Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01212)

Jerry, that is the charming feelings of his culture against the hard 
English
respect and courtesy
What is the difference a lie with respect or one with courtesy
Both we need to verivy,Is not it?
Total authority from the Ivorytower to the same levelones,amice that 
is another question. Theosophy is by my meaning not militairy service.

By the way a good advise, we go to whisper; so nobody hears and want 
to hear and heared something.That will be very delightful.
Or we go speaking with the brows! How you think about that.

Sorry for my reply, but this things make me a little bit MILLFLYING.
And with two wings!! That is very important!So it gets a little bit 
warmer on north pole, exciting the sight, like geysers .
TL
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >