Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00244)

JRC writes,

> You are certainly free to
> engage in all the missile exchanges you wish - but please don't stand
> back and pretend to be some innocent who just gets beat up and has never
> attacked others, or initiated an exchange. You hardly have some sort of
> moral high ground here.

Okay, John.  But I don't see them as "missile exchanges" nor am I interested
in a war.  I don't feel "innocent," and I am not complaining about the
personal hits I have taken -- and continue to take.  I have stated my
opinions extremely forthrightly, and I will continue to do so, and I am not
whining about the price.

I will say that the deluded comment was not aimed at any particular
individual.  There was no one or two people I hoped would be HURT by my
comments.  Rather, I was talking about a way of approaching the philosophy
which ignores the fact that there is a body of teachings which were offered
Theosophists to study.  This approach is -- I maintain -- deluded.  It misses
the central reason HPB even bothered to show up.  Not brotherhood merely, but
IDEAS rule the world, and HPB attempted to deliver new ideas that would help
us build a new understanding of the universe we live in.  The PHILOSOPHY
ITSELF supports the practice of brotherhood.  And yet so many seem interested
in Theosophy, yet can't stand the philosophy.

I will agree with you that brotherhood is the single most important doctrine
among the bunch.  I must also add, however, that this IDEA has become
prevalent in much of society today.  Many, many groups are teaching this.
 PRACTICE would be even better.  But Theosophy has no monopoly on
brotherhood.

However --- and this is the important point --- Theosophy teaches many things
which NO ONE ELSE to my knowledge is offering.  Ideas about cyclic
evolutionary progress of the Monad which are hinted at in Buddhist and Hindu
and Egyptian writings, but not spelled out.  The seven-fold constitution,
anthropogenesis, the understanding of cosmic manifestation -- all these are
unique to Theosophy in the form given, and these are the very ideas that are
so often put down as silly or worse on this board.

So I speak up for those doctrines, demonstrate them in light of current
science to the extent that they can be demonstrated, and engage in discussion
to deepen my understanding of those teachings.  I have learned a tremendous
amount from some people on this list.

But I will stand by my assertion that the words "heresy" and "blasphemy" were
never used as weapons against those who now feel persecuted.  They were first
used in jest by Chuck -- back me up here Chuck -- who was making fun of the
way he PERCEIVED the so-called "fundamentalists" to be reacting to his and
other's writings.

Soon it was imagined that such epithets had been hurled as "weapons."  Then
it got ugly.

I am not afraid to be made fun of, and I welcome all such personal shots.
 They do nothing to address the SUBSTANCE of what is being discussed, and in
fact leave the impartial observer with the sense that personal shots are an
attempt to distract from the issue at hand.

It is very easy to engage in repartee, but takes considerably more work to
stake out a position and present reasonable argumentation as to why it is
tenable.

More than quotes, too, though I appreciate Greg's and Daniel's posts of those
as well.  If you can come up with similar, but opposite quotes, John, well
then what are we to do with them?

Do we imagine that the Masters are giving out mixed messages?  How are we to
sift through diverse quotes and arrive at an understanding that seems
reasonable and likely?