Blavatsky H.P. - H.P.B. and Freethought - Revision history

Pavel Malakhov: tridots simbol (∴) restored

2025-06-30T09:58:05Z

tridots simbol (∴) restored

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:58, 30 June 2025
Line 34:		Line 34:
	{{Page aside\|124}}Personally, I have no sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh’s views, though he is too much abused and ill-treated not to have won my regards as an individual. I do not know him nor do I desire to make his personal acquaintance; but I cannot help believing on general principles that a person so much insulted, hated, abused and persecuted by “''cultured'' Mrs. Grundy” ''must be'' an excellent man. As for Col. Bob Ingersoll, than whom no more moral, pure man, no more honest citizen good husband and good father ever trod this earth—I know him personally and he has my profoundest respect, though he laughs at Theosophy, Spiritualism and every other belief.		{{Page aside\|124}}Personally, I have no sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh’s views, though he is too much abused and ill-treated not to have won my regards as an individual. I do not know him nor do I desire to make his personal acquaintance; but I cannot help believing on general principles that a person so much insulted, hated, abused and persecuted by “''cultured'' Mrs. Grundy” ''must be'' an excellent man. As for Col. Bob Ingersoll, than whom no more moral, pure man, no more honest citizen good husband and good father ever trod this earth—I know him personally and he has my profoundest respect, though he laughs at Theosophy, Spiritualism and every other belief.

	I have written the above not as an answer to the contents of your official letter, but as a reply to what I found therein ''between the lines''. No one has a greater respect respect<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment\|[Repeated twice in the original.—Compiler.]}}</ref> and admiration than I have for Mrs. Kingsford (chiefly as a reflection of the feelings of our ''Mahatmas'', who must know her better than any one on earth); nevertheless, unless I am directly ordered by my Guru ~~M...~~ to drop the advertisement objected to, I cannot go against my principles of fair dealing with every religion, even for the sake of doing that, which Mrs. Kingsford believes ''is due'' to the “London Lodge.” For indeed, were I to concede so much to your Society, the next thing I would have to do would be to drop every adverse criticism and discussion upon the ''Visishtadwaitee''. There’s the “South Indian Visishta Theos. Soc.” composed of about 150 members ''objecting'' to my publishing the criticism upon ''their'' Catechism by the “Vedanta-Adwaitee” Theos. Society—(See art. of that name in ''June Theosophist''); and the Almora Swami ''insisting'' upon my ceasing to lay sacrilegious hands upon his ''Iswara''; and the “Brahmo Theos. Society” wanting me to fill the magazine with sermons upon Monotheism etc. About 14 Visishtadwaitees have resigned in consequence of the discussion. Very sorry, but I cannot help it. Thus, as you see, my position is that of an elephant {{Page aside\|125}} trying to perform his ''Grand Trapèze'' on a cobweb thread. Nevertheless, I must try to maintain my perilous position and not to lose footing by the blessing and help of ''Yog''-power. Meanwhile, believe me, dear Sir,		I have written the above not as an answer to the contents of your official letter, but as a reply to what I found therein ''between the lines''. No one has a greater respect respect<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment\|[Repeated twice in the original.—Compiler.]}}</ref> and admiration than I have for Mrs. Kingsford (chiefly as a reflection of the feelings of our ''Mahatmas'', who must know her better than any one on earth); nevertheless, unless I am directly ordered by my Guru M∴ to drop the advertisement objected to, I cannot go against my principles of fair dealing with every religion, even for the sake of doing that, which Mrs. Kingsford believes ''is due'' to the “London Lodge.” For indeed, were I to concede so much to your Society, the next thing I would have to do would be to drop every adverse criticism and discussion upon the ''Visishtadwaitee''. There’s the “South Indian Visishta Theos. Soc.” composed of about 150 members ''objecting'' to my publishing the criticism upon ''their'' Catechism by the “Vedanta-Adwaitee” Theos. Society—(See art. of that name in ''June Theosophist''); and the Almora Swami ''insisting'' upon my ceasing to lay sacrilegious hands upon his ''Iswara''; and the “Brahmo Theos. Society” wanting me to fill the magazine with sermons upon Monotheism etc. About 14 Visishtadwaitees have resigned in consequence of the discussion. Very sorry, but I cannot help it. Thus, as you see, my position is that of an elephant {{Page aside\|125}} trying to perform his ''Grand Trapèze'' on a cobweb thread. Nevertheless, I must try to maintain my perilous position and not to lose footing by the blessing and help of ''Yog''-power. Meanwhile, believe me, dear Sir,

