Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00189)

I was in China 30 years ago and outside Tian A Min square was a poor dishevelled soul.  I walked up to him and gave him 50 hong kong dollars, for which he was grateful. I continued on my walk and looked back to see two national guards carting him off for what I believe was taking money from foreigners.  To this day I regret having tried to help him as I feel sure that he would have been thrown into some dark dingy prison.
  Cass

nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
          Dear Adelasie and all
Adelasie, thank you once again for your contribution.

As I mentioned in a previous posting, all that we do in thought and 
deed is an action. This is the essence of karma from its root kri, to 
act or action. 

My interpretation of what you write suggests that your individual 
action is based largely at the vital level of inner attitude and less 
so on external, practical action?

Undoubtedly to me, from a Theosophical perspective, our initial and 
ongoing action needs be internal in essence thereby opening our self 
to the spiritualised energies of the/our true Self. It is my 
understanding and experience that concurrently, this spiritual energy 
needs be applied in practical circumstances. In the matter more 
specifically under discussion, this translates into seriously 
questioning and challenging, both verbally and in writing, anything 
spoken or written, especially that which would appear to restrict 
freedom so cherished by us all.

I wrote, " How, for example, are we respond to the Koran's 
interpretations by
> the Taliban which deny women the right to walk freely on the street
> unaccompanied and/or with their faces showing?
> How are we to respond when these same women are denied access to
> schooling and employment?
> Furthermore, where a women claims to have been raped, under putative
> Islamic Sharia law in some jurisdictions, she needs four independent
> male witnesses to validate her claim otherwise she is guilty of
> adultery if already married and subject to be stoned to death.

To which you responded, "Now why would we need to make a judgement 
about these issues? Are we
> Muslims, living in a Muslim country, under Islamic law? How else
> could we ever hope to come to an understanding of these issues? Why
> do we feel it incumbent on us to make a response?"

With respect, are you really serious? If you are and in spite of all 
we have discussed, I do not understand your position. Even Mahatma 
Ghandi, the most honourable and perhaps archetypal pacifist felt 
moved to challenge injustice and loss of freedom wherever they arose.

You wrote, "Do we think that it
> is useful to apply our Judeo-Christian values to the Muslim world?
> Why would we think that?"

Freedom, justice, fairness, equality et al are to me not specific to 
Judeo-Christianity. They are principles to be found at the core of 
human nature as well as within the very nature of the Kosmos itself. 

You wrote, "Is it perhaps that it is easier to point out
> the iniquities of others, as we judge them, than it is to address 
the
> inhumanity in our own world."

Whether this is a projection of my own iniquities as you appear to 
suggest is only partly relevant it would seem. Of greater relevance, 
lest we be so selfishly, self-absorbed with our own state, is to act 
to alleviate suffering wherever we determine that to be and however 
we deem our actions appropriate. 
If we wait till we're perfect before we practically act, we will be a 
long time waiting. 

You wrote, "As for the question, "Are we agents of Karma?" we could 
say that yes,
> we are agents of karma, of our own karma, but that we have no power
> over the karma of another."

I would suggest that we can, do and in fact are required to 
have "power" over another's karma although perhaps not in the way you 
are using the word.
Where suffering is apparent it is too simplistic to say that that 
particular suffering is deserved. I have learnt it is the height of 
arrogance to second-guess karma. For me, the law is infinitely too 
profound for superficial interpretation. Madame Blavatsky and the 
Mahatmas often speak of "accidents".
That being said, I will use an example where we do have "power" over 
another person's karma. If we are walking along a street in India 
eating samosas and we see a starving beggar on the footpath, we can 
share our food or not, thereby having "power" over the beggar's 
karma. Paradoxically we might consider that whatever we did or did 
not do was the beggar's karma, however that falls a little too 
closely to fatalism, something spoken against by Madame Blavatsky. In 
every moment we have choice, whereby we are affecting our and others' 
karma. Whilst this might not be "power" in the traditional sense it 
is nonetheless cause and effect and we can certainly affect the 
karmic effects of another.

