Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00275)

Anand,

You write:

--------------------------------------------------------
Readers can note that he did not recommend Key to
Theosophy by H. P.Blavatsky. Also he did not recommend Isis Unveiled.
What could be the reason? Did C. W. Leadbeater know that those
writings of Blavatsky were blunders. Even his reference of the Secrete
Doctrine seems to be diplomatic necessity arisen because H. P.
Blavatsky was founder and reputation of TS depended on Blavatsky's
reputation.
--------------------------------------------------------

It would appear that you have an assumption here that C.W. Leadbeater 
KNEW that HPB made blunders.

And this seems to be based on your additional assumption that he KNEW 
the REAL teachings and REAL thoughts of the Masters. 

But how do YOU KNOW all of that? 

As I have already wrote in my posting at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/46382

THROUGH 1891, our knowledge of what the teachings of modern Theosophy 
are is based primarily on the writings of Madame Blavatsky
and the letters of the Masters.

Now it is true that AFTER Mme. Blavatsky died in 1891, C.W. 
Leadbeater claimed to be in contact with the same Mahatmas as HPB but 
why only examine his claims?  

Why only consider his claims?

Why only accept his claims?

Not only did Leadbeater claim to be in contact with Blavatsky's 
Teachers but many other individuals also made identical and similar 
claims.  I give a list of the other people below who also made claims:

William Q. Judge, Annie Besant, Maude Travers, Katherine Tingley, 
Ernest Hargrove, G. de Purucker, Alice Bailey, Francia A. La Due, Guy 
Ballard, Helena Roerich, Mark Prophet, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, 
Earlyne Chaney, Nada-Yolanda, Brother Philip, Cyril Scott, David 
Anrias, Geraldine Innocente, Carolyn Shearer and Monroe Shearer, etc. 
etc.

Anand, have you examined the claims of these people too?

Have you read any of their Theosophical writings?

Have you compared Leadbeater's claims and teachings with their claims 
and teachings???

And some of them believe Mr. Leadbeater made the blunders.

You say Mr. Leadbeater didn't recommend two of HPB's books and this 
somehow casts doubt on those 2 HPB books but G. de Purucker in his 
writings thinks highly of all of HPB's writings. 

So have you considered G. de Purucker's estimation of HPB's writings?

Maybe G. de Purucker knew better than Mr. Leadbeater?  Have you 
considered that possibility?

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that G. de Purucker knew or 
didn't know this or that.  

I am simply giving one example out of a hundred.

I know current day students of Theosophy who reject Leadbeater 
completely but believe Alice Bailey continued the real work of 
Blavatsky.

More examples I could give.

In most cases I am aware of, students and readers have for some 
reason or another  been impressed with the writings of one or two of 
the names I gave in the list above.  They furthermore then assume 
that that person whether it be Leadbeater or Bailey or Purucker (I 
could name others but won't) continued Blavatsky's work.  Maybe these 
students believe that Leadbeater or Bailey or Purucker "expanded" 
and "improved" on HPB's work and teachings.  But most of these 
students haven't really read widely, looking at and comparing the 
various claims and books of all the individuals I listed above.  
Instead they just ASSUME OR BELIEVE that Leadbeater or Bailey or 
Purucker is correct or just accept that Leadbeater or Bailey or 
Purucker continued in HPB's footsteps.  

And most of these students appear to know nothing about what the 
other names I gave in the list wrote or taught or claimed.

Now of course as far as I am concerned, people can believe or 
disbelieve or accept or reject whatever they want to.  But when they 
come forth and try to convince other readers and students that they 
know this, that or the other, then I think they need to at the very 
least present their reasoning, thinking and hopefully some evidence 
which might show that their position actually merits consideration, 
etc.

So Anand applying this to you, you are entitled to believe anything 
you want.  And if you say:

"I believe this but of course it is only my belief and I could be 
totally wrong.  I believe Leadbeater knew the real teachings of the 
Masters and was in a position to also know where HPB distorted the 
Masters teachings and I believe Leadbeater could point out her 
blunders and 'pretensions' but I could be equally wrong and it may be 
that Blavatsky actually knew the real teachings of the Masters and it 
was Leadbeater that could have been wrong."....

If you say something like that, then of course that is your opinion, 
but when you seem to be saying that you know and you imply that the 
truth is that Leadbeater knew the real teachings of the Masters and 
was in a position to also know where HPB distorted the Masters 
teachings, etc. etc, then I would suggest that you need to present 
your evidence, your reasoning, your thinking.

If you really do know the truth about this or at least you think you 
know the truth about this or want to inform Theos-Talk readers of 
this truth, and you also say or imply that any reasonable thinking 
person would and should agree with you, then I would suggest you need 
to present your case, your evidence, your reasoning and thinking.  

If you really do know the truth and some of us on Theos-Talk don't, 
then for heavens sake, present your case.  But give us some of your 
reasoning, your thinking, your evidence, so that we have something 
to "chew" on and actually consider and think about.

So back to my questions given at the very beginning of this posting:

It would appear that you have an assumption here that C.W. Leadbeater 
KNEW that HPB made blunders.

And this seems to be based on your additional assumption that he KNEW 
the REAL teachings and REAL thoughts of the Masters. 

But how do YOU KNOW all of that? 

Daniel
http://hpb.cc