Theos-Talk Archives (October 1999 Message tl00192)

>>Don't tell us such silly lies. You know well that I don't have attacked
the
person Conger.>>

Although your English is poor, I think I see what you mean.
However, I always considered calling a person a "black
magician" as you did was a personal attack. I am attacking
your position, Frank, because I think you are misguided. I
don't think that things happened the way you say they did.
Pasadena and Point Loma have two very different views
of Theosophical history and it is not a case of one being
wrong/satanic while the other is right/angelic as you keep
suggesting.

>> I have attacked his black actions in his office as leader of
the TS.>>

You can't seem to see the forest for all the trees in your way.
There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with what Conger
did.  There is nothing wrong with you trying to defend the
Point Loma position.  The "wrongness" is in your accompaning
baggage of emotion.  Why "black" in the above sentence?
Its used because you are filled with hatred, which is a deadly
poison to your whole system and also poisons others and so
generates "bad" karma. I am at a loss to see how you can
study Blavatsky and G de P without seeing what you are
doing to yourself, except for the possibility that you are
pathological (which I am going to assume is not so).

>>If you forbit us to critisize the evil doings which resulted in the
greatest
dissolution in the history of the TM,>>

Here again you are terribly wrong in your history.  Krishnamurti,
not Conger, has this distinction. (I would guess CWL could take
second). It is rather clear to me that your emotions are getting
the best of your reason.

>> then I have to ask your view of
Theosophy and the TS: Do you want the TS to be a sect where the members have
not the right to critizise the elected ones?>>

Most people consider it to be a sect now anyway.
There is nothing wrong with criticism, Frank. But I feel
that calling a Leader a black magician is stepping over
the line. Also, to suggest that Knoche or Donant could
possibily lie is ridiculously absurd.  They are both so
squeeky clean that if you pointed a gun to their head
and told them to lie or be shot, they would prefer to
be shot. You have a right to call them wrong, if you
want to, but when you call them evil or liars then you
are past criticism and into slander.

>> G. de Purucker always fought
against such a policy and invited his members to think for themselves and
even to learn to critizise.>>

I have absolutely no doubt, after studying G de P for over
35 years, that he would tell you exactly the same thing
that I am trying to tell you now.

I can't stop you from malicious slander, but I can at least
present an opposing viewpoint. My view is that Conger did
what he felt he had to so for the harmony of the TS, and
it was all brought on by the overzealous actions and
constant disharmony caused by those he felt the TS
would be better off without. As Leader he had no other
choice, and I would probably do the same thing, but I
wasn't there and so don't really know.  All I know about
Conger is what I read, and I have read the views of
both sides.

Jerry S.