Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00102)

Hallo Anand and all,

My views are:

Anand wrote:
"Reason why Theosophy failed in America is focus shifted from Annie
Besant and Leadbeater to Blavatsky in last 15 years or so. Result is
lodges became non-functional, people lost interest in Theosophy and
overall failure of Theosophical movement in America. "

My Sufilight answer:
Anand this is an easy claim about historical events. Another person
could easily claim that you have not offered anything to make your claim
understandable. It could easily have been so, that the focus shifted
because of many other reasons - and that the result is that theosophical 
groups
today exist under many names, and that not all of them are named using the 
word
"Theosophical Society" in a dead-letter manner.
I try, but I just can't grasp the logic in your claims.


Anand wrote:
"Leading members
should remember that Theosophical Society which we see today became
international organization accepted and respected world over when
Annie Besant was president and it was teaching of Annie Besant and
Leadbeater because of which TS was appreciated around the world. If
Theosophical movement is to again become strong in America, active
members and leaders should focus again on teachings of Leadbeater and
Annie Besant."

My Sufilight answer:
But, today Leadbeater is NOT respected around the world -
quite on the contrary Anand. Maybe he is respected in your mind,
but certainly his name tarnishes the theosophical reputation.
And his name will continue to do so as long as the
bad roumors around him is not - positively - clarified so his reputation if 
at all
possible can be restored. If not - the documental evidence forwarded today
will keep Leadbeater as an evidence on failure on the Path.
This seems at least to be a logical conclusion.


Face the facts. There is no religion higher than the TRUTH.

Leadbeater will never be portrayed as a Krishna or a Master KH.
The documentary evidence against him is just to strong.

And the Krishnamurti versus Leadbeater + Besant split
will never be healed unless - new - and clear teachings will
create the proper pieces so to make it all digestable
to an audience which today - increasingly - find old relics
(like Leadbeater and Besant) uneatable either to read or talk about.
One reason is the emotionally related cult they created around Krishnamurti.
This claim of mine I cannot document. But the youth today wants
new teachings - no doubt there.
It is of less importance if it is the same - theosophical - teaching, but 
the author has to be new
and preferably alive.

The following article will explain a lot about this conflict between 
Krishnamurti
on one side and Leadbeater + Besant on the other.

The article or phamplet is named
"Revelation or Realization:The Conflict in Theosophy" by J.J. van der Leeuw,
LL.D.
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/leeuw.html


The article "Revelation or Realization:The Conflict in Theosophy" by J.J. 
van der Leeuw,
LL.D. http://www.tphta.ws/JJL_RRCT.HTM - - - seems to have been removed from 
this link.


As Idries Shah said
in the excerpt from A CURRICULUM OF A SCHOOL

"In our teaching, we must group correctly these elements: the pupils, the
teacher and the circumstances of study. Only at the right time and place,
with the teacher suitable to these, and with the right body of students, can
our studies be said to be capable of coherent development."

With the present day policy TS Adyar has upon how to run
a theosophical magazine - everything will keept in an non-Blavatskian
strait-jacket.
My recent email on the above article could be helpful to clarify this view I 
have.
"Revelation or Realization:The Conflict in Theosophy" by J.J. van der Leeuw,
LL.D.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/26907

- - - - - - -

Blavatsky had a different view upon criticism than Annie Besant appearntly 
had
succes in promoting.
And even today the above view on criticism being cruel seems to have 
continued
until today - even by some members here at theos-talk.
We find the following in the article:

--- "To the Readers of 'Lucifer'" ---
"Justice demands that when the reader comes across an article in this 
magazine
which does not immediately approve itself to his mind by chiming in with his 
own
peculiar ideas, he should regard it as a problem to solve rather than as a 
mere
subject of criticism. Let him endeavour to learn the lesson which only 
opinions
differing from his own can teach him. Let him be tolerant, if not actually
charitable, and postpone his judgment till he extracts from the article the
truth it must contain, adding this new acquisition to his store. One ever 
learns
more from one's enemies than from one's friends; and it is only when the 
reader
has credited this hidden truth to Lucifer, that he can fairly presume to put
what he believes to be the efforts of the article he does not like to the 
debit
account.
Lucifer, January, 1888
H. P. Blavatsky "

...also...but at the beginning...

"Our magazine is only four numbers old, and already its young life is full 
of
cares and trouble. This is all as it should be; i.e., like every other
publication, it must fail to satisfy all its readers, and this is only in 
the
nature of things and the destiny of every printed organ. But what seems a 
little
strange in a country of culture and free thought is that Lucifer should 
receive
such a number of anonymous, spiteful, and often abusive letters. This, of
course, is but a casual remark, the waste-basket in the office being the 
only
addressee and sufferer in this case; yet it suggests strange truths with 
regard
to human nature.1

[Footnote added by M. Sufilight ]
1 "VERBUM SAP." It is not Our intention to notice anonymous communications, 
even
though they should emanate in a round-about way from Lambeth Palace. The 
matter
"Verbum Sap" refers to is not one of taste; the facts must be held 
responsible
for the offence; and, as the Scripture hath it, "Woe to them by whom the 
offence
cometh!""
http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/hpb/ToTheReadersOfLucifer.htm


This just shows me, that Blavatsky was right and Annie Besant and her 
friends
was wrong - with their policy on the Magazine.
What is your policy Anand ?



Just let me know if, I am not explaining myself clearly
enough.



from
M. Sufilight


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:37 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re:Only way to revive Theosophy in US is to focus on 
AB, CWL


> Reason why Theosophy failed in America is focus shifted from Annie
> Besant and Leadbeater to Blavatsky in last 15 years or so. Result is
> lodges became non-functional, people lost interest in Theosophy and
> overall failure of Theosophical movement in America. Leading members
> should remember that Theosophical Society which we see today became
> international organization accepted and respected world over when
> Annie Besant was president and it was teaching of Annie Besant and
> Leadbeater because of which TS was appreciated around the world. If
> Theosophical movement is to again become strong in America, active
> members and leaders should focus again on teachings of Leadbeater and
> Annie Besant.
>
> Anand Gholap
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...>
> wrote:
> > Morten,
> > You copied a book. Would you write in short what it wants to
> convey.
> > Anand Gholap
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
> > theosophy@s...> wrote:
> > > Hallo Anand and all,
> > >
> > > My views are:
> > >
> > > The following might be helpful in understanding some of the
> > Blavatskians
> > > better...
> > >
> > >
> > > - - - A Curriculum of a School - - -
> > >