This article takes its name from the Russian film “Who are you, Madame Blavatsky?” which can be viewed online by clicking here but that is where the similarity between film and article ends. This article is not any type of biography, in the ordinary sense of the word, of H. P. Blavatsky (those looking for that are invited to read another article here) but is instead an attempt to unveil something of who and what the real, inner, immortal “HPB” actually was – and is. If it can be described in any sense as biographical, it is a purely esoteric type of biography. Some may find it mystifying and overwhelming, some may find it astounding, while others may find that it finally enables them to make sense of HPB and go some way towards solving the great mystery associated with her.

~ * ~

Helena Blavatsky’s initial meeting on this physical plane with her Indian Guru, the Master M. or Morya, famously occurred in 1851 in London, England, coinciding with her 20th birthday. The few details that are known regarding this and the years which followed are described in our article H. P. Blavatsky and The Birth of The Theosophical Movement, which we recommend reading in order to perceive the bigger and more complex picture.

In this present article, we pick up the thread in the year 1859 and then pay particular attention to 1865, for reasons which will now become apparent.

While in Russia in 1859, HPB underwent a mysterious and serious illness, during which an extraordinary and medically inexplicable wound opened near her heart. Her sister Vera Petrovna de Zhelihovsky related it as follows:

“The quiet life of the sisters at Rugodevo was brought to an end by a terrible illness which befell Madame Blavatsky. Years before, perhaps during her solitary travels in the steppes of Asia, she had received a remarkable wound. We could never learn how she had met with it. Suffice to say that the profound wound reopened occasionally, and during that time she suffered intense agony, often bringing on convulsions and a death-like trance. The sickness used to last from three to four days, and then the wound would heal as suddenly as it had reopened, as though an invisible hand had closed it, and there would remain no trace of her illness. . . . A physician was sent for . . . but he proved of little use, not so much indeed through his ignorance of surgery, as owing to a remarkable phenomenon, which left him almost powerless to act through sheer terror at what he had witnessed. He had hardly examined the wound of the patient prostrated before him in complete unconsciousness, when suddenly he saw a large, dark hand between his own and the wound he was going to anoint. The gaping wound was near the heart, and the hand kept slowly moving at several intervals from the neck down to the waist. To make his terror worse, there began suddenly in the room such a terrific noise, such a chaos of noise and sounds from the ceiling, the floor, the window panes, and every bit of furniture in the apartment, that he begged he might not be left alone in the room with the insensible patient.” (quoted in “Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky” by A. P. Sinnett, reproduced in “HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky” by Sylvia Cranston, p. 72-73)

The developments a few years after that, in 1865, are not gone into in Cranston’s excellent biography of HPB, other than extremely briefly. This was while HPB was residing in the Caucasus, the large and mountainous region typically viewed as a natural borderland between Europe and Asia, and including Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and parts of southern Russia. Her sister Vera again describes:

“Mme. Blavatsky was taken very ill. . . . we learn that no doctor could understand her illness. It was one of those mysterious nervous diseases that baffle science, and elude the grasp of everyone but a very expert psychologist. Soon after the commencement of that illness, she began – as she repeatedly told her friend – ‘to lead a double life.’ What she meant by it, no one of the good people of Mingrelia [i.e. a region in western Georgia] could understand, of course. But this is how she herself describes that state:

“ ‘Whenever I was called by name, I opened my eyes upon hearing it, and was myself, my own personality in every particular. As soon as I was left alone, however, I relapsed into my usual, half-dreamy condition, and became somebody else (who, namely, Mme. B. will not tell). I had simply a mild fever that consumed me slowly but surely, day after day, with entire loss of appetite, and finally of hunger, as I would feel none for days, and often went a week without touching any food whatever, except a little water, so that in four months I was reduced to a living skeleton. In cases when I was interrupted, when in my other self, by the sound of my present name being pronounced, and while I was conversing in my dream life – say at half a sentence either spoken by me or those who were with my second me at the time – and opened my eyes to answer the call, I used to answer very rationally, and understood all, for I was never delirious. But no sooner had I closed my eyes again than the sentence which had been interrupted was completed by my other self, continued from the word, or even half the word, it had stopped at. When awake, and myself, I remembered well who I was in my second capacity, and what I had been and was doing. When somebody else, i.e., the personage I had become, I know I had no idea of who was H. P. Blavatsky! I was in another far-off country, a totally different individuality from myself, and had no connection at all with my actual life.’

“Such is Mme. Blavatsky’s analysis of her state at that time. . . . The only physician of the place, the army surgeon, could make nothing of her symptoms; but as she was visibly and rapidly declining, he packed her off to Tiflis [i.e. Tbilisi, capital city of Georgia] to her friends. Unable to go on horseback, owing to her great weakness, and a journey in a cart being deemed dangerous, she was sent off in a large native boat along the river – a journey of four days to Kutais – with four native servants only to take care of her.

“What took place during that journey we are unable to state precisely; . . . her weakness was so great that she lay like one apparently dead until her arrival. . . . as they were gliding slowly along the narrow stream, . . . the servants were several times during three consecutive nights frightened out of their senses by seeing, what they swore was their mistress [i.e. HPB], gliding off from the boat, and across the water in the direction of the forests, while the body of that same mistress was lying prostrate on her bed at the bottom of the boat. . . . On the last evening, the servant swore he saw two figures, while the third – his mistress, in flesh and bone – was sleeping before his eyes. . . . A carriage and a friend of the family were sent to meet her; and she was brought into the house of her friends apparently dying.

“She never talked upon that subject with anyone.” (quoted in “Incidents in the Life of Madame Blavatsky” by A. P. Sinnett, reproduced in “H. P. Blavatsky: Tibet and Tulku” by Geoffrey Barborka, p. 351-353)

But she did once state in a letter to the Russian Prince Dondukov-Korsakov, written in 1882, that “between the Blavatsky of 1845-65 and the Blavatsky of the years 1865-82 there is an unbridgeable gulf.”

This is a very significant and important remark and although it certainly relates in part to the intriguing fact that following her inexplicable recovery from the inexplicable “wasting illness” described above and the internal and external occult developments associated with it, she became in complete and masterful control over all the many metaphysical powers and psychical phenomena that had manifested in and around her since her childhood, it also relates to something still deeper and even more profound . . . the mystery which she at that time described as her “becoming somebody else,” specifically someone living “in another far-off country, a totally different individuality from myself.”

In a letter to a fellow Theosophist sometime in the second decade of the 20th century, Robert Crosbie (founder of the United Lodge of Theosophists, he is said to have been a direct private pupil of HPB and was also a colleague of HPB’s closest colleague William Q. Judge) wrote regarding A. P. Sinnett’s book in which the above incidents were related about HPB: “You will note that the tenant of the body is considered as the same all the time by him. There is also a terrible wound spoken of, in regard to which there is no information; also a desperate sickness. A change in occupancy might be looked for about that time.” (“The Friendly Philosopher” p. 94)

Later, in a talk at a White Lotus Day meeting (the annual commemoration of HPB’s life and work, on the anniversary of her passing, 8th May), Crosbie stated that the “change of occupancy” or “tenant” of HPB’s body actually occurred when she was wounded at the Battle of Mentana in 1867. We can thus see that he was seemingly not exactly clear when this momentous occurrence happened but to us it seems much more likely to have been during the great physical crisis and internal transformation of 1865 that we have described above, especially when we consider HPB’s own words on the great significance of that year, also quoted above. But here is how Crosbie described it on White Lotus Day:

“Most of us are subject to birth from necessity – Karma; that is, our thought and action in the past have been such as to bring us into a certain family, into a certain race, at a certain time and in a certain way under certain conditions and circumstances. Such births as ours are under Law; we are thus reaping what we have sown. But in the case of those Beings of whom we have been speaking, They do not always come to earth and enter into a body by our road of birth. Truly They come under Law, as do we all, but They know the Law and all its modes and processes, and They come by choice through that mode which best serves the occasion of Their coming. They may take a body which the Ego, or natural tenant, is leaving, and by agreement made on higher planes than those we know; such an abandoned body is used by that higher Entity for the purpose of His work in the world.

