Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00212)

May 8th 1998

Dear Thoa:

I wrote some comments on your positing today and managed to
delete them before they were sent.  so I am including them again
as an "attachment."
Dallas.

> Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:26 PM
> From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval@nwc.net>
> Subject: Re: Same Objects but.....

May 8th 1998

Dear thoa:

Many thanks for your comments, sprightly and well-balanced.

Vegetarianism is not at issue, but the question of mind-altering
drugs was.

All "points of view," whether in philosophy, art or argument, are
based on some premises which all parties agree are useful.  The
talking is about "Why is there a difference ?"  can divergences
be reconciled ?  -- or as Plato might say on behalf of Socrates:
Can we find out the ideal fact, behavior, or method of
reconciliation ?

We have been brought up to think that our philosophy of life is
one of survival -- for how long ?  and when this body dies, what
then survives ?  Many theories, but what is reasonable ?  that is
what, as I see it, Theosophy investigates -- always the quest !

When the Buddha touched the Earth and claimed it as part of that
which was to be "saved" was it not because all things that exist
are clothed in "earth," or "earth-derived" substances ?  Are the
atoms to be denied their life, their potential -- just because
they are small and we can somehow dominate and manipulate them
(we think) ?

If you take the view that we live in a united world, and that
nothing ever dies (is essence) then, you and I as thinking
beings, ought to take what kind of a responsibility in our lives?

Ahimsa, Non-violence is a philosophical view made practical.
Like everything else it can be carried to extremes.  But if we
look at the "Kinship of all Life" do we not sense that we have no
right to terminate a living creature's term of experience ?  Are
we mad kings, all of us, who rage as we please through submissive
Nature, and now hope to do this forever with impunity ?

Any ideas ?                        Dallas

> From: "Thoa Thi-Kim Tran" <thoalight@aol.com>
> Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 12:22 PM
> Subject: Same Objects but.....

>Dear Dallas:
>
>Dallas:
>>        POINTS OF VIEW
>>
>>To insist on one's own, is of course a sign of being flawed.
If
>>the Truth is ONE, and we approach it by our particular "path"
or
>>"
><snip>
>>However, when one starts out to study maths, or logic, or
>>>I agree with you that there is a basis for everything that was
made new.
>For example, Pablo Picasso's work was influenced by the
primitive African
>art work, the artwork of his predecessor Paul Cezanne, and the
traditional
>training he received from the Western school.  He used those
influences to
>create a new style called Cubism.  The resistance he received
was from
>people who had no idea of his influences, or who had no
understanding of
>his motives.  Those people would dismiss his work as trash and
infantile.
>
>You see, Dallas, the problem is not whether people have a
foundation in
>which to build their theories, but whether people understand
each other,
>and each other's motives.  I would guess that if someone spent
most of
>their time on an endeavor, then they would have to be passionate
about that
>endeavor.  Passion equates to research and time spent on an
endeavor

But what is the origin in any one of us of Passion ?   Dal