Part 3 of 4
2.
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).
1.
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.
2.
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,
N.W.P.).
1.
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
ordinary.
2.
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.
----------
THIRD ALLEGED ASTRAL APPARITION.
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
reason.
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
speaking.
Mr. Stack: Were you all in the room when this occurred, or out on the
balcony?
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
natural?
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
attracted.
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
eight.
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,
then.
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
room?
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
country.
Mr. Myers: Thus appearing to show a knowledge of events of the
moment?
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-
wards?
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
hotel?
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
Enghien.
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 STRANGE VOICE.
[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
were.
[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.]
----------
APPENDIX 8: EXPERIENCES OF MR. RAMASWAMIER.
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): —
[Certificate.]
"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
journey.
"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
person.
'' 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
seen.
"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
horseback.
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.
APPENDIX 9: EVIDENCE OF MR. MARTANDRAO B, NAGNATH, &c
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."