Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl01090)

Hi,


I have to do some rounding off business regarding some replies from
Alexis and Jerry S. before I have my holiday break.


Alexis first.

Alexis: I saw your posting this morning and was amazed about your anger.
Apparently there's something not going well in our communication.
That's a pity, because I was (and am) very interested in your view
of things. That does not mean that I have to accept  your complete
view as valid  of course, it could be however that certain points you make
make me consider some Theosophical teachings more carefully.
As an example I'll give the theory of races/rootraces. Up to some weeks
ago I would not be too critical of G de P's theory of races, I considered
it as a theory of consciousness which he also applied on the black race,
Chinese people, etc. The point you raised about it made me think about
it again and I see how that inevitably leads to racistic attitudes, if one
blindly equates rootraces with the current races. So, in this respect
I've actually learnt something from you. I have always carefully avoided,
however, to promulgate any teachings on races/rootraces because it is
explosive stuff anyway. You acted as a catalyst, so to speak, to review
this matter in a more critical way.

Your views on karma and justice interest me strongly, because it's not
always easy to understand how these things work and any elaboration
upon the theme is worthwile to ponder about.
I realize now, however, that I may have asked too much from you.
It is not possible I think to either prove or refute the teachings about
karma. That is something we can only do in our own daily life experience.
It is plausible to me that 'we reap what we sow', but 100% proof cannot
be given by way of argument. Neither can you refute it by way of logic.
Only experience can do that (and I think only if one has developed
the budhic faculty to a large degree).

Where does this leave us? Basically we are left to our own experience
and understanding of life's intricate processes. Theosophical teachings
can be helpful for us and others as a framework, a set of hypotheses
and consequent teachings or maybe sometimes non-consequent teachings,
as the case may be, to ponder about and apply in daily life.
Well, many people have benefitted from this exercise and I see no problem
at all in that.

My disturbance has been mainly with the division 'core'-theosophists
vs. 'process'-theosophists because you have at least implicitly equated
'core'-theosophists with dogmatic believers and the other category
as 'experientalists'. You said to Eldon that he was 'preaching the
party-line', implying that you didn't take his point of view seriously.
You have *your* experiences and view of things, Eldon has other ones, I may
have yet another view, and so may others. That's nothing to be mad about.

It would be nice if we could discuss that peacefully on this list, however
you have to realize that I or any other one may plainly disagree with you
and dismiss your notions as irrelevant in our perception of things.
It's not different from what you do regarding Theosophical teachings.

IOW I think you carried this division too far in equating people who
think or believe that core-teachings contain a lot of truth with
dogmatists. This is too simplistic. It doesn't work that way and, yes,
I call this: labeling people in too divisive a way. You actually offend
people by calling them dogmatists and you don't care about that.
My conclusion has to be that you don't care to really listen to people
who strongly  disagree with you, while those people may be just the ones
from whom you can actually learn some new perspective on the old teachings.
The evidence is clear: I strongly disagree with you implying people to be
dogmatists and see what happens: you get angered instead of asking me
what's the matter. You could have been friendly and empathic, but no
you are wildly slapping around you. That proves my conclusion sufficiently.
You belittled Daniel and now you start accusing me of all kinds of things.
I have no need of self-defense. The above is only an explanation
and description of how I see the whole communicative process between
you and me and some other listmembers.

There's only one thing which I may have carried to the extreme and that
is consistently asking for strong arguments, while I now realize that
it may not be possible at all to do so. Giving one's point of view, however,
does not count as an argument. It's just a point of view. That's all,
unless you can show that it far better explains natural processes,
human interactions, etc. That would be a matter of serious scrutiny
and analysis indeed. Maybe you have to offer such a view, that's entirely
possible, but as yet I've not seen such a convincing explanation of things
which is consistent with my experiences and/or satisfies my sense of logic,
etc,etc. The deep-rooted motive in my case is to offer something helpful
and valuable to people who may need it sorely. So, I cannot just
accept the dismissal of theosophical teachings as irrelevant without
being offered a very good alternative. Discussion and analysis would
be still necessary of course. I would not throw the baby out with the bath
water. Do you see now where I stand. It has nothing to do with you
personally but everything with my perceived duty to the public.



Rest me to deal with some old posts:
I'll do it from memory because I'm busy.

Regarding this race-theory of G. de P.
Well, I've said before that I regard this as speculation and
totally counterproductive. The root-race theory is a theory
of evolving aspects of consciousness, but has been applied
to races and that's just not my idea of it.


HPB about priests being all black-magicians: you know better than
taking HPB's statements literally. She was famous for her exaggerations.
She had a couple of Jesuits who tried to thwart her work, so what
do you expect..

You asked 'what articles'. Well, I 've written more than about
the seven jewels alone. You can find them at: www.spiritweb.org
in the Theosophy section.


About Mahatma letters: I asked you to give an example regarding
where there are contradictions. You plainly refuse to do so,
thereby again confirming my perception that you lack arguments
or it may be that you don't find it important enough to do
(which shows again a lack in taking the other seriously, because you
mention that there are contradictions but do nothing to show it despite
my asking for evidence)
I've studied these letters too, and saw no contradictions
that could not be easily resolved.



About physical/non-physical: I already told you that I don't believe
in absolute divisions. All is substance with active or latent intelligence
as the case may be and nature works along analogous lines,so my application
of cycles to the physical plane is warranted. So I dismiss your notion
as irrelevant.

Something about a degree: Alexis, I've told you already that I have
a master's degree in psychology and a bachelor's degree in physics.
I don't get it. What are you complaining about?


Something about me drawing a 'smoke-screen': I do smoke, Alexis, but
smoke-screens, no, I just don't like them.
On a serious note I'd say that you don't know me at all, so attributing
motives to me is a very questionable practice. Also, I noticed that you
take my statements entirely at face value instead of trying to understand
what I'm trying to say. In some way you twist the intended meaning of
my messages and are trying to push me into the defense.
That's not an effective way of communication and it is not fair either.
You've chased many people away, *including*  Americans
who were totally fed up with you.
Is there a ground for communication with you? I doubt it very much,
given the type of reaction you display. You seem to operate from the premise
that you must 'win' a discussion, I'm not sure what your idea about
effective communication is. This is a forum for peaceful discussion, not
for debates.
I feel that you don't understand me at all and, frankly speaking,
 I don't feel that you respect me.
So, I will leave it at that and I think it wise for the moment to stop
all discussions between us.


Jerry:

About guilt and remorse: of course these are very real to people who
feel this. But if these feelings are nursed too long ('me poor sinner syndrome')
than they become an obstacle for spiritual progress.
In that sense they are pseudo-realities: you can't change things you've
done back to what it was before. You better live in the here and now
and try to do things better.

Causal body being on the buddhic plane: as far as I understand it, yes.

About the 7 jewels being translated: I used the wrong word, based on
a Dutch equivalent for 'converting' [in a suitable form in applying the
jewels to the different spheres of being]. Otherwise, your remark
holds true too of course.


JRC: you're probably right about people being very busy with other lists and
following only some threads. Nevertheless, the equating of 'core' theosophists
with dogmatists has been going on for a long time on this list and I wondered
why so little people took exception at that. It sure made me angry and
wondering if people were  indifferent to this happening on this list or what.
That's my character, John. Thanks for your response anyway.


Martin