Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00058)

In message <327C7BD0.1B24@earthlink.net>, Art House
<trankusek@earthlink.net> writes
>Bart Lidofsky wrote:
>> I'm not sure if there's a sentence in there;=20
>> can you please rephrase the question?
>
>Sorry Bart,
>
>I'm admittedly not the best of writers.
>I was just wondering how people on this list who had heard about the
>shams of those early days might have dealt with them (if at all). It
>seems to me that through their deceptive actions the founders cast
>suspicion and doubt on much of what they were trying to do (and that's
>the optimistic view).

Many people deny that there were any shams at all.
>
>My question doesn't apply as much to the genuine, historical Hindu or
>Buddhist teachings which they helped to bring to the West. These
>teachings are more or less verifiable and HPB, et al deserve a lot of
>credit for their efforts.

Indeed they do, which is one reason why we are here doing theos-l.

> But in the cases where their pronouncements
>rely on the authority of the "Brotherhood of Masters" and non-historical
>texts like the "Stanzas of Dyzan", don't you think that their trickery
>throws that whole premise into question? And if it does, what does that
>mean? Were such hoaxes necessary if these things were true and how can
>you possibly justify or excuse them. If similar things happened in an
>organization today what would your response be? We can't just excuse
>them for being "Leos". That's too easy. Aren't they accountable for
>their actions?

There aren't, IMO, collective answers to these questions, as this an
unmoderated, uncensored forum.  If it weren't, it would have very few
subscribers.  In my experience (not theory) similr things *do* happen in
the same organisation today, and some of us protest loudly (but not
enough to change it) while the membership gets smaller and the TS is
seen gliding smoothly fown the pan.
>
>Its bad enough that these deceptions were used in establishing the
>"occult authority" of the society in the first place, but they continued
>to be used, mainly in the form of "precipitated or psychically received"
>letters to try to back up both Annie Besant and Leadbeater's claims for
>power after Mme.Blavatsky's death.

People are stil aguing about this! BTW, I have this teacup ... :-)
>
Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age:
http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/
E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk