posted June 20, 2007 10:05 AM         

I'm not sure what your point is, giving us bits of Annie Besant's biography. Are you for or against her? Because everything you've said just tells me what an amazing, principled example of a human being she was. Are you thinking that socialism is a bad word? You may as well substitute "humanist" for "socialist" and you will understand why she was involved in getting fair treatment for women, decent pay for workers, and the message of the true spiritual life to people everywhere. Talk about a Rennaissance Woman.

quote:

---

The webmaster, it seems, has spoken

---

Looks like he deleted that super-nasty post from fayte, too. Good for him.

Either that,
or she decided to delete/edit it herself,
but not to apologize for it.

You said some intelligent things about how we channel anger. I agree, very few people know how to channel their anger. I have a soft spot for the depressives, who would rather internalize it, than do harm to others, - but that's me. I don't think fayte has more reason to be angry with me for an error in judgment that I made once and apologized for, than I have to be angry with her for saying the positively putrid things she has said to me over and over again. And if you are satisfied to defend her with the claim that "her anger made her do it" every time she spits sulfur like that, then I should be able to defend myself with the same claim, when I lose my cool once or twice. Especially since I have apologized and agreed not to repeat the offense, while Fayte has done nothing of the sort.

Fayte,

If I mentioned someone's name in connection with something she did (which I have said she ought to be forgiven for, and which I do not even think is a very big deal at all), it is not "dragging her through the mud", lol.

Calling someone "Disgusting", "insane", "an utter low life cad", "the lowest of the lowest of social creeps", and someone whose "character lacks any moral decency or integrity" (and that is just ONE of your posts, lol) is a far better example of what it looks like to drag someone through the mud. Don't even try to argue with this, Fayte. Just open your eyes and see it. If you have any of the integrity you are so fond of preaching to me about, I suggest you muster it up now and apologize.

peace out,
HSC

posted June 20, 2007 10:41 AM         

is this 'secret' really what it sounds like??!!

thats pretty shocking!!

posted June 20, 2007 12:18 PM         

HSC,

I was just letting you know that I know a few things about Annie Besant. You gave me information on her regarding women's sufferage so I let you know what I knew. That is all. I agreed that you were right. She was heavily involved in women's sufferage among other things. I admire her for her work in that movement and for what she did for workers.

I neither am for or against her and I stated that in my post when I first spoke of her. I am neither for or against Theosophy either. It's just another philosophy to me. I am indifferent to both her and her beliefs. I do not ascribe to many things she says in her writings. The spiritual aspects are from various religions. Nothing wrong with that either. I think people should be open minded to all religious thoughts and belief systems. I stated I felt she was a spiritual person. Her works and what she did on the behalf of others reflects that she was a good person or at least seemed to have good intentions. I do understand why she worked for women's sufferage and helped workers. People's actions and what they do reflects their spirituality as hers did.

Regarding socialism, it's a bad word in a democracy. I don't think that many of us would be willing to give up the freedoms of a democracy in favor of a socialist system of government. However, some very great people are socialists and socialism does have some good in it. I really don't care what other people's political or religious affiliations or beliefs are. I don't have to agree with them though.

Regarding the rest, I would like to let this die. Since you brought it up again I will say this. This is not the first time that you have done this to Lisa. Which is why Fayte is so angry about it. I am not real happy about it myself to say the least. You stated on this thread that if someone tells you that they do not like you divulging things said to you in private then you would not do it. That is not exactly true is it? Lisa let you know that she did not like it when you did that to her the first time on a thread and yet knowing that she did not like it did not stop you from doing it again to her on cancerrg's thread did it? You can speak the words but your actions do not always back up what you say in justification of your actions. Also you stated on this thread that when Lisa supposedly told you what she did about Fayte that it was so insignificant to you that you did not remember it. Then why did you suddenly remember it on the cancerrg thread? Not really a question that you have to answer. Just a way of expressing a thought I had as to the logic of that statement in the light of reality.

