Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00582)

I appreciated the candid discussion in your post on this topic and say
confidently that the vast majority of it I agree with:

> If you believe in karma, then you will be as ethical as you can, just to
reduce your
>own karma burden a bit.

Here we run into a bit of a problem, and I have a feeling this is the point
at which we get down to defining what is ethical/moral.  I believe that at
the core of the issue is a) intent and b) whether that intent is directed at
action to procure something for oneself or for others.  For me it gets back
to selflessness.  Regardless of local custom and "appearances" the matter
ultimately gets back to helping others, and the true occultist, who knows
what is right to do "spontaneously" has the benefit of others placed first.
the lifting of everyone's karmic burden just a bit.  That which is requested
in order to be better able to help others is the ethical/moral high-road we
should be traveling.

>he idea in occultism is to do the "right" thing spontaneously as if you had
no other >choice, rather than because someone else said it was the right
thing to do or because >you gain merit by it or because you gain a better
future life for it

Completely agree.

>It all boils down to whether it inflates your ego (then it is wrong, no
matter how right it >may be) or deflates or ignores your ego (then it is
right, no matter how wrong it may >be).  For this reason, history shows us
some very high initiates and Adepts whose >morals were very questionable by
their local standards.

Generally I would agree, except would alter it to state that if the reason
for doing something was to make you feel good (inflate the ego) then it is
probably wrong.  Here again the emphasis is what I get out of the action, not
how someone else benefits.  Regarding the Adepts (and HPB) we are not in a
position to judge their actions from an ethical standpoint, for by local
standards, most often their actions would be deemed unethical, but we have a
pretty good idea that they have the interests of others placed ahead of
themselves.

> It is not up to us to question whether HPB was morally upright when she
trucked >through the countryside with a bunch of men.  Nor about her smoking
or cussing or >anything else.  Now, as it turns out, we also should extend
this courtesy to others, >outside the theosophical community, whose actions
may seem  black and degraded >to us, but whose heart and whose conscious
motivations we cannot ever know.  In >short, it seems to me that unless we
can read the thoughts and emotions of others, >we should not judge them
insofar as their morality is concerned.

Completely agree.

>I never meant to suggest that Western students, high or low, don't need
ethics or >morals, but rather that they no longer need such warnings or
morality lectures.  I, for >one. rightly or wrongly, feel that I am aware of
the consequences (the "price" as Alan >would say) of most of my actions and
no longer need reminding.

Are you sure that Western students don't need constant reminding that they
should be putting the benefit of other first? (my def. of ethics)  I remember
reading that ANYONE at any time can fall from their place once their motive
turns to selfish purposes.  With the acquirement of knowledge and power, this
danger seems all the greater, and a little reminder doesn't hurt.

>If you constantly strive hard to "hold to the highest moral ideal" you will
trip over your >own shoestrings at some point.  This is something that
beginners, those who just start >on the Path, may have to do, and have to
worry over for a time.  I would hope, Greg, >that you are past this point.

It seems to me that if you are trying to hold to the highest moral ideal,
then your attention is constantly on the alert for the cravings of the lower
nature and that gradual (or blatant) creep of the selfishness that we have
engendered over many lifetimes.  Until these are conquered and controlled,
this attention is required.  Being alert to these is part of that process
(which is my favorite) "Man, know thyself."  As far as me being past that
point, I appreciate your vote of confidence, but it is not clear to me that I
am.  I do hope that you will still correspond with me.

> I mean only to say that they need to make the very best of their morals and
ethics, >and then move on, letting ethics be spontaneous and not forced.  One
has to move to >the very highest of Kohlberg's moral stages in order to get
anywhere in occultism.  >One interesting peculiarity with Kohlberg's stages
is that from the perspective of those >on the lower levels, those on the
highest levels appear to have no morals at all.  This is >because those who
are on the lower levels are overly concerned with appearances.

Completely agree.  Again there is a vast difference between appearances and
the inner motive.

> So sometimes, Greg, ethics comes down to doing what you inwardly
>feel is the right thing to do at the time, and choices are seldom easy.

Once more, I agree.  Through all this, points have been clarified.  And I
hope I am not negating all the positive ground we have covered by saying that
I don't think HPB would giggle at the struggle encountered as the budding
occultist strives learn to do what is right, not based on appearance or local
custom, but that which is really right to do.  Maybe here we start
considering the path of action without regard for the results, being, by
definition, beyond them.  For again I would agree that we should not be
concerned with the results of action, but this is dependent on the right
performance of action.

Thanks for you input.

Greg H