[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: "Before the eyes can see, they must be Incapable of tears

Aug 30, 2006 07:35 AM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck


-----Original Message-----
From: W.Dallas TenBroeck [] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:14 PM
To: 'Jerome Wheeler'
Subject: RE: "Before the eyes can see, they must be Incapable of tears
Importance: High

8/29/2006 2:28 PM
Dear Gary and Jerome
You asked:
“Who wrote the last part of Light on The Path titled Karma [pp. 85-90] ? 
Gratefully and fraternally yours,
Gary B.”
The only  notes I have on this book [1885] including the article on KARMA,
are references:
“a Book on the “DOCTRINE OF THE HEART”
LUCIFER,  Vol.  I,  226;  and Vol 3 :   Comments and correspondence;
Judge:  2 Articles: on LIGHT ON THE PATH 
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT  [Bombay Mag.] Vol. VII, p 3, 169, 177  [ Studies in
Vol. 36, p. 201;  Vol. 9, p 168     [THE 3 DESIRES] ;  Vol. 24, 69,  [FIGHT
THEOSOPHY  Mag   Vol 3  p.32, 35,  HPB on LOP.;  Vol. 40, 153 [THOUGHT ON
FORUM ANSWERS  (Judge)  pp. 1-2,
Judge on defection of MC  &  defence of HPB    THEOSOPHY Mag, II,  p. 30….
PATH  I, 335;  C. Johnson  review of LOP
Jasper Niemand in PATH, Vol. 4,  pp. 97, 101-2,  169, 177,  [ THEOSOPHY II,
p. 30.]
A Bio of M C  [Mabel Collins]  BLAVATSKY COLLECTED WORKS, Vol. 8, pp. 91-3,
“…an Adept named only to a few did actually dictate…”  
                                    PRACTICAL OCCULTISM  W Q J  p. 152,,  
Translated into Sanskrit,  PATH IV,  p.  120;
:. during that period of 2 1/2 years; nor could she be “studying under her.”
How then could the “author” of Light on the Path possibly say that she “took
the letter to her” and wrote “the answer at her dictation”?! 

The gratuitous invention is so painfully palpable that there is really no
need to dwell on it any longer. There is but one explanation possible. Miss
M. Collins had an astral dream. She found the imaginary scene between Mme.
Blavatsky and herself, and heard the latter dictating her letter to Dr.
Coues under the walls she visits spiritually—and now repents of it.
Untrained psychic faculties contain potentially strange surprises in them;
an inordinate hatred and desire of revenge lead some mediums on to dangerous

Thus, why should she repent of that which she has never done, and why, above
all, should Dr. Elliott Coues—the flower of chivalry—show such an intense
eagerness to proclaim his fair correspondent to the world as the wife of the
Biblical Ananias? True, she has done many other things to disprove her own
words and placed them on record before the world, these records proving
still more damaging to her reputation for truthfulness. Has she also
forgotten what she wrote in her work Through the Gates of Gold? This book
again was quite unknown to Mme. Blavatsky, who first heard of it from
Messrs. Finch and Keightley, who brought it to her in Ostend in March 1887,
just after its publication. And this work—so inferior to Light on the Path
or the Idyll of the White Lotus, that no devotee would ever think of
claiming as its author a “Master”—bears on the page facing the Prologue the
following words:—

“Once, as I sat alone writing, a mysterious Visitor entered my study
unannounced, and stood beside me. I forgot to ask who he was or why he
entered so unceremoniously, for he began to tell me of the Gates of Gold. He
spoke from knowledge, and from the fire of his speech I caught faith. I have
written down his words; but alas, I cannot hope that the fire shall burn as
brightly in my writing as in his speech.”

The fear was a just one, as one can never write from memory as well as when
copying—from walls. The divine fire was expended in Light on the Path and
never burned as 


brightly since. “Before the voice can speak in the presence of the Masters
it must have lost its power to wound.” . . . “Seek in the heart the source
of evil and expunge it.” These are aphorisms as old as the BOOK OF THE
GOLDEN PRECEPTS, from which they radiated—on the walls”—and thence into
Light on the Path. 

We must close with a few more words of emphatic denial. 

At no time has “Miss Mabel Collins” “studied under Madame Blavatsky.” The
latter has always refused to teach her, for good reasons of her own. Mrs.
Mabel Cook has sometimes attended the “Blavatsky Lodge” meetings, and had
casual conversations on occult matters with her, but has never studied two
consecutive days “under her.” Nor did Mme. B. know that Dr. Coues has ever
written to Miss Collins till he told of it. 

