Theos-Talk Archives (April 2007 Message tt00114)

Hello Perry
Thanks for your reply and I appreciate the openness and generosity of 
spirit with which you have approached Pedro's article in spite of 
your experience with him and his Theosophical Society. My 
perspective, limited such as it is, is not quite so accommodating.

Compassion, respect and tolerance it would seem are fine ideals to be 
practised wherever and however possible, given the constraints of 
human nature. So too are truth, honour and integrity.

That said, when a genuine attempt to advance the cause of Truth in 
all its forms through the release of Theosophy has in so many ways 
been perverted, how far do we reasonably extend our respect to these 
perversions?

Where a theosophical teacher/leader, such as but not exclusive to 
Bishop Leadbeater, has demonstrably lied repeatedly leading to 
insidious and prevailing dominance over others, how far do we 
reasonably extend tolerance to his pronouncements? 

Bishop Leadbeater's untruthful words, his gross contradictions 
of "original" Theosophy despite claiming to be in direct contact with 
its original teachers and his large amount of romanticised, 
authoritarian, disempowering pronouncements, have been absorbed by 
many leading to the very mindset Madame Blavatsky and the Mahatmas 
attempted to expose as counter-productive to a free understanding and 
practice of some of the real truths of Theosophy.  

My apparent dharma, rightly or wrongly, arrogantly presumptious or 
not, causes me feel a sense of responsibility towards those 
interested in Theosophy. 

For me, this raises the question as to how much responsibility we 
have as leaders/teachers/facilitators/members/associates in a 
Theosophical organisation to our fellow members and to the broader 
community to promote honesty and truth? How much responsibility 
indeed to the occult energies of honesty and truth which 
interpenetrate every dimension of space and which affects all 
humanity through our hearts and minds?

In part from my understanding of your experience with the Adyar 
Society, I find Pedro's words to be disingenuous in the extreme 
despite the undoubted worthiness of the stated principles and ideals. 
As a Bishop in Bishop Leadbeater's church it would perhaps be fair to 
assume that Pedro would have more than a little vested interest in 
diverting attention away from the real and demonstrable truth of 
matters through the otherwise entirely reasonable and appropriate 
appeals for tolerance and respect. Whether this is consciously or 
unconsciously motivated we may never know, such I believe is the 
insidious nature of Bishop Leadbeater's influence.

For me, tolerance and respect are ideals to be earned, not to be 
blindly and unquestioningly granted. They should certainly not be ab-
used for the sake of political or any other expediency.

For those educated in Theosophical history and its teachings and who 
hold positions of responsibility in its organisations, it is 
incumbent upon them to distance themselves from their vested 
interests and to expose falsehood and fraud in the name of simple 
truth, rather than covering them up with fine sounding words which 
might cause some to feel guilty that they are being intolerant and 
disrespectful by questioning and challenging obvious lies and 
contradictions. This subtle, disempowering technique I have witnessed 
too many times.

As genuine seekers after truth, Bishop Leadbeater's more educated 
supporters should truthfully and accurately represent his life and 
works, warts and all, as many of them are only too willing to do in 
the case of Madame Blavatsky and her teachers. 
This most basic form of honesty and truth would perhaps encourage 
others to take a more conciliatory view towards his contribution 
which was after all, not all bad and was committed and far reaching. 
It might also cause others to be more respectful and conciliatory 
towards his followers instead of presently being pre-emptively wary 
of the potential for utter hypocrisy between words and actions.

In saying all of the above, it would appear that in any event Bishop 
Leadbeater's teachings and especially his insidiously influential 
mindset are considered essential by karma. Determining the true 
karmic reasons for anything is perhaps impossible due to the extreme 
limitations of human insight and the arrogant presumptions of our 
self-centred and self-deceiving minds. Given this, a limited mind 
could perhaps be forgiven for considering the possibility that, if 
for no other reason, Bishop Leadbeater and his followers' teachings 
and mindset might be necessary, more for the purposes of comparison 
than wholesale adoption.

