Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00334)

Dear Nigel
Just a brief comment.
Many people regret about many aggressive and rough repplies many of us sendto Anand, but he always does it, he seldom or never show any basis for hisstatements and claims.
He calls Dan and Dallas fundamentalists although being him the most fundamentalist member I have ever met here.
Maybe we are dealing with a Bishop from the same line Leadbeater was, and thus, heŽll always defend his gurus.

Krishtar 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: david-blankenship@comcast.net 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Those who study Blavatsky's writing become fundamentalists


Nigel,
It is not that simple a choice between a black CWL and a white HPB. I nearly left Theosophy when I found out about the fake master's letters under HPB. Her followers like CWL's followers say nothing was ever proven against either her or him. But like the Abu Graib(sp?) prison scandal, there is such a thing as command responsibilities and in CWL's case, the appearanceof impropriety. Neither comes out very well. Fortunately my adherence isto mysticism and I stayed. You seem to be stacking the deck.

David B.
-------------- Original message -------------- 

> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" 
> wrote: 
> > Nigel, 
> > You wrote 
> > "Like many, my Theosophical studies began with an open mind, with 
> > predominant exposure to Leadbeater, Besant, Hodson, Jinarajadasa and 
> > their commentators' information. After a number of years as a 
> serious 
> > and committed student I began lecturing for the Adyar Society and 
> > even constructed and ran an introductory course for newcomers for a 
> > number of years, based in part on the above authors' teachings. 
> After 
> > considerable work, this course was published and distributed 
> > throughout Adyar Lodges in Australia, now very, very much to my 
> > regret." 
> > That means when you supported those authors you believed you were 
> > right. Now you don't think so. So truth is for most of the students 
> > is subjective or relative. You should say " I now think .... is 
> right 
> > but I may be wrong because at other moment I believed opposite views 
> > were right" More thought on this is perhaps required. 
> > 
> > Anand Gholap 
> 
> Dear Anand 
> You have not replied to my answer to your above comment! You have 
> simply repeated the above exchange. Did you not notice my response to 
> your comment? I am most interested in your comments so my response is 
> herein repeated. 
> Regards 
> Nigel 
> 
> >Dear Anand 
> >Thank you for your reply. 
> 
> You wrote: 
> > That means when you supported those authors you believed you were 
> > right. Now you don't think so. So truth is for most of the students 
> > is subjective or relative. You should say " I now think .... is 
> right 
> > but I may be wrong because at other moment I believed opposite 
> views 
> > were right" 
> 
> You say: 
> >"you believed you were right". 
> 
> Never was this the case. How could my mind be remotely correct when 
> compared with these teachers whose esteem was, and still is, so high 
> in the Adyar Society. 
> On the contrary it was my trust that I was studying and conveying the 
> teachings of honest and honourable people that was my biggest mistake. 
> 
> You say: 
> > So truth is for most of the students is subjective or relative. 
> >You should say " I now think .... is right but I may be wrong 
> because at other moment I believed opposite views were right". 
> 
> For me, these are wise words to which we might all aspire although 
> with respect, you don't often appear to represent them in this forum. 
> You seem utterly convinced as to the rightness of your belief in the 
> pronouncements of Leadbeater and Besant, and the worthlessness of 
> those of H P Blavatsky. 
> Both Leadbeater and Besant have been proven far and beyond any 
> reasonable doubt to have lied, and to have manipulated and deceived 
> their followers on many occasions and in many ways. 
> At this stage, the same cannot be said of Blavatsky with any degree 
> of proof. 
> 
> This certainly does not mean to me that Blavatsky is an infallible 
> guru, although some of us on this forum are accused of believing 
> this, which is yet another dishonest attempt to avoid the real issues 
> and to libel us in spite our continued protestations to the contrary. 
> Nor does it mean that Leadbeater and Besant were wrong in all that 
> they said and did. 
> It is simply that Blavatsky has far greater credibility as a teacher 
> of Theosophy and occultism as far as most of us can ascertain at this 
> stage. 
> However, it seems to me we should still maintain an ever open mind 
> and heart to new perspectives, an attitude she demonstrably supported. 
> However, even in this, the same cannot be said for Leadbeater and 
> Besant who almost demanded obedience from their followers and 
> unfortunately succeeded and still succeed beyond all measure. 
> 
> Regards 
> Nigel 
> 
> 
> >Nigel wrote: 
> 
> >Dear Leon and all 
> >Leon, you wrote in part to Anand Gholap: 
> > Don't know why I even bother writing this -- since I see no one on 
> this forum 
> > are suckers for this kind of nonsense. But, maybe it will alert 
> some lurking 
> > newcomer who might take this subject seriously. :-) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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



   
Yahoo! Groups Links



   




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