Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00961)

Responding to Richard's recent post, Paul responded. There are some thoughts
that I want to share with you all.

1. It is a fact of life that the only thing one can be sure of is change. We
all change, some slow and some fast. Some of the changes that takes place in
an individual may not externally manifest itself until such time a set of
circumstances arise and the individual acts or reacts. Such action or
reaction could be subtle or could be glaring and may even surprise everybody
even those whom the person could have known very closely for a long time.
Even if a radical or important change has taken place in one of the
participants in theos-l, such a change may not be apparent from reading one
or more messages posted here.

2. It is also a fact that it is easy to change any blind belief. Once can
substitute one blind belief by another without much difficulty. However, if
some of the beliefs held are based on actual personal experience or based on
a reasonable hypothesis, it is not going to be easy to change such belief.
It would require a better reasonable hypothesis or a new personal experience
to change the belief. One thing that Theosophy can do is to make people
think. Consequently they tend to take very independent attitudes and such
independent thinkers are not easy to convince and make them change their
opinions or views.

3. On the question of member's freedom and the Society, recently we had the
good fortune of a post of the Letter to AP Sinnett which describes the
objectives of the Founders of the Society.

        It is very clearly laid out in that letter that the main object of
the TS is to work for the noble idea of the Brotherhood of Humanity and
*not* to become a simple school of psychology. They are looking for noble
and unselfish men to help them to work for the noble idea.

        To me, the practical implication of this is that how each one of us
is able to implement this from moment to moment of our daily life in our
interaction and relationship with our fellow humans. Such practical
application does not need any organization's approval or assent or the
direction of any leader of any organization. Each one of us have to find out
our own creative ways of working this idea in each circumstance we are put
in. Any and all philosophy, IMHO, is worthless unless it translates into
some practical help to improve the conditions of fellow humans.

        An organization can help in a limited way. The organization can
provide a forum
to present information as well as a place for like minded individuals. With
any formal organization comes with it the inherent problems such as
bureaucratic (inefficient) administration, political problems, and the
perceived power that formal title provides, as well as the power that
control over money and other assets bring. If one recognizes these inherent
problems of organizations and also the realization that none of the problems
stand in the way of each one of us acting in the best interests of everybody -
friend and foe alike, then we can all easily help in furthering the idea of
Brotherhood of Humanity.


        ...doss



At 10:34 AM 4/23/96 -0400, "K. Paul Johnson" wrote:
>Thanks to Richard for a thought-provoking essay on why
>Theosophists are so combative.  However, I'm not at all sure
>that the people as individuals are in control of the group
>patterns.  The same people in different contexts behave in
>different ways.  It's out of character for me to beat the drum
>insisting on a particular point of view, or challenge other
>people's ideas in a confrontational way, or get into public
>arguments.  Most anyone I know personally would say that I'm diplomatic,
>non-confrontational, conciliatory, in discussing spiritual
>matters, even controversial ones.  Yet on theos-l I have often
>hardened into rigid defense of a position with which I was
>identifying-- precisely because of the nature of the attacks on
>said position.  And then ended up attacking someone else's
>position because it was one from which I had been attacked.
>
>My point is that I neither blame Theosophists as individuals
>for being dogmatic and combative and unyielding, nor do I
>credit them as spiritual pilgrims whose obnoxiousness proves
>their elect status. (As Richard seems to do).  Instead, I see
>an ingrained, longstanding pattern of opposition to change and
>suspicion of anyone who advocates it, combined with frustration
>and anger on the part of those who want change.  This is a
>quality of the group, and will infect any individual who is
>drawn into its karmic web.
>
>It will be interesting to see what Radha has to say about
>members' freedom and the unity of the society.  If it runs true
>to form, her talk will ignore all the real issues involved in this
>question, heap blame upon those who raise it, and avoid taking
>any responsibility for resolving it.  But maybe it's too soon
>to assume a cynical stance, since anyone-- according to K, who
>should have some say in the matter-- is capable of
>instantaneous, radical change of consciousness.
>