Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00330)

Hello Pablo
Thank you for your comments.
Can I ask, have you seen the wording of the actual cipher letter in 
question concerning Bishop Leadbeater's instruction on masturbation 
to one of his pupils?

Kind regards
Nigel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Pablo Sender" <pasender@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hello Nigel
> 
> I really don't know much about the circumstances of his third 
> accusation in Australia (in The Manor). Having read about the 
> previous two I thought it was enough for me to have an idea...
> What I can say is that he did deny having written that cipher 
letter 
> on those terms. The idea I have (although I don't remember now 
based 
> on which evidence because I wasn't studying the case with any 
purpose 
> than a personal knowledge) is that there was an actual cipher 
letter 
> from him, telling about certain astral things, but it had his 
> signature. Apparently someone got the letter and altered the 
content.
> I also read that he declare (in his legal trial on the Krishnamurti 
> case) he gave that advise, to half dozen of boys (If I remember 
> well), without their parents knowing it, but only in the cases it 
was 
> necessary and not as a general teaching.
> What I also saw in the trial is that it was very difficult for him 
to 
> explain the "occult" reasons of his behavior to a judge, who don't 
> believe in nothing of those things. It was the same with the 
police. 
> If within the Theosophical movement those reasons are not accepted 
by 
> many, imagine the police!!!! 
> Of course his action was erroneous because "abhorrent to the 
> Victorian mindset of the period". Even the report of Olcott 
regarding 
> the Masters' opinion about this case mention Leadbeater was guilt 
of 
> having advised something unacceptable to the majority of the 
members 
> of that time. And Leadbeater accepted his fault. I know the 
situation 
> was delicate. Imagine Leadbeater trying to teach a child about 
> masturbation, in a period with no sexual education in any sense. He 
> probably had to show a bit the child how to do it. It's very 
> disgusting, I know, and I think his action was an error. But it'd 
had 
> been worst if he had showed it on himself!!!
> If you see the action from a normal perspective he had to enjoy 
doing 
> it. If you see it from the perspective of someone who is beyond all 
> that kind of prejudices and even desires, it can be understood. But 
> we have to choose one of those perspectives.
> Annie Besant thought the advice and the way of teaching it was a 
> mistake, but didn't think there was bad intention. And I mostly 
agree 
> with that.
> That is all I can say. I don't know much more about the case. I 
also 
> think someone who appreciates Leadbeater teachings and think he is 
> innocent should do a research presenting facts as seen from the 
other 
> shore.
> p
>