Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00662)

Hi Sufilight,
I thought this was a very good posting.
One of the reasons I put my posting originally on this group 
regarding the Adyar Society and Leadbeader was because I can not see 
how the Society can continue with denial and or avoiding 
uncomfortable critique with just the usual apologetics.

What he (Leadbeater) and by default Besant did was in my opinion so 
damaging to the movement that it has to be honestly and openly 
discussed.

The Society needs to open up the columns of its journals and 
publications to the critical eye of students who wish to examine and 
point out these historical facts and there implications.

The Society stands on no moral high ground by claiming critique 
is "untheosophical" quite the reverse in fact.
This is so patently obvious that to deny it in my opinion can only be 
to protect established self interest and can have nothing to do with 
altruism what so ever.

It is obvious Leadbeater was in contact not with Mahtma's but with 
his own psychic imaginings, once the evidence is examined and the 
clear contradictions become visible.
These are different personages from those that Blavatsky was in 
communication with,that is abundantly clear.

Isn't it interesting how D K Mavalanka had to renounce cast in order 
to become a chela and then after Blavatsky is off the scene prominent 
so called "chela's" all of a sudden start deciding to become part of 
and promoting the priestly caste system by becoming Bishops and 
Priests saying they have special powers & links to the Christ.....?!?

Cheers

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
theosophy@s...> wrote:
> Hallo Anand and all,
> 
> Sorry about the length of the answer.
> 
> 
> Anand wrote:
> "I don't think LCC used word Atmavidya. TS is not connected to LCC 
or
> any other religious organizations. LCC likes Theosophy and so they
> spread that teaching, they are free to do so. But TS can not 
connect
> itself to any religion or LCC."
> 
> My Sufilight answer follows.
> 
> About AtmaVidya I can agree.
> But the in the next sentences I find myself disagreeing.
> 
> This view of yours in the next sentences, Anand, is not the same as 
the one 
> we learned by
> Annie Besant and Leadbeater when the LCC was announced.
> We find the following statement from the Canadian TS website:
> "Charles Webster Leadbeater became a welcome exponent of Theosophy 
soon 
> after joining the Society in the 1880's. Many of his early 
contributions in 
> articles, special manuals, treatises and books are still widely 
held as 
> good, useful and instructive; and I would add my own warm 
indebtedness to 
> him during several years of my early membership. Later, in studying 
Man, 
> Whence, How and Whither, I questioned some of the statements; and 
with The 
> Masters and the Path I had serious doubts, apart from the wisdom of 
> publishing such a book. Then, however, came Mrs Besant's 
wholehearted 
> endorsement of his views-and I put all suspicions on the shelf 
until further 
> evidence or proof appeared. The evidence and proof, though long 
delayed, 
> have now emerged.
> 
> A number of letters sent by C.W. Leadbeater, then living in Sydney, 
to Annie 
> Besant, President of The Theosophical Society, at Adyar, between 
1916 and 
> 1920 are concerned with the 'Lord Maitreya' and the Liberal 
Catholic Church, 
> which was then being founded. These have but recently come to my 
knowledge.
> 
> The claim of the Liberal Catholic Church for support from Fellows 
of The 
> Theosophical Society was based on the belief, expressed in this 
> correspondence, that the World Teacher, the Lord Maitreya, 
had 'brought it 
> into being' and 'approved' its liturgy. Mrs Besant accepted the 
information 
> in good faith and announced the founding. A letter dated April 7, 
1920 
> contains the following:
> 
> He (the Lord Maitreya) told us to ask questions from the Master 
K.H. upon 
> points as to which we were uncertain-and the information which we 
gained in 
> this way was of the very greatest value to us.
> 
> The questions put by Bishop Leadbeater to the Master K.H., and said 
to have 
> been answered by him, run to several thousand words. They relate to 
the 
> celebration of Mass, the effect of consecration and of priesthood, 
and to 
> numerous details of ecclesiastical procedure. The answers to these 
many 
> questions all support and endorse the clerical views of Bishop 
Leadbeater 
> himself. Evidently the 'Lord Maitreya' knew nothing of the Master 
K.H.'s 
> strong views on religions and sacerdotalism. The Mâhatmâ Letters to 
A.P. 
> Sinnett had not at that time been published. Letter No.10, signed 
