Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00009)

"...Leadbeater explains about things which large number of people want to 
know in language they understand. Marvellous thing is he explains 
most metaphysical concepts in language ordinary reader understands..."

Does it include writing with no attachment to ancient doctrines other than his own clairvoyance?
Does it also include garbled and romantized versions of the kingdoms of nature?

Krishtar 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Anand Gholap 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:28 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re:Those who study Blavatsky's writing become fundamentalists


Jerry,
What you are suggesting is whole world should change and all people 
in it should make themselves suitable for reading Blavatsky's 
writing. This expectation is not right. Writer must write in a way 
that people would understand what he writes and lifts them from their 
level. Blavatsky failed to write in such manner and she admitted it. 
Another thing is Master also said that " people want lucid 
explanation which appears to her (HPB) superfluous" Ordinary people 
don't understand her writing. Scholars consider it bad way of 
presentation. So definitely fault is in Blavatsky's writing.

You said you could appreciate Leadbeater's writing because you had 
already seen many things about what he wrote. What things did you see?

I have seen many people who studied Blavatsky's writing lost common 
sense, became dogmatic and fundamentalist, intolerant towards others 
and even were filled with intense hatred. This is greatest failure of 
any writer on spiritual subject.
I saw many students of Besant and Leadbeater who had very fine, 
sensitive emotional nature and many were working unselfishly for 
helping others. This is the change in heart that writing on occultism 
must produce and AB, CWL succeeded in that very well. 

It is true that Blavatsky mostly commented writings on other 
philosophers, religions etc. But most people are not interested in 
studying old religions and writings of old philosophers, even less on 
commentaries on those. So for most people value of her writing is neg 
legible. 
Leadbeater explains about things which large number of people want to 
know in language they understand. Marvellous thing is he explains 
most metaphysical concepts in language ordinary reader understands.

Anand Gholap





Yahoo! Groups Links








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]