Theos-Talk Archives (March 2008 Message tt00143)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't want to align myself with a corruptor of souls 
regardless.  
>   Cass

Dear Cass

Why indeed?! And yet many still do. Ignorance, denial or vested 
interest...which?

Regards
Nigel



> 
> nhcareyta <nhcareyta@...> wrote:
>           Dear Perry
> 
> Here is an open letter from Dr Tillett some 
> time ago concerning a cipher letter attributed 
> to Bishop Leadbeater. My time is likewise limited 
> however there is a wealth of other information 
> concerning the Bishop's actions.
> 
> "Some advice for Pablo: if you are going to make 
> historical assertions (like Leadbeater said the 
> cipher letter was a forgery, and that the letter
> was typewritten) at least check your facts.
> 
> This is the text of the letter:
> 
> "PRIVATE
> My own darling boy, there is no need for you to 
> write anything in cipher, for no one but I ever 
> sees your letters. But it is better for me to write
> in cipher about some of the most important matters?"
> [here follows some unimportant content]
> "Turning to other matters, I am glad to hear of the 
> rapid growth and the strength of the results. Twice 
> a week is permissible, but you will soon discover 
> what brings the best effect."
> [Then follows the passage in cipher which 
> translates as:]
> "The meaning of the sign is urethra. Spontaneous 
> manifestations are undesirable and should be 
> discouraged. If it comes without help, he needs
> rubbing more often, but not too often or he will 
> not come well. Does that happen when you are 
> asleep? Tell me fully. Glad sensation is so pleasant.
> Thousand kisses darling."
> 
> Leadbeater was asked whether he had written the letter, but never 
> stated
> (a) that he had not written it or parts of it, or (b) that it or 
> parts of
> it were a forgery. He stated that he "recognized it" but "did not 
> know it
> in its present form", whatever that may have meant. Given that he 
was
> shown a legally attested typed copy of the original handwritten 
> letter,
> this may have been a somewhat careful reply. Presumably if 
Leadbeater 
> had
> not written the letter, there was a simple response to be given. If
> someone accused me of writing such a letter to a teenage boy (and I 
> had
> not done so!) I would clearly, precisely and unequivocally deny 
that 
> I had
> done so.
> 
> When Miss Edith Ward, in a circular letter to the British Section 
of 
> the
> TS, called upon him to admit or deny that he had written the letter 
> (as in
> the legally attested copy), Leadbeater refused to do so, saying 
that 
> it
> was a "gross impertinence" to suggest that he should!
> 
> Dr Gregory Tillett"
> 
> Perry, despite the numerous accusations made 
> against Bishop Leadbeater over many years, 
> you take a lot of convincing but I respect your 
> position as you choose it.
> 
> He was still a gross liar and misrepresented 
> Madame Blavatsky and her teachers' version of 
> Theosophy despite claiming contact with them.
> 
> Kind regards
> Nigel
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nigel, 
> > Thanks for your comments unfortunately I can't comment at length 
as 
> > I am preparing to go overseas very shortly and my time online 
will 
> > be minimal for the next month but I can at least offer a brief 
> > perspective.
> > 
> > For one thing I am no longer convinced that the allegations 
against 
> > CWL being a paedophile are conclusive and so can only class these 
> as 
> > allegations and not irrefutable fact and so on these grounds 
would 
> > not base a whole argument to discredit him based on the 
allegations.
> > It seems he was an accepted chela on probation at least this 
seems 
> > the case given KH's letters to him.
> > 
> > Did he fall of the chela perch? Maybe, we are told that this more 
> > often that not is what happens. But really we don't know for sure.
> > 
> > The question I have is if KH accepted him as a Chela and as a 
> > Mahatma he would (you would think) know of these alleged 
> > predispositions and then encourage him to take up chelaship?
> > 
> > Seems odd to me and raises many questions.
> > 
> > There are too many unknowns in this for me now to have a definite 
> > and hard stance on CWL.
> > 
> > I don't resonate or accept everything that he wrote or said, but 
I 
> > also don't believe his writings are damaging or harmful either 
and 
> > think they contain much of benefit as long as a seeker uses their 
> > discernment, as they should with everything they read.
> > 
> > The TS has his books but it has no gurus or teaching authorities 
> > either and each can take or leave what they want in their own way 
> > and in their own time, if at all.
> > 
> > I resonate with the overall theosophical concepts but some things 
> > for example like the "brothers of the shadow" thing I find 
> > problematic and even the idea of "a chela" is something I 
sometimes 
> > find a bit Victorian and cliché and prefer to look at more as 
> > metaphore than actual. Maybe its true or actual I dont know but I 
> > see problems in getting into a "I am a chela" mindset. 
