Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00110)

Dear Krishtar, You wrote, "I cannot understand why judging and 
discussing so many isolated facts can help people live and study 
theosophy essence.:"

Dear mkr, You wrote, "I agree. I do not know how incidents like the 
one mentioned makes us to understand theo-sophia better."


Presuming these to be rhetorical questions, I would like to offer 
some rationale nonetheless because they strike at the very core of 
Theosophy and may form the basis for some useful discussion for 
newcomers and oldcomers alike.

It is usually accepted by most theosophical students that Theosophy 
translates as Divine or Spiritual Wisdom, which is inextricably 
linked with Truth. This ultimate Wisdom or Truth is also considered 
by most to be "unthinkable and unspeakable" in its essence. However, 
it does have correlations in ordinary, everyday life.

Wisdom and truth are qualities to which we can all relate. Most of us 
would hope to make wise decisions wherever we can and to aspire to be 
truthful in whatever we say.
Don't most of us respect those who share with us honestly and 
truthfully? And do we not feel disrespect and perhaps a sense of 
outrage towards those who wilfully and knowingly deceive us?

In the often highly subjective realms of spiritual truths, our 
journey of discovery can be long and arduous, replete with truth and 
honour as well as trickery and deception. And how are we to know the 
difference during our fledgling steps? Initially perhaps by reading 
and listening to others who have gone before?

In our early search for answers to the great mysteries of life, in 
whom should we place our naïve and perhaps reticent trust; in one who 
has a reputation for honesty or one known to be less than truthful? 

Were we to discover someone to be a compulsive liar, should we take 
seriously much of what they say?

Surely those who fraudulently misrepresent themselves as someone who 
they are not and who fraudulently misrepresent others' writings 
should perhaps be considered unreliable purveyors of truth and wisdom 
by any reasonable standard of assessment?

If we discovered a scientist, philosopher or theologian to be 
deliberately and knowingly untruthful and fraudulent in some of their 
pronouncements would we not rightly treat their versions of truth and 
wisdom with considerable caution?

Why therefore should we treat theosophical teachers and writers any 
differently?

When we discover one or more of those teachers to have wilfully and 
knowingly lied, should we not view them in the same manner as the 
discredited scientist? 

As Perry explained recently, inaccuracy and incorrectness is one 
thing, dishonesty and deceit is quite another.

With the Theosophical Motto of one of the Theosophical organisations 
being "There Is No Religion Higher Than Truth", perhaps truth in all 
its forms is a vital ingredient and energy form to promote and adopt 
if we are to have any hope of unravelling the real Truths of the 
Kosmos. 

As I have written before and quite apart from Bishop Leadbeater's 
many ongoing, blatant and provable deceptions, what is not often 
discussed is the insidious nature of his and his clones' mindset.

Whilst he and they occasionally, disarmingly state that we should 
decide matters for ourselves and not accept their words prima facie, 
they subtly and sometimes not so subtly write in such an 
authoritative manner as to virtually demand the listening ear and 
respect of the often-vulnerable beginner. 
This, together with the esteem in which they are held in the Adyar 
Theosophical Society and their Augustinian/Aquinian moral 
pronouncements, has caused, and still causes, many earnest and 
sincere beginners to believe they are exposed to mighty and 
honourable beings.

In the important matter of how we think, Blavatsky's writing style 
and Theosophical teachings generally assist in liberating and 
expanding our minds towards the unlimited state, as was the intention 
of original Theosophy evidenced by statements from the Mahatmas. 
Bishop Leadbeater, Dr Besant and their clones' writing style and 
teachings however work hard to develop a simplistic, limited and 
blindly obedient mindset. 

>From my experience, this mindset has proven to be an effective recipe 
for entrapping many a newcomer's mind into a dogmatic form of pseudo-
theosophy, which so often causes states of denial and/or avoidance of 
obvious truths, closed-mindedness, defensiveness and belligerence. 

It is for these reasons that I believe an understanding of the above 
and below postings can "help people live and study theosophy essence" 
and "understand theo-sophia better."

Kind regards
Nigel 


>Re: Theos-World Occult atoms 

>Dear Konstantin

>You wrote, "Aren't HPB's thoughts about rotation of the planets clear
>fraud and should they be exposed?"

>To which Perry replied, "There is a difference being simply being
>wrong to actually manufacturing and concocting data in experiments to
>fit your theory."

>This is an important distinction.

>Bishop Leadbeater was clearly untruthful or fraudulent in numerous
>matters of determinable and demonstrable fact.
>He claimed to be representing Madame Blavatsky's version of
>Theosophy. On many, many subjects he did not.
>He claimed to be in direct contact with Madame Blavatsky's masters.
>Given the utterly contradictory accounts of
>cosmogonies and cosmologies, any reasonable assessment would
>manifestly demonstrate that he was not.
>He claimed to be born on a particular date. Clearly he
>was not.
>He claimed to have attended prestigious British
>universities, he did not.
>He claimed to have seen the Mahatma M in 1851; another consciously
>concocted lie or fraud.
>And the list goes on and on. Whether we term these indiscretions as
>untruths, lies or fraud they are indisputable matters of fact, which
>only the most ardent apologist would deny or avoid.

>An open minded observer might feel the need to consider these exposed
>frauds when investigating the good Bishop's putative "psychic"
>visions concerning atoms, human life on Mars, meetings with the "Lord
>of the World" and many other such pronouncements.

>Both Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Annie 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.
>This is simple fraud.

>At this stage, the same cannot be said of Blavatsky with any similar
>degree of proof.

>Kind regards
>Nigel