Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00906)

Dear Perry
I like many were introduced to Theosophy through Leadbeater and Besant, and for many years believed that when we die we are met by our loved ones on the other side, and we communicate with them while in a state of sleep. When I eventually read what HPB said about after death states, "the Ego in Devachan cannot contact anyone- as there is no medium." I was totally confused but being ignorant of what actually took place, somehow found a middle ground, definite maybe belief, that we are greeted by our loved ones and then when the etheric and prana disintegrate the entity is uncontactable from a few hours to a few years. When awake on the Astral the Ego has lost all of its remembrance of life on earth. After a while the entity will fall into a sleep where the struggle with the Kamarupa begins.
And then when I discovered, only a month or so ago CWL was a namedropper, a liar, and a paedophile did I realise that not only was I hoodwinked by him, but I passed on this erroneous belief to my children and friends. Hence my opinion that it is a mistake to read any of his literature as it is a false representation of what HPB said.
One positive thing that has come out of it for me is that I had always imagined my mother waiting for me, with arms folded, on the other side, asking why did you waste all your inheritance on kalamati olives and fetta cheese!

Cass



Perry Coles <perrycoles@yahoo.com> wrote:


Hello Pedro & All,
Thanks for the reply and the opportunity this gives us to be able to
address these important points.

You asked : 
"Can you point out which of his books he claimed to come from the
Adepts?"

Here's a quote from CWL to reflect upon in order to see the undeniable
implication he is making here.

p8 THE ASTRAL PLANE
"A good example of the sort of mistake that is likely to occur is the
frequent reversal of any number which the seer has to read in the
astral world, so that he would be liable to render, say, 139 as 931,
and so on. In the case of a student of occultism trained by a capable
Master such a mistake would be impossible except through great hurry
or carelessness, since such a pupil has to go through a long and
varied course of instruction in this art of seeing correctly. The
Master, or perhaps some more advanced pupil, brings before him again
and again all possible forms of illusion, and asks him, What do you
sec? Any errors in his answers are then corrected and their reasons
explained, until by degrees the neophyte acquires a certainty and
confidence in dealing with the phenomena of the astral plane which far
exceeds anything possible in physical life. He has to learn not only
to see correctly but to translate accurately, from one plane to the
other, the memory of what he has seen. To assist him in this he has
eventually to learn to carry his consciousness without break from the
physical plane to the astral or mental and back again, for until that
can be done there is always a possibility that his recollections may
be partially lost or distorted during the blank interval which
separates his periods of consciousness on the various planes."


Here we can clearly see Leadbeater claimed to have been trained under
a Master and that the Master would point out "Any errors in his
answers are then corrected.

Using Leadbeater's rationale a Master can point out errors in a
neophytes observations.
If the "observations" of CWL on the Kamaloka and the after death
states do not match and in fact completely contradict those given by
KH in the Mahatma letters.
I ask again who, given Leadbeater's own warnings and rationale on
inner plane readings would we think has more credulity the Chela or
the Adept?

He (and Annie Besant) claimed the knowledge contained in their books
was the ancient wisdom tradition called the theosophia.
If Leadbeater had been an accepted chela of the Mahatmas he would have
realized his 'clairvoyant observations' contradicted with his own
teachers if he had been an honest and responsible student he would
have pointed out that his observations conflicted with those of his
own teachers.
He never pointed this out ! Why?
His teachings on the after death states for one example are very
different and don't correspond to the Mahatma's observations
If in his books he had pointed these contradictions out and said in my
opinion and findings the Mahatma's teachings do not match with my own
findings, I would have no problem, but he didn't.

He may have said you can believe this or not, but that is quite a
different thing from not pointing out to his readers and followers how
his teachings clashed with those of the Adept teachers of Blavatsky he
claimed to be a Chela and student of.

These differences need not be reiterated here in this post as Margaret
Thomas and Geoffrey Farthing as well as others have already done this.
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm


http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/tontitlepage.pdf

(pdf reader needed for this document which shows a side by side
comparison)

His book Textbook of theosophy does not point out these differences
and if he was an honest man and student (which I don't believe he was
as has been clearly shown by his habitual lying) he would have shown
these contradictions especially in something calling itself a "textbook".

Annie Besant's book the Ancient Wisdom also does not make this very
important issue out to readers, once again. Why is this?

The result of this is that his and Besant's teachings and not those of
the Mahatmas he claimed to be the student of where peddled to the
membership as being "simplified", they where not they were
contradictory and different

This is another example of dishonesty by not pointing these essential
points out.

Leadbeater manufactured such an air of authority around his
"clairvoyance" that ES members could not challenge these
pronouncements supposedly coming from the Maha Chohan and other Adepts
regarding the coming World Teacher.

We have shown these pronouncements on this forum ad nauseum.

I am sure you'd agree that this is irresponsible at best and I'd
suggest deceptive on their part and members and readers should have
this knowledge pointed out to them?

