Theos-Talk Archives (September 1994 Message tl00068)

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
>
> Concerning Paul Johnson's post of Sept. 21, quoted below:

> Now we have Paul telling us that his friend, Herb Lubitz, told
> him that he had read it in volume four of O.D.L.  Based upon this
> third hand information, we are to believe that the story once
> again "seems credible."

Give me a break.  I said nothing about what "you" are to believe.
All I said was that the story seemed credible to me, and that I
would pursue the lead.  Why are you being so adversarial about
this? All I did was post a work-in-progress news flash.  You seem
to be very resistant to believing something bad about Judge,
while quite ready to believe bad things about Olcott and Besant.

  When (if) Paul finds the actual citation

> in ODL (and/or ~The Theosophist~), then I for one, will be in a
> position to examine the documentation and determine the
> credibility of the evidence for myself.  Until such documentation
> is found and substantiated, I for one, am not willing to give
> credence to Nethercot's and Paul's accusation.

Paul's accusation? Why call it that? All I am doing is repeating
from a source, and you know well that the story appears in more
than one.  Better to call it "Nethercot's and Williams's (and
perhaps Olcott's and Besant's) accusation." What is "giving
credence" anyway? Of course I don't expect you to believe it
without the citation, which is the reason I looked for it.  But
you might at least acknowledge the possibility that Nethercot and
Williams didn't just invent the story-- which you seem reluctant
to do unless forced to.  Therefore, why is it not just as fair
for me to turn the tables and say "until evidence is found and
substantiated to prove that Nethercot and or Williams invented
the story, I for one refuse to give credence to Jerry's
accusation?" You are accusing them of just a serious a misdeed as
they attribute to Judge.  It's quite bizarre to me to think that
such a weird story would have been made up out of whole cloth.

We have enough

> mis-information and dis-information floating around about T.S.
> History without adding to it.

To repeat something is not to add to it.  Again, unfair.

Let's work to sift the gossip from

> documentation before making judgements.

Exactly what I said I was going to do.  "Seems credible" is no
more a judgment that "not willing to give credence" is.  Why are
you blaming me for something that you yourself are doing? We all
have some kind of opinion/judgment on the Judge case, and we all
know that it is based on inadequate evidence.  Your guess is as
good as mine.  Please be generous enough to admit the same.  You
say "let's work," but where's the "us"? Why put the burden of
looking for evidence entirely on me? Your attitude seems to be
"my mind is made up, and I have no interest in examining the
matter.  If you want me to think about changing my mind, you must
do all the work." Dismissing Williams and Nethercot as "gossip"
is rather high-handed.  The overall quality of Nethercot's books
suggests that his scholarly standards deserve more respect than
that.  Well I did find the citation, but it's rather elliptical.
I left it at home but will post it when I can bring it to work.
Olcott says that Judge used bogus Mahatma letters to dissuade
Annie from going to India after she had already agreed to do so,
and adds that the manner in which he dissuaded her "is now a
matter of history." Which means that the missing details must
appear in another contemporary source, probably the Theosophist.
Which I don't expect to have access to any time soon.  I do
expect to see Michael Gomes in Chicago at AAR, and know that he
has studied the case.  Perhaps he can shed some light.