Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00357)

prmoliveira wrote:
> He declared that a poor and malnourished South 
> Indian boy would one day become a spiritual teacher and a great 
> speaker, greater even than Annie Besant, most horrendous heresy and 
> blasphemy according to the theological principles of HUBA.
Well, I'm in general agreement with Chuck's comments on Leadbeater, but 
I DO need to comment that Leadbeater declared Krishnamurti to be the new 
vehicle for the Christ, not just a spiritual teacher and great speaker.

As Chuck pointed out, one often has to fight their way through the 
language, paradigms, and postulates of the time in order to figure out 
what the Theosophical writers of the late 19th and the early 20th 
century were really talking about. One thing that I have noticed is that 
it is less necessary to do this with the Mahatma Letters than with the 
writings of Blavatsky, and less necessary to do so with the writings of 
Blavatsky than with the writings of Leadbeater or the transcribed talks 
of Besant.

There are levels of interpretation, however. The major problem comes 
not with people who think that Theosophy begins and ends with some 
particular teacher or set of teachers (although that IS a problem); it 
is when they believe that Theosophy begins and ends with THEIR 
INTERPRETATION of some particular set of teachers. I have seen several 
occasions where statements seem to be ridiculous, but, if one accounts 
for the writers being misinformed in matters of terminology, or basing 
their comments on faulty source material, or simply lacking a vocabulary 
for what they are describing, they make much more sense. During a 
current events discussion at my Lodge, I took advantage of the 
then-current news that DNA analysis had shown that Neanderthal Man was 
our genetic cousin, NOT our genetic ancestor. This, in turn, took out 
most of the opposition to the anthropological theory that humanity (the 
physical body part) originated in Africa, and crossed the Sahara into 
the rest of the world. I felt that fit in well with Leadbeater's 
contention that humanity (the physical body part) originated in China, 
and crossed the Gobi into the rest of the world. Yet, because of a 
simple difference in geographic location, followers of Leadbeater 
insisted that the fossil evidence must be wrong, and would not accept 
the fact that Leadbeater was less than 100% correct, as opposed to being 
90% correct.

Similarly, I frequently point out that the rejection of the concept of 
"potential energy" in the Mahatma Letters makes sense when one realizes 
that what they describe, and what scientists call "potential energy", 
are two very different things. It is much easier to assume that Sinnett 
had incorrectly described the concept to them, and they were commenting 
on Sinnett's description, not what scientists call "potential energy". 
Yet, purists insist that potential energy does not exist, because the 
Mahatmas said so, and the Mahatmas are infallible, even though that 
creates a paradox, since the Mahatmas have said they ARE fallible. Once 
again that little business of "interpretation" comes in, where a writer 
is infallible, except when they are saying they are fallible, which is 
simply modesty, or blinds for the unwary, though the only blinds are 
when they say they are fallible, because, of course, they are infallible...

The primary literature of Theosophy is a good starting point. There is 
a general sense in the primary literature which I use as my personal 
compass; if a later writing fits with the spirit, I will consider it 
more strongly than if a later writing violates that spirit. So, for 
example, I find a basic Brotherhood of Humanity to be in the spirit of 
the primary literature, so that literature which denies this, or even 
has the concept of "some brothers are more brothers than others" (often 
conveniently forgetting that we were on an involutionary path from the 
previous "root races"), I tend to reject.

Bart