to be sent to the news-
paper Light. After about 10 or 12 lines of the draft were written, 3 or 4
persons signed. The rest were to sign, and as we were called to sign we
were told to read the draft. While reading, our attention was drawn by
M. Coulomb, who liad come up, to a figure standing in the garden. At that
time the moon had gone. We went from the table to the Venetian
windows facing towards the sea, and I saw a figure in the garden, while
M. Coulomb and others were standing near me. The figure in the garden
was tall, about 6 feet, standing erect and majestically, with a gown on,
wearing a beard, but was not so robust as the previous figure, and with a
fehta on his head. Towards that figure I folded my hands in reverence,
thinking it to be a Mahatma. The figure stood for 4 or 5 minutes, at
about 12 yards distance, and I then began to talk with those near me, and
suddenly heard Madame's servant, Babula, shouting from the bungalow.
Madame went in haste to the porch, and thence to her own room. I then
heard Madame talking with somebody. When I heard Babula shout, 1
looked up again for the figure, and it was no longer there. Padshah and
Damodar suggested that as we saw the figure while we were about to sign
the protest we should add a postscript to that effect. We accordingly
did so."

With these accounts may be compared the following: —

Account by Mr. Bhavani Rao (Shakkab) printed in a compilation by Dr.
Hartmann in 1885.

"In a bright moonlight, on the night of the 13th July, 1881, we were
engaged in a talk with Madame Blavatsky as usual in the same verandah.
M. Coulomb and Madame Coulomb were present on the spot, as also
all the persons of the house, and Madame Blavatsky*s servant. While we
were conversing with Madame Blavatsky, the Mahatma, known as Mr,
Sinnett's correspondent and the Author of the letters published in * The
Occult World,* made his appearance in his Mayavi nipa or 'Double,'
for a few minutes. He was clad in the white dress of a * Punjabee' and
wore a white turban. All of those who were present at that time saw his
handsome features clearly and distinctly, as it was a bright moonlight night.
On the same night, a letter was drafted to the London SpiritiMlist about
our having seen the Mahatmas. As we were reading the letter in question,
the same Mahatma showed himself again. The second time when he made
his appearance, he was very near us, say at the distance of a yard or two.
At iJiat time, M. and Madame Coulomb said, 'Here is our Brother/
meaning the Mahatma. He then came into Madame Blavatsky's room and
was heard talking with her and then disappeared. M. Coulomb and
Madame Coulomb signed the letter drafted to the London Spiriixvalist
testifying to the fact of their having seen the 'Mahatma.* Since Madame
Coulomb now says that the Mahatmas are but 'crafty arrangements of
muslin and bladders,' and her husband represented the Mahatmas, how are
we to reconcile this statement with the fact that in the London ^ritualist
of the 19th August, 1881, appeared a letter signed by five witnesses, in-
cluding myself, testifying to the fact of their having seen a Mahatma, while
they were writing that letter; and that this document is signed by both the
Coulombs? There is, therefore, no doubt that they were with the company
who signed the paper. Who was it then that appeared on that occasion as
a Mahatma? Surely neiUier M. and Madame Coulomb with their
'muslin and bladders,* nor Madame Blavatsky's servant, who was also
present, but the 'double* of a person living on the other side of the
Himalayas. The figure in coming up to Madame Blavatsky's room was seen
by us 'to float through the air,* and we also distinctly heard it talking to
her, while all of us, indudhig her servant ai\d the Coulomhsj were at the
time, together, in each other's presence."

Now with regard to the statement of Mr. Bhavani, who apparently cams
his living as an official of the Theosophical Society, being Insjiector of tho
N. W. Theosophical branches, I may remark that the figure in question,
although neither M. nor Madame Coulomb, nor Madame Blavatsky's
servant, may still have been a confederate in disguise. It does, indeed,
appear somewhat odd that "all the persons of the house, and Madame
Blavatsky's servant" should be "present onthespot" with those Theoso-
phists who were "engaged in a talk with Madame Blavatsky," and it is
rather unfortunate that this fact or fancy was not exhibited more clearly
either in the document forwarded to 2%e SpiriUudiit or in the aocomit given
soon afterwards (February, 1882) by Mr. Martandrao. A reference to The
Spiritiialist of August 19th, 1881, will sliow that the Coulombs signed mUy
(he postscript, which runs as follows: " As we were reading the foregoing
over, a Brother was with us. M. and Madame Coulomb, the latter
Assistant Corresponding Secretary of the Central Theosophical Society, have
seen him and will testify to tiie same." Then comes the statement:
*' The above postscript is correct," which is signed by the Coulombs.
Obviously, this postscript proves only tliat the Coulombs were with the
other witoesses when the alleged apparition was seen the second time. But
this has never been denied by the Coulombs. M. Coulomb asserts that he
appeared first disguised as a Mahatma, that then a letter was drafted to
be sent to The S^iriiualist, and that afterwards Babula appeared disguised
as a Mahatma, for the purpose of enabling both the (Coulombs to be pre-
sent with the other witnesses, and to add their testimony. These assertions
are entirely in harmony, not only with the document printed in The 8pirU
ttutlist, but also with the detailed accounts of the two alleged *' astral "
appearances given by Mr. Martandrao, in whose earlier account it is
plainly enough implied that M. Coulomb was i\ot present with the other
witnesses when the first figure was seen, and that Babula might hare been
absent from the company the whole evening. His later account confirms
his earlier one in these particulars, and appears to me to be further cor-
roborative of M. Coulomb's assertions. I think it, therefore, highly probable
that the appearances were produced in the way .described by M. Coulomb,
and I cannot myself resist the impression that the important and palpable
discrepancies between the accounts given by Mr. Bhavani and Mr. Mar-
tandrao are due to deliberate falsification on the x>art of Mr. Bhavani.


"Hints on Esoteric Theosophy," No. 1, pp. 75, 76.

"The undersigned severally certify that, in each other's presence, they
recently saw at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society " (at Bombay)
'* a Brother of the First Section, known to them under a name which they
are not at liberty to communicate to the public. The circumstances were of
a nature to exclude all idea of trickery or collusion, and were as follows: —

"We were sitting together in the moonlight about 9 o'clock upon the
balcony which projects from the front of the bungalow. Mr. Scott was
sitting facing the house, so as to look through the intervening verandah and
the library, and into the room at the further side. This latter apartment
was brilliantly lighted.

"The library was in partial darkness, thus rendering objects in the
farther room more distinct. Mr. Scott suddenly saw the figure of a man
step into the space, opposite the door of the library; he was clad in the
white dress of a Rajput, and wore a white turban. Mr. Scott at once recog-
nised him from his resemblance to a portrait in Colonel Olcott's possession.
Our attention was then drawn to him, and we all saw him most distinctly.
He walked towards a table, and afterwards turning his face towards ms,
walked back out of our sight. We hurried forward to get a closer view, in
the hope that he might also speak; but when we reached the room he was
gone. We cannot say by what means he departed, but that he did not pass
out by the door which leads into the compound we can positively affirm; for
that door was full in our view, and he did not go out by it* At the side of
the room towards which he walked there was no exit, the only door and the
two windows in that direction having been boarded and closed up. Upon
the table, at the spot where he had been standing, lay a letter addressed to
one of our number. The handwriting was identical with that of sundry
notes and letters previously received from him in divers ways — ^such as
dropping down from the coiling, &c,; the signature was the same as that of
the other letters received, and as that upon the portrait above described.
His long hair was black, and hung down upon his breast; his features and
complexion were those of a Rajput.

" Rass Scott, B.C.S.
**MiNNiB J. B. Scott.
** H. S. Olcott.
**H. P. Blavatsky.
'' M. MooRAD Ali Beo.
*' Damodab K. Mavalankar.
** Bhavaki Shankar Ganesh Mullapoorkar."

In our First Report we said: " Personation does not seem imx)ossible
in this case, considering the distance, and that there may have been modes
of ingress to the room known only to the Coulombs. Still less does it seem
impossible that it can have been the real man in the flesh.'' That it was
a case of personation I have now no doubt.

The accompanying rough sketch will
explain the position.


M. Coulomb asserts that he played the
Maliatma on this occasion. He explained
to me that the door leading from the
verandah (V) into the library (L) was an
ordinary double one, and so, likewise, was
the door leading from the library into
Colonel Olcott's office (O), where the figure
appeared; but the door leading from the
office into the compound (C) was a quad-
ruple one. The line of sight from the
position occupied by the party on the
balcony (B) did not permit the wkole of
the quadruple-door exit to be seen, and by
the time the party had reached such a
position as to see the whole space of exit,
M. Coulomb had left the room by the
further side part of the quadruple-door.

One side of the door leading from the
library into the office, M. Coulomb declares
he had pushed partly to, in order to make
certain that his departure should not Ij^

I performed this manoeuvre m3r8elf in
Bombay, and it succeeded admirably.
With the door pushed partly to, as repre-
sented in the diagram, it was not possible
for the party, who were originally on the balcony, to have seen the point of
M. Coulomb's alleged exit before reaching the spot marked P. I requested
a gentleman to walk in the direction indicated by the arrowed line, and
found that the illusion was naturally produced that he luid continued to walk
towards X, and could not have passed into the compound. Walking thus
into the compound myself, I found it especially convenient to keep my face
turned towards the spectators, as this enabled me to tell exactly when I
was beyond their line of sight, and so make my exit unseen. And this just
answers to the peculiar description of the disappearance of the figure given
in the above account. '* He walked towards a table, and afterwards turning
his face towards us, walked back out of our sight.'' M. Coulomb's asser-
tions, then, were so entirely corroborated by my inspection of the place, as
to make it highly probable that he personated the Mahatma in the manner
he alleges.

Mr. Sinnett, in giving some additional information to Mr. Hume con-
cerning the above incident shortly after its occurrence, writes truly that
*' the force of the incident turns on the arrangement of the rooms," and
proceeds to give a sketch of the rooms. This sketch a£fbrds another illustra-
tion of the remark which I have made in dealing witli *' The Occult World "
phenomena — that Mr. Sinnett has not exercised by any means sufficient care
in his investigation. The most important point in the arrangement of ihe
rooms is entirely overlooked by him, the exit into Uie compound being
represented as no wider than the doorway from the library into the office.
In Mr. Sinnett's sketch, the three doorways appear to be all of the same

I may here draw attention to a certificate, a copy of which was sent by
Colonel Olcott to Mr. Myera in October of last year:


"Colonel Olcott having to-day shown us a portrait in oils, we at once
recognised it as a very good likeness of a form which, in January, 1882, we
saw at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society in Bombay, and said to
be that of one of the Mahatmas known as the teacher of Madame Blavatsky
and Colonel Olcott.

"(Sgd.) Ross Scott
'^(Bengal Civil Service).
"(Sgd. ) Maria J. B. Scott.

"Bonn, Germany, 27tli September, 1884."

This refers to a portrait painted by Mr. Schmiechen from a photograph
alleged to represent Mahatma M. The features of Mahatma M. originated,
I believe, with an artist in America. It appears that this gentleman was ro-
quested to draw a typical Hindu head. He did so, and Madame Blavatsky
declared that it was the portrait of Mahatma M. It was after this occurrence
that the figure whose features resembled those of the '* fancy portrait,"
appeared to Colonel Olcott in New York. Photographs were taken from
this "fancy portrait," and it was either from one of these
photographs, or from the original portrait that Mr. Schmiechen's
painting was made. I have compared the photograph side by side with Mr.
Schmiechen's painting, and must certainly say that there ia a close
resemblance between the two. Considering then that the dummy head with
its equipment of turban, &c., was made up to resemble the early poi trait,
it is not surprising that a painting made from the same original should seem
to Mr. and Mrs. Boss Scott a good likeness of the disguised figure which
they saw in Bombay between two and three years previously— and at a
distance from them which I concluded when I was at Crow's Nest Bungalow^
was probably about 20 paces.

