Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00501)

At 02:46 PM 4/14/96 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:


Alexis comments on JRC's statement:

Hear - hear! I applaud your honesty and insight. If I'm not careful
I'llbecome the least outrageous on the list! But you are right and Eldon is
very very wrong. All things considered, I'd say he is contemptuous, at least
of the beliefs of others if they disagree  with his own ideas. Like Richard
Taylor he has a tendency to being condescending and patronizing, making it
appear as if his entirely HYPOTHETICAL TRUTHS are superior to anyone else's
perceptions, especially if they are based upon the higher senses. I think
that perhaps the division on this board is not between "revisionists" and
"Traditionalists" (no matter which way your define them) but between
intellectual hypothetecists such as Eldon, Richard Taylor, and Richard Ihle
and the "sensitives" whose perceptions of theosophy and the "sacred" (a term
I really dislike) are not brain based!

alexis

>> This is one of those times when I go back to the dictionary.
>> The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:
>>
>> AHD> 1.a. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing
>> AHD> concerning God or a sacred entity; b. The act of claiming
>> AHD> for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 2. An
>> AHD> irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard
>> AHD> to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.
>>
>> With the first definition, I'd say that expressions of
>> contempt for the sacred would certainly be offensive to
>> those that respect it. We may want to make fun of the
>> funny ideas that people sometimes hold regarding the deeper
>> side of life, but should respect the actual feeling of the
>> sacred that those people feel with the ideas. Our intent
>> may be to get them to review and upgrade their thinking;
>> it certainly would not be to get people to stop their
>> appreciation of the sacred, simple because we don't like
>> the words that they use to describe it.
>	The dictionary only tells part of the story. The
>*intent* to blaspheme probably matters more in practice than
>the blasphemy itself. The charge of "blasphemy" has been used
>throughout the ages as a reason to put people *who didn't
>believe in an institutionally enforced definition of "the
>sacred"* to death. Appreciation or respect for what others
>think to be "sacred" is a fundamentally religious concept, but
>is not relevant (IMO) in a philosophical tradition that holds
>that there is no religion higher than truth. And in fact, while
>your sentiment would be readily acceded to in a Unity Church,
>it is not something that ever concerned the founders of the
>TS. HPB, throughout her life positively *delibrately* went after
>"the sacred" as defined by virtually all western religions -
>and the Masters ... well there's no need to repeat the infamous
>"religion" letter - our founders did not care a wit about
>anyone's sense of the sacred ... nor even slightly moderated
>their words or ideas to take it into account. But its not just
>the founders ... virtually every scientist, philosopher and
>artist that has had a profound effect on human civilization
>was called, by those in their time, a "blasphemer" of some
>sort - and accused of upsetting people's sense of the sacred.
>	If someone's sense of the sacred is based on an
>*illusion*, one needs to have no concern about upsetting it, or
>rather, its *gonna* be upset sooner or later anyway ... the
>Christian sense of the "sacred" was based, until the likes of
>Copernicus and Galileo, on the earth being the center of the
>universe - Galileo, asserting it wasn't even the center of the
>solar system, *powerfully* shook the entire foundations of that
>sense, was the ultimate blasphemer. If one's sense of the sacred
>is based solely on the quest for understanding larger and larger
>ranges of the Real, there *is* no such thing as blasphemy ...
>because nothing anyone else says can harm its foundations.
>
>> The second definition is a problem which people can fall
>> into when the approach the spiritual. They presume to speak
>> for God and Gods and end up profaning the very things that
>> they identify with.
>	Like, for instance, Jesus?
>
>> The third definition has to do with actual acts of disrespect
>> for the sacred. Someone may be reading a spiritual book and
>> it is obvious that they are involved in something that is
>> sacred for them. Another person comes along, mocking them,
>> going "har, har, har" and manages to provoke their anger,
>> taking them out of their deep feelings. This would be an
>> example of the final definition, although better examples
>> could easily be given.
>	Yes, how about this one:
>"I don't think that being able to see auras means very much.
>It might give a marginal shred of hope to someone with nagging
>doubts about the spiritual side of life, since they might tell
>themselves "well, at least *this* shows that there's some reality
>to this stuff." But those uncertainities arise from a lack of
>depth to their studies, a lack of certainity, a lack of making
>the spiritual doctrines a living part of their lives."
>	One of your delightful little dismissals of what you
>refer to as the "psychic". While your opinions, based entirely on
>theoretical concepts about clairvoyance, do not trouble me, as
>I've heard them from Christians and scientists for most of my life
>and I *don't* happen to equate it with my sense of the "sacred"
>(except that the more *ranges of perception and conception* through
>which I can grasp the world, the larger my appreciation for the
>magnificence and diversity of existence) - still, for many people,
>in fact for growing numbers just beginning to have inner abilities
>open, and to whom those abilities are *powerful* foundations for
>their sense of the "sacred", your statement, in all its condescending
