Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00365)

Friends,

As any scholar who is deeply un-interested in Theosophy, Dr. Tillett naturally cannot be expected to see the moral and spiritual difference between the Leadbeater/Besant Society and the ULT.  I see no problem in that, at all.  

Tillett and similar scholars are is entitled to judge this and that group without knowing or wanting to know a iota of what is or is not the esoteric tradition.

If we do not expect Dr. Tillett to have any deep interest in Theosophy itself, and we know he only seeks to understand the outward and  bureaucratic levels of the ritualistic version of the Adyar theosophical movement, besides sutdying Leadbeater's life,  then we can see he is completely entitled to compare the ULT with whatever he wants.  That's fine with me. 
  
He does not pretend to be a theosophist and that is something for which I respect him. 

For instance -- a smal example --: he discusses the Adyar Egyptian Rite, but he did not research on Cagliostro,  or studied the authentic 18 century Egyptian Rite, or the masonic ideals, and so on and so forth.  Which is OK.   

If he had infiltrated the movement in order to attack it from within, the whole picture would be different.   

Or if he had tried the spiritual Way,  and failed, but instead of going out with dignity and in honesty, he had  remained within to harm and destroy. That would be another reality. 

If we have no unrealistical expectations as to conventional scholars in general, we can better appreciate Tillett's enormous contribution to the correct understanding of the "work"  of Charles Leadbeater.   Tillett's  saying in Theos-talk that Leadbeater would have problems with criminal law, nowadays, for his actions; his description of how Leadbeater evaded the police investigations on his activities, in Australia;  and his well investigated book "The Elder Brother", are all a part of the history of the movement, and a most positive part in my view.   

As to Adyar,  he studied and got data before getting to conclusions.  

As to the ULT, it seems he does not know it and does not like it.  Do I have a problem with that? Why should I?  

But  he did his homework with regard to the ritualism in Adyar.  

He is a specialist and he should see himself as such. 

When we know our limits, we behave more wisely. A brilliant specialist in something often thinks he can give the last word on anything. And he can't.

God is not a scholar, and scholars are not God;  and God, in fact, doesn't even exist, from the viewpoint of the vocabulary used by Eastern Adepts ( although Western Adepts will accept the word as a synonym for Parabraham ).

I guess I have commented the essence of the issue raised by Mr. Caldwell. 

It is only a question of seeing what Tillett studied and what he did not study.

He did not study the ULT.  In order to be able to do that, he probably would have to study Theosophy first. 

Scholars are specialists, as we know. 

Tillett is obviously a specialist in Adyar, but not Krishnamurtian Adyar, which is another thing quite  different from CWL/Besant Adyar. Tillett's  absurd dialogue with Radha (absurd on his part, not on her part) proves that. 


Regards,   Carlos. 



 


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