Mohini Chatterji's Deposition to the
Society for Psychical Research, 1884
[Reprinted from the First
Report of the Committee of the Society for Psychical Research, Appointed to Investigate
the Evidence for Marvellous Phenomena offered by Certain Members of the Theosophical
Society, Appendix II, pp. 62-74, London, 1884. This online edition is
reprinted by permission of the
Society for Psychical Research, London.]
Mr. Mohinis deposition begins with accounts of three supposed apparitions, in
none of which the possibility of his being deceived seems to us, from his description, to
have been completely excluded. In the first two the light and the distance are both
weak points. The third case is better because the distance of the figure from Mr.
Mohini was at one time only a few feet, and he has no doubt that he recognised in it the
person whom, as we now know, from his letter to the Pall Mall, (see Appendix XIX.)
he had met some months previously in the flesh, and who had presented himself to him as
Mahatma Koot Hoomi. We cannot, from what Mr. Mohini tells us, feel so strongly as he
does that the circumstances make it impossible that the figure on the balcony could have
been a real man, but it seemed at any rate improbable that it was not the same man,
whether in the body or in astral form, whom he had previously met. Mr.
Mohini goes on to cases of transportation of letters. The first he gives is that of
the letter falling in the house of Maharajah Sir Jolindra M. Tagore, already described by
Colonel Olcott. Putting Colonel Olcotts account and Mr. Mohinis
together, we find that the letter is stated to have referred to two subjects of the
conversation within a few minutes of its falling, which is worthy of note, as though the
subjects were not improbable ones, it would be more difficult to lead up to two than to
The case of the letter found on Mr. Keightleys table has also some weight, but we
must here draw attention to the danger of assuming too confidently that a letter or other
object was not previously on a table or in a drawer because it was not previously observed
there. It is a matter of everyday experience that we may overlook things even when
searching for them, and this is of course still more likely to occur when we are not
thinking of them.
It is hardly necessary to make more comment on the letter in the railway
carriage than is implied in the questions asked at the time. This case, taken in
connection with that in Appendix XXXII., seems to force on us one of two alternatives:
Either the appearance of these letters was an occult phenomenon or Colonel Olcott threw
Meeting June 10th, 1884.
||J. Herbert Stack, Esq.,
F. W. H. Myers, Esq.,
E. Gurney, Esq.,
F. Podmore, Esq.
Mr. Mohini M. Chatterji was examined.
MR. MYERS: Have you seen any
instances of apparitions of living persons at a distance, either of Mahatmas or others?
MR. MOHINI: I have seen apparitions of
MR. MYERS: On how many occasions?
MR. MOHINI: On several occasions --- five
or six, I should think.
MR. MYERS: And how have you identified
MR. MOHINI: From portraits.
MR. STACK: As to the Mahatmas you have
seen as apparitions, have you seen them also as ordinary human beings in the flesh?
MR. MOHINI: Oh, yes.
MR. STACK: Will you mention the first
instance that occurred in point of time?
MR. MOHINI: It was in the month of
December, 1882, that I saw the apparition of one of the Mahatmas for the first time.
I do not remember the precise date, but it can be easily ascertained. It was a few
days after the anniversary of the Theosophical Society was celebrated in that year.
One evening, eight or 10 of us were sitting on the balcony at the headquarters of the
Society. I was leaning over the railings, when at a distance I caught a glimpse of
some shining substance, which after a short time took the form of a human being.
This human form several times passed and re-passed the place where we were. I should
think the apparition was visible for four or five minutes.
MR. STACK: How far did it appear to be
MR. MOHINI: About 20 or 30 yards.
MR. MYERS: In what way can you be sure
that it was not an ordinary person?
MR. MOHINI: From the position in which it
appeared. It appeared at a place where there was a declivity in the hill, the house
being at the top of the hill. There was also a bend at the spot, so that if an
ordinary human being had been walking there it would have been impossible for him to have
been seen. I saw the whole figure, however, so that it must have been floating in
MR. MYERS: Other persons besides yourself
MR. MOHINI: Oh, yes. One was Novin
Grishna Bannerji, who is deputy collector at Berhampore, Moorshedabad, Bengal.
Another was Ramaswamier, who is district registrar at Madura, Madras. A third was
Pundit Chandra Sikir, who lives at Bareilly, N.W.P.
