Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00729)

At 09:20 AM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 96-04-17 07:05:13 EDT, you write:
>
>>First I'd like to point out that in every case I know of, both "morality"
>>(religion based) and Ethics (Socially based) are entirely culturally
>>specific. They are neither of them at all "Universals".
>
>This does not mean that a Universal ethic does not exist.

But it does not at all either mean or imply that a "Universal Ethic" does
exist. To me that would implicate a "God" and I don't accept such a creature
as existing.
>
>>Second: If one behaves well, i.e. is either "moral" or "ethical" or both,
>>because one believes in Karma, then it is hardly either "selfless" or
>>"disregarding of results". It seems to me that one should "behave well"
>>because that is how one is, and it thusly requires no thought at all to do
>so.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>Think about Torquemada, Savanarola, and Hitler, I am certain each of those
>persons
>>felt their intent was perfectly virtuous, and yet each one of them is
>>responsible for untold harm.
>
>They apparently thought wrong, and their intent was obviously not Universal
>in nature.

But they, themselves, didn't think so, and that is what is important as they
possessed the power to act on their misconceptions. No phyiscal human has
thoughts of a universal nature, nor has, nor will. No physical human being
even has the slightest conception of what a "universal thought" might be.
>
>>The old cliche about "hell is paved with good
>>intentions" is one of the most true truisms
>
>Four points:  1)  Most people fail to know what a "good intention" really is.
> 2)  If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, can you imagine the
>road paved with bad intentions?  3)  I have a feeling that this cliche refers
>to people who have good intentions but do nothing with them, do not act on
>them.  4)  A good intention does not mean that no mistakes will be made.  A
>good intention (defined correctly), however, in my belief, lessens the impact
>of the mistake.

1. How do you presume to know that?
2. It would probably be identical though I suspect it would be much smaller.
3. Good intentions not followed up by action are totally result free.
4. A good intention, no matter what it's definition does not lessen the
impact of a bad action. I think we're talking about two different impacts
here. I'm talking about the impact on the object of the act (good or bad
intentions aside) and I think that you're talking about imact on the "doer"
or "Karma" which is a concept I do not accept as valid.
>
>> It seems to me that being
>>altruistic by intention carries with it the strong implication that one is
>>"striving" for some goal, and then the goal, which would be "altruism"
>>becames part of a "goal oriented process" which is then hardly altruistic
>
>I don't follow your premises to your conclusion.  Believing as I do what we
>are told in Big T, we are at the point where the way is "up or down".  To set
>a goal, to visualize an ideal indicates that there is the recognition that
>there is something to strive for, and we can choose what direction that will
>be in.  But no sooner is each goal reached when we realize that there is the
>next goal, and the next and the next.  Like steps.  Like our days.  Following
>those steps, one day at a time, leads us on.  I see nothing more admirable
>than to set altruism as a goal or an ideal, as opposed to its opposite, and
>the fact that it is a process should not be a problem for you of all people,
>as that is your definition of theosophy.  We have set behaviours in motion
>which need to be altered.  If we are to reach people with theosophy, we first
>point the direction, then show them that right thought, right motive, right
>action can be LEARNED.  It (altruism, the feeling of Universal Brotherhood)
>is not spontaneous in the masses of people.  To say that it should be
>immediately eliminates the vast majority because in them, it is not, and if
>you are not willing to teach them, they will be lost for long periods.

Now, knowing as I'm sure you do that I don't believe in "Big T" theosophy,
some of our most basic premises are entirely dichotomous. But in this
instance, I think you've misunderstood what I said in the above paragraph. I
am saying that "altruism" is NOT a goal, is NOT an object or state to be
striven for, but a kind of "state of consciousness", it has nothing to do
with "Universal Brotherhood" but is a state from which each action
isperformed because it is exactly the right action at the moment and for no
other reason. The theosophical attitude, as I see it is to try to define
abstract reality to non abstract beings, it's not a behaviour pattern, it's
not a religion, it's not even an ethos, it is simply the delineation of
abstract truth so that the non-abstract can comprehend it. It's not a
subject one teaches, but rather the creation of an image (picture) which
others may or may not see. As to "a pathway up or down" as I see it there is
neither "up" or "down", there is only is.
>
>>Being naturally good is one thing, trying to be good is another thing
>>altogether because it implies an awareness that the goal has yet to be
>reached.
>
>And what could be more admirable or rewarding than seeing that light go on in
>someone where they finally become AWARE that their goal is yet to be reached
>or that there is a better alternative to their wretched lives? The despair of
>life for most people comes from not being aware of what the right goal should
>be, that which should be strived for, fought for along with the realization
>that ALL can reach it, of their own volition and efforts, and not subject to
>the whim of a vengeful God.

That is only true if one shares your view of the universe, which I do not.
>
>Intent, motive, the thought that is the basis for and precedes all action, is
>everything, because it is intent that colors the action.  I believe that we
>are beyond results, for if there is a concern in the result, we are bound by
>the action.  Let the result come however it may, content that our motive was
>correct, i.e. universal.  If we make a mistake, we learn.  If good comes,
>then, as it should be.  To counter with a cliche, another truest of truisms,
>"It's not winning or loosing, but how you play the game."

It's not a "game" and one neither "wins" nor "loses". It just is.
>
>Greg H (sounding like Eldon)
>
>
>alexis sounding like alexis