	Yours most fraternally,		Yours most fraternally,

Pavel Malakhov at 09:28, 30 June 2025

2025-06-30T09:28:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:28, 30 June 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\| next = Blavatsky H.P. - Our New Branches		\| next = Blavatsky H.P. - Our New Branches
	\| alternatives =		\| alternatives =
	\| translations =		\| translations = [[:t-ru-lib:Блаватская Е.П. - Е.П.Б. и свободомыслие\|Russian]]
	}}		}}

Pavel Malakhov: Pavel Malakhov moved page Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freethought to Blavatsky H.P. - H.P.B. and Freethought

2025-06-30T09:18:21Z

Pavel Malakhov moved page Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freethought to Blavatsky H.P. - H.P.B. and Freethought

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:18, 30 June 2025
(No difference)

Pavel Malakhov: +italic

2025-06-30T09:11:30Z

+italic

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:11, 30 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{HPB-CW-header		{{HPB-CW-header
	\| item title = H. P. B. and Freethought		\| item title = H.P.B. and Freethought
	\| item author = Blavatsky H.P.		\| item author = Blavatsky H.P.
	\| volume = 5		\| volume = 5
Line 14:		Line 14:
	{{Page aside\|122}}		{{Page aside\|122}}

	{{Style P-Title\|H. P. B. AND FREETHOUGHT}}		{{Style P-Title\|H.P.B. AND FREETHOUGHT}}
	{{Vertical space\|}}		{{Vertical space\|}}

	~~EDITOR’S OFFICE OF~~ The Theosophist,		{{Style S-Small capitals\|Editor's Office of}} ''The Theosophist'',

	Private but ~~NOT~~ Confidential.		''Private'' but {{Style S-Small capitals\|not}} Confidential.

	(Madras)		{{Style P-Align right\|(Madras)}}
			{{Style P-Align right\|Ootacamund, August 16, 1883.}}
			{{Style P-Align right\|To the Secretary of the “London Lodge Theos. Society.”}}

	~~Ootacamund, August 16, 1883.~~



	~~To the Secretary of the “London Lodge Theosophical Society.”~~

	My Dear Sir,		My Dear Sir,

	When your letter reached me with the official (?) resolution of the local Council, concerning the inadvisability of advertising T. Paine’s and Bradlaugh’s Free-thinking literature, the article in the August Supplement “A Final Answer was already in print, in answer to certain letters received from a Manchester and a Scotch Theosophists. Therefore, I must beg of you to impress upon the minds of the esteemed Theosophists of the “London Lodge” that the said answer is not meant as a Reply to your letter. The latter was sent to the President, Col. Olcott, who being on his Southern tour had no time to answer it or give me any instructions to that effect. However he has called a Meeting of the Council to discuss this business. Only I fear that the objection—that such advertisements ought to receive the consent of the majority of the General Council before being published (or words to this effect) is groundless. The majority of our Council is composed of heathens of the first water. Most of them are furious to feel unable to send their children either to Missionary or secular schools without having their young minds poisoned (their expression not mine) by their hereditary enemy the padri against their respective non-Christian religions. It is they (i.e., the majority of the Council) who have repeatedly insisted on having such books distributed. Our Ceylon Buddhist members with 300 priests leading them, have spent a large sum to secure such anti-Christian tracts, as {{Page aside\|123}} the only antidote against the abuse lavished upon their forefathers’ faith. For, whoever lives in this country (as Mr. Sinnett will tell you) becomes very soon impressed with the sad fact that conversion in India means absolute perversion. Instead of bettering morality Christianity but adds to the natural human vices, owing to the doctrine of atonement and salvation by prayer, instead of that of self-reliance and Karma.		When your letter reached me with the official (?) resolution of the local Council, concerning the inadvisability of advertising T. Paine’s and Bradlaugh’s Free-thinking literature, the article in the August ''Supplement'' “A Final Answer was already in print, in answer to certain letters received from a Manchester and a Scotch Theosophists. Therefore, I must beg of you to impress upon the minds of the esteemed Theosophists of the “London Lodge” that the said answer is not meant as a Reply to your letter. The latter was sent to the President, Col. Olcott, who being on his Southern tour had no time to answer it or give me any instructions to that effect. However he has called a Meeting of the Council to discuss this business. Only I fear that the objection—that such advertisements ought to receive the consent of the majority of the General Council before being published (or words to this effect) is groundless. The majority of our Council is composed of ''heathens'' of the first water. Most of them are furious to feel unable to send their children either to Missionary or secular schools without having their young minds ''poisoned'' (their expression not mine) by their hereditary enemy the ''padri'' against their respective non-Christian religions. It is they (''i.e.'', the ''majority of the Council'') who have repeatedly insisted on having such books distributed. Our Ceylon Buddhist members with 300 priests leading them, have spent a large sum to secure such anti-Christian tracts, as {{Page aside\|123}} the only antidote against the abuse lavished upon their forefathers’ faith. For, whoever lives in this country (as Mr. Sinnett will tell you) becomes very soon impressed with the sad fact that ''conversion'' in India means absolute ''perversion''. Instead of bettering morality Christianity but adds to the natural human vices, owing to the doctrine of atonement and salvation by prayer, instead of that of self-reliance and ''Karma''.

	I would feel very much obliged to some of the British Theosophists who have protested, were they to send us for publication anti-buddhistic tracts. I would publish them immediately and without fear of hurting the feelings of my co-religionists. They are too intelligent, on the one hand, to take to heart the autopsy of the exoteric shell of their religion; while, on the other, centuries of daily abuse directed against Buddhism have made them indifferent. The same may be said of Hindus. What they (at least our members) want is the free discussion of every religion in its outer as in its inward form. Why then should ecclesiastical Christianity be excepted? Though the Reply in the August Supplement was not meant for the British Theosophists yet their “remonstrance” may find a fit answer in it. I, as an Editor, will never permit Christ to be attacked personally, no more than Buddha. But I must insist upon being allowed to remain entirely impartial in the dissection as in the praise of all and every religion the world over, without pandering to people’s personal emotional prejudices. This will never do in a Universal Brotherhood. I am very much surprised that Mr. Sinnett should have seconded the resolution, knowing as he does, my feelings on the subject; and that he was the first to approve of my “not minding” Mr. Hume’s objections in this direction. Nor is it quite clear to me, whether the “remonstrance” sent by the Branch Society is meant for the Editor of the Theosophist alone, or for the Parent Society in general, since the former humble individual acts under the authority of the Council, or at any rate in sympathy with the feelings often expressed by its majority.		I would feel very much obliged to some of the British Theosophists who have protested, were they to send us for publication ''anti-buddhistic'' tracts. I would publish them immediately and without fear of hurting the feelings of my co-religionists. They are too intelligent, on the one hand, to take to heart the autopsy of the ''exoteric shell'' of their religion; while, on the other, centuries of daily abuse directed against Buddhism have made them indifferent. The same may be said of Hindus. What they (at least our members) want is the free discussion of every religion in its outer as in its inward form. Why then should ''ecclesiastical'' Christianity be excepted? Though the Reply in the August ''Supplement'' was not meant for the British Theosophists yet their “remonstrance” may find a fit answer in it. I, as an Editor, will never permit Christ to be attacked personally, no more than Buddha. But I must insist upon being allowed to remain entirely impartial in the ''dissection'' as in the praise of all and every religion the world over, without pandering to people’s personal emotional prejudices. This will never do in a ''Universal'' Brotherhood. I am very much surprised that Mr. Sinnett should have ''seconded'' the resolution, knowing as he does, my feelings on the subject; and that he was the first to approve of my “not minding” Mr. Hume’s objections in this direction. Nor is it quite clear to me, whether the “remonstrance” sent by the Branch Society is meant for the Editor of the ''Theosophist'' alone, or for the ''Parent'' Society in general, since the former humble individual acts under the authority of the Council, or at any rate in sympathy with the feelings often expressed by its majority.