MR. MYERS: All those witnesses saw the
same figure that you did?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: Who observed it first?
MR. MOHINI: It was first observed by
Ramaswamier and myself.
MR. MYERS: And all agreed that it could
not be a real man walking in that way?
MR. MOHINI: Certainly. It seemed to
us to be the apparition of the original of the portrait in Colonel Olcotts room, and
which is associated with one of the Mahatmas.
MR. MYERS: In fact, Colonel Olcotts
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: What amount of light was there
at the time?
MR. MOHINI: This occurred about half-past
nine or 10 oclock on a bright moonlight night.
MR. MYERS: The figure walked up and down?
MR. MOHINI: Yes, and then disappeared.
MR. MYERS: In what way did it disappear?
MR. MOHINI: It seemed to melt away.
MR. STACK: Could you distinguish the
features at the distance at which you were?
MR. MOHINI: Oh, yes, and the dress, the
turban, and everything.
MR. MYERS: What height did the figure
appear to be?
MR. MOHINI: I should think it was six
feet or so --- a very tall man.
MR. MYERS: Because we heard from Colonel
Olcott that his Mahatma was something like 6ft. 5in. in height.
MR. MOHINI: I could not tell exactly, but
it was very tall. I had seen the portrait several times. It was the first
picture of a Mahatma I had ever seen, so that it made a great impression upon me.
MR. MYERS: When was the second time that
you saw an astral appearance?
MR. MOHINI: Two or three days after
that. We were sitting on the ground --- on the rock, outside the house in Bombay,
when a figure appeared a short distance away. It was not the same figure as on the
MR. MYERS: In what way are you sure it
was not a living man?
MR. MOHINI: You could easily find that
out from the colour. This was the same shining colour as before.
MR. MYERS: Did the apparition seem to
walk or to float?
MR. MOHINI: It seemed to float.
There was no sound accompanying it.
MR. MYERS: You say that it was a shining
substance. Was it phosphorescent?
MR. MOHINI: It seemed like phosphorus in
the dark. The hair was dark, and could be distinguished from the face.
MR. GURNEY: Going back to the first
apparition, it seems somewhat startling to be told that you could recognise the face at
such a distance off, and in moonlight. Do you feel sure that if you had seen the
face alone you would have recognised it?
MR. MOHINI: I cannot answer that. (1) I saw the whole thing, and the whole thing, taken together,
produced upon me the impression that it was the apparition of the original of the portrait
in Colonel Olcotts room. Had I seen the face alone, peering out of the dark, I
do not know whether I should have recognised it or not.
MR. STACK: Do all the Mahatmas dress
MR. MOHINI: No. Colonel
Olcott was present on the first occasion, and, as I have already stated, the apparition
that appeared was that of his Master.
MR. MYERS: On the two occasions did all
who were present see the apparitions?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: Can you give us the names of
the persons who were present on the second occasion?
MR. MOHINI: They were the same persons
that were present on the first occasion.
MR. MYERS: Did the apparition say
anything on the second occasion?
MR. MOHINI: No.
MR. MYERS: We will now come to the third
occasion on which you have seen an apparition.
MR. MOHINI: The third instance which I
will describe was the last that occurred just before my leaving India. We were
sitting in the drawing-room on the first-floor of the house at Adyar. It was about
11 oclock at night. The window looks over a terrace or balcony. In one
corner of the room there appeared a thin vapoury substance of a shining white
colour. Gradually it took shape, and a few dark spots became visible, and after a
short time it was the fully-formed body of a man, apparently as solid as an ordinary human
body. This figure passed and re-passed us several times, approaching to within a
distance of a yard or two from where we were standing near the window. It approached
so near that I think that if I had put out my hand I might have touched it.
MR. STACK: Did you see the face clearly?
MR. MOHINI: Oh, yes; very clearly.
MR. MYERS: And it was Mr. Sinnetts
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. STACK: How did you identify him as
MR. MOHINI: Because I had seen his
portrait several times before.
MR. STACK: Had you ever seen him in the
MR. MOHINI: I cannot answer
that. I explained to you the reason why I could not. Colonel Olcott can,
but I cannot.
MR. MYERS: Are we to understand, then,
that, when favours are accorded by a Mahatma for the sake of the Chelas own
spiritual advancement, there is a rule which forbids the Chela to describe them, with the
view of preventing spiritual pride?
MR. MOHINI: I have not been told the
reason, but that is, I believe, the reason.
MR. MYERS: Will you continue your
MR. MOHINI: After a while I said that as
I should not see him for a long time, on account of my going to Europe, I begged he would
leave some tangible mark of his visit. The figure then raised his hands and seemed
to throw something at us. The next moment we found a shower of roses falling over us
in the room --- roses of a kind that could not have been procured on the premises.
We requested the figure to disappear from that side of the balcony where there was no
exit. There was a tree on the other side, and it was in order to prevent all
suspicion that it might be something that had got down the tree, or anything of that kind,
that we requested him to disappear from the side where there was no exit. The figure
went over to that spot and then disappeared.
MR. MYERS: You saw its disappearance?
MR. MOHINI: Oh yes, it passed us slowly
until it came to the edge of the balcony, and then it was not to be seen any more.
MR. MYERS: The
disappearance being sudden?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. GURNEY: Was the height of the balcony
such that any one could have jumped down from it?
MR. MOHINI: The height was 15 or 20 feet,
and moreover, there were people downstairs and all over the house, so that it would have
been impossible for a person to have jumped down without being noticed. Just below
the balcony there is an open lawn. There were several persons looking at the moment,
and my own idea is that it would have been perfectly impossible for a person to have
MR. STACK: Why?
MR. MOHINI: There is a small flight
of steps just below the balcony, and if a man had jumped from the balcony he must have
fallen upon the steps and broken his legs. When the figure passed and re-passed us
we heard nothing of any footsteps. Besides myself, Damodar and Madame Blavatsky were
in the room at the time.
MR. MYERS: Did this figure speak?
MR. MOHINI: Not on that occasion.
What it did could not be called speaking.
MR. STACK: Were you all in the room when
this occurred, or out on the balcony?
MR. MOHINI: In the room, with the window
MR. MYERS: What light was there on the
MR. MOHINI: The moonlight, and the figure
came to within so short a distance that the light, which was streaming out of the window,
fell upon it. This was at the Madras headquarters, about either the end of January
or the beginning of February last; in fact, just before I left Madras.
MR. STACK: What kind of roses were they
that they could not be grown at Madras?
MR. MOHINI: I said that they could not
have been procured on the premises, though, indeed, I have not seen any such roses at
MR. STACK: What was the colour of the
figure? Was it perfectly natural?
MR. MOHINI: When it came, it was just
like a natural man.
MR. MYERS: Can you give any reason why
this figure was different in colour and aspect from those which you saw on the former
MR. MOHINI: The luminosity depends upon
whether all the principles which go to make up a double are there, without any gross
particles being attracted.
MR. MYERS: Gross matter is present when
the figure is non-luminous?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. STACK: This figure looked like an
ordinary man? If you had not believed that it was the Mahatma Koot Hoomi, you would
have thought it was an ordinary man?
MR. MOHINI: I never would have thought
that it was an ordinary man, because it was such a striking figure.
MR. MYERS: Turning now to the
transmission of solid objects, can you tell us whether you have yourself been witness to
the appearance of letters or other objects in places where they could not have been
conveyed by ordinary means?
MR. MOHINI: I have.
MR. MYERS: Can you describe one or two
MR. MOHINI: Yes, I can. The first
was in the house of Maharajah Sri Jateendra Mohan Tagore, recently a member of the
MR. MYERS: Would he testify to this?
MR. MOHINI: It was in his house, but he
was not present. It was there that I for the first time saw a letter conveyed to us
by occult agency. The circumstances were referred to in Colonel Olcotts
deposition. The facts are substantially as stated by him; but there is one thing
that he omitted to mention. In the course of conversation between myself, the editor
of the Indian Mirror, the late Perachund Mitra, and Norendra Nath, the latter asked
what good a person could do by joining the Theosophical Society. The letter which
was delivered to us in the way Colonel Olcott described quoted that phrase, and went on to
reply to it. The letter fell down before us within two or three minutes after this
remark was made by Norendra Nath.
MR. MYERS: Showing, as I gather you
maintain, that these letters brought by occult means sometimes contain references to
events of the moment?
MR. MOHINI: Certainly. I may say
that a full account of this was published in the Indian Mirror, of the 14th of
April, 1882, I think.
MR. STACK: The IndianMirror is an
ordinary daily paper?
MR. MOHINI: Yes. The reason why
this incident was published in that paper was that the editor was present.
MR. STACK: Was he is a Theosophist, then?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: Does your recollection of the
circumstances, attending the falling of the letter fully coincide with that of Colonel
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: Perhaps you will now proceed
to the Parisian case?
MR. MOHINI: I was staying in Paris
occupying apartments at No. 46, Rue Notre Dame des Champs. Mr. Keightley and Mr.
Oakley were in the house with me. On that morning we were discussing as to whether
we should go into the country, to a place where Madame Blavatsky was then staying, and we
decided upon doing so. The two gentlemen I have named went to their respective rooms
to get ready to start by the next train. I was sitting in the drawing-room.
Within a few minutes, Mr. Keightley came back from his room, and went to that of Mr
.Oakley. In doing so he passed me, and I followed him.
MR. STACK: Was the drawing-room between
the two bedrooms?
MR. MOHINI: The hall also intervened, I
think. To go from one bedroom to another the easiest way was through the
drawing-room. Arriving in the bedroom we found Mr. Oakley talking with Madame
Blavatskys Indian servant. Mr. Keightley inquired if Mr. Oakley had
called. Mr. Oakley replied in the negative, and Mr. Keightley then returned to his
own room, followed by myself. There was a table in the middle of the room occupied
by Mr. Keightley. He had passed the edge of the table nearest the door, and was
about one foot and a half distant --- I had not yet entered the room --- when, on the edge
of the table nearest the door, I saw a letter. Many such envelopes are in my
possession, as well as in the possession of Mr. Sinnett and others. The moment I
caught sight of it I stopped short and called out to Mr. Keightley to turn back and
look. He turned back and at once saw the letter on the table. I asked him if
he had seen it there before. He answered in the negative, and said that had it been
there he must have noticed it, as he had taken his watch and chain out and put them on the
table. He said that he was sure the letter was not there when he passed the spot, as
the envelope was too striking not to have caught his sight.
MR. STACK: What are these
envelopes? Are they peculiar to the use of Mahatmas? Or are they ordinary
MR. MOHINI: I have only seen them used by
MR. STACK: They are made of paper, and
have Chinese characters on them, I think?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. STACK: The reason I ask is that
Colonel Olcott, in his conversation, spoke of them, I think, as if they were Thibetan
envelopes. I thought they might be in general use in Thibet.
MR. MOHINI: I have never been to
Thibet, nor have I ever received a letter from thence. Indeed, I do not believe that
there is any postal service with Thibet.
MR. GURNEY: It would not be a hopeful
place to communicate with, then.
MR. STACK: But they might manufacture
such envelopes for use among the officials there.
MR. MOHINI: I have seen one Thibetian
pedlar, but he did not offer me any such article for sale. Returning to Mr.
Keightley, he also said that he had been looking for something on the table.
MR. MYERS: What other persons had been in
MR. MOHINI: Myself, Mr. Keightley, Mr.
Oakley, and Madame Blavatskys Indian servant.
MR. MYERS: Our object would be to
ascertain whether anybody could have placed the letter in the room during Mr.
Keightleys absence. Do I understand that while Mr. Keightley was absent from
his room yourself, Mr. Oakley, and the Indian servant were in his sight all the time?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: Was the outer door of the
house closed at the time?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: Do you feel morally certain
that nobody was secreted in the room?
MR. MOHINI: I do. The letter was
directed to myself, and it was opened in their presence.
MR. MYERS: What were the contents of the
MR. MOHINI: The letter referred to some
matters of a private character, and ended with a direction to me to take down my friends
to the place in the country.
MR. MYERS: Thus appearing to show a
knowledge of events of the moment?
MR. MOHINI: Just so.
MR. MYERS: Could the letter have
been written some days before, and the allusion as to taking your friends into the country
MR. MOHINI: No; because Mr. Keightley and
Mr. Oakley only came to the house by accident that morning.
MR. STACK: On what floor were these
MR. MOHINI: On the first floor.
MR. MYERS: Upon what did the windows
MR. MOHINI: One of them looked out upon
MR. MYERS: Do you consider it impossible
that somebody could have climbed up to the window and throw the letter into the room?
MR. MOHINI: Absolutely impossible.
Mr. Keightley was only absent a few seconds.
MR. MYERS: Could nobody have reached the
window without a ladder?
