|
Vol. X |
January 2003 |
|
|
Vol. X |
April 2003 |
|
|
Vol. X |
Issue 3 |
July 2003 |
|
Vol. X |
Issue 4 |
October 2003 |
Back to Past Issues Description of Contents INDEX
One of the more interesting and
important episodes in Theosophical history was the conflict that grew between
the two Outer Heads of the Eastern School of Theosophy – William Q. Judge
and Annie Besant – in the mid-1890s. The main reason for this conflict was
the public accusation that Judge was forging letters allegedly written by
the Masters or Mahatmas. This allegation of Judge’s dishonesty led to a resolution
brought before the convention of the T.S. in Adyar by Mrs. Besant in December
1894, demanding that Judge resign his vice-presidency of the T.S. Instead,
the American Section Convention declared in April 1895 its autonomy from the
Adyar administration (i.e. Olcott) and appointed Judge president for life
of the “Theosophical Society in America.” This whole episode is treated at
some length in Brett Forray’s article. Although it is important for the historian
to establish the validity of the arguments raised by either party, admittedly
no easy task, what is more important vis-à-vis Mr. Forray’s article was Judge’s
persistent conviction that he was in communication with the Masters during
the earliest years of The Theosophical Society. This claim and other revelations,
among which included Judge’s practice of the occult or magical sciences as
revealed in his lecture of 1876 (Theosophical History, vol. IX, no. 3 [July
2003]), his conviction that his body was in the possession of a Hindu sage—this
inner self he identified as “Rajah”—and his mention of undergoing past incarnations
in India, establish him as no ordinary administrator within the Society but
rather an individual who helped to articulate and to develop an interpretation
of Theosophical esotericism. In some regards, Judge was to Blavatsky what
Sariputta was to the Buddha: an extremely learned and articulate interpreter
and propagandist of Blavatsky’s teachings and one who helped define the boundaries
of Theosophy.
In this role, Judge exhibited high expectations for some selected members
within The Theosophical Society to advance the Theosophical cause. It is in
this context that Judge was sharply critical of the Theosophist Brahmins within
the Indian Section for not sufficiently contributing to the advancement of
Theosophical teachings. Much of Mr. Forray’s paper covers this topic, pointing
out the Brahmins’ lack of translations from their religious tradition, their
philosophies and psychical sciences. Additionally, what was commonly not well
known was Judge’s view that a more Western slant to the esoteric tradition
was essential due to the degeneration of the spiritual in the India of his
day. Nonetheless, he was still of the opinion that the India of yesteryear
had much to offer the West. This, coupled with his (and Blavatsky’s) conviction
that the United States would be the location for a new sub-race, could only
lead to a clash with the blatantly pro-Indian stance of Mrs. Besant and the
importance she gave to its members and philosophies. Their attitude toward
one another was partially based on a misunderstanding of the motives of each.
This was apparently more so with Mrs. Besant than with Mr. Judge.
This discussion is important because it helps to define the esotericism that
exists within the Theosophical Movement. It is now becoming obvious that the
distinction between Christian theosophy and the Theosophy of the T.S., initially
proposed by Antoine Faivre in his “The Theosophical Current: A Periodization”
(Theosophical History, Jan. 1999: 168 – 169) is not as divergent as is commonly
assumed. Furthermore, we can now detect degrees of dissimilarities, with Mrs.
Besant’s brand of Theosophy reflecting more emphasis on Eastern (Hindu) esotericism
and Judge’s brand reflecting more emphasis on Western esotericism, albeit
with an acknowledgement of the validity of the ancient compositions of India.
There is still a need to know how much education Judge and Besant acquired
in the esotericisms of East and West prior to their contact with Blavatsky
and how much understanding they actually possessed in this subject. Such studies
are bound to reflect biases of the investigators, so there is a definite requirement
to develop a methodology and hermeneutic designed to correct and restrict
such biases.