Mr. Schmiechen has also painted a portrait of K. H., which appears
to me to resemble his painting of Mahatma M. more nearly than
it resembles the portrait of E. H. which was formerly kept in the
Shrine. The Shrine-portrait and Mr. Schmiechen's cannot both be
striking likenesses of K. H.; they would probably be taken by any ordinaiy
observer to represent di^Terent persons. In the Shrine-portrait, which is
alleged, I think, to have been the work of some C7i€2a(and if so, was pro-
bably the work of Madame Blavatsky), the nose is much more aquiline, and
the eyes more almond-shaped than in Mr. Schmiechen's painting. The
expression of the eyes, moreover, is very different from that in Mr.
Schmiechen*s rendering, and the complexion is very much paler. Also the
hair is decidedly curly in the Shrine portrait, but is not curly in Mr.
Schmiechen's. I drew Colonel Olcott's attention to the lack of resemblance
displayed in some of these respects, and he admitted that there was a
difference, which he described as being such as one would expect between
the attempt of a schoolboy and that of a finished artist. As for the hair, he
said that '* Hair gets much straighter when it is wet"!

In connection with these portraits, 1 may refer to another, alleged to
have been produced by Madame Blavatsky in less than a minute, in America.
It appeared to us, at the time of our First Report, that there was no proof
that the portrait, said to represent a Hindu Fakir, might not liave been
made previously; but the case seemed to be of some interest in consequence
of the artistic merits of the picture attested to by Mr. O'Donovan and Mr.
Le Clear {uUie ''Hints on Esoteric Theosophy," No. 1, pp. 85, 86). Mr.
O'Donovan, in the statement which he made concerning the portrait, said
that '* the black tints seem to be an integral part of the paper upon which
it is done." Mr. Le Clear said: '' I first thought it chalk, then pencil, then
Indian ink; but a minute inspection leaves me quite unable to decide.
Certainly it is neither of the above "; and also: *' The tint seems not to be
laid on the surface of the common writing-paper upon which the portrait is
made, but to be combined, as it were, with the fibres themselves." I think
it is implied by the statement of Mr. O'Donovan that the lighter tints
appeared to have been laid on, and not to form an integral part of the paper,
and this appeared also to myself. Madame Coulomb alleged tliat Madame
Blavatsky liad told her that she liad laid on the upper tints herself upon one
of two photographs of a Hindu Fakir which she possessed, and Madame
Coulomb further alleged that the other photograph was still in one of
Madame Blavatsky's albums, and that I would, without doubt, be able to
see the portrait in the album, and recoflrnise the likeness to the one supposed
to have been produced by occult methods. I found a portrait which I thought
might be the counterpart; it was different from an ordinaiy photograph, the
surface not presenting a polished appearance, and it seemed to me to
resemble rather a mezasotint engraving. I had no opportunity of comparing
it side by side with the ''phenomenal" portrait, which I had not seen for
some time previously; and all I can say is ^that I noted a considerable
resemblance about the eyes and forehead which led me to think it quite
possible that the *' phenomenal" portrait may have been the result of
Madame Blavatsky's artistic skill exercised upon a portrait like the one I
found in her album.

APPENDIX 11.— (Vide p. 248.)

On the 4th March, 1884 — (Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott were
at this time on the ocean, having left Bombay on Februaiy 20th for
Marseilles) — ^I, owing to certain domestic afflictions, felt exceedingly
miserable; could not take a morsel of food; and remained in the most
wretched condition of mind all that day. But in the evening, between 5
and 6 p.m., I proceeded to Adyar, in the hope of finding some consolation
there; and was seated in the office-room of the headcfuarters, talking to
Mr. Bawaji, without, however, mentioning to any body the circumstance of
my being in an unhappy condition. In the meantime, Mr. Damodar stepped
in; and I at once expressed to him my desire to see the *' Slirine.*' He very
kindly conducted me to the Occult Boom upstairs forthwith; and unlocked
the *' Shrine." He and I were standing hardly five seconds looking at the
Mahatma K. H.'s portrait in the '* Shrine," when he (Mr. Damod'ir) told me
that he had orders to close the '* Shrine; " and did so immediately. This
course was extremely disappointing to me, who, as the reader will liave per^
ceived from the above, was sorely in need of some consolation or other at
that time. But ere I could realise the pangs of this disappointment, Mr.
Damodar re-opened in an instant the '* Shrine" by orders. My eye imme-
diately fell upon a letter in a Thibetan envelope in the cup in the '' Shrine,"
which was quite empty before 1 I ran and took the letter, and finding that
it was addressed to me by Mahatma K. H., I opened and read it. It con-
tained very kind words conveying consolation to my aching heart; advising
me to take courage; explaining how the laws of Karma were inevitable; and
finally referring me to Mr. Damodar for further explanation of certain
passages in the letter.

How my presence before his portrait attracted the instantaneous notice
of the Mahatma, being thousands of miles off; how the Mahatma divined
that I was miserable and was in need of comfort at his hands; how he pro-
jected his long and consoling letter from such great distance into the closed
cabinet, within the twinkling of an eye; and, above all, how solicitous he,
the great Mahatma, is for the well-being of mankind, and more especially
of persons devoted to him, — are points which I leave to the sensible reader
to consider and profit by. Enough to say that this unmistakable sign of
extraordinary kindness on the part of the great Master armed me with suffi-
cient energy to shake off the miserable and gloomy thoughts, and filled my
heart with unmixed comfort and excessive joy, coupled with feelings of the
sincerest gratitude to the benevolent Mahatma for this blessing.

P. Srbenevas Row.


1 was at headquarters very often during my sojourn with my friend H.
H., the Thakore Sahib of Wadliwan at Madras, whither we had gone last
March for the celebration of his marriage with the daughter of the Hon«
Crujpati Row. One day I asked Mr. D. K. Mavalankar to let me put a letter
from me to my revered Master K. H. in the Shrine. It was in a closed
envelope, and was regarding private personal matters, which I need not lay
before the public. Mr. Damodar allowed me to put the letter in the Shrine,
The day after I visited again the Shrine in company with my wife. On
opening the Shrine I did find my letter unopened, but addressed to me in
blue pencil, while my original superscription,: *' My Revered Master," had a
pencil line running tlirough it. This was in the presence of Mr. Mavalankar,
Dr. Hartmann and others. The envelope was intact. I opened it, and on
the unused portion of my note was an answer from my Master K. H. in his,
to me, familiar handwriting. I should very much like to know how others
will explain this, when as a fact boUi founders were thousands of miles

Hakisinohji RupsnroBJi, F.T.S.

Varel, 9th September, 1884.

APPENDIX 12: Account by Mr. P. Iyaloo Naidu.

(A reply to Mr. Myers' inquiry contained in his letter of 13th ultimo.)

On the 11th February last, I received a letter from Mr Damodar K.
Mavalankar, dated 8th idem, Adyar. In it there was a message in pencil by
Mahatma Koot Hoomi, regarding a very important point.

On the same day, viz. , lltli February, I received another envelope by
the same post, '* From Bhola Deva Sarma," in which there was a Thibetan
envelope containing a message in Teloogoo characters on a point very impor-
tant to me, with the initials of our revered Guru Deva M.C.

In the last month (August) I was anxious about my journey to this
country from Hyderabad, and often tliought of the Mahatma M. C. About
the 26th idem I examined my clothes, &c. , at Hyderabad, and found the
initials of the Mahatma M. C. on a cap which I use during my meditation.

P. Iyaloo Naidu, F.T.S.,
Pensd. Dep. Collector, Amec.

19th September, 1884.

In reply to my inquiries: — Mr. Naidu had sent a letter to Mahatma M.,
through Damodar. About 10 days after, on February 11th, he received a
letter from Damodar, who said he liad " missed " the letter (i.e., that he had
placed it for the Maliatma to take, and that it had gone), that Mahatma M.
had taken it and would attend to it. On the same day Mr. Naidu received a
letter from Mount Road (nearly four miles from the Theosophical head-
quarters), "From Bhola Deva Sarma," supi>osed Chela of Mahatma M.

The cap referred to had been given to him by Colonel Olcott about 20
months previously. The cap had been worn several times during tliis
interval by Mr. Naidu, who had been staying at Hyderabad the whole time.
The initials appear as though marked with a blue pencil, and Mr. Naidu
himself suggested that he should ask Colonel Olcott if the initials were there
when he received the cap. He thought it possible the initials might have
been there without his observing them. His sight is not good, and he had
never specially examined the cap, which may bo described as a smoking-cap
made of white soft fabric. The colour of the initials is not deep, and
appears to have suffered the wearing away due to friction.

When we issued our First Report, Mr. Naidu's written statement seemed
to have some interest on account of the use of Teloogoo characters in the
Mahatma document, but assuming that Madame Blavatsky has native con-
federates, it is obvious that no importance can be attributed to their use.
Mr. Babajee, however, in reply to my questions, said that he did not think
anyone at headquarters knew Teloogoo, '* except it be Damodar," but when
I puslied my inquiry further, he said with some hesitation that he thought
that Mr. Dainodar also was ignorant of Teloogoo. The Teloogoo may have
been written by Mr. Babajee himself. Some writing in English, alleged to
liave been precipitated by *' Bhola Deva Sarma," showed clear traces of Mr.
Babajee's handiwork. (See Part II. of Report.) Another instance had occurred
where a Bombay Theosophist had received a phenomenal communication in
the Mahrathi Uuiguage;but Mahrathi is Mr. Damodar's vernacular. Sanskrit
knowledge could also be secured, but a question in Hebrew and Arabic
proved rather too hard a knot fcr the Mahatma Brotherhood. Mr.
Damodar, when conversing with Madame Blavatsky, in my presence, let
slip the remark — in reference to what he would do on his prt>jected visit
to the North — that he would ''first learn Thibetan and Urdu." Madame
Blavatsky's quick glance of warning, Mr. Damodar*s disconcertion, and the
speedy change of subject did not lessen the suggestiveness of the utterance.


The following accounts will serve to illustrate the quality of many of
the letter-phenomena. They were given in reply to my inquiries.


Account by Mr. T. Vwiaraohava Charloo (Ananda).

In May, 1882, Madame Blavatsky and others came to Nellore. There
were more than half-a-dozen of us upstairs. No one could remember the
date. Madame Blavatsky said the Masters could give her a calendar if they
liked. We were sitting in a circle or semi-circle in front of Madame. She
shook violently, and a letter struck the wall behind. It was a calendar.

Account by Mr. Doraswamy Naidu.

When we were at Nellore, about midday, in May, 1882, we, Soubbaya
Chetty, myself, Ananda, Madame, and some others, were sitting in a room
together in an upper storey. Madame wanted to know the date. Soubbaya
Chetty gave one date, and another gave a different one. Madame said,
"Haven't you got any calendar?" The reply was No. Some one asked
Madame to supply a calendar. Within two or three seconds something fell
with a noise on the floor. One of the brothers took the object up. It was a
small paper calendar of an English publisher, apparently quite new.
Madame was sitting at about the centre of one side of the room, and the
calendar fell in the far comer of the room.


Account by Mr. Babajee.

During the 8th anniversary, M. Goshi was a delegate. He came to
me, and offered his services. He wrote a long' letter of 5 or 6 big pages. I
gave it to Damodar to give to Madame, who returned it to Damodar with
the words, ''Answer him as you please." Damodar left the letter on the
table. Goshi watched it, and answers came to his questions in the letter.
Goshi was watching the letter all the time.

Account by Mr. Lukshman N. Goshi (Pensioned Sub-Judge of Sind).

I wrote a long letter of several foolscap pages, and gave it, through Mr.
Brown, to Madame, who gave it to Damodar to get the Master*s account.
Damodar said he left it on the table, and foimd the writing of Mahatma
Koot Hoomi in it. He returned it to me.


