A Call to Action:
1896-2006: 110 years later, the possibility of
Justice to W. Q. Judge
and the Theosophical Movement
Dear Editor and Fellow Theosophists,
On January 8th, 2006, I started consulting a few friends about a strange idea.
It had occurred to me that independent students could formally write annual, open letters to the Adyar Theosophical Society asking it to re-examine its "process" moved against William Q. Judge in 1894-95 and suggesting that its leaders should either show proofs of his guilt or declare him innocent of any charges whatsoever.
In fact, the 19th century process of unfair persecution against Judge within the Adyar Theosophical Society is very well documented in various books.1
It is most likely that the search for political power was the real motive behind the Case against Judge -- with charges of false communications from Adept-Teachers. The accusations were based on a campaign of rumours. No actual, valid proofs were ever presented against Judge. The Judicial Committee appointed to examine the matter declared it could not decide on the issue. It did not even consider the charges.
Yet Judge was never declared innocent by Annie Besant's Society. Adyar Historians still treat him like a man who forged messages from the Masters. Gravely misinformed, the greater part of the Adyar T.S. members honestly believe that William Judge was a fraud, while they still are led to ignore or to forget the absurd fancies, involving communications with Masters, which were published by C.W. Leadbeater and other Adyar leaders along the first half of the 20th century. Those "clairvoyant" fancies are responsible for the ritualistic structures which even now make the basis for political power in Adyar.
Karma may take time, but it always produces its results. As any social institution, Adyar T.S. is accountable for what it does and doesn't do. Just like any private industries or government officers around the world, Adyar leaders must be open to accept truth and to admit the mistakes of their organization in a public way, especially if such mistakes create a public injustice.
For instance: it took one century for the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) which "judged" and "condemned" H.P. Blavatsky as a fraud, to correct the wrong done to H.P.B.'s work. In 1986 the SPR admitted that fraud was commited, yes -- but not by H.P.B. It was made instead by those who accused her, and the founder of the esoteric movement was innocent. For that change to happen, though, someone had to request in the first place that the SPR re-examine the "case" against H.P.B., which then led the SPR to admit that the "old lady" had never been guilty.
The same could happen with regard to another occult pillar of the movement, W.Q. Judge. One of the three main founders of the theosophical movement in 1875, Judge's contribution to the esoteric philosophy is much greater than meets the eye of many a theosophist. The movement as a whole has much to gain from rediscovering his real importance.
What can we say, by now, about the case against Judge? It has been more than 110 years since his persecution in 1894-95. The time may have come already to start requesting from Adyar a re-examination of the Case against him. The absence of proofs or evidences against Judge is remarkably complete. His informal condemnation in the 1890s was entirely based on hearsay and depended solely on the political power and political aims of his accusers. This in itself would be a central factor for the starting point of any initiative requesting that the Adyar T.S., as an institution, finally declares Judge innocent in a public and fair way. But this is not all.
There are also clear indications that before dying both Henry Olcott and Annie Besant -- the most prominent leaders of the persecution against Judge -- at least partially repented from the injustice done to him. Their feelings were publicly documented, even if they themselves did not come to the public to repair the damage caused.
H.S. Olcott had a revealing conversation with Laura Langford (formerly Laura Holloway), shortly before his death. It was during the first wave of Leadbeater scandals, while Olcott made his last visit to New York, in 1906. It was 11 years after the Case against Judge.
Laura Langford (Holloway) published the content of the decisive dialogue in 1915, and much later it was published again, in 1965, by the Adyar Publishing House itself, as part of a book whose preface was signed by no other than N. Sri Ram, then president of the Adyar Society. (Radha Burnier, who presides over Adyar since 1980, is Sri Ram's daughter.)
The text by Laura Langford/Holloway has been never questioned. In the dialogue, Olcott says he is worried about the future of the T.S. and admits that he misses H.P.B.'s presence. Then he tells Laura:
We learn much and outgrow much, and I have lived much and learned more, particularly as regards Judge. . . . I know now, and it will comfort you to hear it; that I wronged Judge; not wilfully or in malice; nevertheless, I have done this and I regret it . . . .2
In fact, Olcott had accused both Judge and H.P.B. of fraud. In April 1895, while Judge was persecuted, Henry Olcott had the nerve to write in The Theosophist that H.P. Blavatsky had forged the Prayag letter. W.Q. Judge denounced the fact and defended the Old Lady in the June 1895 edition of The Path (pp. 81-83).
