[Cover photo: William Quan Judge - April 13, 1851 - March 21, 1896. (Photograph originally published in The Word, New York, Vol. XV. April, 1912.)]
[We follow the lead of our esteemed contemporary, The Theosophical Movement, Bombay, India, and publish as it did of recent date, the following words from the hell of William Quan Judge, written in answer to a question about the "peace" and the "Voice of the Silence" spoken of in Light on the Path. - Editor.]
"The peace is that period succeeding a storm set up in your nature by any attempt to conquer the lower self. It follows each such conflict if the battle has been waged to victory for the higher. But few modern men can wage the battle with more than one thing at a time. Hence, we have many such storms. Each peculiarity, passion or propensity has to be attacked singly and overcome. When that happens, a period of inner silence arrives in which the soul grows and attempts to instruct us. This is the voice. And, as Light on the Path says (Rule 21, Part I), 'It cannot be described by any metaphor'. The silence has its counterpart in nature when, after storms or cataclysms, silence occurs. The silence after a storm is due to the effect of water falling through the air upon earth, vegetation, insects, and animals, and to the peculiar results of loud reverberations of thunder. All these combine to produce a silence quite appreciable by anyone accustomed to nature. And when a cataclysm takes place, such as the falling of a tremendous avalanche of snow, another sort of silence is brought about, during which many things in the astral and natural world not at other times evident call be perceived. Each of these silences comes to an end because the ordinary normal operations of nature reassert themselves. So it is with ourselves. Storms of disappointment or terrible upheavals from tremendous sorrows, or the effect of our own intense will, bring about those silences in which the voice of the soul has perchance a better opportunity of being heard." - William Q. Judge, The Path, New York, Vol. III, July, 1888, pp.124-125. 
Has the modern organized Theosophical Movement failed?
This question has been asked at various times, and by widely different people. No needless doubt should exist in the minds of earnest thinkers regarding this subject. It might be of value to consider the existing evidence, and to try and draw from it a few conclusions.
As far back as the summer of 1884, the Adept known by the initials K.H. wrote to A. P. Sinnett the following significant lines:
"You must have understood by this time, my friend, that the centennial attempt made by us to open the eyes of the blind world - has nearly failed: in India - partially, in Europe - with a few exceptions - absolutely. There is but one chance of salvation for those who still believe: to rally together and face the storm bravely ..." (Mahatma Letters, p. 362.)
And repeating himself in a postscript to this letter, Master K.H. emphatically re-iterates:
"I tell you with a very few exceptions - we have failed in Europe ..."
With the history of the organized Theosophical Societies before us, from the days when the above letter was written, it would be hard to believe that the initial effort which was declared by K.H. to have been a failure at that time, has, as an organized movement, redeemed itself since those days, and this in spite of the heroic efforts and self-sacrificing lives of several occultists who have labored untiringly to pull the modern Theosophical organizations out of their doldrums and ruts. Apart from the saintly lives and magnificent actions of these rare individuals, the organizations, as such, have preferred to remain rutted and to formalize their creeds, each according to its own specific mould and bent.
The foundation-principle of the original Theosophical effort - the "centennial attempt" spoken of by the Teacher - was the recognition and promulgation of the fact of Universal Brotherhood, which at all times stood paramount in the program of the Society, and was considered of incomparably greater moment than any formulated set of teachings, the full import of which could he understood only by those who had become prepared for them by means of a life based upon the practical application of Brotherhood.
The divided status of the modern Theosophical Movement has been for years past, and is today, the greatest and the most direct indictment against it. The absence of genuine brotherhood even among Theosophists themselves, and the history of their mutual feuds and partitions, can in no way be compensated by the presence of profound teachings in the voluminous tomes of theosophical literature. Lacking the vital, dynamic and living spirit of Brotherhood in practice, in most, if not all of its ramifications, the Movement can derive but little value from the merely intellectual consideration of complex technical teachings, which are only too often twisted and tangled to serve this, that, or the other preconceived notion, or perverted objective.
For it should be distinctly remembered that the modern Theosophical Movement in its organized form - which, by the way, is not all there is to the Movement as a whole - is not only divided organizationally. This, perhaps, would not be so bad, after all. It is thoroughly, and to all present appearances permanently, divided on the subject of the teachings themselves, presenting the latter, in several most important and vital points, in mutually contradictory forms and with implications and deductions which exclude each other, and can never be reconciled  by any "middle-of-the-road" restatement, or perchance an occult "Munich-compromise."
The respective forms have crystallized long ago, and exhibit the unmistakable sign-posts of growing sectarianism.
In an obscure place, far removed from the general run of the reading public, in all old and musty volume of the London Spiritualistic journal, Light (Vol. I, October 11, 1881), there is to be found the following interesting passage from the pen of the President-Founder, Col. Henry S. Olcott, writing at the time on the subject of the Mahatmans and their alleged infallibility:
"Yes, I insist again that the teaching of a Mahatma is no more and no less true because he is one. It is either true or false, and must be determined upon its intrinsic merit. The Theosophical Society was distinctly founded upon that hypothesis, and every tendency, shown of late to convert it into a sect, following inspired revelations, is a strict debasement of its character. Madame Blavatsky and I have not undergone so much labour, and expense, and mental suffering to add another wretched sect to the multitude that already curse the world, and we mean to crush every attempt to make one of the Theosophical Society. Throughout all my public addresses this view has been enforced as strenuously as was possible to me, and I have tried to compel my hearers to understand that every man must save himself if he would be saved; and that no Mahatma would interfere with the necessary results of any one's actions (Karma) under any circumstances."
