Re: Johnson agrees with Caldwell(!)
Sep 18, 1995 00:40 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Paul Johnson writes:
>On the question of W. Q. Judge as an author of source
>material. There is no justification I can think of for
>claiming Judge to be more "source" than Besant, except for his
>status as a founder. But that criterion would make Emma
>Hardinge Britten source material, so it doesn't suffice.
I think I covered this in my last post. If Mrs. Britten
contributed to the body of theosophical teachings then why
shouldn't it suffice? But her writings are concerned with
spiritualism rather than theosophy aren't they?
>But here's a question for Daniel and others-- why not Olcott as
>source material? I'd put Old Diary Leaves very close to the
>top of my list of *source* writings.
I included Olcott in my last post. His ~Old Diary Leaves~,
however are memoirs, not teachings. I would call them source
writings for theosophical history, but not much use for
teachings. For source writings on theosophical teachings, one
would have to explore his lectures and articles and make a
determination as to what degree he had contributed to the
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application