Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00062)

>This is also mentioned in many of the books of A.A.B. - see for instance 'A
>Treatise on Cosmic Fire'.
>Incidentally, did I not see a recent post about Leadbeater's mention of
>Martians since descredited by NASA probes?

This was written by Jerry Hejka-Ekins on the 31st:

 I agree that we can't throw out the baby with the bath
water. As you suggest, one unreliable observation does not
disprove the rest of the observations. Ideally the best way
would be to test each observation. However, clairvoyant
observations are so often untestable. For instance, CWL's
descriptions of Martian cities written in the 1920's could not be
tested until 1976. But now they are testable, and we discovered
that CWL's descriptions did not match the objective observations
of the Viking cameras.

 My point however, was that CWL's clairvoyant observations
are removed from his books as they are shown to be false. This
creates a problem for those who wish to assess CWL's writings--
How can one consider "each idea point by point" when his ideas
are removed from consideration in subsequent editions of his
books every time they are disproven? If CWL makes 100
observations and 98 are proven wrong and removed from his books,
thus leaving two correct observations, does that make CWL a great
clairvoyant, or someone who is correct two- percent of the time?
My point is that if we are to fairly evaluate CWL's ideas "point
by point", they have to be available in the form that he
presented them--not edited of his errors.

My point is this: How is the average person looking into the study of
theosophy going to respond to reading CWL? Your "personal" and selfish
interest in permitting your own far wider knowledge of theosophical study to
influence your statement of opinion to anyone who might read theosophy
through CWL. Your needs are very different than a curious-minded
individual's need to explain what is happening inside of them and to their
life.

Would you agree that ordinarily people are selfish unless they fight very
hard against it? Someone reading CWL is most likely trying to want to know
what's wrong with being selfish. They're also probably interested in
self-improvement and what "paths" are open to them as concerns spiritual
development. CWL does a great job of taking us out of the "bonds of self."
I don't know of a single other "acceptable" writer within public education
who could interest us in "other worldly" material to the degree that he so
casually describes his activities in search of a more meaningful world and
more compassionate living.

I know my words are not strictly sensible, but if there is a "sense" behind
what I am writing it is that you and Eldon both admit being drawn to his
writings early on in your study. I, too, began with CWL. What effect if
any do his writings have on a "new student" to the degree that we may be
asked to challenge, to question, to meditate, and to make self-discovery?
Are we (as early students) to become afraid of anything we "might" discern
because of a bold and public opinion provided by older students?

I love CWL because I did learn through him to love theosophy and to find a
"home" here. Nothing I could think or attempt became too bizarre to be
included within my "theosophical life." Early on, during the purification
stages, strange occurrences may sometimes take place. I think it might be
hard to beat CWL's publicly written about experiences, so why try? Whatever
we personally might be experiencing early on in the path, we don't need to
necessarily make claims and draw attention to it, because it should be
viewed as something that will pass and maybe a more noble viewpoint and
experience will come later. Besides, hiding our own paranormal or psychic
experiences can play second to some of the tongue-in-cheek things we've read
from CWL. Whose would you discuss? His or your own?