Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00036)

Nigel, 
Her response is natural and appropiate. Anand utilizes the classic accusation the Historic Church Blavatsky railed about. The accusation of inaccuracies and errors. They used it brutally against the Gnostics and any other that threatened the Dogma. But today we sup on Christian and Brahman discontent of Theosophy. 

Regards, 
John 







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au> 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2009 4:39:37 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Theos-World Re: C.W. Leadbeater, the greatest occultist-saint of all times 






Dear Cass 

Do I detect a touch of frustration in your recent comments :) 

Kind regards 
Nigel 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com , Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote: 
> 
> Geez Anand, even if according to your opinion these letters were 
materialized by HPB she didn't materialize a blank sheet of paper. 
If HPB wrote Isis and SD unaided then we should be worshipping at her 
feet because somebody bloodywell wrote them, Blavatsky continually 
stated that she was only PASSING ON and not the ORIGINATOR of these 
ANCIENT EASTERN TEACHINGS - WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU GET? She 
in all humility admitted that the works was not hers!!! 
> Are you suggesting that Blavatsky initiated these teachings in 
order that Leadbeater et al would come along and correct them - and 
der if this was the case - why go through HPB at all - why not go to 
whoever you believe were the true theosophists. 
> Your power of logic leaves much to be questioned 
> 
> Cass 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________ 
> From: Anand <AnandGholap@...> 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, 1 March, 2009 7:48:00 AM 
> Subject: Theos-World Re: C.W. Leadbeater, the greatest occultist- 
saint of all times 
> 
> 
> Daniel, 
> I think you need to correct your views. 
> First of all you are assuming that so called Mahatma Letters were 
> written by Mahatmas. I wrote on this subject earlier and explained 
why 
> these letters are not as authentic as believed. 
> We know most Mahatma Letters were materialized by Blavatsky, 
according 
> to her own admission. And we also know that contents of the letter 
> depended on chela's own development. 
> That means you can not take statements from Mahatma Letters to 
support 
> Blavatsky or her teaching, as letters were materialized by herself. 
> If you do, it will be like saying "Blavatsky was right because she 
> said she was right" 
> You consider Blavatsky's writing as the source of Theosophy. This is 
> another delusion. Theosophical principles existed for thousands of 
> years in the East and the West and Blavatsky draws from them. You 
can 
> note her frequent references of ancient writings. 
> You wrote 
> "But my point here is that they (later messengers) built on her 
> (Blavatsky's) original foundation, they followed or tried to follow 
or 
> at least said they tried to follow in her footsteps." 
> Although in humility later messengers might given more credit to 
> Blavatsky, the fact is Besant and Leadbeater wrote what they 
> themselves experienced and investigated with their own clairvoyance. 
> And Leadbeater himself disagrees with Blavatsky on some important 
> points. Besant and Leadbeater were not disciples of Blavatsky, they 
> were disciples of Mahatmas. 
> I don't think writings of later messengers depended on Blavatsky's 
> writing. Later writing should be considered as product of 
independent 
> investigations by later occultists. 
> 
> Best 
> Anand Gholap 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
> <danielhcaldwell@ ...> wrote: 
> > 
> > I would like to quote what Jerry H.E. wrote years ago on theos-l: 
> > 
> > "...we tried to promote a historically based general definition 
of 
> > [Theosophical] source material that focuses upon the period 
before 
> > the splits [in the Theosophical Society], when this material 
> > was being given out for the first time. Therefore, this period is 
> > common history for everybody [i.e., for Theosophical students]". 
> > 
> > Notice Jerry's words: 
> > 
> > "...when this material was being given out for THE FIRST TIME". 
caps 
> > added 
> > 
> > It was H.P. Blavatsky who showed up on the public scene in late 
1874 
> > and 1875 in America and started the process of giving out 
the "source 
> > material" which she said emanated from her Lodge, from her 
Masters. 
