Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tl00007)

>Keith:
>I guess I am a failed idealist, a cynic or something, but I wonder 
>like Rodney King why we can't all get along.

>Eldon:
We have two approaches to supporting what we find to be good. One is
the "double negative" approach, fighting "evil", <snip>

Einar here:
It reminds me: "You can't fight off the darkness with a stick! - Try some tender Light"

>Eldon
The other approach is simpler, more direct, and usually more effective:
the "single positive". We share the good that we've come to appreciate
and leave others to clean up their own acts.

Einar: 
This should be the theosophical way, shouldn't it? If you want to improve the world, then start with yourself (and keep on until YOU are impeccably through with it!).

>Keith
>I have been around a while and it seems that the theosophical movement has 
>become hopelessly (I hope not) mired in petty fighting and useless friction.

Einar:
What do you mean by  "the theosophical movement", Keath.
Over the past decade or so I have been travelling around in the Theosophical World, visiting many Sections (including Olcott last year) and meeting with hundreds of theosophists from all over the world. What goes on here on this list does NOT in any way resemble the impressions that I have of the theosophical work around the world.  In fact I can hardly imagine a worse Introduction to Theosopy for an "Innocent newcomer to theosophy" than the quarreling and arguing that has been the "rule" in the discussion lately. If going on in this way, I fear that those that like to discuss real theosophical subjects will leave, and the list will end up.... Well you tell me!

>Eldon:
The biggest source of conflict may be in the multitude of conflicting
definitions of Theosophy and the battling over what it really is. 

Einar: 
Discussing "the multitude of conflicting definitions" is, as far as I see it, the real issue of theosophical study, and should be the core subject of this list IMHO, provided that we honor the "prime rule" of theosophical discussion - THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT!
If we acknowledge, every and all of us, that everyone is entitled to his own view on every THEOSOPHICAL subject, having different views should enrich the discussion, and make us all more tolerant and more open-minded. If we all would try to understand one another, instead of fighting each other, trying to win the battle at all cost, I would think that this list could survive and even fulfil its true goal, enhancing global theosophical work.

>Eldon:
Finding
flaws in historic figures is something of a side issue, and may at times
be used to discredit what they wrote and therefore their variant of
Theosophy, or used to discredit some claimed lineage of sponsorship by
the Mahatmas. The petty fighting and useless friction is a negative byproduct,
caused by human failings, like the smoke that surrounds the fire. There's
sill something real and valuable going on, but it's not always apparent
at first glance.

Einar:
Jeah,,, Don't Judge so ye......  Folks, The past is gone - what remains is only in our own heads. Let's not fill our mind with gossip and judgements of the past. Let's keep to the subject, - theosphy - and how to live it NOW, and let go of the pesonalities of the past from HPB onwards. It is simply no concern of ours!

>Keith:
>Maybe the only thing that would bring it back into public consciousness would 
>be someone like Krishnamurti (but then he got out).

>Eldon:
I don't think he ever really got out. His writings sound like the mirror
opposite to the version of Theosophy that Leadbeater espoused. K. was
anti-hierarchy, anti-teacher, reductionist, etc. The philosophy was something
like a Jungian shadow of Leadbeater's approach. That's why there may be
such an appeal to his writings in the Adyar T.S., where Leadbeater's books
are published. I don't want to go into a review of Krishnamurti at this
point. He's not someone, though, that would help out the work of the Masters
in introducing some of their philosophy in Western thought -- at least