Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00043)

In message <2.2.32.19960601074220.006b7fa4@mail.slip.net>, alexis
dolgorukii <alexei@slip.net> writes
>You're quite correct I was extremely angry and spoke without thinking but
>desiring to hurt. I withdraw the "bottom line" and truly apologize for it as
>I was sorry I said it the moment I pressed the "send" button.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
>
>
>However, that does not effect the fact that I am still very angry with
>Leisel as she ignores everything I say and do except that one thing. My
>comments about Leadbeater. But they are facts, and all of the evidence is on
>my side of the argument. And I do not believe the van Gelders are being
>truthful on this subject. They are far too personally involved with the man.
>If one has to admire or ignore Leadbeater to have some kind of relationship
>with Leisel, I will forgo the pleasure. When, not if, theosophy goes down
>the tubes it will be primarily CWL's fault.

I don't quite understand why people who disagree so considerably cannot
nonetheless agree to "live and let live" in the area of disagreement and
let go of the anger.  I would imagine (could be wrong) that as a healer
you might find it difficult to help someone with whom you were extremely
angry at the time.  Soon we shall have the original TS material about
the CWL affair circa 1908 that turned up in England recently.

This is if course about history as much as it is about theosophy, so
some latitude will, I hope, be allowed.  I agree, for example, with your
other post concerning ~First Principle of Theosophy~ but would point out
(and do) that as my own first intro to the subject this book gave me a
head start, for all of its flaws.  Sometimes it is only by spotting the
mistakes that we are moved to look for the truth.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL:
Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://www,garlic.com/~rdon/TI.html