But by 1909, that decisive message from the Mahatmas, received through H.P.B., was quietly admitted as authentic by the Adyar Society, and it is now part of the Adyar editions of the Mahatma Letters.As to Judge, a few months after Olcott's death Annie Besant admitted in her 1907 book Theosophical Lectures that W.Q. Judge had rendered a "great service" to the movement. Besant added that she was against his expulsion from the Adyar T.S. Thus she seemed to forget that she had personally demanded his expulsion in a signed document in 1895.3
There is more:
- In June 1909, Annie Besant published an article in The Theosophist admitting W.Q. Judge was one of the great founders of the theosophical movement. She described his many positive qualities and only slightly criticized him.
- In October 1922 (three months after B.P. Wadia had abandoned the Adyar T.S. and adhered to the United Lodge of Theosophists), Mrs. Besant wrote two other notes in The Theosophist along the same line.
- And "in the 1920s", in a private conversation with a friend of hers in the Adyar Society, she confessed that Judge had committed no forgery (the only accusation against him). But refused to publicly admit such a fact.4
Since then, some Adyar leaders do their best to keep the tradition of saying untruthful things in public and admitting the truth only in a private, partial or implicit way -- at least as far as it is in their control. Miss Joy Mills, a long-standing student of H.P.B.'s literature, admitted in a letter to me that she considers Leadbeater books "science-fiction", but it seems she would very much prefer these public matters to remain private. Indeed, many of the absurdities written by C.W.L. and A. Besant in their books were silently omitted in later editions, and other books by them were never re-published. Two outstanding examples of books "abandoned" by Adyar are Lives of Alcyone (by C.W.L.) and MAN: Whence, How and Whither (by C.W.L. and A.B.). The strong reasons leading to this "editorial policy" have been only privately admitted by Adyar leaders, so far.
Within the area of influence of the Adyar Society, the charges against W.Q.J. are innerly connected to the insinuations against H.P. Blavatsky. Robert Crosbie perceived this and wrote: "Those who belittle Judge will be found belittling H.P.B."5
So the idea that came to me in the early days of January, 2006, was that an open letter or letters could be written to the Adyar Society, between March 21st (W.Q.J.'s death) and April 13th (W.Q.J.'s birth), each year, suggesting or requiring that as a sign of respect for truth and for the theosophical movement, Adyar Society re-examine the Judge Case and show any proofs of his guilt -- or else declare him innocent.
As the birth is more important than the death, every April 13th could be a priority date. If it takes 20 years or more to see justice done, it will still be worthwhile.
In the short term, such letters would help build a growing consciousness (both inside and outside the Adyar TS) about some key facts of the movement's history. With or without short term results, each step of the initiative would be valid in itself. Such an action would raise consciousness. It would provide an instrument for some theosophists to practice a brave declaration of principles, a valiant defence of those who are unjustly attacked and a loyal sense of duty to the teacher. Open letters could go to Adyar with different contents, written from very different perspectives and in different places, with the same central idea of Justice to William Judge.
Dallas TenBroeck was one of the few theosophists I consulted about this before the end of January. He wrote:
Excellent idea. (. . .) Publish documents and facts. (. . .) I think what should be aimed at is tolerance and fraternity among the various Theosophical Societies and let by-gones be agreed on, rectified officially, and then joint progress proceed in harmony -- that is if the principle of BROTHERHOOD is made primary to all.
All those interested in commenting, helping, or in giving their opinion about such a broad idea -- so far kept as an abstract proposition -- can write to: Carlos Cardoso Aveline, Cx. Postal 5111, Ag. Brazl$andia, CEP 72.701-970, Brasilia, Brazil.
Email: carlosaveline@hotmail.com.Best regards, Carlos
1 Three of them are: 1) The recent and most complete book The Judge Case, by Ernest Pelletier (published by the Edmonton Theosophical Society, Canada, in June 2004); 2) The Theosophical Movement, 1875-1925, written by associates of the United Lodge of Theosophists (E.P. Dutton & Co., N.Y., USA, 1925, 705 pp.); 3) The Theosophical Movement, 1875-1950, also by U.L.T. associates (The Cunningham Press, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1951, 351 pp.).
2 Damodar and the Pioneers of the Theosophical Movement, compiled and annotaded by Sven Eek, The Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madras, first edition 1965, second edition 1978, pp. 657-658, especially 658.
3 The Judge Case, E. Pelletier, part II, p. 444.
4 The Theosophical Movement, 1875-1950, pp. 297-298 and note at p. 342. Also, The Judge Case, part II, p. 443.
5 The Friendly Philosopher, by R. Crosbie, Theosophy Co., Los Angeles, 1945, p. 5.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Fohat asks that those participating in this campaign of sending a letter to Adyar, also cc. Edmonton Theosophical Society where an archival file will be set up in order to keep track of this effort from within the Movement. Address your letters to:Justice for Judge
c/o Edmonton Theosophical Society
Box 4587
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6E 5G4