Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01453)

Alexis:

>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. ...
>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.

I think that Liesel's concern is not that Leadbeater's ideas about Theosophy
be discussed and reviewed, along with the ideas of other theosophical
writers and students. Her concern, if I correctly understand it, is that
however mistaken he may have been at times, he did spend his life in
service to the theosophical movement, and deserves some respect in that
regard, even if we might dispute some of his ideas about Theosophy.

People that are happy to read, study, and benefit in some way from his
writings should be allowed to do so, until they are ready for something
more. That was my personal experience, having initially read most of his
books as a teenager, until at an older age, I was introduced to Purucker.

A positive way to encourage people to broaden their reading is to continue
to offer useful insights and ideas from the books and sources that we
admire. People that come to appreciate what we say will be attracted to
read and study them. Those not interested, happy with what they've got,
should be allowed to remain just that: happy with that they've got.

>As Jerry Hejka-Ekins 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"

I was on the Board of Point Loma Publications when the book was remaindered.
We picked up the remaining stock and became its publisher. The remaining
inventory is likely in the garage at the home of the Small's in San Diego.
(It was picked up, by the way, to keep it in print and accessible to scholars,
and not because Point Loma Publications wanted to get into the business of
historic works.)

>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.

Because some people were sensitive to historic discussions, there was a
thread on theos-l that concluded that they move to theos-roots, where people
not wishing to read them could simply "unsubscribe", still remaining active
participants on theos-l.

>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.

This should be possible in the right context. In a list where history
was discussed, history could be discussed. Where comparative Theosophy is
studied, his version could be contrasted with the other versions.

We should remember, though, that he still has a following, and those
people are sincere, good people, that won't be led to better things simply
by having CWL discredited in their eyes. And who he was does not really
matter for living people, since we no longer either need to refer people
to him nor warn people to stay away.

TPH is trying, I assume, to continue to make the best of his books by
purging the most unscientific materials, like the stuff about people living
on Mars, with canals, etc. The books get a bit smaller with later reprints.
They apparently still find value in the remaining content, and the books
remain in print.

>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?

The earlier idea was to keep the historic discussions on theos-roots and
people not wanting to read it could avoid that particular list.

>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?

You may know two people. With one person, you can talk about certain things.
With another, there are entirely different things you can talk about. With
each person, you know from personal experience that certain topics are not
productive, that they only elicit anger and should be avoided.

The same is true of meetings, groups, and various mailing lists. There are
places where certain topics are eagerly engaged in and appreciated. There
are other places where the same topics are considered awful and enrage everyone!

On 'theos-l' everything has been fair game, meaning that there will always
be some people happy to read someone's words, and others that are outraged.
It cannot be avoided. In the case of theosophical history, though, the amount
of sensitivity seemed to be greater than in other topics, so people were
going to voluntarily move the threads to 'theos-roots'.

I can appreciate Liesel's reaction to negative comments about Leadbeater,
since at one point in my life I would have had the same reaction. I had
and read all of his books, and considered him my best and favorite theosophical
writer. But then I had gone through his books and was left with the big
question: "and now what?" And I feel fortunate to have found something to
fill my need to learn something more.

-- Eldon