Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01190)

Eldon's September commentary, reposted below, comes down to, as he says, 
"a matter of respect." Anand, in his post below, raises the Adyar 
policy of "freedom of thought." Actually, the 1924 text Anand alludes 
to concludes with the following statement: 
"The Members of the General Council earnestly request every member of 
The Theosophical Society to maintain, defend and act upon these 
fundamental principles of the Society, and also fearlessly to exercise 
his own right of liberty of thought and of expression thereof, with the 
limits of courtesy and consideration for others." 
So, Eldon is speaking of respect, and Anand of courtesy. While these 
two words are closely related, they are not the same. One can be 
courteous, yet not respect another point of view--or respect another 
view point, but not be courteous. 
While both messages come down to a matter of how we ought to treat each 
other, the 1924 message, when put into its historical context, addresses 
certain conflicting viewpoints among members of the Adyar TS. There 
was, at that time, a division of opinion about the use of the TS as an 
instrument to promote Krishnamurti as a world teacher, embrace the 
Liberal Catholic Church as a vehicle for K's new religions etc. Even 
the Esoteric School, a few years earlier had changed its pledge to 
require the candidate, as a condition of acceptance into the ES, to 
profess a belief that Krishnamurti is the world teacher. Therefore, 
from its historical context, this 1924 message is saying that those who 
do not support the management, which is supposed to represent to the 
members, the hierarchy of the Masters, should either keep quiet and stop 
making waves or resign. Those who support the management should defend 
the TS, as it had become, against those who believed that it had drifted 
from its original purpose. This 1924 message, is, therefore, a document 
which at once assures freedom of thought of the membership, yet 
reinforces the maintenance of the status quo. 
The difference between theos-talk and the TS is that the latter is a 
hierarchical organization with an authoritative leader, who, though 
elected, effectively holds that office until death. Theos-talk, on the 
other hand, is an unstructured cyber-center for the discussion of 
Theosophy at all levels, open to anyone, regardless of which 
Theosophical organization they belong, or to none. In this 
cyber-atmosphere, issues of respect become less clear cut. I submit 
that before addressing the issue of respect for another point of view, 
we first need to come together and establish norms of courtesy. For 
instance, we might begin a list of norms by agreeing that it is 
discourteous to spam this list. I'm sure that we could come up with a 
short list, which could be posted in a permanent place, and empower 
Eldon to give reminders and warnings to anyone who may violate those 
norms. 
So, what I'm trying to say, is, theos-talk is by virtue of its 
structure, an even playing field, but if there is to be a mutual respect 
between the participants, it will have to first develop within an 
atmosphere of mutual courtesy. 
Jerry





Anand Gholap wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links