[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Anand, your statement is quite puzzling and raises some questions

Sep 18, 2004 08:57 PM
by Daniel H. Caldwell

Anand, your statement is quite puzzling and 
raises some questions.

First of all I repeat your statement:

"After studying writings of many Theosophists I 
found that Mr. C.W.Leadbeater was far more accurate 
in entire TS history. No Theosophical writer 
before him and after him could equal him."

You say that AFTER studying writings of MANY

Here you give the impression that you have not
only read but actually studied the writings
of MANY Theosophists and after much study and
comparative study, you have ascertained what
you said about C.W. Leadbeater.

But I am quite puzzled.

Back in July of this year, I asked you the following:

"Do you accept the claims and teachings given by William Judge,
G. de Purucker and Alice Bailey?

These are just a few of the people who ALSO claimed to follow
in HPB's footsteps and claimed contact with the Masters.

If you don't accept these "occultists" and their claims it
would be interesting to know why and what is your reasoning
for rejecting them, but accepting Annie Besant, CW Leadbeater,

And on July 23 you posted the following answer to my questions on 

"I read books of AB, CWL, CJ, Hodson etc. and I found they provide 
sound, in detail, accurate and extremely useful knowledge. So I 
mentioned their names and books. I did not read books of William 
Judge, G. de Purucker and Alice Bailey. As such I can not accept or 
reject their books and these authors. If I read their books sometime 
in future I will be able to form some judgement. Till that
time I would refrain from commenting on them and their works."

You state that you have NOT (as of July 23) read the books of Judge, 
Purucker or Bailey. And you furthermore state that until you read 
their works, you would refrain from commenting on them and their 

Have you studied their writings since July 23, 2004???

If not, how do you know that "no Theosophical writer
before him [Leadbeater] and after him could equal him" IF YOU HAVE 

In effect, you are commenting on their works although you said you 
would refrain from doing so!!

OBTW, have you read and studied Steiner's works??

Unless I am missing something here, you are making a judgment (which 
of course you are entitled to) without actually having read and 
studied the above mentioned well-known and influential theosophical 
writers. So maybe your conclusion is, let us say, a little premature.

And I call to your attention the comment and question Perry just 

"Is CWL more 'accurate' than the Mahatma's on their own teachings!?!
Can you please explain to me how this is possible?"

So is Koot Hoomi less accurate than Charles Webster?

Anand, are you telling us that even HPB was at least second best when 
compared to Charles? .....

And let us not forget what the Mahatmas said about HPB:

"She is the best available at present."

"After nearly a century of fruitless search...."

"there was no second to her living fit for this work."

"there is no likelihood of our finding a better one for years to 

In light of your "research" one might conclude that the poor Mahatmas 
spent alot of wasted time and energy looking for and training a less 
qualified person [HPB] when they should have known about Leadbeater. 
Maybe their clairvoyance wasn't up to the same standards as Charles' 

Let's summarize..... You say Leadbeater was more accurate than 
HPB....he also could write better .... not using that old religious 
terminology ... and all those difficult words...

OBTW, Anand, do you admit that Mr. Leadbeater was not all that 
accurate when he wrote the following about Mars?


Correct me but I have the distinct impression that HPB was more 
accurate in this case.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application