Everyone of the existing Theosophical Societies thinks and proclaims to the world the alleged fact that it is not a sect, mainly on the strength of the doubtlessly true fact that it requires no one to subscribe to any set creed to become a member thereof. But the subject of teachings is side-stepped in this connection every time.
Is there a way out of this situation? Assuredly. It is to subordinate doctrinal teachings, technical presentations of occult doctrines, and organizational disputes, to the all-pervading spirit of Brotherhood, and to return to the original platform upon which the modern centennial effort was started.
There is hardly anything standing in the way of this realization, except a sense of intellectual and spiritual pride on the part of students in the various Theosophical organizations, a sense based on misunderstood values, and the loss of genuine brotherliness. Ivory towers of dry intellectualism have been erected by every Theosophical Society in years past, and these towers enshrine the membership of each of them, making mutual intercourse between them either a matter of exceptional occasion, or mere "showing off," all parties concerned patting themselves on the back for having been good boys by venturing out some afternoon or evening into the dangerous field of brotherly intercourse, and returning home with only minor injuries to the all-powerful ego!
This, at best, is a parody on Brotherhood and a farce played on the very arena of the Theosophical Movement, supposedly the most serious Movement of the age!
There are in every Theosophical Society, and in every country of the world, earnest men and women who deeply deplore this state of affairs. They silently work, mostly behind the scenes, but at times openly, to bring about a change and a transfiguration of existing conditions, building bridges of thought, of word and of action, between the disjointed limbs of a great Movement which has failed to live up to its magnificent possibilities. They hope for the appearance in this world of some spiritually-inspired individual who will unify these fragments and revitalize the whole.
How strange it would be if such an individual were suddenly to appear outside of all organized Theosophical bodies, and to rally unto himself all those students and seekers whose intuition and devotion to the Cause of Human Liberation had made them the fittest vehicles and the ablest tools for him to work through.
The outmoded forms could then be safely carted away to the general scrap-heap of history. 
[This little Theosophical journal was
started at the end of 1890, as "A Vehicle for the Interchange of
Theosophical News and Opinions," and was issued by the Council of
the British Section of the Theosophical Society for free distribution
to members. Readers were invited to send opinions and questions on Theosophical
subjects, notes on current Theosophical literature, reports of activities,
etc. The first Editor of this journal was Walter R. Old, Gen. Sec'y,
British Section, T.S., then located at 19 Avenue Road, Regent's Park,
Because the word means a Vehicle. In Theosophical metaphysics this term denotes a basis, something, as a bearer, more substantial than that which it bears; e.g., Buddhi, the spiritual Soul, is the Vahan of Atma - the purely immaterial "principle." Or again, as in physiology, our brain is the supposed physical vehicle or Vahan of super-physical thought.
Thus, this little fortnightly paper is destined to serve as the bearer of Theosophical thought, and the recorder of all Theosophical activities.
The enterprise is no financial speculation, but most decidedly an additional expense which our meagre funds can ill afford, but which our duty urges us to undertake. The journal is to go free to our British Branches and "unattached" fellows. It is also meant for those who are unable to subscribe to our regular magazines, but the wealthier will profit along with the poorer, for the following reasons. The Karma of those who could, but will not subscribe for the organs of their Society, whether from indifference or any other cause, is their own: But the duty of keeping all the fellows in touch with us, and au courant with Theosophical events - is ours. For, many of those who being virtually cut off from almost everything that goes on in the Theosophical centres, lose very soon their interest in the movement and continue henceforth "fellows" but in name.
It has been always held that a true Theosophist must have no personal ends to serve, no favorite hobby to propagate, no special doctrine to enforce or to defend. For, to merit the honorable title of Theosophist one must be an altruist, above all; one ever ready to help equally foe or friend, to act, rather than to speak; and urge others to action, while never losing an opportunity to work himself. But, if no true Theosophist will ever dictate to his fellow brother or neighbour what this one should believe or disbelieve in, nor force him to act on lines which may be distasteful to him, however proper they may appear to himself, there are other duties which he has to attend to: (a) to warn his brother of any danger the latter may fail to see; and (b) to share his knowledge - if he has acquired such - with those who have been less fortunate than himself in opportunities for acquiring.
Now, though we are painfully aware that a good number of members have joined the T.S. out of simple curiosity, while others, remaining for some time out of touch with the movement, have lost their interest in it, we must never lose the hope of reviving that interest. Many are the fellows who, having failed at first to help on the cause, have now become earnest "working members," as they are called. Therefore, we say today to all: "If you would really help the noble cause - you must do so now: for, a few years more and your, as well as our efforts, will be in vain. The world moves in cycles, which proceed under the impetus of two mutually antagonistic and destroying horses, the one striving to move Humanity onward, towards Spirit, the other forcing Mankind to  gravitate downward, into the very abysses of matter. It remains with men to help either the one or the other. Thus also, it is our present task, as Theosophists, to help in one or the other direction. We are in the very midst of the Egyptian darkness of Kali-Yuga, the "Black Age," the first 5,000 years of which, its dreary first cycle, is preparing to close on the world between 1897 and 1898. Unless we succeed in placing the T.S. before this date on the safe side of the spiritual current, it will be swept away irretrievably into the Deep called "Failure," and the cold waves of oblivion will close over its doomed head. Thus will have ingloriously perished the only association whose aims, rules and original purposes answer in every particular and detail - if strictly carried out - to the innermost, fundamental thought of every great Adept Reformer, the beautiful dream of a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD OF MAN.
