Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00080)

Dear Martin,

Thanks for your question.  I do hope you are going to answer it yourself:-)

You wrote:
>  If I see a human baby, a puppy, a little plant,
>  etc falling in a lake at the same time, even
>  though I know that the Monad is in all of them
>  I would save the baby first.
>  Because of ... I don't have to explain it.

Actually, I think you do need to explain it.  For I don't think your answer
is quite so obvious once we look at the wider picture.  I would say that how
we respond to the world at large is more complex than your very straight
forward example allows.

In your example you left out the mineral kingdom.  What if a baby, a puppy,
a flower, and a box of priceless rare jewels fell into the lake... would all
of us automatically save the baby?  A silly question?  Your answer makes the
assumption that in the order of things we automatically prize human life
over the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms.  Yet we only have to look
at events in the world to recognise that often the reverse is the case.
Wealth in the form of minerals, ores, precious metals, etc are often given
more value than human life.  We have a history of killing people by the
thousands in order to possess land and 'mineral' wealth.  A nation may
intervene when a country is invaded because it is rich in oil, while at the
same time do nothing in countries where even greater atrocities are taking
place because there is no precious ' .... ' present.

Some people treat their pets better than the people around them.   A cruel
person may 'love' his pet animals and yet have no hesitation in making
people suffer, in some cases  murdering them.   To modify your example:
would a cruel person / criminal save his race horse, a haul of cannabis, a
casket of gold or your child?

Even thoughts, feelings and sensations (which we might relate to the
elemental kingdoms prior to mineral stage of evolution) may be given more
importance than human life.  How many people have been murdered or made to
suffer in the name of an 'ideology' of one kind or another?  How many people
have been murdered or been made to suffer because of our rage, anger,
jealousy & so on.. or because our feelings have been hurt?  How many people
have been left to suffer because it was more important to satisfy our desire
for particular sensations of comfort, stimulation, addiction.

To bring in those kingdoms of nature 'above' the human stage  we could also
add that many more people have been murdered, tortured, made to suffer in
the name of " God" or "the Gods".

But let's take an example where the people involved are ordinary, everyday,
'good people' by the standards of modern society, and let's assume that you
and I fit into that category.  What if two children fell into the lake, one
was my child and the other was yours.  Which one would you save?  And
supposing that a sage had told you that your child was destined to die in
the lake and that my child was destined to become a great leader for the
good of the many.  Would you be able to put aside the love of your own child
and save my child instead?


Theosophy would say that our response to all those scenarios would depend on
our moral and spiritual development.  Further, only a being endowed with
Mind (Manas) can make a moral decision as to which course of action to take.
For it is Manas which endows us with the capacity to choose and exercise
'free will'.  The 'lower' kingdoms of nature have yet to achieve it.

At present our consciousness is largely self centred, or to put it
theosophically, centred in Kama-Manas.  This causes us to use exploit the
kingdoms of nature mainly for our own benefit, to the detriment of those
'kingdoms' and of our fellows, which in the long run includes us.

As I understand it, it is through Manas that we learn to make moral choices,
to choose to become 'SELF-Centred' as opposed to 'self-centred'.  The more
that Manas aligns itself with Atma-Buddhi and undertakes the study and
training involved to comprehend the Occult Doctrines then the  more likely
those moral choices will be based on genuine spiritual perception and a
direct understanding of Universal Law.

Most of us are a long way off from the kind wisdom and spiritual perception
required that would allow us to know 'who' and 'what' to save at any given
time.  The seer who perceived that it was the Karma of a drowning man to die
may well let him die and save that which s/he believed would give the most
benefit to the world at large.

I don't have that kind of wisdom so in the meantime I 'try' and do the best
I can.  I would want to save the drowning person over and above the animal,
the plant and mineral.  But I also have to admit that I put the needs of my
family and loved ones above the needs of other people.  So in your example I
would 'automatically' want to save my own child rather than another's - even
if I 'knew' that the other child may have more to offer humanity as a whole.

In terms of responding to the other kingdoms of nature as a whole...
Perhaps when we really have a sense that...

"the root of every atom individually and of every form collectively, is that
seventh principle or the one Reality.." (SD)

...we may then begin to appreciate that the life (monadic) behind all forms
is evolving and has a right to it's own destiny.  So, we may not jump into
the lake and save the puppy or flower instead of the baby but we may become
motivated enough to learn how to assist rather than selfishly use and abuse
the lower kingdoms of nature.


Best wishes,

Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com
> [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of Martin
> Leiderman
> Sent: 09 February 1999 06:46
> To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Is Brotherhood Unique to Theosophy?
>
>
>
>
> Peter Merriott wrote:
>
> >
> > Thus Theosophy teaches that brotherhood encompasses all
> kingdoms of nature
> > for all are evolving and all will go through the stage of
> humanity (where
> > spirit and matter are in equilibrium). The Monadic essence
> travels through
> > all these stages...
>
> Now, Peter, even though I agree with you on the above statement,
> I have problem
> applying it in the following situation:
>
> If I see a human baby, a puppy, a little plant, etc falling in a
> lake at the
> same time, even though I know that the Monad is in all of them I
> would save the
> baby first.
> Because of ... I don't have to explain it.
> After saving the baby, I may try to save the puppy, and so on.
> I don't think that  the above Theosophical statement implies that
> rescuing the
> plan, animal, baby has the same moral value.
>
> How do you apply the idea of:    " brotherhood encompasses all kingdoms of
> nature"
>
>
> This question is not only for Peter, but to anyone who sincerely
> is trying to
> live theosophical principles and not only talking about them.
>
>
> Martin Leiderman
>
>
>
> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.