Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00137)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M K Ramadoss" <mkr777@...> wrote:
>
> 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

Dear mkr

In not addressing me by name in response to my posting, I will simply 
assume you are replying to me and I respond accordingly. 

Your comment above, "I agree that a newbee may take time to come to 
that realization" is a large part of the very issue itself. 
Your stated position is understandable for those who 1) May not have 
thought it to be a matter of individual responsibility to 
assist "newbees" who join a theosophical organisation or 2) For those 
who may have a different perspective towards those same newcomers.

During eighteen years of heavy involvement in the Adyar Theosophical 
Society, I came into direct contact with hundreds of its members, 
from newcomers to those who had been members for more than sixty 
years, some of these being second generation "theosophists".

During my time, many of the newcomers who became members and who 
stayed for some time, fell roughly into two "groupings" with broadly 
differing motivations. I use the term broadly as some presented with 
combinations of both. Each grouping was usually cautious in their 
approach and involvement, but for different reasons. 

The first were "new agers" who had already experienced something of 
the unorthodox with respect to spiritual matters and were seeking 
further information or sensations. They were often cautious, being 
concerned for their personal and intellectual freedom. Once assured 
that they were allowed to think whatever they wished, it remained 
only for them to be satisfied with the information offered or 
any "sensations" that might be on offer. These sensations might 
include psychic activities, aura readings, astral travelling, 
crystals, angels and other such matters. Many of these members often 
didn't retain their membership for very long except sometimes those 
who came into contact with the writings of Bishop Leadbeater, his 
besotted admirer Dr Annie Besant and his clone Reverend Geoffrey 
Hodson. Both the good Bishop and Reverend Hodson wrote much on 
psychic subjects including works on such matters as after death 
states which, incidentally, directly contradicted the writings of 
Blavatsky and her teachers.

The second grouping largely consisted of people who had or were 
experiencing some kind of emotional trauma in their lives. This might 
have involved matters ranging from disillusionment with their 
religion, the break-up of a marriage or the death of a loved one.

People from each of these groupings, albeit particularly and 
especially the latter, were highly vulnerable within the powerful 
group dynamic of a large Lodge or Branch. 

In terms of statistics, and in my past experience with a number of 
Lodges, only about 10 percent of members had any interest in 
theosophy. Of this ten percent, approximately ninety five percent 
were enamoured with the writings of Bishop Leadbeater, Dr Annie 
Besant and Reverend Geoffrey Hodson. 
We have read regularly on this forum of the notorious unreliability 
and deception of two of these writers' information, information 
stated by them to be "theosophical" or theo-sophia. Reverend Hodson 
largely copied and re-worded much of Bishop Leadbeater's 
pronouncements, both psychic and otherwise, whilst adding his 
personal embellishments. But it must be said that to the best of my 
knowledge, Reverend Hodson has never been accused of knowingly lying 
or deceiving, as has Bishop Leadbeater. It appears he was mostly 
deluded in many matters, particularly with regard to the 
infamous "Cottingley Fairy" incident.

As we have just read on this forum, 

"The freedom of expression and belief which the (Adyar Theosophical) 
Society guarantees to all its members gave Mr. Leadbeater the right 
to hold his peculiar opinions and to state them. Unfortunately these 
opinions have come to be regarded as authoritative by the majority of 
the members of the Adyar Theosophical Society.
The Editor, The Canadian Theosophist. Oct. 15, 1953  (My brackets)

This mirrors my experience with the Adyar Society. In my opinion, in 
terms of teachings and writings, unfortunately the blind faith, 
obedient, authoritative churchstyle mindset of the Bishops and 
Reverends connected with the Adyar Society has been, and is, 
predominant within that organisation. This continues to this day with 
some senior officials of the Society either being Liberal Catholic 
Church clergy and/or staunch defenders or avoiders of the untrue or 
psychically deluded pronouncements of the aforementioned writers.

Surely all of the above must cause us to consider our position 
concerning newcomers and oldcomers alike to the "theo-sophia" to 
which you refer? Are we simply to know and keep to ourselves 
knowledge of the outrageous lies and deceit of revered "theosophical" 
writers and teachers?  Or is it our responsibility to apprise all, 
especially newcomers of certain indisputable facts and encourage them 
to decide for themselves from a position of knowledge?

As Perry Coles has alluded to many times in this forum, don't all 
theosophical organisations, including those of us in this forum, have 
something of a duty to support and promote the genuine search for 
Truth through healthy debate and discussion on all matters, including 
sensitive matters, so as to guard against the traps of deceit, 
untruth and authoritarianism which can ensnare us, particularly when 
at our most vulnerable i.e.; when first approaching theosophy or when 
caught in a blind-following mindset?

Kind regards
Nigel 




> 
> 
On 2/9/07, 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
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>