Practical Occultism — William Q. Judge

Letters from December 1890

New York, December 1, 1890
Mr. E. W. Primm,
Belleville, Ill.

Dear Sir and Brother: —

Pray do not scruple to ask me for any services that I can render you. This office is under too great obligations to you to ever forget them. You are not the first who has asked me respecting the passage in the Countess Wachtmeister's notice in "Lucifer." The explanation is really, I think, very simple. The Countess, though a devoted Theosophist, is, like many women, not always prepared to seize the exact meaning of a proposition, and has misunderstood remarks of Mme. Blavatsky respecting the cycle. The facts are, briefly, that in the last quarter of every century special forces are put forth by the Higher Powers towards the effectuation of wholesome spiritual ends. Every Theosophical activity occurring during that epoch has the advantage of these special forces behind it, and it is for this reason that it is of so much importance for us workers to make the very most of the years left between now and 1897. At all other times, that is to say, during the other three quarters of each century, every real activity has its natural result, for spiritual agencies are not suspended during 3/4 of the time. All good work tells at any time, but at this particular time it has greater efficacy because of the special influences back of it.

Very sincerely and fraternally yours,


December 4, 1890
Mr. Edward S. Walker,
Boulder, Colo.

My dear Sir and Brother:

I am exceedingly glad to read your letter of the 30th ult. and also to answer it to the best of my ability, because it shows earnestness and also is quite clear. I did not intend in my last letter to intimate that you or any of your members were unfit in any way to aspire to Adeptship, but supposing from your letters that you thought Chelaship could be attained easily or by directing you to some place or person, it would be well to give the warning and suggestion which I did.

The references made to the articles in the Path were in answer to that part of your former letters respecting aspiring to Chelaship, and in respect to nothing else. Any man or woman has the right to aspire and work towards Adeptship, and no person has any right to say whether they will succeed or fail. Hence it is not for me to condemn the aspiration in toto or to prognosticate the result.

I think we are now upon a proper basis to arrive at a thorough understanding, not of each other, but of Theosophy and the objects of the Theosophical Society.
In the first place the Society assumes no authority and has authorized nothing in the way of books. Mme. Blavatsky's works however are considered by the greater number of the members as good authority for them, as she appears to be the only person in these days who has been able to point out with clearness the road to be followed, either in the case of aspirants for Chelaship or by those who desire to help on the Theosophical movement. You therefore see that there are two branches to this inquiry. The first is in respect to the Theosophical movement and the second is in respect to Occultism and Chelaship, things quite different from the Theosophical movement per se.

Now first as to the Theosophical movement. That is declared to be by those who founded it an attempt to bring about a universal brotherhood, and for those who believe that there are Adepts, and that Mme. Blavatsky has correctly reported the views of the Adepts, it seems that the movement does not seek to cultivate psychical powers but to give to the world such a philosophy and ethics as shall lead to its reformation, for the world in general is in such a state as not to be fit to pursue psychical powers; and furthermore, it is quite plain in the development of the race that psychical powers are naturally coming forth, and therefore the ground in which they shall appear should be prepared beforehand with right philosophy and ethics, so that those powers shall not flourish in a "hot bed of evil passions."

Now as to the second Branch, which is the one to which your letter properly applies, the same persons hold, believing in Adepts and what is heard from them, that their views should be accepted in respect to Adeptship, Chelaship, and the like. And as the Adepts do not make themselves publicly known in the Theosophical Society, it follows that there is none in the organization which decides whether or not an applicant shall or shall not be an accepted Chela, or even a probationary Chela, or even one aspiring to probation. The Adepts through all the ages have said that "An Adept is the efflorescence of his age, the one person in the ten thousand or more who aspires to Adeptship." I would not therefore say that it is impossible for one to become an Adept in one incarnation, but all the evidences and philosophy point to the extreme difficulty of one so becoming, and to the existence of the fact that such a person has to work through many incarnations towards the end in view. Now as this is a matter connected with the inner life of each individual, it is impossible for any one to determine what is the progress or growth attained in previous incarnations or in the present; neither can I say how is one to determine the number of his previous incarnations. But believing in evolution and the law of cycles, and reincarnation, I believe, from all that I have studied, that each one of us has been through such a number of incarnations that their extent is inconceivable; and further, I believe that if a person is very near, say one life off, to actual Adeptship, he shows it in this life in his enormous grasp of knowledge, great development of spirituality, wonderful acquaintance with natural hidden laws, and in other ways proves naturally that he is in fact ready to pass further on to Adeptship. I think this answers your question on the outside. The articles in the Path to which I referred, and also Mme. Blavatsky's book, "The Voice of the Silence," further show how this inner life of which we are speaking is a matter of great subtlety and one which cannot be subjected to the rules of any society or body of self-constituted persons, but is to be determined alone by the fraternity of Adepts, who although unseen are nevertheless great, and undoubtedly a portion of the unseen overshadowing laws of nature.

The reason why I said "the attainment of Adeptship is not the primary motive of a good Theosophist" was, that if that attainment merely be the object or motive, it will in itself frustrate the result desired, because being the primary motive it must be selfish or personal. The motive of one who wishes for Adeptship is in fact universal brotherhood and great virtue taken up after his first personal leaning has led him towards striving for Adeptship. This seems rather paradoxical, but it is true. Nature is full of paradoxes, and in these matters, while we must, in order to succeed, be thoroughly unselfish, it is yet true that no man rises to unselfishness without having first aroused the desire through selfishness. But once that he understands this he can proceed to eliminate selfish desire and endeavor to acquire the unselfish one. It is therefore true that as you say "An Adept realizes and lives up to all the highest objects of the T. S. and is the living exponent of all those best objects and aims," and I do not think I was playing upon words.

I do not wish to and did not wish to assign to you any wrong or selfish motive in a desire to attain Adeptship, but I have to sincerely state that if that desire means the desire to attain the powers of an Adept, it is a mistaken view, for the powers are merely incidentals to the state of being an Adept and are never desired by an Adept, notwithstanding that he may compass them, since powers are merely phenomena of inner states, just as the power to express ourselves is due to our inner mental development. Hence, the Adepts endeavor to reach a certain inner state regardless of the powers, notwithstanding that they are well aware that such and such powers come with those states. Just the same as if one desired to be a king, he would not so desire merely that he might sign warrants, letters of marque and patents and the like, which are the powers of a king, but that he should be in the kingly state, regardless of or rather inattentive, while so desiring, to what he might have to do objectively when in the kingly state.

As to telling whether or not you are sincerely energetic at working hard for the Cause of truth, that can be determined by yourself and will show itself in the outcome of your efforts. It is certainly not proper for me in advance to decide upon that question; I should be inclined to say that all persons who endeavor to organize a Theosophical Branch must necessarily have been urged thereto by some good motive.

Every one has the right to expect the Masters to help, and we think that they do help all sincere hard workers in Theosophy, who follow on the lines laid down by them; but it will be disappointing to us if we expect them to give us evidence that any particular Master or Masters are helping. I think the question in regard to "thought of Chelaship, why such should be yet premature" is answered by the foregoing. What I meant there was that before one proceeds to formulate such thoughts it is better to thoroughly understand about Chelaship and Adeptship.

There can be no implication, nor do I make it that you are ignorant of spiritual things or have no spiritual understanding or knowledge or may not have attained a realization of the unity of man, for those, like the others, are matters about which I have no right to decide and do not decide.

The art of applying one's theoretical knowledge follows upon the conscious possession of such knowledge. But as I have said, the knowledge about which we are speaking being about the spiritual, astral, and other unseen states of nature, it is difficult to acquire these powers and if I referred to that in my letter it was by way of caution and for no other purpose. I have no right and no desire to try to limit the aspirations of anyone.

I hope I have made this clear to you and if you desire to ask further or to have what I have said further cleared up I shall be glad to do all I can.

Fraternally yours,


Books to study to gain acquaintance with theosophical ideas and doctrines:

1. Key to Theosophy — H. P. B.
2. Esoteric Buddhism — Sinnett
3. Occult World — Sinnett
4. Secret Doctrine — H. P. B.
5. Bhagavad Gita — Hindu ancient book
6. Voice of the Silence — H. P. B.
7. Its Magazines — Theosophist, Lucifer, Path.

Dec 5, 1890.
Franz Fullner Esq

Dear Sir and Bro:

I have your reply to the questions and by the same mail yours to H. P. Blavatsky asking about psychic powers.

The E. S. was not established in order to train anyone in psychic development but to form an inner earnest centre for the T. S. Advanced instruction is given in it, but the universal rule in higher occultism is that generally the exhibition in oneself of psychic powers is stopped until the student thoroughly understands the philosophy and laws behind them. That is, the cultivation of those powers is not the aim of higher occultism as those powers are only phenomena which occur upon inner changes taking place. When the philosophy and laws are understood the powers may again manifest without danger. But of course there are cases where they never cease. My desire was that you should clearly understand before joining.

