Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00137)

Hi (always welcome)Dallas

"He thinks that adversity alone will win attention, but, based on that alone, is it constructive over a long time
into the future ?" DT

Completely the opposite imo.
I gess these messages with baseless accusations helps to disrupt our principal focus, which is the study and comparison, our biggest jewel here: Trading views.
We employ a lot of time argumenting and quoting trustful information but sometimes the messages seem to go to the trash can, many of them so well documented but so misunderstood.
The hatred Anand shows also chocks and saddens me because I understand the path HPB walked through - no that I am being compared to her hierarchy - but her difficulties, vigour, dedication and her pledge speak louder, she didhave her human faults but it is undeniable that she brought the theosophy a heavy and deep basis for study.
If Anand cannot or doesn´t want to see it we cannot change.
Not that HPB´s writings be inacessible to his understanding but because he locked himself up to them .
It is more comfortable to read easier books and it is the law of "lesser efforts".
I also think Anand is naïve if he expects that his opposing messages can diminish our respect for the "good" theosophy and revert our distance to CWL and his pupils.
I confess as I said before that I am a lazy reader and have not read more than 6 books from CWL and have´nt studied HPB works entirely but by the little I did I see that CWL´s works should be rewritten under a different light, after having studied occultism.
Anand thinks that CWL and AB created a contemporanean basis and an "upgrade" to the theosophical truths and if one studies a bit deeper one will see that they distorted some radical lines. Subverting, overturning many of thetruths.
Not to say that it is just my humble view. 
Regards
Krishtar



----- Original Message ----- 
From: W.Dallas TenBroeck 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 5:34 PM
Subject: RE: Theos-World study and compare


June 6 2005

Dear Krishtar:

Re: Anand

Excellent answer -- also Dr. G. Tillett's.

---------------

A G is (to my way of viewing) full of emotion -- an enthusiast -- but has
not yet adopted the clam consideration of logical thinking or a scientific
approach by carefully testing and comparison. I think he struggles but does
not yet see the value of study. He thinks that adversity alone will win
attention, but, based on that alone, is it constructive over a long time
into the future ?

-------------------

Thanks,

Best wishes,

Dallas

===============================
   
-----Original Message-----
From: krishtar
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 7:50 AM
To: 
Subject: study and compare.


Anand should read HPB´s works and compare.

The only harm this will do to him is to give a little help in understanding
the source and inspiration from many other authors that came later.

Anand, start by the Key to Theosophy or the beautiful and light lyricismof
the Voice of Silence.

If you can comprehend and understand the essence of some verses at a first
glance you ´l understand our insistence in the importance from the works.
" The Key to Theos" is very light and similar to the simplicity from CWL´s
books'

Not to say that this is my view.

Krishtar

====================================

Dr. Gregory Tillett wrote  

I agree with Anand that Leadbeaterian theosophy is more likely to be of 
popular interest than is Blavatsky's theosophy. An examination of sales 
figures for books on theosophy confirms this. But the reason is fairly
simple: 
Blavatsky's writing is sophisticated, intellectually challenging and
complex. 
It's not her English language - it's the concepts she's seeking to convey. 
However, that something is popular hardly demonstrates that it has quality. 
More Big Macs are sold than gourmet dinners. Check out the "quality" of the 
vastly popular "New Age" books on sale. 

Who was it who said something like "No-one ever lost money by
underestimating the taste of the American [for which 
can be substituted any nationality!] public"? Blavatsky is too hard for the 
generally lazy would-be occultists who find Leadbeater exciting. 

It is interesting to note that post-Blavatsky the membership of the TS and
the 
number of pages in "The Theosophist" both rose dramatically, and the 
intellectual standards of both declined drastically. 

Compare, for example, G.R.S. Mead (one of the intellectual refugees from the
Leadbeaterian TS) writing on the Gnostics with Leadbeater writing on
"Invisible Helpers" or "The Hidden Side of Things".

As a simple, yet related question to Anand: 

on what basis should anyone believe anything Leadbeater writes about on the
"hidden side" when he manifestly cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about
his own life in this "visible world"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

   



   
Yahoo! Groups Links



   





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