I am not justifying Fayte's words to you. I am understanding of her anger. The anger itself is justified. I also am understanding or your anger and hurt and what motivated you to behave as you did on the cancerrg thread to Fayte, Zala and Lisa. Doesn't make it right though and I addressed the actions. Not you as a person. We are all imperfect human beings. I do not expect others to be any more perfect or any less imperfect than myself. We are born with a certain temperment which we cannot change. We can only work around it and learn to control it. I am hopeful that you will think about this experience and learn the lesson that God is trying to teach you through it. We all have a lesson to learn from it. Lisa holds no grudges. She is not the type of person to do that as you should well know. I hold no grudges and I am certain that no one else here at LL, including Fayte, hold grudges. I know Fayte well enough to know that she does learn from her experiences and she does not hold grudges though any injuries do leave scars that take time to heal.

I was not in my words regarding Randall's decision concerning your being a moderator rubbing it in and gloating. It may have appeared that way so I'm sorry if I made you feel that way. I can understand how at this time you might feel that is what I was doing. I was stating that Randall delivered a very strong message as to how he feels about abiding by the rules of LL and how strongly he feels about the right to privacy of the members here. That message I feel was directed for all of us to keep in mind.

posted June 20, 2007 12:35 PM         

carry on then.....

posted June 20, 2007 12:57 PM         

Mirandee, you are right that I did make private things known even after being told how it upset Lisa. I can't argue with that. There are things I could try to explain, but, bottom line, it is not how I want to behave, and you are right. Again, I do appreciate the mature and, if you'll permit me to say so, Christian tone you have taken with me. I know that you are upset with me "to say the least". I appreciate that you did say the least, and I want you to know that understating your feelings has not made them less apparent to me.

About the other thing: obviously, I did not forget it, never to be remembered. But I forgot it in the sense that we can forget things that we later remember. Hence, the word "remember". Enough of this.

I don't hold grudges either.

HSC

posted June 20, 2007 04:31 PM         

Consider it done and forgiven on my part.

Sorry that the whole thing has upset you so much. Lialei took it hard too but she took her girls camping for a few days to commune with nature. Maybe it would be helpful for you to do something like that and put it all in perspective. Nothing like the beauty of a summer's day to put life in perspective.

Thank you for your comments and though I have been remiss in saying it, I did like your writings in your original post on this thread.

posted June 20, 2007 04:37 PM         

The same thing happened to me on this thread. I lost two posts that posted and then disappeared. Weird.

I think there must be some kind of glitch here at UC as it has not happened on any of the other boards.

posted June 20, 2007 08:20 PM         

Anyway, I got time to read HSC's first post.

I don't agree completely to it. You are the source of everything that happens to you or wish for others to happen. All these angels, devils etc is bullocks.

When you learn to live by yourself and have no place for a guru. You are God. Just believe in your self.

Cheers.

Heh mercury is retrograde three times in a year. Cud be one of those moments. Relax.

posted June 21, 2007 05:42 AM         

I too lost a post here, lol. I wanted to say...I don't know EXACTLY what went on, but I felt in my heart that things were not as bad as they appeared on the SURFACE of things. And after reading the posts on this recent page, I feel I was right.

Wishing you all love and light

Our minds are a matrix
Our faces are a mask
Our souls dwell within
Our eyes are the looking-glass

posted June 21, 2007 10:20 AM         

Mannu,

Not sure that Jiddu Krishnamurti was against the ideas of Annie Besant per se. He had what he deemed a spiritual awakening that brought him to the realization that truth cannot be reached by any path, religion or sect. So basically it was that he just did not believe in any set path to truth. It seems that he was actually taught by Annie Besant and H.W. Leadbeater.

The Sage who would not be a Guru

"Had he not abdicated, the throne of the biggest spiritual guru of modern times would have been his. While other gurus struggle to build their organizations, a worldwide platform, The Order of the Star of the East, was offered to Jiddu Krishnamurti on a platter by Theosophical Society chieftains Annie Besant and H.W. Leadbeater. They had groomed him since childhood to be a ready vehicle for Lord Maitreya to incarnate. The twist in their script came when Krishnamurti had a profound spiritual awakening. What he later taught stemmed from his personal realization: that truth cannot be reached by any path, religion or sect... Ironically, though he had refused messiah hood, he went on to become a world-renowned teacher, giving talks occasioned by profound insights into the deepest questions of humanity. A sage-like figure, Krishnamurti died in 1986 in Ojai, USA, at the age of 91.."

