Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00007)

Nigel and fellow students, 

Thanks for your well-considered comments. In all things, we are 
taught to look to our motives. No one can really say what the motive 
of another might be, but it seems to me that yours is sincere. It 
never hurts to consider, however, that none of us can see the whole 
picture. As is suggested in the passage you mention, the human finite 
mind is not able to discern the transcendant totality of Truth. 

We may feel, as theosophists, that the whole world should embrace 
theosophy. We may feel, based on the benefit we have received from 
our study, that this or that teacher would benefit others best. But 
we really don't know these things. We cannot take into consideration 
the mind set, the mental ability, the inherent needs, the karma, of 
the other student. We may assume, if fact, that if we can see through 
hypocrisy on the part of a particular teacher or sect, that we have 
been through that already, and learned to move beyond those 
particular limitations. But can we help others by preventing them 
from following their path, as we have followed ours? And if we take 
the trouble to point out the weaknesses and failures of a teacher 
revered by another, do we not actually stimulate the student's 
devotion to that teacher, no matter how unsuitable, and actually 
possibly prolong that student's painful lesson? 

Another issue that seems worth considering is that of solidarity, 
unity in action. Theosophy is a fragile vessel at best, a spiritual 
reality struggling to manifest in a hostile and flawed environment. 
Those historical theosophists as well as we in the present are part 
of the movement because they have earned the right to participate in 
this cyclic illumination of the mind of humanity, to whatever extent 
they are able. Each has an opportunity, earned over eons of 
incarnations, to try to help in the Work, and each answers the call 
according to ability. How can we hope to help in this work by 
continually pointing out the flaws and failures of our fellows, who 
are, in fact and in realilty, ourselves? Do we not owe it to the best 
within ourselves to forgive and forget? Why keep the dark parts 
alive? Why continually provide ammunition to our eternal enemy, the 
Forces of Separation and Disintegration? Who among us is so perfect? 
Do we forget that the weakness we can see in our brother is only 
visible to us because we have the same weakness ourselves? 

Why not let the Masters do their work bringing us whomever of Their 
children has earned the right to come, and welcome them with trust 
and love, allowing, and even encouraging them, to do the best they 
can with this opportunity, which is said to be the greatest ever 
offered to humanity? Why not find it in our hearts to forgive and 
forget the weaknesses of our predecessors, realizing that they were 
only human after all, no better and no worse than we ourselves? A lot 
depends upon our actions in these days, and even more on our thoughts 
and words.

Adelasie

On 27 Feb 2007 at 3:45, nhcareyta wrote:
 
> Dear Adelasie and all
> 
> Adelasie, thank you for your gentle and accommodating contribution 
> above. Please permit me to offer a few thoughts.
> 
> Compassion certainly dissuades us from judging another, particularly 
> perhaps in terms of who is right and who is wrong. Buddhism after all 
> distinguishes between absolute and relative truth and Theosophy's 
> first fundamental proposition speaks of An Omnipresent, Eternal, 
> Boundless and Immutable Principle on which all speculation is 
> impossible since it transcends the power of human conception and can 
> only be dwarfed by any human conception or similitude. It is beyond 
> the range and reach of thought..." etc.
> 
> This passage has always given me pause for thought both in terms of 
> its expressed limitation of discursive mind to be ultimately 
> accurate, as well as the unlimited nature of mind in its essence.
> 
> Compassion doesn't however dissuade us from discernment where 
> compassion is considered a natural extension of wisdom and knowledge. 
> Many years ago, at the beginning of my career in the field of 
> welfare, it was evident that there were many people who were 
> apparently compassionately motivated, volunteering in church and 
> welfare groups. At that time these were the only people helping those 
> who were then termed the "underprivileged". When government commenced 
> funding welfare projects to employ trained personnel, we as employees 
> realised almost immediately that however well motivated and kind 
> hearted some of these volunteers were, a considerable proportion of 
> their assistance was uninformed, highly inappropriate and unhelpful 
> and in some cases such as suicide prevention, potentially dangerous. 
> Much of the advice from many of these well-meaning volunteers had 
> more to do with their own issues of insecurity, feelings of 
> inadequacy and a need to feel worthwhile. Often status and 
> recognition were also priorities for these hard working souls. The 
> decisions we had to make with respect to some of these volunteers had 
> nothing to do with judgement/condemnation, rather they arose from 
> highly considered, objective assessments of what we carefully and 
> compassionately thought to be in the better interests of the 
> disadvantaged client group, as well as the volunteers themselves, as 
> best as our professional expertise could determine.  
> I mention this experience to highlight that in certain circumstances 
> in life, there can be a right and wrong way to speak and act, or at 
> least a more right and more wrong approach, particularly if we 
> perceive and project ourselves as an authority.      
> 
> Bishop Leadbeater, as well meaning as he may have been, was 
> demonstrably untruthful and/or inaccurate in many of his 
> pronouncements, whilst projecting himself as an authority. 
> Authority figures naturally need and attract followers, who 
> themselves desire to be led. Historically, the dangers of blindly 
> following a perceived leader are well recorded in terms of the 
> psychological effect on the follower as well as on the putative 
> authority figure.
> 
> My raising the issues of Bishop Leadbeater's lies and 
> misrepresentations has nothing to do with judging/condemning him as a 
> person. He was possibly a sincere individual who thought he knew that 
> which was best for his followers. Rather it has to do with discerning 
> the facts and fallacies of his many statements as best as can be 
> determined. From this, hopefully we can more accurately discern 
> whether his pronouncements are more likely to be accurate, truthful 
> and thereby genuinely helpful, or whether they are more likely to be 
> the opposite.
> 
> From my investigations thus far, apart from some of Bishop 
> Leadbeater's commentaries relating to the spiritual path, which are 
> after all mostly a restating of Augustinian/Aquinian morality and 
> ethics, many of his statements have proven to be either wrong, wrong 
> minded or sufficiently inaccurate and untruthful as for me to 
> consider them significantly unreliable, unhelpful and potentially 
> dangerous for the unwary student.
> 
> From my current perspective and state of awareness, compassion for 
> this unwary student, which was myself many years ago, as well as for 
> Bishop Leadbeater himself, is my motivation for raising these matters 
> in this forum.
> 
> To live and let live is not acceptable in certain circumstances. To 
> adopt this mindset in totality makes it too easy for some of us to be 
> led along by the nose whilst granting free licence and immunity to 
> those who feel the need to lead. 
> 
> Kind regards
> Nigel
> 
> 
>