Moral Character and Famous Occultists, What's the explanation? Your opinions

EDIT: This probably should have gone in a different category, but I'm not sure how to switch it. Sorry.

Ok, so this will relate to Blavatsky and a couple other Theosophists, but let me explain how I got to thinking about this...

Ok, so a little while back I found a woman listed in a local New Age paper calling herself a Shamanic Counselor. She said she used some principles of shamanism and helped you apply them to your life and problems, etc. to help you improve things. This made some sense to me and I wanted to find out more and also really needed help in my life, so I went to see her. The first session was great, she seemed very nice, charged me almost nothing for the time spent, and I was looking forward to more.

She had told me most of her training came from a man named Harley "Swift Deer" Reagan. I came home and researched this guy just to learn more about him, and long story short found out that he is apparently a very unscrupulous person who has done a lot of shady stuff which I couldn't condone. I even tried to give him, and the woman I was working with, the benefit of the doubt....I contacted her, trying to find out what the real deal was and basically she said she has known him a long time and it couldn't be true and go screw myself if I don't believe her(paraphrasing). Various other thing led me to believe most of it was true.

Recently, I came across a similar situation - a man I was referred to who does some hypnotherapy and also has some shamanic background. He claims to have learned a lot from a man named Sun Bear, who has a similar controversial background to Harley "Swift Deer" Reagan.

Now, I've met enough charlatans over the years to know that a number of people involved in spirituality and occultism are either flat-out fake, incompetent, crazy, skilled yet immature, or a combination of those.

I mention this here because Blavatsky and Leadbeater both have some sketchy stuff associated with them, and I believe some other Theosophists as well. I believe Blavatsky probably has the strongest evidence against her as to the proof of the claims.

What do you guys think about this?

So much of what I've read about Theosophy makes a ton of sense to me, both logically and intuitively, and yet it's hard to understand(if it's true) how someone could do such awful things and yet be so advanced/evolved at the same time. Especially since in most traditions, Theosophy in particular, advancement and evolution seem to depend so strongly on moral character. At times, it feels very disappointing and frustrating and makes me wonder if the things I've come to believe in so strongly are really just BS like so many people I know claim, and if I'm just a stressed out guy looking for something bigger to hang onto to make me feel better even if it's total quackery.

I have known for some time now how to consistently, demonstratively, repeatedly connect with the Higher Self in a very visible way ... a procedure that would work with almost everyone. I have instructed on this in many of my sessions.


What is interesting, in fact I was quite shocked to stumble upon it, I have found that Blavatsky has done a very commendable job of indicating such a procedure exists. She lacked several critical specifications, (and I understand she has often expressed caution about sharing too many details), but in spite of all the claims of her not wanting people to pursue the esoteric skills, she did a spot on job, and yet managed to heavily couch it in hundreds of superflous words, and get it into her publications. The latter underscores my belief EVEN her works can be read from several levels of perspective.

ZeroPointForce, ... EVERY field has its charlatans. I could point out any number of politicans for you to look into. And don't even begin to get me started on either lawyers of doctors.

I am a pretty detailed, analytical fellow. AND, I happen to actually be skilled in the areas of your question. I have made MUCH EFFORT to validate these notables topics, experiments, processes and results. I will tell you this is about as close to the Real Deal as you are going to find in public print. One does still have to have some basic skill themselves so they understand WHY and HOW variations in results occur, and yet, they are all valid. What I have always loved telling people is that "Spirituality is Provable." And, Theosophy is an incredible foundation if one is on that pursuit.

I DON'T THINK SO. If you were in the fields you speak to, and also understood the full spectrum of her demonstration, you would conclude the alleged claims are and proofs are pretty much focused on the [nonesense] stuff. The Real stuff was and is apparantly beyond said examiners ability to validate. Kind of laughable.

ZPF, these are interesting points. The fact is, if you are looking for a perfect being to help you move smoothly and serenely towards enlightenment, you are always going to be disappointed. You will have to get used to filtering out bad advice, because we are all capable of incompetence, laziness, lack of maturity (and perhaps even deception).

I think that Blavatsky said she was not the right person for the task entrusted to her; she was simply the best person available at the time. No doubt she managed some aspects of her life less skilfully than her followers would have liked. But whatever her failings, she passed on chunks of ancient wisdom as she saw them and as revealed to her. Anyone reading her books today is under no pressure to believe them. You are free to test Blavatsky’s version of wisdom against other teachings, and reject whatever you choose.

You say that theosophy makes a ton of sense to you. That’s what counts.

ZPF,

I have known some excellent psychics. And I have known some total quacks. As everyone is saying here, it's the same no matter which field you look in. (But the good news is I HAVE known some excellent psychics.)

Christian - I'm aware that every field has its charlatans. I'm not questioning that. I also feel quite strongly that much of what Theosophy speaks of is true and accurate. I'm not questioning this either. I'm also not questioning whether any of Blavatsky's abilities were real. I believe she very clearly had remarkable abilities.

As to your capitalized "I DONT THINK SO" regarding Blavatsky evidence against her, I'm not sure where you're coming from. I certainly have more I could study on this and I'm not claiming it's definitely true, but from what I understand there's quite a bit of evidence that she was involved in putting the slot in the ceiling for precipitating letters and making some kind of fake cabinet for producing various "effects" during seances(along with various other lies and deceptions at different times). I'm not saying that if this was true, it would make her "real" things less real or even make her a bad person, but if these things are true, I'm confused about the nature of them.

For instance, was she just flat out making a mistake at that point in her life where she did this or that dishonest thing? Or was it part of her "blinds" and it was just some elaborate scheme to run off people who weren't ready or didn't have the tenacity to see beyond it? If it was just mistakes, then why did the Masters choose her after everything I've read about how a person has to be to become involved with the Masters? If it was purposeful in order to hide certain things, then were the Masters involved at these points or did Blavatasky orchestrate it herself and the Masters saw that she had good intentions? OR if it was instructed from the Masters, that seems contradictory to what I understand about the Masters' stand on deception...

Lanoo - I definitely agree with your take on this. Many people are either black or white on Blavatsky. She was either a total fraud or a total saint. I think she's a person who made a bunch of mistakes but was also a great woman. The only thing I don't understand is that some of the Theosophical ideas I've read seem to contradict the idea that someone who makes certain types of mistakes could become so involved with the Masters. Then again, maybe the "list of rules" I have read in several places as to how to attract attention from the Masters is something where I should also read between the lines.

I'm definitely not looking for someone perfect per se, but I've been more than disappointed in the very low maturity levels of certain people who claim or insinuate that they are at a certain level of evolution or maturity, or who I just personally think they *should* have a certain level of maturity to be doing the work they're doing. When the average person I meet shows more maturity than someone who "supposedly" spends most of their time trying to consciously evolve, work on themselves, connect with higher energies, etc., it troubles me quite a bit. Know what I mean? I hope that made sense.

And Theosophy does make sense to me. That definitely does count for a lot.

Nick - I agree. I've known the whole range, from quack, to half-quack/half-real, to incredible real and talented. I guess I wasn't really doubting that people can have these abilities, just more wondering how the abilities interconnect with certain aspects or maturity and morality, and in particular how the Masters and other higher beings view these types of things. Plus, I've had a few bad experiences lately that have really disillusioned me in some ways.

Attacking anyone over some form of 'mentor' is bound to end ugly- regardless in which field, it forces someone wanting to 'defend' themselves.
You said this woman received 'training' by someone- receiving some kind of training/mentorship does not have to equal switching one's wn brain off.
She could be in complete alignment, or she could have simply gotten extremely defensive when being 'accused' of something. People are individuals.

After all, you seemed like a happy client at first- and only started questioning her when you made some research. (by the way, 'almost no money charged' does not have to equal superior skills to me- a 40 dollar reading can be a complete waste and a 200 dollar reading priceless...although I would be rather ticked should the 200 dollar one turn out to be something that does not resonate at all. I rather an outstanding psychic medium to work as a psychic medium instead of emotionally and spiritually wasting away in a 9-5 job, because most rent is more than even those 200 bucks...)
So you had no issue with her and her work at first- but went into buyer's remorse when looking up people she was associated with.

Imagine people start attacking you over a former boss- despite your work being initially valued. That seems difficult to process.

You felt good about the work she did- that is what she remembers. And then she was attacked. The majority of people will react back violently when feeling attacked.

I personally found that not everyone with demonstrated psychic ability is very 'spiritual'. Or could it be that (with rare exceptions) no one is perfect among those physically incarnated, or not?
Charlatans with meager ethics do exist everywhere, wether you're trying to by a (used) car, seek legal or medical advice.

You make some good points, Modulating Lights.

I can relate these sentiments to Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, and our great minds and leaders of Theosophical philosophical history, those of Higher learning and experience, and those who must determine WHAT is to be learned, WHEN it is to be so, and WHO is ready. The Who, What, When, Where and Why that the Higher Mysteries or Teachers must ultimately impart is, was, and always will be (even today) a long crooked chicken bone that will EVER stick in the craw of the envious.

