Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00147)

According to Jerry Hejka-Ekins:
>
> 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?

Partisan in that it puts the burden of responsibility on Besant
and Olcott (which of the two would you blame more?) and
portrays Judge as an innocent victim. I'd say my restatement
is also partisan, intentionally so to exemplify "loaded" ways
of stating historical relationships.
>
> >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?
Who other than Besant is a reliable source on the influence
Judge exerted on her? As you know, my sources for the section
of the book that discusses this are ODL, Garrett (thanks to
you), Nethercot-- a secondary one, and the 1900 letter.
>
> >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.
>From HSO's own account he was on cordial terms with Judge until
more recently than this. Of course, Olcott was probably
suspicious of Judge due to the ES and his role in it. From the
moment of HPB's death, there was an unstable situation in which
neither Olcott's, Judge's nor Besant's position was secure
because each was somewhat threatened by the others. Anyhow,
could you say more about HSO's antagonism to Judge prior to
1891?
>
> >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.
But I'm clearly expressing my opinion, whereas you seemed to be
introducing your opinion into an ostensibly factual account of
the situation.
>
> >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.
Definitely.
>
> >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?
I have the ULT history done in 1950-- the 1925 is inaccessible
by ILL or at least my efforts. DIdn't use it, and would not
consider it "more neutral." However, it has the most complete
discussion of the period from a pro-Judge POV. If I were to
write in depth about it, such material would need to be taken
into account. Do you have any other such balancing sources?
>
> 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.
The crucial question from my POV is the way the ES ended up
being used as the means for power struggle within the TS.
Olcott withdrew the TS charges against Judge after realizing
that they were unconstitutional (as argued by WQJ). But then
Judge, "at Master's direction" deposed Besant as co-Outer
Head. From my reading of Nethercot it would seem that Mahatma
letters convinced Besant to share the Headship with Judge in
the first place. Thus he used Mahatma letters both to
establish his half-share in the ES leadership, and then to take
over the whole enchilada. You seem to say that to establish
that he was motivated by a desire to expand his power in the TS
would require credible sources. But in the case of a pattern
of behavior is there not some basis for reading motivation?
I'm hard pressed to imagine a primary source that would clarify
Judge's motivation, other than private letters.

> 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.
But how is it possible to let Judge off so easily while
condemning Leadbeater (and Bailey) for the same thing?
> 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.
That's true enough about his published works, but what about
those 500 letters Rich talks about? BTW I did find a
hum-dinger of a contradiction of HPB by Judge somewhere, and
now I can't locate it. Maybe in the Ocean, he says that
Masters are so psychically charged that their appearance would
be striking to any observer-- so much so that they must remain
in hiding so as not to overwhelm us with their obvious power.
This is quite un-HPB, but I cannot find it so my memory may be
playing tricks.
>
> 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?
I wasn't talking about you in particular. But your sectarian
loyalties are surely there; there must be people you like and
are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and others you
dislike and view with general suspicion. Complete objectivity
is not to be found on this planet, to my knowledge.
>
> 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.
We may have gone over this ground before, but the existence of
the evidence and anyone's ability to get at it are two
different matters. Is it not true that the Olcott side of the
Judge/Olcott controvery is documented in letters held by
Pasadena's archives, while the Judge side resides in the Adyar
archives? I heard a rumor that years ago Joy Mills (perhaps
when Intl VP?) suggested that each side share its Judge case
documents with the other, but that this was declined. As to
what relevant sources may have ended up in the PLP archives, I
don't know.