Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00102)

Katinka wrote: <<

<<I don't think you have your facts straight. 
Besant did not start the
Liberal Catholic Church, nor was she much 
involved in it (if she had
been I doubt there would have been an all 
mail clergy). >>

Sorry, apparently my qualifiers didn't do 
much (?): I thought I was speculating more 
than factating in that post (not that ...). 
I picked up mention of "Liberal Catholic 
Church" in relation to Besant in Cleather's 
GREAT BETRAYAL. But ... ?

<<Also, Besant was one of the few people who 
took full responsibility
for her belief that Krishnamurti was the 
Messiah.>>

I got the impression from Cleather's GREAT 
BETRAYAL that Leadbeater might've influenced 
Besant on that score. And, in turn, 
Leadbeater might've been influenced by ... ? 
I'm wondering exactly who/what really 
influenced Leadbeater, since he seems to have 
(according to Cleather?)influenced Besant. 
Anyway, I plead guilty to not having read 
much of Besant's or Leadbeater's writings, 
except for Besant's Preface to SD III, so I 
wonder if I might've been (possibly ...) 
somewhat over-influenced by Cleather's 
writings, maybe ... Except that I can't seem 
to figure out why/how Besant (as per my 
interpretation of Cleather) failed in keeping 
at least one original, unedited version of SD 
III (among other things?) intact enough to 
pass on, in whatever condition it was found. 
My read of Besant's Preface to SD III 
(thanks to Jerome C)tends to suggest that she 
wanted the reader to believe in her wisdom 
when she wrote:

<<In "The Mystery of Buddha" a further 
difficulty arose; some of the Sections had 
been written four or five times over, each 
version containing some sentences that were 
not in the others; I have pieced these 
versions together,taking the fullest as 
basis, and inserting therein everything added 
in any other versions. It is, however, 
with some hesitation that I have
included these Sections in the Secret 
Doctrine . >>

But, to me, the words << I have pieced these 
versions together,taking the fullest as 
basis, and inserting therein everything added 
in any other versions. >> tends to suggest 
that she might've been interpreting what HPB 
was trying to say, and so might've been 
adding her own thoughts, edits into another 
authors work (ie, as if regardless of 
considers about what might be seen as a 
unique circumstance?). To me, Besant's 
wording isn't clear enough about the extent 
of her editing. To me, Besant's wording in 
that Preface tends to seem evasive, vague, 
curious: as if, on the one hand, she were 
trying to allay fears that she might've 
altered the manuscript with her editing, as 
per <<<I therefore do not feel justified in 
coming between the author and the public, 
either by altering the statements, to make 
them consistent with fact, or by suppressing 
the Sections.>>, but the nature of her 
explanation about the editing that she does 
admits to doing, on the other hand, leaves me 
in the dark, in that her words seem to imply 
(per my interpetation) that she seems to have 
hoped that the reader might be likely to 
assume that she knew what she was doing, for 
whatever reason. But, for all I know, Besant 
may have been advised by HPB to offer 
whatever Prefacial statements Besant saw fit 
enough. Cleather seems to differ, though, 
apparently? Anyway, of course my vague may 
not be your vague, so ...

Here' the Preface, again, as I got it from a 
Jerome C.

<<Preface

The task of preparing this volume for the 
press has been a difficult and anxious one, 
and it is necessary to state clearly what has 
been done. The papers given to me by H.P.B. 
were quite unarranged, and had no obvious 
order; I have therefore taken each paper as a 
separate Section, and have arranged them as 
sequentially as possible. With the exception 
of the correction of grammatical errors and 
the elimination of obviously un-English 
idioms, the papers are as H.P.B. left them, 
save as otherwise marked. In a few cases I 
have filled in a gap, but any such addition 
is enclosed within square brackets, so as to 
be distinguished from the text. In "The 
Mystery of Buddha" a further difficulty 
arose; some of the Sections had been written 
four or five times over, each version 
containing some sentences that were not in 
the others; I have pieced these versions 
together,taking the fullest as basis, and 
inserting therein everything added in any 
other versions. It is, however, with some 
hesitation that I have included these 
Sections in the Secret Doctrine .