You points SHOULD be obvious to all, but yet it always seems to perplex the perpetrators. Journalists come to mind ̶ always the bane of the wisdom bringers, as they profit most by attacking the most qualified of teachers. How evident this was in Blavatsky’s day, the damage done was incalculable, the remorse, non-existent from these cold and vile accusers. Hopefully mankind has learned to sniff out their sneaky rat-tracks, and repugnant self-serving behavior. This has happened ALL through history, and appropriately deserves our interminable disdain. Consider the wisdom that has been lost, the lessons unlearned, the teachers untaught. Correspondents “attacking anyone over some form of ‘mentor’ [mentorship] is bound to end ugly – regardless in which field,” as you say.

How steadfastly they set out to twist every fact, turn every witness, poison the actual evidence of fact for their personal glory of CREATING an expose or controversy. Most people should readily see the machinations of journalists, for example ̶ such as the Enquirers’ and Examiners’ of our day, and those dramaturgical correspondents and journals of Blavatsky’s day. One must marvel at their lack of any modicum of moral character. Everyone is manipulated by them, and their objective is unabashedly destructive towards the notable personage of actual character. We saw in Blavatsky’s era how those journalistic sources showed no disgrace whatsoever in turning good theosophist upon good theosophist / student(s) upon teacher(s).

They never draw on facts, simple allusions, as if their base claiming of fraud and bad character, swindling, private audiences, and motivation could EVER make their words so ̶ in the past, however, many otherwise learned theosophists gave up a “Good” fight, the Right fight, when they should have stood their ground, stood by Madame Blavatsky, and protected their illuminated mentor. Those poor mentors of the day, Blavatsky specifically included, would certainly have battled fervently (as you indicate) since her/their charge was not merely to defend themselves, but those who learned immeasurably from her, and the body of belief itself ̶ for their time, and for the future. The wisdom must be protected at all costs, and especially protected from the profane. How easy it would have been to simply give in to these swindlers, … but no, a noble cause requires a noble fight. Her/their ethics was most assuredly attacked, and their vindication is the preservation of the Truth for future generations. She did not continue to cast pearls before swine, cheese to the rats, … but rather let them revel in their frenzy until they started chewing their own limbs apart. In the end the right thing was done, the actual unequivocal proof WAS NOT put on the alter just to save themselves, our leaders took the wounds willingly so as NOT to suffer the wisdom in the wrong and dangerous hands. The morals of our leaders were never actually in question; they were just sensationalized by self-serving interests. And, we are here today re-pondering that great wisdom hidden esoterically because it has STILL remained preserved for the few who are ready.

This was a Good fight. This was a Right fight. And she did it alone. This was not a moral issue alone, it was a virtuous one.

... any over there in China?

Modulating Lights - I think you've twisted my words a bit. Although I will admit that later on in our conversation, things with this woman became a bit heated, I did not attack her in any way whatsoever at first. In fact, the only time I became anything but courteous about it was when she started attacking me just for asking her some questions about it. I'm not saying I should have lost my cool even at that point if I was acting ideally, but that's how it happened.

The reference to someone getting upset about a "former boss" doesn't really apply here. Our first session was a little over 2 hours long. Almost all of this time was devoted to telling me about Harley Reagan - his history, his beliefs, his teachings, and all around how amazing she thought he was. Almost 100% of everything this woman did(in her counseling) was based on this man. So when you put it as if she just had some past association with him is watering it down quite a bit.

Then we come to the research, which I did not even start out doing for anything other than to learn more about the man and his beliefs. I had a great attitude towards this whole experience at that point. When I started reading all this disturbing stuff about him, then I wrote her and essentially said "Hey, I found all this stuff about Harley Reagan. I'm confused. Can you tell me what this all about?" I'm paraphrasing here, but I made a point of being very polite and of asking what she knew of thought about it. I think I VERY much had a right to ask about it. If I'm going to be counseled by someone who learned most or all of what she does from someone who seems to be a liar/con artist/criminal, then I have the right to at least ask about it.

And on one hand, I agree that the average person will get somewhat defensive when questioned about certain things, but I think anyone putting themselves out there as a spiritual teacher/mentor/healer needs to be a little more mature than that. People are going to question, doubt, be skeptical. It's natural. And if a spiritual teacher/mentor gets all "pissy" whenever they are questioned or someone becomes skeptical, frankly I think it just hurts their cause all the more and shows that maybe they are not mature enough to be doing what they're doing if they take another person's questions or doubts so personally - or even personally at all.

I do think, as I think someone else mentioned(or maybe that was another forum, sorry) that a bad teacher can still produce a good student. In fact, I think the woman I was referring to is in general a good person and probably does help some people. I think she was just so invested(had written several books with a lot about Harley Reagan in them, etc.) in this that my questions shook her whole belief system and her life for the past however many years and she couldn't even begin to consider if I had a point because it would have crushed everything she was at that point. But she acted so immaturely and jumped down my throat SO fast when all I was doing was asking legitimate questions that anyone would ask, that I personally think she needs to be more mature if she's going to stay in that line of work.