Part 1: Quotations from The Mahatmas Letters to A.P. Sinnett
Part 11: Quotations from The Letters of H.P.Blavatsky to A.P.Sinnett
[The extensive correspondence between the Mahatmans and the two Englishmen, A. P. Sinnett and A. O. Hume, as well as the many letters written to the latter by H. P. Blavatsky in the early days of the Theosophical Society, contain many references to a large number of those most closely connected with the work of the Society, outstanding among whom was Damodar.
This Chapter is devoted to relevant passages from these Letters. A large number of short references have been omitted, which simply mention Damodar as transmitting messages and letters from the Mahatmans and H. P. Blavatsky by occult means and otherwise; and one or two other unimportant references which are not comprehensible without long explanations.
Signatures are herein given as they appear at the end of the Letters quoted from. Chronological arrangement has been followed according to the latest information published by Mrs. Margaret Conger and Miss Mary K. Neff. — EDS]
[Received at Bombay. Feb. 20, 1881.]
I wrote a few words in the Maratha boy’s letter, only to show you that he was obeying orders in submitting his views to you. Apart from his exaggerated idea about huge fees, his letter is in a way worth considering. For Damodar is a Hindu — and knows the mind of his people at Bombay; though the Bombay Hindus are about as unspiritual a group as can be found in all India. But, like the devoted enthusiastic lad he is, he jumped after the misty form of his own ideas even before I could give them the right direction. . . . — K. H.
[Sent from Debra Dun. Nov. 4, 1881.
Received at Allahabad. Nov. (?) 1881.]
. . . Adetyarom B. wrote a foolish letter to Damodar and Benemadhab writes a foolish request to Mr. Sinnett.
I will be pleased if Mr. Sinnett says, to everyone of those who may address him with similar pretensions the following: “The ‘Brothers’ desire me to inform one and all of you, natives, that unless a man is prepared to become a thorough theosophist i. e. to do as D. Mavalankar did, — give up entirely caste, his old superstitions and show himself a true reformer (especially in the case of child marriage) he will remain simply a member of the Society with no hope whatever of ever hearing from us. . . .”
— H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Received at Allahabad. 1882.]
. . . As you have already been notified by Damodar thro’ the D—-, I did not call you a chela — examine your letter to assure yourself of it — I but jokingly asked O. the question whether he recognised in you the stuff of which chelas are made. — M.
[Received at Allahabad. March 3, 1882.]
. . . Bhavani Shanker is with O., and he is stronger and fitter in many a way more than Damodar or even our mutual “female” friend. . . . — K. H.
[Received at Allahabad. March 11, 1882.]
. . . My good friend — it is very easy for us to give phenomenal proofs when we have necessary conditions. For instance — Olcott’s magnetism after six years of purification is intensely sympathetic with ours — physically and morally is constantly becoming more so. Damodar and Bhavani Rao being congenitally sympathetic their auras help — instead of repelling and impeding
[Received at Allahabad. June 30, 1882.]
. . . Yes, I am quite ready to look over your 50 or 60 pages and make notes on the margins: have them set up by all means and send them to me either through little “Deb” or Damodar and Djual Kul will transmit them. . . . — K. H.
[Received at Simla. July, 1882.]
. . . Olcott is on his way to Lanka and Damodar packed up to Poona for a month, his foolish austerities and hard work having broken down his physical constitution. I will have to look after him, and perhaps, to take him away, if it comes to the worst. . . . — K. H.
[Received at Simla. Aug., 1882.]
. . . None of our Upasika or Yu-posah, neither H. P. B. nor O., nor even Damodar, nor any of them can be incriminated. . . . — K. H.
[Received at Simla. (Aug. or Sept) 1882.]
. . . Since we have mixed ourselves with the outside world, we have no right to suppress the personal opinion of its individual members, nor eschew their criticisms, however unfavourable to us — hence the positive order to H. P. B. to publish Mr. Hume’s article. Only, as we would have the world see both sides of the question, we have also allowed the joint protest [see Ch. IV, ‘A Protest.’ — EDS.] of Deb, Subba Row, Damodar and a few other chelas — to follow his criticism of ourselves and our System in the Theosophist. . . . — K. H.
[Received at London. (Sept. or Oct.) 1883.]
I am advised to request that, for the future, communications intended for me may be sent thro’ either Damodar or Henry Olcott, Madam B’s discretion is not improving in ratio with her physiological enfeeblement. — K. H.
To Station Adyar Madras From Station Jammoo
To Person Madame Blavatsky From Person Colonel Olcott
Editor of the Theosophist.
