Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00088)

Dear Adelasie, Bruce and all

Adelasie, thank you for your well-intended advice and for your 
positive evaluation of my sincerity of search. The personality always 
enjoys support and reinforcement from one presumably superior in 
knowledge and wisdom, particularly where spiritual path matters are 
concerned.

Once again for me, and I trust not only for me, you have so 
eloquently described one aspect of our Theosophical teachings. 
Whenever I hear words such as "impersonal", "stepping aside" 
and "moving away" I am filled with a sense of expansion and almost 
freedom. They coincide beautifully with Theosophy's spiritual path 
principles of desirelessness, non-attachment, non-identification and 
non-expectation so profoundly elaborated in the three fragments of 
The Voice of the Silence, Madame Blavatsky's last book, and one which 
for me, deserves lifetimes of study, reflection and especially 
practice.

Moreover, the impersonal approach you suggest reminds me of the 
dilemma Arjuna faced at Kurukshetra when confronting his enemies on 
the battlefield. Not only did they include his kinfolk but his first 
guru Dronacharya, who taught him archery during childhood. Krishna 
helps Arjuna to see clearly his impersonal, moral duty or dharma and 
to proceed without attachments or expectations of any kind.

Therefore, where struggling mortals such as myself are concerned and 
when considering the impersonal approach, I wonder whether it is 
possible for us to be entirely impersonal and moreover whether what 
we assume to be "impersonal" can become such a dogma as to preclude 
us from right action? Could there ever be a danger that our worthy 
desire for the high moral ground, where we presume ourselves to 
be "impersonal", might actually be blinding us from our otherwise, 
obvious and appropriate duty?

Perhaps Taoist philosophy holds some clues. In that tradition, 
sometimes we need leave well alone, other times we need bend like a 
sapling whilst on other occasions we need stand forth and deliver.
The encouraging component of this theosophical tradition for me is 
that we are assured that each of these modalities can be practiced 
with detachment from desire, identification and expectation.

This reminds me of the story from another tradition, where a Samurai 
was employed to seek out and execute a criminal. Just as he was about 
to dispense justice the criminal spat in his face. The Samurai 
immediately sheathed his sword and withdrew. One of the morals of the 
story, for those who may not be familiar, is that right action can 
only be where personal ego is not. When the Samurai was spat upon, he 
recognised his personality experiencing anger which would have turned 
his action into a personal and separative act. He therefore refused 
to act from these motivations and withdrew.  

With reference to the subject at hand, the question arises then, can 
we approach the issues surrounding Bishop Leadbeater with these 
impersonal qualities? Or must we avoid them at all costs for fear of 
acting in a personal, separative manner? 

Bruce, you write, "?Leadbeater has provided sufficient cause through 
this statement
alone to be officially removed from the Movement and ignored 
hereafter.
Besant too, on this statement alone, shows a gross ignorance of the
Theosophical Cause and must therefore be treated to a similar fate."

Unfortunately, as is apparent throughout the theosophical world, for 
many students Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Besant's writings and actions 
have not provided sufficient cause for the abovementioned fate to 
occur.
If these and innumerable other examples have not borne fruit, how are 
we then to proceed? 

If we discover our child's teacher to be lying to them or seriously 
misrepresenting information, should we not act, or should we refrain 
through fear of not acting impersonally?
Moreover, where this teacher, even if dead, continues to have great 
influence on students via his teachings, do we not have a moral 
obligation to warn present and future students of this fact?

Bruce, you further write, "Adelaise is correct. We do not have to
agitate elementals by going into stories, supported or not, of a 
sordid
past?"

Firstly, where this teacher has demonstrated sexual deviance, should 
this not be considered as at least part of the totality of assessment 
concerning the validity and integrity of his teachings?
For me, the only reason to mention Bishop Leadbeater's sexual 
proclivities would be for students to more accurately assess the 
character of one claiming to be in direct contact with none other 
than the "Supreme Director of the World" along with stated personal 
relationships with Mahatmas. This of course would hopefully cause 
students and ourselves to initially beg the question as to whether 
these August figures might indeed choose to be in contact with such a 
character or whether they and their teachings are largely unconnected 
with him.

