Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00241)

Dear Pablo,

Hello and thank-you for your postings, it been very interesting 
hearing what you have to say.

You wrote :
"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."

Can you please share with us what it was you read in the archives 
that made you change your mind about CWL, myself and I am sure the 
rest of us here would be interested to know what it was that created 
the shift in your opinion of him.

Regards

Perry


--- 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).
>