Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00284)

Nigel
 
Your statement, sounds pure common sense to me. 
However, I myself would rather desire that the name of leadbeater does not get confused with Theosophy, as I do not think is the same thing. To me it is clearly the seed of perversion of the Truth, generously given from the founders. 
Still, his work would be recommended, by members of the society, for reasons far beyond my comprehension, this can not be avoided unlikely. I do not belong to the TS, but I understand it´s importance and it´s preservation is necessary.
I have been highly appreciating this didactic labor from some members on this forum and I understand it is necessary to keep doing for the newcomers and I am even sorry, this constant tiring work keeps being necessary.
Still sometimes it gets more like a war and I think this energy corrupts the main aim, witch is to preserve Truth from contamination. However  in this case and again unlikely, war is better than silence.
 
Best Regards and Thank you
 
Raquel

--- El sáb, 10/1/09, nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au> escribió:

De: nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au>
Asunto: Theos-World Re: Taking offense, seeking revenge
Para: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Fecha: sábado, 10 enero, 2009 12:46






Dear Paul, Morten and All

Morten, your strong views desiring to stop production and sales 
of the works of Bishop Leadbeater are well stated. 

Paul, you write, "Taking people's books away from them, even 
when I think their books are silly fantasies, goes against my grain 
after thirty years as a public librarian. Leadbeater and Bailey no 
worse than a lot of other authors, sad to say."

My position with this highly contentious issue has always been one 
concerning truth and credibility rather than outright censorship.

It is well recognised by all but blind devotees that Bishop Leadbeater
was a pathological liar and sexual deviant. Newcomers need only take 
these comments and read through previous theostalk postings via 
yahoo's search engine to verify for themselves the veracity of this 
statement.

Surely the question we must all ask is, in whom do we place our 
confidence in matters spiritual and occult, where we feel ourselves 
in need of direction and support?

If it is well known that a particular author has the credentials of 
Bishop Leadbeater, a spiritual organization publishing and promoting 
his works has a bounden duty to inform its visitors and members of 
the facts surrounding this man. 

>From my perspective, to not so do constitutes a gross violation of 
truth and trust. 

To my knowledge, Dr Besant, Alice Bailey, George Arundale and 
Sri Ram were neither pathological liars nor sexual deviants, although 
some of these and others were certainly "parasitical and delusional" 
to quote Paul. 
Indeed they were perhaps only guilty of blindly following some of 
Bishop Leadbeater's teachings, with the exception of Sri Ram later in 
his presidency.

For those who find constant repetition of these issues tiresome 
and perhaps non-productive, please note there are numerous 
new members to theostalk each week, including those belonging 
to the Adyar Theosophical Society. 

They, like myself many years ago, might like to hear about the
deceptions and betrayals which followed Madame Blavatsky's 
passing.
Some in the Adyar Theosophical Society hierarchy might profess 
freedom of thought and "No Religion Higher Than Truth" but when 
one attempts to compare and criticise the works of Bishop 
Leadbeater and his clones strong pressures are often brought to 
bear on the transgressor.

Freedom in its purest form permits the liberty to think, speak and 
write however one chooses within due bounds of legality and 
decorum. 
It should not be used to suppress debate or to protect a cult's 
dogma as often occurred, from my experience, by some leading 
members of the Adyar Theosophical Society.

The Society performs an important function in today's world where 
prejudice and hardening of attitudes is becoming increasingly 
pervasive. 
However it can greatly improve its role by simply being more open 
and honest about some of its teachers and their teachings. 

