Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00014)

Hello Erica,
I sympathise with your sentiment and agree that we should not drag
peoples names though the mud just for the sake of it.
We are all mere mortals and I don't think anyone here would claim any
sainthood.

However the case of CWL raises many issues within the society that
have not been properly addressed and I think need to be examined by
every serious student.

CWL claimed to be a high initiate in contact with HPB's adept teachers.
He made many extravagant claims regarding himself and his spiritual
status.
CWL's influence is still very large in the Adyar society.
If he lied on many important facts, isn't it important for us as
students who either now or at some time have read his books to know if
this information is based in fact.
CWL claimed high spiritual status and to be an authority.

If CWL molested young boys while claiming to be a high initiate are we
not duty bounded to investigate the veracity of these claims rather
than simply ignore them?

If you haven't already I strongly encourage you to read "The Elder
Brother by Dr Gregory Tillett (available though Point Loma Publications)
http://www.wisdomtraditions.com/PLPCatFr.html

Also the different histories of the various societies to get the
various perspectives
- a good one is.
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/garrtc.htm
The Theosophical Movement

Also Margaret Thomas's book Theosophy vs Neo Theosophy
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/

Please excuse my presuming that you haven't read these books already
My belief is nothing is achieved by ignoring this information.
Is our aversion for this information simply because we would rather
not know?
For my part I feel a debt of gratitude to Dr Tillett for his book and
thank him for it, and I can only say on my part that I wish I had been
told this information sooner.
I feel deeply hurt that a society that I was told stood for truth
would not activley inform me of these facts.

What right do they think they have in NOT discussing it !
Shame on them I say, they should know better.
Truth is not always easy to face.
Still enough said of me on this subject, I think the facts speak for
themselves.
I'll leave others to make their minds up.
Excuse my frankness.

Regards

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Erica Letzerich" <eletzerich@y...>
wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> It is a favor or disfavor for theosophical cause, when the name of 
> some theosophists is constantly connected to heavy accusations? How 
> precious time is lost in discussions about the personality and life 
> of some known T.S. fellows? Is this a service for the cause? Or a 
> critical way of thinking based on prejudices and a kind of personal 
> satisfaction to discuss about the weakness of others? Below I am 
> sending some quotes of Blavatsky for reflection.
> 
> Erica Letzerich
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Neither unpopular characters nor their work are judged in our day 
> on their intrinsic value, but merely on their author's personality 
> and the prejudiced opinion thereon of the masses. In many journals 
> no literary work of a Theosophist can ever hope to be reviewed on 
> its own merits, apart from the gossip about its author. Such papers, 
> oblivious of the rule first laid down by Aristotle, who says that 
> criticism is "a standard of judging well," refuse point blank to 
> accept any Theosophical book apart from its writer. As a first 
> result, the former is judged by the distorted reflection of the 
> latter created by slander repeated in the daily papers. The 
> personality of the writer hangs like a dark shadow between the 
> opinion of the modern journalist and unvarnished truth; and as a 
> final result there are few editors in all Europe and America who 
> know anything of our Society's tenets." 
> H.P.B. PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHICULES Lucifer, Vol. V, No. 26, 
> October, 1889, pp. 85-91
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "but whenever the word "Theosophy" is printed and catches the 
> reader's eye, there it will be generally found preceded and followed 
> by abusive epithets and invective against the personalities of 
> certain Theosophists."
> H.P.B. PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHICULES Lucifer, Vol. V, No. 26, 
> October, 1889, pp. 85-91
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "How long, O radiant gods of truth, how long shall this terrible 
> mental cecity of the nineteenth century Philosophists last? How much 
> longer are they to be told that Theosophy is no national property, 
> no religion, but only the universal code of science and the most 
> transcendental ethics that was ever known; that it lies at the root 
> of every moral philosophy and religion; and that neither Theosophy 
> per se, nor yet its humble unworthy vehicle, the Theosophical 
> Society, has anything whatever to do with any personality or 
> personalities!" 
> H.P.B. PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHICULES Lucifer, Vol. V, No. 26, 
> October, 1889, pp. 85-91
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "To identify it with these is to show oneself sadly defective in 
> logic and even common sense. To reject the teaching and its 
> philosophy under the pretext that its leaders, or rather one of its 
> Founders, lies under various accusations (so far unproven) is silly, 
> illogical and absurd. It is, in truth, as ridiculous as it would 
> have been in the days of the Alexandrian school of Neo-Platonism, 
> which was in its essence Theosophy, to reject its teachings, because 
> it came to Plato from Socrates, and because the sage of Athens, 
> besides his pug-nose and bald head, was accused of "blasphemy and of 
> corrupting the youth."
> H.P.B. PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHICULES Lucifer, Vol. V, No. 26, 
> October, 1889, pp. 85-91
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "Aye, kind and generous critics, who call yourselves Christians, and 
> boast of the civilization and progress of your age; you have only to 
> be scratched skin deep to find in you the same cruel and 
> prejudiced "barbarian" as of old."
> H.P.B. PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHICULES Lucifer, Vol. V, No. 26, 
> October, 1889, pp. 85-91
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "Were an opportunity offered you to sit in public and legal judgment 
> on a Theosophist, who of you would rise in your nineteenth century 
> of Christianity higher than one of the Athenian dikastery with its 
> 50 jurors who condemned Socrates to death? Which of you would scorn 
> to become a Meletus or an Anytus, and have Theosophy and all its 
> adherents condemned on the evidence of false witnesses to a like 
> ignominious death? The hatred manifested in your daily attacks upon 
> the Theosophists is a warrant to us for this. Did Haywood have you 
> in her mind's eye when she wrote of Society's censure:
> But man, as if a foe to his own species,
> Takes pleasure to report his neighbour's faults,
> Judging with rigour every small offence,
> And prides himself in scandal . . ." * 
> * [This passage is from a tragedy by Eliza Haywood (1693?-1756)"
> H.P.B. PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHICULES Lucifer, Vol. V, No. 26, 
> October, 1889, pp. 85-91
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------