Re: Theos-World Re: practicing universal brotherhood rather than merely mouthing the concept
Apr 19, 2005 03:12 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
My comments were only meant to be in context to this chat-room.
--j
christinaleestemaker 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
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
