Theos-Talk Archives (March 1994 Message tl00002)

Arvind

> I told you before that I have not read much written by CWL.
> The last part of your statement i.e."Does this mean that.."
> is misleading, to say the least.

     My comments were based upon the evidence Tillett gives in
the first two chapters of the Biography, which you reported that
you had read.  Even if you have read nothing of CWL's writings,
my comment would have been the same.

> (a)I have said before that if someone claims to be an Arhat,
> he is definitely NOT an Arhat (so his writing should be
> read assuming that he is certainly below the rank of an Arhat).

     Are you suggesting that CWL could still have been, say, a
third degree initiate, since he did not claim to be this?  If
this is your argument, that it would follow that CWL could also
be a fifth or sixth degree initiate, since he did not claim this
either.  If this is your argument, I would disagree.  My
understanding of HPB's admonitions concerning this is that if one
claims *any* occult status, it is evidence that he has no occult
status at all.  I think this is more in line with HPB's
statements concerning people who claimed to be in touch with the
Masters.  If they publicly make that claim, she says, that means
they are not in touch with the Masters.  Following this
reasoning, the evidence is that CWL was not an initiate at all.
The evidence is against him being so--unless being a pathological
liar is a qualification for being an initiate.  I think not.

     Some people point to the letters to CWL from the Masters as
evidence of his occult status.  It is true that Leadbeater may
have received three letters from the Masters.  Assuming they are
not forgeries (many people believe they are), they still are not
evidence that he has any occult status.  Many people without
occult status received letters from the Masters at that time.
Neither the letters to CWL, the circumstances, nor the content of
those letters are at all remarkable.

> (b)If you are trying to link it with AAB writing, I have stated
>  before that AAB has been critical of CWL in her autobiography,
> and in other AAB books there is only one reference to CWL,
> which is just an observation, neither too flattering nor very
> critical.  Certainly I did NOT get the impression from the book
> that the author is somehow implicating AAB also as a liar (if
> he has, pl let me have a reference).

     Aside from a speculative passing mention of AAB at the end
of his book, Tillett does not deal with AAB at all.  So there are
no "links" here.  I am only trying to clarify your position on
CWL's believability.  AAB had to make treatment of CWL either
directly or indirectly, because they were contemporary, and he
dominated the ES at the time.  There is no way for her to avoid
doing so, if she did not want a confused mulligan stew of
theosophy and neo-theosophy.  Therefore it is important to be
clear on Leadbeater before we get into any of these direct or
indirect treatments.  You say that you know of only one reference
to Leadbeater in AAB's writings.  If there is truly only one
reference (direct or indirect) to Leadbeater, then he is probably
of no importance, and we can drop the whole thing right here.
But if Leadbeater's teachings are part of AAB's (acknowledged or
not), then we have a problem.  Do you follow my reasoning?  It is
very important that you do.

> (c)After reading some chapters of THE ELDER BROTHER I have
> certainly learnt more about CWL, which is useful information
> for me, but my attitude is such that I donot believe in making
> a big deal about dead people who may have lied pathologically
> when they were alive.  When I thought you  had suggested that
> FB lied,  it was my responsibility to let you know how I felt
> (there is no way for me to reach CWL to tell him not to lie,
> even if I wanted to give him that message!)

     The issue is simply CWL's believability.  Do you believe
people who lie?  Do you believe the occult teachings of a person,
whom every teaching that has become confirmable, has been shown
to be false?  Does that not, in your mind, throw into *question*
*all* of Leadbeater's teachings?  It does in my mind.  There is
no trick of logic here.  It is a simple question: Do you believe
people who lie to you?

> (d)Who among us is without faults? If someone were to discover
>  50 years from today that you or I had what he thinks 'some
> terrible' faults of character, will that negate everything
> that you or I say when we are alive? I donot believe that
> there is sufficient evidence to DISREGARD CWL COMPLETELY.  He
> may have truth mixed with falsities in his writings, and
> it is important to keep that in mind while reading anything
> written by him.

     He may have mixed truth with falsities.  Do you know which
are true (if any) and which are false?  So far, his record for
truth is not very good.  What kind of evidence do you think is
"sufficient" to  "DISREGARD CWL COMPLETELY"?

> I donot think that anyone has demonstrated
> (like Tillett has in the case of CWL) that AAB or HPB were
> (pathological or otherwise) liers, although Paul in his books
> has shown that HPB did not shy away from using 'blinds' when
> needed to 'further' the overall cause of esotericism.  Based on
> this, if I only have so much time to devote to esoteric study,
> I'd much rather spend it on studying HPB or AAB writing rather
> than CWL or ABesant or other theosophical authors.

     As I stated earlier, this is not an issue concerning whether
or not AAB or HPB lied.  No one is accusing them of this.

> If you have read the AAB biography, then you should know that
> AAB spearheaded the 'back to HPB' movement; need I give you
> once more references where she has explained how she regarded
> the Besant ES/TS leadership as counterproductive vis-a-vis the
> original TS objectives?

     I have told you many times that I have read AAB's biography.
Regardless, of what is in the Autobiography, the historical
evidence differs from what you assert here.  The "back to
Blavatsky" movement was "spearheaded" by several people.  Most
prominent among them was B.P. Wadia and H.N. Stokes.  Besant, did
*not* oppose this movement at the time.  It was only after 1921
or so, when Wadia resigned, that the real problems began.  AAB
was without doubt sympathetic and more or less supportive to the
"Black to Blavatsky" movement, but all of the evidence points to
Wadia, Stokes and company as being the "spearhead" of this
movement, not AAB.  AAB's role was very secondary, and outside of
the AS, she is not considered a "back to Blavatsky" person.

