Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00890)

Dear Dallas,

So in the situation that I described am I correct in
believing that if that lady was a theosophist (let us
say for arguments sake a fundamentalist) then she
would have lived her life out naturally and with the
knowledge that any pain she was going through was
merely her karmic responsibility? Further, any
inconvenience that she would cause to those who had to
look after her was ultimately their own karmic
responsibility? 

I think that this is a most interesting situaiton.
Here on the one hand you have a person who is willing
to make the ultimate sacrifice so she wouldn't trouble
those who are dear to her but on the other hand she is
ending her life prematurely. I think another way to
look at the situation would be that as a theosophist
making sacrifices is important for ones personal
development and hence sacrificing ones own life can be
seen as undergoing a personal development, albeit
quite extreme. The subsequent pain that ensues
following a premature end to life, as you described in
your post, is part of the sacrifice one was willing to
take. A tricky situation indeed and one I hope I never
find myself in.

Regards,
Mic Forster


--- dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:
> Nov 27 2002
> 
> Dear MKR
> 
> Re: Suicide Is it Dangerous ?
> 
> I think you are right. But thinking over our
> potentials is important.
> We can't do that if we are "dead." So long as we
> remain alive we can
> help others if we desire to do that.
> 
> Suicide, says theosophy is dangerous. Only the
> physical body is
> killed. The Inner spiritual Self remains alive on
> the astral plane
> for a period equivalent to the length of life on
> earth. But the
> blessed peace of rest (as in sleep) becomes denied. 
> Imagine the
> terrible torture of being kept awake and aware
> continuously.
> 
> Further, other kinds of entities (bhuts, pisachas,
> elementaries,
> etc..) live actively on the astral plane and we, not
> knowing the rule
> and laws of the astral plane, and having no
> experience there, are not
> able to "defend" ourselves from their invasion of
> our privacy. That
> would be a "hell" for a long number of years. 
> That's what I find that
> Theosophy teaches.
> 
> Let me put in here a short Editor's Note from
> THEOSOPHIST, Nov. 1882,
> by H P B
> 
> ----------------
> 
> EDITOR'S NOTES
> 
> (1.) "Inquirer" is not an Occultist, hence his
> assertion that in some
> cases suicide "is not only justifiable, but also
> morally desirable."
> 
> No more than murder, is it ever justifiable, however
> desirable it may
> sometimes appear.
> 
> The Occultist, who looks at the origin and the
> ultimate end of things,
> teaches that the individual--who affirms that any
> man, under
> whatsoever circumstances, is called to put an end to
> his life,--is
> guilty of as great an offense and of as pernicious a
> piece of
> sophistry, as the nation that assumes a right TO
> KILL IN WAR thousands
> of innocent people under the pretext of avenging the
> wrong done to
> one.
> 
> All such reasonings are the fruits of Avidya
> [ignorance] mistaken for
> philosophy and wisdom.
> 
> Our friend is certainly wrong in thinking that the
> writer of FRAGMENTS
> arrived at his conclusions only because he failed to
> keep before his
> mind's eye all the possible cases of suicide.
> 
> The result, in one sense, is certainly invariable;
> and there is but
> one general law or rule for all suicides. But, it is
> just because "the
> after-states" vary ad-infinitum, that it is as
> erroneous to infer that
> this variation consists only in the degree of
> punishment.
> 
> If the result will be in every case the necessity of
> living out the
> appointed period of sentient existence, we do not
> see whence
> "Inquirer" has derived his notion that "the result
> is invariably bad."
> 
> The result is full of dangers; but there is hope for
> certain suicides,
> and even in many cases A REWARD if LIFE WAS
> SACRIFICED TO SAVE OTHER
> LIVES and that there was no other alternative for
> it.
> 
> Let him read para. 7, page 313, in the September
> THEOSOPHIST, and
> reflect. Of course, the question is simply
> generalized by the writer.
> To treat exhaustively of all and every case of
> suicide and their
> after-states would require a shelf of volumes from
> the British
> Museum's Library, not our FRAGMENTS.
> 
> (2.) No man, we repeat, has a right to put an end to
> his existence
> simply because it is useless. As well argue the
> necessity of inciting
> to suicide all the incurable invalids and cripples
> who are a constant
> source of misery to their families....
> 
> The instance chosen by "Inquirer" is not a happy
> one. There is a vast
> difference between the man who parts with his life
> in sheer disgust at
> constant failure to do good, out of despair of ever
> being useful, or
> even out of dread to do injury to his fellow-men by
> remaining alive;
> and one who gives it up voluntarily to save the
> lives either committed
> to his charge or dear to him. One is a half insane
> misanthrope the
> other, a hero and a martyr. One takes away his life,
> the other offers
> it in sacrifice to philanthropy and to his duty.
> 
> The captain who remains alone on board of a sinking
> ship; the man who
> gives up his place in a boat that will not hold all,
> in favour of
> younger and weaker beings; the physician, the sister
> of charity, and
> nurse who stir not from the bed-side of patients
> dying of an
> infectious fever; the man of science who wastes his
> life in brain-work
> and fatigue and knows he is so wasting it and yet is
> offering it day
> after day and night after night in order to discover
> some great law of
> the universe, the discovery of which may bring in
> its results some
> great boon to mankind; the mother that throws
> herself before the wild
> beast, that attacks her children, to screen and give
> them the time to
> fly; all these are not suicides.
> 
> The impulse which prompts them thus to contravene
> the first great law
> of animated nature--the first instinctive impulse of
> which is to
> preserve life--is grand and noble.
> 
> And, though all these will have to live in the Kama
> Loka their
> appointed life term, they are yet admired by all,
> and their memory
> will live honoured among the living for a still
> longer period. We all
> wish that, upon similar occasions, we may have
> courage so to die. Not
> so, surely in the case of the man instanced by
> "Inquirer."
> Notwithstanding his assertion that "there is no
> moral cowardice
> whatever involved" in such self-sacrifice--we call
> it decidedly "moral
> cowardice" and refuse it the name of sacrifice.
> 
> (3 and 4.) There is far more courage to live than to
> die in most
> cases.
> 
> If "M." feels that he is "positively mischievous,"
> let him retire to a
> jungle, a desert island; or, what is still better,
> to a cave or hut
> near some big city; and then, while living the life
> of a hermit, a
> life which would preclude the very possibility of
> doing mischief to
> any one, work, in one way or the other, for the
> poor, the starving,
> the afflicted. If he does that, no one can "become
> involved in the
> effects of his mistaken zeal," whereas, if he has
> the slightest
> talent, he can benefit many by simple manual labour
> carried on in as
> complete a solitude and silence as can be commanded
> under the
> circumstances. Anything is better even being called
> a crazy
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com