Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00122)

Mar 16th

Considering the question of response to provocation.

Jesus in SERMON ON THE MOUNT also recommended that non-aggression and
non-retaliation be applied wherever possible.  So did the Buddha and
Krishna in declaring the principles of "Righteous War"--which he directed
at our "lower selves," and not at other persons.  The "fight" is always
interior to us in our own consciousness.  Broadly we are a three-fold
being:  we perceive the duality of good and evil, but we, the PERCEIVER are
separate and detached.  This is an important fact to realize.

Theosophy has been called "sanctified common-sense."

If an act against us is purely directed at us, then we have to choose how
to treat it.

 I do not think that either of these cases envisaged "lack of protest" --
which, if taken alone, would be passive.  But rather [as in the case of the
eviction of the money changers and merchants from the temple (as an example
of positive action)] some positive steps should be taken.

The restraint of evil, if conducted impersonally for the general good
(universally) would seem to be the best procedure in a practical and
positive fashion.

Evil cannot stand public exposure.  It hides behind pretended Good, or
takes advantage of the average passivity of people.  It also takes
advantage of the retaliation that it raises when others take the law into
their own hands and respond personally but not impartially.  It then uses
the fact that we also have "broken the law" to cause us to "fear the
consequences of exposure."  Thus 2 wrongs never make a "right."

For this reason it is best to expose iniquity, and then let others pick up
the "cudgels" and act on our behalf.  Exposure usually does this, but we
have to know how and where to make that exposure.  The person who is
placing undue conditions on us ought to be fore-warned of what we are
doing, so that they may make adjustments and perhaps right the wrong they
are doing before exposure occurs.  We ought to give them a chance.

In the case of the disciple, who has chosen non-violence as his guide, the
practice of non-retaliation is needed.  But this has to be done with a full
understanding of the consequences.  Each case has its own settings and it
will be up to the practitioner of "divine wisdom" to decide (as a
free-willed being and mind) what they will do.  This is a practical example
of the path of the disciple, and is very rigorous, although anyone can make
a practice of it in their own personal, daily lives.  They may not be
generally 'loved,' but they will always be 'respected.'  They no longer
conform to accepted molds.  they no longer belong to the 'herd of sheep.'
They will be deeply loved, trusted, and respected by those who
instinctively and intuitively respect honesty and sincerity.

There can be no "set path" or "ritual" to be observed blindly.  The duty of
the disciple is to learn how to harmonize his life with all Nature.  This
requires deep study, and firm application of what we sense is the right way
to behave 'as a member of humanity,' -- not just as our reactive selves.
This requires attention and awareness as pre-requisites.  A careful
analysis of all events around us, and a fine-tuned adjustment to the best
that can be done in any circumstance.  Passivity is banished, and in its
place, the most active and controlled positivism is installed in our
nature.

Each event in our lives involves Karma.  Our karma and that of others.  If
we are wronged, we can well ask if we had not in the past (even the
forgotten past of other and earlier lives)
offended someone or several persons, and we are now watching the effect
directed back to us, not necessarily by the individuals who have made
themselves (by their own choices) the vehicles of returning karma to us.
Every event has a lesson embedded in it.  Can we detect the lesson, or do
we get embroiled in the emotional response of feeling wronged ?  And then,
do we make the error of directing our resentment at the person instead of
the situation ?  Are we blaming others instead of ourselves ?  If the
Universe were unjust, then blaming others might be reasonable.  However,
the more we study, the more we will convince ourselves that the whole of
Nature is just and fair.  So evil or suffering that another might bring to
us ought not to be the source of continuing resentment directed at that
PERSON.

Are we mistaking a person or persons as the source of our troubles, or do
we forget that we are the ones who created the circumstances for the
present problem.  No.  Theosophically we are the source of any problem we
encounter, be it good or evil.  The Law is just and fair.  Therefore we can
only extend pity to anyone who makes himself the vehicle of evil and
suffering for others or for ourselves.  There is in HPB's SECRET DOCTRINE
marvelous passage where, in discussing Karma and it operation she states
that 2/3rds (two thirds) of the world's evils would disappear if people
would refuse to harm or hurt others.  [ And how we receive such hurt or
pain, has a lot to do with this case.]

The most difficult thing in the world is to step aside from our hurts and
say:  This is due to me.  The person or agent is not the SOURCE of the evil
I now experience.  Hence I need not retaliate.  In truth, at some time, I
was the source !

There are at least 3 broad categories of karma:  personal Karma, family
Karma, and national Karma.  There is much that comes to us because we are
born into a family and a nation (or religion), but we need not be bound by
that general current.  The personal situation and the interaction we have
directly with others sharpens the focus of our situation, and this is where
in thought, feeling and act we create or abolish karmic links.  If we look
back in our memories to earlier days in our lives we will find many
memories that relate to troubles -- these seem to leave deeper scars than
events of happiness and joy.  If we dwell in memory on those we tend to
amplify them, and they can become gigantic.  But are they necessary ?
Non-violence would suggest, if applied, that the memory of these be
effaced.  The life and philosophy of Gandhi, as a most recent case of this
attitude ought to be studied.  There is much to be gained by his reasonings
in helping his nation to get rid of British rule by non-violent means.  And
many suffered deeply and personally from the effort that they volunteered
for on behalf of the multitudes of their compatriots.

Martin Luther King Jr. endeavored to follow the Gandhian path in this
country, and a great deal of good is due to him and to those who followed
and adopted his example of civil disobedience towards unfair dealings.
Compared to 40 or 50 years back, conditions between people are far easier
and more reasonable now and at least public redress is possible on a far
more equitable and impersonal a basis.

People are being increasingly recognized as 'minds' rather than as unique
situations of color, religion, race, or other divisive designations.  It is
quite possible that Theosophy has been the source of the inspiration that
an individual such as Gandhi (who contacted Theosophy in London in his
early youth) adopted for practice.  Why can we not all be "Gandhis ?"  We
have the same stuff in us as they have, but we do not have the will.  So it
becomes a question of how to find and develop the inner will to act and be
just and fair to all.

Theosophy offers principles to consider, which we will find on examining
are in conformity with the great economy of Nature -- where the advance and
evolution of all beings is considered, from the Atom and the Ignorant, to
the Galaxy and the Wise Professor or Master of Wisdom.  Perhaps one of the
best books to consult is Mme. Blavatsky's KEY TO THEOSOPHY.  It covers not
only the doctrines of Theosophy hut devotes more than half its content to
practical Theosophy.

Theosophy also states that we are, as humans, mind-beings.  We are
undergoing the tests and trials of being free-willed;  and learning how to
voluntarily adjust ourselves to the fate that we create by our thoughts,
feelings and acts.  But is this not something we can prove to ourselves ?
WE make our own environment, and from our choices today will be created our
tomorrows.

Hope these ideas can help.					Dallas

                                                          W. Dallas
TenBroeck

dalval@nwc.net

----------
| From: "Pat F" <pathfinder@pcpostal.com>
| Subject: Theos World - "Golden Precepts" of GdeP
| Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 3:16 PM
|
| Hi all,
|
|     Would anyone mind discussing Purucker's Golden Precepts of
| Esotericism?    Much of it I can grasp and accept as practical, e.g.
| impersonality and love.   But he speaks of defending others, never
| oneself.   As I understand it, he tells us that the initiate forgets the
| own self and lives entirely for others.  Living for others is fine by
| me; I think we should all devote some of our incarnations purely for
| others, once we are fit enough.   What I don't understand is the
| teaching that the chela does not stand up if only to defend
| him/herself.   GdeP wrote:
|
|     >Never strike back; never retaliate; be silent; be patient. Protect
| others; protect yourself not at all.
|
|     Is the student meant to take this quite literally?   Can someone
| please discuss this with us?
|
|     Thank you.
|
|     Yours,
|     Pat F.
|
|
|