Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00258)

Dear Paul,

Reluctantly I must admit that you have a point. Obviously, all 
idealism to the side, if we cannot stop "massaging" our grievances, 
we must not be ready to let them go. It is hopeful, however, to find 
your mention of work being done in South Africa and Germany as an 
example of getting past the negative blame game and moving into 
understanding and acceptance. Ironically, the idea of the Unity of 
all Life, if applied to any conflict, throws things into sharp 
relief. So often, if we look at both sides of a dispute, we can see 
merit in each. The alternative, given humanity's current power of 
destruction, is frankly unthinkable.

Good to chat with you,
Adelasie

On 10 Feb 2005 at 16:31, kpauljohnson wrote:

> 
> 
> Dear Adelasie,
> 
> The issue is of much broader concern than just intra-Theosophical
> problems. Every spiritual tradition I'm familiar with is riven by
> conflicts of one kind or another, rooted in historical events. And
> they do tend to get reexamined continually-- as for example the great
> interest in the Gnostics that we see in current publications. The
> rise of orthodoxy and the suppression of gnosis was clearly a "past
> failure" of Christianity that is important to continue to examine. No
> resolution is in sight but people feel compelled to keep reexamining
> what happened and why.
> 
> As to why we feel compelled to do this, I think of a metaphor from
> massage therapy. Old injuries cause can current pain and tension, and
> when someone works skillfully on the problem area it causes temporary
> discomfort but eventual release of tension and healing. With old
> injuries like the persecution of Gnostics or the Judge/Besant/Olcott
> feud, it seems to take an endless amount of massage before any tension
> is released or any healing can take place.
> 
> But as long as old injuries produce pain and tension, people will want
> to do something for relief. For some, the "answer" is to avoid the
> subject and try to keep others from examining it. For others, the
> answer is keep working on the sore spot. As to which approach is
> right, it seems to be based on how one views history. Is historical
> understanding a necessary precondition for resolving tension and pain?
> Some feel that if we would just forget the past the tension and pain
> would go away.
> 
> I've recently discovered, to my considerable surprise, that the US
> Civil War continues to arouse intense passions and regional
> antagonisms. There are a lot more Americans who hate Southerners in
> general than I ever imagined (as seen in hundreds of posts on liberal
> websites after the Bush victory.) If that seems awfully long ago to
> produce such passions, think about the Sunni/Shia hatreds and how long
> ago the "injury" took place. Or, stranger yet, my impression from
> visiting Europe is that the French and English dislike one another
> over historical grievances more than either dislike the Germans. How
> could this be in light of two world wars in living memory? Apparently
> the Hundred Years War and Napoleonic wars left a residue of mutual
> distrust that overrides more recent conflicts.
> 
> Turning toward more positive signals, I would point out the Truth and
> Reconciliation Commission in South Africa and the vast amount of
> horrific events that had to be worked through. Open and honest
> examination of the past seems to have been a healing force in that
> country. Another good example is the German self-examination after
> WWII, contrased to the poor example of the Japanese whose historical
> memory is horribly distorted and self-serving. Those who are willing
> to look into the abyss have come out ahead, IMO, of those who
> resolutely avoid or deny any thought that their nation was ever guilty
> of atrocities.
> 
> Pardon my rambling,
> 
> Paul