>  I can see that it is hard for you to
> visualize an organization where ALL emphasis is on TEACHING and
> NONE on personality aspects of the people involved in the
> teaching.  I donot blame you, I am merely pointing out that my
> preferred type of an esoteric organization is the one with
> emphasis on teaching and total de-emphasis on personality
> aspects.

     I can "visualize" it just fine.  I just don't see such an
organization existing on the physical plane.  If such an
organization exists, I would have joined it.  But alas,
organizations have all of the frailties of the humans that run
them.  It is a nice ideal, but it never works.  My work puts me
in contact with those physical, less nice Organizations.  This is
where I try to accomplish what good I can.  It is not as pleasant
a job as working on the "higher planes," but it is my job.
Perhaps, some day I'll get a promotion.  But it seems to be a
perennial truth that the jobs most needed to be done are the ones
no body wants to do.

> (a)Bailey writings are NOT an expansion of HPB writings
> (in the manner of GdeP) but rather an extension of HPB
> teachings.  As an example, HPB talked about the basic unity
> of the Kosmos and the individual human being (see IG Teachings,
> p.vii first paragraph).  AAB has shown (primarily in TCF) how
> this is so, in that there is an ENTITY, a stupendous Being'in
> whom we live and move and have our being', and HE in turn is
> but a part of an even more stupendous Being, etc. etc. You
> may reject this extension of HPB teaching if it does not appeal
> to you.

     Since, I didn't mention G. de P., I'm at a loss to know what
you are responding to, or correcting me on here.  That you
distinguish AAB from GdeP by saying that one is an "extension"
and the other an "expansion" is an interesting distinction, but
you would also have to give an example of how GdeP's "expansion"
is different from AAB's "extension" for me to follow your point.

     The entity that you I think your are referring to is
discussed in TSD under a lot of different names: The ever-living
human Banyan; GREAT SACRIFICE etc.  Read beginning on the bottom
of page 207, vol. 1 of TSD, and you will find a discussion on
this, that I think you will feel is "just like AAB."  Therefore,
I would have to disagree with you that this is AAB's teaching.
It was in TSD first.  However, since you are looking for specific
teachings to compare, perhaps this would be one to start with--
though I would have preferred beginning with a more basic
teaching.  I will pull together the HPB material on this, and you
can pull together the AAB material. Then we can do a comparison.
OK?

> If you want to show me or others how it is
> INCONSISTENT with HPB teaching, I'd be very interested in
> knowing that.  So  far no one has shown me anything in AAB
> teaching that is  INCONSISTENT with HPB teaching.

     I have lost count as to how many times you have made the
above statement, and I have lost count as to how many times I
have replied that I am *not interested* in proving to you that
AAB is consistent or inconsistent with HPB's teachings.  This is
an investigation.  If you really want this kind of challenge, I
will be happy to put you in touch with a dozen people who believe
that AAB is inconsistent with HPB.  You are welcome to argue with
them.  So far no one (at least on this bulletin board) has tried
to show you that anything in AAB teaching is INCONSISTENT with
HPB teaching."   Because you repeatedly post this challenge, I
wonder what you really want.  Do you want someone to take an
adversarial roll and try to prove to you something that you don't
believe?  What would be accomplished in doing this?  I'm at a
loss to understand why you keep repeating the above statement.
There is an old saying that one who keeps protesting the same
thing over and over again, reallly means the opposite: "Me thinks
that thou protests too much" is a famous line form the
Shakespearean plays.  From your repeated and unsolicited protest,
should I read an underlying fear that AAB may be inconsistant
with HPB?

> (b)HPB/AAB have both said that there are seven levels of
> meaning to their teaching.  How many levels have you been able
> to interpret HPB TEACHINGS at? It is with this in mind that I
> say that I hardly understand 10-15% of what HPB or AAB may have
> meant.

     This is not a productive question, nor does it exhibit an
understanding of what is meant by "levels of meaning."  The SD
has seven keys (levels of meaning if you like), but TSD is an
outline of the SD.  TSD is written in English.  It is not some
coded hieroglyphic with seven simultaneous interpretations.  One
doesn't have to know every last thing about the seven keys in
order to understand TSD.  I have repeated this many times, but it
appears that you still don't understand what I'm trying to get
across.

     For the sake of argument, I will answer you and say that I
understand the SD on seven levels.  This is a true and accurate
statement.  When you understand my above explanation, you will
understand my answer.


> What is the conference in June at Madras about?  We are
> planning to leave here on June 16 and come back on July 21 or.
> so, but will be in New Delhi (possibly in Bombay for a few
> days, which is still several hundred miles away from Madras).
> What are the dates for the conference and who all is going to
> be in attendance?

     It is a professional conference put on by Indian women who
have professional careers in India.  The conference concerns
issues of social, economic and political equality for Indian
women.  My wife has a professional interest in this issue, and we
will be attending this conference providing there is funding for
us to do so.  As of this time, we haven't received word one way
or the other.  The conference has nothing to do with any
Theosophical Organizations.

Until next time

Jerry Hejka-Ekins