Theos-Talk Archives (December 1997 Message tt00060)

Dec 13th 1997

Dear Thoa:O

Glad to read your responses and appreciate all you say.

I believe the difference between our points of view is that you are
speaking of many levels of specifics and memory as resident in different
people.  some abused and in mental anguish with their memories, seeking for
redress or understanding.  Others may not be so deeply concerned.  I was
seeking for some general principles from which specifics could be derived
as applications.

It is quite true that when one is in agony, platitudes do not help, but
sympathy and assistance, wise and comforting assistance that gives solace
both for the moment and then for the future counts.  I would place this
under the general heading of compassion and wisdom, as it takes a lot of
knowledge and a great embrace of the heart to truly help one who despairs
and recalls all the evils it has endured -- apparently without good reason.

[In this connection, we are considering the evils that individuals are
subject to and survive.  It would be also correct to consider the effect of
great events of elation and of happiness -- how are those reacted to?  Are
they accepted without further analysis, and if so, Why ?

I found Plato considering things long this line in his dialog called " THE
LAWS."  He was looking into the question of moderation, patience and
harmony and considering how these ought to be applied in communal matters
and gatherings, so that  excesses could be curtailed.

We live now in a world where the "freedom of the individual," is deemed to
be supreme -- and, in many cases this freedom is translated into a license
to do as one pleases, and impose one's attitude on others, whether they
like it or not -- as you well illustrate in your answer.  But this is
neither tactful, considerate, nor is it of long-lasting benefit to anyone.
In fact it seems to me that we are as a dated group -- a stratum of this
century, demonstrating an ability to descend to the level at which peasants
lived, and where the words that accurately described the nature of crude
living were commonly employed by them as needed, but not in any excess. (I
am familiar with such an environment.)  Such a situation, however, does not
prove anything except that we do have a knowledge of the base as well as
the elevated strata of language -- and consequently of thought, but seem in
our exuberance, to have lost a certain power of discrimination.  And I
would say that is not indicative of wisdom.

Even our literature, when looked at critically, shows only very rare
evidence of the kind of culture, a sense of ecological responsibility and
cultural or spiritual aesthetic refinement  that  is shown in the writings
of the wise.  100, or 500 years from now, who will treasure our books ?
And 1,000 years from now, who will look on us as wise -- as the Platos,
Pythagorases, Christs, Buddhas, Krishnas, Zoroasters, Paracelsuses of this
era ?  I am pretty sure that Mme. Blavatsky's books will be treasured long
after the rest are lost and burnt.]

But when the immediate pain is relieved, and some degree of calm is
restored, then perhaps in some gradual way a little of the philosophy of a
broader life can be introduced -- or so I have done from time to time, when
possible.  Also, I have found that it is of assistance in getting the
individual to look at his/her memories in terms of how others might react,
and also to be conscious of the general sense of warmth that any true and
sensitive heart feels and offers spontaneously for the suffering and
oppression of another.

Now if one can begin to view one's life in a broader way, if we cease
limiting it to this stretch of experience only, we may sense that there is
perhaps an answer that all people can relate to, and can understand.  The
psychological warmth (not analysis) is what is needed.  Analysis if any is
restricted to the one tendering assistance as and when needed he has to
maintain a wide perspective that embraces many cases, so that the
assistance needed for this particular case can be drawn on.  It does no
good to force anything on anyone.  But thoughts, ideas, suggestions can be
offered, and then we have to wait for them to be considered, and perhaps
put into use.

Patience, while helping is  what I am trying to speak of.  But that
patience has to be based on something very broad.  I have found that a
knowledge of Theosophical metaphysics on which its psychology is founded,
is of assistance.  And strangely (or not) Theosophy need not be mentioned,
but the ideas that help to quiet anguish and the great unanswered:  "WHY ME
?" are there, and can be used.

The idea of continuity of life--immortality.  That no experience is
entirely lost, but that it can be put into perspective if not
over-magnified.  The presenting of alternatives, which a person can
consider or reject without these being items of forceful reference and a
required discussion with the one offering them -- those are perhaps the
best.  If we are all immortals together then we have lived together before
and will later on in fresh incarnations.  If we established deep bonds with
family and friends, why should we think these are all new, why are they not
the resumption of past relationships which when strengthened, result in
future lives in close companionship renewed ?

Consider for a moment:  If the EGO  (Mind-Soul) the PERCEIVER in humans is
eternal, is impartial, it has been through the process of death and
rebirth, through joy and hatred and pain and elation millions of times.
Not all is entirely lost in a memory record ( Akasa ) that stretches
endlessly into the past, and laterally is also a plane which embraces all
contemporaries, whether sympathetic or antagonistic, at once;  and these
threads, when recognized, can be disentangled and followed, at least in
theory.  So there has to be a general field of related experience, which,
because it is common to all of us, can be drawn on to assist in such cases.
[ In Theosophy we would refer to this as the general basis of Universal
Unity and Causation, and of Universal Brotherhood -- which embraces all
beings, as well as the past and future of ourselves and of others too.

Now all this find talk and thought falls to the ground if we desire to
immure the experience of this life-time within the shell of our adopted and
particular mind-set, and one refuses to consider any alternatives but those
which are already self-generated, and we are, therefore, as "embodied
minds" wrapped tightly in the bonds of our feelings and sentiments.  The
feeling nature, the desires, longings and feelings have grabbed hold of the
mind and imprisoned it in a squirrel cage of repetitive horrors.  This is
what we have to free ourselves of if we desire any mind of change for the
better.

The free mind, alone, can survey the various alternatives of observation
and involvement.  This is what I had in mind.  It can be impersonal and use
the question:  "WHAT IF ... ?" as a basis for seeing the viability or the
reasonableness of such choices and their potential results.

But none of this will work if one does not employ patience, and a reliance
on the general Law of justice that pervades the earth and the cosmos..  If
those are denied, then philosophy and consolation are futile.  Does the
personal Self transcend the whole Universe ?  Are our problems the only
ones in the world?  They are of prime significance to us, but others have
been through similar experiences, and there must be somewhere a general
record of the reactions and methods that people have used to resolve their
difficulties so that there can be established a consensus, or a norm, for
consideration, if not for actual use.

We are all of us mental/feeling beings.  And it is the object of the true
psychologist to get each one to perceive this and handle it themselves.  No
outside person or influence will have more that a fleeting impact on
anyone.  But if it raises the ability to think, to consider, and then to
act, something constructive will eventuate.  Many who endeavor to assist
others who are afflicted with obsessions of various kinds, believe it is
important to keep the relationship going, and even in some cases make it
one of dominance.  Theosophy does not consider this either useful or wise,
as true education would be one that gently but firmly puts people back on
their own feet, and encourages them to make their own decisions and
choices.  this is the only way in which we learn anything.  A quick review
of  our own lives since childhood will show that this is correct.  We have
made ourselves into what we now are.

Of course it recognizes that there are those who are so impaired that they
cannot with their present life's body, mind, feeling apparatus learn to
control themselves.  In such a case extended help ought to be made
available.  Each according to needs.  If a person cannot conduct himself
intelligently among others then they need assistance.  The true
philanthropist devotes his efforts to assisting in these cases.

I can continue comments in this vein but I do not think they are needed, as
my gist should be grasped by now.  Do come again, if you can and want to so
I may be able to consider your thinking and reaction to what I offer.  I
find this very interesting.

		With fraternal best wishes		Dallas

> From: "Thoa Thi-Kim Tran" <thoalight@aol.com>
> Subject: Re:Krisnamurti, Jung, Hegel and conflict
> Date: Saturday, December 13, 1997 12:32 PM
>
> 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)