Theosophical University Press Online Edition
PARIS, 46, RUE NOTRE DAME DES CHAMPS.
MY DEAR BOSS,
I find I am a fool — most decidedly so, since beginning a letter to you with the appalling sentence "My Boss M. wants me to tell you so and so," I trusted so much in your intuition as to imagine that without a dash or something to indicate where the Boss's suggestions ended, and my own flapdoodle began; I went on speculating and advising and thus lead you into the natural error of taking my own words for those of Master! Now, having read your letter, and seeing at once how important it is that we should not allow the divine Whistle-breeches to have such a strong handle as she would otherwise have — if she were to remain Prest. of the London Lodge (even though it were composed only of four members), I see all the absurdity and danger of my careless writing. The words of the Master were — (and I now copy them verbatim from the astral records helped in it by his senior chela) — "She has to remain President" . . . (since it is the Chohan's desire she should not quit the Society if it can be helped) — "of a Society, even though the two groups had to change their names." The suggestion about the "London Lodge" and "Tibetan Lodge" names was wholly mine; and even having written it, and hardly posted the letter, I repented, for I remembered what Master said, and Mah. K. H.'s letter to Subba Row — about this. See page 44 of Subba Row's Reply about the "proposal." Besides which the "Tibetan Lodge" was a proposal of Maitland and I was very angry at the time. I do not know what possessed me to write the thing! I felt so disgusted that any change, anything that would pitch her out of your Society seemed preferable to her still being in it. As always — Master had come, his voice said "you will write to him so and so" — and he went away. And I, having delivered myself of his chief message — namely that it was time that you should emphatically deny, and expose her lies — made a mess of the rest by writing in His spirit and not in His words; and as I see now it is the words precisely that were important. You are right, perfectly right, and I say again I am a fool, a poor broken down idiot in this weakness of my body that weakens my brain also.
Ye gods! why is it that the Chohan wants her at all! Is it for our or your sins? I know that all the rest (K. H. and Boss and chelas in and out of Tibet) do not want her. But it seems a fatality that the old venerable gentleman who never meddles in anything theosophical least of all European, should have thrown his eye upon her! Djual Khool told me in Madras that he never saw his "Master" so embarrassed. Is it that the Chohan Rimbochy wants to disgust you all, with all such contradictions, inconsistencies and counter-orders? I asked D. K. and he only looked at me and said nothing. Well so far, I know that Master has given Olcott nothing to do that would contradict your desires. Quite the contrary. I know that his mission is to rid you of her without separating her entirely of the Society. I know that Their desire is to have you President of the Society of the "Occultists" of London — and no one else, and that They are forced to tolerate her on account of and out of deference for the wishes of the Chohan — His name be blessed. Well Sinnett, my dear, all this is not natural. Broken down, enfeebled as I am physically and intuitionally, I have yet unforgettable knowledge enough to feel that there is somewhere in all this — "une anguille sous roche."
The notes "by proxy" hold good among the Fellows of your Society not among those of other Branches. The Duchess has no right to vote in your L.L.; and Master ordered me to tell her so when she mentioned that she had sent Mrs. K. her vote, and Master told so to Olcott. See Rule VIII — "no branch has the right to exercise jurisdiction outside its chartered limits." As to Mme. de Morsier she is now dead against Mrs. K. and will not vote for her — neither has she the right to. She is all for Mohini and Mohini is "the Master's ambassador" as she calls him. Thus it is settled. [The remainder of the letter is missing. — ED.] . . . . . . . .
Next: Blavatsky Letter 36
Previous: Blavatsky Letter 34
Table of Contents