Judge W.Q. - Answers to Questioners: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Judge W.Q. - Answers to Questioners (view source)

Revision as of 15:16, 12 November 2026

5,952 bytes added , Thursday at 15:16

m

Add the September 1889 installment (signed "Jasper Niemand")

24pmBot1

Bots, Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), trusted

11,106

edits

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
   | title = Answers to Questioners
   | work type = articles
-  | publication date = November, December 1887, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, November 1888
+  | publication date = November, December 1887, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, November 1888, February, April, May, June, September 1889
   | publication date sortable = 1887-11
   | publication place = ''The Path''
-  | read links = [[Path/Vol2/Text|Electronic journal edition in Teopedia]] (vol. II); [[Path/Vol3/Text|Electronic journal edition in Teopedia]] (vol. III, complete); [[Path/Vol4/Text|Electronic journal edition in Teopedia]] (vol. IV, continuing)
+  | read links = [[Path/Vol2/Text|Electronic journal edition in Teopedia]] (vol. II); [[Path/Vol3/Text|Electronic journal edition in Teopedia]] (vol. III, complete); [[Path/Vol4/Text|Electronic journal edition in Teopedia]] (vol. IV, continuing, issues 1-6)
-  | publications = [[Path/Vol2/Text|''The Path'', vol. II, no. 8]], November 1887, pp. 249-251; no. 9, December 1887, pp. 278-281; no. 10, January 1888, pp. 309-310; no. 11, February 1888, pp. 344-346; no. 12, March 1888, pp. 378-381; [[Path/Vol3/Text|vol. III, no. 1]], April 1888, pp. 21-23; no. 2, May 1888, p. 65 (announcing postponement); no. 3, June 1888, pp. 97-98; no. 4, July 1888, pp. 123-125; no. 8, November 1888, pp. 250-254; no. 11, February 1889, pp. 353-355; [[Path/Vol4/Text|vol. IV, no. 1]], April 1889, pp. 23-24; no. 2, May 1889, pp. 55-56 (continuing further in Volume IV)
+  | publications = [[Path/Vol2/Text|''The Path'', vol. II, no. 8]], November 1887, pp. 249-251; no. 9, December 1887, pp. 278-281; no. 10, January 1888, pp. 309-310; no. 11, February 1888, pp. 344-346; no. 12, March 1888, pp. 378-381; [[Path/Vol3/Text|vol. III, no. 1]], April 1888, pp. 21-23; no. 2, May 1888, p. 65 (announcing postponement); no. 3, June 1888, pp. 97-98; no. 4, July 1888, pp. 123-125; no. 8, November 1888, pp. 250-254; no. 11, February 1889, pp. 353-355; [[Path/Vol4/Text|vol. IV, no. 1]], April 1889, pp. 23-24; no. 2, May 1889, pp. 55-56; no. 3, June 1889, pp. 87-89; no. 6, September 1889, pp. 193-194 (continuing further in Volume IV)
   | ctd rus = Джадж У.К. - Ответы спрашивающим
-  | description = The first installment of the "Zadok" question-and-answer department announced the previous month: on celibacy and spiritual attainment, vegetarianism, whether one can be an occultist without consciously experiencing the Astral, and the two paths of out-of-body travel. Signed "Zadok," the pseudonym established the previous month in [[Judge W.Q. - Notice to Inquirers|"Notice to Inquirers"]] (October 1887). The December and February installments' final answers, and the last answer of the March installment, are signed "Julius," a pseudonym of [[Keightley, Julia|Julia Keightley]]. The April 1888 (Volume III) installment's final answer is signed "Hadji," another of Judge's established pseudonyms. The rest are signed "Zadok." The May 1888 installment consists of a single unsigned editorial note announcing that, owing to the pressure of business following the Chicago Convention, the department's answers are postponed to the following month. The June 1888 installment's two answers are signed "Moulvie," yet another of Judge's pseudonyms (see also [[Judge W.Q. - The Gates of Gold|"The Gates of Gold"]], May 1888). The July 1888 installment opens with an editorial note that "Zadok" has retired from the department; its first answer is signed in full, "William Q. Judge, Gen. Sec'y T. S.," and the remaining two are again signed "Moulvie." The November 1888 installment's first three answers (on the pronunciation of OM, on Spirit and matter, and on Karma) are signed "Narayan Nilakant," yet another of Judge's pseudonyms; its final answer (on the "Karma of Jesus" and on communication with "earth bound spirits") is signed "Jasper Niemand, F. T. S.," i.e. by [[Keightley, Julia|Julia Keightley]], answering under Judge's regular department in his absence. The February 1889 installment's three answers are jointly signed "Jasper Niemand, Wm. Brehon, Eusebio Urban"—all pseudonyms of Judge except "Jasper Niemand" (Julia Keightley). The April 1889 installment's two answers are signed "Jasper Niemand." The May 1889 installment's single answer, on newspaper references to Mme. Blavatsky's "exposure," is signed "Hadji."
