Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00780)

Bruce,  thanks for your comments.  I have added some more of my own below. 


> 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.
>

I would say that the similarity is more than skin deep. I will try to 
point out a few examples of this in the remainder of your post.

> 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.

Level playing fields are negated when the rank of "the lowliest 
theosophist" is first formulated.  That we want to claim a level playing 
field for theosophists while championing one group over another, one 
understanding over another, one individual's viewpoint over another, is 
evidence to me that while in theosophical theory the playing field 
should be level, in actual practice our behavior is contradictory to 
that ideal.  I sometimes see individuals discarded as "not a 
theosophist" and "does not believe in HPB or the Masters" as though 
these judgments and labels explain something important.  They do not.  
All these labels do is allow us to relegate some people to a position 
even lower than that of the lowliest theosophist.  The first object is 
about establishing universal brotherhood without regard to race, color, 
or CREED.   It is not about forming an exclusive debating club that has 
exclusive membership criteria.



>The Second and Third Objects point to the field of debate.

While debate may be a function of study it is not the sole or even 
primary purpose of the second and third object.  In my opinion we would 
do well to hold the 3 objects together as one aim rather than separating 
them for the purposes of justifying our penchant for arguing and 
debate.  If we hold them together as one thought, we are less likely to 
forget that we are all brothers and sisters and that winning a debate is 
not the final goal -- understanding each other is.  Anytime we say, "I 
just don't understand how the members of that group can think like they 
do" we are acknowledging our lack of understanding.  Many times though, 
rather than expand our ability to understand, we are dismissive of "that 
group" as being the ones who don't understand.

> Theosophy is a Movement
> whose prime purpose is to develop minds capable of thinking for
> themselves.
>

I believe that the prime purpose of the theosophical movement, when 
defined as a group of people joining together in a common effort,  is to 
foster a fertile environment in which developing minds are encouraged 
toward the full and robust bloom of divine understanding.


> 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.


We must be careful that our claim that there can be no appeal to 
authority is not self-deception.   Do not use HPB as an authority for 
what others should think and do.  Her masters are not our authorities 
either.  We either can grasp the idea that there can be no appeal to 
outside authority and understand that concept well enough to put it into 
practice or we can't.  In not practicing what we preach, we are most 
like our devout Christian brothers. 


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.

I don't quite follow you here.  What "this" is it that theosophists are 
in the process of learning how to do?  I think you mean "think complex 
subjects through."   In any case, there are and have always been people 
who think complex subjects through.  Else the ancient texts could not 
have been written.  If by people you mean the average or common man, 
then while I can agree with what you say in one sense, in another sense, 
I resist labeling large chunks of humanity as common while reserving the 
label theosophists for the select few.  Once this concept is given the 
wings of thought, the practical application of universal brotherhood and 
a level playing field and appealing to no authorities are in imminent 
danger.


>
> 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.

I think we have arrived at the crux of the matter at hand.  There is a 
strongly held belief that some theosophists from the past wrote things 
about each other that were "untheosophical" --being based on 
suppositions and doubt rather than facts.  This charge is thrown back 
and forth across the wall that we have built up between us.  Many see 
these "slanders and lies" as the point where the theosophical movement 
went awry.  Others see the wall that divides us as the real problem.  I 
am one of the latter.  We will not achieve the aim of  creating a 
fertile environment for developing minds until we tear down the wall 
that runs through our garden.  There are many theosophists who extend 
the hand of friendship and brotherhood across the wall only to have it 
slapped away with charges of slander and lie.     You are doing it.  I 
am doing it.  Slanders and lies are like a weeds in the garden.  We must 
take extreme care not to kill the flowering blooms in the process of 
eradicating the weeds.  When we use language like "It is a lazy man's 
way of undermining his betters" our true self is showing.  We believe 
that some people are better than others, some are lazier than others, 
and some undermine others.  These judgments serve to put everyone in 
their proper place on our level playing field.  As to the notion of 
moral authority, there can be none outside of our own inner conscience.  
We cannot appeal to Judge's sense of moral authority any more than we 
can to Hitler's. 



>
> 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.

I notice that you are not identifying yourself as a Theosophists here.  
Else you might have said, "Theosophists are alive to what is at stake 
even if WE continue to make mistakes and have not made the rules of 
theosophy a part of OUR own overall approach to life."   Sometimes what 
is not said is as important as what is said.

>
> 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.

Another good rule that is essential in theosophy is that we each must 
develop our own good rules.  I agree with the sentiment that you express 
here about airing dirty laundry again and again, but let us not forget 
that we have dirty laundry.  Let us not adopt and force upon others 
another rule that dirty laundry must be hidden.  It is the remembering 
that may help us to avoid repeating the processes that soiled us in 
first place.




Leadbeater is not a
> threat to the Movement.

I am glad to see you say this, but their are a host of theosophists who 
by their behavior demonstrate their disagreement.   The genuine 
theosophical movement is the inner spiritual growth as each of us moves 
back into harmony with the Universe.  The outer representations of this 
movement are many and varied. I see the reflections everywhere.  The 
19th century representation is but one.



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.

Actually EVERY idea presented by HPB and her masters should be studied 
carefully before being accepted.  Not to do so is to adopt HPB as one's 
authority.



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.

Allowing each person to self-determine his own development through his 
own self-devised checks and balances seem to be the essence of 
theosophical tolerance.  The most we can do is offer "powerful 
arguments" but even in doing that we must acknowledge that the power 
behind those arguments comes from within and not from some external 
authority.  In acknowledging this, we encourage others to look within 
themselves for the power behind their own arguments.



>
> 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.

I enjoyed the comments above until you reached your powerful conclusion, 
"Leave such stuff to the academics."  You seem to be saying that these 
"academics" are self-defeating and undermine the Principle of Universal 
Brotherhood.  Let us not be like them.  They are not even theosophists 
and they do not believe in HPB and Masters.


>
> 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.


Well let's keep that wall up between us and them then.  Those people are 
in the business of appealing to authority and we don't do that. They are 
always claiming for themselves the right to make rules and using their 
authority to influence the thinking and control the behavior of others.  
They are not theosophists and they do not believe in the masters.  If 
they did, they would think and behave as we do.

>
> 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.


Some would say that criticizing the group and judging it by our rules is 
bound to make the group's worst tendencies become the norm. After all, 
it has done it to our group.



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.

Ah, that word immoral again.  It is justification for all sorts of 
things here in our garden of eden.  Let's be clear,  there are a 
multitude of things that others do that I will not do.  Calling them 
immoral will not stop them from doing what they are doing.  Forcing them 
to stop, with rules and punishments, will make us self-proclaimed 
authorities on their thoughts and activities.  Using force creates  
counter force.  Eventually rebellion will occur.  Then war, then perhaps 
a new authority will exert itself.  Until we grasp the concept that the 
only meaningful change comes from within, that the only government of 
lasting value is self-government, that the only thing we can do for our 
friends and brothers is be a friend and brother by offering an 
environment suitable for internal growth, then we are destined to repeat 
ourselves again and again.



>
> 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.


There is no way to prevent groups from falling into dogma and political 
irrelevancy from outside the group.  The effort is futile and history 
has shown that it only strengthens the group's resolve to defend itself 
against "outsiders"  by becoming even more devout.


Bruce, I do not have time to address your comments on homosexuality 
right now.  Hopefully others will respond to the fine message that you 
have posted.  I look forward to many more discussions of this nature 
with such a thoughtful person as yourself.

peace within,

--bill