re: re CWL and WQJ
Oct 06, 1995 02:16 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
JHE [writing to Ann]
>>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
>>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.
How does my statement portray Judge as "an innocent victim"? A
victim, yes, but I don't see any rhetoric in my statement that
evaluates Judge's innocence or guilt. Where do you see it? Are
you suggesting that it is partisan for me to put the burden of
responsibility on Besant and Olcott for discrediting Judge? If
they didn't do it, then who do you think did?
>>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
>But I'm clearly expressing my opinion, whereas you seemed to be
>introducing your opinion into an ostensibly factual account of
>I'd say my restatement
>is also partisan, intentionally so to exemplify "loaded" ways
>of stating historical relationships.
If you didn't tell me, I never would have guessed this to be your
intention. Now that you have revealed your intention, what is
>>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?) 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.
> 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?
Under the circumstances, almost anybody other than Besant. Would
you consider someone who is out to get you a "reliable source"
for any information concerning your relationship with them?
Besant's testimony has to be considered in light of her object,
which was to discredit Judge. Therefore, I would want to look at
testimony from a variety of individuals
>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 where did you find Besant's testimony in these sources?
Certainly not ODL--Olcott wrote that. Not Garrett, he had no
first hand knowledge about Besant's and Judge's relationship.
The 1900 letter does not mention Judge. That leaves Nethercot--
your secondary source. Therefore, you are basing your
conclusions on Nethercot's account of Besant's account of her
association with Judge, which was in turn written for the purpose
of discrediting him. So the answer to my original question: "Can
you show Judge's role in this through *source* documentation...."
is that you never used source documentation in the first place.
>Anyhow, could you say more about HSO's antagonism to Judge prior
Look at Olcott's references to Judge--not in ODL, which is his
memoirs--but in ~The Theosophist~ and in the letters that we have
that were written at the time.
>> >1. WQJ and CWL both convinced Annie Besant that they were the
>> primary channels through which she could communicate with
>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
>his 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?
I don't consider either ULT history a "source", but only a
secondary commentary--nice background reading, therefore I
wouldn't take them or any other secondary work "into account" if
I were writing "in depth" on the subject.
>Do you have any other such balancing sources?
"Such balancing" secondary sources? For secondary sources, I
would look at Ransom, Ryan, Campbell etc.--same books you have
already seen. But unlike you I don't base my research on these.
Even my professor would give me an "F" on a paper based upon
secondary sources, if I got caught (and I probably would).
Apparently English majors are trained to operate on different
standards than Library Science majors.
JHE [Concerning Besant's relationship with WQJ and CWL]
>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).
Not "TS charges" but Besant and Olcott's charges. The TS
membership knew nothing about it until Besant published her
accusations and distributed them to the membership.
>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.
That might be Nethercot's opinion based upon what he read, but he
wasn't present when the decision was made. On the other hand,
Alice Cleather was there and gives a eye witness hand account.
Why do you take Nethercot's second hand opinion and ignore
Cleather's first hand account?
>Thus he used Mahatma letters both to establish his half-share in
>the ES leadership, and then to take over the whole enchilada.
>Personally, I would be embarrassed to publish such an
>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?
Yes. I agree that the pattern of behavior gives some bases for
reading motivation. But the pattern of behavior you are using as
evidence is based upon Olcott and Nethercot's accounts of what
Judge did. Nethercot wasn't there, and as I proved in a former
discussion, he was relying on Besant and Olcott's accounts.
Olcott was there, but he is the prosecutor in this case. Don't
you think that Olcott's account of Judge's behavior might be just
a little bit selective in order to convince his readers of
>I'm hard pressed to imagine a primary source that would clarify
>Judge's motivation, other than private letters.
Well, you could start with those letters that have been
published. You might also consider Judge's own account of his
actions and compare them to Besant and Olcott's account of them.
That way, at least, you will be looking at both the case for the
prosecution and the case for the defense. So far, you have only
read the prosecution's side of the story--not very fair to my
sense of justice. You could also look at the commentaries of the
other witnesses. There are lots of them.
> 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?
Huh? My point is (and Judge's point also), is that in the end
the authenticity of the letters and of the existence of the
Masters is unprovable.
JHE [Ans. to a question re. a comparison of WQJ's and CWL's
> Because Judge's ideas and claims are more consistent with
> what we find in the writings of HPB, HSO and the Mahatma
That's true enough about his published works, but what about
those 500 letters Rich talks about?
Ask Rich about them. I've never seen those "500 letters." Have
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.
Probably not. I catch those little "hum-dingers" every now and
again. HPB caught Judge on one, and really let him know about
>>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.
Unfair Paul. "Sectarian" refers to the beliefs of a sect
(according to my Oxford American Dictionary). I only claimed to
by unsectarian on this issue, not in a state of perfect
objectivity. Since "complete objectivity is not to be found on
this planet", why are you now criticizing me for what I share
with every one else on this planet?
JHE [re Paul's opinions]
> 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 controversy is documented in letters held by
Pasadena's archives, while the Judge side resides in the Adyar
Not quite. It is true that there was an exchange of letters
between Olcott and Judge. Adyar has Judge's side of the
Correspondence and Pasadena supposibly has Olcott's side. *Some*
of Olcott's accusations rests upon the evidence of *some* of
those letters from Judge that are in the Adyar archives. Judge
is the defendant here--he didn't bring the charges, he is the one
who was charged. So if Adyar were to make those letters in
question public, we would be able to better evaluate *some* of
Olcott's claims. But with the thousands of pages of evidence
that we do have, I think it is rather silly to think that we
can't draw any conclusions for lack of a couple of letters. On
the other hand, with all that is available, I wouldn't anchor my
opinions on just three documents and a secondary source either.
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.
I heard the same rumor and confronted Joy, Grace and Kirby with
it. (It would be nice if people would check out rumors rather
than condemning others in the weight of their supposed authority.
But I seem to be the only person who is bothered by this) Joy
said that Pasadena was not willing to publish their half of the
correspondence. Grace and Kirby said that they were willing if
Adyar agrees to publish their half so that both sides of the
correspondence be available--"as a matter of fairness" Grace
As to what relevant sources may have ended up in the PLP
archives, I don't know.
Quite a lot, as a matter of fact. You ought to take a look at it
Please reply to: email@example.com
and CC to firstname.lastname@example.org
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application