Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00420)

Just a thought that perhaps 2 separate although related issues are
what need to be addressed.
One is the historical controversies surrounding Bishop Leadbeater and
secondly his teachings.

Whether we accept or not the charges against Leadbeater's abuse of
children or his habitual lying, why cant his teachings be
intellectually and philosophically challenged and compared with those
of HPB in the Adyar Societies official publications?

One of the key reasons I have for not being a member of the Adyar
society is because if I am supporting an organization I know does not
uphold the very objects and principles it prides itself on, by
disallowing these kind of open comparisons in its publications how can
I in good conscience continue to promote such an organization as being
one that allows its members to be able to challenge and debate its
teachings and teachers?

I feel that Leadbeater is at the core of this issue as Pedro has
mentioned his writings for have influenced many people and are still
widely read in the Adyar TS.
And as Annie Besant and C W Leadbeater are so tightly allied it also
calls Annie Besant's books into the equation.

Within those books may be a lot of interesting and perhaps even wise
statements however the same can be said of many writings and writers.

CWL no doubt did have psychic abilities imo however this does not make
his observations outside of the reach of challenge.
Many people can see auras and astral project and believe themselves in
contact with Masters.

If someone has been involved with an organization for their whole life
and written endlessly on a subject does that make their ideas correct
and unchallengeable???

One of the reasons I've heard from J.Ws as to why they believe the
bible is that it is because of the huge influence its had on the
world.(circular reasoning)

I also cut my theosophical teeth on CWL, Annie Besant and Geoffrey
Hodson and got a lot out of the experience however as my thinking has
expanded (a-bit at least I hope) I look at their writings in a
completely different context and have seen the differences between the
approach of Blavatsky and that of the neo theosophists and have found
the neo theosophy to be very simplistic and in many cases tells you
more about the British Victorian mindset than it does about reality imo.

Does the second object mean anything or is it just decoration?

Perry