Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00197)

--- In theos-talk@y..., <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> 
> Frankly, let's get off the "history" controversies. 

Dear Dallas,

Obviously you mean well with such suggestions, but I think they are a 
waste of time. What point is there in exhorting other people to drop 
subjects because you don't enjoy their discussions or for various 
other reasons of your own? Why not just discuss what you want, with 
whomever cares to, and ignore what you don't want to discuss? Even 
if it were somehow morally right to keep exhorting people to change 
the subject according to your own preferences, would it be 
pragmatically worth your time and energy? Does anyone ever drop a 
subject because someone else is tired of it?

They merely
> accentuate differences of opinion,

The "merely" is your own. What is wrong with accentuating 
differences of opinion, as long as people can discuss those 
differences without insulting one another? HPB and the Masters 
certainly accentuated differences of opinion in their writings.

> and do not solve anything.

By whose standards is "solving" something the sine qua non for our 
discussions? Shedding some light on subjects, stimulating intuition 
and inquiry, raising issues for consideration, are not "solving 
anything" but they are just what HPB and her Masters did mostly. Do 
you know of any issues that HPB "solved" to the world's 
satisfaction? Since she didn't, was all her life a wasted effort?

> The past has been, and we cannot alter it. 

But we can alter our understanding of it with increased source 
material and better interpretation of what we already have.

It is obvious that
> individual views will differ, but no one "wins" in such matters.

Why need it be viewed as "win/lose?" Why does the fact that no one 
definitively "wins" suggest to you that it's not worth exploring? 
Such a standard would stifle 99.99% of all the discourse on the 
Internet or in academia.

> The vies of each individual will remain theirs 

That's the heresy of separateness, my friend. We are all constantly 
interacting and modifying our views accordingly-- our should be.

and only they can
> alter them.

Everything we are exposed to from every mind with which we interact 
can "alter" our views by giving us new information and perspectives.

No one "wins" in such situations.
> 
If you think of it as a zero sum game in which there have to be 
winners or losers-- as you clearly do-- that misses the point. 
EVERYONE "wins" if everyone has more information and more 
interpretative perspectives to consider.

> What I do suggest is that if one ascertains the ethical and moral
> basis for living and for conjoined evolution much more will be
> achieved. This means we have to learn to differentiate the
> "Doctrine of the Heart" from the "eye doctrine of literalism.
> 
> Can this be started?
> 
There is a state of consciousness, and an approach to reality, that 
transcends either the true/false duality of manas (eye) or the 
good/bad duality of kama (heart). Look to that-- symbolized by the 
Third Eye and perhaps rooted there-- for an approach that transcends 
this obsession with "winning" for "good" HPB and Theosophy and the 
heart doctrine (as you understand them) and ensuring that those who 
are taking a "bad" different approach must "lose" by being constantly 
reprimanded for it.

Live and let live. Is that really so hard? And is the alternative 
of constantly urging people to do things your way "skillful means"?

Paul