Verily, of philanthropical, political, and religious bodies we have many. Clubs, congresses, associations, unions, refuges, societies, each of them a social protector of special men and nations, special arts and sciences, or a bulwark against this or that evil, spring up daily, each of these moved by its own party or sectarian spirit. But which of them is strictly universal, good for all and prejudicial to none? Which of them answers fully to the noble injunction of the Buddhist Arhats and also of King Asoka? "When thou plantest trees along the roads, allow their shade to protect the wicked as the good. When thou buildest a Rest-House, let its doors be thrown open to men of all religions, to the opponents of thine own creed, and to thy personal enemies as well as to thy friends." None, we say, none save our own Society, a purely unsectarian, unselfish body; the only one which has no party object in view, which is open to all men, the good and the bad, the lowly and the high, the foolish and the wise - and which calls them all "Brothers," regardless of their religion, race, colour, or station in life.
To all these we now say: As "there is no religion higher than Truth," no deity greater than the latter, no duty nobler than self-sacrifice, and that the time for action is so short - shall not each of you put his shoulder to the wheel of the heavy car of our Society and help us to land it safely across the abyss of matter, on to the safe side?
"How much we must guard against subtle influences. They penetrate so craftily into the activities of groups and organizations. I think the only safeguard is one's personal integrity and independence of mind which demands the quality of true experience at all times. I think we must never allow ourselves to be dazzled by another person's spiritual claims, for so often they are based on illusion and pride, which, combined with the force of personality, present a spectacular face. We can only know that which we experience for ourselves. No truth can be really our own until we have lived it through, until we become enlightened in the way of the Spirit. How many souls are led astray by the magnetism of those who lay claim to spiritual understanding? Significant it is that those who are close to perfection speak but little and denounce nothing. We must watch for the quiet manifestation of humility and gentleness, and turn always from the proud assertions of the would-be spiritual dictator. The wise touch our sores in silence; the unwise challenge us to words. There are always ways of judging the spiritual qualities of a "teacher." Let us not be intoxicated by any "force," whether it be of words or emotion or simply the hungry expressions of an eager soul. There are many false teachers around seeking the throne of power and perpetuating the evil that they do, but the responsibility is ours. We must guard our own soul's light." - The Middle Way, publ. by The Buddhist Society, London, March - April, 1945. 
It was soon after this second meeting that young Madame Blavatsky sailed for Quebec, and then New Orleans, both French cities, or more correctly, cities where French was spoken. Warned by her Master in a vision to meddle no more with Voodooism, she went to Texas, Mexico and Central America, meeting a "chela" at Copan, as we have seen. When she wrote Isis Unveiled at New York many years later, she devoted much space to Peru. Did she visit South America in 1851? Let her tell.
Quoting from J. Lloyd Stephens' Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan ( New York, 1841, Vol. ll, p. 457), she writes:
"Stephens ... says that the descendants of the Caciques and the Aztec subjects are believed to survive still in the inaccessible fastnesses of the Cordilleras ... this mysterious city has been seen from a distance by daring travelers ... The story of this mysterious city was told to Stephens by a Spanish padre in 1838-9. The priest swore to him that he had seen it with his own eyes ... Nearly the same was given us personally about twenty years ago, by an old native priest, whom we met in Peru. ... he had traveled ... and, as he solemnly affirmed, had been also to see some of his people by a 'subterranean passage' leading into the mysterious city ... (Isis Unveiled, I, 546-47.)
"The ruins which cover both Americas and are found on many West Indian islands, are all attributed to the submerged Atlanteans. As well as the hierophants of the old world, which in the days of Atlantis was almost connected with the new one by land, the magicians of the now submerged country had a network of subterranean passages running in all directions.* (*H.P.B. wrote much on the cyclopean underground cities and temples of India, in From the Caves and Jungles of Hindustan; and in The Secret Doctrine she says of this work of the giant Atlanteans and Lemurians: "The Adepts, Wise Men of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Races dwelt in subterranean habitats, generally under some kind of pyramidal structure, if not actually under a pyramid.") In connection with these mysterious catacombs, we will now give a curious story told to us by a Peruvian, long since dead, as we were traveling together in the interior of his country. There must he truth in it; as it was afterwards confirmed to us by an Italian gentleman who had seen the place ... Several years after hearing the story, and its corroboration by the Italian gentleman, we again visited Peru." (op.cit., I, 595-97.]
Now, as Madame Blavatsky's visit to America in 1873 was confined to a five-year residence in the United States, the last sentence quoted must refer to her first and second sojourns. We may now answer the query in the affirmative: Yes, she did visit South America on her first American trip.
The "three pilgrims of mysticism," as Mr. Sinnett dubs them, soon separated in India, in 1852. The Englishman went his own way. "Madame would not accept the guidance of the Chela, and was bent on an attempt of her own to get into Tibet through Nepal. For the time her attempt failed, chiefly, she believes, as far as external and visible difficulties were concerned, through the opposition of the British Resident then in Nepal. Mme Blavatsky went down to Southern India and then on to Java and Singapore, returning thence to England."
Knowing the character of H.P.B., we may hazard a guess that her attempt did not fail altogether. She once wrote: "I have lived at different periods in Little Tibet as in Great Tibet." And again: "I might have lived in male lamaseries as thousands of lay men and women do; and I might have received my 'instruction' there. Anyone can go to Darjeeling and receive, a few miles from there, teaching from Tibetan monks, and 'under their roofs.'  But I have never so claimed, for the simple reason that neither of thee Mahatmas whose names are known in the West are monks."
