Theos-Talk Archives (July 2011 Message tt00061)

Dear Paulo and friends

My views are:

I find A. L. Cleather more trustworthy than many a theosophical author of her time.
Simply because she can be proven right in what she said in many instances.

I would in return ask the readers on the forum, if they are having in their possesion papers which could give a short biography of A. L. Cleather more than the knowledge that she was in Tibet and China in a part of her life and was trained by the Gelugpas, and that she was a member of Blavatsky's Inner Esoteric Section. She is not even place in the wikipedia these days. And this is sad. And what about the Theosophical Network wiki.
Does anyone have access to such a ALC bio to put online?
What about her family?

W. Q. Judge perhaps like other initiates had to operate by the law of Deisgn and Karma.
What the intention was with what he did can only become guesswork until one truly knows about the affairs. I am however saying that W. Q. Judge was an initate, and that he failed to understand the importance of emphasizing what we today with a psychological term call Mind Control (See Wikipedia on it. In the sense of subtle - persuasion, ....."refers to a process in which a group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.")
Blavatsky, I think, more than one time hinted to him about the problem of him being married with a methodist. But he aught to be respected for all the good articles he wrote, although I find some of his books to be filled a bit to much with a Christian kind of vocabulary from time to time. But that is all in all just my taste, I think. (smile.)



M. Sufilight

___________________________________________

A friendly sidenote to all readers:
I wonder about the materialistic times of ours with Internet and emails and forums, whether there since 1891 have occurred a change in the level of knowledge and wisdom among people?

I ask because, why is it so that, when the Theosophical Society originally in its Constituion and Rules - clearly  - said that it was a NON-secterian body, - we find that nearly ALL theosophically-oriented forums are being run in a secterian manner?
Or am I missing something???
(Where your thoughts are that is where you karma is.)

A. L. Cleather spoke out against a Christianizing of the theosophical ideas.
I am speaking out against any kind of tendencies aimed at secterianizing of the original aim of the Theosophical Society!!! Am I a nuisance because I do that?

- - -
Now we with our computers with engery-cunsumption and climtate change. Now they have a new wave of extreme hunger in Africa, the news are saying. We have people eating radicative food in Japan. And we have som nutters killing each other in another country etc. etc. Oh dear, oh dear.
And despite this we are not able to operate in a democratic and non-secterian manner.



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: paulobaptista_v 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 5:15 PM
  Subject: theos-talk Re: TS International President's comments on Judge Case


    


  Some time ago, I found the writings of Alice Leighton Cleather (ALC), one of the members of the Inner Group. Valuable manuscripts of those meetings were penned by ALC and are published in The Esoteric Papers of Mme Blavatsky, compiled by Daniel Caldwell.

  She also wrote "Blavatsky as I knew Her", "HPB-Her life and work for humanity" and "HPB - A Great betrayal". Together with Basil W. Crump, ALC also attacked the writings of Alice Ann Bailey.

  What is curious about ALC is that after HPB's death, she didnÂt support Besant, Judge or the ULT founded by Robert Crosbie in 1909. In "HPB-Her life and work for humanity ", ALC writes that after HPB passed away "the one most fitted for such a function [Agent of the Masters and Outer Head of the ES] was Mr. Judge", but further ahead she admitted that she "can find no warrant in anything she [HPB] wrote, or said (â) [that] after her death, (â) even the most advanced of her pupils was authorised or fitted to succeed her as the Agent and mouthpiece of the Masters". 

  A theosophist that endorses the Judge cause, accused ALC of being too harsh on Judge. In the same book, Alice considered that Judge fell in the hands of Mrs. Tingley, a "professional psychic and trance medium". Tingley, played an important role in a letter written by WQJ in 1894, entitled "By MasterÂs Direction" in which a campaign in favour of Western Occultism is announced (using ALC words). ALC also criticizes the group at Los Angeles (ULT) for accepting this paper (published in Theosophy, September 1922). 

  In "A Great betrayal" she fiercely attacks both Besant and Leadbeater.

  I never found negative remarks about ALC, she seems very sincere in everything she writes and not afraid of telling what she believes is the truth.

  I havenÂt bought Pelletier's book about the Judge Case, but I've read Katinka Hesselink's review about it and it seems that some doubts still remain. I donÂt have a position for or against Judge. However if it is completely clear that Judge was a victim of some scheme, I think justice must be made, even if more than 100 years have passed since those events. 

  I would like to ask two things:

  - What's your oppinion about Alice Cleather? Is she a trustworthy source? 
  - A lot of debate has been going around for decades about the events that led to the split of the original Theosophical Society. Is it now completely clear that WQJ was victim of a mischievous scheme?

  PBV

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR <mkr777@...> wrote:
  >
  > In July 2011 issue of the Theosophist, "On the Watch Tower" section, the
  > International President has commented on the Judge issue.
  > 
  > Here is the quote:
  > 
  > ÃâÅRecently several letters have been addressed to the President asking that
  > justice be done to Mr Judge. About one and a quarter centuries have passed
  > since he was prominent among members. There are some who favour the actions
  > that he took, and others who do not; are we going to make a judgement on
  > behalf of all the members at this point? Is this really feasible? The
  > decision in favour or not, will be only on paper, and people will continue
  > to think of what is possible as they wish and see. The Society cannot
  > regulate this, and is not called upon to do so.
  > 
  > So, the best thing is to discriminate to the extent that our own
  > intelligence lets us, which may be right or wrong. What does it matter to
  > others? Since one cannot shape, or want to shape, what other people think,
  > the Theosophical Society cannot, after one hundred and thirty years, decide
  > what its members should see or think about past happenings.
  > 
  > There is the case of C. W. Leadbeater, who I think was much misunderstood
  > and maligned. Others may think he was a bad character. Will our thinking
  > change what he was? There are many people who, being human, had faults and
  > weaknesses. By finding out what exactly was the matter, it helps neither
  > them nor us. Our present attitude towards things is what matters, not the
  > conclusions we may make about what people in the past did.
  > 
  > So, let us act in the present and keep our conclusions about past
  > personalities and events tentative and in the back-ground. We can then move
  > forward from where we are, which is what we have to be truly concerned with.
  > What is the direction in which we are proceeding? Are we moving and if so,
  > is it towards a greater understanding of life?ÃâÂ
  > 
  > The full Watch Tower Notes can be accessed at:
  > 
  > <
  > http://ts-adyar.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Theosophist/Theosophist%202011/Watch%20Tower/Watch%20Tower%20July%202011.pdf
  > >
  > 
  > MKR
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  

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