Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00271)

Thursday, February 20, 2003

Dear Friends:

I read all those opinions concerning war and current politics and
world affairs, and I ask myself:



'How do students of Theosophy view these in the light of the
philosophy of Theosophy ?

What is available in the literature of Theosophy on "war,"
"patriotism," "oil monopolies," "defense of property," international
accord," etc....

Can we differentiate between, self-interest, impatience and reason?

What are the motives involved ?

How do we apply brotherhood ?

How do we avoid adding to the feelings of revenge ?

How do we avoid adding more horrors on top of the existing ones ?

Is man ever justified in killing the body of another (taking it for
granted that the immortal Soul can never be "killed" ?

How are patriotism and internationalism or cosmopolitan-ship to be
reconciled ?

What part does existing Karma play in this ?

What is the Karma of war ? What will be our part in this burden ?

While we may not be able to convince any one of our views, can we at
least place them clearly on the table so we can all view them ?

[ Of course if we kill hundreds and thousands of unknown people, we
will never know if they desired that, or if we have any right to
terminate their lives -- after ay war, they are physically dead and no
longer can tell us anything.

Are we supposed to be "right" by our creating a default of protesters
and nay-sayers? how convenient !

Have they not the right to say what they would desire -- have we
asked them ?

Does any government truly represent all the people ? Are a whole
people to be tortured, children and women killed by us, because they
are unable to shake off the hold on them of their local Tyrant ?

Sounds to me lime we are creating our own tyranny. How can a
"pre-emptive strike" be justified? ]


If we can do that, then perhaps we can answer for ourselves how the
"White Brotherhood" might look at the matter.

Best wishes,

Dallas

PS

This advice might be useful:

"In considering a question bearing on the ethics of any case, we have
first to be sure that we have no prejudices or preconceptions that can
interfere with correct conclusions; in other words, "to be free from
hard and fast conclusions as to men, things and methods." If we are
thus free, we will not be liable to be swayed by the general
classifications of good and evil, so common in the world, and the
great error of the churches. The way is then open for the real point
at issue, which to me is not what is done, but why was it done-the
motive. Now who can answer this but the one who acts? If the act
appears to him as a duty, and a proper one, he alone has paramount
power, and there should be none to question a right to perform duty as
it is seen and understood. It might very well be that another's acts
would be improper for us, because of our different attitude; it might
also be that our acts, seemingly proper to us, would to that other
seem improper. From these considerations it would seem fair to deduce
that the only correct sanction, and the one we should seek, would come
from within. Of course, different attitudes of mind produce different
actions in any given case. Those who have knowledge will not act from
the same motive as those who have less knowledge or none. Those who
have no knowledge act under the impulse of the common attitude or way
of doing things. Those who are wise naturally take all possible
results into consideration from their wider point of view, before
acting. With them it is largely a question of duty, unswayed by what
the views of others may be, except in so far as those views might
interfere with larger duties and influence at other times. In fact, so
many things have to be taken into consideration possible to be seen
and applied by the person alone who is involved, that no direct answer
can be given in any particular case. General principles may be stated,
and each individual left to apply them as he sees fit. In no other way
can progress be made. We have finally, in any case, to determine
whether we are swayed by inclination rather than plain duty, in order
that we may not deceive ourselves. Whatever, then, is decided in all
honesty with ourselves, is our duty, and no man is our judge.	[ F P
pp 39-40 ]




=================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Bart L
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: white brotherhood and war

Steve Stubbs wrote:
> is that the public does not want war but that the political system
> allows a single man to wage war anyway.

According to polls, the vast majority of U.S. population
supports war,
with U.N. ratification. Most of the countries in the U.N. support war
at
this point; the problem is in the Security Council, where France and
Germany are afraid that, if we go to war, we'll find the "Made in
France" and "Made in Germany" labels on Hussein's weapons of mass
destruction. One point of interest is timing: If the war does not
start
by the beginning of March, it will likely have to be postponed until
the
fall.* It is no coincidence that France is pushing for a deadline of
March 15, while the U.S. is pushing for a deadline of February 28.