Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00143)

So what you're saying is: some of the things he wrote about are true,
but since he taught stuff that should have been kept hidden, we should
ignore the truths he taught?

Katinka 
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> I don't agree Katinka as Leadbeater in introducing chakras also
introduced the possibility of kundalini rising.  Blavatsky was set
against developing psychism.  And I am quite sure the spiritualists
at the time were well aware of auras etc.  If we are talking about a
divine philosophy then it is imperitive that this philosophy is built
on the foundations of accuracy and are consistent with what Plato,
Hermes, Zarathustra were teaching.
> 
> Cass
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Katinka Hesselink <mail@...>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 September, 2008 12:23:24 AM
> Subject: Theos-World theosophy as A Philosophy
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I've been following this conversation and I'm not to pleased seeing
> another theosophist to theosophist head to head.
> 
> But the post below is actually more than just a head to head. I don't
> agree with it - but there is a point here that I want to address.
> 
> Yes - philosophies are consistent. But theosophy isn't A philosophy, but
> Divine Philosophy in general. As Truth in general isn't always
> consistent, similarly Religion in general isn't consistent - and
> theosophy doesn't have to be consistent. Sorry folks: life isn't
> consistent either - or at least our understanding of life isn't. As long
> as we aren't Mahatmas ourselves, we have to live with uncertainty. Not
> because we have to live with black magicians screwing with our heads,
> but because when we set up a system and refuse to look outside it, it's
> a sure sign we've stopped learning. And that's straight from the Bowen
> material on the study of the Secret Doctrine
> <http://www.katinkah esselink. net/metaphys/ th-bowen. htm> . It's also
> consistent with the philosophy of science. Any specific system of truth
> will be rough around the edges, because not every fact will fit into the
> theory equally well. It's actually a sign that something is true that
> it's not finished yet.
> 
> Now I'm as sorry that Leadbeater changed the terminology around as
> anybody, but that does not change the fact that some of his teachings
> can't be ignored by theosophists today. However we may feel about the
> specifics of his books - are there any of you out there that don't
> believe we have 'aura's'? or chakras? We owe Leadbeater some respect for
> bringing out those occult facts to the public, and creating a
> terminology for them.
> 
> Katinka Hesselink
> 
> http://www.allconsi dering.com/ <http://www.allconsi dering.com/>
> http://www.katinkah esselink. net/ <http://www.katinkah esselink. net/>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Theosophy is a philosophy not a religion and as a philosophy it must
> be coherent and without ambiguity.Ã? Leadbeater brought ambiguity
> into theosophy by preaching opposing dogma to what was stated by the
> originators.Ã? Dugpas are Masters of Uncertainty!
> >
> > Cass
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Martin Mvandertak@ ..
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 September, 2008 8:40:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Daniel, why don't you warn readers about
> Blavatsky's mistakes ?
> >
> >
> > Aren't we all believing in lies and half Truths?
> > Theosophy is wisdom of the gods it is said; if we want to believe in
> the Truth we need to go for Ethymo-sophia or the wisdom of the Real or
> reality and not some poxy stuff about gods, philosophers and scientists.
> Reality is now and not in the past nor the future; we can use the now
> springboarding into eternity.
> > If there was so much truth in theosophy, why are people still
> discussing it instead of launching new ideas coming from the same source
> and developing f.i. anthroposophy and alike science...
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/23/08, Cass Silva silva_cass@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Cass Silva silva_cass@yahoo. com>
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Daniel, why don't you warn readers about
> Blavatsky's mistakes ?
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 2:23 AM
> >
> > Daniel
> > Anand will never admit that Leadbeater got it wrong because he would
> then have to admit that he (Anand) has spent 40 years in believing in
> lies.
> >
> > Cass
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Anand <AnandGholap@ gmail.com>
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 22 September, 2008 7:05:53 PM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: Daniel, why don't you warn readers about
> Blavatsky's mistakes ?
> >
> > Subject of Theosophy, as understood by world and students of
> > Theosophy, is complex. When I read messages of students of Blavatsky
> > and messages of students of CWL, I find that what they understand
> > Theosophy and it's main concepts is very different. That means
> > Theosophical understanding of students of Blavatsky is different from
> > understanding of students of Leadbeater. Differences are big and on
> > important topics. It is possible that HPB and CWL had same meaning in
> > mind but expressed that in different words. But their impact is
> > certainly different on people. If somebody is referring Theosophy, I
> > might ask "are you talking about Theosophy of Blavatsky or are you
> > talking about Theosophy of Besant-Leadbeater ?"
> > Similarly reactions of westerners and Christians to Theosophy depend
> > on what they consider as Theosophy. When they consider Blavatsky's
> > writing as Theosophy, they ridicule, hate Theosophy. Such hatred is
> > not expressed by those Christians who consider CWL's writing as
> Theosophy.
> > I have come to a point where it is necessary to make clear distinction
> > between Theosophy of Leadbeater-Besant and Theosophy of Blavatsky. As
> > these two are different and have different effects on people, I feel
> > that such distinction is very necessary. It is because we often come
> > in contact with students of Blavatsky not agreeing with students of
> > Leadbeater and CWL-students ignoring Blavatsky's writing.
> > I am also feeling a need of writing article making it clear which
> > Theosophy I support and which Theosophy I reject. I agreed with CWL,
> > but I did not agree with Krishnamurti. I felt Krishnamurti' s teaching
> > would do damage to humanity. So I rejected openly K's teaching, just
> > as Catholic church openly rejects abortion and gay marriage.
> > I feel that I should now write article on which Theosophical ideas I
> > support and which Theosophical ideas I reject.
> > Best
> > Anand Gholap
> >
> > Make the switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail!
> http://au.yahoo. com/y7mail
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Make the switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail!
> http://au.yahoo. com/y7mail
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>  
> 
> 
>       Make the switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7
Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>