Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00364)

I think you are identifying areas of inquiry that are for me most
interesting.  First though, I would like to say that I am really not
interested in lineages and feel that Crosby, Hargrove, and Tingley all
preserved aspects of theosophy in the organizations that they
continued on with.  My motive has always been a moral one having to do
with the First Object and the ingratitude of later theosophists
towards the founders of the TS, the founders having sacrificed their
lives in order to bring to us the teachings.  My opinions, like anyone
else's opinions on the guilt or innocence of HPB and WQJ really amount
to nothing.  They are and always have been a distraction, and a means
of dividing the Society.  It can truly be said at this point that if
there existed enough evidence to confirm their guilt or even present a
good case against them, that eveidence would have been brought forward
by the many enemies of theosophy that have existed within the Society
over the years.  At this point, because we are left simply with
baseless accusations, it is pure ingratitude that keeps these
allegations alive.  If someone wants to present a case AGAINST Judge
or Blavatsky, then I have no problem with this and will gladly debate
such an honest attempt.  As there is not anyone presenting such a case
then we can surmise that everyone agrees that HPB and WQJ are innocent
or it must be that their enemies are cowards.

As for the Nirmanakaya speaking in HPB's voice, this is interesting. 
Naturally, anything I say is speculation, but in stretching to
understand this, perhaps we may learn something.  Remember HPB wrote:
"The trouble with you is that you do not know the great change that
came to pass in you a few years ago.  Others have occasionally their
astrals changed and replaced by those of Adepts (as of Elementaries)
and they influence the outer, and the higher man.  With you, it is the
NIRMANAKAYA not the 'astral' that blended with your astral.  Hence the
dual nature and fighting."  (Echoes, I, xxxv)

What if HPB is describing to Judge a similar process to the one that
she herself underwent?  This would be one reason why she might be
familiar with such an esoteric process.  HPB wrote this letter in
1886.  "A few years ago" could refer to 1884 when Judge was in India.
 This is the argument made by Ernest Pelletier in TJC, that Judge
underwent some sort of initiation at that time.  There are 28 days
where his whereabouts are unknown.

How do we understand what HPB is trying to say here?  No doubt it is
clear to Judge, but less so to me.  One explanation might be as follows.

"Others have occasionally their astrals changed and replaced by those
of Adepts (as of Elementaries) and they influence the outer, and the
higher man."

Is HPB saying here that sometimes an Adept replaces a chela's astral
with his own?  In this position the more purified astral of the adept
would be expressed outwardly, and the consciousness with fewer
distractions would find it easier to influence his higher self?  This
would be a beneficial influence.  The opposite would be where an
Elementary managed to replace an individuals astral with its own -
hence the parenthetical comment.

"With you, it is the NIRMANAKAYA not the 'astral' that blended with
your astral.  Hence the dual nature and fighting."

Here Judge is being told that the NIRMANAKAYA actually blended with
his astral, hence all the negative aspects of his own astral is there
in conjunction with the nobler aspects of the NIRMANAKAYA.  This gave
Judge a "dual nature" in a sense.  He was often fighting with himself,
or at least felt that this was so.

If HPB was the former case, the Adept blended with her Astral, maybe
after her death, the psychological apparatus that was HPB continued
for some time, animated by the Adept, and naturally she responded in
ways familiar to those who knew her.

This is speculation of course, but it points to the fact that there is
no one way in which occult procedures are conducted.  Once you know
the principles, how you accomplish something is up to the
practitioners.  As a novice, I tend to get trapped by definitions
sometimes and miss the point that this is a living doctrine.  It is
not until I get questioned on these matters and actually begin to
think about them that I begin to see the possibilities.  I hope this
helps as it certainly helped me clarify things.

