Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00481)

Dear Paul,

You sound like a very sensitive person, and I am sure anyone who 
received the treatment you perceive yourself to have received 
would feel hurt as you do. But there is a lesson in this, as in all 
things, which the devoted theosophist can use to further his own 
development. When we feel ourselves attacked, what does 
theosophical teaching suggest is the best response? Attack in 
return? Or try to use the experience to gain greater consciousness 
of the laws of nature and our own self, to grow in awareness and 
self-control? I am sure you can answer this question in the light of 
the teachings we all aspire to study and internalize in our lives. One 
way to proceed in the forest of confusion that emotional upheaval 
usually leaves us in is to make a clear distinction between 
personality and principle, the personal and the impersonal. Both 
Dallas and Eldon have addressed this in recent posts. It is such a 
central issue in all we experience. If we feel attacked, and respond 
by attacking the personality of the attacker, we make no progress. 
Things degenerate very quickly in that case. If we use what we 
perceive as an attack upon us as information about the issue at 
hand, examine what is said in the light of the underlying principles, 
and respond addressing these principles, we contribute to the 
general quotient of understanding. So we have to ask ourselves, 
what is our motive? Do we wish to amplify confusion, or do we wish 
to amplify understanding? Ultimately everyone is right, or wrong. It 
matters not a bit. None of us understands enough of the total 
picture at this stage of our evolution to be able to determine much 
at all. Dallas says we are all students and he definitely has a point. 
The ancient wisdom is in reality very simple, not easy, but simple. 
"Occultism is altruism, pure and simple," said HPB. We could live 
whole life-times with only that in mind and make great strides in our 
development, which would mean contributing to the welfare of the 
whole race. It would be a good idea, in fact, for theosophists, in my 
opinion, to ask themselves, before they say anything, whether they 
have the welfare of the whole in mind, or their own personal welfare 
only. This would be a good testing stone for anyone who wonders 
what is really going on. Because ultimately we are all making that 
choice all the time, either working for our brothers and sisters, 
mindful of the unity of all life, or for our own benefit, selfishly. This 
is what I understand Eldon to be suggesting in his wise post 
yesterday. Does any of this make sense to you? Do you find that 
theosophy helps one understand more about life and living it? Do 
you feel that the principles of theosophy become fulfilled only when 
they become a part of our daily lives? 

Adelasie

On 21 Dec 01, at 15:39, kpauljohnson wrote:

