Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01219)

-But we have to know the cultural differences
Our word cut is a very derty word.
And in every language there are dialects.
If I go to frisia in my country or to the Tukkers in Overijsel and 
cannot understand one word,if I not try to intgrate in the language.
The same with Amsterdam that is an extraordinary language and Utrech, 
they cannot speak the T.
TL


-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> wrote:
> christinaleestemaker wrote:
> 
> >What is the difference a lie with respect or one with courtesy
> >Both we need to verivy,Is not it?
> >
> Of course we need to verify for ourselves what is true and what is 
not. 
> That verification is an individual matter--something we do for 
> ourselves. Respect and courtesy is a matter of communicating with 
> others in a constructive way so that we may better share our ideas 
and 
> learn from other's.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> christinaleestemaker wrote:
> 
> >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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >