Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00418)

>From: "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@theosophy.com>
>Date: Saturday, January 24, 1998 10:07 PM
>Subject: Re:Dependent or independent? (reply to Ramadoss)


>Ramadoss:
>
>Your comments give me an opportunity to discuss
>an point that I find of considerable importance.
>
>>When you see a starving child
>>one would not be even aware of
>>one's hunger. You first feed
>>the child then see what you can
>>do to take care of your hunger.
>
>I'd say that in this situation you'd be as acutely
>aware of the child's hunger as your own, and would
>act totally without selfishness. Your action,
>though, would be based on common sense and for the
>greatest common good.
>
>On an airplane, in the event the plane loses air
>pressure, air masks drop from overhead. Passengers
>are told to first put on their air masks, then to
>tend to the children. This is because if they lose
>conscious they're of no good to anyone and the
>child is in a pretty bad situation.
>
>Another example is of the gallantry of old, where a
>young man might dramatically throw his overcoat into
>the mud on the street, in order that a fair lady not
>have to step through the mud. It's certainly a nice
>gesture, but can in many real-life situations defy
>common sense.
>
>The idea that it's always best to do something for
>others first is good -- as an exercise in self-forgetfulness,
>but is impractical if not applied with a good dose of
>common sense. The real ethic or virtue here, I think,
>is the seeing things from a selfless point of view, from
>a point of view where "what's in it for me" doesn't bias
>our decisions and actions. We work for the overall common
>good, not for our own bottom line. Sometimes that means
>doing good for someone else, without any thought of personal
>gain. Other times, it's just as valid, when appropriate,
>to do something that benefits ourselves.
>
>We cannot come to a fair, balanced view of life as long
>as selfishness clouds our minds and hearts. When it lifts,
>and we see clearly, we become agents for the betterment of
>humanity, concerned for the good of all. That means that
>we don't let ourselves be taken advantage of, nor squander
>our resources in token charity. We manage our resources
>skillfully, giving generously but wisely. We're not acting
>according to any predefined rule, however noble-sounding,
>like "always do first for others," but rather act out of
>a Zen-like immediacy in response to situations before us
>in life.
>
>This may be what you're saying, in different words. I
>just like the opportunity myself to give voice to the
>same ideal, that of selfless, pure, compassionate action.
>
>-- Eldon
>
>--

Keith:  I think we have had these discussions before on theos-l and man has
been discussing this since speech rose above pass me the food, please.  I
think it comes back to the pendulum cannot swing to much to the side of
"LOVE" giving without getting or "SEVERITY/JUDGEMENT" denying and
criticizing.  The middle pillar of the kabalah and the midyamika or middle
way of the Buddha is the only thing possible in the long run or the bow
strung to tight will break from strain or will not function if it is too
loose.

But where can we seek the real SOURCE of compassion and alturism.  Aren't
these the attributes of the higher levels.  Bing Escudero like to focus on
the virtues as the keys to attaining spirituality as do the kabbalists.
There are many exoteric spiritual people out there feeding the poor and what
do we get?  More poor asking for more feeders?  The compassionate thing
becomes tough love at some point, but not to excess.

Like Eldon said we have to make these decisions on a minute to minute bases
and not clear the karma of a million billion years with one gift.  But I am
almost afraid to respond to Brenda's concern about the future. I do not have
children and I know that she and Eldon do.  If I had children, I would have
to become very angry, controlling and bitter or give in to the cosmic
process as the children will also.  Maybe a theosophical discussion of
parenting would be interesting?

The path of householders and solitaries seem to be converging.  The world is
a village, they say.  And Ms. Clinton says it takes a villiage to raise a
child, but instead of getting values , they are taught the value of
valulessness and this permeates our institutions these days.  Clinton did a
lot of impure things, by anyone's standards, and mine are pretty low.  But
everyone seems to forgive him, because the economy (the material plane) is
functioning and he isn't a spiritual leader anyway, is he?

Namaste
Keith