Together with some most suggestive thought, 
they contain very numerous errors of fact, 
and many statements based on exoteric 
writings, not on esoteric knowledge. They 
were given into my hands to publish, as part 
of the Third Volume of the Secret Doctrine, 
and I therefore do not feel justified in 
coming between the author and the public, 
either by altering the statements, to make 
them consistent with fact, or by suppressing 
the Sections. She says she is acting entirely 
on her own authority, and it will be obvious 
to any instructed reader that she makes - 
possibly deliberately - many statements so 
confused that they are mere blinds, and other 
statements - probably inadvertently - that 
are nothing more than the exoteric 
misunderstandings of esoteric truths. The 
reader must here, as everywhere, use his own 
judgment, but feeling bound to publish these 
Sections, I cannot let them go to the public 
without a warning that much in them is 
certainly erroneous.

Doubtless, had the author herself issued this 
book, she would have entirely rewritten the 
whole of this division; as it was, it seemed 
best to give all she had said in the 
different copies, and to leave it in its 
rather unfinished state, for students will 
best like to have what she said as she said 
it, even though they may have to study it 
more closely than would have been the case 
had she remained to finish her work. The 
quotations made have been as far as possible 
found, and correct references given; in this 
most laborious work a whole band of earnest 
and painstaking students,under the guidance 
of Mrs. Cooper-Oakley, have been my willing 
assistants. Without their aid it would not 
have been possible to give the references, as 
often a whole book had to be searched 
through, in order to find a paragraph of a 
few lines.

This volume completes the papers left by 
H.P.B., with the exception of a few scattered 
articles that yet remain and that will be 
published in her own magazine Lucifer. Her 
pupils are well aware that few will be found 
in the present generation to do justice to 
the occult knowledge of H.P.B., and to her 
magnificent sweep of thoughts, but as she can 
wait to future generations for the 
justification of her greatness as a teacher, 
so can her pupils afford to wait for the 
justification of their trust. ANNIE BESANT.

THE SECRET DOCTRINE
by H.P.Blavatsky
VOLUME III
OCCULTISM.>>

<<She did not repudiate him and stayed his 
disciple, trying to incorperate what he said 
into her life. And it has been pointed out 
that much of what she said sort of 
forshadowed what Krishnamurti said. See for 
instance:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/besant.html
> >
So ... ?

<<Besant had as her main fault I think the 
general wish (especially later on) to want to 
include everyone in her version of theosophy. 
For a full view on that tendency you should 
read a good Krishnamurti Biography. For 
instance one that really goes into the 
relationship Krishnamurti - 
theosophy/theosophical society: Krishnamurti 
and the Wind, by Jean Overton-Fuller, 
published by the TPH-London. >>

Maybe there's an online biography of 
Krishnamurti?

<<<When comparing Besant and HPB it should 
also be kept in mind that
Besant was the TS president for the later 
part of her life. HPB never
was. HPB was the life of the TS, but Olcott 
was its president.
Organisation wasn't really HPB's strongsuit. >>

There might be an exoteric/interpretive 
relevance to what you say, but if it weren't 
for HPB ... ?

<<A physical organisation can never be 
esoteric. Esoteric is the spirit that guides 
it (perhaps), the influence on the thought of 
the people (perhaps), the insight that gets 
transmitted with the help of the organisation 
(perhaps), but the organisation itself is merely
convention. Not unnecessary, but not esoteric 
at all. An organisation can be used for 
esoteric purposes, usually temporarily, but 
that is always dependent not on the type of 
organisation but on the inner quality of the 
people involved. (though I do think certain 
types of organisation are better suited for 
the work than others, but that sort of thing 
is time, place and culture dependent) Katinka>>

I tend to agree, in a sense ...

Speculatively,
Mauri