In Isis Unveiled, she writes:
"The Upasakas and Upasakis, or male and female semi-monastics and semi-laymen, have equally with the lama-monks themselves, to strictly abstain from violating any of Buddha's rules, and must study Meipo and every psychological phenomenon as much. Those who become guilty of any of the 'five sins' lose all right to congregate with the pious community. The most important of these is not to curse upon any consideration, for the curse returns upon the one that utters it, and often upon his innocent relatives who breath the same atmosphere with him. To love each other, and even our bitterest enemies; to offer our lives even for animals, to the extent of abstaining from defensive arms; to gain the greatest of victories by conquering one's self; to avoid all vices; to practice all virtues, especially humility and mildness; to be obedient to superiors, to cherish and respect parents, old age, learning, virtuous and holy men; to provide food, shelter, and comfort for men and animals; to plant trees on the roads and dig wells for the comfort of travelers; such are the moral duties of Buddhists. Every Ani, or Bikshumi (Nun) is subjected to these laws ...
"Many of the lamaseries contain schools of magic, but the most celebrated is the collegiate monastery of the Shu-tukt, where there are over 30,000 monks attached to it, the lamasery forming quite a little city. Some of the female nuns possess marvelous psychological powers. We have met some of these women on their way from Lhassa to Candi, the Rome of Buddhism, with its miraculous shrines and Gautama's relics. To avoid encounters with Mussulmans and other sects they travel by night alone, unarmed, and without the least fear of wild animals, for these will not touch them. At the first glimpse of dawn, they take refuge in caves and viharas prepared for them by their co-religionists at calculated distances ...
"Ever on the lookout for occult phenomena, hungering after sights, one of the most interesting that we have seen was produced by one of these poor traveling Bikshu. It was years ago, and at a time when all such manifestations were new to the writer. We were taken to visit the pilgrims by a Buddhist friend, a mystical gentleman born at Kashmir, of Katchi parents, but a Buddha-Lamaist by conversion, and who generally resides at Lhassa.
"'Why carry about this bunch of dead plants?' inquired one of the Bikshumi, an emaciated, tall and elderly woman, pointing to a large nosegay of beautiful, fresh and fragrant flower in the writer's hands.
"'Dead?' we asked inquiringly. 'Why, they have just been gathered in the garden.'
"'And yet, they are dead', she gravely answered. 'To be born in this world, is not this death? See, how these herbs look when alive in the world of eternal life, in the gardens of our blessed Foh.'
"Without moving from the place where she was sitting on the ground, the Ani took a flower from the bunch, laid it in her lap, and began to draw together, by large handfuls as it were, invisible material from the surrounding atmosphere. Presently a very, very faint nodule of vapor was seen, and this slowly took shape and colour, until, poised in midair, appeared a copy of the bloom we had given her. Faithful to the last tint and the last petal it was, and lying on its side, like the original, but a thousand-fold more gorgeous in hue and exquisite in beauty, as the glorified human spirit is more beauteous than its physical capsule.
"Flower after flower to the minutest herb was thus reproduced and made to vanish, re-appearing of our desire, nay, at our simple thought. Having selected a full-blown rose, we held it at arm's length, and in a few minutes our arm, hand, and the flower, perfect in every detail, appeared reflected in the vacant space, about two yards from where we sat. But while the flower seemed immeasurably beautiful and as ethereal as the other spirit flowers, the arm and hand appeared like a mere reflection in a looking-glass, even to a large spot on the forearm, left on it by a piece of damp earth which had stuck to one of the roots." (Vol. II, pp. 608-10.)
There is an interesting side-light on her trip to Java, when years later she told A. P. Sinnett: "Went with Dutch vessel because there was no other, I think. Master ordered [me] to go to Java for a certain business. Where were two whom I suspected always of being chelas there. I saw one of them in 1869 at the Mahatma's house, and recognized him, but he denied." (Letters to Sinnett, p. 151.)
Continuing on the subject of H.P.B.'s return to England, Sinnett writes:
"1853, however, was an unfortunate  year for a Russian to visit this country. The preparations for the Crimean War were distressing to Mme. Blavatsky's patriotism, and she passed over at the end of the year again to America, going this time to New York, and thence out west, first to Chicago, then an infant city compared to the Chicago of the present day, and afterwards to the Far West, and across the Rocky Mountains with emigrants' caravans, till ultimately she brought up for a time in San Francisco. Her stay in America was prolonged on this occasion altogether to something like two years, and she then made her way a second time to India via Japan and the Straits, reaching Calcutta in the course of 1855." (Incidents, 66-67.)
There is an occurrence which seems to militate against the arrival of young Madame Blavatsky at New York in 1853; it is a third meeting with her Master in England some time in 1854. She does not date this meeting, but furnishes a clue which fixes the date. She has left such a clue for the searcher in each of her early European contacts with Him: in the first, the key-words are "the fir t Nepaul Embassy (when?)"; in the second, "Ramsgate August 12, 1851"; and in the third, "he came in the company of a certain dethroned Indian prince." Here is her story of the third meeting, as told in From the Caves and Jungles of Hindustan, which she wrote in 1879-1885, as a series of articles which appeared in the Moscow Chronicle and the Russian Messenger.
