Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00281)

Jan 13 2003

Dear Friends:

May I but in?

Anything written that claims to be theosophically related can only be
compared with the Original teachings.

Are they coherent and consecutive in logic, intent and meaning ?

Each student has to make that determination for themselves. No one
dares make it for others.
If they do this they claim "authority." And that is very dangerous
because the next step involves setting up a sect of believers who have
faith but DO NOT KNOW.

Thus religions begin.

In this case we have available for assistance a work done around
1923/25 by Margaret Thomas. It is entitled THEOSOPHY or
NEO-THEOSOPHY.

Reference to this book ( I have an original.) shows that it consist in
making parallel columns of the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS and corresponding
statements by CWL or A Besant.

This enables the student to make their own decisions as to further
research, or the use those as adequate evidence of DIFFERENCES.

I am sure Daniel has a copy of this book or can make it available on
line.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=========================

-----Original Message-----
From: D. H. Caldwell <info@blavatskyarchives.com>
[mailto:info@blavatskyarchives.com]
Sent:	Monday, January 13, 2003 12:41 PM
To:	theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	Theos-World Phillip, do you include Leadbeater & Besant in
the same load with Prophet et al.

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







Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/