> > 
> > In July, 1875, when she wrote her "first occult shot" Olcott knew 
> > virtually nothing about the "source teachings" except what HPB 
had 
> > started to give him. 
> > 
> > Judge, Mavalankar, Sinnett, Subba Row, Chatterji, Holloway, 
> > Leadbeater, Besant and others had not even meet HPB at this time! 
> > 
> > Each in turn had a fateful day when they heard of and then met 
HPB. 
> > 
> > She was the SOURCE, the channel through which each of them 
obtained 
> > their initial knowledge and understanding of Theosophy and the 
> > Masters. 
> > 
> > Sinnett himself readily admits this in one of his books "The 
Early 
> > Days of Theosophy": 
> > 
> > "Madame Blavatsky is the CENTRAL FIGURE to be considered. She was 
THE 
> > ONE PERSON who knew of her own knowledge, that The Brothers, ÃÂÂ 
as she 
> > called them in those days ÃÂÂ were Beings, human in aspect, of 
flesh 
> > and blood, for she had been for a time in company with two of 
them in 
> > Tibet. She knew they had dazzling powers in dealing with the 
affairs 
> > of the world. She herself had faculties of a super-physical order 
> > that kept her in touch with them wherever she might be. She knew 
she 
> > had a mission to fulfil which had for the moment assumed the 
shape of 
> > the Theosophical Society. She must have been conscious of 
possessing 
> > wonderful powers the exercise of which was under restriction, to 
> > which she submitted in devotion to the great Brother whom she 
> > regarded as her own Master, in a pre-eminent degree. ÃÂÂ[page 17] 
caps 
> > added. 
> > 
> > Relevant to keep in mind is what HPB herself wrote in 1877 in her 
> > very first book ISIS UNVEILED. She told her readers about these 
> > Adepts and her role in giving out the fundamentals of Theosophy 
as 
> > follows: 
> > 
> > ". . .we came into contact with certain men, endowed with such 
> > mysterious powers and such profound knowledge that we may truly 
> > designate them as the sages of the Orient. To their instructions 
we 
> > lent a ready ear." p. vi 
> > 
> > "The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a 
somewhat 
> > intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of their 
> > science." p. v 
> > 
> > Moving on.... 
> > 
> > And during the 16 and 1/2 years of her public work, HPB was 
> > constantly giving out these "source teachings" of Theosophy. 
> > 
> > And if, for example, William Judge or C.W. Leadbeater had never 
become 
> > a Theosophist, we would still have Theosophy as given by HPB in 
the 
> > 10,000 plus pages of her writings as well as all the extant 
letters 
> > of the Masters. 
> > 
> > If Sinnett or Besant had never come into contact with HPB or if 
they 
> > had become students of Theosophy but had never written a word on 
the 
> > subject, we would still have "the source teachings" as given 
through 
> > HPB. 
> > 
> > Historically speaking therefore, HPB was the SOURCE, i.e. "the 
point 
> > at which something springs into being", for Theosophy as we know 
it 
> > in modern times. 
> > 
> > HPB came FIRST; each of the individuals named above came LATER. 
> > 
> > Now I am not saying that Olcott, Judge, Mavalankar, Sinnett, 
> > Leadbeater Besant and others may not have made contributions to 
the 
> > Theosophical work that HPB had originally started. They may 
have.... 
> > 
> > But my point here is that they built on her original foundation, 
they 
> > followed or tried to follow or at least said they tried to follow 
in 
> > her footsteps. 
> > 
> > But had none of these individuals ever written any thing on 
> > Theosophy, the "source teachings" as given by HPB would still be 
> > available. 
> > 
> > Notice again that Jerry HE writes: "...we tried to promote a 
> > historically based general definition of source material that 
focuses 
> > upon the period BEFORE [caps added] the splits [occurred in the 
> > Theosophical Society].... ] 
> > 
> > When did the splits occur? One split that Jerry HE is probably 
> > referring to is the serious split between Besant and Judge. 
> > 
> > But there was a "split" as early as 1886 when A.P. Sinnett sought 
> > communication with the Masters through a SOURCE other than HPB. 
> > 
> > Originally Sinnett was put into contact VIA HPB with the Masters 
> > through letters beginning in Oct. 1880. 
> > 
> > But in 1884, he started to "resent" some of what the Masters were 
> > telling him in their letters. And he began to have doubts about 
HPB 
> > and sought in 1886 to gain access to the Masters through Maude 
> > Trevers whom he hypnotised. 
> > 
