Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00029)

	Re:   	failure of moral leadership does not exonerate the
"followers  
		What is the ORPHAN HUMANITY ?

From: Dallas 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 7:49 AM
To: t
 
Thanks and please excuse notes below (short of time)
 
Dallas
 
==========================================
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 3:42 PM
To: 
Subject: failure of moral leadership does not exonerate the "followers
 

Dear Dallas,
 
DTB	As far as I can see, the failure of moral leadership does not
exonerate the
"followers."  


JH	Agreed.

 
DTB	Each individual weaves his or her own Karma. This is the universal
law.



JH	Yes, but as your statement above implies, there is also family,
tribal 
and/or group karma. Therefore the whole family, tribe etc. suffers or 
benefits from the acts of its individuals.

 
DTB     Many individuals’ karma interact to form those – a blending trend as
of a race and their epochal history 

 
DTB	“Passing the blame” appears to be in conflict with loyalty and
discipline. 



JH	If by loyalty, you mean blind loyalty i.e. "my country right or
wrong", 
then I agree. On the other hand, I believe that it is the duty of 
members of a community, country, tribe, organization, family etc. to 
speak out (whenever possible) when a wrong is done. Such an action is 
still one of loyalty, but not blind loyalty. Such people are often said 
to represent the "loyal opposition."


 
DTB     If one pledges loyalty then any deviation is a lie to the original
pledge.  I don’t find that excusable. If there is a danger of this kind of
situation it is better not to pledge at all from the beginning.  If the
group is later found not living up to the mark of excellence chosen, then as
you say, it is (1) our duty to first protest. then (2) expose the situation
publicly, and finally (3) refuse to perjure our HUMANITY [ our VOW to
BROTHERHOOD ] by permitting others of lesser moral strength to dominate our
lives (for whatever reasons) and degrade thereby OUR MORAL STRENGTH AND
STANDARDS IN THE EYES OF OTHERS.  


 
JH	But are we not all in this situation?  Is this to why the Masers
call our “humanity” a “great orphan?” 
 

I think the problem really is:  ARE WE LOYAL TO IDEALS ?  TO VIRTUES?  


JH	precisely.

 
DTB	>In practical business life, I have always found that the public
exposure of
a “wrong” (after due notice to the obstructionist) brings redress based on
the unflinching logic of the moral and virtuous situation involved.  If we
are silent and inactive, then we advertise the obstructionist, that we are
actively participating in perpetuating the wrong being done, or a failure in
this performance of honest work, and the application of impartial
discipline. 



JH	Ideally, that is how it should work. How fortunate you are to have
only 
experienced such healthy organizations--as opposed to unhealthy ones 
life this country's Roman Catholic church which worked to hide and 
protect sexual predators in their our clergy.
 

DTB	>If an individual who takes high (or low) responsible office, fails
in
>rigidly applying morals and virtues, is it our duty to challenge and draw
>attention to the lapse for the greater good of all concerned?  ARE WE
>RESPONSIBLE TO A PERSON, OR TO AN “OFFICE ?”
>

JH	Precisely

 
DTB	>I would say in such cases, THEOSOPHY, looking at such a debate
between
>Kama-Manas and BUDDHI-Manas, indicates the superior position assumable by
>impartiality and universality.



JH	Universality. "superior position" and "impartiality" contradict in
this 
case. Addressing the process as opposed to the person is often the best 
tact.

 
DTB     It is the “tact” that seems hypocritical to me.  Everything works
out easier if we refuse to deal with the false and the untrue.  Better cut
the relationship as soon as possible.  Then I might add:  Attach no person
as such.  Attach the injustice of the “system” and the application being
made to degrade it  -- which some individuals do, unfortunately.
 
Best,

Jerry
===============================================
 
-----Original Message-----
From:  Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Sent: Monday, March 27, 

Subject: Re: Fundamentalist misrepresentations of the Bible

Dear Vince,

And aside from these failures which you attribute to the 
Theosophical Society, in what ways do you think they have still been 
subsequently successful today?

Actually I attribute the failures of the Theosophical Society to the
leadership. The Theosophical Society and its members were the victims.
IMO, its greatest success today has been their efforts to publish and
keep in print the collected writings of Blavatsky.
What things still appeal to you about the Theosophical Society today?

They have an outstanding library at the National Headquarters.  They
publish some important classics.  I like many of its members.

I believe that not-for-profit corporations are just as money-
centered as for-profit corporations.  They both require money to 
operate, and are permeated with organizational politics at their 
highest ranks.  They just obtain their money in different ways.

Yes, non profits organizations, like any other effort requires money to
operate.  And, I suspect that certain non profit organizations, like
United Way, is primarily oriented to collecting and distributing money.

With its highly paid officers including its CEO which collects a
multi-million dollar salary, I'm sure that there is a lot of politics.
On the other hand, such places as the United Way have move far away from
the original concept of non-profits, and are not necessarily
representative.  

I am president-founder of a non-profit educational organization.  The Board
meetings typically last for 3 to 4 hours.  The treasurer's report takes 5 to
10 minutes.  

The rest of the time we talk about planning programs, classes, our journal
etc.  Rather than talking
about how to get more money, we talk about and plan services.  No one on
the Board, or connected in any way with the organization receives a
salary.  

In fact, Board members are required to donate a predetermined
amount of their own money to the organization.  

However, volunteers are reimbursed for out of pocket expenses--but not for
their time.  What I
am saying is that it is quite possible for non profit organizations to
be primarily focused on service--not getting money.  They do not have to
be "money centered". We have proved that.

		snip
=========================================

RE   “GREAT ORPHAN”  --  HUMANITY


----------------------------------

“…our whole aim and desire are to help, in at least some degree, toward
arriving at correct scientific views upon the nature of man, which carry
with them the means of reconstructing for the present generation the
deductive metaphysical or transcendental philosophy which alone is the firm,
unshakable foundation of every religious philosophy. 
Theosophy, the universal solvent, is fulfilling its mission; the opalescent
tints of the dawn of modern psychology are blending together, and will all
be merged into the perfect daylight of truth, when the sun-orb of Eastern
esotericism has mounted to its noon-stage. 
For many a long year the "great orphan," Humanity, has been crying aloud in
the darkness for guidance and for light. Amid the increasing splendors of a
progress purely material, of a science that nourished the intellect, but
left the spirit to starve, Humanity, dimly feeling its origin and presaging
its destiny, has stretched out towards the East empty hands that only a
spiritual philosophy can fill. 
Aching from the divisions, the jealousies, the hatreds, that rend its very
life, it has cried for some sure foundation on which to build the solidarity
it senses, some metaphysical basis from which its loftiest social ideals may
rise secure. 
Only the Masters of the Eastern wisdom can set that foundation, can satisfy
at once the intellect and the spirit, can guide Humanity safely through the
night to "the dawn of a larger day." 
Such is the goal which theosophy has set itself to attain; such is the
history of the modern movement; such is the work which theosophy has already
accomplished in this nineteenth century. 

     --H. P. BLAVATSKY
RECENT PROGRESS IN THEOSOPHY   HPB Art I 278fn
	[ No. Am. Review, August, 1890 ]

---------------------------------------

"the business of 'magic' to humanise our natures with compassion" for the
whole mankind as all living beings, instead of concentrating and limiting
our affections to one predilected race -- yet few of us (except such as have
attained the final negation of Moksha) can so far enfranchise ourselves from
the influence of our earthly connection as to be insusceptible in various
degrees to the higher pleasures, emotions, and interests of the common run
of humanity. 

Until final emancipation reabsorbs the Ego, it must be conscious of the
purest sympathies called out by the esthetic effects of high art, its
tenderest cords respond to the call of the holier and nobler human
attachments. Of course, the greater the progress towards deliverance, the
less this will be the case, until, to crown all, human and purely individual
personal feelings 

-- blood-ties and friendship, patriotism and race predilection 

-- all will give away, to become blended into one universal feeling, the
only true and holy, the only unselfish and Eternal one 

-- Love, an Immense Love for humanity -- as a Whole! 

For it is "HUMANITY" which is the GREAT ORPHAN, the only disinherited one
upon this earth, my friend. 

And IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY MAN WHO IS CAPABLE OF AN UNSELFISH IMPULSE, to
do something, however little, for its welfare. 

Poor, poor humanity! It reminds me of the old fable of the war between the
Body and its members: here too, each limb of this huge "Orphan" --
fatherless and motherless -- selfishly cares but for itself. 

The body uncared for suffers eternally, whether the limbs are at war or at
rest. Its suffering and agony never cease. . . . 

And who can blame it -- as your materialistic philosophers do -- if, in this
everlasting isolation and neglect it has evolved gods, unto whom "IT EVER
CRIES FOR HELP BUT IS NOT HEARD!"

 . . . Thus -- 

	"Since there is hope for man only in man 
	I would not let one cry whom I could save! . . ."  [Gautama Buddha]

Yet I confess that I, individually, am not yet exempt from some of the
terrestrial attachments. I am still attracted toward some men more than
toward others, and philanthropy as preached by our Great Patron -- "the
Saviour of the World -- the Teacher of Nirvana and the Law . . . ." has
never killed in me either individual preferences of friendship, love -- for
my next of kin, or the ardent feeling of patriotism for the country -- in
which I was last materially individualized. 
	MAHATMA LETTERS   32-3,   [ see also M L  on  23-4, 212  [Universal
LOVE,  A BROTHERHOOD OF HUMANITY]

-----------------------------------------------


“Q.:	What is the real meaning of that phrase so often seen in
Theosophical papers, “the great orphan, Humanity”?

W.Q.J.—This phrase has a deep significance for me. An orphan may also be one
who had no parents, as the state of orphanage is that of being without
father or mother. 

If we imagine a child appearing on the earth without a parent, we would have
to call it an orphan. Humanity is the “ GREAT ORPHAN ” because it is without
parents in the sense that it has produced itself and hence from itself has
to procure the guidance it needs. And as it wanders in the dark valley of
the shadow of death, it is more in need of help and counsel than the mere
body of a child which is the ordinary ORPHAN. 

The soul is parentless, existing of itself from all eternity, and,
considered as soul, mankind is hence an orphan. Plunged into matter,
surrounded on every side by the vast number of intricate illusions and
temptations that belong to earthly life, it stands every day and hour in
need of protection as well as guidance.

If the idea of a loving parent be applied to the notion that a definite God
has produced mankind, then we find that this supposed parent has at the same
time invented the most diversified and ingenious series of bedevilments and
torments to beguile, hurt, harass, and finally destroy the child. For if a
certain one God is the maker or parent of man, then He also is the one who
made nature. Nature is cruel, cold, and implacable. It stops for no man, it
never relents, it destroys without mercy. 

When inhabitants of earth multiply, Nature manages to destroy millions of
people in a night or two, as has now and then happened in China; the very
elect of the earth are swept off the earth in a moment; slowly and painfully
the infant races creep up the ladder of time, leaving as they go vast heaps
of slain at the foot. The whole of life presents, indeed, to man more frowns
than smiles. It is this fact that has made so many who are told of a loving
father and at the same time of an illogical scheme of salvation revolt
altogether from the idea of any meaning to life but despair.

I cannot see how the phrase “GREAT ORPHAN” carries with it the notion of
being without guide or helper. The orphan is every where; but among the
units composing it are some who have risen through trial to the state where
they can help the lower ones. Orphans themselves, they live to benefit
mankind of which they are a part. 

They are the head of the body of which the lower members are the less
developed units or atoms. Enthusiasm for the “orphan” is that which will
lead to devotion and sacrifice; and that enthusiasm must be developed not
only in the Theosophist, but in all the men of earth. 

Having it they will help all on their own plane, and each stratum of men
rising in development will help all below until all belonging to the globe
have risen to the perfect height. Then they can proceed to other spots in
cosmos where are also wandering vast masses of souls also units in the
“orphan,” who require and can then receive the same help that we had
extended to us. If this is not the destiny of man during the time when all
things are manifesting, then the remark of Spencer to the effect that
altruism is useless because when universal there is no one to benefit, must
be accepted. However, the phrase in the question is one of those rhetorical
ones that must not be read in its strict letter and ordinary meaning.”
W Q Judge
	FORUM ANSWERS p. 94-5