In all charity we are determined to view her letter to him as—an enigma. And
so must be the learned Professor’s sudden attack upon H. P. Blavatsky,
another enigma to the Theosophists and the public in general, though to the
attacked party it is quite clear. He speaks of hoax, but does not say what
it is. We know of definite hoaxes, but prefer not to mention them at
present. We have heard of Hindus committing suicide in order to bring their
enemies to grief and lay a curse upon their heads. This joint letter is a
moral suicide in its way. For a woman to confess to the world that she has
been deliberately deceiving it for years, simply for the pleasure of
fathering the cause of the deception upon a supposed enemy, is a psychic
riddle in itself. Miss Mabel Collins, while denying the “Mahatmas,”
believes, however, “that the Mahatmic force (whatever it may be, apart from
the Mahatmas) must exist.” This belief Dr. Coues gravely ratifies, on the
authority, we must suppose, of his own “great psychic powers”; and thus we
find him assuring “Mabel” that the “Mahatmic force . . . exists in every
great Soul like yours” (her’s). 

May all the Heavenly Powers, actual or imaginary, preserve the World from
such “Mahatmic force,” if it is this “force” that dictated to Miss Mabel
Collins her letter to Dr. Coues, and inspired him to publish it with his
comments. And may the poor Theosophical Society be laid into its grave
rather than have such representatives of THEOSOPHY! 


History repeats itself in every age. The world had its century of Hypatias,
its century of the Joans of Arc, and that of many other heroines. Our
departing age, the XIXth, seems to impress itself on the tablets of the
Universal History, as “the Century of the ‘MADAME COULOMB!” . . .


The following is a letter published in LIGHT of June the 8th, when that
weekly reprinted the above insinuations from the REL.-PHIL. JOURNAL. It is a
thoroughly independent evidence which, throwing a new and unexpected light
on the calumny, shatters it to atoms. No better proof of the baselessness of
the charges could be ever expected.

To the Editor of LIGHT

SIR,— À propos of the letter from Dr. Coues relative to Mabel Collins and
LIGHT ON THE PATH, the following incident may be interesting. 

In the early part of 1885 (I think February) Mrs. Collins visited a mutual
friend at Girton, and was by her introduced to me, and spent the after noon
and part of the evening at my house. She expressed a wish to leave early, as
she had an “appointment” with “HILARION,” THE AUTHOR OF LIGHT ON THE PATH,
at 8 p.m., and did not wish to be absent from her lodgings at Girton at that
hour. So I sent her back in my carriage at her express request. I was
informed afterwards by my friend that the writing that evening had been very
successful, owing she thought to previous harmonious conditions. I may add
that Mrs. Collins told me herself that the influence under which she wrote
the book in question was that of a person whom she had long known, but had
only lately identified as being that of an “Adept.” 
Exmouth, Devon, late of Milton, Cambridge.
June 2, 1889. 


Mrs. Passingham is a lady of high standing, well known to many, and who was
till now President of the Cambridge Lodge of the T.S. And now what becomes
of the—invention (not to call it by a worse name) that Mme. Blavatsky 


“begged and implored” Miss Mabel Collins, to father Light on the Path “on
one of the Masters who guide Mme. Blavatsky”? 

The visit of Mrs. Cook (Mabel Collins) to Mrs. Passingham was in February
1885, and Mme. Blavatsky having sailed for India three months before had
certainly nothing to do with it. As already shown, the accused party hardly
knew “Miss Mabel Collins” in 1884, and, had she known her, prudence alone
would have never permitted Mme. B. to ask Miss M.C. to share in such an
imposture, just at a time when the Christian College Magazine and Mme.
Coulomb were red hot in their conspiracy of denunciation. The “hoax” with
which Dr. Coues charges Mme. B. in his letter thus returns home, part and
parcel, to roost with the learned President of the Gnostic T.S. of
Washington. May it do him good! 

An American paper, the WASHINGTON POST, speaking of a reception given to Dr.
Elliott Coues in New York says that: —”The Theosophical Society and some of
the most famous and cultivated people in New York will extend him and his
wife a series of social courtesies and unite to honour him as a theosophist
and a scientist.”

No one in America could “honour” too highly a Professor of the Smithsonian
Institute as “a Scientist.” But as a Theosophist—Heaven save the mark! The
animus and spite shown in his conduct and the want of all gentlemanly, let
alone theosophical feeling, are such as would be unhesitatingly repudiated
by every Smithsonian Professor.

