Colonel Olcott has another theory, and others have their own. Personally, I believe in the extensibility of human faculty, and in the existence of an order of intelligences higher than our own, but I do not require that they are embodied or terrestrial in any sense of the word. Finally, I have been through the Theosophical Society with my eyes open, and for more than five years have been, officially and unofficially, as fully “in the Theosophical Society” as one can well be; and while I am certain that many are fully convinced of the truth of their own beliefs in these matters, I am also fully assured that a large number are in the position of persons self-deceived, who have unfortunately committed themselves too far to review their position without almost disastrous consequences to themselves and others. But that of which I have the fullest conviction and the greatest amount of presentable proof is the fact that no such thing as evidence of the existence (in an ordinary sense) of the Mahatmas, or of their connexion with the T.S. as a body or with its members individually, is obtainable by a person pursuing ordinary methods of investigation.
For those who are willing to found their beliefs upon the mere statement of another, without question of possible interestedness on the one hand, or self-deception on the other, the position is of course otherwise. For such persons proofs have no value whatever, what they are pleased to call their “beliefs” and their “knowledge” being determined or determinable from the moment they sign away their independence of judgment and freedom of thought.—Yours sincerely,
P.S.—One misstatement of fact appears in your issue of November 3. What Mr. Garrett refers to as “Madame Blavatsky’s Rosicrucian signet-ring” was not a ring, but a jewel, used as a pendant. Also, the “dark gentleman” who delivered the two £10 notes to Mr. Judge made his call (so we were told) in the early afternoon, not in “the evening” as stated in Mr. Garrett’s text. I am bound to add that, whatever may be my annoyance and regret at the tone of the articles and of some of the inferences, as regards that part of the evidence which is known to myself, I have noticed so far no other substantial error of fact.
[These slight corrections have been made in this reprint.—F. E. G.]