Damodar left before dawn at about eight o’clock letters from him and Koothumi found on my table -Don’t say whether return or not — Damodar bids us all farewell conditionally and says brother theosophists should all feel encouraged knowing that he has found the blessed masters and been called by them. The dear boys recent developments astonishing Hooney bids me await orders.
Madras 25-11-83. Hour 17.30.
Class P. INDIAN TELEGRAPH.
To Station Adyar Madras From Station Jummar
To Person Madame Blavatsky From Person Col. Olcott
The Masters have taken Damodar return not promised
We will send him back. K. H. Adyar
25-11-83. Hour 10.15.
[Received at Elberfeld. (Sept. or Oct.) 1884.]
. . . It would be well also to burn wood-fires in the rooms now and then, and carry about as fumigators open vessels (braziers?) with burning wood. You might also ask Damodar to send you some bundles of incense-sticks for you to use for this purpose. These are helps, but the best of all means to drive out unwelcome guests of this sort, is to live purely in deed and thought. . . .
I can now send my occasional instructions and letters with any certainty only thro’ Damodar. But before I can do even so much the Soc. especially the H. Qrs. will have to pass first thro’ the coming crisis K. H.
[Received at London. Oct., 1884.]
[Sent from Adyar. March 17, 1885,]
. . . Happy Damodar! He went to the land of Bliss, to Tibet and must now be far away in the regions of our Masters. No one will ever see him now, I expect. . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Received at Allahabad. Nov., 1881.]
. . . The Disinherited wants to write to you he says — if you permit him — through Damodar. The Boss said something about going to see Damodar. But D—- does not say a word. . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Bombay. Dec. 7, 1881. Received at Allahabad. Dec., 1881.]
[Received at Simla. June 4, 1882.]
. . . As for O’Conor’s letter it is such a stupid transparent thing for me that it is not worth talking about. I did receive his letter one hour later than E.’s for Mrs. Gordon; and with it orders to do about it as I liked, to either answer it or not but to hold my tongue as to the fact of my having received it until further developments. I left it with Damodar and Deb on March 30th with instructions. And to prove it to you — (about others I do not care) let me, my dear Boss, set your heart at ease. I happened to write to you about this O’Conor’s letter on Friday — (at Madras) the Disinherited having advised me to do so. I sent my letter Friday. On Saturday, at 1.35 p.m. I received your telegram with your enquiry about O’Conor’s letter. I answered as I was ordered and wrote to you that I should telegraph to Damodar in whose possession I left my answer to O’Conor to send it to you immediately. I sent the telegram on Saturday evening, but whether sent or not that night, it reached Damodar but Sunday when it was too late to send you a registered letter as he always does. Well, he sent it on Monday and you must have received it. Do not send it to O’Conor. I will have nothing to do with Mrs. Scott’s friends now. I will have no more tests, no more insults, no more humiliation and explanation. Tear it after showing it to Mr. Hume. You are at liberty to show him also this letter. If your friends and sceptics will insist that, after receiving your telegram of enquiry I had time between Saturday and Monday to send to my “confederate” Damodar instructions, well show them the telegram he received from me on Sunday. This will prove, at least, that he had O’Conor’s answer in his possession ever since March. — H. P. BLAVATSKY
To Malabar Hill From Madras St. Thome
To Damodar K. Mavalankar From H. P. Blavatsky
c/o Theosophical Society,
Letter to Oconor
given you March
thirty send Sinnett.
By Malabar Hill: 4-6-82.
[Sent from Bombay. Aug. 4, 1882.]
. . . Poor Damodar is still at Poona, but is all right now in health. The brothers picked him up and even endowed him with such a mesmeric force that he cured several desperate cases (one blindness in a boy) in a few days. Whether it will last or not I do not know. But the Poona Fellows craved for something phenomenal and he gave it to them. . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Bombay. Aug. 26, 1882.1
. . . Damodar will write to Fern to decline receiving his letters to M. henceforth. He will not run the risk of being called a forger, and impostor and what not. Damodar a deceiver!! I may as well suspect Olcott or yourself of forgery or deceit as him. I won’t have him insulted and that’s all. . . . — H. P. B.
[Sent from ‘Ooty.’ Aug. 23, 1883. Rec’d. at London. Oct. 1883.]