And now we have a few more words to say to a weekly in America. For years
the R.-P. Journal assumed the monopoly of denouncing and attacking us in
almost every issue, and for years we have ignored it and kept silent. But
for once, a month or so ago, we raised a mild protest in Lucifer, simply
remarking that our contemporary of Chicago repeated “unverified cackle.” 

At this, the R.-P. J., feeling very indignant, replies:” The JOURNAL does
not ‘repeat unverified cackle,’ and unlike the Tartarian termagant has
‘discretion’ enough not to juggle.”
Don’t you “repeat unverified cackle,” dear old Journal? And what do you call
the above “Coues-Collins” letter, and, even more, the lying Billingsgate of
W. Emmette Coleman? 


Or, perhaps, you think the name “cackle” too mild and would like to replace
it with the term “malicious slander”? So be it. 

As to your having “discretion enough not to juggle,” no one has ever thought
of accusing you of it. But you have constantly charged the same upon the
“Tartarian Termagant,” and this without the slightest shadow of real proof.
This is neither “religious” nor “philosophical.” But what is distinctly kind
and beneficent to Theosophists, though hardly meant to be so, is the
gratuitous advertisement of the ESOTERIC SECTION, ITS RULES AND PLEDGE IN
THE R.-P. J. 

The Editor must accept our best thanks, as his generous advertisement
brought us about twenty applications to join the E.S., all dispatched within
the week of its publication. 


A curious prophecy was made to me, in 1879, in India, by a mystic who said
that every letter in the alphabet had either a beneficent or a maleficent
influence on the life and work of every man. Persons whose names began with
an initial the sound of which was adverse to some other person had to be
avoided by the latter. “What is the letter most adverse to me?” I enquired.
“Beware of the letter C,” he replied. “I see three capital C’s shining
ominously over your head. You have to beware of them especially for the next
ten years and shield your Society from their influence. They are the
initials of three persons who will belong to the Theosophical body, only to
turn its greatest enemies.” I had forgotten the warning till 1884, when the
Coulombs appeared on the stage. Are Dr. Coues and Miss Collins (Cook)
preparing to close the list—I wonder?

I reprint the following correspondence from Light of June the 8th, omitting
my own letter, which would be mere repetition of what is said above, and
Mrs. Passingham’s statement as already given:


SIR,—In reference to the letters from Professor Coues and Mabel Collins,
quoted from the Religio-Philosophical Journal in your issue of the 1st
inst., I trust you will permit me to say a few words on the facts 


in question. I knew Madame Blavatsky intimately during her stay in Europe in
1884, and since her arrival in this country in May, 1887, I have resided in
the same house continuously. Further, I have known Mabel Collins intimately

1. Before Madame Blavatsky’s departure for India, in November, 1884, she had
seen Mabel Collins, at the outside, two or three times, and LIGHT ON THE
PATH had only just been begun, and the book was not completed till early in
1885, when Madame Blavatsky was in India, and to my certain knowledge no
communication took place between her and Mabel Collins after the departure
of the former for India in 1884, until her arrival in England in 1887.

Now, since Professor Coues’ letter to Mabel Collins could not have preceded
the publication of Light on the Path, it is obvious that Mabel Collins’
reply thereto must fall after the month of March, 1885. 

How then, I ask, could this reply have been written “at her (Madame
Blavatsky’s) dictation,” as asserted by Mabel Collins, seeing that Madame
Blavatsky was at the time in India? Such a marvellous discrepancy between
statement and fact makes one think: quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat.
[He who God desires to damn, he first makes mad,]

2. The astounding suggestion of Professor Coues that the authorship of Light
on the Path was claimed by Mahatma Koot Hoomi is so ridiculous as to call
only for the remark that no well informed person in the Theosophical Society
ever heard of it before.

3. As to its real authorship, Mabel Collins constantly and consistently
averred that it was “given” to her in the way she states by the assistance
of a person whom she has described to many and in whom COLONEL OLCOTT,

4. As to Mabel Collins insi[nu]ation that Madame Blavatsky endeavoured to
induce her to claim the authorship of Light on the Path for “one of the
Masters who guide her (Madame Blavatsky),” it is simply ridiculous. This
alone is enough to show how empty is such an insinuation even apart from the
fact that, as I have stated above, NO COMMUNICATION WHATEVER PASSED BETWEEN

5. As to the fact that Light on the Path was “inspired” by some influence
extraneous to Mabel Collins’ own brain, the dedication prefixed to The IDYLL
OF THE WHITE LOTUS and the second edition of THROUGH THE GATES OF GOLD are
ample proof, if the authoress’ veracity is worth anything.




