Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tl00023)

Dear Kym,

you wrote:

> I have to disagree here.  There are some people, including
myself, who find the philosophy of Humanism attractive -
Humanism generally states that there are no afterlife
rewards or punishments, that what we have now is all we
have to work with.  I do lean toward the belief in
something beyond this earthly plane and in such notions as
reincarnation - but it is not that leaning that keeps me
wanting to help more than harm (or I don't think it does,
but who knows what one REALLY believes).  Humanists find
purpose and meaning in simply valuing their existence and
life itself - Humanists believe that the "reward" of life
is making the lives of themselves and others a good life -
especially since this may be the ONLY one we may ever know.
Why live it cruelly, with struggle and pain?  Compassion,
love, and forgiveness REWARD us in THIS LIFE - and that
belief, in itself, makes the life of destruction unwanted.
Humanists want peace NOW because NOW is what we are living
- everything beyond that remains elusive and unsure.  It is
not God nor afterlife rewards/punishments that should
matter. . .because...what if they DO NOT exist? >

Humanism seems so cold to me, at least what I know of it,
which isn't much. I think that the whole foundation falls
out under humanism once a higher something is recognised.
For me, it feels like there are things/states/energys
higher than myself and my life would be pretty empty
without them. I know that emotionalism this is not what one
should use to decide truth or false, but still.. Truth,
goodness etc. do reward itself in this life, that is part
of what makes me believe in karma. Sometimes the reward does
not come directly, because some people cannot be kind in
return. But indirectly it always works, in my experience.
Kindness helps for inner growth and inner strength and from
it grows forgiveness, which makes life a lot easier in
itself.

> As a woman, I deeply dislike the Islamist philsophy -

What I know of Sufi-philosophy (Islam-mysticism) makes me
doubt that the way women are often treated in Islamic
countrys has anything to do with Islamic-philosophy as
Mohammed meant it. Did you know that the veils were
originally meant as a protection for the women so they
would not be mistaken for men, and beaten up for that
reason? That is what I've heard.

> Theosophy is "pushy" in that it insists upon the
"rewards" and "punishment"
> method.  Theosophy is "pushy" in insisting that reason and logic are
> superior to gushing over a bouquet of flowers.  Thesophy is "pushy" in that
> it insists on such things as "laggards."  Theosophy academically postulates
> a division between superior and inferior beings - the "enlightened" vs. the
> "masses."  This is, to me, quite "pushy."

Is it pushy to recognize differences between people? I
would consider that more an observation of a fact. True,
Theosophy suggests quite strongly that the differences we
observe among *normal* people is still small in comparison
to the difference between us and the Mahatma's. But there
are differences in intelligence and there are people who
base their action on stupid thoughts and sentiments and
there are people who are better at seeing how to act and
react. Most of us are also very good at making mistakes,
but the kinds of mistakes we make differ considerably. And
then the kind of thing we consider a mistake also varies
considerably.

To some it is perfectly normal to feel, think and talk
negatively about a whole group of people. To others that
feels imoral, but they may still be unable to stop it. To
some people it is still imoral, but they are able NOT to
feel/think that way.

I feel that that is the kind of distinction theosophy
makes. I hope I have explained myself clearly.

> Karma is punitive in demanding that all beings must pay
for mistakes done
> out of ignorance, rather than maliciousness.  There is a difference between
> the two actions, but Karma, in its impersonal style, pays no mind.  It is
> not right nor fair and serves to instill fear.

Karma, in my understanding, does make the distinction you
talk about. Mistakes made out of ignorance are far less
*punished* than those made out of maliciousness. That is at
least the conclusion I've come to.

> >Theosophy endeavors to present concepts regarding the unity of
> >all life - so that a harmony rather than a complete discord is
> >perceived.
>
> Well, so does Humanism - but most people find it offensive.  "God" seems a
> necessary component, even for Theosophy, in order to get most people to do
> what it is "God" appears to want them to do.  But, I blab again, if one
> needs a God or a reward in order to do good, then they may not really WANT
> to do good - ulterior motives, not good itself, is the controller.

It is of course better if we do things for the good itself.
That is also a theosophical thought, and Blavatsky stresses
it enormously in *The Voice of the Silence*. But isn't it
better to act decently on ulterior motives than not to act
decently at all? I mean, interior motives are great, but
what if those motives aren't so good? Is that reason to just
run amock and misuse one another and kill one another? I
know that that is a bit extreme, but it is exactly that that
is happening all over the world.

I think you ask all the right questions, a it is a joy to
read your e-mails.
answers are so boring, I hope I haven't bored you.
Katinka
----------------------
NHL Leeuwarden
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl