Dec 27, 1994 03:34 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
LD> But it was my idea to contribute something as a member of a
group, not as a spearhead, warding off pot shots. I envision
someone who's a diplomat in that job, which my son is, which your
wife April must be, if she's teaching conflict resolution, but
which I'm not, for sure.
I think that if a dialogue got started, others would contribute,
and we would each be one voice among many. As for April, I would
have to ask her if she wants to be a part of it. What would you
propose her to do?
LD> ...I can see that a grass roots level discourse can bring
something positive to this situation, for our leaders to work
Yes, perhaps so. I have an Aunt many years ago who told me that
leaders are only the product of the people who elect them-- we
get what we deserve. So, any positive steps we take, makes
positive steps possible for the "leaders."
LD> I need to make some conditions, before I'll commit myself to
taking part in any further discourse Jerry, I'd like you to
explain to me, addressed to my personal e-mail address, so we
don't again set sparks flying, off the theos-l net, what you mean
when you say "... the issue (of CWL) is just a veil for much
deeper & more threatening ones." I need to have an idea of what
we're getting into, before I'll agree to take part in it.
I don't understand why my personal evaluation of the significance
of the Leadbeater case should be so important as to become a
condition as to whether or not you would participate in an
exchange of ideas. It sounds to me like you are suggesting that
you are not willing to participate "in any further discourse"
with people who hold the "wrong" opinions. Please clairify.
LD> Also, I don't see any reason why this has to be a dialogue
between 2 people, when the whole 3 societies, plus maybe the
splinter groups,are involved.
Members of the three Societies are on this net. Also I never
thought about it as being a dialogue between two people. Usually
two people start a discussion and other chime in. You and Paul
stated a discussion, and I chimed in, then it became three. Also
several others have made comments since then. As for the other
Societies, I think that the alienation between members in the
Adyar Society alone is more than enough to keep us busy. Let's
tend to our backyard, and maybe we'll inspire the neighborhood.
LD> There must be members of all factions on the Theos-l net.
I'd like for them to chime in, if they would. I'm not interested
in having a monopoly on our part of the internet.
If no one from the other societies chime in, you still have me.
I'm an associate of U.L.T. as well as a member of the Adyar and
Pasadena Societies. I have actively participated in and have
given talks in all three Societies. I've led Secret Doctrine
classes in both the Adyar Society and U.L.T., and published an
article on ~The Secret Doctrine~ for ~Sunrise~, the Pasadena
Society magazine. Though I don't believe that anyone can speak
for an organization, I feel that my experiences with the three
Organizations gives me a broader bases of experience than most
Further, my wife and I organized the first networking conference
in Krotona in 1984. There, for the first time in Krotona's
history, we had leaders from five theosophical organizations
sharing the same platform. See, it can be done.
LD> We need to devise some ground rules as to how we're going to
conduct this thing, so it doesn't get hysterical & out of hand as
the CWL thing between Paul & me did. If emotions are high on the
subject, the discussion still needs to be done in a reasonably
calm atmosphere, because if we shout at each other, all we'll
communicate is that the other person is angry, or a fiery
opponent, but we won't in the least hear what they're saying.
No doubt people will get angry--that goes with the subject
matter--and that is precisely why the subject is important to
discuss. There is no way to force anyone to act in a certain
way. The only thing one can do is make a personal commitment to
monitor oneself, and stay with it, even if others get out of
LD> I think I had some very good arguments for CWL, but I think
Paul was too angry to be able to listen to them.
My guess is that Paul would probably say the same about you. If
Paul was too angry to listen to you, then perhaps you needed to
look at how you were delivering the message, and find a way to
deliver it so that he can better hear it. Communicating is one
of the most difficult skills for human beings to learn. The
responsibilities always go both ways.
LD> Serge King teaches a small routine to use to forgive someone.
I use it at times. (The old Hawaiians had their own version of
conflict resolution. Serge teaches it on Kauai. He told us a
little about it. Anyone who couln't come to some sort of an
agreement at the end -they didn't have to become bosom pals- had
to leave the island.)
Along with Serge King's advice, I think Eldon's suggestion also
ET> When we find something that brings color to our faces, and
brings up our pulse rate, and makes us fighting mad, we'd come to
something that touches us in a fundamental way. True, there are
other ways to be deeply touched, but regardless of the way, we
have discovered something that is important to us and we need to
deal with. It's important to wait long enough so that when we
respond, it's us talking, and not our anger that speaks. We've
found an important area to spend our useful energy on, and we
should put it to its best use.
Well, this message was my break from a long day of writing
papers. Time for bed.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application