"A good while ago, more than twenty-seven years, I met him in the house of a stranger in England, whither he had come in the company of a certain dethroned Indian prince. Then our acquaintance was limited to two conversations; their unexpectedness, their gravity, and even severity, produced a strong impression on me then; but in the course of time, like many other things, they sank into oblivion and Lethe ... In England, his striking beauty, especially his extraordinary height and stature, together with his eccentric refusal to be presented to the Queen - an honour many a high-born Hindu has sought, coming over on purpose - excited the public notice and the attention of the newspapers. The newspaper-men of those days, when the influence of Byron was still great, discussed the 'wild Rajput' with untiring pens, calling him 'Raja-Misanthrope' and 'Prince Jalma-Samson', and inventing fables about him all the time he stayed in England." (pp. 263-64 of the English translation.)
Who was the dethroned Indian prince in whose company her Master came to England, and when did he come? Prince Dhuleep Singh, Maharajah of Lahore at the final defeat of the Rajputs in the Second Sikh War, 1849, was deposed, being then eleven years of age. His lands and crown jewels, among them the famous Koh-i-noor diamond, were confiscated by the British Government, and he was assigned an allowance of #50,000 a year. Dr. John Login was appointed his guardian. In 1850, while Login was temporarily absent from Fatehpur, the young Prince adopted Christianity. It was decided that he should be educated in England and should visit Europe. On April 19, 1854, Prince Dhuleep Singh with his party of officers, and accompanied by his guardian, sailed from India. They remained over one steamer in Egypt, then proceeded to London, where apartments were taken at Mivart's (now Claridge's) Hotel, until the Court of Directors should provide him with a residence.
Reporting this event, the Illustrated London News of June 24th, 1854, has the following quaint description:
"... his highness Dhuleep Singh ... is the son of the far-famed Runjit Singh, the One-eyed Lion of Lahore, and his mother was the Ranee who gave such trouble to the British authorities. He was once the owner of the celebrated Koh-i-noor, or Mountain of Light, now in the possession of the Queen of England. On his journey he was treated with distinguished honors by the British authorities at every port at which he touched. At Malta he visited and dined with the Governor. At Gibraltar a salute was fired in honour of his presence. His suite consists of Dr. Login and a number of Sikhs, the latter dressed in the peculiar costume of the rich and warlike nations of the Punjab. He had on board also a superb Arab charger for equestrian exercise in this country. Dhuleep Singh is sixteen years of age, rather tall and slender, and exceptionally well formed. He is not so dark as East Indians usually are. His face is rather long, but his features are regular, after the European type. His manners are princely, and rather reserved before strangers. He dined with the  passengers on board the Colombo, and occasionally played chess in the salon. He speaks English well, and is a Christian, being a member of the Church of England. His object in coming to England is to study the manners and see the people of this country. His Oriental costumes are extremely magnificent ... he bowed in kingly style on taking leave of Captain Russell the commander of the Colombo. His Sikh secretary is a most intelligent-looking man, and speaks good English. Some of the native members of his suite were very black, and looked like the fierce and proud warriors who fought so bravely at Sobraon, Aliwal, and Feroshah."
Prince Dhuleep Singh arrived at Southampton on Sunday, June 18, 1854. He was presented to the Queen on July 1st.
Thus there can be hardly any doubt that H.P.B. met her Teacher for the third time in 1854. The date of her departure for America is uncertain. However, certain other dates help to determine it at least approximately.
In her essay entitled "The Truth About H.P. Blavatsky," * (*Rebus, St. Petersburg, Vol, II, Nos. 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47 & 48, 1883. Originals of this important series are on file at the Editorial Offices of Theosophia. - Editor.) Mme. Vera P. Zhelihovsky, H.P.B.'s sister, says that the latter "acquired fame through her musical talents and was a member of the philharmonic society of London." It is quite probable that this has reference to her stay in England at the time we are now considering, although it might have been before.
On September 25th, 1853, Turkey declared war on Russia. On January 2nd, 1854, the English and French fleets entered the Black Sea. Although the so-called Crimean War was on, England was not yet openly at war with Russia.
Mme. Zhelihovsky also states in the same essay that H.P.B. was detained in London by a "contract," and that this was "during the Crimean war," the latter expression being a very general one. It could mean the end of 1853, or the first half of 1854.
On April 22, Emperor Nicholas I made public a Manifesto regarding a declaration of war against England and France. But it should be remembered that the Allies did not decide upon an expedition to the Crimea before August 25, 1854. This would mean that H.P.B. left England for America either in the summer or early fall of 1854, as she could not have met her Teacher before June 24th. It would appear from the above, that the statement of Mr. Sinnett regarding, H.P.B.'s departure for America at the end of the year 1853 cannot he substantiated by existing evidence.
Such is the story, in brief, of the various occasions when H.P.B. met her Teacher in the early years of her apprenticeship and training.
WHAT? ... THE INCURABLE OPTIMIST AGAIN?
What a wonderful thing it would be if every one of our subscribers could bring in one new subscriber in 1949! It could easily be done with a little extra effort, some careful planning, and a desire to do so. That's the key to it, as to everything else: desire to do it. Constructive, dynamic, powerful determination, applied to a good and useful Cause. Go through the list of your friends and acquaintances. There is one or more among them waiting to be introduced to a "readable" acquaintance with Theosophia. Why don't you serve as a go-between to bring about this mutually helpful contact? You get the subscribers, we will deliver the goods. Nothing succeeds like success! Remember, please: there never was a magazine just like Theosophia (and some hope to Goodness there will never be another like it!). With cordial greetings from your incurable optimist. - The Editor. 
