Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00108)

Hello Morten and All,
Thanks for your comments I think you've made some good points.
The J. J. van der Leeuw's article reflects the sense of betrayal and 
justified outrage over what had happened at the time.

When we become aware of the fact that we've been duped, then many 
things start to become quite plain and clear regarding the imposture.

One of the reasons I like the approach of Blavatsky is that it is not 
an emotional devotional type of approach but rather one of mental 
critical rigor that is tempered with the genuine search for truth and 
Oneness.

The Occult approach is not one, I would suggest, for people who do 
don't want to expend any mental effort or have an aversion to 
thinking though complex and perhaps subtle ideas that require a kind 
of fluidity of thinking.

Leadbeater's approach in my opinion appeals to the part of us that 
wants comfortable and easy solutions that are given from on high by 
our 'betters' so we don't need to expend any effort using simple 2 
term logic.

Subtlety of thinking leads to more clarified and refined perception 
of oneness and interconnectedness which ultimately leads to genuine 
spiritual perception.

Warm fuzzy devotional feelings can lead us down a path of comfort and 
conformity as is seen in many of the Pentecostal churches or blind 
Guru following groups.

Leadbeater made many understated remarks about how 'he may be wrong' 
or how 'know one had to believe' him but this was mere window 
dressing and veneer as is revealed by the blind following that was 
encouraged and demanded when the "World Teacher" movement was in full 
flight.

While "easy to understand" books may have some value to begin with 
however I think there is the trap of falling into a sense of comfort 
and simplistic thinking that can then lead to blind belief and an 
unquestioning mind. ie.dogma.

In my opinion introductions such as Geoffrey Farthing put together 
are presented in a manner that make it clear they are only 
introductions and just a start and are also written in a non dogmatic 
way that encourage deeper ongoing study.

