Isis very much unveiled, being the story of the great Mahatma hoax

by Fydell Edmund Garrett

But you were right when you say that Mrs. Besant made a remarkable change in respect to me. That is true, and Mr. Chakravarti whom you name is, as you correctly say, the person who is responsible for it. Before she met Chakravarti she would not have dreamed of prosecuting me. This is a matter of regret, but while so, I fail to see how you aid your case against me by dragging the thing in thus publicly, unless, indeed, you intend to accuse him and her of going into a conspiracy against me.

There are two classes of “messages from the Masters” charged to me by you and by that small section of the T.S. members who thought of trying me. One class consists of notes on letters of mine to various persons; the other of messages handed to Mrs. Besant and Colonel Olcott and enclosure found in a letter to Colonel Olcott from a man in California.

I have never denied that I gave Mrs. Besant messages from the Masters. I did so. They were from the Masters. She admits that, but simply takes on herself to say that the Master did not personally write or precipitate them. According to herself, then, she got from me genuine messages from the Masters; but she says she did not like them to be done or made in some form that she at first thought they were not in. I have not admitted her contention; I have simply said they were from the Master, and that is all I now say, for I will not tell how or by what means they were produced. The objective form in which such a message is of no consequence. Let it be written by your Mr. Garrett, or drop out of the misty air, or come with a clap of thunder. All that makes no difference save to the vulgar and the ignorant. The reality of the message is to be tested by other means. If you have not those means you are quite at sea as to the whole thing. And all this I thought was common knowledge in the Theosophical world. It has long been published and explained.

One of those messages to Mrs. Besant told her not to go to India that year. I got it in California, and then telegraphed it to her in substance later, sending the paper. I had no interest in not having her go to India, but knew she would go later. The other messages were of a personal nature. They were all true and good. At the time I gave them to her I did not say anything. That I never denied. It was not thought by me necessary to insult a woman of her intellectual ability, who had read all about these things, by explaining all she was supposed to know. Those who think those messages were not from the Master are welcome to doubt it so far as I am concerned, for I know the naturalness of that doubt.

When Colonel Olcott resigned I was first willing to let him stay resigned. But I was soon directed by another “message” to prevent it if I could, and at once cabled that to him, and went to work to have the American Section vote asking him to stay in office. As I was the person mentioned to succeed him, we also, to provide for contingencies, resolved that the choice of America was myself as successor. But when he revoked, then my successorship was null and void until voted on at another period not yet reached. But it is absolutely false that I sent an emissary to him when I found he was minded to stay in office. Ask him on this and see what he says. I leave that to him. Truly enough I made an error of judgment in not telling the influential London members of my message when I told Olcott. But what of that? I did not tell the Americans, but left their action to the dictates of their sense and the trend of friendship and loyalty to our standard-bearer. The English voted against Olcott by doing nothing, but I asked them in the same way as I asked the Americans to request him to revoke. They had their chance. As India had done the same as America I saw the vote was final as my message directed, and so I dropped it from my mind—one of my peculiarities. I certainly did not use any pressure by way of “messages from the Masters” on anyone as to that, save on Olcott. And he reported a message to the same effect to himself. Did I invent that also? My message to him was copied by me on my type-writer and sent to him. I did it thus because I knew of spies about Olcott, of whom I had warned him to little effect. One of those confessed and committed suicide, and the other was found out.

A message was found in a letter from Abbot Clark, a Californian, to Colonel Olcott. This, you say, I made and put in the letter. I have the affirmation of Mr. Clark on the matter, which I send you herewith to be inserted at this place if you wish. It does not bear out your contention, but shows the contrary. It also shows that his letter to Colonel Olcott was opened in India by some other person before being sent on to Colonel Olcott. You can make what inference you like from this.

Your statement about putting a question in a cabinet for an answer when I stayed in the room and Mrs. Besant went out is false. No such thing took place. I deny that there was any such thing as a reception of “answers in a sealed envelope in a closed drawer.” That is supreme bosh from beginning to end, and cannot be proved by anybody’s testimony, unless you will accept perjury.

At the same time I can now say, as the sole authority on the point, that several of the contested messages are genuine ones, no matter what all and every person, Theosophist or not, may say to the contrary.

You have much talk about what you say is called the Master’s seal. You have proved by the aid of Colonel Olcott that the latter made an imitation in brass of the signature of the Master and gave it to H.P.B. as a joke. You trace it to her and there you leave it, and then you think I am obliged to prove I did not get it, to prove negatives again, when it has never been proved that I had it. I have long ago denied all knowledge of Master’s seal either genuine or imitated. I do not know if he has a seal; if he has, I have not yet been informed of it; the question of a seal owned by him as well as what is his writing or signature are both still beclouded. None of the members who have been in this recent trouble know what is the writing, or the seal, or the mark of the Master. It was long ago told by H.P.B. that the so-called writing of the Master was only an assumed hand, and no real knowledge is at hand as to his having a seal. I have seen impressions similar to what you have reproduced, but it is of no consequence to me. If there were a million impressions of seals on a message said to be from the Master, it would add nothing to the message in my eyes, as other means must be employed for discovering what is and what is not a genuine message. Seals and ciphers do not validate these things. Unless I can see for myself by my inner senses that a message is genuine, I will not believe it, be it loaded with seals I do not know. As I know the thousand and one magical ways by which impressions of things may be put on paper, even unconsciously to the human channel or focus, I have relied, and ask others to rely, on their own inner knowledge and not to trust to appearances. Others may think these little decorations of importance, but I do not. I never asked anyone at any meeting, private or public, to note or observe the seal-impression you give. Others may have done so, but I did not. Others may have gone into laboured arguments to show the value of such a thing, but I did not. The whole matter of this so-called seal is so absurd and childish that it has made me laugh each time I have thought of it.

Now I can do no more than deny, as I hereby do absolutely, all the charges you have been the means of repeating against me. I have denied them very many times, for I have known of them for about two years and a half. My denial is of no value to you; nor to those who think there is no supersensual world; nor to those who think that because conjurors can imitate any psychical phenomenon, therefore the latter has no existence; nor to those who deny the possibility of the existence of Mahatmas or great souls. These things are all foolishness to such persons, and I am willing to let it stay that way. Were I to go into all the details of all the messages you refer to, and were I to get from those who know, as I can, the full relation of all that is involved in those messages on my letters which I saw after the July “investigation” was ended, I would be opening the private doors to the secret hearts of others, and that I will not do. Already I know by means not generally accessible altogether too much of the private hearts of many of these people, and have no desire to know more.