Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00067)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@...> wrote:
Dear Adelasie and all who might wish to participate in this discussion

Adelasie, thank you for this ongoing, interesting dialogue, thereby 
providing an opportunity for these issues to be further aired. I have 
had conversations on these matters with many people over a number of 
years and it's always refreshing when participants are willing to 
thoroughly investigate them instead of taking a defensive or 
protectionist position. In this manner each can learn from the other 
in an atmosphere of mutual respect. So, thank you again.

I think I have an idea of your current position from your statements 
and will work on this assumption, directly answering the points you 
make. If you believe my assumption of your position to be inaccurate 
please let me know.

Moreover, just as you "don't get it", I find it incredulous that you 
don't :) So perhaps we can dialogue from here to really understand 
each other's current position.

My position concerning Bishop Leadbeater and his clones has changed a 
little over the years although there are some significant core issues 
which remain for me.

It's perhaps important to know here that my current position emanates 
from my role as an ongoing facilitator of Theosophical study and 
discussion groups where I feel a deep sense of responsibility towards 
fellow students. This responsibility includes ensuring open, frank 
and honest discussion on any matters, by any participant, whenever 
and however they choose, thereby ensuring freedom and empowerment for 
all. 
I say this because, in my experience, this facility has often not 
been available in the Adyar Theosophical Society and a large part of 
the reason for this is the defensive and protectionist attitudes held 
by many in defence of Bishop Leadbeater and his cohorts' writings and 
actions.
These dogmatic and defensive attitudes, directly attributable to the 
Bishop and others' projected mindset, attempt to disallow freedom of 
thought, which from my perspective is a most vital ingredient if we 
are ever to approach and comprehend Truth in its manifold 
expressions. 

You write:

> It's the "deserve admonishment" part I trip up on.

Admonishment to me means to reprove, i.e. to express condemnation for 
a person's words, behaviour or actions. As has been thoroughly 
covered in this forum, some of Bishop Leadbeater and others' words 
and actions have been reprehensible, amounting to a massive betrayal 
of trust, both in terms of misrepresentations of their 
putative "Master" and Madame Blavatsky's teachings and his actions 
towards the children in his charge. 
Moreover, the blindly, obedient mindset he and they required was a 
further betrayal, of past and future students, of that previously 
mentioned and essential freedom which Madame Blavatsky earnestly 
entreated us to adopt.

Which leads to your next point:

You write:

>Why on earth? He's been dead and gone a long time? 

Yes he has, but in my experience his and his clones' influence on 
students is still very powerful at all levels in the Adyar Society to 
which Perry has alluded in his most recent posting. 
He writes, "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."

Moreover, many of his works are on some recommended reading lists, so 
he and his mindset is certainly "alive and well" and extremely 
influential.  

You write:
>and some people find value in what he wrote.

Yes indeed, I was one of those. It was only when I began to realise 
the extraordinary web of mind entrapment he and they weaved in their 
writings, on so many different levels, in so many subtle and not so 
subtle ways, that I began to really appreciate the almost 
unbelievable, powerfully disempowering effect their works can have on 
the unsuspecting psyche.
It was then that I determined that much of their work and 
pronouncements were of some danger to unsuspecting, trusting, truth-
seeking minds and began to recommend caution towards, but not 
avoidance of, their writings. 
This to me, is the responsible course of action toward any fellow 
student in any field of study. 

You write:

>Nobody is all bad. Who among us has never made a mistake.

Wise words to me. 
At the risk of sounding defensive, but in an attempt to further 
explain my position, never have I suggested the Bishop was "all bad". 
In fact, quite the contrary. In a recent posting I 
wrote, "Furthermore and once again, it is not suggesting that Bishop 
Leadbeater was all bad and contributed nothing of any value. He was a 
dedicated and hard worker for his version of theosophy, his Society 
and his church.

I further wrote in another posting, "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."

> Should we then be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail
> over and over for eternity?

No we shouldn't. But to my mind our writings, and especially the 
trustworthiness of them and ourselves, should be subject to ongoing, 
critical evaluation for so long as these writings are extant and 
certainly for so long as they are recommended by a powerful 
Theosophical Society which has significant influence on the minds of 
so many.

You write:
>What evil do we hope to avert by beating the same old dead horse over
>and over again? 
The "evil" or error I wish to avert wherever possible is contributing 
to current and future students' blindly and uncritically accepting 
and following certain teachings, through my doing nothing.
This is what I meant when referring to "evil happens when good men do 
nothing". 
Far from being a good man, I had to repeatedly hear about these 
issues until finally I read a book which began the process of opening 
my mind to the insidious nature of the issues being discussed. 

You wrote:
> Is it not possible, indeed, certain, that by
> continuing to revive old issues of wrong doing we keep the act we
> abhor itself alive, giving it life by our unwillingness to let it 
die
> its natural death, and that when we do that we actually perpetuate
> its repetition by others who are suggestible and sensitive to the
> lower astral elementaries which promote such acts? 
> Do we not have the
> responsibility, since we know how this works, to allow these
> inhumanities to die, to slip into the abyss where they belong, and 
to
> consciously replace them in the human mental/psychic stream with
> something better? Is this not part of the Work of thesophists, for
> which so many suffered and sacrificed personal well being so that we
> may learn of it and devote ourselves to it?

