Re: Theos-World failure of moral leadership does not exonerate the "followers
Mar 30, 2006 03:42 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
As far as I can see, the failure of moral leadership does not exonerate the
"followers."
Agreed.
Each individual weaves his or her own Karma. This is the universal law.
Yes, but as your statement above implies, there is also family, tribal
and/or group karma. Therefore the whole family, tribe etc. suffers or
benefits from the acts of its individuals.
“Passing the blame” appears to be in conflict with loyalty and discipline.
If by loyalty, you mean blind loyality i.e. "my country right or wrong",
then I agree. On the other hand, I believe that it is the duty of
members of a community, country, tribe, organization, family etc. to
speak out (whenever possible) when a wrong is done. Such an action is
still one of loyalty, but not blind loyalty. Such people are often said
to represent the "loyal opposition."
I think the problem really is: ARE WE LOYAL TO IDEALS ? TO VIRTUES?
precisely.
In practical business life, I have always found that the public exposure of
a “wrong” (after due notice to the obstructionist) brings redress based on
the unflinching logic of the moral and virtuous situation involved. If we
are silent and inactive, then we advertise the obstructionist, that we are
actively participating in perpetuating the wrong being done, or a failure in
this performance of honest work, and the application of impartial
discipline.
Ideally, that is how it should work. How fortunate you are to have only
experienced such healthy organizations--as opposed to unhealthy ones
life this country's Roman Catholic church which worked to hide and
protect sexual preditors in their our clergy.
If an individual who takes high (or low) responsible office, fails in
rigidly applying morals and virtues, is it our duty to challenge and draw
attention to the lapse for the greater good of all concerned? ARE WE
RESPONSIBLE TO A PERSON, OR TO AN “OFFICE ?”
Precisely
I would say in such cases, THEOSOPHY looking at such a debate between
Kama-Manas and BUDDHI-Manas, indicates the superior position assumable by
impartiality and universality.
Universality. "superior position" and "impartiality" contradict in this
case. Addressing the process as opposed to the person is often the best
tact.
Best,
Jerry
W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
/28/2006 5:26 AM
Friends:
may I ask?
Seems to me we have continuing problems on this: --
As far as I can see, the failure of moral leadership does not exonerate the
"followers."
Each individual weaves his or her own Karma. This is the universal law.
[If we are (all of us) immortal Monads in evolution, then should we not live
as such?
in past lives, we have probably handled such things, and will, no doubt meet
them again in future ones, with the same Monads involved ? What is the ideal
position to adopt to learn / teach an important lesson? Is delay useful ?]
“Passing the blame” appears to be in conflict with loyalty and discipline.
[ Is this not destructive of every kind of government, and the true and
honest frame-work of inter-related living and cooperative support ? Is this
a personal failure on OUR part ? ]
I think the problem really is: ARE WE LOYAL TO IDEALS ? TO VIRTUES?
In practical business life, I have always found that the public exposure of
a “wrong” (after due notice to the obstructionist) brings redress based on
the unflinching logic of the moral and virtuous situation involved. If we
are silent and inactive, then we advertise the obstructionist, that we are
actively participating in perpetuating the wrong being done, or a failure in
this performance of honest work, and the application of impartial
discipline.
If an individual who takes high (or low) responsible office, fails in
rigidly applying morals and virtues, is it our duty to challenge and draw
attention to the lapse for the greater good of all concerned? ARE WE
RESPONSIBLE TO A PERSON, OR TO AN “OFFICE ?”
I would say in such cases, THEOSOPHY looking at such a debate between
Kama-Manas and BUDDHI-Manas, indicates the superior position assumable by
impartiality and universality. But I could be wrong in this ? How would
tact and tolerance dictate in handling this kind of thing ?
Best wishes,
Dallas
============================
-----Original Message-----
From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:51 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Jerry- Fundamentalist misrepresentations of the
Bible
Dear Vince,
And aside from these failures which you attribute to the
Theosophical Society, in what ways do you think they have still been
subsequently successful today?
Actually I attribute the failures of the Theosophical Society to the
leadership. The Theosophical Society and its members were the victims.
IMO, its greatest success today has been their efforts to publish and
keep in print the collected writings of Blavatsky.
What things still appeal to you about the Theosophical Society today?
They have an outstanding library at the National Headquarters. They
publish some important classics. I like many of its members.
I believe that not-for-profit corporations are just as money-
centered as for-profit corporations. They both require money to
operate, and are permeated with organizational politics at their
highest ranks. They just obtain their money in different ways.
Yes, non profits organizations, like any other effort requires money to
operate. And, I suspect that certain non profit organizations, like
United Way, is primarily oriented to collecting and distributing money.
With its highly paid officers including its CEO which collects a
multi-million dollar salary, I'm sure that there is a lot of politics.
On the other hand, such places as the United Way have move far away from
the original concept of non-profits, and are not necessarily
representative. I am president-founder of a non-profit educational
organization. The Board meetings typically last for 3 to 4 hours. The
treasurer's report takes 5 to 10 minutes. The rest of the time we talk
about planning programs, classes, our journal etc. Rather than talking
about how to get more money, we talk about and plan services. No one on
the Board, or connected in any way with the organization receives a
salary. In fact, Board members are required to donate a predetermined
amount of their own money to the organization. However, volunteers are
reimbursed for out of pocket expenses--but not for their time. What I
am saying is that it is quite possible for non profit organizations to
be primarily focused on service--not getting money. They do not have to
be "money centered". We have proved that.
I believe that religious, philosophical and educational
organizations are first and foremost out to make money.
Not ours.
Their services are strictly delivered at a price.
Ours are on a donation bases. Some people pay and some don't.
They may meet spiritual
and intellectual needs, but only for a monetary fee. Money is
central and donations are key.
Not in our case. Service is key.
I suggest that there is such a wealth in the Bible that we currently
retain, that even if we lost another 50% of it today, we'd still
retain more spiritual treasure within it than we could qualitatively
ingest in a lifetime.
Have you studied scriptures of other religions and spiritualities?
I'm not sure where you get this idea. I suggest that the gospels
were very much intended as historical texts, even if
evangelistically focused. Luke attempts to focus on each detail for
accuracy, for example. Now one may say that the historical methods
of recording and/or verifying information 2000 years ago was not as
precise as it is today, but the gospels are historically-intended
documents nonetheless, even while remaining evangelistic.
I got the idea from a lifetime of reading the scriptures, reading the
works of theologians and of secular Biblical scholars, and doing my own
research on the subject.
I suggest that the historicity of the gospels and the presence of
Greek cultural overtones are not mutually exclusive. The two can
exist together.
What parts do you find historical? What parts do you find "mythical"?
What parts do you find evangelical?
These historical difficulties do not eliminate the fact that the
gospels are originally intended as historical documents. Rather,
you're just not satisfied with their degree of historical accuracy
by today's standards. Those are two very different scenarios.
By historical difficulties, I mean that they most probably never occurred.
Yes, some of these practices were used by ancient Indians. I'm not
certain how you're using the term 'spiritual clairvoyance'
"Spiritual clairvoyance" is direct spiritual perception that bypasses
the mind and visionary images. It come through a center of perception
that does not involve the mind.
, but I
nonetheless suggest that higher spirituality is not attained without
first opening up the lower psychic realms for purposes of
cleansing. In this sense, one must pass through the hells (the
darkness of the psychic subconscious) before entering the heavens
(gaining spiritual enlightenment).
Interesting idea. The traditions I follow warn about the snares of
psychism. But I also know the dangers from experience. I used to work
in an open setting psychiatric hospital where I had the chance to
observe and interact with lots of very psychic people. Some were
telepathic, some had visions, some had conversations with God etc.
Since I also have some natural abilities, I could see a lot of things
that were going on that the psychiatrists had no idea about.
This is very similar to the concept that Jesus himself descended
into the hells and subsequently ascended into the heavens. Or when
he was tempted by the devil in the wilderness prior to his earthly
ministry.
Is this story, for you, historical, allegorical, metaphorical or...?
If the lower psychic centers are not opened so that they can be
cleansed, we will merely adopt a materialistic pseudo-spirituality
as a result, which is even more dangerous than opening up the lower
psychic centers of our subconscious.
What do you mean by "materialistic pseudo-spirituality" and "lower
psychic centers of our unconscious"?
Best
Jerry
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
