Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00180)

>
>
> David Green wrote:
>
>> In Nov email, Jerry, you wrote------
>>
>> >The only living person I know of who has seen the Judge letters in
>> >question is an independent Theosophical Historian named Michael
>> Gomes.
>> >I have questioned him extensively over a period of several years
>> >concerning those letters, and he was clear to me that he did not
>> find
>> >the statements that Olcott claims to exist in those letters.
>>
>> This is serious statement.  It reflects
>> on Mr Olcutt.  Reader has no way to confirm
>> statement.  Why did you make it if it was
>> part of Dr Gomes thesis he
>> wanted to keep private till published?
>>
>> I wanted Dr Gomes to elaborate on this
>> statement of yours-----not reveal whole thesis.
>>
>
> If you go back to my original message, you will see that I gave five
> reasons why I believe Olcott is wrong.  Now that I re-read the portion
> you have selected to quote above, I understand how you had interpreted
> it to mean that I was writing about Mr. Gomes conclusions.  I see that
> when this reason is read by itself ,  out of context with the rest of
> the message, it reads very ambigiously.  Taken by itself,  it indeed
> appears that I'm saying describing Mr. Gomes' conclusions.  I
> apologise for this, ambiguity.  A more careful phrasing on my part
> could have gone a long ways to elimenate the possibility of it being
> taken this way.  On the other hand,  I believe that if you re-read
> this section in context with the rest,  it will be clearer that I was
> sharing my own opinions, based upon my own reasoning, and not upon
> someone else's authority.   In other words, the phrase "he was clear
> to me..." was meant to communicate that what he said to me confirmed
> *my* conclusions:  "It was clear to *me* that he did not find...."
> You see, I  was not describing  what was clear to Mr. Gomes, but what
> was clear to me.  For all you know from what I wrote (if read as I
> intended), he may hold an opposing opinion about what he saw.  So,
> please understand that my meaning was not intended to convey Mr. Gomes
> conclusions one way or the other.  Once again, I believe that if  you
> reread this fifth reason in context with the other four, and with the
> *entire* message,  my intention of  expressing only *my* conclusions
> does indeed come through.  If not, then please accept my apologies
> again, and be informed that I was referring only to my own
> conclusions.  As for Mr. Gomes' thesis, I don't even know if he has
> one at this point.  So it is not possible for me to have devulged it.
> Further, since my post does not discuss Mr. Gomes' conclusions, but
> only my own, it no longer makes sense for you to ask Mr. Gomes to
> elaborate upon them.  If you have questions concerning *my*
> conclusions, then I suggest that you ask me.  I
>
>> Some theosophists are interested
>> in letters, yet Indian archives doesn't let
>> people except Dr Gomes view letters & then
>> he shares info with only close
>> associate who gives out tidbit that
>> reflects badly on Olcott.
>>
>> Something is wrong here.
>>
>>
>
> I think you are being very unfair, and you are drawing conclusions
> from information that you do not have.  I never wrote anything one way
> or the other concerning Mr. Gomes opinion about Olcott.  He is
> perfectly capable of expressing his own opinions when he chooses.  I
> have, to my deep frustration and sorrow, expressed *my* opinion
> concerning Olcott, and backed it up with *five* reasons, none of which
> have anything to do one way or the other with Mr. Gomes' opinions.
> Yet you insist upon attributing *my* opinion to Mr. Gomes.  I now
> understand how this happend, however, I hope you understand that you
> are being unfair to both Mr. Gomes and myself.
>
> You say that it is unfair that Mr. Gomes discussed the letters with
> me?  Car mechanics talk to other car mechanics about cars.  Bridge
> players talk to other bridge players about bridge.  Theosophical
> historians talk to other theosophical historians about theosophical
> history.  Don't you think that a theosophical historican should have
> the same right as a car mechanic to discuss his trade?  I have already
> stated in my last post that Mr. Gomes is steadily engaged in
> publishing books and articles. He consistently makes available
> previously unavailable documents to people like you who are interested
> in these things.  Instead of  being concerned about what we haven't
> written, why don't you first take the time to read what we have
> written?   Research takes a great deal of time and patience to do it
> well.  Without time and patience,  the published product is no more
> than a collection of misinformation.   Please have the patience and
> the grace to allow  Mr. Gomes to do his research and publish his
> conclusions when *he* is ready. .
>
> You feel that it is unfair that Mr. Gomes saw the letters and others
> haven't?  I agree with you.  It is unfair.  I think everyone ought to
> be able to see those letters.  But it is not Mr. Gomes fault that the
> Indian archives are closed.  It is not as if Mr. Gomes had the letters
> and were keeping them from you.  The letters are at Adyar, not in Mr.
> Gomes possession.  He cannot show you letters that he does not have,
> and do not even belong to him.  If you want to see those letters, then
> write to the Adyar Archives and ask to see them.  If they say no, then
> protest to the archives manager.  But for Christ's sake don't blame
> Mr. Gomes!
>
>> BTW you wrote-----
>> >In volume five of OLD DIARY
>> >LEAVES, Olcott says that Judge wrote a letter
>> >to Besant with a Mahatmic warning for her not
>> >to go to India because Olcott was planning to
>> >poison her.
>>
>> Can't find it.  Do you have page #?
>>
>
> I  can't find it at the moment either.  It was K. Paul Johnson who
> originally brought the passage to my attention.  Perhaps he still has
> the place marked.
>
> I sincerely hope that this reply finally resolves your issues.