Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00360)

How about making this a love list?

We can start by loving the truth, which means dealing
with it non judgmentally and not trying to cover it up
or distract people from it or burying it with specious
arguments.

We can go from there to loving honest discussion, in
which all sorts of ideas can be brought forward and
members can assist each other in seeing if there are
flaws in their reasoning. Honest discussion implies a
willingness to consider new things and learn.

Having achieved that, we might try loving each other,
instead of referring to ourselves as practitioners of
the superior "Heart Doctrine" and condemning others as
practitioners of the grossly inferior "Eye Doctrine." 
I have seen that trick used a few times.

And finally, perhaps we may learn to love ourselves, 
Having learned to express other forms of love, we may
come in due course to realize that we are all worthy
to receive it as well.

This would be the season for it.

After all, the mahatma letters stress that the
practice of universal brotherhood is more important
than Blavatsky's stunts materializing teacups out of
thin air.

Steve

--- kpauljohnson <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "Morten Sufilight"
> <teosophy@m...> wrote:
> > 
> > Peter wrote:
> > I very much endorse what you have said.
> 
> Which was what *Bart* said, that the list was
> becoming a hate list 
> instead of a Theosophical list. Two people now have
> jumped on the 
> bandwagon, without clarifying what Bart meant. 
> Somehow I don't think 
> he meant what Peter and Morten think he meant. 
> Bart, will you 
> explain?
> 
> My first reaction was to think of Frank and nos's
> anti-Semitic and 
> anti-American rants. But those have actually
> diminished of late. 
> When I looked through the last hundred posts to see
> activity levels, 
> I found the top posters were Brigitte with 22 posts,
> Daniel with 18, 
> Dallas with 13, Steve with 7, Frank with 6, Peter
> and Nos with 5 
> each, everyone else with 3 or fewer. Now, of these
> 7, who are 
> engaging in hate speech? What do they hate, how do
> they express it, 
> and how can three people immediately jump into an
> attempt to "deal" 
> with this having become a "hate list" without a
> syllable's worth of 
> discussion of what they *mean* by that or who they
> hold responsible?
> 
> Dogmatic fundamentalist Theosophists will consider
> Brigitte to be 
> hateful simply because she challenges their beliefs,
> which they 
> consider "bothering" them. I find Daniel's posts
> hateful because he 
> relentlessly interrogates (to the point of
> persecution) anyone who 
> says anything that doesn't jive with his
> interpretation of HPB. 
> Dallas hates any questions that don't lead to his
> particular set of 
> answers, and opines that they oughtn't be asked. 
> Steve doesn't seem 
> to hate anyone, and is my favorite of the regular
> posters. Frank and 
> nos hate America and Jews. But somehow I doubt very
> much that this 
> latter is what Peter is "agreeing with" as the
> crucial problem even 
> though it might be what Bart intended to say.
> 
> So when Morten jumps to offer his own suggestions
> for improving the 
> list, I don't think they really reflect the nature
> of Bart's 
> complaints or the actual, deepseated problems of
> Theosophical lists 
> in general and this one in particular. He wrote:
> > 
> > I think, that we all are evolving - so to speak.
> So let us just 
> keep up the - good -communication. 
> 
> What is "good" communication? What is good about
> people trying to 
> stifle discourse about history because it doesn't
> suit them? We've 
> seen lately Dorothy, Leon, Dallas, and now you and
> Peter making vague 
> denunciations of unnamed people who are ruining the
> list. My answer 
> to this: "Light a candle, or curse the darkness?" 
> Brigitte and Steve 
> and Daniel are doing *absolutely nothing* to
> interfere with y'all's 
> ability to talk about *what* you want, *how* you
> want, and *when* you 
> want. But it's much easier to say "the discourse
> around here stinks 
> because it doesn't suit my personal tastes" than to
> *do* something 
> constructive to express yourself positively. Same
> old story, I've 
> seen the same fruitless complaints on many other
> lists, people 
> talking about what *others* ought to be posting
> about instead of 
> doing it themselves. That's just a waste of time
> and energy, and 
> further pollutes the allegedly hateful atmosphere.
> 
> snip
> > Let us help each other to reach a better
> communication. That is my 
> view.
> 
> Suggestion number one: stop denouncing historical
> discussion as if it 
> were inherently anti-spiritual. It's not. 
> Particularly in the case 
> of a movement that is founded on some very specific
> historical claims.
> > 
> > A view:
> > 
> > Think good, be good, do good.
> 
> History is good.
> 
> > Write good words. Think good words. Understand the
> importance of 
> good words. 
> 
> Historical understanding is good. Historical debate
> is good.
> 
> > Don't think destruction. Don't think bad. Don't do
> bad. Don't write 
> bad words. Don't think bad words. 
> 
> Don't think destructive thoughts about historical
> inquiry and 
> discussion. Don't think bad thoughts about people
> who engage in 
> them. Don't write bad words about them, or think
> bad words about 
> them.
> 
> snip
> 
> > There has to be harmony between head, heart and
> hands - on 
> communication. 
> > To much heart without wisdom is no good. Too much
> wisdom without 
> heart is either no good. And no use of hands (i.e.
> also no action), 
> that is even worse.
> > More heart please - and not all that academic
> analyzing - without 
> compassion.
> > 
> Why not do what you think ought to be done rather
> than admonish 
> others to be less analytical? Why, in general, on
> spiritual lists 
> are there always a bunch of people telling other
> people not to 
> discuss what they are discussing the way they are
> discussing it, 
> because it's not spiritual enough? You want
> spiritual, BE spiritual 
> and stop kvetching about other people's interests.
> > 
> > What do you really want ?
> 
> Dialogue with people who are sincerely seeking truth
> and interested 
> in learning and sharing. Not bashing others who
> don't share their 
> beliefs.
> 
> > What do you really seek ?
> 
> Spirituality that is not in conflict with clear
> awareness of history 
> and all it reveals about human weakness and
> delusion. 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com