Dr. Wilhelm Hübbe-Schleiden was a
prominent German researcher and academic who contributed much to the formation
of the Theosophical Society in Germany.
And two letters that Blavatsky wrote
to Dr. Hübbe are kept in the Lower Saxon State Library and University Library
in Göttingen, Germany.
These letters refer to the infamous
SPR report that was produced by its member Richard Hodgson and in which he
falsely accuses Blavatsky of being an impostor.
LETTER
1
This letter was written by Blavatsky
on January 4, 1886. At this time she was living in Würzburg, Germany, and she
mentioned to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden that Professor Carl W. Selin came to visit her
with the Hodgson Report, and that Professor Selin subsequently wrote a letter
to Blavatsky informing her that he was separating himself from the Theosophical
Society and accusing her of being a charlatan.
But what affected Blavatsky most was
that Professor Selin claimed that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had stated that the
paranormal phenomenon he had witnessed when he was travelling on 1 August 1884 with Colonel Olcott on
a train from Elberfeld to Dresden, and which consisted of his receiving a
materialised letter from Master Kuthumi, had in fact been a fraudulent event.
And that is why Blavatsky wrote to
Dr. Hübbe the following:
« January 4, 1886.
My dear Mr. Hubbe Schleiden.
I
just received a letter from Profesor Sellin. What is it about?
That
he was going to leave the Theosophical Society. I saw it when he was
here. But what is it he says that his only hope was that the Elberfeld
phenomena should prove true but that "Hubbe's depositions were to the
effect that even those phenomena were false" or to that effect.
He
says that he believes no more in the Mahatmas, that the whole Society is a
fraud, and that he feels certain that not a few dozen only, of members shall
resign but the whole Society will crumble in a few weeks.
Now
please kindly let me know what is all this. If Prof. Sellin chooses to believe
that my Master is Babula (!!) and all His letters were written by that boy who
does not know one letter of English and that I am a "Russian Spy" and
the sole author of Isis Unveiled plagiarized from somebody and also the
author of Mahatma K.H.'s letters all good and right.
But
that you should make depositions to the effect that the Elberfeld phenomena
were false when I was unable to write one word in my own handwriting for three
weeks, when there let alone forge letters in the handwritings of Mahatmas who
do not exist this is something new until you have told me that you did say so
over your own signature, I cannot believe you did.
Will
you please if you ever had any friendly feelings for me write to me and explain
all this.
Mr.
Sellin's letter is very brutal and I shall not answer it. But I hope you
are not as he is and that at any rate you shall not condemn me before you hear
what I have to say.
What is it about
everyone resigning?
Those
who believe in Hodgson's Report better resign this is sure. But I can assure
you, that the Society shall never fall.
Yours
sincerely as ever
H.P. Blavatsky
H.P. Blavatsky
PS: Please do not feel afraid of hurting me. Write the truth; if I could bear the letter of Sellin I can bear anything. But I want the Truth. »
LETTER
2
This second letter was probably sent
by Blavatky to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden for him to read to the members of the
Theosophical Society in Germany.
In this letter Blavatsky defends
herself against the accusations that Richard Hodgson made against her in his
Report.
This letter is undated, but it is
possible that it was written at about the same time as Blavatsky's letter to
Sinnett dated January 6, 1886.
This letter says the following:
« To Doctor
Hubbe-Schleiden, President of the German Theosophical
Society and
others.
If
the “scientificâ” evidence of experts in handwriting is accepted against my
word and denial which it is sure to be by all those who do not know all the
circumstances attending the phenomena now proclaimed fraudulent as well as Mr
Sinnett and some others do then it becomes utterly useless for me to try and
defend myself.
There
are fifty cases on record of mistakes made by scientific experts and innocent
people sentenced for forgery.
To
call “forgery” the Mahatma’s letters is absurd; for, to be forged, the
handwriting so forged must be existing somewhere in this phenomenal world; and
if I have invented the two writers then I must have invented their alleged handwritings
also and in such case it is my own handwriting or handwritings and it is not
forged.
But
this is immaterial. Once I am pronounced a Russian spy I may as well be called
a “forger” and accept the whole.
Now
take away the said scientific evidence and what remains?
