Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00669)

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

> Would you also agree that many of C.W.Leadbeater's claims and 
> teachings also contradict important principles of Theosophy as 
> presented by HPB and her Teachers??

I think that, as an independent thinker, he was presenting his own 
understanding of the original teachings and I have always believed 
that there is room in theosophical studies for that. Look, for 
example, at the fierce exchanges between HPB and Subba Row ("The 
Theosophist", April 1887 onwards). The Mahatmas, for example, clearly 
preferred the septenary constitution for both the human being and the 
cosmos, while Subba Row held the fourfold division.

Also, consider the following passage in the letter by HPB to the 
Members of the Inner Group of the London Lodge (Letter 5 
from "Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom", which is signed by HPB 
and countersigned by both M. and K.H.):


"Taking the word religion in its broadest sense and while leaving 
every member of the said group to follow his or her own theological 
system or creed—AS HERETOFORE DONE IN ALL THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETIES—
we desire nevertheless to establish a bond of true brotherly union of 
such a nature as to realize those conditions, which we are convinced 
are unattainable in the London Lodge as it is constituted."


And at a time (1884) when the London Lodge was on the brink of a 
split, due to a bitter division between Dr Anna Kingsford's 
supporters, which favour Esoteric Christianity, and A. P. Sinnett's, 
who were interested in Esoteric Buddhism, K.H. wrote (ML 120, 
chronological):


"It seems necessary for a proper study and correct understanding of 
our Philosophy and the benefit of those whose inclination leads them 
to seek esoteric knowledge from the Northern Buddhist Source, and in 
order that such teaching should not be even virtually imposed or 
offered to those Theosophists who may differ from our views, that an 
exclusive group composed of those members who desire to follow 
absolutely the teachings of the School to which we, of the Tibetan 
Brotherhood, belong, should be formed under Mr. Sinnett's direction 
and within the "London Lodge T.S." Such is, in fact, the desire of 
the Maha Chohan. Our last year's experience amply shows the danger of 
so recklessly submitting our sacred doctrines to the unprepared 
world. We expect, therefore, and are resolved to urge, if necessary 
more caution than ever from our followers in the exposition of our 
secret teachings. Consequently many of the latter which Mr. Sinnett 
and his fellow-students may from time to time receive from us, will 
have to be kept entirely secret from the world — if they would have 
us give them our help in that direction. 

I need hardly point out how the proposed arrangement is calculated to 
lead to a harmonious progress of the "L.L.T.S." It is a universally 
admitted fact that the marvellous success of the Theosophical Society 
in India is due entirely to its principle of wise and respectful 
toleration of each other's opinions and beliefs. Not even the 
President-Founder has the right directly or indirectly to interfere 
with the freedom of thought of the humblest member, least of all to 
seek to influence his personal opinion. It is only in the absence of 
this generous consideration, that even the faintest shadow of 
difference arms seekers after the same truth, otherwise earnest and 
sincere, with the scorpion-whip of hatred against their brothers, 
equally sincere and earnest. Deluded victims of distorted truth, they 
forget, or never knew, that discord is the harmony of the Universe. 
Thus in the Theos. Society, each part, as in the glorious fugues of 
the immortal Mozart, ceaselessly chases the other in harmonious 
discord on the paths of Eternal progress to meet and finally blend at 
the threshold of the pursued goal into one harmonious whole, the 
keynote in nature . Absolute Justice makes no difference between the 
many and the few." 

And he continues, in the same letter:

"Thus, the Theosophists of Mrs. K.'s way of thinking, — were they 
even to oppose some of us personally to the bitter end, — are 
entitled to as much respect and consideration (so long as they are 
sincere) from us and their fellow-members of opposite views, as those 
who are ready with Mr. Sinnett to follow absolutely but our special 
teaching. A dutiful regard for these rules in life will always 
promote the best interests of all concerned. It is necessary for the 
parallel progress of the groups under Mrs. K. and Mr. S. that neither 
should interfere with the beliefs and rights of the other. And it is 
seriously expected that both of them will be actuated by an earnest 
and sleepless desire to respect the philosophical independence of 
each other, while preserving at the same time their unity as a whole —
namely the objects of the Parent Theos. Society in their integrity — 
and those of the London Lodge, in their slight modification. We wish 
the London Society should preserve its harmony in division like the 
Indian Branches, where the representatives of all the different 
schools of Hinduism seek to study Esoteric Sciences and the Wisdom of 
old, without necessarily giving up for it their respective beliefs. 
Each Branch, often members of the same Branch — Christian converts 
included in some cases — study esoteric philosophy each in his own 
way, yet always knitting together brotherly hands for the furtherance 
of the common objects of the Society." 


> Such studies and much other material besides has convinced many a 
> Theosophical student that "no real Master of the Wisdom and 
> Compassion [KH] was associated" with Leadbeater's writings.
 
> Have you come to a similar conclusion? And if not, it would be 
> interesting to know what led you to a differing conclusion about 
> Leadbeater as compared to your conclusion about Bailey.


Unlike Bailey, for example, he never claimed that his books had been 
dictated by a Master. He wrote them himself. In "An Outline of 
Theosophy", for example, he wrote:

"Furthermore, I claim that it [the Theosophical teaching] is a fact 
which may be verified at first hand by any person who is willing to 
devote the time and trouble necessary to fit himself for the 
investigation. I am not offering to the reader a creed to be 
swallowed like a pill; I am trying to set before him a system to 
study, and above all, a life to live. I ask no blind faith from him; 
I simply suggest to him the consideration of the Theosophical 
teaching as a hypothesis, though to me it is no hypothesis, but a 
living fact."


Pedro