Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00023)

Hi Daniel,

Personally I don't understand why this letter is made so much of. If
memory serves there is other evidence that Judge could forge HPB's or
the Mahatma's writing. I don't remember where I read that, but that
seems the only relevant aspect here. The deleted 'friend' portion of
the letter refers to that: with the word 'friend' in, someone else
forged HPB's handwriting. With the word 'friend' out it looks like
Judge shows he can forge her handwriting. 
The letter itself is not evidence to anything either way, I think. The
chapter 15 in which Pelletier tries to make it into something
important is merely a lot of guess-work, in my opinion. That is,
except for the last part, where he quotes HPB as saying that
Khandalavala could imitate her writing so well that she couldn't
recognize it herself. 

So it seems we have at least two people here who could have imitated
HPB's handwriting. The soup is thickening. 

I still can't figure out what motive Khandalavala might have had for
going against Judge. He wasn't even a Brahmin. 

[the above is nothing more than my first thoughts after reading the
chapter. Not fit for publication in say Fohat, nor fit to be sent to
other e-mailgroups.]

Katinka Hesselink

PS. my newsletter is called Lucifer7, not to be confused with various
theosophical magazines called Lucifer in the past and present. 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> 
> In the Jan. 2005 issue of LUCIFER,
> Ernest Pelletier wrote the following
> about his book THE JUDGE CASE:
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> One of the most important points of the book 
> is the publication, for the first time ever, 
> of Judge's September 17th, 1884 letter to 
> Judge Khandalavala. This is the document 
> that Adyar has gone out of its way to keep 
> from public scrutiny, and used subversively 
> to sustain the questioning of Judge's 
> veracity. I have it on good authority that 
> it is shown only to select individuals to 
> "prove" that Judge was supposedly a fraud, 
> while at the same time claiming that they 
> are in fact "protecting" his reputation 
> from being further damaged. The involvement 
> of Judge N.D. Khandalavala in setting up 
> this whole scenario back in 1892-1893, and 
> its perpetuation to date as described above, 
> I consider pivotal to the currently existing 
> downplay/rejection of Judge and his contribution 
> to the Theosophical Movement.
> ---------------------------------------------- 
> Quoted from:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lucifer7/message/18
> 
> I am planning to pursue an online investigation
> and discussion [hopefully in part on Theos-Talk]
> of this claim of tampering with
> W.Q. Judge's Sept. 17, 1884 Letter to N.D. Khandalavala.
> 
> I have produced various reproductions of the letter
> in question which can be found on the WWW at:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/wqj/1.htm
> 
> I am hoping some readers will contribute their
> own comments here at Theos-Talk.
> 
> More in the near future.
> 
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER
> http://hpb.cc