Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00265)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "carlosaveline cardoso aveline" 
<carlosaveline@...> wrote:
> "It may be true, it may be false, who knows?"
> 
> ADYAR  T.S.  AND  ITS  PATTERN  OF  AMBIGUITY
> 
> Carlos Cardoso Aveline
> 
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> 
> Dear Friends,
.......
> 2) Let's see another example.  C. W. Leadbeater went to Mars and 
Mercury and 
> had many other absurd fancies about talking to  the Masters,  about 
being an 
> Initiate, about a Second Coming of  Jesus Christ,  etc.  Yet even 
now Adyar 
> authorities say: "C.W.L. may be right,  he may be wrong, who knows? 
And who 
> are you to judge him?"  A firmly  `agnostic' position about obvious 
facts. 
> Those who want to see more sincerity are systematically accused of 
being 
> arrogant, authoritarian and unbrotherly.  Thus the discussion is  
astutely 
> taken  to the personal level and the facts are forgotten. >

Dear Carlos
You highlight something which unfortunately has been a pattern for so 
many years in various organisations, including here on t/talk ie; the 
apparent inability of some in positions of influence to objectively 
and openly assess and discuss issues of great significance in our 
common search for Truth. Some of us have heard the content and thrust 
of your postings all before, many times over, from different 
contributors throughout the years. Nonetheless, reminders of matters 
of honesty, integrity and truth in reporting would seem to be 
essential if our dharma is to "...popularise a knowledge of 
theosophy" and whose organisational motto is after all "There Is No 
Religion Higher Than Truth". Whilst perhaps of less value for some of 
us longer term readers of theos 1 and t/talk to re-hear these 
matters, this venue is often the first place where newcomers are 
exposed to some of the very unfortunate past and present activities 
and stated positions of various individuals, organisations and their 
representatives. 
Please continue to give us the benefit of your "insider" experience 
and apparently painful realisations. Perhaps certain others may then 
realise some of the implications of their less than completely honest 
actions in terms of how they affect sincere and committed seekers 
after Truth.

For your information, last year I wrote to a member of t/talk: 

'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 apprising 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." '

And to another:

'Unity or "Brotherhood" does not condone the acceptance of 
information which is deceitful, dishonest, manipulative, 
condescending, domineering or demonstrably untrue. No amount of 
eloquent articulation combined with otherwise worthwhile pleas for 
tolerance and acceptance can hide the utter hypocrisy of the 
position.'


Carlos, as you seem to have adopted this role for this period in 
t/talk, please keep writing and challenging for the sake of the 
newcomer and the hopefully silent majority. If as individuals, we 
can't be reasonably honest and truthful, how can we expect Truth for 
all to arise?
Best regards
Nigel