Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tl00101)

Hi friends
I wanted to abound a bit more on the subject on the past post that i
put. i will try to be brief (i think)
(continuing)
c) The accerts in the article of Farthing were:
	*On the didactic form the first half of the part 1 on the article were
posted (on the history of the TS -i consider speccialy the history of
the founding by Blavatsky very important-)
	*On the didactic form of the whole article (the founding, the founders,
the errors, the past, the present, the future)
	*It gives a concrete perspective on the leaders of the TS (how they
were, their mistakes,what they do,etc)
d) The think i didn't like (could put this as "mistakes" but is not that
they were mistakes, but the personal view of the author,and as that we
have to respect that) On the Farthing article:
	*The visceral point of criticism, on the past leaders of TS after
Blavatsky (so, they did make mistakes,yes, but who are we to judge
them?-but (as i think Liesel would say) we have also the right to tell
what we don't like of the things)

	THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE ON THE ARTICLE:
	-He minimizes the works done by Bessant and CWL.
	-Yes, Krishnamurti didn't wanted to be world leader, but that's not
problem of Bessant and CWL. is the way Krishnamurti wanted to be.
	-YES, Bessant and CWL made mistakes (as the co-masonry work done by
Bessant, but why not consider the fact that maybe it wasn't directly her
fault? why don't consider the fact that maybe she was OBLIGATED TO WORK
WITH THEM IN ORDER THAT THE TS WOULD'NT BE THREATENED OR DESTROYED BY
TERRIBLE FACTIONS AND GROUPS OF POWER (with wich Bessant hadded to work
in order to change things politicly in India)??
	-Bessant and CWL made works that maybe are not proper of the TS, but,
as every scientific research is , they were contributions of knowledge
to the vast and common wisdom known by man 'till now, of Theosophy? and
Alice Bailey? (Here talking personal, i really i not sure of the
pretended masters, (only KH, and that because of historical evidences)
but, that work, even if is a suspect fraud, is a work of value that has
to be STUDIED AND COMPROBED to tell if is a fraud or not.

Is like if i, student of Biology, future scientist, belonged to the
Mexican asociation of Biology, and a person in that asociation telled
that "because Antropology latest great leaders (ex. Leakey) work is not
compatible to the Darwinian theory, and they made terrible mistakes,
they are not worthy, and we have to expell their work (ex. Leakey) of
the association, of tagg' their work as NOT Antropology correct or
something like that WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OF THAT? THAT THE PERSON IS A
WACKO, DON'T?

Finnaly:
	*Maybe Bessant is wrong in some theories, maybe Leadbeater didn't have
clairvoyance,maybe he believe that he had, or maybe he hadded right, and
make some errors in his observations (the scientists make errors in
observation too) but we must not forget this:

	They made contributions to Theosophy (believing that Theosophy, is ,as
Blavatsky said, the vast knowledge that has been,is and it would be)
important. They contributed to the Theosophical Society (if their
followers are not doing a good job, is not their problem) and they did
the best work of all: they  PRACTICE THEIR KNOWLEDGE (Practical
theosophy) and that's the important fact of that.

	I properly respect what Farthing wrote, he was right , we cannot be
eye-closened to the errors of the leaders of theosophical society, and
those errors have to be corrected. but i, even that i do not belong to
any organization belonging to the TS, and that i haven't read enough
(my bibliography of books read is too poor in comparison, for example,
to Doc's and Doss) i wanted to post my opinion, is not a dogma, is my
humble (maybe not too humble) opinion on the subject.
Sorry if i bother some square minds somewhere.
	Estrella
P.S. a grand salute to all that post here and to the new pepole that
post now.
P.S.S. Mr. Sweinn, of Iceland, there were some important remarks in your
past long long post that later, i will write to you, if you won't mind.