|
4. NOTE ON CERTAIN PHENOMENA NOT DEALT WITH IN
MR. HODGSON'S REPORT.
By Mrs. H. Sidgwick.
There are certain narratives of phenomena connected with the
Theosophical Society which have been brought to the notice of the
Committee, which have not come within the scope of Mr. Hodgson's investi-
gations. The Committee think, however, that in forming a judgment of
the whole evidence the reader should have before him as full an account
as possible of all such phenomena as there seems to be a primd facie
difficulty in explaining by the recognised laws of nature, and they
have, therefore, asked me to put together in the present note the
residuum
of narratives with which Mr. Hodgson has not dealt^ and to append such
remarks as seem to me to throw light on them.
I may observe that all to which there will be occasion for me to refer
were printed in our first report ; the only partial exception being an
incident described by Mr. Rudolph Gebhard (see p. 385), of which we
had received no written account when the first report was printed, and
which we, therefore, there very briefly mentioned. No later phenomena
have come under our notice.
The phenomena I sliall have to discuss consist of four cases of
letters received in a mysterious manner, and four cases of supposed
" astral '' apparitions. The mysterious element can be easily eliminated
in one of the letter-phenomena, and in the case of an apparition of
which
Madame Blavatsky was the alleged percipient. As regards the other
cases of letters, it is difficult, I think, with our present knowledge,
to
suggest a completely satisfactory explanation ; but with the evidence
before us of an elaborate combination, under Madame Blavatsky's
direction, to produce spurious marvels, I cannot attach much weight to
this difficulty. The remaining cases of apparitions are undoubtedly
interesting, but for reasons which I shall give later on, I do not think
that stress can be laid upon them as evidence for the occult powers of
"Mahatma M.'' and Mr. Damodar.
The following account is from Dr. Hiibbe Schleiden, who is a well-
known German savant and publicist, author of " Ethiopien," and other
works. Madame Blavatsky was in England at the time of the incident.
Elberfeld, August, 1884.
Dear Madam, You requested me to state to you the particular circum-
stances under which I received my first communication from Mahatma K.H.
I have much pleasure in doing so.
On the morning of the Ist of this month Colonel Olcott and I were
travel-
ling by an express train from here to Dresden. A few days before I had
written a letter to the Mahatmas which Colonel Olcott had addressed and
en-
closed to you, which, however, as I now hear, never reached you but was
taken
by the Masters whilst it was in the hands of the post officials. At the
time
mentioned I was not thinking of this letter, but was relating to Colonel
Olcott some events of my life, expressing also the fact that since my
sixth or
seventh year I had never known peace or joy, and asking Colonel Olcott's
opinion on the meaning of some striking hardships I have gone through.
In
this conversation we were interrupted by the railway-guard demanding our
tickets. When I moved forwards and raised myself x>artly from the seat
in order
to hand over the tickets, Colonel Olcott noticed something white lying
behind
my back on that side of me which was opposite to the one where he was
sitting.
When I took up that which had appeared there it turned out to be a
Tibetan
envelope, in which I found a letter from Mahatma K. H., written with
blue
pencil in his well-known and unmistakable handwriting. As there were
several other persons unacquainted to us in the compartment, I suppose
the
Master chose this place for depositing the letter hear me where it was
the
least likely to attract the unwelcome attention and curiosity of
outsiders.
The envelope was plainly addressed to me, and the communication
contained
in the letter was a consoling reflection on the opinion which I had five
or ten
minutes ago given on the dreary events of my past life. The Mahatma ex-
plained that such events and the mental misery attached to it were
beyond
the ordinary run of life, but that hardships of all kinds would be the
lot of
one striving for higher spiritual development. He very kindly expressed
his opinion that I had already achieved some philanthropic work for the
good of the world. In this letter were also answered some of the
questions
which I had put in my first-mentioned letter, and an assurance was given
me that I was to receive assistance and advice when I should be in need
of it.
I dare say it would be unnecessary for me to ask you to inform the
Mahatma of the devoted thankfulness which I feel towards him for the
great
kindness shown to me, for the Master will know of my sentiments ₯rithout
my forming them into more or less inadequate words. I am, dear madam,
in due respect, yours faithfully,
HUBBE SCHLEIDEN.
To Madame Blavatsky, Elberfeld, Platzhofistrasse, 12.
Elberfeld, 9/11/84.
Dear Sir, In reply to your question about the letter from Mahatma
K. H., which I received in a railway carriage of an express train while
in
motion, I beg to say that it appears to me absolutely impossible that
the
letter could have been brought into the train by any supposed agent of
Madame Blavatsky's. It is true we had not changed carriages since
leaving
Elberfeld, but the letter did not at all fall out of the air, but was
found
behind my back when I moved, and must, therefore, have been deposited
between my back and the cushion of the seat against wliich I was lying.
