Dec 30, 1994 00:43 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
LD> I thought I'd made clear in my first request to you why I
wanted to know from you off net what you had in mind, but maybe
with all this cloud of angry emotion in the ether things are not
coming across too clearly. I was concerned with not starting
another destructive angry conflagration. I'm still concerned
about it, since I can't see that it would lead to any
constructive purposes. That's why I wanted to know from you off
the net what you had in mind. Before there was another whole
embroglio on our network. OK?
I had nothing in mind, and if I was not confused, I would not
have asked for a clarification. I only expressed the opinion
that the CWL scandal hides deeper issues. I never had any
intention to explicate this any further on theos-l because I've
been waiting for about a year for someone else to bring it up.
So far no one has. I made allusions to what I have in mind
several times over the past year, and no one has picked up on it.
That suggests to me that I would be wasting time to go into it.
However, these "deeper issues" that I have in mind are likely to
come out if there was an extended discussion (not "angry
conflagration"). If this comes out during such a discussion, I
think it would be a positive major step towards the resolution of
the whole thing. It is not the information that is so important,
but the process. I'm sorry if this sounds mysterious, but I
don't think it would be constructive to go into it on or off the
net at this time. However, to rest your mind a little, if you
are thinking that I'm alluding to more scandals or other deep
dark secrets--I'm not. It has nothing to do with that.
LD> I had said that I was "done with that game". Sorry, the Hugh
Sherman quote, & my history lesson at the end of it, were a
slight going back on my promise. I felt that after you e-mailed
your CWL biography, I needed to e-mail one representing our side.
Excuse me while I feel a little put down. My post to Art was
just to give him some background so that he could better follow
the discussion, not to promote one side or another. I tried to
word that post very carefully so that it was factual (i.e.
supportable by documents), fair and brief.
If your post was sent to be an expression of your understanding
and belief on the issue, then that is fine. But if your post is
intended to "correct" any "errors" that I had written, then I
will be obliged to answer your post. Please clarify.
LD> JH-E "... the controversy (concerning CWL) doesn't go away
no matter how members & leaders protest against it being raised."
It doesn't go away, because people other than Adyar members
insist on continually beating a dead Leadbeater. If other people
want to continue holding a grudge, as I said before, that's to
their detriment, that's their business. Only leave us out of it.
We've long since gone on from there, as anyone can see. We're
prospering. We're prolific writers, & we have more members that
any other TS. The latest jewel in our crown ... "The
Quest"magazine. I've been in touch with Wheaton since 1963, & I
never even heard of a CWL controversy, not in any book, not at
any workshop, not in any AT, not at any Convention, until I
accidentally came across Tillet's book in our local esoteric
bookstore 2 or 3 years ago. The controversy is not in Adyar.
We've forgotten about the controversy & we've gone on from there,
and we're doing just fine. The controversy is outside, from
people who, as I said before, don't know beans about Viraga. If
they did, they'd agree with me that it's now time, after almost
100 years to let go ... to forgive, forget & move on to
something more dynamic.
I'm afraid that you have been grievously mis-informed. But
before I explain why, let me first present my credentials in
order to establish my credibility in what I have to say:
I also have been a member of the Wheaton T.S. since July 1963,
and presently I'm a life member. I have Henry Smith's signature
on my certificate. I knew Henry Smith, and Jim Perkins. I also
know many of the same people you do. Dora Kunz worked with us
and was very supportive of our efforts in creating the networking
movement. I know the Abdill's and the Sellons. I remember Fritz
Kunz and attended his Theosophy and Science workshop that he took
around the country in the sixties. I know John Algeo from the
time that he was new in the Theosophical Society, and I
personally know every major player in the Wheaton hierarchy,
including Willamay Pym and Joy Mills. On the other side of the
hierarchy, I also knew very well the Laytons, Ann Green, and even
Anita Wild. I also know Serge King and used to invite him to
give public lectures at the Los Angeles Lodge once or twice a
year. I have held several offices in Los Angeles Lodge,
including President; I was active at Far Horizons Camp for twenty
years, and had been President of the Southern California
Federation for several years and edited a newsletter for them,
and spent thirty years doing the obligatory public lectures on
Theosophy for Los Angeles Lodge and the other Lodges in the Los
Angeles area, Northern California, Krotona, and occasionally in
other states, including a conference in New York that you
I have been an associate of ULT for over ten years, and have
contributed to this organization, doing lectures, classes and
helping with outings. My daughter attended Theosophy School
there, and April also taught Theosophy School. I still maintain
contact with them. I know the major people in this organization
also, but the names probably won't mean much to you.
