Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00162)

Hi Ladies and all,
   Well my view is Leadbeater may have written elaborations in regard to chakram doctrine that was long in possession of the east but obscure in the west which pretty much allowed him to represent views that were not necessilarily found in the east as he states. It was made easy by the wide ignorance in the west in terms of literacy of the populations in terms of knowledge of chakram doctrine of the east.
   One thing I am always bothered by is the apparent unwillingness of Theosophists lay people to investigate the "Q" sources of Madame Blavatsky directly using her personal citations and the works
that are known to be on her personal book shelve. How can one believe that the brief glimpses and dialog she gave were in any way a full presentation in any shape, manner, or form of the Knowledge of these subject matters?

   For instance, how many Theosophists both those who are or were major personages or minor persons even contemplated how offensive, insulting, and diminishing to the Formal Ashrams, Gompas, Temples of the East for Besant, Leadbeater and all the rest to declare they were Arhats, one of the most revered Accomplishments and Recognitions of the Long Ancient History which Madame Blavatsky herself cites in reverence??? No one to my knowledge! How many ever read the Canon of the Stream Winners? Again, ignorance allowed the false proclamation that was gross offense and insult to the Lineage of the True Arhats. And the same ignorance then announces they are new recepients of the Mahatma's???? I wouldn't buy that horse.

Regards,
John


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net> 
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]
>


 

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