Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00613)

Greg:
>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.
	HPB says that the *only* difference between black and white
actions is our intent.  The intent of Jesus, for example, was, I think, to
help others.  The fact that millions of people over the years have been
killed and tortured in his name should not prevent him from trying.
Assuming he could see into the future, and see how much suffering
would be done in his name by misguided people, would he have tried
anyway?  Probably.
	Jesus went among tax collectors and prostitutes in order
to help them, even though this was seen as social unacceptable
behavior by his contemporaries.  What is socially acceptable or
unacceptable should not stand in our way of helping others.  Hopefully
they will not conflict, but if they do, we should always chose to help
others in spite of appearance.

> 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.
	Exactly.

>Are you sure that Western students don't need constant reminding that they
>should be putting the benefit of other first?
	I am not so sure, myself.  But the students themselves
seem to think they don't need it.  For whatever reason, it is not
strongly emphasized except in Theosophy.

I wrote:
>>If you constantly strive hard to "hold to the highest moral ideal" you will
>>trip over your own shoestrings at some point.
	Let me rephrase this to say "If you constantly strive too hard..."
We should all strive, but not overmuch.  It is the excessive compulsive
striving for moral perfection that is pathological.

>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.
	No, she would approve of the budding occultist.  But she would
giggle at the seasoned occultist who thinks he knows it all who is still
overly concerned about such things.  The whole idea here is to be able
to get to the point where we act with compassion, spontaneously, and
without thought of any reward.  Of course, when we do finally get to this,
we will be close to Adepts.

Good discussion, Greg.  Whether you agree with me or not, you do
seem to understand what I am trying to say, which makes my efforts
worthwhile.  Thanks.

	Jerry S.