Perhaps we can explore this point first and then move onto the other
very valid points you made.
I hope we can explore these points in a spirit of brotherhood as 2
fellow students seeking truth rather than antagonists.

Sincerely 

Perry



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" 
wrote:
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Perry,
> > 
> > Thanks for outlining once again the basic points.
> > 
> > I doubt that Anand will ever reply!
> > 
> > Pedro has certainly responded to some of
> > the points but unfortunately has ignored
> > the majority of issues.
> > 
> > Therefore, the ostrich head in the sand
> > routine is found to be the basic answer
> > to any of the questions or issues you
> > bring up.
> > 
> > Daniel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" 

> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Some issues for consideration about Leadbeater and his 
> teachings -
> > > 
> > > Few of us claim any special spiritual status that Leadbeater did.
> > > He therefore has put himself as fair game to be put under the 
> > > spotlight of scrutiny for theosophical students as we try and 
> > assess 
> > > the veracity of his writings and claims.
> > > 
> > > Leadbeater made the claim that he was in contact with and a 
> close 
> > > disciple of the very same adepts as Madame Blavatsky.
> > > 
> > > Repeatedly and clearly he made the claim that his teachings came 
> > from 
> > > these same Adepts.
> 
> 
> Can you point out which of his books he claimed to come from the 
> Adepts?
> 
> 
> > > A comparison of his teachings with those of the Mahatma letters 
> > shows 
> > > that many of his teachings (WHICH HE CLAIMED CAME FROM THE SAME 
> > > ADEPTS!!!) clearly contradict and are in direct opposition to 
> the 
> > > Mahatmas' teachings.
> 
> 
> Can you point out which of his books denies the unity of life, the 
> lawfulness and cyclicity of the universe and the fundamental 
> identity between the human Spirit and the Universal Spirit?
> 
> 
> > > How do supporters of Leadbeater and his writings explain this?
> 
> 
> By suggesting that students of Theosophy may have different views 
> regarding their understanding of its basic principles, and that they 
> are free to investigate.
> 
> 
> > > What rationale can be given in order to assess these claims of 
> > > Leadbeater without his supporters using the usual techniques of 
> > > either diverting attention away from the questions or simply 
> > avoiding 
> > > answering them altogether?
> 
> 
> Theosophy encourages individual understanding and the judging of a 
> teaching or teachings on their own merits. There are many 
> traditional teachings on the human constitution, in different 
> cultures, that do not conform with the ones given in the Mahatma 
> Letters. Are they all wrong? Are the teachings in the Mahatma 
> Letters final and absolutely authoritative? Who has decreed this? 
> The Mahatmas?
> 
> 
> > > To me it can only mean one of two things; either Leadbeater was 
> > > imagining his own Mahatmas and his teachings, or he was lying.
> > > 
> > > It has been proven that Leadbeater lied about his date of birth 
> > which 
> > > meant he also lied about seeing the Mahatma M in London as a 
> young 
> > > boy. These two issues have still not been answered by his 
> > supporters 
> > > despite repeated requests on this forum.
> > > He demonstrably lied about his father's occupation and his 
> > childhood 
> > > adventures in South America. (See "The Elder Brother" pp 11-18 
> Dr. 
> > G 
> > > Tillett)
> > > 
> > > He demonstrably lied about attending Queen's College, Oxford and
> > > St. 
> > > John's college, Cambridge, apparently attending each at the same 
> > > time! He attended neither. (See "The Elder Brother" p. 15 Dr. G. 
> > > Tillett)
> > > 
> > > He very clearly manipulated "data" in his work "The Many Lives 
> of 
> > > Alcycone" to suit his purpose. (See "The Elder Brother" p.114 
> Dr. G 
> > > Tillett)
> > > 
> > > And now, thanks to Anand Gholap's recent "recommendation" to read
> > > J 
> > > Michael McBride's article from Yale University, we find
> > > Leadbeater 
> > > and Annie Besant using similar techniques for their work "Occult 
> > > Chemistry". Under the sub heading "Quantitative Evidence of 
> > > Skulduggery" the article states "Unknowingly the Occult Chemists 
> > left 
> > > quantitative evidence suggesting that, from the beginning, at 
> least 
> > > Leadbeater, or Jinarajadasa, and perhaps Besant or all three, 
> > > cynically intended to deceive." (My italics)
> 
> 
> There are other positive views of Occult Chemistry which were not 
> mentioned. It is a subject that continues to attract attention, 
> although there is a marked skepticism about its scientific validity. 
> 
> 
> 
> > > Moreover, Leadbeater by his own admission slept naked in the 
> same 
> > bed 
> > > and bathed with young boys on a regular basis, whilst engaging 
> in 
> > > activities which today would clearly bring about his conviction 
> as 
> > a 
> > > paedophilia and which would have THEN had he not employed 
> > > paedophiles' commonly used disempowering techniques such 
> > > as "swearing" the boys to secrecy. All this from a man "on the 
> > verge 
> > > of divinity"?!?
> 
> 
> Can you point out a reference by Leadbeater declaring that he slept 
> naked with boys? We already have seen that the Sydney Police did not 