> > 
> > I am sure we all have things we resonate more with and things we 
> > don't for whatever reason but at the end of the day its our 
choice, 
> > know one should be there to arbitrate what we should and should 
not 
> > read or study or how we interpret things, the key to me is 
> > discernment, take what we like and leave the rest.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Perry
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Perry
> > > 
> > > Thank you for your response.
> > > 
> > > You write, "From my current point of view CLW's 
> > > writings by on large taught fairly balanced 
> > > spiritual values and tolerance for others and 
> > > these writings no doubt have encouraged people 
> > > to try and develop those principles as well and 
> > > brought some light into the world."
> > > 
> > > From one perspective, your approach, prima facie, 
> > > appears entirely reasonable.
> > > 
> > > Who would argue with the principles of tolerance 
> > > and acceptance under normal circumstances.
> > > 
> > > Undoubtedly in our world there is excessive 
> > > judgement and condemnation rooted in fear, power 
> > > and prejudice, in all their manifestations. 
> > > And in a decent society we need combat this 
> > > wherever they raise their ugly head.
> > > 
> > > Also undoubtedly too, everyone necessarily has 
> > > something of value to offer, however great or 
> > > small.
> > > 
> > > So, where you write the above, this is a true 
> > > statement as far as it goes.
> > > 
> > > But, do we sometimes need to look beyond the 
> > > immediately obvious? 
> > > After all, there are many religious and spiritual 
> > > teachers who have brought the above.
> > > 
> > > So, what else did Bishop Leadbeater bring? 
> > > 
> > > Through his sexual abuse of some of the young 
> > > boys in his care, he brought psychological and 
> > > emotional damage. 
> > > I urge you to read the effects of paedophilia on 
> > > children, just from an ordinary human perspective. 
> > > As you are aware, I worked professionally with 
> > > abused young people and the damage is considerable 
> > > and long lasting, sometimes to the extent of suicide. 
> > > It cannot be argued Bishop Leadbeater lived during 
> > > the times of Plato where it was arguably an accepted 
> > > practice.
> > > He was an English priest in Victorian times where 
> > > puritanical Victorian morality was deeply entrenched. 
> > > Simply by his reception from people throughout the 
> > > world, he knew his actions were abominable, that is 
> > > of course by those who were not under his spell. 
> > > He caused splits in the Adyar Society by theosophists 
> > > who were appalled by his confessed actions. 
> > > Any decent person, even if he were innocent, would 
> > > have withdrawn permanently from the Society to save 
> > > it and Theosophy embarrassment and humiliation, and 
> > > the potential loss of earnest seekers at the time and 
> > > into the future. 
> > > 
> > > Then perhaps consider the occult consequences. 
> > > 
> > > With what occult energies was he in contact? 
> > > 
> > > Sexual abuse of children is all about power and 
> > > domination of those most susceptible and vulnerable. 
> > > Are these the energies of highly evolved, spiritual 
> > > beings with whom he claimed acquaintance? 
> > > Of course not, if Theosophy has any veracity. 
> > > Can you see a correlation here between his actions 
> > > and mindset relating to children and the same 
> > > relating to his church flock of followers? 
> > > Of course he spoke about the necessary independence 
> > > of people, but the mental and physical structures he 
> > > built, or caused to be built, and his subsequent actions, 
> > > demonstrated and produced something quite different.
> > > 
> > > He also brought a litany of demonstrable lies 
> > > and misrepresentations. 
> > > These were not lies of the ordinary kind where a 
> > > "white" lie is told to protect someone from 
> > > unnecessary suffering. Nor were they those which we 
> > > might ordinarily, in our weakness, tell to protect 
> > > ourselves from an undesired outcome.
> > > They were blatant and ongoing falsifications which 
> > > in turn encouraged others to follow him and his 
> > > teachings. 
> > > As you know, he claimed to be in direct contact with 
> > > the very same teachers as Madame Blavatsky whilst 
> > > utterly contradicting much of their teachings.
> > > 
> > > What sort of mindset does this? 
> > > 
> > > Is it honest and honourable within reasonable bounds? 
> > > 
> > > If not, should we tolerate it as legitimate and 
> > > acceptable, and thereby likely to assist us towards 
> > > anything of like kind, such as the genuine truths of 
> > > existence, just because some of what came out of his 
> > > mouth happened to be true? 
> > > 
> > > At the level of simply honesty, is it fair to 
> > > assume Madame Blavatsky and her teachers would 
> > > accept his representations of their teachings? 
