Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00339)

Excuse me I do not wish to open a war here of course. But there are 
some persons here that indeed are very fundamentalist. But this is 
their choice and I am not going to judge or to name them others 
already have done it. 

I do not wish to defend Anand but I remember in the very beginning 
he got into this forum he sent me a private e-mail and he was deeply 
shocked with the inquisition tribunal about CWL going on here. 

Of course he did not mention with me that he was in shock, but I 
understood and I felt reading his private e-mail for me. Anand is 
just exactly the other side of the coin as we have Blavatskyans now 
we have a Ledbetarian. So simple. 

Now what he is having is an ugly and non sense childish reaction and 
he is becoming a fundamentalist as much the others (from Blavatsky 
side). By the way for those who are more Bakti it is a perfect 
natural reaction. 

Here to remember a teaching of Blavatsky that seemed to be forgotten 
by her followers that read and keep in mind only what is convenient 
for them. And that is good for you also Anand.

"No Theosophist should blame a brother, whether within or outside 
the association; neither may he throw a slur upon another's actions 
or denounce him, lest he himself lose the right to be considered as 
a Theosophist. For, as such, he has to turn away his gaze from the 
imperfections of his neighbor, and center rather his attention upon 
his own shortcomings, in order to correct them and become wiser. Let 
him not show the disparity between claim and action in another, but, 
whether in the case of a brother, a neighbor, or simply a fellow 
man, let him rather ever help one weaker than himself on the arduous 
walk of life."

Erica Letzerich


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "krishtar" <krishtar_a@b...> 
wrote:
> Dear Nigel
> Just a brief comment.
> Many people regret about many aggressive and rough repplies many 
of us send to Anand, but he always does it, he seldom or never show 
any basis for his statements 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@c... 
> 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 appearance of impropriety.  
Neither comes out very well. Fortunately my adherence is to 
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]