Secondly Bruce, regarding your concern about the agitation of 
elementals. Elementals can be constructive as well as destructive. 
>From the Mahatmas we hear "Because every thought of man upon being 
evolved passes into the inner world and becomes an active entity by 
associating itself ? coalescing, we might term it ? with an 
elemental; that is to say with one of the semi-intelligent forces of 
the kingdoms. It survives as an active intelligence, a creature of 
the mind's begetting, for a longer or shorter period proportionate 
with the original intensity of the cerebral action which generated 
it. Thus, a good thought is perpetuated as an active beneficent 
power; an evil one as a maleficent demon." Mahatma Letters to A.P. 
Sinnett

>From this we can deduce perhaps that by encouraging and promoting a 
full assessment of Bishop Leadbeater, and anyone else's teachings and 
character, for the impersonal, detached motivation and purpose of 
eliciting Truth, or at the very least, eliminating falsehood, we will 
generate an active, beneficent force. 
Not to so do, would seem to effectively maintain and promote 
the "maleficent demon(s)".
As Madame Blavatsky writes in the Voice of the Silence, "If thou art 
taught that sin is born of action and bliss of absolute inaction, 
then tell them that they err".  

Moreover, to do otherwise for fear of acting personally not only 
supports the energies and elementals of fear but would perhaps be an 
obviation of our responsibility towards fellow seekers after Truth.

Adelasie, from the above rationale, might your statement "When we
resist evil, we give it strength" perhaps only apply where we are 
attached to our personality desires, emotions and expectations of 
outcome? Might not a detached, selfless concern for fellow seekers 
disempower this "strength" and in fact, empower the beneficent 
forces? 

For me, a fluid, non-dogmatic, conscious state of awareness and 
awakeness in each moment within our heart and mind might be the place 
from where to choose to act, or "not to act" for the good of all. 
After all, whichever we decide, action or "inaction" it is always an 
action. 
It seems left only for us to choose which.

Kind regards
Nigel
 




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel, 
> 
> I apologize for not reading all your postings on this matter. I 
> picked the thread up in mid stream as it were. You are obviously 
very 
> sincere in your quest for truth, and your past experience seems to 
> have given you motive for trying to protect others from mistakes 
you 
> may have made or might have made. It might be a good idea to 
consider 
> the impersonal view in this matter. Stepping aside from the 
question 
> of what is good for this or that individual student (which we may 
or 
> may not know anything about at all), we can sometimes gain 
> perspective by moving away from a position of personal involvement 
> and viewing the situation from the position of impersonal forces. 
> Ultimately this is the only way to understand anything. When we 
> resist evil, we give it strength. The Disintegrator, the force of 
> separation, is the enemy, the source of evil for the human race. 
This 
> disentegrating force dwells in all levels of manifestation. We deal 
> wilth it all the time. All that tends toward separation and 
disunity 
> is contrary to the successful trend of human evolution. When we, as 
> students and/or teachers, are faced with a dilemma, we can gain 
> perspective by asking ourselves, "Am I working for unity, or for 
> separation? Will what I say and do tend to unite, or to separate?" 
> Honest self-evaluation will give us the answer, and, according to 
> what we aspire to, we may proceed, or we may adjust our course. If 
we 
> discover that we are generating resistance to some negative aspect 
of 
> human experience, vibrating one pole of nature, so to speak, and 
> thereby energizing its opposite pole, which is often the very thing 
> we thing we are fighting against, we may see that we are actually 
> working at cross purposes and may even be "working for the enemy," 
> without even knowing it. 
> 
> These thoughts are offered in a general sense. There is no desire 
to 
> accuse or blame. Only you have the right to decide the right course 
> for yourself. Ultimately all we can do for each other is encourage 
> and support. A lot depends upon our daily thoughts, words, and 
deeds, 
> and the best teaching we can do for each other and for the world is 
> by example, every day in every way.
> 
> Adelasie
> On 4 Mar 2007 at 5:47, nhcareyta wrote:
> 
> > --- 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.
> >
>