Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00309)

At 07:18 PM 9/1/2004, you wrote:

> ... newcomers may join the list in
> the hope of sharing, for example, their understanding of the
> writings of Besant and Leadbeater, among other authors. The
> statistics from amazon.com posted by Daniel recently clearly
> indicate that both Besant and Leabeater continue to be identified,
> in the public mind, as belonguing to the field of Theosophy (or
> theosophy).
People may come to Theosophy from many different approaches. Some may have 
started with books by Leadbeater and Besant, others with books by Barkorka 
and Purucker, others with Judge and Blavatsky books. I would expect that if 
they can engage each other in friendly discussion, they can broaden their 
knowledge and grow to greater insight.

I don't think it's necessary to tell people to only read certain authors 
and avoid others as being tainted. I will say what I prefer, but leave it 
to other people to decide what appeals to them best. In a free exchange of 
ideas over an extended period of time, I think people will gravitate to the 
highest approach they are ready for. Each person sets their own limit and 
is better able to seek it out when exposed to a friendly, diverse 
environment that encourages thoughtful study.

Although I'd consider my studies as being advanced, I recognize that it is 
just from my point of view and others would see things differently, often 
with wherever they are at being highest, for now, in their estimation. And 
it does not serve a useful purpose to rank and order different approaches, 
with one's own on top, of course, in order to add to one's self-importance 
and putting others in their place.

If someone wants to study Leadbeater's life from a historic standpoint -- 
or Blavatsky's, Judge's, or Krishnamurti's -- that's fine as long as they 
don't use their appraisal as a hammer to hit people on the head when they 
say that they read and like the books any of these people may have written.

A metaphysical and spiritual thread of discussion is as valid as any 
historic one, and everyone should be free to share their ideas, regardless 
of the author or any historic threads of discussion going on at the same time.

Regardless of what we might discuss, it's important that we respect the 
others among us of different backgrounds and beliefs, and not put things in 
a way that sounds like a personal insult, like "You like that idea from a 
Crowley book? You must be an evil dugpa!" Or "You say you like that idea 
from a Bailey book, yet we have just proven in our historic discussions 
that Bailey was a fraud. Only an idiot would believe something she wrote. 
Do you recant any belief in her works or do you confess to being an idiot?" 
Or "Do you profess a belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and 
profess a belief in the One True God, or do you admit to being a devil 
worshiper destined to burn it hell?" -- Note that there are all leading 
questions that require people to either submit to one's belief or confess 
their stupidity.

It's possible from any particular slant of discussion to find ways to put 
people down, even if one is not doing so intentionally. A discussion of the 
actual history and spiritual credentials of someone's favorite theosophical 
figure could have a chilling effect upon people reading his or her books 
and wanting to discuss the ideas presented. Yet were they free to discuss 
the ideas, perhaps we'd learn something from them and they're be exposed to 
better ideas from us as well.

A discussion of metaphysics might lead to suggestions that people not 
versed in that particular set of philosophical ideas is "not ready yet" and 
should simply be dismissed as spiritual wannabes. That, of course, has a 
chilling effect on the skeptic or believer in something different, making 
him or her to want to brand people a bunch of religious kooks and leave for 
a better group of people.

It all comes down to a matter of respect. We can explore new ideas, 
challenge existing assumptions, and seek a greater understanding of things. 
But we should maintain sufficient objectivity to know that our personal 
viewpoint isn't the prime perspective of the universe. Everything only 
seems that way *to our eyes*. If we can believe what we will and yet 
happily allow others to coexist with different beliefs and assumptions, 
respecting their individual and likely different seeking of truth, we are 
actually practicing universal brotherhood rather than merely mouthing the 
concept.

-- Eldon