Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00321)

Anand, I suggest you give your reasoning & evidence instead of mere 
assertions

Anand,

It would appear that you have made the assumption that Leadbeater KNEW
the REAL teachings and REAL thoughts of the Masters.

But how do YOU KNOW all of that?

As I have already wrote, 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 have also made 
claims:

William Q. Judge, Annie Besant, A.P. Sinnett, 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.

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???

You say in one of your postings that 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?

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 give above  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 this, 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 IN DETAIL, so that we have 
something to "chew" on and actually consider and think about.

Just because you believe it or assert it to be true doesn't make it 
true and you should give us details of your actual reasoning, your 
evidence if you have such.   Mere vague assertions mean little if 
anything.  

More about this can be found at:

Viewing Leadbeater's Claims in a WIDER CONTEXT
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/49093

NOTE to Theos-Talk readers:  I write the above not because I expect 
Anand to follow thru on this but I write it in the hope that some of 
the other readers on  Theos-Talk will think about these issues and 
ask the relevant questions and seek for greater understanding and 
insight on these  extremely important matters.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc