Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00251)

Phillip, do you include Leadbeater & Besant in the same "load" with 
Prophet et al.?

Phillip, you wrote:

"Loads of them! Clare Prophet and Summit Lighthouse,I Am Movement, 
and much other 'channelled' material. All make a travesty of the 
Masters and distort." 

Do you include Leadbeater and Besant in the SAME "load," too? Do CWL 
and AB also "make a travesty of the Masters and distort"?

I wonder if you are aware of the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to C.W. Leadbeater's and Annie Besant's Theosophical 
teachings, Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn in his book Theosophy: A Modern 
Revival of Ancient Wisdom (published 1930) wrote the following 
relevant statement: 

"Certain schools of his critics assert flatly that he [C. W. 
Leadbeater] has only succeeded in vitiating her [H.P. Blavatsky's] 
original presentation [of Theosophy]. Two years ago [starting in the 
March 15, 1928 issue] The Canadian Theosophist, a magazine published 
under the editorship of Mr. Albert Smythe at Toronto, published a 
series of articles in which parallel passages from the writings of 
Madame Blavatsky and the Mahatma Letters on one side, and from the 
books of Mrs. Besant, Mr. Leadbeater, Mr. C. Jinarajadasa, on the 
other, give specific evidence bearing on the claims of perversion of 
the original theories by those whom they call Neo-Theosophists. The 
articles indicate wide deviations, in some cases complete reversal, 
made by the later interpreters [Besant, Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa] 
from the fundamental statements of the Russian Messenger [Blavatsky] 
and her Overlords [the Mahatmas]." 

"The differences concern such matters as the personality of God, the 
historicity of Jesus, his identity as an individual or a principle, 
the desirability of churches, priestcraft and religious ceremonial, 
the genuineness of an apostolic succession, and a vicarious 
atonement, the authority of Sacraments, the nature and nomenclature 
of the seven planes of man's constitution, the planetary chains, the 
monad, the course of evolution, and many other important phases of 
Theosophic doctrine. This exhaustive research has made it apparent 
that the later exponents have allowed themselves to depart in many 
important points from the teachings of H.P.B." (pp. 330-331)

Dr. James A. Santucci, professor of religious studies at California 
State University, Fullerton and editor of Theosophical History 
<http://www.theohistory.org/>, confirms Kuhn's statements:

"The two [Besant and Leadbeater] were largely responsible for the 
introduction of new teachings that were often in total opposition to 
the Theosophy of Blavatsky and her Masters. These teachings were 
designated by their opponents as Neo-Theosophy . . . or less often 
Pseudo-Theosophy. The differences between Theosophy and Neo-Theosophy 
are too numerous to mention in the context of this paper. . . . An 
extensive overview [of the differences] is given in the unpublished 
booklet, Theosophy or Neo-Theosophy by Margaret Thomas. . . . The 
booklet was written around 1925." Quoted from: 
http://www.theohistory.org/aquarian_foundation.pdf
---------------------------------------------------
The above quoted from:
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/contradictionslatermessengers.htm

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://hpb.cc