Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tl00172)

I find several misstatements of fact in Dallas's recent post
about WQJ.  First is his statement that the original issue was
the position of WQJ in the TS, when Olcott, Besant and others
tried to oust him.  No, the *original* issue was the position of
Col. Olcott, when Besant and Judge tried to oust *him* not long
after HPB's death.  They actually succeeded in getting him to
resign; rumor is that this was due to sexual improprieties with a
female Theosophist.  But then Olcott changed his mind and refused
to depart, alleging Masters' orders.  Only after Besant changed
sides, spent a long time traveling around India with Olcott, met
many Indians who supported him, and decided that the Mahatma
letters she got through Judge were fakes, did the caca hit the
fan for Judge.

Dallas says that after the attempt to oust Judge based on charges
of fraud was abandoned, it was renewed later in the year.  This
obscures the role of the ES in the dispute.  Judge and Besant
were co-outer heads, and Judge summarily dismissed Besant from
her position-- and she reciprocated.  It was the split in the ES
that led to the split in the TS.  Yes, this is unfortunate
history, but not one in which there are clearcut heroes and
villains.

It is also not true that after Olcott and HPB left for India,
Judge's "sustained effort" led the American section to great
growth.  Not exactly; the section languished for 6 years or so
and only upon Judge's return from Europe and India in 1884 did he
start to devote himself to building it up.  As for his having no
personal ambitions, I leave it to readers to decide whether this
claim fits the evidence concerning a man who produced Mahatma
letters that turned Besant against Olcott and led to forcing the
latter's resignation.  If the letters were genuine, no personal
ambition was involved.  Otherwise... this would clear the way for
his own rise to the presidency, and looks personally ambitious.

Finally, it is not true that relations between Judge and HPB were
close and always cordial.  Recent publications of letters in
Theosophical History magazine by Michael Gomes have shown
otherwise.

BTW I heard tapes from that Krotona conference and don't recall
John Algeo saying anything like what Dallas recalls.  His theme
was using a linguistic analogy, calling Theosophy a language and
various branches dialects.  Perhaps he was interpreted as having
*meant* "only Adyar has the Masters' backing"-- which he
presumably believes-- but I can't imagine him actually saying
this and would like a quote.

Cheers,

Paul

-----