Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00032)

Thoa:

> Unless we're Arhats or been lobotomized, we each have plenty of
> opportunities to observe conflicts within ourselves and others.
> In each of those observations, condemnation for an idea will only
> cause a greater defending of an opposing idea. We become
> separated, our shadow from the light. As light forces itself, so
> will shadow rear its head in opposition.

>From a psychological standpoint, when we condemn someone else's
ideas, defenses go up, positions hardened, and a battle often
ensues.

We do need to make a distinction, though, between beliefs and
objective knowledge. We're each entitled to believe whatever we
want, as long as we restrain our actions to be civil.

Some beliefs, if carried out, are harmless, like thinking the
moon is made of green cheese. Others are deadly, if lived out,
like believing that certain strangers on the street are embodied
devils and that one is on a mission from God to kill them.

When we consider things like the ultimate nature of life, the best
approach to spiritual development, the nature of divinity or
Godhead, etc., it's perfectly fine for each person to entertain
ideas that the person finds most comfort with.

There's nothing wrong, though, to outline the cosmology and
system as taught by Blavatsky, offering it as a system of thought
that is as worthy of study and the writings of Plato, the sayings
attributed to the Buddha, etc. To offer an accurate presentation
of source Theosophy is not harmful to freedom of belief and
individual discovery, if the materials are presented as a *body
of materials to study* rather than as authoritative dogma.

We have a different situation when we come to facts and
information about the objective world. The idea that the earth is
flat is simply untrue, and it's fine to challenge it. We have
astronomy, geology, mathematics, physics, and many other bodies of
knowledge that are true as far as they go. We get into trouble
when we confuse knowledge and beliefs.

The conflict -- really an internal conflict -- arises when our
religious or philosophical beliefs fail a reality check. We can
give into denial, and refuse to admit information from the world
that conflicts with our beliefs.

(A good example of this is where we believe in our favorite
theosophical author, and the belief is based upon that author's
saintly life, and we're faced with hard, factual historic
information that shows that the author is awful in certain ways,
took liberties with the truth in his/her books, and far from being
infallible, actually made numerous blunders in writing about the
world.)

An healthier approach is to reconsider our beliefs and outlook on
life. When a reality check indicates that our opinions, beliefs,
feelings about life are inconsistent with what is actually
happening in the world, we can revise, improve, evolve them,
growing inwardly.

Now, commenting specifically on theosophical discussions ... If I
were to formulate some points on a civil discussion, I'd include:

1. It's ok for each to bring a unique set of beliefs, and to share
  them with the group. People should not be condemned for the
  beliefs that they hold. They should not feel silenced because
  their beliefs differ from the mainstream beliefs of the group.

2. If we keep to the basics, it's possible to distinguish between
  what is taught in source Theosophy from other views. This may
  be difficult in advanced topics, but the basics are fairly
  straight-forward. It is fine to study the basics and to
  distinguish them from the many other views that people hold.
  This is not a dogmatic imposition of beliefs; it's simply a
  sharing of highly-valuable materials for our mutual benefit.

3. A discussion of the merits of different beliefs is healthy.
  Such discussion is not a personal attack on the belief holder.
  It's important in communication to not *appear* to be attacking
  someone, when one is only holding up certain beliefs to
  philosophical review.

4. Matters of science, history, and other objective disciplines
  related to the external world can be challenged, when wrong. If
  someone's favorite author says that the world was populated in
  1862 by people from UFO's, it's proper to say that the author's
  *belief* regarding anthropology is wrong, and to offer evidence
  to the contrary.

  Someone may be a devotee of that author and accept the
  author's every saying as gospel, but when it comes to
  objective matters, things that are clearly untrue should be
  challenged.

  This challenge, though, should be kindly and in a way that
  brings the other person to reflect upon and reconsider the
  errors, not in a way that leads to hardening of beliefs.

-- Eldon