> > Actually Sinnett had tried this very same thing (hypnosis) in the 
> > summer of 1884 with Laura Holloway. 
> > 
> > Sinnett's seeking for a source to the Masters OTHER THAN through 
HPB, 
> > lead finally to that famous K.H. letter to Colonel Olcott in 
August, 
> > 1888. (See Letter 19 in "The Letters of the Masters of the 
> > Wisdom*First Series".) 
> > 
> > Olcott, Judge, Mavalankar, Sinnett, Subba Row, Leadbeater, Besant 
AND 
> > OTHERS may have made valuable contributions to Theosophy BUT 
whatever 
> > they accomplished (or did not accomplish) was built upon the 
> > foundation of "source teachings" FIRST given by H.P. Blavatsky. 
> > 
> > And when the serious split between Judge on one side and 
> > Besant/Olcott on the other side started and culminated in 1893- 
1995, 
> > BOTH SIDES claimed contact with the Masters and the deceased HPB. 
> > Then the Theosophical Society was splintered. 
> > 
> > Who was in the right and who was in the wrong is not easy to 
> > determine. 
> > 
> > But I have file folders of letters from serious Theosophy 
students 
> > giving their differing views. Some believe Besant and Olcott fell 
by 
> > the wayside and Judge remained faithful to the Masters. Others 
> > believe Judge fell by the wayside as well as Olcott and Besant. 
> > Others say Judge failed but Besant continued the orginal 
tradition. 
> > etc. etc. 
> > 
> > On Theos-Talk in the last few years we have seen various 
> > correspondents take different sides and views. Frank R., Anand 
G., 
> > Dallas T., Nigel C. and others have voiced their differing views. 
> > Now Govert has posted some material giving even another view! 
> > 
> > I believe HPB foretold this split that occurred within a few 
years 
> > after her death in her Letter to the Fifth Annual Convention of 
the 
> > American Section of the T.S just before she died. See the very 
bottom 
> > of p. 171, the full page 172 and ending on p. 173 of HPB's 
Collected 
> > Writings, Vol. 13. 
> > 
> > Going back to what Jerry H.E. wrote: "Therefore, this period 
[before 
> > the splits] is common history for everybody." 
> > 
> > I would amend this to read: 
> > 
> > Therefore, this period BEFORE HPB died SHOULD BE common history 
for 
> > everybody. 
> > 
> > Again summarising the above: 
> > 
> > HPB was the first to come on the public stage and give the source 
> > teachings of Theosophy in 10,000 + pages of writings plus the 
letters 
> > of the Masters given out during HPB's life. 
> > 
> > The Theosophists I have mentioned above and others such as 
Tingley, 
> > de Purucker, Bailey, etc. came on the scene sometime after HPB. 
They 
> > may have all been sincere, truth seeking individuals and all may 
have 
> > made to a greater or lesser degree various contributions 
(literary or 
> > otherwise) to HPB's work, but especially after HPB's death, 
claims 
> > and counter claims proliferated. 
> > 
> > For a listing of more of the claims and counterclaims, see: 
> > 
> > http://blavatskyarc hives.com/ moderntheosophy. htm#Endnote 
> > 
> > But Theosophical students should have in HPB's claims and 
teachings a 
> > COMMON SOURCE to focus on, regardless of the truth and validity 
of 
> > the secondary "sources" and later claims of some of HPB's 
students or 
> > later followers or claimants after HPB died. 
> > 
> > Now, I am not implying or saying that there were no contacts with 
the 
> > Masters after HPB's death. After her death and even today other 
> > agents MAY have come forth. That is, genuine contacts from HPB's 
> > Masters. 
> > 
> > Unfortunately, you cannot get a room of serious 
Theosophy/Blavatsky 
> > students from diverse Theosophical backgrounds to agree on who 
that 
> > person or agent was or is! 
> > 
> > That is a fact that should make a reflective and thoughtful 
person 
> > pause and ponder. 
> > 
> > I suggest especially to new students and inquirers that they 
would be 
> > wise to focus [at least initially] on the writings of HPB and the 
> > letters of the Masters which from the perspective I have been 
> > outlining above are the SOURCE Teachings of modern day Theosophy. 
> > 
> > Here is a huge body of material that contains more than enough 
food 
> > for thought for serious inquirers, seekers and new Theosophists. 
> > 
> > I will continue this line of thought in subsequent postings. 
> > 
> > Daniel Caldwell 
> > http://hpb.cc 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter 
inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
> 




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