SIR,—In your issue of June 1st appears a copy of a communication from
Professor Coues, of Washington, to the Religio-Philosophiod Journal of
Chicago, drawing attention to a letter from the authoress of Light on the
Path respecting the origin of that book. 

The admissions made in that letter by Miss Collins are naturally of interest
to all Theosophists who value the little treatise alluded to, and who have
hitherto held the name of its authoress in high esteem.

For this latter fact there was great reason, in that she was the authoress
not only of Light on the Path, but also of Through the Gates of Gold and The
Idyll of the White Lotus, books of inestimable value to those who wished to
know themselves from the Theosophic point of view; while a further reason
lay in the belief that she was a faithful disciple and fellow-worker of
Madame Blavatsky.

But in whatever position the avowal in Miss Collins’ letter may place that
lady with regard to those who have hitherto looked upon her as a teacher, by
its apparent intention of disowning Madame Blavatsky and of throwing
discredit upon her explanation of the origin of Light on the Path, it will
certainly appear to many that she has most strongly confirmed that
explanation, while she has also satisfactorily answered the query which
arose in everyone’s mind, “How did the Mahatma give Mabel Collins that
marvellous epitome of the mode in which Mahatmic evolution is to be

Referring to Miss Collins’ explanation, it is at once evident that another
intelligence besides her own must also have visited the place, “spiritually”
or otherwise, where she saw Light on the Path written upon its walls, for
someone must have placed the words there; moreover, that intelligence had
command over good modern English as well as being possesssor of high
practical wisdom.

We judge, therefore, that Miss Collins was simply the favoured vehicle for
the communication of those particular rules of the “Hall of Learning” to the
many mortals now needing and hungering for them, and while it is impossible
that they could have been written up where she was permitted to observe
them, otherwise than by an intelligent Being who had also visited the place,
it does not at all follow that he should, or ought to, have made himself or
his nature known to her. That would have been creating a basis for a
personal intimacy which was not necessary and possibly not advisable.

As regards the manner in which one mind may instruct or inform another, on
what may be termed the occult plane, we know at present very little, but the
phenomena of psychometry and thought-transference may some day, if
scientifically studied, be the means of our understanding these things

Hence Madame Blavatsky’s explanation has intrinsic probability for its
support, in addition to the authority she herself possesses in speaking of
all such matters.
As for the attempts at discredit which Professor Coues makes upon 


certain occult facts and phenomena, it is difficult to understand how a man
who pertinaciously, in public and in private, claims for himself the
possession of occult powers, as he has done respecting the visits of his
astral body to friends hundreds of miles away, and its recognition by them,
can so recklessly and inconsistently throw ridicule and doubt upon occult
phenomena testified to by others.

As an eminent man of science accustomed to the methods by which scientific
truths are discovered, ought not Professor Coues to see that the attested
production on his part of what are ordinarily termed “supernatural”
phenomena most surely suggest a strong probability that there are higher and
more imposing “supernatural” powers than those to which he has at present
attained? The projection of one’s astral form and the projection of one’s
definite thoughts, for the purpose of giving information or instruction, can
only be matters of degree of power, though the difference between them in
degree may be great and the respective degrees be characteristic of very
distinct types of development.


I add the following corroborative extracts from a pamphlet issued by W. Q.
Judge and widely circulated in America: *

1. Madame Blavatsky left England for India in November, 1884, and did not
return to England till May 1st, 1887. Light on the Path was published about
March, 1885. At the time of Mrs. Collins’ reception of the letter which Dr.
Coues wrote her in 1885, Madame Blavatsky was in India. Mrs. Collins could
not, therefore, have been “studying and studying under” her, nor could she
have “taken the letter” to her, nor have “written the answer at her

2. Mr. William Q. Judge was in London in November, 1884, after Madame
Blavatsky’s departure, and returned to the States in December. MRS. COLLINS
.           .           .           .           .           .           .
.           .           .           .           .           .           .
4. In dedicating The Idyll of the White Lotus to “The true Author, the
Inspirer,” Mrs. Collins made the same claim of inspiration as in the first
letter to Dr. Coues, though (as will be seen from an extract below from
Madame Blavatsky) Madame Blavatsky was ignorant even of the existence of the
book until after Mrs. Collins avowed the inspiration to Col. Olcott.

* [This pamphlet is entitled: “Light on the Path” and Mabel Collins. It is
signed by William Quan Judge and Dr. Archibald Keightley, and contains 8
pages of text.]see above] —Compiler.] 


