Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00215)

At 02:05 AM 6/4/96 -0400, you wrote:

>Surely, however, I said that "her influence was pernicious" and her
>influence did not come from her writings. So then, let's start with
>something far more important than her writings. Bjorn, are you aware that
>Mrs. Besant was associated with Baron Julius D'Evola, and through him with
>Mussolini whom she invited to write articles for "The Herald of The East"?(
>He complied) If she was associated with Evola she was associated (at least
>peripherally) with Rene Guenon who was a major opponent of theosophy. Can
>this not be seen as "pernicious"?

I didn't know about these things and they don't seem very significant to me.
But I appreciate the information.

 Now, as to her writings: How familiar with the work
>of Charles W. Leadbeater are you?

I have read some, but not all of them.

I would suggest that you read his work and
>her work in a comparative manner and see if you can actually tell when
>Leadbeater leaves off and Mrs. Besant becomes original.

This also does not seem very significant to me. Most of AB's published
writings are actually edited speeches. I feel they are very genuine and
convey a clear understanding of the path, balanced with true devotion.

 It was allowing her name and
>prestige to be attached to books I very much doubt she actually wrote
>herself, that is pernicious.

You doubting that she wrote them hardly make them pernicious.

>Thirdly: She could, but didn't prevent the Krishnamurti Debacle. That is the
>most pernicious of all.

This is a sad story. Her intentions were good, she thought she helped
prepare a World Teacher for his service, but there was bad judgement causing
tremendeous damage.

As for her writings, their possible lack of originality is not, IMO, pernicious.

Bjorn

roxendal@alpinet.net