“There have been two such occasions within our time. H. P. Blavatsky was one. The tenant occupying that body really left it when it was wounded unto death on the field of battle [i.e. at Mentana in 1867], and another Entity by agreement took it. That incoming Entity was one of “Those who know,” one of Those who had reached perfection, and who used that body for the purposes of the work of the great Lodge of Masters in the world. William Q. Judge was another. In that case the body was that of a child of seven or eight who was dying, who was pronounced dead by the physician in attendance. After a time the body showed signs of returning life, and recovered, but the nature of the child was different from what it had been before. To the parents it was still the same child. They saw the same body and thought it was the same Identity or Entity, but they soon saw the great change in the character, in the nature, in the tendencies.

“Now these two cases point to something worth our utmost attention to try to understand: the occult laws governing Nature visible and invisible. They are all outlined in the last chapter of the second volume of Isis Unveiled, where this very mode of superhuman “birth” is broadly hinted at and illustrated: the Fact that a Being of higher knowledge and attainment can, by choice or by agreement enter a body, borrow a body, when the former tenant is leaving it.

“These two Beings did not come into human life through the door of birth as we all have; they entered in with knowledge, and immediately on entering began to train those borrowed bodies to respond to their own attainments and requirements.” (“In Memory of H. P. Blavatsky”)

If Robert Crosbie, who never actually met HPB in person, had been the only or the first person to present such a remarkable notion as this regarding the nature or status of the real, inner “HPB,” Theosophists could perhaps be excused for dismissing it as an unfounded personal theory or an expression of misguided “hero worship.”

But when one takes into account all the following details, the majority of which are from during HPB’s own lifetime, some from herself and the Masters, some from some of her closest colleagues and co-workers, one is forced to take note:

* The Masters of the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood or Trans-Himalayan Esoteric School (such as the Master K.H. and the Master M.) who were most directly behind the founding of the modern Theosophical Movement and the training and utilising of HPB as Their “Direct Agent” in the world at large, frequently referred to H. P. Blavatsky in Their letters to Sinnett and others by such curious expressions as “You [i.e. Sinnett] have treated the old body too cruelly” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 370), “H.P.B. . . . our sole machinery, . . . the ricketty old body” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 368), “After nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European body upon European soil to serve as a connecting link between that country and our own” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 203), “an enfeebled female body in which, as we might say, a vital cyclone is raging much of the time” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 9), “our mutual “female” friend” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 279; note the inverted commas around the word “female”), “our hollow but plethoric [i.e. physically large and full of life] friend, Mrs. B.” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 19; note the use of the word “hollow,” synonymous with “empty” or “vacant”), “the old appearance” (“Letters from The Masters of The Wisdom” Second Series, p. 84), and “outward Upasika (H.P.B.)” (“Letters from The Masters of The Wisdom” First Series, p. 73).

In that last quoted letter, the Master K.H. tells Laura Holloway that “outward Upasika” (“Upasika” being a term by which the Masters often referred to HPB; it literally means “female Buddhist lay-disciple”) “is not a ‘chela.’” The same Master also tells Sinnett that “Of course, she is utterly unfit for a true adept; her nature is too passionately affectionate and we have no right to indulge in personal attachments and feelings” but adds, however, “You can never know her as we do, therefore – none of you will ever be able to judge her impartially or correctly. . . . We find a profounder wisdom in her inner Self than you will ever find yourselves able to perceive.” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 314) Whilst there are some Theosophists who like to draw attention to those words of the Master that HPB was “utterly unfit for a true adept,” they conveniently ignore and deliberately evade the fact that this same Master K.H. who told Laura Holloway that HPB “is not a ‘chela’” clarifies in a subsequent letter to Holloway that the inner HPB (i.e. in contrast with the outward Upasika) is not a chela because she is in fact an “adept,” i.e. far higher than a chela or disciple. He there refers to her as “the adept.” (“Letters from The Masters of The Wisdom” First Series, p. 79) Granted, this is part of a great and sacred mystery, but those who read carefully, humbly, and with open mind, may draw closer now to its unveiling.

* It was not only the Masters who repeatedly referred to H. P. Blavatsky in the curious ways quoted above; she herself also referred to herself in the same way. In her New York diaries of 1878, for example, we find her recording such entries as: “Evening [with] Mr. and Mrs. O’Sullivan. Theological and anti-Christian conversation. H.P.B. played a trick on them by suddenly fainting to the great dismay of Bates and Wim. Used the greatest willpower to put up the body on its legs.” “The body is difficult to manage.” “Somehow able to get money for “body” and our needs.” “Atmosphere does not agree with ME. As for H.P.B. [it is] splendid.” She recorded a two hour walk she took through the streets of New York as “Aired H.P.B. along the streets for two hours.” And perhaps the most remarkable and unequivocal of all, if there will still any doubt in one’s mind: “We got cold again, I think. Oh, unfortunate, empty, rotten old body!”

* In a private letter published after her death in the article “She Being Dead Yet Speaketh,” HPB poignantly states: “The T.S. [i.e. Theosophical Society] lives, – I am killed. Killed in my honour, fame, name, in everything H.P.B. held near and dear, for this body is MINE and I feel acutely through it. . . . I have not worked and toiled for forty years, playing parts, risking my future reward, and taking karma upon this unfortunate appearance to serve Them without being permitted to have some voice in the matter. H.P.B. is not infallible. H.P.B. is an old, rotten, sick, worn-out body, but it is the best I can have in this cycle. . . . When I am dead and gone in this body, then will you know the whole truth. Then will you know that I have never, never, been false to any one, nor have I deceived anyone, but had many a time to allow them to deceive themselves, for I had no right to interfere with their Karma. . . . Oh ye foolish blind moles, all of you; who is able to offer himself in sacrifice as I did!”

* As for who or what is this “I” who offered themselves “in sacrifice” for the sake of humanity by assuming occupancy of and working through the bodily vehicle of Helena Blavatsky, she indicated in a letter to William Judge that this real, inner “HPB” is a Nirmanakaya: “I will not be able to help it [i.e. the Theosophical Movement] on & stir its course [i.e. not from the start of her eventual new reincarnation], because I will have to act in a body which will have to be assimilated to the nirmanakaya.” In a letter to “The Irish Theosophist” magazine a few years after HPB’s death, Roger Hall wrote: “I was sitting one afternoon with H. P. B. . . . She answered that W. Q. Judge was her favorite pupil and would worthily bear her mantle when she was gone. . . . she seemed to know that some serious disturbance would surely occur after her departure. In this connection I asked her if she meant to reincarnate immediately; she answered that she would not do so but would be able to help in the good work better as a Nirmanakaya.”

