Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00106)

Dear Friends,


Things out of context, and concerning inter-personality relationhips dating more than one hundred years a go, are tabloid gossips, only slightly out-dated. 

If there is a  historical  interest in these facts,  one should consider the historical context. 

For instance, we have a considerable amount of small evidences -- some harder, some not so -- that Daniel has a policy of sowing dissent, using as a tactics out-of-context statements about who-said-so-while-that-other-guy said-that-other-thing. 

For instance, he will bring Soloviof and the Coulombs here, but I don't see him quoting much of HPB on her slanderers. And she wrote a lot, about them. 

The matter of the fact is that W. Judge was loyal to himself and to HPB up to the end.  Sylvia Cranston's book "HPB" and Ernest Pelletier's book "The Judge Case" gives us the whole context of those decisive years, 1875-1896 and after.   Other books are also useful.  "The Theosophical Movement", published by ULT associates, is unfortunately unavaible as long as I know. 

Best regards,  Carlos. 



De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Wed, 03 May 2006 18:42:42 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World For Carlos & Other readers: Did H.P.B. write this letter to Judge in May 1885?

> For Carlos & Other readers: Did H.P.B. write the following letter 
> to Judge in 1885? or is this a forgery too?
> 
> I give only portions of letter.
> 
> Compare the below (HPB to WQJ) to what HPB wrote to Solovyoff in May 
> 1885 (that I previously quoted).
> 
> Daniel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> My Dear Judge,
> 
> ... To begin with: if I did not write to you (or Olcott either) it 
> is not because, as you satirically remark in your letter to him 
> [Hartmann] , of Feb. 25th — (which he received at Naples and gave to 
> me, I have it before me) — we received "orders" from Master "not to 
> write" to you, and that it would be in the case we told him so 
> a "fabrication of one or both"…
> 
> …Indeed, indeed, you must be thoroughly under his [Hartmann's] 
> influence yet, since you think and say of your best & truest 
> friends, what you do, in this letter to the Doctor!...
> 
> …Yet you believed and said anything about us, while we remained 
> always true to you, and if Olcott has anything against you in his 
> heart, as well as myself — it is only profound sorrow for the loss 
> of one whom we have ever regarded as a staunch & true friend. This 
> is the difference between us Judge….
> 
> You call Damodar a liar. He is a Hindu, a chela, secretive, cautious 
> & trembling to say more than he is permitted. Never a purer, nobler 
> or more self-sacrificing soul breathed on this earth. . . .
> 
> ….Beware of Hartmann. Even were you to show or tell him of this 
> letter I do not care an halfpenny damn for him, or anyone else. If 
> he had known and understood me I would have made an Occultist of 
> him. He was & is false to me as to every one else. I would not 
> believe, much less trust him on his oath. He believes like Olcott 
> used to and you sometimes also that I am usually a "shell" which 
> becomes good for something only when some one else enters it. 
> Believe what you please. But know that I am ever faithful to my 
> friends & remain grateful for the little they may do for me even 
> when they become enemies. Oh gods what a dirty world what false 
> people! Look at Mrs. Holloway. Do you still admire her?...
> 
> …What you mean in your letter to H[artmann]. by saying that you "hit 
> upon another little matter which places the leaders in the position 
> that either great lies have been told or Mahatmas are absolutely 
> useless as guides" — is a mystery to me. What is it that "happened 
> in London & involved the reception of numerous letters from both 
> Mahatmas" and that Mohini, the Arundales, O. and HPB know all about 
> it."?. . . I do not know what you mean. If you are still a friend 
> you will write to me & say it; if not do as you like. . . 
> 
> . . . Oh, my poor Judge, how deceived & bamboozled you have been 
> only neither by O., myself D.K.M. nor any one else but our witty Dr. 
> Hartmann! You do not know — though by this time you ought to — what 
> a hard, arduous task is probationary chelaship. You have failed once 
> before, and still the Master was ready to receive you back. You went 
> to Adyar and fell into the snares of a jealous, envious, cunning, 
> malicious and wicked man. May the Master — who I know pities you — 
> be permitted to forgive your weakness & lack of trust in those who 
> have always loved & regarded you as a brother! Were there 
> no "Master" would I, after what you say of us and your leaving Adyar 
> & us in the lurch, still love you?. . . .
> 
> …But you have always mistrusted me. You called me "mean" in one of 
> your letters to O. about Wimb. & Sarah Cowles[?] & you have never 
> had but half a faith in me. Well, my friendship for you of nine 
> years is unaffected by all this. May the Powers that be grant you 
> peace & happiness, is the sincere wish of yours ever.
> 
> H.P. Blavatsky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1146681823.23722.962.ambrose.hst.terra.com.br,6961,Des15,Des15
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 03/05/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4754
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
> 


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