Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00015)

At 11:03 PM 4/30/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis:
>
>>>>>cut<<<<<<
>
>I think that Liesel's concern is not that Leadbeater's ideas about Theosophy
>be discussed and reviewed, along with the ideas of other theosophical
>writers and students. Her concern, if I correctly understand it, is that
>however mistaken he may have been at times, he did spend his life in
>service to the theosophical movement, and deserves some respect in that
>regard, even if we might dispute some of his ideas about Theosophy.

I'm afraid my own question here is did he? Or did he spend his life in
service to himself? Which was it? All that business about appointing himself
a Bishop and regarding Christ's circle of disciples, is that anything at all
in the line of "service to theosophy"? I think Eldon, my problem is that, as
I've grown older and learned a lot more, I have come to be certain that, no
matter how popular CWL's works were, they in fact did an enormous disservice
to theosophy.
>
>People that are happy to read, study, and benefit in some way from his
>writings should be allowed to do so, until they are ready for something
>more. That was my personal experience, having initially read most of his
>books as a teenager, until at an older age, I was introduced to Purucker.

Eldon, the first two theosophical books I ever read were "The Master's and
The Path" and "The Inner Life", they in fact are what brought me to
theosophy, Though I must admit I was fascinated by an organization founded
by a relative. I own, and have read every single book he ever wrote. In
fact, my repugnance for the uLT began when I innocently walked into their
San Francisco Meeting Place and announced "I've just read some wonderful
books by Charles Leadbeater". Well, you can imagine the reception I was
given. I went away thinking "what impossible bigots". I certainly have no
idea at all in my head that his books should be banned, or burned, or even
mildly censored. But I do hope to be able to warn new people not to make my
mistake and take them for gospel so they won't feel as badly as I felt when
I learned the truth about him.
>
>A positive way to encourage people to broaden their reading is to continue
>to offer useful insights and ideas from the books and sources that we
>admire. People that come to appreciate what we say will be attracted to
>read and study them. Those not interested, happy with what they've got,
>should be allowed to remain just that: happy with that they've got.

You're right of course, but I do have to say that stasis, i.e "being happy
with what you've got", is the most negative of all conditions. Theosophy is
strongly concerned with non-material evolution. Evolution means unending
change, therefor stasis is antithetic to theosophy.
>
>>>>>>cut<<<<<<
>
>Because some people were sensitive to historic discussions, there was a
>thread on theos-l that concluded that they move to theos-roots, where people
>not wishing to read them could simply "unsubscribe", still remaining active
>participants on theos-l.
>
>>It is really impossible to have reasonable discussions if one
>>person out of some 85 gets personally emotional over any negative references
>>to a person who is a vital ingredient in why the T.S. is where it is today.
>
>This should be possible in the right context. In a list where history
>was discussed, history could be discussed. Where comparative Theosophy is
>studied, his version could be contrasted with the other versions.

If "historical discussions" were all that is involved that would be an ideal
solution. I for one would be glad to switch to Theos-roots for purely
historical discussions. However, I have to say that most of the discussions
on this list are inherently doctrinal, and in the course of those
discussions on the meaning and purpose of theosophy, I fail to see any way
that CWL cannot be avoided, any more than Annie Besant can be avoided and
that is because of their immense effect on the ideology, goals, and
purposes, of the theosophical movement. I am, among other things a student
and proponent of philosophy, and within that contest, admittedly an
idealogue. I see the philosophy and teaching of CWL to be antithetical to
the basic philosophy that is the theosophical movement. To me he's no better
than all those new age channelers that many members of the T.S. view with
such antipathy. The question that I have for you then, is this: If CWL is
intrinsic to all that I think is doctrinally wrong with theosophy today,
it's his philosophy I want to talk about not his personality and therefore
it's not really an appropriate discussion for an entirely "Historical" list,
so what's the proper thing to do?

>We should remember, though, that he still has a following, and those
>people are sincere, good people, that won't be led to better things simply
>by having CWL discredited in their eyes. And who he was does not really
>matter for living people, since we no longer either need to refer people
>to him nor warn people to stay away.

That is quite true, WHO he was, and WHAT he was, is entirely irrelevant to
people today. BUT, what he taught, and what he promulgated as theosophy, is
relec\vant today as it colours the whole theosophical movement. Many dead
folks still have a following and usually those followers are tremendously
sincere and at least view themselves as good people, but having a post
mortem following doesn't  speak to any particular quality beyond charisma.It
certainly doesn't guarantee the validity of the persons teachings, or that
of the person themselves.
>
>TPH is trying, I assume, to continue to make the best of his books by
>purging the most unscientific materials, like the stuff about people living
>on Mars, with canals, etc. The books get a bit smaller with later reprints.
>They apparently still find value in the remaining content, and the books
>remain in print.

Could it not just be that they're embarrassed to pull them off entirely?
>
cut<<<<<
>
>You may know two people. With one person, you can talk about certain things.
>With another, there are entirely different things you can talk about. With
>each person, you know from personal experience that certain topics are not
>productive, that they only elicit anger and should be avoided.

How does one going to go about doing this when every posting is open to
everyone to read? It's very hard to be "all things to all people" when
you're talking to all of them at once.
>
>>>>cut<<<<<<
>On 'theos-l' everything has been fair game, meaning that there will always
>be some people happy to read someone's words, and others that are outraged.
>It cannot be avoided.

I like the everything is fair game concept. The other smacks a bit of
censorship and neither you nor I approve of that.
>
>I can appreciate Liesel's reaction to negative comments about Leadbeater,
>since at one point in my life I would have had the same reaction. I had
>and read all of his books, and considered him my best and favorite theosophical
>writer. But then I had gone through his books and was left with the big
>question: "and now what?" And I feel fortunate to have found something to
>fill my need to learn something more.
I could have written that paragraph myself, word for word, except I'd have
had more to say regarding third object aspects of my Life. I too have found
something that more than fulfills my needs and those of my many students.
But on a board like this is it right for one person to impose a subject that
is not permissible for discussion? I don't think so.
>
>-- Eldon
>
alexis>