Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00293)

Dear John and Chuck

John, thank you, this is a useful link to assist members here to 
ascertain Anand's religion and mindset.

The religion of Christianity and its comparison with Theosophy 
is not so much the issue for me in this current discussion. 
Many Christian teachings concern the highest theosophical 
principles of selflessness, love, compassion, honesty, 
integrity, peace, harmony, patience, tolerance, understanding etc.

What is of most concern to me in this instance is that Anand 
devalues and denigrates honourable people whilst promoting 
and being devoted to one who is proven to be otherwise.

Were he an ordinary member of a local Theosophical branch,
with little influence, the issue would probably not be worth
pursuing. But as this is an international forum, with hundreds
of genuine seekers after Truth, his diatribe requires challenge, 
even if only for the sake of simple truth.

However, as you will probably be well aware, there are certain 
occult aspects to this matter that deserve consideration.  

"Enamouring" is something that is real and tangible. 

Both mundane and religious leaders can and do use techniques to 
enhance their charisma, so as to facilitate the manipulation and 
control of others.

Occult teachers can do likewise, but often with enhanced effects.

Interestingly perhaps, using a Theosophical example of this, 
in the Mahatma Letters to AP Sinnett, Mahatma M writes of 
one Suby (or Salig) Ram, "S. Ram is the chief medium and at same 
time the principal magnetic factor, who spreads his disease by 
infection  ? unconsciously to himself; who innoculates with his 
vision all the other disciples." 
ML 31 Chr of George Linton and Virginia Hanson

It may be that Bishop Leadbeater "unconsciously" 
innoculated or infected his devotees, but infect them with 
his writings and charisma of dishonesty he certainly did 
and still can do. 

I have experienced numerous incidents in an Adyar Theosophical 
Society branch where his devotees and others have blatantly and 
unashamedly lied about people and alleged events. 
And when these lies have been exposed in a committee hearing into 
the matters, the actions taken demonstrate clearly that they have 
been overlooked or considered unimportant. Such is the occult power 
of dishonesty that overshadows an otherwise honourable organisation.

>From my perspective, many devotees of Bishop Leadbeater 
were at the time, and are still to this day, enamoured by this 
man and his writings, to the extent that they are willing to 
both accept the most extraordinary nonsense as "occult truth" 
and overlook the most outrageous and unconscionable behaviour.

