Theos-Talk Archives (February 2007 Message tt00121)

  Well, jeez Konstantin, haven't you read anything of what happens to
people when they try to become chelas?  Check out the MLs.  HPB said
that 71-1/2 of 73 who applied for chelaship, became total wrecks of
one sort or another. ("Chelas and Lay-Chelas"?)  Can't believe you
aren't being tounge-in-cheek when you lay this at the feet of
Blavatsky.  What do you think SHE had to go though?  What was inside
of Leadbeater came out ..... and it wasn't too pretty.


   On "Occult Chemistry,"  Leadbeater's book by that name was a big
plagiarism of someone elses speculative chemistry book and drawings
from the 1870's.  I could probably find the references.  Outright
plagiarism, and nothing but a fairy tale as well.  Too bad the
academics grab hold of this.  The academics that appreciate Blavatsky
usually are the ones that don't say anything, because they know what
the results ususally are.

           - jake j.



--- 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.
>