Regards
Nigel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@ ...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Morten,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. You know I agree 100% with you about the 
> value of the writings of Bailey and Leadbeater compared to those of 
> HPB. One reason I don't want to belong to the TS is because there 
> are so many competing versions of reality, the ES, LCC, etc., a 
> chaotic cacaphony of voices. But somehow from outside it I can 
> accept that it was destined to be what it is, and try to be a 
> wellwisher to all factions and individuals in it. Taking people's 
> books away from them, even when I think their books are silly 
> fantasies, goes against my grain after thirty years as a public 
> librarian. Leadbeater and Bailey no worse than a lot of other 
> authors, sad to say.
> 
> I'd rather put my energy into recommending other authors like 
> Hardinge-Britten, Bunsen, Burton, Aurobindo, who tie meaningfully 
> into the work of HPB, than worry about discouraging people from 
> reading authors whose books are connected with hers in a 
parasitical 
> and delusional way.
> 
> You know who I mean :) but let's not denounce them,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Dear Paul and friends
> > 
> > My views are:
> > 
> > I am happy to read this email.
> > 
> > My views are, that I myself aught to be better at formulating 
> myself, so not to be disrespectuful to those who for some reasons 
are 
> lacking the open compassionate heart, that makes them immune in 
> letting themselves being hurt when reading disrespectful words 
> written in e-mails.
> > I will work on it.
> > 
> > I will how ever also refer to what H. P. Blavatsky said in the 
book 
> The Key to Theosophy.
> > Because it is here I find a great difference between theosophists 
> and a great number of those would-be spiritual groups around the 
> globe.
> > 
> > 
> > H. P. Blavatsky said in the Key to Theosophy:
> > 
> > "IS IT NECESSARY TO PRAY?
> > 
> > ENQUIRER. Do you believe in prayer, and do you ever pray?
> > 
> > 
> > THEOSOPHIST. We do not. We ACT, instead of talking."
> > 
> > http://www.phx- ult-lodge. org/aKEY. htm#p66
> > 
> > The word is emphasized by me and HPB.
> > 
> > 
> > M. Sufilight
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: kpauljohnson 
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:23 PM
> > Subject: Theos-World Taking offense, seeking revenge
> > 
> > 
> > Greetings.
> > 
> > During the runup to the November election, an article appeared 
in 
> > Slate that made me think of Theosophists:
> > http://www.slate. com/id/2202303/
> > 
> > Not just the regular dustups here at theos-talk, but also the 
> latest 
> > organizational brouhaha in Adyar and Wheston, reminds me that 
> > Theosophists are extraordinarily disrespectful to one another. 
> Not 
> > just those in one organization attacking those in another, but 
> within 
> > the Adyar TS even more so. I wonder if people realize just what 
> kind 
> > of impression of the entire movement is created when people 
snark 
> one 
> > another in a public forum like this. Bad enough when mere 
members 
> do 
> > so; far worse when an elected national leader makes a big 
display 
> of 
> > arrogance and aggression.
> > 
> > Yet at the local level over two decades I never noticed any 
> > difficulty whatsoever for Theosophists agreeing to disagree. 
> There 
> > was always a great diversity of views in any group I ever 
> attended, 
> > in several states. And no one to my recollection got all 
offended 
> > that someone else had a different estimation of various 
authors. 
> But 
> > at the national and international levels there seems to be far 
> less 
> > of that live-and-let- live attitude. I renewed my TSA membership 
> > after a ten-year lapse in 2008, but was hugely relieved to see 
it 
> > expire last week. 
> > 
> > The conclusion of the linked article is worth considering here. 
> > The "empty boats" notion would be well applied to most of the 
> > disputes here. Simply to express one's opinion is to risk 
> personally 
> > offending someone else, even if there was no such intention. 
And 
> the 
> > person thus unintentionally offended will often deliberately 
> > retaliate with a personal attack, as if the other person's 
> opinion 
> > somehow invades their personal space.
> > 
> > Like any body of literature, the Theosophical writings contain 
> mixed 
> > messages. You can use HPB the same way Christians use the 
Bible, 
> to 
> > justify both sides of every dispute. Pedro's quote indicates 
that 
> it 
> > is untheosophical to take offense at differing views and seek 
> revenge 
> > on those who express them. Morten's quote indicates that it is 
a 
> > theosophical duty to do so. HPB said both; you choose which HPB 
> to 
> > emulate.
> > 
> > PJ
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

 














      

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