Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00559)

JRC:

> [To other theos-l'ers ... this might be a long post - worthy
>of deletion if the issue has not interested you (-:)]

We could always write back-and-forth less material, using
shorter messages, more frequently.

> As several posts have gone by with continued concerns being
>raised about inner abilities, and as I've withheld any comment
>until I had thought through our previous interaction, I s'pect
>its time again to speak ... only this time perhaps with a
>different tone.

The expression of concerns is not in itself a problem. The
question is how serious are the concerns, and are their other
concerns in other areas that aren't getting voiced. It would
be unfair to pick on one favorite target for our concern, as
though it were the only area in which we face various risks.

>I've spent years in Theosophy hearing the same,
>oft-repeated warnings (only, however, from what Jerry would call
>the "intellectual" type - most of the feeling and intuitive types
>seem to have little problem with the subject),

Granted, we have a bias on things based upon our personality
type. I'm not sure I agree with the Jungian typology, but that's
another matter. An ideal approach would have us approaching a
subject outside of such biases.

>and at this point
>will not try to convince anyone to hold other ideas than they do,
>but have decided that I also can't simply let these ideas be
>perpetuated without answering them - as I will continue now to do
>whenever I hear them mentioned.

We've all been in this situation. We may be silent on the list
for a while, then when've read enough of what we disagree with,
we feel compelled to "set the record straight." It could be that
we disagree with the ideas presented, or perhaps the disagreement
is with the choice of words used and the language in which someone
clothes their ideas. Jerry S. has stepped in at times to respond
to what I say. Rich lets us know when we're out of line from the
standpoint of the source teachings. I could go on and list many
names ...

>That said, I also think it was a mistake to have simply
>reacted to your posts - instead of taking the trouble to build
>the foundation that underlies my perspective, I instead reacted
>with little pieces of it, and hence became frustrated and a wee
>bit short with you

When there's something we want to say, we can take a stray word,
phrase, or idea that someone mentions and use it as our cue to
come in with our ideas. This is not really responding to the other
person, but sometimes that was not our intention.

The ideas that we are dealing with are complex, and it takes more
than one writing to come up with a fair presentation of them.

> - and further, may have lead you to believe
>that I was simply reacting to personal affronts from an poorly
>conceived position - and this is my fault.

I don't think that the position is poorly-conceived. I see is as
strongly felt, and you have sometimes rushed to its defense rather
than concentrating on its explanation and philosophical exploration.
The reaction was simply political rather than educational, and
your shifting of emphasis will help our our communication.

>What I'd like to
>relate here, then, is the philosophical and spiritual foundation
>for the position I've been advocating - and while I do not expect
>to change your mind about the issue, I do hope that you may
>acknowledge that, while conflicting with yours, it is at least as
>viable, worthy of respect, and as well thought out as your own.

Our manner of communication determines if we become defensive,
confrontational, and polarized in our positions, or if we let
our barriers down and become more sharing. The latter is best
and I'm glad that we can try it.

We may not change our minds to a great degree, but presumably
in an open communication we learn something new and are affected.
Our positions may slightly change, and we can become more skillful
in presenting our respective philosophies.

One question that we will have to answer is how we might make
a strong case for our respective positions *without coming across
as though attaching other positions*. I don't think that we can
say that Theosophy is anything that anyone wants to believe, and
there will always people that either of us meet who will disagree
with us on various points.

>ELDON <The objects of a Theosophical Society are not words of
>divine revelation, but simply an attempt to formulate a useful
>purpose for the organization as a particular project of the
>Masters. We can do or not do anything that is spiritually
>appropriate.>

>While this is true, it also sums up (IMO) a large problem in
>current Theosophy. By analogy, the US Constitution is not divine
>revelation either ... but rather a crystallized form of the
>Democratic thought of the time in which it was written. Certainly
>there is an enormous body of literature from that time, and it is
>even possible to, for instance, use various writings in the
>Federalist Papers to argue *against* many parts of the
>Constitution - but ultimately, precisely *because* almost anyone
>could find justification for *any* position by quoting the
>writings of the US founders, it is ultimately the Constitution
>.. as much of a compromise as it is ... that defines the US.

But I'd say that we need to consider the reality of the moment,
the sense of what is appropriate at this period of time. If we
become too fixed in an organizational charter in the past, and
use it as a blueprint for action, we are, in a way, like Daniel
and his biblical quotes.

I don't think that it really matters if there is a third object in
the Adyar T.S.'s agenda, nor what it says. We don't need
organizational permission to explore or avoid psychical exploration.
Return-Path: <theos-l@vnet.net>