Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00080)

Daniel,

You obviously have a lot of historical data at your fingertips.  I
feel that sometimes you go round the houses when presenting it - no
offence meant.  Let me see if I have understood the essentials of the
Subba Row/Leadbeater letters and accusations.

1.  Leadbeater wrote a letter in 1885 claiming that HPB, the natural
clairvoyant and occultist had disappeared from her body, some twenty
years earlier (1865).  Inhabiting her body since then had been a
failed adept, placed there as part of a punishment.  According to
Leadbeater, the failed adept was frequently absent from the body. In
his absence two inexperienced Chelas, with little occult knowledge
inhabited the body in some way, except for those times when the body
was ill.  When the body was ill it needed to be inhabited by an
ignorant bad tempered old Tibetan woman.  Between the four of them,
the failed adept, the two chelas with little occult knowledge, and the
old woman with no occult knowledge at all, none of them could remember
what the others had said, hence the reason HPB apparently contradicted
herself from time to time.

[Murthy comments: according to this story the inhabitants of HPB's
body were made up of a failure, those lacking occult knowledge and the
completely ignorant. What a yarn!  Clearly the people who beleived
this view also believed the Masters were somewhat bungling amateurs
when it came to chosing the best people to help them promulgate
Theosophy in the world. However, for someone who believed he had
travelled to Mars, as Leadbeater believed, seeing the Martians in
their physical bodies and conversing with them in garden towns on the
surface of Mars and where there were plenty of water and flowers - I
guess such a person would find anything believable.

2.  The source of this story fed to Leadbeater and others is T.Subba
Row.  In his explanation for his actions to HPB it was done not
because HPB made mistakes, or gave out wrong occult knowledge. It was
done because she was giving out genuine esoteric doctrines that Subba
Row felt should be for Brahmans only, not Europeans.  Suba Row's
possessiveness in regards Brahmanic esoteric truths is mentioned a
number of times by the Master in their letters to Sinnett and Hume.

3.  All the above statements about HPB's occult constitution and
implied lack of occult knowledge are flatly contradicted by later
letters from the Mahatmas themselves: .
  "We have not abandoned her;
   she is not 'given over to chelas.'
   She is our direct agent...."
   "there is no likelihood of our finding a better one for years to come"

Does this summarise what you are presenting, Daniel?

Murthy