Dec 24, 1994 03:05 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Well, I guess it is going to take a little longer than I thought
to get those papers done.
I'm sorry to hear that you are unwilling to continue the
discussion with Paul. I can understand your position, I also
find it difficult to answer a person, once I feel that I have
been abused. However, I've known Paul for some years (I don't
always agree with him either), and at the same time, learned a
bit about you over the last few months. Thus, as a third party
reading this dialogue, I got the impression that you both were
pushing each other's buttons. Perhaps each not realizing it, but
pushing each other's buttons just the same. As for Paul's last
message, I'm not absolutely sure what he meant by it. It does
appear to be an attack on you. On the other hand, we might be
misreading it. Perhaps he will explain.
You say that you feel you have a valid view point concerning CWL.
I think you do too. CWL's influence indeed seems to have
enhanced the lives of a lot of people. Also, as you say, even if
CWL had human failing, so did FDR and JFK, yet they accomplished
worthwhile things. We have to balance one against the other.
On the other hand, I believe that Paul has a valid point too.
Unfortunately, he did not give the source for his statement
concerning CWL allegedly "touching little boys," But I happen to
know the source, and since the accusation was made, the source
should be given. The statement was made by CWL himself at the
1906 London inquiry, in the presence of Col. Olcott, about ten
witnesses and a court stenographer. The original stenographic
record is in the Adyar archives. I have been told by several
people that there is also a copy of it at Krotona. Further, I
have seen and read a copy of this document. Personally, I think
that CWL's testimony gave a clear picture of his activities
concerning the children. He had ample opportunity to explain his
actions and his reasons for them--and he did so. Yet the
comments and questions from those present (who were initially
CWL's supporters) clearly indicates that the entire committee was
deeply shocked--not by the masturbation issue (his testimony went
far beyond that)--but by other issues that concerned "touching."
This committee's primary concern after accepting CWL's
resignation, was how they were going to keep Mr Leadbeater's
activities from becoming known among the membership and turning
into a major public scandal, thus destroying the credibility of
the Theosophical Society. Therefore (under HSO's orders), the
revelations disclosed at this official inquiry were never
published in the theosophical journals. Instead, Mrs. Besant
publicly (and in her E.S. messages) always spoke of the issue as
concerning Mr. Leadbeater "giving advice" concerning
masturbation. This was only partly true. Mr. Leadbeater's
testimony clearly revealed that much more was involved.
Now that I have volunteered this information, you may not feel so
glad that I raised my voice. My point for bringing this up is to
show that this "debate" does indeed have two sides, and both of
them have to be fairly accounted for. I personally feel that
there is a lot more that remains to be said on *both* sides of
this issue. I think that the truth of the CWL issue is (as you
suggested) somewhere in the center of the two extremes of his
being a saint on the one hand, or an "agent of the black forces"
on the other. But finding that truth, is going to take some very
steady and rational discussion.
This controversy has come up several times before on the net. So
has the Judge case and other controversies. No doubt they will
come up again and again, just as they have done so since their
inception. Burying these issues doesn't work. They won't stay
buried. I believe the reason why CWL, WQJ and others cannot
"rest in peace" is because of the polarization of the living on
these issues. The only way to bring about a resolution to these
controversies, is for the members and officers of these
Theosophical organizations who are (emotionally or otherwise)
vested in these issues, to be willing to sit down and talk these
controversies out to the very end. Further, each side must be
prepared to not only talk, but to do a lot of listening.
Personally, I hope to live to see a resolution. But at the
moment the odds don't look good.
You mentioned that you have (had?) a friend who was a long time
acquaintance of CWL, who gave a "resounding `absolutely not'" to
your question of "touching." Since you did not reveal his/her
name, you leave your readers at a disadvantage. How can we
evaluate the testimony of an anonymous witness? Perhaps this
person has indisputable evidence. Since you brought the matter
up, and that you find this person's testimony conclusive, I
believe you owe it to CWL's memory to offer this evidence in his
Well, it looks like even my cat, Loki has decided to go to bed,
so I guess I should take his hint and follow suit.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application