Theos-Talk Archives (June 2005 Message tt00167)

Dear Anand, friends,

Anand, you wrote:

> I never said they studied Theosophy and learned from it law of 
> collective karma. 
I never said that you did.

> To know laws of Nature it is not necessary to study 
> Theosophy. By personal observation, study, experiences it is possible 
> to know laws of Nature. This is how many of the laws are given by 
> sciences. Many political thinkers and economists know the law what we 
> call law of collective karma. 
I trying to tell you that economic policy makers are not interested in 
"karma" whether or not they may have heard of it from Theosophy or 
elsewhere. Nor would they be necessarily interested in the laws of 
Nature. They are interested in the laws of economics.

> My own analysis does not show me that Bush and his administration is 
> as bad as you write. I would say it is good. 
Good for whom?

> If I give economic analysis and show why it is impossible to stop 
> shifting of jobs abroad it will be too long. 
All Congress has to do is start taxing Corporations for their off-shore 
activities and thus not make it economically not worth while to 
outsource labor. But you are shifting the subject of our discussion 
here. I'm trying to get you to understand that US economic policy is 
driven by Corporate interests--not the wage earner's.

> This is not correct. Any Evangelical Christian will tell you that 
> America is the most powerful and the richest country in the world 
> because God favors America. 
>
>
> I am talking about wisdom of policy makers and not average 
> Evangelical Christian 
I'm trying to communicate to you that the people who ultimately 
determine policies in this administration are motivated to to cater to 
Evangelical Christian interests in order to stay in office, and/or are 
themselves Evangelical Christians. I have posted below a section from 
the "Constitution Restoration Act" which this Administration is trying 
to push through Congress. If passed, its implications, for changing the 
fundamental structure of the Constitution is obvious.

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court 
shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or 
otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an 
element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of 
Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official 
personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's 
acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or 
government.'.


> There are other countries like Japan and many countries is Europe, 
> especially NATO, interests of which America protects.
If it is in US economic interests. If the US was interested in justice, 
why did they not protest Tibet from Chinese invasion? 

> According to me good English is that which people easily understand, 
> it conveys exact meaning what author has in mind to largest number of 
> audience, without causing confusion in mind of readers.
So, according to your definition here: Dr. Suess' book, "Green Eggs and 
Ham" is written in good English because the average six year old can 
read and understand it. On the other hand, Paul Ricoeur's "The 
Symbolism of Evil" would be in poor English because one would need the 
reading skills of a university student in order to read and understand it. 
> Good English 
> is that which is written is a style prevalent and considered best at 
> PRESENT. 
Considered by whom? You? Who else? Please give me an example of a 
style which is prevalent, as opposed to a style which is not prevalent. 
> So a good English of 11 th century becomes bad English in 20 
> th century.
Therefore, you would consider the writings of Chaucer and Shakespeare to 
be written in "bad English."

> Leadbeater's writing is so.
> Blavatsky failed in writing in such manner.
Therefore, you are saying that Leadbeater wrote in good English because 
you can read it with understanding, but Blavatsky's writing is bad 
English because you cannot understand it. 
> Blavatsky failed in writing in such manner. Result dogma, confusion, 
> speculation about what she means, no clarity and in general 
> degradation of readers.
Therefore, you are saying that it is Blavatsky's fault that the average 
sixteen year old (the average reading level in the US today) are not be 
able to understand what she wrote.

> Result dogma, confusion, 
> speculation about what she means, no clarity and in general 
> degradation of readers.
"...degradation of readers." ????

Anand, my friend, such logic, I can only answer with silence.

Best wishes,
Jerry








Anand Gholap wrote:

> Jerry,
> However, this is the first time 
>
> > I have ever had a non-American tell me that our American leaders 
> > "understand the law of collective karma." Not only do they not 
> > understand it, but they would not believe in it if they did. Anand, 
> > please understand that the United States is a "Christian country." 
> I never said they studied Theosophy and learned from it law of 
> collective karma. To know laws of Nature it is not necessary to study 
> Theosophy. By personal observation, study, experiences it is possible 
> to know laws of Nature. This is how many of the laws are given by 
> sciences. Many political thinkers and economists know the law what we 
> call law of collective karma. 
> My own analysis does not show me that Bush and his administration is 
> as bad as you write. I would say it is good. 
> If I give economic analysis and show why it is impossible to stop 
> shifting of jobs abroad it will be too long. 
>
>
> > > So they are wise enough to understand that if all countries 
> progress America 
>
> > > would automatically benefit.
> > This is not correct. Any Evangelical Christian will tell you that 
> > America is the most powerful and the richest country in the world 
> > because God favors America. 
> I am talking about wisdom of policy makers and not average 
> Evangelical Christian 
>
>
> > > So many of America's policies take into account interests of other 
> nations, especially countries friendly to 
>
> > > the US. All political, economic and other policies of the US are 
> guided by these principles. 
>
> > I'm beginning to realize that the things you believe about this 
> country 
>
> > are more fantastic than the romantic myths the people of this 
> country 
>
> > create for themselves. In the case of Great Britain, you are 
> right. 
>
> > The United States and Great Britain do work very closely together. 
> But 
>
> > they do so in order to assure that world policies work in *their* 
> > favor. However, Great Britain is the only country I can think of, 
> off 
>
> > hand, which might fit your statement. 
> There are other countries like Japan and many countries is Europe, 
> especially NATO, interests of which America protects.
>
> According to me good English is that which people easily understand, 
> it conveys exact meaning what author has in mind to largest number of 
> audience, without causing confusion in mind of readers. Good English 
> is that which is written is a style prevalent and considered best at 
> PRESENT. So a good English of 11 th century becomes bad English in 20 
> th century. Leadbeater's writing is so.
> Blavatsky failed in writing in such manner. Result dogma, confusion, 
> speculation about what she means, no clarity and in general 
> degradation of readers.
>
>
>
> > > > The most popular program at the time was a series called "Beverly 
> Hills 90210." It was a fictional series about the sex lives of 
> teenage kids growing up in Beverly Hills. 
>
> > > Perhaps most people in the world like this subject. TV programs 
> are 
>
> > > made according to demand from people. There is huge demand for 
> such 
>
> > > programs and so producers make and show such programs.
> > Precisely. And what does this say about "most people's" values?
> Who can tell with certainty. Beverly Hills people say we don't have 
> character.
>
> Anand Gholap
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links