Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00662)

Dear Morten,

I am sorry, but I am not entirely sure what you are asking.  I will answer "a question", although I am not sure that it is "your question".

It is my understanding that truth is best expressed in one's own words.  Read a little, think a lot, and then express what you have learned in your own words.

There seems to be what might be a platitude that Theosophist's should stay away from politics, that they should focus on understanding the teachings and practicing them in their daily lives for the betterment of self and community.  How can you argue against such sage advice.  For many theosophists, this is enough.

However, we must remember, that the reason that this is enough for many theosophists is because politics was played by many of the early leaders of theosophy and these politicians corrupted the Society.  Those who should have known better realized this too late so that today there is no public body that truly represents theosophy and the many theosophists have only their private lives left with which to practice theosophy.  There is no public organization.  Because there is no public organization, the ideas of theosophy have not filtered into society at large and the world is worse off for it.  You don't play politics, but you have to stand up for truth.  This speaks to Blavatsky's article "THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?"  The Jesuit's play politics and work for ends.  Theosophist's have a much simpler task, simply stand up for the truth.

When you look at society at large, every organization out there is playing for this or that end.  There is no organization promoting truth.  This is a sickness of our times.

To the extent that this forum errs on the side of arguing too brutally for this or that truth is certainly not its greatest fault.  I think the politeness that too often is substituted for real brotherhood is sometimes a bigger flaw.  Sometimes, if you have any respect for a person, telling an unpleasant truth is more important than remaining liked.

Truth is about principles and the positions that can be logically arrived at through arguments from principles.  There really should not be much argument among theosophists about what is and is not a principle.  What is problematic is how do we apply these principles.  Do we bash people over the head with the principle of truth, often driving a person more firmly into the clutches of error?  Do we insist on polite brotherly behavior between one another, refusing to debate positions lest we hurt another's feelings thereby abandoning any drive to truth?  Or do we try and find the middle path between these two, debating when parties are open, making suggestions where you can, and turning away when it will do no good.

I am not sure that there exists anywhere along the middle path, a need to call this or that Satanic, unless we can argue why it is so.  To say someone's writings are Satanic, is to say that the writer is gripped by gross selfishness and seeks to argue that this is a good thing.  Is that Krishnamurti, or Blavatsky, or Leadbeater, or Besant, or any of the writers we look at in this forum?  Certainly I would have no respect for a writer of Satanic literature.  Is that not character assassination?  Some of these writers may be deluded, but I would not call them Satanic.

I am not sure there exists anywhere along the middle path a need to refer to someone as a liar.  We can point out contradictions, but this is not the same as lying.  Lying speaks to motive and is not the same as contradiction.  People always are ready to point out that Blavatsky was a chela and was forced to lie rather than divulge certain information entrusted to her.  However, what is not said is that chances are she would never have to lie if she followed the correct path, a path a chela is expected to find.  Short of being held at gunpoint, why would she have to lie about anything?  Not being forced to say what she knows, she need only stay quiet.  If someone close to her is really persistent, all she need say is that there are some things that I am forced to lie about rather than divulge the truth, this is one of them.  Case closed!  Why does anyone think that such an injunction would force Blavatsky ever to have to lie?  To deceive another for selfish gain, this kind of lying, is a character flaw.  The allegations of Emma Coulomb are about this type of lying.  Someone who presents these allegations as truth is involved in character assassination if they do not take the time to deal with contrary evidence.  Reputations are based on trust.  Selfish liars cannot be trusted.

Researchers who are too lazy or too disinterested in their subject to deal with the case for the defense, are as morally corrupt as the allegations they are peddling, regardless of whether the allegations are true or not. Reputations take a lifetime to earn and a moment to destroy.  This is why character assassination is such a favorite tool of the morally corrupt.  It is also why we should be careful not to inadvertently practice it in our arguments.  It is so prevalent today that it is easy to perceive it as a normal and acceptable practice.

If you think someone is a liar, and that it is important to expose this fact, then make sure that you deal with any legitimate arguments of those who would defend that person, before cautiously presenting your case.  If evidence should come out that contradicts your charges, you may have done irreparable harm to someone that in no way deserved it.  How do you repair that?

People in this forum can of course write and argue anything they like.  However, if they are trying to be theosophists, they will present their cases in an appropriate way.  After all theosophists are not interested in ends, only truth and the wisdom to disseminate that truth in an appropriate way.  If they are not interested in truth and its wise use, they are not theosophists -- at least not this life.

I hope, Morten, that this addresses your question.

Sincerely,
Bruce


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Dear Bruce and friends,
> 
> My views are:
> 
> Bruce wrote about Anand:
> "Despite denying to be involved in character assassination, every post you make takes a swipe at some "Satanic" or "lying" person from theosophical history."
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight asks politely and friendly:
> Dear Bruce, Would you care to enlighten us about your view on the difference between what you "character assassination" and what can be called - a loud protest - against those seeking the truth about life? Please?
> 
> (Let us remember H. P. Blavatskys article: "THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?"
> http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/TheosophyOrJesuitism.htm )
> 
> 
> H. P. Blavatsky said in the Key to Theosophy, p. 2:
> "ENQUIRER. What was the object of this system?
> 
> THEOSOPHIST. First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths upon its disciples, and all those who were "lovers of the truth." Hence the motto adopted by the Theosophical Society: "There is no religion higher than truth." â?  The chief aim of the Founder of the Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the three objects of its modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities. "
> http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
> 
> - - -
> 
> Theosophy is as I understand it after all concerned with seeking the truth, and not hammering it into each individual like fanatics in blind belief groups do.
> 
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: robert_b_macd 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:41 PM
>   Subject: Theos-World Re: why didn't anybody reply to my thoughtful message........
> 
> 
>   Hi Anand,
> 
>   Why do you think anyone would want to respond? Your very message alienates anyone looking into the philosophy of Krishnamurti by calling his teaching Satanic. You have insulted everyone trying to understand Blavatsky and her writings. The only theosophist you give any credence to is Charles Leadbeater, and then only to that part of his life where he started a pseudo-Christian Church. Anything outside his founding of the Church you ignore.
> 
>   As you seem to have no interest in explaining why you believe what you believe, one can only surmise that you share the Christian adherence to blind faith. As Theosophy is a doctrine that demands the student learn to think for himself, a philosophy wedded to blind faith is not going to appeal to very many theosophists.
> 
>   Until you take some time to explain yourself, I assume everyone will perceive you as having the agenda of making the Theosophical Society into a Christian Church. Such an agenda would not be the agenda of very many theosophists. This makes you a poor ally in any future endeavour.
> 
>   I do not belong to the Adyar Society anymore. I was part of an entire Section that was excommunicated on the whim of one or two Adyar officials in possession of proxies from many countries which they dishonestly used to achieve their own political ends. Bravo to these wise stewards of Theosophy.
> 
>   I perceive this same camp behind the recent efforts to oust Radha. But as Radha did nothing to stand up to injustice then, she has insured that there are far fewer to stand up for her now.
> 
>   A theosophical society that seeks unanimity by expelling those with different views is not a society that many would want to belong to. Yet, it seems by what you write, that it is the type of theosophy that you would advocate. It does not seem that you would have a place for those who questioned Leadbeater and his Christian interpretations of theosophy within your society. Despite denying to be involved in character assassination, every post you make takes a swipe at some "Satanic" or "lying" person from theosophical history.
> 
>   You are fast making yourself a theosophical force of one. Perhaps you should rethink your approach.
> 
>   Sincerely,
>   Bruce 
> 
>   --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@> wrote:
>   >
>   > I had sent this thoughtful message. I think it is very important to consider it, as future of TS depends on these factors. Here is the message :
>   > "Radha might lead TS for 4 years or so. But what next? She has not allowed any talented Indian person to rise, so that he can take charge, when she has to go.
>   > What is in her mind? As I said earlier, in foreign countries I did not get one
>   > person capable of being the President of TS.
>   > In India there are few capable persons, whom she has not encouraged. Only person
>   > she had tried to encourage was her own relative P. Krishna. This is worst
>   > candidate for TS, because he is more interested in satanic teaching of J.
>   > Krishnamuri. TS must keep him thousands of miles away. He should deliver pizzas
>   > instead of working for any spiritual organization.
>   > This family of N.Sri Ram, Radha Burnier is trying to keep control of TS within
>   > the family. Radha has not allowed any competent person from India to become
>   > strong in TS, even while she is nearing death. It appears that if she had
>   > allowed anybody to become strong, she feared her own defeat in elections.
>   > TS in many countries like the US, the UK and in EU is misgoverned. Officers
>   > have neither capacity to understand Theosophy, nor required moral courage to
>   > stand by it in difficult times."
>   > Best
>   > Anand Gholap
>   >
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>