Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00677)

John,

Yes, I referring to Lady Emily Lutyens' account of the initiations 
Arundale, Besant and Leadbeater were supposed to have gone through. I 
was, in a very tongue in cheek way, trying to point out that while (as 
we are told) Arundale's (alleged) initiation to arhatship made him 
practically omniscient, he seems to have had a blind spot about Hitler.

The problems with these kinds of beliefs that came out during the 
Besant-Leadbeater era, is that they have a way of becoming lodged in 
some irrational part of the mind. It's sort of like the person who 
believes that the CIA has camera that can see through walls, and is 
using it to spy on them. There is no way to get such people to 
rationally examine these kinds of beliefs. I remember a Lodge member in 
Los Angeles who believed that there is a grand civilization on Mars, and 
these martians live in great cities. His belief was based upon 
Leadbeater's "clairvoyant research." He was otherwise a rather rational 
person, and had worked in laboratories where nuclear research was being 
done. In 1976, after the Viking landers took pictures in orbit and on 
the ground of the Martian surface, I asked him why the photos showed no 
evidence of cities. He answered: "Oh that's easy. The Martians don't 
want us to know they exist, so they put a maya around the camera to that 
it would only send back scenes of an uninhabited planet." 
What I'm trying to get across, is that if our understanding of 
Theosophical teachings lead us to beliefs that have no relation to 
everyday reality, and lead us to be unable to discern, say, an Adolph 
Hitler from a Martin Luther King, then, perhaps it is time for some 
serious re-evaluation of those beliefs. The problem is, those are the 
very people who never do. 
Jerry




samblo@cs.com wrote:

> Jerry,
> Thanks for your comments and reply, in rereading your earlier post you 
> must be referring to the contents of Emily Lutyens Book in which the statement is 
> made in regard to the "Arhats," so it is not your personal statement but just 
> your reference to her work that you indicate? I think that is the case.
> When the Buddha was alive in the body in the 7th century BC and he 
> Certified a discliple as Arhat it can be taken as a verity and even later major 
> Patriarches seem reasonable to me as they had attainment of spiritual altitude but 
> as it is an expressly special denotation in Buddhism relative to the 10 Stages 
> of the Bodhisattva Consciousness in terms of the recognized Canon that is 
> unamimous throughout all branches of Buddhism is far as I know, I widen my eyes 
> when I see appropiation in this case. Thanks again for you presence here on the 
> Forum, we all learn valued information from you and others, like our new 
> presenter who is in official capacity who posted recently.
>
> John
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links