A very interesting article called "The Man-Apes of South Africa," by Wilton M. Krogman, appeared in the Scientific American of May, 1948. It evinced much talk and speculation on the age-old problem of man versus ape, and as to who is descended from whom. Summarizing the data, it appears that our old and esteemed friend, Dr. Robert Broom, chief paleontologist of the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria, and one of the most distinguished scientists of the day, found fossil bones which make up a number of sub-human skeletons. The best known of them is the South African "Man-Ape," technically called the Plesianthropus which means "close to man."
Dr. Broom has gathered fossils of this kind which represent twelve if not fifteen individuals. These bones are an extraordinarily complete collection and outline a group of creatures who stand somewhere between ancient anthropoids and man. Scientists estimate that Broom's fossils of the South African Man-Apes are remains of creatures living about seven millions years ago.
In brain size, Plesianthropus was definitely sub-human. His intelligence, however, was in advance of that possessed by the modern apes. There are also indications that Plesianthropus walked upright. From these findings it has been concluded "... that in the Pliocene period, about seven million years ago, there lived a form that was intermediate between anthropoid and man. He had a brain near the anthropoid, a dentition practically human, and a general skeletal build well-adapted to the human upright position and locomotion ... Moreover they show that the rate of evolution differs in various parts of the body: thus the dentition is ahead of long bones, and long bones are ahead of brain."
Now according to the article the problem is this: were they a link in the direct line to man, or were they abortive offshoots of an attempt by the ape to make the grade to man's estate? Most scientists favor the former view. The author of the article continues: "Where do the apes fit into this picture? There is increasing conviction that the modern anthropoids (gibbon. orangutan, chimpanzee and gorilla) have arisen independently of man. Somewhere in the Oligocene or the Miocene, their ancestors split off from the common trunk to form separate branches."
The author goes on to suggest that human evolution is almost a straight-line parallel of anthropoid evolution, with a basic split-off of the several lines in the Oligocene period over 30 million years ago.
In order to picture in our minds this "split-off," try to imagine a railroad station from which rail-tracks branch out and continue away from the station itself. The tracks never meet, but they have a common source. This is about as clear a picture as can be drawn of the situation. Man did not descend from the ape, and the proof today is well-nigh irrefutable. Man originates like other animals in a cell and develops through stages indistinguishable from those of fish, reptile and mammal, until the cell attains the highly specialized development of the quadrumans and at last the human type. The embryos of a dog six weeks old, arid of a man eight weeks old are identical, except that in the man the head is larger and wider about the brain, but only slightly so. So why not say that man and dog evolve froth a common ancestor, for the embryo of man has no more of the ape in it than of any other mammal.
Because we place our fossil findings no earlier than the Oligocene, does not mean that man did not exist earlier than  this, because nearly everything beneath the Silurian system would have been by now erased by time, and the rest of the then-existing Earth's surface submerged by seas fathoms deep.
As pointed out by H.P. Blavatsky in The Secret Doctrine:
"One may even enquire how it is that biologists and anthropologists, having once firmly accepted the theory of the descent of man from the ape - how it is that they have hitherto left untouched the future evolution of the existing apes into man. This is only a logical sequence of the first theory, unless Science would make of man a privileged being, and his evolution a non-precedent in nature, quite a special and unique case. And that is what all this leads physical Science to. The reason, however, why the occultists reject the Darwinian, and especially the Haeckelian, hypothesis is because it is the ape which is, in sober truth, a special and unique instance, not man. The pithecoid is an accidental creation, a forced growth, the result of an unnatural process." (Vol. II, p. 261.)
"The ape we know is not the product of natural evolution but an accident, a cross-breed between an animal being, or form, and man." (Vol. II, p. 262.)
Therefore, from an unnatural union the ape descended!
Mr. Krogman posed the question that perhaps the ape was all abortive off-shoot, and he many not realize how right he is. The ape evolved from man, and not vice versa.
The difference between the lowest form of man and the highest type of ape is so vast that it is impossible to bridge the gap and admit the possibility of man descending from the ape. Even an idiot whose brain is small is an arrested man and not an ape. If man had descended from the ape, why is it that all fossil remains of the latter have not changed perceptibly from the now-existing ape? Could man possibly have evolved so rapidly in a few million years and the ape, his supposed ancestor, have remained the same? The answer most certainly is no!
As remarked by S. Laing, in his Modern Science and Modern Thought (p. 182):
"... one of the oldest types, that of the men of the sepulchral cave of Cro-Magnon, is that of a fine race, tall in stature, large in brain, and on the whole superior to many of the existing races of mankind. The reply of course is that the time is insufficient, and if man and the ape had a common ancestor, that as a highly developed ape, certainly, and man, probably, already existed in the Miocene period, such ancestor must be sought still further back at a distance compared with which the whole Quaternary period sinks into insignificance ... It may well make us hesitate before we adroit that man ... is alone an exception ... This is more difficult to believe, as the ape family which man so closely resembles ... contains numerous branches which graduate into one another, but the extremes of which differ more widely than man does from the highest of the ape series. If a special creation is required for man, must there not have been special creations for the chimpanzees, the gorilla, the orang, and for at least 100 different species of ape and monkeys which are all built on the same lines?"