5. The history of Light on the Path was given to Dr. Keightley by Mrs.
Collins herself as follows. 

When Madame Blavatsky was in London in 1884, Mrs. Collins had partly written
THE IDYLL OF THE WHITE LOTUS. This story (she stated to Dr. K.) was due to
inspiration from a Being whom she described to Madame Blavatsky. Madame
Blavatsky said that, from the description and the tone of the thought, she
believed this Being to be an old friend of her own among the Occult
Brotherhood—though not “Koot Hoomi or some other Hindu Adept.” 

Mrs. Collins further stated that, after the completion of the book, this
same Being urged her to endeavour to reach a higher state of consciousness,
as there was work for her to do. The effort resulted in the production of
LIGHT ON THE PATH, written down in the manner which Mrs. Collins describes.


Extracts from Madame Blavatsky’s letter of May 27th, 1889, to a lady in

1. "Light on the Path was first published in 1885, and Dr. Coues’ letter to
her could not have preceded the publication of the book. I returned to India
in November, 1884, and never saw Mabel Collins till the 1st of May, 1887.
Therefore it is perfectly impossible that I should have dictated, or even
suggested, such a letter as Mabel Collins speaks of.” 

2. “Before my return to India in 1884, I saw Mabel Collins barely three or
four times. She then showed me the first page or two of the future LIGHT ON
THE PATH, wherein I recognized some phrases which were familiar to me.
Therefore I the more readily accepted her description of the manner in which
they had been given to her. She herself certainly believed that this book
was dictated to her by ‘someone’ whose appearance she described, in which
statement I am sure I shall be borne out by Mr. Finch, who had the chief
share in bringing about the publication of the book.”

3. “I saw the completed work for the first time in my life at Ostend, a few
months before I came to London in 1887.”

4. “I emphatically and unreservedly deny Mabel Collins’ vile insinuation
that I ever asked her to make any statement regarding Light on the Path at
all, let alone any untrue statements.”

5. “The book (IDYLL OF THE WHITE LOTUS) was begun long before I first saw
her; it was unearthed by Mr. Ewen, and shown to Col. Olcott, who heard all
about its inspirer before I even knew of its existence.”


>From the above facts and extracts, it is clear—

1st. That Mrs. Collins claimed an inspirer for The Idyll of the White Lotus
before Madame Blavatsky had seen or even known of the book. 

EXTRACTS                                                              327

2nd. That the suggestion of inspiration in the case of Light on the Path was
not made by Madame Blavatsky to Mrs. Collins, but BY MRS. COLLINS TO MADAME

3rd. That at the time Mrs. Collins alleges herself to have been “implored”
by Madame Blavatsky to write to Dr. Coues a claim of inspiration, Madame
Blavatsky was, and had been for months, 7,000 miles away.

4th. That if the claim to inspiration was false, Mrs. Collins alone was
responsible for the falsehood, and

5th. That the falsehood cannot be shifted to another person by a second
falsehood even more glaring and palpable.

It is not necessary for the undersigned to expand the reflections which
instantly arise in any honest and clear mind upon perusal of such a story as
the foregoing. The spectacle of a woman spontaneously accusing herself of a
falsehood and sanctioning the utmost publicity, not in penitence or
atonement, but as a means, coupled with a greater falsehood, to spite and
injure a former friend, is of a sadness beyond measure. And yet one can
hardly see incongruity in the added spectacle of an officer of a Society
grasping at such an occasion, eagerly telegraphing across the ocean for
permission to use it as widely as possible to belittle and befoul the
Society and its Head, exulting in the probable confusion to the Cause to
which he had professed allegiance, and finding “Mahatmic force” in the very
person he had just proclaimed a liar! Before these astounding displays of
moral callousness and mental shortsightedness, conscience, judgment and
taste can but stand appalled.

There is, however, one remark which we, as students of Theosophy and
intimate friends of Madame Blavatsky, desire to make to all those who are
interested in the Wisdom Religion or members of the Theosophical Society. 

There is no cause for discouragement or alarm. This is not the first time
that evil passion has used the arts of detraction and treason to check the
progress of the Society and impair the influence of the Founders. Preceding
ones have failed. After each attack the Cause has rallied and stridden
forward and upward, the enemy’s hopes vanishing like his reputation. 

Why? Because behind the Society and its friends are the Masters Themselves.
Their aid is ever given to those who are earnestly working for the Truth and
sustaining the hands of the visible Founders. It will be so in this case.
Very soon the animus of the present attack will be understood, its spirit,
motives, objects, become apparent, and the very letters which to some seemed
at first so damaging will, like the scorpion, die from their own sting.
Honour and honesty are not dead among Theosophists nor is perception of
motive, or horror of perfidy.

