Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00057)

Dear Dallas,

>Why not simplify ?
>
>If we may agree, most broadly, that this Universe is embodied LAW, that is,
>it is fair to all equally and impartially (and Science relies entirely on
>this one fundamental condition for its research and findings and
>teachings), may we not say that even in the matter of human morals, what is
>called "Good," is simply those thoughts, feelings and acts, which agree
>with the universal LAW of cooperation and brotherhood that rules the World
>and the Universe in its most basic aspects?  Similarly, "bad" is that which
>breaks that fundamental Law, or exhibits evidence of egotism, pride,
>selfishness, and all those elements and objectives of personal life that
>separate us from others, even those on whom we depend the most heavily for
>our existence ?
<snip>

Yes, in the broader sense, I agree.  I find cosmogony to be beautiful. It
is very simple, and yet not simple at all.  We can go around preaching that
we are all one and should act accordingly, but that would not explain in
detail the ails of the world, or the workings of the world.  In a world of
people divided in perception, we need to see each individual explanation to
get a clearer picture.  For example, ahimsa is not simple.  My using
scatological language may be an attack on some people due to their
sensibility.  With others, it is not an attack at all.  With some, direct
and frank talk is attack.  With others, long polite lectures with an
underlying arrogant tone is attack.  Ask any teenager whose been lectured
to whether they've been attacked.  I wonder if my showing up at a T.S.
meeting dressed in say, dominatrix gear, would be an attack on some people,
even if I was otherwise acting normal (I'm not into S&M, BTW).  My
mentioning S&M probably is an attack on some people right now.  Can you
explain that?  Can you apply the universal law in such instances when
relative values and divided perceptions will create divided sensibilities?

>In human psychology it is difficult to see that this operates uniformly.
>It is because of "accidents" and "reverses," and the active evils which
>some people may inflict on others.  One of the missions of the theosophical
>Movement was to demonstrate this fact of "Karma" to all of us, so that we
>would think about it, see it in operation, and then see also that this
>could be made a reasonable basis for framing our own life and work.

Yes, you can try to explain to people that they are suffering in this world
due to the law of Karma.  However, that is not going to heal them.  How do
you heal a victim of childhood abuses?  How do you heal their shame and
anger?  We need psychologists, sociologists, and logicians with their
separated points of view to explain the fragmented world.  We also know
that there is no way that any one point of view will prevail in all cases.
Yes, we are all one, but we need to go further than that. We are all one
when we include each and everyone else.

>There are of course many more details and facts concerned with making this
>clear.  Unfortunately our various "religions" around to world, with few
>exceptions, start with he idea of an all powerful God who can be appealed
>to for special consideration through praise or prayer.  Most do not realize
>that if this were really possible, that God would be violating His own
>Laws, and would be imposing an unjust hardship on those who are already
>victims--which is hardly fair.

There is a point of view that Karma is cruel.  When some people are greatly
suffering in the present life while others are having an easy go of it, it
is hard for them not to curse or question the karmic law.  It is also hard
wondering what they did in the past life to deserve this suffering.  Is
there not an implied punishment in that?  Try to convince people that they
are suffering for past actions when they are screaming in pain. And what
does it say about you if your action then is to inform them about the law
of Karma rather than try to ease their suffering?

>Of course if we attribute to God the whims of a lawless, ruthless and
>whimsical tyrant, there is no difficulty in the present religious attitude
>that envelops so many minds.  We are brought up deliberately in an
>atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and resentment for the conditions we find
>ourselves in -- the only way out is by examining the facts, all of them and
>seeing that if LAW rules, then our compliance with It, and fairness to all
>is the only way for true living.

Again, we can keep in mind that it is all fair.  In the fragmented world
and in the fragmented mind, the world is good, bad, beautiful and ugly.
With such opposites, conflict inevitably arises.  We need ways of dealing
with our fragmented experiences and resolving conflicts. Also, how can you
ever be sure that you really understand the LAW. Where is the line between
arrogance and humility in the face of it?

>If we review our own lives we will soon see that we could not exist now,
>unless several thousands of people had not contributed to our life, from
>our earliest childhood up to whatever position of work and knowledge that we
>now use and possess.

That is a given, influences good and bad, including influences that seemed
good but were really bad in the long run, and influences that seemed bad
but were really good in the long run.

>Also if we do not see that the Real Man--the Mind-SOUL-- is IMMORTAL, then
>we are not able to see how injustice in this life can hang over as
>"unexpended Karma, for good or bad, into subsequent lives.  Again there is
>much fact and data given to support this.  If you would like to have more
>of my (or rather theosophy based) thinking on this, and some good
>references to study, let me know.  One could, with great profit, start with
>a careful reading of HPB's THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY.  If we look up the
>statements in the book, using the INDEX as a basis for research under
>various subjects we will soon come across the answers that I sketch above.

So the teachings go. They also say that even the Mind-SOUL, Real Man, etc
is Maya, impermanent and not ultimately or absolutely real. The Causal body
is formed at individualization and when its goal has been reached, will be
dissolved. It will no longer be necessary.

Thank you for your offer.  I have a heavy library, from Blavatsky's 'Key'
to Zarathustra.  In a fragmented world, I believe in looking at as many
fragments as I can to get a clearer picture.  Of course, I find books
lacking.  I prefer to do what Krisnamurti suggested and quietly enjoy the
world with awareness.  On the other hand, I also believe Hegel when he said
that although our minds have an 'essence', or a direct reflection of
something we're viewing, our essence is built up according to our gathering
experiences.  Maybe Krisnamurti thinks he  can see things in their basic
essence (without gathering experiences) each time.  However, based on my
experience and memory of childhood essence and adult essence, I have a
greater understanding and appreciation in my adult essence.  It's like in
art, you have to learn how to draw, analyze color theories, and know about
art history, but when you get in front of that canvas, you need to forget
about them.

>Perhaps this clears the matter up a little.             Dallas

Thank you.  I will be able to see your next response but will not be able
to respond myself.  I have to prepare for my promotion to the next martial
arts level and a trip out of town for the Holidays.

Thoa :o)