Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00107)

Hello Konstantin,

You wrote:
"As for Leadbeater, he admitted frankly that his information sometimes
does not match the teachings given by HPB." 

Can you give us some examples where "he admitted frankly that his
information sometimes does not match the teachings given by HPB."



Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev"
<kay_ziatz@y...> wrote:
> 
> --- 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.