Published by Blavatsky Study Center. Online Edition copyright 2004.

Existence of the Mahatmas

by William Q. Judge

[Reprinted from The Religio-Philosophical Journal
(Chicago, Illinois) October 16, 1886, p. 6.]

bigrain.gif (2001 bytes)

To the Editor of the Religio-Philosophical Journal:

In your Journal of the 25th of September, Mr. W. Emmette Coleman relieves his mind upon the subject of his personal desire to be convinced of the actual existence of the Mahatmas, and takes occasion to say that he is perfectly satisfied:

(a) That Mahatmas are the product of the Kalmuck mind of Madame Blavatsky;

(b) That this Kalmuck woman has had for nine years a vast conspiracy ramifying over the one million square miles of India; and

(c) That Mr. Brown, to whom he refers, saw one of the numerous and widely spread conspirators in North India.

"I am satisfied" that no amount of proof would satisfy Mr. Coleman, except a personal visit from a Mahatma. And it is to preserve themselves from him and his style, that the Mahatmas do not go out to prove their existence; that they will visit him is as yet unlikely.

Now the two first positions, a and b, are enough to disprove Mr. Coleman’s conclusions, for any tyro in India literature or traveller in Hindustan, knows that the Mahatmas have been believed in by the Hindus from time immemorial; and it is a ridiculous impossibility that Mme. Blavatsky could have got up this immense conspiracy requiring such wonderful co-operation and expenditure of money as it would naturally demand.

As to Mr. Brown’s evidence, I only desire to add my own, though not with the detail gone into by him. And not only is there Mr. Brown’s letter, but I have seen hundreds of such letters received in various parts, both in Blavatsky’s presence and away from her. And I can put my hand now on over fifty such letters that are owned by a friend of mine not one hundred miles from here, all of which were received in a manner which Mr. Coleman even would not cavil at had he been present.

But the object of the Theosophist is not to prove the existence of Mahatmas. Properly developed minds will know of that naturally. Our object is to spread the doctrines which Mahatmas have pointed to, and not to accentuate phenomena. As one of them said in a letter now in the United States, but not published: "You (Theosophists) must prosper by philosophical and moral worth, and not by phenomena." So we must in America try by all means to keep out of the arena of proof for the locus in quo of Mahatmas. But I would beseech all earnest, truthful inquirers, to bend their investigations toward finding out what a Mahatma’s state is, and then direct their energies to reaching that state themselves; for even a very little of this practice is productive of much benefit.

New York, Sept. 25, 1886.                                                 William Q. Judge.