The American Theosophist, dec. 1964, p. 290-91 (reprint from The Theosophist)
The Image of Infallibility
N. Sri Ram
With reference to my statement in the February Watch-Tower that
no one should be set up as infallible - in other words, as the context
indicates,
we should not attribute infallibility to some person, and then later
condemn
him as a false guide or idol when, as we might think, he has failed to
fulfill
that condition ...
There may be a state of mind and heart,
the perceptions of which are faultless, a "Warrior" deep within us (to
use the description in Light
on the Path) who "cannot strike one blow amiss."
But not knowing what this state is, and judging on the basis of
our own imperfect notions and views, when we think that someone cannot
make
a mistake in any statement or action he may adopt, this thought is not
based on any knowledge; it is only a belief, a kind of support we
create for ourselves, which will fail us as soon as we find there are
differences between our
preconceived and deeply entrenched ideas and his. Sooner or later such
differences
will manifest themselves on some important question, important as it
might
seem to us. Since the degree of respect we entertain - or think we do -
for that person depends upon our notion of infallibility, that respect
will
then tend to fall. The more advanced that person is spiritually, the
sharper
such differences will be, because we are less likely to be able to
share
his evaluations, to follow the movements of his thought and understand
the
depth of his approach on matters of truly fundamental import.
We do not know that state of being which is faultless and forever true.
When we project a concept of infallibility, we project it from our
ignorance, our particular conditioning. When we identify another person
with this concept, there is the possibility, not to say the
probability, that in following
his own course of action or development, he may not continue to be in
alignment with that concept or support the ideas that constitute it. So
in our estimation he would no longer have his place in the zenith in
which we at first placed him. In other words, even if he far transcends
us in his knowledge, not
understanding him, we would think him mistaken as soon as he ceased to
measure
up to our ideas. There are striking instances in history which
illustrate
this truth. It is well to have a margin of latitude in our minds for
possible
variations, for error, real or only imagined, in matters of doctrine,
as
well as of occult revelations.
In Letter 24-B of the
Mahatma Letters, the Master K.H. writes as follows: "An Adept
- the highest as the lowest - is one only during the exercise
of his occult powers ... We are forbidden to use one particle
of our powers in connection with the Eclectics ... and then syllogize:
K.H. when writing to us is not and Adept. A Non-Adept
is fallible. Therefore, K.H. may very easily commit mistakes ... "
When this is what the Master writes about himself, should we expect of
anyone else exemption from the possibility of making a mistake as a
condition
for whatever love, admiration, reverence or devotion we are able to
give
him?
I might point out in this connection that both Dr.
Annie Besant and Brother C.W. Leadbeater (not to mention H.P. B.)
repeatedly stated that their descriptions and statements from
clairvoyant observation should not be regarded as above criticism,
examination or revision. They were aware of the possibilities
of error.
H.P.B. maintained that Mars and Mercury were
separate chains from that
of the earth. Dr. Besant and Brother Leadbeater declared otherwise from
their own observations. Here is a discrepancy that no one has been able
to solve, without considering that either the one or the other was
mistaken.
My own attitude in such matters is that mistakes of this sort or of the
sort the Masters refers to, in fact any mistakes which arise from
imperfect
knowledge or a wrong identification and not from complexes,
complications
and distortions in oneself, do not matter; they are not of such
importance
as we may think. The kind of greatness that draws the deepest
allegiance
does not lie in the correctness of anyone's intellectual knowledge.
Love
does not ask for an image of infallibility, for an object that has all
the
answers.