Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00109)

I agree with Anand that Leadbeaterian theosophy is more likely to be of 
popular interest than is Blavatsky's theosophy. An examination of sales 
figures for books on theosophy confirms this. But the reason is fairly simple: 
Blavatsky's writing is sophisticated, intellectually challenging and complex. 
It's not her English language - it's the concepts she's seeking to convey. 
However, that something is popular hardly demonstrates that it has quality. 
More Big Macs are sold than gourmet dinners. Check out the "quality" of the 
vastly popular "New Age" books on sale. Who was it who said something like "No-
one ever lost money by underestimating the taste of the American [for which 
can be substituted any nationality!] public"? Blavatsky is too hard for the 
generally lazy would-be occultists who find Leadbeater exciting. It is 
interesting to note that post-Blavatsky the membership of the TS and the 
number of pages in "The Theosophist" both rose dramatically, and the 
intellectual standards of both declined drastically. Compare, for example, 
G.R.S. Mead (one of the intellectual refugees from the Leadbeaterian TS) 
writing on the Gnostics with Leadbeater writing on "Invisible Helpers" or "The 
Hidden Side of Things".
As a simple, yet related question to Anand: on what basis should anyone 
believe anything Leadbeater writes about on the "hidden side" when he 
manifestly cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about his own life in 
this "visible world"?

Dr Gregory Tillett