Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tl00178)

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