> have conclusive evidence to charge and prosecute him at that time, 
> although they said there were SUSPICIONS of some individuals which 
> were not without foundation. Here, the time-honoured principle "a 
> person is innocent until proven guilty" does not seem to apply to 
> Leadbeater.
> 
> Another point: the incriminating evidence invariably comes from 
> hostile witnesses, like Thomas Martyn's wife in Sydney. Similar 
> evidences have become the norm in almost any discussion about 
> Leadbeater, but the testimony of his pupils is hardly mentioned, if 
> at all. Is it fair to discuss someone's life and work and only 
> present incriminating evidence, when it is known that supportive 
> evidence has also been available for one hundred years?
> 
> Another issue here is the selectiveness in presenting his 
> statements: while he did say that he taught regular self-relief 
> (masturbation) to several of his pupils, he also denied any criminal 
> intent, and this has been largely ignored. 
> 
> He was also a very visible, vulnerable and convenient political 
> target which his critics used (and still use) to attack the Adyar TS 
> for its perceived "neo-Theosophy" stance. This is another area which 
> is largely unexplored in the Leadbeater case. 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > Some on this group have suggested that there was nothing unusual 
> > > about these practices in that time period.
> > > 
> > > The numerous police investigations and the thousands who 
> resigned 
> > > from the society due to this, AT THE TIME, would probably 
> disagree.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Leadbeater claimed to be a high initiate in close personal 
> contact 
> > > with the Adept teachers of Blavatsky.
> > > These claims are not supported by the evidence?
> 
> 
> Three letters received from Master K.H. in his own recognised 
> handwriting, the second of which was precipitated in HPB's presence 
> in London.
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > It can be demonstrated clearly that he may have been in 
> > communication 
> > > with something but it certainly was not the same Adept teachers 
> of 
> > > Blavatsky.
> 
> 
> Please demonstrate.
> 
> 
> > > So who do we accept as having greater credibility in occult 
> > > knowledge; the Mahatmas or a commentator of highly suspect 
> > > credentials who contradicted the teachings of the very same 
> > Mahatmas 
> > > HE CLAIMED TO REPRESENT and whose names he used to validate 
> > > his "authority"???
> > > 
> > > These are just some examples of why to me, Leadbeater's 
> teachings 
> > > need to be seriously challenged by any truly serious student of 
> > > theosophy.
> 
> 
> Leadbeater pointed out, repeatedly, in his writings that he was 
> presenting the results of his own investigations and did not expect 
> readers to believe him. He said he was trained to see and report 
> what he had seen in the invisible worlds. He once remarked that 
> there are many pitfalls on the path of the investigator of the 
> unseen realities.
> 
> 
> > > It is true, tens of thousands have read and will probably 
> continue 
> > to 
> > > read his writings.
> > > 
> > > Tens of thousands making a mistake, doesn't make it any less of 
> a 
> > > mistake.
> 
> 
> This is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever seen in 
> any theosophical discussion: TO READ SOMEONE'S BOOKS (LEADBEATER) IS 
> A MISTAKE! How do we arrive at such startling conclusion? Does it 
> not also imply a judgement of the choice, discernment and freedom of 
> those THOUSANDS who decided to read them? 
> 
> Why not include Leadbeater's books and articles and pamphlets on an 
> Index and declare them forbidden reading? It was done in the past 
> very successfully with the writings of Clement of Alexandria, 
> Origen, Giordano Bruno, etc.
> 
> 
> > > If "There Is No Religion Higher Than Truth", as Blavatsky 
> adopted 
> > as 
> > > the motto for the Adyar Theosophical Society, how can
> > > Leadbeater's 
> > > level of lies, manipulation and deceit go unchallenged by both 
> the 
> > > Society and his supporters? 
> > > 
> > > How can they be summarily dismissed in one form or another by 
> > anyone 
> > > genuinely seeking a truthful mind? What is the power that 
> > Leadbeater 
> > > holds over his supporters? 
> > > 
> > > Are not the Adyar Society and Leadbeater's supporters 
> perpetuating 
> > > this monstrous deceit of the mind?
> > > 
> > > Perry
> 
> 
> It is true that the Adyar TS continues to publish his books, but 
> they don't seem to be dangerous. His writings do not feature 
> prominently in TS programmes world wide. There were (and there are, 
> from time to time) suggestions that his books should not be sold 
> anymore for they are perceived by some to be TOO EMBARASSING for 
> those who hold HPB's writings as the true and only source of 
> Theosophy and for those who have interest and background in science. 
> An eminent member of the TS in Australia recently said he was 
> shocked when he learned that THE SOLAR SYSTEM by Arthur Powell 
> (which is based on CWL's and Besant's works) had been reprinted by 
> TPH Adyar. But the demand for his books continues and that is the 
> reason why they are still in print.
> 
> 
> Pedro






Yahoo! Groups Links









---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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