Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00260)

Adyar TS need not answer every accusation made against Leadbeater or
any other leader. That is unnecessary. That will not achieve much and
Radha also said that. 
Mistake made by Adyar TS was it never published biography of
Leadbeater. For long time, only available biography of Leadbeater was
the one written by Gregory Tillette. When there was no other biography
of C. W. Leadbeater, people referred Gregory's book. That caused lot
of misunderstanding. And people raised questions about Leadbeater's
character etc. 
Best defense was to publish good and correct biography of Leadbeater,
that would give correct picture of his life and work. This biography
should not  be in the form of 'defense'. It should be written like
biography of any other great spiritualists is written. If you have
read biographies of great people, they are not generally in the form
of defense. They show greatness of that leader and events in his life. 
Biggest mistake of Adyar TS is, in hundred years it did not publish
correct biography of Leadbeater. If that was written well, there was
no need of answering accusations based on Gregory's biography. 
Anand Gholap
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Pablo Sender" <pasender@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Perry
> 
> Well, I'm very busy now, but I can write a couple of things...
> 
> In the theosophical history, when there was a conflict between a 
> prominent member and the views of the current President of the TS 
> (without entering in judgments about who was right), those members 
> finally left the TS and, as might seem natural, tried to take with 
> them as many members as possible, specially among those who supported 
> them. That was the case of Judge, Steiner, Bailey, etc. Afterwards, 
> they formed their own movements (again, without judging if it is 
> genuine or not).
> In the case of Leadbeater, he was quite prominent when he resigned to 
> the TS, and had a good number of members who supported him. However, 
> his attitude was just the opposite to that of the other cases. To 
> begin with, he did not attack Olcott or the members who accused him. 
> He humbly left the TS. Then, many members wrote to him telling that 
> they also would leave the TS, and he answered saying that all that 
> was part of his past karma, that he had to went through that, that 
> they should remain working in the TS because it was the work of the 
> Masters, etc. He said he was still working with the Masters, although 
> not in the TS, so they did not have to be worried. And he lived a 
> couple of years silently going on with his clairvoyant investigations 
> (which were later published in some books), without trying to be 
> notorious, to attack the TS, etc. And when he was asked to come back, 
> he had only words of gratitude. Never an attitude of revenge but one 
> of forgiveness.
> To me, that is much more important that even if his investigations 
> were right or wrong.
> I saw many of those things in his letters. Always advising not to get 
> angry (and many of his "followers" certainly were, because of what 
> happened). He also would say "I'd like to help this person but, 
> because of what happened to me, (the accusation he received) I cannot 
> help him without arising suspiciousness in some members' mind. Could 
> you please help him?"
> There are also personal letters to A. Besant talking about things 
> that happened to them in the astral plane, with the spontaneity that 
> only can give the actual experience (and those letters were not meant 
> to be published, so they were not pretending anything).
> Well, things like that. Simple things, but very revealing. I saw, on 
> the contrary, personal letters from other leaders of the Theosophical 
> movement that left a very poor image to me: that of someone 
> interested in tricks, in gaining surreptitiously members of other 
> societies, or with a double discourse: the public and the private 
> being very different.
> That was my experience, very briefly stated.
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>