by the 
> Master K.H., states:
> 
> The chief cause of nearly two-thirds of the evils that pursue 
humanity ... 
> is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. It is the 
> sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those 
illusions 
> that man looks upon as sacred that he has to search out the source 
of that 
> multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity .... The 
sum of 
> human misery will never be diminished unto that day when the better 
portion 
> of humanity destroys in the name of Truth, morality and universal 
charity 
> the altars of their false gods.
> 
> And in Letter No.134 the Master M. speaks of:
> 
> invisible results proceeding from erroneous and sincere beliefs. 
Faith in 
> the Gods and God and other superstitions attract millions of 
foreign 
> influences, living entities and powerful agents ..... who delight 
in 
> personifying gods... These are the gods that Hindus and Christians 
and all 
> others of bigoted religions and sects worship.
> 
> These extracts from letters written by the Masters K.H. and M. 
furnish 
> convincing evidence of 'unconscious kriyâshakti' projections by 
Bishop 
> Leadbeater. The extracts would also seem to imply that the 
liturgies of 
> churches devoted to the adoration and worship of personal gods-the 
projected 
> mental images of the worshippers-induce a kind of refined idolatry.
> 
> Moreover, the imminent Coming of the World Teacher is the theme of 
> Leadbeater's letters:
> 
> Close and perfect is the communication I have opened .... I have 
chosen you 
> to hold it .... occupy till I come.
> 
> He quotes these words as from the Lord Maitreya. Yet Krishnamurti-
the Chosen 
> Vehicle-was beginning to rebel, and a few years later utterly 
repudiated all 
> connection. Later, Bishop Pigott, Presiding Bishop of the Liberal 
Catholic 
> Church, wrote:
> 
> The Lord did not come in the way foretold ... The Lord has not 
come, so far 
> as we know .... Leadbeater ... was wrong about the Coming ..... 
Theosophists 
> are in no sense bound to accept Leadbeater as an infallible 
teacher. 
> (August, 1952)."
> http://www.theosophical.ca/NoReligion.htm
> 
> And at the TS-Adyar official website we find:
> http://ts-adyar.org/headquarters.html
> That there is a shrine for LCC.
> 
> So Anand the shoe doesn't really fit that well, does it?
> 
> A QUESTION:
> Is there anyone here at Theos-Talk, who has or have had access to 
the same 
> letters as Gardner
> - or who could give us some more light upon which letters we are 
talking 
> about?
> Perhaps these letters aught to be made public !
> 
> 
> 
> Radha Burnier article where she quotes Leadbeater:
> "C. W. Leadbeater, while speaking to the European Congress in 1930, 
also 
> pointed out that although the members of the TS agree upon the 
values of its 
> declared Objects, it is possible for them to argue about their 
> interpretation and practice.
> 
> No one is likely to dispute that the idea of trying in every 
way to 
> promote the Brotherhood of Humanity is a good thing, and that to 
form a 
> nucleus of that Brotherhood is a step towards greatly increasing 
its 
> influence. But how the thing is best to be done is of course a 
question on 
> which there may be quite legitimately many opinions, and there is 
not the 
> faintest objection to there being many opinions. It is that which 
keeps the 
> Society alive and which we hope may prevent crystallization . . .
> 
> But being good has very little to do with the form of our 
belief. It has 
> to do a good deal with putting it fully into practice . . . Let 
brotherly 
> love guide you. You may differ as much as you like in opinions, but 
you must 
> not let it lead to any sort of ill feeling or any sort of conceit 
in your 
> superior discernment in being able to see what to you is the right 
path . . 
> . Let us stand together in Brotherhood and carry on our work, 
whatever work 
> that may be. There is plenty of time later on to argue what this 
means and 
> what that means."
> 
http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/questmagazine/novdec04/burnier/
> 
> 
> John Alego's article in the below is just evidence on, that we here 
at 
> theos-talk is
> doing an effort.
> " The purpose of the conference was to consider ways of presenting 
the 
> principles of Theosophy to Americans reared in a primarily Judeo-
Christian 
> culture. As the invitation put it:
> It is often said that Theosophy is Eastern in focus (particularly 
> emphasizing Buddhism and Hinduism), and that remark is often a 
criticism, 
> implying that we neglect the spiritual tradition most dominant in 
