Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00264)

Dear Friends,

For many reasons it appears that some people have created wrong impression that Annie Besant and Leadbeater distorted teaching of HPB. I am giving below reasons why this impression is wrong.

(1) HPB had openly said that she considered Swami T. Subba Rao was more advanced in occultism than herself and so she believed in his wisdom more than herself. So when first draft of the Secrete Doctrine was prepared she sent it to Subba Rao to check if it was correct. Subbrao went through it and replied that there were so many mistakes that he would have to write everything again. So HPB again wrote Secrete Doctrine. Still in it's Preface she said that she was aware Secrete Doctrine had many shortcomings. And at other places also she had openly said that she made many mistakes. So saying that Secrete Doctrine does not have any mistakes is wrong. If it is so why should other occultists like AB and CWL endorse and agree with each statement in Secrete Doctrine. They always talked about HPB and her writings with great respect but never said she never made mistakes in writing. In fact HPB herself admitted she made mistakes while writing.

(2) HPB made a grand beginning for the Theosophical Society through her writing. But it was only beginning. It was always expected by her and the Masters that occultists who would come later would add to Theosophical body of knowledge through independent clairvoyant investigation. So expecting that Theosophy started and ended with HPB's writing is wrong. In fact in Key to Theosophy HPB has written that greatest danger to Theosophical movement is making dogma of her teaching and that is what is being done. Making dogma means saying everything she said was right and nothing else exists in Theosophy. It is like saying Physics started and ended with scientist Newton 300 years ago. Just as sciences constantly see addition of new knowledge, Theosophy also is expected to become richer by addition of new knowledge through independent clairvoyant investigation by other occultists.

(3) HPB gave general outline of Theosophy and she considered Theosophy as Synthesis of Sciences, Religions and Philosophies. When scientists don't know limits of even one science like Physics or Chemistry after so much research, it is wrong to conclude that Theosophy was complete with writings of HPB. HPB gave outline with expectation that future Theosophists would provide details on each topic through their independent clairvoyant investigation. And that is what AB and CWL did.

(4) Some people compare text of HPB and AB-CWL and show differences. If this method is used then one can find that text of Buddhism and Christianity differs at hundred places even if there are some similarities. Should we then criticize Buddha for not agreeing with Christ and Christ for not agreeing with Buddha at each place. Occult Hierarchy gives teaching suitable to development, capacity and condition of people present. So teaching also differs. When HPB wrote social and other conditions were different from that when AB and CWL wrote. 

(5) H.P. Blavatsky was a great occultist and she was working under guidance of Masters. H.S. Olcott was also guided by the Masters in administrative matters. HPB with all her wisdom and under Masters' guidance had chosen Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater as her close co-workers. Before physical death she formally gave charge of the Esoteric School to Annie Besant . Saying that Annie Besant and Leadbeater were bad people is like saying great occultist like HPB and Masters made a mistake when they chose Besant and Leadbeater as co-workers and gave charge of ES to AB. 

Best regards.
Thanking you.
Yours Fraternally,
Anand Gholap


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]