Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00032)

The recent "discussions" of theosophical history by Dallas, Paul, and Frank
underscore the problems of trying to look at this subject in any kind of
unbiased
manner. The Adyar and ULT/Pasadena positions on Judge are virtually at
opposite ends of an historical spectrum. This is, in fact, probably the main
single-most reason that I abhor theosophical history (sorry Paul, I know you
have tried, and you and Jerry HE are among the very few unbiased
historians around, but you are up against two stone walls here).

I personally couldn't care less who shot who or who defamed who and
so on. I judge the early theosophical pioneers by their writings that they
have
left us, and not by what others claim they said or did. As to writing, HPB
is
by far the best and her writings show (to me) that she knew far more than
anyone else. I like Judge better than Besant, but Judge is obsessive
over the horrible dangers of psychism to the point that I gnash my teeth
when I read him. I like Tingley simply because her writings are from a
mystical
perspective, and I tend toward that end of the spectrum myself. G de
Purucker
is also good, but even he gets a little wordy sometimes. And so on. By their
fruits ye shall know them, etc, etc.

I do hope that the historians among us will go whimpering to their corners
for awhile and let us others talk about theosophy.  Historical wrangling
single-handedly killed Theos-l (its still there, but its dying fast).  I
hope that
this doesn't happen here. How about if we all agree that Adyar and ULT/
Pasadena see their history differently and try to go on from there? I like
to think that Adyar's recent public acceptance of Judge is a good start
toward our unification, for example. We will never get others to change
their
viewpoints of theosophical history, so why do we keep on trying which
just inflames everyone?

Jerry S.