[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

types of discussions

Jan 07, 2009 12:31 PM
by Eldon B Tucker

Hi everyone.

It looks like we're getting a bit carried away and starting to get mad
at each other. Let's keep our discussions on topics of shared interest
and avoid telling others what we think of them.

We're a diverse group including people liking or disliking Blavatsky,
Purucker, Crosbie, Kristnamurti, Leadbeater, Besant, Steiner, Baily,
and others. From a philosophical standpoint, it may be annoying at
times to see someone promoting an author we don't like, but the best
reply is to outline and possibly debate the differences. 

When we delve into history, we'll find out things about the
theosophical authors that can be damaging to their reputations. A
common reaction is to gloat over the negative about authors we don't
like and to take personal affront at negative mention of our favorite
authors. Neither reaction is good. 

A fair discussion of history will present a balanced picture of
someone. To repeatedly stress some particularly bad trait of an author
does not win converts. Fans of an author are more likely to become
defensive and feel provoked into counter attack. Few would convert to
another way of thinking. If repeated too frequently, negative remarks
about an author would be inflammatory and evoke anger, not open

It's better to win over others by the beauty of our ideas rather than
by discrediting their heroes. 

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application