Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00422)

Hear, hear!!!


In a message dated 12/12/02 3:14:06 PM, dalval14@earthlink.net writes:

>Dec 11 2002
>
>Dear Eldon:
>
>> Re: Theos-World, and Theos-talk.
>
>
>>I do not think that opinions other than those that have some
>
>modicum of Thoeopshical inquiry or
>
>value ought to be allowed to inflict themselves on us.
>
>
>We are not a contentious group. Nor are any of us, who have been
>
>on the list for a while, derisive of
>
>others views and queries. We respect them. And, we ask serious
>
>questions. I trust this atmosphere can be restored and
>
>maintained.
>
>
>
>This list, to my mind, and after being on it for some years, is
>
>not framed by you to be a common debating society, and the ruses
>
>and ambushes of polemical debate are not really useful to deep
>
>and serous spiritual research, though they may amuse those who
>
>have psychic interests.
>
>
>
>Theosophy stands for BROTHERHOOD.
>
>
>It stands [ because of universal Spiritual Unity ] for the study
>
>of, and detection of TRUTH. In this case it seems to largely
>
>point to the rule of Law and laws in all aspects of nature.
>
>Those who deal with Nature as Science does, know this. The whole
>
>philosophy of Science and the “laws” of every country are based
>
>on it. They exemplify, however poorly, the ideal of fairness to
>
>all. So is Theosophy, although it includes a much wider, and
>
>more ancient set of parameters for our consideration. In fact
>
>the study of Nature -- as we are a part of It, and it surrounds
>
>us all and supports our living -- is essential to our continued
>
>well-being.
>
>
>
>Humanity [I mean the Family of Man] is such an aspect, and in
>
>fact, I think in fairness, it can be said: each human being, in
>
>his or her way, epitomizes the whole of Nature. We draw, each
>
>one of us, on every aspect of the Universe, and have the
>
>capability (potential ?) of understanding those remote, as well
>
>as the closest of relationships. In general we could also say we
>
>are seeking ever more deeply to understand the majestic sweep of
>
>sensitivity and gentle care, that Nature devotes to all beings,
>
>ourselves included.
>
>
>No one owns TRUTH.
>
>
>So no one ought to seek to denigrate or defame another's honest
>
>search, or expression, or inquiry into it.
>
>
>
>If some standards of exchange and of language are not set at a
>
>reasonable minimum, then the exchanges become very annoying. Do
>
>we have to wade through acrimonious opinions ? -- and that is no
>
>pleasure, at least, to me.
>
>
>
>If there are to be challenges, then let them be impersonal and of
>
>the philosophy or of the expressions of individual understanding
>
>that are expressed concerning, it or aspects of it.
>
>
>
>I think such personal acrimony is self-destructive to the value
>
>of Theos-talk, and certainly of Theos-World.
>
>
>
>This kind of contribution, has an additional impact (or shall I
>
>say: a power of disruption) which deflects some participants or
>
>newcomers from their attempt to understand what we are seeking
>
>all together; or, to get at the truth, or inquire into details
>
>and facts concerning others' possessing some experience,
>
>something that has led to a perception of it in some way other
>
>than theirs or ours. And, their willingness to share with us
>
>their thoughts and memories.
>
>
>
>Finally, it makes our "exchange group" a "laughing stock" for
>
>those who have not even touched the shores of our island of
>
>knowledge, nor touched the smallest of the waves of the Universe
>
>of WISDOM. How can those who claim unity be so virulently
>
>contentious?
>
>
>
>I would also say that no personal attacks ought to be
>
>countenanced. No one ought to be publicly derided or put down.
>
>If the tone is to be that of learning together, then good. But
>
>then, we can ask questions. In my opinion, no one ought to seek
>
>to dominate others by the use of opprobrium.
>
>
>
>A review of some recent exchanges indicates were a participant
>
>"lives," and such ought to be first reproved and then, sadly,
>
>eliminated from public contributions on these lists. I recognize
>
>this may appear to be censorship, and yet it also demands the use
>
>of some firm principles, such as you have already expressed. Let
>
>them find some other more congenial list in which to operate,
>
>why choose ours ?
>
>
>
>I wonder if others on the list would care to join me in this
>
>review of opinion. I may be wrong in expressing it in this way.
>
>Perhaps others have better ways.
>
>
>
>Freedom is freedom. Agreed. But to my mind it is no license to
>
>disrupt, antagonize or deride.
>
>
>
>To unite is to understand. To disparage is to refuse another, or
>
>others, the right to unite.
>
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Dallas