Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00318)

Doesn't green represent Envy in Leadbeaters colour scheme?
Cass



----- Original Message ----
From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October, 2008 2:26:48 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Anand, notice your assumptions about Leadbeater, etc.


Dear friends

My views are:

C. W: Leadbeater wrote the following very compassionate words about H. P. Blavatsky year 1930:
"Madame Blavatsky

Let me try for a moment to look at her as an outsider might have looked, if that be possible for me. Frankly, I do not think I can do that, because I love her with the deepest love, I reverence her more than anyone else, except her great Masters and mine. So perhaps I cannot look at her dispassionately from outside, but at least I am trying to do so. I have seen many strangers approach her. I will try to tell you what I have seen reflected in their faces and their minds. The first thing that strikes them all, the first thing that always struck me, was the tremendous power that she radiated. The moment one came into Madame Blavatsky's presence, one felt that here was some one who counted-some one who could do things, emphatically one of the great ones of the world; and I think that none of us ever lost that feeling.

There were assuredly many people who disagreed with various things that she said; there were others of us who followed her enthusiastically. She was so strong a person that I have never seen anyone among the thousands who met her who was indifferent to her. Some of them absolutely hated her, but more were immensely impressed by her. Many were almost awed by her; but those who knew her best loved her with a never-failing emotion, and love her still. I have recently seen some of those who knew her well, and it does seem that in every one of them the memory of her is just as green as it is in my own heart, and we have never ceased to love her. The impression that she made was indescribable. I can well understand that some people were afraid of her. She looked straight through one; she obviously saw everything there was in one-and there are men who do not like that. I have heard her make sometimes very disconcerting revelations about those to whom she spoke."

http://www.singapor elodge.org/ htctm.htm

Maybe Anand can explain this and then tell us all, why Blavatsky knew very much but was not able to write a simple book in 1889 named The Key to Theosophy?

My views are:
I will tell you all, what makes a book a blunder is not the lack of persons who read it.
It is its contents lack of wisdom. Because what most people think is wisdom teaching is indeed not. And this is true, because people read what they want and crave, and fancy - and not what they spiritually need so that their ego's might be awakened.

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: danielhcaldwell 
To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 10:30 PM
Subject: Theos-World Anand, notice your assumptions about Leadbeater, etc.

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 


      Make the switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]