Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tl00010)

Murray wrote:

Before I prattle on regarding this current e-mail by Murray, I wanted to
tell Dallas and Murray that I do plan on responding to their previous
e-mails very soon. Dallas referred to me specifically and I don't want
Dallas to think I am simply rude (which I can be) and ignoring him.  Of
course, this means I am assuming that my response has been eagerly awaited.
. .hmmmm.

>A revealing statement .... .  Kym, are you sure you have your life under
>control?

When I have fudge, ALL things are under my control.

>First, the karma is a *natural* reaction or consequence, just as gut-ache
>is a consequence of eating too much chocolate fudge at once, no matter how
>enticing. So it's not vindictive, just what happens if you use free will
>that way.

Well, if karma is a "natural" reaction or consequence, why were those who
chose to "obey" - which is also a choice - NOT given the "penalty" of
karma?  This isolated passage of the SD certainly seems to imply that only
SOME monads suffered karma due to choice, even though both groups made a
choice.

Also, Murray, you brought up the notion of "too much" fudge - ok, I can
grant you that; however, in the passage, the monads merely made a choice to
delay or contemplate their choice.  I do not see in what way this choice
can be seen as "too much."  What followed the choice, via physical
incarnation and the like, could have, for some, become excessive or "too
much," but why the automatic assumption that in simply making the choice it
becomes "too much?"

I guess my root question is why Theosophy assumes that life - as we know it
- was NOT SUPPOSED TO BE?  I do not assume that pain, torture, and such, is
meant to be, but life is so much more than that for many people.
Relationships, love, sex, food, sleep, dreams, fulfilling work, green
grass, the sun, the ocean, dogs, cats, creepy next door neighbors, etc.,
may not be possible elsewhere.  I mean, WHY NOT choose the "Fall" if it
also offers these neato benefits?

I cannot say I know what the life a Mahatma is like, or what the life of an
angel is like, or what life with a superior astral body is like - but from
my human perspective, when I try to imagine it from what I have read or
heard, I have to say, in all honesty, it sounds. . .well. . .just plain
toilsome.  There are many references telling how they are hard at work
helping humanity - but what they do in-between and what they would DO if
there WASN'T such a thing as 'humanity to help' remains elusive.

>"Obey me out of your free will or I'll make your pay for it" you don't
>like, well, that would rile me too, but I don't think it was really like
that.

Despite your elequent and positive attempt to redeem the passage, it still
sounds like that is the case to me, but I admit I am a die-hard skeptic.  I
have observed this "obey or pay" suggestion, either overt or covert,
presented numerous times in the SD and Theosophy in general (and in many
other philosophies and religions).  And I still haven't figured out just
what exactly the rule IS that I am supposed to obey and how to go about
doing that and still manage to ensure that I cause no harm.

>I think the choice to delay incarnation was in a way choosing to deny one's
>inner purpose. To enjoy the immediate (the chocolate fudge) at the expense
>of the longer-term. To choose to be a fractured or discordant being. And
>the consequences of this we can see in ordinary human terms around us, in
>those who consciously or unconsciously have made this kind of choice.

But, you know, I wonder who will really turn out to be the "wiser" -
meaning, an entity that has experienced living as a "fractured or
discordant being" can often provide insight, understanding, and compassion
that may not be found in those who do not know such suffering.  In the
human arena, I find more comfort and guidance from those who have known the
pain I have felt from making wrong choices.  One of the reasons many people
are drawn to individuals like Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi and others is because
these individuals worked through suffering - they were/are not distant,
impersonal, perfect 'holy people on top of a mountain.'

And I wonder if this means I shall be forever bound up with the "laggards"
as they will be the only ones in which I will be able to feel true kinship.
. ..

>Further, as the quote implies, the evolution of the higher and lower
>components of being got more out of step as the delay increased. With
>children, having unruly or "impure" personal vehicles as a result of
>environment or unwise parenthood only makes the job of the incoming
>spiritual being harder. Again, not vindictive, just a consequence.

I agree, but this is, to me, another example of how one's free will is
usurped by another's free will.  Why, if there is such a thing as free
will, would it be denied to "the incoming spiritual beings?"  In the SD
example, "God" appears to be making the choices of some beings have more
grave consequences, with this, in turn, making other choices even harder.
Example:  a fractured being incarnates with the resulting difficulties,
he/she has children (also fractured beings), but the children are born into
more difficult circumstances than the parent had.  This seems unfair.  The
"punishment" of karma is more severe for some than others all due to the
original creation of karma (which was created by "God").  Unless ALL beings
are incarnated at exactly the same time under the same circumstances and
thereby being free to create their own karma - it isn't fair.  The passage
of time should not matter in this case unless each and every entity KNEW
what different delays meant - and if they all did, and this is what they
chose, then "God" created some rather masochistic, or very fearful, beings.
. .and this I cannot believe.

>I love your writing, by the way; both you (Kym) and Dallas, in your very
>different ways.

Oh, now - quit egging Dallas on.  :-)

>PS: Isn't it intriguing how different streams of consciousness and history,
>at different levels, are portrayed as making up the human being?

Intriguing indeed!  But it also can muck it up alot when trying to figure
out what the hooty it all means. . ..

Kym