Lucca Leadership - no mention of SES, SOP etc

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:51 am

Abel Holzing wrote:Is that practising what you preach? Holding others to a higher standard than the one you apply to yourself? All your failings are labelled 'human', others' 'malicious'? Can't you see the hypocrisy in that?

Demanding from others that they be 'whiter than white' and 'practice what they preach' without being / doing so yourself, has been tried many times in the history of mankind, and has always failed - miserably. Gandhi got it about right, I think, when he said it's all about "being the change that you want to see in the world".


I'm not trying to compare me to anything or vice versa. I'm trying to compare the SES to the standards, that by virtue of the views it promotes, it sets for itself. I don't have to be successful at something to be able to judge that someone else, who claims to be successful at something, isn't.

I get what you are saying but how can there be a double standard? I'm an ordinary individual who is just going about his life. I'm not the leader of a group, or even influential in a group of people, that has an agenda to press and actively recruits members. There just is no double standard. I think the whole ability to be transparent and not abuse the power that comes with forming a group based on a spiritual belief system is so difficult that I have no intention of starting such a group or ever taking a position of responsibility in one. Given my current feelings about such organisations I can't conceive of ever joining another one.

Abel Holzing wrote:Finding a system is one thing, living up to it quite another. Claiming (correctly) to have a vehicle that is perfect for travelling from A to B does not imply that you know how to drive it. Equally, I have never heard an SES member claim that anybody in the school has ever achieved a final and complete understanding of the teaching, i.e. self-realisation.

A clear case of human fallibility, I'd say ...


I agree that A doesn't imply B but what is the point otherwise. If you have found a key and you can't use it to unlock the door then it's useless and have you really found the key yet? I think that much of what brings people here to this site is the fact that whilst the SES may have found what it believes is the secrets to reaching the ultimate goal they have failed in many respects to live to ordinary human standards let alone anything higher. Personally it is my view that whatever it is that the SES has found has made it more susceptible to human fallibility rather than less. All we have to go on to judge the merits of a system touted by such an organisation is how well it puts its claims into practice.

I can accept that the SES is an organisation that is imprefect and it has to learn lessons along the way, however it showing itself to be an organisation that seem reluctant to learn the lessons from experience.

Bonsai


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests