Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00905)

Dear friends,

I would like to make some comments because it seems that it is now 
premuned that the Theosophical Society is and has been till now true 
democracy, now endangered by group of people lead by John Algeo, what 
is, from my point of view, completely twisted perspective of the 
actual situation.

In first place let me overview once again some basic statistics of 
past TS President election results. Votes were received from 12,993 
members out of 20,879 members of the Society eligible to vote and 
this number represents 62, 2 % of members eligible to vote and 44, 8 
% of all members of the Theosophical Society. John Algeo received 
4,323 votes or 20, 7 % and Radha Burnier 8,560 votes or 41% of all 
members eligible to vote. Therefore none of the candidates received 
majority support of the TS members eligible to vote, still less of 
all members of the Society. The fact that the elected President does 
not enjoy the majority support should represent a warning that in the 
Society some necessary changes are eminent and that there is an 
urgency to find such solutions which will find consensus of majority 
of the Society's members. 

The proposal of the Amendments to the TS Rules and Regulations 
certainly didn't lead to the consensus solution and only deepened the 
polarization in the Society. More over, none of the poles or TS 
officers have till now presented any concrete proposal or visible 
sign of willingness to find some consensus solutions and foster the 
democratization and transparency in the Society. 

Next, there seems that it is absent transparent fundamental direction 
of the Society for the next years as it seems that the General 
Council, as the Governing Body of the TS, will not discuss any 
proposal and accept any policy and plan of work. At least we didn't 
see any such proposal except that in John Algeo's election campaign 
material.

Further on, although it was clearly established that during the 
election process several TS officers have behaved immorally, 
violating TS Rules and Regulations and unethically conducted the 
election campaign, what certainly damaged the Society, we didn't see 
any statement of regret or apology to the membership, still less any 
sign of willingness to offer a resignation.

And finally, it is hoped that continuation of this unconstructive, 
war-like situation will soon wake up those uniting forces and 
numerous towards brotherhood oriented members to step forward and 
launch the revitalization of the Society on the principle of 
brotherhood and cooperation and transcend the quarrels which from 
broader perspective of the needs of the Society and humanity at large 
would look really silly if they were not sad.

Warmest regards,
Anton


p.s. I am adding excerpts from David R. Loy's "Perspectives on Evil 
and Human Wickedness", Vol. 1 No. 2 Page 123, The Non-duality of Good 
and Evil: Buddhist Reflections on the New Holy War (Copyright © 
Wickedness Net 2003, http://www.wickedness.net.)

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people 
somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary 
only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the 
line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human 
being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - 
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago.

In his autobiography Gandhi writes that "those who say that religion 
has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means" ? 
religion is about how we should live, and politics is about deciding 
together how we want to live. The main reason it has not been obvious 
is because most modern societies have been careful to distinguish the 
secular public sphere from the personal, private world of religious 
belief. This has been essential for creating a multicultural climate 
of religious tolerance, but at a price: such tolerance 
effectively "displaces morality" by "asking you to inhabit your own 
moral convictions loosely and be ready to withdraw from them whenever 
pursuing them would impinge on the activities and choices of others."

Our understanding of good and evil cannot be simply identified with 
any religious worldview, but the two are intimately related. 

In other words, one of the main causes of evil in this world has been 
human attempts to eradicate evil, or what has been viewed as evil. In 
more Buddhist terms, much of the world's suffering has been a result 
of our way of thinking about good and evil.

You're either with us or against us.

>From a Buddhist perspective, there is something delusive about both 
sides of this mirror image, and it is important to understand how 
this black-and-white way of thinking brings more suffering, more 
evil, into the world.

This dualism of good-versus-evil is attractive because it is a simple 
way of looking at the World. 

If the world is a battleground of good and evil forces, the evil that 
is in the world must be fought and defeated by any means necessary.

Nevertheless, it is a tragic fact that many religious people - or 
many people who believe themselves to be religious - have objectified 
and projected this struggle as a struggle in the external world 
between the good (most of all, their own religion) and evil (other 
religions).

Perhaps the basic problem with this simplistic good-versus-evil way 
of understanding conflict is that, because it tends to preclude 
further thought, it keeps us from looking deeper, from trying to 
discover causes. Once something has been identified as evil, there is 
no more need to explain it; it is time to focus on fighting against 
it. 

For Buddhism, evil, like everything else, has no essence or substance 
of its own; it is a product of impermanent causes and conditions. 
Buddhism emphasizes the concept of evil less than what it calls the 
three roots of evil, or the three causes of evil, also known as the 
three poisons: greed, ill will and delusion. 

Buddhism emphasizes ignorance and enlightenment because the basic 
issue depends on our self-knowledge: do we really understand what 
motivates us?

One way to summarize the basic Buddhist teaching is that we suffer, 
and cause others to suffer, because of greed, ill will and delusion. 
Karma implies that when our actions are motivated by these roots of 
evil, their negative consequences tend to rebound back upon us. That 
is true for everyone. However, the Buddhist solution to suffering 
does not involve requiting violence with violence, any more than it 
involves responding to greed with greed, or responding to delusion 
with delusion. ? the Buddhist solution involves breaking that cycle 
by transforming greed into generosity, ill will into loving kindness, 
and delusions into wisdom.

Realizing our interdependence and mutual responsibility for each 
other implies something more than just an insight or intellectual 
awareness. When we try to live the way this interdependence implies, 
it is called love. Such love is much more than a feeling; perhaps it 
is best understood as a mode of being in the world. Buddhist texts 
emphasize compassion, generosity, and loving-kindness, and they all 
reflect this mode, being different aspects of love. Such love is 
sometimes mocked as weak and ineffectual, yet it can be very 
powerful, as Gandhi showed. It embodies a deep wisdom about how the 
cycle of hatred and violence works, and about how that cycle can be 
ended. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but there is an 
alternative. Twenty-five hundred years ago Shakyamuni Buddha said:
"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me" - for those 
who harbor such thoughts ill-will will never cease. "He abused me, he 
beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me" - for those who do not harbor 
such thoughts ill-will will cease.

Because Buddhist enlightenment or "awakening" requires mindfulness of 
our ways of thinking, Buddhism encourages us to be wary of 
antithetical concepts ?

Perhaps the most important way the interdependence of good and evil 
shows itself is that we don't know what is good until we know what is 
evil, and we don't feel we are good unless we are fighting against 
that evil. We can feel comfortable and secure in our own goodness 
only by attacking and destroying the evil outside us. 

Because the villains like to hurt people, it's okay to hurt them. ? 
After all, they are evil and evil must be destroyed. What is this 
kind of story really teaching us? That if you want to hurt someone, 
it is important to demonize them first: in other words, to fit them 
into your good-versus-evil script.

When I manipulate the world to get what I want from it, the more 
separate and alienated I feel from it, and the more separate others 
feel from me, of course, when they have been manipulated; this mutual 
distrust encourages both sides to manipulate more. On the other side, 
the more I can relax and open up to the world, trusting it and 
accepting the responsibility that involves responding to its needs - 
which is what loving it means - the more I feel a part of it, at one 
with other people; and the more others become inclined to trust and 
open up to me.



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Erica Letzerich <eletzerich@...> 
wrote:
>
> COSMIC DOWNSIZING
> AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE 
THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
> 
> To read the lettter of Aryel Sanat click the link below: 
> <http://eletzerich.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/cosmic-downsizing-aryel-
sanat/>
> 
> Erica
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>