Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00227)

JSY>It seems as though I may never be done with this....

	James: there have been so many quarrels on this forum that
you will get used to this kind of things :)


Martin writes:
> 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...

JSY>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
belief [or
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 good point, James. I have had big trouble with a guy on this
forum before who started patronizing me when I asked for more information.
The crudeness was unbelievable. There may be the point of copyright, which
may limit the amount of quoting (even for an author of his own work? -
I don't know), but even then this author could summarize his ideas
and make  little drawings or pictures to clarify things if necessary.
In short, I regard the refusal to do that as laziness and that is to be
regretted. Unfortunately, there are some people on this list who
don't want to discuss their findings and ideas because they are publishing
books that contain these findings. That diminishes the value of this forum
greatly IMO.


JSY> 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....

	I hope so.


JSY>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:

	If this was a personal E-mail (which I took for a theos-l discussion)
then things are different. It is not done to place it into a public forum
without the consent of the other. Did you do that Alan? And if so, why?


 > based upon what I have seen on Theos-L...tell me where I am mistaken.

 J>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?

	James, I cannot comment on this before I understand what has
been happening. Alan may want to clarify this.



 > If your views/actions/beliefs are different...I leave it to you to
   demonstrate it.

J> 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
   philosophy/viewpoints.)

J>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?

	Why is it that I feel that no such thing will happen on this forum?


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.
                  Etc...


	James: a Theosophist is one who Theosophy does. The rest of these
questions don't need to be answered as we all have different ideas about
these questions (it would require a very lengthy discussion and it is all
either too abstract or too idealized to be of much value in today's world)
We don't live in the nineteenth century anymore. People make up their
own minds and don't like these idealized concepts anymore.
By Blavatsky's definition there may be hardly any Theosophist in this
world..

JSY>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.

	
	I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle. But I do think
it's inappropriate to put personal E-mail on this board, like I said
before.


JSY>For you reflection, I am appending several of the Rules for the E.S.
(1888).

	I know these rules, James.

J>I only hope that this turns into a constructive dialogue, not a case of
"carrying coals to newcastle"  <snip>


	When we all agree that it is not done to put private E-mail
on this board unless the other party has given his/her consent, then
we have gained a little bit in understanding of proper behaviour.

<snip>

And let me add, that constructive dialogue is facilitated when people
start discussing their ideas and insights instead of refering to their books.
A matter of politeness and respect, I'd say.
Don't get me wrong. Everybody has a right to write and sell books, but I
personally feel that one should discuss one's ideas openly and fully
instead of refering to the bookshop where one can buy a book.
That's not what I'm looking for on this forum, although I may decide
to buy the book after I've had a good discussion with its author.


Martin