Remove this ad

#61 [url]

Feb 15 16 4:51 AM

You are right. I have 20+ blue books on a bookshelf and they do look cool!! But given that they were published over a period of nearly 30 years, they are also the most consistent and deepest teachings I have come across. They make all modern channelled books pale into insignificance. They have an authenticity which most channelled teachings sadly lack.

Yes, AAB was a product of the Victorian era and at one stage she was an evangelical Christian. But the Christ she frequently refers to in the blue books was not the Christ of the Bible. Instead he was a highly advanced Master working through the vehicle of another initiate. She was a member of the Theosophical Society but she came into conflict with Annie Besant, the president of the TS, over her claims to be in contact with the Masters, particularly DK (Djwhal Khul), the Tibetan who features in the Mahatma Letters to AP Sinnett. So she was expelled from the TS and formed the Lucis Trust.

CW Leadbeater has maybe had a bad press. Certainly he can be connected with a lot of nonsense about the Theosophical Society, and as a bishop of the Liberal Catholic Church in Australia he became notorious for teaching boys how to masturbate. Yet somehow he saw a boy on a beach in India and recognised that he was a future world teacher. That boy was Jiddu Krishnamurti.

JY introduced me to all this, and for that I am grateful. If we can penetrate beyond the superficial nonsense there is a rich vein of esoteric philosophy which is well worth exploring.

And yes, it is odd to think of the staid Victorian times and the rise of Theosophy and the Golden Dawn. Truly the start of a new era.



Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#62 [url]

Feb 15 16 7:14 AM

This is great stuff Iamthat. I have to say it's a rare teenage boy indeed that needs to be taught how to masterbate. I'm pretty much certain they're all self taught  experts. But I don't see this as some Yewtree situation - we can't understimate how different attitudes in those times were to how we are today.

Hurray for the Lucis trust. I'll check out that teacher you mentioned - I'm sure it's worth exploring.


Quote    Reply   

#63 [url]

May 25 16 7:55 AM

arjunas mate wrote:
 Yes there all the hallmarks of cult behaviour. I respect that some individuals may have serious grievances. But please think about what you're saying. Jimmy Savile is the most infamous, reviled serial sexual abuser of adults and children known in our society. Criticise JY by all means but come on? really?

You can only be infamous and reviled if you are well known. Most people have never heard of John Yarr. Even in books about cult leaders gone wrong he isn't mentioned. Also, Savile died in his 80s, was never caught out, and had more opportunities than Yarr. Yarr got caught early in his abusing career. I said earlier that many people thought Savile was wonderful and did not see his dark side. There was a smaller number of people who could see his dark side but still chose to support him. That was because they shared his manipulative nature and were indifferent to human suffering. So, you decide for yourself which of these two groups you belong to.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#64 [url]

May 30 16 4:04 PM

Andrew divides people into two groups regarding Jimmy Savile:
1) Those who thought he was wonderful and did not see his dark side
2) Those who saw his dark side and chose to support him, because they supposedly shared his manipulative nature and were indifferent to human suffering.

Andrew then invites us to decide which group we belong to.This seems to be very black and white thinking, and I am not sure if it is quite this simplistic.

I for one did not know about his dark side but I did not think JS was wonderful. I thought he was a prat with a very strange energy.

Many people saw and experienced his dark side but did not choose to support him. Apparently, many complaints about him were dismissed at the time. Others did not complain because they did not think they would be believed. Those in a position to act failed to do so, not necessarily due  to being manipulative and indifferent to suffering. Perhaps they found it hard to believe, perhaps they thought the victims were exaggerating. Who knows. And it could be argued that much of this happened in a different era with much less awareness.

But comparing JS with JY is really a red herring, and I question the value of Andrew's persistence in comparing the two. 

JY persuaded a number of foolish women to take their clothes off and play with his todger. He told at least one that her husband would die and they could then get married. He may or may not have abused two girls. I was around when these accusations were being made, and I could never decide if they were factual (I suspect that they were) or just one of the many rumours circulating at that time. Yes, he abused his position (after all, he was the Master of the Universe), but the adult women involved have to accept some responsibility.

The adepts around JY were in a strange position. On the one hand, they realised that their supreme guru was this rather unpleasant man with some peculiar habits, on the other hand they fully believed that their spiritual enightenment was due to this same man. If they revealed what they knew then the path would end and the disciples would be denied their chance of enlightenment. Therefore they kept quiet (although two chose to leave rather than remain a part of this). I know at least one adept who went on holiday with JY (and others) for a couple of weeks and grew to hate him. He did not try anything with her, but she simply saw what an unpleasant person he was. It wasn't until the adepts finally got round to comparing notes and experiences that they realised that the problem was too big to ignore.

I do agree that JY's infamy is restricted because he is a relative nonentity (although there are a couple of books on Western spirituality in which he gets a mention). But unless something dramatic happens he will end up as no more than a footnote in the history of 20th century spirituality. We lesser mortals will not even merit that.



Quote    Reply   

#65 [url]

Jul 14 16 4:56 AM

iamthat, my friend, this has been an interesting discussion but it has now reached the stage where we are going round in circles. I persist in comparing John Yarr and Jimmy Savile and you persist in denying the comparison. You say you question the value of my persistence. I think most people reading this will question why you persist in trivializing what John Yarr did.

You say "JY persuaded a number of foolish women to take their clothes off and play with his todger". If John Yarr had chosen to have a free love cult like Rajneesh he could have had sex with as many people as he liked and few would have criticized him. But that's not his way. Abuse isn't about having fun or seeking sexual satisfaction, it is about control, manipulation and cruelty. John Yarr damaged women and children. This is from 'The rise and fall of Lifewave' by Andrew Rawlinson found earlier in this thread "He certainly caused all of them distress, and two adepts who work in alternative medicine have told me that they have treated women who had become ill as a result of their involvement with Yarr".

You say "He may or may not have abused two girls". We're not talking about 17 year olds here. He had sex with children. That is what is generally accepted. He damaged them emotionally too.

I think your problem is that someone told you a long time ago that John Yarr is an expert on spiritual matters. John Yarr told you that Alice Bailey is an expert on spiritual matters. Instead of thinking for yourself you accepted that. That's why you don't want to think about what Eric Lerner has written. You don't consider him an authority on light and sound meditation. But he understood what John Yarr will probably never know and you will probably never accept and that is the limitations of meditation on light and sound. It can (like psychedelic drugs) give you realizations but it doesn't change you as a person. You still have all the desire and anger that you had before. In fact you have more desire because now you also have the desire for the bliss of higher levels of reality.

Eric Lerner didn't need to be an authority on inner light and sound. He didn't need to know everything about it to know its limitations. Although there are Buddhist authors who do know about it; it's called nimitta. In the 1980s people had to choose between VHS and Betamax. They didn't need to know everything about both systems, they just needed to know that VHS is a better system.

I have tried to explain to you on this thread that John Yarr was not as intelligent or as knowledegable as you and others think. It doesn't make sense to treat Alice Bailey, the Theosophical Society and Krishnamurti as if they were one body of knowledge as John Yarr thought and you seem to think. Annie Besant rejected Alice Bailey, and Krishnamurti rejected the Theosophical Society. Alice Bailey took the worst aspects of the Theosophical Society, the pretented telephathic contact and materialized letters from Himalayan masters like Koot Hoomi et al.

HP Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott founded the Theosophical Society. They declared themselves to be Buddhists. They went to Sri Lanka. They encouraged a Sri Lankan man later called Dharmapala to translate Pali texts. These texts in the Pali language are the oldest texts in Buddhism. Dharmapala encouraged meditation, and he together with Olcott were responsible for a resurgence in Buddhist meditation in Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand where the practice had almost died out.

Now millions of people practice vipassana or insight meditation in Asia and the West. There are different forms, some better than others (I wouldn't recommend Goenka retreats). Advanced meditators can also practice concentration (samatha or samadhi) meditation where they can experience higher levels of reality (called jhanas) and inner light (called nimitta). There are people who claim to be enlightened by these methods. Whether they are truly enlightened or perhaps only partly enlightened is another matter.

Last Edited By: andrew Jul 14 16 8:55 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#66 [url]

Jul 20 16 12:02 PM

John Yarr told you that Alice Bailey is an expert on spiritual matters. Instead of thinking for yourself you accepted that.

My appreciation of the Alice Bailey material comes from actually reading the books, not from what I was told some decades ago.

Andrew, I wish you success with your spiritual endeavours.


Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help