There was no i>ossibility of getting there for any matter in one of the
three or
four aggregate states known to our Western science. Besides, Madame
Blavatsky could have nothing to do with this letter, which was a reply
to
questions which I had written on Tuesday, the 29th July, and which left
Elberfeld on that or the following day for London, addressed to Madame
Blavatsky. Now, these questions could not have been delivered in London
be-
fore Thursday or Friday of that week, and a reply could, in the ordinary
postal
way, not have been in Elberfeld before Saturday or Sunday. The event of
my receiving the reply of the Mahatma, however, occurred on Friday
morning,
the 1st August. I may mention here that Madame Blavatsky assured mo
she never found my questions enclosed in the letter to her ; these must
have
been taken out while in the hands of the post. My best proof of the
genuineness of this phenomenon, I find, though, is the contents of the
letter,
for it was not only a reply to the said questions, but also referred to
the
conversation I was just at that time having with Colonel Olcott. I
cannot
doubt that this handwriting of the Mahatma must, therefore, have been
precipitated by him at tliat very instant and transmitted to me by a
magic
process which lies beyond the power of ordinary men. I am, dear sir,
yours
very truly,
HUBBE SCHLEIDEN.
To F. W. H. Myers, Esq., Cambridge.
A few months earlier a letter is said to have fallen in a railway
carriage
occupied only by Colonel Olcott and Mr. Mohini, in the express train
between Paris and London. But Madame Blavatsky and Babula were
then in Paris or its neighbourhood, and though Colonel Olcott and Mr.
Mohini both maintain that the letter could not have been placed in the
compartment before they started, in such a manner as to fall in the
course of their journey, they have both shown themselves to be too
inobservant and inaccurate as witnesses for their conviction on this
point to be of much value. But in Dr. Hiibbe Schleiden's case I da
not feel able to make a definite suggestion as to how the letter
reached him by natural means ; for, as I have said, Madame Blavatsky
was in England, and we cannot point to any known agent of hers whom
we know to have been at Elberfeld at the time. Still, we cannot say
that there were none, or even that one did not accompany Colonel
Olcott and Dr. Hiibbe Schleiden in the railway carriage. Tlie relevancy
of the Koot Hoomi letter to (1) Dr. Hiibbe Schleiden's questions in his
letter to Madame Blavatsky, and (2) to his conversation with Colonel
Olcott) I am unable to treat as evidentially important, without more
accurate knowledge as to the contents of the two letters, since I cannot
regard it as improbable beforehand that the conversation should take
the particular turn which rendered the Koot Hoomi letter appropriate.
I do not profess, however, as I have said, to give a completely
satisfactory explanation of the phenomenon. I am merely suggesting
possibilities and giving reasons why I cannot^ under the circumstances,
attach weight to it as evidence of occult agency. Other simpler and
easier explanations may suggest themselves to the reader's mind. It
must be borne in mind that the training for adeptship under Madame
Biavatsky's supervision is not unlikely to include orders which must be
blindly carried out, to convey letters mysteriously to other people.
I give next Mr. l^udolf Gebhard^s account of his experience, written
out by him for Mr. Hodgson. This phenomenon also must^ I think,
remain without special explanation. It is unfortunate that Mr. Gtebhard
did not write an account of it at the time it occurred, as it is of
course
possible that) after an interval of three months, some important detail
may have escaped his memory.
Adyar, December 31st, 1884.
Dear Sir, Complying with your request I shall give you in the
following
an account of a phenomenon as witnessed by me in my father's house some
couple of months ago.
Before I describe what has happened, allow me to say a few words about
myself ; it will serve to show that I am better adapted than most other
people
to advance an opinion on these subjects.
Since my earliest boyhood I have always had a taste and a knack for
conjuring tricks. When in London I took lessons there from a
professional
conjurer, Prof. C. £. Field, a man whom I consider to be one of the best
sleight-of-hand men I ever met. Later on I made the personal
acquaintance
of most of our leading performers in that line and exchanged tricks
with them ; there is not a single line of conjuring I am not acquainted
with, may that be coin or card tricks, or the so-caUed anti -
spiritualistic
tricks in imitation of a spiritualistic stance. I then think that when
such
a phenomenon takes place in my presence, it is quite a natural thing for
me to keep my eyes wide open, in order not to be deceived by a trick,
and
this is the reaaon why I tliink myself especially qualified to advance
an
opinion about the matter on hand.
Account of a Pheiwmenon that occurred in Elherfeld (Germany), on
September , 1884.
At 9 p.m. of the above named date a small circle of friends, Theosophist
and non-Theosophist, were sitting in the drawing-room of my father's
house
(Platzhoffstrasse 12). Madame Blavatsky, who was one of the party, was
seated on a couch in the middle of the room, and the rest were seated in
a semi-circle around her.
Whilst the conversation was going on Madame Blavatsky suddenly
looked up, and taking a listening attitude said there was something
going
on in the room, but that she could not then make out for certain what it
was.
Mrs. H., an American lady and a clairvoyante, said tliat she had
felt an influence since some time already, and Madame Blavatsky and
IVIrs.
H. then saw like a ray of light going towards a large oil painting
hanging
over a piano in the same room.
My mother, sitting with her back to the piano and opposite a looking-
glass, said that she had seen in the glass like a faint flash of
lightning. After
a minute or so Madame Blavatsky asked the party what they would like
to take place, as she now felt sure that the ^* Master " would do
something
for us that night.