Regards
Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
theosophy@s...> wrote:
> Hallo Anand and all,
> 
> My views are:
> 
> Anand wrote:
> "Reason why Theosophy failed in America is focus shifted from Annie
> Besant and Leadbeater to Blavatsky in last 15 years or so. Result is
> lodges became non-functional, people lost interest in Theosophy and
> overall failure of Theosophical movement in America. "
> 
> My Sufilight answer:
> Anand this is an easy claim about historical events. Another person
> could easily claim that you have not offered anything to make your 
claim
> understandable. It could easily have been so, that the focus shifted
> because of many other reasons - and that the result is that 
theosophical 
> groups
> today exist under many names, and that not all of them are named 
using the 
> word
> "Theosophical Society" in a dead-letter manner.
> I try, but I just can't grasp the logic in your claims.
> 
> 
> Anand wrote:
> "Leading members
> should remember that Theosophical Society which we see today became
> international organization accepted and respected world over when
> Annie Besant was president and it was teaching of Annie Besant and
> Leadbeater because of which TS was appreciated around the world. If
> Theosophical movement is to again become strong in America, active
> members and leaders should focus again on teachings of Leadbeater 
and
> Annie Besant."
> 
> My Sufilight answer:
> But, today Leadbeater is NOT respected around the world -
> quite on the contrary Anand. Maybe he is respected in your mind,
> but certainly his name tarnishes the theosophical reputation.
> And his name will continue to do so as long as the
> bad roumors around him is not - positively - clarified so his 
reputation if 
> at all
> possible can be restored. If not - the documental evidence 
forwarded today
> will keep Leadbeater as an evidence on failure on the Path.
> This seems at least to be a logical conclusion.
> 
> 
> Face the facts. There is no religion higher than the TRUTH.
> 
> Leadbeater will never be portrayed as a Krishna or a Master KH.
> The documentary evidence against him is just to strong.
> 
> And the Krishnamurti versus Leadbeater + Besant split
> will never be healed unless - new - and clear teachings will
> create the proper pieces so to make it all digestable
> to an audience which today - increasingly - find old relics
> (like Leadbeater and Besant) uneatable either to read or talk about.
> One reason is the emotionally related cult they created around 
Krishnamurti.
> This claim of mine I cannot document. But the youth today wants
> new teachings - no doubt there.
> It is of less importance if it is the same - theosophical - 
teaching, but 
> the author has to be new
> and preferably alive.
> 
> The following article will explain a lot about this conflict 
between 
> Krishnamurti
> on one side and Leadbeater + Besant on the other.
> 
> The article or phamplet is named
> "Revelation or Realization:The Conflict in Theosophy" by J.J. van 
der Leeuw,
> LL.D.
> http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/leeuw.html
> 
> 
> The article "Revelation or Realization:The Conflict in Theosophy" 
by J.J. 
> van der Leeuw,
> LL.D. http://www.tphta.ws/JJL_RRCT.HTM - - - seems to have been 
removed from 
> this link.
> 
> 
> As Idries Shah said
> in the excerpt from A CURRICULUM OF A SCHOOL
> 
> "In our teaching, we must group correctly these elements: the 
pupils, the
> teacher and the circumstances of study. Only at the right time and 
place,
> with the teacher suitable to these, and with the right body of 
students, can
> our studies be said to be capable of coherent development."
> 
> With the present day policy TS Adyar has upon how to run
> a theosophical magazine - everything will keept in an non-
Blavatskian
> strait-jacket.
> My recent email on the above article could be helpful to clarify 
this view I 
> have.
> "Revelation or Realization:The Conflict in Theosophy" by J.J. van 
der Leeuw,
> LL.D.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/26907
> 
> - - - - - - -
> 
> Blavatsky had a different view upon criticism than Annie Besant 
appearntly 
> had
> succes in promoting.
> And even today the above view on criticism being cruel seems to 
have 
> continued
> until today - even by some members here at theos-talk.
> We find the following in the article:
> 
> --- "To the Readers of 'Lucifer'" ---
> "Justice demands that when the reader comes across an article in 
this 
> magazine
> which does not immediately approve itself to his mind by chiming in 
with his 
> own
> peculiar ideas, he should regard it as a problem to solve rather 
than as a 
> mere
> subject of criticism. Let him endeavour to learn the lesson which 
only 
> opinions
> differing from his own can teach him. Let him be tolerant, if not 
actually
> charitable, and postpone his judgment till he extracts from the 
article the
> truth it must contain, adding this new acquisition to his store. 
One ever 
> learns
> more from one's enemies than from one's friends; and it is only 
when the 
> reader
> has credited this hidden truth to Lucifer, that he can fairly 
presume to put
> what he believes to be the efforts of the article he does not like 
to the 
> debit
> account.
> Lucifer, January, 1888
> H. P. Blavatsky "
> 
> ...also...but at the beginning...
> 
> "Our magazine is only four numbers old, and already its young life 
is full 
> of
> cares and trouble. This is all as it should be; i.e., like every 
other
> publication, it must fail to satisfy all its readers, and this is 
only in 
> the
> nature of things and the destiny of every printed organ. But what 
seems a 
> little
> strange in a country of culture and free thought is that Lucifer 
should 
> receive
> such a number of anonymous, spiteful, and often abusive letters. 
This, of
> course, is but a casual remark, the waste-basket in the office 
being the 
> only
> addressee and sufferer in this case; yet it suggests strange truths 
with 
> regard
> to human nature.1
> 
> [Footnote added by M. Sufilight ]
> 1 "VERBUM SAP." It is not Our intention to notice anonymous 
communications, 
> even
> though they should emanate in a round-about way from Lambeth 
Palace. The 
> matter
> "Verbum Sap" refers to is not one of taste; the facts must be held 
> responsible
> for the offence; and, as the Scripture hath it, "Woe to them by 
whom the 
> offence
> cometh!""
> http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/hpb/ToTheReadersOfLucifer.htm
> 
> 
> This just shows me, that Blavatsky was right and Annie Besant and 
her 
> friends
> was wrong - with their policy on the Magazine.
> What is your policy Anand ?
> 
> 
> 
> Just let me know if, I am not explaining myself clearly
> enough.
> 
> 
> 
> from
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:37 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re:Only way to revive Theosophy in US is to 
focus on 
> AB, CWL
> 
> 
> > Reason why Theosophy failed in America is focus shifted from Annie
> > Besant and Leadbeater to Blavatsky in last 15 years or so. Result 
is
> > lodges became non-functional, people lost interest in Theosophy 
and
> > overall failure of Theosophical movement in America. Leading 
members
> > should remember that Theosophical Society which we see today 
became
> > international organization accepted and respected world over when
> > Annie Besant was president and it was teaching of Annie Besant and
> > Leadbeater because of which TS was appreciated around the world. 
If
> > Theosophical movement is to again become strong in America, active
> > members and leaders should focus again on teachings of Leadbeater 
and
> > Annie Besant.
> >
> > Anand Gholap
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" 
<AnandGholap@A...>
> > wrote:
> >> Morten,
> >> You copied a book. Would you write in short what it wants to
> > convey.
> >>
> >> Anand Gholap
> >>
> >> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
> >> theosophy@s...> wrote:
> >> > Hallo Anand and all,
> >> >
> >> > My views are:
> >> >
> >> > The following might be helpful in understanding some of the
> >> Blavatskians
> >> > better...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - - - A Curriculum of a School - - -
> >> >