Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00594)

April 29th

Dear Thoa O:

I think that conversation demands at least a modicum of
discrimination. It would be difficult to discuss rational ideas
with the mad-man that you present me with, and equally difficult
to discuss music with a person born deaf from infancy. Or to
discuss a painting and color with one born blind.

So if one is going to talk philosophy or ethical verities, then
one has to talk to those who have shown some interest and
understanding, and who try to see if there are any universal
criteria that can be applied to such exchange.

And that is all I mean.

Universality, impersonality, rectitude of motive, brotherhood,
tolerance, -- all the "virtues" are derived from what source ?

Do they not imply the "golden rule ?" do they not imply that we
are (or ought to be) as careful of other's rights and needs as
we are careful of ours ?

If we are acquisitive or curious, or are doubtful and suspicious,
is it not because we have been attracted to such conditions, and
have either been repelled, or further drawn to them ?

What is it in us that is able to perceive how we are drawn ? Is
it not detached from the attraction ? Does it not give us [ the
Perceiver] the perspective of caution ? Is it not possibly the
intuition at work ? And if so, where does the Intuition arise ?
Could there not be a universal Source where the Universe exists
in its "perfect form ?"

We know that everything already exists in our Universe, and in
its "Perfect Nature." Its rules and laws of interaction are set,
and Science depends on them all the time.

So what would be so awful as to find that human ethics and morals
are not man-made, but are expressions of the universal law of
coexistence, which has been in force for billions of years ? And
I do not mean what the churches or formalized religions offer
with a list of "Thou shalt", or, "thou shalt not..."

Does this make of Nature a "personal god ?" I would say not. It
may be God-like in its most excellent manifestations, but a
personal God which could be cajoled into violating His own rules,
that would be cruel and unjust -- and yet, we see cruelty and
injustice in the world around us. YES, BUT WHO STARTED THAT BALL
ROLLING, AND WHY ?

I don't have the answer, but Theosophy claims that there is a
purpose to evolution and that it an endless process (see p. 280
Vol 1 of the S D ). We are involved in it, so we had better make
the most of it. The only way out that I am aware of is by
concentrated study so that what is already here around me, I can
learn to understand.

I rather like the idea that we are all interactive as well as
being almost totally dependent on each other for our life,
whether we like it or not. I don't mean on other humans,
although that is partially true, but on Nature -- the wind,
water, air, and the Earth and its many "fruits" that we use for
food.

There has to be a vast purpose in all this. Why is it so
difficult to find ? What is our own purpose of living ? Why are
we here, and why have we gone through all kinds of experiences,
good, bad and indifferent in this life time, so that our minds
are crammed with all kinds of memories ? Do we make ourselves
 our character and minds) or are we made ? And if we are "made"
who is that strong being that dominates us, and forces us to Its
(His or Her) will ? Why do we question at all ? What is the
inextinguishable spark of freedom that ever burns in our
innermost Self ? What am "I" --- "I" ?

Have you any better ideas or answers ? I'd not like to "jump
into the dark." I do like to approach all things (as an animated
question mark) with my eyes open.

Best wishes Dallas

PS

Incidentally, I think we are (all of us) a little mad (here and
there in our personal natures), and don't know it !

For what other reason would we be willing to put up with the many
irregularities, constraints, tyrannies of a personal nature, and
oppressions that our society and others appear to try to force on
us. But before we act precipitously, let's not throw the
proverbial baby out with the bath-water !

All changes need planning and fore-thought. Where is that to be
acquired. I do not intend to leave the impression that
"Theosophy" ought to be accepted wholesale. No. that would be
quite useless.

It can be, however, treated as a record ( in part) of the world's
history in various departments. Several of these departments
include "occultism," "esotericism," "intuition," "initiation,"
and a host of very shadowy (because they are unpopular and
worrisome areas) aspects of knowledge. But taken as a whole,
there is room for those to be included with the rest. [ One of
the reasons is that these areas are deemed to be judgmental of
others. Not at all. The motives and causes of acts are
difficult to discern until they emerge out into the open, for one
and all to see. Those that no one is proud of, are those that
are not for exposure -- we know they are wrong, and so does
everyone else. If we know in advance that some action of ours is
not open to the public, then we ought to think three times before
implementing it. It is well to think over such things and ask
why the caution? Why does the "Voice of Conscience act ? ]

The third object of the T S was to study these "shady" areas.
ISIS and the S D give a view of their relation with the rest of
our environment. So there is discovery work to be done for all
of us. But we are also warned about dabbling or practicing
personally in those areas. It is a policy recommended :
 "Look -- don't touch."

>From: "Thoa Thi-Kim Tran" <thoalight@aol.com>
>Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 11:43 AM
>Subject: Same Objects but.....

>Dallas:
><snip>
>>However if we are to honor their example of truth-living, it is
>>our responsibility to set others right, if w notice that they
are
>>misunderstood.
>
>Misunderstood compared to our very narrow band of knowledge and
>understanding. Setting them right? What is right? Why would
you want to
>set or adjust them? Sharing your information according to your
world and
>they can take or leave it, is more like it. Have you ever
spoken to a
>madman, a manic depressive in a mad stage? SNIP