Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00341)

The letter is quite disgusting, but the, he said it was a forgery. It 
certainly didn't have signature, as I said. And was typewritten.

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