Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00417)

A thought to Anand and his fellow debaters,



The credibility of various early theosophists, based on what may or
may not have transpired in their private lives, may not be an
appropriate guide by which  theosophists should express to others how
to judge the worth of these early theosophist's contributions.  This is
not because their behavior in private has no bearing on what they do or
say in public, but rather because it is human nature to filter
biographical information to reflect our beliefs.  This is appropriate
because biographers and historians do not always chose
subject-matter appropriate to their level of spiritual development and
understanding.  What is a fact for some is a base allegation to
others (of both the writer and reader of history).  As early
theosophists often are claimed to be of  a highly evolved spiritual
stage of development, it is doubtful, when true, that many biographers
have a very good understanding of who these people are, and therefore
find it easy to accept base allegations as fact, as these allegations
give the subjects plausible motivations to do the things that they do.



Character Assassination has been the preferred, because easy,
method for destroying the reputations of all those intent on
encouraging humanity to enter onto the Path.  Again, many
scholastically trained biographers, will unconsciously destroy
Spiritual Subjects simply out of their own ignorance, without any
intended malice.   Biographers and historians are, like the rest of us
human, and consequently limited.  The dogmas of the various Christian
denominations, for example, were put together by some of the cleverest
but limited intellects of their day.  Many of these dogmas claim the
divinity of Jesus Christ, that he is the one true path to salvation,
and all other ways are delusions of the devil.  This implies, of
course, that the Buddha, Krishna, Sankaracharya, etc., were all tools
of the devil and their teachings snares to the unwary.  Christians will
of course not open themselves to these Luciferian tricks and will not
only ignore these writings, but try to make the followers of these
religions over into their own images.  They often see themselves in a
war against Satan and will do what it takes to win -- to the woe of
almost every non-Christian nation on earth. This is why KH claimed that
the over-whelming majority of evil on this earth could be laid at the
feet of dogmatic religions.  Most, perhaps all, dogmas are logical engines of violence. 
Theosophy refutes dogma.  Theosophist should be wary of anyone using
Character Assassination to promote their own agenda (dogma) and almost
every (if not every) use of Character Assassination is used to promote
(consciously or unconsciously) an agenda (if not personal then public
or institutional).



Character flaws, not personality flaws, sometimes are used by
theosophical writers when defending the reputation of one theosophist
against claims of infamy made by another.  Theosophists defend others
motivated by truth and brotherhood.  However, we must also use truth
and brotherhood as  means to temper our defense.  Theosophy and its
doctrines are not justifications for inciting public hatred or villainy
of others.  There is nothing worse than making unfounded accusations
against others.  If you cannot support such claims, you thereby open
yourself to claims of villainy.  Perhaps, Anand, you want to rephrase
your seemingly gross generalization: "I felt that students of Blavatsky
are actually degenerated inside."  I understand you probably feel
attacked for your views on Leadbeater and perhaps you actually felt
what you say you felt.  However, given the nature of human psychology,
it is a generalization that is impossible to support and should never
see the light of day.  It speaks to your own inadequacies, not the
inadequacy of others and makes unworthy whatever agenda you are trying
to promote.



Finally, we should all consider that when the Mahatmas want to draw out
the worst in their chelas, they hand their chelas over to dugpas.  Dugpas are used to draw forth those darker skhandas lying dormant
in the chela.  The Mahatma, himself, does not do it.  Perhaps we should
all be careful of what kind of role we are taking on when badgering
another wedded to a certain belief system.  We usually end up pushing
others further into error by insisting they believe this or that.  If dugpas are degenerated humanity, then perhaps what Anand is experiencing is a little bit of our own collective baser natures, and even if there is no legitimacy to the underlying accusation, perhaps there is some legitimacy to the way he feels.



Bruce














_________________________________________________________________
Share photos with friends on Windows Live Messenger
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9650734

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]