Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00185)

Alexis:

>I feel it is totally unrealistic to pretend that no one should get
>angry. Anger is a real and natural emotion, when focussed out wards it can
>be therapeutic, when focussed inwards (suppressed) it kills.

Just a few days ago I saw on tv the movie "Unforgivable". It was about
a man that could not control his anger, and would physically abuse his
wife. (I probably wouldn't have stayed up to see the movie except for a
strange coincidence. The movie was filmed at a house in Salt Lake City
that my parents and owned and I had lived in from 4th to 11th grades.
My parents had called me to tell me of the filming, and I had to watch
to see if I recognized the house.)

In the movie, the man's anger took control of him and he did things
that he later came to regret. With self-improvement, he was able at
a later time to control his anger, and keep from manifesting it in
harmful ways.

I have no problem with anger, when it is appropriate. I would be against
automatically striking out in anger, though, and would want to contain
and deal with the anger in ways that is not destructive. That does not
mean internalization, suppression, and poisoning my psyche. It means
expressing it in less harmful ways, perhaps even symbolic in nature, like
tossing a pillow on the floor, etc.

There are times when anger is appropriate, but that is not when it
comes at its own choosing and controls one. It is when it is the
appropriate response to a situation, like a parent disciplining a
child in certain situations, or a manager with a subordinate. It is
a tool, a technique, not an overpowering passion.

> I don't mind
>being "criticized", as an political activist I've been so for almost all of
>my life (since 1954), but I don't like being "insulted" and I really believe
>there's a difference. Criticism is constructive, insult is destructive.

But you can play 'spin-doctor' to someone's apparent insult, making
it into something else, and even affecting the other person's attitude
towards you in the process.

>>There is a certain pleasure in responding with clever,
>>sharp words in response to someone's angry blast, but that
>>pleasure is quickly buried as one get's one's feelings burned
>>yet again! There is a greater pleasure, I've found, in setting
>>aside all angry responses, and responding to others as though
>>they've never said an unkind word.

>That, Eldon is altogether too Saintly for me to even attempt. I think you
>can testify, based upon my correspondence with you, that I try to deal with
>things in a reasonable way, and I believe that with both you and Daniel I
>have, so far as it's in me. But, I am not a Christian and so I am not at all
>interested in "turning the other cheek" for in my experience it only gets
>"smitten" too.

It would be saintly to expect anyone to do it all of the time.
But rather than exhausting one, it can save one lots of energy!
Especially when one is in bad traffic with drivers that seem out
to get one, it's easy to get burned. But why bother? Who really
cares if you or I get mad at something? Getting mad in response
to something some said, if it was ill-willed, is letting the
other person get their way. (I'm not talking about taking abuse
from others, just about letting them enrage one.)

>>I usually find them glad too to leave the anger behind, and
>>then it's possible to move forward -- with a great sense of
>>relief! There's enough wonders in life to admire and share
>>with people, that no one needs to look for the ugly side of
>>life in people. Both sides of life exist, but which do we want
>>to put our energy into?
>
>But Eldon, if we pretend the "ugly side" doesn't exist, what's
>to put an end to it?

It exists, but can be starved to death through lack of attention
and energy. It feeds on the cycle of anger and angry response.
Nothing harms it more than someone laughing it off in a friendly
sort of way, and letting the energy-cycle die.

>How does one differ from Roman Catholicism if one maintains that
>there is only one view of Theosophy?

If one maintains that there is one word-formulation that we must
all learn and parrot, it would be exactly the same, because we'd
understand it no more than they understand the heart of Christianity.
But that does not mean that there is not an esoteric or hidden
understanding of life, something that is real and can be learned,
even if it cannot be readily communicated to people without some
form of inner experience.

>The difference between you and I, as I see it, is that your
>accept the theosophical hypothesis as axiomatic rather than
>theoretical, and that you have "faith" in the various "founders"
>and the "Masters of The Wisdom".

I accept that there are Mystery Teachings, and that HPB and "The
Mahatma Letters" refer to them, conveying some fragmentary
understanding to the serious student. But I also accept that the
Mysteries are found elsewhere, and are understood and realized
by individual inner effort, of which an intellectual study of
the books is only a very small first step.

>I on the other hand accept the theosophical hypothesis as
>hypothesis (or why would I call myself a Theosophist?), and,
>where they don't contradict knowledge and experience, both like
>and admire the "founders".

The difference here, perhaps, is that you consider Blavatsky as
offering an interesting set of theories, much like a speculative
philosopher. I see her in the role of an university student acting
as an instructor in a community college extension class. I see her
as presenting valid knowledge, albeit in simplified and predigested
form, based upon the knowledge and experience of a great university
tradition.

>The primary source of our differences is that for me, the Third
>Object isn't at all hypothetical, but experiential, and, as I see
>it, you either don't "approve" of that, or don't actually "believe
>in it as a possibility".

But I *do* accept it. I just accept "latent powers" to refer to
powers of mind, consciousness, and enhanced sentience, different
powers than those that enable one to see auras, to astral project,
or to talk to spirits. I consider a different set of powers to be
of paramount importance, and seek them: the intellectual-spiritual
powers of which I like to write at times.

>I also think that you're the kind of person I can discuss those
>differences with, but you mustn't expect me ever to accept either
>HPB or "The Masters" as ultimate and un appealable authorities.

You can discuss things with me because I'll always, as best I can,
approach you and others with the respect that I'd like to be accorded.
I'll ignore any actual or apparent hurtful words, and continue to
write about what I value the most, and to reinforce the best in
what I find in your writings, and in the writings of others that I
respond to.

Although you are not impressed by citations to HPB or the Mahatmas,
in a careful, intellectual study of the theosophical philosophy,
such citations can be helpful. They allow the discussion to keep
focused, and to keep participants on an equal basis as students,
rather than any one pontificating to the others. I would not use
a quotation with you, because you are approaching discussions from
a different standpoint, and it would not be an appropriate way to
respond to you.

On the other hand, an interesting quotation may catch my attention
and lead me to carefully consider a point, because I might consider
the writer to be a knowledgable source of information on the Mysteries.
In the final analysis, though, I would have to internalize the
information, before it would really be of value to me.

-- Eldon