Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00128)

kpauljohnson <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com> wrote:


Hi Paul,

You wrote:


There isn't one. Perhaps a sports metaphor will help: I'm here to 
play ping-pong, bouncing ideas back and forth lightly. Others' style 
is more like bowling-- trying to knock down every single argument 
someone has offered. Or boxing, where the goal is to lay one's 
opponent out on the floor.

CAS: It's interesting that you picked a sports metaphor, because there always has to be a winner when it comes to sport. But I agree with you that everyone has their own style and I suppose the result is the same if you get beaten to death with a feather or a boxing glove. Results the same, methods the same, or as my girls basketball coach would say, "operation successful, patient dead"



> Reading between your lines it appeared to me that you were hoping 
that with the internet, more honest and frank discussions could take 
place regarding philosophical ideas and their authors,

more specifically religious and political ideas.

> (up to this point you had me) but your hope had been crushed with 
the mundane and dogmatic dialogue (this is where you lost me) that 
you see, as taking place. 

In light of Doss's distinction let me refine that point: spiritual 
organizations have not IMO become more hospitable to intellectual 
freedom in consequence of the Internet, as many had hoped. That 
individuals have been given new access to hitherto taboo information 
on spiritual organizations is indisputable-- Perry's point stands.

CASS: This group seems to be reasonably "uncensored" by the moderator. Any form of censorship usually denotes a "protectionism" of sorts and if you unpack their agenda, it is more than likely a protection of their personal value system accepted by them in relation to the spiritual organization they adhere to. Something like what Annie Besant was doing, protecting what shesaw as the cause, rather than risking the discredit of that cause and all that she had worked for. 

There are internet sights, where so-called vampires chat about rituals of feeding, and put ju ju's on you if you don't agree with their "right to feed". True, I am not kidding, there is some horrendous stuff going on out there. 

>And as a participant of the mundane and dogmatic I responded. If my 
tone comes across as confrontational it is because I like to get to 
the real core of things, rather than white-washing around the 
periphery. I am blunt, and to the point, I like to deal with truth 
and honesty, no matter if the truth hurts. I am not flowery, but I 
like to think that I do have a good sense of humour, and never take 
anything too personally or feel the need for revenge or to prove my 
point. I can be just as wrong as anyone else.
> 
Speaking of points, asking "what's your point?" has an inherent 
impatience and or accusation. It can imply that the listener/reader 
wants the speaker/writer to "cut to the chase" because what s/he is 
writing or saying is boringly circuitous. 

CASS: Sorry, maybe I can rephrase it by saying, "get to the point?" You may take it as an insult, but that doesnt mean the person saying it meant it as an insult, but rather, I"m missing your point, can you please get to it?"

At another level (when the 
word "agenda" is involved) it implies that the writer/speaker being 
challenged is suspected of ulterior motives, disingenuousness, lack 
of spontaneity, calculation. Hence that line of questioning isn't 
just blunt, but rudely accusing along the lines of "have you stopped 
beating your wife?" To answer it is to accede to a false premise, if 
one has no point or agenda other than bouncing an idea off a 
particular person who has inspired it.

CASS: I believe all "personalities" have agenda's, whether disingenuousness, or not. If we are arguing for internet intellectual freedom, then why sodefensive of the language? If I thought you were beating your wife, I would ask you if you had stopped doing it. The short answer is "yes" or "no",the long answer is "mind your own business". If we are searching for answers to truths but cannot do it because some people do not like to be intellectually challenged we won't get passed the agenda's of the personalities concerned, e.g. Don't talk to me like that.....

 

Are you saying that when someone poses a question that there is no point toit? I am sorry if I come across as personally attacking because of my blunt tone, but it is not meant to character assassinate, but to get to a resolution, conclusion, by the quickest means available. What you think is rudely accusative I see as a question. I guess it is all pedantics.

 


> I have not discovered the dirt on Gurdgieff yet, all I know of him 
is that he said, men were automatons and needed to wake up. Dead men 
walking in other words.
> 
He deliberately played various roles to stimulate students in 
particular ways; so IMO did HPB.

CASS: My mind is boggling over this one, "played various roles to stimulate students in particular ways", do you have any evidence or facts that youare basing your opinion on, as I would love to hear them.

> If all accounts of Annie Besant are true, I cannot accept her 
behaviour,

Acceptance or rejection are not what I had in mind as much as degrees 
of guilt. You write:

> as she is no better than the wife/husband who sacrifice her/his 
children to perversion rather than fearing the loss of their 
environment, or in the worst cases, his/her love for the other person.

I would liken it rather to a spouse who is under the complete control 
of the abuser and incapable of thinking or acting independently in 
certain areas. 

CASS: I sympathise with the poor soul that is under the control of an abuser and incapable of thinking or acting independently, but that abuser is anadult and has made choices that put them into that situation. To turn yourhead, knowing your children are being abused is not only selfish, but weakness and monstrous and usually breeds more monsters. If we stop feeling sorry for these people we may be able to end the cycle in one or two generations.

 

Doesn't make the results less disastrous but it does 
provide a partial excuse of sorts.

CASS: As a teacher of a new world order, being under complete control of anyone is a definite no no, especially when the teaching themselves state that control of self is the first step to spirtual liberation.

