Theos-Talk Archives (April 2000 Message tt00156)

You are entirely wrong about this, and possibly could very well be wrong in 
every other conclusion you made about the natures of both Leadbeater and 
Krishnamurti.

I have been a theosophist (in the sense of understanding its fundamental 
teachings) for most of my life -- my father, as my grandfather, great 
grandfather, and earlier ancestors, were artists, freemasons, kabbalists, 
alchemists, and essentially, theosophists)   I learned the basic truths (that 
I later had to become initiated in by self devised study and efforts) "from 
my father, who is now in Heaven," as Jesus is purported as saying.  It wasn't 
an easy path.  First, I had to become educated in and learn ALL the ways of 
the world.  And, after that life was fully explored, I began studying the 
Secret Doctrine over 40 years ago, along with ALLthe fine and applied arts as 
well as their correlations with modern science and high technology.  During 
that time I have also read works of Leadbeater's and Krishnamurti as well as 
those of most of the so called magi's, mystics and mavens of equal claims 
such as Gurdjieff,  Ouspenski, Crowley, and many others.  From this base, I 
have not found one instance that Leadbeater used any language to decribe the 
mysteries that weren't used by many other's a thousand times before, 
including the writings of HPB.  There is no doubt that that both Leadbeater 
and Krishnamurti were advanced beings somewhere along the path, as was HPB... 
 But to put any one of them on a pedestal, and to argue from little knowledge 
of their inner souls and their karmic legacies, that they had certain powers 
or had a correct teaching or pointed to a particular path that was or is the 
ONLY right path -- is the height of hubris stemming from the depths of 
ignorance.  As is well known in occult circles, evidence from written or 
verbal documentation, has no validity whatsoever.  As far as I'm concerned, 
while many truths are to be found and correlated from the records of all the 
great Masters and their "telephones" or messengers, all if it should be taken 
with a grain of salt, until they are tested and verified for oneself, by 
first learning ALL the metaphysical truths and their correlations, while 
simultaneously practicing any path of yoga that leads to the experience of 
all seven fold levels of consciousness. As Buddha said, and has been 
demonstrated by Those Masters who have followed him, "there are may paths to 
enlightenment" -- as there are many different lines of karmic experience.  
Each one has to find his own path.  And, except for HPB who explained and 
pointed to every path, all those who say they ar the way, light and the path, 
are only for those who have rightly chosen to follow them.  For alll other's, 
lured by the clever words of their disciples, that path may be fraught with 
danger. 


In a message dated 04/27/00 12:07:06 PM, ASANAT@aol.com writes:

>In a message dated 4/12/00 12:23:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
>ramadoss@eden.com writes:
>
>Dear Ramadoss,
>
>You said to "Martin" (referring to "David," to whom I responded), about
>CWL's 
>clairvoyance:
>
> >> Identifying K was a very remarkable find of CWL and all the credit
>goes to
> him.
> 
> One time K was questioned about his views on CWL's clairvoyance. 
> 
> K's comment was that CWL was temporarily clairvoyant. Since he had known
> CWL  well, I put some credence on K's statement.
> 
> mkr>>
>
>In my book I provide several items of what strike me as very strong evidence
>
>for CWL's (sometimes truly astonishing) clairvoyance.  Also, as I discuss
>
>more fully there, EVERYONE who now speaks of any & all clairvoyant subjects
>
>(auras, thought forms, kundalini, chakras) is USING CWL'S UNIQUE WAY OF
>
>SPEAKING ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS.  Absolutely NO ONE has ever given CWL credit
>
>for this.  People just use his creation, this way of referring to clairvoyant
>
>perceptions, but without giving him credit, ever.  But THE FACT is that,
>as I 
>document & discuss in the book, even prominent members of traditions such
>as 
>the tantric (which make extensive use of clairvoyant issues) USE CWL'S
>
>TERMINOLOGY.  So does every single author who has written since CWL's time.
> 
>This terminology had NEVER existed in history.  People ALWAYS used to speak
>
>of these matters using very arcane & convoluted, however often poetical,
>
>descriptions.  It was CWL who brought into wide use notions such as that
>of 
>"vibrations," now immortalized by the rock group The Beach Boys, and used
>by 
>everybody and her sister.
>My question to you, & to all, is:  If he was not clairvoyant, how can one
>
>then explain THE FACT that EVERYONE claiming clairvoyance -- or discussing
>it 
>in the context of ancient traditions -- is using CWL's very unique way
>of 
>describing all this?  If CWL was NOT clairvoyant, then EVERYONE writing
>about 
>all these subjects would likely be deceived in some important way.
>To refer exclusively to K saying that CWL had been "temporarily clairvoyant"
>
>does not, as far as I can see (& in terms of evidence provided in the book)
>
>quite come even close to covering this subject.  What do you think?  Am
>I 
>wrong about this?
>In good cheer,
>Aryel

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.