June the 6th, 1889. 



Concerning the actual authorship of the works referred to, and concerning
the varied assertions made by the reputed author, the following
considerations may have weight.

1. In LUCIFER, Vol. I, No. 1. Mabel Collins in “Comments upon Light on the
Path” said that the book has a deep underlying meaning, and he who reads it
“is in fact deciphering a profound cipher”; and, 

p. 9, “The whole of Light on the Path is written in an astral cipher, and
can therefore only be deciphered by one who reads astrally.” This is
repeated and enforced in Lucifer for November, 1887.

2. Extract from a letter from Mabel Collins dated London, July 17, 1887, and
printed in The Path of September, 1887.

	“To the Editor of the Path  —As to Light on the Path, that is a
collection of axioms which I found written on the walls of a certain place
to which I obtained admittance, and I made notes of them as I saw them. But
I see no feasible method of making such explanations to the public therefore
at present I propose to place this preface before each of the books.” 

3. Through the Gates of Gold, by the same author, is dedicated to an unknown
being who, she says, came to her room and told her the story. 

4. It is well known to those who are acquainted with Mabel Collins that,
previous to the writing of LIGHT ON THE PATH, she had been solely engaged in
novel writing and newspaper work.

5. She stated to the undersigned in London in 1888 that she knew nothing
about philosophy or the laws of occultism, of Karma or any far-reaching
Theosophical doctrine.


THE GATES OF GOLD were written, according to her own claim, under the
inspiration of some being or beings whom she does not know, and that the
best of those contains within itself indisputable evidence that it could not
have been written by her unassisted.

7. That even if her charge against Madame Blavatsky was true, she is now
claiming to be the author of those books which, in many places and at times
when Madame Blavatsky was not with her, she has declared were not her own.

8. It cannot fail to be plain to everyone that the explanation now offered
by Prof. Coues and Mabel Collins in regard to these books is only an attempt
to make the public believe that during these four years she has been
pretending, at the solicitation of Madame Blavatsky, that the book was
written by an Adept, whereas in 1887 she published the same explanation in
The Path. 



There are but few words needed in addition to the above. Whatever
explanation the Coues-Collins combination may put forward to cover the
manifest unveracity of their statements, whether Mabel Collins’ letter to
Prof. Coues dates from four years or from one year ago; whether people
believe that letter to have been dictated or inspired by H. P. Blavatsky or
not;—nothing can alter the fact that the one has publicly proclaimed her own
untruthfulness in order to slander a hated enemy, while the other has jumped
at the opportunity to gratify his wounded vanity at the cost of breaking the
pledge and his word of honour to the Theosophical Society which he took upon
joining it. 

Why has he done it? The motive is plainly shown by a letter received by me
from Dr. Coues a few days before the Convention of the American Section T.S.
at Chicago. 

This letter was an ultimatum in which the Professor offered me the choice of
the following alternatives: Either to telegraph immediately to the
Convention, using all my influence to have him appointed President or “Boss”
of the whole T.S. in America, or to see him bust up the T.S. forever. Not
being easily intimidated, I replied that he might do his worst. His letter
and my reply can be published, if thought proper.

[Having read both this letter from Dr. Coues and Madame Blavatsky’s reply
thereto, I desire to state that the above is a perfectly correct summary of
their contents, though as regards Dr. Coues’ letter it is too favourable to


If his confidence and trust in its Head has been shaken, then by all means
let him leave. On returning the papers and Instructions he has received his
pledge will be cancelled. 

But all who desire to be taught by H. P. Blavatsky and to remain members of
the Esoteric Section must (if in America) communicate at once with Mr. W. Q.
Judge, who will inform them of the new organisation which has been adopted
for that Section. 

It may be well to state here, however, that NO CHANGE OF ANY KIND HAS BEEN


Everyone can easily see that this attack is simply a repetition of the old
lines of the Coulomb-Hodgson business. In fact, the analogy is most
striking; but there, the slanderers had the benefit of novelty, while this
one is a mere réchauffé at which no intelligent man or woman will do more
than shrug their shoulders. 

Non bis in idem. However that may be, as it is not H. P. Blavatsky that can
ever be affected by it, but only those who think that she may be of some use
to them, the choice is left entirely in their hands.

Fraternally yours,	(Signed) H. P. BLAVATSKY. 	London, June 21,




July—Law suit of Mabel Collins against H.P.B. is taken out of court by
plaintiff's Counsel and is not pursued (Path, V, Aug., 1890, p. 154).



