Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00106)

Hi All, Very Good discussion! 
Back in the JW's (Jehovah's Witnesses) they always used to brag about 
how `united' and "in agreement" they were as a group, however what 
this really translated into was mere conformity of opinion and action.

So a question I would ask is, is conflict always necessarily 
destructive, given that sometimes what is called `peace' and 'unity' 
is really only a manifestation of conformity and stagnation?

My opinions on Bishop Leadbeater are not those of others, however I 
don't expect or insist on others sharing my opinion, what I do insist 
on in a free society is the right to hold, voice, challenge and share 
an opinion.

That opinion can likewise also be challenged pulled apart, dissected 
or explored more deeply.

My original issue with the TS was why is this right and freedom 
apparently not allowed in official  Adyar Society publications when 
it comes to valid criticism of  Bishop Leadbeater?

Why was I disallowed membership from the society for my comments here 
on theos-talk, if it is a society that fearlessly holds to freedom of 
thought and opinion?  

If rigorous debates are so destructive to humanity perhaps 
universities should be closed down for the betterment of humanity and 
instead allow all concepts and ideas to remain unchallenged in order 
not to upset people who hold to those ideas?

Cheers

Perry


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