Mr. Norendra Nath Sen, editor of iliQ Indian Min-or, did not appear to
me to have been much impressed by ''phenomena.'* One experience of his
was as follows: —

At the anniversary of 1883, Messrs. Damodar, Mohini, Mullick, Brown,
and himself were sitting together when Mr. Damodar asked him if he felt
anything. The reply was No. Mr. Damodar then said that the Master
told Nprendra to look in his pocket. He found nothing in his pocket, but
found a letter on the seat — from the Mahatma.


Mr. Nobik Krishna Bannerjee received a " phenomenar' letter while
I was at Adyar, but not in my presence. He gave me an account of the
incident almost immediately afterwards.

He had handed some folded manuscript of his own to Mr. Damodar, to be
read through before insertion in The Theosophist. Mr. Damodar took the
manuscript, turned over the sheets quickly, said he would read it directly,
refolded the manuscript, and placed it on the table. Taking up the manu>
script shortly after, it was foimd that a " Tibetan " envelope was lying in the
folds, addressed to Harisinghi Rupsinghi in the blue pencil writing said to
be that of Mahatma Koot Hoomi.



"December 25th. — Grand phenomenon at Shrine: six or seven notes to
different persons simultaneously appear in the silver bowl — one in Mahrathi
to Tookaram, in which his secret name was written." (Colonel Olcott's diary
for 1883.) To the copy I possess of this extract. Colonel Olcott haa
appended the following note: "A Hindu receives from his Guru, at the
' thread ceremony,' when a boy of about seven, a mystical name, and this
he always keeps a secret. This test was therefore perfect." This note
of Colonel Olcott's has been crossed through by a pencil by Mr. Damodar,
who read tlirough the extracts from Colonel Olcott's diary before they
were given to me, and who has substituted the statement: " It was a part of
his name, but never used by him in correspondence or anywhere else, and
therefore unknown to even his friends."

Mr. Tookaram Tatsra informed me that the name was his " surname" or
"family name," and he told me at once what it was: Padical. He said that
nobody knew it at Madras, but hia only ground for thinking so appeared to
be tliat he does not commonly use it. The name is no ucret^ and he said
that friends of his in Bombay may know it. Mahrathi, as already mentioned,
is Mr. Damodar's vernacular, and Mr. Damodar had lived in Bombay previous
to the removal of the headquarters of the Society to Madras. But the mere
fact that the knowledge of the family name of a prominent Hindu member
of the Society has thus come to be characterised by Colonel Olcott as a
*' perfect test," is enough in itself to betoken upon what a flimsy fabric of
evidence his great convictions may rest.


Colonel Olcott stated in his deposition that a letter which had been
addressed by Professor Smith, of Sydney University, to Mahatma M ---,
"and sent enclosed in a letter to Madame Blavatsky, and which was sewed
through and through many times with silk of different colours, had been
removed and another paper substituted inside without the threads having
been broken." Madame Coulomb declared to me that it was she herself who,
with very great care, and after a long examination of the silk threads,
unpicked the stitches on one side of the letter and sewed them back by
means of a hair. The *' Mahatma" enclosure had been inserted, she said, }aj
Madame Blavatsky, who had previously read it over to Madame Coulomb,
and the latter quoted some words which she said had formed part of Mahatma
M *s reply. Madame Coulomb also said that in sewing the stitches back
she had pulled the silk somewhat *' tighter " than it had previously been, in
order that she might have enough silk to tie the final knot, and as a con-
sequence, after tying the knot, there were some small ends of silk to spare,
which she cut off, and which she showed to me.

Having written to Professor Smith on the subject, I received from him a
letter in which he kindly sent the sewn up note for inspection, and made the
following statements concerning it: —

"It contains the enclosure with which it was returned. I slit
up the side of the paper to get the enclosure nut, after examining
the whole carefully with a magnifying glass. I could believe that
Madame Coulomb unpicked the silk and restored it again only if I saw
her do it. Observe how closely the ends were cut off so as to leave nothing
to hold by Madame Coulomb's partial knowledge of the writing
on the enclosure goes for little, as I described it all in a letter to Madame

I examined the sewn-up note, and observed that the threads on one side had
been clearly pulled tighter than those of the other side, and also that the silk of
the more tightly pulled stitches had been handled more than the silk of the
other side, as was manifest by its peculiar frayed appearance. Apart from these
signs, my examination of the note left me without any doubt that the
opening and redosing of it, as described by Madame Coulomb, were far from
being impossible. I was desirous, however, of clearly establishing whether
the note could be so opened and closed or not, but as tJie operation demanded
a certain sort of delicate care in which I might prove 'deficient, I requested
Mrs. Sidgwick to undertake the task.

Account by Mrs. Sidgwick.

Mr. Hodgson brought me a letter which Professor Smith of Sydney had
sent to Madame Blavatsky to be delivered to Mahatma M . This letter
had been carefully folded up, and the edges doubled over and sewn down
with red and yellow floss silk. It was returned by Madame Blavatsky
apparently intact, but on cutting open one side, without interfering with the
silk. Professor Smith found inside a note purporting to come from the
Mahatma. This note could not, I think, have got there by natural
means imless the sewing had been unpicked at one end. Madame Coulomb
asserted, so Mr. Hodgson told me, that she had unpicked the silk at one
end, and sewn it up again by means of a hair. Professor Smith did not
think this possible, and Mr. Hodgson wished me to repeat the operation,
which Madame Coulomb asserted that she had performed, with a view to
ascertaining its possibility.

I thought I could detect slight signs of Madame Coulomb's operations at
one end of the folded paper, and as she said that in sewing it up again she
had pulled the silk tighter than before in order to leave a margin for
fastening, I selected what I thought was the other end, in order to
secure a margin for myself too. Before undoing the sewing I made careful
diagrams of the way in which the stitches went, and of the relative positions
in each stitch of the two colours. The fastening knot was not quite easy
to undo, but otherwise the unpicking afforded no difficulties. The difficul-
ties in sewing it up arose from the impossibility of using a needle in the
ordinary way owing to the shortness of the silk. Taking Madame Coulomb's
hint, however, I found no great difficulty, though the process was tedious,
in pulling the silk through its old holes by means of a loop of hair. By
pulling the stitches tight I secured length enough for fastening at the end,
and the superfluous fragments I then cut off. Before replacing the sewing
I wrote initials inside to prove that I had undone it.


I returned the letter afterwards to Professor Smith, with statements by
Mrs. Sidgwick and myself, and have received a reply from Mrs. Smith on
behalf of her husband (who was too ill to be able to writ« himself), from
which it appears that Professor and Mra. Smith were quite satisfied, in con-
sequence of the operation performed by Mrs. Sidgwick, tliat the supposed
evidence of "occult'' agency was worthless.


Examination by Mrs. Sidgwick.

Mr. Hodgson was anxious that his statements and conclusions, as regards
the handwriting of the Koot Hoomi documents and some other points,
should, as far as possible, be verified in detail by some other person, and I
have accordingly examined aU the mss. in question, which he has had in
his hands in England, with great care, with the result that I find myself in
complete agreement with him. His observations on documents which he saw
only in India I cannot, of course, verify.

First, as regards the plates. The specimens of isolated letters are, I
think, so far as I have compared them with the originals (or in the ease of
those taken from Mr. Sinnett's series with tracings which I had previously
compared with the originals), as nearly facsimiles as can be expected, with
the exception of a certain tremulousness which they ought not to have, but
which does not affect them for our present purpose. I have thus compared
the larger number of the specimens, and where I have not compared the
copy with the particular letter from which it was traced, I can testify to its
strong resemblance to many other specimens that might have been selected.
The plates representing short passages from different documents give a good
general idea of the writing, but in some instances fail in giving the
individual character of particular letters. Still they are quite sufficiently
accurate to help the reader to understand the discussion. Those copied
from writing in blue pencil are, as might be expected, less close facsimiles
than the others.

I have carefully verified every statement Mr. Hodgson makes about the
acknowledged handwriting of Madame Blavatsky, and about the K.H. mss.
in England which he attributes to her. I entirely agree with all he says,
and am myself strongly convinced that the same person wrote both. The
development of the K.H. writing is very marked, and the gradual elimina-
tion of Blavatskian forms is, to say the least of it, suggestive. The argument
is greatly strengthened by the occasional spasmodic appearance of Blavatskian
forms — ^seemingly by accident — throughout the K.H. mss. attributed to her
— and that this is an accident, and an accident which the writer desired to
avoid, is proved, I think^ by the erasures and alterations. The last k
selected from K.H. No. 3 on Plate III., which occurs in the original in the
word Greek, is a fair instance of these alterations.

But convincing as the two considerations already mentioned are, I think
the prevalence of certain peculiarities throughout both sots of documents is
more convincing still, and in particular the very peculiar a and g constantly
occurring in both. It so happened that when Mr. Gribble's pamphlet, men-
tioned by Mr. Hodgson, first reached me, while Mr. Hodgson was still in
India, I had in my hands some letters of Madame Blavatsky's and a long
K.H. document, and naturally turned to Madame Blavatsky's handwriting
to see if it possessed the characteristics mentioned by Mr. Gribble. There,
without doubt, I found among others this peculiar a, but it was with a shock
of surprise that I found this same a, which I had never seen in any other
handwriting, occurring even more conspicuously in the K.H. document than
in Madame Blavatsky's acknowledged writing. I have seen a somewhat
similar formation of a in the handwriting of a Russian gentleman.

I think evidence that the K. H. handwriting is a disguised one may be
found in other variations of form besides those which show development.
The variations I speak of remain more or less constant tlirough a particular
document, but do not appear in other documents, and thus appear to me to
suggest that the writer was not using all the forms of letters instinctively,
and had not a perfectly clear and persistent idea of what all the forms should
be. No doubt some variations might be found in every handwriting from
document to document, due to a difference of speed in the writing, to the
kind of pen employed, <Sbc. But those in the E. H. writing seem to me
more marked than this, and are the more noticeable as the writing is regular
and very seldom gives one the impression of being carelessly done.

I have counted the English and German d's in various writings of
Madame Blavateky. It is a matter of considerable difficulty to count
correctly the number of times a letter occurs in a long ms. if it is at all
frequent; I am, therefore, not surprised to find that my numbers are slightly
different from Mr. Hodgson's. As, however, we in no case differ by so m%ich
as 5 per cefiit, it is evident that the difference is of no importance whatever
to the argument, and I therefore considered that it would be waste of time
to repeat the counting. The extreme rarity of the English d in all the
acknowledged handwriting of Madame Blavatsky in our hands which has
been written since the E, H. correspondence began, except in the B. EepilieSf
combined with its comparative abundance in the earlier letters and in the
B. BeplieSy is very striking, and it is difficult to attribute it to accident.

I have verified completely every statement about the letter called
E. H. (Z) and about Mr. Damodar's ordinary writing, and have little doubt
that the E. H. (Z) was written by him.

I have also examined the long document professedly in the handwriting
of Mr.Bhavani Shankar. It apjiears to me to bear very evident indications of
being written in a disguised hand, and to have enough of the marked
characteristics of Mr. Damodar's handwriting to point to him as the writer.
I have compared the letter which Mr. Hodgson has called the '* Eoot Hoomi
Lai Sing" with the quotations from it in Mr. Sinnett*s *' Occult World,''
and find as Mr. Hodgson does, more than 60 differences, without counting
mis-spellings, changes in punctuation, &c.

It only remains to speak of the mis-speUings, faults of idiom, &c., quoted
by Mr. Hodgson from the E.H. documents, and from Madame Blavatsky 's
own letters. I have compared all these with the originals and believe them
to be correctly transcribed. More of the same kind might be adduced.

Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick.


Plan of Occult Room and Surroundings. — Vide pp. 220-222.

Plate 1. — Concerning the groups uf individaal letters in this Plate^
which are very close facsimiles of my own tracings from the original
documents, vide pp. 284-291, 296.

The specimens B (i.), B(n.), &c., which are on the whole very good
representations of the originals though not accurate in every detail, aro
taken from Madame Blavatsky's undoubted writings, with the exception of
B (x.), which represents the Blavatsky-Coalomb document referred to on
p. 317. The remaining Blavatsky-Coulomb documents being in India, I have
boon unable to produce facsimiles of them in this Report.

B (l ) is from a letter written to a Hindu in August, 1878.

B (ii.) is from a letter written to Mr. C. C. Massey in July, 1879.

B (iil), B (iv.), and B (v.) are from letters lent by Mr. Hume, received
February— June, 1882.

B (vi.) is from an envelope addressed to Mr. 0. C. Massey in 1884.

B (vu.) is from an envelope addressed to Mr. Myers about the beginning
of October, 1884.

B (vnL) is from a letter to Mr. Myers about October, 1884.

B (ix.) is from B Beplies (mde p. 290), written about the end ^f 1884 or
the beginning of 1885.

B (x.), the Blavatsky-Coulomb document, was probaUy written at some
time between 1879 and 1883.


Plate 2. — The specimens K.H. (i.), K.H. X^i.), &c., are from K.H.
documents which I consider to be the handiwork of Madame Blavatsky, and
they are for the most part good representations of the originaLs. The K.H.
(vu.), however, is taken from writing in blue pencil, which is much blurred,
so that the reproduction is not so good as in the other cases, the originals of
which are in ink.

K.H. (i.) represents a page from the Koot Hoomi Lai Sing letter to Mr.
Hume, of November 1st, 1880. I have placed a small dash under
many of the letters for the purpose of directing attention to
peculiarities mentioned in the preceding discussion.

K.H. (ii.)— K.H. (vi.) are from K.H. documents received about 1881 —
1882, K.H. (ii.) being taken from the commencement of one of
these documents, and K.H. (iii.) from the end of the same

K.H. (vii.) is from a letter to Mr. Myers in 1884.

K.H. (z.), the original of which I attiibute to Mr. Damodar {tide pp.
294-207), does not represent one continuous extract. I
obtained permission to reproduce diflfereiit portions of the K.H.
(Z.) document, which I directed to be placed together as in the
facsimile. The original is in blue pencil, and much blurred, and
several of the most important letters appear in the facsimile
without their original cluuracteristics. Tlius the a of sympatlii^it
(1 6), is in the original document a typical sjiecimen of the beaked
a fonnation, and several of the gf's in the lithograph liave lost all
trace of a similar beaked formation which they exhibit in the
original document. Still the correspondence with the original is
close enough to enable the reader to see several important differ-
ences betweeait and K.H. (vii.), and especially that it contains
no instance of the left gap stroke^ of which he will find various
instances in K.H. (vu.), received about the same time in 1884.

D (i.) and D (ii.) represent two specimens of Mr.Damodar's undoubted
writing in 1884.



45. There is a special role in the Society providing for secret membership.
Madame Blavatsky's influence is felt, moreover, far beyond the limits of the
Society. When she returned to India, at the end of last year, an address of
sympathy was presented to her by a large body of native students of Madras,
of whom, apparently, only two or three were Theosophists.

46. That this life-page was partly known to Madame Coulomb, and that Madame
Blavatsky feared her in consequence, is borne out by the fact that, in a dispute
which arose, in 1880, while Madame Blavatsky was at Ceylon, between Madame
Coulomb and another member of the Society at its headquarters, then in Bombay,
Madame Coulomb boasted of her power. Her boast was apparently justified
upon Madame Blavatsky's return. Madame Coulomb was supported by Madame
Blavatsky, and therefore also by Colonel Olcott, and the dispute residted in the
withdrawal from the Society of some of the most influential members at Bombay,
who regarded the action taken in the matter by the founders as wanting in
straightforwardness. I have had personal interviews with some of these ex-
members, who consider that the recent exposures of the Coulombs have thrown
nmch light on the formerly mysterious behaviour of Madame Blavatsky and
Madame Coulomb in connection with the Bombay episode.

47. The letters "Ru" crossed out in this place may be observed in the
facsimile in Plate I.

48. See Reply by H. R. Morgan, Major-General, Madras Army (retired), to a
Report of an Examination into the Blavatsky Correspondence, by J. D. B.
Gribble, M.C.S. (retired).

49. In the earlier accoimt General Morgan says: '* Five minutes had scarcely
elapsed after this remark." This five minutes exhibits here a decided tendency
to approximate to nothing.— R.H.

50. According to the earlier account this interval was considerably longer,
being five minutes, together with an uncertain interval spent partly in con-
versation, partly in reading the note, &c. But more surprising still
than the inconsistencies between General Morgan's two accountSi is the
opinion which he apparently holds, that if the phenomenon was fraudulent
M. Coulomb himself must have written the Koot Hoomi note, — and must have
written it, moreover, in the very interval which has thus dwindled! — R.H.

51. It is easy to read between the lines of Madame Coulomb's letter, even
without her statement that Madame Blavatsky told her to be prudent in what
she wrote. — R.H.

52. Supposing Mr. Babajee's account to he correct, the fact which he cites to
prove that Madame Blavatsky was not a party to the scheme, shows rather the
contrary; it seems not unlikely that M. Coulomb, w^hen the incident which Mr.
Babajee relates occurred, was actually engaged in the preparation or alteration of
trick apparatus. Madame Blavatsky might well have trusted M. Coulomb to
Aupply a " pretext" for not allowing any one to inspect his w<irk.

53. Mr. Brown, member of the Board of Control, states that this was *' nnani-
mously decided'' by the '' gentlemen priesent" at the '* disdoaore."

54. I have no doubt that what Mr. Mohini terms the "luminosity" was-
merely the moonlight reflected from the white robes of the figure. On tha
*' former occasions " there was moonlight, but in this third case there was no
moonlight- Mr. Mohini's statement that there was being erroneous. (See p. 244.)

55. See evidence of Mr. A O. Hume, p. 275.

56. A name by which Colonel Olcott's Chohan is kn
Site Admin
Posts: 30830
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Hodgson Report: Report on Phenomena Connected With T

Postby admin » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:58 am


10, Bedford Row, W.C.

March 17th, 1885.

In compliance with your instructions, I have carefully examined
and compared the several documents you have submitted to me for my
opinion as a Professional Expert in handwriting, which are contained
in Two Packets as follows : —

Packet 1.

Consists of an Envelope marked 3, in which is contained a slip of
paper the writing on which commences, " The Mahatma has heard,'' <&c.
A Telegram in a different handwriting. An envelope addressed
Madame E. Coulomb. A letter on green paper ; and a letter on pink
paper. In answer to the first question in my instructions the whole of
these documents, with the exception of the Telegram, were written by
Madame Blavatsky.

The Envelope marked 7 containing a scrap of ruled paper marked
10, the writing on which commences " La paste" (be, is by the hand of
Madame Blavatsky.

An Envelope directed Mme. and Mon'* Coulomb is likewise to
Madame Blavatsky's hand.

An Envelope marked 10, containing a letter marked 2 the writing
of which commences " Ma belle chere amie" is likewise by the hand of
Madame Blavatsky.


An Envelope marked 28 containing a letter of several pages written
in violet ink. The whole of this is written by Madame Blavatsky.

An Envelope marked No. 11, containing a letter written in violet
ink commencing " Ma ch^e Madame Coulomb" is all by the hand of
Madame Blavatsky.

Packet 2.

An Envelope, postmark '' Cambridge," containing a letter on
foreign paper addressed to Mr. Myers in the undoubted handwriting
of Madame Blavatsky.

Scrap written in pencil commencing " Damodar send me,'' &c.,
in the undoubted handwriting of Madame Blavatsky.

Envelope containing 2 sheets foreign paper dated Elberfeld,
addressed to Mr. Myers, in the undoubted handwriting of Madame

A letter one sheet addressed to Mr. Myers commencing "You are
very kind," &c,, in the undoubted handwriting of Madame Blavatsky.

A letter consisting of a sheet and a-half addressed to Mr. Myers
commencing "It does seem extraordinary," kc.^ in the undoubted hand-
writing of Madame Blavatsky.


On placing Madame Blavatsky's genuine or acknowledged hand-
writings in juxtaposition [with the doubted ones], I really cannot see that
there has been any attempt to disguise the hand [in the latter]. Every
characteristic of her handwriting may be traced throughout. Some of
the writings appear more rapidly executed than others ; as will always
be observed in looking at a mass of correspondence ; but all the writings
I have mentioned as being positively written by Madame Blavatsky, are
undeniably hers without disguise. If she intended any of them to be in
a feigned hand, I can only say that the disguise is so flimsy that any
Expert would not notice the attempt.


(Signed) Frederick George Netherclift.

April 7th, 1885.

[The asterisks indicate the position of passages about Mr. Damodar's
writing, and the K.H. writings to which Mr. Hodgson has referred oii
p. 282, as those which were originally submitted to Mr. Netherclift.
No statements of Mr. Netherclift about the Blavatsky-Coulomb letters
themselves have been omitted. A second batch of Blavatsky-Coulomb
letters was submitted shortly afterwards to Mr. Netherclift, who
returned them all in a packet along with the undoubted writings of
Madame Blavatsky entrusted to him for comparison. This packet of
writings was endorsed by him as follows : " The whole of the writings
contained in this packet are by the hand of Madame Blavatsky,
whether acknowledged to be genuine or otherwise. They vary in the
degree of care with which they are written, but in my opinion there
is no attempt to disguise the hand. — (Signed) F. G. N."]
Site Admin
Posts: 30830
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Hodgson Report: Report on Phenomena Connected With T

Postby admin » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:58 am


By Mrs. H. Sidgwick.

There are certain narratives of phenomena connected with the
Theosophical Society which have been brought to the notice of the
Committee, which have not come within the scope of Mr. Hodgson's investi-
gations. The Committee think, however, that in forming a judgment of
the whole evidence the reader should have before him as full an account
as possible of all such phenomena as there seems to be a primd facie
difficulty in explaining by the recognised laws of nature, and they
have, therefore, asked me to put together in the present note the residuum
of narratives with which Mr. Hodgson has not dealt^ and to append such
remarks as seem to me to throw light on them.

I may observe that all to which there will be occasion for me to refer
were printed in our first report ; the only partial exception being an
incident described by Mr. Rudolph Gebhard (see p. 385), of which we
had received no written account when the first report was printed, and
which we, therefore, there very briefly mentioned. No later phenomena
have come under our notice.

The phenomena I sliall have to discuss consist of four cases of
letters received in a mysterious manner, and four cases of supposed
" astral '' apparitions. The mysterious element can be easily eliminated
in one of the letter-phenomena, and in the case of an apparition of which
Madame Blavatsky was the alleged percipient. As regards the other
cases of letters, it is difficult, I think, with our present knowledge, to
suggest a completely satisfactory explanation ; but with the evidence
before us of an elaborate combination, under Madame Blavatsky's
direction, to produce spurious marvels, I cannot attach much weight to
this difficulty. The remaining cases of apparitions are undoubtedly
interesting, but for reasons which I shall give later on, I do not think
that stress can be laid upon them as evidence for the occult powers of
"Mahatma M.'' and Mr. Damodar.

The following account is from Dr. Hiibbe Schleiden, who is a well-
known German savant and publicist, author of " Ethiopien," and other
works. Madame Blavatsky was in England at the time of the incident.

Elberfeld, August, 1884.

Dear Madam, — You requested me to state to you the particular circum-
stances under which I received my first communication from Mahatma K.H.
I have much pleasure in doing so.

On the morning of the Ist of this month Colonel Olcott and I were travel-
ling by an express train from here to Dresden. A few days before I had
written a letter to the Mahatmas which Colonel Olcott had addressed and en-
closed to you, which, however, as I now hear, never reached you but was taken
by the Masters whilst it was in the hands of the post officials. At the time
mentioned I was not thinking of this letter, but was relating to Colonel
Olcott some events of my life, expressing also the fact that since my sixth or
seventh year I had never known peace or joy, and asking Colonel Olcott's
opinion on the meaning of some striking hardships I have gone through. In
this conversation we were interrupted by the railway-guard demanding our
tickets. When I moved forwards and raised myself x>artly from the seat in order
to hand over the tickets, Colonel Olcott noticed something white lying behind
my back on that side of me which was opposite to the one where he was sitting.
When I took up that which had appeared there it turned out to be a Tibetan
envelope, in which I found a letter from Mahatma K. H., written with blue
pencil in his well-known and unmistakable handwriting. As there were
several other persons unacquainted to us in the compartment, I suppose the
Master chose this place for depositing the letter hear me where it was the
least likely to attract the unwelcome attention and curiosity of outsiders.
The envelope was plainly addressed to me, and the communication contained
in the letter was a consoling reflection on the opinion which I had five or ten
minutes ago given on the dreary events of my past life. The Mahatma ex-
plained that such events and the mental misery attached to it were beyond
the ordinary run of life, but that hardships of all kinds would be the lot of
one striving for higher spiritual development. He very kindly expressed
his opinion that I had already achieved some philanthropic work for the
good of the world. In this letter were also answered some of the questions
which I had put in my first-mentioned letter, and an assurance was given
me that I was to receive assistance and advice when I should be in need of it.

I dare say it would be unnecessary for me to ask you to inform the
Mahatma of the devoted thankfulness which I feel towards him for the great
kindness shown to me, for the Master will know of my sentiments ¥rithout
my forming them into more or less inadequate words. — I am, dear madam,
in due respect, yours faithfully,


To Madame Blavatsky, Elberfeld, Platzhofistrasse, 12.

Elberfeld, 9/11/84.

Dear Sir, — In reply to your question about the letter from Mahatma
K. H., which I received in a railway carriage of an express train while in
motion, I beg to say that it appears to me absolutely impossible that the
letter could have been brought into the train by any supposed agent of
Madame Blavatsky's. It is true we had not changed carriages since leaving
Elberfeld, but the letter did not at all fall out of the air, but was found
behind my back when I moved, and must, therefore, have been deposited
between my back and the cushion of the seat against wliich I was lying.
There was no i>ossibility of getting there for any matter in one of the three or
four aggregate states known to our Western science. Besides, Madame
Blavatsky could have nothing to do with this letter, which was a reply to
questions which I had written on Tuesday, the 29th July, and which left
Elberfeld on that or the following day for London, addressed to Madame
Blavatsky. Now, these questions could not have been delivered in London be-
fore Thursday or Friday of that week, and a reply could, in the ordinary postal
way, not have been in Elberfeld before Saturday or Sunday. The event of
my receiving the reply of the Mahatma, however, occurred on Friday morning,
the 1st August. I may mention here that Madame Blavatsky assured mo
she never found my questions enclosed in the letter to her ; these must have
been taken out while in the hands of the post. My best proof of the
genuineness of this phenomenon, I find, though, is the contents of the letter,
for it was not only a reply to the said questions, but also referred to the
conversation I was just at that time having with Colonel Olcott. I cannot
doubt that this handwriting of the Mahatma must, therefore, have been
precipitated by him at tliat very instant and transmitted to me by a magic
process which lies beyond the power of ordinary men. — I am, dear sir, yours
very truly,


To F. W. H. Myers, Esq., Cambridge.

A few months earlier a letter is said to have fallen in a railway carriage
occupied only by Colonel Olcott and Mr. Mohini, in the express train
between Paris and London. But Madame Blavatsky and Babula were
then in Paris or its neighbourhood, and though Colonel Olcott and Mr.
Mohini both maintain that the letter could not have been placed in the
compartment before they started, in such a manner as to fall in the
course of their journey, they have both shown themselves to be too
inobservant and inaccurate as witnesses for their conviction on this
point to be of much value. But in Dr. Hiibbe Schleiden's case I da
not feel able to make a definite suggestion as to how the letter
reached him by natural means ; for, as I have said, Madame Blavatsky
was in England, and we cannot point to any known agent of hers whom
we know to have been at Elberfeld at the time. Still, we cannot say
that there were none, or even that one did not accompany Colonel
Olcott and Dr. Hiibbe Schleiden in the railway carriage. Tlie relevancy
of the Koot Hoomi letter to (1) Dr. Hiibbe Schleiden's questions in his
letter to Madame Blavatsky, and (2) to his conversation with Colonel
Olcott) I am unable to treat as evidentially important, without more
accurate knowledge as to the contents of the two letters, since I cannot
regard it as improbable beforehand that the conversation should take
the particular turn which rendered the Koot Hoomi letter appropriate.
I do not profess, however, as I have said, to give a completely
satisfactory explanation of the phenomenon. I am merely suggesting
possibilities and giving reasons why I cannot^ under the circumstances,
attach weight to it as evidence of occult agency. Other simpler and
easier explanations may suggest themselves to the reader's mind. It
must be borne in mind that the training for adeptship under Madame
Biavatsky's supervision is not unlikely to include orders which must be
blindly carried out, to convey letters mysteriously to other people.

I give next Mr. l^udolf Gebhard^s account of his experience, written
out by him for Mr. Hodgson. This phenomenon also must^ I think,
remain without special explanation. It is unfortunate that Mr. Gtebhard
did not write an account of it at the time it occurred, as it is of course
possible that) after an interval of three months, some important detail
may have escaped his memory.

Adyar, December 31st, 1884.

Dear Sir, — Complying with your request I shall give you in the following
an account of a phenomenon as witnessed by me in my father's house some
couple of months ago.

Before I describe what has happened, allow me to say a few words about
myself ; it will serve to show that I am better adapted than most other people
to advance an opinion on these subjects.

Since my earliest boyhood I have always had a taste and a knack for
conjuring tricks. When in London I took lessons there from a professional
conjurer, Prof. C. £. Field, a man whom I consider to be one of the best
sleight-of-hand men I ever met. Later on I made the personal acquaintance
of most of our leading performers in that line and exchanged tricks
with them ; there is not a single line of conjuring I am not acquainted
with, may that be coin or card tricks, or the so-caUed anti - spiritualistic
tricks in imitation of a spiritualistic stance. I then think that when such
a phenomenon takes place in my presence, it is quite a natural thing for
me to keep my eyes wide open, in order not to be deceived by a trick, and
this is the reaaon why I tliink myself especially qualified to advance an
opinion about the matter on hand.

Account of a Pheiwmenon that occurred in Elherfeld (Germany), on
September — , 1884.

At 9 p.m. of the above named date a small circle of friends, Theosophist
and non-Theosophist, were sitting in the drawing-room of my father's house
(Platzhoffstrasse 12). Madame Blavatsky, who was one of the party, was
seated on a couch in the middle of the room, and the rest were seated in
a semi-circle around her.

Whilst the conversation was going on Madame Blavatsky suddenly
looked up, and taking a listening attitude said there was something going
on in the room, but that she could not then make out for certain what it was.

Mrs. H., an American lady and a clairvoyante, said tliat she had
felt an influence since some time already, and Madame Blavatsky and IVIrs.
H. then saw like a ray of light going towards a large oil painting hanging
over a piano in the same room.

My mother, sitting with her back to the piano and opposite a looking-
glass, said that she had seen in the glass like a faint flash of lightning. After
a minute or so Madame Blavatsky asked the party what they would like
to take place, as she now felt sure that the ^* Master " would do something
for us that night.

Different requests were made, but finally it was unanimously resolved
*^hat a letter alhould be asked for, addressed to my father, and treating
on a subject ^at he should menially ncish for." (I draw your attention to
the three points ; nobody knew beforehand that the whole party would
choose a letter ; second, that my father should be the addressee ; third, what
subject my father might be thinking of. Madame Blavatsky did not
influence our choice as she did not advance any suggestion.) Madame
then said she saw something going on with the picture above spoken «>£
and that probably we should find something tliere. I accordingly got up
and examined that picture, but could not find anything. As the picture
was fastened' to the wall in a slanting position, the top part hanging over,
I lifted it off the wall and examined carefully every inch of it. Ko
letter ! The space then between the wall and the back of the picture was
fully eight inches and perfectly lit up, as there was a gas bracket on each
side of it. 1 let the picture fall back and said I could not find anything,
but Madame Blavatsky told me to try again, and I repeated my examination
in the same way. Kot contented with that I got up on the piano (a
grand,) and there again looked behind the picture and passed my hand
along the top of it, twice. Nothing ! (I had been searching all this time
for a letter, not for another article where perhaps a slip of paper had
escaped my attention.) I turned round to Madame Blavatsky,. saying that
I could find nothing, when she exclaimed, '* There it is ! " I turned
sharj^ly round and a Utitr fell down from behind the picture on the piano.
I picked it up. It was addressed to my father, ^ Herm Consul Gebhard ")
and treated of Uie subject he had been thinking of.

Now I wish to draw your attention to some important points.

1. There was no secret receptacle either in the frame or at the back of
the picture. 2. The letter was in size 5in. by 2^1x1, not folded up into a
smaller compass. 3. I was the only one who came near the picture ; all the
obhers kept their seats except one gentleman, who got up, but whom I did
not allow to handle the picture. Madame Blavatsky, seated all the time on
the couch, distant four to five yards. 4. Between the time I last touched
the picture and the moment the letter put in an appearance there elapsed
from 15 to 20 seconds. After Madame Blavatsky had said '' Tliere it is," I
turned round. The letter then had not appeared but came in view
about one second after that. How could Madame Blavatsky have seen
it ? 5. The letter lay on the piano about fice inches off the waU ! The
picture frame at the bottom part touches the wall, because as I said
before the top part hangs over. Now there may be space enough for a letter,
being flat against the wall, to glide through, but then that letter, continuing
its way, ofkight to drop behind the piano (t.e., between the wall and the
piano and from there on to the floor), as the piano does not touch the wall.
How can it be found five inches off the wall ? 6. The subject my father had
in his mind was known to me, because I knew he had that very morning
received a letter from my brother in New York on some personal matter, and
when the letter had been decided upon by the party I whispered to my
father, ''Ask for an answer on that letter, this morning," and he said he would.

I consider this a most complete phenomenon, and I challenge any
conjurer of to-day to repeat it, and I am willing to pay £100 to see it done
by a conjurer under the same conditions. Perhaps Mr. Maskelyne (Messrs.
Maskelyne and Cooke, Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly), who has done already so
much to detect mediumistic frauds (?), will take uj) this challenge.

If there is any further information you want, I am entirely at your
service. — I remain, dear sir, your obedient servant,

R. Hodgson, Esq., Adyar.

Rud. Gebhakd.

I learn from Mr. Hodgson that, in reply to his inquiries, Mr. Gebhard
stated that he did not think that a confederate could have thrown the
letter without its being observed, but he did not seem to have
preNdously contemplated the possibility of a confederate having been

The following is an account of another letter-phenomenon by a lady
resident in London, and known to some members of the Committee : —

One morning in July, [1884, ]I was called by Madame Blavatsky to her room
where she was still in bed. She desired me to open a drawer and give her
out a letter which was lying there closed and addressed. I did so. She
asked me to notice that the letter was addressed in the handwriting of a
person whom I knew, that it was fastened, and apparently liad not been
opened. She then took a match and having lighted it proceeded to bum the
letter. I protested against this being done, but she answered '* It is the
Master's orders," and further added, ** You had better go to your room and
meditate." I went upstairs into my room and shut the door. I remained
there some time considering the whole aflbir. The window of the
room, which was at the top of the house, was wide open and looked out
into a garden. Before the window was a dressing-table on which was a pink
cloth ; there was no mirror on the table, only one or two small articles of
toilet, and the sun was shining full into the room. I went to the window
without any definite reason, and as I approached the table I perceived on the
pink cover a large white envelope. I took it up, looked at it, and found that
it was closed and evidently contained a letter, but there was no superscription.
I had the letter in my hand for a little while and then looked at it again. To
my great surprise I found that where, but a few moments previously, there
had been a blank space, there was distinctly visible a name and address written
in purple ink, in a handwriting which I well knew as being tliat of one
of the Mahatmas. The name and address was that of the writer of the letter
I had previously seen burned.

