Re: What hinges on Sept 21.
Apr 11, 2006 11:52 PM
You claim something hinges on the
21st, then what is it? You claim that you read the book. How does
Pelletier use this date of the 21st that is problematic to the
arguments that he is making? What have I missed? You certainly seem
to think there is something. What is it? If you cannot even point
to how this date is a problem for him, then what are we arguing
about? Was he at the headquarters after the 21st? Apparently so.
Does this provide a problem for Pelletier's argument? Not that I
see. Are you quibbling over nothing? Apparently.
I am sorry Daniel, but this all appears to be a joke at my expense.
I spend time looking for something and there is nothing. Why did you
bring it up?
Yea it even appears like a big joke to me.
Bruce, it is Pelletier that writes 3 times on page 385 about
the date Sept. 21. The question is why does he keep mentioning
Sept. 21 if it doesn't have any significance?
He specifically writes:
"...To show that Judge was NOT present at ADYAR HEADQUARTERS after
September 21st,1884, it is important to note...." etc etc.
Notice the date and the word AFTER.
And then he quotes an event that occurred at Adyar when Patterson
comes. Pelletier says that there is no mention of Judge's name as
being at the meeting in the Bombay Gazette article. and then he
mentions at the top of page 386 that the Madras Mail of Sept. 29th
mentions Judge addressed "some Madras students". I assume Pelletier
is assuming Judge addressed them in the city of Madras which is
NOT the same as at Adyar Madras and therefore all of this shows as
Pelletier himself writes that "Judge was not present at Adyar
Headquarters AFTER Sept. 21st....."
Again I say it is Pelletier himself who is attaching importance to
the Sept. 21 date by mentioning it 3 times and stating
specifically "...To show that Judge was NOT present at Adyar
Headquarters AFTER September 21st,1884, it is important to note...."
MY POINT was simply to show that in fact Judge WAS present at Adyar
Headquarters at least as late as Sept. 27th CONTRARY to what is
documented in Pelletier's book and for all we know there may be
other articles in these same newspapers or other newspapers or other
documents indicating Judge's exact whereabouts even in October up to
Sunday, Oct. 26th. He may have been all that time at the Adyar
Headquarters. Simply because Pelletier doesn't have the documents
doesn't mean Judge wasn't at Adyar. He said Judge wasn't at Adyar
after Sept. 21 but yes he was at Adyar as late as Sept. 27. based on
the article I cited and which apparently Pelletier had no idea of.
Therefore there may be other articles or documents that would extend
the time he was at Adyar all the way up to when he sailed from India.
Did Judge have an 1884 diary? Are there letters of Judge either in
the Adyar Archives or the Pasadena archives or some OTHER
Theosophical archives that would fill in the gaps just as the
article I cite filled in a particular gap??? That was what I was
trying to point out.....Does that make sense?????????
Therefore to argue as Pelletier does from silence is very
dangerous. He writes:
"...Judge became very silent about what happened to him in India
after September 21st." Notice Pelletier mentioning that date!!
And goes on to say:
"Sometimes this in itself can prove to be most revealing." And then
he quotes a letter to Judge written years later which reads:
"The true chela does not talk much of his Masters and often does not
refer to that Master's existence...."
But did Judge really BECOME "very silent" AFTER September 21st or is
it just because Pelletier doesn't have all the material that might
document exactly what Judge was up to?
I constantly find documents on HPB that fills in gaps in the
historical record about her. Doesn't mean she was "very silent"; it
just means the records weren't available but have now been found or
that the records have simply been lost, etc. etc.
End of the joke and I hope this helps....
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application