Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00738)

Dear Bill, Adelaise, and other interested parties,

Bill has presented an interesting question that I would like to address.  
Basically Bill asks
whether it might be argued that there is no difference in the type of debate 
that goes on in the
larger society between various religious groups and holders of scientific 
positions, and what goes
on within the borders of the Theosophical Movement.  Are devout Theosophists 
any different
than devout Christians in their desire to make everyone else believe as they 
do, while at the same
time unable to accept evidence contrary to their positions.  On the surface 
there appears to be no
difference.

A contrary argument may go something like this.  The Theosophical Movement 
was established
to provide a forum where men and women could come together and argue on 
various subjects
without appeal to outside authorities.  As there is no appeal to outside 
authorities, theosophists
are forced to develop their own minds and reasoning skills in order to put 
forward the best
arguments on various subjects.  This description of the Movement can be 
derived from its 3
Objects.  The First Object, Universal Brotherhood, means we have an equal 
playing field where
no one theosophist?s argument is better than another?s in virtue of any rank 
or authority.  This
means that the lowliest theosophist can argue against the arguments of HPB 
or one of the
Masters.  The Second and Third Objects point to the field of debate.  
Theosophy is a Movement
whose prime purpose is to develop minds capable of thinking for themselves.

As there can be no appeal to authority, theosophists have no reason to 
attack the good name of
other theosophists.  There is nothing to be gained.  Whether another 
theosophist is a sinner or a
saint, what matters are the ideas that he or she puts forth.  As the history 
of human thought can be
described as an appeal to authority, this is not an intuitive process.  
People do not normally think
complex subjects through, they rather listen to what the authorities say on 
the subject and then
decide which authority they ?trust? more.  Theosophists are in the process 
of learning how to do
this, and as such they make many mistakes.

For example, Olcott using his authority as president to claim that HPB 
enacted a fraud with
respect to the writing of the ?Prayag Letter?, undermined the spirit of the 
Society.  His belief that
the content of the letter was not true and his existing doubts about HPB?s 
integrity caused him to
write something that was untheosophical.  He put himself forward as HPB?s 
judge and jury.  This
was a mistake.  Besant?s claim that Judge forged missives on the border of 
letters in order to
accrue political power was a similar instance.  She had no right to make 
that judgment, as she did
not have the proof.  It was simply a supposition based on her own doubts.  
She presented herself
as an authority on human behaviour in general, and on Judge?s behavior in 
particular.  She did
not possess that authority.  She made a mistake.  Today many write about 
Judge seeking
guidance from mediums as if it were a fact.  It is not a fact.  The evidence 
they provide can be
used to create uncountably many stories, all equally credible.  Such a claim 
is a supposition, and
as such, has no place within the Theosophical Movement.  It seeks to remove 
any moral authority
that Judge may have developed through his work and his writings by throwing 
dirt on his
reputation.  It is a lazy man?s way of undermining his betters.

It can be read in the posts of theosophy talk on numerous occasions, ?You 
can never judge
another persons motives?, or ?you are trying to put forward X, Y, or Z as an 
authority, what
about the argument??  Theosophists are alive to what is at stake even if 
they continue to make
mistakes and have not made the rules of theosophy a part of their own 
overall approach to life.

Another example might be Charles Leadbeater, does he deserve to have every 
charge of
pedophilia and sex magic trotted out before the public again and again by 
theosophists?  Has it
been proved beyond any doubt that he engaged in such practices?  A good rule 
for all
theosophists to keep in mind is that if you do not know an allegation 
concerning a man?s
reputation to be a fact, it is a probably a good idea to keep your mouth 
shut.  Leadbeater is not a
threat to the Movement.  Most people acknowledge that Leadbeater promoted 
many false ideas.
It follows from this quite reasonably that EVERY idea presented by 
Leadbeater should be studied
carefully before being accepted.  If a theosophist wants to study Leadbeater 
looking through his
writing for a few gems among the dross, then so what?  If another 
theosophists feels that he can
spend his time more profitably elsewhere, then so much the better.   If 
Leadbeater established
groups within or without the Movement that practice sex magic or worse, this 
can be nullified by
producing powerful arguments against such practices in general so that any 
practitioners will
have to contend with these arguments within their own minds when they get 
ready for their
rituals and/or debauchery.  This way we can avoid tainting Leadbeater?s 
reputation unfairly in
case all of this unfounded rumour is untrue.

In addition to unfairly blackening each other?s names, we can also prevent 
ourselves from getting
into the habit of repeating unfounded allegations.  The mind does not make 
any distinction
between the dead and the living.  Therefore, when we repeat unfounded 
allegations about
another, we are hurting ourselves most of all.  We are giving credence and 
power to the
allegations and credence and power to their importance.  Almost every human 
being who has
made any effort to become a spiritual human being has skeletons in their 
closet.  If we are going
to dismiss what people have to say based on past mistakes, then we will end 
up listening to no
one.  Logically, dealing in reputations is self defeating and it undermines 
the Principle of
Universal Brotherhood.  Leave such stuff to the academics.

Academics and the priest-cast are in the business of appealing to authority. 
 The priest-cast has
its holy books which only they have the authority to interpret properly, and 
academics have the
respected names of their own particular discipline.  The High-Priest of a 
particular religion or
academic discipline becomes the authority.  Their word becomes more 
important than reason or
any other criteria.  This is how knowledge is controlled and the search for 
truth perverted.  This is
why theosophy was needed.

