[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #165

Jun 02, 1998 00:56 AM
by Kym Smith

Dallas wrote:


Some of you gentlemen on this list sure yell alot.  And, ok, if Judge was
"trying" to say something different than what he wrote - so be it.  But
then, we are now allowed to apply that standard to every writer in Theosophy.

> I neve liked sitting

Sitting opposite someone requires one to look the other in the face.  It is
a scary prospect; focus on your feet - that helps.

>Who can pretend to be a "teacher ?"

No one can "pretend" - we are all 'genuine' teachers.  Someone learns
something from us every day - be the lesson helpful or inhibiting.  We need
to get it together regarding our 'lesson plan.'

>Seeking to know the ins and outs of another's psyche sounds kind
>of sneaky to me.  Possibly manipulative.

Hello? Dallas?  Are you there?  How did you manage to get out of my saying
that we need not treat humans as machines as "seeking to know the ins and
outs of another's psyche?"

To be just a plain ole' compassionate person, one must, as I said
previously, handle or include the sentiments of others.  If a person is so
grief-stricken as to desire to commit suicide, one better know how to handle
that person's particular sentiments or have knowledge of human psychology so
to help aid the suffering person.  You term this "manipulative?"  So, when
your mother or a friend comforted you and knew what things to say to you to
help you when you were sad or in pain, it was just a manipulative ploy on
their part?  Ok, well. . .hmmmm. . .what to do here?

>And, no selection of quotes is of more value
>than to the one who makes that selection.  I can't guarantee that
>anyone else will enjoy them as I did,  But we can all wonder why
>they were phrased the way they are.

And indeed we did!  Hence, you deciding (and I agree) that Judge meant
"emulate" rather than "imitate."  And you know what, Dallas?  This is one of
the reasons why we need to re-vamp the writings - clarify the writings.

>One of the things that I try to keep in mind is:  all are capable
>of thinking and making independent decisions as I can, and so I
>try to respect their integrity.

No, this is a cop-out.  You and I know good and well there are those out
there who are skilled in areas other than deciphering occultism.  There are
people who are caring, compassionate, earnest, and who yearn to know other
'things' - but due to a lack of opportunities in education, they are
required to gravitate toward ideas which they feel they can readily
understand (hence, the groundswell of Christianity, Islam, and pop New Age
ideas).  If Theosophical writings were made clearer (as Annie Besant
attemped to do - applause to her), there would be MORE people who then "are
capable of thinking and making independent decisions as [you] can."  Too
many people are forced to make decisions about "the meaning of life" based
on too little information.

>I am aware of "gender sensitivity.  For me the use of gender is
>annoying, since what I am trying to say is something to the
>soul/mind.  And I do not believe that it has a "gender."

Ok, but that does not explain why those who claim "it" has no gender insist
on calling "it" him or he, rather than one or it.

>excuse me if I hit a sore spot -- not intentional.

You've done remarkably well on this post. . and now that I know you can. .
.any trip-up will be met most harshly.

>Wish I could emulate some of those characteristics if possible.

Ooooh, clever!

>Also I prefer "The

Of course, Dallas, of course.  I say "tomato," you say "tomatoe."


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application