Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tl00066)

Dear Kym,

On you wrote:

> I hestitate to say this, as it smacks of arrogance, but Sufi-philosophy is
> a bit more - dare I say it - "sophisticated" than the philosophy of the
> Islamists.  Muhammed did, in the Koran, speak of the equality of male and
> female, but demanded that his own wives remain segregated from full social
> interaction.  He didn't want other men lusting after "his" wives. . .an
> immediate problem arises when a man thinks of another woman as "his."  The
> Koran also states that it is acceptable to kill Christians and Jews. .
> .another idea ripe with permission for those who claim to 'kill for God.'

Sounds like you know more about it than I.

> You may be right.  But it would seem to me that, logically, a woman who is
> UNVIELED is more clearly seen as a woman than as a man.  A man could, by
> this reasoning, cover himself and pretend to be a male to escape beatings!
> It is easier to determine a male from a female if they are UNCOVERED rather
> than covered.  There are physical differences between male and female that
> make such determinations possible without the need for veils (well, duh,
> Kym).  This excuse may be used as a reason to keep women covered, but it
> doesn't pass the smell test.

Even in the dark of an ally?

> >Is it pushy to recognize differences between people?
>
> Well, in a way, yes.  Recognizing 'differences' between people serves as a
> means to pass judgment.  Humans 'label' people as stupid, sentimental,
> immature, smart, wise, good and bad.  If humans were to look at people as
> being no more or no less than each other, humanity may find itself more
> compassionate and forgiving.  You mentioned differences in 'intelligence' -
> I agree that there are different intelligences, but we consider some
> intelligence more important than others when that may not be the case.  For
> example, a person who is illiterate may not be able to work in any other
> place except McDonalds, but he/she may excell in intelligence regarding the
> raising of children or raising a garden to feed his/her family and
> neighbors.  I don't think humanity realizes the IMPORTANCE of having those
> who have "different intelligences."  Different intelligences are what
> maintains balance.  The smartest person in the world may be colder than
> ice.
True, but judging people for being different is a very
different mental exercise from just recognising the fact. I
have experienced in my life very often the expectation of
people that of course we are all the same, with the same
motives and idea's and morals as suffocating.

> The doctrine of
> difference, to me, is the cause of more 'hatred' and fear than any other
> doctrine I can think of.

It is all about what people do with idea's. That is not the
same as the question wether an idea is true or not.

> Who can judge who is a Mahatma or a "regular" person?  What distinguishes
> the two?  Even Jesus went ballistic in the temple. . ..  How do I know if
> you are really a "normal" person named Katinka, or a Mahatma writing and
> utilizing cyberspace to further Love and Compassion?  Maybe I should just
> quit worrying about the differences - and treat you, and all, like they may
> just be Mahatmas incognito?

good idea, it is like the old saying (I forget the source:
hpb, Krishna?) Try to see the divine in everybody.

> I agree, it is better to act decently no matter what - and, perhaps, acting
> decently for "the good itself" can be considered an ulterior motive.  Maybe
> acting WITHOUT an ulterior motive is to act for NOTHING at all and that may
> not be humanly possible.  You've brought up a good point.
Krishnamurti seems to think that that is possible, but I am
certainly not capable of it (yet?).

> Thank you.  My ego enjoyed the compliment which proves I
still have an ego
> and I thought we were supposed to get rid of our egos and now you've just
> proven to me I still have one and I have one in abundance.  Hmmmm. . ..
Reminds me of a sufi story, but I do not remember it well
enough to e-mail it to you. But in the same book (essential
sufism) there was the comment that we have our lower selves
(ego's) to prevent us from becoming arogant. That is of
course a paradox because the arogance can only come into
being in a personality.

Katinka

----------------------
NHL Leeuwarden
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl