Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01223)

-By the way in Groningen they cannot speaks the o
TL


-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "christinaleestemaker" 
<christinaleestemaker@y...> wrote:
> 
> -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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >