Theos-World Re: new member message for old members
May 02, 2009 06:53 PM
Today is Sunday, which I should set aside for holy Christian activities. So I will most probably write reply tomorrow.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Eldon B Tucker <write001@...> wrote:
> A discussion of historic figures is based upon actual evidence and a logical
> argument explaining what that evidence means. The historic figure is not
> alive and able to answer questions for himself or herself.
> Fans of a particular author may not like a historic discussion, because the
> material discussed goes against the self-image that the author presents in
> his or her books. But if someone doesn't like the way a particular historic
> discussion is going, he or she is free to participate in it by providing
> evidence to the contrary, or free to ignore it. Talking about the actual
> people and events in theosophical history is different than a discussion of
> occultism and metaphysics.
> If you were doing historical research and wanted to share your findings, or
> if you had studied some aspect of theosophical history and found it
> appropriate to a discussion going on, it would be ok to bring it up. But
> that is different than becoming angry at a particular line of discussion and
> responding by raising charges against people favored by the people having
> the discussion, not unless you had solid historic evidence (and not just
> conjecture) supporting your charges and some reason why it was relevant
> other than diverting the discussion you didn't like in other directions.
> It's important to keep a distinction between historic discussions and
> discussions based upon ideas and philosophy. The fact that Blavatsky smoked
> heavily and swore doesn't invalidate the ideas that she wrote about. If you
> like discussing history and are sufficiently skilled in the methodology of
> scholarship to find and present evidence supporting your discussions, you
> can spend time doing so. Some people have a bent in that direction.
> If you want to bring up sexuality as a topic of discussion, there are many
> ways that it can go. What is right to do and what is wrong? With living
> people, we can evaluate things in terms of the country they currently live
> in. What's wrong in Iran may be perfectly fine in San Francisco. Regardless
> of what's socially acceptable, there may be a higher standard that
> transcends time and place. What might that be? It gets more complicated when
> you talk about historic situations. In the Victorian Era, the popular
> attitude to sexual behavior was more hidden and repressive that in modern
> times. Priests at that time, if they slept with alter boys, were tolerated
> and not spoken of. Today, it'd be called child abuse and the churches would
> be sued, if the priests were found out. (Note that I'm referring to
> child/adult sexual activity, not how any two adults related in private.)
> So if you have valid historic evidence to contribute to any previous
> discussion of Leadbeater, feel free to provide it. Or if you're doing
> research on a different theosophical figure and have found out something
> useful to share, then do so. Or if you're interested in discusing sexual
> matters, you can bring those up, although you may find many ignoring or
> disliking the thread, because they'd rather not talk about or think about
> sex. It's up to you do decide if those are your main interests, or if you
> have something else you'd rather talk about.
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Anand <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
> > Dear Eldon Tucker,
> > There is one more issue on which I need clarification from you.
> > This group is owned by you and moderated by you. In this group, for many
> > years a leader of Adyar TS, Mr. C.W. Leadbeater, was accused of
> > homosexuality and this subject was discussed for years by members of this
> > group. If this behavior was acceptable to you, then by same standards
> > members should be free to accuse and discuss homosexuality of W.Q. Judge.
> > Similarly members should be free to call Katherine Tingly a lesbian and
> > should be free to discuss that subject for years.
> > That means either members should be free to accuse and discuss sexual
> > behavior of all leaders or they should not discuss sexual behavior of any
> > leader. Kindly tell what the policy of this group is about this.
> > Secondly, your earlier e-mail suggests that members should show respect
> > while talking about living individuals. But you allowed free discussion on
> > supposed homosexuality of C.W. Leadbeater. Does that mean members are
> > supposed to show respect to living members and are allowed to accuse dead
> > people. Theosophy must have taught you by this time that dead people lose
> > only physical body and they remain considerably same at other levels. Souls
> > of physically dead people are affected by thoughts and emotions of people
> > about them.
> > Does this group have different standard while talking about dead people and
> > different standard while talking about living people? If standards are
> > different for dead and living people, it would mean that members can not
> > accuse Eldon Tucker of homosexuality while he is living, but they can accuse
> > and discuss homosexuality of Eldon Tucker after he is dead. Is that
> > acceptable?
> > Please explain what the policy of the group is on these important issues.
> > Anand Gholap
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application