Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00128)

Dallas wrote:

>DTB	What is the QUALITY of tenderness ?   Is "Reasoning"
>different from the "feeling" of tenderness and love ?  Does it in
>any way detract from "tenderness ?"  Or does it seek to explain
>it?

I believe that reasoning is different from tenderness and love.  Each can
exist without the other.  And I do believe that, at times, reasoning can
detract from tenderness.  For a being to have to engage, every time, into
the reasons and logic behind why they feel tenderness toward someone or
something risks turning the experience of tenderness into an analytical
exercise rather than an experience of simple joy.  There are times that
call for such self-examination, but to require a 'reason' behind every
feeling of sentimentality or tenderness is, to me, a taking away of what it
means to be "in the moment" of happiness.

>DTB	Agreed -- but then, What is it that causes such divergence ?

Any number of things can cause a "divergence" of emotion or logic into a
harmful manifestation:  a misunderstanding of the situation, a
misunderstanding of one's own or another's motives, another emotion or
reason coming into play that distorts the original picture or motive, or
simply using logic when emotion was called for or using emotion when logic
was called for.  Anything and everything we do can "diverge" because we are
not the only ones usually involved in the situation - we cannot account for
nor predict the reactions and responses of other beings.

>"Superiority" implies (to me) that one can substitute for and
>understand the other (with or without sympathy).  How is it
>possible to take either or both of those positions?  What does
>the "Mind" do in order to take either of those two views?

My apologies, Dallas, but until I can attempt to address these questions, I
would like to understand what you mean by "one can substitute for. .."
What do you mean in using the term substitute and who or what is being
substituted?

>DTB	 Relentlessly, I ask myself " What is Human?"  What is that
>mix?  Do you have THE SECRET DOCTRINE?  I would refer you to
>pages Vol. 2, 79-80, 167 and we might then discuss what is
>written there as a starting point.  It is quite technical but
>also very interesting.

For me, it is the story of the Demiurge; the creator of the current global
forms (human, animal, planets, trees, flowers).  But the Demiurge was
unable to infuse the material forms with "Manas" - thus, we were given the
spark of the Most Divine, each of us a living god in this physical shell.
The passages also suggest that suffering is NECESSARY in order to reach
Nirvana - I wonder if such a thing is true.  Anyway, the crux of the
passages, to me, is that we were created, as all things, and that we have
the potential of all things.  The potential to become creators of worlds of
our own, both here and other "places."  We can thank the Demiurge for
desiring to create our forms, but as any child must to honor a "parent", we
should become our own individuals and create our own "families" and
"worlds."  The pages you cited discuss our ancestry, but also tells us our
"future."  The human (and other beings, I personally believe) are
transitory forms which already possess everything necessary to attain
"Nirvana," but when and how we do so is up to us.

>DTB	But don't you see, your analogy speaks mainly of the feelings
>one experiences in reaction to events.  It does not speak of the
>"reason" why they happened.  I am interested in "the reason why."

The reason, in my opinion, is that we are not satisfied unless we explore.
Experiencing things helps us learn - lead by our desire to create ourselves
and  our world.  We are part of a cycle, and being in Motion we are
prompted to examine and involve ourselves in both physical, emotional, and
spiritual experiences.  In a word, it is our NATURE.

>This can start with a
>challenge to one's accepted concepts -- the blow or startling
>effect, is to find that someone else has a different concept.
>"If so, Why ?"

Are you asking why it is startling?  If that is your inquiry, I can only
answer that the shifting and adjusting of one's paradigms are usually
startling, for that involves the movement of one's foundation.  It is a
natural reaction to be startled at newness - and we can choose to accept or
refuse a new idea or concept.  But for someone NOT to experience discomfort
or some kind of reaction to a new idea is someone that has not been
involved in putting together a puzzle of "self and the world."  To casually
accept anything that comes one's way is, to me, a lack of just plain
passion and seriousness.  This conclusion of mine, though, is not one I am
more than convinced as being correct - there may be very passionate people
who do not experience any reaction to new ideas, but, still, I doubt it.

>DTB	I RATHER WANTED TO CONVEY THE IDEA THAT THE DESIRE BORROWED
>THE MIND FACULTIES AND MADE USE OF THEM.  (sorry - not shouting,
>just pressed the Caps key in error)

Ok.  But I do not believe that desire "borrows" from the mind faculties for
memory and anticipation.  I believe that everything is a "package" - mind
itself cannot do without desire nor desire without mind.  I know that
desire is used in a different context in Theosophy, but I think Theosophy
errs in doing so.  There is nothing base in desiring something - it is part
of creativity.  One cannot even reason without a desire to do so.  Even the
Most Divine had a desire to create, and further, to infuse the creations of
other gods with the spark that these creations would not have had without
intervention.  Apparently, the Most Divine desires an equality - a shared
mutuality with all.  Without the "drive" of desire, nothing would exist.

