Theos-Talk Archives (February 2006 Message tt00737)

Hello Perry
Did the Liberal Catholic Church under Leadbeater propose a personal god?  Also, I find it very interesting that he would become a member/founder of an organization which clearly was opposed by HPB and the masters.  A bit of a slap in the face.
Cass

plcoles1 <plcoles1@yahoo.com.au> wrote: Using a process of deductive logic, given HPB's very clear warnings 
regarding " those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and 
Theosophy. . . . " and the fact that CWL distorted the many of the 
teachings and clearly and demonstrably promoted many of  the things 
Blavatsky warned all theosophists to guard against be "palmed off on 
the unwary as revelations of new and undreamed of truths".

How can it logically and rationally be agued that CWL was anything 
other than a failure in respect to his theosophical career?
If it can be argued then what is the argument?

I ask this not as a provocation or of any angst but to see if a 
rational and consistent argument can be put forward by anyone as to 
how this anomaly can be justified.

So far I haven't heard any logical rational for this position given 
by anyone.

 
The quote I posted from Blavatsky "Danger's on the path IV" was 
because this is a serious theosophical danger according to HPB, that 
needs to be debated rationally and objectively.

We need to put our own biases to one side and ask ourselves, given 
HPB's very clear warning, for one thing, how do we or can we justify 
Leadbeaters teachings which clearly in many cases opposite to those 
put forward in the Blavatsky/Mahatma material be then presented as 
theosophical given HPB's warning?

Are we as responsible students to just ignore this warning?

Perhaps we should these are all debateable points.
Maybe along the lines of why would HPB find these issues to be such a 
danger.
Rather than get into bias we can explore the reasons and why��..

Can we enter some kind of Socratic dialogue over this perhaps?

Surely this is the spirit of theosophical group.

Or are we to drink the hemlock ? Peace at all costs ?

Sincerely 

Perry
���������������������..

 ". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is threatening . . . 
the spread of
the pure
Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I allude to those 
charlatanesque
imitations of
Occultism and Theosophy. . . . "

"By pandering to the prejudices of people, and especially by adopting 
the false
ideas of a
personal God and a personal, carnalized Saviour, as the groundwork of 
their
teaching, the
leaders of this 'swindle' (for such it is) are endeavoring to draw 
men to them
and in
particular to turn Theosophists from the true path."

". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . . materials 
largely stolen .
. . from
Theosophical writings. . . [and] distorted and falsified so as to be 
palmed off
on the
unwary as revelations of new and undreamed of truths. But many will 
neither have
the time
nor the opportunity for such a thorough investigation; and before 
they become
aware of
the imposture they may be led far from the Truth."

". . . Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the garbled 
and
distorted versions
disfigured to suit the prejudices and tastes of men in general."

Blavatsky, H.P. E.S. Instruction No. I., 1889.








 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 




		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 

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