Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01486)

Hi All,

Just wanted to add some thoughts here in addition to Nigel's 
comments.
I think this issue is highly relevant to trying to walk the 
spiritual path and its infinite complexities.

In the theosophical movement we are encourage to try and move 
towards a more tolerant and open mindset.

In study and in discussion it is essential to allow all points of 
view to be heard without enforcing or deliberately provoking those 
who have a different view to our own.

So the issue of freedom and tolerance is not an easy one to practice 
in the real world where people have very strongly held beliefs, that 
are they are very often emotionally attached to for one reason or 
another.

In the case of religious beliefs like the belief in God or in the 
idea of a saviour or rescuing figure of some kind such as in some 
forms of bhakti yoga, the image of that figure or belief usually 
offers emotional security of some kind to that person and so very 
often people are not prepared to see the flaws that may well be 
present in that person or belief.

Now while people are free to believe as they choose, an essential 
prerequisite for there to be genuine freedom requires the ability of 
those who see things differently to have a voice and therefore by 
default this means they need the freedom to critique ideas and 
points of view whether they be philosophical or historical.

Courtesy is not simply cordial and superficial politeness, it is 
also the recognition that other views and perspectives have the 
right to be held and expressed.
What is often called `politeness' is often a thinly veiled 
requirement to submit to some form of status quo.
Can that be called freedom?

This type of `politeness' is often present in social and family 
situations where there might be a culture of fear and so the rule of 
silence is invoked to keep things under wraps and "harmonious".

The question I think we need to ask is, is this really harmony, 
politeness or courtesy at all or is it something else.
Is it more a repression of genuine freedom and extremely 
discourteous and disharmonious form of dis-empowerment.
Can this type of mindset be pretended to be one of "Brotherhood" or 
is it actually contributing to dis-harmony in the bigger picture.

Now I am not suggesting this always happens consciously, very often 
it is a cultural program or an unspoken societal agreement of some 
kind.
Most people who practice this feel it is in the best interests of 
either the organization, society or family as the case may be.

They believe perhaps correctly if certain information were public 
knowledge it would cause a calamity that may cause either a schism 
or break the family up.
This may be true however the outcome can often mean that a process 
of healing and transformation can occur as well.

>From a theosophical point of view nothing can remain hidden forever 
if not dealt with it will karmically be brought to the fore in one 
way shape or form sooner or later.
The longer the issue is ignored the more difficult the karmic 
situation will become.

The principals of self transformation holds equally true for 
individuals as it does within groups.
This is not a finger pointing exercise but rather I think these 
principles are worth exploring not matter whether we belong to a 
particular group or not.
These ethical situations raise very multi layered and complex issues 
and highly relevant to the spiritual journey.

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Apl 21 2005
> 
> Dear Friends:
> 
> I fully agree with this description:
> 
> "Unity or "Brotherhood" 
> 
> does not condone the acceptance of information which is 
deceitful,
> dishonest, manipulative, condescending, domineering or 
demonstrably untrue.
> 
> No amount of eloquent articulation combined with otherwise 
worthwhile 
> pleas for tolerance and acceptance can hide the utter hypocrisy of 
the
> position."
> 
> 
> Why waste the energy ?
> 
> 
> Thank you: N H Careyta.
> 
> 
> Dallas
> 
> =================================
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nhcareyta
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:16 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Re: 'Harmony of teachers teachings and 
interpreters'
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Perry
> 
> Indeed an interesting article. Unfortunately lack of time 
precludes a 
> comprehensive analysis. 
> From my perspective, the article arises from yet another apologist 
> position attempting to defend the indefensible. Unity 
> or "Brotherhood" does not condone the acceptance of information 
which 
> is deceitful, dishonest, manipulative, condescending, domineering 
or 
> demonstrably untrue.
> No amount of eloquent articulation combined with otherwise 
worthwhile 
> pleas for tolerance and acceptance can hide the utter hypocrisy of 
> the position.
> 
> Very best wishes
> 
> Nigel
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Interesting article from Edi Bilimoria in the 
> > Theosophist June 2003 page 327
> > 
> > http://www.ts-adyar.org/magazines.html
> > 
> > Entitled : Harmony of teachers teachings and interpreters 
> > I'd be interested to hear what others may think of this article.
> > 
> > Perry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links