Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00047)

To Amand Gholap and all students of theosophy,

In a message dated 05/01/05 9:59:02 AM, AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org writes:

>> I guess some people would rather listen to the apostles than 
>>Jesus. 
>
>> Wasn't the apostles job to simplify it for those who weren't 
>> consciously ready for the true inner doctrine?
>> 
>> Writings of Besant and Leadbeater are their original. It is not derived 
>> from Blavatsky's writing. In a sense Besant Leadbeater were like 
>>Jesus.
>
>> Anand Gholap

More nonsense. This is typical of all the opinionated and illogical 
statements made by you in the past months to every theosophical discussion or study 
group that you could find who would allow your proselytizing letters to be 
posted -- simply because you label the pseudo theosophical teachings of Besant and 
Leadbeater as being "true theosophy." I think, if you correctly labeled them 
as the "theological dogma of the Liberal Catholic Church," your letters would 
have been rejected offhand. 

To question your illogic in these letters... If the apostles came after Jesus 
and "simplified" his teachings (read, changed it simplistically to suit their 
own messianic religious beliefs, remember they were mostly, all Jews and 
Jesus hinself was a Rabbi and Kabbalist) ... How can Besant and Leadbeater -- who 
did the same with the teachings of Blavatsky, who came before them (and by 
quoting the Masters, supposedly taught them everything they said they knew about 
theosophy) -- be compared to Jesus? Makes no sense.

Incidentally, since Jesus, while a Hebrew Rabbi was also a member of the 
Essene sect of the Nazarenes, his basic philosophy -- which was identical to the 
esoteric metaphysics of Buddha as well as the Egyptian Kabbala -- disagreed 
with the theological interpretation of the original Egyptian kabbalistic 
teachings of Moses by the Pharisees, Sadducees and other Jewish sects... Most of which 
interpretations were later accepted and further distorted [e.g., 
resurrection, vicarious atonement, an eye for an eye, etc.] by the founders of the 
Christian Church. 

Therefore, it seems in reality, the only ones that the later distorters of 
HPB's original and true theosophical doctrine can be compared to, is Jesus' 
later apostles -- who twisted his esoteric teachings in the same manner that AB 
and CWL did HPB's to favor their theosophically false religion.

Their job, as you say, "was to simplify it for those who weren't consciously 
ready for the true inner doctrine." 

Doesn't that mean, any ignorant and gullible, already preconditioned 
followers they could find who would believe in a carnalized messiah, hierarchical 
rulers, along with a personal God figure -- so long as they were presented with an 
irrefutable (since it confirmed their prior beliefs) "PSEUDO THEOSOPHY" that 
might justify it? 

I think the words "pseudo theosophy" doesn't even do it justice -- as both 
Besant's and Leadbeater's teachings are actually nothing more than a contrived 
theology (in conformity with Christian beliefs) backed up by a fundamentally 
false metaphysics that in many details does not corform with the Three 
Fundamental Principles of Theosophy -- which are the only true basic propositions of 
ALL occult philosophy since the beginning of human thought. 

Doesn't that make you and all your followers also those that are "not 
consciously (meaning, intuitively and thoughtfully) ready for the true inner 
doctrine" of theosophy... And, therefore, need to believe in and blindly follow those 
later false teachers as their High Priests? If so, doesn't that make you 
simply one of their proselytizing "Pastors"? If not, then why do you continue to 
bash HPB (and by implication, her Masters), and refuse to allow your followers 
to read the Secret Doctrine and compare the theosophical teaching of these 
Masters with the pseudo theosophical teachings of the LCC's high Priest and 
Priestess, Leadbeater and Besant? 

Isn't it obvious that such a condition of blind belief makes all of you no 
different from the blind believers of all the false Papist and priest-crafty 
religions that all the Masters of theosophy, who were Blavatsky's direct 
teachers, were dead set against? 

So, how can you so illogically argue that BESANT and her mesmerizer, 
LEADBEATER were the real founders of the TS, and by implication, also the agents of 
the founders of the Theosophical Movement and its underlying true theosophy? 

I hope all prospective and present students of theosophy will consider these 
questions, as well as all those previously asked by Daniel Caldwell and 
myself, as being important to be answered by you before accepting anything you say 
about AB and CWL and their relationship to HPB and the Masters as being true or 
not. Simplistic unreasonable and illogical assertions, as if they were 
revelations from God, simply do not cut it. 

In any case, I think that all the documents from the Masters and others 
quoted by Daniel Caldwell has thoroughly refuted everything you have touted over 
the past many months about the relation between the teachings of the Masters as 
recorded through HPB, and those radically changed teachings of Besant and 
Leadbeater claimed to be from the same Masters. 

Leon Maurer