Re: Theos-World RE: ULT -- Dallas answers to DC.
- View Source
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 11:06 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: ULT -- Dallas answers to DC.
> Saturday, August 11, 2001
> Re: HISTORY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT
> Dear Friend:
> First: If Robert Crosbie wrote the book: The THEOSOPHICAL
> MOVEMENT (1875-1925). it would not be anonymous.
> Second Mr. Crosbie died in 1919 and could not have written the
> book titled: The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1950) although the
> 2nd book is partially based on the first and the documentary and
> sequential evidence laid out there.
Yes, Mr. Crosbie's death in 1919, would seem to cast doubt that he
could write a history up to 1950. I wonder who DID write it.
> If it is called a "hatchet job," then what are the contrasting
> opinions offered and where are they to be found? Why not quote
> references or offer alternatives?
I am just about 1/2 way through it just now. I have seen enough
propaganda to know it when I see it. I find most of the descriptive
adjectives complimentary of Judge, and most of them critical of
Olcott, and others in his camp.
I find the book interesting, and will keep its claims in mind as I
read further. I don't need people to tell me what to think, as this
book does. Just give me the facts, and I am old enough to make my own
decision. I have read enough in other books to know that the views
here are definitely slanted, and may or may not be accurate. The use
of the loaded emotional descriptions mark it as propaganda, rather
than straight reporting.
I find it really gets in gear about page 100, and can't say what the
last half of the book reveals about Olcott, and the original branch of
I see on page 121 that Judge is a genius, and that everything he wrote
in his life supports the work of HPB. On page 144, we learn about the
"paternal autocracy of Col. Olcott". It is conjectured (as fact) later
on the same page that Olcott "doubtless" agreed with the position of
Prof. Coues. We see, on page 157 that it was Mr. Besant that freed the
European members from Olcott's "political" control. And later on the
same page, "With typical circumlocution, Olcott...". On page 159
there is the "jealousy felt by Col. Olcott". On page 173 we find HPB
remarking that Olcott must not "continue to obstruct her work...". On
page 177 we find that Olcott, "lacked a rational grasp of the idea of
natural adepts,...", even though he had touched them, conversed with
them in person, and through HPB.
On page 180, some editor, I assume, "The writer, again probably Mr.
Harte, whittles away... at the Theosophical Movement"
And, on page 172, the author of the book, Whom ever THAT may be,
declares, "H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge are singled out in the
present volume as the real founders of the Theosophical Movement,...".
But, I wonder how that squares with the quotation that the author of
the book places on page 187, where he claims (by this time, I am not
sure that I can trust ANYTHING that this author offers) that HPB,
printed a "Disclaimer" in the July Theosophist, ... HPB is speaking,
"H.P.B. is loyal to death to the Theosophical CAUSE, and those great
Teachers whose philosophy can alone bind the whole of Humanity into
one Brotherhood. Together with Col. Olcott, she is the chief Founder
and Builder of the Society... If she is so loyal to H. S. Olcott, it
is not at all because of his being its 'President', but, firstly,
because there is no man living who has worked harder for that Society,
or been more devoted to it than the Colonel,...".
I suppose that when she wrote "no man", that would include Mr. Judge.
If we are to asume that the writings of HPB are true, where does that
leave Mr. Crosbie, and Mr. Judge, and those that promote them?
I will be interested to read the rest of the book, to see what else I
can learn. If anyone knows who the author of the book is, and is
allowed to tell, I would be interested in that also.
I am still only half way through the book. Who knows what I will
"learn" by the time I get to the end of the book?
> So my recommendation is to do what all sincere >students of History
do: Get a copy of the documents >referred to. Read
> and compare. Nothing can be decided by adding one >more opinion to
> If this is done, then each reader can form his own >estimate of
their respective worth. What could be >fairer ?
Yes, that is what I am in the process of doing now.