Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00914)

Hi Cass,
I can relate to your situation and also the issues that have arisen
from not having these differnces in teaching being openly discussed
and pointed out to membership so they can at least be aware that neo
theosophical teachings are not just 'simplifications but are
fundamentally contradictory in many areas, and then make their own
mind up as to what has more varacity.

The thing that I felt was a sense of betrayal by the society when I
found out that this subject was off bounds in its official journals
and publications.

I was led to beleive ALL teachers and teachings could be challenged.
Clearly this is not the case in its official publications.
So I resigned, as I saw a huge hypocracy in all this.
(not that I am saying members are hypocrites because most are simply
like you and I were ie.simply unaware)

Some people like Geoffrey Farthing choose to stay within the society
and try and work within it, I can toggle back and forth between this
rationale.

The interesting thing was that just before I resigned from the TS I
gave a talk at the members meeting which went into some of these
issues and for the most part it was recieved well by most of those
present.

The true touchstone for me will be when the society opens this up in
its official journals and publications.

Why should new members have to go through this disentanglement that we
and many have had to go through, for all the reason you pointed out.

By all means they can still read neo theosophy if they want to.
The fact of the many differences in teaching could be easily brought
to their attenion in a pamphlet. No problem if the society was willing.

Perry

P.S some of your rel'ies you may not want to see on the other side.lols








--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@y...> wrote:
> 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@y...> 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]