Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00550)

Thanks Jerry, 
Perhaps its a little like in Gestalt therapy, trying to see the causative reason for whatever 
disfunction that may exist. While we may not be able to right the wrongs of the past we 
can at least acknowledge them and try and see them for what they are.

What was a foggy cloud in the mind constructed in our past, affecting our behaviour can 
start to take shape and form we can at least recognise it and know how it has affected our 
choices and history.
Denial will only result in continued dis-functional behaviour.

Regards

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Perry,
> 
> Beautifully and insightfully written.  Indeed, the more that an 
> organization hides its own history from itself, the less it will be able 
> to realistically negotiate the present challenges.  Also, the members 
> become less able to discern history from myth in their own organization.
> 
> Best
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> plcoles1 wrote:
> 
> >Hello All,
> >Just a couple of thoughts from where I see things at this point in time.
> >Personally I disagree that discussing these historical issues (even if they do seem to 
the 
> >degree of tedium ad nauseum) is not theosophical or brotherly.
> >
> >The issues we are discussing are important as they are part of the movements history.
> >
> >If history cant be faced openly and honestly with all sides being given a chance to put 
> >forward their perspective then what sort of history will there be?
> >
> >If we are only to look at the `sunny side of things' how do we move forward with any 
> >objectivity?
> >Debate and argument are essential for a free society to exist.
> >
> >Codes of conduct of some kind have to be observed but these should not in anyway 
> >interfere with the free pursuit of intellectual lines of enquiry.
> >
> >This work here on theos talk is imo part of an important occult process if we are 
prepared 
> >to work with it.
> >
> >For one thing it is getting us to look at the principle of freedom of thought and 
expression 
> >in a very real way, such as allowing people with quite different and diverse points of 
view 
> >an avenue for expression.
> >
> >If for example the society has edited certain early texts removing uncomfortable parts 
> >without the appropriate notification to the reader in the forward explaining why this 
has 
> >been done, is this proper? Is this dealing truthfully and with integrity? Is it not 
appropriate 
> >to face these issues squarely and bravely and do what is truthful and honourable and 
right 
> >these wrongs?
> >
> >People reading and studying these texts have a right to know these things.
> >If this is what has happened and we do not say anything do we then become complicit?
> >
> >The occult path is not for everyone, it involves from my understanding, much courage 
and 
> >the ability to delving deeper and deeper in the nature of things as I think it was Bruce 
who 
> >had quoted earlier in his post "as above so below".
> >
> >The principle of being truthful is central and perhaps this is what we are processing 
here 
> >at the moment albeit in the mundane workings and history of the Society, the as above 
so 
> >below principle can be applied.
> >
> >Remember we don't have to be involved with the debate if we choose not to, that's our 
> >choice.
> >But I think personally this is a great spiritual opportunity, even if it can vex the 
personality 
> >from time to time.
> >
> >
> >Sincerely
> >
> >Perry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >  
> >
>