Kind regards
Nigel





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Nigel,
> 
> My reason for posting Pedro's article originally was because I 
think 
> he makes some very good points and that whether we personally 
> appreciate CWL's writings or not we need to realise that others do 
> and so we need to take a compassionate and considerate approach.
> 
> I think this is why constitutionally the society has no books that 
> are considered infallible holy writ.
> 
> The spirit of Pedro's article to me seems to express a tolerant and 
> respectful approach as you know I have been a strong critic of CWL 
> however this does not mean that I don't try and keep an open mind 
> towards his writings.
> 
> As long as people want to study and explore his writings in the TS 
> they are constitutionally free to do so without any interference.
> (I am not here suggesting that you said that they shouldn't or 
arn't)
> The object sounds the keynote of the society.
> Of course I would love to see HPB's writings more appreciated and 
> used in the TS and also have more awareness of the history and 
> differences, however it is peoples free choice to study what they 
> find helps them realise Brotherhood.
> 
> This is my main point.
> 
> Perry
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Perry
> > Thank you for both of your postings in reply.
> > 
> > You wrote:
> >  
> > The objects do indeed have a history and have changed over the 
> years, 
> > > however I would argue that the society as it stands today has 
to 
> > > uphold the objects as they are today and that is what they are 
> > > constituently there to do.
> > 
> > As indeed legally it must.
> > 
> > You wrote:
> >  
> > > I have never heard HPB state anywhere that the Society was 
there 
> to 
> > > only study her writings, if this was the case it should be 
> clearly 
> > > pointed out to people when they join the society.
> > 
> > and:
> > 
> > > If the society is constitutionally only there to study HPB 
> writings 
> > > where is this stated?
> > 
> > 
> > In these passages it appears you are challenging something which 
> > wasn't said? If you are referring to what I wrote, nowhere did I 
> > state that the Society was established only for her writings.
> > 
> > From my perspective, Theosophy contains at least three 
components; 
> a 
> > system of cosmogony and cosmology, a system of ethics and a 
system 
> of 
> > thought. 
> > With regards to the system of thought it demonstrates two 
extremes; 
> > one which entraps and enslaves and one which frees and liberates 
> the 
> > mind. That which enslaves the mind can rightly be termed non-
> > Theosophical. Dogma, i.e. that which must be believed and 
> > authoritarianism in all its forms, also constitutes to me that 
> which 
> > is not Theosophy. 
> > 
> > Moreover, in terms of mindset, perhaps we must ourselves be 
careful 
> > that our demand for freedom doesn't become a dogma. Dogma stems 
> from 
> > fear and perhaps we need to discern within ourselves our motive 
for 
> > demanding freedom.
> > 
> > Furthermore with regard to mindset, in Theosophical history we 
have 
> > prime examples of the aforementioned two extremes, and all stages 
> in 
> > between, with the contrast between the liberating mindset of 
Madame 
> > Blavatsky and the authoritarian mindsets of Dr Besant, Bishop 
> > Leadbeater et al.
> > With this in mind I repeat that "Whilst?freedom is to be strongly 
> > encouraged it is to be hoped that the essence of  "original" 
> > Theosophy is not lost."
> > Sadly, in my experience in the Adyar Society, only a small number 
> of 
> > members show interest in Madame Blavatsky's writings and mindset 
> > preferring instead the "simpler", "easier" and authoritarian 
> versions 
> > of theosophy, much of which to me is not Theosophy. This form of 
> > authority continues to this day where true freedom of thought and 
> > expression are sometimes disallowed, as you are only too aware.
> > The irony of your above challenge is that Madame Blavatsky would 
> have 
> > encouraged you to speak up as you do whilst those currently in 
> > positions of authority disallow this.
> > 
> > In addition to the liberating mindset and with respect to the 
> > cosmogonical and cosmological information, the fact that the 
adepts 
> > waited for almost a hundred years to find the most suitable 
vehicle 
> > with the most suitable mindset available to share what they 
> obviously 
> > thought was important information and ways of thinking for 
> humanity, 
> > surely counts for something in terms of determining what might be 
> > their version of Theosophy and whether or not this should 
be "preach
> > (ed) and popularise(d)" in the Society they helped establish. 
> > (Mahachohan's "letter", my brackets)
> > 
> > Whilst neither of the above two considerations should ever be 
> > dogmatised or become the sole purpose of the International 
> > Theosophical Societies, nonetheless the history and motivation 
> behind 
> > founding the original Society should perhaps not be so readily 
> > dismissed simply because it might not have been the way we might 
> have 
> > wished it to be or because it had to modify its operation later 
due 
> > to prejudice, politics and power.
> > 
> > Kind regards
