Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00045)

David Green wrote:

> Thanks Jerry for your words
> but give example or two
> of out of context charge.

The parts of the letters you quoted appear to be the same fragments that
Besant used in her 1895  Pamphlet "The Case against Judge."   These letters
were all written during his probationary period when he would not be
expected to have an independent line of communication with the Mahatmas.  As
far as I know, A.P. Sinnnett and Blavatsky were the only two people who had
such independent communication during this time.  I believe that Judge's
letters have to be read and understood in this context.

>
>
> Was W Judge in direct contact with
> Mrs Blavatsky's Masters during
> period under discussion?

You mean in independent correspondence with them?  Not as far as I know.  My
own studies of the Mahatma Letters and Blavatsky's correspondence suggests
to me that Blavatsky had to have been present in the area--in the aura of
the receiver within a short time (a few weeks) in order for letters to be
phenomenally transmitted.  This is because she played a part in the
transmissions.  In Judge's case,  Blavatsky's assistance in the transmission
of letters would not be possible with Blavatsky on the other side of the
ocean.  Thus Judge would have to be trained to be his own transmitter.  I
believe this did not happen until after he went to India in 1886.    As far
as I know, Sinnett's and Olcott's written communications from the Masters
ended after Blavatsky went to London in 1885.   There is of course a Mahatma
letter written in 1900 presumably to Besant,  but its authenticity is
disputed.
    The overall point I wish to get across is that this Mahatma letter stuff
is more complicated then it appears on the surface.  How Mahatma letters are
written and transmitted, was not clearly understood by Besant or the general
membership at the time.  If  this information had been better understood,  I
doubt if Besant would have questioned Judge's receiving and use of Mahatma
communications.


> W Judge's
> letters tell that he received letters
> thru Mrs Blavatsky.  This is not debatable.
> But his letters do not show
> that he was in intimate & independent
> communication with Masters at least
> 1879-86.

Nor was anyone else in independent communication expect Blavatsky.  Even
Sinnett required Blavatsky's mediation in order to receive letters from the
Masters.  What is your point?

>  Why do you desire to
> contradict W Judge's written words?
>

I have no such desire.  Do you believe that I am doing so?  How?

> As I told Mr Eklund, Im not skeptic but
> want to get at truth.
>

The truth, as far as I understand it,  is that according to Blavatsky, Judge
was a probationary Chela  from 1875.  In 1886 he received orders from the
Masters to go to India.  After that time he came into independent
communication with the Masters.  My guess is that he received the necessary
training from the Masters at that time to do so.  But this is something that
cannot be proved or disproved.  I hope this clarifies the matter.

JJHE