Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00103)

I wrote:

========================================
Furthermore, why would Judge (after HPB's death) include portions of
this KH Concentration letter in E.S. Instruction #5 [IF it was
phoney as Jake contends]?
========================================

To my comment, Jake replied:

========================================
This was also the LAST ES instruction sent out, and the lowest
in quality. Maybe it was the Last because mistakes were made or
doubtful material used, and it was relized that they could no longer
be issued reliably. Maybe whoever was typing up the Instruction
inserted material (the short section containing the phoney adept
letter could be removed without destroying the context, and the whole
Instruction would be in a more consistent "tone.")
========================================

Let me try to go over Jake's points.

[Point 1] "Maybe it was the Last because mistakes were made or
doubtful material used, and it was relized that they could no longer
be issued reliably."

Both ES Instructions #4 and #5 were issued AFTER HPB's death, but
BEFORE Mr. Judge died in 1896.

And Mr. Judge was ACTUALLY WORKING on ES Instruction #6 in the last
months of his life. He writes in October, 1895:

"Additional Subsidiary Papers will be issued. I am also preparing
an additional main Instruction [that is, #6] which will of course go
only to those thereto entitled and as they advance. It is not yet
possible to give the date for that coming issue, but it is under
way. Were I in better health it would be out very soon." ECHOES OF
THE ORIENT, Volume III, p. 473, Point Loma Publications, San Diego,
CA.

Here we see that Mr. Judge was working on Instruction #6 JUST 6 months
before he died.

So as far as I can see, Jake's above "maybe" speculation doesn't
accord with the evidence, that is, Mr. Judge's own words.

[Point 2] "Maybe whoever was typing up the Instruction inserted
material (the short section containing the phoney adept letter could
be removed without destroying the context, and the whole
Instruction would be in a more consistent 'tone.')"

Is Jake claiming that some person [who?] inserted the phoney
material in this publication and Mr. Judge was totally unaware that
this had happened??!!

You can see that Mr. Judge himself was working personally on
Instruction #6. Why wouldn't he have also been involved personally
with Instruction #5?

Furthermore, there were at least TWO editions of Instruction #5
issued during Mr. Judge's lifetime. The last edition was issued
probably in 1895 AFTER the split between Mr. Judge and Mrs. Besant
occurred.

Both editions have the phoney letter....

Is Jake trying to tell us that Mr. Judge was so careless and so
inattentive that he would not be aware (as Outer Co-Head or Outer
Head of the Esoteric School) of what was published in this
Instruction with his own name appended at the end?????

Plus please remember that these "phoney" quotes that wound up in ES
Instruction #5 are to be found in Mr. Judge's own personal diary for
Oct.-Dec. 1888.

If Mr. Judge transcribed this so-called "phoney" letter in his own
1888 diary, is it such a stretch to conclude that he ALSO included
it in ES Instruction #5?

I could be missing something here, but it seems to me that Jake is
bending over backwards to try to explain away this so-called "phoney" 
material.

"Maybe this or maybe that" ....all of which appears to be sheer
speculation that isn't supported by any of the historical records.

[Point 3]

Jake writes that Instruction #5 was the "lowest in quality."

As compared to the 5 preceding Instructions?

Now I have NO IDEA how Jake came to the determination that #5
is "lowest in quality."

But I do know that the bulk of material in ES Instruction #5 (as
well as the bulk in Instruction #4) comes directly from H.P.
Blavatsky's own recorded teachings to her Inner Group.

This is all well documented by Dr. Henk Spirenburg and myself in an
Appendix in the second edition of THE INNER GROUP TEACHINGS OF H.P.
BLAVATSKY which is available from Point Loma Publications. See this
title listed at:

http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/basic5.htm

So is this HPB material in #5 REALLY lower in quality than the 
material in #4?

Daniel
http://hpb.cc