Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00035)

Hello Perry
Thanks for your response. 
This quote so eloquently expresses such an important perspective in 
this interesting discussion.
Whilst Theosophy encourages us to wherever possible view matters of 
life from the highest, most unified, eternal state, nonetheless there 
are matters in relative time and space which call upon us to discern 
and act according to these conditions.
The interesting irony is that where separation is being expressed to 
the detriment of Unity, it sometimes requires an 
apparently "separative" response to challenge it.
Sri Madhava Ashish has effectively and most eloquently alluded to 
this apparent, but not actual, "separative" state in this famous 
passage.

Unfortunately, much unnecessary and destructive dirt is brushed under 
the carpet by some, perhaps through fear of disturbing the high 
ideals of acceptance, tolerance and humility. 
However, these high ideals of Unity can so indoctrinate us that, 
whilst their reflections function within kama/manas, we fail to see 
or realise outrageous injustices perpetrated under the incorrectly 
perceived cloak of "their" protection. 
I experienced this a number of times in the Adyar Society where truth 
was surrendered to "tolerance" and appropriate challenge surrendered 
to "humility". 
Where these albeit well-intentioned, pseudo-states are prevalent, 
unfortunately the clarity of perception you mention, is sacrificed.

Many of the troubles throughout the history of the Adyar Society have 
their origin in this struggle between "tolerance" and truth.
Much of Bishop Leadbeater's outrageous actions and some of his more 
dubious writings were and are accepted by some in positions of 
responsibility to the exclusion of truth, justice and fair play. 
Those who finally realise this as a reality can often embark upon 
a "struggle" of conscience. 
To "tolerate" or not to tolerate, that is the question. 

Perry, your concluding statement highlights something of such 
significance, but which doesn't appear to be so, for so many.

Kind regards
Nigel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Nigel,
> I was reading through the introduction to Sri Madhava Ashish's "Man 
> Son of Man" and came across this quote which I thought had a 
relation 
> to your comments .
> 
> It says:
> 
> "This is the purpose of such an enquiry as this into the genesis of 
> the universe and the genesis of man. It is one of the ways in which 
> we may hope to rediscover that basic unity of conscious purpose 
which 
> underlies the surface chaos of our world.
> 
> Certain half-baked Vedantists abuse true teaching that good and 
evil 
> are transcended in states of being beyond space and time by 
applying 
> it to their daily lives in justification of amoral behavior.
> 
> This is to confuse eternity with time. In eternity, where all is 
one, 
> there is neither right nor wrong neither order nor chaos. In time, 
> where all is multiple, there are both order and the chaos into 
which 
> order falls.
> 
> Yet out of chaos we reach up first to re-establish order in 
> multiplicity and then to partake in the unity which supports the 
> whole.
> 
> But before we can attain to direct perception of the timeless truth 
> we who live in time need a rationally acceptable guide to behavior 
> which is based on our perception of the truth and its immutable 
> values.
> 
> Because our understanding is limited, such a code of behavior will 
be 
> but an interpretation of the truth. Nevertheless it must be a 
genuine 
> interpretation and not a travesty."  
> 
> 
> The way I relate to this is by remembering the law of 
correspondences 
> and the principle of "as above, so below", every effort we make to 
> try and discern the truth, no matter how trivial the matter may 
seem 
> to be, is contributing to the energy of truthfulness in the world. 
It 
> seems to me that this is spiritual path working if our motive is 
> genuinely there to see things with clear vision or at least a 
clearer 
> vision.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Perry
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
>