Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00055)

According to owner-theos-talk-digest@proteus.imagiware.com:

Some further comments.  I don't think people are grasping the
difference between disagreeing with someone's position, not
respecting the evidence or logic on which it is based, and
expressing *dis*respect for the *person*.  Simple way of telling
the difference-- put yourself in the other's shoes and ask "Would
I find this offensive if directed at me?"  If you're terminally
insensitive and insulting, then ask someone else who has more
tact.

David Green wrote:
>
> Folks, people, assembled multitude,
> peruse D Pratt's essay
> on P Johnson's book & decide
> what is & is not disputable.
> That was my point.

It would make sense to encourage people to read the books (he
attacks three) and try to perceive them directly, and *then* to
read criticisms (Caldwell's are less dogmatic IMO) and the
author's responses to them.  Just reading the Pratt attack, which I
didn't answer because the number of misconceptions and false
accusations was so huge as to require a very long reply, gives
only one highly partisan perspective.
>
> Well, maybe I'm also uninformed
> & irrational.  Hey, diss me.
> I'll survive with Gloria Gaynor.

We all are in various ways, and would be better occupied seeing
the mote in our own eyes.
>
> Masters.  I'm sure Govert is sincere
> in his belief.  No doubt. No doubt.
> I'm just saying I find such belief
> irrational.

As millions of people would find literal belief in the Mahatma
letters.  Maybe it's the feeling that HPB has been dissed that
makes Theosophists think it right to do that to others?
>
>
> Why must one have respect for
> EC Prophet & her channeling?

I have none.  That doesn't authorize me to express *dis*respect.

> Do you have respect for Jerry
> Falwell, his channelings from Jehovah,
> & his view of the world?

No, and he's just an hour up the road from me.  Not well loved in
his own neck of the woods either.  But expressing *dis*respect
for him and his teachings would serve no constructive purpose.
>
> This doesn't mean I hate them. Just
> no respect for them.

Then perhaps silence is the best policy, or irony?
>
> >How do the writings you regard as sacred orient you to the
> >legitimacy of dissing people with differing views?
>
> What writings do I regard as sacred?
> Sacred?  Oh, you're a clever one, Pauly
> Johnson.  I regard Mrs Blavatsky's writings
> & Mahatma Letters as reliable but not as
> sacred.  Again, read my big, beautiful
> red lips----
>
> reliable not sacred

The question still stands.  Do the three objects, for example,
really encourage the kinds of attacks we've been seeing?
>
> Diss me & my beliefs, if you can.

No thanks.

> I'm open to changing my views.
> Overwhelm me with rationality, e t c
> Are you & Govert open?

It's your job to change your views, not mine.  Misguided efforts
to persuade and convert are wasted time, which probably describes
my attempt to get Theosophists to act otherwise than they do.

Now Nicholas:
>
> If it were someone other than the PJ writing this, I would spend more time
> and effort to find quotes to refute his notions.

The old "I could refute you if I wanted to, but you're not
deserving of the honor" routine.

> writings.  He has all the spiritual insight of a wad of chewing gum. Yes,
> this is disrespectful towards PJ.

Why do you feel the need to consistently express it in the
strongest terms for years and years?  Frankly, Nicholas, in 44
years I have never seen the look of pure hatred from anyone
(well, say 35 years since I wouldn't remember if it happened in
early childhood) I saw in your eyes in San Diego in 1992.  Damn
scary.  All over some books.

  But somewhere beyond he and I and
> everyone is our Divine Nature, to which I prostrate.  My personality, our
> personalities -- all deserve little attention and as little respect --
> most of the time.

Which isn't the same as a license to *dis*respect.

Jake writes:

> themselves to seek truth.   People's lives are   RUINED by following
> false teachings, so it is a serious matter.

People's lives can also be ruined by following true teachings in
the wrong way.  People's lives can also be positively
transformed by following false teachings, if the motives are
right.

 Is it better to let someone
> else be deceived, just for the sake of superficial harmony - like Paul
> approves of in the Cayce group?

It's not a matter of "letting someone else be deceived."  We're
all deceived in some ways and of course those are precisely the
things we don't know we're wrong about.  IMO the Cayce approach
isn't indifference to false beliefs, but rather "keep ever
constructive"-- meaning to encourage what you see as positive
rather than attack what you see as negative in the other person.
I'm trying, unsuccessfully I fear, to evoke the awareness in you and David
and Nicholas etc. that *knows better than to act this way* and get its
light to shine on your attitudes.

> she is a good example to follow.     Are personal sentimentalities more
> important than truth, even if some temporary pain is involved? Maybe
> sometimes yes and sometimes no.   Not to criticize is to die.

That's an awfully biased way to put it.  An equally biased way
that expresses my own perspective is-- which of the paramitas
comes first?  Loving kindness, not vigor in the search for truth.

Sidebar to Darren:

> But you'd have to come to my country where it isn't a felony.

Not one here.  Misdemeanor, $250 fine.

>
> There is a difference between disrespect and giving an honest opinion.

Absolutely.  But you seem to think that I lack the ability to
discriminate between the two, whereas the written evidence
suggests that the "defenders of Blavatskian orthodoxy" don't see
the difference.
>
> There is a tendency these day's to tread the road of least resistance, along
> with fluffy-bunny political correctness where, it appears, one should avoid
> "upsetting" anyone at all costs.  Fortunately, this is not a trend HPB had
> the slightest inclination for.

You see that as fortunate.  I see it as terribly unfortunate,
full of karmic consequences for the war-of-all-against-all that
the modern Theosophical movement has been, and continues to be on
the Net.
>
> A theosophist (or non theosophist, for that matter) should speak freely and
> fearlessly with little or no personal regard for being liked/disliked;

Should?  Is that a moral should?  It's a not a matter of being
liked or disliked but a matter of deliberately wounding people.
Or, more accurately perhaps, willfully disregarding the potential
destructive effects of one's words.  That should be so obvious as
to go without saying.

> agreed-with/disagreed-with etc.  How another acts - or *re*acts - to this is
> largely a matter for themselves . . . and karma.

The karma of the willful infliction of pain on others over
doctrinal matters is not enviable.  Not that I've ever seen you
do this.

Namaste,

A wad of chewing gum: flexible, refreshing, and tasty too?