Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00336)

To Daniel and Carlos ,

The Mahatma letters a couple of times mention the importance of 
motive.
Motives are those things that drive us to do what we do, often they 
are mixed sometimes they are relatively clear and some maybe even 
unconscious, peoples motives can only ever really at best be very 
tentatively theorised upon.

Open historical criticism is essential for any organisation that is 
committed to seeking truth rather than fantasy, denial and 
perpetuating myths.

Of course any critique is limited and also needs to be critiqued by 
others, this process is not in order to come to an absolute 
conclusion but is rather ongoing and one of looking openly and 
honestly and various points of view and interpretation of what facts 
are available.

Any genuine truth seeker and any organisation concerned with the 
pursuit of truth should be ready to face information that may 
overturn long held beliefs or contradict the established 
institutional memory.

Demonising or expelling those who fail to conform to the `party line' 
is something that should never be condoned in the theosophical 
society in any form, not only does it go diametrically go against the 
spirit of why the society was founded in the first place but it also 
creates an environment that makes it impossible for it to move 
forward with credibility.

The TS seems to have an institutional mindset that anything of a 
negative or of a critical nature is retrograde and bad and therefore 
not theosophical.

This organisational mindset it seems from my point of view to be 
extreme and unbalanced, while being a critic just for the sake of 
causing trouble and discord for its own sake would not be 
theosophical, certainly valid and properly motivated criticism is 
absolutely essential for genuine freedom of thought to be maintained 
and promoted.

In a theosophical society people are free to continue to believe what 
they choose even if those things may have been proven to be suspect 
or even blatantly false, they can freely believe what they choose, 
but to then on the other hand suppress someone's right to freely 
express valid critique of those beliefs is not only hypocritical but 
creates an environment of suppression and allows falsehood to 
continue to be perpetuated as truth under the guise of `brotherhood'.

Both loving concern and respect for the beliefs of others needs to be 
tempered with a willingness to use sound reasoning and valid 
criticism, freedom needs both of these principles to be functioning 
in order to promote genuine brotherhood and pursuit of truth.

Interestingly the Australian Section of the Theosophical society has 
allowed criticisms of the Madame Blavatsky's work the `Secret 
Doctrine' on 2 occasions in recent years in its national 
magazine "Theosophy in Australia" a policy I fully support.

However would the same types of critiques of Leadbeater's writings or 
Mrs Besant's be allowed ?

>From all the attempts I have made to find an affirmative to this 
question I have only received vague denials that there is even a 
problem.

The question remains open until evidence to the contrary is forth 
coming. 
There does seem to be a double standard in treatment of Blavatsky on 
the one hand and Leadbeater and Besant on the other.

Denying these freedoms by not allowing both sides of an argument to 
voice their perspectives is denial and denial of this kind can only 
lead to the type of `truth' that Orwell spoke about in 1984 with 
the "Ministry of truth"  & "Ministry of Love" ie. propaganda, 
suppression and conformity.

It seems with what has transpired with the publication of the letters 
of HPB including some allegedly forged by Solovyov we are presented 
with an opportunity.

I would suggest that instead of wasting time questioning motives of 
people we should instead present and examine the evidence for or 
against these letters being either fully or in part forgeries. 

As a student I would much rather hear the arguments from those who 
have studied these letters as to why they do or don't feel them to be 
forgeries than hearing accusations of insincere motives on those who 
have published them.

I am personally glad the letters are available for my perusal as a 
student, even though I personally feel more additional information 
should have been made in the volume regarding their suspect nature.

Cheers
   
Perry