Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00015)

Dear Perry,

I am well acquainted about C.W.L's case.

I am sure you are aware that more than 840,000,000 people suffer 
from hunger. 24,000 people die every day, or over 8 million each 
year. Three of four who die are younger than five. You are also 
aware that the world is immersed into a deep crisis: economical (the 
poor countries are getting poorest, the rich ones richest), wars, 
injustices, crimes etc.

The Theosophical Society was founded to try to bring some 
inspiration, to help humanity to awake its spiritual intuition, to 
spread and popularize the elevate ideals of theosophy. 

And what it's seen in an online theosophical group? A concern about 
the present world situation? 

A concern to write and make cooperative contributions to popularize 
theosophy? 

A concern to develop a work based on the three objects of the T.S.? 

Compassion towards humanity and intention to really collaborate for 
the ideals the T.S. keeps alive in the world? 

I would not say dear Perry shame on you for the Theosophical 
Society, I would say shame on you for every fellow that is a member 
of the T.S. and is more concerned in promoting intrigues and endless 
discussions about which are the original teachings or not, or about 
Leadbeater's case. 

The world today is bleeding and the cry of human sorrow crossing 
the planet. The members of the Theosophical Society were not 
supposed to be deaf, they were suppose to be the very first to try 
to act and work for the ideals of theosophy to have a stronger and 
benefic impact in our decadent society.

So dear Perry, what do you consider more relevant to discuss about? 
Leadbeater's case? If so I am sorry to hear that, and I am no longer 
loosing my time with such discussions.

Regards,

Erica Letzerich




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> 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
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
----