Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00651)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> 
wrote:
> 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:

What intrigues me is that people persist in believing every word 
which fell from Leadbeater's lips even though he has been shown to be 
a liar, a cheat, and a pedophile. How can we explain this?

> > 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.

Steiner's claims can be tested because he made so many statements 
that can be subjected to empirical testing. His manual of psychic 
development, The Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Ita Attainment, 
is on line. Since theosophists merely read and are adamantly opposed 
to any sort of personal development, the only way most of L's 
nonsense can be evaluated within that paradigm is to compare it to 
the gold standard, i.e., to Blavstsky's writing. The fact that he 
contradicts her constantly therefore seems to be germane.

> 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

Is that statement a typo or is that the actual case? I have not been 
to a local TS meeting in decades but my understanding is, Leadbeater 
rules absolutely in this area.