Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00214)

Hi fnord! 

I agree with you about the defences (and then, attacks) of 
the "leaders". In fact, the Adyar TS has the attitude of no entering 
in that game... If you see Adyar's book you couldn't find almost 
anyone in order to defend or attack anyone, and most of the Adyar TS 
members that I know from various countries, are not concerned in 
defences and attacks. If you read carefully my last message, this 
was not an attempt to defend Annie Besant or any, but shows the 
irrelevance of it.
Obviously the people have mistakes, because all human beings are 
fallible, and I don't want cover it. But what do we have to do with 
this? The past in not here, and we never will know the pure facts. 
How can we know if declarations of Wadia and so on are true? I know 
false statements made about, for example, Leadbeater (I have 
documented on it) and then all this kind of matter is very much 
subjective.
We must work for humanity in our level, and see if the movement of 
we are a part is now working rightly. When you want to validate a 
movement through its past, there are some wrong in it. The present 
work is the important thing.
But in the theosophical movement (which is a pity) there are some 
people or organizations that waste very much energy in attack to the 
other, may be for the psychological need (I don't know) of validates 
his movement. From my point of view the only validation is the 
unselfish work for humanity, don't you?
Best wishes
p

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "fnord" <fnord@b...> wrote:
> Pablo,
> 
> in a biography of BP Wadia by Dallas Tenbroeck:
> 
> After several heart to heart conversations in 1920-21 with Mrs. 
Annie Besant on his return to India and Adyar, B.P. Wadia found that 
while she admitted to him in private that what had then been done 
against Mr. Judge and the "Theosophical Society in America," 25 
years back, was wrong, she refused to make a public retraction and 
restore Judge's fair name in Theosophical publications and 
elsewhere. 
> 
> And there are many sources alike, for example Alice Leighton 
Cleater. It's near from stupid i think to go on and on with this 
subjects: she herself admited it, and contradict herself one more 
time, that's it! What's the thing about defending her? She was not 
an arhat, not an initiate, everything in her lifes proves it; but in 
the middle of all the miss, she did a great job, a very great job in 
some fields. But there's no need to defend, when she abused power 
more then once, and so on, so on.
> 
> I don't think the TS must be excesivly atacked, but it must admit 
their flaws and mistakes, not to defend every action of her 
past 'leaders', no matter how wrong they were. There's no need for 
misionary work, i think.
> 
> My english is preety bad too, i guess, and i'm sorry.
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]