Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00097)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev" 
<kay_ziatz@...> wrote:
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" wrote:
> 
> > Bishop Leadbeater was clearly untruthful or fraudulent in 
numerous 
> > Both Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Annie Besant have been proven far 
and 
> 
> > At this stage, the same cannot be said of Blavatsky with any
> > similar degree of proof.
> 
> Not exactly. In academic world Blavatsky is regarded as a proven 
> fraud. Even if we dismiss Hodgeson's and Soloviev's accusations, 
> there is acute critic from the orientalists' side.
> 
> Before their contacts with Blavatsky both Besant and Leadbeater 
were 
> respected people of good reputation.
> Leadbeater was a clergyman which had no reclamations as such and 
> Besant was agnostic philosopher active in the social field.
> After their close association with Blavatsky they became immoral 
and 
> frauds.
> Wasn't it she who made in them so significant a change?
> They claimed themselves pupils of Blavatsky, and in this respect 
they 
> could be regarded as such.
>

Dear Konstantin
Thank you for your response.
Are you really suggesting that Blavatsky is responsible for the 
outrageous behaviour of Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Besant despite much 
of this behaviour occurring from a few to many years after her death? 
If so, when would you suggest individual responsibility takes effect? 
A lanoo is totally responsible for their actions are they not?
Kind regards
Nigel



>Dear Konstantin

>You wrote, "Aren't HPB's thoughts about rotation of the planets clear
fraud and should they be exposed?"

>To which Perry replied, "There is a difference being simply being
wrong to actually manufacturing and concocting data in experiments to
fit your theory."

>This is an important distinction.

>Bishop Leadbeater was clearly untruthful or fraudulent in numerous
matters of determinable and demonstrable fact.
>He claimed to be representing Madame Blavatsky's version of
Theosophy. On many, many subjects he did not.
>He claimed to be in direct contact with Madame Blavatsky's masters.
Given the utterly contradictory accounts of
cosmogonies and cosmologies, any reasonable assessment would
manifestly demonstrate that he was not.
>He claimed to be born on a particular date. Clearly he
was not.
>He claimed to have attended prestigious British
universities, he did not.
>He claimed to have seen the Mahatma M in 1851; another consciously
concocted lie or fraud.
>And the list goes on and on. Whether we term these indiscretions as
untruths, lies or fraud they are indisputable matters of fact, which
only the most ardent apologist would deny or avoid.

>An open minded observer might feel the need to consider these exposed
frauds when investigating the good Bishop's putative "psychic"
visions concerning atoms, human life on Mars, meetings with the "Lord
of the World" and many other such pronouncements.

>Both Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Annie Besant have been proven far and
beyond any reasonable doubt to have lied and to have manipulated and
deceived their followers on many occasions and in many ways.
This is simple fraud.

>At this stage, the same cannot be said of Blavatsky with any similar
degree of proof.

>Kind regards
Nigel