Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00103)

Saturday, September 13, 2003


Re: Your post of Sept. 13 2002.
Implication of slander to U L T.


Dear Katinka:


I must still protest your characterization of the "U L T" based on the
material published by others who are unknown, which we are discussing,
since the "U L T" is uninvolved, and it did not publish those books.

Let me explain so as to be clear:

You mention the book The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT. The first edition was
titled The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1925), and was published in 1925
by E. P. Dutton, New York. This book went out-of-print. A new book was
published in 1951 by the Cunningham Press, Los Angeles and is titled The
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1950). I am not sure if you have seen that.
It is still in print.

Both are published anonymously. Neither of them was published over the
imprimateur : "U L T." 

Your opinion of the book is one thing. But you are making a guess and
an assumption in presuming that the "UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS" took
responsibility for either of those books. Nowhere does it say so in
either book.

The narration of historical events covered by documents stands available
from several sources. There are excellent archives at the THEOSOPHICAL
SOCIETY in Pasadena, Mr. D. Caldwell, Mr. M. Gomes and Mr. E. Pelletier,
etc. all have similar but independent archives. Those are available,
and we can all read those documents and follow their sequence, and draw
our conclusions. 

Opinions may differ. We are now reviewing these matters many years
later, and the authors are not available for discussion, hence we are
now speculating as to their motives. But, it is important to note that
the "U L T" is not involved. Hence your characterizations are not fairly
aimed at it.

As I see it, Theosophy Company recommends those books because they
provide a documentary chronology. In my opinion your remarks employing
the name "U L T" ought to be withdrawn. Properly, you may direct them at
the unknown authors, but not at "U L T."

As I said, it is my understanding that U L T "policy" is defined by the
DECLARATION of the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS (of which I sent you a
copy). It did not publish those books. Neither did "Theosophy Company."


The events of the "Judge Case" are well covered by documents. The parts
played by individuals, privately and publicly are made clear by the
nature and handling of those documents. Again, our present opinions may
be different, but they have to remain speculative at this time.

I find no basis for your calling "U L T" either slanderous or indulging
in innuendo. It seems to be your opinion and is not based on facts, I
therefore protest what you write. You are being unfair to the U L T in
my esteem.

The sample taken from the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1925) published in
1925 (p. 457) relates to the opinion of the author(s) (?). Again, "U L
T" is not involved.


Best wishes,


Dallas

===================================

Hi Dallas,

I don't think we misunderstand each other. I do think we strongly
disagree on matters of policy in theosophical organisations and
interpretation of HPB's work. 

The book "The Theosophical Movement" contains much that could be seen
as slandering Besant and Olcott. Unfortunately, any quote will be out
of context as the work is so full of both quoted letters and such as
well as innuendo. The latter is what I am complaining against. The
fact that this book was published anonimously makes it very hard to
say: this person did that wrong. Or at the time of writing it,
correspondence with that person on subjects like, have you looked at
that document, why haven't you looked at that side of the story. I
understand the ULT-policy, I just note that it wasn't HPB's policy and
that therefore (and for all the reasons mentioned before) the ULT may
want to consider changing it. Unfortunately the ULT has no governing
body so that nobody could make the decision to change something. 

As for the quote. Here goes a random one: 

p. 457 The Theosophical Movement (1925, E.P. Dutton&Company, 681 fifth
avenue)

"Now, having traced the successive moves of Mr. Judge, and having
followed Mrs. Besant's successive positions on the chessboard, it is
necessary to review Col. Olcott's share in the strategy and tactics of
the rapidly culminating manoeuvres. We have shown him in his "Old
Diary Leaves," in his Presidential Adress, in his letter to the
American Section Convention of 1893, in his part in the "White Lotus
Day" celebration at Adyar on may 8, 1893, in his use of Mr. Sturdy as
a pawn, and Mr. Walter R. Old as a more important piece through which
to make his moves."

This suggests a negative motive in both Olcott and Besant. The
biography of one of the persons mentioned here as a 'piece through
which to make his move' has been completed recently (Walter Old - see
my website. I am not going to give the URL another time. Searching
google for Sepharial will sufice). That biography makes Walter Old
very much his own person. Not a pawn in a conspiracy against Judge. 

Personally I think it rather preposterous to think that Judge, or
Besant or Olcott were parts of plots. They may have disliked each
other, they may have made mistakes and those mistakes and dislikes may
have built up to create or at least partly cause the whole
Judge-affair. But that doesn't mean anyone of those people had a
conscious motive to create something of the sort. And that is what is
being suggested here. 

Katinka





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]