[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Carlos uses the Same kind of argument as defenders of Leadbeater, etc.??

Apr 25, 2006 10:00 AM
by danielhcaldwell

In previous years in discussing
historical events and various teachings
with students/defenders of Besant, Leadbeater,
Bailey, Prophet, etc., I have noticed a
recurring "theme" or "tactic" used by these individuals.

When you cite various historical records
that conflict with their assertions, or you
cite certain teachings given by HPB that
conflict with the individuals
listed above, invariably the "defenders" will bring
forth in one way or the other what Carlos
has recently brought forth:


Defenders of Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey
and Prophet caution us not to depend or
rely too much (or at all!) on outer historical records, they
say not to depend on the "intellect" and
the "dead letter" of HPB's words but rather on the "intuition"
(the "heart").

In other words, when either historical records concerning
early Theosophical history and HPB
or actual teachings of HPB conflict with their
versions of reality, they try to deemphasize
the actual history, the actual teachings by
"going vague".  If you can make the historical events or 
teachings vague enough or "fuzzy" enough or of no
consequence then there are really no contradictions, 
no conflicting claims, no differing teachings.  

In the next few months when I have more time, I will
try to do a chart and show how these defenders (many of them
have actually been on Theos-Talk over the years) including
Carlos actually use this method. 



[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application