	{{Page aside\|124}}Personally, I have no sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh’s views, though he is too much abused and ill-treated not to have won my regards as an individual. I do not know him nor do I desire to make his personal acquaintance; but I cannot help believing on general principles that a person so much insulted, hated, abused and persecuted by ~~“cultured~~ Mrs. Grundy” must be an excellent man. As for Col. Bob Ingersoll, than whom no more moral, pure man, no more honest citizen good husband and good father ever trod this earth—I know him personally and he has my profoundest respect, though he laughs at Theosophy, Spiritualism and every other belief.		{{Page aside\|124}}Personally, I have no sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh’s views, though he is too much abused and ill-treated not to have won my regards as an individual. I do not know him nor do I desire to make his personal acquaintance; but I cannot help believing on general principles that a person so much insulted, hated, abused and persecuted by “''cultured'' Mrs. Grundy” ''must be'' an excellent man. As for Col. Bob Ingersoll, than whom no more moral, pure man, no more honest citizen good husband and good father ever trod this earth—I know him personally and he has my profoundest respect, though he laughs at Theosophy, Spiritualism and every other belief.

	I have written the above not as an answer to the contents of your official letter, but as a reply to what I found therein between the lines. No one has a greater respect respect<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment\|[Repeated twice in the original.—Compiler.]}}</ref> and admiration than I have for Mrs. Kingsford (chiefly as a reflection of the feelings of our Mahatmas, who must know her better than any one on earth); nevertheless, unless I am directly ordered by my Guru M... to drop the advertisement objected to, I cannot go against my principles of fair dealing with every religion, even for the sake of doing that, which Mrs. Kingsford believes is due to the “London Lodge.” For indeed, were I to concede so much to your Society, the next thing I would have to do would be to drop every adverse criticism and discussion upon the Visishtadwaitee. There’s the “South Indian Visishta Theos. Soc.” composed of about 150 members objecting to my publishing the criticism upon their Catechism by the “Vedanta-Adwaitee” Theos. Society—(See art. of that name in June Theosophist); and the Almora Swami insisting upon my ceasing to lay sacrilegious hands upon his Iswara; and the “Brahmo Theos. Society” wanting me to fill the magazine with sermons upon Monotheism etc. About 14 Visishtadwaitees have resigned in consequence of the discussion. Very sorry, but I cannot help it. Thus, as you see, my position is that of an elephant {{Page aside\|125}} trying to perform his Grand Trapèze on a cobweb thread. Nevertheless, I must try to maintain my perilous position and not to lose footing by the blessing and help of Yog-power. Meanwhile, believe me, dear Sir,		I have written the above not as an answer to the contents of your official letter, but as a reply to what I found therein ''between the lines''. No one has a greater respect respect<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment\|[Repeated twice in the original.—Compiler.]}}</ref> and admiration than I have for Mrs. Kingsford (chiefly as a reflection of the feelings of our ''Mahatmas'', who must know her better than any one on earth); nevertheless, unless I am directly ordered by my Guru M... to drop the advertisement objected to, I cannot go against my principles of fair dealing with every religion, even for the sake of doing that, which Mrs. Kingsford believes ''is due'' to the “London Lodge.” For indeed, were I to concede so much to your Society, the next thing I would have to do would be to drop every adverse criticism and discussion upon the ''Visishtadwaitee''. There’s the “South Indian Visishta Theos. Soc.” composed of about 150 members ''objecting'' to my publishing the criticism upon ''their'' Catechism by the “Vedanta-Adwaitee” Theos. Society—(See art. of that name in ''June Theosophist''); and the Almora Swami ''insisting'' upon my ceasing to lay sacrilegious hands upon his ''Iswara''; and the “Brahmo Theos. Society” wanting me to fill the magazine with sermons upon Monotheism etc. About 14 Visishtadwaitees have resigned in consequence of the discussion. Very sorry, but I cannot help it. Thus, as you see, my position is that of an elephant {{Page aside\|125}} trying to perform his ''Grand Trapèze'' on a cobweb thread. Nevertheless, I must try to maintain my perilous position and not to lose footing by the blessing and help of ''Yog''-power. Meanwhile, believe me, dear Sir,

	Yours most fraternally,		Yours most fraternally,

	{{Style P-Signature in capitals\|H. P. Blavatsky,}}		{{Style P-Signature in capitals\|H. P. Blavatsky,}}
	{{Style P-~~Signature~~\|(Editor of The Theosophist).}}		{{Style P-Align right\|(Editor of ''The Theosophist'').}}


			''P. S.'' The decision of the Council such as it will be, will be sent to you ''officially''. H.P.B.