>What is the value of a life preserved?  How is that to be
>estimated?  who estimates?  Is this a reasoned concept of one
>that has been adopted because "everybody assumes it to be true ?"
>Is there any way we can determine the value of such a question or
>shall it be laughed out of court?

That's a weighty question - personally, politically, socially, spiritually.
 I do not believe that life should be preserved for the "sake of life."
Since I am an advocate of the right for a woman to choose whether or not to
terminate or carry a pregnancy, I have to admit that some lives take
precedence over other lives.  I do believe a person has a right to end
their own life if they so choose, although I feel sad when it is a young
person for I feel it is an act of desperation rather than careful thought.
On the other hand, I do not believe in the death penalty, unless the
convicted person wants to die.  In short, at this time, there really is no
consistent and fool-proof method on how to judge life and its quality.  If
every being were to disappear off the face of the earth, Life itself would
still go on - so Life is not threatened by our death.  It may be that our
own "growth" may be temporarily stunted, but ultimately, even our "growth"
speed and manner is up to us.

Remember the classic boat problem?  It asks what you would do if you were
in a life boat and unless you tossed a few people overboard, the entire
boat would sink, killing all.  How would you choose?  What criteria would
you use?  You are not allowed to throw yourself out, for you are the only
one who can navigate and control the boat - but you must choose who will
live and who will die.

There is also the question of why have ANYTHING at all?  Why even have
humanity?  Is the existence of humanity so important that all the
suffering, joys, mistakes, lessons learned, etc., are worth it in the end?
I wonder.

>Is the idea of reincarnation
>incorrect?

Not to me - reincarnation seems necessary and, dare I say it?, logical.

>Is there no permanency to man's existence and the
>goals that she/he selects?  If death ends all, then why set any?

No, there is not permanency to our existence, for there will come a time, I
believe, in which the human form will be obsolete.  But death does not end
anything except the existence of a particular form.  Since I believe that
the number of forms possible are innumerable, there will always be another
form in which a "soul" can enter in order to further its education.

>How are pain, illness and accidents to be explained?  To say
>"they happen"  -- is that enough of an explanation?

To say "they happen" is not enough, and can even be callous - but that
doesn't mean it is not true.  But, having said that, I do not believe that
pain, illness, and accidents "just happen."  The reasons are so complex
that I don't believe anyone can really, genuinely, "trace back" a cause for
an event - it could result from a lifetime of long ago.  Who knows.  But
illness, pain, and accidents can serve as teaching mechanisms - we can
learn patience, compassion, and a reverence for life from them - but, I
still wonder if such "evil" is really necessary.  I think it is possible
that we can learn compassion, love, and such from other classrooms.  But
most philosophies, including Theosophy, tend to disagree and I haven't yet
formed a argument solid enough to support my belief.  It's just a nagging
"feeling" I have. . ..

>Why is it
>that the protective instinct is so strong?

Because something has to sustain a form until the form learns enough to
choose whether or not to sustain itself.  There may be no need for the
form's existence, but only time will tell, and if the form doesn't have
something built in to 'keep it going' in order to find out if the form is
necessary, the "gods" will never know.  The experiment must have some time
in existence to observe what "purpose" it can serve.

>DTB	Again I agree, but besides stating these facts, How do we go
>about explaining them?
>This is why I said that the mind can act in a superior manner.
>It accepts the emotion, but then acts using the Why and How (if
>it gives itself the time to do this) and if it does, then it
>seeks for the causative side of the event, or the proposed
>reaction, does it not?

Not necessarily, for in order to "learn" something, we do not necessarily
need to learn the "why."  But as a philosophy major, I too share your wish
to learn the reasons "why."  But I have found that sometimes learning the
"why" doesn't always aid in understanding or wisdom.  Sometimes, the "why"
can get in the way - what if we don't like the "why?"  For example, what if
the "why" turned out to be a vengeful god that just liked playing games -
how would that help us to learn compassion?  Instead, we may become bitter
and resentful - loathe our parenthood and ourselves, believe we are from a
"bad seed."  I do not believe, of course, that this is the case, but I
offer this imaginary "why" as an attempt to show that knowing the "reason"
behind something may or may not be conducive to Compassion.  A further
question might be: are we READY for the ANSWER to our seeking of the "why?"

