Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00173)

In Nov email, Jerry, you wrote------

>The only living person I know of who has seen the Judge letters in
>question is an independent Theosophical Historian named Michael Gomes.
>I have questioned him extensively over a period of several years
>concerning those letters, and he was clear to me that he did not find
>the statements that Olcott claims to exist in those letters.

This is serious statement.  It reflects
on Mr Olcutt.  Reader has no way to confirm
statement.  Why did you make it if it was
part of Dr Gomes thesis he
wanted to keep private till published?

I wanted Dr Gomes to elaborate on this
statement of yours-----not reveal whole thesis.

Some theosophists are interested
in letters, yet Indian archives doesn't let
people except Dr Gomes view letters & then
he shares info with only close
associate who gives out tidbit that
reflects badly on Olcott.

Something is wrong here.

BTW you wrote-----

>In volume five of OLD DIARY
>LEAVES, Olcott says that Judge wrote a letter
>to Besant with a Mahatmic warning for her not
>to go to India because Olcott was planning to
>poison her.

Can't find it.  Do you have page #?

David G.


>David Green wrote:
>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> I am somewhat confused.
>>
>> Why is Dr Gomes against discussing
>> with theosophical students the Judge
>> letters?  You said he discussed them
>> with you.
>>
>
>David,
>
>Between you, Bart and Ramadoss, I'm beginning to feel a lot of regret
for
>ever mentioning Mr. Gomes name in the first place.  I never said that
Mr.
>Gomes is for or against discussing the Judge letters.  But I did write
that
>it would be inappropriate to ask someone who has done years of research
at
>his personal expense to summarize his findings to another researcher,
let
>alone over the public airways, such as the internet.  Mr. Gomes has
already
>published a series of previously unpublished Judge letters over the
last two
>years in the journal THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY.  If you want to know
something
>about what Mr. Gomes has to say about Judge letters, then I suggest
that you
>go and read the back issues of that journal.
>
>Let's put it in another way:  Let's say that you do go ahead and start
>researching  that thesis on Judge you were talking about.  Let's say
that
>you spend thousands of dollars of your personal money traveling around
the
>country and around the world visiting libraries with special
collections in
>your search for Judge material for your thesis.  Let's say that you
have
>spend thousands of hours combing though this material and have now come
up
>with a very interesting, informational and new point of view concerning
>Judge.  You are now ready to begin writing your thesis.  Now let's say
>someone comes along you don't know and asks you to summarize all that
you
>had learned about Judge as a result of your years of research.  You
tell
>him.  Then let's say that two months later you read an article about
Judge
>written by that same person that covers everything you told him, but he
gave
>you no credit whatsoever for his information.  Now Let's say that you
go
>ahead and write your thesis and submit it to your committee.  Your
committee
>reads it and tells you that it has nothing new, but rather is just a
>restatement of  the findings in another work published earlier.  You
realize
>that the other work your committee is referring to is the one written
by
>that inquirer who asked you to summarize to him everything you
discovered.
>How would you feel?
>
>
>> In your Nov email you wrote that
>> Dr Gomes had read the Judge letters
>> & had told you certain things.
>> What does one have to do to get a
>> audience with him?  It sounds to me
>> like the Theo societies & theosophical
>> scholars are a somewhat uncommunicative,
>> unfriendly bunch.
>>
>
>Let's try this again.  I wrote (among many other things) that I had
>discussed the Judge letters with Mr. Gomes, and had come to certain
>conclusions, based upon those discussions.  I did not say what Mr.
Gomes
>said to me, and I did not mention anything one way or another about Mr.
>Gomes own conclusions.  I only shared my own conclusions.  My only
purpose
>for mentioning Mr. Gomes in the first place was to show that in coming
to my
>conclusions, I did not neglect discussing my ideas with others who are
also
>knowledgeable about Judge.  As for communicating with Mr. Gomes, I
already
>responded to your original request.  I wrote that if you wanted to
introduce
>yourself to him,  you could e-mail me a letter and I would pass it on
to
>him.  Personally, I thought that was a very friendly offer to make to
>someone I don't even know.  Out of respect for Mr. Gomes privacy, it
would
>not have been appropriate for me to broadcast his address over the
internet,
>nor would it have been appropriate for me to sent it to you privately.
I
>don't know you.  For all I know you could be a mad man obsessed by Mr.
Gomes
>and is trying to kill him.  Do you understand my position?  I also
strongly
>suggested that you first do your own research before you tried to
contact
>him.  Do you understand why I suggested this?   Apparently you don't,
so I
>will spell it out again:  It is not appropriate to ask someone engaged
in
>research to make public his findings until after he is ready to publish
it.
>If you want to write him, you have every right to do so.  But don't
expect
>him to do your research for you, and don't expect him to write your
thesis
>for you.  Frankly, if you were to write me with such expectations, I
would
>be very inclined to not even give you the courtesy of an answer.  Not
>because I'm unfriendly, but because I am simply not willing to do your
>research for you, and it is inappropriate for you to ask me or anyone
else
>to do so.   Have I made myself clear enough this time?
>
>> So if we email Dr Gomes, I take it from
>> what you have written, that he will not
>> reply?
>>
>
>I'm not Mr. Gomes and I don't do his thinking for him.  I refuse to be
>manipulated into the position of predicting what someone else will do.
All
>I have been trying to get across is that the question you  indicated
that
>you intend to ask Mr. Gomes is not appropriate.  Since you are
apparently in
>graduate school, and ready to write a thesis, I would think that none
of
>this should need be said.
>
>I'm sorry if this reply appears to be unfriendly.  It is not intended
to
>be.  Rather, I'm just finding it  very frustrating that I'm not being
>understood.  I assure you that Theosophical historians are not
unfriendly
>and uncommunicative people.  On the contrary, they are generally very
>appreciative to meet others who share a *genuine* interest in their
area of
>research.  However,  most people are made uncomfortable by
inappropriate
>behavior and inappropriate questions.   Historians are no different in
this
>manner.
>
>I hope that this clarifies and ends the matter.
>
>
>JJHE
>
>
>
>
>
>> >> >Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
>> >
>> >>  I'm certain that Mr. Gomes would much prefer to be
>> >> left to
>> >> >> do his research and writing in peace.  In the mean time,  I
feel
>> that the
>> >> >> more important and appropriate question to ask is why the Adyar
TS
>> is
>> >> >> unwilling to publish these letters.
>> >>
>>
>> >What ever happened to courtesy and appropriate behavior among
>> Theosophists?  Why
>> >do you want to bother someone who does not want to be bothered?
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com