. . . Then about “Uncle Sam’s” complaint — what the devil do I know about office doings? What have I to do with the business management of Damodar which is Olcott’s business. He sent to Ward this printed notice as he did to thousands, and as Olcott is an American business man, so is Ward, and it is not for a Yankee to kick at sharp business as they call it. I was furiously ashamed when I received your letter and Ward’s telegram. But I felt I was a fool; for Olcott, whom I blew up and skinned for it (he has just arrived here to form an Anglo-Indian Branch) says they send such printed compliments to everyone and Damodar did not know at that time that I had or rather was going to receive these 20 rupees Mr. Ward sent, enclosed in a private and even non-registered to me. Of course he ought to make a difference, but he does not because he is a boy and was not brought up for office business, and shall S. Ward think bad or any worse of me for it? Did I not send him the whole last year the Theosophist, and forbade Damodar to even ask the money for it. . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Adyar. Sept. 27, 1883. Rec’d. at London. Nov., 1883.]
I would be happy to find one member in your L. L. [London Lodge. — EDS.] doing unremunerated one fourth of the work done by Damodar or Balloi Babu. . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Madras. Nov. 17, 1883. Received at London. Dec., 1883.]
. . . Most extraordinary phenomena took place among the travellers — Olcott, Brown, Damodar and two Madrassee secretaries. Damodar has so developed that he can get out of his body at will. They sent him on the 10th to me, giving him a message and asking him to tell me to telegraph to them the message back as a sure sign he was indeed in his astral body. At the same hour Coulomb heard his voice in my room and I saw and heard him, and telegraphed what he had asked me immediately. You will find it in the Supplement. Then Brown puts letters and questions under Damodar’s pillow and receives answers a few minutes later, in K. H.’s handwriting and his usual paper and from my Boss too. Now they will say that it is Damodar the third humourist an “Oriental” one this once. Olcott saw K. H. at last and so will Brown at Jammu — D. K. says. . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Adyar. Nov. 24 (26?), 1883. Received at London. Dec., 1883.]
. . . Well there’s news again. Day before yesterday I received telegram from Jummar from Olcott “Damodar taken away by the Masters.” Disappeared!! I thought and feared as much though it is strange for it is hardly four years he is chela. I send you both telegrams from Olcott and Mr. Brown’s second one. Why should Brown be so favoured — is what I cannot understand. He may be a good man, but what the devil has he done [of] so holy and good! That’s all I know about him that it seems to be K. H.’s second visit personally to him. He is expected here or in the neighbourhood by two chelas who have come from Mysore to meet Him. He is going somewhere to the Buddhists of the Southern Church. Shall we see him? I do not know. But there’s a commotion here among the chelas. Well strange things are taking place. Earthquakes, and blue and green sun; Damodar spirited away and Mahatma coming. And now what shall we do in the office without Damodar! . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Madras. Jan. 25, 1884. Received at London. Feb., 1884.]
. . . Ragonath Row and Subba Row are to take charge of the Theosophist and Damodar and a new chela who will be sent here in my absence. . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Torre del Greco. June 21, 1885.]
. . . The only friend I have in life and death is poor little exiled Bowajee D. Nath in Europe; and poor dear Damodar — in Tibet. . . . — H. P. B.
[Sent from Wurzburg. Aug. 19, 1885.]
. . . Alexis Coulomb’s handwriting is naturally like mine. We know all how Damodar was once deceived by an order written in my handwriting to go upstairs and seek for me in my bedroom in Bombay when I was at Allahabad. It was a trick of M. Coulomb, who thought it good fun to deceive him, “a chela” — and had prepared a semblance of myself lying on my bed, and having startled Damodar — laughed at him for three days. . . . And if he could imitate so well my handwriting in a note why could he not copy (he had four years to study and do it) every scrap and note of mine to Mme. Coulomb on identical paper and make any interpolations he liked? . . . I have seen Coulomb copying one of such scraps of mine, at his table, in a scene shown to me by Master in the Astral light. — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Wurzburg. Oct., 1885.]
. . . Well you say you got that “impression” while reading some matter among the Secret Doctrine (in Dharbagiri’s writing). I looked over carefully page by page and found nothing in D. N.’s writing, but in Damodar’s which you probably mistook. It is about what the Earth (and other planets) does during “obscuration”? Is it this? For if so, then I can tell you that Damodar wrote it under dictation — but you have not understood the meaning quite correctly. . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Wurzburg. Oct. 9, 1885.]