Different requests were made, but finally it was unanimously resolved
*^hat a letter alhould be asked for, addressed to my father, and
treating
on a subject ^at he should menially ncish for." (I draw your attention
to
the three points ; nobody knew beforehand that the whole party would
choose a letter ; second, that my father should be the addressee ;
third, what
subject my father might be thinking of. Madame Blavatsky did not
influence our choice as she did not advance any suggestion.) Madame
then said she saw something going on with the picture above spoken «>£
and that probably we should find something tliere. I accordingly got up
and examined that picture, but could not find anything. As the picture
was fastened' to the wall in a slanting position, the top part hanging
over,
I lifted it off the wall and examined carefully every inch of it. Ko
letter ! The space then between the wall and the back of the picture was
fully eight inches and perfectly lit up, as there was a gas bracket on
each
side of it. 1 let the picture fall back and said I could not find
anything,
but Madame Blavatsky told me to try again, and I repeated my examination
in the same way. Kot contented with that I got up on the piano (a
grand,) and there again looked behind the picture and passed my hand
along the top of it, twice. Nothing ! (I had been searching all this
time
for a letter, not for another article where perhaps a slip of paper had
escaped my attention.) I turned round to Madame Blavatsky,. saying that
I could find nothing, when she exclaimed, '* There it is ! " I turned
sharj^ly round and a Utitr fell down from behind the picture on the
piano.
I picked it up. It was addressed to my father, ^ Herm Consul Gebhard ")
and treated of Uie subject he had been thinking of.
Now I wish to draw your attention to some important points.
1. There was no secret receptacle either in the frame or at the back of
the picture. 2. The letter was in size 5in. by 2^1x1, not folded up into
a
smaller compass. 3. I was the only one who came near the picture ; all
the
obhers kept their seats except one gentleman, who got up, but whom I did
not allow to handle the picture. Madame Blavatsky, seated all the time
on
the couch, distant four to five yards. 4. Between the time I last
touched
the picture and the moment the letter put in an appearance there elapsed
from 15 to 20 seconds. After Madame Blavatsky had said '' Tliere it is,"
I
turned round. The letter then had not appeared but came in view
about one second after that. How could Madame Blavatsky have seen
it ? 5. The letter lay on the piano about fice inches off the waU ! The
picture frame at the bottom part touches the wall, because as I said
before the top part hangs over. Now there may be space enough for a
letter,
being flat against the wall, to glide through, but then that letter,
continuing
its way, ofkight to drop behind the piano (t.e., between the wall and
the
piano and from there on to the floor), as the piano does not touch the
wall.
How can it be found five inches off the wall ? 6. The subject my father
had
in his mind was known to me, because I knew he had that very morning
received a letter from my brother in New York on some personal matter,
and
when the letter had been decided upon by the party I whispered to my
father, ''Ask for an answer on that letter, this morning," and he said
he would.
I consider this a most complete phenomenon, and I challenge any
conjurer of to-day to repeat it, and I am willing to pay £100 to see it
done
by a conjurer under the same conditions. Perhaps Mr. Maskelyne (Messrs.
Maskelyne and Cooke, Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly), who has done already so
much to detect mediumistic frauds (?), will take uj) this challenge.
If there is any further information you want, I am entirely at your
service. I remain, dear sir, your obedient servant,
R. Hodgson, Esq., Adyar.
Rud. Gebhakd.
I learn from Mr. Hodgson that, in reply to his inquiries, Mr. Gebhard
stated that he did not think that a confederate could have thrown the
letter without its being observed, but he did not seem to have
preNdously contemplated the possibility of a confederate having been
present.
The following is an account of another letter-phenomenon by a lady
resident in London, and known to some members of the Committee :
One morning in July, [1884, ]I was called by Madame Blavatsky to her
room
where she was still in bed. She desired me to open a drawer and give her
out a letter which was lying there closed and addressed. I did so. She
asked me to notice that the letter was addressed in the handwriting of a
person whom I knew, that it was fastened, and apparently liad not been
opened. She then took a match and having lighted it proceeded to bum the
letter. I protested against this being done, but she answered '* It is
the
Master's orders," and further added, ** You had better go to your room
and
meditate." I went upstairs into my room and shut the door. I remained
there some time considering the whole aflbir. The window of the
room, which was at the top of the house, was wide open and looked out
into a garden. Before the window was a dressing-table on which was a
pink
cloth ; there was no mirror on the table, only one or two small articles
of
toilet, and the sun was shining full into the room. I went to the window
without any definite reason, and as I approached the table I perceived
on the
pink cover a large white envelope. I took it up, looked at it, and found
that
it was closed and evidently contained a letter, but there was no
superscription.
I had the letter in my hand for a little while and then looked at it
again. To
my great surprise I found that where, but a few moments previously,
there
had been a blank space, there was distinctly visible a name and address
written
in purple ink, in a handwriting which I well knew as being tliat of one
of the Mahatmas. The name and address was that of the writer of the
letter
I had previously seen burned.
