"God" speaks & other flapdoodle
Aug 11, 1996 07:58 PM
by James S Yungkans
It seems as though I may never be done with this....
> May I suggest to James that it might be a blind spot in his attitude towards
> others... for deviating from standard Theosophical teachings?
In answer, to quote from my last post (where I quoted HPB):
> The Society's members represent the most
> varied nationalities and races, and were born and educated in the most
> dissimilar creeds...Some believe in one thing, others in another. Some
> incline tward the ancient magic, or secret wisdom that was taught in the
> sancuaries, which was the very opposite of supernaturalism or diabolism;
> others in modern spiritualism [Spiritism], or intercourse with spirits of
> the dead; still others in mesmerism...
This is my view, which does not force 'Standard Theosophical Teachings' on
anyone (albeit my philosophy embodies much of what is defined as such.)
However, I do tend to much less tollerant (albeit in error at times) with
those individuals that do not allow "essential features of their religious
philosophy]" to be examined. I do personally consider refusing to discuss
one's system, while offering to sell the contents of it, as somewhat
patronizing, wouldn't you. A blind spot, NO. An intollerance, perhaps.
Frustration over a lack of exchange, definatly. But I think a better
approach ON BOTH SIDES would have aleviated much of this, don't you think?
Maybe if I and Alan were to shake hands....
> May I also submit that we can learn most from those who hold different
> opinions than those that a surface reading of Theosophy seem to support?
Absolutly! That's the reason for the Second Object. And, as I quoted:
> Of...bigoted sectarians of any religion [or philosophy]... the
> bigoted sectarian, fenced in, as he is, with a creed upon every paling is
> written the warning,
>> "'No Thoroughfare,' can neither come out of
>>[anyones] enclosure to join the Theosophical Society, nor, if he could, has
>>[the Society] room for one whose very religion [or philosophy] forbids
>>examination. The very root idea of the Society is FREE and FEARLESS
This would possibly include the "Fundamental" Theosophist, who demands that
everything must fit into HIS/HER model of the universe, don't you think? I
do not think this way, but rather try to glean from others what they have to
Therefore, please do not misinperpet by attempts at drawing Mr. Bain into a
discussion on his area of philosophy. Rather, see frustration for what it
is, and not what you interpret it for.
As far the recognition of Alan as a Theosphist, which refers to a statement
that I made in a PERSONAL E-mail directed to Alan ONLY (and that he chose to
place into the public forum for PERSONAL ENDS), I will point to several of
MY statments, albeit overlooked:
> based upon what I have seen on Theos-L...tell me where I am mistaken.
This was an attempt to adjust my view of Alan, if he thought I was in error.
Rather than choosing to reply and point out my error (If there is one), Alan
chose to change a private discussion into a public forum for ridicule.
Not only is this self-serving, but this was definatly against the
"Rules" that HPB had established for her "Esoteric Section" Is Mssr.
Bain so far above
the students of HPB that he may do this with impunity?
> If your views/actions/beliefs are different...I leave it to you to
Mssr. Bain, by posting a personal E-mail in which I made statements that I
definatly would NOT make in public and would not make to anyone other than
Mssr. Bain confirmed my statements rather than demonstrating any difference
from what I had stated. I still await any example from Mr. Bain that is any
different from my previous observations (I.E. an open conversation on HIS
I will state here publicly, in answer to Liesel who says "please don't tell
other people on this list anymore that they're not Theosophists", that my
statement, in PRIVATE and to Alan ONLY, expressed an personal opinion I had
developed over the course of a dialogue. I was attempting to resolve the
problem as a theosophist would, honesty and PRIVATELY! Alan's choice to
make personal coments into public declarations were his alone and amounted
to a "derogatory or slanderous statement made against a fellow theosophist
in the presence of [other] member[s]." As liesel says, "We have all kinds,
and they all lay claim to that title..." Perhaps a definition for conduct
should be defined AND ADHERED TO for anyone making such a claim. HPB's
definition of 1879 might be a good starting point. Should we perhaps form
such a definition here on Theos-L?
In closing, could perhaps more constructive forms of discussion come out of
this whole situation, such as:
1. What is a Theosophist
2. What makes a Theosophist different than a non-theosophist.
3. What is the expected conduct of a Theosophist.
The following was a posting on Theos-World in regard to the situation at hand:
> Thank your for posting a reminder on the broad definition of a
>Theosophist, H.P.B. maintained! Hope you will be treated fairly by your
>correspondent on Theos-L.
You can decide for yourself if this has been the case.
James Scott Yungkans, F.T.S.
For you reflection, I am appending several of the Rules for the E.S. (1888).
I only hope that this turns into a constructive dialogue, not a case of
"carrying coals to newcastle" [The Bishop can explain this phrase for anyone
who doesn't understand it (if he so chooses, of course!)]
1. Groundless condemnation on hearsay of others, theosophists or not, must
be refrained from, and charity to each others faults widely practiced
within, as well as without, the theosophical area.
2. Repetition of statements or gossip derogatory to others must be avoided.
But condemnation of crime, of social evils and systems of every description,
in the abstract, is a duty of every member. Above all, the duty of every
member is to fight against cant, hypocrisy, and injustice in every shape.
3. A derogatory or slanderous statement made against a fellow theosphist in
the presence of a member, shall not be permitted by him to pass without
protest, unless he knows it to be true, in which case he should remain silent.
20. As "the first test of true apprenticeship is devopion to the interest
of another," it is expected that members will endeavor to fully comply with
clauses 1 and 5 [which was specific to E.S. membership standing, and not
relavent here] of the pledge. Theosophy must be made a living power in
life, and, as a beginning, it must be applied to all relations, whether
business, social, or personal...
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application