Re: Creating authority under sweet name of "original teaching"
Sep 21, 2004 00:59 AM
Thank you for your reply.
Dishonesty has a number of definitions including "speaking
untruthfully", "unjustly accusatory" and "manipulation of facts to
facilitate a desired end."
The reference was of a generic nature, specificity requiring
undesirable finger pointing. To the extent where someone is required
to continually defend themselves where no offence has occurred, it is
to be hoped that certain contributors will refrain from unjust and
emotive accusation or implication.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "W.Dallas TenBroeck"
> Sept 20 2004
> Dear Nigel:
> "Dishonesty" is a strong word, and needs precising.
> Can you be more specific as to what points have not been answered
> Are we talking history?
> If that is so, then there are documents available to help us
> happened in the past even if presently, we cannot undo that "past."
> The problem with documents is that some cherished notions may have
> abandoned and that hurts. So ? "There is no religion higher
> truth." Is our motto.
> Perhaps if those are made into a list help can be given
> Best wishes,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nhcareyta
> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 2:06 AM
> Subject: Creating authority under sweet name of "original teaching"
> For a number of weeks, you and some of your well-meaning colleagues
> have patiently repeated and re-repeated certain points of view, due
> to the seeming inability of some contributors to understand your
> Finally, you have challenged this apparent inability by suggesting
> dishonesty. I concur, for such it is.
> The forms of dishonesty you have highlighted are highly prized in
> political circles, being age old techniques used to avoid the truth
> of matters.
> Failing to answer questions directly, muddying the waters with
> unrelated information, diverting the conversation onto other topics
> and false accusations of an unsubstantiated nature are just some of
> methods which have clearly been used by some, whether consciously
> unconsciously, in a vain attempt to defend the indefensible.
> In essence, these are acts of violence because they summarily
> others' points of view and attempt to overpower and dominate the
> agenda with their own dogma.
> This is disappointing for a discussion group such as this. Hiding
> behind the respectability of free intellectual discussion to avoid
> issues and unjustly condemn others is unethical and unacceptable.
> This does not manifest freedom, it is merely the use of
> tools of disempowerment to profess blind faith.
> Best wishes to you and others for your quest for truth in debate.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application