A phenomenon of this kind may be, and in this case was, as 1 under-
stand, very impressive to the witness, without carrying conviction to
other people. For it is impossible for them to feel sure that it was
adequately distinguished from what^ I suppose, we are all constantly
liable to, the mere non-observation of something which was there all
tlie
time. It is possible also that some combination of substances may liave
been used instead of ink, which would become coloured (temporarily at
any rate) by exposure for a few minutes to the air. A chemist, well
qualified to give an opinion, tells me that he thinks such a combination
might be used ; but we have never seen and have no access to the
writing in question, and without this it is of course impossible to
obtain
an expert's opinion of any value as to whether this particular writing
could have been so produced or not. I do not myself think it likely
that it was so produced.
As to a post-card received by Mr. Keightley in Paris, on whicli
Mahatma M.'s initials were written, and a letter which Madame Blavatsky
professed to read without opening, also in Paris, it is unnecessary to
say
more than that Babula seems to have intervened between the postman
and the recipient in both cases. The letters probably came by an earlier
delivery than that by which they appeared to arrive.
I proceed to " astral " apparitions. In August, 1884, Mr. Myers
received the following letter from Mr. PadshfiJi, a young Parsee gentle-
man and a Theosophist.
77, Elgin Crescent, Netting Hill, W.
Saturday, August 16th.
Dear Mr. Myers, Madame has just told me that she saw Damodar last
night, quite distinctly, standing in a comer facing the chair in which
she was
seated in the drawing-room. There were present in the room, Mr. and Mrs.
Oakley, Mr. Gebhard, and others, who do not seem to have known or felt
his presence. Madame tells me that he had come to ask what it was she
had
told him about some trunk the night before. It appears she had told him
the previous night to take care in the Custom House of a certain trunk
taken
by Babula, who has proceeded to India to-day. Damodar, unable, however,
to make himself more distinct, as Madame desired, seems to have not
under-
stood her. So he appeared again this morning more than once, askings
'* Why do you not answer about the trunk ? '' Madame tells me she
related
the appearance the night before to Mrs. Z.,* Mrs. X.,* and Miss Z.* The
circumstance would have been thought of no more, but on my consulting
Madame this afternoon about some articles about to appear in The
Theosophist
she naturally spoke of Damodar ; and among other things, very
enthusiastically
of his latest development. It occurred tome that this was a splendid
chance
for the Society for Psychical Research ; you had repeatedly desired me
to
commit to paper what I have seen or might see, and there are many
friends
in England and India who are ready to trust my wotd. I suggested I
should
write to you, and wait for Damodar's letter, where he might refer to his
astral
presence. But that would be no test. I suggested an immediate despatch
of a telegram, and also a letter to you signed by Mr. Keightley and Mr.
Gebhard, who had come some time before, and myself. Mr. Keightley made
some difficulties as to the value of the test, alleging that our word
may not
suffice for the Society for Psychical Research. I prefer to think
otherwise*
And, accordingly, the telegram is decided upon. It is in these terms :
To Damodar, Theosophist Office, Madras.
Telegraph instantly what you told me last night.
Blavatsky
You will see that I have suggested the telegram should be from Madame
Blavatsky, to undo any difficulty Damodar might make to reply to others
for instance, to the Society for Psychical Research.
Madame is going to-day to Elberfeld, and I shall open the answer as soon
as Damodar telegraphs it, and send you a copy.
I hope Damodar will make no difficulties now, and the test will be, we
trust, if not complete, at least of considerable scientific value. I
remain,
dear Mr. Myers, yours sincerely,
B.J. PADSHAH
The telegram received from Mr. Damodar in reply seemed distinctly
irrelevant. It ran: "Master wants you here to-night don't fail look into
your pocket."
On August 30th Mr. Myers proceeded to Elberfeld and inquired of
Mr. Keightley (a Theosophist and a graduate of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge, who was staying at Mr.Gebhard's along with Madame Blavatsky,
Mr. Mohini, Colonel Olcott, &c.), whether he had received Mr. Damodar's
telegram and what he thought of it. He replied that the party had
left London on August 16th, and arrived at Elberfeld on the 17th. On
arriving they were met by a telegram from Mr. Padshah, reporting Mr.
Damodar's reply. The whole party, said Mr. Keightley, were surprised
and distressed at what seemed to them also the conspicuous failure of
the intended test. Madame Blavatsky said that she had in fact received
such a message, and had found such a letter in her pocket ; but, of
course, recognised the inadequacy of such statement. It then occurred
to her to consult her private note-book. This was said to be contained
in a despatch-box which had been in Mr. Keightley's charge from the
time when it was packed and locked, just after the telegram had been
sent to Damodar, and just before the party left London by an evening
train, August 16th, for Elberfeld, vid Queenborough and Flushing. She
at once asked Mr. Keightley to go and fetch the despatch-box. In the
note-book was found the entry here translated, which was then seen by
all present. It is written partly in Russian, partly in English. Tlie
words in italics* are in English in the original.
