Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00561)

At 05:18 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alexis>Perhaps we have a linguistic misunderstanding here.
>
>Alexis: it's quite possible. However, I don't equate criticism on
>        ideas and perceptions with flaming someone.
>	Besides all of this I would like to see people who are
> 	dissatisfied with core theosophy talk about what they
>	think are viable alternatives, interpretations, etc.,
>	backed up with arguments and evidence for such alternatives.
>
>Martin
>
>
>Martin:

You don't seem to be listening to a word I'm saying. That is a surprise to
me, because you say you're a psychologist, and psychologists are supposed to
be professional "listeners". At least that was the very first thin I was
taught when I studied the subject a Columbia University. The problem is that
we don't possess anywhere near the same definition of "criticism". I will
gladly accept "strong disagreement", but "criticism" is the wrong word to
use. It really doesn't matter if you "equate criticism on (it should be OF)
ideas and perceptions with flaming someone" or not. If the person who is the
object of that criticism does, and you refuse to see why and how they do so,
what have you accomplished? Let's have an understanding shall we? I define
criticism in a negative or pejorative sense, and that's the definition, you,
for whom English isn't a primary language,will have to accept.

Now, I am far more than totally "dissatisfied" with "Core Theosophy" in
every way. In fact I totally reject it as valid. This I believe you already
know.

You have posted your "7 Jewel" Message on alt. theosophy. Now, as of
yesterday, I can post messages on alt-theosophy, while it is cumbersome, and
I must needs go "round Robin Hood's Barn" to reach the group. I have saved
your message and I am preparing a response to it. I, for one, think that
alt. theosophy was primarily designed as a venue for discussions of this
kind. It's a shame that the group is so very difficult to reach for the
nonce, but in time it will gain audience. In the interim I think it an ideal
place for small "t" theosophists and Orthodox Theosophists who are
literalists when it comes to the so called "Core Doctrines" to engage in
some actual theosophical work and compare their perceptions of theosophy.
But, you need to know that these discussions cannot be perceptive if
everything something like me says is met with "HPB says" or "The Masters
said". People like me regard theosophy as a process, Literalist Theosophists
appear to regard Theosophy as a "Religion".

For instance in our past correspondence I have stated that I do not accept
the Orthodox Theosophical view of Karma, to which you responded by saying
that in that case, I obviously didn't believe in Justice. Now I don't see
any connection between justice and Karma. How do you propose we have an
amicable discussion ( for that is definitely my goal) on that basis?

This is something which we all have to think about, if we are going to end
up with anything but wreckage where the Theosophical society was, we are
going to have to communicate peaceably, while still maintaining our
differences What we have to accept is this: You have every right to your
religious approach to Theosophy, and I have an equally strong right to my
agnostic approach to theosophy.

With hand of friendship out:

alexis dolgorukii