A phenomenon of this kind may be, and in this case was, as 1 under-
stand, very impressive to the witness, without carrying conviction to
other people. For it is impossible for them to feel sure that it was
adequately distinguished from what^ I suppose, we are all constantly
liable to, the mere non-observation of something which was there all tlie
time. It is possible also that some combination of substances may liave
been used instead of ink, which would become coloured (temporarily at
any rate) by exposure for a few minutes to the air. A chemist, well
qualified to give an opinion, tells me that he thinks such a combination
might be used ; but we have never seen and have no access to the
writing in question, and without this it is of course impossible to obtain
an expert's opinion of any value as to whether this particular writing
could have been so produced or not. I do not myself think it likely
that it was so produced.

As to a post-card received by Mr. Keightley in Paris, on whicli
Mahatma M.'s initials were written, and a letter which Madame Blavatsky
professed to read without opening, also in Paris, it is unnecessary to say
more than that Babula seems to have intervened between the postman
and the recipient in both cases. The letters probably came by an earlier
delivery than that by which they appeared to arrive.

I proceed to " astral " apparitions. In August, 1884, Mr. Myers
received the following letter from Mr. PadshfiJi, a young Parsee gentle-
man and a Theosophist.

77, Elgin Crescent, Netting Hill, W.
Saturday, August 16th.

Dear Mr. Myers, — Madame has just told me that she saw Damodar last
night, quite distinctly, standing in a comer facing the chair in which she was
seated in the drawing-room. There were present in the room, Mr. and Mrs.
Oakley, Mr. Gebhard, and others, who do not seem to have known or felt
his presence. Madame tells me that he had come to ask what it was she had
told him about some trunk the night before. It appears she had told him
the previous night to take care in the Custom House of a certain trunk taken
by Babula, who has proceeded to India to-day. Damodar, unable, however,
to make himself more distinct, as Madame desired, seems to have not under-
stood her. So he appeared again this morning more than once, askings
'* Why do you not answer about the trunk ? '' Madame tells me she related
the appearance the night before to Mrs. Z.,* Mrs. X.,* and Miss Z.* The
circumstance would have been thought of no more, but on my consulting
Madame this afternoon about some articles about to appear in The Theosophist
she naturally spoke of Damodar ; and among other things, very enthusiastically
of his latest development. It occurred tome that this was a splendid chance
for the Society for Psychical Research ; you had repeatedly desired me to
commit to paper what I have seen or might see, and there are many friends
in England and India who are ready to trust my wotd. I suggested I should
write to you, and wait for Damodar's letter, where he might refer to his astral
presence. But that would be no test. I suggested an immediate despatch
of a telegram, and also a letter to you signed by Mr. Keightley and Mr.
Gebhard, who had come some time before, and myself. Mr. Keightley made
some difficulties as to the value of the test, alleging that our word may not
suffice for the Society for Psychical Research. I prefer to think otherwise*
And, accordingly, the telegram is decided upon. It is in these terms : —

To Damodar, Theosophist Office, Madras.

Telegraph instantly what you told me last night.


You will see that I have suggested the telegram should be from Madame
Blavatsky, to undo any difficulty Damodar might make to reply to others —
for instance, to the Society for Psychical Research.

Madame is going to-day to Elberfeld, and I shall open the answer as soon
as Damodar telegraphs it, and send you a copy.

I hope Damodar will make no difficulties now, and the test will be, we
trust, if not complete, at least of considerable scientific value. — I remain,
dear Mr. Myers, yours sincerely,


The telegram received from Mr. Damodar in reply seemed distinctly
irrelevant. It ran: "Master wants you here to-night don't fail look into
your pocket."

On August 30th Mr. Myers proceeded to Elberfeld and inquired of
Mr. Keightley (a Theosophist and a graduate of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge, who was staying at Mr.Gebhard's along with Madame Blavatsky,
Mr. Mohini, Colonel Olcott, &c.), whether he had received Mr. Damodar's
telegram and what he thought of it. He replied that the party had
left London on August 16th, and arrived at Elberfeld on the 17th. On
arriving they were met by a telegram from Mr. Padshah, reporting Mr.
Damodar's reply. The whole party, said Mr. Keightley, were surprised
and distressed at what seemed to them also the conspicuous failure of
the intended test. Madame Blavatsky said that she had in fact received
such a message, and had found such a letter in her pocket ; but, of
course, recognised the inadequacy of such statement. It then occurred
to her to consult her private note-book. This was said to be contained
in a despatch-box which had been in Mr. Keightley's charge from the
time when it was packed and locked, just after the telegram had been
sent to Damodar, and just before the party left London by an evening
train, August 16th, for Elberfeld, vid Queenborough and Flushing. She
at once asked Mr. Keightley to go and fetch the despatch-box. In the
note-book was found the entry here translated, which was then seen by
all present. It is written partly in Russian, partly in English. Tlie
words in italics* are in English in the original.

"I saw suddenly Damodar this August 15th. While looking on I called,
trying to find out some one near me to call attention to him. I was sitting
under the looking-glass, and tried to make myself heard by Mrs. Z., who was
sitting near Mrs. Oakley. Upon seeing him, I said to him ; Damodar^ can'i
you make yourself cisible to dUf Instead of answering, he says to me some-
thing very strange, that he had seen me the night before, and could not
understand what I wanted from him. He said : You came to me about two.
I could not understand what you were asking me for, le it for a trunk sent
here f Then a few minutes later he again appeared and said : Master wants
you here to-night, Don't fail. Look into your pocket."

On Wednesday, September 10th, a letter from Mr. Damodar was received
at Elberfeld by Madame Blavatsky in the presence of Mr. Keightley,
who noted its registered envelope ; [57] and believes that the letter had gone
first to London and been forwarded to Elberfeld.

The letter — which all who have examined it believe to be in Mr.
Damodar's handwriting — is as follows : —

Adyar, Madras, 16th August, 1884.

Respected Upasika, — I could not make out what you wanted here when
you came here on the morning of the 15th at about two or three of Madras
time. So in the night I attempted to come and ask you. It was between 10 and

II in the night here ; so it must be between five and six in the evening of
London time. Who was that gentleman sitting near you mider a big looking-
glass and who was that short old lady about ? I think Uiere were several
others in the room at the time ; but I could not make out how many or who
they were. If I had known that at that time you would be amidst so many
people I would not have attempted to come. I might have seen you later,
when you were alone. And why was it that you asked me to make myself
visible to all ? Tou know I am too much of a beginner yet, in this line. It
was only because you asked me to do so, I attempted. Whether I succeeded
or failed, I do not know. And in all this affidr, the main object I came for was
not quite accomplished. I wanted to know exactly what you had come here
for ? I heard something about a trunk ; but whether you wanted me to take
care of something you had sent or whether you wanted me to send you
something I do not quite remember. However, I have sent you a parcel
and I believe it is that which you mean. Did you find in your pocket that
Thibetan order from the Master to come here, to notify you about which he
sent me to you again ? I hope yourself, nor the friends who were there,
will not speak about this to any one and not make a public talk of it in the
Society for Psychical Research and such other pl^u^s. I am sure Mr. Ewen
and others would have done it, if I had not asked you privately to prevent
the publication of the fact of Mr. Ewen having seen me when I came to see
you and Colonel Olcott and committed a blunder. I hope I have not com-
mitted a mistake in sending you the parcel.

Ever yours respectfully and sincerely,

Damodar K. Mavalankar.

It certainly cannot be said that the possibility of collusion between
Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar is in tliis case excluded. But
though on the one hand it may seem strange that a planned imposture
should not have been better carried out, it must be observe^ on the
other hand that there are points in the e^^dence which look decidedly
suspicious. Of course, if there was imposture — as, considering what we
now know about both Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar, I cannot
myself profess to doubt — we cannot be sure of discovering the precise
modus operandi by merely reflecting on the phenomena intended to
appear. But the following may be suggested as a possible course of

Let us suppose that some time in July, after she had begun her
residence at Elgin-crescent, and could therefore describe the looking-
glass and the lady, Madame Blavatsky wrote to Mr. Damodar telling
him to post a letter on August 16th, such as that we have printed, and
that she would take care to make it correspond with events in London ;
and further, that when the day came she performed more or less
imperfectly — or perhaps only spoke of — her part of the programme,
but forgot the " Master-wants-you-here-to-night-look-in-your-pocket **
part. Let us further assume that the telegram to India was no
part of the original plan, and that Mr. Damodar was left to liis own
devices in replying to it. It would not be unnatural that he should
reply as he did, that being, in fact) the only thing he was supposed to
have told her ; about the trunk he was supposed to have asked her. I
cannot regard it as at all satisfactorily established that Madame
Blavatsky had no opportunity of obtaining access to her note-book
between the time when the telegram was sent to Mr. Damodar and the
time when the book was shown to the party at Elberfeld ; and I think
the entry may have been made, or, at any rate, the last sentence added,
in that interval ; — either after Mr. Damodar's telegram was received, or
at some previous moment^ when it recurred to her memory that he was
to be supposed to have made that remark about the Master. Thus all
that occurred would be accounted for.

It is possible that the entry in Madame Blavatsky's note-book may
have been made much earlier — at the time when she first communicated
the plan to Mr. Damodar — and corrected afterwards; for the names of
the persons present — Mrs. Z. and Mr. and Mrs. Oakley — are written in
lead pencil over the original purple pencil, rendering what is undemeatli
illegible. But I am not myself inclined to believe that the greater part
of it [58] was written at this earlier date, because if it had been, I think that
Madame Blavatsky's and Mr. Damodar's descriptions of the scene
would have agreed better than they do. Madame Blavatsky's phrases,
"I called, trying to find out some one near me" . . . "tried to
make myself heard by Mrs. Z.," &c., do not correspond well with Mr.
Damodar's question about the gentleman "sitting near" her.

There is another point which strikes me as somewhat suspicious
about Madame Blavatsky's entry in her note-book, and which strengthens
my impression that it was made after the telegram was sent. For
what purpose was it made ? Why, if it was merely as a record of an
event interesting to herself, and not for comparison with an expected
letter from Mr Damodar, should she put in so uninteresting a fact as
that she was sitting under the looking-glass ? But if it was intended for
this latter object, it would have been natural to show it to some one at
the time the sending of the telegram was being discussed, had it been
then in existence, and thus to improve the test. I think it probable,
therefore, that the entry was made after the telegram was sent^ though
very likely before the answer was received.

The allusion at the end of Mr. Damodar's letter is to an apparition
of him seen by Mr. E. D. Ewen, of Chattisgarh, Central Provinces of
India. Mr. Ewen, who is a Scotch gentleman of honourable repute,
whose organisation is highly nervous, saw Mr. Damodar (with whom
he was acquainted) in " astral '' form, as he supposed, on May 23rd,
1884, in London. On his mentioning this at a meeting of our
Society, on May 28th, Mr. Damodar was at once telegraphed to by
Colonel Olcott (Mr. Myers being present) in the following words:

"Olcott to Damodar, Adyar, Madras J Have you visited London lately?
write Myers full details." To this telegram no reply was received, from
which it is a natural inference that Mr. Damodar was unaware of the
vision, though he rtiay have had other reasons for his silence. His
mentioning it in his letter of August 16th proves nothing, of course,
since there had then been more than time to acquaint him by post with
the facts. We are thus left without any evidence to distinguish Mr.
Ewen's experience from a merely subjective hallucination.

Two other visions I have to deal with. The first is an experience
that occurred to Mr. Vsevolod Solovioff, Page of Honour to the Czar,
and son of the tutor of the late Czar, and a Russian author of high
repute. He describes what occurred as follows : —

"1 Octobre, 1884, Paris.