"I saw suddenly Damodar this August 15th. While looking on I called,
trying to find out some one near me to call attention to him. I was
sitting
under the looking-glass, and tried to make myself heard by Mrs. Z., who
was
sitting near Mrs. Oakley. Upon seeing him, I said to him ; Damodar^
can'i
you make yourself cisible to dUf Instead of answering, he says to me
some-
thing very strange, that he had seen me the night before, and could not
understand what I wanted from him. He said : You came to me about two.
I could not understand what you were asking me for, le it for a trunk
sent
here f Then a few minutes later he again appeared and said : Master
wants
you here to-night, Don't fail. Look into your pocket."
On Wednesday, September 10th, a letter from Mr. Damodar was received
at Elberfeld by Madame Blavatsky in the presence of Mr. Keightley,
who noted its registered envelope ; [57] and believes that the letter had
gone
first to London and been forwarded to Elberfeld.
The letter which all who have examined it believe to be in Mr.
Damodar's handwriting is as follows :
Adyar, Madras, 16th August, 1884.
Respected Upasika, I could not make out what you wanted here when
you came here on the morning of the 15th at about two or three of Madras
time. So in the night I attempted to come and ask you. It was between 10
and
II in the night here ; so it must be between five and six in the evening
of
London time. Who was that gentleman sitting near you mider a big
looking-
glass and who was that short old lady about ? I think Uiere were several
others in the room at the time ; but I could not make out how many or
who
they were. If I had known that at that time you would be amidst so many
people I would not have attempted to come. I might have seen you later,
when you were alone. And why was it that you asked me to make myself
visible to all ? Tou know I am too much of a beginner yet, in this line.
It
was only because you asked me to do so, I attempted. Whether I succeeded
or failed, I do not know. And in all this affidr, the main object I came
for was
not quite accomplished. I wanted to know exactly what you had come here
for ? I heard something about a trunk ; but whether you wanted me to
take
care of something you had sent or whether you wanted me to send you
something I do not quite remember. However, I have sent you a parcel
and I believe it is that which you mean. Did you find in your pocket
that
Thibetan order from the Master to come here, to notify you about which
he
sent me to you again ? I hope yourself, nor the friends who were there,
will not speak about this to any one and not make a public talk of it in
the
Society for Psychical Research and such other pl^u^s. I am sure Mr. Ewen
and others would have done it, if I had not asked you privately to
prevent
the publication of the fact of Mr. Ewen having seen me when I came to
see
you and Colonel Olcott and committed a blunder. I hope I have not com-
mitted a mistake in sending you the parcel.
Ever yours respectfully and sincerely,
Damodar K. Mavalankar.
It certainly cannot be said that the possibility of collusion between
Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar is in tliis case excluded. But
though on the one hand it may seem strange that a planned imposture
should not have been better carried out, it must be observe^ on the
other hand that there are points in the e^^dence which look decidedly
suspicious. Of course, if there was imposture as, considering what we
now know about both Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar, I cannot
myself profess to doubt we cannot be sure of discovering the precise
modus operandi by merely reflecting on the phenomena intended to
appear. But the following may be suggested as a possible course of
events.
Let us suppose that some time in July, after she had begun her
residence at Elgin-crescent, and could therefore describe the looking-
glass and the lady, Madame Blavatsky wrote to Mr. Damodar telling
him to post a letter on August 16th, such as that we have printed, and
that she would take care to make it correspond with events in London ;
and further, that when the day came she performed more or less
imperfectly or perhaps only spoke of her part of the programme,
but forgot the " Master-wants-you-here-to-night-look-in-your-pocket **
part. Let us further assume that the telegram to India was no
part of the original plan, and that Mr. Damodar was left to liis own
devices in replying to it. It would not be unnatural that he should
reply as he did, that being, in fact) the only thing he was supposed to
have told her ; about the trunk he was supposed to have asked her. I
cannot regard it as at all satisfactorily established that Madame
Blavatsky had no opportunity of obtaining access to her note-book
between the time when the telegram was sent to Mr. Damodar and the
time when the book was shown to the party at Elberfeld ; and I think
the entry may have been made, or, at any rate, the last sentence added,
in that interval ; either after Mr. Damodar's telegram was received,
or
at some previous moment^ when it recurred to her memory that he was
to be supposed to have made that remark about the Master. Thus all
that occurred would be accounted for.
It is possible that the entry in Madame Blavatsky's note-book may
have been made much earlier at the time when she first communicated
the plan to Mr. Damodar and corrected afterwards; for the names of
the persons present Mrs. Z. and Mr. and Mrs. Oakley are written in
lead pencil over the original purple pencil, rendering what is
undemeatli
illegible. But I am not myself inclined to believe that the greater part
of it [58] was written at this earlier date, because if it had been, I think
that
Madame Blavatsky's and Mr. Damodar's descriptions of the scene
would have agreed better than they do. Madame Blavatsky's phrases,
"I called, trying to find out some one near me" . . . "tried to
make myself heard by Mrs. Z.," &c., do not correspond well with Mr.
Damodar's question about the gentleman "sitting near" her.
