Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tt00093)

John Mead:
>My actual concern is that the TSA is becoming much more like the ES.
>Basically a specific religion worshiping some specific group of adepts with
>a specific dogma and required way of life....
>One which inherently has a hierarchical view of even its own members! One
>which discriminates between specific indvidual members according to their
>particular religious beliefs or (even worse) by some perceived notion of
>'level of adept-hood'.

I agree that this is separating and goes against what t/Theosophy is about.

>If you have not seen this type of behaviour coming out from TSA national
>then you are looking through glasses fogged by your desire to *avoid* any
>thought which may be labeled as 'negative'.  Doss  has made very healthy,
>positive, observations.  What makes them seem negative is due to the
>fictional belief that *all* critical analysis is inherently negative and
>creates bad 'vibes'.  If you get bad 'vibes' over these discussions it is
>probably because you feel you have to defend the other side. (?  my guess).

Until the "other side" has the chutzpah to speak up, it is good for someone
to provide the opposing argument.  In this way, we can get a clearer
picture of the situation.

>The majority of theosophists seem to find it easier to ignore bad ideas and
>positions rather than correct them.  The TSA leaders often use phrases like
>"now, don't be negative!"  as a way to guilt-trip an individual into
>silence.  That attitude actually *is* a very negative and damaging thought
>form.  (also - Thou shall not criticize thy church, or thy will be judged a
>heretic!)

We should also consider that negativity can also be destructive.  Perhaps
destructiveness can be a way of tearing down a structure so that we may
rebuild.  The T.S.A. is already quickly losing members, but this negativity
is also preventing the T.S. from gaining any new members.  With the advent
of the internet, timid people are able to venture into territory that they
have before been afraid to discover.  Idealistic and wanting to share
what's in their heart, they log onto a list, only to find bickering
theosophists condemning their own organization.  They cannot see that the
bickering is due to the theosophists' love of their organization and a wish
for change.  From their newbee point of view, they see an environment not
conducive to their growth.  They couldn't care less about the politics and
history. Realize that these newbees have only a tender amount of knowledge
of theosophy, so tender that it could be easily squashed.

Similar to what I asked Doss.  I've been on this list for over a year now.
I've heard the same arguments.  Has this brought any positive changes?  Is
the negativity worth it?  What is the gain, what is the loss?

I agree with you that the lack of communication is also damaging.  The
"ignore the child" policy does not work!  Not tending to the wound will
only cause it to fester until the entity is destroyed.  I encourage other
theosophists to contribute to the conversation.  If a theosophist feels
that the conversation is too negative and will not be a party, then maybe
that theosophist can contribute with positive comments.  Silence can be a
crime of acquiescence.

>I think this discussion is very positive. It is very healthy. It gives to
>me a feeling of renewal and hope to see theosophists questioning the
>decisions of their elected servants.
>
>john e. mead

Yes, it is healthy to communicate.  However, you need to consider how you
are communicating and its impact on other ears.

Thoa :o)