MR. MOHINI: Certainly not.
MR. MYERS: Do you remember whether the
window was open or not?
MR. MOHINI: Most likely it was not open.
MR. MYERS: Was the yard which you
referred to the court-yard of the hotel?
MR. MOHINI: The back court-yard.
MR. MYERS: Had you observed any men
moving about in the yard during your stay?
MR. MOHINI: I had not observed any.
MR. MYERS: What language was the letter
MR. MOHINI: In English,
and I recognised the handwriting as that of Mr. Sinnetts correspondent. Were I
to show it to Mr. Sinnett he would at once identify it.
MR. MYERS: Perhaps we had better go on
now with the case in the railway carriage. Colonel Olcott gave us an account, and it
would be interesting to have Mr. Mohinis account.
MR. MOHINI: Colonel Olcott and I were
coming from Paris to Calais. When we were about half-an-hours journey from
Calais, Colonel Olcott and I being alone in the compartment and the train in full motion,
suddenly my attention was called to what seemed to me like a flash of white light on the
roof of the compartment, and immediately afterwards I found a letter drop near my
feet. Colonel Olcott looked startled, and cried out, What is it? I
picked up the letter, and finding that it was addressed to Colonel Olcott, I handed it to
MR. GURNEY: Can you describe how you and
he were seated in the carriage?
MR. MOHINI: I was seated at one window,
and he, on the same seat, at the other window. He was reading a newspaper.
MR. GURNEY: Were you so situated that you
would have been sure to have caught sight of any movement on his part?
MR. MOHINI: Certainly.
MR. GURNEY: You were not asleep?
MR. MOHINI: No, I was looking in front of
MR. MYERS: Two theories have been raised
to account for this occurrence. One is that the letter was inserted by some agent of
evil at the Paris station --- stuffed into some crevice at the top of the carriage, from
which it fell down through oscillation, after the train had been sometime in motion.
Another is that the letter might have been thrown into the carriage window.
MR. MOHINI: The first theory is
untenable, because how could the agent of evil tell what compartment we should take?
MR. MYERS: Did anybody go into the
compartment at Paris?
MR. MOHINI: Nobody but the porters with
our luggage. Again, the theory as to the letter being thrown into the carriage
window is not very probable.
MR. MYERS: Was the window open or shut?
MR. MOHINI: My impression is that the
window on my side was shut.
MR. PODMORE: At what rate was the train
going at the time?
MR. MOHINI: The usual rate of an express
train at full speed. As to the second theory, the contents of this letter referred
to what Colonel Olcott had to do in London. Any other letter would have been
perfectly mal apropos. And how could a confederate depend upon what
compartment the letter would enter, if he threw it at a passing train?
MR. MYERS: If you window had been open,
the letter might have come from the compartment just ahead of you, because experience
shows one that if pieces of paper are thrown out of window from a train in motion they
often enter one of the compartments behind.
MR. STACK: Did you, or Colonel Olcott,
see the letter first?
MR. MOHINI: Colonel Olcott spoke first,
but when he spoke the letter was fully in my sight.
MR. STACK: He was reading you say.
Could he have jerked the letter up without your seeing it?
MR. MOHINI: Impossible.
MR. STACK: Or could you have done it
without his seeing it?
MR. MOHINI: That is best for him to say.
MR. GURNEY: All we want to do is
get such information as will convince a hostile critic. If you were in the
compartment, neither reading nor asleep, you would probably have been looking out of the
window, in which case such a thing might have escaped your eye.
MR. MOHINI: Had my back been turned such
a thing would have been possible, but my back was not turned. I stated before that
my attention was attracted by a flash of white light.
MR. GURNEY: But I can still imagine your
failing to see the jerk of the hand and yet seeing the thing when it fluttered up.
MR. STACK: Did the letter come from
Colonel Olcotts side of the compartment?
MR. MOHINI: It came from the roof, and
fell near my feet.
MR. PODMORE: At the top of the
compartment was there no possible means of communicating with the next compartment?
MR. MOHINI: No. I remember
that there was a piece of glass which I was told would have to be broken if you wanted to
stop the train. That attracted my attention, as we have no such thing in India.
