[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999

Oct 04, 1999 01:39 AM
by kymsmith

Grigor wrote:

>> [Kym] The very quote itself endorses a dissatisfaction, a violence,
within the
>>  marriage relationship.  It implicitly suggests that to be married is to
>>  expect suffering and physical/mental abuse.

>No, it only presupposes that all humans are violence prone, anger prone,
>greed prone, or assholes in their undeveloped state.

The quotation is speaking about marriage as an avenue of growth.  I see
nothing in it that suggests that all humans are innately violence prone,
anger prone, or whatever.  If you see it as assuming such things about
humankind, then so be it.  I do not see humans in that way, either
"developed" or "undeveloped."  I have seen anger in the writings of the
Mahatmas and HPB, so, if one consideres them "developed" then your
observation may be incorrect.  If people do not see the Mahatmas or HPB as
"developed," then your interpretation of what the Caucasus meant may be

>the entire import of the quote is that one does not grow up until one does
>not have the freedom to sow wild oats or skip out or otherwise be
>non-commital to people and situations in ones life that come with choices
>made but which you did not yourself choose with those choices.

Again, many people learn the most just when they DO have the freedom to
"sow wild oats."  Keeping people in a box, surrounded by rules, is not
conducive to some people's growth - it simply makes them dependent and
unthinking.  For many, the "Dark Night of the Soul" does not come until one
has exhausted and learned from sowing wild oats.  After the night, morning.
 Marriage may help some, but many people have the happiest marriages when
choosing to marry AFTER they have sown their oats.

>The issue is what do you do with those hard knocks, shocks, fights,
>arguments, sad times, deaths, illnesses, grief, and all the accompanying
>pains that come with any life with anyone.

No one that I know of, including myself, disagrees with that summation.
Nor have my posts been declaring any disagreement with that summation.

>To act out beating wife is to flunk (to
>see that disposition, be shocked by it, to be changed by it, to be
>transformed by it into one who will never do such thing and who eventually
>dissolves that inner temptation/disposition is step to a higher state of

Fine, for those husbands who do learn from it, but Grigor, but what about
the wife?  Is this all about the husband?

>If we
>don't see the negativity, we can't learn how to change it, prevent it, and
>eventually not be it.

Then you believe that "evil" is necessary?  One cannot see good or
understand good without "evil" or "bad happenings?"

>Ms. Smith

I appreciate the formality, but you can refer to me as "Kym."

>seems to have mistaken view that we practice perfection in
>isolation from others or that violence, greed, anger, or lust (others as
>object whether sexual or social or political raw material for my ego project
>of self-glorification) are somehow exceptional in this world or something
>only "they" (not me, for heaven's sake!) are infected with as the bad karmic
>threads that make up that fabric of our ordinary psyche.

No, I don't hold those views.  My whole point was that any committment we
enter into should take into account the others that we may encounter in
taking on that committment.  Again, I repeat - (as a simple example) if one
is entering marriage as an attempt to learn patience, then one needs to
think about what that learning process will do (hurt or help) those who
will end up be involved.  Marriage and family, in my opinion, should be
reserved for those who have learned much already.  Too many people can be
deeply injured (mentally, physically, emotionally) in the family unit if
the parental figure is immature and still self-centered.  I believe one
should learn to be patient and unselfish in another arena.

>My family suffered
>through three genocides, war, near starvation, forced re-locations, and
so, I
>am well acquainted with the underbelly of this world.

My heart goes out to you.  No one should have to endure what you and your
family have suffered.

>But instead of playing
>the whining game of I'm more a victim than you or demonizing the one's who
>victimized us

I do not agree that those who are in pain are "whining."  Grief is grief
and it exposes itself in different ways.  There is nothing wrong, in my
opinion, for a person or group of people to express anguish.  Society and
individuals may not like the manner in which it is displayed; nevertheless,
we should never silence nor shame those who are hurting. We can learn much
from them.  Many societal changes have come from individuals and groups
repeatedly "whining" over past or current persecutions.

And, sometimes, Grigor, just sometimes, it is the "other person's fault."
For example, I see no fault on the side of the Jews (men, women, and
children) in the case of the Holocaust.  And since I cannot possibly know
the karma of the Jews, I refrain from blaming it on that.

>(such games whither the soul and waste time and keep the cycle
>of samsara going), I sought how to transcend it inwardly, and the first very
>unpleasant step is in seeing how one is inwardly the same as this world of
>mutual destruction, and that true change is first change of oneself.

Not ALL people are at the stage of development you claim to be at, so we
can not expect them to react the same way.  Although Gnosis is always
preferable, not everyone is ready.  Pushing people too quickly into
self-knowledge can be detrimental - their season may not yet have come.  We
can certainly try and should coax people to look inwardly, but not deem
them "whiners" if they are not yet ready.

>We are
>all the strangely anonymous "they did it" who is responsible for the evil in
>this world.  "They" is the evasion of "we" and specially "me."

Being protective of oneself is part of being in human form - you are right,
we need to move beyond "we" to "oneness."  Again, though, for some, baby
steps is all they can handle right now.

>Contrary to what Ms Smith seems to believe, to become better parent,
>or person in relation to others, I can't go off and be hermit practicing my
>people skills anymore than I can become a concert pianoist by staying away
>from pianos until I am expert pianoist.

I have not advocated becoming a "hermit," I am only advocating that we need
to think of others at the same time we think of ourselves.  Growth is a
"universal" process; we cannot do without others.  One of my favorite
sayings is: it is "easy to be a holy man [woman] on top of a mountain."
Obviously, I do not believe isolation is the key to spiritual unfoldment.

>Youth and immaturity, whether natural
>or artificially prolonged, is
>the time of envisioned forevers, envisioned possibilities, no past, no
>mistakes, no disappearance of options, no rootedness, no being stuck with
>one's past choices, no grist for one's moral mill of self-knowledge, and no

There is nothing wrong with "envisioned possibilities," "envisioned
forevers," "no disappearance of options," etc.  That is called HOPE, Grigor.

And not only those who are young have problems with "no conscience" - I
have come across all ages of humans who lack conscience.  It's not a matter
of youth - it's a matter of "wisdom."  Jesus, Buddha, and others, were, by
most standards, quite young.

And, just for tidbits sake, Jesus never married; Buddha, by today's legal
terms, abandoned his marital committments; and HPB married, but then would
not have intercourse with her husband(s).  Obviously, none of them should
have married in the first place, but that lack of marriage would not have
hindered their spiritual growth.

And, just in case some are wondering, I am very happily married; I am not a
"single woman with a chip on her shoulder" or whatever other cool
conclusion some may have come to regarding my purpose for targeting the
"marriage" quote.

And I am experiencing mild queasiness for thinking I had to "justify"
myself - but it is easy to dismiss someone as merely "angry" or "needing
counseling" simply because his/her perceptions and conclusions differ.

Then again, WHAT THE HELL AM I SAYING?  I have told innumerable people in
the last few years on theos-l that they needed to see a doctor!  Whoooo!
Ok, just ignore the above paragraph.  I want to hold onto the option of
declaring people crazy or "bedlamites."  Without that, there would be no
reason to live.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application