If it is not theosophical to judge individuals, then what about groups?  Is 
it okay to question the
gay community, or the Jewish community, or Catholics, etc.?   While the 
motives of individuals
are unclear, it is not so with groups.  They organize under charters or 
constitutions or dogmas
that are explicit as to what they are about.  As with any idea it can be 
interpreted according to its
broader spirit or according to a more narrow dead-letter materialism.  
During this age, where
materialism rules, power is held by the most material and their ideas gain 
ascendency.  Politics is
not the field of spiritual men and women.  Consequently the spokesmen of 
identifiable groups
often represent the worst tendencies of that group.  If we cannot criticize 
the group and judge its
behavior then its worst tendencies are bound to become the norm.  What makes 
matters worse is
that today?s societies look upon it as hateful to criticize minorities.  An 
unreasoning sympathy
seeks to protect these groups by leaving them to their excesses.  Even 
members of their own
group are accused of self-hatred if they do not go along with the nonsense 
espoused by the
political masters.  It is not hatred from without that is the threat, but 
rather the immoral excesses
from within.

Consequently, we have to be able to be critical of the various Theosophical 
Societies of which
many of us belong.  This is the only way to prevent them from falling into 
dogma and political
irrelevancy.  There must be debate from within and without theosophical 
organizations if they are
to remain relevant.  It is not the constitution that makes a group good or 
bad, but rather how it
gets interpreted.  For various reasons things are made political.

The shame that society made homosexuals feel for ages has been reacted 
against through a
political movement called gay pride.  Now we have hedonistic parades being 
conducted all
around the world in the name of gay pride.  Where is this going to lead?  
What is gay pride?
Does it make any sense?  Should heterosexuals feel proud about being a good 
heterosexual?
Whether one is heterosexual or homosexual seems dependent on one?s karma.  
Should we be
proud about our karma?  Is our sexuality essential to who we are or is it an 
accident of the phase
that humanity is now going through?  My sexuality has nothing to do with the 
core of who I am.
Rather I would argue my capacity to love, platonic love, is essential, not 
love mixed up with
personal emotions and sex.  Regardless, if we are not able to debate about 
homosexuality, we are
not going to understand and accept it in any meaningful way.  If the very 
discussion becomes a
threat, especially to theosophists - gay or otherwise -  then we still 
haven?t progressed very far
down the theosophical path and it may be important to figure out why.  Trust 
is essential in any
brotherhood.  Calling one another homophobes or anti-semites or nazis has no 
place in
theosophical discourse.  These are merely personal attacks where the 
attacker pretends to have
the authority to judge others.  We cannot make pariahs out of the ignorant.  
If they don?t
question, they will not learn nor come to finally understand.  Perhaps their 
questions will force us
to go deeper and force us to see things in a different way and bring about 
new understandings.  In
any event stifling discourse through such appeals is not theosophical.

Practicing theosophy is not an easy road and we are all making mistakes.  
However, we can point
out the mistakes and move on without having to impugn base motive.  It can 
be argued that
theosophists are trying and despite the mistakes they are learning, and 
learning at a faster rate
than the society at large.  They at least understand to some extent what the 
principles are, and are
trying to reflect those principles as best they can.  This leads to an 
accelerated learning full of
many mistakes.  The primary virtue that we have to cultivate right now is 
tolerance, until these
theosophical rules become the natural expression of all theosophists.

Bruce

> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bill Meredith meredith_bill@
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Adelasie,
> > If you have time, I would like to get your views on this article:
> >
http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonTreeAndItsFruit.htm
> > If you recall, you and I have had similar discussions in the distant
> > past on BN-Study. My thoughts over the intervening years have come
to
> > be more in line with yours as I continue to seek for understanding.
> It
> > seems, however, that theosophy, when defined as a collection of
people
> > with various ideas, has accumulated its fair share of puritan minds.
> >
> > It has often been my observation that devout Theosophists are not
> really
> > that different from devout Christians in behavior. Both groups are
> > intellectually inclined to harsh judgments and intolerance. It has
> > become clear to me in discussions with such people, no matter their
> > particular creed, that they relish perceiving themeselves as the
> Knowers
> > and Defenders of Truth. Hence all evidence that supports their
> Beliefs
> > is evidence of Truth and all evidence that represents the antithesis
> of
> > their Beliefs is slander and lies used as food to sustain their
> > Beliefs. This usually takes the form of expressing pride and
> happiness
> > in being "attacked" and "challenged" because being opposed in one's
> > beliefs is further evidence that one's Beliefs are the Truth.
> >
> > peace within,
> >
> > --bill
> >
> > adelasie wrote:
> > >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > You are free to make however many judgements you wish to make. But
> > > nowhere does thesosophy support making judgements about our
brothers
> > > and sisters based on our opinion of their motives. As students,
far
> > > better we err on the side of tolerance than that we made
judgements
> > > of our fellow human beings, no matter what evidence can be
produced.
> > > Exoteric history does not tell the whole story. Many are the
> villains
> > > of history who are someone else's hero.
> > >

_________________________________________________________________
Say hello to the next generation of Search. Live Search ? try it now. 
http://www.live.com/?mkt=en-ca