Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00017)

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

> 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.
---------------------------------------------------

Dear Perry and all,

Shame is at the root of the problem, and there are two intertwined
kinds of shame and denial involved. CWL's doctrinal innovations could
perhaps be discussed freely and compared to HPB's teachings (which
themselves changed considerably over time) if not for the denial
reaction to accusations about sexual abuse. This is akin to family
dynamics in comparable situations, I would suggest. Since the
cohesion of the family requires denial of the truth of the abuse,
anyone who raises the issue becomes a shit-stirring enemy. In that
kind of environment, any questions at all about CWL even if unrelated
to the sexual abuse issue are regarded as enemy attacks. Reinforcing
that further is that the Judge-lineage Theosophists have been raising
these questions for a century now and Adyar members who do so are
considered disruptive influences tainted with guilt by association
with those "other" Theosophists. (However, Adyar orthodoxy has no
difficulty overlooking these divisions when making common cause with
anti-CWL Theosophists to attack those who raise the "wrong" questions
about HPB.)

There is not much difference between the linkage of Leadbeaterian
sexual abuse and doctrinal innovations and the linkage of Blavatskian
dubious phenomena and doctrinal innovations. Anyone who tries to
analyze the doctrinal contents in terms of comparing and contrasting
them with earlier sources becomes suspect, a possible enemy, to be
shunned or attacked. Instead of an intellectual puzzle to be
discussed, these topics become a spiritual litmus test to distinguish
friend from enemy. HPB, like CWL, is a sacred cow to Theosophists
*because of the way they were attacked during their lifetimes*. 
Theosophists think that they are called on to "defend" their heroes
and this all too often means to attack anyone who questions them. 
(IMO Erica's deflection of questions about CWL to questions about the
spiritual qualities of the questioners is typical.) 

Cognitive dissonance is a major factor in all this and I'm going to
look for a source to link to momentarily.

Cheers,

Paul