Theos-Talk Archives (December 1993 Message tl00012)

Jerry H-E:

Thanks for your corrections regarding Leadbeater's relationship with
Besant in the 1906-1908 period, and the actual situation regarding
Leadbeater's expulsion. It's good to have someone with your fairly
thorough understanding of theosophical history to review and correct
things.

When I'm sitting down to write for "theos-l", I'm often at work, armed
with my memory, but with no reference books to consult, and therefore,
at times, prone to err on historic details.

It's good how with the internet discussion group we can write something,
then get almost-immediate comments and feedback on our ideas, and get
quick corrections on factual matters. This is much better than in a
quarterly magazine, although magazines do reach more people...

In my former comments on Leadbeater, I put in a few bits of historic
information, but was trying to focus on the difference in teachings
and ideas, and how they might have arose from the difference in
methods of investigation, a difference between learning and use of the
intellect, as opposed to psychic observations of nature.

I tried to stay one step removed from what Leadbeater may have privately
taught, and from matters that might have touched upon his character.
My reason was in knowing what the effect would be on someone considering
Leadbeater a spritual hero of theirs, to someone accepting what he wrote
at face value and believing him to be the person that his books would
lead a reader to believe.

I know that when I was heavily into reading him, and accepted
uncritically what he wrote, that I would not believe what I was told,
I would deny it regardless of the evidence presented me, and feel anger.

I would not accept anything at the time that would challenge my
worldview. This view included two basic assumptions: (1) Leadbeater
was the way that he wrote he was, and (2) his writings were consistent
with the Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky and her Teachers.

I would seek to avoid any information, any evidence to the contrary,
and just listen to and cheer on anyone attaching the evidence, to
people who would defend my worldview, people who would call the evidence
as "lies made up by certain enemies of Theosophy, etc." If I were forced
to face the evidence, I'd find someother way to explain it, so that it
would not sound so bad. I'd fight off any challenge to my beliefs, and
when not fully successful, would resort to some form of damage control.

At this point in time, we can study Leadbeater as an historic figure.
If he privately taught things that we'd consider unadvisable, it might
not matter, since he's not around still teaching them. Whatever happened
is now part of the past.

If we can present the Theosophy of H.P.B. and the Masters in a clear,
lucid manner, then people will open up to the ideas. We will eventually
alter the views of people with other beliefs. And this would include
those holding beliefs based upon Leadbeaters writings, where those
beliefs had gone astray.

We don't necessarily need a direct assult on the beliefs of others,
where we challenge assumption two (above), where we challenge the belief
that the Teachings were consistent by showing the many ways where they
were not. It we expose people to the original Teachings, then they will
grow and change, and they will cease to care about either assumption,
not caring about Leadbeater's personal claims nor philosophical
digressions, because they will have come into touch with the Source
Teachings.

                                Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com)