Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00352)

One has to be morally irreproachable if one is going to call themselves an Occultist.  Would a Jesus teach restrictive masturbation as the best of two evils for discipleship?
   
  Think about it Pablo.  
   
  Regards
  Cass

Pablo Sender <pasender@yahoo.com.ar> 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



         

       
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]