[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
May 11, 1999 06:48 AM
by Richtay
In a message dated 5/11/99 12:16:36 PM, Louis wrote: <<If we come to the action in bits and pieces, holding something back as it were, such as pervasive pessimism tends to do, we add to and sustain the dilemma. So for me the doing, of anything that is Idealistically resonant or compassion driven, is the only action worth while.>> I totally agree with you, and I do not think I have been intellectualizing the problem. Whether my stance is "pervasive pessimism" remains to be seen -- or is it simply "realism"? The first Noble Truth of Buddhism ("sarvam duhkham") is that everything in this world lacks the capacity to produce happiness, that everything in the world gives rise to suffering. Not some of the time or most of the time but ALL OF THE TIME. Western students of Buddhism may think this is pessimistic -- "the worls isn't so bad" they think to themselves. Quite the contrary, I see it as profoundly helpful and optimistic. The Buddha is a great doctor, and is pointing out our illness. This gives us a basis to identify the problem and change. Certainly, the next three Noble Truths provide the cure! I think all would agree that if the notions we hold are false, false action is sure to follow. A misguided notion that human problems are easily solved does not tend towards deeply helpful activity. My point has been (1) Material aid only effects short term change and may result in worse harm (but sometimes it is still the "right" thing to do) and (2) Karma is constantly redistributing the wealth already. I don't see Karma as simply retributive. I am aware of its all-encompassing nature as creative activity as well. I see it as my duty to help where and whenever circumstances permit (and that is NOT "all the time"). If the retributive Karma "punishes" us for our selfishness, I agree with you that the opposite attitute will present generally opposite results. But I disagree with you that altruism necessarily takes the shape of redistributing wealth. I see that lack of wealth is the result, not the cause of evil karma, and I am more interested in mitigating causes, before they lead to suffering. Once a person has cancer, certainly one can use the destructive technique of chemotherapy, a more positive (and less reliable) macrobiotic diet, and other ways to purify the impurities causing the problem. But how much better to take preventitive steps that prevent cancer altogether? << Also, I do not buy the fact that it is their Karma, so we should just let it go at that. To do nothing, to feel nothing, to remain intellectually distant because my circumstances are a bit more fortunate at this moment, is not acceptable to me. >> I believe we should neither stand by passively, nor act simplistically and harmfully out of blind compassion. I repeat, if distributing food and clothing were enough to end human suffering, this would have been the whole path the Masters instructed us to take. Rather, when we look at the overall structure of Theosophical teachings, they are a revolution in goals, thinking, attitude and feeling, which then of course as PART of the result, leads to more compassionate action. But I think it is a grave mistake to reduce Theosophy to compassionate action. Very often our compassion arises out of deep ignorance, and we can mess things up far worse than they were. Louis, I certainly don't disagree with your kind-hearted response, and I don't think our attitudes are so very different. I only jumped on this thread because I was reacting to the quite Marxist notion that if only we could assure ourselves that everyone had food, money etc. all would be well. I am positively certain that all would NOT be well. That doesn't mean of course that we shouldn't share, but we should also be aware that throwing money at a problem, while it may assuage our guilt, doesn't necessarily solve anything and it may be worse. Giving a drug addict money (which will only be used for more drugs) is a devastating attempt to help, made out of ignorance. Providing a drug addict with rehabilitiation is a more useful step, but sadly, having worked in a homeless shelter for some time, few addicts are ready or willing to quit, even when they live starving on the street. And THAT is the problem. When we begin to see ourselves -- ALL of us -- as addicts to various things, ideas and attitudes, then we see that the matter of helping humanity is far deeper than a crust of bread. Rich -- 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.