Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00045)

Dear Anand

Here is another message you have not answered previously.
Would you kindly answer it now?

Regards
Nigel

> Dear Anand
> 
> You write, "Besant and Leadbeater were not disciples of Blavatsky, 
> they were disciples of Mahatmas."
> 
> If this is true, can you explain why Dr Besant and Bishop 
> Leadbeater so dramatically contradicted and misrepresented the 
> teachings of those very same Mahatmas, WHILST CLAIMING TO BE IN 
> DIRECT CONTACT WITH THEM AND REPRESENTING THEIR WORK?
> 
> " . . Annie Besant, the President of the [Adyar Theosophical] 
> Society from 1907 to her death in 1933, and Charles Webster 
> Leadbeater, arguably the most influential theosophical writer 
> from the early years of the 20th century to his death in 1934,
>  . . . were largely responsible for the introduction of new 
> teachings that were often in total opposition to the Theosophy 
> of [Madame H.P.] Blavatsky and her Masters." Prof. James A. 
> Santucci, professor of religious studies at California State 
> University (Fullerton) and editor of Theosophical History.  
> 
> "The articles (concerning the writings of Bishop Leadbeater 
> and Dr Besant)indicate wide deviations, in some cases complete 
> reversal, made by the later interpreters [Besant, Leadbeater, 
> Jinarajadasa] from the fundamental statements of the Russian 
> Messenger [Blavatsky] and her Overlords [the Mahatmas].
> The differences concern such matters as the personality of 
> God, the historicity of Jesus, his identity as an individual 
> or a principle, the desirability of churches, priestcraft and 
> religious ceremonial, the genuineness of an apostolic 
> succession, and a vicarious atonement, the authority of 
> Sacraments, the nature and nomenclature of the seven planes 
> of man's constitution, the planetary chains, the monad, the 
> course of evolution, and many other important phases of 
> Theosophic doctrine. " Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn (my brackets)
> 
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/index.htm
> 
> Regards
> Nigel
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@> wrote:
> >
> > 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@yahoogroups.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, 
� 
> as she
> > > called them in those days � 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. �[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://blavatskyarchives.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
> > >
> >
>