Sincerely,
Bruce


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@...>
wrote:
>
> Bruce, thanks for this perspective.
> 
>   I understand the desire to have the lineage of HPB, Judge, and Crosby 
> remain intact and consistent.  However, your "plausible" explanation 
> creates some difficult phrases in the letter from Judge to Keightley. 
> "Under all of it & over it all the Masters hand;" is one such comment. 
> This is something that I would expect to hear from HPB, not from the 
> living Nirmanakaya that informed HPB. Here is another saying that is 
> troublesome, "Master is not after minor points."  Perhaps you could 
> comment on these lines and your impression of the general tone of the 
> letter in which Judge begins, "The accompanying document ('an exact 
> transcript of what HPB said') is as follows:"
> 
> 
> peace within,
> 
> 
> bill
> 
> robert_b_macd wrote:
> > Consider the following:
> >
> > 1. HPB wrote of Judge: "in virtue of his character as a chela of
> > thirteen years standing." (Echoes, I, xxxii)  This means that Judge
> > was a chela of the Masters since 1875.  In 1875 there were no
> > lay-chelas, etc.  Judge must have been a fully fledged chela of
Master M.
> >
> > 2. It is clear that right up to her death, HPB had full faith in
> > Judge.  Just before her death, HPB wrote about Judge to the American
> > Section: "[H]e who has proved in a thousand ways his entire loyalty to
> > the best interests of Theosophy and the Society." (TJC, pt.1, 37)
> >
> > 3. Judge in his own defense wrote the following:  ". . . during all
> > the years since 1875 I have been taught much about occultism by the
> > Masters and their friends, and have been shown how to produce some
> > phenomena, among others the precipitation of writing for the Masters
> > at certain times.  This is always in the form to which the prosecutors
> > most foolishly object.  These teachings began - notwithstanding
> > ignorance of it, and that I am probably a medium - in 1875 with H.P.B.
> >  In that year, the first precipitation done through me was effected in
> > New York . . ." (Echoes, I, l)  So, according to Judge's testimony he
> > had been trained by the Masters in certain occult practices as far
> > back as 1875, and one of these practices was "the precipitation of
> > writing".  It is interesting that Olcott was a witness to this and
> > also that Olcott's diaries for this period went missing.  If he was a
> > chela, as HPB claimed, clearly he would have been instructed in those
> > occult practices that were necessary for him to carry out his duties.
> >  As his Master resided half a world away, it would not be surprising
> > for him to be connected so as to communicate readily with his Master
> > when need be.
> >
> > 4. In a private letter to Judge written in 1889, HPB writes:
> > "The Esoteric Section and its life in the U.S.A. depends on W.Q.J.
> > remaining its agent & what he is now.  The day W.Q.J. resigns, H.P.B.
> > will be virtually dead for the Americans.  W.Q.J. is the Antaskarana
> > between the two Manas(es), the American thought & the Indian - or
> > rather the trans-Himalayan Esoteric Knowledge. DIXI          H.P.B.
> > "P.S.  W.Q.J. had better show, & impress this on the minds of all
> > those whom it may concern." (Letters That Have Helped Me, 278)
> > This passage is highly suggestive, with Judge being described in terms
> > of a spiritual bridge between the East and the West.  He is also
> > H.P.B.'s bridge to the Americas.
> >
> > 5. H.P.B. even went so far as to write concerning Judge in one
> > instance: "His ever and till and AFTER death."  (ibid. 280)  After
death?
> >
> > 6. There is the well known testimony of C.F. Willard concerning
> > Judge's change of appearance at the Boston Convention of 1891(TJC, pt.
> > 1, 37).
> >
> > What does this demonstrate?  According to the testimony of WQJ and
> > HPB, Judge was a chela trained in certain occult practices.  It is
> > also known that HPB made it very clear that no medium would be able to
> > contact the dead Madam Blavatsky.  To say that "Judge believed he was
> > in communication with the dead HPB" is nonsense.  To say that Judge
> > through his occult training was able to contact the living Nirmanakaya
> > that informed HPB is plausible.  In principle it would not be
> > different than him communicating with M.  There is enough
> > circumstantial evidence to make this plausible.  There is no evidence
> > to support the innuendo that Judge used mediums or was a medium
> > himself, intent on trying to contact HPB.  This has always been simply
> > rumor.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> > <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >   
> >> William Q. Judge Believed He was in Communication 
> >> with the dead Madame Blavatsky
> >>
> >> http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokesjudge1495.htm
> >>
> >> Daniel
> >> http://hpb.cc
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>