Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00863)

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


> Perry wrote:
> 
> =============================================
> It is true, tens of thousands have read and 
> will probably continue to read his writings. 
> Tens of thousands making a mistake, doesn't make 
> it any less of a mistake.
> =============================================
> 
> 
> Pedro replied:
> 
> ==============================================
> This is one of the most extraordinary statements 
> I have ever seen in any theosophical discussion: 
> TO READ SOMEONE'S BOOKS (LEADBEATER) IS A MISTAKE! 
> How do we arrive at such startling conclusion? 
> Does it not also imply a judgement of the choice, 
> discernment and freedom of those THOUSANDS who 
> decided to read them?
> 
> Why not include Leadbeater's books and articles 
> and pamphlets on an Index and declare them forbidden 
> reading? It was done in the past very successfully 
> with the writings of Clement of Alexandria,
> Origen, Giordano Bruno, etc.
> ================================================
> 
> I will let Perry reply to Pedro's remarks.
> 
> But I would like to say that the second book I ever
> read on Theosophy was C.W. Leadbeater's A TEXTBOOK
> OF THEOSOPHY.
> 
> I am glad that I read this book. It awakened in
> me an interest to know more about Theosophy. I can
> still remember the "excitement" I experienced as
> I read Mr. Leadbeater's book. His book prompted me
> to dig deeper....
> 
> And it seems to me that any serious student of
> Theosophy should read and study at least some of
> his major works.
> 
> Having said that, there are a good number of
> differences between Leadbeater's teachings and
> those of Blavatsky and the Mahatmas (as found
> in the Mahatma Letters). I think one of the
> most glaring examples is the one illustrated
> in detail at:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/morganafterdeath.htm
> 
> Another example:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/leadbeatermars.htm
> 
> And another example:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/moderntheosophy.htm#2
> 
> I would like to see Pedro's thoughts and comments
> on these three examples. As well as Perry's.
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc


If we take any teaching as final and absolute we stultify our inquiry
and our capacity to learn more about life and about ourselves.

Let us take the teaching about the after-death states, which students
of HPB very often like to use as an example of how Leadbeater's
writings are wrong.

If there is, for the most part, only UNCONSCIOUSNESS after death why
does the Tibetan Book of the Dead, to mention only one tradition,
affirm the existence of several *bardos* (transitional states) which
consciousness goes through from death to rebirth?

This is what Sogyal Rinpoche says in THE TIBETAN BOOK OF LIVING AND
DYING (HarperCollins, 1994):

"During the first weeks of the bardo, we have the impression that we
are a man or woman, just as in our previous life. We do not realize
that we are dead. We return home to meet our family and loved ones. We
try to talk to them, to touch them on the shoulder. But they do not
reply, or even show they are aware we are there. As hard as we try,
nothing can make them notice us. We watch, powerless, as they weep or
sit stunned and heartbroken over our death. Fruitlessly we try to make
use of our belongings. Our place is no longer laid at the table, and
arrangements are being made to dispose of our possessions. We feel
angry, hurt, and frustrated, "like a fish", says the *Tibetan Book of
the Dead*, "writhing in hot sand."

He also described a more dramatic experience:

"Some Western people who recently visited Tibet told me about the
following incident they had witnessed. One day a Tibetan walking by
the side of the road was knocked over and killed instantly by a
Chinese truck. A monk, who happened to be passing, quickly went over
and sat next to the dead man lying on the ground. They saw the monk
lean over him and recite some practice or other close to his ear;
suddenly, to their astonishment, the dead man revived. The monk then
performed a practice they recognized as the transference of
consciousness, and guided him back calmly into death. What had
happened? Clearly the monk had recognized that the violent shock of
the man's death had left him terribly disturbed, and so the monk acted
swiftly: first to free the dead man's mind from its distress, and
then, by means of the phowa, to transfer it to a buddha realm or
toward a good rebirth. To the Westerners who were watching, this monk
seemed to be just an ordinary person, but this remarkable story shows
that he was in fact a practitioner of considerable power."

Regarding Mars, Leadbeater's clairvoyant descriptions are basically
wrong, except for the one that says that there is life in Mars. At the
beginning of the twentieth century it was quite laughable to affirm
that. It does not seem that laughable now in view of expanding
scientific knowledge.


Pedro