Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00109)

Dear Jerry,

I think you have pointed to an essential element of what underlies 
the unpleasantness that flames into these discussions. When we 
take comments personally we are immediately lost in the toils of 
the lower ego. We no longer see clearly, and we feel justified in 
using any means necessary to defend ourselves from what we 
perceive as an attack upon our personal sovereignty. All ethical 
proceedures go out the window. 

The fact that you say you have promised yourself not to get 
involved in flame wars again is a tremendous step. Such a vow on 
the part of one individual actually helps others find the way to 
making a like decision. Each one of us has the power to make 
such a decision, to look at what is said impersonally and respond 
to it in terms of the principles it represents, rather than in an 
attempt to defend ourselves. When we offer a fight, we empower 
the opposition. When we are off balance, lost in the lower ego, we 
betray that which is highest in ourselves. We strike out against the 
perceived threat, and the other does the same, and all sense goes 
out of the discussion. What a waste of a great opportunity to have 
meaningful discussion which may be of use to someone. It's the 
age-old pattern, the pattern of war. But we can indeed do better.

Adelasie




> 
> Adelasie, sometimes criticism can be meant to help. One reason for my
> using "fundamentalism" on these lists (I believe that I was the first
> to use that term) is to try and get my fellow Theosophists to take an
> honest look at themselves. My motive was, and still is, compassion.
> Paul and others have carefully defined fundamentalism, and if the shoe
> fits ...
> 
> Most of us, myself included, tend to be so close to our belief system,
> alias worldview, that we take disagreements as personal attacks, and
> this starts the flames shooting. I have learned over the years not to
> do this, but this was a hard lesson for me, and my guess is that many
> are still in the process of learning it.
> 
> The historians on this list have a right to be here, and to make their
> case. Personally, as I have said many times, I don't care much for
> history because I believe that it is just as plastic as the future.
> Numerous historical accounts of the TM exist, and how can anyone know
> for sure which is right and which is wrong, except for our faith?
> Nevertheless, they have a right to make their case, just as everyone
> else has the right to accept or reject what they say. If nothing else,
> it may help us think, will likely test our faith, and it certainly is
> interesting.
> 
> Some time ago these lists were filled with CWL bashing, and only a few
> people spoke out against it (I don't recall Dallas using his dead
> person argument to defend CWL). As I recall, Eldon's wife quit the
> list over it, and has never returned. Thankfully this kind of thing
> has been notably reduced lately. The recent heated debates over
> history are nothing compared to some of our flame wars in the past (to
> which I humbly plead guilty, and I have promised myself never to do
> again). So, hopefully we are improving.
> 
> Jerry S.
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>