Jan 16, 1995 03:13 PM
by John Tullis
> Children, children, children! This issue seems to bring out the
> best and worst in everyone. I know it has in me and I will admit
> it. How about you, Nika? Are your really as cheap and small as
> you talk, I think not. If you are a really a theosophist you can
> rise above the street to the buddhic level.
> Yes, John Mead we should honor the individual. The individual is
> responsible for it's choices and no one has the right to make
> that choice for the individual. This is the pro-spirit position.
> We are 100% together.
> The monad is manifesting in the foetus and has a right to full
> spiritual development. To stop it's develpment is to stop it's
> spiritual unfoldment. Who has the right to stop the spiritual
> unfoldment of another human being? I certainly don't? Do you
> Nick, JRC, JS et al? If you think not then we are both pro-spirit
> and are 100% together.
How are you defining "right"? Your logic is dependent on how it
is defined. That is the essence of the question. I may assert -
yes, I do have the right to make choices for others. I may
assert - yes, I do have the right to chose actions that impact
the development of others. Perhaps then you and I have a
semantic difference in how we use the word "right".
> Nika, I am not really angry at you, my skin is not that thin. I
> pity you and many.
> We are all under a kind of TRANCE on this subject. We are
> mesmerized by the same tired arguments.
> The same scenes on TV. The years and years of hypnosis. I
> apologize for the word lies, that was leading with my chin, as
> they say. If you are just mouthing what you have heard over and
> over without really believing it. You aren't lying, at least not
> conciously. You are just spouting the party line because it
> keeps you in a comfort zone. Obviously many are not very
> uncomfortable with the idea of abotion but need some kind of
> double talk, smoke and mirrors, to make the unacceptable
Patronizing. It appears that (Namaste?) e.g. Keith Price, is
"strawmanning". In this sense I mean - telling others how they
think, and why they think that way, without first asking them
whether or not they do think that way, and why they do if they
do. He then points out how they are -wrong-.
> Who is doing the hypnotising? Who is putting us in a trance? I
> suggest it is none other than the BROTHERS OF THE SHADOW.
Oh. Them again.
> In some way I find this guys in the white hats (Masters) and guys
> in the black hats (Brothers of the shadow) rather silly. Like a
> 1930's B Western where you could allways tell the good guys from
> the bad guys by the color of their hats. Yellow caps and red
> caps in the "Secret Doctrine", same thing.
> But the brothers of the shadows do exist, even if only as Jungian
> archetypes in our unconcious. They abound on Madison avenue, the
> porno trade, drug markets, churches, theosophical societies and
> many places high and low.
You have a wider circle of acquaintences than I - I never met a
Jungian archetype working on Madison avenue, or "abounding"
anywhere else. However...I would agree that BOTS do exist,
although (I assert) few are actually conscious of the effects of
their choices (MHO).
> The difference between black magic and white magic is doing
> concious evil or concious good, but the problem is that so few of
> us, me for sure, are advanced enough to have the discrimination.
> When you are in meditation how do you know where you intuitions,
> images, answers are coming from? It takes a highly developed
> sense of discrimination to determine if the answers are from the
> astral or buddhic plane.
Is that the difference?
Do you meditate?
Are you knowledgable about magic?
Do you have personal experience?
Are you speaking from what you have read, or heard from others?
Do you get it yet?
> So many of us follow group think. A cultural role models think a
> certain way, so obviously I should too.
> How do we get out of the trance? By just waking up! Be
> enlightened! If only it were so easy.
> Reality check - the members of the theosophical society and even
> its fellow traveller are a very small percentage of the
> population. We have no real political power at all. The only
> power we have is the power of ideas. Not old ideas, but new
> creative ideas.
> I suggest a Hegelian synthesis to rise above the thesis of
> pro-life, the antithesis of pro-choice to the next stage in
> spiritual evolution PRO-SPIRIT. Help me develop it. We could
> work together on this, instead of taking cheap shots that
> tomorrow will be forgotten. But a principle like pro-spirit is
> eternal as the ancient wisdom.
> Who could argue with that?
I should be ashamed, baiting you like this.
But I'm not. So naughty I am. ;-)
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application