Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00185)

Yes indeed!

Very best wishes
Nigel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@...> wrote:
>
> It all comes out alright in the end. It makes me sad sometimes to 
> realize how we have to keep going over the same ground over and 
over 
> again when it seems there is so much else we could be learning and 
> doing, but perhaps it is best after all. Each time these basic 
> subjects come up, others are exposed to them, and perhaps have a 
> chance to form their own point of view. We all have to do it all 
> eventually.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adelasie
> 
> On 9 Mar 2007 at 0:57, nhcareyta wrote:
> 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> >
>