Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00969)

Richard Wheaton:

(I'm not sure I've seen your name...)

I suspect that you may be new to email discussions such as we have
on theos-l. It takes perhaps a month to get accustomed to this
manner of communication. Until then, it's easy to misread things,
to overreact, or to be too sensitive to remarks that are made.

It is possible for someone to make an extreme remark, like that
the E.S. should never have been formed. From the point of view of
the writer of that remark, that statement may make sense. Others
may find fault with it. Without some supporting arguments to back
up the statement, though, the remark can simply be ignored as an
expression of someone's personal views. The same would be true if
I were to make an extreme statement like "psychic powers should
*never* be taught in theosophical groups". Without explaining
myself and offering some supporting arguments, people can accept
or dismiss my statement as they please.

The extreme statements people sometimes make are more for
dramatic effect, to provoke or inspire another discussion,
than to intentionally hurt others. Sometimes, though, people
are simply expressing disagreement at something they've heard,
and a short statement of outright rejection is all they have
time to make.

For example, if I wanted to enter into the vegetarian
discussion, I could mention that I've been vegetarian since
1968, and find the thought of eating meat to be awful. I've
heard that 10 times the amount of land must be dedicated to
producing meat-based food, so the eating of meat is contributing
to the wasting of scarce world resources and contributing to
world hunger, as well as harming sentient life (the animals).

I could state these items and more, as a basis for discussion,
and then people would reply. Or I could simply blast and
condemn meat eaters, and get angry, defensive replies, along
with some counter attacks like "potatoes have feelings too!"
or "HPB ate meat so that means it's ok!" etc.

With the thousands of postings monthly, there will be some
that are objectionable, many that are chat-line style
small talk, and some that have more substance to them. We
can pick and choose what we'll read and respond to.

The important thing is to be careful to not assume someone
else's attitude and intent. We cannot easily read someone's
state of mind as they write, and see if they are red with
anger, smiling, or have a devilish gleam in their eyes as
they prepare to play trickster and see if they can provoke
someone.

When someone finds fault with a spiritual group, like the
E.S., it's possible to respond with kindness and compassion,
as the Dalai Lama might recommend, or get angry. For myself,
when I'm seeing red, I find it best to wait a few days until
I'm back to normal before writing. I want it to be *me* writing
and not my anger that directs my words.

Instead of giving Alexei your evaluation of his ideas (I'd
assume you've given him a "D-" from what you've written), do
you think it might not be better to give examples of where
the ideas don't work, and offer counter arguments?

If we're not careful, anger can infect others around us and
soon people are going after each other, rather than dealing
with more important things like making the spiritual a living
reality in the world. Alan, for instance, responds in Alexei's
defense, and writes to you "who the hell are *you*".

I heard a story about a Samurai that had been tracking an
enemy for quite a long period of time. He finally caught his
enemy, and raised his sword to slay him. The enemy spat in his
face and the Samurai became enraged. The Samurai had to let him
go, and deal with tracking him down again. Why? Because slaying
him then would have been an act of rage, and not be honorable.
It would have been the anger acting, rather than an act of honor.

Many people on theos-l have strong views, any many of them
diverge from the traditional theosophical doctrines in different
ways. There seems to be little overt intolerance, in the sense
that anyone may write about what they like, and usually there's
no flaming in reply. As to covert intolerance, I'm not sure.

People will begin to feel gun shy and avoid certain topics if
they feel they'll receive an icy reception and be blasted for
their ideas. Not everyone feels comfortable writing about
whatever crosses their minds.

As to the comment someone made about female Mahatmas doing what
the mail Mahatmas tell them, I'm  sure that was intended as a
joke. Sometimes people may need to add "<grin>" or "ha, ha!" to
their writings to make it clear. I know, though, that some things
I've read that people take seriously should have been a joke! <sigh>

Regarding female Mahatmas, I assume that like everyone else,
Mahatmas are subject to karma. They do certain things in their
lives and have certain ties to people and places that they've
established in the past. They are not free of karma, but have
made their karma and themselves into occult scholars and gurus
and spiritual social workers, etc.

With them, gender wouldn't make any difference in how they
lived their lives, except if they were born into a culture
where their ability to do things in society was affected by
it. A male Mahatma would be better able to act in an Islamic
country, perhaps, and that might affect gender at birth.

Gender does not determine spiritual standing, nor does it
confer the ability to think, feel, intuit, or otherwise live
life. The only difference is that if one is born female, one
can carry babies and have periods. If one is not interested
in having a family, though, this ability means little.

My advice regarding how easy it is to become tense, and
offended by the remarks on theos-l, is to stop, take a
breath, and have a good laugh. Life sometimes plays jokes
on us, and it's hard to make it through the corruptible,
imperfect physical world without a light heart. Dark clouds
sometimes fill the sky, but it's always possible for a
gleam of sunlight to break through...

-- Eldon