Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01159)

Hi Eldon & All,
Thanks for reposting this, I found it very good.
It seems to me that we are all in a process here, which perhaps can 
help us to understand some of the motives and mindsets that are 
behind the way we interact with each other.

We all have various different ways that our fears and past 
conditioning trigger our responses. (of course I fully include myself 
in this as well)

Maybe if we try and use awareness and deep questioning of ourselves 
and our own motives we can grow and hopefully see that our responses 
to others actually reflect back to ourselves insights as to how we 
may be motivated and how we operate.

Fear can come from emotional need to believe things are a certain way 
or needing others to see things the way we see them.

Ten years ago I also was a big Leadbeater fan however now I see the 
man from a completely different perspective which may change in one 
way, shape or form as time goes by.
If asked what I think about CWL I can only give my own impressions as 
they are now however that does not mean they are anything other than 
my own impressions at this point in time.

The same of course can be said of Blavatsky and any other writer, 
teacher or perspective.

The reality of life in this cycle seems to be that conflict arises 
and I am interested in finding how can we as a group and as 
individuals try and develop strategies that encourage free exchange 
of perspectives and ideas without it descending into personal ego 
issues or attacks.

Some of us find a more intellectual approach that compares different 
writers and philosophies to be very effective and helpful, some find 
this too heady and approach from a different modality.
However all modes need the opportunity and the freedom to express 
themselves.

Theosophy as I understand it suggests that there are many different 
modes and approaches we may take to come to an understanding of who 
and what we are, and our relationship to the ALL.

So perhaps if we can weather though the ups and downs of group 
interaction in a self reflective way, constantly checking what our 
own motives may be, it may be used as a process to understand these 
complex areas of human interaction and motivations and a deeper 
understanding of ourselves.

Cheers

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@t...> 
wrote:
> Here's something I wrote to the list back in September that I think 
is
> important for all of us to keep in mind.
> 
> -- Eldon Tucker
> 
> ----
> 
> People may come to Theosophy from many different approaches. Some 
may have 
> started with books by Leadbeater and Besant, others with books by 
Barkorka 
> and Purucker, others with Judge and Blavatsky books. I would expect 
that if 
> they can engage each other in friendly discussion, they can broaden 
their 
> knowledge and grow to greater insight.
> 
> I don't think it's necessary to tell people to only read certain 
authors 
> and avoid others as being tainted. I will say what I prefer, but 
leave it 
> to other people to decide what appeals to them best. In a free 
exchange of 
> ideas over an extended period of time, I think people will 
gravitate to the 
> highest approach they are ready for. Each person sets their own 
limit and 
> is better able to seek it out when exposed to a friendly, diverse 
> environment that encourages thoughtful study.
> 
> Although I'd consider my studies as being advanced, I recognize 
that it is 
> just from my point of view and others would see things differently, 
often 
> with wherever they are at being highest, for now, in their 
estimation. And 
> it does not serve a useful purpose to rank and order different 
approaches, 
> with one's own on top, of course, in order to add to one's self-
importance 
> and putting others in their place.
> 
> If someone wants to study Leadbeater's life from a historic 
standpoint -- 
> or Blavatsky's, Judge's, or Krishnamurti's -- that's fine as long 
as they 
> don't use their appraisal as a hammer to hit people on the head 
when they 
> say that they read and like the books any of these people may have 
written.
> 
> A metaphysical and spiritual thread of discussion is as valid as 
any 
> historic one, and everyone should be free to share their ideas, 
regardless 
> of the author or any historic threads of discussion going on at the 
same
> time.
> 
> Regardless of what we might discuss, it's important that we respect 
the 
> others among us of different backgrounds and beliefs, and not put 
things in 
> a way that sounds like a personal insult, like "You like that idea 
from a 
> Crowley book? You must be an evil dugpa!" Or "You say you like that 
idea 
> from a Bailey book, yet we have just proven in our historic 
discussions 
> that Bailey was a fraud. Only an idiot would believe something she 
wrote. 
> Do you recant any belief in her works or do you confess to being an 
idiot?" 
> Or "Do you profess a belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior 
and 
> profess a belief in the One True God, or do you admit to being a 
devil 
> worshiper destined to burn it hell?" -- Note that there are all 
leading 
> questions that require people to either submit to one's belief or 
confess 
> their stupidity.
> 
> It's possible from any particular slant of discussion to find ways 
to put 
> people down, even if one is not doing so intentionally. A 
discussion of the 
> actual history and spiritual credentials of someone's favorite 
theosophical 
> figure could have a chilling effect upon people reading his or her 
books 
> and wanting to discuss the ideas presented. Yet were they free to 
discuss 
> the ideas, perhaps we'd learn something from them and they're be 
exposed to 
> better ideas from us as well.
> 
> A discussion of metaphysics might lead to suggestions that people 
not 
> versed in that particular set of philosophical ideas is "not ready 
yet" and 
> should simply be dismissed as spiritual wannabes. That, of course, 
has a 
> chilling effect on the skeptic or believer in something different, 
making 
> him or her to want to brand people a bunch of religious kooks and 
leave for 
> a better group of people.
> 
> It all comes down to a matter of respect. We can explore new ideas, 
> challenge existing assumptions, and seek a greater understanding of 
things. 
> But we should maintain sufficient objectivity to know that our 
personal 
> viewpoint isn't the prime perspective of the universe. Everything 
only 
> seems that way *to our eyes*. If we can believe what we will and 
yet 
> happily allow others to coexist with different beliefs and 
assumptions, 
> respecting their individual and likely different seeking of truth, 
we are 
> actually practicing universal brotherhood rather than merely 
mouthing the 
> concept.