Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00311)

Daniel:

Thank you for your post. I may have misunderstood your reply but I 
certainly didn't invent any new argument. Let me repeat the gist of 
my original posting:

"Theosophical historians may argue any way they want to try to prove
that Besant and Leadbeater "betrayed" HPB, that they distorted her 
teachings. That left me and leaves me perfectly cold, for I know, 
from my earliest association with theosophical studies, that the
essence of their contribution to theosophical literature is a message 
of altruism and selfless service. And this is the essence of Theosophy
according to HPB."

I am aware of technical differences between the teachings of HPB and 
AB and CWL as, for example, the inner constitution of the human 
being. In her works, HPB mentions a number of different systems 
(Vedanta, Taraka Raja-Yoga, Esoteric Buddhism, Kaballah) and opts for 
the Esoteric Buddhist system (sevenfold). (AB and CWL based their 
view on the Vedantic system). This seems to indicate that more than 
one view is possible, that there is not one absolute view of the 
human constitution. This point was mentioned by K.H. in commenting 
about Subba Row being an Advaitee, for example, and not a Buddhist, 
yet a chela.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:

> 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.

Probably my difficulty here is with the English language, but to me 
it is quite clear that you are applying K.H.'s assertion as an 
inference to criticise Besant and Leadbeater's contribution to 
Theosophy. Otherwise, please explain to whom "the distorting and 
disfiguring of the Theosophical teachings" refer to.

I repeat: AB and CWL were not published authors of theosophical books 
then. And remember: the expressison "Neo-Theosophy" is associated by 
many authors with the writings of AB and CWL and carries with it a 
meaning of distortion of HPB's original 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.

Your words: "disfiguring of Theosophy". In the context of my original 
posting, this implies the contribution of Besant and Leadbeater. How 
could the Mahatma criticize a contribution to Theosophy which was not 
even written at that time? And if he didn't, your implied meaning 
suggests an inference which is critical of AB and CWL's contribution 
which is the context of my original posting. 

> . . . 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.

The expressions "on the lookout" and "pay attention" are your 
emphasis on HPB's text, written in 1889 and which does not, imo, 
invalidate Besant and Leadbeater's contribution, which is the context 
of my original posting.

> 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.

A question for you: in your view, does not the contribution of Besant 
and Leadbeater to theosophical literature "distort and disfigure" the 
teachings of Theosophy as given by HPB and the Mahatmas?

> 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. 

Thank you for identifying Besant's and Leadbeater's contribution 
as "Neo-Theosophy". Please indicate any page on your website in which 
the expression "Neo-Theosophy" is not associated, among others, with 
the works of Besant and Leadbeater and viewed as a distortion and 
disfiguration of the original teachings given by HPB and the Mahatmas.

Let me join many others on this list in congratulating you for your 
redesigned website. It is a source of information and study to many 
students of Theosophy all over the world.

Pedro