 


snip

> PHooeeee. From all accounts Annie Besant knew of Leadbeater's 
masturbation of the young boys (the swine even couched it in sound 
theosophical principles to justify his disgusting behaviour) as her 
first reaction was of disapproval and then she recanted??
> 
She recanted after the positive (at least in this instance) influence 
of Olcott was removed from the scene. Besant was notoriously 
susceptible to manipulation by males who flattered her vanity, and 
CWL stepped into the void created by HSO's death and went right back 
to his former eminence in the TS.

CASS: I thought she was one of the London subferjets (forgive the incorrect spelling) and therefore one imagines reasonably liberated from manipulation. As an aside, I guess there is no fear of you flattering mine!!! You are just strengthening my argument that she should have stayed home and taken care of the Parish with her hubby.

> I believe that HPB may have been under certain constraints in that 
she was only able to provide half-truths on some subjects. If 
something is secret, it would have been better to remain such, as 
half-truth always leaves room for half-lies. 

HPB herself came to that conclusion on the subject of the Masters-- 
better not to have rushed into notoriety as she and Olcott did.

> Actually neither exist, its either the truth or its a lie, there 
are no half measures. I don't know what her reasoning or what her 
constraints were, but it appears as though someone didnt think 
through things clearly enough. Although, as my old uncle would say, 
you can't judge a situation without taking into consideration the 
period and events from which it came. To look back in hindsight is 
far easier than to project into farsight. Although I am still 
baffled how the Masters couldn't see what was going to happen?
> 
That bafflement would seem to rest on a premise of perfect foresight 
on the part of her Masters.

CASS: Exactly my point, aren't they meant to have perfect foresight?

See ya
Cass

> 
> Cass
> 
> 
> 
> kpauljohnson wrote:
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva wrote:
> > Dear Perry
> > In this instance, truth searched me out, I didnt go looking for 
it. My search for truth has led me to take the blindfold off and look 
at truth as "definite maybe's"
> > Cass
> > 
> Dear Cass,
> 
> Of course I am not out to get you over any opinion, and am not even 
clear on what your opinions are. Your interrogation about my "agenda" 
and "point" came across as confrontational and unfriendly and echoes 
past experiences here.
> 
> But now in light of your other postings and evident cognitive 
dissonance I would like to make a supportive comment. As for the 
trickster issue, indeed HPB is in good company-- Gurdjieff being a 
more recent example. I suggest that there are different ethical 
issues involved in the untruths and dishonesty practiced by various 
figures in Theosophical history. For example:
> 
> Was K. lying when he denied all conscious memory of his early life, 
or was he so traumatized by early and ongoing abuse that he had 
indeed split off those memories?
> 
> Was HPB lying and telling the truth at the same time, through a 
mixture of messages and metamessages, because bound to secrecy?
> 
> Was Besant more a victim of deception, or an accomplice to it?
> 
> Those three are on a different plane than self-aggrandizing 
deliberate schemers like others you mention. IMO, YMMV!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul 
> 
> > 
> > Perry Coles 
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Cass, perhaps these type of issues are good examples of when we
> > need to let our search for truth take us where it will and 
continue
> > anyway.
> > 
> > I think these issues help to hone our antenna and keep us on our 
toes.
> > If HPB CWL AB WQJ GDeP……. are all found to be flawed in some way 
to a
> > greater or lesser degrees should that stoped our search.
> > 
> > Perhaps its just a reminder that they/we are all very human.
> > 
> > Perry
> > 
> > "This night brings darkness to the spirit although it does so in 
order
> > to illumine and enlighten it" 
> > 
> > St John of the Cross
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva wrote:
> > > I have been digging in the garden of Gethsemane and have 
discovered
> > that C.W.Leadbeater was a pervert, Annie Besant condoned his 
actions
> > for the sake of "the cause," Krishnamurti spent a number of years 
on
> > the verandah outside Leadbeaters cottage in Adyar, Judge is a 
forger,
> > HPB is a prankster and her masters are in fact the Russian/ Sufi 
group
> > "illumaniti" of which she was connected by family and political
> > beliefs. That their mission was for political and religious 
reform in
> > the World.
> > > 
> > > After much gnashing of teeth and flaying of the body, I came to 
the
> > conclusion that if HPB is a prankster, then she shares her joke 
with 
> > Krishna, Lao-Tse, Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Shankaracharya,
> > Tirthankaras, Jesus, Pythogoras, Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche,
> > Wittgenstein, etc etc.
> > > 
> > > As far as Leadbeater is concerned if he was impotent, so were 
his
> > teachings.
> > > If Annie Besant condoned his actions she was a coward and a 
fraud.
> > > If Judge fabricated lies he is a liar.
> > > No wonder the Masters severed all ties - russian or otherwise
> > > 
> > > For those out there, who may know the answer, why did the 
Masters
> > choose these people to form a teaching of "No Religion higher than
> > truth". In the letters it is said that they cannot read any 
pupil's
> > thoughts for karmic reasons, but surely, for something as crucial 
as
> > an attempt to help us poor souls in Kali Yuga, the auras of those
> > founders must have been knowledgeable to a Master?
> > > 
> > > What is there left? The esoteric teachings of Bart Simpson? Yes 
I
> > am angry and disallusioned by it all, and will be joining "Chuck 
the
> > Heretics" group if I can't find a logical explanation to this 
Kaka (or
> > doo doos as Chuck says)
> > > 
> > > Cass
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Yahoo! Groups Links










__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]