Theos-Talk Archives (June 2004 Message tt00123)

On Oct. 25th, 1880, H.P. Blavatsky wrote to the
editor of THE BOMBAY GAZETTE:

=============================================
In the issue of the 19th instant of 
your worthy contemporary, I find over 
two columns devoted to the doubtful 
glorification, but mostly to the abuse, 
of my humble individuality. . . 
I have lived long enough in this world 
of incessant strife, in which the 
"survival of the fittest" seems to 
mean the triumph of the most unprincipled, 
to have learned that when I have once 
allowed my name to appear in the light 
of a benevolent genius, for the production 
of "cups," "saucers" and "brooches," I must 
bear the penalty; especially when the people 
are so foolish as to take the word "Magic" 
either in its popular superstitious 
sense—that of the work of the devil—or 
in that of jugglery. Therefore and 
precisely because I am an "elderly lady 
from Russia viâ America," the latter 
country of unlimited freedom—especially 
in newspaper personal abuse—has toughened 
me to the extent of being indifferent as 
to the sneering and jeering of newspapers 
upon questions they do not understand at 
all; provided they are witty and remain 
within the limits of propriety and do no 
harm but to myself. Being neither a professional 
medium nor a professional anything, and making my experiments 
in "Occult phenomena" only in the presence of a few
friends—rarely before anyone who is not a member of our
Society—I 
have a right to claim from the public a little more fairness and 
politeness than are usually accorded to paid jugglers and even 
alleged Thaumaturgists. And if my friends will insist upon publishing 
about "Occult phenomena" taking place in their presence, they should 
at least preface their narratives with the following warning: Pukka 
Theosophy believes in no miracle, whether divine or devilish; 
recognizes nothing as supernatural; believes only in facts and 
Science; studies the laws of Nature, both Occult and patent; and 
gives attention particularly to the former, just because exact 
Science will have nothing to do with them.

Such laws are those of Magnetism in all its branches, Mesmerism, 
Psychology, etc. More than once in the history of its past has 
Science been made the victim of its own delusions as to its professed 
infallibility; and the time must come when the perfection of Asiatic 
Psychology and its knowledge of the forces of the invisible world 
will be recognized, as were the circulation of the blood, 
electricity, and so forth, after the first sneers and lampoons died 
away. The "silly attempts to hoodwink individuals" will then be 
viewed as honest attempts at proving to this generation of 
Spiritualists and believers in past " miracle-mongers," that there is 
naught miraculous in this world of Matter and Spirit, of visible 
results and invisible causes; naught—but the great wickedness of
a 
world of Christians and Pagans, alike ridiculously superstitious in 
one direction, that of their respective religions, and malicious 
whenever a purely disinterested and philanthropic effort is made to 
open their eyes to the truth. I beg leave to further remark that 
personally I never bragged of anything I might have done, nor do I 
offer any explanation of the phenomena, except to utterly disclaim 
the possession of any miraculous or supernatural powers, or the 
performing of anything by jugglery—i.e., with the usual help of 
confederates and machinery. That's all. And surely, if there is 
anything like a sense of justice left in society, I am amenable to 
neither statutory nor social laws for gratifying the interest of 
members of our Society, and the wishes of my personal friends, by 
exhibiting to them in privacy various phenomena, in which I believe 
far more firmly than any of them, since I know the laws by which they 
are produced, and am ready to stand any amount of personal newspaper 
abuse whenever these results are told to the public. The "official 
circles at Simla" was an incorrect and foolish phrase to use. I never 
produced anything in the "official circles"; but I certainly hope to 
have impressed a few persons belonging to such "official circles" 
with the sense that I was neither an impostor nor a "hoodwinker of 
official personages," for whom, moreover, so long as I live up to the 
law of the country, and respect it (especially considering my natural 
democratic feelings, strengthened by my American naturalization), I 
am not bound to have any more respect than each of them personally 
deserves in his individual capacity. I must add, for the personal 
gratification of the Editor of your contemporary, and in the hope 
that this will soothe his irate feelings, that of the five eye-
witnesses to the "cup" production, three (two of these of 
the "official circle") utterly disbelieve the genuineness of the 
phenomenon, though I would be pleased to know how, with all their 
scepticism, they would be able to account for it. I do not imitate 
the indiscretion of the Editor and mention names, but leave the 
public to draw such inferences as they please. . . .
========================================================
Excerpted from:
http://blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/OccultPhenomena.htm