Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00847)

At 07:57 PM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:



Chris: Well done!!! Clearly and carefully stated, and very well thought out.
I cannot disagree with most of it. I have one point I'd like to raise. You
say that "Religion presents a set of moral dogma to live by". Of course this
is true, BUT, that "moral dogma" carries with it an immense burden of
totally unnecessary guilts and fears. Religion uses the fear of death and of
post-mortem retribution as a club to control human beings actions. This I
believe does infinitely more harm than good. And just like the death penalty
it really doesn't dissuade most people from doing things they want to do. It
just makes some of them feel bad about it, and some of them go crazy over it.
>
>Unfortunately I haven't yet had the opportunity to read the Mahatma Letters.
>Perhaps sometime in the near future.
>
>>Until they disappointed Sinnett yes I do believe he came close to
>
>Out of curiousity, how did the Masters dissappoint Sinnett?  I'm afraid I'm
>not very well up on the history or lives any of the early theosophists.  All
>I know of them is based on the books they've written.

Basically "they" didn't do what he wanted them to do, and they "cut him
off", especially after HPB's passing. Sinnett was more of a victim than a
victimizer but his ego was mightily inflated due to his "letters" and then
mightily deflated when they stopped. He then went from medium to medium
trying to re-establish some kind of contact in spite of the fact that in the
"Mahatma Letters" they made it very clear that they would never communicate
via a medium. See how it is?
>
>>worshipping them. As to Leadbeater, as all of his connections with them were
>>in the Astral Plane I don't think any of them are anything but
>>hallucinatory. It's that he encouraged others in this attitude that I
>>disapprove of. Prostration is not respectful, it is self-abasing, and
>>self-abasement is entirely negative. Let's get this totally straight: as far
>>as I see it based on a really in depth study of the matter, Charles Webster
>>Leadbeater was a pathological Liar, he was mentally unstable, and he was a
>>totally immoral man. That makes everything he said extremely suspect.
>>>
>>>>>
>
>What is your belief as far as the various planes of existance go?  Did
>Leadbeater actually encourage others to worship the Masters?  Bear with me
>on my ignorance, as I said earlier, I know very little of these peoples lives.

I have written a book almost as long as Isis in which I discuss my views on
the greater reality. But in general, I don't use the elevator notion of
numbered planes of reality. I see the greater reality as a unified field of
energy, manifesting as intelligence (or visa versa) in which the levels of
reality are determined by the oscillation rates of the sine curves of the
particle carrier waves that form the force-fields that individuate various
entities and things. The only reality of any physical thing is as a field of
individuated energy-intelligence.

Now as to your second question: Yes he did.
>


Chris: Try to get a copy of a book called "Elder Brother" by Gregory
Tillett. It is scholarly and well written and full of citations and
quotations from contemporaries of Leadbeater. If you send a message to Jerry
Hejka-Ekins (jhe@toto.csustan.edu.) He might be able to send you one. He has
a mail-order book business and is a very important theosophist. As to my own
feelings, well Chris I have a very low opinion of a man who uses his
prestige and position to impose himself sexually on boys under the age of
puberty. Understand this: I am NOT complaining because he was homosexual, I
am complaining because he was a child molester.I have a very low opinion on
anyone who is in anyway connected wit the "Order of Saturn" even if it is
only by way of the O.T.O. I strongly disapprove of "black magic" even though
I don;'t believe it has any reality. But people who do practice it, do lots
of harm without the reality. I do not think his visions were fraudulent, I
do not consider Leadbeater to be a phony like elisabeth Clair prophet or
others, but I do believe that his visions were hallucinations in which he
truly and deeply believed. But I think that one only learns to share those
hallucinations with him from his books. His visions of the Adepts were all
very real to him, but they were nonetheless entirely hallucinatory. Adepts
are just people, special people yes, but just people.
>
>Even if he was as you say, I agree that it would make someone cautious to
>follow what says/writes, but I don't believe it should be disregarded solely
>on that purpose.  Crowley's moral behaviour was highly questionable, but
>many of the things he wrote were extremely intelligent and worthwhile
>(although many of them sarcastic and vain too).

Aleister Crowley was an angry and disappointed man. He was rejected by
society early on for his homosexuality and he never forgave society for it.
He was a brilliant and immensely talented man, but his tremendous anger and
his equally tremendous cocaine addiction ruined what could have been a very
productive career. Though I reject almost all of his so-called "Magick", he
had many very intelligent things to say interspersed with an enormous amount
of posturing and play acting.He too belonged to the OTO, but he had sense
enough to create his own OTO and wasn't involved with the Nazis who hated him.
>


>
>I just picked up on this :)  This is the area in which we have our biggest
>divergence in beliefs.

Oh that's for sure!
>
 For me, the S.D. is for the most part a lot of ridiculous nonsense. As I've
told Martin Euser, once
>>you get past the motto and the three objects, it's almost ALL ridiculous
>>nonsense. My own personal question is beginning to be can the two "types of
>>theosophists", i.e. "process theosophists" and "orthodox Theosophists" ever
>>meaningfully relate on any level? Or is it time for " total separation"?
>>Reaction like Bjorn Roxendol's make me think that no rational relationship
>>is possible. Reactions like yours gives me hope. You and I are at what I
>>guess would be about 85% disgreement and yet our communications remain
>>friendly, that's a good sign
>>>
>
>Now I understand where your coming from and your two definitions of
>theosophy.  I must say, I like them.  I have no doubt as to whether or not
>the two types can relate.  They most certainly can- the question, in my
>mind, is whether it will be a good relation or a bad one.  I can see either
>side getting extremely upset with the other for not holding their own belief
>system yet calling it the same thing.  Personally, I view both types as
>essentially the same.  The end result I believe is the same between the two,
>it's just the rule system that's different
>
>
>>
>>That's a good point! I agree but I think most "meditation" just leads to a
>>sore bottom.
>>>
>
>I would think if there was no activity to the meditation, it could just lead
>to a sore bottom.  The whole idea of meditation is not relaxation (usually),
>it's mind expansion.  I can site personal examples if your interested.
>


>>>

>The point being that even if he was insane, I've learned something
>worthwhile from his material.  And if people are learning things they
>consider worthwhile, his writings are worthwhile.

But did you? If what he said wasn't true, and I am sure it isn't, then what
could you "learn" that was of value?
>
>>

>
>If she was encouraging it, then I'd call her behavior "crazy" too :)  That
>wasn't implicitely stated and I didn't catch the inference.  As far as my
>spelling goes, your right- it's pathetic.  My fingers just seem to fly by
>themselves sometimes <grin>  I've tried to take more time in writing this
>email and made it a point to make myself more aware of it in the future.  I
>suppose if I want what I write to be given some consideration I should take
>the same consideration in writing it :)

I think so too. I also make typos. But some of your spelling seems not so
much typo as erroneous. But rest assured you're not alone in the internet.
>
>>>

>>The trouble Chris is this: What most people call "personal spiritual
>>development" I call "spiritual masturbation"!
>>>
>
>I believe that's true on many occassions.  But at least they're trying, that
>in of itself is worthwhile.  Personally, I view any attempt to better
>oneself as a beneficial act.

I can't argue with that.
>

>
>Actually I firmly believe in what I was saying.  I also believe that
>everything happens for a reason, even if we cannot begin to fathom why.  I
>do believe that everything is relative from the universe's perspective- it's
>all part of the same thing.

I don't think the universe cares about what happens on the physical plane,
but we must, we're stuck here.
>

>
>I know right from wrong, but I do believe that each depends on the other.  I
>may not always be able to see why something happens, but I have faith that
>there's a valid reason (good or bad) for it to happen.  Perhaps "eternal
>optimist" would be a better term for me than amoral ;-)

Would that make me an "eternal pessimist"?:-)
>
>
>
>
>Perhaps this is why the idea of the interchangeability of such things is not
>taught exoterically.  When someone sees the Yin and Yang symbols, they don't
>think, "Wow, cool.  Good and bad are interchangeable", they typically just
>realize the dual nature of life- if that.

But you see Chris, I am a monist, I totally deny that there is a dualistic
nature of life or of anything except the natural physical plane dualism we
all experience and love.
>
>
>>Oh that's true, but the way to do that WITHOUT being sophomoric is to ask
>>the other person "What do you mean by......?"
>>>
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here...so, What *do* you mean by the above?

I mean that in order to agree on word meanings we each of us have to ask the
other what he means by a word that seems questionable in any way. O.K.?
>


>
>Ok, I didn't understand that you were rejecting it due to who wrote it.
>
>>>
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here.  Are you saying that since you believe CWL
>to be an invalid person to learn from that anything I might have learned
>from him is not worthwhile?  Please expand.

O.K. I too was first interested in theosophy (aside from the factor of being
HPB's cousin) by Leadbeater's writings, and I too learned a lot from them
but it was in the sense of transcending the fairy tales and learning why
Leadbeater was wrong that I learned something. You can too.
>
>>>
>>>Why do you feel that they are "pseudo-theosophical mythology"?
>>
>>I think you already know the answer to your question Because I have
>>adequately demonstrated what I think of CWL and why.
>>
>Yes, you have.
>
>I had to cut some of the paragraphs from this email to make it fit in my
>program's memory.  Apparently my system thinks Alexis and I are getting long
>winded.  You guys don't believe that do you?? <hehe>  Anyway, hope those who
>are following can still follow.
>
>Chris


As one can clearly see from the wreckage, so did I! I got a little message
saying "no room in memory for this text". But I am enjoying this discussion.

alexis dolgorukii
>
>
>