I am a member of the Theosophical Society (Point Loma tradition)
for less than ten years. I have contributed to their magazine
(Sunrise) and lectured for them. I also know well those members.
I participated in organizing the inter-theosophical conference
hosted by the Point Loma (Pasadena) T.S. in 1991, the
Independent inter-theosophical conference in 1988 (Culver city),
the inter-theosophical conference in New York city (1986), the
inter-theosophical student's conference in Toronto Canada (1986).
My wife and I organized the first inter-theosophical networking
conference in 1984, held at Krotona. This started a world wide
networking movement, that still persists--is openly supported by
the Pasadena (Point Loma) T.S., though no official statements of
support have ever been made by the Wheaton Society. I was also
one of the original organizing members of the Board that started
Rick Nurrie's Networking Newspaper.
Over the last 30 years we have spent many thousands of dollars
from our personal funds, and many thousands of hours for the
promotion of theosophy. We produced a professional video with a
140 page video guide introducing theosophy, that is sold in the
Quest bookshop in Wheaton as well as sold through the Pasadena
(Point Loma) Theosophical Society. The video cost many thousands
of dollars to produce.
Also over most of those thirty years, I have not only actively
studied theosophy as presented by the Wheaton society, but
theosophy as presented through ULT and Pasadena. There is a
difference. I am familiar with the differences in the traditions
both in terms of the teachings as well as the history.
Have I convinced you that I might know what I am talking about,
if I speak of the Adyar Society or of the others? Has my track
record convinced you of my commitment to networking? If not, what
more do you need? Now to answer your arguments:
LD> It doesn't go away, because people other than Adyar members
insist on continually beating a dead Leadbeater.
Who are these people? It is true that the Pasadena Society once
published anti Leadbeater material, but not a single word has
been published against him since 1930. I'm willing to bet on
that. I know the Leader and the workers in the Pasadena Society
personally, and believe me, they have other things to think about
than Leadbeater. As for ULT, I know of nothing that has been
published that is negative about CWL since 1950. Can you find
anything? So that is over forty years in once case, and over
sixty years in the other. Don't you think it is about time to
stop being angry at them for something that they did forty and
sixty years ago and no longer do? On the other hand, I know of
many individuals who speak against CWL. They are not speaking
for this or that organization, but only express their own
beliefs, just as you do--only theirs are different. But you
can't fault the Organizations for having members who think for
themselves. Some of these people who speak against CWL are
independents (hold no membership in any theosophical
organization), some are ULT, some are Pasadena, and some are
Adyar members. Personally, I know more individuals in the Adyar
Society who speak out against CWL, then in all the others put
LD> If other people want to continue holding a grudge, as I said
before, that's to their detriment, that's their business. Only
leave us out of it. We've long since gone on from there, as
anyone can see. We're prospering. We're prolific writers, & we
have more members that any other TS. The latest jewel in our
crown ... "The Quest"magazine.
Who is holding a grudge here, in light of the above? Yes, I see
that we are busy publishing magazines and "prospering", but if we
have really "gone on," then why do the old controversies keep
coming back to haunt us?
LD> I've been in touch with Wheaton since 1963, & I never even
heard of a CWL controversy, not in any book, not at any workshop,
not in any AT, not at any Convention, until I accidentally came
across Tillet's book in our local esoteric bookstore 2 or 3 years
ago. The controversy is not in Adyar.
I learned about the CWL controversy the first year I joined. I
was told about it by Adyar members who had many years in the TS.
One of those individuals was Stephan Hoeller. It is as you
say--you don't hear about it in the AT or at Convention. Do you
know of any organization that likes to talk about their
controversies? Does the Roman Catholic Church like to talk about
the inquisition? Do the fundamentalists like to talk about Jimmey
Baker? Lets have some perspective on this. Please.
LD> I accidentally came across Tillet's book in our local
esoteric bookstore 2 or 3 years ago. The controversy is not in
Yes, Tillett's book was published by Routledge Kegan Paul, a
major commercial publisher with no theosophical connections
whatsoever. Tillet is an independent--no ties to any
Theosophical Organization that I know of. Even if he was, it is
clear that he wasn't acting in any official capacity. Tillet
researched this book for a doctoral dissertation at Macquarie
University. In the course of his research, he gained access to
every relevant document. He even had complete access to the
Adyar archives through John Coates who was International
President at the time. His research includes not only documents
but many oral histories. His documentation meets the highest
academic standards, and he was awarded a Ph.D. for his research.