>Political victory -- yes.  But at the cost of many of my intimate
>friends and their families lives and health and pain and
>suffering and even in some cases life itself -- it was quite a
>lesson -- I was in school and college in Bombay at that time.
>The phenomena of self-sacrifice was wide-spread and spontaneous
>all over India.  It was not only non-violence, but it was
>non-cooperative also.

I do believe that there are those out there who truly manifest altruism.  I
believe in altruism and I believe it exists.  However, I postulate that
most people on the planet still perform what seems "altruistic" acts due to
other motives besides pure altruism.  This does not, in any way, "cheapen"
their good actions, but I think that many look upon good acts with the
additional thought of how it can help their own self.  Churches give out
food to the poor, but require the receivers to listen to sermons.  The
giving out of food is admirable, but it also has the motive of bringing in
members.  A person may arrange a community project to paint or fix up the
houses of the elderly in their neighborhood, but they may also have as part
of the motive the concept of heightening property values.  Again, I do not
believe that the "questionable motives" lessen the greatness of the helping
actions, just that the pure concept of altruism is not the underlying
factor.  Did Ghandi act out of pure altruism, or did he, down deep, hope
that such an act would further his OWN spiritual and historical growth?  I
believe that those who were never recorded in the history books, such as
your friends who died in the cause, may have been acting out of a purer
altruism than Ghandi may have been.  He knew he was a leader, he knew his
acts would be remembered - your friends did not have that guarantee.  But,
again, I could be blowing smoke here.

>DTB	But there was also (possibly) some feelings of compassion for
>a people that were made the victims of insane oppression on
>religious feuding grounds.

I agree, that's why I stated that I believed that NATO did encompass
altruism in stopping the Serbian army.

>What about tolerance?  Live and let
>live?  Does another person alive represent, reasonably, a threat
>and an object to be obliterated out of fear or one's parents
>simmering anger brought forward?  What is nature's law in such a
>case ?

The Serbs chose to NOT "live and let live" and suffered the consequences of
their actions.  It is the nature of humans to fight back in some way when
threatened.  If one wants to call it "nature's law" than so be it, but one
cannot act aggressively towards another and not at least expect that there
may be some reaction.  The Serbs chose to take the gamble and eventually
lost.  Unfortunately, the Kosovars and Bosnians lost even more during the
"game" between Serbia and the rest of the world.  The rest of the world was
in danger of losing their "souls" - but rose up just in the nick of time.
But still, we suffered some spiritual damage due to our hesistation.

>Under Tito (although that was a repressive and regimented
>rule - a virtual dictatorship) was there such a genocide?  I
>speak of this not to argue, but only to present another side of
>the "coin."

It does seem that a dictatorship can, for a while, reduce violence.  The
tensions were squashed temporarily - some lost their lives, suffered
torture, and other horrendous things under Tito, but the widespread
devastation we just witnessed probably would not have happened under Tito.
However, it is impossible for humans to exist in that kind of state of
being - expression, creativity, different religious beliefs, etc., all make
it impossible for a dictorship to ever work in the long run.  A benevolent
dictator would probably last the longest, but eventually, that too would
falter.

>>Next I consider:  What is dominant in Man and Woman ?  What
>makes
>>them unique -- is it not the power to think, to reason, to
>>anticipate, to remember and to IMAGINE ?  "WHAT IF.....? "

No, Dallas, because if that is what makes one human, are those who are
autistic or mentally impaired non-human?  An autistic child does not have
the power to reason, nor does a "normal, healthy" infant have the power to
imagine "what if."  It cannot be those faculties you state that make us
unique and human, for it says that neither infants or the mentally impaired
are human.

>But I would also ask if one creates, then does one's
>ensuing responsibility cease?

Of course not - hence, the Demiurge shares some responsibility for the
suffering and pain each sentient being endures.

>I would offer that as an example of the
>after-effects of a creative act -- consequences always follow
>choice and action, don't they?  Are we willing to assume the job
>of continued care?

Yes to the first question - No, to the second.  After a person reaches an
"age" - which can differ according to the person - we are required to let
go.  We cannot continue to care for a person in some particular ways or we
will hinder their growth.  For example, a parent who pays the damages of a
destructive act of their 30 year old son or daughter is NOT caring for them
- they are ensuring that they remain dependent, irresponsible, and immature.

Dallas, not to be rude, but I will address the rest of your post in the
next couple of days - my post is getting too long!  But I will get to it -
if you still want me to, that is, after reading this one.

Kym