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

Letter No. 87


Mr dear Mr. Sinnett,

Thanks for your letter to Light — nothing better than that and little more required — if anything. I said to you yesterday what I had to say: I shall follow Master's suggestions. Last night — two letters were brought to me, rather two 1/2 letters. One, the famous one from Arthur Gebhard — the second an old one from Subba Row, and the half also from him written last year to Paris.

The philosophy of the three being sent to you is as follows. 1st. From Arthur — (that has been just read two days ago for the first time by Mahatma K. H.) — to show that imperfect as is my knowledge of Schiller's tongue — by reading it, if I had read it I would have understood at any rate, that there was not one line in it that concerned Arthur's quarrel with his father — just as I told you at Wurzburg; and I thanked Mahatma for it. (2) Subba Row's letter of 1882 showing that so far back as that time Mr. Hume was our bitterest enemy, or rather the enemy of the Mahatmas, whom he hated gloriously as you know, not scrupling to betray Them and all the Society behind our backs secretly and treacherously while remaining all the time in the Society as he does still now. Whether it shall be of any use in the future or no I cannot tell, I can only repeat D. K.'s words. Tell Mr. Sinnett to keep it among his documents also (No. 3) the half letters from which it is seen that Subba Row speaks of Master as "Our" Master his and mine — I think I understand why. When at the last row between him, Hodgson, Hume etc — Subba Row told Mr. Hume — who grinningly brought me the news — that he knew of no Master, would tell him nothing concerning them, and that he (Hume) ought to know better the Masters than he did, since he wrote to several members (who preserved the letters) that he (Hume) had seen Mahat. K. H. in a vision of Yogi clairvoyance several times, and knew all about Mahat. M.

D. K. is very angry with me for having written so inaccurately to you about him yesterday, "dishonouring" him in your eyes. He says he never copied Olcott's and Coul. diagram; but it was they who copied his ---- (did I tell you otherwise?); that I better stop my "dzin-dzin explanations," as no one hurt me as much as myself!!! Now there's that hardly weened infant on my back! What next? Please don't ask me any more. Since I am a fool and unable to speak truth even in my favour — but muddle it up — I shall drop every "clearing up" altogether. And please remember, my dear Mr. Sinnett, that if those psychic asses offer after your letter in Light to show me any "letters" or to give me a chance of rising and explaining — I refuse to do so beforehand. I would have nothing to do with them, if it even lead to an entire vindication. I have enough of them, of their ungentlemanly, disgusting, Scotland yard secret proceedings, and do not wish to be any more troubled by anything coming from Cambridge, which be — condemned.

The "Arundale group" is not altogether composed of geniuses — as you know. If every one was as fair as you are it would be too good to live in this world of dirt. I know what both Mahatmas think of you — I shall not forget how I saw you on that night I was dying —

I had to part with the half of my £3-16-0 in a telegram. Olcott stopped the appearance of the Theosophist for a week believing in his tomfoolery that I was ready to come to terms with Lane Fox — he was fool enough to dispose of it without my consent — and then what would I do? I fear all and everything from the Adyar Sages.

D. K. passed last night into Babajee's room and — I heard him sobbing the whole night. I went to him and knocked but he would not open. New mystery!!

Yours ever,
H. P. B.

Compts. and love to dear Mrs. S. and Dennie.

Theosophical University Press Online Edition