Show me one single statement in that book that is not supported
by the documentation. I can't. I know of no one who has yet
done so. Can you? His committee was satisfied that he did his
research and handled it in a balanced way, and awarded him a
Ph.D. for it. The book is not at all controversial outside of
the Adyar Society. It is accepted as good research. So, if the
"controversy is not in Adyar," then where is it?
LD> We've forgotten about the controversy & we've gone on from
there, and we're doing just fine. The controversy is outside,
from people who, as I said before, don't know beans about Viraga.
If they did, they'd agree with me that it's now time, after
almost 100 years to let go ... to forgive, forget & move on to
something more dynamic.
If we've forgotten about it, then why does it keep coming up? I
understand what you are saying--that you knew nothing about the
controversy until the Tillett book appeared. Personally, I find
it incredible that you were a member of the Adyar Society for
over twenty years without hearing about the Leadbeater
controversy. Especially since you were "in touch" since 1963.
The Leadbeater case and the Judge case were both very germane
issues in concerning the controversy surrounding Henry Smith.
You might recall, he was forced to step down from the Presidency.
I can understand the CWL controversy being mentioned and you
ignoring it. But it not being mentioned at all.... I realize
that most members are not historically minded, and have no
interest in these things. But even non historically minded
members usually become aware that the TS has controversies sooner
Do you really believe that Tillett, after all of those years of
research and interviews, knows *nothing* about the subject that
he wrote his book on?
LD> About taking apart Adyar's differences. I said I thought
fences were being mended. Are you that angry that you're not
reading what I write?
No. I don't feel angry at all, nor was I angry in my last
communication. But I don't follow you here either. What you
feel that I mis-read? Please clarify.
LD> You say "Life is a risk too". I've taken many a risk in my
life, life threatening ones at that. I will take risks, if
there's a possibility that it might lead to worthwhile ends. Is
it really your opinion that discussing Adyar would be
If done in a spirit of coming to an understanding, and not out of
the motivation to prove you are right and everyone else wrong.
LD> Back to Paul's conciliatory message. Serge's technique for
forgiveness, which in its long form is as old as the Hawaiian
Kahuna culture, includes thinking differently about the matter
under contention, trying a different tack. Paul quoted the
forgiving formula, but then went right back to the old
histrionics. They've caught nothing but dissention for 90 years.
I was trying to get us to try a different tack, & I don't think
that's misplaced. It didn't work for 90 years. Let's try
Communication starts with accepting people from where they are
LD> You say you had an altercation with Paul, & you "regret not
handling the situation better." Same goes for me. I thought I
was trying to stop him, but each message that came back got worse
& went deeper into more nastiness. Maybe I didn't communicate
well, & if so, I wish you'd let me know where I could have done
Yes the discussion escalated into an argument. That was my
experience too. However, I know that I could have stopped the
escalation. You could have also. That is where we erred. I was
trying to get a point across, and Paul wasn't hearing it (or at
least didn't acknowledge hearing it) so I got more aggressive. I
believe you were doing the same thing. What we forgot is that
sometimes a whisper is better heard than a shout. That is the
cost of being off center.
LD> With that I bid you a fond adieu. I hope April is giving a
lot of thought to what role she can play in bringing us all
together into 1 ethereal Brotherhood, & I hope Loki is sleeping
as soundly as Chou chou. She's perched on a soft back pillow of
my couch, one of her favorite snoring spots.
April is thinking about it, but is trying to meet deadlines too.
I'll let you know.
Thank you for the John Crocker post. I did see it after all, but
I didn't connect the "JRC" signature with John Crocker. Yes I
was very impressed with the message too. I hope to hear more
Now that we have gone through the sensitive part of our
discussion, I'll follow your suggestion and share something
pleasant about Loki. Loki is an orange tabby born about Sept.
21, we reckon. That means that he is now about 12 weeks old.
April found him abandoned in a box in a vacant lot while taking a
morning walk. The kitty was about five days old, filthy dirty,
and his sibling was already dead. That was about seven in the
morning. I was asleep when April brought him in the house, and
the crying of the kitten woke me up, so I came into the kitchen
and found April giving the kitty sugar water with an eyedropper.
Since I'm home more than April, it became my job to bottle feed
him every four hours, and massage his rear. Kittys can't go
poddy by themselves when they are that young. The mother
massages them there with her tongue. I used a soft cloth. Over
the next two weeks, I gave him a bath, and put antibiotics down
his throat because he was on the edge of pneumonia. Also his
eyes were infected and he was infested with ear mites. Needless
to say. We have developed a relationship and he regards me as
his mother and loves to nuzzle under my beard looking for a teat.
Next time, I tell you how Loki got his name.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application