> --- In theos-talk@y..., "adelasie" <adelasie@s...> wrote:
> > Dear Paul,
> > 
> > Thanks for your efforts, but it is doubtful that anything you could
> > say would make me perceive the way you do. 
> 
> Dear Adelasie,
> 
> That is only fair and right. Nothing *I* say about Dallas should make
> you share my perceptions of him. But reading his own words might, and
> I'll find a recent abusive example in the archives and email you about
> it privately FYI.
> 
> However, this is not 
> > a bad thing. There is plenty of room for differences of opinion.
> 
> That was always true of the Theosophical movement for me up till I got
> published by SUNY Press. Then it turned out there was no room for
> differences of opinion on certain subjects according to certain
> people.
> 
> Your 
> > perception of our colleague Dallas, for instance, is based on your
> > experience and your orientation to that experience, as is mine based
> > on mine. Mine does not contain anything like what you describe. Your
> > orientation to theosophy is evidently very different from mine as
> > well, since you appreciate comments of a type that I find relatively
> > useless and even unecessarily derogatory. But so what?
> 
> I was thinking about the two camps here last night and it occurred to
> me that we have a mutual disconnect on the question of signal vs.
> noise. To me, Steve is almost all signal and Dallas almost all noise.
> That is, I tune in only for openminded discussion of Theosophical
> history with people who are more interested in finding new angles to
> consider than in defending a fixed body of truth they believe they
> have discovered. I suppose to you, the situation is reversed and you
> perceive Dallas's writings as signal and Steve's as noise.
> 
> Much of the hostility on the list is due to the fact that each group
> perceives the other as ruining the whole atmosphere. I can't have a
> freewheeling, comfortable conversation with Steve and Brigitte and
> Bill and Chuck and Jerry about HPB etc. without some fundamentalist
> shouting about how evil we are to be having such a conversation, and
> how we ought to stop, and how no one has the right to say anything
> about HPB that the fundamentalist in question dislikes. This is
> infuriating, because this is the one place such conversations *might*
> occur, and yet they are invariably shouted down by fundamentalists or
> at least the attempt is made. Brigitte and Steve are made of far
> sterner stuff than I; they haven't been shouted down successfully as I
> have in the past.
> 
> We are all pursuing the path according to our ability and 
> > aspiration. I might suggest, however, in the light of your extreme
> > hostility toward Dallas, who, in my experience has always been a
> > champion of truth and wisdom, that you examine your own motives a
> > bit. 
> 
> Never need to have that suggested to me; I do so daily. My personal
> wounds have healed but left scars. I never spend any time thinking
> about mean Theosophists apart from when reading this list. Have been
> preoccupied with other subjects for many years now. But when I see
> others getting "the treatment"-- the *very same* treatment I got, it
> brings up all the horrors of the mid-90s for me and evokes the same
> feelings of bewildered pain. So the main motive for my denouncing
> Dallas is my anguish at seeing someone else treated just as rudely as
> I was, and wanting to provide support to the victim.
> 
> Do you have too big an investment in being right? I don't 
> > particularly agree with your conclusions as published, but I do
> > support your right to espouse them. Can't you agree that there is
> > more than one side to any issue? 
> 
> That is made absolutely clear in my books, and it is also absolutely
> clear that Dallas would totally reject that statement when it comes to
> HPB. There is only one side. Sylvia Cranston is the final authority;
> any questions about HPB not addressed by her ought not be addressed by
> anyone.
> 
> William Quan Judge once said 
> > that when someone is angry with us, our best course is to 
> > investigate our own life to discover what we have done to generate
> > their animosity.
> 
> The problem with that is that no one I have ever known personally to
> any degree, which includes scores of Theosophists, has ever responded
> angrily to my books. People *who have never known me* are angry *not*
> with Paul Johnson the person, but with an imaginary construct of what
> *sort* of person would have written such a horrible attack on poor
> innocent dead HPB. Dallas's anger has nothing to do with me
> personally or anything I have *really* done, but with his attachment
> to a particular view of HPB and his perception of any other view as a
> vicious attack on her. So, what I did in my own life to generate the
> animosity of Dallas and his ilk was to write books that came to
> conclusions they didn't like. End of story. Anyone else writing
> about the same material would get the same reaction.
> 
> Did you ever try that? We are only responsible for 
> > our own actions, not for the actions of others. Blaming our 
> problems 
> > on others
> 
> The hostile Theosophical fundamentalist reaction to my books isn't *my
> problem* but that of the Theosophical fundamentalists, a problem they
> blame on me because they don't perceive their own dogmatism and
> intolerance. What was ruined was the opportunity for a certain kind
> and level of historical discussion to unfold. I escaped the
> consequences, moving on to the topic of Cayce and now to regional
> history. I don't blame the fundies *personally* for my own wounds,
> because they motivated me to move on to new fields of endeavor that
> are even more rewarding. But I do blame them *for what they have done
> to the Theosophical movement* which has become a travesty of what I
> thought I was devoting my life to in the 70s-90s. The Theosophical
> movement remains stuck in the mud, absolutely resistant to any kind of
> nonsectarian historical consideration of HPB and her Masters.
> 
> indicates that we have not really internalized the 
> > teachings of the Masters. I make these suggestions because they are
> > methods of learning self-control that have been useful to me during
> > the years, not, please understand, because I wish to debate past
> > issues with you. I have never read anything posted by Dallas that I
> > did not find sound and well-founded in deep study of theosophy,
> > which is to say, ancient wisdom.
> 
> Will send you a citation, but just recently he wrote some very rude
> and unsound things to Steve, personally insulting and irrelevant.
> 
> I have learned a lot 
> > from reading his writings, and have once in awhile found therein an
> > especially precious link in the development of my understanding. I
> > have found him to be extremely forebearing and kind, when tested to
> > the limit. Perhaps if you found otherwise, you need to take a 
> look 
> > at your own motives, your own actions.
> 
> And perhaps if you can read the things he writes and not see how
> consistently he is rude, dismissive, and high-handed in dealing with
> "heretics" then you need to take a look at your own motives for being
> blind to what *so* many others are complaining about. Is this pattern
> of behavior something you *do* not see, or *will* not-- perhaps
> because you know Dallas personally and he's not the fundamentalist
> monster in person that he is online?
> 
> That is usually the best 
> > course, when we find ourselves driven to such extremity as you seem
> > to be, carrying on about lynching, etc. 
> 
> Believe me, the most extreme words ever addressed to me in my life
> were from your hero, and if you read them addressed to yourself you
> would have NO TROUBLE perceiving the lynch mob mentality.
> 
> You see theosophy as 
> > discussed by him and others as fundamentalist. I see it exactly the
> > opposite. But we don't have to quarrel.
> 
> Of course not. But we can have a discussion of what Theosophical
> fundamentalism is, based on objective criteria. I'll post on that
> shortly. Then the question of whether or not an individual fits the
> model can be left up to the reader to judge.
> 
> There is room for both 
> > views. One day history will show which was more in tune with 
> > natural law, but in the meatime, we are all just students. Can't we
> > cooperate and try to assist each other to learn. What can we hope to
> > accomplish otherwise?
> > 
> We can do exactly that. But not as long as some of us look down on
> and denounce others *simply for trying to explore history without
> having to bow down to dogma*.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul