Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00513)

Katinka:

I'd agree that each person has to decide for himself or herself what to 
contribute. And I'd agree that not all things should be valued equally.

It's up to each person to find out the relative value of things. Each 
person develops the ability to distinguish good from bad, truth from 
falsehood, beneficial to the world from detrimental to the world, skillful 
use of time from wasting time, and many other things. Picking and choosing 
according to one's unfolding nature, one comes up with an individual 
approach to life, which includes both self-growth, self-expressiveness, and 
brightening the world both within and without, affecting oneself and others.

Any particular thing is neither good nor bad in itself. We cannot quantify 
actions and say that picking flowers for a sick and gloomy neighbor is any 
more valuable than putting on a morality play that brings thousands to 
tears, making them resolve to be better people. The rightness of an action 
is measured by how true one is to one's inner nature when doing it. It's 
measured on the completeness of expressiveness of what one is at that 
moment, the quality by which we are truly ourselves, and paradoxically 
self-forgetful, at that moment.

I would not place relative values on gardening as compared to, say, helping 
a friend box up his belongings and load them onto a truck for a move. One 
act is not necessarily more selfish than the other. What does one know at 
the moment? What is going on in one's life? How is one connected with 
others just now, with those connections putting demands upon our time? 
Perhaps the friend was being lazy and selfish and wanted others to do the 
work for him. Then helping him would not be as good a thing. Perhaps a baby 
was in the house, crying, needing a changed diaper, and the gardening was 
an escape from other duties like changing that diaper. Then it might be 
wrong. But then perhaps the gardening was like a time of peace, meditation, 
and calm in the midst of a stormy life, and was the time when someone 
needed to get centered in order to handle an otherwise difficult day. Then 
it's certainly something different.

Some people may be selfish, totally self-absorbed, and think and care 
nothing about others. To improve, they would be taught to think of others 
first, to consider the impact on others of their decisions, to find greater 
joy in their happiness than one's own. This is fine as an exercise, but it 
is not the final state we should aim for. It is not a state where the value 
to others is our only concern, at any cost, so that we would gladly 
sacrifice, say, $1000 to save someone else from losing $10. No, I'd say 
that the final state is one in which we consider everyone *including 
ourselves* in deciding what action is most beneficial. Selfishness is truly 
gone when we don't bias our judgement, tipping the scales in our favor in 
making a decision, so that we benefit unfairly at the cost of others. And 
it is truly gone when we don't bias our judgement in the other direction, 
thinking we're being "unselfish," tipping the scales in the favor of others 
in making a decision, so that others benefit unfairly at our expense. 
Instead, there's no notion of "mine as opposed to yours" and we just look, 
weigh things, and decide what's best for everyone in our decision.

That makes two considerations. First is that we cannot judge the value of 
an action in some qualitative manner based upon external, objective 
criteria. It's value is based upon a sense of trueness to one's inner 
nature. Second is that we cannot judge the value of an action based upon 
whether it benefits us or others, unless we consider the overall greater good.

-- Eldon

At 11:35 AM 8/25/2004, you wrote:
> Hi Eldon,
>
> I guess I agree to some extent. Still, there is work to be done in the
> world, and working one's garden may be useful as an exercise of
> concentration and perhaps contemplation, but I'm not sure it will help
> a neighbour one bit. (I do love gardening, and have nothing against
> it, one could do far worse, that isn't the issue) Neither Olcott nor
> Blavatsky had time to work their gardens - they had to much work to
> do. The three objects are a good starter for what I consider
> theosophical work. Obviously each person has to decide for themselves
> what they want to contribute and how to contribute and what they have
> to contribute. Still, let's not make the mistake of valuing everything
> as though it were equal.
>
> Katinka