Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00492)

Aug 28th 1998

A thought occurs to me.  If we fight, if we defend ourselves to preserve
physical continuity, do we not do this because this present personality (as
all personalities do) FEARS DEATH.

If so, why is there this fear ?

Does Theosophy offer a reasoned explanation concerning the fate of the
Personality, its true value, and what ought to be done to improve and change
it ?

I do not think that Theosophy advocates slavery, whether of the body, or of
the mind -- or of any kind. The EGO, being IMMORTAL is the real Mann or
Woman. It is interior to the personal being, but is always detached -- and
evidence for this lies in our continued and universal capacity to reason on
principles that are detached from our circumstances.
[ Epictetus is a case in point, historically. ]

So the problem is one of time --  it the matter of making a decision.  Many
factors I sense are involved.  We learn and also teach.  Question is when,
and how.

Best wishes,

Dallas

> Date: Saturday, August 29, 1998 4:04 PM
> From: "Jake Jaqua" <barkus23@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #405

>Bart writes in 405:
>
>> Far too many people have the belief that if something is wrong (or
>>generates personal karma), then it should not be done. But our choices
>>do not always include the right thing. Sometimes, we have a choice of
>>nothing but evils, and must choose between them. It is easy for those
>>not forced into such a position to force a choice on others, based on
>>arbitrary criteria, when that choice may be far worse than others.
>> Such is the case with land mines. Land mines are bad things, and they
>>cause much suffering......
>=====================================
>       I think this is true, but then maybe sometimes the choices are so
bad
>it is just better  to die, or whatever.   I think Tibet should have had a
>better defense system but land minds is a question - better to kill than
miam,
>perhaps.  In this world, anyone who believes that self-defense is not
ethical
>is way too idealistic, I think, even buddhists.   In China, everyone  that
>posts on this mailing list whould be in jail unless they quit voicing their
>viewpoints.  I have a reference where the D. Lama expresses the viewpoint
that
>under some situations violence is "OK,"  but not in the current situation
with
>China - and always productive of more violence, I think he said also. (will
>look the reference up if someone wants.)
>=====================
>Rilke writes:
>>Why in this great world of pies and ice cream is it a nasty thing to do -
>>referring to someone as him/her if one is not sure?
>======================
>      Are you for real?  How many "Marshalls" do you know who are women?
'And
>if one is not sure it is an insult anyway. Also the guy posted on
theos-talk a
>"rap" or free lance verse of a sorts about his appeal for various sorts of
>women - rather catchy.  I don't know what world you live in, but if someone
>unjustly gets implied to have a gender identity problem around here, they
>might get killed for it.  I think you are not for real....  Maybe this
petty
>criticism (a whole pointless letter!) is a typical femine masochistic ruse
to
>come on to me.... since it doesn't make sense otherwise.   Are you just
coming
>on to me Kym?   Well, I'm an old codger, almost, closing in on 50,  so set
>your sites on some young buck, I'm not interested.
>===================
>Darren writes:
>
>>Just Alexis/Alexei on TI !!!!!!!
>====================================
>     As you wrote this in reference to my post, what the heck does it mean?
I
>would think of Alexis/Alexei as being a woman unless I got a different
context
>off of their letters.    This subject is probably better off dropped.
>
>              -  Jake J.
>
>
>