Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00321)

Hallo Pedro and all,

My views are:

I just post some short views, so to perhaps to be of any help.
I use ******* in the below.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:17 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Reply to Pedro's comments concerning: "Daniel on
'Theosophy and Neo-Theosophy'"


> 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.¨

*******
Yes. Exactly also what I think.
The use of numbers are important though - even if it sounds silly.

*******

>
> --- 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.

*******
Firstly HPB her self said in 1888, that she wanted elementary litterature
published on the subject.
And this I think we all would say woudl be a good idea.

I think CWL and Besant was apointed to this task by the Masters - and that
something went wrong
because they were tested due to Karma.
Secondly CWL and Besant made a few faults on the issues mentioned by
Caldwell
(I here talk mainly about the 'Devachan issue' and the 'Mars-problem' as
shown in Caldwell's links.
I think we will have to agree that they are - Sticky's - so to speak).
These faults and also OTHERS some of them mentioned by me - makes CWL and
Besant somewhat less thrustworthy to me.

But never the less they did write many books, which today are helpful to
many students. This we all aught to remember.
Their altruism was (and still is) at least present to a certain amount.

Besant mostly on the positive side although her sort of Pope like behaviour
had its negative effects upon the Theosophical cause.
CWL mostly as being a hot potato and with a somewhat negative reputation
to later theosophists.

What makes me less happy is that people tend to ignore these facts
instead of facing them - just like Blavatsky suggested us to do.
She said "We call the good in each" - that is each thought-system.

Daniel's talk about garbled distortions and disfigurings do NOT relate to an
understanding
of the Dead-letter teahcings versus the use of the seven keys.
Try this and tell me if it is not theosophical teaching:
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/char_lit.htm



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

*******


>
> > . . . 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>