There is another point which strikes me as somewhat suspicious
about Madame Blavatsky's entry in her note-book, and which strengthens
my impression that it was made after the telegram was sent. For
what purpose was it made ? Why, if it was merely as a record of an
event interesting to herself, and not for comparison with an expected
letter from Mr Damodar, should she put in so uninteresting a fact as
that she was sitting under the looking-glass ? But if it was intended
for
this latter object, it would have been natural to show it to some one at
the time the sending of the telegram was being discussed, had it been
then in existence, and thus to improve the test. I think it probable,
therefore, that the entry was made after the telegram was sent^ though
very likely before the answer was received.
The allusion at the end of Mr. Damodar's letter is to an apparition
of him seen by Mr. E. D. Ewen, of Chattisgarh, Central Provinces of
India. Mr. Ewen, who is a Scotch gentleman of honourable repute,
whose organisation is highly nervous, saw Mr. Damodar (with whom
he was acquainted) in " astral '' form, as he supposed, on May 23rd,
1884, in London. On his mentioning this at a meeting of our
Society, on May 28th, Mr. Damodar was at once telegraphed to by
Colonel Olcott (Mr. Myers being present) in the following words:
"Olcott to Damodar, Adyar, Madras J Have you visited London lately?
write Myers full details." To this telegram no reply was received, from
which it is a natural inference that Mr. Damodar was unaware of the
vision, though he rtiay have had other reasons for his silence. His
mentioning it in his letter of August 16th proves nothing, of course,
since there had then been more than time to acquaint him by post with
the facts. We are thus left without any evidence to distinguish Mr.
Ewen's experience from a merely subjective hallucination.
Two other visions I have to deal with. The first is an experience
that occurred to Mr. Vsevolod Solovioff, Page of Honour to the Czar,
and son of the tutor of the late Czar, and a Russian author of high
repute. He describes what occurred as follows :
"1 Octobre, 1884, Paris.
"Ayant refu une lettre de ma compatriote, Mme. H^l^ne Blavatsky,
dans laquelle elle m'informait du mauvais dtat de sa sant^ et me priait
de
venir la voir d. Elberfeld, je me suis d^idd k faire ce voyage. Mais
puisque
r^tat de ma propro sant^ me for^ait 4 certains managements, j'ai pr^fdr6
m'arreter d. Bruxellcs, que je n'ai jamais vu, pour me reposer, la
chaleur
^tant accablante.
"Je suis parti de Paris le 24 Aoiit. Le lendemain matin, au Grand
Hotel
de Bruxelles oii je m'dtais arrdt^, j'ai rencontr^ Mile. A. (fille de
feu ambas*
sadeur russe k - et demoiselle d'honneur de V Imp^ratrice de Russie).
En
apprenant que je me rendais \k Elberfeld pour voir Mme. Blavatsky,
qu'elle
connait et estime beaucoup, elle s'est d(k;id^e ^ m'accompagner. Nous
avons
pass^ la joum^e ensemble, comi>tant partir le lendemain par le train de
neuf heures du matin.
''A huit heures, dtant d^jk oompl^tement pret k partir, j'entre chez
Mile. A. et je la trouve dans un grand embarras. Toutes ses clefs,
qu'elle
a rhabitude de garder toujours sur elle dans un petit sac et qu'elle a
eu dans
ce sac en se couchant, avaient disparu pendant la nuit, quoique la porte
de
sa chambre fut ferm^e k clef. Ainsi toutes ses malles dtant fermdes,
impos*
sible d'emballer les effets dont elle venait de se servir. Nous f^mes
obliges
de remettre notre depart jusqu'au train d'une heure de I'apr^s midi, et
fimes
venir le serrurier pour ouvrir la plus grande malle. Lorsqu'eUe fut
ouverte
toutes les clefs que nous cherchions se trouv^rent au fond de la malle,
attm
q\i^ la def de cette maUe, atUickie comme (Thahitiide avec les autres,
Ayant k
nous toute notre matinee, nous vouliimes faire une promenade, mais
soudain
je me sentis dans un dtat d'^trange faiblesse et en proie k un
irr^istible
besoin de dormir. Je me suis excus^ aupr^s de Mile. A. et me suis retird
dans
ma chambre, m'empressant de me mettre au lit. Mais je ne pus m'endormir
et restais les yeux ferm^, lorsque tout k coup, dans Tdtat de veillo,
j'ai vu
devant mes yeux ferm^s toute une s^rie de paysages inconnus^ qui se sent
graves dans ma memoire avec leurs moindres details. Lorsque cette vision
fut dissip^, je me sentis remis de ma faiblesse et me rendis aupr^ do
Mile. A., k laquelle certainement j'ai racont^ ce qui venait de se
passer en
lui ddpeignant les paysages dans tous leurs details.
"Nous sommes partis par le train d'une heure, et voici qu'apr^s
une
demi heure de route Mile. A. me dit en regardant par la fenetre : '
Tenez, voicr
un de vos paysages ! * Je I'ai reoonnu k i'instant, et jusqu'au soir
j'ai revu,
les yeux ouverts, tout ce que le niatin j 'avals vu les yeux ferm6s.
