Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00007)

Dear Cass,

The issue for me is not what CWL believed or taught as an individual, he was entitled to 
believe and teach what he wanted to, as any other person is.

The question that I think needs to be looked at is firstly whether his teachings  are 
philosophically consistent with those given by HPB in the Secret doctrine.

If they aren't how are they different? and why might these differences be important to 
know about?

It's not a question of saying the Secret doctrine has the truth and CWL doesn't, but rather 
looking at the two points of view and seeing how they differ and what are the implications 
of these differences.

We are all free to choose which ideas resonate with us most.

For me the second question is, are CWL's teaching retrograde to what the Mahatma's  and 
HPB put forward in their teachings?

It seems to me that HPB's teachings took people out of their comfort zone and into their 
learning  and questioning zone, however CWL it seems to me took people back into their 
old comfort zones of `God' or the Logos as a personified being, as well the other big 
retrograde step in my opinion is encouraging  peoples mindsets BACK into believing clergy 
had special powers that the lay person didn't,saviours.......
It may have been put forward in a more new age-ee way but the underlying premise was 
the same.

In other words giving away power to external authorities and looking for a saviour in one 
shape or form be that a sacrament or a God to invoke for protection.

CWL's teachings have a popular appeal, in my opinion, because they don't challenge the 
mind in the way the HPB/Mahatma material does.

In other words moving people towards giving away their power to external authorities and 
seeking saviours, rather than exercising their own thinking and acting powers.

Personally this is why I think HPB said that these types of beliefs are so dangerous because 
they ultimately lead people away from finding a deeper understanding of truth and lead 
them in the `wrong' direction.

Continually asking questions and checking our motives is hard work and not everyone's 
cup of tea.

Most people seek comfort over knowledge and so will move towards ideas that they feel 
comfortable with, which is ok, however it will hamper learning and effectively keep us in 
our old "worn grooves".

The word God is one that has different meanings to different people and only a process of 
enquiry can begin to try and help us to understand what someone may actually be trying 
to express when they use the term God.
What we choose to believe we are free to believe, what we teach we are free to teach, these 
are just some points and where my process has taken me.

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> 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@...> 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]
>