Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00382)

JHE wrote-----------

>Regarding the Rajah, I was not
>posting a document.  As for giving references, I'm afraid that you did
not
>read my message carefully enough.  I said that this subject touches on
>Judge/Point Loma/Pasadena tradition not discussed among the general
public.
>I brought up the matter for two reasons: 1) to offset the damage you
were
>creating by publishing the material out of context.  2) to try to get
you to
>realize that there is more behind these documents that you reproduce
without
>care than you are able to surmise from the text.


In consideration of 1) & 2)----What
relevant context is missing from
letters?  London corresp
emailed that E Greenwalt supplies
little context on Neresheimer letter.
Here is my reading:  E Neresheimer
& other Judge coworkers believed
deceased W Judge was communicating
thru Mrs Tingley.  At her home
Mrs Tingley was voice channel for
W Judge to contact them.  Am I
missing important something?
Enlighten poor novices about
contextual info that alters
this point in letter.

Again what contextual matter
changes message of W Judge letters
Janu. 1895?   If letters legit, then
W Judge claims to have received
communications from dead Mrs Blavatsky.  What other info
would change Judge's statement?

Tell me----what damage I created? & can't
theosophists students think for themselves?
Plus you're no help since you're of inner
occult circle & of academic elite refusing
to provide additional info & enlighten most of
us poor neophyte souls inhabiting public
theos-talk forum.

D Green

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