Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00337)

Dear Leon,

Thank you for you post on the subject and of course you are right. I 
think Anand's reaction was caused maybe by his shock when he saw so 
many critics and a kind of inquisition going on here about CWL. He 
admires too much CWL and his reaction (which at this point become 
blind) has a previous cause. I am not trying to justify him because 
what he is saying about Blavatsky is very ugly and ungrateful. I am 
sure even CWL (which he admires so much) would not approve such 
thing. 


Erica 



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "krishtar" <krishtar_a@b...> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: leonmaurer@a... 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: "Blavatsky died with cigarette in 
mouth." (corrected)
> 
> 
> All these "facts" presented by Amand Gholap are nothing more 
than personal 
> opinions -- conditioned by his own prejudicial biases, beliefs 
and convictions 
> -- that have been refuted over and over again by the Masters and 
others. When 
> will he wake up and see things as they really are? 
> 
> The real nature of reality can never be written down. This 
includes both HPB 
> and CWL who saw the fundamental ontological basis of reality 
from their own 
> individually personal points of view which incorporated their 
own particular 
> emotional and mental biases which was also conditioned by their 
education and 
> the times and societies they lived in. 
> 
> Therefore, neither of them could explain -- if we take their 
dead letters at 
> their face value -- the true nature of occult reality that would 
be consistent 
> with each other. Nevertheless Blavatsky gave it out first in 
its entirely, 
> and taught it to both Besant and Leadbeater -- who then 
reinterpreted it based 
> on their personal biases toward the Christian religion that they 
were co
> nditioned into believing since birth. Blavatsky pushed it in 
the opposite 
> direction because she was conditioned to hate the Jesuits and 
Catholicism and thus was 
> biased against all organized religions of a personal God 
nature. Thus all 
> their inner visions are questionable. As for fundamental 
reality and its 
> metaphysical ontology, that has never changed. And has its 
basis in fundamental 
> truths that go beyond any written interpretation. 
> 
> That's why HPB said, when not so conditioned, that the real 
occult 
> ontological truth is hidden "in and around the words and between 
the lines," and only 
> through our own intuition and self devised study and practice, 
could we ever 
> truly understand it in its entirely. Thus we each have to find 
that truth for 
> ourselves, and cannot be stuck in the dead letter writings of 
either HPB or CWL. 
> 
> The problem here is that Amand is as much a "dead letter" 
Leadbeater 
> fundamentalist as those who read the Secret Doctrine in its dead 
letter are Blavatsky 
> fundamentalists. 
> 
> The true occultists/theosophists are neither. And take what 
they know to be 
> the truth from their own inner intuitive understanding -- based 
on a 
> comprehensive study of all the writings and interpretations, so 
as to compare them, 
> cull out the inconsistencies and arrive at the "golden mean" of 
absolute truth 
> through their own direct inner visionary experience -- without 
any biases or 
> prejudices that come from the conditioning of their lower 
natures. 
> 
> Enough said.
> 
> Leon Maurer 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]