>glory, is *pure* "blasphemy" ... it says that anyone who *does* feel
>a sense of the sacred in the experience of seeing the inner worlds
>possesses it only because they are a spiritual child, with a lack
>of certainty about "real" spirituality, and because they haven't yet
>made spirituality part of their lives.
>	Leave aside for a moment the fact that this is simply wrong
>(in fact, the ML, HPB, and many others spoke at length about the fact
>that such abilities can be virtually *counted upon* to arise naturally
>and of their own accord *as an effect* of spiritual discipline, often
>extending over lives ... and in fact every Master or initiate in TS
>literature possessed and used a whole pile of them - the only reason
>there *are* warnings about them *to chelas* is *because* the result
>of spiritual training becoming *deeply* embedded in day to day life
>is likely to cause them to begin developing of their own accord). The
>point here is that of course *you* wouldn't call your statement
>"blasphemous", you would simply defend it by saying you have the right
>to state the truth as you see it, and to articulate your own path ...
>and if *others* see that as blasphemy, as an attack on their "sense
>of the sacred" ... well, that's just something *they* have to learn
>to be less sensitive about (which *was* your response when *I* told
>you your attitude might be silencing other Theosophists).
>	You can't have it both ways ... everyone has their own
>particular beliefs and perspectives ... you can't hold that we
>"should" respect people's sense of the sacred when it comes to
>Chuck's fairly delibrate shots at what he sees as sacred cows,
>but then say that when *your* words might damage someone's sense,
>it is your right to state your perspective, and if they have problems,
>*they* need to deal with them.
>
>>
>> What would I conclude from this? That we should (never mind
>> the word "should", just listen to what I'm saying) respect
>> the sense of the sacred in others, regardless of their words
>> and practices. We should try to lead them into higher forms of
>> thinking and behavior in a way that doesn't disrupt them and
>> cause them to lose their sense of the sacred. In our excitement
>> over what we consider our higher words and forms of expression,
>> we shouldn't forget that we're dealing with other living
>> human beings, and forget to look at them and see the effect
>> our words and actions have on them.
>	Yes! (Tee Hee). do you remember? I said almost *precisely*
>those words to you some time ago ... and you not only ignored them,
>but have continued to make utterly condescending statements about
>any manifestation of inner abilities - often raising the subject
>in response to posts that had little to do with the subject (the
>previous quote of yours was from a discussion of shamanism, but
>it seemed you couldn't help but use the opportunity to take
>another shot at "psychic" powers). In fact Eldon, it was *from you*
>that I learned that on this list we should expect *no* one to
>even pretend respect for our ideas. I never ranked *you*, or any
>abilities you may or may not have claimed to have, as "higher" or
>"lower" ... though when you began saying experience wasn't
>necessary when one possessed some sort of insight, that is, used
>it as a foundation for an argument, I did question it ... you
>have always *started* it. From you I learned that the standard
>here was to throw aside all notions of empathizing with the point
>of view of another, and to simply state my own perspective as
>forcefully as possible. And actually, after I got used to it, I've
>come to find it rather refreshing ... I don't consider it better
>or worse than the attitude your words (but not your actions)
>suggest we "should" adopt. But ...
>	this attitude might work somewhere other than on this
>list, but is it not curiously flawed here? Who should we try to
>lead into "higher" forms of thinking and behaviour - *the other
>people on this list*? This may be, Eldon, a place where your
>perspective and mine are just too different to ever really relate.
>While I'll concede there may well be relative stages of growth
>that might allow people to be "ranked" as higher and lower along
>some sort of continuum, I do *not* think anyone less than an *Adept*
>capable of making such judgements in any absolute way - and I
>believe those whose range of awareness is *not* that of an Adept,
>is still constricted, have fallen prey to one of the most lethal
>and damaging illusions of the "mental plane" if they do so. I
>could simply not claim to be "higher" or "lower" than anyone else
>on the list, and your suggestion of what we "should" do *presumes*
>the assumption that some are "higher" (how else, if we "should",
>*could* we lead people into something "higher" in a way that doesn't
>upset their sense of the sacred).
>	I believe that many, if not *most* people on the list either
>don't feel qualified to do such precise rankings, or if they do,
>simply do not consider them very seriously - certainly not seriously
>enough for them to actually make it a project to take those who *in
>their particular perspective are "lower"* and try to "lead" them into
>something "higher". I guess I would say that perhaps to *those in
>whom this sort of ranking is a prominant idea* - as it is in your
>writings, some of Rich's & etc. - your advice may very well be good.
>But a lot of the list doesn't even accept the paradigm within which
>your advice could even make sense.
>
>[And I must say that probably *no* advice has much meaning here ...
>we have all spoken of things we "should" do, and I can't think of a
>single instance in which a person has *taken* the advice of another;
>generally when its given, it gets a post or two of agreement from
>people already doing it anyway, and giggles or flames from those that
>don't  ... and in fact the advice is rarely even followed by the person
>giving it].
>						Regards,  -JRC
>
>
>
>