Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00144)

Dear Robert,
Irrespective of what the pledge is taken, people can do right things or wrong things. For example Blavatsky might have made that pledge and yet she could give much freedom to best minds like Besant and Leadbeater. So they did not complain. And there could be periods when without pledge also members can be forced to obey commands by using different kinds of pressures.
So it depends on moral development of the ES head. 
I don't think Besant exacted obedience through pledge. Unless we have draft of the pledge  under Besant, it is difficult to tell exactly what her policies were.
You know current situation under current ES head. So you can see in how many ways ES can function.
Best
Anand Gholap




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" <robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Some of the best minds in Theosophy joined the ES during HPBs time.  Now it seems that some on Theos-Talk see the interpretation that I give as the most reasonable one.  However, if you think yours is the most reasonable, it is still the case that others think otherwise.  Given that it is the case, these great minds that joined the ES, one of them being Besant, whom you call very spiritual, must have also questioned the clause.  Now if the clause is an unambiguous grab at power as you seem to suggest, would not Besant and others have questioned HPB on this?  Or perhaps they saw no ambiguity, and felt they were simply going to be asked to positively promote theosophy as I and Morten seem to suggest.
> 
> The point is they could have asked, someone probably asked, and no potential ES candidate has come forward claiming they refused to join because Blavatsky told them they were pledging to her and might have to do thinks against their better nature.
> 
> This really doesn't seem to be something to argue over.  If there is ambiguity they could have asked.  If there is no ambiguity it is because they must have interpreted as an order to promote and protect theosophy, pure and simple.  If these fine theosophists, Besant included, were agreeing to give up their free will as you suggest, then they really weren't very spiritual people after all and Theosophy must be seen as bogus right from the start.  Why would you want to think that?
> 
> Robert Bruce
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" <robert.b.macdonald@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > Robert:  Anand, you argue that Besant and Leadbeater were highly spiritual.  When Besant became Head of the ES did she change the pledge?  If she did change it, was the Head given more power over its members or less?  If the Head was given more power, then what about future ES leaders?  Have they all been spiritual people who have done what is right for the members?  Did Blavatsky, Judge, Besant and Leadbeater all miss this point but because you and I are more spiritual than they, we saw that there was a problem? 
> > >
> > 
> > Anand : Besant, Leadbeater were disciples and highly evolved, so ES made sense. Question remains whether AB, CWL considered possible misuse of ES in future. We don't have draft of the pledge that AB, CWL used in ES, so we don't know whether they demanded obedience. But outer literature of Besant and Leadbeater is against blind following. 
> > 
> > Robert: > I suggest you and I should be joint Outer-Heads of a new more spiritual ES.  With your permission I will start canvasing the good members of Theos-Talk to apply for membership to our new Spiritually Improved ES.
> > > 
> > 
> > Anand: Before it is started, we need to know why it should be started. HPB perhaps borrowed idea of new birth from Christianity and told ES members that when they join ES they are newly born. This new birth thing is mentioned in the pledge documents. In most cases this new birth of ES members shows old age and decay instead of newness and growth. Do they take new birth as Blavatsky said? If they don't take new birth, then why do we need ES?  
> > 
> > Robert:  The alternative would be to suggest that clause 2 was never meant in the strong sense that you suggest, but rather in the weaker sense that I have argued.  
> > 
> > Anand: When some words are written in italics, it means emphasis of those words.
> > 
> > Robert: The clause was put in not to tell members what to do in any strong political sense, in fact it was part of a clause that precluded strong political thoughts and activity.  It was put into a clause where members of the ES were told to positively support the TS, its membership, and its leadership whether they had faith in them or not.  
> > 
> > Anand: Is it good for ES members to follow a leader, when their conscience does not have faith in the leader?
> > 
> > 
> > Robert: This was the path that leads to the Christian maxim, , a maxim that also sits at the very heart of Blavatsky's theosophy.  
> > >
> > 
> > Anand : Most people very much judge other people. It appears to me relationships among people are based on their judgment of each other. Doesn't Master judge a person before taking him as disciple? Don't people judge their future spouse during courtship? Doesn't an employer judge a person while taking interview? The Christian maxim "Judge not lest you be judged" is there perhaps to stop people from condemning each other. But I don't think it can be applied in all situations in life.
> >
>