Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00279)

Anand has made many assertions.

For example, he wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------
It means we can't assume that Mahatma Letters were accurate
transcription of Masters words.
---------------------------------------------------------

Well then if we take what Anand says and apply this to
the letters that Anand says were sent from the Mahatma KH to
C.W. Leadbeater, then we can't assume these letters are accurate
transcriptions of the Masters words either.

Therefore when Anand says that a KH letter to C.W. Leadbeater is a
confirmation of something, then we can simply say:

"No, this letter is NOT a confirmation of anything since we can't
assume this letter is an accurate transcription of the Master's
words. This is following Anand's own reasoning."

And based on other statements that Anand has made from time to time
about how HPB would deceive her followers on this that or the other
then we CANNOT even be sure these letters to C.W. Leadbeater were from
any Master at all.

Also if we are to believe --- as Anand apparently wants us to ---
that HPB would plan to have a "doll" made up to masquerade as the
Mahatma thereby fooling some of HPB's own followers and "chelas",
then if she would stoop to such deception, then all these letters
INCLUDING the ones to C.W. Leadbeater are no evidence of any
Master...period.

HPB wrote all of the letters with no input from any Master....How
could a "doll" or Monsieur Coulomb dressed up as a Mahatma provide
any ideas for a letter?????

And remember in previous months Anand has been advocating to all "true
researchers" the idea that all appearances of the Mahatmas even from
distance locations when HPB was hundreds of miles away could have
been produced by HPB's psychic powers.

Therefore even Leadbeater's claim that he received visits from the
Mahatmas when he went to India proves NOTHING since HPB probably
deceived him either with a "doll", a confederate or she herself
produced the apparition using her psychic powers.

Remember Anand is more than happy to promote the idea that HPB was a
Master herself of DECEPTION.

As to C.W. Leadbeater's claim that he encountered and communicated
with the Mahatmas after HPB died, then his claims must be looked at
in relationship to the dozens of other people who claimed they too
were in communication with the Masters.

Alice Bailey claimed she was in contact with Master KH. Does Anand
accept her claim?

G. de Purucker claimed similar contact and claimed to be the
messenger of the Mahatmas. Does Anand believe Purucker's claims?

Or Elizabeth Claire Prophet's claim to be in contact with Koot Hoomi?

And one can go through the whole list of people that I have given
before.

Therefore C.W. Leadbeater's claim is certainly NOT unique or special
and to single him out among all the claimants makes no good sense.

Just because Anand wants to believe Leadbeater is the greatest saint
occultist of all times doesn't make it so....There are no doubt
followers of Bailey, Purucker, Prophet and others who consider them
to be the greatest saint, seer, occultist or whatever....

And speaking of deception, if HPB was a Master of deception --- as
Anand has repeatedly presented her to be over the last few years on
Theos-Talk ---, then why not consider that Leadbeater too was a
master of deception. HE LEARNED WELL FROM MADAME BLAVATSKY!!

And we have evidence to support the contention that Leadbeater's
claim to have meet the Mahatma Morya in London in 1851 didn't happen
Therefore this claim is false. Why? Simply because as Gregory Dr.
Tillett has amply documented here on Theos-Talk, Leadbeater was born
in 1854. Therefore his claim to have meet the Mahatma in 1851 when he
was four years old collapses.

And if HPB is the master of deception --- as Anand has tried to paint
her all these years ---, who would credit her statement that she
herself meet a Mahatma in London in 1851. Sure....

Remember this is the woman Anand claims faked appearances of the
Masters by using a "doll" or a confederate in disguise. For such a
woman who would stoop to such deception, how easy would it be for her
to simply tell a yarn, a lie to the effect that she had first meet
her Master in his physical body in London in 1851. She didn't have to
even have anyone dress up and pretend to be the Mahatma. She simply
lied.

And then when we find that Mr. Leadbeater wasn't even born until
1854, one can conclude that he ALSO told his yarn and lie about
meeting the same Mahatma in 1851.

And why would it be so surprising that Mr. Leadbeater would engage in
lies and deception if his first teacher and the founder of the
Theosophical Society was herself an accomplished liar and deceiver --
as Anand keeps asserting. Indeed Leadbeater must have learned well
from Madame Blavatsky!

These are just some of the implications one can reasonably make from
Anand's assertions.

Daniel
http://hpb.cc