Without any intent to insult your position to which you are fully 
entitled and which I respect, after considerable discussion it 
appears on the surface to me that your otherwise worthwhile and 
extraordinarily accommodating attitude has become almost a dogma in 
itself. It seems to almost blindly accept and allow without 
challenge, the permitting of qualities which to me are totally 
unacceptable, i.e. injustice, inequality, unfairness and loss of 
freedom, under the guise that we do not have the right to challenge 
and that we must instead look to our own motives, practices and 
backyard first. 

In these matters it seems we must respectfully disagree.

You wrote, "I think that we are very fortunate to have the freedom to 
discuss
> these issues and that whenever we feel confused of conflicted, we 
owe
> it to ourselves to go back to the source and find an underlying
> principle that helps us figure things out. Unity of all life is a
> good place to start. These principles are living entities, able to 
be
> assimilated into our own consciousness to be forever available to
> guide and protect us.

On this we are in total agreement.

Kind regards
Nigel 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel,
> 
> Find my comments interspersed below:
> 
> > You write above in context, "We need not concern ourselves with 
the 
> > iniquities of others."
> > 
> > How then are we to approach those teachings that distort, subvert 
or 
> > betray original teachings?
> 
> Use our own understanding. Compare what we read or encounter with 
> what we know from our own experience to be true. Listen to the 
Knower 
> within Which guides us if we allow it. Allow others to do the same.
> 
> > How, for example, are we respond to the Koran's interpretations 
by 
> > the Taliban which deny women the right to walk freely on the 
street 
> > unaccompanied and/or with their faces showing?
> > How are we to respond when these same women are denied access to 
> > schooling and employment?
> > Furthermore, where a women claims to have been raped, under 
putative 
> > Islamic Sharia law in some jurisdictions, she needs four 
independent 
> > male witnesses to validate her claim otherwise she is guilty of 
> > adultery if already married and subject to be stoned to death.
> 
> Now why would we need to make a judgement about these issues? Are 
we 
> Muslims, living in a Muslim country, under Islamic law? How else 
> could we ever hope to come to an understanding of these issues? Why 
> do we feel it incumbent on us to make a response? Do we think that 
it 
> is useful to apply our Judeo-Christian values to the Muslim world? 
> Why would we think that? Is it perhaps that it is easier to point 
out 
> the iniquities of others, as we judge them, than it is to address 
the 
> inhumanity in our own world? It is pretty easy to find targets to 
aim 
> at in our own back yards.
> > 
> > What would be your course of action in these cases? Should we 
> > challenge these mostly inaccurate interpretations of the Koran or 
do 
> > we leave to karma to resolve. Or are we actually agents of karma?
> 
> Are you a student of the Koran? If so, perhaps you might find it 
> important to go to the country in question and work to right the 
> wrongs you perceive. If not, it might be more useful to address the 
> problems nearer to hand. Karma will adjust the balance everywhere, 
no 
> matter what we try to do. It is preferable to try to behave 
according 
> the the Higher Law, in order not to create more Karmic 
retribution. 
> for ourselves and our loved ones if possible. It looks to me like 
the 
> Western world has piled up an astonishing amount of retribution, 
when 
> we consider a few centuries of colonialism and their attendent 
> atrocities.
> 
> As for the question, "Are we agents of Karma?" we could say that 
yes, 
> we are agents of karma, of our own karma, but that we have no power 
> over the karma of another. We create our own future, as we created 
> our own present, as does everyone else. 
> > 
> > Please excuse the strength of these examples but these are 
matters 
> > which I have thought through as deeply as I am able, particularly 
vis 
> > a vis what we might term the Theosophical approach.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> I think that we are very fortunate to have the freedom to discuss 
> these issues and that whenever we feel confused of conflicted, we 
owe 
> it to ourselves to go back to the source and find an underlying 
> principle that helps us figure things out. Unity of all life is a 
> good place to start. These principles are living entities, able to 
be 
> assimilated into our own consciousness to be forever available to 
> guide and protect us.
> 
> Adelasie
>



         

 
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]