	~~P. S. The decision of the Council such as it will be, will be sent to you officially. H.P.B.~~

	{{Footnotes}}		{{Footnotes}}

Pavel Malakhov at 08:17, 15 May 2025

2025-05-15T08:17:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:17, 15 May 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{HPB-CW-header		{{HPB-CW-header
	\| item title = H. P. B. and ~~Freeethought~~		\| item title = H. P. B. and Freethought
	\| item author = Blavatsky H.P.		\| item author = Blavatsky H.P.
	\| volume = 5		\| volume = 5
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\| previous = Blavatsky H.P. - A Final Answer		\| previous = Blavatsky H.P. - A Final Answer
	\| next = Blavatsky H.P. - Our New Branches		\| next = Blavatsky H.P. - Our New Branches
	\| alternatives = ~~[http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v5/y1883_115.htm KH]~~		\| alternatives =
	\| translations =		\| translations =
	}}		}}
Line 40:		Line 40:

	Yours most fraternally,		Yours most fraternally,
	{{Style P-Signature\|H. P. Blavatsky,
	(Editor of The Theosophist).}}		{{Style P-Signature in capitals\|H. P. Blavatsky,}}
			{{Style P-Signature\|(Editor of The Theosophist).}}


	P. S. The decision of the Council such as it will be, will be sent to you officially. H.P.B.		P. S. The decision of the Council such as it will be, will be sent to you officially. H.P.B.

	{{Footnotes}}		{{Footnotes}}

Pavel Malakhov: Pavel Malakhov moved page Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freeethought to Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freethought

2025-05-15T08:12:22Z

Pavel Malakhov moved page Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freeethought to Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freethought

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:12, 15 May 2025
(No difference)

Pavel Malakhov at 12:47, 15 December 2024

2024-12-15T12:47:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:47, 15 December 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{HPB-CW-header		{{HPB-CW-header
	\| item title = H. P. B. and Freeethought ~~(Letter dated August 16, 1883; first published in August, 1931)~~		\| item title = H. P. B. and Freeethought
	\| item author = Blavatsky H.P.		\| item author = Blavatsky H.P.
	\| volume = 5		\| volume = 5

Pavel Malakhov: Pavel Malakhov moved page Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freeethought (Letter dated August 16, 1883; first published in August, 1931) to Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freeethought

2024-12-15T12:47:24Z

Pavel Malakhov moved page Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freeethought (Letter dated August 16, 1883; first published in August, 1931) to Blavatsky H.P. - H. P. B. and Freeethought

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:47, 15 December 2024
(No difference)

Sergey: Created page with "{{HPB-CW-header | item title = H. P. B. and Freeethought (Letter dated August 16, 1883; first published in August, 1931) | item author = Blavatsky H.P. | volume =..."

2023-11-17T08:00:47Z

Created page with "{{HPB-CW-header | item title = H. P. B. and Freeethought (Letter dated August 16, 1883; first published in August, 1931) | item author = Blavatsky H.P. | volume =..."

New page

{{HPB-CW-header
| item title = H. P. B. and Freeethought (Letter dated August 16, 1883; first published in August, 1931)
| item author = Blavatsky H.P.
| volume = 5
| pages = 122-125
| publications =
| scrapbook =
| previous = Blavatsky H.P. - A Final Answer
| next = Blavatsky H.P. - Our New Branches
| alternatives = [http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v5/y1883_115.htm KH]
| translations =
}}

{{Page aside|122}}

{{Style P-Title|H. P. B. AND FREETHOUGHT}}
{{Vertical space|}}

EDITOR’S OFFICE OF The Theosophist,

Private but NOT Confidential.

(Madras)

Ootacamund, August 16, 1883.

To the Secretary of the “London Lodge Theosophical Society.”

My Dear Sir,

When your letter reached me with the official (?) resolution of the local Council, concerning the inadvisability of advertising T. Paine’s and Bradlaugh’s Free-thinking literature, the article in the August Supplement “A Final Answer was already in print, in answer to certain letters received from a Manchester and a Scotch Theosophists. Therefore, I must beg of you to impress upon the minds of the esteemed Theosophists of the “London Lodge” that the said answer is not meant as a Reply to your letter. The latter was sent to the President, Col. Olcott, who being on his Southern tour had no time to answer it or give me any instructions to that effect. However he has called a Meeting of the Council to discuss this business. Only I fear that the objection—that such advertisements ought to receive the consent of the majority of the General Council before being published (or words to this effect) is groundless. The majority of our Council is composed of heathens of the first water. Most of them are furious to feel unable to send their children either to Missionary or secular schools without having their young minds poisoned (their expression not mine) by their hereditary enemy the padri against their respective non-Christian religions. It is they (i.e., the majority of the Council) who have repeatedly insisted on having such books distributed. Our Ceylon Buddhist members with 300 priests leading them, have spent a large sum to secure such anti-Christian tracts, as {{Page aside|123}} the only antidote against the abuse lavished upon their forefathers’ faith. For, whoever lives in this country (as Mr. Sinnett will tell you) becomes very soon impressed with the sad fact that conversion in India means absolute perversion. Instead of bettering morality Christianity but adds to the natural human vices, owing to the doctrine of atonement and salvation by prayer, instead of that of self-reliance and Karma.

