Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00182)

=>Yet at the local level over two decades I never noticed any
difficulty whatsoever for Theosophists agreeing to disagree. There
was always a great diversity of views in any group I ever attended,
in several states. And no one to my recollection got all offended
that someone else had a different estimation of various authors. But
at the national and international levels there seems to be far less
of that live-and-let-live attitude. I renewed my TSA membership
after a ten-year lapse in 2008, but was hugely relieved to see it
expire last week.


PJ, one reason may be the email form of communication.
Because of lack of other sensual and emotional information it seems to imply
misunderstandings.
The Internet has also given theosophists access to unknown background
information.
As a subscriber to theos-talk from its beginning I can see for example that
the first inflaming discourses and quarrels on Leadbeater have gone more
mild over the years.

The other point to consider in quarrels is the motive of the people.
Some may want discourse for destructive reasons, others may have more
constructive reasons for prvocations.

>The conclusion of the linked article is worth considering here.
The "empty boats" notion would be well applied to most of the
disputes here. Simply to express one's opinion is to risk personally
offending someone else, even if there was no such intention. And the
person thus unintentionally offended will often deliberately
retaliate with a personal attack, as if the other person's opinion
somehow invades their personal space.

As we are all human no one will be free of emotions. No I, not you.
I just remember the quarrels about LOng and Conger in 2001 when Ken Small
published in Theosophical History a counter article to the TS Pasadena
official Conger legend and the smear campaign against de Purucker's closest
pupils.

>Like any body of literature, the Theosophical writings contain mixed
messages. You can use HPB the same way Christians use the Bible, to
justify both sides of every dispute. Pedro's quote indicates that it
is untheosophical to take offense at differing views and seek revenge
on those who express them. Morten's quote indicates that it is a
theosophical duty to do so. HPB said both; you choose which HPB to
emulate.


Could it be otherwise?
The published theosophical literature is exoteric.
Therefore you can find in it like a mirror only what you are.

But that does not imply that HPB wanted to be everbodies darling or that the
truth, the one and only truth, cannot be found there.
Of course not.
But she was limited to the Chohan's order not interfer with the karmic law.
Therefore no doubtless information in public outside the gong-pa.

Frank