It has been most interesting in the last few years to watch the discoveries of modern science, and to note that gradually, and sometimes almost imperceptibly, these new discoveries are but re-discoveries of certain facts known to archaic Occultism. That does not mean that modern science teaches what Occultism has taught for centuries, but on many occasions it does come forth with some startling statement which approaches the ancient wisdom and thus, the truth of these many puzzling problems is little by little eked out. It is not surprising, for modern science had reached a dead-end some years ago, and instead of looking ahead at a blank wall, was forced by the cumulative evidence of new truths to look into the vast receding vistas of the future.
There is more to come, much more, we daresay. The time is with us when many great truths will be unveiled for the benefit of mankind, and for the greater understanding of our purpose and destiny in this vast and perplexing Universe. 
The lack of unity in the visible Theosophical Movement is evidenced by its division into three major organizations and a few minor ones, together with a number of unattached individuals interested in its philosophy. The result of this disunity is not only a weakening of the movement as a whole, but, what is worse, a certain antagonism within it, with its destructive effect as well as the consequent inefficiency and waste of energy in carrying on the Great Work which its August founders had in view. H.P. Blavatsky warned against disunity in her message to the 1891 American Convention, the last one she wrote. She said:
"Never has it been more necessary for the members of the T.S. to lay to heart the old parable of the bundle of sticks than it is at the present time; divided, they will inevitably be broken, one by one; united, there is no force on earth able to destroy our Brotherhood."
This was written before any real division had occurred. Now the divided Movement has been greatly weakened and is well on the road to destruction which can be evaded only by sinking all minor differences and uniting on the major objective of "setting to work in earnest to practice the first principle of true Theosophy -UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD." (1890 Message.)
In order to secure unity in the major objective, it would not he necessary to disband any of the present organizations; but some form of a loose union would seem to he essential as a means of working together along harmonious lines with unceasing energy and enthusiasm, combined with brotherly cooperation, yet with each organization or group maintaining full autonomy.
The success of the suggested undertaking will depend upon several factors of which we will enumerate those which seem to be most important. To begin with, let us take note of the following extract from the Mahatma Letters which has a general application as well as the one stated in the context:
"It is he alone who has the love of humanity at heart, who is capable of grasping the idea of a regenerating practical Brotherhood, who is entitled to the possession of our secrets. He alone, such a man - will never misuse his powers, as there will be no fear that he will turn them to selfish ends. A man who places not the good of humanity above his own good, is not worthy of becoming our chela - he is not worthy of becoming higher in knowledge than his neighbor."
One who is sincerely and earnestly devoted to Masters' Cause, by that very fact becomes a chela, i.e., a probationary chela, and that applies to every true Theosophist. Hence, the first requisite to success is to have the love of humanity in one's heart with no selfish motive back of it. If that qualification is dominant, all others are included. Enthusiasm, tireless activity in the cause of Universal Brotherhood, and loyalty to the principles enunciated by H.P.B. and the Masters will ever be his goal.
Other factors include the willingness to compromise on points of minor importance, realizing that human imperfection is a characteristic of which we all partake. We must, therefore, show the same thoughtful consideration for the beliefs of others that we desire others to show towards our own. Nor should we be dogmatic, remembering H.P.B.'s statement that "Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. It is a diversity of opinion, within certain limits, that keeps the Theosophical Society a living and a healthy body, its many other ugly features notwithstanding." ( 1888 Message.)
On the other hand, let us all remember further a self-evident fact: Truth can never be inconsistent. If Theosophy  as enunciated by the Masters and H.P.B. is based upon eternal verities, nothing inconsistent with their teachings can be considered Theosophical, and the greatest danger to Theosophy will inevitably result from the injection of such inconsistencies into Theosophical teachings. Thinking and intelligent people will be repelled by such occurrences and the philosophy will be considered unworthy of acceptance.
The following excerpts from H.P. Blavatsky's Messages to the American Conventions deserve the most careful attention of all students:
"To establish on a firm basis an organization which, while promoting fraternal sympathy, social unity, and solidarity, will leave ample room for individual freedom and exertion in the common cause - that of helping mankind."
"It must be remembered that the Society was not founded as a nursery for forcing a supply of Occultists - as a factory for the manufacture of Adepts. It was intended to stem the current of materialism, and also that of spiritualistic phenomenalism and the worship of the Dead. It had to guide the spiritual awakening that has now begun, and not to pander to psychic cravings which are but another form of materialism." (1888.)
"But our union is, and ever will be, our strength, if we preserve our ideal of Universal Brotherhood. It is the old 'In hoc signo vinces' which should be our watchword, for it is under its sacred flag that we shall conquer." (1888.)
"Theosophy is indeed the life, the indwelling spirit which makes every true reform a vital reality, for Theosophy is Universal Brotherhood, the very foundation as well as the keystone of all movements toward the amelioration of our condition." (1890.)
"This should never be forgotten, nor should the following fact be overlooked. On the day when Theosophy will have accomplished its most holy and most important mission - namely, to unite firmly a body of men of all nations in brotherly love and bent on a pure altruistic work, and not a labour with selfish motives - on that day only will Theosophy become higher than any nominal brotherhood of man." (1888.)
"But let no man set up a popery instead of Theosophy, as this would be suicidal and has ever ended most fatally. We are all fellow-students, more or less advanced; but no one belonging to the Theosophical Society ought to count himself as more than, at best, a pupil-teacher - one who has no right to dogmatize." (1888.)
NOW AS THEN
"There are signs, visible though only gradually coming into sight, that its members are at last awakening from their apathy and setting to work in earnest to practice the first principle of true Theosophy - UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD. Gradually they are becoming alive to the duty of helping others, as they have been helped, by bringing a knowledge of the life-giving truths of Theosophy within the reach of all." (1890.)