In the teachings of Theosophy, those Adepts and Initiates who are Bodhisattvas are also known as Nirmanakayas. HPB defines the Nirmanakayas as “those great Adepts of the past ages, who, renouncing their right to Nirvana, remain in our spheres of being, not as “spirits” but as complete spiritual human Beings. Save their corporeal, visible envelope, which they leave behind, they remain as they were, in order to help poor humanity, as far as can be done without sinning against Karmic law. This is the “Great Renunciation,” indeed; an incessant, conscious self-sacrifice throughout aeons and ages till that day when the eyes of blind mankind will open and, instead of the few, all will see the universal truth.” A compilation of Theosophical explanations and insights about Nirmanakayas can be found here. They are at times in physical incarnation and at other times not. It is also the case that are differing degrees of Nirmanakaya; while some have already reached to and renounced entry into Nirvana, others have not yet reached that far but have been able to renounce and stay out of Devachan between lifetimes, but this in itself is vastly beyond the level of spiritual advancement and inner evolution any of us is likely to have so far achieved.

* In a letter to Sinnett, HPB writes: “After having proved what I have to, I will bow myself out from the refined Western Society and – be no more. You may all whistle then for the Brothers. – GOSPEL. . . . No; you do not hate me; you only feel a friendly, indulgent, a kind of benevolent contempt for H.P.B. You are right there, so far as you know her the one who is ready to fall into pieces. Perchance you may find out yet your mistake concerning the other – the well hidden party. . . . Now, do you really think that you know ME my dear Mr Sinnett? Do you believe that, because you have fathomed – as you think – my physical crust and brain; that shrewd analyst of human nature though you be – you have ever penetrated even beneath the first cuticles of my Real Self? . . . What I say is this: you do not know me; for whatever there is inside it, is not what you think it is; and – to judge of me therefore, as of one untruthful is the greatest mistake in the world besides being a flagrant injustice. I, (the inner real “I”) am in prison and cannot show myself as I am with all the desire I may have to. . . . why should I be held responsible for the outward jail-door and its appearance, when I have neither built nor yet decorated it?” (Appendix, “The Mahatma Letters” p. 466; note the wording of the closing question, pregnant with meaning regarding the Karma of H. P. Blavatsky’s body not being part of the Karma belonging to the inner occupant of that body; as history shows, Sinnett never took notice of nor interest in any of these numerous clues or hints that HPB and the Masters Themselves occasionally generously dropped for him, perhaps because they did not fit in with his personal opinions, preconceptions, and biases about her. The same can be said for many Theosophists today. As she once remarked in a letter to Sinnett’s wife, “Those who do know me and have had a glimpse of the inner creature – are a few dozens.”)

* In HPB’s own personal copy of “The Voice of The Silence,” which she translated and published in 1889 as excerpts from the Book of The Golden Precepts, she wrote this dedication: “From H.P.B. to H. P. Blavatsky, with no kind regards.” It may be clearer now what she meant by “H.P.B.” and “H. P. Blavatsky” in this context and also why she writes her initials in inverted commas, as “H.P.B.”, on the title page of “The Voice of The Silence,” as also on the dedication page of “The Key to Theosophy.”

* To A. P. Sinnett and several other British Theosophists in India, the Master K.H. wrote the following in 1881, in which he explained that “nothing” of HPB’s often difficult temperament was “due to any fault of hers.”

“I am painfully aware of the fact that the habitual incoherence of her statements – especially when excited – and her strange ways make her in your opinion a very undesirable transmitter of our messages. Nevertheless, kind Brothers, once that you have learned the truth; once told, that this unbalanced mind, the seeming incongruity of her speeches and ideas, her nervous excitement, all that in short, which is so calculated to upset the feelings of sober minded people, whose notions of reserve and manners are shocked by such strange outbursts of what they regard as her temper, and which so revolt you, – once that you know that nothing of it is due to any fault of hers, you may, perchance, be led to regard her in quite a different light. Notwithstanding that the time is not quite ripe to let you entirely into the secret; and that you are hardly yet prepared to understand the great Mystery, even if told of it, I am empowered to allow you a glimpse behind the veil. This state of hers is intimately connected with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for others. After nearly a century of fruitless search [i.e. this search began some time in the 1700s], our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European body upon European soil to serve as a connecting link between that country and our own . . . Now, no man or woman, unless he be an initiate of the “fifth circle,” can leave the precincts of Bod-Las [i.e. Tibet but possibly meaning Shambhala in this case] and return back into the world in his integral whole – if I may use the expression. One, at least of his seven satellites [i.e. one of the seven principles of his/her constitution] has to remain behind for two reasons: the first to form the necessary connecting link, the wire of transmission – the second as the safest warranter that certain things will never be divulged. She is no exception to the rule, . . . Acting in accordance with my wishes, my brother M. made to you through her a certain offer, if you remember. You had but to accept it, and at any time you liked, you would have had for an hour or more, the real baitchooly [i.e. the real, complete, inner being of HPB] to converse with, instead of the psychological cripple you generally have to deal with now.” (“The Mahatma Letters” p. 203-204)

This passage is fairly well known to Theosophists, unlike many of the others which we have quoted and will proceed to quote within this article. The notion of “leaving a Principle behind” has intrigued many. Some have tried to hypothesise about which of HPB’s Principles or inner components she would have “left behind” before returning into the world at large to begin her public Theosophical work and mission. Sinnett’s friend A. O. Hume, who was one of the recipients of that letter, tried to work it out logically and intellectually and listed why he found it an implausible and nonsensical explanation of things. The Master responded, “Very clever – but suppose it is neither one of the seven particularly but all? Every one of them a “cripple” and forbidden the exercise of its full powers? And suppose such is the wise law of a far foreseeing power!” (“The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett” p. 307) There is no denying that the Master’s original statement – and that later comment also – is quite cryptic and deliberately so. But there is also no denying that that explanation is not the whole story. It has however been treated as such by some Theosophists who have assumed that it answers and explains everything about HPB, despite the fact the Master specifically stated it to be merely “a glimpse behind the veil.” They may not have realised that there are so many clues and indications buried within the vast Theosophical literature that reveal and disclose more of what the Master called “the secret” and “the great Mystery” about who and what the real, inner HPB actually was – and IS.

* In a letter dated 1st March 1880 to the Indian Theosophist Damodar K. Mavalankar, William Judge writes: “Look on the ring H.P.B. wears and you will see three [Sanskrit] letters. Do they not mean Satya, and is not that the spiritual or holy state? Does it not mark the possessor as an adept? . . . that some pre-eminently great One comes there or occupies there [i.e. in the body of HPB] I am sure.” In the same letter, he knowingly refers to HPB’s body as “that deserted home” and speaks of her as “she-or-he.” (“Damodar and The Pioneers of The Theosophical Movement” p. 46-48, compiled and annotated by Sven Eek)

* Soon afterwards, we find Damodar relating to Judge such details as these: “About a month after I joined the Society I felt as it were a voice within myself whispering to me that Madam Blavatsky is not what she represents herself to be. It then assumed the form of a belief in me which grew so strong within a short time that four or five times I thought of throwing myself at her feet and beg her to reveal herself to me. But then I could not do so because I thought it would be useless, as I knew that I was quite impure and had led too bad a life to be trusted with that secret. I therefore remained silent with the consolation that she herself would confide the secret to me when she would find me worthy of it. I thought it must be some great Indian Adept that had assumed that illusionary form. But there a difficulty occurred to me. I knew that she received letters from her aunts and that she communicated with persons almost in every part of the globe. I could not therefore reconcile my belief, as I thought she would then have to practise the illusion all over the world. Various explanations suggested themselves to me except the right one. I was, however, right (as I have subsequently ascertained) in my original conception that she is some great Indian Adept.” (“Damodar and The Pioneers of The Theosophical Movement” p. 34) And HPB herself shared in a letter to another Indian Theosophist, Khan Bahadur N. D. Khandalavala, that “[Damodar] was the only true, devoted friend I had in all India, the only one who having the Masters’ and my secret, knew the whole truth and therefore knew that whatever people thought being blinded by appearance I had never deceived anyone – though I was bound on my oath and pledge to conceal much from everyone, even Olcott.”

