[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Judge was married and yet he was an occultist?

Apr 14, 2006 04:27 AM
by M. Sufilight

My views are:

We know, that W. Q. Judge was married and had a child, which died early.


On Sept 16th 1874 he married a school teacher, Ella M. Smith, of
Brooklyn (died April 17th, 1931), in which city the couple lived
until 1893, when they came to live in New York City, to be nearer
to the field of his work at the office and at the Theosophical
Society's Headquarters. A daughter was soon born to them who
tragically, succumbed to diphtheria in infancy. (1876)

Mrs. Judge, a strict Methodist, did not share his interest in
Theosophy. But Mr. Judge was not to be diverted from his chosen
course and he began the study of modern spiritualism in his spare

[NOTE: Mr. Judge described his situation to Damodar in India in
several letters in the early pages of DAMODAR, by Sven Eek pp.
30 -70.

In the 1915 Mrs. Judge became an associate of ULT and attended
several Judge Day commemorative meetings. [Eek-Bio. p.8] Once
she said: "You make too much of Willie." On another occasion
she said: "He never told a lie." (per.: Joe Pope) Mrs. Judge
died in April 17th 1931.

Now, I wonder how W. Q. Judge felt, when Blavatsky wrote the below words.
I think it is fair to ask how it can be said that he walked the Path even if he was married, when Blavatsky said the words in the below?
Some even claim, that he was an high initiate. Blavatsky praised him even if he was married, and he was an not unimportant member of the Theosophical Esoteric Section and other issues.

Blavatsky said the following in - may 1888:

 "The aspirant has to choose absolutely between the life of the world and the life of Occultism. It is useless and vain to endeavour to unite the two, for no one can serve two masters and satisfy both. No one can serve his body and the higher Soul, and do his family duty and his universal duty, without depriving either one or the other of its rights; for he will either lend his ear to the "still small voice" and fail to hear the cries of his little ones, or, he will listen but to the wants of the latter and remain deaf to the voice of Humanity. It would be a ceaseless, a maddening struggle for almost any married man, who would pursue true practical Occultism, instead of its theoretical philosophy. For he would find himself ever hesitating between the voice of the impersonal divine love of Humanity, and that of the personal, terrestrial love. And this could only lead him to fail in one or the other, or perhaps in both his duties. Worse than this. For, whoever indulges after having pledged himself to OCCULTISM in the gratification of a terrestrial love or lust, must feel an almost immediate result; that of being irresistibly dragged from the impersonal divine state down to the lower plane of matter. Sensual, or even mental self-gratification, involves the immediate loss of the powers of spiritual discernment; the voice of the MASTER can no longer be distinguished from that of one's passions or even that of a Dugpa; the right from wrong; sound morality from mere casuistry."...
(Article: OCCULTISM VERSUS THE OCCULT ARTS by H. P. Blavatsky, may 1888)

If the ULT's have a good explanation on the above question, I would like to hear it.

M. Sufilight

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application