Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00047)

Dear Group,

I am jumping into the fray after a long absence, for which there are many
reasons, none of which I will not bore you with.

On 7-30, Michael Rogge wrote to Martin E.:
>Since then I have grown wiser to the extent that I do not believe in
anything anymore.>

Suspension of  (correct) belief does not strike me as wisdom.  Which is not
to say that healthy skepticism isn't good.  For a little entertainment and to
liven up your spiritual life a bit, try suspending your (now) disbelief and
give some youthful consideration to the philosophy of theosophy, approaching
with new eyes and a new understanding based on your years of experience.  I
find the philosophy only taking on more and deeper meanings.

MR:  >We often forget that our reasoning is based on a far vaster store of
knowledge than the ancients>

It seems to me that our far vaster store is of details, and this seems to
come at the expense of the big picture (Forest/Trees, etc.).  A knowledge of
details means nothing without the ultimate knowledge that they all fit
together quite nicely within an overarching, consistent, all-inclusive scheme
and philosophy.  Science was beaten so badly for quite a time by the church
of Rome, that it now refuses to go beyond what it can physically observe.  I
think there are enough people here who can attest that "knowledge" can only
come from experience of realms beyond the physical.

>Ancient wisdom, apart from its wealth of psychological/spiritual insight,
was based on speculation when it came to details>

So now we have the details and have lost the "wealth of
psychological/spiritual insight".  This is not progress in my mind.  And I
would not be so quick to dismiss the "wealth" of the ancients.

>I have stated that the idea that nature renders justice by a law of KARMA
seems more a wish than based on facts.<

I missed your July 12 contribution, perhaps outlining your reasoning there.
 If you would, could you explain why you believe this to be the case?

>Every act/thought of man ties him to a pattern of behaviour.  He enters into
and becomes part of a state of mind that is reflected in his behaviour.  He
is attracted and absorbed by a world in which such acts and desires are
natural.  If that person wishes to free himself of his fixation, he will find
that the way back is relentlessly harsh.  To start acting and thinking on
another level will prove to be a heavy burden.  To undo precious
actions/desires will appear like a punishment and an arduous trail.  But this
is not a law of KARMA, it is plain psychology/behaviourism>

Hmm.  As I read your thought, it seems like the purest theosophy to me, and a
very practical application of the workings of Karma.  Some simple statements
of aspects of Karma might be:
Thought is the basis of all action.
Karma is action.
Attraction/repulsion are a fundamental and pervasive law; an aspect of Karma
There is no Karma unless there is a being to make it and feel its effects.
Karma is the highest aspect of the Absolute.

Consideration of these leads me to the understanding that the situation you
describe above is Karmic.  There is nothing that is outside of the workings
of Karma, for Karma is action itself.  It is materialistic and naive to try
to separate any action from Karma.

>Admittedly, interrelationships between individuals and groups give rise to
ties/links that may work in mysterious ways/synchronisms, but it cannot be
compared to a law of nature.>

Again, we cannot separate anything from Karma.  Anything that moves is
subject to law or I would even say that anything that IS is subject to
Law/Karma.

My recommendation would be to broaden your understanding of Karma.  I think
that the dwelling of the early theosophists on justice/punishment/reward was
to combat the ingrained church concept of a personal god doing the job.  I DO
NOT think that their understanding of Karma stopped there and the
writings/teachings they left confirm this.

At the end of your discussion of Karma you write:
> . . . the concept of Karma reflects the nineteenth century way of thinking
that all could be explained by discovering the mechanisms of nature.  The
fallacy lies in the word "all".>

If we truly discovered the mechanisms of nature, why would these not explain
all?  You even make the point earlier that through the invention of
holography, we know that the smallest particle reflects the whole.  This
would indicate a unity that you then seem to deny later in your discussion.
 If we discovered the mechanisms of nature, would we understand them?
 Probably not.  But we must continually search and our search will be aided
by the hypothesis that once found, all will be explained..

Thanks for your thoughts.

Greg Hoskins