I would feel very much obliged to some of the British Theosophists who have protested, were they to send us for publication anti-buddhistic tracts. I would publish them immediately and without fear of hurting the feelings of my co-religionists. They are too intelligent, on the one hand, to take to heart the autopsy of the exoteric shell of their religion; while, on the other, centuries of daily abuse directed against Buddhism have made them indifferent. The same may be said of Hindus. What they (at least our members) want is the free discussion of every religion in its outer as in its inward form. Why then should ecclesiastical Christianity be excepted? Though the Reply in the August Supplement was not meant for the British Theosophists yet their “remonstrance” may find a fit answer in it. I, as an Editor, will never permit Christ to be attacked personally, no more than Buddha. But I must insist upon being allowed to remain entirely impartial in the dissection as in the praise of all and every religion the world over, without pandering to people’s personal emotional prejudices. This will never do in a Universal Brotherhood. I am very much surprised that Mr. Sinnett should have seconded the resolution, knowing as he does, my feelings on the subject; and that he was the first to approve of my “not minding” Mr. Hume’s objections in this direction. Nor is it quite clear to me, whether the “remonstrance” sent by the Branch Society is meant for the Editor of the Theosophist alone, or for the Parent Society in general, since the former humble individual acts under the authority of the Council, or at any rate in sympathy with the feelings often expressed by its majority.

{{Page aside|124}}Personally, I have no sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh’s views, though he is too much abused and ill-treated not to have won my regards as an individual. I do not know him nor do I desire to make his personal acquaintance; but I cannot help believing on general principles that a person so much insulted, hated, abused and persecuted by “cultured Mrs. Grundy” must be an excellent man. As for Col. Bob Ingersoll, than whom no more moral, pure man, no more honest citizen good husband and good father ever trod this earth—I know him personally and he has my profoundest respect, though he laughs at Theosophy, Spiritualism and every other belief.

I have written the above not as an answer to the contents of your official letter, but as a reply to what I found therein between the lines. No one has a greater respect respect<ref>{{HPB-CW-comment|[Repeated twice in the original.—Compiler.]}}</ref> and admiration than I have for Mrs. Kingsford (chiefly as a reflection of the feelings of our Mahatmas, who must know her better than any one on earth); nevertheless, unless I am directly ordered by my Guru M... to drop the advertisement objected to, I cannot go against my principles of fair dealing with every religion, even for the sake of doing that, which Mrs. Kingsford believes is due to the “London Lodge.” For indeed, were I to concede so much to your Society, the next thing I would have to do would be to drop every adverse criticism and discussion upon the Visishtadwaitee. There’s the “South Indian Visishta Theos. Soc.” composed of about 150 members objecting to my publishing the criticism upon their Catechism by the “Vedanta-Adwaitee” Theos. Society—(See art. of that name in June Theosophist); and the Almora Swami insisting upon my ceasing to lay sacrilegious hands upon his Iswara; and the “Brahmo Theos. Society” wanting me to fill the magazine with sermons upon Monotheism etc. About 14 Visishtadwaitees have resigned in consequence of the discussion. Very sorry, but I cannot help it. Thus, as you see, my position is that of an elephant {{Page aside|125}} trying to perform his Grand Trapèze on a cobweb thread. Nevertheless, I must try to maintain my perilous position and not to lose footing by the blessing and help of Yog-power. Meanwhile, believe me, dear Sir,

Yours most fraternally,
{{Style P-Signature|H. P. Blavatsky,
(Editor of The Theosophist).}}

P. S. The decision of the Council such as it will be, will be sent to you officially. H.P.B.

{{Footnotes}}