Not
one single fact proven against me except on circumstantial evidence as the
Reporter calls it; this evidence being built on the calumnies and malicious
suggestions of bitter enemies for years.
On
an evidence, that in the case of the Coulombs was gradually prepared by her for
five years.
In
that of Wimbridge and Bates (who owe us 1500 rupees for five years also, and
being far richer now than we have ever been, want to justify their indelicate
action), based on hatred and Desire of revenge ever since Miss Bates was
expelled from the Society for libellous slanders, lying and scandals and
Wimbridge left after her.
All
the adverse testimony picked bit by bit by Mr Hodgson is from our worst enemies
Damodar’s uncle and Wimbridge’s partners and bosom friends and a few sceptical
theosophists shaky from the first.
On
this, the Reporter builds an act of accusations 200 pages long.
Scraps
of papers are stolen from my desk and writing papers; scraps and bits of
writing disjoined and meaning anything one likes to invent pilfered from
Damodar’s desk by the Coulombs. (such as the few lines in my handwriting
translated from some Russian paper for Mr Sinnett’s Pioneer probably, and the
bit of Master’s handwriting to Damodar).
On
this and the adverse testimony of enemies, the suspicion of sceptics and so
forth I stand accused of the most abominable, predetermined deception, ten
years of fraud, lying, acting, machinations, intrigues, that would necessitate
whole days of forging in three or four different handwritings in languages of
which neither I, nor Damodar (my supposed confederate who is in Tibet and
cannot defend himself) know the first word!
If
confederates there must be, then it is not Damodar only who must be shown as
one but a dozen more who can forge both Master’s handwritings, write in eight
or nine languages and dialects and be thoroughly versed in the Master’s ways
and style.
Who “forged” Mahatma
KH’s letter to Dr. Hubbe Schleiden?
Is it Col. Olcott who
was with him?
And
if it is I, who endowed with prevision and clairvoyance wrote or prepared it
beforehand, then it is Col Olcott who must have played the trick of throwing it
or making it appear behind Doctor Hubbe S. in the railway carriage?
Go
on, throw vile suspicion and mud at the most honest man living, at a man who is
the Soul of honour, of unselfishness, kindness, benevolence and philanthropy,
who is incapable of keeping anything secret when asked for he blushes to his
ears at the smallest suspicion of an untruth or anything to be concealed. Go
on, gentlemen of the Theosophical Society ruin his reputation and kill him in
his honour as I am killed in mine.
How can I begin my
defence when I was never allowed to see even from afar my alleged letters to
the Coulombs?
How can I deny that
which I know nothing of?
What
I do know and can prove is several accusations in the Report entirely absurd and
that can not stand for one moment serious investigation.
1.
That the red ink writing (is it from my Master, for I have seen the Report only
for a few minutes?) to Damodar found among his papers (by whom found..., is it
said there?) has anything whatever to do with the Jhelum telegram to Mr Sinnett
from Mahatma KH.
To
begin with I was at Amritsur, twelve hours of railway from Jhelum, and Damodar
in Bombay, 2,000 miles from Amritsur four days journey by rail.
The
letter from Mr Sinnett to the Mahatma was received by me about 2 o’clock p.m.
from Allahabad when I was at Amritsar sitting at a table surrounded by people. I
either sent it immediately or half an hour later I cannot remember now for I
have not the Occult World to refer
to. I believe I did it when the guests went away.
Any
how, the telegram found later on to have been written in Master KH’s writing,
in answer to that letter of Sinnett from Mahatma KH. was sent from Jhelum a few
hours later, whether He had the material time to receive his letter from M.S.
or not.
Now
how could I have, and why should I have written in red ink to Damodar 2,000
miles away, to copy that “Jhelum” telegram. Have I sent the red ink note
flying through the air?
Well,
I am willing to accept this hypothesis. And where’s the material time in a few
hours for my message in red-ink (if it was always I) to go to Damodar [1], for
him to copy “original telegram” and send send [2] it back through Jhelum to Mr
Sinnett in Allahabad?
Absurd,
preposterously so!!
Let
Hodgson try again and find some other fraudulent phenomenon to fit this documentary
proof in “red ink”.
Such
documents in red-ink and blue pencil Damodar received by dozens daily as every
chela does and this is why he is in Tibet, and happier than we are here.
