Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00046)

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@gmail.com> 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]