I like many things that Krishnamurthi says but I am not sure that I agree about there being no path to truth. Then again, I also believe that there are no absolute truths in our world. I believe that God is the one and only Absolute Truth. What we know through our own experience with God or any "enlightments" or "inspirations" we may have we call "truths. We deem things that we believe to be truths. However, we cannot say for certain that what we may think or believe is "The" truth. We are all sojourners in this life. All of us are seekers. None of us hold any absolute truths. So maybe I am in agreement with Krishnamurthi??? Not really sure.

At any rate this is why I wonder why we humans fight or argue about religion. It is because I believe that truth is in the air. We all possess some truths. God lives in all of us. Speaks to all us inwardly. Speaks through all of us. Because you see, I believe that Jesus was The Word. God incarnate. Jesus was the last in the line of the great Prophets with a capital P. The ones chosen and sent by God to instruct and guide us. Since Jesus we are all prophets in the lower case "p" Although I believe that Jesus was more than just a Prophet. I believe that all that God is was shown and taught to humankind in the person of Jesus. He revealed God in entirity through his teachings and his actions. In that respect I may be parting ways with Krishnamurthis theology.

"...I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth...

Then you will naturally ask me why I go the world over, continually speaking. I will tell you for what reason I do this... As an artist paints a picture because he takes delight in that painting, because it is his self-expression, his glory, his well being, so I do this not because I want anything from anyone...

You are depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for your enlightenment on someone else.... No man from outside can make you free..... No one holds the Key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity..."

Jiddu Krishnamurthy speaking on 3 August 1929 announcing the dissolution of the Order of the Star, Ommen Camp

posted June 21, 2007 10:48 AM         

This is the statement by Krishnamurthi that I am having a problem with. It seems contradictory to me. Though it may be just me.

"...I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised... The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth...

To me it seems contradictory to state that truth is a pathless land, and that truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised. Then at the same time to say that he adheres to this truth "absolutely and unconditionally."

Isn't he in effect being a bit dogmatic there himself? Or organizing truth? Isn't that putting limits on truth? Yes, because he is saying that he believes it absolutely and unconditionally and there lies his limit on truth. He has set a limit. It ends there. Once one has made up their mind that something they believe is absolute and unconditional they have closed their mind to any further revelations or enlightenments to the contrary. In doing that they have in fact set themselves on a path of truth. Their truth. Which really is no different than any organized religion does.

Any way you slice it, it seems to me that is no less dogmatic than the organized religions or philosophies such as Theosophy that he says will not lead to truth.

posted June 21, 2007 02:30 PM         

KM did the same thing that George Washington did hundreds of years ago( That is not become the king of America). Well there was no kingdom, but he was supposed to lead the society.

Yes it does appear quite contracdictory in what KM quoted. He was adopted by the Besant's at a very young age and trained to be the one. Its quite apparent by his speeches that he was a rebell inside.

Perhaps he meant the way to God is pathless because every path is God itself. You cannot hurry the experience or delay the experience, just let it be.

No one can show you the truth. A guru can only lead you to where you want to go. But after a certain point he/she will dissapear and you are on your own. A true guru will make sure that you are ready to feel his absence in the same way you felt his presence. Not sure its coming out right.

Perhaps we can read tons and tons of books that is available in his california home for people to give us an insight on why he said those things

Will be back.. need to go now.

posted June 21, 2007 02:50 PM         

"Perhaps he meant the way to God is pathless because every path is God itself. You cannot hurry the experience or delay the experience, just let it be.

No one can show you the truth. A guru can only lead you to where you want to go. But after a certain point he/she will dissapear and you are on your own. A true guru will make sure that you are ready to feel his absence in the same way you felt his presence."

Yes, think that may be what he meant and I think that is very true.

posted June 21, 2007 06:56 PM         

I think that your comment needs to be ammended slightly.. the purpose of a Guru (or any Teacher for that matter) is not to lead you "where you want to go", but rather to hold up a mirror and show you to yourself.

We are ALL God/dess already, we have only to re-MEMBER that. This is why a true Guru (Teacher) will only hold up that proverbial mirror.. or put another way, lead you to a clear stream in which you will see only your own reflection, and that of Nature around you. Is that not where we find God?

Just a thought.

Blessings...

A