Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00323)

Pedro,

In your most recent post, you call for discussion
so I give you the following hoping you will
discuss it openly and honestly on Theos-Talk.

Sometime ago you replied to some of my questions by
posting the following:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/19048

In answer to my question which reads:

"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??"

you answered with the following:

"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. . . ."

You give additional comments and then at one point
you add:

"Unlike Bailey, for example, he never claimed that
his books had been dictated by a Master."

I find it somewhat interesting how you answer
my question as compared to how you state your
position about Alice Bailey.

On Alice Bailey, you show no hesitation in stating
quite plainly:

". . . many of her claims contradict important
principles of Theosophy as presented by HPB and her
Teachers."

But when I asked you if you thought many of C.W.Leadbeater's
claims and teachings also contradicted important
principles of Theosophy as presented by HPB and her
Teachers, instead of answering us with a yes or no and expanding
on the yes or no, you commented:

"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. . . ."

But why not say the same of Alice Bailey?

In many of her books she says basically the same
thing about "presenting her understanding of the
original teachings."

So isn't there "room in theosophical studies" for
Bailey's understanding of the original teachings without
pointing out the contradictions that you do or saying
what you did about Master D.K.?

And I find it somewhat remarkable that in your
whole reply to my basic question, you make no
comment on the "differences" in teachings between
Blavatsky and Leadbeater as mentioned by Alvin
Boyd Kuhn. A point I brought up in my posting.

One might conclude that you seem to want to treat Bailey and
Leadbeater differently.

Why is that?

It appears you want to make a distinction between the two of them.
You write:

"Unlike Bailey, for example, he [Leadbeater] never
claimed that his books had been dictated by a Master."

And one might speculate that you are also linking that thought
with your other statement about Leadbeater:

"I think that, as an independent thinker, he was
presenting his own understanding of the original
teachings."

But throughout Leadbeater's writings he makes innumerable
statements of his intimate knowledge of the Masters
and of his own personal contact and communication with the
Masters.

Let me again quote what Leadbeater said on one occasion:

"I have stood beside your President [Mrs. Besant] in the presence of
the Supreme Director of Evolution on this globe, and I know whereof
I speak. Let the wise hear my words, and act accordingly."

This probably beats Bailey's claim about Master D.K.! :)

Notice also what else he said on that occasion:

"She [Mrs. Besant] is a pupil of our Masters; from the fount of Their
archaic wisdom she derives her own, the plans which she is carrying
out are Their plans for the welfare of the world. THINK THEREFORE,
HOW GREAT AN HONOUR IT IS FOR YOU that you should be permitted
to work under her, for in doing so you are virtually working under
Them. THINK HOW WATCHFUL YOU SHOULD BE TO MISS NO HINT WHICH FALLS
FROM HER LIPS...."

And what FALLS FROM ANNIE BESANT'S LIPS...?????

She says:

"By hard, patient work he [CWL] has won rewards . . .
until he stands perhaps the most trusted of his
Master's disciples ON THE THRESHOLD OF DIVINITY."

2 + 2 = 4 I would think.

Readers with any sense should rightfully conclude that Mr. Leadbeater
(if his and Mrs. Besant's claims as given above are true) should have
known better than anyone else exactly what the teachings of the
Masters and of the Master K.H. were.

Pedro, I would suggest that the picture that one gets from the above
claims by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Leadbeater (as well as from his own
books) is, to say the least, quite different from how you describe
Mr. Leadbeater:

"I think that, as an independent thinker, he was
presenting his own understanding of the original
teachings."

So if you are quite willing to state in clear cut terms
that ". . . many of her [Bailey's] claims contradict important
principles of Theosophy as presented by HPB and her
Teachers" I find it puzzling that you do not
express your opinion when asked about whether you believe
many of Leadbeater's teachings & claims contradict important
principles of Theosophy as presented by HPB and her
Teachers.

So I ask you again:

Do you think many of Leadbeaters teachings
and claims contradict important principles of
Theosophy as presented by HPB and her Teachers?

Daniel
http://blavatskystudycenter.com