Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00290)

Might I offer some comments on a few recent postings?

1. Did Leadbeater claim to be an Adept?
I cannot offer any comment on whether Leadbeater WAS an Adept, since I do 
know possess any faculty capable of such discernment. I would, however, 
note that by his own definitions of the qualities required of "true 
occultists" (particularly that of "absolute honesty") he could not have 
been. Leadbeater generally avoided definitive statements about himself. 
When Annie Besant described him as "a man on the threshold of divinity" 
(is that a definition of an Adept?) he made no (known) comment. He 
certainly did not correct her. When Arundale "brought through" what are 
widely known as the "Huizen revelations" of 1925, he (Arundale) declared 
that the leading figures in the Adyar TS had taken all manner of "occult 
advancements" and that Besant and Leadbeater were certainly Adepts, that 
is, they had taken their Fifth (Asekha) Initiation (in Leadbeater's 
scheme). Leadbeater described the Adept in some detail in his "Masters 
and the Path" (1925:337-9 and elsewhere). After the "Huizen Revelations", 
Leadbeater privately expressed his disapproval (but again said nothing in 
public), and told Krishnamurti: "At least you are an Arhat" (presumably 
meaning that some, or even all, who had been thus proclaimed by Arundale 
were not). He said (again, privately) that he hoped that he and Besant 
would pass their Fifth Initiations in their next lifetime. I know of no 
statememt by Leadbeater to the effect that he was an Adept (although he 
certainly seems to have claimed the Fourth Initiation, Arhat). I have 
explored some of these tedious matters in my biography of Leadbeater, 
"The Elder Bother", and have pursued them in more detail in the very much 
more substantial PhD thesis which followed the biography. However, 
Leadbeater's perception of his own occult status needs now to be 
reconsidered in the light of the research undertaken by Dr Brendan French 
for his PhD thesis, "The Theosophical Masters". His analysis of 
Leadbeater's view of the Egyptian Rite and its role in (my words, not 
his) creating a technology for the creation of Adepts, goes far beyond my 
own research. No doubt when this invaluable research is published it will 
provoke renewed discussion (not to say controversy) about Leadbeater's 
version of Theosophy as contrasted with Blavatsky's. Arundale (and 
probably Hodson) seem to have believed that Leadbeater was an Adept, and 
Arundale wrote of Leadbeater's role on the "inner planes" in assisting 
Theosophists (presumably only those of the Adyar tradition!) in their 
post-mortem development. If anyone knows of any direct statement by 
Leadbeater as to his occult status as an Adept, I would be grateful to 
hear of it.

2. The Old/Liberal Catholic Church
The so-called "Old Catholic Church" of which Wedgwood and Leadbeater were 
bishops bore absolutely no relationship to the Old Catholic Churches of 
Europe (and notably of the Netherlands) and was specifically repudiated 
by them. The story is a complex one (which I am exploring in - probably 
boring! - detail in a "History of the Origins of the Liberal Catholic 
Church, 1915-1920"), but to simplify: Wedgwood was made a bishop for a 
group of essentially Theosophical dissidents who broke from a bishop 
(Arnold Mathew) originally consecrated by and linked to the European Old 
Catholics. Mathew had broken with the Old Catholics of the Utrecht Union, 
declared himself independent and fell prey to all sorts of ecclesiastical 
vagabonds (including Wedgwood). Wedgwood, who had sworn fidelity to 
traditional Catholic doctrine (although how he reconciled such a solemn 
and written oath with his Theosophy remains a mystery), but issued a 
"declaration of independence" when Mathew declared Theosophy and 
Catholicism to be incompatible. Wedgwood later made various attempts to 
reconcile with the Dutch Old Catholics, but they ignored him. The name of 
the church was changed to "Liberal Catholic Church" and it was cleraly 
identified as (and remains) a Theosophical (in the Adyar sense) body.

3. "Political correctness" in Theosophy
I would not like to be thought responsible for what appears to have 
become a series of attacks on the ULT! That the ULT holds to a model of 
"political correctness" (to use the common, somewhat tainted, modern 
expression) for Theosophy seems to me to be completely beyond criticism. 
Pt Loma and Adyar (and others) do likewise. I have no doubt that if I 
offered to give a talk on (say) "The Fraud of Leadbeater" at an Adyar 
lodge, I would not be welcome. Likewise, a talk on (say) "Mrs (why on 
earth is she described as "Madame"?) Tingley's Fraud" in a Pt Loma group 
I would be politely sent away. "Robert Crosbie as a Fraud" (say) would 
not get up in the ULT. None of this is unexpected, nor reprehensible. My 
local Roman Catholic parish would not invite me to speak on "Fraudulent 
Papal Claims", nor would my Anglican parish welcome an address on "The 
Invalidity of Anglican Orders". Nor would the local Jehovah's Witness 
community welcome a learned paper on "Charles Taze Russell as a False 
Prophet"! What's unusual or odd about any of this? When the Sydney 
(Adyar) TS Lodge recently held a seminar on Leadbeater's life, did I 
expect to be invited? Hardly. True Believers do not invite criticism 
(scholarly or otherwise) of their Received Truth positions. The only 
aspect of the ULT that I find odd is its insistence that it does not 
constitute a Received Truth position which, of necessity, excludes 
alternative views. There is a ULT Received Truth position, just as there 
is, in reality if not in theory, a body of "guardians" of that Truth. 
Just why the ULT feels the need to deny this is something I do not 
understand. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I may not agree with 
(for example) the local Roman Catholic parish's doctrine, but I do not 
deny them the right to defend, protect and promote that doctrine, and to 
exclude people like me who may challenge it. I know of no Theosophical 
group that does not hold to, promote and exclude critics (or even 
questioners) of their Received Truth position. One might note that 
Blatavsky did likewise!

Dr Gregory Tillett