Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00038)

Wednesday, March 5, 2003

Re Conundrum and Decisions

Dear Reed:

Let me try, using what I have learned from Theosophy, to look into
this.

I wonder if this line of thinking is to be found correct or not ?


Here goes:

In the teachings of theosophy -- perhaps in one of the many "answers"
to students queries this was posed.

The answer was that everything came to any one of us by reason of
their Karma. And, more widely, because of exact mathematical
correlations of the Karma of all beings in the Universe. Thus, the
one who has the power made a choice based on the motive and causes he
assumed correct for the moment.

We have the to look into "motive," "causes," and "correctness for the
moment."

As I see it, Theosophy teaches: fresh Karma always starts from such a
powerful vibrant movement, that it becomes merged with others and is
one that affects all living things as it ripples through the vastness
of SPACE, starting on this, the lowest plane -- and at this, the
present point of manifested space and time.

There are no real short cuts nor does any impatience (miscalled
sometimes efficiency) mitigate an arbitrary action. The whole of
Nature is affected. This is difficult to grasp with our limited view
of superficial cause-effect-cause sense on this plane of action and
sensation, but such is the fact.

No one is exonerated for making themselves the vehicle of another's
"bad karma." [ Like killing them.] For the reason given there was:
that everyone is able to chose, and by any inflicting of pain or death
on another, they assume to a measurable extent a portion of that "bad
Karma," and also they make "bad karma by their own present choice for
themselves.

How do they assume a portion of another's "bad karma?" It is because
they truncated or impaired that person's ability to act and thus
caused a whole revision of Karma at that point.

The advice in such cases was given: "When in doubt -- ABSTAIN."

Incidentally if we are able to review the Jataka tales of the Buddha's
previous incarnations, we will find uniformly that the "Life which was
to be the Buddha always sacrificed himself.

Further, no one is able to presume to see into the future except an
"Adept." hence the conundrum is falsely based to begin with and it
ought to be challenged. In LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF WISDOM, Series
I, p. 47 you will find it written by Master concerning a visit,
ordered by : "...the Maha Chohan, to whose insight the future lies
like an open page..."

This conundrum used in teaching Lanoos, may have been posed to see
just how much the pupils have grasped the following Rules:

All such dilemmas ought to be considered only from the point of view
of

1.	the HIGHER MIND [BUDDHI-MANAS] . There not only Karma and
reincarnation of the deathless Ego are considered, but the whole
effect of the action on the individual (now arbitrarily deprived of a
body(, the earth, and the universe are also considered, and

2.	The lower mind [Kama-Manas], which is argumentative, selfish and
uncertain, and often arbitrary in its actions, because of its
short-sightedness. Most "lower Minds" are not fully able to encompass
such a vast purview of Karmic action, but seem satisfied with the
limited present and a very short horizon of effectiveness.

A somewhat parallel responsibility is assumed whenever, in an
organization, an individual is either hired or fired. The "boss" uses
or abuses his powers at such times, and the resultant Karma is his
entirely, and is fully based on his decisions.

In the light of theosophy there are no justifiable or impulsive and
thoughtless "moral imperatives," unless you are saying that
remorseless KARMA always acts, and we, using our embodied Lower Minds,
fool ourselves into thinking that we can choose between several
uncertainties.

In this case what would be an "immoral imperative?" How would that be
defined in terms of Karma ?

Perhaps the uncertainty does NOT lie in the LAW, but in our own
limited knowledge. We cannot turn this around and blame the LAW. We
have to get to work and try to study and learn how Karma works. let's
assume first of all that the LAW is inevitably RIGHT because it is
based on SPIRITUAL universals. There is no "chance" or "luck" in
nature.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Reed Carson [
Sent:	Wednesday, March 05, 2003 5:43 AM
To:	study@blavatsky.net
Subject:	Tibetan moral conundrum



It was many years ago that I heard this Tibetan moral conundrum so if
anyone knows more of it I would be glad to hear from them. Imagine
again
the questioner standing over the answerer who is seated on the ground.
The
question he puts is roughly this: Suppose you were in a situation
where
one man was about to kill 1000 people. The only way that man could be
stopped is to kill him and you are the only one who can do it. Is it
the
proper moral thing for you to do to kill the man or would that be
immoral
and wrong. Then the "clap" of the hands and you have to
answer. Afterwards you may be graded by the observing teacher.

How do you think the teacher thought the question should be
answered? Remember, this is the land that holds high the principle of
ahimsa - harmlessness. This is the land which not only holds that
human
life is sacred but that "all sentient life" is as well. Apart from
the
Tibetans, how do we think it should be answered?

I presume the number 1000 was originally chosen to represent an
unimaginably high number. Back then it might not have been easy for
one
man to kill 1000 others. And the moral imperative to not kill is
certainly
one of the highest. So the question that was formulated for that
debate
was really: Is there ever any occasion on which even the highest
moral imperative must be in some way "compromised".

I remember my reaction at the time I heard this conundrum many years
ago. I was annoyed. It seemed hypothetical and to possess forced
artificiality. After 9/11, however, I changed my mind. It seemed to
me
that suddenly the Tibetan moral conundrum was very real. A version of
it
had been written large on the world stage for all to see and to
struggle
with. The issues and consequences are so huge that I regard it as one
of
the many reasons we each have chosen to be alive at this time - to
grapple
with the moral dilemmas of these issues and their consequences.

On the question of conflicting moral imperatives I think the
acknowledgment
of their existence clarifies our thinking. I had asked if they could
ever
occur. Joel's answer seems right to me - they often occur.

By the way, how do you think the Tibetans think that conundrum should
be
answered and how do we answer it?

Reed