"Ayant refu une lettre de ma compatriote, Mme. H^l^ne Blavatsky,
dans laquelle elle m'informait du mauvais dtat de sa sant^ et me priait de
venir la voir d. Elberfeld, je me suis d^idd k faire ce voyage. Mais puisque
r^tat de ma propro sant^ me for^ait 4 certains managements, j'ai pr^fdr6
m'arreter d. Bruxellcs, que je n'ai jamais vu, pour me reposer, la chaleur
^tant accablante.

"Je suis parti de Paris le 24 Aoiit. Le lendemain matin, au Grand Hotel
de Bruxelles oii je m'dtais arrdt^, j'ai rencontr^ Mile. A. (fille de feu ambas*
sadeur russe k — -— et demoiselle d'honneur de V Imp^ratrice de Russie). En
apprenant que je me rendais \k Elberfeld pour voir Mme. Blavatsky, qu'elle
connait et estime beaucoup, elle s'est d(k;id^e ^ m'accompagner. Nous avons
pass^ la joum^e ensemble, comi>tant partir le lendemain par le train de
neuf heures du matin.

''A huit heures, dtant d^jk oompl^tement pret k partir, j'entre chez
Mile. A. et je la trouve dans un grand embarras. Toutes ses clefs, qu'elle
a rhabitude de garder toujours sur elle dans un petit sac et qu'elle a eu dans
ce sac en se couchant, avaient disparu pendant la nuit, quoique la porte de
sa chambre fut ferm^e k clef. Ainsi toutes ses malles dtant fermdes, impos*
sible d'emballer les effets dont elle venait de se servir. Nous f^mes obliges
de remettre notre depart jusqu'au train d'une heure de I'apr^s midi, et fimes
venir le serrurier pour ouvrir la plus grande malle. Lorsqu'eUe fut ouverte
toutes les clefs que nous cherchions se trouv^rent au fond de la malle, attm
q\i^ la def de cette maUe, atUickie comme (Thahitiide avec les autres, Ayant k
nous toute notre matinee, nous vouliimes faire une promenade, mais soudain
je me sentis dans un dtat d'^trange faiblesse et en proie k un irr^istible
besoin de dormir. Je me suis excus^ aupr^s de Mile. A. et me suis retird dans
ma chambre, m'empressant de me mettre au lit. Mais je ne pus m'endormir
et restais les yeux ferm^, lorsque tout k coup, dans Tdtat de veillo, j'ai vu
devant mes yeux ferm^s toute une s^rie de paysages inconnus^ qui se sent
graves dans ma memoire avec leurs moindres details. Lorsque cette vision
fut dissip^, je me sentis remis de ma faiblesse et me rendis aupr^ do
Mile. A., k laquelle certainement j'ai racont^ ce qui venait de se passer en
lui ddpeignant les paysages dans tous leurs details.

"Nous sommes partis par le train d'une heure, et voici qu'apr^s une
demi heure de route Mile. A. me dit en regardant par la fenetre : ' Tenez, voicr
un de vos paysages ! * Je I'ai reoonnu k i'instant, et jusqu'au soir j'ai revu,
les yeux ouverts, tout ce que le niatin j 'avals vu les yeux ferm6s. J'^tais
content d'avoir raoont^ ma vision en detail h Mile. A., car elle pouvait en
attester la r^isation. U faut dire que la route entre Bruxellea et Elberfeld
m'est comply tement inconnue, car c'^tait la premiere fois de ma vie que je
visitais la Belgique et cette partie de I'Allemagne.

"En arrivant k Elberfeld le soir, nous nous sommes arret<^s dans un
h6tel et nous nous h&t&mes de nous rendre aupr^s de Mme. Blavatsky dan»
la maison de M. Gebhard. Le mdme soir, les membres de la Socitfttf Th^oso-
phique qui entourent Mme. Blavatsky nous ont montr^ deux superbes
portraits k Thuile des Mahatmas M. et Koot Houmi. Le portrait de M»
surtout produisit sur nous une impression extraordinaire, et ce n'est pas
^tonnant qu'en revenant k notre h6tel nous en parlions encore et Favions
devant nos yeux. C'est k Mile. A. de raconter ce qu'elle a vu et sent!
pendant la nuit suivante. Mais voici ce qui m'est arriv^ : —

"Fatigu^ par le voyage, je doxanais paisiblement lorsque tout d'un coup je
fus rdveill^ par la sensation d'un souffle bien chaud etp^n^trant. J'ouvre les
yeux et dans la faible clart^ qui entrait dans la chambre par les trois fendtres,
je vois devant moi une grande figure d'homme v^tu d'un long vdtementblano
et flottaut. En mdme temps j'ai entendu ou senti une voix, qui me disait,
je ne puis pr^ciser en quelle langue, bien que je le compris parfaitement,
d'allumer la bougie. Je dois dire qu'au lieu de m'efErayer je restais tout k
fait tranquille, seulement je sentais mon coeur battre avec une force
redoublee. J'ai allum6 la bougie et en I'allumant j'ai vu h ma montre qu'il
tftait deux lieures du matin. La vision ne disparaisBait pas. C'^tait un
homme bien vivant qui ^tait devant moi. Et j'ai reconnu k I'instant meme
en lui le bel original du portrait que nous avions vu le soir. II s'assit prbs
de moi sur une chaise, et commen9a k me parler. U parla longtemps,
touchant les questions qui m'int^ressent, mais la plus grande partie de cet
entretien ne pent dtre rapport^e ici car il s'agissait de choses tout k fait
personnelles. Je puis dire,cependant, qu'entre autres il m'a annonc^ que
pour le voir dans son corps astral j'ai dii passer par beaucoup de preparations,
et que la demi^re le9on me f ut donn^e le matin meme lorsque j'ai vu, les yeux
fermds, les paysages que je devais re voir en rdalit^ le meme jour. Puis il me
dit que je ])os8^de \me gitinde force magndtique en voie de d^veloppement.
Alors jo lui demandai ce que je devais faire avec cette force. Mais, sans
rcpondre, il disparut.

" J'etais seul, la porte de ma chambre dtait fennde k clef. J'ai cm k une
hallucination et mdme je me suis dit avec efiroi que je commence k perdre la
tete. A peine ai-je eu cette idee que j'ai revu k la mdme place Thomme
8ui>erbe aux v^tements blancs. II hochait la tete et en souriant me dit :
'Soyez stir que je ne suis pas une hallucination et que votre raison ne vous
quitte pas. Blavatsky vous prouvera demain devant tout le monde que m&
visite etait reelle.' Puis il disparut. J'ai constate k ma montre qu'il etait
pres de trois heures. J'ai eteint la bougie et je me suis rendormi inunediate-*
ment d'un profond sommeil.

"Le matin, en arrivant avec Mile. A. pr^s de Mme. Blavatsky, la premiere
ehoso qu'eUe nous dit avec son sourire 6nigmatique : ' Eh bien ! comment
avez-Tous pass^ la nuit?' *Tr^8 bien,' lui ai*je r^pondu, et j^ai ajoute^
'Yous n'avez rien h me dire?' ' Non,' fit-elle, 'jesaia seulement que le
jViaitre a 6t6 chez yous avec un de ses ^l^ves.'

"Le soir dumeme jour M. Olcott a trouv4 dana sa poche un petit billet,
que tou8 les th^osophes ont reconnu pour Stre de Tdcriture de M. , con^u en
ces termes : * Certainement j'^tais Ik, maLs qui pent ouvrir les yeux k celui
qui ne veut pas voir ? — M.'

"'C*^tait la r^ponae k mon incredulity, pulsque toute la joumee je
tftchais de me persuader que ce n'^tait qu*une hallucination, ce qui fkchait
Mme. Blavataky.

''Je dois dire qu'k peine reve{^u k Paris, oil je suis actuellement, mes
hallucinations et les faits ^tranges qui m'entouraient se sont compl^tement


This was certainly a striking experience. M. Solovioff tells us that he
tried to persuade himself throughout the following day, till he received
the note, that it was a hallucination, but it was very unlike the
hallucinations that are known to occur to sane and healthy persons.
I do not myself think that there is the same difficulty in supposing it
to have been an unusually vivid dream. It will be observed that no
satisfactory test of an objective origin is afforded by the occurrences of
the next day. Madame Blavatsky's remark that the Master and one of
his pupils had been with him, was a perfectly safe one. ** The Master "
would do either for Koot Hoomi or M., and the Chela would cover a
considerable range of other possibilities ; while, if Madame Blavatsky had
been wrong in assuming that the question " Vous n'avez rien k me dire? "
indicated that there had been an experience of some sort, the non-seeing
of the Master could be accounted for by a want of sufficient development
on the part of M. Solovioff ; or in whatever way the non-seeing of the
Chela actually was accounted for. The contents of the note found in
Colonel Olcott's pocket added no confirmation, and the note might
easily, it would seem, have found its way there by natural means with*
out his knowledge. We have not the details of Mdlle. A.'s experience,
but I believe it consisted in a dream or vision, more or less similar to M.
Solovioff's. It is possible that, if we had the details, we might find it
more probable than not that the dreams were telepathically connected :
but the similarity of circumstances and conditions, of trains of thought
and emotions, before retiring to rest, might easily lead to similar
nocturnal experiences.

Since writing the above I have learnt that, owing to events which
have since occurred, M. Solovioff no longer regards his experience as
affording any evidence of occult agency.

If M. Solovioff's experience was a dream, we have no reason foi
regarding the following experience of Mrs. Gebhard, with which I will
conclude, as anything but a waking one.

Mrs. Gebhard, of Elberfeld, well known to one member of the
Committee, writes as follows with regard to an incident which occurred
at a meeting of the London Lodge of the Theosophical Society, on
April 7th, 1884. On that occasion, Madame Blavatsky, who had come
in unexpectedly, and was sitting among the audience, suddenly called to
Mr. Mohini, as though she saw some one. Mr. Mohini joined 4ier in a
lobby, and appeared also to perceive some one, whom he saluted with
respect. Colonel Olcott's speech, however, was not interrupted, and
nothing was said to show who it was that Madame Blavatsky and Mr.
Mohini thus greeted. At the end of the meeting, they both stated that
they had seen Mahatma M.

'* On the 7 th of April last, being at a meeting of the Theosophical Society
at Mr. Finch's rooms, Lincoln's Inn, I had a vision, in which I saw the
Maliatma M. At the moment I was listening attentively to Colonel Olcott's open-
ing speech to the Society. I saw standing on my right side, a little in front, a
very tall, majestic-looking person, whom I immediately recognised to be the
Mahatma, from a picture I had seen of him in Mr. Sinnett's possession. He
was not clad in white, but it seemed to me to be some dark material with
coloured stripes, which was wound round his form. The vision lasted only a
few seconds. As far as I could learn, the only persons besides myself who
had seen the Mahatma were Colonel Olcott, Mr. Mohini, and, of course,
Madame Blavatsky.

"Mary Gebhard."

This may have been a collective liallucination, and as such would
have been very interesting ; but we have not the contemporaneous and
independent accounts of Mr. Mohini and Colonel Olcott as to dress,
Jbc, nor the evidence as to the time of the appearance, which would be
required to prove this.

We have then, as I said at the beginning, three experiences, one o£
them adapted to corroborate the assertion that Mr. Damodar can.
project his *^ astral form," and the other two apparently confirmatory
of the existence of Mahatma M., and in two out of these three cases the
percipient was probably completely awake. It must^ however, be
remembered that one result of the investigations of the Literary Com-
mittee is that merely subjective hallucinations occur to sane and healthy
persons considerably more frequently than is generally supposed ; and
secondly, that what makes these experiences available as evidence for
Madame Blavatsky is her previous allegation that Mr. Damodar and
Mahatma M. were liable to appear, while the expectation caused by
this allegation may have operated in producing the hallucinations, or
determining their form.

