Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00099)

Paul writes:
> the question has no meaning to me. But if you were to ask what
> would be different if Judge would have lived, was not
>discredited and pushed out of the Society by Besant and Olcott,
>and followed Olcott as President of the TS, I think things would
>have been vastly different.

>That strikes me as a highly partisan way to state the
situation.

 In what way is it partisan? In what way is this question
more Partisan than your restatement?

>If you were to ask me what would be different if
Judge had not successfully turned Besant against Olcott in an
effort to make him resign as President (to whose benefit?)

 Can you show Judge's role in this through *source*
documentation, other than Besant's own (presumably) biased
statements that she made after turning against Judge?

>and
if Olcott had not changed his mind about resigning, decided to
fight back, and with the help of a huge number of eminent
Indians and Sinhalese, won over Besant... you see the point.

 Yes, I see your point. But your implied motivation of
Olcott to get Judge ignores the antagonistic attitude Olcott had
towards Judge over the previous ten or more years. I think the
issue runs deeper then this.

>It was Judge's ambition, Olcott's (mis?)perceived
vulnerability, Besant's indecisiveness and two-facedness, that
started the "split." Judge and Besant came mighty close to
dumping Olcott overboard, which if it had succeeded would be an
injustice to top that which befell Judge.

 And you call my statement of the question partisan....Hmmm.

 OK, concerning your comparison of CWL and WQJ, let me first
put my own biases up front before I comment on them. First of
all, I really don't like Judge that much as a writer. I think
it, and she likes to teach it. I don't. As for Besant, my
opinions are almost exactly the same as what I understand yours
to be. As for Olcott, well, we've gone into that before.

>1. WQJ and CWL both convinced Annie Besant that they were the
primary channels through which she could communicate with HPB's
Masters.

 Your interpretation ignores the fact that Besant claimed to
have her own contact with the Masters. See her ~The Case Against
Judge.~ Another interpretation (mine) is that like so many
victorian women, she had a psychological dependency on men.
Abundant evidence of this can be seen not only in her
relationship to Judge and CWL, but to Bradlaw and Shaw. If my
interpretation turns out to be the case, then Besant was deeply
influenced and swayed by any man she was involved with, whether
the man took advantage of it or not. For what ever it is worth,
I have also seen astrologers point this weakness out in her
horoscope.

>They used this to control her behavior.

 I agree that there is ample evidence of this with CWL. But
what is your evidence for Judge doing this--Besant's account of
her relationship with WQJ after she turned against him? Might
this evidence perhaps be biased, and needs to be balanced by more
neutral sources? Do you have any such sources?

>At different times each succeeded in turning her against Olcott
and the positions he held on the ES, Masters, HPB. (In CWL's
case, this occurred after Olcott's death.)

 OK, but in light of my above observation, Judge's intent is
in question. Because of lack of documentation (in my opinion), I
would just say that Besant's opinions changed after she became
involved with Judge. But we can also say that about her
involvement with Shaw, Bradlaw and CWL.

>2. In CWL's case, most informed students of the MLs and HPB's
body of writings concur that his claimed intimacy with her
Masters is not supported by primary sources.

 OK

>In Judge's case, we have enthusiastic partisans asserting that
he was producing genuine Mahatma letters. But where is the
evidence, e.g. those letters, and what about them confirms this
claim?

 Some of those letters have been published by Pasadena. As
for authenticity, what is there about the letters to Sinnett now
in the British Museum that proves they are authentic? Your
question once again affirms the point that Judge was trying to
make all along.

>In the absence of supporting evidence, why should claims on
Judge's behalf by his admirers receive any more credence than
claims on CWL's behalf by his?

 Because Judge's ideas and claims are more consistent with
what we find in the writings of HPB, HSO and the Mahatma letters.

>3. In either case, the question that strikes me most strongly
is "what if Besant had adhered to the lines laid down by the
Masters as understood by Olcott and expressed in the 1900
letter?" Her allegiances to WQJ and CWL both led her astray
from these "lines laid down":
"Be accurate and critical rather than credulous...No one has a
right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience...The
cant about `Masters' must be silently but firmly put down. Let
the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of
which one is a part..."

 I don't feel that you have yet established a case that Judge
led her astray. At least not by intention. As far as what
Besant made of her association with Judge, we of course, have her
testimony on that--and Judge's reply by the way.

>4. Contemporary partisans of both CWL and WQJ tend to make
defenses of their respective heroes that boil down to sectarian
loyalty based on feeling and intuition.

 Not in my case. I already put myself on record as not being
in complete agreement with Judge, Besant, Olcott or CWL. I also
have some problems with HPB and the Mahatma letters too, but that
is another issue. In light of the above, what "sectarian
loyalty" is possible for me?

>Some people complain about the way CWL fans jump on anything
critical of him. Is there anything different about WQJ admirers?

 I would think it depends upon whom you are comparing with
whom. But generally speaking, my observation is that CWL
admirers defend him from out of feelings of loyalty and
admiration. So many times I have seen old ladies oohing and
aahing over a portrait of CWL--it seems to be almost sexual
somehow. I have never seen that behavior towards a portrait of
Judge.

>In short, it seems to me that there is an extreme double
standard at play here. If Judge partisans look at Leadbeater
and see someone intent on manipulating Besant with claims of
Mahatmic communication, someone intent on expanding his power
in the TS through these claims, and someone who placed his own
influence above the welfare of the entire society-- I'd say you
can find another example of the same much closer to home.

 Interesting opinion, and there could possibly be some truth
to it. I would be interested in seeing what kind of evidence you
could find to support this position.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu,and CC to
jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org