Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00137)

Dear Konstantin,

You wrote:
"Moreover, I would trust rather to a more humble spirit who says
that he is a dead grocer that to those who say that they are the
adepts & mahatmas :)"

I can see your point but to me I don't think it's a question of who 
the spirit claims to be but rather the veracity of the philosophy 
that is being expounded.

If a `dead grocer' comes out with a profound philosophical argument 
over someone claiming to be a `Master' then in the end it's the 
consistency and veracity of the argument that is important.

In regards to CWL he did have some lucid moments, however it needs 
to be emphasized that he lead the entire society into the worst kind 
of surrender of their intellects to blind following and belief 
despite his occasion token flourishes into telling `don't believe 
what I say' and in the next breath saying "by COMMAND of the KING" 
ect ect ect.

What sort of mindset did Leadbeater & Besant promote?
Despite the token flourishes into freedom of thought the subtext of 
Leadbeater was `I Know I am a high chela in contact and cordial 
relations with the "KING" the Maha Chohan Maitreya Christ ect ect 
ect.'

This technique of imprinting passive blind belief will be plain to 
anyone who knows anything about cult mind control.

As people interested in truth how can we justify and become 
apologists for what Leadbeater and Annie Besant did to peoples minds.
Taking them into a mindset of blind belief which is clearly 
historically what happened.
This important context is no longer in any of their writings.

We should not forget the World teacher episode this is central to 
understanding Leadbeater's mindset imo.


Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev" 
<kay_ziatz@y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Can you give us some examples where "he [CWL] admitted frankly 
that 
> his
> > information sometimes does not match the teachings given by HPB."
> 
> Dear Perry,
> 
> I still could find only one quotation, where he speaks like that,
> but I meant some other place where he speaks more openly. The 
search
> is difficult for I don't remember the wording exactly; nor I have
> all of his books in electronic form.
> 
> 
> "Never forget that the spiritualists are entirely with us on some 
most
> important points. They all hold (a) life after death as an actual
> vivid ever-present certainty, and (b) eternal progress and ultimate
> happiness for everyone; good and bad alike. Now these two items 
are of
> such tremendous, such paramount importance — they constitute so
> enormous an advance from the ordinary orthodox position — that I 
for
> one should be well content to join hands with them on such a 
platform,
> and postpone the discussion of the minor points upon which we 
differ
> until we have converted the world at large to that much of the 
truth.
> I always feel that there is plenty of room for both of us.
> 
> People who want to see phenomena, people who cannot believe 
anything
> without ocular demonstration, will obtain no satisfaction with us,
> while from the spiritualists they will get exactly what they want. 
On
> the other hand, people who want more philosophy than spiritualism
> usually provides will naturally gravitate in our direction. Those 
who
> admire the average trance-address certainly would not appreciate
> Theosophy, while those who enjoy Theosophical teaching would never 
be
> satisfied with the trance-address. We both cater for the liberal, 
the
> open-minded, but for quite different types of them; meantime, we
> surely need not quarrel.
> 
> In what Madame Blavatsky wrote on the subject she laid great stress
> on the utter uncertainty of the whole thing, and the preponderance
> of personations over real appearances. My own personal experience 
has
> been more favourable than that. I spent some years in experimenting
> with spiritualism, and I suppose there is hardly a phenomenon of 
which
> you may read in the books which I have not repeatedly seen. I have
> encountered many personations, but still in my experience a 
distinct
> majority of the apparitions have been genuine, and therefore I am
> bound to bear testimony to the fact. The messages which they give
> are often uninteresting, and their religious teaching is usually
> Christianity and water, but still it is liberal as far as it goes,
> and anything is an advance upon the bigoted orthodox position.
> 
> Not that some spiritualists are not bigoted also — narrow and
> intolerant as any sectarian — when it comes to discussing (say) the
> question of reincarnation! The majority of English and American
> spiritualists do not yet know of that fact, but the French 
spiritists,
> the followers of Allan Kardec, hold it, and also the school of 
Madame
> d'Esperance in England. Many students wonder that dead people 
should
> not all know and recognize the fact of reincarnation; but after all
> why should they? When a man dies he resorts to the company of those
> whom he has known on earth; he moves among exactly the same kind of
> people as during physical life. The average country grocer is no 
more
> likely after death than before it to come into contact with any one
> who can give him information about reincarnation. Most men are shut
> in from all new ideas by a host of prejudices; they carry these
> prejudices into the astral world with them, and are no more 
amenable
> to reason and common sense there than here.
> 
> True, a man who is really open-minded can learn a great deal on the
> astral plane; he may speedily acquaint himself with the whole of 
the
> Theosophical teaching, and there are dead men who do this. 
Therefore
> it often happens that scraps of Theosophy are found among spirit
> communications.
> 
> ("Inner Life", section 2)
> 
> 
> To all abovesaid I could add that the dead grandmas and grandpas
> better succeeded in proving their identity than the mahatmas whom
> no one has seen and whose very existence can be doubted.
> 
> Moreover, I would trust rather to a more humble spirit who says
> that he is a dead grocer that to those who say that they are the
> adepts & mahatmas :)