I therefore send the preliminary pledge for you to sign and return.


New York, 8 Dec 1890

Dear Griffiths

You ought to visit Paul Webersinn and talk kindly to him. As he has applied for and been admitted to E S I do not understand how he feels. I sent by accident a memo. from an old pad about Board of Control and may be that confused him.



Recd yours of 2d and glad you are taking a rest. And say, they tell me I write badly but that is because they never saw your letters. Do practise a little and not write in such an awful hurry, or else have wider spaces so I can get time to decipher yours. Ha ha!

Yes go slow. We are in the middle of eternity every day and there is plenty of time. So take it easier.

As Ever


December 10, 1890
Mr. Joseph H. Fussell
Savannah, Ga.

My dear Mr. Fussell:

I am pleased to hear from you and to know that you and Dr. Nunn have hopes of a Branch in Savannah.

The Brotherhood of Luxor to which you refer is a Brotherhood which, you might as well know now, it is impossible for any man to enter until he has passed through many lives and series of initiations, for it is in fact a Society of Adepts. I must ask you to draw a wide distinction between this Brotherhood and a fraudulent one which was started in this country, called the H. B. of L., meaning the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, which was merely for the purpose of gaining money. I cannot imagine that you will find out any more than I have told you about the real Brotherhood. Neither can I condemn your desire to join it, for although you may be mistaken as to the qualifications required and the extraordinary difficulties attending entrance, your desire shows a leaning towards these matters, and for that reason I want you to bring the question up with Dr. Nunn, who is perfectly competent to explain to you the difficulties in such cases and to put you on the true basis in the beginning, so that you might avoid the long series of disappointments extending over years if you start out with the idea that such a goal could be obtained easily or without the extremest effort and study. I am,

Very truly yours,

Gen. Secretary.

December 15, 1890
Mr. A. C. Lamphere
Jacksonville, Fla.

Dear Sir:

I have yours of the 12th in which you say "Would you kindly refer me to some advanced work on Esoteric teachings?" It must be very obvious to you at once that if there were for sale or publication an advanced work on "esoteric" teachings it would at once cease to be esoteric, since the meaning of that term is hidden or secret, notwithstanding its very loose use in America at the present time. I have been studying this subject a great many years and have yet to find any advanced publication such as you desire, for the above reason that it is an impossibility. My advice to you would be to carefully study Theosophical literature, as all through it are scattered various references and hints as to esoteric matters.

I cannot agree with you that your body or any one's body is good for a thousand years, as the human body has its limitation and cannot cohere much beyond the allotted time. I am sorry that I am not able to meet your wishes in this matter, but I am very well satisfied that experience and further study will demonstrate to you that you are asking for impossibilities. Then further it occurs to me that the true duty of man and especially a Theosophical man is not to discover any means to prolonging the miserable existence of a human body, but rather to engage in developing his inner nature, the only real one, and in helping his fellow man, in which work I would wish you all success.

Fraternally yours,





Dec 18/90

December 18, 1890
Miss Katherine E. Turnbull
New York City.

My dear Miss Turnbull:

Mr. Fullerton has handed me your remarks respecting question 91 in the Forum, . . . and unless you will wish to add anything further to it I will use that last page, which amounts in fact to a new question, as to how it is possible when the physical memory has disappeared for any one to remember old family associations (in Devachan) and the like. I thought the question was fully answered in No. 91, but I see that probably Mr. Sinnett's very materialistic manner of writing on these topics has made difficulties in your case. In my own studies I do not pay much attention to his writings, excellent as they are, but content myself with Mme. Blavatsky's. And as he got all his information from her, her statement of the philosophy is clearer to me than his. In that it appears to be held that Devachan is a state where the Ego enjoys and does not suffer, suffering being reserved for the earth life. It is not a question of memory strictly speaking, but is a state where the causes generated on this earth which can exhaust in no other state, do so exhaust themselves, leaving the causes relating to this plane of earth life to be afterwards exhausted here, and as it is, like this life, a state of illusion, the Ego naturally enlarges all its conceptions of what it thought best and highest when it was alive, for such are the causes that relate to that state.

May I ask you to be kind enough when you have read this over to send it back to me, so that I may have it by way of notes with which to formulate my answer in the Forum?

Fraternally yours,


Dec. 19,1890
Miss Julia S. Yates
Jamestown, N. Y.