* Maji or Majji, the Yogini of Benares, then plays a part. In the “Old Diary Leaves” of Col. Olcott (the first President of the Theosophical Society and one of its main co-founders with HPB and William Judge), Olcott has written: “We all drove to the retreat of Majji, a very well known female ascetic, learned in Vedanta, who occupied a guha (excavated cave) with buildings above ground, on the bank of the Ganges, a mile or two below the city of Benares . . . At that time Majji appeared about forty years of age, fair-skinned, with a calm dignity and grace of gesture that commanded respect. Her voice was tender in tone, face and body plump, eyes full of intelligence and fire . . . A return visit paid by Majji to H.P.B. the next morning caused surprise, as, we were told, it was a most unusual thing for her to call upon anybody save her Guru, and upon a European never . . . she freely told Mrs Gordon, Damodar, and myself, in H.P.B.’s absence, a marvellous tale about her. She said that H.P.B.’s body was occupied by a Yogi, who was working it so far as he could for the spread of Eastern philosophy.”

Damodar also speaks about her in his letters to Judge: “The next day came “Maji” (who never speaks of herself but as “This body”) to see Madam, and I alone was then with them . . . I then gathered from what she said that she had been first in the body of a Fakir who, upon having his hand disabled by a shot he received while he passed the Fortress of Bhurtpore, had to change his body and choose the one that was now “Maji.” A girl about seven years of age was dying at that time and so, before her death, this Fakir had entered her body and taken possession of it. “Maji” is not therefore a woman but a real Hindu Fakir in the body of a woman. It is but one by one that I gathered all these particulars. In his former body, this Fakir had studied the Yoga science for 65 years, but his study having been arrested and incomplete at the time his body was disabled and consequently unequal to the task he had to perform, he had to choose this other one. In his present body he is 53 years, and consequently the “Inner Maji” is 118 years old. [Note: While this whole concept will be brand new to most readers, such a process as described has been known in India for thousands of years, where yogis typically call it “avesha.”] She then asked Madam whether she knew that they had had the same man for their “Guru.” But Madam desiring her to give some proofs of what she said to me, she readily furnished them. She said that Madam’s Guru [i.e. the Master M.] was born in Punjab but generally lives in the Southern part of India, and especially in Ceylon. He is about 300 years old and has a companion of about the same age, though both do not appear even forty. In a few centuries he will enter the body of a “Kshatriya” (the Warrior caste among the Hindus) and do some great deeds for India, but the time had not yet come. . . . “Maji” then came for the second time and on this occasion all of us were present except Swamiji and Madam who came afterwards. Col. Olcott then asked “Maji” some questions about Madam. And “Maji” said that Madam was not what she seems to be. Her interior man had already been twice in a Hindu body . . . She also said that until that time she had never seen a European but, having got the information from her Guru, about Madam, she had come to see her. I then asked her if the real H.P.B. was still in the body [i.e. whether the original Helena Blavatsky had vacated her body at some point previously, with it then becoming solely occupied by an Indian yogi or initiate], but she refused to answer that question, and only added that she herself – “Maji” – was inferior to Madam.” (“Damodar and The Pioneers of The Theosophical Movement” p. 37-39)

* Earlier than these events, Col. Olcott had written in a letter to a friend: “I say Isis [i.e. HPB; this was written in New York during the time she was busily engaged in writing “Isis Unveiled,” hence Olcott referring to her under the nickname of “Isis” in this letter] is a man. Let me add that she is (in my opinion) a Hindu [i.e. Indian; “Hindu” often being used during that era as a generic term for any Indian person] man. At any rate, this thing happened tonight after my sister and her husband had gone home: Isis was leaning back in her chair, fooling with her hair, and smoking a cigarette. She got one lock in her fingers and pulled it, and fingered it in an absent way – talking the while, when lo! the lock grew visibly darker and darker until, presto! it was as black as coal. I said nothing until the thing was done, when suddenly catching her hand I asked her to let me have this neat specimen of miracle making as a keepsake. You ought to have seen her face when she saw what she had done in her brown study [i.e. state of abstraction]. But she laughed good-naturedly, called me a sharp Yankee, and cut off the lock and gave it to me. I will send you a bit of it as a talisman. Mind you, this was cut off of Isis’s head in my sight and under the full blaze of the chandelier. This one lock showed against the blonde silky and crinkled hair of Blavatsky’s head like a skein of black sewing-silk upon a light-brown cloth. Now what this teaches me is just this – The Blavatsky shell is a shell tenanted by a copper-colored Hindu Solon or Pythagoras, and in this moment of abstraction his own hair – previously there only in its astral condition – became materialized and now stays so. Mind you these are my private speculations.”

Something similar is found in an 1879 article titled “Madame H. P. Blavatsky” by Mrs Mary Hollis-Billing, which she sent to a Spiritualist magazine and which says in part: “I will, in the first place, endeavour to give an imperfect description of what took place one afternoon. As a gentleman and myself were sitting, talking to Madame, we noticed her face and hair growing dark in hue, until her hair was changed from its natural (light) colour to almost black, and her face at the same time became as dark as that of any East Indian I ever saw. While these appearances were being manifested she seemed to be engaged in deep thought. I addressed her, and said: “Madame, are you aware of the change that has taken place in your complexion and hair?” Her reply was “Yes,” but she offered no explanation. In a few minutes she went out into the hall, where she remained about five minutes, and then returned. Her hair and face were of their natural colour when she re-entered our presence; all of which seemed very remarkable to the gentleman and to myself.”

Unfortunately for Olcott, he would later drastically change his opinion of HPB’s nature and esoteric status for the worse, something explained and elaborated on in the article Col. Olcott’s Disloyalty to H. P. Blavatsky, and this is largely at the root of the Adyar Theosophical Society’s generally depreciatory and dismissive view of HPB, although others, such as A. P. Sinnett, G. N. Chakravarti, and perhaps especially Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater, played a part in that.

* It was hard for some of those Theosophists who knew and worked with HPB not to come to such conclusions, based on their experiences with her, as: “I verily believe that I have succeeded in understanding you! I seem to see that you mean me to gather that I have not been in correspondence with you – H.P.B. – but with a Brother who has used the B. shell as a vehicle of his lubrication . . . that I shall meet him in the future, but “know him not”; and that as to “the Blavatsky” I shall never know anything more” (Stainton Moses, letter to HPB), “For the purpose of the theosophical work that body was an instrument used by one of the Masters, known as H.P.B.” (Archibald Keightley), and “This is, indeed, the bare and exact truth, seen and realised by few; determinedly and even fiercely denied and opposed by most, viz. – that “H. P. B.” the Initiate was the real Messenger and Teacher, and that H. P. Blavatsky, His “vehicle,” was no medium (as the majority assert), but a specially prepared and chosen instrument, always and fully conscious, in her own brain. Truly she was indeed “the mystery of the Lodge,” as she told one of her pupils.” (Alice Leighton Cleather, “H. P. Blavatsky: Her Life and Work for Humanity”)

* We find T. Subba Row declaring in a letter to V. V. Sivavadhanulu that “Madame Blavatsky’s temper is bad enough, as you say, in some respects. However she happens to be the only agent that can be employed by the Mahatmas for the purposes of the Theosophical Society. . . . Please recollect also that the person inhabiting Madame Blavatsky’s body (who is a Hindu Chela) has tremendous difficulties to cope with, and is not always able to keep in check the influence of the auric impressions of that body left there by the former personality with which it was associated.” It will be noted that Subba Row’s understanding was that the real, inner HPB was “a Hindu [or Indian] chela,” i.e. a disciple of the Adepts, rather than an Adept “himself.” This differs from all the other accounts we are providing but the quote nevertheless includes the very important and revealing statement, consonant with many of the others, that the “Blavatsky body” was no longer occupied “by the former personality with which it was associated.”

