Four Conclusions

2002-10-7 05:57:00

We have a quote from Chapter 13 from my book "The Lost Key Of The Buddha" that has caused some questioning, and even friction, so let us look at it again and re-examine:

"Tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent," he said. "In almost every example you can give me of tyranny there is a very small group involved who is causing it, not the majority. In the rule of the majority lies the path of safety."

One of the first problems we had in understanding this was that several people had several interpretations of the word "Tyranny." We go to the dictionary and find that there are about ten different definitions there.

Larry gives his dictionary definition. It doesn't quite fit what I meant so to clarify I gave a definition from my dictionary that was closely aligned with what it was supposed to mean in the book. Still there seemed to be confusion over what I meant. This time I wrote a more clarifying definition that illustrates more clearly what I mean when I use the word as well as attempting to harmonize it with how the majority use it.

Then I was criticized for creating my own definition. I believe this to be an unjust criticism because the topic under fire is my writings and the writings must be correctly understood before they can be honestly criticized. Otherwise the person is likely to argue with me over what I do not believe rather than what I do believe.

Therefore, to solve the problem we do not want to use Sally's definition or Rhea's definition, but the writer's definition of terms. To use Sally's definition to understand how I am trying to use a word borders on entering into consciously endorsed illusion.

It has also been said that we should not just use my definition during the discussion, but perhaps the definition of several others.

Let me say this. The debate is over my writings and to use several definitions that I do not agree with to define what I think leads people into what I do not think or believe and what I did not intend to convey in my statements. Why would anyone want to travel the roads of certain illusion and confusion?

If Susan writes about Tyranny and we disagree with her and want an explanation, then it would be good if she defined the word if it would clarify her thoughts.

Even then, if she gave some offbeat definition of the word such as "tickling someone" then we must listen and accept this if we are to understand her. Insisting we use our favorite definition when interpreting her words would do no good. It would only cause us to misunderstand her all the more.

What should we do then?

If we really what to understand what she is saying, to find out if we really disagree or not, then we must listen to the word as she understands the term. Let me repeat. Not how we understand it, but as she understands. This is simple and elementary in my book, but I seem to have extreme difficulty in communicating this basic principle of communication.

Therefore, if I write a phrase that causes a point of misunderstanding, only my definition of terms would be helpful.

In discussing any major point by a particular writer it is of extreme importance to stay with a consistent definition of terms.

For instance Djwhal Khul uses the word "ego" in reference to the lower self, but "A Course in Miracles" uses it in reverence to the Higer Self. If we use the " A Course in Miracles" definition when reading Alice A. Bailey, extreme confusion will result. BUT, even more confusion will result if the definition switches back and forth in each paragraph. The reader would become so confused he would throw up his arms and never read the books again.

Conclusion One:

When I write to the group and any of the writings come under question and a definition of words or terms is necessary, I should be the one to define them and that definition should be consistently used if understanding and correct communication is to be realized. This same principle applies to any writer who initiates a topic that comes under fire.

Question to the group -- particularly Larry, Blayne, Travis and Susan: Do you agree with the above conclusion? If not, why?

If agreement can be reached on this and other basic conclusions as we proceed then perhaps we can make some progress.

Amazingly, we have also had different uses of the word "majority."

When I speak or write about the majority, I refer to a group which is over 50% of the people, group or nation under discussion. Let us say there are 200 million people in the United States capable of forming an opinion on a matter. In this case a majority would be 100,000,001 or more.

Now, the past few days several have used this word in other ways such as saying that the majority of legislators are the same as the majority of people of the nation because they represent us.

Not true.

The majority of legislators are more than half of the legislators and that is all. They do not necessarily reflect the majority of the people. Instead of listening to the majority (as I wrote in Molecular Politics) they often listen to minority special interests, trade vote, sell votes, etc.

Quite often I have seen initiatives put forward and approved by the majority of the people and then these initiatives are blocked or negated by legislators who disagree with them. This illustrates that elected representatives do not accurately reflect the majority of the people.

Conclusion Two:

The majority as I use it in my writings refers to more than half of the people, group of nation that is or will be under discussion.

Then there is a third simple word causing problems in the problem phrase: "Tyranny by the majority is almost nonexistent." What is that word? "IS" is the word. Unlike Bill Clinton, I know what IS is. IS refers to present time, yet many examples of tyranny have been brought up from the past to refute the phrase. It was pointed out that this phrase may have been referring to a principle and therefore past present and future applies. It does to a degree but what is seen as tyranny today often was not seen as tyranny in the past. This was the reason for explaining why teachers such as Jesus and Paul did not speak against it. Because the meaning of tyranny shifts as consciousness evolves over time the phrase was meant to apply to present time to avoid confusion.

Conclusion Three:

If one wants to refute the said statement one must speak of tyrannies occurring in present time. I do not see how this can be a matter of debate, but it has been.

A fourth word of importance that seems to have been overlooked is the word "almost." This tells us that there could be exceptions. I do not know of any, but if only several tyrannies of the majority are found, then the statement is still true. It was not a black and white statement where there would be no exceptions.

Conclusion Four:

Out of the many tyrannies there could be a small number of exceptions and the statement could still be true.

If we now can agree on these four conclusions this will give us a basis of communication where we can understand each other and find out where we truly agree or disagree.

To disagree with me or anyone else is fine, but to disagree because of unnecessary illusion and misunderstanding creates waste of time and distance in relationship.

So, my friends, do you agree or disagree with the four conclusions? If not, why? Those of you who have been hiding under the covers are welcome to reply also.

To be continued.