Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00310)

Pedro,

Thanks for your posting titled "Re: Daniel on 'Theosophy 
and Neo-Theosophy' " which can be read at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/16020

Your comments were made in response to my posting titled 
"Pedro on 'Theosophy and Neo-Theosophy' and related issues"
which can be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/16003

I am somewhat amazed at your comments and the line of argument
that you take.

First I quote your relevant remarks collated from your posting:

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

...The date of publication of "The Secret Doctrine" is October, 1888.
Besant joined the TS in May 1889 and Leadbeater was at Adyar at that
time, after having helped Col. Olcott in Ceylon. None of them had any
theosophical books published in 1888.

...There were no published works by Besant and Leadbeater at the time
the letter was written (1888).

...This is quite specific to Hume's writings, although it carries more
general considerations. To use this to theosophically disqualify
Besant and Leadbeater's contribution to Theosophy is unwarranted. It
amounts to criticize and invalidate a book that has not been written
yet!

...She is referring to very specific, historical personages in the US in
1888. To use her statements to condemn Besant and Leadbeater's non-
existent writings at that time is extremely prejudicial.

...Your expression "on the look out for" is an attempt to create a link
between what HPB wrote and your implicit condemnation of Besant and
Leadbeater's Theosophy. You are trying to convey a meaning which does
not exist in the original statements made by HPB, included in your
site, as she was referring to specific and historical situations.

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

Pedro, it would appear that in these various remarks you are contending
that I was SPECIFICALLY using these statements from KH and Blavatsky 

"...to theosophically disqualify Besant and Leadbeater's contribution to 
Theosophy..."

or that I was using KH's and HPB's 

". . . statements to condemn Besant and Leadbeater's non-existent writings."

But I was doing nothing of the sort.

Actually I was comparing and contrasting YOUR ATTITUDE or VIEW with those of
KH and HPB.

Notice my SPECIFIC statements which I collate below from my previous post:

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

You apparently say that the contention that Besant and Leadbeater
"betrayed" HPB by "distorting"her teachings leaves you "cold."

But though you may be left "perfectly cold" by these arguments and contentions,
it would appear that both Madame Blavatsky and the Master Koot Hoomi
were VERY MUCH concerned about the distorting and disfiguring of the
Theosophical teachings.

. . . Here KH was not inattentive or "perfectly cold" to such distortions but took an
active part in being sure that CORRECTIONS would be made.

. . . Pedro, though you may be inclined not to give "much attention" to the possible
disfiguring of Theosophy, here we find the Mahatma quite concerned and ready to
take action if necessary so that the public would not be misinformed and
mislead.

. . . If anything, HPB was WARNING her students to be ON THE LOOKOUT FOR and to
pay ATTENTION for such "garbled and distorted versions" of Theosophy.
I could quote numerous other statements from HPB and KH which show that
THEY at least were NOT "cold" to such issues.

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

Hopefully readers will see that you have IGNORED my argument and 
for reasons best known to you, you have substituted another argument --- contending that this newly invented argument was my argument.

You then proceed to try to rebut this newly invented
argument of your own creation with your remarks as quoted above!

Moving on.....

Pedro, it is also interesting to read your comment about KH's statement on Hume's essays:

". . This is quite specific to Hume's writings, although it carries more
general considerations."

I call attention to your words:

ALTHOUGH IT CARRIES MORE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.

Surely this was one of my original points and I thank you for calling
attention to it again.

All of KH's and HPB's quoted statements refer to specific situations of the
time but also CARRY MORE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.

Furthermore I contend that the following GENERAL statement by HPB is as relevant
today as it was when written in 1889:

"Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the garbled and
distorted versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and tastes of
men in general."

If this was true in 1889, it was also true in 1899, or in 1929, or....
...up to the present time.

And nothing you wrote invalidates what I said in my previous post:

"If anything, HPB was WARNING her students to be ON THE LOOKOUT FOR and to
pay ATTENTION for such 'garbled and distorted versions' of Theosophy."

Whether Besant's and Leadbeater's "Neo-Theosophy" constitutes 
a GARBLED AND DISTORTED VERSION OF THEOSOPHY or not was NOT the issue
of my post. 

But if Theosophical students want to delve into THAT issue, they might consult the following source:

Theosophy Versus Neo-Theosophy
compiled by Margaret Thomas
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/index.htm
http://www.theosophy.info/thomas/index.htm

And the following two sources clearly show some of the DIFFERENCES in teachings
between Blavatsky/the Mahatmas and Leadbeater:

Life After Death in Kamaloka (the Astral World): H.P. Blavatsky versus C.W. Leadbeater
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/morganafterdeath.htm
http://www.theosophy.info/morganafterdeath.htm

C.W. Leadbeater & H.P. Blavatsky about Life on Mars and Other Planets
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/leadbeatermars.htm
http://www.theosophy.info/leadbeatermars.htm

Daniel H. Caldwell
http://hpb.cc
http://theosophy.info



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]