J'^tais
content d'avoir raoont^ ma vision en detail h Mile. A., car elle pouvait
en
attester la r^isation. U faut dire que la route entre Bruxellea et
Elberfeld
m'est comply tement inconnue, car c'^tait la premiere fois de ma vie que
je
visitais la Belgique et cette partie de I'Allemagne.
"En arrivant k Elberfeld le soir, nous nous sommes arret<^s dans un
h6tel et nous nous h&t&mes de nous rendre aupr^s de Mme. Blavatsky dan»
la maison de M. Gebhard. Le mdme soir, les membres de la Socitfttf
Th^oso-
phique qui entourent Mme. Blavatsky nous ont montr^ deux superbes
portraits k Thuile des Mahatmas M. et Koot Houmi. Le portrait de M»
surtout produisit sur nous une impression extraordinaire, et ce n'est
pas
^tonnant qu'en revenant k notre h6tel nous en parlions encore et Favions
devant nos yeux. C'est k Mile. A. de raconter ce qu'elle a vu et sent!
pendant la nuit suivante. Mais voici ce qui m'est arriv^ :
"Fatigu^ par le voyage, je doxanais paisiblement lorsque tout d'un
coup je
fus rdveill^ par la sensation d'un souffle bien chaud etp^n^trant.
J'ouvre les
yeux et dans la faible clart^ qui entrait dans la chambre par les trois
fendtres,
je vois devant moi une grande figure d'homme v^tu d'un long
vdtementblano
et flottaut. En mdme temps j'ai entendu ou senti une voix, qui me
disait,
je ne puis pr^ciser en quelle langue, bien que je le compris
parfaitement,
d'allumer la bougie. Je dois dire qu'au lieu de m'efErayer je restais
tout k
fait tranquille, seulement je sentais mon coeur battre avec une force
redoublee. J'ai allum6 la bougie et en I'allumant j'ai vu h ma montre
qu'il
tftait deux lieures du matin. La vision ne disparaisBait pas. C'^tait un
homme bien vivant qui ^tait devant moi. Et j'ai reconnu k I'instant meme
en lui le bel original du portrait que nous avions vu le soir. II
s'assit prbs
de moi sur une chaise, et commen9a k me parler. U parla longtemps,
touchant les questions qui m'int^ressent, mais la plus grande partie de
cet
entretien ne pent dtre rapport^e ici car il s'agissait de choses tout k
fait
personnelles. Je puis dire,cependant, qu'entre autres il m'a annonc^ que
pour le voir dans son corps astral j'ai dii passer par beaucoup de
preparations,
et que la demi^re le9on me f ut donn^e le matin meme lorsque j'ai vu,
les yeux
fermds, les paysages que je devais re voir en rdalit^ le meme jour. Puis
il me
dit que je ])os8^de \me gitinde force magndtique en voie de
d^veloppement.
Alors jo lui demandai ce que je devais faire avec cette force. Mais,
sans
rcpondre, il disparut.
" J'etais seul, la porte de ma chambre dtait fennde k clef. J'ai cm k
une
hallucination et mdme je me suis dit avec efiroi que je commence k
perdre la
tete. A peine ai-je eu cette idee que j'ai revu k la mdme place Thomme
8ui>erbe aux v^tements blancs. II hochait la tete et en souriant me dit
:
'Soyez stir que je ne suis pas une hallucination et que votre raison ne
vous
quitte pas. Blavatsky vous prouvera demain devant tout le monde que m&
visite etait reelle.' Puis il disparut. J'ai constate k ma montre qu'il
etait
pres de trois heures. J'ai eteint la bougie et je me suis rendormi
inunediate-*
ment d'un profond sommeil.
"Le matin, en arrivant avec Mile. A. pr^s de Mme. Blavatsky, la
premiere
ehoso qu'eUe nous dit avec son sourire 6nigmatique : ' Eh bien ! comment
avez-Tous pass^ la nuit?' *Tr^8 bien,' lui ai*je r^pondu, et j^ai
ajoute^
'Yous n'avez rien h me dire?' ' Non,' fit-elle, 'jesaia seulement que le
jViaitre a 6t6 chez yous avec un de ses ^l^ves.'
"Le soir dumeme jour M. Olcott a trouv4 dana sa poche un petit billet,
que tou8 les th^osophes ont reconnu pour Stre de Tdcriture de M. , con^u
en
ces termes : * Certainement j'^tais Ik, maLs qui pent ouvrir les yeux k
celui
qui ne veut pas voir ? M.'
"'C*^tait la r^ponae k mon incredulity, pulsque toute la joumee je
tftchais de me persuader que ce n'^tait qu*une hallucination, ce qui
fkchait
Mme. Blavataky.
''Je dois dire qu'k peine reve{^u k Paris, oil je suis actuellement, mes
hallucinations et les faits ^tranges qui m'entouraient se sont
compl^tement
dissipes.
"VSEVOLOD SOLOVIOFF."
This was certainly a striking experience. M. Solovioff tells us that he
tried to persuade himself throughout the following day, till he received
the note, that it was a hallucination, but it was very unlike the
hallucinations that are known to occur to sane and healthy persons.
