Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00230)

At 02:22 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At 02:05 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Surely, however, I said that "her influence was pernicious" and her
>>influence did not come from her writings. So then, let's start with
>>something far more important than her writings. Bjorn, are you aware that
>>Mrs. Besant was associated with Baron Julius D'Evola, and through him with
>>Mussolini whom she invited to write articles for "The Herald of The East"?(
>>He complied) If she was associated with Evola she was associated (at least
>>peripherally) with Rene Guenon who was a major opponent of theosophy. Can
>>this not be seen as "pernicious"?
>
>I didn't know about these things and they don't seem very significant to me.
>But I appreciate the information.

They "don't seem very significant to you? Bjorn I know you were born after
world war II, but to those of us who weren't, the very idea of someone being
associated with either Mussolini or his pal Hitler, is VERY significant
indeed. Julius d'Evola was charged as a war criminal after that war. The
only reason that he wasn't either executed or imprisoned was because, unlike
the fascists, the allies didn't think it worth the trouble to execute or
imprison philosophers with powerful French friends.
>
> Now, as to her writings: How familiar with the work
>>of Charles W. Leadbeater are you?
>
>I have read some, but not all of them.
>
>I would suggest that you read his work and
>>her work in a comparative manner and see if you can actually tell when
>>Leadbeater leaves off and Mrs. Besant becomes original.
>
>This also does not seem very significant to me. Most of AB's published
>writings are actually edited speeches. I feel they are very genuine and
>convey a clear understanding of the path, balanced with true devotion.
>
> It was allowing her name and
>>prestige to be attached to books I very much doubt she actually wrote
>>herself, that is pernicious.
>
>You doubting that she wrote them hardly make them pernicious.
>
>>Thirdly: She could, but didn't prevent the Krishnamurti Debacle. That is the
>>most pernicious of all.
>
>This is a sad story. Her intentions were good, she thought she helped
>prepare a World Teacher for his service, but there was bad judgement causing
>tremendeous damage.
>
>As for her writings, their possible lack of originality is not, IMO,
pernicious.
>
>Bjorn
>
>roxendal@alpinet.net
>
Plagiarism is definitely pernicious, but I don't think Besant was a
plagiarist. I think she allowed Leadbeater to put things together in her
name, and that's fraudulent, and fraud is pernicious. Leadbeater also wrote
things and put them out under Krishnamurti's name (something Krishnamurti
bitterly resented). But obviously you and I will never have a meeting of the
minds on this subject so I will not discuss it further. You are a
devtionalist and I am a rationalist so perhaps it's impossible.

alexis dolgorukii
>