Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00315)

Nice work, Daniel. I, too, think there are few supposedly "theosophical" 
balloons out there that need an occasional deflation with impeccable logic and 
contradictory quotes directly from the horses' mouths... Especially those that 
try to turn theosophy into some kind of organized religion with worshipful 
gurus, hierarchical rulers, and living messiahs -- as AB, CWL, and AAB tried to 
do. And which others -- posing as true theosophists with implications of 
occult knowledge that contradicts the teachings of the Masters and HPB -- are 
continuing to proselytize. I particularly don't trust anyone who say they've 
gotten their occult knowledge directly (or channeled) from the same teachers who 
stood behind and supported HPB. Or, for that matter anyone else who profess 
such pseudo theosophists as their gurus.

Leon
http://tinyurl.com/3kt4o

In a message dated 07/24/04 11:11:56 PM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>Dear Anand,
>
>Your words in your post at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17447
>are quite revealing and 
>their implications are, well, almost
>breathtaking....
>
>For example, you write:
>
>". . . there is always lot of criticism about 
>many occultists and you recommend books which 
>encourage such criticism, suspicion about 
>founders and their capacity. It very badly affects 
>new members and they lose faith in Theosophy. 
>So their spiritual development suffers. . . . "
>
>If this is what I am really doing, then if
>anything I am following in HPB's steps.
>Here is what Annie Besant wrote in her
>AUTOBIOGRAPHY:
>
>"And so it came to pass that I went again to 
>Lansdowne Road to ask about the Theosophical 
>Society. H. P. Blavatsky looked at me piercingly 
>for a moment. 'Have you read the report about 
>me of the Society for Psychical Research?' 
>'No, I never heard of it, so far as I know.' 
>'Go and read it, and if, after reading it, 
>you come back—well.' And nothing more would 
>she say on the subject, but branched off to 
>her experiences in many lands."
>"I borrowed a copy of the report, read and 
>reread it. . . . "
>
>Here is Madame Blavatsky recommending to
>a newcomer to Theosophy a book which 
>to quote your own words encourages "such 
>criticism, suspicion about 
>founders and their capacity." !!!
>
>Moving on....
>
>You write:
>
>"I knew Judge affair long back but I never 
>posted any negative massage about Judge on 
>any of my web-sites or groups. I never 
>criticized Judge or his work because I 
>know it only harms Theosophical movement."
>
>But both Mrs. Besant and Col. Olcott
>"criticized" Judge. I guess they 
>did not know what you know, that is, that such
>criticism "only harms Theosophical movement."
>
>You say that:
>
>"If you want to live first objective of the 
>Theosophical Society see that your postings 
>. . . are not spreading suspicion, confusion 
>among members."
>
>So I guess Henry Olcott was NOT living the first
>object of the TS when he spread "suspicion", etc
>about Mr. Judge. See volumes V and VI of Olcott's
>OLD DIARY LEAVES. He did this in these 2 volumes
>after Mr. Judge was dead.
>
>Moving on....
>
>You write:
>
>". . . you recommend books which encourage such 
>criticism, suspicion about founders and their 
>capacity. It very badly affects new members and 
>they lose faith in Theosophy. So their spiritual 
>development suffers. . . . "
>
>Well, I know this may sound unkind but your words
>remind me of some orthodox Christian preacher
>trying to shelter his flock from criticisms of
>Christianity and Jesus Christ.
>
>Is this what we should be doing in a Theosophical
>organization?
>
>Madame Blavatsky's first major work ISIS UNVEILED
>was extrememly critical of exoteric Christianity.
>And she even wrote in the preface of the 2nd volume:
>
>"Were it possible, we would keep this work out of the hands of many 
>Christians whom its perusal would not benefit, and for whom it was 
>not written. We allude to those whose faith in their respective 
>churches is pure and sincere, and those whose sinless lives reflect 
>the glorious example of that Prophet of Nazareth, by whose mouth the 
>spirit of truth spake loudly to humanity. Such there have been at all 
>times. . . These have ennobled Christianity, but would have shed the 
>same lustre upon any other faith they might have professed -- for 
>they were higher than their creed. . . . Their charity, and simple, 
>child-like faith in the infallibility of their Bible, their dogmas, 
>and their clergy, bring into full activity all the virtues that are 
>implanted in our common nature. We have personally known such God-
>fearing priests and clergymen, and we have always avoided debate with 
>them, lest we might be guilty of the cruelty of hurting their 
>feelings; nor would we rob a single layman of his blind confidence, 
>if it alone made possible for him holy living and serene dying. 
>
>. . . the clergy apart, none but the logician, the investigator, the 
>dauntless explorer should meddle with books like this. Such delvers 
>after truth have the courage of their opinions."
>
>Anand, are we to encourage similar "blind confidence" in Theosophy
>and the claims of the Founders of Theosophy?
>
>Or should we encourage Theosophists to be "delvers after truth"?
>
>You seem to encourage this approach of sheltering
>"theosophists" so that they will not lose their faith in
>Theosophy.  
>
>This reminds me of what Master Koot Hoomi once wrote:
>
>"I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by 
>Mr. H[ume]. . . He says that people will not accept the whole 
>truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be 
>a 'loving Father and creator of all in heaven' our philosophy will be 
>rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our 
>doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth 
>and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find 
>us -- (at any rate) -- compromising with, and pandering to public 
>prejudices." 
>
>Anand, how do we discover the truth, unless we can see more than
>one side of an issue?  
>
>Again, H.P. Blavatsky wrote:
>
>"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right 
>value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides he can 
>hardly come to a correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, 
>July, 1881, p. 2
>
>Applying this to Theosophical history, how can we come to determine
>what really happened, etc. if we don't hear both sides?
>
>If you talk about Theosophical history, you cannot avoid these 
>controversies. And if you are really a seeker after the truth in 
>these matters, you need to hear all sides. Wouldn't you agree?
>
>Now if you are not interested in such history, then just stick to the 
>philosophy of Theosophy. But once you start making comments about
>Leadbeater's life or Besant's role in the ES, then you are entering
>the arena of history whether you like it or not.
>
>I will be most interested to see the list of books on Theosophical 
>History that you recommend to the poster on your Yahoo! group.
>
>Daniel
>
>http://hpb.cc
>
>P.S. OBTW, thank the gods that you are not the moderator of this 
>group!
>
>