Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00048)

>If religion is of the kind:  "Believe or else," who can respect it unless
>one is either very ignorant (and therefore uncertain and defensive about
>that), or a fool -- for which there is little remedy; or 3rd, and possibly
>the worst:  one who takes advantage of fools and the ignorant and erects on
>a sound ethical or data basis a trap to capture those poor unwary soul WHO
>WILL NOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
>

All religions are based on "belief." As far as I know, that is the
very definition of a religion. Even Theosophy requires belief.


>Theosophy as I have seen and studied and experienced it is the one system
>which demands that we accept nothing blindly:  No FAITH, no AUTHORITY, no
>BLIND BELIEF.
>

Actually, Buddhism does this too. However, as I noted above,
even Theosophy requires belief. Direct observation of Truth
can only take us so far, and beyond that threshold (unique to
each of us) lies belief. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this.


>Since it starts with the idea that the UNIVERSE is one, and we can call it
>"spirit," or "god" or anything we please, but we cannot deny that it is a
>WHOLE.
>

Your premise that the "UNIVERSE" (whatever that is!) is "one" and a
"WHOLE" is an assumption, and I would submit that this assumption
is a vital part of your belief system. There is obviously no way to
scientifically observe this wholeness, and thus it must be taken on
faith. BTW, I am not so sure about your assumption. I believe that
MY universe is one whole, but that my universe is not your universe.
One of the basic assumptions of my own belief system is that there
are an infinite number of universes, any way you care to define the
term.


>Our relation to it is that we embody, in however small a measure the same
>potentials as that WHOLE.  So if it is "GOD," then we and "gods -- in the
>making."
>
>
Who is the "we" that does this embodying? The human being? If
you look higher -- at the divine Monad, I would say that our divine
Monad IS the universe (or rather "a" universe).


>each of us is equipped with the same good tools -- and as we now find
>ourselves , we have either improved or dulled and damaged our equipment.
>This equipment, as I see it is controlled by "me" the Ego, the Witness and
>the Watcher of all that happens in and around me.  This equipment (or tools
>that I can use and direct) is:  1.  the MIND, 2.  the DESIRES AND FEELINGS,
>3.  the PHYSICAL BODY (whether healthy or unhealthy or somewhat mixed-up).
>
>There is no question that there is feed back to "me" form all of them, and
>sometimes it is quite confusing.
>
OK.

>When we (I mean the body) die, what survives ?  The physical basis is gone.
> the basis framed of desire and feelings may remain for a while -- some can
>call it the "ghost" or the "astral body linked to the Kama (desire)
>principle;  but that too fades in time.  Theosophy speaks of the Mind (
>Manas ) principle coalescing with the wisdom-memory and together with the
>light of Spirit ( Atma)  upon them enter a long time of meditation on the
>life last lived, called " Devachan" (paradise or the land of the "gods")
>
You are spouting the TS line here. I would much rather have it in your
own words. For example, what we know of logic and reason and the
ability to think coherently all is based on the physical brain (thus the
inabilities to do these things when the brain is damaged). After
death there is no more brain, and "thinking" is much different. According
to HPB (if you can quote Sources, so can I) only the "aroma" of the
past life survives. I agree with her.


>Karma draws us back to life in a new body so that we may balance our debts,
>receive compensation and perhaps start new accounts, and so life goes on
>with, to the real "me" an ever increasing increment of learning and talent.
> HPB in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY gives the system and working of this in
>detail.  It is valuable to have a good knowledge of that.
>
But it is questionable about who this "us" is that you are referring to.
It is only the skandhas, which can not be confused with any person or
self. No ego or self reincarnates. This is a basic Buddhist teaching,
which I agree with.  BTW, the "real" you is already spiritual, and doesn't
need another life on Earth or anywhere else. The whole notion of a
personal self that learns and grows via reincarnation is a maya. It is
the exoteric view of reincarnation, and one that HPB tried to dispell.
Unfortunately, the TSs have all touted this exoteric view since HPB
and have done a general dis-service to humanity (IMO of course).


>If all this is true and reasonable then "good" or "bad" Karma represent
>those unsettled balances we have to harmonize so as to escape their future
>influence.
>
Good or bad karma all depends on how it is viewed at the time. There
is no such thing as good or bad per se (this comes from Lao Tzu, and
is not my own invention).


>What has this to do with "ethics ?"  If the Universe is ONE, then it runs
>by certain great impersonal and also universal laws which harmonize all
>aspects of its many diversities.  We can learn in time all the details of
>these.   We may also see that if we transgress those laws, are vicious,
>overbearing, tyrannical, etc... we build up a fund of trouble which we will
>eventually have to settle.  Similarly for "good" which results from obeying
>those general laws of nature and cooperating with her purposes.
>
All of this stuff is pure exoteric bull. I don't mean this personally, and
I am not flaming you or anyone here so please don't get upset. But
the ideas that you espouse here are very exoteric and naive. I think
that life is a lot more compicated that you suggest.



>I would say, very broadly that the "golden Rule" is the only ethical base
>that is reasonable.  Everything else is just argument and discussion.  If
>you help others you help yourself.  This is probably why Theosophy posits
>UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD as the 1st of its "Objects."
>
>More ideas ? Dallas
>
>
>Dallas TenBroeck
>

I certainly agree about the golden rule. Helping others is the
only sane behavior that we humans can do. But I would hope
that we do so because we are inherently spiritual and therefore
helping is in our nature, and not just to get better karma.

Just some thoughts.  I hope everyone thinks about this a little
before over-reacting. I have undergone a lot of flaming in the
past for my heretical ideas on theos-l, and don't want that to
continue here. If you disagree with me, fine. Everyone has the
right to think what they will, when they will, for as long as they will.
But if you want to view karma as a universal principle that
judges, rewards, and punishes, then you may just as well drop
out of theosophy and become a Christian, because such a
karma is nothing more than the God of Christianity.

Jerry S.