Poor,
noble, self-sacrificing boy ! Even he vilified, abused, traduced by his own
uncle who has always hated him and envied and hated me as much ; that very uncle
who has got now Damodar’s money.
2.
“Letters” tampered with and opened?
G's
(or Garstin’s) letter opened. How extraordinary that M.G. should not have
remarked the slightest traces of such tampering when he just received it
through Mohini ! Have we not been told that he tried himself (Garstin) to find
out whether his letter could not have been opened, tried with a heated knife.
It
was said, showed it to dozens of people for over one year; and now that it has
passed thousands of times through various hands because one corner or flap in
it appears crumbled it is a proof that I had opened it! When?
How
could I have the time to do it. It was placed by Mr. G. in the shrine before
his dinner about 7 in the evening. Since that hour to the moment it was thrown
upon Mohini’s head no one had left the room my rooms where I could have done
the operation and written the answer. My rooms were full of chelas and guests
till I went to bed about 10.
The
answer must have come about 7 and as Mohini can testify I believe, I had not
remained one moment alone.
Who
did the operation and written the answer from the Mahatma, enclosed in Mr. G.’s
unopened letter (glued, sealed and closed with every precaution) which
letter when it was thrown among us was immediately carried by Mohini to Mr.
Garstin?
3.
How about Mr Hume’s letter from Govt House? or from Municipality (for I am sure
I do not and cannot remember). This letter was received in 1881, or 82.
Never
was there a suspicion thrown upon that; I have never heard Mr Hume say so to
any one, which he surely would have done and to Mr Sinnett the first one. If Mr
Sinnett has not heard of it from Mr Hume when he (S.) was in India and fast
friends and coworkers then Mr Hume must have found out the mare’s nest later on
three or four years after such tampering.
Now
how could any one least of all a Mahomeddan servant remember that he had given
one among thousands of such letters received by Hume precisely the letter in
question to Babula?
Who
could remember it and why has not the servant remembered it there and then when
Mr Hume was instituting the most careful inquest on that day as to who brought
the letter when and how?
Strange after thought!
Not
strange for me though or Mr Sinnett who know Mr. Hume’s character so thoroughly
well.
4.
Another bit of Mr Hume’s precious testimony goes as far if not further to
invalidate the whole.
A
square piece of Tibetan or Nepaul paper is before me covered with Master’s
red-ink writing and my notes from which were actually given my first lessons in
the Secret philosophy (from which Esoteric
Buddhism grew up, in Mr Hume’s museum and studio in his house at Simla, in
1881 and 1882)
Mr
Sinnett and Mr Hume remember it well; they have seen it and looked and examined
it may a time.
How
then does Mr Hume say that the Masters did not write on such paper till after I
had been at Darjeeling where such paper, he says, can be got?
I
went to Darjeeling only at the end of 1883 [3] more than two years after I had
taught them from notes on this bit of paper. How about this actually false
evidence?
The
smallest thing is jumped at and made to go against me. Mr Sinnett saying once that
“30 seconds had not passed in an interval” and then 1 ½ minute had not passed” is
charged with a gross contradiction and his testimony for me, becomes worthless.
Mr.
Hume says an evident falsehood something quite untrue whether deliberately or
from lack of memory I do not want to say but he does give a piece of false
testimony and everyone believes him. Is this just or fair?
Is
this charitable and gentlemanly when a whole long life reputation and the
honour of a defenceless woman is at stake nay ruined to atoms and torn to
shreds.
5.
I am accused of having written alone and unaided Isis, all the articles in the Theosophist, every letter of the two
Mahatmas; of having invented Them and Their handwritings and Their philosophy.
Very
well. If it is shown that I had not done it for gain or money, since I am a
beggar to day, and never had a penny of my own giving all I had from my Russian
articles and novels some thousands of roubles to the Society.
If
it is further shown that the accusation of having been a Russian spy is utterly
absurd (the whole of India will be in a roar of laughter when they read that
accusation) and Mr Hume and Sinnett know it too well; If these two motives are
made away with why all this romance which has lasted for over 12 years?
“Fame and notoriety”?
