Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01044)

Please pardon my intrusion, but this is one of the most well thought 
posts that I've ever read.  I'm brand new here as of a few days, but 
the spirit of this post makes perfect sense, and any sensible 
individuals should be in full agreement with it, in my humble 
opinion.  Just my two cents.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" 
<robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
>
> Steve, Sufilight, and all,
> 
> I think the letter and your attendant comments point to what 
should be
> the heart of the movement.  It is an understanding of the heart of
> this letter that theosophists need to address.  Brotherhood is a
> two-way connection.  I think Carlos mentioned in one of his posts
> somewhere that computers are isolating.  Consequently when I read 
many
> of the posts on this site, as on any site, I am struck by what I 
call
> "automatic responses" that seem to indicate very little thought.  
Very
> often people's positions are misrepresented and people end up
> resorting to sniping in order to "score points", or so it would 
seem.
>  I think both Jerry and Krsanna allude to this to some extent.
> 
> It seems that this is where the golden rule should come in.  When 
we
> read someone's post, we should be open and attentive to context and
> nuance. When posting you are using a few words to convey, 
oftentimes,
> complex positions.  Some of those who post are not posting in their
> first language.  If we assume people to be honest and open then 
making
> an effort to understand what they are saying seems to be the least
> that we can do.  What is the use of proclaiming to have a movement 
in
> which people bring differing views to the discussion if we insist 
on
> understanding everything according to our own narrow viewpoint?  
Does
> not brotherhood mean trying to understand what the other has to 
say? 
> If we are going to categorize the contents of another's posts
> according to what "political" motive we think that he or she may 
have
> then how are we going to move forward?  We are dismissing the other
> person and what he or she has to say because they are "this" or
> "that".  Once we know what "this" or "that" they are then we can
> "respond automatically" without much thought.
> 
> This is what goes on in the world today and passes for "News",
> "Politics", "Religion", etc.  We are nothing more than a microcosm 
for
> what is happening out there in the greater Society.  Despite any
> pretensions we may have of self-importance because we are studying 
the
> "Occult", our practices betray who we really are.  We can be easily
> set against one another in the same way that Jews, Christians,
> Moslems, Hindus, etc. are set against each other by unscrupulous 
men
> seeking advantage over all.  While we fight our silly battles over
> what ideology or understanding of some obscure metaphysical point 
is
> correct, the world is being stolen out from underneath us.  If we
> can't learn to be open and honest with one another, then how can 
the
> world learn?  If we cannot trust one another, then how can Moslem
> learn to trust Jew and vice versa?  Morality comes before the
> understanding of Occult concepts.  This is an occult law.
> 
> It is this point that the Blavatsky - Olcott debate revolves 
around. 
> How do we trust one another?  How do we fight the inevitable doubt
> that rises in our mind against those who think differently?  That 
is
> why I say to those who think that looking back into our history is
> only going to cause dissension, that they are mistaken.  The 
ignorance
> that caused the split is the same ignorance that now keeps us 
apart. 
> It is not different.  It is current.
> 
> If people were really willing to listen to one another, the
> conversation on this site could go so much deeper than the 
superficial
> mud slinging that now passes for debate.  As I read the posts I see
> ideas bouncing off impenetrable exteriors and nonsense delivered in
> return.  If this group really wants to understand theosophy, they 
are
> going to have to let down their barriers.
> 
> Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Steven Levey <sallev1@> wrote:
> >
> > Sufiflight
> >    
> >        Thank you for presenting this letter. I think it goes a 
long
> way in explaining the true motive behind the Theosophical work, as
> well as the important issue of simply applying what makes good 
sense
> to us, in the service of others. Not to mention the hugely imortant
> issue of putting the minds of students upon the work, rather than 
this
> overly large concern for who said what to whom and from what Master
> did this or that come from. As Judge said "We should immediately 
put
> our best intensions to work". And if those "best intentions" were
> prompted by sayings or a philosophy we have ascribed to 
> > the Mahatmas, the more important thing will always be, to do it 
and
> let results be with the karma.
> >    
> >   Steve
> > "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@> wrote:
> >   Hallo all,
> > 
> > My views are:
> > 
> > Let the following excerpt from a letter if possible help the 
Seekers.
> > 
> > "On the other hand we claim to know more of the secret cause of
> events than you men of the world do. I say then that it is the
> vilification and abuse of the founders, the general misconception 
of
> the aims and objects of the Society that paralyses its progress --
> nothing else. There's no want of definitiveness in these objects 
were
> they but properly explained. The members would have plenty to do 
were
> they to pursue reality with half the fervour they do mirage. I am
> sorry to find you comparing Theosophy to a painted house on the 
stage
> whereas in the hands of true philanthropists and theosophists it 
might
> become as strong as an impregnable fort. The situation is this: men
> who join the Society with the one selfish object of reaching power
> making occult science their only or even chief aim may as well not
> join it -- they are doomed to disappointment as much as those who
> commit the mistake of letting them believe that the Society is 
nothing
> else. It is just because they preach too much
> >  "the Brothers" and too little if at all Brotherhood that they 
fail.
> How many times had we to repeat, that he who joins the Society with
> the sole object of coming in contact with us and if not of 
acquiring
> at least of assuring himself of the reality of such powers and of 
our
> objective existence -- was pursuing a mirage? I say again then. It 
is
> he alone who has the love of humanity at heart, who is capable of
> grasping thoroughly the idea of a regenerating practical 
Brotherhood
> who is entitled to the possession of our secrets. He alone, such a 
man
> -- will never misuse his powers, as there will be no fear that he
> should turn them to selfish ends. A man who places not the good of
> mankind above his own good is not worthy of becoming our chela -- 
he
> is not worthy of becoming higher in knowledge than his neighbour. 
If
> he craves for phenomena let him be satisfied with the pranks of
> spiritualism."
> > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-38.htm (Received
> Allahabad. About February, 1882. )
> > 
> > 
> > Perhaps the objects of the Society or any branch of it needs to 
be
> changed or explained better?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > from
> > M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 		
> > ---------------------------------
> > Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>