Letter 58A and 58B, pp. 120 and 122

H.P.B. received only some three or four letters because her consciousness
was so linked to the minds of both the Masters M. and K.H. that she heard
their voices with occult hearing at once, and there was no need for written
communications. I therefore presume that in this instance the master K.H.
had to write a letter, as he desired to place before her a copy of the
letter written by Mabel Collins to Mr Harbottle.

When, in September 1887, H.P.B. started her magazine, Lucifer she associated
with her as assistant editor ‘M.C.’, transcriber of Light on the Path. M.C.
was Mabel Collins, her married name being Mrs Keningale Cook. She was an
authoress and I presume had experience of magazine work. Until the issue of
October 1888, both the names of H.P.B. and Mabel Collins appeared on the
cover of Lucifer. Then there was a break, one cause of which we may presume
was of the nature stated in her letter to Mr T.B. Harbottle which the Master
K.H. copied out for H.P.B. to see. In the issue of Lucifer of 15 October
1888, a slip was inserted with the following words:


H.P. Blavatsky begs leave to announce that owing to the continued severe
illness of her Co-Editor, Mabel Collins, she (H.P.B.) accepts, until further
notice, the sole editorial responsibility for the magazine.

Until the death in 1944 of Mr Bertram Keightley, the uncle of Dr Archibald
Keightley referred to in both the letters, I had refrained from publishing
this letter, though it has been with the other letters from the beginning.


Letter 59, p. 123

This letter is perhaps the most remarkable of all the letters received
bearing the signature ‘K.H.’, as it was received nine years after the death
of Madame Blavatsky in 1891. The charge that she herself forged all the
voluminous letters of the Masters falls utterly to the ground. I have given
a photographic reproduction of the letter in The Theosophist of May 1937,
and a comparison with the dozens of letters in the K.H. script will show
that it is in the K.H. handwriting. The story of the letter is as follows.
On 22 August 1900, a Mr B. W. Mantri wrote a letter to Dr Annie Besant as

Bombay 22nd August

Dear Madam

	I have long wished to see you but somehow I have been so confused by
many things I heard from several members of the Theosophical Society that I
really do not understand what are really the tenets and beliefs of the
Society. What form of Yoga do you recommend? I have long been interested in
Yoga studies and I send you the ‘Panch Ratna Gita’ by Anandebai who is much
advanced in this science. I wish you could see her. I am going to Kholapoor
but hope to come back soon and pay my respects to you when you come back to
Yours respectfully
B.W. Mantri


He did not put the year on the letter, [On 22 August 1900] but we get that
from the postmark on the envelope. The letter was addressed to Dr Annie
Besant at 28 Albemarle Street, London, then the headquarters of the
Theosophical Society in England. 

When Dr Besant opened Mr Mantri’s letter, she found in blue handwriting the
comment of the Master. The supposition that the K.H. script is a forgery
implies that the forgery was done by somebody familiar with the K.H. script
after Mr Mantri posted it in Bombay and before it was delivered in London. 

It should here be remembered that before I [Jinarajadasa]  reproduced the
1925, and one letter of the Master was reproduced in Barker’s The Mahatma
Letters to A.P. Sinnett in 1923, the only other reproductions were (so far
as I am aware) in the rare volume of the Society for Psychical Research
which investigated the charges of forgery against H.P.B.
The parts in the letter which I have omitted refer to the occult life of Dr
Besant which only the Master could have known.


Letter 60, p. 125

This also, as Letter 40, is not in the handwriting of any of the Masters. It
is in the handwriting of H.P.B., written in thin notepaper in pencil. It is
evident that it is a memorandum of the remarks of the Master K.H. regarding
the situation of the T.S. in 1888. Mr A.J. Cooper-Oakley and Mrs Isabel
Cooper-Oakley came out to India in 1884 with H.P.B. and C.W. Leadbeater. 

He was appointed in 1885 one of the four Recording Secretaries of the
Society and continued to act in that capacity until 1887. He left Adyar to
become the Registrar of the University of Madras (he was an M.A. of

Sometimes later he was found dead in bed one morning, the coroner’s inquest
giving as the cause an overdose of a sleeping mixture. C.W. Leadbeater told
me that he had never met a man whose aura was so terribly ‘grey’ as that of
Mr Cooper-Oakley, for he seemed to be utterly steeped in depression night
and day.

Mrs Isabel Cooper-Oakley returned to England in 1885 as she found that her
health suffered in the climate of India. She worked for the Society, in
spite of handicaps to health, with unswerving devotion in England,
Australia, Italy and Hungary, where she passed away.

