Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00309)

Dear Pablo
Once again I hope I may interject into this idscussion.

Thank you so much again for the ongoing dialogue with matters of such 
controversy. In the past few years, the devotees of Bishop 
Leadbeater, of which I recognise you are not, have mostly refused to 
discuss these matters other than to accuse Dr Tillett and others of 
spreading lies. When some of us ask which of their statements are 
inaccurate they refuse even to respond. This to me is highly 
disrespectful and disingenuous but does tend to expose the dangers of 
the fearful, blind, unthinking, devotional mindset that is of such 
danger to authentic Theosophy. Its proponents will probably think 
that failure to respond is acceptable and mimics the behaviour of 
Bishop Leadbeater which I will address in this post.

I greatly respect the process you have undertaken, looking fairly at 
all the evidence, leaving emotional predisposition and prejudice out 
of the equation. I especially appreciate your endeavours to see these 
matters from another rationale altogether. For me, this is the 
quintessence of the Theosophical mindset where, if need be, we can 
respectfully agree to disagree once this process is concluded to our 
mutual satisfaction. 

As an academic, particularly in the sciences you well realise that 
science is often not always about indisputable proof, rather it is 
more concerned with the preponderance of evidence leading to rational 
deductions from which inferences can be drawn and hypotheses and 
theories offered.

With this in mind, I refer you to the following post for general 
discussion and would appreciate your perspective.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/40009

 I understand the rationale behind Bishop Leadbeater not wishing to 
involve himself in distasteful circumstances, particularly where he 
would not wish to be seen to be defending himself. His attitude to 
bear his cross in silence is admirable in most circumstances, 
although this is not always easily understood and is somewhat 
unfashionable in these modern times. As a youngster I was taught that 
bearing the cross graciously and silently was the ideal, unless it be 
at the expense of an innocent other. 
In point 4 of this posting, Bishop Leadbeater permitted a supporter 
to undergo significant embarrassment and financial cost. Given the 
Victorian mindset of the period this was not an honourable or 
selfless decision. 
Moreover, through failing to respond to police requests for 
interviews, whereby he could have satisfactorily resolved the matters 
and removed the suspicion of disgrace and dishonour, he chose not to 
so do, thereby condemning the innocent boys in his care to being 
suspected of complicit involvement. As a priest from Victorian era 
Britain he would have been well aware of these subtleties and nuances 
and their implications. This could be seen as transforming the 
situation from one of simple lack of judgement or misguided 
selflessness to something more outrageous and can fairly be 
considered highly suspect.

Point 3 in this posting refers to the infamous cipher letter. Whether 
authentic or not, Bishop Leadbeater had a bounden duty to respond for 
the sake of the child. For a letter to be written in such an overtly 
familiar manner to a boy implies a mutually close and intimate 
relationship. Irrespective of his innocence or guilt, for reasons 
mentioned above he should not have allowed the boy to be implicated 
in this manner by remaining silent. As a putative occult "teacher" he 
also had a bounden duty to protect his naïve charges from scurrilous 
attack. To protect a brother's good name is a standing tradition in 
occultism. To permit a shadow of doubt to hang over another innocent 
boy is once again incomprehensible until, through weight of 
accumulating evidence, we consider the possibility of something more 
sinister. 

The same applies to point 2 where Bishop Leadbeater "did not 
challenge the transcript or its contents." Irrespective of whether 
this form of "advice", whether verbal and/or practical (!), might be 
acceptable in some cultures today it was abhorrent to the Victorian 
mindset of the period.  
It is simply beyond belief or conjecture that he would not have been 
aware of this and its profound and far-reaching ramifications for 
reasons mentioned above.

Occult training cannot be used as a rationale for any of the above, 
however convoluted or diverse. It was an abomination, and should have 
been dealt with as such. To my mind he should never have been 
permitted to fraternise with boys again unless under strict 
supervision. Unfortunately this did not occur.

How do you perceive this?

