Re: Should theos-talk go into a brief Pralaya? Is Truth Too High An Ideal?
Feb 27, 2006 08:09 AM
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "M K Ramadoss" <mkr777@...> wrote:
> The seeds for recent spate of msgs seem to have been planted over
> Given time, things come back to normal in all un-moderated
maillists. Only a
> little thick skin and patience is all that is needed & we all will
> brighter day soon.
> In friendship to all.
> On 2/26/06, prmoliveira <prmoliveira@...> wrote:
> > Recently we have read on this list repeated accusations, slanders,
> > character-assassination, implied legal threats, and what in
> > language is generally referred to as bloody-mindedness.
> > In view of the above, should Theos-Talk go into a brief Pralaya in
> > order to refresh itself, through reflection, meditation and
> > kindness, or should it change its name to THEOS-FIGHT and make a
> > mockery of its declared intent - "Discussion on topics regarding
> > Theosophy (or theosophy) and its realization in the modern world"?
> > With antipodal sadness,
> > Pedro Oliveira
Dear Mkr, Pedro, Carlos et al
Mkr, thank you for your words of understanding, experience and hope.
Pedro, your sadness may perhaps be shared by those who prefer a more
harmonious state of proceedings.
My questions concern the nature of harmony and at what price?
It would appear that the preferred state of true Harmony doesn't
always equate with calm, considered gentility. In fact, a veneer of
so-called harmony can hide a multitude of sins.
Perhaps we might ponder a number of questions?
For how long should we tolerate a tyrant, bully or liar in the hope
of harmony? History provides us with examples to consider.
Should we, and if so for how long, tolerate someone who challenges
our cherished beliefs?
Should confrontation be permitted in an educated society? Should we
ban it, or should we remain mute, hoping for the dust to settle so
that we may continue as before?
Where are the lines to be drawn between these extremes? Are courage
and cowardice to be considered? Does motive play a role?
In this time of heightened tension, it is apparent that some here on
theos-talk, feel aggrieved at what they perceive has happened to
Theosophy and its principles, in terms of some of the Theosophical
organisations and their representatives.
Some have discovered that they might have been deceived into thinking
that their organisation was honest and trustworthy in such matters as
history, openness of debate and truth in reporting.
Perhaps they don't accept that there can be a different moral and
ethical perspective for some when comparing genuine truth, honesty
and integrity with the "truth", "honesty" and "integrity" of
organisational structures and their actual or supportive
Leaders, representatives and supporters can honestly believe that
protecting their organisation or cherished beliefs is of the highest
moral worth. In spite of the most altruistic motive this belief can
be consciously or unconsciously exacerbated where individual
livelihoods with salary and/or power are a consideration. A situation
such as this can lead to a significant, internal dilemma for those
individuals who are genuinely concerned with the search for truth and
who may have the role of facilitating their membership towards
genuine Harmony. It is a spiritual opportunity of considerable
significance and is no easy task.
Is deception therefore, in any of its forms, harmonious and
theosophical, even whilst in the process of protecting an
institution, its membership or revered representative?
At what stage and at what cost do we sacrifice truth, honesty and
integrity for the sake of well-meaning protectionism?
However well motivated we might be in our attempts to keep
opinionated people from argument or worse, is peace at all costs the
If truth is sacrificed for "peace" and "harmony", can Truth and
Harmony ever arise, or must the merry-go-round continue endlessly?
Satyam Nasti Paro Dharma.
Loving regards to all
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application