Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00756)

Bruce,

You ask: 

"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? 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?" 

I say: 

"It is not a question of 'making charges'. What CWL confessed before Olcott's Commitee before being expelled from the Adyar Society  (see  J. Ranson's Adyar TPH book) was more than enough.  But what is at stake is really understanding CWL's enduring  influence over the Adyar TS, an occult influence which is widely active today and which includes the power structure in the Adyar Movement.  CWL is his own kind of "Sphyinx";  and it has not been deciphered yet.  Many of his ideas, le gitimized by A. Besant,  did go beyond Adyar's walls, as in the occult realms everything is unavoidably interlinked."  

Carlos.  


De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:26:32 -0700

Assunto:[Spam] Re: Theos-World ON OTHER PEOPLE'S MOTIVES

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1163396014.129164.28441.arrino.hst.terra.com.br,16494,20031127114101,20031127114101
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 10/11/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4893
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]