Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00001)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@...> wrote:
When we start making decisions (judgements) about who is right 
> and who is wrong, whose truth is more true and whose is less true, 
we 
> get onto a very slippery slope, and most likely we slide a bit, or 
a 
> lot. > Why not live and let live? 

Dear Adelasie and all

Adelasie, thank you for your gentle and accommodating contribution 
above. Please permit me to offer a few thoughts.

Compassion certainly dissuades us from judging another, particularly 
perhaps in terms of who is right and who is wrong. Buddhism after all 
distinguishes between absolute and relative truth and Theosophy's 
first fundamental proposition speaks of An Omnipresent, Eternal, 
Boundless and Immutable Principle on which all speculation is 
impossible since it transcends the power of human conception and can 
only be dwarfed by any human conception or similitude. It is beyond 
the range and reach of thought?" etc.

This passage has always given me pause for thought both in terms of 
its expressed limitation of discursive mind to be ultimately 
accurate, as well as the unlimited nature of mind in its essence.

Compassion doesn't however dissuade us from discernment where 
compassion is considered a natural extension of wisdom and knowledge. 
Many years ago, at the beginning of my career in the field of 
welfare, it was evident that there were many people who were 
apparently compassionately motivated, volunteering in church and 
welfare groups. At that time these were the only people helping those 
who were then termed the "underprivileged". When government commenced 
funding welfare projects to employ trained personnel, we as employees 
realised almost immediately that however well motivated and kind 
hearted some of these volunteers were, a considerable proportion of 
their assistance was uninformed, highly inappropriate and unhelpful 
and in some cases such as suicide prevention, potentially dangerous. 
Much of the advice from many of these well-meaning volunteers had 
more to do with their own issues of insecurity, feelings of 
inadequacy and a need to feel worthwhile. Often status and 
recognition were also priorities for these hard working souls. The 
decisions we had to make with respect to some of these volunteers had 
nothing to do with judgement/condemnation, rather they arose from 
highly considered, objective assessments of what we carefully and 
compassionately thought to be in the better interests of the 
disadvantaged client group, as well as the volunteers themselves, as 
best as our professional expertise could determine.  
I mention this experience to highlight that in certain circumstances 
in life, there can be a right and wrong way to speak and act, or at 
least a more right and more wrong approach, particularly if we 
perceive and project ourselves as an authority.      

Bishop Leadbeater, as well meaning as he may have been, was 
demonstrably untruthful and/or inaccurate in many of his 
pronouncements, whilst projecting himself as an authority. 
Authority figures naturally need and attract followers, who 
themselves desire to be led. Historically, the dangers of blindly 
following a perceived leader are well recorded in terms of the 
psychological effect on the follower as well as on the putative 
authority figure.

My raising the issues of Bishop Leadbeater's lies and 
misrepresentations has nothing to do with judging/condemning him as a 
person. He was possibly a sincere individual who thought he knew that 
which was best for his followers. Rather it has to do with discerning 
the facts and fallacies of his many statements as best as can be 
determined. From this, hopefully we can more accurately discern 
whether his pronouncements are more likely to be accurate, truthful 
and thereby genuinely helpful, or whether they are more likely to be 
the opposite.

>From my investigations thus far, apart from some of Bishop 
Leadbeater's commentaries relating to the spiritual path, which are 
after all mostly a restating of Augustinian/Aquinian morality and 
ethics, many of his statements have proven to be either wrong, wrong 
minded or sufficiently inaccurate and untruthful as for me to 
consider them significantly unreliable, unhelpful and potentially 
dangerous for the unwary student.

>From my current perspective and state of awareness, compassion for 
this unwary student, which was myself many years ago, as well as for 
Bishop Leadbeater himself, is my motivation for raising these matters 
in this forum.

To live and let live is not acceptable in certain circumstances. To 
adopt this mindset in totality makes it too easy for some of us to be 
led along by the nose whilst granting free licence and immunity to 
those who feel the need to lead. 

Kind regards
Nigel