> > Nigel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi mkr & Nigel,
> > > I found this quote here which I think sums it up :
> > > C.W. IV, p. 470
> > > "Now our society, as was explained even to the outside public 
> > > repeatedly, has one general, and several - if not minor, at 
least 
> > > less prominent aims. The earnest pursuit of one of the latter - 
> > > occult science in this case - far from being regarded as the 
> common 
> > > duty and the work of all, is limited for the reasons given 
above 
> to 
> > a 
> > > very small faction of the Society, its pursuit resting with the 
> > > personal tastes and aspirations of the members.
> > > 
> > >  As to the former - the chief aims of the Theosophical 
> Fraternity - 
> > > it is hardly necessary to remind any Fellow of what it is. Our 
> > > fundamental object is Universal Brotherhood, kind feelings and 
> > moral 
> > > help proffered to all and every Brother, whatever his creed and 
> > > views. 
> > > 
> > > Based upon the conviction that a Brotherhood of all faiths and 
> > > denominations, composed of Theists and Atheists, Christians and 
> > > Gentiles throughout the world, might without anyone 
surrendering 
> > his 
> > > particular opinion be united into one strong Society or 
> Fraternity 
> > > for mutual help, and having one and the same purpose in view, 
> i.e., 
> > > the relentless, though at the same time calm and judicious 
> pursuit 
> > of 
> > > Truth wherever found, especially in Religion and Science - it 
is 
> > the 
> > > first duty of our Society as a united body to extirpate every 
> weed 
> > > that overgrows and stifles that truth which only can be one and 
> > > entire. 
> > > 
> > > The best recognized way to make both the psychological and 
> physical 
> > > sciences, as all sectarian and dogmatic religions, yield their 
> > > respective verities, is, in construing them, to take the middle 
> > path 
> > > between the extremes of opinion."
> > > 
> > > I found this quote here along with some other good ones.
> > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/theosoph.htm
> > > 
> > > Perry
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M K Ramadoss" <mkr777@> 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Let me interject. In ML, APS was repeatedly told that the 
first 
> > and 
> > > foremost
> > > > is the Brotherhood of Humanity; not any of the ancient 
wisdom, 
> or 
> > > any of the
> > > > secrets of nature etc. Once we keep an eye on the ball, then 
> > > everything else
> > > > should fall into their proper place.
> > > > 
> > > > One other thing that I noticed -- why was Pedro referred to 
as 
> > > Bishop
> > > > Oliviera by Nigel?  Has his title got something to do with 
> > > Theosophy?
> > > > Wondering?
> > > > 
> > > > mkr
> > > > 
> > > > On 4/27/07, plcoles1 <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >   Hello Nigel,
> > > > > Thanks for your comments. As I have found with most things 
> > there 
> > > are
> > > > > paradoxes and various shades of grey.
> > > > >
> > > > > The objects do indeed have a history and have changed over 
> the 
> > > years,
> > > > > however I would argue that the society as it stands today 
has 
> to
> > > > > uphold the objects as they are today and that is what they 
are
> > > > > constituently there to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have never heard HPB state anywhere that the Society was 
> > there 
> > > to
> > > > > only study her writings, if this was the case it should be 
> > clearly
> > > > > pointed out to people when they join the society.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I first joined the society I joined not because of a 
> > > particular
> > > > > doctrine but because of an institutional ethos that 
encouraged
> > > > > comparative study of philosophy, science and religion free 
of
> > > > > dogmatism and I think this is the case for most people.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the society is constitutionally only there to study HPB 
> > > writings
> > > > > where is this stated?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Perry and All
> > > > > > Thank you Perry for bringing this interesting article by 
> > Bishop
> > > > > > Oliviera to this forum and for your subsequent comments 
> > > pertaining
> > > > > to
> > > > > > it and to Daniel's pertinent quotes. These can perhaps 
give 
> > > rise to
> > > > > > much consideration on a number of matters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is to be hoped that most who have been contributing to 
> this
> > > > > forum
> > > > > > for the past few years would agree by now that free, 
honest 
> > and
> > > > > open
> > > > > > discussion on all matters, in particular those of a 
> > theosophical
> > > > > > nature, is paramount if we as individuals are to begin to 
> > > negotiate
> > > > > > and ultimately make sense of the labyrinth of 
> > spirito/religious
> > > > > ideas
> > > > > > extant in the world today.
> > > > > > As mentioned many times by numerous correspondents, the 
> > required
> > > > > open
> > > > > > mind is also vital if we are to become aware of, and 
> confront 
> > > and
> > > > > > control our biased perspectives, prejudices and 
> predilections 
> > > so as
