[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: No Dichotomy

Jan 18, 1995 11:19 AM
by Arthur Paul Patterson

> N> Rather than a blend, I try to think of them as identical, as a
> unity.  So it is not a matter of switching focus from *external*
> ideas found in an ancient religion to *inner* ideas confined
> within my skull.  Without confusing myself (or you) overmuch --
> let us just say it is possible to know and live as if there is
> only One Self; thus tradition would become part of me.
> Conversely, one can also extinguish the self and there would only
> remain the continuum or tradition.  In other words, expand our
> notion of self to become the All or evaporate self and only the
> All is left.  This is not some mystic state I'm referring to, it
> is just an attitude based on the conviction that there is no real
> separation, only unity.

I found your response here to be instructive concerning a
typically theosophical mental pattern that I am beginning to
understand and at least enjoy.  You are saying that there is a
co-inherence of tradtion and individual experience and when you
separate them even for discussion there is a problem.  Thank you.
I guess I will have to think a bit more about what that does to
communication since we usual abstract when we discuss.

Nicholas > I was fostering Tradition because those gents *seemed*
to have cut off all input from that area of thought and become
too self-focussed.

I guess I missed that anyone was not listening.  Many didn't
agree but I think that they were sincere in their communication.
At least from a very far distance it appeared so.  Perhaps it is
a convention for Theosophist to talk so openly but I am a little
concerned about attributing motive or intention from such short
communications.  I think you could suggest your point in a more
tentative way so that it could be heard and responded to.  Fine
tuning communication is important in areas of spirituality.  I am
serious and don't want you to feel offended it is merely my

> A> I think that the setting of the abortion issue can be viewed
> from the Societal view as well as from the Individual's view.
> The closer to the situation you get I would imagine the closer to
> the individual view you become - what do you think?
> N> I'm not sure what you mean here.  What are the Societal and
> Individual views?

Arthur: Here I was suggesting that it was possible to look at
abortion from a deeply personal almost cellular level or from a
macrocosmic level.  I think, I am not completely sure of this but
I think , only a woman could report on the deepest mystery of
what happens during the birthing process.  I have participated in
births and admired and coached and encouraged but the direct
experience is always a mystery to me in this life anyway.  I
admire the process and I feel that we ought not be too quick to
say much about it without the direct experience.  On the other
hand we are all interdependent members of a nation or a society
and we can speak as men and woman about the pain that that the
debate on abortion can bring to us as a nation.  We are talking
so glibbly and doctrinairely on both sides we must I think get
past principles and emotions to the spirit of deep unity with the
universe and speak from that vantage point.  Then there would be
no killings of health care people, no glib destruction of any
sort only deep compassion and caring for all involved .  Perhaps
I am an idealist but I do really feel this attitude to be
virtually untried.

Under the Mercy,

Arthur Paul Patterson

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application