Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00327)

JRC:

>Actual growth and evolution is bound to be
>uncomfortable and extremely volatile - but ultimately whether the
>*personality* gives the appearance of deep compassion or wild rage *makes
>no difference* ... IT is not the thing spiritual growth is concerned with.

We're approached this topic in the past. One point is that a typical
Western approach to spiritual awakening may involve a sense of "shattering",
which comes out of the uncomfortable and extremely volatile external
circumstances. This is as contrasted with an more eastern approach where
the experience is more akin to melting or blending-into the higher.
In either case, there's apparent chaos, turbulence, and events of
extremely unexpected surprise that appear in our external lives. You
tend to view the process from a more western standpoint and see conflict
as an essential ingredient. I'd see is as a rare tonic, a medicine, not
as a daily ingredient of life.

>And this, I believe, is somewhat of a dilemma Theosophy has never fully
>addressed - while words like "brotherhood" and "compassion" were
>continually used by HPB, and the Adepts, they were clearly speaking of
>things *other* than what the *personality* understands by those words ...

Yes, certainly compassion is much more than the "spoil them rotten"
simple-minded version of the overly-kindly grandma. It's really indifferent
to pleasure and pain, to someone's personal comfort. But there is a line
where justice and fairness is drawn and cruelty and injustice begin.

>as if you actually look at their words and behavior, HPB had emotional
>rages that make anything on this list look positively tame, and the
>Masters in the ML had no hesitation in using language often very personal
>and severe.

She certainly had many personal qualities that were counterproductive,
that would tend to handicap her. The Masters were primarily writing to
Sinnett, for his benefit. 

>At the *surface* level, for instance, many of those priests KH
>boldly stated to be the cause of 2/3's of the *evils* present on the
>planet would *appear* to be much more "compassionate" than the Masters.

It was 1/3 for selfishness, 2/3 for the ill effects of organized religions.
This would include things like the Holy Wars, the Inquisition, the
witch burnings, etc.

>Their compassion at times has an almost *ruthless* quality about it ... as
>has virtually nothing to do with modern culture's notions of being "nice"
>(and sometimes I believe the two are assumed to be the same thing ... but
>neither HPB or the Masters could be considered *nice*). 

This is why the Master's have said that false but sincerely held beliefs
are a greater barrier to someone's "coming to them" than drink, an
impious external life, etc. 

I'd object to the term "almost *ruthless*" though. I'd call it astonishing,
or surprising, or totally unexpected -- somewhat zen-like, rather than
something acting with a karate-like quality that simply hits you and
knocks you down.

>I have no illusions, nor desire,
>to be a "clever guru" ... in fact I don't believe in gurus at all

But you give this impression when you tell Tom that you respond to him
in the same manner and measure as he acts.

>(and I
>fear I may have to say that much of your writing appears to be in the mode
>you accuse me of ... no? The next two paragraphs to me and Tom have at
>least a slight tone of "teacher to pupil", do they not?).

Perhaps a different "teacher" tone than you like to use. Yours has
more of the sound of a "karate instructor", mine may have more of a
"traditional guru" sound to it.

>Second, and most
>important ... please look at the development of the conversation. I read
>Tom's posts for a few days before saying *anything*. He began with
>statements almost custom designed to stir people up emotionally ...

Waiting before replying is good, giving more time to reflect upon what
he may say and stand back from emotional reactions.

>I chose, on a whim, and because I had time, to engage him ... to
>reflect his energy and magnify it to the point that it now really *is*
>absurd (-:). With everyone else he went after ... he kept responding at
>them until they just plain gave up and decided it wasn't worth it.

It's possible to deflate certain ideas, or defuse an explosive discussion,
without getting into a personal fight. 

>I simply chose to very deliberately do the same to him. All of those that
>said (in what he considered "emotional" terms or not) that he should
>re-examine his ideas or moderate his tone were met with hostility ...
>often quite personal.

There are different ways to bring someone to moderate their ideas. One is
to ask them to do it. Others include asking them to clarify what they
say, getting them to explain their ideas and perhaps moderate them in the
process. 

Also, given the wide spectrum of views we have on the list, it's possible
to have all extremes represented. I don't expect people to generally
change their views to accord with the majority, but would expect people
to learn more respectful ways of self-expression, that result in an
exchange of ideas and positive interchanges, rather than a bringing up of
barriers and bitter fights. I'd say it's possible to disarm someone that
is combative without having to take up arms.

>(Eldon, as *deeply* as you and I have disagreed
>about things, would either of us ever even *conceived* of saying that the
>other was a hypocrite for claiming to be a Theosophist?) 