> > > > > > to begin the process of understanding and knowing matters 
> as 
> > > they
> > > > > > really are, rather than simply how we might prefer them 
to 
> be.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A burning question which continually flares up in the 
Adyar 
> > > Society
> > > > > > to which Pedro belongs, and to which he has addressed his 
> > > article,
> > > > > > involves the definition of theosophy/Theosophy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What has been of great importance to me over many years 
> > concerns
> > > > > > whether there are differing versions of 
theosophy/Theosophy 
> > and
> > > > > > whether this really matters. From the perspective of what 
is
> > > > > > euphemistically called "original" Theosophy, it clearly 
> does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When we consider from indisputable history who it was who 
> > > created
> > > > > the
> > > > > > powerful impetus for this "original" Theosophy to re-
enter 
> the
> > > > > > western mindset in the 19th century, it begs the question 
> as 
> > to
> > > > > > whether their version might be what they wished to be 
> > > promulgated,
> > > > > as
> > > > > > alluded to in the Mahachohan's quote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It also begs the question as to whether they wished the 
> > Society,
> > > > > > which they asked Madame Blavatsky to establish via 
Colonel 
> > > Olcott
> > > > > and
> > > > > > others, be a place to study and make extant their version 
of
> > > > > > Theosophy. Clearly they did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From the original by-laws of 1875 clause 2 states; "The 
> > objects 
> > > of
> > > > > > the Society are, to collect and diffuse a knowledge of 
the 
> > laws
> > > > > which
> > > > > > govern the universe." Whilst to my knowledge there is no
> > > > > indisputable
> > > > > > account as to the discussion which led to the actual 
> wording 
> > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > object, it would be inconceivable that Madame Blavatsky, 
and
> > > > > > therefore her teachers, had nothing to do with it and 
> indeed,
> > > > > knowing
> > > > > > her character and respected reputation amongst those 
> present, 
> > > she
> > > > > > most probably caused the wording to be as such. After 
all, 
> it 
> > > was
> > > > > > solely because of her and her words and actions that 
people
> > > > > initially
> > > > > > became attracted to Theosophy and its ideas in the first 
> > place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The wording of this original object is important. "?to 
> > collect 
> > > and
> > > > > > diffuse a knowledge of the laws?" This was the 
cornerstone 
> > which
> > > > > was
> > > > > > to set the theme for the collection and release of a body 
of
> > > > > > knowledge. From the wording, this particular body of 
> > knowledge 
> > > was
> > > > > > already in existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moreover, Colonel Olcott accounts in Old Diary Leaves in 
> the 
> > > very
> > > > > > early years, "The Brotherhood plank in which the 
Society's 
> > > future
> > > > > > platform was...(was) not thought of;?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As the Society evolved it became clear that the 
> aforementioned
> > > > > biases
> > > > > > and prejudices began to manifest within the membership
> > > > > necessitating
> > > > > > the "brotherhood" object.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As this object was added later, so too were others.
> > > > > > In 1890, a year before Madame Blavatsky's death there was 
a 
> > > second
> > > > > > object which read; "To promote the study of Aryan and 
other 
> > > Eastern
> > > > > > literatures, religions, philosophies and sciences, and to
> > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > their importance to Humanity."
> > > > > > Note that this object is in accord with the Adepts
> > > > > statement, "After
> > > > > > nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to 
> avail
> > > > > > themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European 
> > body 
> > > upon
> > > > > > European soil to serve as a connecting link between that 
> > country
> > > > > and
> > > > > > our own." And, "This state of hers (HPB's) is intimately 
> > > connected
> > > > > > with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being 
> sent 
> > out
> > > > > > alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for 
> others."
> > > > > > The Mahatmas clearly had a specific body of occult 
> knowledge 
> > to
> > > > > > share, which was Aryan and Eastern in nature, whilst 
Madame
> > > > > Blavatsky
> > > > > > had a definite and specific role to release it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pedro writes that when the Mahatmas and Madame Blavatsky 
> were
> > > > > > referring to their rejection of God they were writing from
> > > > > > their "Buddhist perspective". As you point out, orthodox 
> > Tibetan
> > > > > > Buddhism has numerous and major differences from the 
> > Theosophy 
> > > of
> > > > > > Madame Blavatsky and her teachers. So the Mahatmas were 
> > clearly 
> > > not
> > > > > > traditional Buddhists and were not in fact writing from 
that
> > > > > dogmatic
> > > > > > mindset.
> > > > > > Moreover, Madame Blavatsky wrote copiously quoting 
Buddhism,
> > > > > Hinduism
> > > > > > and Vedanta texts to expound this knowledge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was 5 years after her death in 1896, when certain 
western
> > > > > > influences had begun watering down these "Aryan and 
> Eastern" 
> > > occult
> > > > > > teachings that the second object was changed to read; "To 
> > > encourage
> > > > > > the study of comparative religion, philosophy and 
science." 
> > The
> > > > > focus
> > > > > > was now shifting to western style Christianity wherein the
> > > > > > differences with "original" Theosophy were and are indeed 
> > stark.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > of course culminated in a theosophical church strongly 
> > > associated
> > > > > > with the Adyar Theosophical Society which remains as such 
> to 
> > > this
> > > > > day.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The "forlorn hope" of the Mahatmas included recognition 
of 
> the
> > > > > > probability that despite earnest warnings from them and 
> Madame
> > > > > > Blavatsky for their occult body of knowledge not to be 
> > > dogmatised,
> > > > > > dogma arose in the Adyar Society fuelled by Bishop 
> Leadbeater 
> > > and
> > > > > Dr
> > > > > > Annie Besant's Christianity and their "coming world 
> teacher."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This caused the production of the "Freedom of Thought" 
> > statement
> > > > > from
> > > > > > the General Council in the early 1920's which whilst 
> > necessary 
> > > to
> > > > > > promote tolerance and brotherliness, nevertheless further
> > > > > contributed
> > > > > > to the belief that Theosophy included anything and 
> everything 
> > > of an
> > > > > > esoteric nature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whilst this freedom is to be strongly encouraged it is to 
> be 
> > > hoped
> > > > > > that the essence of "original" Theosophy is not lost.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whether or not Madame Blavatsky and her teachers' 
knowledge 
> is
> > > > > > accurate or not, they certainly wished for the 
Theosophical 
> > > Society
> > > > > > to be a vehicle for it.
> > > > > > She and the Mahatmas certainly encouraged us not to turn 
> > their 
> > > body
> > > > > > of knowledge into yet another dogma. Madame Blavatsky 
wrote
> > > > > > tangentially and referred to almost every 
spirito/religious
> > > > > tradition
> > > > > > in her writings to help guard against this occurring. But 
> she 
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > Mahatmas were earnestly hoping for the sake of humanity 
we 
> > would
> > > > > not
> > > > > > throw out their hard won knowledge and that we would use 
> their
> > > > > occult
> > > > > > words with an ever open and expansive mindset to go 
beyond, 
> > into
> > > > > the
> > > > > > mystical states of consciousness, wherein definitions 
> > dissolve 
> > > and
> > > > > > Reality beckons.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards
> > > > > > Nigel
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > > > I have just read Pedro Oliveira's article "Which 
> Theosophy" 
> > > which
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > published in the magazine "Theosophy in Australia" in 
> March 
> > > 2006.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.austheos.org.au/magazine/pedro-which-
> > theosophy.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have to say that I am by largely in agreement with 
> Pedro's
> > > > > > > statements and also with the spirit within which it 
seems 
> > to 
> > > have
> > > > > > > been written.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The theosophical approach is not an ism and certainly 
is 
> > not a
> > > > > > > prescribed pathway it is a journey that will be unique 
and
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > for each individual.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As students and individuals we will all naturally be 
> drawn 
> > to 
> > > one
> > > > > > > school of thought more than another, the theosophic 
> > approach 
> > > is
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > its very nature eclectic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The way to unity is by way of embracing diversity, yes 
we 
> > > need to
> > > > > > > debate and discuss points of difference but probably 
more
> > > > > > importantly
> > > > > > > we also need to underline the points of intersection 
and 
> in 
> > > our
> > > > > > > hearts hold to that spirit of Brotherhood and Oneness 
> which 
> > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > theosophical ideal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We need not become divided into Blavatsky barrackers or
> > > > > Leadbeater
> > > > > > > booers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The wheat from the chaff of both can only be sorted out 
> for
> > > > > > ourselves
> > > > > > > through our own process and in our own way and time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Pedro for the article it has given me some food 
for
> > > > > thought.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>