Would’nt
I have had far more fame and glory if I had said that Isis with all its (only now found-out) faults and imperfections had
been written by me ten years ago when I could not write two sentences correctly
in English; that I was the sole author of all the philosophical articles in the
Theosophist; I the author and the inventor of a Secret Doctrine (now found gradually
corroborated in hundreds of archaic Sanskrit volumes untranslated.) I, who now
am writing the Secret Doctrine
hundred times more philosophical, logical and erudite than Isis, alone, in Wurzburg, with about a dozen of books (mostly no
books of reference at all) around me?
Would
not that sole authorship of a woman getting all this unaided out of her head
alone been ten times as marvellous and leading to fame than my fathering it
upon adepts?
Had
I wanted fame and name, I would have declared that all the phenomena produced
by me were mine. I might have claimed for them the same non spiritualistic or non-mediumistic
origin and yet maintained that the wonderful phenomena were produced by myself
alone and I would have had fame enough I can assure you. Have I ever claimed
any personal powers?
No;
except bell-ringing, raps, and other electric phenomena and occasional
clairvoyance, I have never said anything but the same stereotyped phrase:
"If the Masters or their chelas help me I can do so and so, if not I can
do nothing by myself.”
Is this courting
fame?
I
was a strong, a very strong medium before Master deprived me entirely of these
dangerous soul-killing powers. Since then I can do nothing.
6.
“Similarity of style” the same mistakes spelling, gallicisms etc etc. Ergo I am
Mah. KH and he is I.
But why not explain
it in the correct way?
Ask
Olcott, Judge and all those who knew me in America before I wrote Isis. They will tell you that I hardly
spoke English.
That
most of the pages of Isis, where
there is anything worth reading were dicated to me by Master KH. sometimes 30,
40 pages at a time without one mistake as Olcott and Dr Wilder know; that I
learned to write English with him, the Master and spelt as he did in Isis sceptic with a K and Bakkus instead
of Bacchus and so on.
Till
1868, I had ceased to speak English having learned it in my childhood. And only
from February 1868 till 70, some nine or ten months and then for about six
months I spoke only English for I knew neither Tibetan nor Hindi, nor anything with
the Mahatma.
I
may say I relearned the little English I knew when I came to America in 1873
from Him. I learned positively to write, from him while writing Isis.
When
I arrived to India I began spelling sceptic (a word unfortunately too often
used in our Society) with a c having been laughed at for my previous spelling and
[4] KH went on spelling it in His own way.
He
precipitated and wrote through me hundreds of letters before I went to America and
met Olcott but my Master protested saying it was mediumship. I actually thought
the first letter He wrote to Mr Sinnett had been written through me at Simla;
only I was told by Him I was mistaken. Nor would Mr Sinnett believe it.
As
to my Master he does not know one word of English. Every letter he wrote he had
to take his English either from my head or that of one of his English speaking
chelas. There are no miracles in nature. Everything that occurs must have its
cause its effect.
7.
Then, as for proofs of my having invented the Mahatmas. For over twenty years since
1858 to 1881 I spoke as rarely as I could of Them.
I
had confided the secret to Olcott alone and Judge all the others had
half-hints. I tried to keep their personalities, names, abodes everything
secret.
At
Simla, when Mrs Hume and Sinnett were finally confided with the secret also,
then it was that my misfortune began. I had withstood as much as I could the
publicity and desecration of Their names. Hume and Mr Sinnett know it. He
applied to Mah. KH. and the latter gave him permission to write the Occult
World. It was the end of the century and an attempt had to be made to open the
eyes of the blindfold public and I was chosen as the victim rather the manure
for the future possible crop.
But
that publicity came out too brusquely, too unexpectedly. Spiritualists and
materialists protested and my enemies had to be counted by the thousands.
I
begged Olcott not to mention either the Masters’ names or the phenomena too
openly. He was ordered by Master to leave off speaking of Them. You might as
well have tried to stop the whirlwind as Olcott in his enthusiastic zeal. He
would not.
Then
the Maha Chohan ordered me to tell to Olcott that if he went on like that untold
evil would come upon us. It was in 1883 when he went to Ceylon.
Again
the warning came when he went with me to Europe. I wrote to him from Paris to
London “ Leave the S.P.R. alone. Master says you shall ruin the cause thereby.”