Thank you again.
Kind regards
Nigel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Pablo Sender" <pasender@...> 
wrote:
>
> Cass wrote:
> >   I don't believe it.  Do you honestly accept that Leadbeater was 
> framed by envious parents?  Can you answer why the children were in 
> his care in the first place?
> 
> I sincerely believe it.
> The children were in his care because he was training them, but 
only 
> to those who had the potentiality to become a chela. Many children 
> were offered to him by the parent themselves and, after looking at 
> their auras, he decided whether they were fitted or not. That was 
the 
> explanation.
> 
> >    
> >   When has masturbation resulted in a less frequent occurence.  
> What is he saying, the more you do the deed, the less you will feel 
> the need to do it?  Are you telling me that a ten year old boy is 
> sexually awakened, and even if that was the case, is Leadbeather 
> suggesting that all parents should advise their children in this 
way? 
> 
> He said clearly that the advise was given only to certain children, 
> in special cases, and was not meant to be generalized, and the 
advise 
> was to reduce the frequency in time, nor to indulge in the habit. 
And 
> let me tell you, I'd not hesitate in telling a boy to masturbate 
> instead of going to a prostitute. That's for sure. When teenager, I 
> was working in the Sexology Society in my city, giving classes to 
> other teenagers (we were trained to do that by professionals) and I 
> had of course, many friends. I could see how the sexual thoughts 
may 
> become an obsession. Your thoughts attract elementals. If you are 
> being trained to prepare to become a pupil, and your sexuality have 
a 
> strong influence, especially when teenager when you don't know how 
to 
> manage it, the constant thoughts would be worst that the physical 
act 
> of relieving a physical and natural pressure. An adult may have a 
> healthy sexual life, but a teenager cannot, and how is he supposed 
to 
> deal with it? Why an adult may have sexual relationships and a 
> teenager cannot masturbate? Some adults have sexual relationships 
> everyday. What would you say of a teenager that masturbates? 
> everyday? Nevertheless, my advise to a teenager in that respect 
would 
> say to do it as less as possible. That was also Leadbeater advice.
> 
> >    
> >   To be quite honest I would not be surprised if CWL hated women. 
> 
> CWL had also women as his pupils, women who defended him when the 
> accusations and he was devoted to Annie Besant, so there is no 
> evidence of his hating women.
> 
> >   Why didn't CWL respect the culture of modesty within the Indian 
> community, I fail to see how a piece of cloth is unhealthy.  
> 
> The piece of cloth is unhealthy because they don't clean his sexual 
> organs. And he was training to the would-be vehicle to the World 
> Teacher.
> 
> I see logic in these things, when correctly presented. Before going 
> to Adyar, I had read about it in a much distorted way, that I could 
> not accept. But then, when I saw the other side of the coin, I saw 
it 
> as possible.
> 
> In the first letter of Master KH to Leadbeater, he states the 
> conditions to become a Chela:
> 
> "To accept any man as a chela does not depend on my personal will. 
It 
> can only be the result of one's personal merit and exertions in 
that 
> direction. Force any one of the "Masters" you may happen to choose; 
> do good works in his name and for the love of mankind; be pure and 
> resolute in the path of righteousness [as laid out in our rules]; 
be 
> honest and unselfish; forget your Self but to remember the good of 
> other people - and you will have forced that "Master" to accept 
you."
> 
> And he was accepted, as said in other letter. But then the Mahatma 
go 
> on"
> 
> "There is also the collective karma of the caste you belong to - to 
> be considered. It is undeniable that the cause you have at heart is 
> now suffering owing to the dark intrigues, the base conspiracy of 
the 
> Christian clergy and missionaries against the Society. They will 
stop 
> before nothing to ruin the reputation of the Founders. Are you 
> willing to atone for their sins?"
> 
> Is it not interesting to see that one of the main problems the 
> catholic Priest are facing is the accusations of abusing children? 
It 
> seems that was a relatively spread practices that in coming to 
light 
> only now. Was that the collective karma mentioned by the Mahatma?
>