Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00362)

Hi Steve,

I agree fully on that.

from Sufilight


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World A hate list? and what to do about it


> 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
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>