Damodar K. Mavalankar – A Great Riddle Solved

[From The Theosophist, April, 1884.]

Referring to the article of D. K. M. in the last issue of the Theosophist, headed “A great riddle solved,” in which he says the misconception regarding his Master’s appearance “was due to the reports of a certain Brahmachari, the pupil of the Vedanti Swami in the N. W. P. who had met last year in Thibet the chief of a sect, an elderly Lama,” who was his Master’s travelling companion at the time “the said Brahmachari having spoken of the encounter, in India, had led several persons to mistake the Lama for himself.” Now I know of a case in which a certain gentleman of this station saw clairvoyantly the appearance of D. K. M.’s Guru long before the Brahmachari came here and spoke of his encounter with the Kuthumba Lama as he called him. The gentleman in question saw his (D. K. M.’s) Master’s portrait mentioned in the last edition of the Occult World, and was at first puzzled with the difference of appearance he saw in the portrait and that he perceived clairvoyantly. But he remembered the Master’s modest remarks that the figure in the portrait was very much flattered. The Brahmachari only came some months after the incident, and although he narrated to the gentleman his interview with the alleged K. H., the gentleman thought that there must have been some mistake as the Master could not have been likely to read the Vedas in the manner he was represented as doing.

Another incident happened here about a month ago. A certain initiated Grihasta Brahman who had no connection with our Society — but who had nevertheless heard of the Master from his Theosophist friends, resolved one day to see K. H. in his (the latter’s) suksma sariram. He sat in his room with his door closed, but was disturbed by the noise outside. In the night, or rather in the early part of the morning, he fancied that some one touched his right shoulder lightly, and the appearance of the figure that he described tallied, as far as I could judge, with that which I had heard attributed to D. K. M.’s Master. But as soon as he was conscious of his presence, he was again disturbed by some other noise. He says he was fast asleep, but the touch of the figure roused him. He had not even heard of the portrait with Mr. Sinnett, nor had any acquaintance with the other people who fancied that they had seen the Master.

There are many other instances which came to my knowledge in which D. K. M.’s Master favoured many individuals. But despite his belief and that of the large numbers of the Theosophists that I know of, I confess I am at a loss to reason with those who think that the real K. H. is an “elderly” man. These persons do not pretend to say who D. K. M.’s Master is. They say that he may be like the portrait of which I have heard Colonel Gordon, Mr. Sinnett and others speak, but if so, they question whether he is the K. H. well known in Thibet. — K.

Simla. 31st Jan. 1884.

———

Note. — We know of only one MAHATMA bearing the name of my venerated GURU DEVA who holds a well-known public office in Thibet, under the TESHU LAMA. For aught we know there may be another bearing the same name; but at any rate he is not known to us, nor have any of those, we are acquainted with in Thibet, heard of him. And this personage, my BELOVED MASTER, is, as I have described Him, resembling the portrait in Mr. Sinnett’s possession, and and does not look old. Perhaps the clairvoyants are confounding the sect of Khadampas with the Kauthumpas? The former, although not regular Dougpas, are great magicians and indulge in practices an Adept of the good Law would feel disgusted with — such as the well known phenomenon of ripping open the abdomen, exposing the intestines, and then restoring them to their normal place and condition, &c. &c. The latter, the Kauthumpas, are the disciples of my MASTER.

My friend and brother of Simla should not lose sight of the fact that while others claim to have seen my Master clairvoyantly, I say that I saw Him in the North personally, in his living, not his astral body. Col. Olcott and Mr. Brown were also as fortunate as myself in that respect. It is now for the impartial reader to judge whether the testimony of three unimpeachable eye witnesses is more reliable or not than that of one or two clairvoyants (untrained we may add) in matters connected with the physical appearance of an individual. Imagination and expectancy are, with various other things, apt to mislead beginners in the Science of Clairvoyance. — D. K. M.