Theos-Talk Archives (November 1994 Message tl00035)

Jerry S.

JS> Jerry, please excuse me for butting into your conversation,
but I thought that we already have had a lot of discussion on the
subject of ethics (I still have some scars around here
somewhereorother).  I have repeatedly pointed out that ethics is
a huge can of worms and unless we just like to go fishing we
should aughta leave it alone.

In former discussions with you on this subject, I think it has
become very clear (at least to me) that we operate from very
different concepts of what ethical decision making means.  As I
had expressed in different ways before, I do not view ethics as a
game of logic to be used to get around regulations, and I have no
interest in debating with you on that level.  Nor am I interested
in another round of my correcting your mis-quotes and out-of-
context quotes of my statements on the subject.  However, I do
agree with you--ethics in the way that you have expressed your
understanding of the word is indeed a "huge can of worms" and I
would also consider it a waste of time pursuing it.  Why you are
compelled to post your objections to discussing ethics every time
the subject comes up is another matter.  Is the subject somehow
threatening to you? I don't know the answer to this, but I hope
you do.  Whatever the reason, perhaps it would be more prudent to
simply ignore any discussions on ethics since you consider them a
waste of time anyway.

Aki,

A> The ethic/morality appears in physical plane in actions. I
> have found it useful and enlightening to judge actions in two
> ways. First before the action takes place, when somebody has a
> plan or a wish to do something.  Then it is useful to ask, what
> is the Motive, why?. Since people always have some motive
> behind their deeds. I think that because of this they do karmic
> things.  Maybe an enlightened one acts without motive, doing
> things because it is just natural to him/her to do so, thus not
> creating any more karma.

Yes, I agree that motive is basic.  I can't imagine "an
enlightened one" acting without motive.  Certainly from higher
motives, but not from no motives.

A> I think that when you have a motive to your action, you also
> create karma, good or bad.
>
> Second way to judge the action is afterwards. Then we can
> examine the result, if it is good or bad.  This is not so easy
> since usually in every dees there is good for somebody and bad
> to others, thats why they call it 'Maya'.

Perhaps the "motive" is more important than the result, even when
the result appears to be unfavorable.

> About not to resist bad; There was some discussion about this
> earlier.  Recently I read about Nisargadatta?'s saying that if
> you wish good for the others/everybody, you can't fail in your
> doings since the whole world want along you the same things.

I think there is something to this.

> If you respond evil with goodness, you should always succeed,
> since the evildoer has the same wish, good for himself. So you
> are not any more conforting, but going to the same direction.
>
> This is kind of intellectual explanation, I my self like more
> the "karma"-version....

In the Mahatma Letters to Sinnett, K.H. writes that we
return good with good and evil with justice.

Murray,

M> I have just noticed the following in a couple of today's
> postings:-
>
>          the lowest common demoniator
>
>          the lowest common dominator
>
> Is the Shoreless Ocean of Truth trying a spot of automatic
> writing?
>
> With love, respect and a smile.

Great! I noted the "demoniator" but missed the "dominator"
(actually it was spell check correcting "demoniator" to the wrong
word).  Yet, considering the context where each was found, I
think they both add a great deal of meaning to their respective
messages.

Sarah,

S> When I was in NYC for the month of Oct. I went looking for 46
> Irving Place. The building that stands in that place is not the
> original one. I  did, however, make it to the now Sherman Hotel
> that is on the corner of 47th and 8th Ave., where HPB wrote
> Isis Unveiled.

I understand that the Sherman Hotel is for sale---six million I
think is the asking price.  To bad there isn't the money around
to restore the building and make it a theosophical museum.

S> When I ask you a question, I am seeking an explana-
 tion more than an answer. The difficulty is that this
 subject is so vast and it is hard to focus on one aspect
 of it without coming up with many more questions which
 tend to branch out in all directions.

When I answer questions, I'm hoping that they will generate
discussions where deeper insights will arise.  Otherwise an
"explination" just becomes an extended answer and still may not
be helpful.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins