Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00039)

Hi. I need to respond to portions of this message, though I do not have time
to go into detail. I have deleted most of the message. See below.

----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-BN--Study" <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 5:38 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Re: conflicting moral imperatives


> Wednesday, March 05, 200


> Wisdom is interior to us all -- if we could only realize that the
> IMMORTAL PILGRIM -- we as the HIGHER SELF and the eternal STUDENT of
> Nature survive all catastrophes.

Wry: Sadly, this is in error, plus "if only" has no backbone. People
fantasize what they wish to be is true. It is not the same as conscious
wishing. I will go into this in detail in the future. I have touched on this
several times already, but apparently you are unwilling to enquire. The
problem is that unless you are able to have a CONTINUOUS realization of this
(a connection to something impartial) from point a to point b to point c and
on ad infinitum until a stable plane is established in relationship to your
body in movement, it is just a fantasy of the ordinary self. Because you are
unable to answer questions and be more specific, because you constantly use
other people's words rather than your own and because you seem to have
little proportional sense of how to objectively design with material in such
a way that certain conditions can be established that will help others be
conscious from point a to point b to point c etc., there will only be
flickers of awareness and a lot of fantasy and belief. I have asked you a
question several times, "what FUNCTION does it serve to believe you are
immortal? It eats (devours like a complacent over-fed beast) the sense of
great urgency which is needed in order for humans to be inspired to make the
great, IMMEDIATE and SPECIFIC effort that would be necessary to survive
death, if it is even possible to do so. Also, you have continously spoken
about reincarnation in a way that is simplistic and very naive. The tendency
is for incarnations to involve rather than evolve, and it is natural
(NATURE) for it to be this way. Only something UNNATURAL, A HUMAN BEING
STRIVING ACTIVELY TO BE CONSCIOUS, can have a soul. You have to PAY for this
by certain efforts. It is not free. Though I understand you mean well, you
are actually establishing conditions where people cannot develop. It is
because you do not know, which is not your fault, but it seems you do not
want to know. If this is the case, you will have to bear responsibility.

Re. Immortality: It is obvious that speaking in this way served a specific
time- appropriate function for Madame Blavatsky in that she was trying to
present certain eastern ideas to the west in a form in which they could be
assimilated. I am willing to go into this in depth, little by little, but it
is all so obvious it should not be necessary.
>
> No particular religion of political philosophy or self-serving
> economic view survives the passage of time. Why? Because it is too
> limited and does not entirely fit the actual existing LAWS of nature
> which are only understood as cooperation, and harmony.



Wry: Actually the laws of nature are about EATING and BEING EATEN.

>
> 10,000 years from now and any surviving memory of Christianity or
> Islam will have vanished. That which is indestructible is precisely
> that MORALITY based on UNIVERSAL LAWS. Those are the real objects of
> Theosophical study and verification and when discovered they can be
> lived.

WRY: You are so wrong. Objective morality is based on CONSCIENCE. This is a
location in your body that becomes vibrational when you are experiencing
EMPATHY. Each situation is different and requires a kind of exact
discrimination which is able to hone in on each situation with a living (not
mechanical) intelligence and respond. When the mind holds an "ideal",
compassion is not spontaneous, just as the response is not fully intelligent
and instantaneous. Also, in my opinion, you should not use the word
"verification" any longer out here until you discuss with others how you
verify and what that means. It is a disservice to us all.

I have deleted the rest of your message as it is meaningless in that you
have literally said nothing. To be an idealist is to be a very simplistic,
naive, and even very dangerous and distructive in a way which can be harmful
to many. It is not in the interest of theosophy for an individual to hold to
an ideal. It is better to strive to become fully CONSCIOUS. Then you will
know what to do in each instance, which is always unique. You do not
understand about the sufis, the wearers of the wool. You will go in the
wilderness and the wolves will eat you. You will not survive intact to help
your brother because you are fantasizing that he does not have a wolf and
that you do not have one. It is sad. I am speak for MADAME BLAVATSKY, as we
are from the same society. If you do not believe this, that is your
perogative, but I am able to put my money where my mouth is. Sincerely, Wry

I know you are well-meaning to the extent that you are able, and if I remain
on this list, I am sure we will be able to work together in a way that is
beneficial to all. In fact, we probably already are. Things must go very
slowly. I like to work slowly, as in this case, slow is fast, as we do not
want to leave any stones unturned. Sincerely, Wry
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>
> ======================
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bart
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Reconflicting moral imperatives
>
> dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:
> > If everyone of us are immortal spiritual souls, the killing of the
> body
> > delays but does not obliterate its continued existence.
> Reincarnation
> > takes care of that.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, there is a movement among the Islamic
> people to spread, multiply, and take over. It is not even a secret;
> many
> Islamic leaders have publicly stated that this is their goal,
> especially
> in places where they can do so under the protection of "religious
> freedom."
>
> In terms of the Universe, probably not so terrible. It will only set
> back the evolution of humanity a thousand years or so. But, if it is
> preventable, why accept such a turnback? What will set back the
> evolution of humanity more, having a small war now, or having a world
> war in a decade or so? We must look further than the immediate
> consequences of our actions; we need to look at the long-term
> consequences too.
>
> There is a story of a man who worked at a library. A fire started
> near
> the rare books collection, and the librarians frantically started
> trying
> to save the rare books. But the man remained calm.
>
> "Don't worry.", he said. "It will be taken care of."
>
> The fire kept burning, but through major efforts, the other
> librarians
> managed to save all the rare and irreplaceable books. Exhausted,
> burned,
> and bruised, they all collapsed on the street while the firefighters
> worked to put out the blaze.
>
> The man looked at the piles of rare books that had been saved, and
> said, "You see? I told you it would be taken care of!"
>
> Bart Lidofsky
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>