Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00590)

Dear Nigel,

Thanks for the reply, which brought out more of what needs to be said 
about the CWL case. His wrongness about matters of fact is clearly 
symptomatic of his wrongness in the role of Theosophical oracle and 
all that implies. You wrote:

These are not 
> matters of perception or opinion where tolerance and respect are 
> deserved. These are matters of fact where scrutiny and challenge is 
> required, particularly when considering his other pronouncements.
> 
Agreed. But that implies that Blavatsky, Steiner, Bailey, and 
Purucker among others should be subject to comparable scrutiny in 
matters of fact. Too much of the anti-CWL sentiment seems allied to 
special pleading for HPB.

> the party line. For myself as a facilitator of a number of 
> theosophical study groups, it is a process of appraising fellow 
> students of the facts of certain matters to assist them to make 
more informed decisions as to credibility and authenticity of 
information, however these may be determined by the individual.
> In matters of belief, perception and opinion, students are 
repeatedly encouraged to believe nothing spoken or written until 
these have been presented "at the bar of their own intelligence and 
intuition."
> Best regards
> Nigel

For ten years I was involved in a Pasadena-affiliated TS branch in 
Virginia, and we never had any program in which CWL figured 
prominently pro or con. We usually had as many ARE members as 
Theosophists in our group and folks were more interested in Cayce 
than any of the Theosophical oracles. My conclusions about CWL, 
similar to yours, were common knowledge. But for many other years my 
local TS connections were Adyar-affiliated, and what to say and not 
say about CWL was an ever-present challenge. His admirers are a 
minority but protecting their sensitivities is in the interest of the 
leadership hierarchy. So tiptoeing around the CWL scandals has been 
SOP for several generations now and no end is in sight, as Mme. 
Burnier's letter makes clear. Glad you are operating free of such 
evasiveness.

Cheers,

Paul