> > > 
> > > Of course not. 
> > > 
> > > Is it fair to think they would have accepted his 
> > > sexual proclivities for small boys? 
> > > 
> > > Also, of course not.
> > > 
> > > What then of the effects of this behaviour on 
> > > everyday people? 
> > > 
> > > More importantly perhaps, what also the occult 
> > > effects of these energies made manifest in our 
> > > mental and psychic atmosphere? 
> > > 
> > > It is perhaps with these with which we need be most 
> > > concerned. 
> > > 
> > > From an occult perspective, keeping people in 
> > > ignorance of his mental and physical misdemeanours, 
> > > does not protect them from the subtle energies of 
> > > his mindset.
> > > 
> > > How might his mindset of thought patterns subtly 
> > > affect the way vulnerable seekers think, particularly 
> > > those who, in their ignorance, feel an affinity with 
> > > the romantic nature of his writings?
> > > 
> > > In the final analysis, who in their right mind would 
> > > want to associate with the energies of a demonstrably 
> > > compulsive liar, misrepresenter and paedophile for any 
> > > reason other than to help him see the error of his ways, 
> > > or to apprise and warn others of the aforementioned 
> > > facts? 
> > > 
> > > From my perspective, in this relativistic, post-modern 
> > > mindset world, in some instances, there are still 
> > > certain matters which are either right or wrong. 
> > > 
> > > How we deal with wrong is always debatable. 
> > > 
> > > Supporting wrong, in whatever form, is not.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Kind regards
> > > Nigel
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Nigel,
> > > > 
> > > > You wrote :
> > > > 
> > > > "From my perspective, humanity's gullibility and
> > > > misguided forms of acceptance, often influenced by
> > > > powerful occult energies, know no bounds and ensures
> > > > we are to remain the mere playthings of the Brothers
> > > > of the Shadow for some time to come."
> > > > 
> > > > Yes we are, all of us to some extent gullible and misguided 
but 
> > we 
> > > > do from time to time have insights and do good deeds as well.
> > > > 
> > > > From my current point of view CLW's writings by on large 
taught 
> > > > fairly balanced spiritual values and tolerance for others and 
> > these 
> > > > writings no doubt have encouraged people to try and develop 
> > those 
> > > > principles as well and brought some light into the world.
> > > > 
> > > > I have problems with this concept of "brothers of the shadow" 
> it 
> > > > smacks too much to me of "Satan and his demons", aren't we 
all 
> a 
> > > > mixture of good and bad and sometimes we are under "shadows" 
> > and 
> > > > then sometimes more influenced by the "light", isn't paradox 
> and 
> > > > contradiction evident in all facets of life?
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Perry
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting doco.
> > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?
> > > docid=8575648331106173390&hl=en
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dear Perry
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you for this most interesting documentary
> > > > > of yet another fraud and liar duping his 
> > > > > followers. 
> > > > > I remember reading his work The Teachings of Don 
> > > > > Juan in the early seventies.
> > > > > It reminds me of one Cyril Hoskin a k a T Lobsang 
> > > > > Rampa, another of like kind, who many of us young 
> > > > > seekers absorbed, in our gullible innocence, as a 
> > > > > truthful and honest person. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is quite extraordinary to me is that, despite 
> > > > > unequivocal evidence of their fraud and lies, 
> > > > > their deceptions and hypocrisy and their utterly 
> > > > > discredited fantasies, they still have followers 
> > > > > who believe in them and much of what they say. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is even more extraordinary to me is that 
> > > > > among so-called theosophical truth-seekers Bishop 
> > > > > C W Leadbeater is still accepted as a person of 
> > > > > credibility and even adoration. 
> > > > > Others accept him and his fantasies simply because 
> > > > > some of his writings happen to copy what other 
> > > > > genuine truth-tellers have said or written before 
> > > > > him.
> > > > > 
> > > > > At least Mr Castaneda only claimed to have been 
> > > > > taught by a Yaqui shaman. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And Mr Hoskin only claimed to be a Tibetan Lama. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Bishop Leadbeater claimed to be in contact with the 
> > > > > "Supreme Director of evolution on this globe", 
> > > > > perhaps his most supreme fantasy, amongst many others.
> > > > > 
> > > > > From my perspective, humanity's gullibility and 
> > > > > misguided forms of acceptance, often influenced by 
> > > > > powerful occult energies, know no bounds and ensures 
> > > > > we are to remain the mere playthings of the Brothers 
> > > > > of the Shadow for some time to come.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Kind regards
> > > > > Nigel
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>                          
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  
Try it now.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>