Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tt00037)

Dec 4th 1998

Dear Jerry:

If religion is of the kind:  "Believe or else," who can respect it unless
one is either very ignorant (and therefore uncertain and defensive about
that), or a fool -- for which there is little remedy; or 3rd, and possibly
the worst:  one who takes advantage of fools and the ignorant and erects on
a sound ethical or data basis a trap to capture those poor unwary soul WHO
WILL NOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

Theosophy as I have seen and studied and experienced it is the one system
which demands that we accept nothing blindly:  No FAITH, no AUTHORITY, no
BLIND BELIEF.

Since it starts with the idea that the UNIVERSE is one, and we can call it
"spirit," or "god" or anything we please, but we cannot deny that it is a
WHOLE.

Our relation to it is that we embody, in however small a measure the same
potentials as that WHOLE.  So if it is "GOD," then we and "gods -- in the
making."


each of us is equipped with the same good tools -- and as we now find
ourselves , we have either improved or dulled and damaged our equipment.
This equipment, as I see it is controlled by "me" the Ego, the Witness and
the Watcher of all that happens in and around me.  This equipment (or tools
that I can use and direct) is:  1.  the MIND, 2.  the DESIRES AND FEELINGS,
3.  the PHYSICAL BODY (whether healthy or unhealthy or somewhat mixed-up).

There is no question that there is feed back to "me" form all of them, and
sometimes it is quite confusing.

When we (I mean the body) die, what survives ?  The physical basis is gone.
 the basis framed of desire and feelings may remain for a while -- some can
call it the "ghost" or the "astral body linked to the Kama (desire)
principle;  but that too fades in time.  Theosophy speaks of the Mind (
Manas ) principle coalescing with the wisdom-memory and together with the
light of Spirit ( Atma)  upon them enter a long time of meditation on the
life last lived, called " Devachan" (paradise or the land of the "gods")

Karma draws us back to life in a new body so that we may balance our debts,
receive compensation and perhaps start new accounts, and so life goes on
with, to the real "me" an ever increasing increment of learning and talent.
 HPB in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY gives the system and working of this in
detail.  It is valuable to have a good knowledge of that.

If all this is true and reasonable then "good" or "bad" Karma represent
those unsettled balances we have to harmonize so as to escape their future
influence.

What has this to do with "ethics ?"  If the Universe is ONE, then it runs
by certain great impersonal and also universal laws which harmonize all
aspects of its many diversities.  We can learn in time all the details of
these.   We may also see that if we transgress those laws, are vicious,
overbearing, tyrannical, etc... we build up a fund of trouble which we will
eventually have to settle.  Similarly for "good" which results from obeying
those general laws of nature and cooperating with her purposes.

You may think that this is a tyranny more terrible than any you can dream
up in the worst nightmare.  But is it so ?  Look at the evidence that you
(and I, and everything else) have been carefully taken care of.  If we are
alive it is because we benefit from the many cooperative arrangements of
atoms making cells, cells making molecules, molecules grouping into organs,
and finally the most heterogeneous mix of organs and internal structures
that seems to run pretty well on its own (our bodies) and provide the Mind
and the Supervising Ego, "me," with a residence.

I would say, very broadly that the "golden Rule" is the only ethical base
that is reasonable.  Everything else is just argument and discussion.  If
you help others you help yourself.  This is probably why Theosophy posits
UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD as the 1st of its "Objects."

More ideas ?						Dallas


Dallas TenBroeck

dalval@nwc.net                        (818) 222-8023
                   23145 Park Contessa,
            Calabasas, Ca., 91302, USA.

----------
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re:Fractals
> Date: Sunday, January 04, 1998 3:04 PM
>
> >If you take the cold reality of science and subject it to the warmth of
> >the religious outlook, then a pattern of ethics emerges..You know what
> >to do..And you can be assured of the resonance of your choice between
> >reason and religion.
> >Any comments or suggested sources of information would be
appreciated;...
> >Phil.Greenfield@xtra.co.nz
> >
>
>
> I don't want to start anything here, but for the record I would like
> to offer an opposing viewpoint. I have seldom found religion to be
> "warm" nor do I find science to be "cold."  Its often quite the
> reverse. Nor do I see any way shape of form how a "pattern of
> ethics" comes from their union.  Ethics is forced down the throat
> of most religious people (who in turn force it down the throat of
> others), and is usually already present with scientists (marketing
> is another story). One can be ethical without being either scientific
> or religious. The humorous, and sometimes factual, cartoon
> Dilbert illustrates the "pattern of ethics" found in today's business
> world. Adding a "religious outlook" won't help much.
>
> Jerry S.
>
>
>
>
>