Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00460)

Dear Eldon
Judgement of CWL is not about the period in which he indulged himself, but about his personal morality. Yes, right up to the 1960's this behaviour was kept "in the closet" that doesnt mean it was moral then nor is it moral now.
Would you argue that in 2200 AD, Hitlers gassing of the jews will be thought of as "part of that era", "a necessary evil", immoral then, immoral now, immoral in 2200ad.
His own words state that qualifications for the pathway requires the chela to have attained discrimination, desirelessness,good conduct and love. C.7 P46 Talks on the path of occultism. Do you seriously think he qualified?
Cass

Eldon B Tucker <eldon@theosophy.com> wrote:

Dennis:

I think you bring up an important point. Just as we must understand what the
early theosophical writers meant in terms of the language and biases of
their time, we also need to consider their behavior in terms of the values
of the time. (I think this is your main point, but because some of your
writing comes across as politically partisan, others may reply from equally
partisan positions and get into unrelated political debates of right-wing
versus left-wing issues and arguments over which flavor of politics is the
best.)

Certain sexual behavior that may have been considered ok a hundred years ago
may now be considered perverted and perhaps criminal. Likewise, from
Victorian eyes, our openness to sexuality may be seen as criminally lewd.
Contrast today's television standards between the United States and Western
Europe. Sexually explicit content seen on television in Europe would be
banned from American network television. Or contrast American television of
today to twenty years ago; programs airing nowadays would have been banned.

It may not be entirely fair to reach back into the past and judge people by
today's standards. Things may have been different in their times. In any
case, they are not around to be held accountable for things they may have
done.

As to Leadbeater, we can say that we know certain things about whom he was
and what he did. But he's not around anymore, so we cannot judge his
behavior of the 1900's, 1910's, and 1920's by what we consider right in
2005. Could anything we say of him apply as well to the typical unmarried
priest of his era? Trusting our children to him is a moot point, since he's
been dead for so many years. If we need to draw a moral, it should be, I
think, about what standards should apply to people of our era. What
standards should be local and what universal? Should we impose the same
standards for child rearing and sexuality in America as in Moslem countries,
and use our armed forces to back them up, or should local standards, however
bad, be allowed to prevail? 

Eldon

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Kier [mailto:dennw3k@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 1:25 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Christianity or not...


And we should realize that the words "molestation", and "abuse" are of
fairly recent (timewise) usage, pretty much coinciding with the
Feminist anti-man-hating movement.

We are judging CWL and his practices by the latest politically correct
standards. He was operating within the context of the British single
sex boarding school practices.

I have known people in the Navy in the 1950s, who were raised in
orphanages, who described more sex oriented experiments in their
growing years than CWL evidently engaged in, and they grew up
heterosexual, and freely mentioned their experiences, and thought
nothing of it.

In my experience, even in the 1930s, this all male sex play, was
described as "just fooling around", and while hidden from women, was
pretty much understood as happening at times.

I recall Boy Scout meetings in the late 1930s where there were grown
men as the leaders, and things happened that wouldn't bear repeating
to parents. No blood flowed, no bruises appeared, and nobody got
particularly bent out of shape.

But now, with the feminazi movement in full swing, there would be a
international scandal. (almost). They have re-written the dictionary.
We must have words to think with, and with only the politically
correct words fashioned by the Man-Haters, they can pretty much
dictate the thoughts that the general public thinks.

The Masters evidently were not taken in with all this. I suspect that
they could separate sexual practices from serious things like
Theosophy. Victorian ladies evidently could not.

I think Dallas is probably correct in that CWL's Theosophy is
different than HPB's. I think his views on art, science, and sex, do
not have much relationship with Theosophy, and am suspicious of those
who try to link them to him simply to attack him.

I think the differences in the teachings are enough to define him.

Dennis

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Meredith" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Christianity or not...


>
> Bart, What would be your understanding of the how the theosophical
> organizations and theosophists in general and masters in specific
might
> respond if Leadbeater realizing the error in his previous path
concerning
> molestation, sought out and sought to rectify the situation with
his
> victims, and did in fact change his life?
>
> bill





Yahoo! Groups Links












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]