Theos-Talk Archives (December 2006 Message tt00056)

Bill, I have some more time and I would like to add the following 
comments to yours.

> > 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.
>
Thank you for bringing up this exact point. When putting together this 
argument I
considered excising "the lowliest theosophist" but in the end felt its 
oxymoronic
qualities might work on the reader's psyche more effectively. The expression
“lowliest theosophist” does jump out at you.
>
>
> >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.
>
I might go further, Bill, perhaps to point out that we are trying to 
understand the truth
of things and understanding each other is simply an important step to 
being able to
debate effectively so as to get closer to that truth. Regrettably, 
debate is perceived as
a win or lose proposition and yet when done effectively it is a way to 
clarify one's
own understanding of a subject. It is hard work putting sometimes 
fleeting ideas into
words. It may be this type of work that theosophists have to do more of. 
It seems that
most people who involve themselves in debate make a habit of putting the 
"self" into
the debate as well. If we leave the "self" out then perhaps it would be 
easier to bring
those three objects together when debating.
> > 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.
>
A loftier goal for sure, the former focusing on the beginning of the 
journey, the latter
on the promise of that journey.
>
> > 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.
>
On the other hand if you want a group that is going to live by such a 
lofty principle,
its members better be ready to defend one another and by extension the 
principle of
"no authorities" against those who would undermine that principle from 
within. It
must become who we are, not a rule to be applied simply when we feel 
like it.
>
>
> > 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.
>
Poorly expressed, I agree. However, we must cultivate discrimination as 
well. We're
not all the same. You don't teach differential calculus to the second 
grader learning
arithmetic. Those who wrote the ancient texts I would consider 
theosophists. Those
who cling to a dogma without ever considering the implications of that 
dogma are
not. I would not abuse the latter for his lack of reflection, that is 
his karma. If I do not
treat him as a brother, exploring with him ideas that we can both share, 
then I do not
understand Brotherhood.
>
> >
> > 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. . . .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.
>
I agree, this is the crux. It is also where I find this argument you 
present most difficult
to follow. I really do not understand what this wall is that we are 
being asked to tear
down. There is a wall to be sure, built of the stones of unbrotherly 
judgments of
theosophist's motives, one against the other. The foundation stones are 
three, the
unfair judgment by Olcott that Blavatsky forged the "Prayag letter"; the 
unfair
judgment by Besant that Judge wrote missives on the margins of his 
letters deceiving
others into believing they were from Masters; the unfair judgment based 
on weak
circumstantial evidence that Judge used mediums to try to contact 
Blavatsky and/or
the Masters. If these stones are not pulled away another wall will be 
built up in quick
order on their foundation. A group that claims brotherhood as an object 
cannot allow
this principle to be broken in such a public fashion and still expect to 
be called
brotherly. By taking authority onto themselves, this allowed Besant and 
Olcott to
create an entirely different Society than that founded by HPB and the 
Masters.

This is the problem, there are two Movements claiming the same name. One
Movement is authority-based as a majority of theosophists followed 
Besant and
Olcott based on authority, not on any arguments that they could put 
forward to back
up their slanders. Once their authority was established they could claim 
anything, and
certainly Besant just about did, and people were obligated to follow now 
that this
authority had been established or leave the Movement.

As for “lazy man’s way of undermining his betters”, besting an opponent by
slandering him or her, especially when the opponent that is slandered is 
among the
hardest working and self-sacrificing of members, cannot be held as noble 
by you or
anyone else. It takes much effort and thought to put together a cogent 
argument and
then to be slandered in response by someone unwilling to do the work 
needed to
challenge the argument demonstrates a certain amount of mental laziness. 
To slander
as a habit makes someone lazy by habit. Everyone makes mistakes, and the 
argument
did not refer to the occasional epitaph hurled in the heat of battle, 
but rather the
ongoing and repeated abuse.

As for Judge’s moral authority, the claim was not that such authority 
exists outside of
any particular theosophist’s mind, only that by slandering him his 
opponents are
seeking to discredit him so that there is less faith in what he has to 
say. The object of
the slander is to destroy the moral authority, whether it exists in 
abundance or not at
all in the mind of any particular theosophist.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
The article was put together in the third person in order to 
depersonalize the argument
so that we can focus simply on the argument itself. Perhaps the argument 
wandered
into more personal pronouns in some instances -- and something might be 
said about
those instances -- but in this particular case I am not sure how 
valuable that analysis is.
> >
> > 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
> > 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.
>
A sentiment that I share and have argued for many times elsewhere. The 
dirty laundry
should be accessible, but we needn’t focus on it. If we focus only on 
the dirt we miss
all the good that is out there and attract only those interested in the 
dirt.
>
> > 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.
>
A point made abundantly clear by HPB and the Masters. Regrettably, 
Leadbeater was
part of the new "Authority Movement" and Besant’s endorsement of him and his
abilities means that we are put into a position of having to say that 
which should
never need saying.
>
>
>
> > If a theosophist wants to study Leadbeater looking through his writing
> >for a few gems among the dross, then so what? If another theosophist
> > 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.
>
Who cares what they or anyone else believes? This is the problem that so 
many fall
trap to. We are not fighting academics, they have their way and we have 
ours. They
have their peer review with their respected experts that control the 
dogma that they
follow. Supposedly we have no dogma to protect so we are different. Viva la
difference. Incidentally, the Theosophical Movement doe not express a 
dogma that
necessitates the belief in HPB, her Masters or anyone else.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
There is nothing wrong with identifying the limitation of a particular 
practice and then
trying to create something better. The argument points out that this was 
the goal of
theosophy. Knowledge at the end of the 19th century was being bottled 
up. The
question was how to open up that bottleneck to allow new ideas to flow 
into the
stream of thought. The answer was to make everyone his own authority.
> >
> > 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.
>
People do have rather thin skins. However, if what you say is true in 
the short run, it
may not be so in the long run. By introducing a different perspective, 
it may become
the irritant grain of sand that is transformed into a pearl with the 
addition of time.
>
> > 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.
>
I don’t see where I suggested force anywhere. Presumably the meaningful 
dialogue
that you espouse means being truthful to one another. Is calling a 
certain behavior
immoral so that a group reviews that behavior being forceful or is it 
being honest? To
say a behavior is immoral is to say that the behavior does not accord 
with the laws of
Nature, that it accrues karma to the individual or to the group. Is such 
an observation
an act of war? There seems to be a line here that we are trying to 
define. How much
can we say and what is too much?
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
I think we have been pointing to a way. That way is through the 
spiritual growth of
the individual so that he identifies less with the outside appearances 
and more with
the spirit within himself. His own spiritual authority as is manifests 
more strongly will
be unhappy existing within imperfect organizations. Clearly this is not 
going to
happen any time soon. What history shows is the limitations that were. 
If we are
trying to forge a new way then the first few times the effort is bound 
to fail.
However, the more we try, the more people will understand and there will 
come a
time when we will succeed.
>
> 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

The question that seems to arise from this short debate is whether we 
should be
tolerant regardless of another’s views and behavior or whether there is 
room for
criticism of the different positions and especially of the bad behavior 
within our
midst. Part of being tolerant, perhaps the most important part, is 
learning to be
tolerant when one’s own position is criticized. I suspect we will have 
peace on theos-
talk when the participants learn this type of toleration.

Bruce