Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00015)

The following note was written by Ed Abdill to John Mead, who
posted it on theos-l for Ed today. Since it's of general
interest, I wrote Ed for permission to repost it on theos-talk,
and he said it would be ok.

-- Eldon

----

> From: "Ed C Abdill" <edabdill@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Message and UN-subscribe
> Date: Monday, March 02, 1998 8:50 PM

For months I have been concerned about the political material
that fills this list. While I do not question anyone's motive or
right to speak their mind, a lot of what appears here gives the
reader the IMPRESSION that frequently the writers are angry,
demanding, self righteousness, and quick to suspect others of
wrong doing.

What follows is not meant to criticize anyone or open a dialog on
the way the Society is managed by its elected officials. Rather,
I want simply to suggest a way of looking at anger, attempts to
change others, the insidious problem of self righteousness, our
use of the word "Truth," and the suspicion that we humans often
face in ourselves.

ANGER: Anger is reactive; it is part of our animal nature. When
we give in to it we betray our weakness. It makes us its victim
and muddles our mind. Peace (as a power) is the mark of the
strong, not the weak. By conscious effort it can be realized and
directed by the spiritual will.

Whenever I get angry about anything I try to quickly remember
that anger (thought justified or not) is a form of violence. By
getting angry, I release emotional violence into the
psychological atmosphere, and because we are all interrelated, I
thereby contribute to a chain reaction of anger that affects the
whole. Recently I have made a special effort to check any
tendency toward anger because I felt that the world's anger was
near a boiling point. Whether it helped or not, I tried to tap
into that peace that passes understanding and direct what I could
of it to those involved in negotiations concerning Iraq.

ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE OTHERS: We human beings believe that our
opinions are right. If we thought otherwise, we would change our
opinions. Sometimes we feel so strongly that we are right that
we try to change someone else. Seldom, if ever, do we succeed.
In fact, it is so clear to me that I must "first remove the beam"
in my own eye, that I do not attempt, and probably have no
ability to "remove the mote that is in [my] brother's eye." As
Krishnamurti and other wise individuals have said, it is by
changing ourselves that we change the world. But we human beings
find it easier, and ever so much more fun, to attempt to change
others. When I want to force someone else to do what I think is

right, I try to remember what the adepts say they do. KH writes,
"We advise - and never order. But we do influence individuals."
(Letter No. 43 , ML 47)

Letter No. 5, ML 4, refers to a dangerous world situation -
possible aggression by Russia against Tibet. Although the adepts
claim to have extraordinary powers they could have used to stop
the aggression, they took a wiser course. Rather than demanding,
or exerting occult power, they simply influenced people in the
hope that their thought would be picked up, accepted as
reasonable, and acted upon. Speaking of Russia, KH writes: "If
she does not succeed it will be due to us; and herein at least we
will deserve your gratitude."

The IF in the sentence shows they did not force their views on
anyone, even when they knew that they were right and a different
course of action might bring war. I fear we are not so wise.

SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS: It is insidious and we seldom notice it in
ourselves. HPB says we are "constantly self deceived," and from
seeing what little I can of my own personality, I believe her.
Koot Humi once called self righteousness "selfishness," and a
very dangerous form of it at that. In Letter No. 134, ML 64, he
writes:

> There are persons who, without ever showing any external sign of
> selfishness, are intensely selfish in their inner spiritual
> aspirations. These will follow the path once chosen by them with
> their eyes closed to the interests of all but themselves, and see
> nothing outside the narrow pathway filled with their own
> personality. They are so intensely absorbed in the contemplation
> of their own supposed 'righteousness' that nothing can ever
> appear right to them outside the focus of their own vision
> distorted by their self-complacent contemplation, and their
> judgment of the right and wrong.

USE OF THE WORD TRUTH: When speaking of political matters, the
Society's motto (There is no religion higher than truth) has
sometimes been invoked in such a way that the reader is led to
believe that the writer thinks his facts and/or opinions are the
Truth referred to in the motto.

May I say that I do not believe that the word Truth, as used in
the motto, refers to the substantiation of rumor, nor even to
historical facts. Rather, the word Truth refers to the eternal
principles upon which this universe is based. No religion can
claim to have a higher Truth than that. Whether accurate or not,
facts, rumors, and opinions are not part of that kind of Truth.

SUSPICION: In Letter No. 11, ML 28, KH writes:

> Imagination as well as will - creates. Suspicion is the most
> powerful provocative agent of imagination...Beware! You have
> already begotten in you the germ of a future hideous monster, and
> instead of the realization of your purest and highest ideals you
> may one day evoke a phantom, which, barring every passage of
> light will leave you in a worse darkness than before, and, will
> harass you to the end of your days.

Granted, KH spoke to Mr. Hume. Nevertheless, his remarks
clearly show what suspicion can do if we allow it to activate our
imagination.

NEW LIST: The theosophical philosophy can make an enormous
difference in our world if it is pursued and lived. I am sure
that most members would accept that, but I am afraid that a new
comer to theosophy might be turned away from that philosophy by
many of the charges and counter charges posted on this list. To
help prevent that, would it not be better to create two lists:
One for political views about the organization and a second for
discussion of the theosophical philosophy?

Having said that, I do not wish to imply that when one disagrees
with officials they should be silent. Indeed, they should say
they disagree and why. Better yet, they might run for office,
knowing that if elected they will themselves become the dart
board instead of the dart. If a new "political" list is created,
then those who want to address political matters will still have
an open forum, and all who subscribe will know that the list is
dedicated to political views, not to the theosophical philosophy.

When and if there are two lists, one for theosophical ideas and
one for politics, I will gladly subscribe to the former. In the
meantime, I ask now to be removed from this list. Hopefully the
contributors will not interpret my action to mean that I do not
care about the structure of the Society and the behavior of its
members. I care very much indeed, but I choose to deal with such
matters differently from the way they are dealt with here.