I do not myself think that there is the same difficulty in supposing it
to have been an unusually vivid dream. It will be observed that no
satisfactory test of an objective origin is afforded by the occurrences
of
the next day. Madame Blavatsky's remark that the Master and one of
his pupils had been with him, was a perfectly safe one. ** The Master "
would do either for Koot Hoomi or M., and the Chela would cover a
considerable range of other possibilities ; while, if Madame Blavatsky
had
been wrong in assuming that the question " Vous n'avez rien k me dire? "
indicated that there had been an experience of some sort, the non-seeing
of the Master could be accounted for by a want of sufficient development
on the part of M. Solovioff ; or in whatever way the non-seeing of the
Chela actually was accounted for. The contents of the note found in
Colonel Olcott's pocket added no confirmation, and the note might
easily, it would seem, have found its way there by natural means with*
out his knowledge. We have not the details of Mdlle. A.'s experience,
but I believe it consisted in a dream or vision, more or less similar to
M.
Solovioff's. It is possible that, if we had the details, we might find
it
more probable than not that the dreams were telepathically connected :
but the similarity of circumstances and conditions, of trains of thought
and emotions, before retiring to rest, might easily lead to similar
nocturnal experiences.
Since writing the above I have learnt that, owing to events which
have since occurred, M. Solovioff no longer regards his experience as
affording any evidence of occult agency.
If M. Solovioff's experience was a dream, we have no reason foi
regarding the following experience of Mrs. Gebhard, with which I will
conclude, as anything but a waking one.
Mrs. Gebhard, of Elberfeld, well known to one member of the
Committee, writes as follows with regard to an incident which occurred
at a meeting of the London Lodge of the Theosophical Society, on
April 7th, 1884. On that occasion, Madame Blavatsky, who had come
in unexpectedly, and was sitting among the audience, suddenly called to
Mr. Mohini, as though she saw some one. Mr. Mohini joined 4ier in a
lobby, and appeared also to perceive some one, whom he saluted with
respect. Colonel Olcott's speech, however, was not interrupted, and
nothing was said to show who it was that Madame Blavatsky and Mr.
Mohini thus greeted. At the end of the meeting, they both stated that
they had seen Mahatma M.
'* On the 7 th of April last, being at a meeting of the Theosophical
Society
at Mr. Finch's rooms, Lincoln's Inn, I had a vision, in which I saw the
Maliatma M. At the moment I was listening attentively to Colonel
Olcott's open-
ing speech to the Society. I saw standing on my right side, a little in
front, a
very tall, majestic-looking person, whom I immediately recognised to be
the
Mahatma, from a picture I had seen of him in Mr. Sinnett's possession.
He
was not clad in white, but it seemed to me to be some dark material with
coloured stripes, which was wound round his form. The vision lasted only
a
few seconds. As far as I could learn, the only persons besides myself
who
had seen the Mahatma were Colonel Olcott, Mr. Mohini, and, of course,
Madame Blavatsky.
"Mary Gebhard."
This may have been a collective liallucination, and as such would
have been very interesting ; but we have not the contemporaneous and
independent accounts of Mr. Mohini and Colonel Olcott as to dress,
Jbc, nor the evidence as to the time of the appearance, which would be
required to prove this.
We have then, as I said at the beginning, three experiences, one o£
them adapted to corroborate the assertion that Mr. Damodar can.
project his *^ astral form," and the other two apparently confirmatory
of the existence of Mahatma M., and in two out of these three cases the
percipient was probably completely awake. It must^ however, be
remembered that one result of the investigations of the Literary Com-
mittee is that merely subjective hallucinations occur to sane and
healthy
persons considerably more frequently than is generally supposed ; and
secondly, that what makes these experiences available as evidence for
Madame Blavatsky is her previous allegation that Mr. Damodar and
Mahatma M. were liable to appear, while the expectation caused by
this allegation may have operated in producing the hallucinations, or
determining their form.
In any case, though the experiences are interesting and important in
relation to the general investigations of the Society ^yet in the
absence
of other evidence for the existence of M., or for Mr. Damodar's power of
voluntarily appearing ; and in the absence also of such evidence in eacH
instance as we should require, if it stood alone, to distinguish it from
&
merely subjective experience they cannot be held to prove any of tlie
powers claimed for <* Adepts" and their disciples.
_______________
Notes:
* Fictitious Initials.
57. Mr. Keightley noticed that the envelope was registered, with Dainodcfr,
he
believes, written in the comer, and that the letter was actually in the
envelope
the letter being in Damodar's handwriting. But Mr. Keightley and
Madame
Blavatsky between them then lost the envelope. We have, however, ascer-
tained that a registered letter answering to the description of tliis
one reached
London on September 7th. It left Bombay on August 19th, and therefore
pro-
bably was sent from Madras on August 16th, or 17th.
58. It is noticeable that the first sentence is written in blue pencil,
and the rest
in purple, with tlie exception of the corrections in lead pencil. This
snggesta that
the whole note was not written at the same time.
Go to Next Page |