* Writing under a pseudonym so as to avoid drawing attention to herself, the American Theosophist Julia Keightley (the main recipient of the letters of inspiration and encouragement from William Judge that she published under the pen name Jasper Niemand as “Letters That Have Helped Me”) revealed after HPB’s passing that although she had never met her in person, she had been in contact with her during the last few years of her life partly by letter but primarily by what could be described as “astral visits” from HPB, who would appear in her room at night (whilst HPB herself was physically in London, England) and proceed to teach and explain important things to her. Keightley then goes on to say that this did not cease with HPB’s departure from the physical plane but that the real HPB then revealed His true appearance to her: “A few days after Madame Blavatsky died, HPB awoke me at night. I raised myself, feeling no surprise, but only the sweet accustomed pleasure. She held my eyes with her leonine [i.e. lion-like] gaze. Then she grew thinner, taller, her shape became masculine; slowly then her features changed, until a man of height and rugged powers stood before me, the last vestige of her features melting into his, until the leonine gaze, the progressed radiance of her glance alone remained. The man lifted his head and said, “Bear witness!” He then walked from the room, laying his hand on the portrait of HPB as he passed. Since then, he has come to me several times, with instructions, in broad daylight while I was busily working, and once he stepped out from a large portrait of HPB.” (quoted in “Reminiscences of H. P. Blavatsky and The Secret Doctrine” by Countess Wachtmeister, p. 106-112; note that the real “HPB” told Keightley to “Bear witness!” of what she had seen, which presumably means that this great Adept wanted Theosophists to bring to light and to attention something of this profound reality about who and what “HPB” really was and is.) Keightley also added: “I give this out impersonally, for HPB showed me that the mind was all, and how she came to break the moulds of human minds and to set them free. The real HPB was disclosed, and I am one of those who have no difficulty in reconciling all the facts of her outer existence, for some there are who can see behind the veils used by the high occultist when dealing with the unseen at the heart of material things.”

* Another American Theosophist of that era, James Morgan Pryse, wrote to William Judge in 1889 to share the following experience he had recently had and to seek advice about it: “One evening while I was thus meditating the face of H.P.B. flashed before me. I recognized it from her portrait in Isis, though it appeared much older. Thinking that the astral picture, as I took it to be, was due to some vagary of fancy, I tried to exclude it; but at that the face showed a look of impatience, and instantly I was drawn out of my body and immediately was standing “in the astral” beside H.P.B. in London. It was along toward morning there, but she was still seated at her writing desk. While she was speaking to me, very kindly, I could not help thinking how odd it was that an apparently fleshy old lady should be an Adept. I tried to put that impolite thought out of my mind, but she read it, and as if in answer to it her physical body became translucent, revealing a marvellous inner body that looked as if it were formed of molten gold. Then suddenly the Master M. appeared before us in his mayavi-rupa. To him I made profound obeisance, for he seemed to me more like a God than a man. Somehow I knew who he was, though this was the first time I had seen him. He spoke to me graciously and said, “I shall have work for you in six months.” He walked to the further side of the room, waved his hand in farewell and departed. Then H.P.B. dismissed me with the parting words, “God bless you,” and directly I saw the waves of the Atlantic beneath me; I floated down and dipped my feet in their crests. Then with a rush I crossed the continent till I saw the lights of Los Angles and returned to my body, seated in the chair where I had left it.”

Judge replied: “Your vision that when you looked at HPB and saw no old woman but a God is correct. You were privileged to see the Truth – For the Being in that old body called H. P. Blavatsky is a mighty Adept working on his own plan in the world. And thus we do not need to go to Tibet or S. America to find the sort of Being so many wish to see. Yet having seen the reality better keep silent and work with that in view. For even did you go and tell Him you knew He was there he would smile while he waited for you to do something such as you could in your limited sphere. For flattery counts not and professions are worse than useless. But it is a great thing to see as much as you have, and a greater thing it will be if you do not doubt – for you may never see it again.” To another correspondent just a few days later he would write, “As to HPB you cannot judge her by any rule. There is a great Adept there and he uses that body for His own purposes, both for use and for trial of others.” (“Practical Occultism” p. 162-164)

At this point, the question will naturally arise for many of –

WHO exactly was the real, inner, ever-living Nirmanakaya known to us as “HPB”?

Whilst it is the case that we are dealing now with such sacred matters that none of us really have any right to know the answer, there are in fact a few strong clues and hints to be gleaned from the Theosophical literature.

We quote the following from p. 376-378 of “The Theosophical Movement 1875-1925” published anonymously in 1925 by associates of the United Lodge of Theosophists (but understood to have been written primarily if not solely by John Garrigues, who had been Robert Crosbie’s closest colleague and one of the founding associates of the ULT in 1909) and later replaced by a slimmed down yet updated version titled “The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950” which is currently published by the Bangalore ULT Lodge in India:

“Finally, in Chapter XVI [i.e. of “Old Diary Leaves”] he [i.e. Col. Olcott] gives the two incidents spoken of. He says that one summer evening just after dinner in New York days and while it was still early twilight, he was standing by the mantel while H.P.B. sat by one of the front windows. Then:

“ “I heard her say “Look and learn”; and glancing that way, saw a mist rising from her head and shoulders. Presently it defined itself into the likeness of one of the Mahatmas. [Note: The Mahatma M. is understood to be the one referred to here.] . . . Absorbed in watching the phenomenon, I stood silent and motionless. The shadowy shape only formed for itself the upper half of the torso, and then faded away and was gone; whether re-absorbed into H.P.B.’s body or not, I do not know. . . . When I asked her to explain the phenomenon she refused, saying that it was for me to develop my intuition so as to understand the phenomena of the world I lived in. All she could do was to help in showing me things and let me make of them what I could.”

“This incident is recited by Col. Olcott to suggest “that H.P.B.’s body became, at times, occupied by other entities.” It seems not to have occurred to him at all that perhaps he was being afforded a glimpse of the “real H.P.B.,” . . . All he saw was a very wonderful phenomenon, and all he was able to make of it was a new speculation. . . .

“In Chapter XVII, he follows with an incident of a year or two later and sees no connection! He is telling of some of the communications he received from the Masters. He says:

” “One quite long letter that I received in 1879 [from one of the Masters], most strangely alters her [i.e. H. P. Blavatsky’s] sex, speaks of her in the male gender, and confounds her with the Mahatma “M” . . . It says – about a first draft of the letter itself which had been written but not sent me: “Owing to certain expressions therein, the letter was stopped on its way by order of our Brother H.P.B. As you are not under my direct guidance but his [Olcott adds “hers” in brackets], we have naught to say, either of us”; etc. And again: “Our Brother H.P.B. rightly remarked at Jeypore . . .” etc.”

“One may compare the foregoing with the remark of the Master “K.H.” in his letter of 1888 to Col. Olcott: “The personality known as H.P.B. to the world (but otherwise to us).””

In the Contents summary at the start of “The Theosophical Movement 1875-1925” book, the pages from which we have just quoted were listed as “Some hints for the intuitional-minded on “our Brother, H.P.B.””

History shows that Olcott attributed this just-described Mahatma Letter incident to some sort of “mix up or confusion in transmission” on the part of the Masters or Their chelas who sent the letter to him. For some people this is of course easier than to consider that something extremely important may have just been deliberately indicated for their own benefit, especially when that indication is contrary to their own personal opinions and prejudices and outside the comfort zone of their usual perceptions and ideas about things and people.

In a letter from Damodar to William Judge which can be found on this website under the title Damodar and The Hall of Initiation, Damodar begins his description of a truly remarkable occult experience he underwent by saying:

“At about 2 in the morning after finishing my work I locked the door of the room and lay in my bed. Within about 2 or 3 minutes I heard H.P.B.’s voice in her room calling me. I got up with a start and went in. She said “some persons want to see you” and after a moment added “Now go out, do not look at me.” Before however I had time to turn my face I saw her gradually disappear on the spot and from that very ground rose up the form of ∴ By the time I had turned back I saw two others dressed in what I afterwards learned to be Tibetan Clothes.” The symbol ∴ denotes a high Initiate but more specifically in this instance it refers to the Master or Mahatma M. as can be seen from reading the entire letter in context and the explanatory background notes we have added to it.

It is one thing for a Master to appear in his astral body or in a Mayavi Rupa next to or alongside one who is known to be his devoted and trusted chela or disciple (which was how James Morgan Pryse viewed the situation in his experience which we quoted a moment ago); it is quite another for the chela’s own body or appearance to seemingly disappear, leaving in its place that of the Master. We believe this incident should be reflected on in the light of the other incidents described above by Col. Olcott.

In one of William Judge’s letters to Damodar (dated 26th July 1881) he seems to speak of HPB interchangeably with “M.,” making such remarks as “They [i.e. Americans] call such people as you and M. heathens and that in contempt. Of course they never heard you or M. mentioned. . . . I do not even suppose M. would answer you in regard to me except in enigmatical terms, however much either of us desired,” when the context – and the fact that he knew Damodar and HPB to be living in the same house and working together at the Theosophical Society headquarters in India and also knew that Damodar described himself as a chela of the Master K.H. and had never claimed closeness to or contact with the Master M. specifically, though he had spoken of his closeness to and daily communication with HPB – suggests that HPB was meant. In the same letter he says, “My word of honour bars the path; and as H.P.B. or M. once said “the word of honour is inconvenient.”” (“Damodar and The Pioneers of The Theosophical Movement” p. 63-64, compiled and annotated by Sven Eek)

What had been indicated in the ULT’s “The Theosophical Movement 1875-1925” book, published six years after the passing of Robert Crosbie, was a reflection of Crosbie’s own understanding of the situation and which he had described (always anonymously, the vast majority of original ULT literature avoiding giving the name or identifying details of the writer while still alive, for reasons explained here) as “a matter of knowledge to living persons to-day.” Crosbie made several statements in the ULT’s “Theosophy” magazine, particularly in his lengthy series “Masters and Their Message,” which either strongly suggested or occasionally essentially directly stated that the real inner HPB was in fact the Master of Wisdom and Compassion spoken of as her Teacher or Guru. To give just two examples:

“None recognized that the presence of H.P.B. and Her Message in the world was the super-phenomenon of the ages; that what She wrote was the Voice of the Master in the world of men; that She was the Master in human guise and garment, as Her words were the Master’s Message in human form and speech.” (“Masters and Their Message,” “Theosophy” Magazine, October 1914)

“Even as by study and application we are brought to the conclusion that in Theosophy is the greatest Message from the Masters that this race has ever received, even so are we forced to the unavoidable conclusion that in H. P. Blavatsky was Incarnated, to the extent that the highest available form produced by the Race could endure, “That Great INITIATE OF ALL Whose Single Will Keeps This Whole Movement in Being.” (“Masters and Their Message,” “Theosophy” Magazine, August 1914)

Crosbie made that last statement with the assumption that many of his readers were familiar enough with the expression he had put in quotation marks to know who it was referring to. This exact phrase had been used privately by William Q. Judge in communications with members of the Esoteric Section or Esoteric School, to refer to the Master M. We see that Judge had also earlier used very similar phrasing in “Letters That Have Helped Me” p. 87, when speaking of “Master, Whose simple single will keeps the whole organization [in being], and acts as its support and shield.” It was the Master M. who Judge usually – or quite possibly always – meant by the familiar term of “Master,” as the Master M. was known to be his own Guru. Robert Crosbie uses another variant of the phrase in a letter, when saying, “Can we question Master’s hand in everything done in His name? . . . For it is “that Great Initiate of All, Who keeps this whole Movement in being.”” (“The Friendly Philosopher” p. 86)

“That Great Initiate of All” is a curious phrase linguistically and is not exactly clear in meaning. One would usually say “That Greatest Initiate of All” but that is not what is said here and it is questionable whether it is what it means either. In “The Letters of H. P. Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett” HPB refers to “those who rule the destinies as yet of both K.H. and M.” and “K.H.’s and M.’s chiefs.” (p. 18, 20) In her article “The Theosophical Mahatmas” HPB speaks of the Maha Chohan – the highest Chief of the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood or Trans-Himalayan Esoteric School – as “the Paraguru – my Master’s MASTER.” Another great Master, sometimes called the Maha Sahib, namely the Master known as Serapis, was spoken of by the Master M. as “our beloved Lord and Chief.” (“Letters from The Masters of The Wisdom” Second Series, p. 68) However, it may be overly presumptuous to assume that details of the hierarchical relations of the various Masters were spelt out by Them and HPB in exactly the way they really are, for surely there is always a need to veil and disguise some of the most sacred details.

In response to the question “Do Theosophists know of the previous incarnation of H.P.B. and can they identify her with any historical personage?” William Judge once replied:

“Speculation on such personal matters was always very distasteful to H.P.B., and from my own knowledge, backed by that of several men who have advanced far on the path of knowledge, I can say that the soul known to us as H.P.B. was and is so far in front of this race that it is mere idle talk for us to connect her real self with an aunt in her family or with a Hindu or other woman [i.e. these were some of the speculations being indulged in by some Theosophists as to who HPB might have been in a previous lifetime]. Furthermore I know from her own lips that she cared not whether she was in male or female body, but took that body (regardless of sex) which would enable her to do the most work; and also she said that, given the power to control a female incarnation and all that that implies, more could now be done in such than in the male form, but such control and ability were impossible for the general run of people, and solely for the latter reason would she – if unable to control – prefer a male incarnation. I know also that she often smiled at the petty personality and feeble notions that lead us weak mortals to desire either male or female bodies for our next rebirth. She had other matters on hand, and was too great inside to be understood by those who have claimed to know her so well, and from this I except no one, not even Col. Olcott who knew her so many years.” (“Forum Answers” p. 66)

When people either speculate or make confident assertions about alleged reincarnations of the soul of HPB since that soul’s embodiment as, or in, Helena Blavatsky, they almost always tend to demonstrate – based on the type of guesswork and claims that they typically engage in in this regard – that they have never actually understood HPB or her mission and have no idea or perception in the slightest as to the real nature and status, let alone identity, of that great being.

