Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00119)

Hello Nigel,
Thank-you for your recent postings,I don't think I could put it any 
better than the way you have expressed the situation
Cheers
Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@...> 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
>