Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00232)

Based on the sequence of the below quoted items,
from Leon Maurer in a private email to me, talking
to me about the one by Sherab, which is below his,
along with my response to the one by Sherab, who
was responding to one of mine to Eugene, I have
decided to take Mr. Maurer's advice and from now
on sign my real name below postings that I make
here and on the three Blavatsky Net forums when
appropriate, as per his suggestions found just below.

John DeSantis
(aka Compiler -- of the web site in these links):

This is the "Additional" articles INDEX page:
http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/index.html

This is the "Main Page" of the site:
http://www.wisdomworld.org/index.html
-------

LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote:

John, Here's something I've been meaning to discuss
with you for some time.

The below letter indicates that it isn't a good idea to
sign discussion group response letters that are based
solely on your personal opinions or knowledge, with the
generic name "Compiler." Especially if you address the
letter to a particular person. That's very confusing
(if not impolite) -- since many of your other letters under
that name listing reprints of articles at Wisdom World
(which is appropriate) are not usually directed to any
individual. "Compiler" means someone who is impersonally
gathering information without any biases for presentation
to a general readers or researchers -- like "Editor" ... Not
someone who has an opinion, making a comment, or giving
direct information or teaching. BTW, editors only sign their
name as "Editor" when they are commenting on things they
are editing -- like you use the word "Compiler" when you are
commenting on things you are compiling.

I also think that anonymity when writing in response to
individuals in a discussion group is not a very good idea --
especially if you wish to maintain a friendly and credible
relationship as a "thinker" with those who think of themselves,
more as teachers rather than as students. Most people
in such round table letter forums, like to know who is the "person"
they are talking to. Particularly, if they think (rightly or wrongly)
that they are being criticized, argued with, or misinterpreted.

My suggestion, if you send out personal opinion or commentary
letters using the compiler e-mail address, is that you sign them
just plain John, or John D., or your full name (if you don't care if
anyone knows who Compiler is). Even Editors, sign their names
to their editorial opinion columns, or list their name in the credit
column next to the word "Editor." Some people in the forums I
subscribe to have e-mail addresses that use phony names, but
still sign their letters with their real name. On the Science
forums, when I write from another pseudonymous address (I have
four such), I sign my full name (or my initials, if my entire real
name is in the return address).

I think that this anonymity stuff, outside of the need for it in ULT
and Theosophy magazine to prevent commentators from gaining
notoriety and eclipsing the original teachers -- is carrying things
a bit too far. Even adding your name to the personal comments
you make and the book you published on the Wisdom World site,
would add a bit more credibility to what you say in some people's
minds -- especially scientists or other researchers who have to
cite credits along with their references or quotes. But, it's
your call.

Take care,

Len

-------
[Everything below was posted here on Theos-talk:
-------

>Compiler wrote:

>Sherab,

You are very mistaken in your analysis. I responded to Eugene's
comments (which are below). I did not "quote" or "cut and paste"
anything, or anyone, from any publication, but simply composed,
as usual, off the top my own thoughts and understanding, and in
my own words, of what I think Theosophy teaches on the subject
that I expressed below, and that you responded to.

Where did I offend you, whose comments are below Eugene's, or
anyone? I'm simply trying to add to the discussion and the food
for thought to be considered, as well as to see if I am somewhat
wrong in my understanding of the teachngs -- openly asking for
more knowledgeable students to also comment, and correct me
where I am wrong.

>Compiler
-------

>Sherab Dorje wrote:

Who is it that hides behind the name "Compiler" and what are
the motives behind these comments?

A lot of people in this forum are fond of cutting and pasting
quotations for various theosophic sources frequently without
comment as to their personal understanding of the same.
These quotes often times seem to me hurled as if they were
some kind of weapon at someone that causes a thought
disturbance in the orthodoxy of the society.

Mipham Rinpoche advises in the "Precious Knife of Certainty"
to rely on the meaning not the words, rely on the definitive
meanings not the provisinal meanings.

It would therefore seem appropriate in this forum to include
the specific reference when citing various quotations and
some commentary of meaning from the posting party.

>Sherab

> --- In theos-talk@egroups.com, Compiler <compiler@w...> wrote:

> Eugene,

Maybe these thoughts that you generated in me by your
ideas might be useful, if valid in any way, according to the
Theosophical teachings, for those more knowledgeable to
assist us all with: It would seem that "substance" is the other
side of the great unconditioned "All" when it is stirred up, as in
vibrational, by the force of thinking, so that relationships can
then be experienced through all the phenomea (which is this
substance in motion) on all of the many "conditioned" planes
of existence that come into existence, are experienced through,
and then fade away leaving each thinker with the "experience"
gained for the particular cycle, until the next one begins.

> Compiler
-------

I cut the rest of the messages off here:

John DeSantis
(aka Compiler)
-------