In any case, though the experiences are interesting and important in
relation to the general investigations of the Society — ^yet in the absence
of other evidence for the existence of M., or for Mr. Damodar's power of
voluntarily appearing ; and in the absence also of such evidence in eacH
instance as we should require, if it stood alone, to distinguish it from &
merely subjective experience — they cannot be held to prove any of tlie
powers claimed for <* Adepts" and their disciples.



* Fictitious Initials.

57. Mr. Keightley noticed that the envelope was registered, with Dainodcfr, he
believes, written in the comer, and that the letter was actually in the envelope
— the letter being in Damodar's handwriting. But Mr. Keightley and Madame
Blavatsky between them then lost the envelope. We have, however, ascer-
tained that a registered letter answering to the description of tliis one reached
London on September 7th. It left Bombay on August 19th, and therefore pro-
bably was sent from Madras on August 16th, or 17th.

58. It is noticeable that the first sentence is written in blue pencil, and the rest
in purple, with tlie exception of the corrections in lead pencil. This snggesta that
the whole note was not written at the same time.
Site Admin
Posts: 30830
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Hodgson Report: Report on Phenomena Connected With T

Postby admin » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:59 am


In July, 1879, shortly after he had urgently represented to Madame
Blavatsky the desire of himself and other members of the Theosophical
Society, in London, for independent proof of the existence of
" Adepts," Mr. C. C. Massey found in the minute book of the Society
a letter addressed to him, and purporting to come from one of the
Adept " Brothers " ; Madame Blavatsky being then in India. This
discovery was made at the lodgings of a member of the Society (who was
at that time a non-professional medium), and in whose custody the
minute book then was. The book was brought to Mr. Massey by this
medium in connection with the business of the Society. The medium
will be here described as X., and the medium's " control " as Z. [59]

In May, 1882, Mr. Massey was shown a letter addressed to X. (who
had then ceased to reside in this country), apparently in Madame
Blavatsky 's handwriting, dated 28th June, 1879, and contained in
an envelope bearing the registered London post-mark, 21st July, 1879.
He took a copy of the first part of the letter, which was as follows : —

My Dear Good Friend, — Do you remember what Z. told or rather
pix>miBed to me ? That whenever there is need for it, he will always be
ready to cany any message, leave it either on Massey's table, his pocket, or
some other mysterious place ? Well now there is the mod important need
fur such a show of his powers. Please ask him to take the enclosed letter
and put it into M.'s pocket or in some other still more mysterious place.
But he miuft iwt know it*s Z. Let him think what he likes, but he must not
suspect you had been near him with Z. at your orders. He does not distrust
you, but he does Z.

Also if he could treat L. L. with some Oriental token of love it would be
right, but none of them must suspect Z. of it, therefore it is more difficult
to make it to do it (sic) than it would otherwise be were it to be produced at
one of your stances . . . &c.

Mr. Massey was not at that time at liberty to take, the otherwise
obvious course of communicating on the subject with Madame Blavatsky
or X. (with neither of whom, moreover, was he then in correspondence),
and it was not till some months later — autumn of 1882 — that, the
circumstances of tlie Society seeming to him to require the disclosure,
he communicated the facts privately to friends in it.

It is noteworthy that a. letter written by Madame Blavatsky to Mr.
Massey on July 2nd, 1879, four days after the date of the letter to X.,
seems mainly written in order to say that the London Fellows of the
Theosophical Society are not to have phenomena, and to explain why.
She says in it : " I tell you as a fact that the desires of the London
Fellows have been the subject of earnest consultation among our
Brothers. Some have been half inclined to gratify the wish for
phenomena But it has always ended in the unanimous
conviction that to do tliis, would only degrade adeptship, and help the
false theories of Spiritualism/' Knowledge of the letter found in the
minute book seems therefore to be implicitly denied. Mr. Massey
endeavoured to obtain some explanation of it from Madame Blavatsky,
but without success.

It was not until May, 1884, that on receiving a letter from Madame
Blavatsky — the first for several years — on another matter, he sent her
a copy of so much of the letter to X. as he had transcribed, and
obtained in reply an acknowledgment that she was the author of all
that part of it which concerned him. The following are extracts from
her letter: —

Enghien, Friday.

All I have the honour now of telling you is^^wi my theoaophkal word of
Hoitmir^ — 1 That I am the author of but the first part of the letter you quote^
i.e. a few hurried lines to X. after receiving the letter addressed to you and
received by me at Girgaum, Bombay — asking X. to remind Z. of his promise
tmd convey the letter to you by any means provided they were occult, [60] My
authorship begins with ** My dear good friend" — and ends with — **he does
not distrust you but he does Z." \Vhat follows after has never been written by
me, nor have I any knowledge of it, all you may say to the contraiy.
Whether the remainder of it is harmless or not ; and whether you are at a
loss to conceive why it should be forged — all this is flapdoodle for me. I
have not ioritteih it and that's all sufficient for me ; whatever it is for you.
Who the devil may be '*L. L." is immaterial ; since the Masters do not
evidently want me to see at the bottom of the trick. It is forged — ^that's
all I know ; as many other things were, and may be yet — for your special
benefit, as I think. I had for years and entirely lost every remembrance
of this letter and now it comes to me as a flash back with all its details.
When Olcott spoke to me of it I had no clear remembrance of it and
now I have And now to the point.
What do you find of so deceitfid and unpardoiuible in this first part of my
letter, which, as you think, is really the only one that incriminates me ? I
may be also lacking — ^in your code of notions of honour — ''a sense of the
commonest morality " — and if so, then all I can say, it must be so in yofir
»ighl, surely not in mine. I have not, nor have I had, in writing it the
smallest or faintest notion I was tliercby deceiring yon, trying to impose vpan
yo^iy &c., &c. Do you call ivithholdhtg facts one has no right to enter upon
— deceiving ? The letter forwarded to you was genuine, from as genuine a
"Brother" as ever lived; it was received |9/i^iomcna% by me in the presence
of two theosophists who asked me what it was and whom I told it was none
of their business. Was I deceiving them also ? I was ordered to have it
delivered into your hands, but was not told how and left to do the best I
knew how. I asked Olcott, how I was io send it over to you and he said he
did not know ; and it was he who suggested Z. saying '^ Cant you send it
over to hini as it came to you and then have him deliver it to Massey if it ia
so difficult for you to send it direct ? — I remember saying to him that it
was difficult and tliat I would anyhow ask Z. to drop it somewhere. I do
not know whether he understood what I really meant ; and if he did, he has
long ago forgotten all about it. But I remember it was through him that the
idea about Z. came into my head And would I have tried to
deceive i/mt, at that time, above all ? You who had entire confidence [61] in me,
who had declared as much in the Theosophist, you whom I was so proud to
have in the Society, I could have cheated you like a paid medium ! . • *
to say tliat in the case of that letter I had plotted canscimidy to deceive you, —
I say it is this which is an infenud lie — ^whoever says so ! . , . .In your
case, Masters had forbidden me to help you in your dealings with mediums —
to encourage them even with X., for fear you should never learn to discern
occult from Spiritual phenomena; and this is why instead of writing to you —
'* Go to X. and you will get a letter from a Brother in Scotland through Z." —
I acted as I have. That I saw nothing in it then, as I do not see now, of so
dreadful, is only a proof that I have not received my education in London
and that our notions of the honourable and tlie dishonourable differ. . . «

There are tliree points which may be specially noted in this letter.
First, the part of the letter to X. acknowledged by Madame Blavatsky
clearly indicates a plan of imposing on Mr. Massey as a manifesta*
tion of the power of the Mahatmas a phenomenon which she knew not
to be due to any such agency. Secondly, the whole letter to X. as
above quoted suggests a strong suspicion that she intended the
phenomenon to be produced by perfectly natural and normal agency.
TJiis suspicion, however, would be most strongly suggested by the part
of the letter which does not relate to Mr. Massey. Accordingly,
Madame Blavatsky's method of dealing with the situation in which she
finds herself placed is to acknowledge the authorship of the part of the
letter which she had, apparently, some hope of explaining to Mr.
Massey's satisfaction, while denying the authorship of the latter part.
Her method of dealing with the Blavatsky-Coulomb correspondence is
precisely similar. Tliirdly, her explanation, however ingenious, is not
perfectly consistent^ for it is impossible to explain (1) Why she did
not send the " Brother's " letter direct to Mr. Massey by post, unless
she wished to make him believe it had reached liim by occult means ;
(2) Why she made no allusion to it when she wrote to him about
letters and phenomena on July 2nd, 1879, and stated so positively
that there were to be no phenomena, unless she wished him to believe
that she had nothing to do with it — that it had not passed through her
hands ; and (3) how a *' Brother " in Scotland could be so ignorant of
geogi*aph7, or about Madame Blavatsky's occult acquirements, as to
think it desirable to send a letter for Mr. Massey in London round by
Bombay, instead of posting it himself at the nearest post-office.

The following further facts may be noted :— (1) That " K. H.," in
letters which have been seen by Mr. Massey, avowed and defended
Madame Blavatsky's authorship of so much of the letter as she herself
afterwards admitted, and similarly denied the parts denied by her.
(2) That X. absolutely denied to Mr. Massey all knowledge whatever
of Madame Blavatsky's letter, or of having seen the letter enclosed
in it before it was discovered by Mr. Massey in the minute book. (3)
That " K. H.," in a letter which Mr. Massey has seen, attempts to
reconcile this contradiction by suggesting that X. received the letter in
a mediumistic state of trance or quasi-trance!



Statement and Conclusions of the Committee 201-207
Outline of Mr. Hodgson's Investigation and Conclusions 207-210
Extracts from and Comments upon Blavatsky-Coulomb Letters 211-219
The Shrine a " Conjurer's Box " 219-236
Untrustworthiness of Mr. Damodar's Evidence 226-231
Collapse of Evidence for Mr. Damodar's *' Astral" Journeys ..' ... 231-2S7
Worthlessness of Colonel Oloott's Evidence 237-239
Worthlessness of Mr. Mohini M. Chatter jee's Evidence 239-245
And of the remaining Evidence for Appearances of Mahatmas 245-248
Reasons for Distrusting Mr. Babajee D. Nath 246-247
Appearance and Disappearance of Letters accounted for 24S-2S6
The "Occult World" Phenomena and Weakness of Mr. Sinnett's Evidence 256-273
Mr. A. O. Hume's Evidence 273-275
Handwriting of Blavatsky-Coulomb Letters 276-277
Circumstances under which certain Documents were received 278-281
Mr. F. G. Netherclift's Opinion on the K. H. Writing 282-283
Reasons for attributing K.H. Letters to Madame Blavatsky 283-293
Changes in the use of the English dhy Madame Blavatsky 290-291
Two K. H. Letters attributed to Mr. Damodar 293-297
Deception by Mr. Bhavani Shankar 297
Chela Docimient signed B. D. S., written by Mr. Babajee D. Nath ... 298
Forged Hartmann Document written by Madame Blavatsky 298-301
Authorship of Mahatma M. Writing 301-302
Ignorance Displayed by Mahatmas 303-304
Koot Hoomi's bad English 305-307
Chelas incited to Fraud 308
Possible Motives of Mr. Damodar 309-310
Colonel Olcott ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 311
Summary of the main {loints involved in the Inquiry 312-313
Motives of Madame Blavatsky 313-317
Mr. F. G. Netherclift's Report on Blavatsky-Coulomb Documents ... 381-382
Phenomena that have occurred in Europe 383-39a
Evidence suggestive of Fraud by Madame Blavatsky in 1879 397-400



59. The suppression of these names is by request of Mr. Massey. It is not
material to publish them for the present purpose.

60. This proviso does not appear in the letter to X.

61. It may be observed, however, that Mr. Massey's confidence in Madame
Blavatsky had not prevented his urgent requirement of proof of the "Adepts"
which should be independent of any such confidence.
Site Admin
Posts: 30830
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests