Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00116)

I take a very simplistic approach. No matter who said what, the bottom line
is what do I feel or what is my understanding, that is all that counts for
me in the final analysis. Even Lord Buddha made a statement that no one
should give any credence just because something was said by him. I agree
that a newbee may take time to come to that realization since most of us are
trained life long to believe and follow someone else has said or written.
Once there is an understanding based on personal experience, it is not
changeable based on someone's statement or opinion, however erudite or
learned the person is. My 0.02.

mkr

On 2/9/07, nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>   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
>
>  
>


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