Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00063)

Hello Nigel,
Thanks for your very insightful comments.
My point of view is that theosophical history and teachings should be 
treated no differently than any other subject.

As students of any subject we need to try and take as an objective, 
rational and honest examination as possible, otherwise how can we 
make a truly clear assessment?

Deliberately sweeping certain information under the carpet or 
paternalistically trying to shelter people from certain truths is 
unethical and ultimately hampers the path of human evolution.

People's individual impetus to study these subjects is of course 
their own prerogative, however in my opinion it is the responsibility 
of those who share theosophical information with others to point out 
that these clear differences exist within theosophical writings (as 
HPB & KH clearly show the importance of doing).

After making an objective examination of the issues then people can 
at least make an informed choice as to what information may have more 
veracity and what represents theosophical teachings more accurately.

As far as I know Bishop Leadbeater's & Annie Besant's books are still 
being put forward as suggested readings to new comers at the Adyar 
theosophical lodges and are presented as being accurate 
representations of the theosophical teachings.


I think that one of the political motivations for keeping this 
information under wraps, may be in order to protect the credibility 
of Annie Besant, especially in India where the international 
headquarters are located and the where the large majority of the 
membership are.

The leadership at Adyar society it seems have chosen a methodology of 
ignoring the past history of the society and then admonishing and 
ostracizing anybody who raises the difficult issues.

The clarion call seems to be `don't raise these issues they are in 
the past'?.what sort of serious student could possibly take this kind 
of rationale seriously.

Bishop Leadbeater's portrait has a prominent place in many branches 
his books are prominent in most Adyar bookshops and libraries?.as far 
as the TS is concerned his influence is alive and well.

Cheers

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@...> wrote:
>
> 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
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>