Theos-Talk Archives (September 1993 Message tl00036)

To Jerry (Hejka-Ekins):

  I read your email and first two postings to the mailing list. The
  historic information is good and I'm glad to see some more accurate
  information; my "family tree" was something just quick-and-dirty to
  illustrate a point.

  When we get to putting together a FAQ (internet term for "frequently
  asked questions", a file that contains information that contains
  information on what is discussed and asked on a regular basis on a
  news group or mailing list) perhaps your historic passage could
  be included?

And to Everyone:

  It would be good, when the FAQ is drafted, to post it to the entire
  list and we can all comment on it. There could be general information,
  then short sections representative of the major schools of
  theosophical thought. Someone most happy with the Besant/Leadbeater
  line could write a brief summary section in it. Perhaps you could
  write a Blavatsky-line writeup. And I (or someone else, if they want
  to volunteer) could do a Point Loma/Purucker line writeup.

  ---

  I think that our "theos-l" discussion will prove unique in that it
  looks like it will be having people sharing ideas from all the major
  theosophical backgrounds. (Where is our ULT writer???) There usually
  is no dialogue; we usually associate with others of like mind and
  never get a perspective on our own beliefs.

  It is all too easy to simply write off other people, to put a label
  on them (e.g. "book worshipers", "materialists", "deluded", "at an
  earlier stage", etc.) and totally tune out what they say and give
  their ideas and viewpoints due respect.

  The hard part is to walk the narrow line between giving due respect
  and attention to the differing views of others, and still being true
  to, not concealing, giving expression to one's own sincere views.

  You don't just keep quiet, conceal your views, and let the other
  person be mislead into thinking that you agree when you don't. But
  how do you say that you differ, and express those different ideas,
  without causing the other person to get mad and walk away?

  If there is open mindedness on both sides of a conversation, there
  is no problem. This will be interesting for us to establish and
  observe, since we are not just talking about a two-way dialogue, but
  rather a four or five way dialogue, from a diversity of theosophical
  schools of thought.

                                        Eldon Tucker
                                        eldon@netcom.com