For your enclosure of $1.50 there will at once be mailed you a copy of "The Working Glossary" and forty copies of "Theosophy the Religion of Jesus." We do not keep in stock Dr. Anderson's "Scientific Proof of the Existence of the Soul," but order forty copies thereof to be mailed you from San Francisco. You may expect the latter in about two weeks.

The hearing of the sound to which you refer in your letter and which you have called "the occult bell," signifies, when heard by ordinary persons, a change in their physical and psychological conditions, in just the same way as a sound is heard when a glass is broken, which signifies that a glass has been smashed, that is to say, a change in condition from unsmashed glass to broken glass. It has no very great significance, and warnings are scattered all through Eastern and occult literature against attaching any significance to it further than I have stated. If one hears this sound and then imagines that it is a signal from some Adept, a mistake will be made, because an Adept would not be so wasteful of energy as to make a signal to a person who could not instantly understand from whom it was without any assistance. Such sounds are heard, as well as numerous others, by persons who indulge in training, and they always mean changes or alterations of certain unperceived conditions and centres in the body, and the warnings made against it are in order to prevent people from being led away from their true progress by giving undue attention to such phenomena.

Very truly yours,


Dec 19, 1890

Dear Mrs Baldwin

The word is composed of three sounds

A like Ah
U like "u" in "true"
M like em.

Patanjali gives no directions for it. The tone is that of middle "fa" and something like the wind or the waters falling.

The reference to turanian and aryan adept is not now explainable. It refers to different degrees of initiation and as we are not adepts we cannot know its real meaning.



New York, Dec 22 1890

Dear Griffiths

Much obliged regarding Webersinn. Tell him that his attitude is right and that although this life may be unpleasant the next one will be better. At the moment of death the whole consciousness opens and widens and we see not only the past lives but also the next new one which we have formed the causes for. I hope he may get better.

Please read enclosed from Mrs McIntire and tell me what she means from your knowledge of the facts. I just now write her and say that I do not understand and also that we must prepare the conditions in order that the "divine ray" may be seen.

Is she a crank or what?



Dec. 22, 1890
Mr. E. F. Woodward,
Sacramento, Calif.

Dear Sir:

I cannot expect to reply fully or authoritatively to your question as to when the Ego takes possession of the person. The subject has not been dealt with in Theosophical literature, and I suppose the reason is that it is not of very much consequence, because we know that it is a fact that the Ego does get possession of the human body. However, I doubt if such possession is obtained at birth, for children do not appear to have responsibility until somewhere about their seventh year, and such is the view intimated by Mme. Blavatsky in speaking of deaths of children before their seventh year. At birth it seems to me the human body is merely that of an animal overshadowed, so to speak, and destined to become possessed of a soul after the lapse of a few years. Consequently, all that I should be willing to say on my part would be that at birth each person has potentially a soul but not in the same sense as in the case of an adult. It does not seem to me that a question like this is one that must be classed as a necessary question to answer so as to satisfy hunger and thirst in the mind, for the reason that whichever way it is answered will make no difference, inasmuch as those who have asked the question are all adults, and children will not be at all disturbed by any such speculation as this. I have no doubt this is the reason why the matter has never been discussed, because the rules of conduct and of life are of more importance than questions of detail, such as the present question.

Sincerely yours,


Dec. 23, 1890
Colonel H. S. Olcott,
Adyar, Madras, India

My dear Olcott:

At the request of Miss G. L. Leonard, F. T. S., a friend of mine, I beg to introduce to you through this note the Rev. Hartmann H. Russell, who goes to India as a Christian missionary to the heathen.

Very truly yours,


Dec 26, 1890

My Dear Griggs:

This whole Candler mess which you must admit you have gotten up through your telling about it to the Group, is getting disagreeable and nasty. When I first wrote Whitaker I incautiously and inadvertently put an intended question into direct shape of an assertion. He hotly replied and called me a deliberate liar for which of course I do not care a snap. And so I replied and apologized and tried to explain. He now writes again but evidently feels as before against me, but for that I do not care either. I am sorry though to see him so heated and spiteful. In his letter he refers to what he calls "unjust treatment" by H P B of Mrs. W.---- and in this he is dead wrong, but I do not reply to that part of his letter. He also puts a lot of categorical questions to me which he has no right to put, but which I have answered as not caring to dispute with him. He desired to know 1. Did I charge him with 'a small part' of writing up his charge with Griggs. I answered "no." 2. Is there any reason why Griggs should not know all that I have said to Council. I ans'd "none at all." You of course shall have all the papers when they get back from California to add your own remarks. But why does W. write all this? He goes out of his way too in his letter to say H P B made the most absurd rule that was ever made in Rule 5, and cites his own experiences as a secret Society man to prove it. In fact the whole letter is full of bad feeling against me, against H P B, and against Mrs. C. What sort of a state of things is this for an E. S.? Is this ranting, fighting and criticising style of things going to do us any good? I think not my dear friend. And the whole of it is as needless. Of course I am not the judge but the tone of W's letter is a complete and violent criticism of H. P. B. It has all grown out of your telling about Mrs. C, for which you deserve a reprimand. W. visits Mrs W and his letter shows that the "facts" (?) he has from his wife prejudice him against both Mrs. C. and H. P. B.

Rule 5 is the most important of all, for it goes to the root of each persons personal character and vanity and I am sick to think that an old hand in T. S. like you have not shown this to W. instead of permitting yourself and him to rip ahead.

When I read his letter today I felt sick and I assure my dear friend that if I could I would cut loose from all these people, for the Boston case is only one more piled on top of a mass of instances of charges, counter charges and the like. We will not get a single word of real aid from H P B till all this stops in every direction. And we have only 8 or 9 years left.

Well, the year 2000 may show up 5 worthy men and women in this real work, but I doubt it.



Dec. 26, 1890
Mrs. E. Baber-Pathorne,
Boulder, Colo.

Dear Madame:

. . . . The whole matter seems very clear from what you and Mr. Casey write. It appears to be the fact that with yourself a number of Christian Scientists applied for a Charter under some mistaken notion, which being dispelled, they see that they ought to resign. And I agree with them as long as they stand in that position. It was of course disagreeable for you to hear disparaging remarks made at the meeting, but such things occur in life and are easily forgotten and overlooked. As far as I am concerned, it is not of any moment what they say about me, especially when they wholly misunderstand my position; and in such a case it is not necessary to endeavor to dispel their illusions, when we see that it would be a difficult if not an impossible task.

I hope you have not said anything about Christian Science, or Mental Science or anything of that sort, and that if you have you will refrain carefully in the future for this reason: Theosophy can stand on its own merits and has no quarrel with any other system; consequently, the Theosophist's duty is to promulgate if he can Theosophical ideas, without disputing about the ideas of other people. When one opposes Christian Science etc. either publicly or privately, counter opposition is produced which diverts the mind from the consideration of Theosophy, but when there is no such opposition and Theosophy has a fair unimpeded hearing, it generally succeeds in gaining the day. Hence, I would suggest on your part a policy of silence as regards those doctrines in which you have no confidence, and confine yourself to explaining or bringing forward Theosophical doctrines. It is better to wait perhaps till one finds the proper material for a Branch, as the present experience abundantly demonstrates. In all probability there will be more resignations, and, if I were you, I would not oppose them nor endeavor to procure them either. If you hold before your mind what you wish to accomplish, it will be accomplished by quiet endeavor without producing opposition.

If I have not met all your queries, please let me know and I will write you further.

Regarding Branch Papers, the usual number were sent to the Secretary of the Keshava Branch, who must now have them, and if it should happen that he resigns, then the persons remaining in the Branch are entitled to the possession of them, and, if the Branch continues, succeeding Papers will be sent it in the usual course.

Very truly yours,

General Secretary.

Important — please consult the others
New York, Dec 30, 1890

My Dear Mead:

Just as I was about to write this I got the cable the last words of which are "Olcott remains," for which at this point I thank our god with a small "g".

Now please try and do this for me that I write about. I have decided not to wait for the reply to the circular to India about the papers for the Society, but have already begun. The series is to be called the Oriental Department, and will begin in Jany.

I have a hindu here from whom I expect to get some matter which with an article by W Q J on ethnological and phrenological studies in India will make up the first. Then I will want the second and it ought to come out in Feb sure as I will make this thing go or find out that it is no good. Now you and yours can get me something from London from some of the Hindus there by either making them write it themselves or by getting it in an interview and having their permission to put their name to it. Let it be on any subject. Perhaps the easiest one would be something about the religious customs of the native place of the particular hindus you ask as they all know about those. It would be interesting for the americans even if you english do not want it. I want anything in that line that I can now get hold of while I am waiting for a reply from India. Now that H S O has stayed in perhaps I can get him to help. There used to be some hindus in London who called at the rooms who can if they will say something on these matters. If you are stumped then ask one of them to write me something for pay. I will pay $10 for say 1600 words. Later I will be able to regularly hire someone. Oh my dear boy those ideas are just burning me and I depend on you and the others to help me out; if you do I promise to help you and bet I can as time will show. I see a big future before us and am in a great haste not to lose a single moment. Besides H P B has given me these ideas and surely you want to carry those out, as they are not my invention. By this department I hope to enlist the fancy and the interest of men we cannot get to look at us in any other way and I "think I see" as Tom Paine said the opportunity to do it by certain channels not available to you there. If you cannot get the time then get some one who has tact and good sense to look for what I want. I know it can be got for the temporary use I have indicated above.