Regards
Nigel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Augoeides-222@... wrote:
>
> Nigel, 
> Anand has two parts on his Home Pages, Theosophy and Christianity, 
here is the Christianity part. It may let members bvecome aware of 
his prevarication viz Theosophy. 
> 
> >>> http://anandgholap.org/<<< 
> 
> Regards, 
> John 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@...> 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 6:16:32 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada 
Pacific 
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Madame Blavatsky & Bishop Leadbeater 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derar Anand and all 
> 
> Anand, you write to NigelH, "You gave some quotations from 
> Blavatsky and Mahatma Letters. I think Blavatsky's writing and 
> Pseudo-letters contain many mistakes and I don't believe in 
> some of the statements they made. I don't recommend 
> these writings." 
> 
> Anand, I ask you yet again, would you be so kind as to 
> provide evidence both of Madame Blavatsky's "many mistakes" 
> and the falsity of the "Pseudo-letters?" 
> 
> In the meantime, for the benefit of any newcomers to this forum 
> who may not have read your unsubstantiated and unanswered 
> accusations before, may I offer you and them some facts on 
> your guru, to whom you are so ardently devoted, and whom 
> you recommend to theosophical students, 
> Bishop CW Leadbeater 
> 
> Bishop Leadbeater clearly lied and was fraudulent in 
> numerous matters of determinable and demonstrable fact. 
> 
> He claimed to be representing Madame Blavatsky's version of 
> Theosophy. On most subjects he did not. 
> > http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/tontitlepage.pdf < 
> 
> He claimed to be in direct contact with Madame Blavatsky's 
> masters. 
> Given the utterly contradictory accounts of cosmogonies 
> and cosmologies, any reasonable assessment would 
> manifestly demonstrate that he was not. 
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/ton1.pdf < 
> 
> Upon meeting with Dr Besant, a few years after he had joined 
> the Adyar Theosophical Society, he claimed to have been born in 
> the year of her birth, 1847. Clearly he was not. 
> According to numerous British records including birth certificate, 
> Church records and even census forms filled out by himself, 
> he was born in 1854. He obviously lied to fabricate a putative 
> "occult" connection between himself and Dr Besant. 
> 
> Furthermore, he claimed to have seen the Mahatma M in 1851. 
> Demonstrably another consciously concocted lie or fraud, 
> this time to coincide with Madame Blavatsky's actual recorded 
> sighting. 
> 
> He claimed to have attended the prestigious British 
> universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He did not. 
> 
> He claimed his father was the senior executive of a British 
> rail company. 
> He was actually one of its bookkeepers. 
> 
> Psychically, he claimed to have seen a sophisticated civilisation 
> on Mars, complete with many specific details. Clearly he did not. 
> 
> In the "theosophical" church he helped found, with teachings and 
> mindset so utterly opposed to the masters he claimed contact with, 
> he stated women were not fit to perform the sacraments due to 
> their inappropriate vehicles. 
> 
> In "Occult Chemistry" he claimed psychic vision of the inner 
> workings of the atomic world. 
> With the exception of one obscure scientist, his 
> pronouncements have little credibility and are 
> ridiculed as nonsense. 
> > 
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~chem125/125/history99/8Occult/OccultAtoms.h 
> tml< 
> 
> He claimed psychic vision of the atom and drew its picture, 
> claiming it as his own. It was actually a copy of one imagined by 
> Babbit years earlier. Another fraud. 
> 
> In his book "Lives of Alcyone" he constantly changed his 
> putative "psychic" versions of peoples' past lives as they came in 
> and out of his personal favour. 
> 
> He claimed in his writings to meet with the "Lord of the World." 
> A pathological liar and paedophile meeting with the "Supreme 
> Director" of this globe? Really? 
> 
> And the list goes on and on. Whether we term these indiscretions 
> as untruths, lies or fraud they are indisputable matters of fact, 
> which only the most ardent apologist would deny or avoid. 
> 
> Bishop Leadbeater has been proven far and beyond any 
> reasonable doubt to have lied to and manipulated and deceived 
> his followers on many occasions and in many ways. 
> 
> Moreover, the apologists' arguing that his self-confessed, 
> sexual activities with small boys was actually training them 
> in sex magic is sickening and perverted in itself. 
> One wonders whether these apologists and supporters are 
> themselves paedophiles, defending the indefensible. 
> Anand, are you? 
> 
> If the bad Bishop were practicing sex magic with these boys, a 
> heinous practice in itself with powerless young children, this 
> would/should have been performed in a ceremonial and 
> ritualistic environment, complete with prescribed formulae i.e. 
> words, chants, invocations/evocations, ceremonial objects etc 
> in a ceremony that would last for perhaps a few hours. 
> His self-confessed climbing naked into bed with a naked 
> young boy whilst "teaching" him masturbation hardly qualifies 
> as sex magic. 
> It was and is paedophilia, to anyone with any intelligence, 
> decency and integrity. 
> 
> Why anyone would want to trust and even defend anything 
> this man did and wrote is a matter of considerable incredulity, 
> until one understands the pernicious nature of the belief-based, 
> blind, devotional mindset. . 
> 
> Simply because he wrote in lyrical, "explanatory", romantic, 
> authoritarian tones does not validate his pronouncements, 
> unless of course our blind, devotional mindset clamours for 
> the simplicity, certainty and "security" of authority, and the 
> glamour of romance. 
> 
> He was simply a common liar and fraud, and some people 
> were and are entirely enamoured by him and his writings. 
> Enamoured and under a glamour, as was Dr Besant in allowing 
> him re-entry into the Society he so disgraced. 
> 
> And you Anand recommend him and his writings, and 
> condemn Madame Blavatsky and her teachers' as "Pseudo" or 
> fraudulent? 
> 
> Regards 
> Nigel 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com , "Anand" <AnandGholap@> wrote: 
> > 
> > Dear Nigel, 
> > We all believe. Do you not believe in what Blavatsky says? I say 
> most 
> > of the members here believe in Theosophy because they have not 
> > experienced all the things which Blavatsky and other occultists 
have 
> > written. 
> > J. Krishnamurti's attacks on beliefs are incredibly wrong because 
> > lives of all people are based on beliefs. When we start our 
> education 
> > in school, we study books and believe, for the time being at 
least, 
> > that what is written in books is correct. At that time we are not 
> in a 
> > position to challenge the writing in books, due to lack of enough 
> > knowledge. Even the students who take Master's degree in 
management 
> or 
> > engineering, or medical do not generally challenge what is taught 
to 
> > them. They believe that what is taught to them in college and 
> through 
> > books is correct. Only some of a few students who do Ph.D. later 
> take 
> > trouble to think whether what is taught is correct or not. 
> > In spiritual development also we believe in what Great Ones have 
> > taught and start walking. If every child keeps on questioning 
> mother's 
> > wisdom, it will be impossible to raise children. 
> > So if a person is to follow J. Krishnamurti's philosophy of 
> > challenging every belief unless experienced, life will become 
> > impossible to live. Fortunately, most people don't bring into 
action 
> > what JK says. 
> > You gave some quotations from Blavatsky and Mahatma Letters. I 
think 
> > Blavatsky's writing and Pseudo-letters contain many mistakes and 
I 
> > don't believe in some of the statements they made. I don't 
recommend 
> > these writings. 
> > Best 
> > Anand Gholap 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com , "nigel_healy" <nigelhealy@> 
> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Dear Anand 
> > > 
> > > I have been reading your posts for some time now and it is very 
> clear 
> > > that you have a 'belief mindset'. You do not recognise the 
> problem, 
> > > from a Theosophical perspective, with this mindset and are 
> constantly 
> > > on the defence. As a recovered catholic myself, I understand 
that 
> it 
> > > is very difficult (though not impossible) to let go of our 
beloved 
> > > belief systems. The Mahatma K.H. puts it that there is "..a 
> general 
> > > unwillingness to give up an established order of things for new 
> modes 
> > > of life and thought.." (ML,1) 
> > > 
> > > Again the same Mahatma says; "The God of the Theologians is 
> simply an 
> > > imaginary power,...a power which has never yet manifested 
itself. 
> Our 
> > > chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to teach 
man 
> > > virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself 
> > > instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless 
> ages 
> > > was the direct cause of nearly all human misery." (ML,10 3rd 
ed) 
> > > 
> > > In your post you speak of the "Lord Jesus" asking us to believe 
> stuff! 
> > > I see serious problems with this considering this is a 
> Theosophical 
> > > forum and not a christian one! 
> > > 
> > > H.P.B., who founded the Theosophical Society and wrote the 
books 
> that 
> > > are the foundations of Theosophy (all later writings are either 
> > > derived from these or have nothing to do with the original 
> writings) 
> > > made her views on the "Lord Jesus" quite clear; 
> > > 
> > > "For me Jesus Christ, i.e., the Man-God of the Christians, 
copied 
> from 
> > > the Avataras of every country, from Hindu Krishna as well as 
the 
> > > Egyptian Horus, was never a historical person. He is a deified 
> > > personification of the glorified type of the great Hierophants 
of 
> the 
> > > Temples, and his story, as told in the New Testament, is an 
> allegory, 
> > > assuredly containing profound esoteric truths, but still an 
> allegory." 
> > > 
> > > I have no problem with the religious mindset, being an Irish 
> > > Australian I find myself surrounded by it! 
> > > 
> > > But it just simply isn't THEOSOPHY. 
> > > 
> > > And this is a THEOSOPHICAL forum. 
> > > 
> > > My intention is not to knock another's freedom of thought, but 
to 
> seek 
> > > the Truth. 
> > > 
> > > Kind regards, 
> > > NigelH 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com , "Anand" <AnandGholap@> 
wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > Dear Pedro, 
> > > > > Finally, I remembered what the late Ianthe H. Hoskins told 
me 
> at 
> > Adyar 
> > > > > in 1994, during her last visit: "Belief is the tomb of 
Truth." 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pedro 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Do you think that St. Paul was misleading people when he 
said " 
> the 
> > > > righteous will live by faith" ? Do you think that Lord Jesus 
was 
> > > > misleading people when he asked people to believe as written 
> > > > throughout the Gospels? Do you think that Indian spiritual 
> writings 
> > > > were misleading people when they demanded Shraddha (faith or 
> belief)? 
> > > > Either scriptures were wrong or J. Krishnamurti was wrong. 
You 
> can not 
> > > > say both are right. This position is logically absurd. 
> > > > 
> > > > Best 
> > > > Anand Gholap 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>