Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00103)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Alaya" <lalaya7@y...> wrote:

Hello Alaya,

>> We have no any evidences that HPB opinion was that he failed.
> We know he failed (be he the "little man" or not).

He surely wasn't the "little man" of the mahatma letter, for it was
written personally to him.

> H.P.B stop to keep a contact with him.

As far I know, they were in contact and in a good friendly relations
at least till the beginning of 1891. It follows from her own 
autographs
published in 1941 by Jinarajadasa. Do you think they are forged?
Of course, I have seen the copies only. Originals are probably kept in
Adyar.

> for HPB to keep a group of peaople and efectivelly work with 
occultism.
> For the TS wasn't `working' good anymore. Each person of the Inner 
Group
> was chosen by reccomendation of the masters.

Theosophical Society was also created by recommendation of the 
masters, so if even during HPB's life it didn't work good, we cannot 
be sure that the masters' plan and HPB's implementation was at all 
good. The project obviously attracted the wrong people. So it isn't 
Leadbeater whom is to blame. He just joined wrong organization. For 
instance, when he was a priest, no one thought bad of him when he 
spent much time with boys, organizing their games and instructing 
them, on the contrary, it made him a good reputation, but all have 
changed when he joined TS.

> Didn't HPB herself criticized the missionaries, the jesuits,
> the entire church?

The time has shown that this strategy of criticize was erroneous,
because it provoked hostility not of the Church only, but of most 
other
schools, primarily spiritualists. Till now many esoteric schools don't
take theosophy seriously, and are even hostile to it. It is probably
a bad karma of criticize.
Secondly, HPB criticized rather doctrines than people.

It would be quite correct to show the errors in the books by CWL & AB,
but to call it "betrayal" is no other than to show personal hostility
and even jealousy.

> Alice Cleather was the responsible for publishing the Voice of 
Silence
> (a book written specially for the Inner Group – and only after went 
to
> public) in China

Wasn't it widely circulated since 1889?
Blavatsky has sent a copy even to Leadbeater ;)

> Isabel Cooper Oakley was making wonderfull historical researches... 
most
> of (if not all) the inner group – that is, the effective disciples 
of HPB
> – left the TS when Besant Started to `invent'.

As far I know, she worked in collaboration with Besant.

> You have wonderfull people writing and researching about many
> wonderfulthinga. But what most theosophists do is stay with the
> besant-leadbeater couple and ignore the rest.

The difference is that the attitude of Leadbeater was not exclusive,
i.e. he didn't say that the books by Judge or Bailey are bad, so his
followers may read all of them, while the followers of some other
authors already have prejudices against many authors and books and 
never shall read them. As a rule, the essentially good intention to 
keep original teaching pure degrades to the dead-letter scholarship, 
and the books are written which are just a simplified repetition of 
some selected tenets, often imperfectly understood, while other 
teachings of HPB and of chelas of her time are ignored. Most of the 
authors of those books have never tried any experiment, for example, 
to make sure that, for example, an astral body or any other of 
realities about which they treat does really exist.

> Why should we judge them badly for trying to keep the true teachings
> of HPB alive, when Besant was reediting the SD "correcting" (that 
is,
> changing) HPB words.

Can you show me an example of such editing which changed the meaning?
I have found some discrepancies but she has changed just style, not 
meaning, correcting language mistakes and imperfections. People who 
claimed that she has changed the meaning have stopped answering my 
letters when I asked to prove it.

Her own books often have doctrinal differences with those by HPB, but
it is a quite different thing. As for me, I am not at all a follower 
of Besant, probably because our characters are not in mutual sympathy.
I don't agree with many things she has done, but I think that 
accusations in forging the SD against her are unjust.

I have to confess that I have believed it myself and have even 
mentioned in a translator's preface to "Transactions of Blavatsky 
Lodge" that the versions of SD are different and all quotes are 
according to the original edition. Now I feel ashamed, for I could 
mislead the readers.

As for Leadbeater, he admitted frankly that his information sometimes
does not match the teachings given by HPB. He had the right to write
everything he wanted, for TS was founded on non-sectarian platform.
But those who accept the doctrine ready-cooked, be it from CWL or HPB,
and make it unchangeable, are both wrong. And it really doesn't matter
in this case, which doctrine is correct and which is not, for the 
followers
of both equally stop their mental development.