I
begged, I prayed him nothing would stop him. He crammed them (the Psychists)
full with the narration of the most wonderful phenomena; he ended by making
them believe he was either a lunatic or a fool, a credulous fool. Now he has his
Karma.
“Fame”?
Why
I was horrified when I read the Occult World. “Mahatma KH allowed it himself” they
say.
The
Mahatmas never forbid anything for it would be interfering with peoples' wills and
Karma. The Mahatmas laugh at all the present row if they notice it, which I
doubt, though of course they know it.
Thus
having been too cautious about letting people know of Them anything from 1858
till 1880 I am charged with having invented them. Having been the means of
making Them widely known not as They are, but as They are not as a half measure
I am now charged with having personated Them, forged Their handwritings etc
etc.
Of
course I have never answered questions about Them as I would about Dr Hubbe
Sch. or any one else. I never said an untruth but I concealed much and will
conceal everything concerning Them to my dying day. I am under oath and will
keep it if I had to be publicly burnt or hung for it.
8.
Mr Hume seeing a proof of Mah. KH’s inability to read people’s character and so
on because he praised the young man who was robbing him?
Poor, blind man!
Mr
Sinnett was warned by the Mahatmas under a pledge of secrecy from the
beginning. Colonel Olcott also.
It
is Mr Hume who forced the young man upon the Mahatmas. It is Mr Hume who fell
in love with him (the young man) with his purity, clairvoyant powers, mystical
propensities; Mr Hume who called my Master unjust, cruel and what not to refuse
taking him for a chela.
Well
a year after my Master wrote to him “I take you on probation"; and then
came out all the new probationer’s inner nature outside; his vile thieving
propensities, his hypocrisy and all.
Mr
Sinnett was warned of it. He knew that both Mr Hume and his Secretary were
being tried. And a week, before Mr Hume found out the truth Col. Olcott was
ordered by Master to expell the young man as an embezzler.
What’s
the use saying what no one will understand who know nothing of the Mahatmas
ways or the laws and rules of chelaship!
How
can one judge on the world standard the rules and laws of an Asiatic
Brotherhood diametrically opposite in all to European ways.
_ _ _ _ _
I
have nothing more to say. I am ready to answer any question I can about myself.
I shall say nothing of the Masters. They are sacred to me and I am ready to die
for Them a thousand deaths if it can serve Them, or do any good to Humanity.
My
open public work is there, and Theosophy the Tree can be judged by its fruits. Hundreds
of profligates, drunkards and heinous materialists have become pure and
virtuous men ; dozens have returned to their abandoned wives and families.
Ask
people in India about me for one thing is true out of all the Report I have
influence in India for beyond and outside the Society. Ask them, who has worked
for five years to reconcile the natives to their fate; to generate brotherly
feelings for the English, gratitude for the good they were doing in educating
the natives, and forgiveness for the contempt and hatred shown to the “inferior
race”. Ask them, whether I have done good or harm in India and then judge.
The
Master’s name have become a household talisman in India keeping every one from
harm. The Masters have saved the English in 1857, from being all murdered; it
is They who have saved them from a revolution in India during the Ilbert’s Bill
and of the Masters it may be said as of God and Christ. Had they not existed they
ought to be invented for the good, their names alone do to them who believe in
Them.
Well
if I have invented Them I have done good to Asiatic Humanity thereby. Let the European
Humanity in its usual Cain-like way stone me for it.
H.P.
Blavatsky »
Endnotes
[1]
There was no Deb, no Bawajee at that time with us — They came one year later!
“Deb” is a title. — HPB.
[2]
The word "send" is written twice at this point in HPB's letter. —
BA editor.
[3]
It is hard to decipher the year; it may be "1882." In fact, HPB
was at Darjeeling in 1882. — BA Editor.
[4]
One or two indecipherable words occur at this point in HPB's letter. —
BA editor.
(Source:
https://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpblet010486.htm)
OBSERVATION
Although many
members of the Theosophical Society resigned from thisorganization because they
believed the slanders of the Hodgson report, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden remained
faithful to Blavatsky and later he witnessed more phenomena by the masters
Kuhumi and Morya (see link).
No comments:
Post a Comment