Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01426)

At 12:52 AM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Liesel:
>
>[writing to Rich]
>
>>You'll be ok on the other list. They only insult CWL people.
>
>You're not getting drawn into the throwing of barbs? Before
>long this would get like a food fight on a slapstick movie,
>with complete pandemonium!
>
>Apart from the historic discussions, where the unpleasant
>aspects of people's lives might emerge and be examined by
>those interested in history, the only area where CWL's
>name might come up would be in comparative Theosophy, where
>we wanted to examine the different ideas being taught by
>the various theosophical writers over the years. This
>would include, for instance, the two Jerrys discussing
>the nature of the seven principles and bodies from the
>HPB and the CWL views. I hope you don't find this examination
>of the philosophy to be objectionable.
>
>-- Eldon
>
>Eldon: I thank you for the above. It is clearly impossible to study or
discuss theosophy, from any point of view without mentioning certain people.
They are part and parcel of the History and as such cannot be ignored. To
discuss theosophy and to ignore WQJ is really terribly mistaken as his
contributions were enormous. To discuss theosophy and refuse to countenance
discussions of alice Bailey is a mistake because she was a Theosophist and
her work is dependent on theosophy. To discuss theosophy and ignore G. de P.
is just as big a mistake as to ignore Judge because his contributions too,
were enormous. But it is also impossible to ignore a discussion of CWL
(leaving all references to his personal life out) because the history of the
Adyar Society post 1895 is inextricably tied up with him His work, and his
writings must be open to comparative analysis and commentary. To make him
and his work "tabu" because one person is emotionally blocked on the subject
makes rational discussion impossible. As Jerry Hejka-Elkins commented
recently:"Gregory Tillett's book, "Elder Brother"  has completely
discredited CWL and as a result the theosophical Publishing House is
"drawing back from re-publishing his work" The Supreme Court of the United
States has ruled (quite some time ago) that people in the public eye are
"fair game" and no one I can think of was more gladly "in the public eye"
than CWL. It is really impossible to have reasonable discussions if one
person out of some 85 gets personally emotional over any negative references
to a person who is a vital ingredient in why the T.S. is where it is today.
Now, in my own discussions regarding theosophical history, I really need to
refer occasionally to the information in "Elder brother", what do you
suggest that we do? I avoided mentioning him for the longest time, to avoid
irritating Liesel but then I realized that it was stupid on my part to do
so. How can we talk at all if certain topics are verboten?


Please comment:

cordially

alexis