+  | description = The first installment of the "Zadok" question-and-answer department announced the previous month: on celibacy and spiritual attainment, vegetarianism, whether one can be an occultist without consciously experiencing the Astral, and the two paths of out-of-body travel. Signed "Zadok," the pseudonym established the previous month in [[Judge W.Q. - Notice to Inquirers|"Notice to Inquirers"]] (October 1887). The December and February installments' final answers, and the last answer of the March installment, are signed "Julius," a pseudonym of [[Keightley, Julia|Julia Keightley]]. The April 1888 (Volume III) installment's final answer is signed "Hadji," another of Judge's established pseudonyms. The rest are signed "Zadok." The May 1888 installment consists of a single unsigned editorial note announcing that, owing to the pressure of business following the Chicago Convention, the department's answers are postponed to the following month. The June 1888 installment's two answers are signed "Moulvie," yet another of Judge's pseudonyms (see also [[Judge W.Q. - The Gates of Gold|"The Gates of Gold"]], May 1888). The July 1888 installment opens with an editorial note that "Zadok" has retired from the department; its first answer is signed in full, "William Q. Judge, Gen. Sec'y T. S.," and the remaining two are again signed "Moulvie." The November 1888 installment's first three answers (on the pronunciation of OM, on Spirit and matter, and on Karma) are signed "Narayan Nilakant," yet another of Judge's pseudonyms; its final answer (on the "Karma of Jesus" and on communication with "earth bound spirits") is signed "Jasper Niemand, F. T. S.," i.e. by [[Keightley, Julia|Julia Keightley]], answering under Judge's regular department in his absence. The February 1889 installment's three answers are jointly signed "Jasper Niemand, Wm. Brehon, Eusebio Urban"—all pseudonyms of Judge except "Jasper Niemand" (Julia Keightley). The April 1889 installment's two answers are signed "Jasper Niemand." The May 1889 installment's single answer, on newspaper references to Mme. Blavatsky's "exposure," is signed "Hadji." The June 1889 installment's three answers are signed "Hadji," "Moulvie," and "Nilakant." The September 1889 installment's single answer, on whether and when it is right to publicly denounce or condemn a wrongdoer, is signed "Jasper Niemand."
   | note =
 }}
@@ Line 549: / Line 549: @@
 {{Style P-Signature|Nilakant.}}
+{{Vertical space|2em}}
+<hr>
+{{Page aside in Path|v=4|n=6|p=193}}
+{{Style P-No indent|From L. T.}}
+{{Style P-No indent|1. Is there any reason why we should publicly denounce and add to the heavy karma of anyone in order to thus defend one who is supposed to be an Adept?}}
+{{Style P-No indent|''Answer''.—A denunciation does not add to any karma but that of the denunciator. If others then take it up, it adds to their bad karma. It does not affect the karma of the one denounced. Karma is action. It is action which makes karma or reaction. The person denounced has not acted, even in thought, hence no karma is produced for him until he does so.
+There might be reasons why we should denounce a hidden act of wrong, but these must be rare, because most of what we could do to right the wrong can better be done privately. The case differs greatly when the wrong done is public and published by the doers of it. If we assent to a wrong or to a falsehood by our silence, we practically help on the wrong, and this when we might lighten their karma by limiting the numbers of persons deceived by them, as we do when we speak the Truth. To stand by in silence when a public wrong is done is not true fraternity. In sparing the feelings (perhaps) of the wrong doers, we injure, by our silence, all the great