Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00204)

Konstantin,
> We have more instances of dogmatizing HPB than any other writer

I agree with many of the points you said in this mail. Here it should 
be noted that after Blavatsky's death cult, sect immediately started 
around Blavatsky's writing. H.S. Olcott had to make special efforts 
to stop that cult. So there certainly was fault in Blavatsky's 
writing. 
Whereas Besant and Leadbeater are much more popular writers but no 
sect, cult was formed around Leadbeater and Besant. Students of 
Leadbeater and Besant remained open minded. And this is one major 
reason why writings of Besant and Leadbeater are far superior to 
Blavatsky. Ultimately what matters is the effect of writing on 
people. Students of Blavatsky became dogmatic full of hatred so it is 
Blavatsky's failure.

Anand Gholap 




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev" 
<kay_ziatz@y...> wrote:
> > - In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" 
<AnandGholap@A...> 
> wrote:
> 
> >> Blavatsky is too hard for the 
> >> generally lazy would-be occultists who find Leadbeater exciting. 
> 
> > Quality of writing of AB and Leadbeater is much higher then that 
of 
> > Blavatsky's writing.
> 
> I think that both sides of discussion are somewhat wrong :)
> Both did somewhat confused the cause and effects.
> 
> Theosophy fails where it becomes dogmatic and only one doctrine is 
> preached, be it HPB, CWL, Krishnamurti or something else.
> We have more instances of dogmatizing HPB than any other writer, so 
it 
> made the false impression that HPB writings impede to revive 
> theosophy. When some other writer is added, as CWL, for example, 
there 
> are already two doctrines, for CWL himself no way denied HPB. 
Really I 
> have seen only one example when follower of CWL doesn't value HPB, 
and 
> you have seen it also. ;)
> The different expositions of doctrine attract different types of 
> people, and with many authors we surely attract more people than 
with 
> any one of them.
> Moreover, studying of one author only may attract dogmatic type of 
> people (which see everywhere different doctrines, not different 
> expositions) whom we needn't attract at all, for the little bunch 
of 
> them can spoil the work of entire Theosophical Society (what they 
> already really did).