Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00024)

Katinka,

Thanks for your initial comments. I will
add my first comments when I 
have more time. 

I hope other readers will examine 
the facsimiles that can be seen at:

http://blavatskyarchives.com/wqj/1.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...> 
wrote:
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Personally I don't understand why this letter is made so much of. If
> memory serves there is other evidence that Judge could forge HPB's 
or
> the Mahatma's writing. I don't remember where I read that, but that
> seems the only relevant aspect here. The deleted 'friend' portion of
> the letter refers to that: with the word 'friend' in, someone else
> forged HPB's handwriting. With the word 'friend' out it looks like
> Judge shows he can forge her handwriting. 
> The letter itself is not evidence to anything either way, I think. 
The
> chapter 15 in which Pelletier tries to make it into something
> important is merely a lot of guess-work, in my opinion. That is,
> except for the last part, where he quotes HPB as saying that
> Khandalavala could imitate her writing so well that she couldn't
> recognize it herself. 
> 
> So it seems we have at least two people here who could have imitated
> HPB's handwriting. The soup is thickening. 
> 
> I still can't figure out what motive Khandalavala might have had for
> going against Judge. He wasn't even a Brahmin. 
> 
> [the above is nothing more than my first thoughts after reading the
> chapter. Not fit for publication in say Fohat, nor fit to be sent to
> other e-mailgroups.]
> 
> Katinka Hesselink
> 
> PS. my newsletter is called Lucifer7, not to be confused with 
various
> theosophical magazines called Lucifer in the past and present. 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
> <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > In the Jan. 2005 issue of LUCIFER,
> > Ernest Pelletier wrote the following
> > about his book THE JUDGE CASE:
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------
> > One of the most important points of the book 
> > is the publication, for the first time ever, 
> > of Judge's September 17th, 1884 letter to 
> > Judge Khandalavala. This is the document 
> > that Adyar has gone out of its way to keep 
> > from public scrutiny, and used subversively 
> > to sustain the questioning of Judge's 
> > veracity. I have it on good authority that 
> > it is shown only to select individuals to 
> > "prove" that Judge was supposedly a fraud, 
> > while at the same time claiming that they 
> > are in fact "protecting" his reputation 
> > from being further damaged. The involvement 
> > of Judge N.D. Khandalavala in setting up 
> > this whole scenario back in 1892-1893, and 
> > its perpetuation to date as described above, 
> > I consider pivotal to the currently existing 
> > downplay/rejection of Judge and his contribution 
> > to the Theosophical Movement.
> > ---------------------------------------------- 
> > Quoted from:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lucifer7/message/18
> > 
> > I am planning to pursue an online investigation
> > and discussion [hopefully in part on Theos-Talk]
> > of this claim of tampering with
> > W.Q. Judge's Sept. 17, 1884 Letter to N.D. Khandalavala.
> > 
> > I have produced various reproductions of the letter
> > in question which can be found on the WWW at:
> > 
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/wqj/1.htm
> > 
> > I am hoping some readers will contribute their
> > own comments here at Theos-Talk.
> > 
> > More in the near future.
> > 
> > Daniel H. Caldwell
> > BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER
> > http://hpb.cc