Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00225)

Dear Pablo
Thank you for sharing in such a comprehensive and heartfelt manner 
your personal experience of the Adyar Society. Like you, I was deeply 
involved and committed to the organisation on all levels and worked 
alongside some very hard working, selfless and sincere people. I also 
experienced the opposite, such being human nature wherever we may be. 
I particularly appreciated Dr Burnier (Radha) as a friend and 
colleague and respected her for her work as International President, 
a role with considerable difficulties not always understood by the 
membership or public at large. 

Thank you for considering my previous posting to be "mostly right" 
although I am less certain as to its "rightness", it being simply an 
accurate portrayal of my current perspective.

You write, "I think there is a wrong idea about the Adyar TS, when 
people say we appreciate Leadbeater as being more learned than HPB, 
or things like that. I've never heard anything of that sort?" 

I can only respond by saying "I certainly have" and quite vehemently 
and on numerous occasions both in Australia and India. On one 
occasion in particular, many years ago whilst national lecturer, I 
was asked what my thoughts were of Bishop Leadbeater by a senior 
member of the ES at the Manor. I replied in the somewhat diplomatic 
manner required of my position that he was a tireless and committed 
worker who made an extensive contribution, although I wasn't entirely 
convinced by some of his teachings. The very aggressive reply came 
back, "Well I think he's the greatest occultist that ever lived." End 
of discussion!
In Adyar in 1996 the level of devotion to Bishop Leadbeater, Dr 
Besant and Krishnamurti was palpable, far more so than towards Madame 
Blavatsky. 

You write, "?and I can say we have a deep appreciation and reverence 
for HPB."

With respect, that is a rather broad generalisation of the total TS 
membership. I have heard many condemnatory remarks made about Madame 
Blavatsky by members from all parts of the world in terms of her 
temperament and teachings. There have been articles published in 
Adyar Society magazines strongly challenging Madame Blavatsky's 
pronouncements. I have seen none challenging those of Bishop 
Leadbeater or Dr Besant.

You write, "Being in Argentina I had a fairly bad conception about 
Leadbeater.
But then, being in the Archives, I had access to information, 
personal letters written by him, etc., and my previously bad idea 
about him changed completely. Now I feel certain silent admiration 
for him as a person?"

Bishop Leadbeater was certainly not all bad although I can only hope 
you continue to investigate his life history, his activities and his 
pronouncements. If you haven't done so already, researching through 
the past few years of theostalk alone will provide helpful 
information perhaps. If you have so done, then we will have to 
respectfully disagree on this matter.

You write, "So I asked (Radha) shouldn't we write books showing the 
other side of the coin? And she told me she rather would not do 
anything on that line because the main result of that is the 
increasing of controversy and the contamination of the mental 
atmosphere with thoughts of hatred, criticism, etc.)"

Having heard this response from her before, although in a somewhat 
different manner, I respectfully disagree. Notwithstanding the often 
all too important political considerations, it is my current 
perspective that the documented and demonstrable behaviour, untruths 
and "mental atmosphere" of Bishop Leadbeater precludes him from a 
position of honour and promotion in a theosophical organisation. It 
is my belief that if members were made aware of his complete history, 
many would adopt a similar position.

You write, "Thus, my answer is that it is close to impossible to skip 
controversies over personalities;"

My, and I know many others' concerns do not relate to personalities, 
although this is where the debate is often steered by those who do 
not wish to confront the real issues. I am not ascribing this 
tendency to you as you appear to me to be very sincere. Personalities 
are largely unimportant. A person's character however is a different 
matter. Honesty, integrity and simply telling the truth are qualities 
of far greater significance from both an occult and mundane 
perspective.

You write, "What I cannot justify is the systematic attack upon the 
Adyar TS, because it damages the whole movement, and is far below 
every theosophical-occultist consideration (see for example what 
Mahatma KH says about the elementals putting in activity by a person 
who goes to denounce a neighbor, and other who spent that energy in 
something
constructive)."

This is an admirable sentiment however from my perspective, it is 
some in the Adyar TS hierarchy who have damaged and continue to 
damage the entire movement by continuing to support and promote 
thoroughly discredited and dishonourable teachers and teachings. I 
hasten to emphasise "some" because as mentioned, there are many good 
people in the Adyar TS and there are even those who have chosen to 
remain members in the hope they might slowly effect change.
In response to your paraphrasing of the Mahatma's ideal, I would 
add, "Evil happens when good (people) do nothing."

When heavily involved in the Adyar TS in earlier years I was mostly 
blind to these issues. Through extensive research into the differing 
historical accounts of the movement along with "outsiders'" 
perspectives, I gradually became aware that there were other 
legitimate stories, other than those perpetuated in the cloistered 
environment and energies of the Adyar Society. My eyes were gradually 
opened to that which ultimately became unacceptable for me. My 
initial ignorance was replaced by denial followed by attempted 
justification and eventual acceptance of "reality", with much pain 
along the way. 
It has been an interesting journey thus far.

