Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00497)

Joe,
You are one of the moderators of Theosophy.net. You started that discussion forum with announcements that you will be neutral to different ideas and organizations related to Theosophy. And what are you actually doing? When I send messages from the writings of Annie Besant and Leadbeater, you see that they don't appear on the front page. This way you are discouraging one significant group dedicated to Annie Besant and Leadbeater from discussing in that forum. What should be concluded from this difference between your announcements and your actions? In Texas English it is called hypocrisy.
If you are giving equal freedom to all groups of Theosophists, I would suggest that you allow people to freely discuss writings of Annie Besant and Leadbeater, instead of using cheap tactics to discourage discussion on these.

Best
Anand Gholap


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph P. Fulton" <jpfulton314@...> wrote:
>
> Anand,
> 
> Your comments are quite disturbing on several fronts. 
> 
> a)  What is your criteria for harming the movement?  I would challenge that Leadbeater has succeeded in every benchmark you could  provide.  Worst of all he turned an organization of inquiry into one of blind faith and credulity. Somewhere it was said that "credulity breeds credulity and leads to hypocrisy."
> 
> b)  From all appearances, based on your prior comments, harm seems to consist of contradicting CW Leadbeater.  Does disagreeing with Leadbeater's teaching automatically render one untheosophical?
> 
> c)  Your ad hominem attacks on Carson, Caldwell, and especially Katinka Hesselink are totally out of bounds.  Reed and Daniel are well-respected students of Theosophy.  Dan Caldwell has done a tremendous service to the movement by making many of the source writings available to all students, whatever their views.  Katinka has done much the same in providing students with valuable documentation and thoughtful commentary.  In addition, Katinka's voice in all matters has been one of sanity and reason.  The effect on every discussion I've seen her take part in is to bring in an element of decency and common sense that is nothing short of admirable.
> 
> As to whether Krishnamurti's teaching is pernicious, well that depends on time, place and circumstance.  Perhaps deeper reflection would reveal that it's more important how knowledge is applied than the words themselves.
> 
> Joe
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@> wrote:
> >
> > The failure of Theosophy in the West is more because of unwise actions of
> > members of the TS, and individuals related to Theosophy. Officers can guide TS
> > in right direction. But as they are democratically elected, they tend to fulfill
> > wishes of people, to some extent, even if they would have done things
> > differently, had they no pressure to fulfill wishes of people.
> > Some of the online individuals who did much damage to Theosophical movement are
> > these. Reed Carson, the owner of Blavatsky.net who made Theosophical movement
> > extremely dogmatic around Blavatsky's writing. Another individual who did much
> > damage to Theosophical movement is Katinka Hesselink, who spread wrong teaching
> > of J. Krishnamurti in Theosophical Society and thereby misled members of TS into
> > believing that J. Krishnamurti's teaching is Theosophy.
> > Third individual who did much damage to Theosophical movement is Daniel
> > Caldwell. He did damage by regularly attacking Adyar TS, it's leaders, past and
> > present, and their teachings.
> > These are some of the individuals who did much damage to Theosophical movement
> > by their online activities.
> > 
> > Anand Gholap
> >
>