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

Re: Carlos Castaneda And The Shaman. Tales From The Jungle

Mar 06, 2008 00:10 AM
by plcoles1

Hi Nigel, 
Thanks for your comments unfortunately I can't comment at length as 
I am preparing to go overseas very shortly and my time online will 
be minimal for the next month but I can at least offer a brief 

For one thing I am no longer convinced that the allegations against 
CWL being a paedophile are conclusive and so can only class these as 
allegations and not irrefutable fact and so on these grounds would 
not base a whole argument to discredit him based on the allegations.
It seems he was an accepted chela on probation at least this seems 
the case given KH's letters to him.

Did he fall of the chela perch? Maybe, we are told that this more 
often that not is what happens. But really we don't know for sure.

The question I have is if KH accepted him as a Chela and as a 
Mahatma he would (you would think) know of these alleged 
predispositions and then encourage him to take up chelaship?

Seems odd to me and raises many questions.

There are too many unknowns in this for me now to have a definite 
and hard stance on CWL.

I don't resonate or accept everything that he wrote or said, but I 
also don't believe his writings are damaging or harmful either and 
think they contain much of benefit as long as a seeker uses their 
discernment, as they should with everything they read.

The TS has his books but it has no gurus or teaching authorities 
either and each can take or leave what they want in their own way 
and in their own time, if at all.

I resonate with the overall theosophical concepts but some things 
for example like the "brothers of the shadow" thing I find 
problematic and even the idea of "a chela" is something I sometimes 
find a bit Victorian and cliché and prefer to look at more as 
metaphore than actual. Maybe its true or actual I dont know but I 
see problems in getting into  a "I am a chela" mindset. 

I am sure we all have things we resonate more with and things we 
don't for whatever reason but at the end of the day its our choice, 
know one should be there to arbitrate what we should and should not 
read or study or how we interpret things, the key to me is 
discernment, take what we like and leave the rest.



--- In, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@...> wrote:
> Dear Perry
> Thank you for your response.
> You write, "From my current point of view CLW's 
> writings by on large taught fairly balanced 
> spiritual values and tolerance for others and 
> these writings no doubt have encouraged people 
> to try and develop those principles as well and 
> brought some light into the world."
> From one perspective, your approach, prima facie, 
> appears entirely reasonable.
> Who would argue with the principles of tolerance 
> and acceptance under normal circumstances.
> Undoubtedly in our world there is excessive 
> judgement and condemnation rooted in fear, power 
> and prejudice, in all their manifestations. 
> And in a decent society we need combat this 
> wherever they raise their ugly head.
> Also undoubtedly too, everyone necessarily has 
> something of value to offer, however great or 
> small.
> So, where you write the above, this is a true 
> statement as far as it goes.
> But, do we sometimes need to look beyond the 
> immediately obvious? 
> After all, there are many religious and spiritual 
> teachers who have brought the above.
> So, what else did Bishop Leadbeater bring? 
> Through his sexual abuse of some of the young 
> boys in his care, he brought psychological and 
> emotional damage. 
> I urge you to read the effects of paedophilia on 
> children, just from an ordinary human perspective. 
> As you are aware, I worked professionally with 
> abused young people and the damage is considerable 
> and long lasting, sometimes to the extent of suicide. 
> It cannot be argued Bishop Leadbeater lived during 
> the times of Plato where it was arguably an accepted 
> practice.
> He was an English priest in Victorian times where 
> puritanical Victorian morality was deeply entrenched. 
> Simply by his reception from people throughout the 
> world, he knew his actions were abominable, that is 
> of course by those who were not under his spell. 
> He caused splits in the Adyar Society by theosophists 
> who were appalled by his confessed actions. 
> Any decent person, even if he were innocent, would 
> have withdrawn permanently from the Society to save 
> it and Theosophy embarrassment and humiliation, and 
> the potential loss of earnest seekers at the time and 
> into the future. 
> Then perhaps consider the occult consequences. 
> With what occult energies was he in contact? 
> Sexual abuse of children is all about power and 
> domination of those most susceptible and vulnerable. 
> Are these the energies of highly evolved, spiritual 
> beings with whom he claimed acquaintance? 
> Of course not, if Theosophy has any veracity. 
> Can you see a correlation here between his actions 
> and mindset relating to children and the same 
> relating to his church flock of followers? 
> Of course he spoke about the necessary independence 
> of people, but the mental and physical structures he 
> built, or caused to be built, and his subsequent actions, 
> demonstrated and produced something quite different.
> He also brought a litany of demonstrable lies 
> and misrepresentations. 
> These were not lies of the ordinary kind where a 
> "white" lie is told to protect someone from 
> unnecessary suffering. Nor were they those which we 
> might ordinarily, in our weakness, tell to protect 
> ourselves from an undesired outcome.
> They were blatant and ongoing falsifications which 
> in turn encouraged others to follow him and his 
> teachings. 
> As you know, he claimed to be in direct contact with 
> the very same teachers as Madame Blavatsky whilst 
> utterly contradicting much of their teachings.
> What sort of mindset does this? 
> Is it honest and honourable within reasonable bounds? 
> If not, should we tolerate it as legitimate and 
> acceptable, and thereby likely to assist us towards 
> anything of like kind, such as the genuine truths of 
> existence, just because some of what came out of his 
> mouth happened to be true? 
> At the level of simply honesty, is it fair to 
> assume Madame Blavatsky and her teachers would 
> accept his representations of their teachings? 
> Of course not. 
> Is it fair to think they would have accepted his 
> sexual proclivities for small boys? 
> Also, of course not.
> What then of the effects of this behaviour on 
> everyday people? 
> More importantly perhaps, what also the occult 
> effects of these energies made manifest in our 
> mental and psychic atmosphere? 
> It is perhaps with these with which we need be most 
> concerned. 
> From an occult perspective, keeping people in 
> ignorance of his mental and physical misdemeanours, 
> does not protect them from the subtle energies of 
> his mindset.
> How might his mindset of thought patterns subtly 
> affect the way vulnerable seekers think, particularly 
> those who, in their ignorance, feel an affinity with 
> the romantic nature of his writings?
> In the final analysis, who in their right mind would 
> want to associate with the energies of a demonstrably 
> compulsive liar, misrepresenter and paedophile for any 
> reason other than to help him see the error of his ways, 
> or to apprise and warn others of the aforementioned 
> facts? 
> From my perspective, in this relativistic, post-modern 
> mindset world, in some instances, there are still 
> certain matters which are either right or wrong. 
> How we deal with wrong is always debatable. 
> Supporting wrong, in whatever form, is not.
> Kind regards
> Nigel
> --- In, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nigel,
> > 
> > You wrote :
> > 
> > "From my perspective, humanity's gullibility and
> > misguided forms of acceptance, often influenced by
> > powerful occult energies, know no bounds and ensures
> > we are to remain the mere playthings of the Brothers
> > of the Shadow for some time to come."
> > 
> > Yes we are, all of us to some extent gullible and misguided but 
> > do from time to time have insights and do good deeds as well.
> > 
> > From my current point of view CLW's writings by on large taught 
> > fairly balanced spiritual values and tolerance for others and 
> > writings no doubt have encouraged people to try and develop 
> > principles as well and brought some light into the world.
> > 
> > I have problems with this concept of "brothers of the shadow" it 
> > smacks too much to me of "Satan and his demons", aren't we all a 
> > mixture of  good and bad and sometimes we are under "shadows" 
> > then sometimes more influenced by the "light", isn't paradox and 
> > contradiction evident in all facets of life?
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Perry
> > 
> > 
> > --- In, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> 
> > >
> > > --- In, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> 
> > > >
> > > > Interesting doco.
> > > > Perry
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> docid=8575648331106173390&hl=en
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Dear Perry
> > > 
> > > Thank you for this most interesting documentary
> > > of yet another fraud and liar duping his 
> > > followers. 
> > > I remember reading his work The Teachings of Don 
> > > Juan in the early seventies.
> > > It reminds me of one Cyril Hoskin a k a T Lobsang 
> > > Rampa, another of like kind, who many of us young 
> > > seekers absorbed, in our gullible innocence, as a 
> > > truthful and honest person. 
> > > 
> > > What is quite extraordinary to me is that, despite 
> > > unequivocal evidence of their fraud and lies, 
> > > their deceptions and hypocrisy and their utterly 
> > > discredited fantasies, they still have followers 
> > > who believe in them and much of what they say.   
> > > 
> > > What is even more extraordinary to me is that 
> > > among so-called theosophical truth-seekers Bishop 
> > > C W Leadbeater is still accepted as a person of 
> > > credibility and even adoration. 
> > > Others accept him and his fantasies simply because 
> > > some of his writings happen to copy what other 
> > > genuine truth-tellers have said or written before 
> > > him.
> > > 
> > > At least Mr Castaneda only claimed to have been 
> > > taught by a Yaqui shaman. 
> > > 
> > > And Mr Hoskin only claimed to be a Tibetan Lama. 
> > > 
> > > Bishop Leadbeater claimed to be in contact with the 
> > > "Supreme Director of evolution on this globe", 
> > > perhaps his most supreme fantasy, amongst many others.
> > > 
> > > From my perspective, humanity's gullibility and 
> > > misguided forms of acceptance, often influenced by 
> > > powerful occult energies, know no bounds and ensures 
> > > we are to remain the mere playthings of the Brothers 
> > > of the Shadow for some time to come.
> > > 
> > > Kind regards
> > > Nigel
> > >
> >

[Back to Top]

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