MR. PODMORE: Was the lamp in the centre
of the compartment?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: You have now given your
account of the circumstances which Colonel Olcott narrated to us, and in which both of you
were concerned. Turning to another matter, I believe that you were at headquarters
on the occasion of Damodars visit there in the double to consult with regard to
mesmerising the paralysed boys at Moradabad. Will you tell us what you were witness
of or cognisant of at headquarters at that time?
MR. MOHINI: In a strict sense I was not
witness of anything. I only heard what M. Coulomb told me within half-an-hour of the
occurrence. He told me that he was attending to some work in a room adjoining that
in which Madame Blavatsky was seated --- the writing-room. He heard Damodars
voice speaking to Madame Blavatsky; and as Damodar had been absent, he thought he would go
into the room and welcome him back. He went into the room, but found nobody but
Madame Blavatsky there. He said he had heard Damodars voice, and asked how it
was that he was not there.
MR. MYERS: Speaking of communication at a
distance, have you ever heard the astral bell mentioned in Mr. Sinnetts books?
MR. MOHINI: Yes, I have heard it several
MR. MYERS: When Madame Blavatsky has not
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: Who has been present then?
MR. MOHINI: Mr. Judge and Mr. Keightley
were present the last time I heard it.
MR. MYERS: Only you three?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: And you all heard it?
MR. MOHINI: Yes.
MR. MYERS: Can you describe the sound?
MR. MOHINI: It is a very peculiar
sound. It is not like anything that I know of. It is something like the sound
of a silver bell when struck.
MR. STACK: Has the sound generally been
at a distance?
MR. MOHINI: In the same room sometimes.
MR. GURNEY: The sound is very sweet?
MR. MOHINI: Very sweet.
MR. GURNEY: Mr. Sinnett speaks as if it
came from a distance.
MR. MOHINI: It seems to be at a distance,
then to come near, and then it fades away again.
MR. GURNEY: When it came on the occasion
you refer to, did it prelude or announce anything?
MR. MOHINI: That would be a matter of
inference on my part.
MR. GURNEY: Was it connected with any
MR. MOHINI: No. It occurred in my
bedroom. We three were together, and all heard it. The ringing has happened so
many times, and under so many different circumstances, that it would take me a long time
to describe them. I have seen Madame Blavatsky put up her hand and make a downward
movement, when instantly something like a musical tune has been produced.
MR. GURNEY: Immediately afterwards?
MR. MOHINI: Almost simultaneously.
MR. GURNEY: How long does it generally
MR. MOHINI: Sometimes it is a single
bell, and sometimes it is like a musical tune. It lasts 10 or 15 seconds.
MR. STACK: Mr. Sinnett calls it an occult
bell, and you appear to call it an astral bell.
MR. MOHINI: I simply call it a
bell. There is one other circumstance that I think I ought to state. It seemed
to me a crucial test. I was seated one night with Madame Blavatsky in her
room. I had addressed a certain question to one of the Mahatmas, and Madame
Blavatsky told me I would have a reply, and should hear the Mahatmas own voice.
MR. GURNEY: Had you asked him before?
MR. MOHINI: Yes, by letter. I had asked
him the question; to which Madame Blavatsky said I should have a reply in his own
voice. Madame Blavatsky said, You shall hear his voice. I thought
how should I know that it was not Madame Blavatsky ventriloquising. I began to hear
some peculiar kind of voice speaking to me from one corner of the room. It was like
the voice of somebody coming from a great distance through a long tube. It was as
distinct as if a person were speaking in the room, but it had the peculiar characteristic
I have indicated. As soon as I heard the voice I wanted to satisfy myself that
Madame Blavatsky was not ventriloquising. A word was uttered and Madame Blavatsky
would repeat it. It so happened that before she had finished speaking I heard
another word uttered by the voice, so that at one and the same time there were two voices
speaking to me. Madame Blavatsky, by whose side I was seated repeated the words for
no particular reason, so far as I am aware, and I came to the conclusion that the Mahatma
had known what my thoughts were.
MR. MYERS: Are we to gather that you were
always yourself disposed to place implicit confidence in this?
MR. MOHINI: To begin with, I certainly
was not. I thought that Madame Blavatsky had something to do with it, feeling, as I
did, that it was strange that the Mahatmas should select foreigners to do this when there
were 250,000,000 Hindus to work upon; but after much thought and study I was satisfied.
The examination thus terminated.
(1) Mr. Mohini subsequently answered this question. (See Appendix XIX.)