In addition to Judge’s fractured relationship with Mrs. Besant was his contentious
relationship with Col. Olcott. This was due in part to Judge’s perception
that Olcott failed to appreciate his psychic abilities and to acknowledge
his allegedly close relationship with the Masters. This is the subject of
the second contribution: Olcott’s letter to Judge dated September 28, 1893
together with Michael Gomes’ historical introduction. Mention is made in the
letter of Judge’s special occult status through communications received from
the Masters between 1875 and 1879 (of which Olcott claims Blavatsky was ignorant)
and Judge’s “elementary psychic power.” Two political or administrative issues
are mentioned: the first referring to Elliott Coues’ (1842 – 1899) attempt
to gain a position of authority within the newly reorganized Theosophical
Society in America in 1886 at Judge’s expense and the troubles that arose
with his failure to do so, and the second referring to Olcott’s preference
for Mrs. Besant and not Judge to become his eventual successor to the presidency
of the T.S.
One additional issue raised was the Panjab seal, which was embossed on the
letters from the Masters to Judge in the 1890s. Olcott contended that he did
“not for one moment believe that any genuine Mahatma ever used the bogus seal
of Punjab, or ever made such an excuse for using it as your [Judge’s] report
their having made.” Indeed, Olcott, who had the seal made in India while on
tour in 1883, reported that Blavatsky recognized that the cryptogram containing
the Master M.’s initials was inaccurate. To have the seal appear in the Master’s
communications was in Olcott’s opinion “sheer swindle.”
To conclude with a word about the two contributors, the first, Brett Forray,
is a member of the Board of Directors of Alexandria West, a non-profit educational
organization. An earlier communication of his appeared in the October 2003
issue of Theosophical History. Michael Gomes is a frequent contributor to
Theosophical History. His last contribution also appeared in the October issue,
a historical introduction and transcription of an article, “More About Materialization,”
extracted from the November 19, 1874 issue of the Spiritual Scientist.
* * *
The
Blavatsky Archives
Daniel Caldwell has recently added an important series of articles
to his online site, Blavatsky Archives. Nine articles by the editor of the
O.E. Library Critic, Dr. Henry Newlin Stokes, are included in this series
under the title:
An Analysis of the Controversy Surrounding W.Q. Judge’s Diary Entries
about “Promise” and the Dead H.P.B.
including Material on the Close Relationship between Mr. Judge and Mrs.
Tingley
A helpful introduction to the Series by Mr. Caldwell is also included.
In addition, over 40 appendices are provided, including entries by Robert
Crosbie, Joseph Fussell, David Green, Emmett Greenwalt, Ernest Hargrove, William
Q. Judge, Katherine Tingley, and Cyrus Field Willard.
These items provide a treasure-trove of information that can only
enhance the importance of this site for historians. Such accessibility also
demonstrates the increasing importance of the Internet as a major source of
historical material.
The address to the site is http://blavatskyarchives.com/stokeswqjktcon.htm.
The last contribution is a book review by Robert Boyd, of Joscelyn Godwin’s
The Pagan Dream of the Renaissance, published by Phanes Press in 2002.* *
*
The contributors of the above have all appeared in Theosophical History in
previous issues. Kim Farnell, whose previous contribution, “Walter Richard
Old: The Man Who Held Helena Blavatsky’s Hand” (VIII/2, April 2000), is a
professional writer, astrologer and researcher focusing on occult movements
and astrology in the late nineteenth century. She is the author of a number
of books, her latest being Reading the Runes and Illustrated A-Z of Understanding
Star Signs. She has also written a biography of Walter Old, The Astral Tramp:
A Biography of Sepharial (Ascella Publ., 1998). Ms Farnell is presently completing
her Masters degree in Cultural Astronomy and Astrology at Bath Spa University.
Kim lives in London, UK.
Michael Gomes is a frequent contributor on Theosophical history. His “Letter
from Henry Steel Olcott to William Q. Judge, September 28, 1893, last appeared
in the January 2004 issue. He also inaugurated the Occasional Papers series
with his Witness for the Prosecution: Annie Besant’s Testimony on Behalf of
H.P. Blavatsky in the N.Y. Sun/Coues Law Case (1993).
* * * * *