Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00289)

Human being are not at all superior over other creatures.
If war washed out entier human folk--dont worry
the creators will come to the earth and will render their duties




namasivaym
----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: AA-BN--Study <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:50 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Questions about: White Brotherhood and WAR.


> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>