Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00269)

Hi Katinka,
(1)About Subba Rao HPB said she believed in his wisdom much more than her.
(2)Secrete Doctrine does have importance and HPB and Masters were involved in it's writing. But main problem is some people consider there is no Theosophy outside HPB's writing when in fact it was meant to be beginning of Theosophy. And as humanity progresses, digests what is given, it will be given more and more knowledge of secrete science and that would offcourse come from other occultists like AB, CWL, CJ, Hodson and in future through other occultists.
(3) I would suggest you read many books of CWL and judge every sentence on it's own merit whether it appeals your reason and intuition and overall scheme of things. I have read and I found his writing is most accurate. Don't judge his writing with prejudiced mind, thinking somebody said bad about CWL.
(4) Boys asked him what to do about continuous sexual thoughts in their minds. Leadbeater replied masturbation would relieve from those thoughts for some time. Any doctor will tell you he is right. From that statement many stories were created by others about CWL.
(5) Theosophy is all about Atma and God. Krishnamurthi said "Atma is invention of mind born out of fear" So when you try to understand why Krishnmurthi made any statement, reader will need much greater capacity. 
(6) There are many disciples who are not in inner group and ES. Still HPB and Annie Besant (who was incharge of ES) always considered him extraordinary occultist and disciple. 

Best Regards.
Anand Gholap

Hi Anand,

My memory tells me that Blavatsky called Subba Row her equal in
occultism, but this is absent from the historical survey in the Subba
Row Collected writings (compiled by Henk Spierenburg), so I'm probably
mistaken.

The indications that the Secret Doctrine is to be taken seriously are
quite numerous, in the Mahatma Letters for instance it is said that it
will be (and therefore is) the production of M, KH and HPB together.
The amount of times that HPB warns against clairvoyants is also quite
numerous. What is especially noted it the difference in the
description of after death states where HPB warns against what
ordinary clairvoyants see... And that description fits precisely with
what Leadbeater sees.

Olcott was hardly guided by the Mahatmas. By all acounts the Mahatmas
only guided when the person involved had used all their own strength,
intelligence and perseverance. Only in exceptional cases was guiding
involved at all (this goes for HPB too, I think - outside her writing
obviously). As for Leadbeater - I think the evidence is that the
influence of the Mahatmas waned during his lifetime. For instance in
the response of Krishnamurti to Leadbeater (in Sydney) one can see (or
suspect) that at that time true spirituality was no longer to be
learnt from him. Besant on the other hand seems to me to have trusted
too much in her associates and in the end lost her marbles,
unfortunately. She had a lot of practical wisdom to impart before that
happened though.

Besant was not in charge of the ES before HPB's death. Besant and
Judge were in charge together after her death. Still, every one can
make mistakes. To suggest they couldn't, simply because at one time or
another they were in touch with masters, is to deny free will (and the
Mahatma Letters). Chelaship brings out all kinds of things in people -
and occultism brings temptations and karma to a person in greater
amounts than anything else. This effect is called pledge fever. It
does make what happened in Sydney with those small boys more
understandable. For an explanation of pledge fever:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/pledge.htm

>From what we know we can see that

* HPB was a chosen vessal for the Mahatmas, no one else could bring
the messages they wanted to bring like she could. She was
irreplacable. She was an upasika, a female chela.
* Besant was a much respected student (who, when HPB's psychological
influence was still great 'could hear the voice of the master even
though she had hardly any intuition' (or something to that effect).
* Leadbeater received only one Mahatma Letter and wasn't even in the
ES, let alone in the Inner Group.

Katinka

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...>
wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> For many reasons it appears that some people have created wrong
impression that Annie Besant and Leadbeater distorted teaching of HPB.
I am giving below reasons why this impression is wrong.
>
> (1) HPB had openly said that she considered Swami T. Subba Rao was
more advanced in occultism than herself and so she believed in his
wisdom more than herself. So when first draft of the Secrete Doctrine
was prepared she sent it to Subba Rao to check if it was correct.
Subbrao went through it and replied that there were so many mistakes
that he would have to write everything again. So HPB again wrote
Secrete Doctrine. Still in it's Preface she said that she was aware
Secrete Doctrine had many shortcomings. And at other places also she
had openly said that she made many mistakes. So saying that Secrete
Doctrine does not have any mistakes is wrong. If it is so why should
other occultists like AB and CWL endorse and agree with each statement
in Secrete Doctrine. They always talked about HPB and her writings
with great respect but never said she never made mistakes in writing.
In fact HPB herself admitted she made mistakes while writing.
>
> (2) HPB made a grand beginning for the Theosophical Society
through her writing. But it was only beginning. It was always expected
by her and the Masters that occultists who would come later would add
to Theosophical body of knowledge through independent clairvoyant
investigation. So expecting that Theosophy started and ended with
HPB's writing is wrong. In fact in Key to Theosophy HPB has written
that greatest danger to Theosophical movement is making dogma of her
teaching and that is what is being done. Making dogma means saying
everything she said was right and nothing else exists in Theosophy. It
is like saying Physics started and ended with scientist Newton 300
years ago. Just as sciences constantly see addition of new knowledge,
Theosophy also is expected to become richer by addition of new
knowledge through independent clairvoyant investigation by other
occultists.
>
> (3) HPB gave general outline of Theosophy and she considered
Theosophy as Synthesis of Sciences, Religions and Philosophies. When
scientists don't know limits of even one science like Physics or
Chemistry after so much research, it is wrong to conclude that
Theosophy was complete with writings of HPB. HPB gave outline with
expectation that future Theosophists would provide details on each
topic through their independent clairvoyant investigation. And that is
what AB and CWL did.
>
> (4) Some people compare text of HPB and AB-CWL and show
differences. If this method is used then one can find that text of
Buddhism and Christianity differs at hundred places even if there are
some similarities. Should we then criticize Buddha for not agreeing
with Christ and Christ for not agreeing with Buddha at each place.
Occult Hierarchy gives teaching suitable to development, capacity and
condition of people present. So teaching also differs. When HPB wrote
social and other conditions were different from that when AB and CWL
wrote.
>
> (5) H.P. Blavatsky was a great occultist and she was working
under guidance of Masters. H.S. Olcott was also guided by the Masters
in administrative matters. HPB with all her wisdom and under Masters'
guidance had chosen Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater as her close
co-workers. Before physical death she formally gave charge of the
Esoteric School to Annie Besant . Saying that Annie Besant and
Leadbeater were bad people is like saying great occultist like HPB and
Masters made a mistake when they chose Besant and Leadbeater as
co-workers and gave charge of ES to AB.
>
> Best regards.
> Thanking you.
> Yours Fraternally,
> Anand Gholap
>
>



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