Let us see if the incarnations of their "Jesus" will fill this gap in our knowledge, if they will throw light on this essential point, thus left in obscurity.

We meet this "Jesus" for the first time at the beginning of the Fifth Root Race, as daughter of Alcyone (Krishnamurti) and sister of "Maitreya" (p. 252.)

Then, on p. 328, as the wife of Julius Cæsar 18,878 B.C., he, or rather she, being at this time the widow of Vulcan (Known in his last incarnation as Sir Thomas More)....

He is later identified as daughter of Alcyone-Krishnamurti (his father) and Fabrizio Ruspoli (his mother),[5] parents at the same time of the future "World-Teacher, Maitreya," their young daughter. These incarnations took place 72,000 B.C., on the shores of the Lake of Gobi, we are told on p. 490.

In 15,910 B.C., we find "Jesus" as grandson of "Maitreya," and as father and grandfather of a large family composed, as in all cases investigated by these two authors, of present members of the Theosophical Society only, and including the faithful friends of Adyar to the exclusion of all others.[6]

" ... In 12,800 B.C. the "Jesus" of these investigations again forms part of a very extensive family composed as usual of the selfsame elements, and including amongst the names known in the theosophic world that of Mme. Marie Louise Kirby (an Italian theosophist recently at Adyar) who was his sister. "Jesus" was then the father of Mrs. S. Maud Sharpe (General Secretary of the English Section), of Julius Cæsar, and of T. Subba Rao; the Teshu Lama being at that time his daughter, etc., etc. (p. 499)....

Once more have our hopes been betrayed, for an absolute silence broods over the Incarnations of "Jesus" later than this date of 13,500, as it reigned over those of the "World-Teacher"....

We cannot, however, conceive that this information gathered from occult investigation will be felt to be indispensable by anyone. Now that we know that Mrs. Besant's "World-Teacher" is an ordinary man of the lunar chain (to whom Mrs. Besant was first domestic animal and then sister, and who, in the early period of our earth, was daughter of the young Krishnamurti (or of M. Ruspoli), who could be found still to imagine that there could be here any question, save a mad or impious joke"....

Incredible as it may appear to those who know anything of H. P. Blavatsky's teachings, their comprehensive grandeur and sublimity, especially as given in The Secret Doctrine, this extraordinary mixture of clumsy fairy-tale and extravagant and even malicious mumbo-jumbo is apparently swallowed whole by the blind and credulous followers of this grotesque "Neo-Theosophy." Not so much for them do I write as for those who, while interested in these subjects, have neither the inclination nor the leisure to examine, for instance, such published Records as these from which I quote, for themselves. Such would naturally accept on their face value Mrs. Besant's own account of herself and of her Society, unaware that she is no longer anything but a "blind leader of the blind," incapable of distinguishing light from darkness, truth from falsehood. We have direct testimony to the truth of this statement in Mr. T. H. Martyn's now famous letter to Mrs. Besant. [7] In it he tells her:—"You have been relying upon C. W. L. as sole intermediary between the Hierarchy [the Trans-Himâlayan Brotherhood, the Masters of Wisdom. Italics mine.—A. L. C.] and yourself for many years.... C. W. L.'s word is final and his seership infallible to you." The quality of this supposed "seership" bears a very close resemblance to a stupid and vulgar hoax. This is clearly shown by Mr. Martyn, who says:—"In 1919 I went to America. Young Van Hook was in New York. He talked freely of C. W. L.'s immorality and about faking the 'lives' of people" (Italics mine.) Mr. Martyn then puts together various pieces of evidence against this man, and tells Mrs. Besant that he finds "staring me in the face the conclusions that Leadbeater is a sex pervert, his mania taking a particular form which I have—though only lately—discovered, is a form well known and quite common in the annals of sex criminology." (Italics mine.) This sex criminal, then, is the creature whom Mrs. Besant has accepted "for many years" as "sole intermediary between" herself and—the Masters of Wisdom!! One almost hesitates to draw the obvious inference; for this is the man whom she has for years held up to and imposed upon their followers as a model of all the virtues—"a saint"—a person "on the threshold of divinity." (See also footnote post, p. 56.)

Why has it always been necessary for Mrs. Besant to have an "intermediary"? Before Mr. Leadbeater it was her Brahmin guide, and before him it was Mr. Judge. To each in turn she gave implicit belief in the matter of "messages" and directions from the Masters, while outwardly claiming "direct" communication. The fact is that, as I have come to believe, the plain psychology of the thing is—sheer femininity. With all her intellectual talents, her once clear brain, Mrs. Besant is (in her personality) just simple woman, relying upon male guidance and authority as instinctively as any of her humbler sisters. And what student of human nature will fail to recognise in her that purely feminine trait of blind and fanatical "obedience" which loves to receive and obey "orders" even though the result should be "a world in ruins"? The existence of this fundamental and essential quality in female human nature is the real reason why even the most broad-minded men shrink from giving women equality of power with themselves in wordly affairs.

Let me here declare what I believe to be the real truth; namely, that after H. P. Blavatsky's death in 1891, neither Mrs. Besant, nor Mr. Judge, nor Colonel Olcott, nor anyone else, could "communicate," because H. P. B.'s withdrawal meant the withdrawal of her Masters as well. It has always seemed strange to me that this was never realised by anyone, for in this pamphlet I have quoted quite enough from H. P. B. to make it perfectly clear. Does she not say in the 1890 letter to the Indians (see p. 2) that after she had to leave India in 1885 the Masters' influence at Adyar became a dead letter? Did not the Masters Themselves write as early as 1884 that they could only communicate through her or in places previously prepared magnetically by her presence? How, then, could They be expected to continue to communicate or direct the affairs of the T. S. (as They did in India until 1885), or the E. S. (as They did from 1888 to 1891), after They had withdrawn the Agent They had so carefully prepared and subjected to the severest trials and initiations in Tibet? Barely three years after this withdrawal the fatal "Split" took place owing to Mr. Judge giving out what purported to be "direct" communications, but which, as