Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00135)

Dear Daniel,

To answer the above question, I really don't know. Mostly it isn't, but 
sometimes I can't resist joking a bit so as not to take anything too seriously. :-)
I'm sorry you couldn't see the difference. I may be slipping. :-)

Having no further argument about your opinions and comparisons about my 
previous posts defending both WQJ and ULT (which may have been also opinionated to 
some degree) -- I am ready to "leave it at that." (Although, I can't see how 
you can say I remind you of Paul Johnson and Brigitte Muehlegger -- since I was 
one of the first to take action to at least drive Brian/Bri off this 
unmoderated list.) And, I may or may not take your advice about starting a thread on 
theosophical subjects in this or other theosophy oriented lists. However, you 
must know that, from time to time in the past I have initiated such threads 
on the relationships between theosophy and modern science -- which is my 
primary concern these days. Actually, most of this is done on scientific 
consciousness study forums, where I use references to the fundamental writings of HPB on 
metaphysics. Mainly, because I feel that doing so might help spread 
broadcast theosophical ideas among those who are the present day gurus of the 
non-theosophically minded general public. Whether this approach to initiating a 
"discussion of theosophy" outside of theosophical circles can lead to any useful 
result, still remains to be seen. But then, at least the seeds are being 
planted. 

Be that as it may, I am glad that you have made us fully aware of your 
unbiased efforts to spread the teachings of Blavatsky and other writers on theosophy 
by means of your website, and through your historical research and 
informative posts to the theosophical forums. And, also, I accept your assurances as 
well as the evidence in your last post to me that you are not prejudiced against 
any theosophical organization, association or group, or any of their leaders 
or founders. In that light, I wish to apologize for the speculative or 
sardonic manner of some of my remarks (in my defense of WQJ and his rendition of the 
VOS) that may have inadvertently implied that such might be the case. So, 
thank you for setting the record straight by giving us the "other side" of my 
speculations

Now, I can get back to my primary work in reading and writing letters in the 
field of my interests (which have piled up over the past weeks because of the 
time I've taken on these current threads), as well as finishing other more 
public books and projects of a theosophical, artistic and scientific nature I am 
working on. And, I hope I have learned my lesson not to get to deeply 
involved in arguments about the history or operations of theosophical organizations, 
or the foibles of their founders or leaders -- which, as I've said before, I 
have no great interest. :-) Although, I still might stick my nose in, when I 
see (what are to me) some obvious misstatements or misinterpretations about the 
teachings, or its messengers. So, forgive me for stepping on your toes too 
hard in my last foray into areas outside my primary interest. :-)

Best wishes,

Leon