My very best wishes to you in yours

Kind regards
Nigel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Pablo Sender" <pasender@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Nigel
> 
> Yes, you are mostly right. But I think the problem we are dealing 
> with is human nature itself, and that makes the situation quite 
> complex. . . Let me explain myself. 
> I'm 32 and I've been in the TS (Adyar) since I was 20. From the 
very 
> beginning I was deeply interested in Theosophy and also involved in 
> the institutional work. I was member of the TS National Council in 
> Argentina, I gave lectures and courses (in my country and several 
> others, including Spain), conducted a Summer School, and so on. 
Then, 
> I went to Adyar and I was working in the Archives for one and a 
half 
> year. I've gave several lectures there and, along with my wife, a 
> three-month course on the Secret Doctrine. I'm telling this only to 
> convey I've been involved both in the teachings and in the 
> institutional work.
> 
> First let's clear the field. I think there is a wrong idea about 
the 
> Adyar TS, when people say we appreciate Leadbeater as being more 
> learned than HPB, or things like that. I've never heard anything of 
> that sort, and I can say we have a deep appreciation and reverence 
> for HPB. During all these years and experiences, I was never forced 
> to study or accept anything from anyone. Being more in tune with 
> HPB's teachings, I did not read much of Leadbeater's. In my 
lectures, 
> courses, etc., I never made use of his teachings, and nobody said 
> anything, nor even noticed it. So, Leadbeater is just one of the 
many 
> author we study. Even when in Adyar, I heard lectures about HPB and 
> no one about Leadbeater (well, one, in fact, that was mine). It is 
> not that the Adyar TS don't like Leadbeater, but his teachings are 
> not its main subject.
> 
> Being in Argentina I had a fairly bad conception about Leadbeater. 
> But then, being in the Archives, I had access to information, 
> personal letters written by him, etc., and my previously bad idea 
> about him changed completely. Now I feel certain silent admiration 
> for him as a person, although I'm not generally in tune with his 
> style of teaching. This change of mind was only due to my research. 
> Nobody ever told me anything about him in my year and a half there. 
> And I've read letters written by other people (for example GdeP) 
that 
> left a very poor image of him. (Once I talked to Radha Burnier 
about 
> the bad idea I had on Besant and Leadbeater, etc., that was mainly 
> due to a lack of information or, in fact, because the only 
> information I had come across came from those who don't like them 
and 
> write against them. So I asked shouldn't we write books showing the 
> other side of the coin? And she told me she rather would not do 
> anything on that line because the main result of that is the 
> increasing of controversy and the contamination of the mental 
> atmosphere with thoughts of hatred, criticism, etc.)
> 
> Then, my point is: many people outside the TS say "how can you 
> believe in HPB with her speaking of those "invented" Mahatmas, she 
> being a fraud, as demonstrated by..." etc., etc. Yet, for us, HPB 
was 
> right. The same happens with Leadbeater, for example, or many other 
> leaders all over the world. There are accusations that are very 
> obvious to certain people, but wrong to other. You cannot help it. 
It 
> has been always like that, and today Simon Magus was a black 
magician 
> and Peter the mouthpiece of God to most of the people (just to 
> mention one case).
> So, if you think Besant was deluded, everything will sound 
> outrageous. But if you think she was right, then many things make 
> sense. Here is an interesting exercise: read what happened to HPB 
and 
> around her, but instead of being HPB, think it was Besant. Many 
> things you now accept will sound very doubtful. I did that exercise 
> with HPB Judge, Besant, etc. It'll reveal a lot.
> Thus, my answer is that it is close to impossible to skip 
> controversies over personalities; there will always be two sides. 
> Therefore, what is the most intelligent attitude? To me, it is that 
> of tolerance. I know this attitude is challenging, it also has 
> several weaknesses, and it requires a lot of discrimination by the 
> members. You will meet some people reading things I don't consider 
> theosophy at all. That's right. The attitude of saying "this set of 
> authors are theosophical" is easier, provides more psychological 
> security, etc. But I sincerely prefer the side-effects of tolerance 
> to those of marking limits. And I've seen in some Lodges in my 
> country. Where they are "orthodox", you have few people knowing 
about 
> HPB with certain understanding, and the rest of the members only 
> repeating as parrots. While in Lodges where there was an exposal to 
> different lines of thought (and the members were serious) there was 
a 
> much deeper understanding even of HPB's writings. I think the 
second 
> object of the TS has a deep significance, far beyond a mere 
academic 
> one. In fact, that was my case. The more I opened my horizon, the 
> more deeply could I understand HPB's teachings (remember HPB said 
an 
> occultist should know, although not necessarily dominate, all the 
> philosophies).
> 
> I personally am very happy with the Adyar TS policy and I sincerely 
> think is what the Founders wanted for the TS, although I understand 
> some people may consider it differently of may need another 
approach. 
> What I cannot justify is the systematic attack upon the Adyar TS, 
> because it damages the whole movement, and is far below every 
> theosophical-occultist consideration (see for example what Mahatma 
KH 
> says about the elementals putting in activity by a person who goes 
to 
> denounce a neighbor, and other who spent that energy in something 
> constructive).
>