Theos-Talk Archives (June 2006 Message tt00091)

Daniel,

The point is that the other two writers give a context.  You provide
no context when you string a series of quotes together.  I am not
saying that my reading of Judge is correct, but it is unlikely that my
reading could ever be arrived at given the quotes you chose to provide
the reader with.  As Carlos has pointed out there is no truth of the
matter to be arrived at in these sorts of esoteric matters, only our
own beliefs of what happened.  All protestations to the contrary, each
and every theosophist is going to have his own beliefs on this matter.
 By providing the fruits of our own research we are simply providing
others with other viewpoints to take into consideration as they begin
their own research.

Because I do not provide an exhaustive account of how I reached the
conclusions that I have reached, does not mean such an account cannot
be given.  In these short posts, one can oftentimes provide only the
conclusions of research, not the entire research itself.

So rather than giving us just the facts, perhaps you can give us your
own context so that we might better understand the facts provided
according to your own beliefs.  There is nothing to hide.

Bruce

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce,
> 
> Yes, "context" is so important, but the "context" you give,
> I ask, is it THE context or simply your interpretation
> of what you think the context should be? 
> 
> I have right before me, manuscripts of 2 other writers
> and their "context" is totally different than yours in regards
> to Mrs. Holloway and Judge.
> 
> I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong --- but I would
> suggest that the "context" itself may sometimes be difficult
> to determine.  For one reason, in your "context", you make
> certain assumptions which may or may not be true.
> 
> For example, you write:
> 
> "When Judge met Holloway, no doubt she had sat for friends and family
> as a medium.  She had come to certain understandings about what she
> was doing, understandings that made her a valuable tool for the
> dugpas, as all mediums are to some extent.  Judge then worked with 
> her in order to open up her sensitive nature so as to be sympathetic 
> to spiritual influences."
> 
> Well, what is all of this based on?  Are there primary source
> documents which support these assertions?  Or are you simply assuming
> one thing and then assuming something else, on top of that, etc. etc.
> 
> Bruce, I'm not trying to be difficult just to be difficult but I 
> think we must ask:  what are the known facts as separate from 
> interpretations, etc. that we may put on the known facts.
> 
> In my critique of just one of the statements made by Ernest Pelletier
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33929> I showed
> how one can pile one assumption or speculation on top of another, 
> when the basic fact so stated is not even factual to start with.  
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
> <robert.b.macdonald@> wrote:
> >
> > Again, context is so important.
> > 
> > As pointed out before, K.H. wrote:
> > 
> > "We had found Mrs. H. in America, we impressed her to prepare for
> > the writing of the book she has produced with the aid of Mohini."
> > 
> > This is a clear signal from K.H. that Judge was the Master's agent 
> in
> > America -- "We had found . . .".  It suggests that the work Judge 
> was
> > doing with Holloway was on their behest.
> > 
> > When Judge met Holloway, no doubt she had sat for friends and 
> family
> > as a medium.  She had come to certain understandings about what she
> > was doing, understandings that made her a valuable tool for the
> > dugpas, as all mediums are to some extent.  Judge then worked with 
> her
> > in order to open up her sensitive nature so as to be sympathetic to
> > spiritual influences.
> > 
> > When this second training was done she was sent to Europe for a 
> test.
> >  Would she revert to mediumship or would she embrace and understand
> > what Judge tried to impart to her.  Would the Europeans encourage 
> her
> > spiritual nature or her mediumistic nature.  In the end both she 
> and
> > the Europeans failed the test.  It is never asserted anywhere that
> > Judge was duped by her.  Perhaps he had high expectations and HPB 
> was
> > aiming a jab at him for being too hopeful.  That is all I read in
> > these few lines below that are woefully lacking in any context.  
> When
> > taken by themselves they seem to say one thing, when placed in a 
> full
> > history they lose most of their force.
> > 
> > Bruce
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
> > <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> > >
> > > In 1885 HPB wrote to Judge:
> > > 
> > > "He [Hartmann] 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?..."
> > > 
> > > Quoted from:  http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj01.htm
> > > 
> > > Judge replied:
> > > 
> > > "What I wrote about to Hartmann is [concerning] a ridiculous 
> message 
> > > about Holloway which if it emanated from a Mahatma showed lack 
> of 
> > > knowledge to say the least.  But let us drop that?."
> > > 
> > > "As for L.C. Holloway enough said.  I have not seen her since I 
> came 
> > > back except to deliver a pair of [drawers?] Miss Arundale bought 
> her 
> > > in London.  She does not like me?."
> > > 
> > > Then in 1886, H.P.B. wrote her estimation of Mrs. Holloway to 
> Mr. 
> > > Sinnett:
> > > 
> > > "...The first bomb-shell from the Dugpa world came from America; 
> you
> > > welcomed and warmed it in your own breast. . . . The Dugpa 
> element
> > > triumphed fully at one time -- why? because you believed in one
> > > [Laura Holloway] who was sent by the opposing powers for the
> > > destruction of the [Theosophical] Society and permitted to act as
> > > she and others did by the 'higher powers,' as you call them, 
> whose
> > > duty it was not to interfere in the great probation save at the 
> last
> > > moment. To this day you are unable to say what was true, what
> > > false...." The Mahatma Letters, No. 141.
> > > 
> > > Daniel
> > >
> >
>