Re: Theos-World Which Theosophy?
May 06, 2007 08:16 PM
by Cass Silva
I understand where you are coming from Nigel and admire your motives. Perhaps I should have written that Leadbeaterism may have put some Christians on the path of pseudo-theosophy, which is a tad preferable to dogmatic christianity. Although I take your point that CWL introduced dogma into theosophy, at least the precepts were more eastern in thinking.
Luckily for me when I was first introduced to CWL's works I found them to be too authoritarian and egotistical in tone, so I never placed much value on what he was saying, and this was before I even understand that their were conflicts in teachings between HPB and CWL.
From what I can gather those that have interpreted HPB in this century have done so using her teachings at their base, e.g. Purucker,Gardner, Pratt.
I guess I am writing from a sense of frustration, the world is currently in the throws of some enormous changes resulting in fear and confusion for many and I believe that when energy is directed to things of the past it prevents us from focussing on the now, and in particular what we can do as theosophists to assist others in this current aura of fear.
When I think about CWL, I can feel my blood pressure rise and I am sure, attract many negative thoughts to myself.
nhcareyta <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Dear All and Cass
Cass, I both understand and respect your position that you would
prefer to "put the dilemma to bed" as being well considered as usual,
kind and generous, and don't wish this posting to be in any way
construed as an attempt to draw you into further discussion.
That said, please allow me to use some remarks from one of your
previous postings to highlight some points which are often raised by
others as well and which seem important to me and perhaps to fellow
students of T/theosophy.
1) "Even though Leadbeaterism and Besantism et all is not pure
imagine it has helped souls by putting them in the right direction,
2) "it (challenging Bishop Leadbeater and his teachings) causes
negative energy for theosophy at best, wasted energy at worst."
This idea, that the world is a better place as a result of the
teachings of Bishop Leadbeater, Dr Besant et al, is very much a moot
point that friends and I from the Adyar Society discussed every week
for more than a year, some years ago.
Subsequently, each of us helped establish the Theosophical Academy
where the Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and her teachers became the
focus of our study. Some of the reasons for this included the loss of
trust in many of the pronouncements and activities of Bishop
Leadbeater and Dr Besant, a recognition that Madame Blavatsky and her
teachers had something significantly special and different to say and
a growing disillusionment with the Adyar Society, from our perception
that it was not an organisation of entirely free speech after all.
There were other contributing factors which are somewhat irrelevant
to the current discussion.
>From my perspective, on balance I believe the Adyar Society and
Theosophy in general would have been better off without Bishop
Leadbeater and his teachings despite his many works and with many
claiming they were initially drawn to the subject through his
writings, myself included. Moreover, I have met and shared with many,
many Adyar theosophical students who were and/or are fine, upstanding
people. I have also met quite a few who were not, as is to be
expected in a large organisation.
It seems unproductive to fully reiterate Bishop Leadbeater's lies,
deceptions and often fanciful, romantic ideas with little basis in
fact other than his own illusory sense of authority, as these have
been fairly well covered in this forum throughout the past couple of
years. However there are some other aspects which dovetail in with
the aforementioned which deserve attention.
A rationale is often put forward that Bishop Leadbeater's writings
helped simplify the Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and her teachers.
But did they really, or did they and their accompanying occult
energies actually draw students away from it. In my experience, the
overwhelming majority of students who started with Bishop
Leadbeater's theosophy i.e. his teachings, his mindset and his
energies are still entranced and enamoured by it.
His often romanticised ideas and powerfully deceptive energies cause
many to become adoring followers, usually blind to demonstrable proof
and in such states of denial and defensiveness as to disallow any
possibility of a reasoned debate concerning the contradictory nature
of his teachings in comparison with those his followers claims he
Whilst this reactive mindset is largely the province of each
individual, nevertheless this powerfully influential occult teacher
who dishonestly represented another's works has had, and still has a
significantly detrimental, ongoing effect on the mindsets of
unwitting students as well as on the original Theosophical teachings
For those unaware of the many contradictions between the teachings of
Madame Blavatsky and her teachers and those of Bishop Leadbeater and
Dr Besant please go to:
Whatever way we might interpret Madame Blavatsky and her teachers'
wishes for their Society and their version of Theosophy, they
certainly did not want mesmerised, closed-minded followers. They
certainly did not want a "theosophical" church complete with an
authoritarian hierarchy. Nor did they want a Bishop or priest acting
as intermediary between parishioners and their true selves or the
outrageous discrimination afforded women through their disallowance
to perform the sacraments because their vehicles were, according to
Bishop Leadbeater and his subsequent representatives, unsuited to the
If Madame Blavatsky had wanted a manifestly simplified version of
Theosophy she would have written one. She and her teachers did not
want Theosophy simplified. They wanted us to think and to think
deeply, further and further into the awesome profundities of nature
and the cosmos. They wanted to expand our minds to breaking point and
beyond, into the realms of the formless, where we might begin to
learn the actual constructs of the cosmos and eventually become
A mind satisfied with simple explanations usually rests on its
laurels, feeling secure it has found the truth. This mindset almost
inevitably turns these explanations into a dogma and eventually may
even become the basis for a church.
This is what occurred as a result of Bishop Leadbeater's version of
theosophy and his influential mindset.
For these and other reasons already stated in previous posts, my
perspective for what little it's probably worth, is that Bishop
Leadbeater and his teachings caused immeasurable harm to Madame
Blavatsky and her teachers' Theosophy, as well as to the Adyar
Theosophical Society itself. His legacy and influence in this
organisation has always been very strong with high-ranking clergy
also filling its positions of seniority.
Where there is so much contradiction, dishonesty and deception
between teachings it begs the question as to how those in authority
can reconcile this.
It is for these reasons that I do not think that exposing lies and
hypocrisies is promoting negative energies, in fact quite the
opposite. As long as there are inquiring students eager to learn
about Theosophy I will continue as and where able to offer what I
believe to be an honest and fair assessment of the differing versions
Regards to all
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application