Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00561)

Hello Paul,
Very interesting comments, and no I don't think your reply is game
playing or side tracking but instead presenting extra information and
perspective.

I think CWLs child abuse needs to be acknowledged as this calls his
whole spiritual 'status' as a high initiate.
He was a human being with a serious problem but no Arhat that's for sure !

It must be a dreadful desire to have to live with.

So yes I agree on that score but Adyar will never accept this.

I think the reason he's 'off limits' to challenge even on teachings is
because it will open up the whole Pandora's box....thus needs to be
kept under wraps.

I am still waiting to get a copy of your book from a freind so I can
see your particular perspective in more detail.
I am interested to hear what your point of veiw is in detail.
This isn't a side track but I am just out of my depth abit and need
to perhaps do my study more on the histroical areas you put forward.

Maybe others can comment.

This is just a quick reply ....I better get on my way to work.
Maybe I can comment a bit more later

Cheers

Perry



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
wrote:
> Dear Perry,
> 
> Since you address this to "all" I'll step up to the plate. It is odd
> to me that there seems to be vastly more outrage expressed at CWL's
> doctrinal innovations than his fraudulent psychism or his crimes
> against children. Virtually every spiritual movement experiences
> doctrinal changes in the generation following its founding, and I
> don't see anything inherently unethical in this. False claims to
> spiritual authority, derived from false narratives of personal
> experience made to legitimize those teachings, are profoundly
> unethical. Abusing the trust of parents and children is even more so.
> You ask:
> 
> > Form your point of view are any core teachings in theosophy?
> > 
> I presume you use the non-capitalized form for a reason; on that basis
> I'd say that the idea of gnosis is just about the only core teaching
> of theosophia.
> 
> > If yes then what constitutes them to be such, what is the criteria
> to make this judgment?
> > 
> Universality; when we get to what gnosis tells us we immediately
> descend into the realm of conflicting particulars.
> 
> snip
> > 
> > I personally feel a sense of duty to present the teachings the 
> > Mahatma's as they gave them out,
> 
> but that changed during the course of HPB's career quite dramatically,
> from John King through Serapis and Tuitit, thence to Dayananda and
> eventually KH and M the content of whose teaching evolved over time
> showing an increasing level of understanding of Tibetan Buddhism.
> 
> not because I believe them or
> > think they are infallible but because to deliberately change the 
> > teachings of an established tradition such as the Mahatma's belong 
> > to,
> 
> I'd suggest that there is a seriously mistaken assumption contained in
> that phrase. There were several different traditions combined in
> HPB's teachings and derived from different teachers she knew. She
> herself was a doctrinal innovator as much as CWL, with the important
> distinction that she was synthesizing genuine material from authentic
> traditions as opposed to spewing out whatever her imagination created
> on the spur of the moment.
> 
> is to me the height of not only arrogance but complete disrespect 
> > for that tradition.
> > It is in this context I ask is it ethical to change these teachings?
> > 
> Steiner went off on his tangent, Gurdjieff on his, Heindel on his,
> Bailey on hers, CWL on his, Cayce on his, EC Prophet on hers, etc. 
> I'd look to motive and intention to judge the ethical character of the
> tangents rather than the simple fact that they were tangents. 
> Conservative Theosophical dogma would have them all equally unethical
> because they were tangents; but it would deny that HPB was tangential
> in various ways to things that went before.
> snip
> > 
> > I am trying to follow a rational here and see if it holds any 
> > validity, and work through issues without playing games or side 
> > tracking.
> > 
> Hope my thoughts are of some help rather than side tracking or game
> playing. I agree that CWL was an unmitigated disaster for the
> Theosophical movement, but don't perceive the reasons for that in the
> same light that you, Daniel, and others appear to.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul