A
Text That Sets “Lines Clearly
Drawn
and Hypocrisies Unveiled”
William Q. Judge

Discernment is an essential factor in theosophy
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
A 2010 Editorial Note:
This article was
first published at “The Path”
magazine, New York,
in its June 1895 edition, pp. 81-83.
It shows how Henry
S. Olcott and Annie Besant accused
Helena P. Blavatsky
of forging a letter from a Mahatma.
This was done a few
years after H.P.B.’s death. In fact, the
accusation was part
of a wider political campaign which included
leaving H.P.B.’s
teachings aside, persecuting William Q. Judge,
grasping total power
in the Adyar Society, and making an alliance
with orthodox Hindus
- among them Mr. G. N. Chakravarti, of the
Prayag Society at
Allahabad - whose mistakes the message from the
Mahatma distinctly
shows. Yet later on, when the political reasons
to make the false
accusation had disappeared, the authenticity of the
letter was again
accepted by Adyar Society, and it is included in its
editions of the
Mahatma Letters: it is Letter 134 in the third edition,
T.P.H., and letter
30 at the Chronological edition, Philippines. It
is Letter CXXXIV in
the T.U.P. edition, Pasadena, California.
The text is
well-known as “the Prayag Letter”, and it is amply
discussed in the
book “The Judge Case”, by Ernest Pelletier (2004).
As to Annie Besant’s
campaign against the original teachings of
Theosophy, it
proceeded in 1897 with the publication of her own
and distorted version
of “The Secret Doctrine”. Due to the law of
Karma, a few years later
Mrs. Besant would start having imaginary
conversations with “Lord Christ” and even with a “King of the World”,
among other highly evolved creatures whom she
herself had created
in her mind. Besant’s clairvoyant
eccentricities are well described
in some of her own writings and in the well-documented
books
written by Mary Lutyens, among them “The Life and Death of
Krishnamurti”, whose chapters 8 and 9 deserve special attention.
The original title
of this 1895 article was “H.S. Olcott vs. H.P.B.”
(Carlos Cardoso
Aveline)
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
In the April Theosophist Col. Olcott makes public what we have
long known to be his private opinion -a private opinion hinted at through the
pages of Old Diary Leaves, - that H.P.B. was a fraud, a medium, and a
forger of bogus messages from the Masters. This final ingrate’s blow is
delivered in a Postscript to the magazine for which the presses were stopped.
The hurry was so great that he could not wait another month before hurling the
last handful of mud at his spiritual and material benefactor, our departed
H.P.B. The next prominent person for whom we wait to make a similar public
statement, has long made it privately.
Col. Olcott “stops the press” and rushes off the
Postscript, “for the honor of the Masters.” He wishes to defend those Masters,
who sent H.P.B. as their messenger, by declaring that she “cooked up,” forged,
and humbugged with, a long and important message to Brahmans at Allahabad in
1881. The Colonel is H.P.B.’s first Western disciple, ignorant to this day of
practical occultism and not able to propound a question to the Masters; never
heard of Masters except through H.P.B. He now preserves the honor of Masters by
blackening the character of their messenger. Splendid defence, this, of the
Masters!
How does he explain the long silence of the Masters
since 1881 on the subject! And another very pertinent question is this: How
does this “defender of the Masters” explain his own silence in 1881 and since?
He was present when the message was sent and knew of it. If he knew then that
it was bogus why did he not divulge? If he did not know then, was it because he
was unable to tell? If he has since been told by one of the Masters - a la
Besant in the Judge case - will he kindly let us know which of the Masters told
him, and when?
All these questions ought to be answered, and many
proofs given by him showing the least occult ability to decide on false or
genuine messages, because he has attempted to classify H.P.B. with frauds,
forgers and mediums. Hence the Masters who sent her are put by him in similar
categories. Observe that the forgery now alleged by him was at the very time
H.P.B. was giving out from the Masters the series of messages which have become
known to all. If we believe him, then the delivery by this irresponsible medium
of one false message must throw doubt on every message. Certainly Col. Olcott
is no occultist whose decision we will accept. Each of us will be left to
decide for this, that, or the other message according to our fancy. Olcott does
not like the one in question because he lives in India, and it is too gallingly
true. Perhaps others may like it, and not be willing to accept other messages
that contradict their partisan view of the London Lodge papers or metaphysics
and science. For my part, the message in question testifies to its genuineness
by its text, except for those who are hit by it, or those who have the Indian
craze and think themselves Brahmans, or those whose self-interest and comforts
are against it.
The message condemns bigotry. The persons to whom
it was sent were then of the most theologically bigoted families. They were
wondering, like Pharisees, how it was possible that the Mahatmas could
communicate with a beef-eating, wine-drinking Sinnett and not with them, who
took no such things and never shook hands. To these very points, to their
superstitions, to their upholding idolatry, to the horrors of caste, the letter
adverts. The whole letter rings true and strong. Were one at all disposed to
join Olcott in his absurd explanations by mediumship, this letter is the one
that would be selected as true.
If for a moment we accept this view of H.P.B. put
forward by Olcott then there is, as she published herself, no certainty about
any message. Who is to decide? If she hoodwinked with one message, all may be
the same - bogus - and the great force and strength derived from a firm belief
in Masters will be swept away, because she, their first messenger to us, is
made out a fraud. All this is precisely what Olcott et al wish to do. He
cannot tolerate the idea that H.P.B. was greater than himself, so he throws
around her memory the dirty cloak of tricky and irresponsible mediumship. That
done, anything can be explained and anything accounted for.
Well, for my part, I will not accept such nonsense,
Col. Olcott being incompetent to decide on Mahatmic messages on occult lines,
and being a disciple of H.P.B. is certainly much below her. His present
utterance settles nothing about her character, about her mediumship or about
the message; but it does serve to brand him as an ingrate and to place him
plainly in view as one who calls that great teacher a fraud and medium.
Now let the next and the next come on, so that we
may have the lines clearly drawn and the hypocrisies unveiled.
Mrs. A. Besant vs. HPB
Mrs. Besant has sent an advance copy of an article
to appear in Lucifer entitled “East and West”. It is a very long article
devoted chiefly to William Q. Judge, but in it she takes up the message from
the Master to the Allahabad Brahmans, which Col. Olcott deals with in his April
Postscript. She says the message was not genuine, and thus walks beside
Col. Olcott in abuse of H.P.B., for everyone with correct information knows
that the message came through H.P.B.
000
In September
2016, after a careful analysis of the state of the esoteric movement worldwide,
a group of students decided to form the Independent
Lodge of Theosophists, whose priorities include the building of a better
future in the different dimensions of life.
000