Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00107)

 Since there are two Jerrys on theos-xxx, would anybody mind
adding the "S" or the "H-E" as appropriate? I find myself
getting confused occasionally as to who is being addressed. If
I'm confused, it must be harder on others. Thanks.

Alan Bain wrote:

AB>If anyone wants to encourage me, I might have a go at scanning
>the Mars material and uploading it to the list (theos-roots?).

 Maybe on some archive file, where it can be retrieved and
used when these discussion some up.

 Sorry you missed the conference, I was hoping to meet you.

Lewis wrote:

LL> While I agree with you that "errors pervasive enough"
>might make me less inclined to spend valuable time pouring over
>that particular writers works, I don't understand why you feel
>they would force you to "discount his writings altogether".

 The best example I can think of offhand concerns the O.J.
Simpson case. Early in the trial detective Fuhrman testified
that he has never used the "N word" in ten years. Recently,
excerpts from recorded interviews with Fuhrman were televised,
that not only had him using the "N word" but bragging about
brutalizing minorities, and indicating that he would not be above
planting evidence. While listening to these excerpts and
recalling my personal experience (over forty years worth) with
the Los Angeles Police, I at some point came to the realization
that Fuhrman's attitudes indeed seem racist. I suppose that if I
heard everything in all of the tapes, I might be able to pick out
phrases and statements that are not racist, but it is doubtful
that they would neutralize what was broadcast--and it appears
that even the prosecution attorneys feel the same way.
 It is not a matter of being "judgmental" to recognize racist
statements, or improbable statements about Martian civilizations.
I've taken the Meyer's-Briggs test twice and both times register
strongly in the "P" category. My wife will vouch for me that I'm
always ready to listen when new evidence presents itself, but
this is different from spending my life seeking evidence to
counter that which is already condemning. My own value system
demands truth over loyalty, therefore I don't go looking for and
forcing implausable explanations to save a friend. Sometimes it
is better for the friend and everyone involved to face the truth
and go on with our lives. Further, I have almost everything CWL
ever wrote here, and have read much of it over the years, and
will probably read much more of it before I die. No doubt my
attitudes will continue to change concerning CWL, but considering
the amount of material that I have already read, it isn't likely
that my attitudes will change substantially. Do you feel that
I'm being unfair?

In a later post Lewis wrote:

LL> I have read that observations on the inner planes are
>subject to distortion when impressed on the physical brain, that
>numbers can easily be reversed, for instance. Another idea has
>to do with time. CWL said it was difficult to pinpoint dates for
>events and described how he would have to find something with a
>date on it in the scene he was observing.
> Could it be the civilization he describes, while not
>presently in existence, existed or will exist?

 Anything is possible. Yet the quote I gave from CWL was
clearly a present tense description, with explanations of what
astronomers were presently seeing. Also, CWL claimed to be an
Adept, so according to his own definition, he would be above
having these time problems that you are suggesting. Also, his
description suggested that they were literate and read books
etc., thus would have kept track of time. If he doesn't read
Martian, he could always look at the planetary positions. On the
other hand, if his clairvoyant observations are subject to being
indeterminably in the past present or future, and we have no way
of knowing which, then of what value are they?
 Another explanation I heard once was that the cities are
there exactly as CWL described, but the Martians did not wish to
be seen so they created a mayavi over the Viking cameras so that
they would only record desert. In the end, I think we have to be
aware as to when we are seeking a rational explanation, and when
we are reaching for explanations in order to justify a belief
that we don't want to let go of.

Brenda Writes and I respond:

BT>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.

 I think people come to their own conclusions regardless of
what anyone writes on this net. If anyone changed their
attitudes about anything after reading something that I wrote, it
was them, not me who did the changing. At best, I only furnished
a catalyst for them to change to however they change.

BT>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've stated many time before on this net that if one finds
CWL inspirational--his writings make one a better person, then
that's great.

BT>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 said that I began studying CWL before HPB, not that I was
drawn to CWL. When I joined the San Fernando Valley Lodge in
1963, the members took me under their wings and gave me CWL books
to read because those were the only books that they were familiar
with.

BT>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?

 I've known people who are attracted to CWL's writings and
others who are repelled by them. Generally those who are
attracted to his writings (according to my personal observations)
tend to be more of the devotional types, thus less into
challenging and critical questioning. But generally they are
attracted to meditation.

BT>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.

 See what I mean?

BT>I think it might be hard to beat CWL's publicly written about
>experiences, so why try?

 Who's trying?

B>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?

 Are you suggest that when we are further along on the path,
we will be seeing Martian cities too?

Richard Taylor writes:

RT>Was he [CWL] simply a deluded fool, or did he have some
>ennobling purpose in mind when he penned all this stuff on Mars
>and how Norwegian they are? Maybe he thought we would take
>comfort in hearing about beings from elsewhere who were
>much like us? I read this stuff and think "good god, who IS
>THIS GUY?"

 The late E.L. Gardner, who was very close to CWL wrote
towards the end of his life that CWL "absolutely believed
everything he said and saw." Gardner said that Leadbeater's
complete belief in his own clairvoyance inspired others to
believe in him also.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu