Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00256)

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> Hello David, 
> Thanks for your comments, the ability to compare Leadbeater's 
> teachings and clairvoyant observations with those of Blavatsky and 
> the Mahatma's comes under the 2nd object of the society. 
> 
> If we can't make comparisons of different teachings what does the 
> 2nd object actually mean in your opinion? 
> 
> We need perhaps to see difference between the critisism of a person 
> from a critque of their teachings. 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Perry 
Yes, it would be far better to discuss their ideas and statements than engage in personal attacks. Passions intrude, however, and make that impossible many times on this list. When the historians were discussing the history of Blavatsky contribution in context of her times, it was both extremely interesting and provocative, as well as productive. What is not needed is an attempt to drive a fundamentalist to the wall as Daniel's (Anand, are you a "fundamentalist?" The shoe was on the other foot during the historical debate. Perhaps we can forego this and discuss the issues.
Psychics are spectacularly wrong quite a few times. Clearly he built on the foundation Blavatsky laid. It is possible to make major contributions and still be reprehensible. I was nearly turned off theosophy when I found out about the faking of master's letters at Adyar. If you have ever gone to college this ranks right up there.
David B.

> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, david-blankenship@c... wrote: 
> > That Adyar discourages criticism of CWL is not surprising any more 
> than ULT and Pasadena would discourage criticism of HPB and Judge. 
> I am a new member of the Adyar group. As a general rule it is 
> better not to criticize anyone if you can help it. If it matters, 
> CWL contributed many original ideas to the clairvoyance field 
> > that he is never given credit for. Two on the Internet that I saw 
> recently were his idea of the chakras coming from higher subtle 
> bodies to lower and invisible helpers. There was an author a few 
> years ago on this list had a long list of original ideas he had that 
> have been incorporated into the new age groups without attribution. 
> The Elder Brother by Dr. Tillett gives short shrift to this but is 
> an excellent cautionary biography. 
> > 
> > David B. 
> > -------------- Original message -------------- 
> > 
> > > Hi All, 
> > > Sorry not replying individually but hopefully I can cover the 
> some 
> > > general points in one post. 
> > > Thanks Nigel for your comments and as you are aware these are 
> issues 
> > > that will need to be discussed and thought about long and hard 
> as by 
> > > students and we hope at some time some kind of progress will be 
> able 
> > > to be made. 
> > > 
> > > The historical baggage that comes with any person and 
> organization 
> > > is largely hidden until we scratch deeper. 
> > > The issues and points of view that have been put forward on this 
> > > forum have been quite upfront. 
> > > Some may not find this type of approach un-theosophical, I 
> however 
> > > find it to be in keeping with the type of criticism that is 
> needed 
> > > in order to stop any teacher or teaching from becoming either an 
> > > infallible Seer or holy writ that then becomes dogma. 
> > > 
> > > This seems to be somewhat of a luxury in organizations as it is 
> felt 
> > > they have to play things very diplomatically and try not to 
> upset 
> > > their members too much. 
> > > 
> > > As MKR pointed out the internet has now become a vehicle to 
> > > distribute and share this information and I agree with him that 
> this 
> > > will make a large impact onto the actual organizations 
> themselves. 
> > > Internet groups like this one offer a forum to debate and 
> discuss 
> > > these inter-organizational and historical points freely. 
> > > I tend to think this will be a process that will need to be 
> walked 
> > > gently through within the society rather than using a 
> sledgehammer 
> > > which tends to leave people feeling defensive and antagonistic. 
> > > (rightly or wrongly) 
> > > 
> > > I can't claim to know the solution to these problems however it 
> > > maybe we can sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater. 
> > > The Adyar TS may not be perfect but for me I am glad such an 
> > > organization still exists and as it does I feel offer something 
> > > unique and rare in the world even with its seeming unwritten 
> > > policies on not allowing criticism of C.W Leadbeater's teachings 
> in 
> > > its official publications. 
> > > 
> > > The apparent reason for this is that so many members are 
> supporters 
> > > and promoters of Leadbeater and it is perceived as encroaching 
> on 
> > > their right to support and promote him. 
> > > I have never suggested this should be the case, I have simply 
> asked 
> > > that the right to make a critical comparison of his teachings 
> with 
> > > those of the Mahatma's and Blavatsky's be supported. 
> > > At this stage as far as I've been able to ascertain this type of 
> > > article would not be allowed to be published in its official 
> > > publications. 
> > > 
> > > The other side is that the Adyar TS has branches all over the 
> world 
> > > and most members support and promote non dogmatism freedom of 
> > > thought. 
> > > 
> > > It offers libraries and bookshops of esoteric material. 
> > > It also offers opportunities for enquirers to get together and 
> > > discuss life's mysteries and most importantly it promotes the 
> idea 
> > > of Brotherhood. 
> > > 
> > > This process of change I think needs to work from the ground up 
> > > rather than the other way around however a bit of support from 
> up 
> > > above would be nice. 
> > > 
> > > I'd like to encourage any Adyar members on this group to put 
> forward 
> > > their feelings and ideas on how these issues may be worked 
> through 
> > > or do you feel it is a non issue? 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Regards 
> > > Perry 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" 
> > > wrote: 
> > > > Dear Perry 
> > > > Your summation of three Theosophical organisations is a 
> > > conciliatory 
> > > > position given your many postings on your difficulties with 
> > > ongoing 
> > > > censorship within the Adyar Society. 
> > > > You write: 
> > > > >Adyar seems to have chosen to go more down the path of simply 
> > > > >focusing on the 3 objects generally. 
> > > > and 
> > > > >Even if there is quite a lot of dis-function in some areas 
> they 
> > > all 
> > > > >foster to a greater or lesser extent a spirit of inquiry... 
> > > > 
> > > > Whilst as you suggest this is generally true, with the second 
> > > object 
> > > > of the Adyar Society being "To encourage the study of 
> comparative 
> > > > religion, philosophy and science" there is still a great 
> struggle 
> > > for 
> > > > me to reconcile this admirable and essential statement of 
> > > principle 
> > > > with its actual practice by that organisation's hierarchy 
> which 
> > > you 
> > > > have encountered and described. 
> > > > Study by comparison includes sharing of perceptions and 
> opinions 
> > > > without fear or favour, both verbally and in print. As you 
> have 
> > > shown 
> > > > us, the Adyar Society hierarchy seems only to permit this in 
> print 
> > > in 
> > > > a highly selective manner. This "philosophical" selectivity, 
> as 
> > > > opposed to that needed to ensure decency and decorum, does not 
> > > > support that organisation's "Freedom of Thought" statement 
> nor, it 
> > > > seems, their motto "There Is No Religion Higher Than Truth." 
> > > Whilst 
> > > > their statement and motto may be viewed as ideals only, it is 
> > > > disappointing the hierarchy have not appeared to follow Madame 
> > > > Blavatsky's lead when she wrote and practiced "...Contrast 
> alone 
> > > can 
> > > > enable us to appreciate things at their right value; and 
> unless a 
> > > > judge compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come 
> to a 
> > > > correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 
> 1881, p. 
> > > 2 
> > > > 
> > > > It is to be hoped that the Society's current and in my 
> opinion, 
> > > > hypocritical position will be courageously addressed in the 
> near 
> > > > future thereby potentially attracting and retaining an even 
> > > greater 
> > > > number of sincere and honourable seekers such as yourself. 
> > > > Very best wishes 
> > > > Nigel 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]