Carlos uses the Same kind of argument as defenders of Leadbeater, etc.??
Apr 27, 2006 05:36 PM
Carlos uses the Same kind of argument as defenders of Leadbeater,
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 arguments quite
similar if not identical to those used by Carlos.
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"), the meaning beyond the words.
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.
I find it most interesting that Carlos employs the
same kind of argument and tactic.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application