Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl01009)

In response to a brief exchange between Alan and myself
concerning CWL on Theos-roots there were several comments.
Below, I tried to respond to all of them that I noticed:

Rich commented:

>Man, the more I learn about this guy, the more AWFUL he sounds.
>Are we sure that this is the same guy people are running around
>calling an "Adept"? What do the students and followers of
>Leadbeater make of these allegations? That they were all made
>up? By whom and for what purpose?
>
>RIch

 Well, now you have had a few days to see what students and
follows of CWL make of these allegations. This time there wasn't
much (thank [Daniel's] God). However, last time this came up,
the responses were a bit more interesting. Liesel said in
essence that it was impossible for these allegations to be true
because CWL was a great shaman, and great shamans don't do those
things. Brenda classified it as "gossip", therefore
untheosophical and not worthy of consideration. I think it was
Lewis with whom I had a rather extended and interesting dialogue
exploring the possibility that CWL's motives and actions were
misjudged. I believe that it was Murray who finally asked what
was my documentation for the allegations. What surprised me
about the question was that he was only person who bothered to
ask, and the question, wasn't raised until several weeks after
the subject first came up. Whenever I read a new allegation or a
new historical fact, the very first question that always comes to
my mind is: what is the documentation for this? Well, since
Murray asked (thanks again Murray), I posted a bibliography of
about eight or ten of the more important source documents
including some of the evidence that was used against him, and the
stenographer's transcript of the inquiry that had CWL's replies
to the evidence. But as you might have guessed by now, there is
really nothing rational about how most people respond to
information that conflicts with their feelings. All in all, I
think the responses proved that Tillett was right when he
indicatied that the Adyar TS really should modify the motto to
reflect the true attitudes to the majority of its controlling
membership: "There is no religion higher than a carefully edited
version of the truth."

Brenda responded (in part):

>This is very impolite stuff.

 Yes, and I think you would find historians to be very
impolite people when they discuss history. When one separates
history from the doctrinal interpretations of history, heros
become more human--sometimes they emerge with lots of warts.
Based upon my past experiences with you, I would suggest that you
would most probably perceive historical discussions as ranging
from irrelevant (for you) to impolite. I recommend that you drop
theos-roots.
 By the way, I do respect the fact that you take a stand for
CWL. Like you, I believe it is our duty as theosophists to stand
up for those whom we believe have been unjustly attacked or
criticised. One the other hand, I wonder why you never speak up
when "impolite" things are occasionally said about HPB on this
net?

>Is it the black brotherhood behind this?

 On the other side of this question, I have heard serious
discussions that the "black brotherhood" was behind the promotion
and rise of CWL in the Theosophical Society in order to destroy
its effectiveness in the world. You see, it can work both ways.
Frankly I try to stay away from conspiracy theories. They are
impossible to prove and besides, it is much easier to show a
causal relationship between events and people's ignorance,
stupidity, greed etc.

Ann Bermingham responded with a rather interesting speculative
horoscope. In part she wrote:

>The most glaring aspect was Mars (2nd house) opposed Neptune in
>the 8th (55 min. orb). This sometimes indicates abnormal
>sexual desires and alliances which affect the home and
>professional reputation. It can also mean unrealistic
>visionary experiences and a desire to be special.

 I believe you are on to something. Leo rising does seem to
fit CWL. Venus and Neptune together also usually makes for a
charisma does it not? In my astrological experiences, I've found
that Mars-Neptune conjunctions and oppositions seem to also occur
with psychic personalities. What has been your experience?
 I don't have it anymore, but I recall reading a reply to
Alan Leo from CWL in ~Modern Astrology~ for 1916. As I recall,
CWL was responding to a request for a confirmation of his birth
date. He instead expressed his disbelief in astrology, and if I
remember correctly, he never confirmed his 1847 birth date to
Leo. In light of the correct birth date, this little exchange
took on new meaning for me.

>Every spiritual person who I have admired in the last 25 years
>has had some problem. Sometimes it is one of the big three -
>sex, money or power, or even some combination of those. Stop
>worrying about all the "bad" out there and look to the good
>stuff various people may have to offer. Then you can get down
>to the real work - your self.
 Well, as my aunt used to say; "if we were perfect we
wouldn't be here." On the other hand, sometimes the spiritual
qualities in others out shine their warts. The "real work" is
truly ourselves, as you say. Yet we can't grow spiritually in a
vacuum. It seems that we have to do a lot of rubbing against
each other to ware down some of those rough spots.

"portello@calon.com" wrote:

>Can you spare a moment of your serious inquiring time to help me
>get off this list? I'd really appreciate it. Consider it part of
>the work...The Great Work.

 John, please help this poor reader!

Eldon comments:

>With Leadbeater, we have two issues. One is how we handle a
>historic discussion of his personal life, and his relationships
>with others. The other is with regard to the reliability of his
>psychical investigations. When we talk about the former, we have
>to take care not to offend anyone wanting him as a hero. When we
>talk about the later, we have to take care not to offend anyone
>involved in psychical investigations. Strong emotions can be
>stirred and we have to chose words with care.
>
>-- Eldon

 Yes, we have a problem here, and I don't see a solution. Do
you? We can choose words with care--for instance, "self abuse"
sounds better to most ears than "masturbation," but I don't
think these kinds of word choices are going to help historical
discussions be anymore palatable to those who have a distaste for
them, especially if they concern our "heros." As for discussion
concerning CWL's reliability as a clairvoyant, there seems to be
less problems here. Everyone seems to be OK about them--so far.

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