I wouldn't make the claim. Also, there are perhaps a dozen
definitions of Theosophist and Theosophy, and we'd have to say which one
we're talking about, and someone's inner spiritual status is not always
indicated by their external circumstances and demeanor. The statement is
a judgement made in anger, saying "you're not one of us" rather than
talking about admirable qualities that define a Theosophist in a way
that encourages one to emulate them.

>Please also, notice a couple of things ... in going after him so
>deliberately, I wound up being an "attractor" (as the chaos theorists say)
>- the vicious energy he directed at several different people (and I
>will give you examples if you wish, but I respect your intelligence too
>much to believe you'd argue that he hasn't attacked anyone) is now solely
>directed at myself, and he *has* actually significantly moderated his tone
>and become far more careful about how he presents his thoughts. I am not
>in any way saying I am solely, or even chiefly responsible for this, but
>before you judge whether the "effects" of what I chose to do are or are
>not negative ... wait till they play out fully.        

Learning to be more careful about writing is a lesson we've all learned
as we participate in these discussions. Your confrontations of him may
help Tom accelerate the process whereby he acquires greater diplomacy,
subtly, and interpersonal insight in his writings. And perhaps if Richard
Ihle steps in, he'll get accelerated practice in wit and dry humor. 

Getting accustomed to writing in this media takes time, and it's
obvious to see the hardline positions taken by newcomers, not realizing
the immediate reactions they'll get from others. On the other hand,
even with improved writing skills, people don't change their basic
personalities, so even after a year of writing we may have the same
attitude from people. I wonder if Alexis' favorite word still is
"deplore"? 

Each time any of us posts something, we may alter the direction and
thought flow of the group. Even though I haven't time to write a lot
this past 1/2 year, I'll feel drawn on occasion to post a note, to add
a slight "push", hopefully something that can be helpful.

>To some degree, *everyone* manipulates and controls the tone of
>the group - is that not, to some degree, what your post is trying to do?
>To tell us your opinion that we should both *change the way we post*? I
>see nothing wrong with this. Every group has a group energy that develops,
>and every person contributes to it. You contribute in a way that you
>consider best for the group - and so do I.

Agreed.

>You may not agree with how I
>operate ... but Tom initially introduced an extremely divisive energy -
>several people suggested in kind words that he alter his presentation, and
>he did not. I used harsher tactics, and now that energy is solely directed
>at me, is contained, and when he finally gets tired of the game, the
>negative atmosphere will have disappeared completely ... as the minute he
>stops, I will too. Even now, probably almost no one is actually reading
>our posts anymore (-:). 

He was expressing an unpopular view in dogmatic-sounding words, and it
started getting people angry. If the same ideas were put in a different
way, it might, though, have been possible to reconcile some of them.

(If we look at different species of animals, for instance, there are 
unique ways in which males and females assume duties in life, different
work assignments, social roles, positions of power in society. If we
look at different human cultures throughout the world or in the past,
we'll see different roles and responsibilities for men and women. We
can say "men are this way" or "women are that way" *in a descriptive
sense*. From a political standpoint, from a standpoint of ethics, of
values, though, we might say, "men *and* women *should* be this way,
or that way." Now we're talking in a different context, talking about
possible future societies, rather than describing the status quo or past.
Tom was describing social roles and observable characteristics, the
others were talking about what people are possible of and how they
feel things *should be*.)

>While I don't personally feel as though you really understand what
>I am trying to do, and don't at all grasp the perspective from which I do
>it (as I don't understand yours), still, I appreciate the effort you put
>into writing ... and if this post seems to completely disagree with you,
>please do also take it as a sign of the respect and esteem I hold for you
>that I'd even trouble myself to try to explain what I am doing.

And I'm responding the same.

>We probably will never agree - but from my point of view I couldn't imagine
>the list being nearly as rich or interesting were you not on it. 

Thanks. I think that there's a lot that all of us have to offer -- you,
Tom, and I -- if we can get around the communication landmines without
getting our feet blown off.

> Kind Regards, -JRC

And best wishes.

-- Eldon

>PS. BTW, I read the last on-line publication ... well, some of it anyway,
>.. and thought the article about geological time-periods was quite
>interesting. While clearly very basic, its the kind of approach I'd like
>to see more of - in fact, I'd kinda like to see a thread about it begun on
>theos-l ... if you've got the time ..... 

After it came out, there were a few comments on theos-talk on it. Richard
Ihle had several things to say on it. Perhaps he'd like to repost some of
his comments?