. . . He [D. N.] had heard from some one in Paris whom he won’t name but whom I suspect, that Mr. Sinnett had said while in Paris that all the Hindus at Hd. Qtr. were liars; and that made him desperate, for he then thought that every word he said to Mr. Sinnett would be regarded as a lie. Now I feel sure Mr. Sinnett said nothing of the kind and if he has, he did not mean to include in that category our friend D. N. . . . his return to his Master depends upon the restoration of the T. S.’s previous status: unless the Society begins again to run smoothly, at least in appearance, he has to remain exiled — as he says — for it appears that his Master — Mahatma K. H. holds him, Damodar, and Subba Row responsible for the two thirds of Mr. Hodgson’s “mayas” — he says. It is they, who, irritated and insulted at his appearance at Adyar, regarding his (Hodgson’s) cross-examination and talk about the Masters — degrading to themselves and blasphemous with regard to Masters; instead of being frank with H. and telling him openly that there were many things they could not tell him — went on to work to augment his perplexity, allowed him to suggest things without contradicting them, and threw him out of the saddle altogether. You see, Hodgson counted without his host: he had no idea of the character of the true Hindu — especially of a chela — of his ferocious veneration for things sacred, of his reserve and exclusiveness in religious matters; and they (our Hindus) whom even I had never heard pronounce or mention one of the Masters by name — were goaded into fury in hearing Hodgson make so cheap of those names –speaking laughingly of “K. H.”, and “M.” — etc. with the Oakleys. And it is unfortunate me who now pays for all! . . . [see The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett, pp.157-8 for further description of the attitude of a Hindu chela when trying to defend his Teacher. — EDS.] — H. P. BLAVATSKY
[Sent from Wurzburg. 1885 (?1886)
I have a number of diagrams with reference to the evolution of the septenary globes and Cosmogony of Esoteric Buddhism, made by Djual Khool and Sarma for me to explain to you, and Hume during the first year of the Simla teaching; and several of them I had copied by a Parsee, a good draughtsman of the School of Arts at Bombay, who could not do them well — and then, I copied them from D. Kh.’s with Tibetan signs and names, translating them and doing it the best I could — since I did not want to give the originals out to a stranger and you could not have understood them — and gave them to Olcott to be copied and one of them — the one I sent to Hume I believe — was copied by Coulomb who is a very good draughtsman — too good unfortunately [cf. Letter XLVI, page 304 of this volume. — EDS.] I remember how well he copied the few lines in English, a remark by D. K. on the cosmogony — in a way that I was astonished: it was a perfect copy of D. K.’s writing, grammatical mistakes, and all. Neither Olcott, nor I, nor Damodar, ever made a secret of such copies. . . . [This letter was unsigned, but it is in H. P. B.’s handwriting. — EDS.]
[Sent from Wurzburg. Jan., 1886.]
. . . You have perhaps heard, that Hurrissingjee (Thakur of Baunagar’s cousin) took it into his head to build a shrine for the portraits of the two Masters and meant to spend over it 10,000 rupees. He several times asked Master; He would not answer. Then he asked Olcott, who bothered Mah. K. H. through Damodar, as I had refused point blank to put such questions to Masters. Then the Mahatma answered “Let him talk with the chelas about it I do not care” or something to that effect. Well Damodar and Chundra Coosho I think and others went to work to make a plan of the shrine. Even the dirty Coulomb, was called in for his draughtsman’s capacities. We were in Europe then. But as soon as we were gone came the Coulomb row. When we returned, Hurrissingjee, to show that the exposure had no effect on him, wanted to sell a village and build the shrine quand meme. The day after my return Mahatma told me to write to Hurrissingjee that He expressly forbid spending such amount of money. That it was useless and foolish. So I wrote. Then came the anniversary and Hurrissingjee sent a delegate for himself as he was sick. When the superlatively idiotic idea of a Temple of Humanity or Universal Brotherhood came into Olcott’s pumpkin, the delegate, when the others were subscribing, was asked by Olcott and he said (in full convention in the Pandala before hundreds of people) “I believe His Highness wants to subscribe Rs. 1,000”– I said to Olcott “too much — it’s a shame” — but he pitched into me for my trouble and as I was then sitting there in the light of a prisoner in dock — I shut up. Well; Olcott came one day and said, “Do ask Master to permit me to have money (generally) subscribed for the Temple.” So I sent his temple and himself to a hot place and said I would not. Then he went to Damodar, and D.—- asked I think, for two or three days after I heard through Damodar that the prohibition to Hurrissingjee of spending money on such flapdoodles had been removed and that Hurrissingjee had a letter to that effect. . . . — H. P. B.
[Sent from Wurzburg. Feb. 16, 1886.]
I never said, what he charges me with, either to the Coulomb or Damodar. Both were told by a party wronged by Mohini of that affair, one that happened before Mohini had even heard of the Theos. Soc. But, as Coulomb will swear to anything against me, and that Damodar is not there to answer it — hence Mr. Bowaji’s safe charges against me, whom HE HATES — well in a way he did not conceal before the Countess. . . . — H. P. BLAVATSKY