"If every Fellow in the Society were content to be an impersonal force for good, careless of praise or blame so long as he subserved the purposes of the Brotherhood, the progress made would astonish the world and place the Ark of the T.S. out of danger." (1891.)
H.P.B.'S FINAL REQUEST
"After all, every wish and thought I can utter are summed up in this one sentence, the never-dormant wish of my heart. 'Be Theosophists, work for Theosophy.' Theosophy first, and Theosophy last; for its practical realization alone can save the Western world from that selfish and unbrotherly feeling that now divides race from race, one nation from the other; ... In your hands, brothers, is placed in trust the welfare of the coming century; and great as is the trust, so great is also  the responsibility. My own span of life may not be long, and if any of you have learned aught from my teachings, or have gained by my help a glimpse of the True Light, I ask you in return, to strengthen the Cause by the triumph of which that True Light, made still brighter and more glorious through your individual and collective efforts, will lighten the World ..." (1891.)
Man is a microscopic particle of his Universe. So is the atom, which is a miniature Solar System. The latter itself is but a particle of a still greater unit - our island Universe. This again is a part of a greater unit.
Man stands in the centre, so to say, between the infinitely small and the infinitely Great. He is a link in the infinite chain of Life and Being, no single unit of which can be separated from the Whole.
A grain of sand may he blown away by a gust of wind, or a mighty storm, but it does not feel or resent its change of location. Only Man, endowed with feeling, and the power of thought, can implement his desires and determine his actions. He is, however, but a particle of a larger Unit - Humanity. He can realize consciously the divine purpose of Creation - the establishment of harmonious spiritual involution and evolution. This may be brought about by cooperation for, as we see, "Brotherhood is a fact in Nature," and cannot be violated with impunity. Thus a man may lift himself to an awareness of an ever wider and more all-inclusive view, seeking the coordination of all those existences that form the unity of all those units. Thus he can advance by initiating self-directed evolution. His greatest drawback is the egocentricity with which he is afflicted. This he has developed in the age of childhood, in self-defense. It must be overcome in order to express the divinity (the Christ-spirit) which is at the core of his being. He must strive to gain the strength of will by means of which he can work positively to establish harmony where conflict has arisen. This he must begin within himself and in his surroundings, by ceasing to blame others for his own failures and difficulties. Through sympathetic understanding he will realize the nature of the troubles, perplexities and limitations of others. For this he needs patience and forbearance.
Patience may be a negative quality, but it may also be a very positive effort of self-control and action in his dealings with others. That is what Jesus meant when he said:
"Blessed are the peace-makers for they will be called the children of God."
Universal Peace may be our final goal, but it can only be attained step by step. We must redeem the negative in ourselves first, with courage, honesty and patience, and through faith in the divinity which is in the Kingdom of Heaven within our own hearts.
Do the need help from without as well as from within?
Actually are not both the same? For nothing without ourselves can exist for us until it has been taken up and digested by the mind throughout awakened consciousness. Gradually we recognize the design and purpose of life (including our life) and we learn to evaluate our place in the Universe and the purpose of our existence in new terms.
Our mission may seem to be very small; but it is our own. It has been said that one of the lessons we have to learn is a willingness "to appear as nothing in the eyes of men."
As Krishna said:
"Act without attachment to the results of action, and free from enmity to all creatures." 
We wish to record the passing of one of the very last remaining relatives of H.P.B., namely her niece, Helena Vladimirovna de Zhelihovsky, who died in Prague, Czechoslovakia, on January 4, 1949, after a year or more of very poor health.
She was the daughter of Mme. Vera P. de Zhelihovsky, H.P.B.'s sister, and was unmarried. She was 76 years of age. Her two sisters, Vera Vladimirovna, married to the Orientalist, Charles Johnston, and Nadyezhda Vladimirovna, married to the well-known General A. A. Brussilov, passed away in 1924 and 1938 respectively.
She had a brother, Valerian, who died quite young, and two half-brothers, Rostislav and Theodore de Yahontov, by the first marriage of Vera Petrovna, namely to Colonel Nikolay Nikolayevich de Yahontov.
Helena V. de Zhelihovsky lived in Paris, after the Russian Revolution. She moved to Czechoslovakia some few years ago, where for a while the Government of President Masaryk allotted her a small pension. Her circumstances, and those of her sister, Nadyezhda, being rather difficult, the Theosophical Society (Adyar) gave them financial assistance for over fifteen years. During the war no remittances were possible, however. After the war, a number of friends helped Miss Helena with both money and food packages. The American Theosophical Society (Adyar) contributed notably to this objective. It has been our understanding from Brother C. Jinarajadasa, that her pension from Adyar was resumed as soon as permission was secured from the Indian Government to transmit money abroad.
It is interesting to note that both Mme. Vera P. de Zhelihovsky and her (then) young daughter, Helena, saw H.P.B. in London shortly before her death.
Miss Helena de Zhelihovsky has been buried at the cemetery in Prague, where her sister, Nadyezhda, had been interred some years previously.
THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY: Intern'l Hdqrts., Adyar, Madras, India. C. Jinarajadasa,
President. Off. Organ of the Pres.: The Theosophist.
THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY: Intern'l Hdqrts., Covina, Calif., U.S.A. Arthur
L. Conger, Leader. Off. Organ: The Theosophical Forum.
THE UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS: selected list of centers -