Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00229)

Hi. Dallas posted this message on theos-talk and I joined this group just to
reply to it, as I do not know if Reed is on theos-talk. I have taken very
many Tibetan teachings and initiations and am still attending teachings to
this day. I am not familiar with the hand-clapping exercise, but the seeming
solution to this conundrum is written into Tibetan Buddhism by the device of
one teaching story, which is told on appropriate occasions and which every
long time student has heard many times. This is the story of the Buddha
throwing a murderous sailor off of a ship because he was threatening the
life of the other people on the ship (actually, I believe, who numbered
1000.)

In any case, this story is well known and what it refers to is the subject
of individual discrimination (wisdom). Unfortunately there is no built- in
solution to problems that involve ethical consideration, and Tibetan
Buddhism teaches this. It is also empathized that it is important not to
bring others into a state of nirvana until there powers of discrimination
are developed first.

In Tibetan Buddhism the importance of self-sacrifice, eating "poison" etc.
is empathized time and time again, and there is much specific instructions
about how to turn the other cheek in many different circumstances. I have
personally gone through a long phase where I have struggled with this
conundrum and have tenaciously questioned my Tibetan teacher, who was
formerly a much respected teacher in a university for Tibetan Monks, about
this conundrum again and again, as I am very personally concerned with this,
as anyone who knows me from theos-talk knows, my own methods of working with
people on email lists can be somewhat unconventional. I have also questioned
my teacher about war.

In short, there is no solution to this problem, as each instance is
different, and this is where a developed discrimination comes in. When this
is operative, along with conscience and an alive intelligence which is not
based on subjective conditioning, the solution to each individual problem
will be found. When we mechanically follow a rule that is given by another,
be that person Buddha, Jesus (or even Madame Blavatsky), no matter how wise
this rule seems, this is subjective and not objective morality, and this
will eventually bring a downfall.

It is sad that the world is how it is and it is each individual's
responsibility to struggle actively to develop his reason to the objective
grade so that he will have the discrimination (wisdom) to know what to do in
each given situation. The question is, how does one develop ones reason to
this grade, and this is worthy of discussion. In my opinion, the first thing
it is necessary to do is to begin to study oneself, AS ONE IS, without any
reference point that is accessed by thought or feeling, but IMPARTIALLY, IN
PRESENT TIME, as an OBJECT. I know this is hard to understand, but,
practically speaking, this is the fastest, if not even the only, way to sort
things out. When a point is reached where there is not an identification
with the body, there will be objective love. Objective love does not refer
to a thought or feeling as a reference point, but it is rather, the pivot
that instantaneously connects reason and compassion in an act of being,
which is always different in each individual situation.

When the ordinary psychological me which has been mechanically conditioned
by life to always move away from pain toward pleasure ( even if this
movement toward pleasure is accomplished by being a Buddhist, a Christian or
a Theosophist), what is ordinary and reactive clings to what appears to be
extraordinary, such as a lofty idea, and in this way removes the wings from
the butterfly. This is because an ideal is based on a thought or a feeling,
which creates a kind of dirt or residue, whereas a conscious action is based
on conscience, which is always a function of direct seeing and a pure
reverberation. When I am thinking and trying to remember something, such as
a formula, certain physical details of the world around me will not be seen,
and I will not be able to achieve full orientation. The reason there is war
is that people are not fully oriented in that they are not focused on what
is physically in front of them in the one moment which contains EVERYTHING.
Because they do not impartially record themselves and their own functioning,
as they are moving, in such a way that they constantly correct, by adjusting
their own tensions, the continuing discrepancy of excessive accumulation,
one function or another begins to predominate, certain gross material begins
to accumulate in the body and a certain balance is lost, without which there
cannot be an appropriate orientation (response) that takes into account,
through a resonating CONSCIENCE, the consequences of these actions upon
future generations.

I hope this will be of some value to someone on here. Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: [bn-study] Tibetan moral conumdrum


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