Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00366)

Dear Daniel

You write
>In light of what you write below, I certainly think we are in agreement.  But
>what I still don't understand is why you labelled Rich's "approach" as a
>"distraction."  I'm not trying to be difficult or dense, I just don't
understand
>what you exactly meant to convey by that .

Daniel, Richard wished to bring this discussion to a close.

As was stated:

>> Perhaps it is easier for someone rather than ourselves, to see what we are
>> saying?

Peter offered "...There are times when I feel I have wondered too far
off the original thread and have got too imersed in the background info and
lost sight of the core study.  I  imagine it is this which is Tony's
concern, but I think its just a question of balance."

This is a happy response.

But, there are of course reasons, rightly or wrongly, for useing
"distraction."  But what is to be gained by labouring the point.  Life is
full of distractions.

If memory serves correctly "distraction" was used in relation to philology.
Others put views forward about this.  You saw what happened when we were
going into "Devachan" philologically. It was never resolved.  To some of us
the philological side wasn't what was important.  It can distract, as it
did,  from what Devachan is (from the Theosophical point of view).  Surely
it is this which is important?   It is appreciated that you may feel that it
didn't distract from the Theosophical view, and that you have different
priorities.  Nothing wrong in that.   But we move on and the choice is ours.

Tony.