Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00404)

Dear Dallas,

You are asking very important questions and I will definately think 
upon them. But suppose someone is not just giving an opinion but has 
actually read Annie Besant and CWL and would like to give an educated 
agruement against some of what they say? And some group on the 
internet (I will refrain from mentioning the actual group or 
moderator) refuses to post his agruements?

I think there is also something to be said for freedom of speech, 
that everyone is free to express their view point however dumb and 
pointless it may be. But I digress...

Part of brotherhood is to help and correct faults in our fellow 
brother if he should fall. Here is what HPB says in an issue of 
Lucifer from September 1892:

"Mutual criticism is a most healthy policy, and helps to establish 
final and definate rules in life - practical, not merely 
theoretical." - HPB

"Criticism is the sole salvation from intellectual stagnation. It is 
the beneficient goad which stimulates to action the heavy ruminants 
called Routine and Prejudice..." - HPB

We should give the benefit of the doubt that as theosophists, we all 
have only the best of intentions. Unfortunately, we can help our 
brothers only if they are willing to help themselves. If they are 
going the wrong way (not by their opinion but their reaction to 
opposing opinion mind you) wouldn't it be our duty to point it out? 
Doesn't HPB tell us in the Key to Theosophy that:

"we should aim at creating FREE men and women, FREE intellectually, 
FREE morally,UNPREJUDICED IN ALL RESPECTS." ......?

Are we not all as theosophist dedicated to finding truth, come what 
may as to where it falls?

There is a danger when someone sets himself as an "authority" AND 
REFUSES TO LEARN OR EVEN LISTEN to another view point. In the same 
Lucifer article quoted from above, HPB says:

"For what is an 'authority' upon any question, after all? No more, 
really, than a light streaming upon a certain object through one 
single, more or less wide, chink, and illuminating it FROM ONE SIDE 
ONLY." - HPB

This is why we as theosophist should have open discussions. Otherwise 
we may become closed and dogamtic, and not the "independent thinkers" 
that the Masters hoped would come out of the Theosophical Movement. 
Anyway, I'm glad that this is not the case in this group.

In the meantime I'll think about the WHY, HOW, WHEN, WHERE, and WHO 
in my own self education. Thanks Dallas.

Ariel







--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@e...> 
wrote:
> July 27 2004
> 
> Dear Friends:
> 
> Open discussion?
> 
> On what subjects and for what purpose?
> 
> May I say that (for me) it is pointless to consider anyone's 
writings
> without samples or quotes.
> 
> To offer and expose your general opinion concerning them is good. 
But why?
> 
> Now can the opinions you offer be made evident, and can we escape
> generalities, and unsupported opinions? 
> 
> What are we actually discussing?
> 
> Brotherhood is at the root of all things, agreed. But what kind of
> brotherhood? 
> 
> It is needed for any true progress. Good. How does it compare with 
Soul
> immortality?
> 
> What about the idea of an eternal pilgrimage towards the 
acquisition of
> WISDOM? Who is on this journey? Do we participate? 
> 
> Is it possible to agree we all take personal as well as conjoint
> responsibility taken for one's thoughts, feelings, words and deeds?
> 
> Reincarnation? Karma?
> 
> What is the expanse of evolution? Where is it taking place? How 
is it
> conducted? Who are the actors and "players" on that scene?
> 
> Now Why, How, When, Where, and Who are valuable questions to be 
asked and
> answered. I believe they ought to form part of our own process of
> self-education 
> 
> Why are restrictions dangerous? In what context?
> 
> Why criticize without exact evidence?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> ======================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arielaretziel [
> To: 
> Subject: Have Open Discussions on Groups
> 
> 
> Dear Pedro and Dallas,
> 
> I think the more important point is whether one can openly discuss 
> Leadbeater in an open forum or whether a moderator should censor 
> anything that disagrees with his own view point. This seems to 
bother 
> me more.
> 
> I think in the cause of Universal Brotherhood and our dedication as 
> theosophists for truth that Ananda Gholap should open up his 
> Theosophical group to discussion without censor. If there is no 
open 
> discussion, what is the point in having a "discussion" group? Is 
> there only one right answer and that being yours? It's your group 
and 
> you can do whatever you want, but really, it's not fair to invite 
us 
> to join and then tell us to "shut up!" 
> 
> Ariel