Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00282)

Dallas wrote to Kym:

>The reason for that in not unwillingness, but the fact that you
>do not seem to have the basic ideas of Theosophy at your
>finger-tips.

If you say so, Dallas.

>I do not have the time to argue with you.

Then don't.  There is no requirement nor expectation on my part that you
respond to my postings.  You are right: time is saved and arguments are
avoided when exchanges are between those who tend to agree with each other.

>. . .himself.

(sigh) Oh, well. . .I tried.


Kym










  I am interested in
>what Theosophy has to say on various subjects.  I have proved, to
>myself, that there is truth and verity in Theosophical source
>doctrines, but not in later writings by students who followed
>HPB, and especially in those who have written after her death and
>were "unsupervised," so to say, by the older and more advanced
>students, or her.  ( And this ought to include what I write as
>well.  And that is why I quote the references from which I draw
>inferences to answer questions. )  I look for the precedents set
>by HPB and W Q Judge, and use them as explanations for questions
>that arise.  In so doing I offer areas where there is the record
>of Theosophical doctrine.  I will admit that there are new
>questions and objections all the time, however, I have found that
>familiarity with those basic doctrines gives the careful and
>sincere student the necessary keys to unlock the doors of
>understanding for himself.  It is better that way that placing
>reliance on someone else.
>
>I feel sometimes like a librarian would, showing others where to
>find the answers they seek, but not participating in the
>discussion.
>
>I hope you understand what I am trying to say.  It is not the
>first time that I have rubbed up against your queries, and
>objections.  So I thought I would take time out  and explain to
>you my policy and procedure.
>
>With best wishes,            Dallas
>
>=========================================
>
>- -----Original Message-----
>From: "Kym Smith" <kymsmith@micron.net>
>Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 2:27 AM
>Subject: Lords of Karma Management Plans
>
>
>>Dallas wrote:
>>
>>>Kym -- humor aside, the veggie "karma" is not individualized --
>>
>>Excuse me, but Dallas, are you implying I am engaged in
>jocularity regarding
>>a vegetable's karma? Personally, my heart wails with grief over
>the little
>>turnip's plight - it is destined to become, well, poop! or, as
>you artfully
>>wrote "being rejected and rotting" - that AND being required to
>haul a load
>>of karma along seems way too mean a fate for the little turnip.
>I will,
>>however, apologize on your behalf to the vegetable kingdom for
>YOUR
>>hard-heartedness.
>>
>>>it is a kind of group karma in which the individual monads
>>>undergo a vast period of experience as parts of the animal
>>>vegetable and mineral kingdoms -- through the constant
>>>interchange of atoms and molecules (or rather the
>individualized
>>>focus (we use the word Monad) that is experiencing).
>>
>>But still, this doesn't seem fair nor right.  It seems the
>Catholics -
>>enviously possessed of attractive attire - are sort of on the
>right track
>>with that "age of consent" business.  They say one is
>responsible for
>>"free-will decisions" after age seven (way too early, if you ask
>me, but
>>that's beside the point).  Why should there be such a thing as
>"veggie
>>karma" (group karma) if the turnip (or group of turnips) cannot
>CHOOSE?
>>Although you did say that there is no "individualization" of
>karma for the
>>turnip, you did seem to say that there was still some being
>generated - yes?
>>
>>Maybe there are two types of karma?  Karma which is the
>"causation" (part of
>>the creative force) and karma that is generated by "free-will
>induced
>>causes?"  No?
>>
>>I must say Jerry and Alan do have convincing points in that
>consequences
>>(karma) should be experienced very soon after the action in
>order for one to
>>learn and understand fully what one is supposed to learn and
>understand
>>fully.  It really does not make sense that a human is dealing
>with the
>>consequences of events that happened eons ago - this very
>process adds to
>>the frustration of humanity and is reflected in the rise of
>fundamental
>>religions and cults.  Popular reasons for our suffering include
>"God is
>>testing you/us." or "If Eve hadn't eaten the apple, humanity
>wouldn't be in
>>the trouble they are in." or "There is a hell." or "There is a
>heaven." or
>>"God is dead."
>>
>>It would seem that The Big Cheese or The Big Cheese's Helpers
>(angels,
>>aliens, or other such beings) would have known such a
>misunderstanding would
>>take place as a result of such a Karma plan.  If the Lords of
>Karma are
>>shaking their heads wondering why humanity just ain't gettin'
>it - they've
>>really only themselves, or the Big One, to blame.  This is the
>problem with
>>having the SAME IMMORTAL BEINGS being in control for a long
>period of time -
>>we need look only at China or the corporate world for examples
>of "the ole'
>>boys network" needing a revamp.  I think we need to elect new
>leaders - NEW
>>Lords of Karma and NEW Mahatmas and New All Other Big-Wigs.
>>
>>>Our chief barrier at present is the lack of knowledge of
>>>the ethical effects of our choices and actions.
>>
>>Nicely put.  But why the barrier in the first place?  Why was
>the material
>>seemingly able to overshadow the spiritual?  If things really
>are such gravy
>>on the spiritual side, why so easy to forget that gravy once in
>the flesh?
>>Why choose the flesh over the spiritual?
>>
>>>Anything else ?
>>
>>Uh. . .is this a trick question. . .or are you simply being
>sassy?
>>
>>
>>Kym