Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tl00168)

>>[Grigor:]The historical problem
we are still dealing with is the development of the capacity for a
hierarchical society due to the agricultural revolution.  The Lakota
Sioux say they watched the rise of Toltec and Aztec culture from
agricultural surpluses, saw the evil, and opted out of it.  There was
a transition from relatively small egalitarian family groups/tribes to
a hierarchical social pyramid with a slave bottom and exploitive
top.>>

Every true thing in this world is double-edged. According to G. de Purucker,
the doctrine of hierarchies is one of the seven great
Teachings within the Theosophical camp. Everything in the manifested
worlds (samsara) is expressed in some hierarchical form. But, as you
point out, there is a danger to having society form hierarchies,
and prejudices can run rampant.

Jerry S.

Grigior's recent post: karma/morality to Bart/was Some Responses is
one of the best I have read on this net about karma (thats because
he echoes many of my own thoughts).  Thanks, Grigor.

Jerry S.

>> Prof. David Chalmers, considered to be one of the top philosophers
>>  in the world
>
>Except he is a physicalist.  Consciousness, ultimately, is a
>by-product of matter.  He is a unique kind of what is called
>"token-identity functionalist physicalist" but he is still
>physicalist.

Agreed. So was Carl Sagan, and many other good scientists.
There is, in fact, no way at all to "prove" whether the
mind expresses itself in the brain, or whether the brain
expresses itself in the mind. It is a question of faith
based on experience and intuition. However, the fallout
(world view)from each viewpoint is decidedly different.
There is a host of modern scientific evidence to suggest
that the cause-effect relationship between mind and body
is a two-way street and not a one-way street at all. In
light of Theosophy, this has to be true, in order for our
reincarnation experiences to effect our spiritual being
while at the same time being its outward expression.

Jerry S.

[Grigor:]>>Even Nietzsche taught same.  Ordinary man is a
tension, a half yes, and a half no, and thus, not really
anything at all.>>

This was also taught by Jung. It is a Gnostic idea and I
suspect that it has a great deal of truth. Jung called most
people members of a "herd" or the collective consciousness
(not same as collective unconscious). He talked a lot about
the herd instinct and how we need to transcend it. He
taught that evolution was all about the development and
focus of consciousness rising up like a wave from the
sea-like collective unconscious. What is life but the
tension between polar opposites?

Jerry S.

>>[Grigor:]But free will is not being free of Dharma.  The dharma
(moral feedback) is there whether people see it or not.  The
freewill of it is the seeing or not seeing it.>>

I am not so sure that dharma (duty) should have moral connotations.
Our only real "duty" is to express ourself. As we grow
spiritually, we tend to express more spirituality as a natural
fallout rather like a flower blooming. But I can't find any
morality in the flower, only in human minds.

>>.  Karma is the consequences of our own
actions acting back upon us.>>

But if we have been living throughout eons of history
then causal relationships between our actions blur and
become meaningless. I can, in fact, reasonably expect
anything at all to happen owing to the fact that at
some point in my past eons I will have some outstanding
action that can generate an effect today. The idea
of balancing all my past evil actions by doing good
in this life is ludicrous. It will never happen. This
is why I dislike the exoteric definitions of karma
and reincarnation - because they suggest an endless
wheel of suffering which totally disregards the
Buddha's Nobel Truths.  While these truths do not
suggest an end to reincarnation as such, they do
suggest an end to suffering. The idea of an end to
suffering is logically opposed to the idea of
karmic consequences (which is, as I have maintained
many times, the old Moses' Eye-for-an-Eye doctrine
in modern Theosophical clothing). People today
have grown past Moses and have largely embraced
the "saving grace" of Jesus, which also suggests
that karma and karmic consequences can cease now
in this life. Christianity offers Heaven. Buddhism offers
joyous Buddhalands. Modern Theosophy offers no such
hope to anyone, and thus is rejected. Karmayoga, while
being a very nice thing to do, is an illusion and
won't get us where we want to go (i.e., to an end
of suffering). In other words, karmayoga should be
practiced as a spontaneous expression of our inner
spirituality, and not as a technique to get us a
better future life.

Jerry S.

<<[Grigor:]Buddhism says many lives, in and of itself,
is of no help. Theosophy does.  On this score, I claim
theosophy is wrong.>>

I totally agree with you.

Jerry S.

>>[Alan:] So, yes, the finger of the wise points
towards compassion, but the majority of humans still go
in other directions.>>

Agreed. Blavatsky, somewhere, says that humanity is
evolutionally equivalent to a teenager. I think that
this speaks volumes for today's society.

Jerry S.