Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00608)

Bart Lidofsky wrote:

>	If the people here don't mind the opinion of one of the people
>involved, I can see if I can con^H^H^Htalk Fernando de Torrijos or Ruth
>Adams into writing up their take.

>	Bart Lidofsky

Bart, if you could accomplish this and get Fernando to come forth, that would
possibly get a dialogue going between the people involved in the Boston affair.
I would do my best then to get Peter  Kubaska, Boston TS (Arlington) President
to respond.  I can think of nothing better in the interest of the entire
Theosophical movement (remember the first declared object) than to bring about
dialogue and then rapprochement amongst the Boston people, putting behind us the
lawsuit and recriminations that went on in Boston.  That would not necessarily
mean going back to one Lodge in Boston, it's probably too late for that, and
given TSA's purported bylaw changes, I don't think there is any chance of Boston
(Arlington) becoming part of TSA again.  But it doesn't matter.  The
Theosophical movement is bigger than any one or another umbrella organization.
There is no reason why a geographical area cannot have 2 or more Theosophical
organizations, and many areas do.  The point is, we who hold the declared
objects in serious esteem, must be in sympathy with the declared objects and
really be a nucleus of the universal brotherhood/sisterhood of humanity, instead
of going around filing lawsuits against one another.

Here is where leadership is important, and I mean national leadership.  I have
no doubt that people at Wheaton are lurking on this list.  I am a lurker myself
most of the time.  If someone from Wheaton could call this to John Algeo's
attention and if John would begin to assert leadership for the purposes of
rappproachment in the Boston affair, a lot of healing could take place.   How
about it John?

Sy Ginsburg