Western 
> culture around us. Historically within or alongside or outside the 
Society 
> there have been attempts to Westernize/Christianize the 
presentation of the 
> Wisdom Tradition (Anna Kingsford's Hermetic Society, Rudolf 
Steiner's 
> Anthroposophy, Wedgwood and Leadbeater's Liberal Catholic Church, 
G. R. S. 
> Mead's Quest Society, etc.), but they do not necessarily speak to 
the 
> concerns of persons at the beginning of the new millennium who come 
out of 
> the Judeo-Christian tradition and who are not comfortable in the 
Eastern 
> traditions that we are pretty good at presenting in a Theosophical 
light.
> 
> We are currently making efforts in such presentation in the Quest 
magazine 
> and in Quest Books. . . . But it would be useful to have a group of 
> knowledgeable people review the options and brainstorm on how to 
present 
> Theosophy in other ways that seem relevant to our Western 
contemporaries and 
> on how to reach those persons."
>   
http://www.theosophical.org/theosophy/questmagazine/novdec2002/algeoXP
/ 
> (written year 2000)
> 
> - - - - - - - -
> 
> To make a few words on Alego's interesting words.
> 
> My take is for instance, that the Theosophical Society and other 
offshoots
> almost all of them lack a proper manifesation on the following 
issues:
> 
> a) A clearer stance on phallicism and ones relation to the Liberal 
Catholic 
> Church
> b) A clearer stance on the present VITAL lack of
> literary outlets, or lack of emphasis if you like, - on cultural 
and 
> religious areas as the Middle East and Islam.
> But also areas as Africa and it spiritual historical heritage. And 
also The 
> South America and other places where
> we humans live and breathe.
> c) A clearer stance on multicultural issues and racism.
> c) A clearer stance on what Blavatsky called the basis of 
theosophical 
> teaching -
> namely AtmaVidya - to which all other magical arts are inferior.
> d) A clearer stance on how one is promoting the theosophical 
organisation
> while taking the above four - issues into account.
> That is, - for instance how to provide an online Internet Bookshop, 
which
> is showing the needed compassion in a now increasinly more and more
> global world or planet - on the physical level.
> e) And also a restoration within theosophical circles of the 
emphasis given
> on allegorical teachings compared with the many non-allegorical
> outlets given by both Leadbeater and Besant.
> 
> This will according to my views hopefully keep the theosophical 
teachings
> on the right track.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:15 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re:Those who study Blavatsky's writing become 
> fundamentalists
> 
> 
> > Morten,
> > Theosophical Society does not have official definition of 
Theosophy.
> > Theosophy includes everything. Theos means God and Sophia means
> > wisdom. So Theosophy literally means wisdom of the God or 
Bramhavidya.
> > However TS considers Theosophy as all wisdom in the world. That
> > includes sciences, religions, philosophies etc. So even if 
sometimes
> > for convenience Atmavidya word might be used for Theosophy, one
> > should not consider it limited to spiritual teaching.
> >
> > Blavatsky used words and sentences loosely many times, so her
> > definitions and statements should not be considered as standard.
> > Blavatsky's definition as given by you "basis of the various
> > teachings, which forms what we can call - Theosophy " means one
> > esoteric teaching behind all religions. This is also comparatively
> > narrow definition. Fact is there is no perfect word in Sanskrit 
for
> > Theosophy, nearest are Atmavidya or Bramhavidya. So sometimes 
these
> > words are used.
> > Leadbeater or Besant did not use word Atmavidya regularly, though
> > sometimes they have. They always used the word Theosophy- meaning
> > vast, all-inclusive science.
> > I don't think LCC used word Atmavidya. TS is not connected to LCC 
or
> > any other religious organizations. LCC likes Theosophy and so they
> > spread that teaching, they are free to do so. But TS can not 
connect
> > itself to any religion or LCC. According to TS all religions are
> > given by Great Teachers or Rishis in Occult Hierarchy for guiding
> > humanity or large parts of it. So TS respects all religions and
> > religious organizations but does not associate itself exclusively
> > with any one.
> > Anand Gholap
> >
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
> > theosophy@s...> wrote:
> >> Hallo Anand and all,
> >>
> >> My views are:
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for your answer.
> >>
> 
> [Cut short by M. Sufilight ]