This is all the more concerning when the individuals offering detailed or categorical information about HPB’s purported post-Blavatsky incarnation(s) also claim to be direct messengers or representatives or spokespersons themselves of the Theosophical Mahatmas. Those who are familiar with the various differing assertions put forward on this matter by writers such as Annie Besant, C. W. Leadbeater, Alice Bailey, and the so-called “Master C.V.V.” revered by the World Teacher Trust, to name just a few, can compare them with everything that has been shared in this article and then dispassionately assess what this goes to show about those individuals’ own claims to closeness with and direct knowledge of the Trans-Himalayan Adepts, along with the degree of attention, studiousness, and care that they have applied in analysing, making themselves closely familiar with, and intuitively reflecting upon the original Theosophical literature.

Making a similar point to that we have put in bold in the above quote from “Forum Answers,” the Indian Theosophist B. P. Wadia – initially a figure of some importance and influence in “The Theosophical Society – Adyar” and a colleague of Besant and Leadbeater, but who eventually resigned, declaring “The Theosophical Society is disloyal to Theosophy,” and joined the United Lodge of Theosophists instead – wrote: “She did not belong to our Kali Yuga or even to our Fifth-Race evolution, though she was affected by both. An incarnation like hers cannot be evaluated by our rules, our cycles, etc. Herein is a clue to understand her. Her motives and methods were hers, deliberate in wisdom and in compassion.” He adds regarding chelaship or discipleship: “As to an intermediary on the Way to Chelaship, even Lay Chelaship, for this cycle it is H.P.B. and remains so. . . . Chelaship in this cycle, especially the beginning of such a life, is different, thanks to the sacrifices of H.P.B. She has done a tremendous beneficence to all devotees and aspirants by opening a regular door to the Masters. The knock at the door becomes necessary.” (“Extracts from Unpublished Letters”)

Some Theosophists are of the opinion that there was no constant or fixed inner occupant of the “Blavatsky body” but that it was merely inhabited temporarily at different times by various different Adepts and chelas, without there ever being a real “Inner HPB.” This, however, is obviously highly contradictory to everything said above. It is contradicted even further by William Judge writing in a letter about HPB in 1890, a year before her passing, “The body is really worn out and only kept alive by extraordinary means. The real one is now – or was – paralyzing it so that at this crisis the head should not do such work as to cause untimely death. I know that if that one should be away a moment you would see the body collapse before you.” (the italics are in the original, “Practical Occultism” p. 178)

But this does not prevent it also being the case that at times, numerous different Masters did indeed temporarily enter and utilise this same body of H. P. Blavatsky, when necessity required it. One such necessity was the writing process of HPB’s first book “Isis Unveiled.” For details of this, you can click here to read “The Extraordinary Story Behind Isis Unveiled.” It is important to clarify, due to misconceptions that can easily arise, that this was not mediumship or channelling. There are various reasons why it should not be called mediumship or channelling, such as that the process never involved HPB becoming “passive” or lessening or losing her own consciousness and awareness, and also that the individuals involved were not disembodied spirits, nor the co-called “Ascended Masters” popularly spoken of today, but living men, physically incarnated in various parts of this world, on this physical, material plane. (See Masters of Wisdom: Outwardly Mortal, Inwardly Immortal) On one occasion, some years later, the Maha Chohan himself arranged to temporarily occupy this mighty physical form for the duration of a brief visit HPB made to London: “One far greater than myself has kindly consented to survey the whole situation [of the Theosophical Society in London] under her guise.” (Master K.H., “Letters from The Masters of The Wisdom” Second Series, p. 112)

“Isis Unveiled” itself makes repeatedly clear why Theosophy and its custodians, the Masters, do not view mediumship in a positive light, and the distinction they make between mediumship and mediatorship.

There are undeniably numerous major “logical difficulties,” for want of a better term, that inevitably arise in well-informed minds when faced with the idea that the real, inner HPB was in fact the Master who is commonly referred to as her Guru. To give just a few examples: (1) It is proven that HPB sometimes received letters from the Master M., so why would the Master M. need to send letters and instructions to the Master M.?, (2) HPB went to spend several years living with and being trained by the Masters in the Trans-Himalayan region and Tibet, even after the particular year(s) in the 1860s when the original occupant of the body apparently permanently departed from it, so why would there be such a need if from that point on the body was already being utilised by the Master?, (3) Why did HPB herself never directly reveal or state that what we have been describing was the real situation and why, when writing to her relatives, did she write solely as the Russian woman Helena Blavatsky they had always known?

Regarding #3, we have already seen in this article that Damodar also found that to be an issue but that he later found out in some way how to make sense of it and its real explanation, though he does not divulge what that is. We also saw HPB’s own words that for decades she had been “playing parts.” It is also obvious that to state the exact situation to her relatives, who were neither esotericists nor Theosophists, would have created major upset and distress for them, as well as serious problems for her. As for #1 and #2, we honestly have no idea what the answer is. But if one uses these as a reason for rejecting the notion that Helena Blavatsky had “died” prior to beginning her public work and that the Master had revived and assumed occupancy of her body, one is then still left with an inability to explain the mass of quotes and references that have been shared throughout this article.

In light of the sacredness of this subject, we do not want to engage in speculations in this article but we would suggest to those sufficiently interested that they reflect – if well acquainted with the original Theosophical teachings and metaphysics – upon what would happen to the various Principles of the human constitution if the soul (the Ego, the Higher Manas) within were to permanently depart from the physical body (Sthula Sharira) but without this body actually dying, or, if it did die, with it being revived instantly by a more advanced soul connecting or linking with it? Which of the seven Principles would remain? What would be their condition and state of action? Would the full personality, personal consciousness or personal ego, and the strengths, weaknesses, characteristics, and impulses of the former occupant not still be there and very much alive and active, even if that occupant was no longer present? These are rhetorical questions for those so inclined to contemplate upon. But one does not need to be able to know all the answers right now, nor can one reasonably expect to be able to, for such processes or “occult operations” belong to the domain of those Master Yogis and would not be fully comprehensible in ordinary language, even if it were permitted for Them to spell it out.

One thing which may go a long way to resolving things is an understanding of the fact that very advanced beings can have multiple simultaneous incarnations:

“Not only a Buddha, a Shankaracharya, or a Jesus can be said to animate several persons at one and the same time, but even the principles of a high Adept may be animating the outward tabernacles of common mortals.” (HPB, “The Doctrine of Avataras” article)

“The Tchang-chub (an adept who has, by the power of his knowledge and soul enlightenment, become exempt from the curse of UNCONSCIOUS transmigration) – may, at his will and desire, and instead of reincarnating himself only after bodily death, do so, and repeatedly – during his life if he chooses. He holds the power of choosing for himself new bodies – whether on this or any other planet – while in possession of his old form, that he generally preserves for purposes of his own. Read the book of Khiu-tee and you will find in it these laws. She [i.e. HPB] might translate for you some paras, as she knows them by rote. To her you may read the present.” (Master K.H., “The Mahatma Letters” p. 285; “Jangchub,” as it is transliterated nowadays, is the Tibetan word for “Bodhisattva” and “Nirmanakaya”)

However, another “logical difficulty” is that letters from the Master Serapis written to Col. Olcott in the summer of 1875, a few months prior to the founding of the Theosophical Society, state such things about HPB during that time as: “The Dweller [i.e. a reference to the esoteric concept of the “Dweller on (or of) the Threshold”] is watching closely and will never lose his opportunity, if our Sister’s courage fails. This is to be one of her hardest trials. . . . Let [Olcott] plan the ground and prepare it for the reception of our Sister . . . if she survives the trial. . . . Brother mine, I can do naught for our poor Sister. She has placed herself under the stern law of the Lodge and these laws can be softened for none. . . . she must win her right . . .” (“Letters from The Masters of The Wisdom” Second Series, p. 34, 35-36) It would appear that HPB had to undergo an extremely difficult initiatory test and process – “the dreaded ordeal,” the Master calls it – before the Theosophical Society could be established; a test and process which, if she had failed, would probably have resulted in the Society never being formed in that century. Fortunately she did not fail . . . but such wording clearly is not referring to the Master M. and nor could it apply to H. P. Blavatsky if she was not even incarnated in that body anymore, for how could someone who has forever departed from their body be reasonably expected to undergo and pass a dangerous and crucial initiation in that body?

No student of Theosophy knows all the answers and so it is important that what has been presented in this article not become a dogma, for this subject is not something to be dogmatic or insistent about – either for or against – and nor does acceptance or denial of it determine whether or not a person is a true, sincere, or devoted student of HPB and her teachings. Fanaticism in particular is to be especially guarded against and not confused with the true, humble, and wise devotion of the heart. 

But perhaps it can now be better understood and appreciated why, as we said in Theosophy on The New Age of Aquarius, “It seems safe to assume that in Robert Crosbie’s understanding, the real inner HPB – or the Adept or Master who occupied and worked through her physical form and persona – fulfilled the role of Avatar for the Aquarian Age.” In that article, we provide statements from Crosbie and other early ULT sources relating to that but we also add: “From what we know of HPB, she would be the last to want to be viewed or spoken of as “Avatar.” Yet for those who are willing to see it, the evidence and the timing seems to speak for itself.” It is in fact not only the United Lodge of Theosophists but also “The Theosophical Society – Pasadena” and “The Theosophical Society – Point Loma” which hold this perspective about HPB’s mission. One can find it affirmed in the writings of G. de Purucker published by those two Societies, yet Purucker and his supporters seem not to have noticed the many clues about the “death” of the original H. P. Blavatsky, for, unlike Crosbie, they never mention this point.

In influential ULT Theosophist B. P. Wadia’s understanding, the important first 5,000 year cycle of the Kali Yuga, which began with Krishna and then halfway through saw the appearance of Buddha and just a few decades after him his reappearance in Adi Shankaracharya, closed and culminated in the work or mission of HPB. For more on the subject of the Kali Yuga and its sub-cycles, please see the article just linked to and The Seven Yugas.

As inspiring and soul-lifting as many may find the awareness resulting from calm consideration of the many details shared in this present article, Wadia emphasises:

“Devotion to H.P.B., if it is of the right type, and so enduring and lasting, must be rooted in her recorded message. . . . The safe way to proceed is from the Teachings to the Teacher.”

It should become apparent that HPB’s teachings and writings deserve to be considered as far more representative of, and accurate regarding, the actual Ageless Wisdom teachings of the Masters and the Great White Lodge than any of her manifold “successors,” all of whose claims to have been connected with and representative of the Masters continue to remain entirely unproven and unconfirmed and whose teachings are often very different indeed. This is just simple logic. As someone once said, “With HPB we had a Master in our midst but we didn’t realise it and turned instead to those who really had no clue.”

~ * ~

The matters dealt with in this article are, it must be again emphasised, of a truly sacred and esoteric nature. The main reason for putting all this online is to help counteract the unfortunately all too prevalent tendency among many Theosophists to be depreciating and disparaging towards HPB when it suits them because, like the Mahatma K.H. and Mahatma M. once remarked to Col. Olcott: “Your revolt, good friend, against her [i.e. HPB’s] infallibility – as you once thought it – has gone too far and you have been unjust to her, for which I am sorry to say, you will have to suffer hereafter along with others. . . . You have never understood Upasika [i.e. HPB], nor the laws thro’ which her apparent life has been made to work since you knew her. You are ungrateful and unjust and even cruel. You take maya for reality and reality for illusion.” (“Letters from The Masters of The Wisdom” First Series, p. 49, and Second Series, p. 89-90)

At the end of the eleventh chapter or discourse of the Bhagavad Gita, after the Avatar Krishna has shown his true form and nature to his disciple Arjuna in all its vast, majestic, cosmic glory and splendour, Arjuna says: “Having been ignorant of thy majesty, I took thee for a friend, and have called thee ‘O Krishna, O son of Yadu, O friend,’ and blinded by my affection and presumption, I have at times treated thee without respect in sport, in recreation, in repose, in thy chair, and at thy meals, in private and in public; all this I beseech thee, O inconceivable Being, to forgive.” (William Q. Judge rendition, p. 85, Theosophy Company)

Commenting on this in p. 176-178 of “Notes on The Bhagavad Gita” Robert Crosbie observes:

“Here in this ancient scripture is pictured the fatal error made again and again by mankind in the failure to recognize a divine teacher when he appears among them in human guise. Buddha, Jesus, and many others before and after them, were treated by their contemporaries as ordinary human beings actuated by similar motives as the rest of mankind. They were opposed by the established interests, religious and otherwise, because the doctrines they taught were destructive of the hard and fast conclusions upon which those interests were founded; their speech and acts, although intended to instruct, enlighten, and benefit, were construed as violations of law and custom, and were frequently characterized as criminal in nature. Even among their immediate disciples, suspicion, doubt, jealousy, fear, resentment and self-interest were to be found, none of which could have had existence had the real nature of the teacher been understood. These conditions prevented the true relation between teacher and disciple which is so necessary to the latter if he would benefit fully from that relation. It is true that all the disciples learned something in spite of their defects, but it is also true that the lack of intuitive perception of the divine nature of their teachers was the most important factor in the failure of those disciples to truly transmit the teachings they had received; for that lack closed the door in themselves through which the divine enlightenment could come. Even Arjuna, loyal and devoted disciple as he was, had failed to perceive the wondrous nature of his teacher. It was not until that teacher by his favor and power had caused “the divine eye” in Arjuna to open that the ability to see on that plane of substance was gained. It is natural to suppose that Arjuna had by his unshaken confidence and constant devotion arrived at a stage of development where such help was merited.

“It might be well for students of Theosophy to consider whether they may not have made a similar mistake in regard to Those who brought the message of Theosophy to the Western world, and so kept closed the only door through which direct help could come.”

~ * ~

This article may have raised more questions about various things. Please make use of the site search function (the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the page) and visit the Articles page to see the complete list of over 300 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. You may be particularly interested in articles listed under the headings “H. P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY” and “THE MASTERS.” You may also like to read Who Was William Quan Judge? for, as indicated in this article, his was another example of incarnation of an advanced soul by unusual means to do a specific great work for humanity at a crucial period in time.

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~

“HPB . . . She is not an “instrument” only but is at the same time a great deal more, but what and how much more each one has to find out for himself. He who finds out early is the better off, but at the same time he who does not find out is not blamed – he is merely a loser. It is a thing that I cannot explain in a letter. When she is dead then perhaps it will be better known but even then not to a great many.”
(William Q. Judge, Letter to J. Ransom Bridge, 31st August 1888, “Practical Occultism” p. 116-117)