Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00389)

Feb 27th 1998

Dear David:

Personally I am neither an antagonist nor a protagonist.  I agree
that matters of authenticity can only be resolved by verifying
documentary sources.  I can go to, and check at Pasadena as you
can.

As to the authoring of THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT 1875-1950.  As far
as I can discern it stands on documents and events that are
easily traceable.  It does not matter who wrote or edited the
original book THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT 1875-1925 (the 1st
edition, based on the articles that originally were printed in
THEOSOPHY MAGAZINE published by Theosophy Company, Los
Angeles, from 1913 under the title MAHATMAS AND THEIR MESSAGE (Vols. 2, 3,
4 ...). Then later in Vol. 23 is another historical series named
AFTERMATH, which covers developments after 1925 up to the time of
that writing.  Suffice it to say that the authors/editors
had/have documentary evidence for every statement that they made.
Originals or copies thereof are available from the respective
archives or publicly printed material available at many places.

The O.E. LIBRARY CRITIC contains the views of Dr. Stokes and was
entirely the result of his looking into documents issued by the
various "theosophical bodies" then and earlier.  He appears to
have been impartial, but very forceful.  But, if one wants to
spend time in reviewing the history of many unnecessary things
done without due and careful consideration of their future
effects, one can spend many hours just rereading all that is now
in various libraries.  It is of course wise for those who
question seriously to read and accumulate for themselves the
archival proofs of what is alleged, and, question vigorously any
expression of opinion or of fact that is not well covered by such
material.

A number of books have been published down the years which
purport to give the view of recent Theosophical History from the
perspective of the several Theosophical bodies, as they are
organized.  For some it is very interesting, but it has, to my
mind a serious drawback:  much of it is a waste of time when one
considers the vibrant need of the future -- of what THEOSOPHY is,
and how it ought to be promulgated.  that is where we all ought
to be working hard.  We cannot change the past.  But if some
wrong has been done, -- just as HPB herself states at the
beginning of both ISIS and the S D, -- effort has to be devoted
to restoring calumniated reputations that deserve to be
redressed.

We, all of us, are now at the crisis point:  from where we are,
springs the future.  Is it to be a re-opening of wrangles ?
Those are past and done with and cannot be undone.  The documents
are there.  The moves made, however wonderful, or unsavory will
bear their own Karma.  The future is what we will make of it for
humanity.  that is widely entrusted to us.  It will need all our
combined wisdom to do a passable job of transmitting Theosophy
forward.

We are rather concerned with what we can do.  The Path to
brotherly action is that which occupies us.  To try to rewrite
history is wasted time.  To make sure that what is said is true
is necessary, and each should allocate what time they can to
that, if it is required.  I say (in so far as I am able) that all
we can do is to assist others.  The Message of Theosophy unites.
The several "bodes" which have sheltered or exposed it to others
have to answer for either their clarity or their obscuration of
THEOSOPHY.

As to Mrs. Tingley's channeling, all I can say is:  we have to
observe the nature of the statements, and ask if they agree with
Theosophy.  That was the responsibility of the surviving friends
and students of Mr. Judge.  Did they stand fast 'calmly?'  Did
they 'Go slow?'  I see in their actions that there was hurry and
precipitation.  I can understand it.  But then, I also see that
once a decision was arrived at, the error of haste soon showed
itself.

As to what Mrs. Tingley said in channeling WQJ(?) after his
'death' -- it may be true or not, and accuracy may vary from
instance to instance.  My whole point is: "  Why do people
believe that they have to rely on such things at all ?  Why is it
necessary that everyone agrees to make changes, without thinking
out the potentiality of the future ?  Why the rush? "

The whole thrust of Theosophy is to develop individual
self-reliance, and not dependence on others.  The survivors had
the future of the T S in A in their hands as a group.  it was not
necessary to place every power in the hands of a single person,
until adequate time was given to test and verify if such a choice
was to be given.  Interim measures could have been instituted.
They were not.  The impetus of Mr. Judge's work existed and could
easily have been forwarded.  Nothing startling or new was needed.
Is that what happened?  If not, why not ?

As usual we all have 20/20 vision in retrospect.  How do we
develop intuition ?
What are THEOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR APPLICATION ?  Do we have
them firmly in mind today, each for himself?  Are we willing to
place our thoughts into others minds?  And if a proposal arises
that has dangers inherent in it, are we prepared to stand firm
against it, and explain what principles we are invoking -- so
that others may see and understand ?  That is one of the hardest
tests of all.  How do we work even-handed for all?

WQJ repeatedly said that there should be calmness and all should
proceed slowly.  Was that done ?

Why did almost all of those who supported the election of Mrs. T.
to the posts she received IN TRUST, leave so shortly afterwards
(1896-1898)-- about a year and a half?  Of course some stayed on.
Consider the whole course of the TS in A -- the Name change, the
move to Point Loma, etc... has it been smooth ?  Has it CONTINUED
the work that WQJ initiated and sustained, or did it branch out
into many other unsuccessful things ?  What was the point of
speeding off into a "crusade" around the world, and sending back
vivid accounts of successes, which were not sustained.  Where was
the follow-through?

I do not quote these things to wrangle.  I only bring them
forward as questions based on things, facts that occurred and
which, to me, have never been fully cleared up.  That is all.  I
do not want to be contentious with anyone, least of all you and
any of my many friends in Pasadena T S, or anywhere else.  Unity
and brotherhood demands that we base ourselves on facts not on
second or third-hand views we have not yet substantiated.  Let
then move forward, not back.

As I see it, the whole problem is one of "belief, and faith" --
in the sense that a "tradition" has been passed down as correct.
When this is questioned there is a natural reaction of horror and
annoyance -- that anyone might question the motives, etc...
etc... !  But, to be critical and to ask for accurate information
requires openness on all sides.  Let us be quite clear:
theosophy is for each individual.  It does not 'belong" to one
"organization" or another.  Organizations are for help in
individual study, and to see that the literature is kept
available and promulgated.  What else ?  Theosophy does not
require either a "church," or a "congregation."  The best side to
adopt, is then "no side."

I speak and write only for myself, so all that I say is entirely
on my own responsibility.

I have offered to be of assistance to you in your stated
endeavour to prepare a good biography of Mr. Judge.  Assemble
your materials.  Then we can check for agreement or for any
differences.

I do hope this clears up my position as much as I can offer it in
answer to some of your observations.

your friend,                        Dallas