Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00175)

Dear Adelasie
Thank you again for your contribution.


You write, "One of the most attractive aspects of theosophy is the 
fact that the
> student is continually urged to study and learn to think for 
himself,
> not to take anyone else's word for anything, to allow experience to
> illuminate the consciousness according to the basic principles, the
> laws of nature, which prevail always and eveywhere."

Our perspectives appear to be in complete agreement.


You write, "Personally, when I encounter someone who demands 
obedience to their
> authority in matters spiritual, I stop listening to them. Theosophy
> supports this act. Organized religion, famous for inserting
> priestcraft between the student and his own inner Knower, does not
> allow for self-responsibility, one of the most important ideas
> offered for consideration by theosophy."

Our perspectives also appear to be in close agreement 
although "personally" I will listen to all, preferring to be in each 
moment non-judgementally and discerning whatever truth may arise that 
I may discern.


I wrote, "Your above statement addresses one of my stated concerns 
with Bishop
> Leadbeater and Dr Besant's teachings. The mindset they brought to
> Theosophy was one of authority, required compliance and obedience to
> their teachings, precisely what you argue against.
> Doesn't your defence against judgement of any kind recognise a
> difficulty here?
> How do we approach with a non-judgemental mind a body of teachings
> which requires obedience?
> In the name of freedom, do we permit a body of teachings, claiming
> the theosophical title, which limit and sometimes deny us that
> freedom?


to which you replied, "Does who "permit?" I am not in a position to 
permit or deny anyone
reading or studying anything."

Actually, this was not my question and it would be unconscionable to 
support the denial of anyone to read almost anything. 
I will re-word the question for the sake of clarity and to stay more 
closely to the direct subject under discussion, "In the name of 
freedom, do we permit them to go unchallenged, those teachings which 
untruthfully claim to represent the Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and 
her teachers, teachings which in their essence are liberating, whilst 
the others attempt the opposite?



I wrote, "It is an age old dilemma; Do we support freedom by 
supporting that
> which denies us that quality?
> Do you have any suggestions?

To which you replied, "Have some faith in our students, in each 
other. Realize that we are
> all students, that what one finds value in may seem valueless to
> another, but we don't know each other's hearts. 

This to me is true prima facie, however where liberty appears to be 
threatened would it not be inappropriate not to act in an external, 
practical manner simply for fear of not knowing another's heart or 
karma? There will not be many who find true value in loss of freedom 
of thought and expression. Bishop Leadbeater and Dr Besant 
effectively stifled any discussion and dissent by their authoritarian 
pronouncements and requirements.
Once we realise this, as Theosophical students, do we not have a 
responsibility to broadcast this fact to our fellow seekers? 



You wrote, "Realize that everything exists for a purpose, that 
theosophy cannot be damaged by anyone."

Yes, theosophy cannot be damaged in essence, but its reputation and 
effectiveness certainly can be through distortion and 
misrepresentation. 



You wrote, "Forgive others for their mistakes. Remember that there is 
good and bad in everyone?"

This discussion is not about someone being "good" or "bad", a mistake 
or diversionary tactic people often make when considering these 
matters. That is argumentum ad hominem and not the issue. The issue 
is whether certain teachings and teachers' mindsets are accurately 
representing the Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and her teachers. 
Moreover, and once again, whether anyone is ultimately right or wrong 
with their teachings is also not the issue.


You wrote, "?that we owe it to each other and ourselves
> to be determined in our efforts to attend to the positive and let 
the
> negative go?"

This appears to be the action of one who does not wish to be involved 
at the external, practical level in confronting and challenging 
the "negative"? People are fully entitled to choose this course of 
action. Likewise people are fully entitled to choose greater 
involvement and intercession.



You wrote, "?remembering that what we amplify by our attention, by
> our fear, by our hate, by our censure, only becomes stronger and 
more
> able to prevail in the minds of those less strong and able to 
choose."

Once again, prima facie, this is accurate and sounds entirely 
reasonable. However you are presuming any confrontation or challenge 
will have the motivation of fear or hate. 
It is more than possible to confront and challenge without either of 
these qualities. All that is required is a detached mind concerned 
with truth and if need be, with setting the record straight and 
righting wrongs.
Tibetan Buddhist novices are trained to debate loudly and vigorously 
and each takes great delight in pointing out the flaws in some 
philosophical position. The motive for this delight comes not from a 
desire to hurt or upset, rather from a mutual desire to apprehend 
philosophical truths.



You wrote, "Be an example of what we believe. Make our highest ideals 
live in our
own daily lives?"

For me, this is beautifully expressed and Theosophical to the core.



You wrote, "?trust to the Masters of the Lodge to handle the
> rest. We are Their hands and feet. Our obedience rightly belongs to
> Them, Who are our own Higher Selves, guiding us all the time, if we
> will only listen to the still small voice in our own hearts."

Once again to me, prima facie, this is true and romantically 
professed, however it also runs dangerously close to suggesting a 
possible obviation of individual responsibility leading to external 
inaction, although you may not mean it in this manner.

Thank you again

Kind regards
Nigel