Sep 18, 1999 03:36 AM
>And there was a real danger my comments would be misunderstood,
>not read carefully, or taken out of context. And they were.
I reckon that most religious, domestic, and international disputes were all
about things being taken out of context. Probably could be applied to some
marriages and traffic accidents. Besides, contemplating ideas and
statements within their full context is just so time-consuming. . ..
>(I believe) the current TS is dying -
Maybe it is SUPPOSED to die. Sometimes, only in "death," can something
transform. It is horribly painful to have something we love "die," but it
is a natural process - we can fight it all we want - but that doesn't mean
death will have dominion.
>Do you think there is *nothing* to
>be learned from looking at a person and a company that, despite people's
>emotional reactions to it, clearly *has* figured out how to run a successful
>organization, and clearly *does* know how to respond to the world it works
Sure, but Microsoft will eventually "die" too. Truth can take care of
Itself - "God" can take care of "Godself" - what is eternal is never under
threat. We needn't look, in my opinion, for a way to "save" Theosophy.
>But tell, me, what are his "intentions" in funding a
>nearly 20 billion dollar charitable trust?
I haven't a clue what is in Bill Gates' heart and soul. I've no idea why
he has started a trust. Tax purposes? Could be. Altruism? Could be.
Doesn't matter as long as it helps just one person.
>Most of them that have been
>beaten by MS (and there are many) were run by people equally greedy - they
>had the same ends, they just weren't as good at pursuing them. The press
>(and the government) likes to paint pictures of poor helpless little
>companies being eaten by the giant.
It doesn't matter if they were "equally greedy" - sounds to me like you are
suggesting that they 'got what they deserved - died by the sword they lived
by.' I do not believe that reasoning can be used as a justification for
Microsoft's actions. I do not believe that "becoming like those we
despise" is the right path. No one, in my opinion, no matter how cruel,
deserves the same cruelty to be inflicted upon them. Remember how people
celebrated the death of Ted Bundy with signs that said "Fry him!" or when
Jeffrey Dahmer was beaten to death in prison? I did not rejoice nor feel
satisfaction nor feel justice was done - I simply saw the same cycle of
fear and domination being repeated in simply a different form.
>I've got four different computers, with four different
>operating systems (only one of them Microsoft), a half dozen different
>browsers, and dozens of applications, some of them Microsoft, many of them
>not. No one that doesn't want to needs to use a single MS product.
FOUR computers?! Is that healthy?!
And I do believe we are forced to use MS products - try getting a job and
saying "Uh no, I don't know anything about Excel, Access, or Word." Odds
are, you won't get hired. I've yet to be at a job interview where
familiarity with MS products was not a prerequisite.
>Tell that to HPB. There wouldn't *be* a TS were it not for an initial core
>of people that *did* approach Theosophy with a religious fervor.
HPB offered the world both good ideas and bad ideas. Her open hostility
toward those who disagreed with her was unseemly; yet, she was a brilliant
woman who overcame rampant misogyny and ignorance. I would have no problem
telling HPB that she was both a terrific and, at times, a cruel person.
>So what should we do - all become nameless faceless bland
>people who calmly hide in little houses and whisper about "the ancient
Yes and no. We needn't advertise that we are "Theosophists" - big deal.
It doesn't make us any more special than anyone else. And just because we
choose not to fly banners or glue Theosophical "fish" and bumper stickers
on our cars does not mean we are "nameless faceless bland people." The
best "advertisement" for Theosophy is our actions - we need not apply a
label to it. In all honesty, in my opinion, simply referring to ourselves
as Theosophists causes a separation from the rest of humanity. I realize,
for clarification and conversation sake, that label may be necessary - but
it does suggest a "difference."
>If you agree with John Algeo's idea of what Theosohy is, you're
I agree. I've never much cared for Algeo's approach either - but there may
be a more "Divine" reason that Algeo is in the position he is in. Maybe he
is meant to "cause" the death of the TS.
>The current TS is having virtually no effect whatsoever
>on anything. Almost no one has heard of it.
Again, to me, it doesn't matter. Just because someone has never heard the
"name" of something does not mean they do not practice it. The TS should
be merely a library, a resource - not a life directive. Each individual
must make that decision for his/herself.
>and *IS* something I think the TS
>leadership should learn from.
To me, "leadership" in Theosophy is an oxymoron. It doesn't fit. "Leader"
>Of course no one is going to change "the ancient wisdom" - and it doesn't
>change. But if *it* isn't changing, and a third of the membership has bolted
>... well, what *has* changed?
The "membership" has changed - people are evolving. As humanity evolves,
organizations are less needed; humanity itself becomes the organization.
Perhaps the TS has done what it is supposed to do - now it needs to let go
and let the seeds grow. The students may have surpassed the "teachers" and
that is always a good thing.
Maybe, JRC, just maybe, the death of the TS is something to be celebrated.
"Faith" in the Ancient Wisdom requires trust. As you know, the Ancient
Wisdom itself speaks of "cycles" - ebb and flow. Even if the TS
disappeared off the planet tomorrow, the Ancient Wisdom would simply find
other avenues of expression.
I admire your dedication to and Love of Theosophy and it is people like you
who will be used for Its expression with or without the TS.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application