Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00166)

Liesel:

>I wonder why you guys always single out Leadbeater as the fall
>guy. Has anyone on this post ever read IK Taimni, Jinarajadasa,
>Sinnett, Hodson, Prem & Ashish's commentaries on the SD,
>Baborka, Mills, Nicholson, Collins, Van der Liew, Sri Ram,
>Hansen & Linton on the Mahatma Letters, the karma anthology,
>Algeo on reincarnation, the Bendits on psychism? These are all
>Theosophical writers. It's the ones that come to mind as I
>write. There are lots more. Who's going to get counted into the
>core teachings?

I think the distinction would be if he was the first person to
come up with the different ideas, and with those following him
repeating the ideas. We would distinguish a split or a new
variant of Theosophy with the first key individuals that start
it, rather than a randomly-picked individual in the new school.
It is a whole school of thought, with many reading, studying,
and writing about it; there are many authors to pick from to
read the same materials.

Why are the materials the same? First, when we read and study
something, we'll tend to write the same ideas. If our thinking
gets too different, we won't be published by the organization.
Second, our psychical experiences can be biased by our expectations.
If we have read Sinnett's book, for instance, that tells us that
Mars and Mercury are part of the Earth Chain, we'll tend to see it
that way, even if Blavatsky later comes along and says that's just
not right. So, having studied certain books, we'll tend to see
things the way that we've read, and our experiences go to further
reinforce our beliefs and those of our fellow students.

-- Eldon