Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01170)

Eldon,
Adyar TS is very particular about it and they constantly make this 
policy clear. It is better if you remind members of this most 
important policy. Each issue of Adyar magazine 'Theosophist' prints 
it on cover with heading 'Freedom of Thought' and how to live it. 
Brotherhood depends on freedom of thought. When X says to Y "You are 
a fool because you don't follow Blavatsky" then it is difficult to 
keep brotherhood. You sould find some such way by which policy of 
brotherhood and freedom of thought will always be visible to all. Or 
make arrangement by which this mail would be sent every month to the 
group. 
Anand Gholap 

--- 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.