Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00542)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@y...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > And when these views are subsequently proven, by all reasonable 
> and available means to be false,
> 
> Dear Nigel,
> 
> This post sounds to me like a prescription for disaster. Many 
> religious or pseudo-scientific views can be proven by "all 
> reasonable and available means to be false" to my satisfaction. Or 
> to yours, or someone else's. Unfortunately what satisfies one 
won't 
> satisfy another. So the only way to get along is to tolerate one 
> another's divergences of opinion, once it has become clear that the 
> evidence satisfactory to one person fails to sway another. Getting 
> along with one another despite differences of belief is something 
> Theosophists have always been encouraged to do, starting with the 
> Founders. But they have not succeeded in doing so to any great 
> extent, except at the local level.
> 
> they must surely be continually 
> > challenged by thinking and responsible students who are concerned 
> > with the dharma of theosophy ie; the search for truth rather than 
> the maintenance of a deluded, self-satisfying belief.
> 
> Is there any necessary connection between searching for truth 
> oneself and feeling obliged to continually challenge others whose 
> views one finds objectionable? The latter sounds like a euphemism 
> for harassment of dissenters from the party line, and the result of 
> it is surely to drive them away.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul

Dear Paul
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your concerns and would 
make the following comments.
In terms of differing "religious or pseudo-scientific" views, 
opinions or perceptions, we appear to agree there is no such thing as 
a fact. In these situations, tolerance is paramount and, as you 
allude, often grossly under-represented.
However, Bishop Leadbeater was clearly wrong in numerous matters of 
determinable and demonstrable fact.
He claimed to be representing Madame Blavatsky's version of 
theosophy. On many subjects he did not.
He claimed to be in direct contact with Madame Blavatsky's masters, 
whoever they may have been! Given the contradictory accounts of 
cosmogonies and cosmologies, any reasonable assessment would suggest 
that he was not.
Bishop Leadbeater claimed to be born on a particular date. Clearly he 
was not. He claimed to have attended prestigious British 
universities, he did not. And the list goes on and on. These are not 
matters of perception or opinion where tolerance and respect are 
deserved. These are matters of fact where scrutiny and challenge is 
required, particularly when considering his other pronouncements.

Regarding your comment "Is there any necessary connection"; when 
dealing with provable facts, there is a need for accuracy and 
precision to establish credibility. When considering matters of 
perception, opinion or conjecture, particularly when instructing 
others in the nature of living the spiritual life, proponents are 
usually required to demonstrate some additional credibility through 
personal honesty, integrity and lifestyle. Bishop Leadbeater has been 
found seriously wanting in these areas. 
In situations such as this, where a proponent has demonstrated 
undeniable untruths, misrepresentations and an apparently debauched 
lifestyle, these must be considered in our deliberations as to 
her/his credibility in presenting theosophy.
This is not a matter of unfair harassment of those who fail to follow 
the party line. For myself as a facilitator of a number of 
theosophical study groups, it is a process of appraising fellow 
students of the facts of certain matters to assist them to make more 
informed decisions as to credibility and authenticity of information, 
however these may be determined by the individual.
In matters of belief, perception and opinion, students are repeatedly 
encouraged to believe nothing spoken or written until these have been 
presented "at the bar of their own intelligence and intuition."
Best regards
Nigel