For instance the brahmins all are in the habit of doing certain things in the morning before eating and there is a certain way they act at meals and at funerals and at births and at deaths and christenings; also at certain days of the month they have other things they do. Also the peasants have certain ideas and thoughts about the images they set up in the fields when they are at work. All of this is unknown here and that you can get from any hindu.

Such a paper as this could be called "certain Hindu observances." That would give plenty of leeway and allow of lots of matter to come in so as to be easily written and 800 or 1600 words are not much. Another could be about the "ryots" and it could give their ideas as to idols and the like. In fact let your fancy float and you will finds lots of other ways and subjects.

As to "aids and sugges." You can surely get things to answer if you will read those numbers now out as I have tried to reply to the questions and have not wholly succeeded. There several, and there are many points that you can give me your ideas on — and I mean the ideas too of all the others — such for instance as on p 9 of no 3 you will see that there are 3 basic principles given while in the Sec Doct there are 4 and the members want to know how to reconcile such things as that. You can tell them and besides a word or two now and then from London no matter who from has a good effect. Surely there is enough out already that has not been clearly answered for you to find matter still. Then again it is perfectly competent for you — I mean any one there — to say what are the details about how Kama is distributed in the body in the lifetime and what parts of us it particularly affects. That question is a practical one as it takes hold of facts that can be understood and about which the best of them are by no means clear.

For many of them do not understand, because it is so new and so opposite to modern thought, how it can be that immaterial things like the passions can take a form at any time or be more than mere effects in the astral light or other plane. Send me something on this if you like and if you will make any arrangement about it you can have matter at the same time for the E S in London, by using the same stuff before it goes to me or by having it copied.

There are such a mass of members here at distant points that something must be done about this.

As to Griggs and Whitaker I will proceed to have the thing quashed if I can but both of them are bitter and I know from some of the words in letters from Whitaker that he has listened to his wife or ex wife and thinks that she was unjustly treated in London.

Of course he had no right to talk to her about it, but such is the meaning of a pledge in these days — not worth a dmn. At the same time Griggs is bitter against Candler and he ought to get a letter from the Old Lady setting him down and not in the usual style that only makes him feel to be a great man and one who merely gives in at the request of an old friend. The E S is full of this kind of thing.

In Iowa there is the woman I wrote of last and in other places others. If there was a grand pan out there would be few indeed who could remain. Then you speak of certain persons not qualifying for the Inner. How can they do this when the notice says that they must not ask about it.

As ever yours


Dec 30, 1890.

Dear Arthur

Just now I got a Cable from H P B. it reads:

"Stop Griggs and Whitaker now for lamb's sake. Olcott remains."

Last words refer to H S O's proposed retirement from the presidency. Can't you get Willard to have this fact printed? He can say that the Convention met and Olcott asked leave to retire for health and instead takes a vacation and does not retire.

The first part refers to Candler matter.

Now "Sir Griggs" let us see that '91 starts in with hatchets buried. The Old Lady has enough on her back. Her body near died the other night when she left it to go to India to work on Olcott. Do not burden her with any troubles. Tell Whitaker something. Get him to withdraw charges. Tell him you acted hastily before you heard from H P B as she had the matter from me and that you thought I intended not to tell her. Anything at all. Get the thing done before '91 sets in. There is greater work to do than fighting haystacks. I have apologized to Whitaker for an offense I never committed. Pacify. He said in his last that his wife was unjustly treated in London. This is the key. He is down on Candler perhaps for that though she had nought to do with it. Mrs. W. was cited before the whole council and refused before her Higher Self to stop her dealings with sexual and astral spooks and was disappointed because she was not regarded as anything more than a mere hysteriac. But don't tell W. this.

Much depends now on each unit and let us start in fresh and smiling with personality out of sight for 1891.

Now do please attend to this. As you and W are brothers βΈ« or [[rectangle]] you ought to be able to fix it up; and I will tear up the stuff when it gets back from the West.

As Ever Yours


Theosophical University Press Online Edition