Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00688)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> 
wrote:
> "Showing" something to be true has no effect to those who refuse
> to be shown. Have you ever seen a CWL devotee even acknowledge
> reading The Elder Brother, let alone offer a substantive
> criticism? No, it's all fingers-in-the-ears I-can't-hear-you
> la-la-la. E.g. Radha's non-response to Perry.

I have been studying Piaget for a test I have coming up, and he has a 
concept of "equilibration" which means as people assimilate (i.e., 
take in new information) they are compelled to accomodate (i.e., 
revise their belief systems to avoid dissonance.) If you want to 
avoid accomodating (not that anyone would) it may be necessary to 
aggressively filter out new information (i.e., avoid assimilating). 
That explains why theosophists are careful to read only 
theosophically correct points of view, preferably the same books over 
and over and over. It also explains why they go into a rage when any 
southern fried librarians intrude with views that are not safe. What 
it does not explain is how and why people choose which nonsense they 
wish to believe. That includes not just CWL but Joseph Smith, Ellen 
White, pupe Wojtyla, Elizabeth Prophet, and others. It also does not 
explain why accomodating is such a dreadful thing, to be avoided at 
all cost. The catholics use horrible threats to keep their people in 
line, but CWL did not.

Intriguingly someone recently raised the argument that it may all be 
hogwash, but they have decided to classify it a religious belief, and 
therefore to examine it is disrespectful to the people who wish to 
believe it. That is of course mere evasion and not an honest search 
for the truth.

> I would say the gold standard is truth, not HPB, and CWL has
> been found wanting on that score

Well, yes, but when CWL pontificates on some subject that cannot be 
confirmed except by clairvoyant investigation and theosophists refuse 
to attack the problem practically (i.e., by clairvoyant means) the 
only option remaining to them is to consult their guru. How could 
one scientifically examine his claim that the logos is three little 
balls suspended in mid-air? The idea is ridiculous on the face of 
it, but how would one test it if disinclined to reject it a priori? 
Since HPB defined what theosophy is, and since CWL's stuff is totally 
idiosyncratic, it makes sense that theosophists would appeal to HPB's 
stuff as proof that CWL was not teaching theosophy.

As for the atomic weights issue you bring up, the issue should be 
whether Leadbeater anticipated any scientific discovery of 
significance that occurred AFTER his book was published. Since the 
atomic weights were known before, they are not significant as 
evidence in favor of his clairvoyance. The notion that matter is 
made of atoms goes all the way back to Leucippus.