Theos-Talk Archives (August 1994 Message tl00154)

Jerry wrote:

> since he admitted to all of the allegations (plus a lot
> more) in a formal hearing made up of people who (until he
> confessed) supported him.  There was also a legal stenographer
> present who recorded the proceedings.
>      I see the correlation between the movie and the Leadbeater
> scandal, as far as both issues concerned taking advantage of
> children.  But beyond that, I'm not sure what you mean.  For
> instance, in the movie; Mel Gibson was "tried" by a group of
> people who had already assumed his guilt, and Gibson never
> "confessed" any guilt.  Mr. Leadbeater on the other hand, was
> tried by a group of people who all knew him personally, thought
> very highly of him, were very supportive (with the exception of
> only one person), and did not believe him capable of doing any
> wrong.  That is why they were so deeply shocked when CWL not only
> admitted to doing all that he was accused of, but admitted to
> much more.
>      By putting quotes around the words "historical facts" I take
> it that you question the historicity of what I have mentioned.
> Which "historical fact" do you question?

Didn't the teacher admit guilt to save the boy in question
further inquiries? Perhaps CWL did the same.  Another
similarity I thought was the teacher in the movie was
feared and misunderstood by the towns people who were
supicious of him because of his burned face.  I can imagine
CWL, who was clairvoyant, was someone consider "unusual" or
strange.  The movie illustrates how someone can be
misunderstood and judged harshly by others because of
circumstances and events which seem to be one thing, but
may in fact be another.

History is constantly being rewritten.  I only heard last
week that the events which we all witnessed in Russia are
already being changed to suit the current mood of the
country.  The coup leaders have been d declared innocent
and that they were only trying to protect their country!

Noone can truly know anothers motives.  It has often been
suggested that we not judge others to harshly for this
reason.  If I must judge CWL then I must do so based on
what I know of him.  What I know of him is from reading
many of his books.  Books which changed my life for the
better and left me with a deep feeling of gratitude and
appreciation for his contributions and still inspire me to
work to help spread these ideas.

This brings me to another point I have often wanted to make
while reading comments on this list about the authority of
one writer vs another.  I think it was in the preface to
"Man, How, Whince and Wither" that Annie Besant and CWL
stated that they were "early" students of theosophy and
their writings should be studied as their reports on their
experiments.  I think it was also CWL who made the point
that one should always consider the latest work because it
was only natural that the students who came along later
would build on the past making corrections and adding to
the body of information.

This seems very sensible to me.  I can't help but wonder if
HPB wouldn't be a little taken aback by the attitude that
her work was superior to others.  She constantly questioned
her own work and relied on others to help correct her
mistakes.

Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu