Re: Olcott's Mistake
May 23, 2006 02:49 PM
......At this point, in 1895, he already had developed doubt
concerning HPB's integrity.
Olcott wanted to disagree with the contents of the letter. Rather than
argue that what the letter said was wrong, he proceeded to undermine
HPB's credibility by implying that she may have forged the letter.
This not only demonstrated his ingratitude for all that HPB had done,
it was hypocritical on his part. The President-founder had done what
no other theosophist had ever done, he had argued his case by
attacking the messenger.
What are Olcott's exact words on which you base the above
I think it is important here to compare what you say above with
Olcott's own words. Can you provide them for us?
But if what you say Olcott said is totally correct, was it his honest
opinion?? And do you fault him for stating his opinion if that is
what he really believed?
And you write about Olcott:
"At this point, in 1895, he already had developed doubt
concerning HPB's integrity."
But was he the only one to doubt HPB??
Notice what Mr. Judge had written to HPB in 1885. Notice also
his reference to Olcott.
"...I was foolish enough to give him [Hartmann] confidentially, some
analyses of your character which I had better have kept to myself but
I was no worse than Olcott. All of it was impersonal for I did not
suppose we were trying to injure you. I was certainly not."
"I do not care what you did or what you are I am still the same friend
as ever and shall so remain."
"All I ever said was that it seemed as if you had lied and played
tricks now and then but I always said that still I believed in you.
And I do. Let us not beat around the bush. You have lied now & then &
perhaps played some tricks, but I tell you I do not care a tinker's
damn. You are to me as you were ever...."
"What I wrote about to Hartmann is [about] a ridiculous message about
Holloway which if it emanated from a Mahatma showed lack of knowledge
to say the least. But let us drop that...."
[Quoted from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33361 ]
Bruce, notice Judge's words:
"Let us not beat around the bush. You have lied now & then & perhaps
played some tricks, but I tell you I do not care a tinker's damn."
Would you consider this "doubt concerning HPB's integrity"?
Now maybe in later years Mr. Judge changed his mind about HPB but this
was his opinion in 1885, was it not?
Now I realize Olcott made his doubt public in 1895. And Mr. Judge's
doubt remained private.
But both men at different times had doubts about HPB. That is my
If they were honest doubts, can we fault either one of them?
Notice what H.P. Blavatsky writes to Judge in 1885:
...He [Franz Hartmann] believes like Olcott used to and you sometimes
also that I am usually a "shell" which becomes good for something only
when some one else enters it....
You do not know — though by this time you ought to — what
a hard, arduous task is probationary chelaship. You have failed once
before, and still the Master was ready to receive you back. . . . .
....But you have always mistrusted me. You called me "mean" in one of
your letters to O. about Wimb. & Sarah Cowles[?] & you have never
had but half a faith in me. Well, my friendship for you of nine
years is unaffected by all this. May the Powers that be grant you
peace & happiness, is the sincere wish of yours ever.
Notice what HPB says about Judge.
Sounds to me very similar to what I have read about Olcott.
And notice what HPB says about believing "I am usually a 'shell'".
If she at such times was a shell, then could one argue that she
might have been a channel for a forged letter?
Personally I don't beleive it, but it would appear from the historical
records that Sinnett, Olcott, Subba Row and (if we believe HPB in this
letter) Judge all toyed with the idea that HPB was sometimes but
a "shell". That she was capable of lying and even playing tricks!
Now maybe as I already said, Judge in future years no longer doubted
HPB and this was simply a phase he had to pass thru.
But maybe Olcott had to pass thru his own phase including doubting HPB.
But to assign all sorts of negative motives, etc. to Olcott as some
writers do without considering the above as well as other material is,
to say the least, not playing straight with the historical record.
And seems to me to be presenting a very one-sided version of the early
days of Theosophy.
In my next posting, I will consider your brief mention of Mrs.
Holloway. I see that FOHAT has recently published an article by Mrs.
Holloway on Mr. Judge.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application