The remarks of Master K.H. may have been one reason why H.P.B. insisted on
forming the E.S.T., or in case Colonel Olcott refused, on making a separate
division for Europe of the parent Theosophical Society under her direction.

‘Yakoob invited him’: Yakoob was one of the pupils of the Master, and an
attempt was made to train Colonel Olcott as a worker on the astral plane
during sleep. Certain tests—of earth, water, air and fire—are given to the
candidate. Presumably Yakoob invited H.S.O. to float in his astral over the
sea, an action which can be done in a moment, provided the candidate
recollects that he is in his astral body and not his physical, and that
therefore he cannot fall. H.S.O. however failed in the test, and could not
be ‘waked up’ then or after to the astral plane so as to become an invisible

	Letter 58A and 58B, pp. 120 and 122

H.P.B. received only some three or four letters because her consciousness
was so linked to the minds of both the Masters M. and K.H. that she heard
their voices with occult hearing at once, and there was no need for written
communications. I therefore presume that in this instance the master K.H.
had to write a letter, as he desired to place before her a copy of the
letter written by Mabel Collins to Mr Harbottle.

When, in September 1887, H.P.B. started her magazine, Lucifer she associated
with her as assistant editor ‘M.C.’, transcriber of Light on the Path. M.C.
was Mabel Collins, her married name being Mrs Keningale Cook. She was an
authoress and I presume had experience of magazine work. Until the issue of
October 1888, both the names of H.P.B. and Mabel Collins appeared on the
cover of Lucifer. Then there was a break, one cause of which we may presume
was of the nature stated in her letter to Mr T.B. Harbottle which the Master
K.H. copied out for H.P.B. to see. In the issue of Lucifer of 15 October
1888, a slip was inserted with the following words:



-----Original Message-----
From: Jerome Wheeler [] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: "Before the eyes can see, they must be Incapable of tears
Gary I do not know who wrote the article on KARMA, but it is certainly
excellent and I have used it many times in talks an discussions
I think a great adept wrote it   ----the one  who wrote the Turkish Effendi
sorryto be of so little help.  I will send a cc to Dallas as He might
knowwho wrote it.
best wishes,
p.s. I notice Dallas is already getting a cc  ----- so he might be of help
to you on this
pon, 28 Aug 2006 14:44:34 -0500 "Gary Barnhart" <> writes:
Aug. 28, 2006
Dear Friends of the heart,
I will be posting more sentences from The Voice of Silence and from Light On
the Path.  I will BCC to you copies so that you will know these have been
posted.  I will obviously appreciate any and all comments from you about
these sentences and paragraphs.

Who wrote the last part of Light on The Path titled Karma [p85-90] ?
Gratefully and fraternally yours,
Gary B.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: W.Dallas TenBroeck 
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 3:21 PM
Subject: [bn-study] Re: "Before the eyes can see, they must be Incapable of

8/25/2006 5:21 PM

Re:  "Before the eyes can see, they must be Incapable of



Let me respond in SQUARE BRACKETS [BELOW]

 You quote:  LIGHT ON THE PATH  p. 1

"Before the eyes [impersonal, universal vision acquired trough the
deliberate, constant and consistent practice of TRUTH and VIRTUE in
everything we think, feel, say or do] can see, they must be Incapable of
[sentimental, psychic] tears. 

"Before the ear [Psychic ear of the Kama-Manasic astral man] can hear, it
must have lost its sensitiveness [to the lower conditions of physical /
psychic living] . "

"Before the voice [The higher aspect of Kama-Manas has to purify itself of
selfishness and develop an automatic interest and purpose in the universal
action of KARMA and JIVA which surround it in living] can speak in the
presence of the Masters [it must be able to ask something of true value --
just "seeing" the MASTERS  [ the core: ATMA-BUDDHI within US, to begin with
] - as a matter of curiosity, carries little strength of purpose or
dedication to the SERVICE of others - [ our brother MONADS] it must have
lost the power to wound either them or us.  We may not take advantage of
anyone or any circumstance. "

"Before the soul [Kama-Manas] can stand in the presence of the Masters
[BUDDHI-MANAS and ATMA-BUDHI] its feet [the monads / skandha of the astral
and physical nature of man] must be washed in the blood of the heart [the
vibrating activating path of CHOICES made from moment to moment, by us,
acting as Kama-Manas]."     [Light On The Path, p. 1]

It occurs to me that the distinction between the Spiritual and Psychic
planes from the physical is being illustrated here.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application