Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00027)

Dear Adelasie and all
Adelasie, thank you too for your thoughtful remarks, which for me are 
worthy of the highest consideration. Thank you also for considering 
my motive to be potentially sincere.
You paint our vast Theosophical picture in such a manner as to 
encourage us to consider matters beyond the everyday, often 
individualistic and limited perspective of our personal minds. Your 
perspective on this matter seems to arise from a deep and worthwhile 
conviction of acceptance and tolerance perhaps based partly in the 
sure and demonstrable knowledge that we are none of us perfect and 
judgement/condemnation is one of the great separating factors within 
the human psyche?

When considering the Kosmic vista you have expressed I have wondered 
often whether there might be a meeting place in the heart and mind 
for both this unified state and the essential requirement for 
individual clarity of perception in our search for the truths of life.
Undoubtedly, we must each find our own place of sincerity in this 
struggle whilst respecting the chosen place of others. 

 When studying and considering another's spiritual works, demarcation 
lines usually arise for me, which oftentimes can be subtle and 
tenuous. These usually involve distinguishing between the 
writer/lecturer, the pronouncements they profess, their actions and 
the broader Kosmic picture you elucidate so clearly. Whilst this 
might appear somewhat separative on the surface, I have found this to 
be a valuable approach in my attempts to determine the accuracy or 
factual basis and especially wisdom, however and wherever 
determinable, of the ideas being presented.
This process assists me to "separate the wheat from the chaff" 
according to my perception and comprehension, a vital process perhaps 
for the evolvement of compassion and particularly wisdom in 
Consciousness.

It is evident that in many areas of life, we must discern and we must 
make decisions, which necessarily forces us to choose one course of 
action over another. And herein perhaps lies the dilemma. As alluded 
to earlier, how do we choose, whilst maintaining tolerance and 
acceptance for alternative and perhaps opposing options?

Through the abovementioned process it appears to me that there are 
certain matters in life which needs be and must be considered either 
acceptable or unacceptable. 
Actions such as wilful lies for self-gain, deliberate 
misrepresentations, debauched acts and the like must be rejected and 
treated as unacceptable. Not to do so actively, or to passively avoid 
or ignore them, implicitly and explicitly supports their 
perpetuation. In this case we become willing co-dependents in 
unacceptable behaviour and actions. 
Moreover, were we not so to do, we might as well habitually and 
unthinkingly accept and validate all matters, including, to use an 
extreme example, the moral advice of a person who supports the murder 
of another for financial gain.

Perhaps the meeting place mentioned earlier involves distinguishing 
between the person themselves and their words and actions?
In my work with severely disadvantaged and maladjusted people it was 
entirely appropriate to accept, love and cherish them as struggling 
souls whilst at the same time not accepting and sometimes utterly 
condemning their inappropriate actions.

It is in this manner which I approach the issues surrounding Bishop 
Leadbeater. As a person, he had obvious difficulties with 
truthfulness, honesty, accuracy and self-confessed sexual practices 
with young children. As you rightly state, most of us will also have, 
or have had, similar difficulties with at least some of these.
As a human being he deserves love, compassion and acceptance as an 
evolving soul. 
Some of his actions however deserve admonishment and even corrective 
condemnation at the highest level. 

This is not perhaps a situation where the "transcendant totality of 
Truth" is concerned. It is simply a case of human frailty and 
struggle which needs be addressed and corrected in human terms.

The questions then arise for me as to how we are to deal with the 
issues surrounding Bishop Leadbeater. 

Are we to remain silent as to his intellectual indiscretions, thereby 
perpetuating and supporting them and their energies, and condemning 
present and future uninformed students to states of misinformation 
and ignorance? Is this the role of a Theosophist, a seeker after 
truth?

Is discussion of these matters actually promoting "the Forces of 
Separation and Disintegration" as you suggest?
>From my perspective, limited such as it is, some, but not all of 
Bishop Leadbeater's actions and many of his pronouncements caused, 
and were in themselves probably the most separating and separative in 
the history of our modern theosophical movement. 
Where perceived separation arises do we not have a responsibility to 
expose it for the sake of Unity?

Does "forgetting" these matters as you advise, risk devaluing and 
even dismissing the severity of them and their effect?

Does true Harmony arise from concealing these issues of fact from 
eager and open students? Or might we be consciously or unconsciously 
hiding from these incidents for the sake of some form of perceived 
pseudo-harmony? Do we have a moral right so to do?

These are some of my concerns with respect to the issues concerning 
Bishop Leadbeater in terms of the Higher rationale you so eloquently 
and passionately offer.

In all walks of life and with the best of intention of those 
involved, multitudes of sins have been and still are concealed in 
spite of their ongoing and present danger. Perhaps we as Theosophical 
students need to be ever alert to this possibility.

Kind regards
Nigel
 





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@...> wrote:
>
> Nigel and fellow students, 
> 
> Thanks for your well-considered comments. In all things, we are 
> taught to look to our motives. No one can really say what the 
motive 
> of another might be, but it seems to me that yours is sincere. It 
> never hurts to consider, however, that none of us can see the whole 
> picture. As is suggested in the passage you mention, the human 
finite 
> mind is not able to discern the transcendant totality of Truth. 
> 
> We may feel, as theosophists, that the whole world should embrace 
> theosophy. We may feel, based on the benefit we have received from 
> our study, that this or that teacher would benefit others best. But 
> we really don't know these things. We cannot take into 
consideration 
> the mind set, the mental ability, the inherent needs, the karma, of 
> the other student. We may assume, if fact, that if we can see 
through 
> hypocrisy on the part of a particular teacher or sect, that we have 
> been through that already, and learned to move beyond those 
> particular limitations. But can we help others by preventing them 
> from following their path, as we have followed ours? And if we take 
> the trouble to point out the weaknesses and failures of a teacher 
> revered by another, do we not actually stimulate the student's 
> devotion to that teacher, no matter how unsuitable, and actually 
> possibly prolong that student's painful lesson? 
> 
> Another issue that seems worth considering is that of solidarity, 
> unity in action. Theosophy is a fragile vessel at best, a spiritual 
> reality struggling to manifest in a hostile and flawed environment. 
> Those historical theosophists as well as we in the present are part 
> of the movement because they have earned the right to participate 
in 
> this cyclic illumination of the mind of humanity, to whatever 
extent 
> they are able. Each has an opportunity, earned over eons of 
> incarnations, to try to help in the Work, and each answers the call 
> according to ability. How can we hope to help in this work by 
> continually pointing out the flaws and failures of our fellows, who 
> are, in fact and in realilty, ourselves? Do we not owe it to the 
best 
> within ourselves to forgive and forget? Why keep the dark parts 
> alive? Why continually provide ammunition to our eternal enemy, the 
> Forces of Separation and Disintegration? Who among us is so 
perfect? 
> Do we forget that the weakness we can see in our brother is only 
> visible to us because we have the same weakness ourselves? 
> 
> Why not let the Masters do their work bringing us whomever of Their 
> children has earned the right to come, and welcome them with trust 
> and love, allowing, and even encouraging them, to do the best they 
> can with this opportunity, which is said to be the greatest ever 
> offered to humanity? Why not find it in our hearts to forgive and 
> forget the weaknesses of our predecessors, realizing that they were 
> only human after all, no better and no worse than we ourselves? A 
lot 
> depends upon our actions in these days, and even more on our 
thoughts 
> and words.
> 
> Adelasie
> 
> On 27 Feb 2007 at 3:45, nhcareyta wrote:
>  
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> >
>