number of brothers who, if we speak for the Truth, have then an opportunity of choosing between the true and the false. The repositories of true knowledge are responsible for their silence in the presence of falsehood if they do not answer those who seek the truth; and this holds good whether the point be a great or a minor one, for Truth is one. Nor does it matter whether the person attacked is an adept or a criminal. If an adept, is he exempt from our fraternity which is universal? If a criminal towards human or divine law, still he is not exempt from that fraternity. By speaking Truth we do justice, not to persons, but to Truth. No consideration of persons, great or small, perfect or imperfect, enters into it. We defend Truth, not persons.}}
+{{Style P-No indent|2. In the name of brotherly love, would the adept wish such expensive defense?}}
+{{Style P-No indent|''Answer''.—Do you call it "expensive defense" to speak the Truth when challenged by falsehood? By limiting the evil effects of my Brother's deed I help him to that extent. If I do not, I share his bad karma, I injure numbers of others, and I injure him because I have not helped him to palliate his deed. You limit the idea of fraternity to the one or two persons whose acts have demanded a reply and a name, and you ignore practically all those injured by the spread of falsehood. What the adept may or may not wish has nothing to do with the matter. It is a question of our duty, and we put it to our own conscience. We must look to it that we do our duty from our own inner conviction of it; fully that and not a jot more, if all the gods appeared and directed us otherwise. It is impossible to say what an adept might or might not wish in any given case, although it would seem that in virtue of His purified Being, He must wish for Truth. Our concern is not with what He wishes, but with our own duty.}}
+{{Style P-No indent|3. Why should we publicly denounce under any circumstances?}}
+{{Style P-No indent|''Answer''.—"Denounce" hardly appears the correct word. In the sense of "to point out as worthy of reprehension or punishment," we should never "denounce." In the sense of "to make known publicly or officially," it does not apply in this case, where the doers of a deed have published it in the papers and we have only replied to it.
+We take it that our questioner means "condemn." There is often grave reason why we should condemn an act. There is never any reason why we should condemn a person. The difference is radical. When a wrong act is characterized justly, we do not therefore imply that the doer, the person, is not, all the same, capable of manifesting, next moment, the hidden good within him, just as he may have manifested the potential dugpa at some other moment. When we condemn an act, we take no names in vain: we do when we condemn the whole personality ''per se''. In this last case we thoroughly impugn the guiding motive of the soul, which is evolution, and not good or evil ''per se''. These are the twin aspects of matter; the soul's aim or motive is beyond them in the unity, and towards that it works through good and evil. We may justly keep silence with regard to wrongs done to ourself, for, by our silence, we arrest all other effects so far as we are able, and return a blessing for a curse, thus lightening the possible Karma of our enemy. While pointing out, in cases made public by the doers, the tendency of an act, we have the warrant of Truth, as we have not when we condemn persons.
+It is not possible to draw hard and fast lines for all cases, nor is it easy to know our whole duty. If we did know it, we should not be where we are. Only he who attempts to keep the Law unbroken for a single hour while looking at the universal aspect of things, knows how difficult is this test. There are endless complexities, duties sadder than death. Not sad in final issue, but sad to our ignorance. One such comes before us when, in order to prevent the misleading of many, it is necessary to inflict upon ourselves and upon the few the pain they have themselves publicly provoked by misrepresentation or other departure from true principles. Yet we can do so fraternally, closing no door of love or of return.}}
+{{Style P-Signature|Jasper Niemand.}}
 {{Footnotes}}