Oh yes, so, so true for me too. This has been one of the most 
significant considerations over which I have agonised.
There is without doubt to me great danger in perpetuating these 
energies and their elementaries in whichever way. And yes too, 
we "have the 
responsibility, since we know how this works, to allow these
 inhumanities to die, to slip into the abyss where they belong, and to
consciously replace them in the human mental/psychic stream with
something better?"
This I would certainly do were these teachings and mindset part of 
past history. However, as stated, they are all too current, heavily 
promoted and supported by powerful centres. 
I have experienced all too often, what the Mahatma described 
as "pride and stubborn resistance to truth" both within myself and in 
others. It is my understanding that challenging words and actions can 
not only be a positive counter-balance to the negative, but that it 
is our role and responsibility as Theosophists to act in this manner 
with pure motive.
How else are we to contribute to an environment where people have the 
opportunity to consider other options? 

You wrote:

> We all need to learn discernment in our studies. But we do not
> have the right to try to persuade others not to study someone they
> find value in because of some reason we have discovered. 

Agreed. As previously alluded, trying to "persuade others not to 
study someone they
find value in because of some reason we have discovered" would be an 
infringement of their freedom. Warning them of certain matters from 
our own experience when asked however, is not. My general rule is 
that where I am asked, I will answer.
In this forum as in study groups, members are involved expecting, 
thereby tacitly asking, to hear other peoples' perspectives.  

You wrote:

How would you feel if someone found (or pretended to find, since once 
the
> accusation is made it makes no difference wheter it's true or not)
> some stain in your past, and trotted it out to prove that everything
> you say is bunk and worse? Why is it a good idea to do that? I still
> don't get it.

If it were merely character assassination for no other purpose, it 
would be reprehensible.
If however it actually helped prove that my writings/teachings 
were "bunk", or at least highly dubious, I would welcome it as an 
advance in our mutual search for elusive Truth. 

Thanks again Adelasie, I hope this furthers the discussion somewhat 
and look forward to your perspective again.

Kind regards
Nigel






>
> Hi Nigel,
> 
> You're right, I didn't see the post you mention here:
> 
> > In a recent posting, perhaps you missed it or chose not to 
respond, I 
> > wrote in response to the above:
> > "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 people. 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 (and teachings) however deserve admonishment 
and 
> > even condemnation at the highest level." (Brackets added)
> 
> It's the "deserve admonishment" part I trip up on. Why on earth? 
He's 
> been dead and gone a long time, and some people find value in what 
he 
> wrote. Nobody is all bad. Who among us has never made a mistake. 
> Should we then be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a 
rail 
> over and over for eternity?
> 
> > Were this to be a simple matter of human weakness your plea would 
be 
> > valid. Bishop Leadbeater presumed himself to be an authority in 
> > spiritual matters and shared with us his pronouncements.
> > Does this then preclude us from sharing with others our own 
> > experience or are we to obediently abide by his utterances? 
> > Does this then obviate us from any responsibility to warn others 
of 
> > lies, deception and outrageous behaviour we may have uncovered? 
> > Doesn't evil happen when good men do nothing?
> 
> What evil do we hope to avert by beating the same old dead horse 
over 
> and over again? Is it not possible, indeed, certain, that by 
> continuing to revive old issues of wrong doing we keep the act we 
> abhor itself alive, giving it life by our unwillingness to let it 
die 
> its natural death, and that when we do that we actually perpetuate 
> its repetition by others who are suggestible and sensitive to the 
> lower astral elementaries which promote such acts? Do we not have 
the 
> responsibility, since we know how this works, to allow these 
> inhumanities to die, to slip into the abyss where they belong, and 
to 
> consciously replace them in the human mental/psychic stream with 
> something better? Is this not part of the Work of thesophists, for 
> which so many suffered and sacrificed personal well being so that 
we 
> may learn of it and devote ourselves to it? 
> 
> > Are you suggesting Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Besant were not 
trying to 
> > impose their own "inherently limited personal view on the minds 
and 
> > hearts of others"?
> 
> Who cares what they were trying to do? Is it not their problem? Why 
> try to  make it ours?
> > 
> > It is through objectively assessing these matters, impersonally 
and 
> > without fear or favour, that enables us to see more clearly and 
not 
> > be deluded by some form of imposed compliance, glamour or 
misplaced 
> > loyalty.
> 
> This may by a useful process for the individual student, necessary 
> even. We all need to learn discernment in our studies. But we do 
not 
> have the right to try to persuade others not to study someone they 
> find value in because of some reason we have discovered. How would 
> you feel if someone found (or pretended to find, since once the 
> accusation is made it makes no difference wheter it's true or not) 
> some stain in your past, and trotted it out to prove that 
everything 
> you say is bunk and worse? Why is it a good idea to do that? I 
still 
> don't get it.
> 
> Adelasie
> >
>