Hi,

In 'At the Feet of the Master' it is said that we should not interfere in other people's affair, what they do or say is their business. At the same time students of Theosophy are told to defend and help those in suffering.

So how should we react to the issue of Tibet? Should we just shrug it off or should we take a stand at least to lend moral support say signing online petition?

No politics please, I'm simply asking how students of Theosophy should react.

Thanks

Yes,

You have brought up an important dilemma. If a husband and wife are quarreling, do we have the right to interfere? We face dilemmas like this everyday. Facing such dilemmas is a part of life, and I think Theosophy has some ideas on how to do that.

Everyone has the right to choose their own path in life. When we facilitate that process, we are doing a good thing. When we interfere with that process, we are doing a bad thing.

Actually, there are three issues here. Let's take a look at all three.

(1) We should help a person make progress along the path in life that they have chosen.

Let's use the example of a Christian who decides to become a Buddhist. If that is what they really want to do, then any assistance we give them is a good thing.

(2) We should not interefere with a person who is making progress along the path in life that they have chosen.

Let's use the example of a Buddhist who decides to become a Christian. Other Buddhists have no right to interefere with that person's choice or future religious activity.

"...we should not interfere in other people's affair, what they do or say is their business."

--> Correct. In my example, we are interefering, not facilitating their progress along their chosen path.

(3) We have a duty to help protect people who are being forced to leave the the path in life that they have chosen.

For example, I recently heard of Christians somewhere in Asia who burned down a Buddhist's house because the Buddhist refused to convert to Christiantiy. (Yes, this type of thing is still happening today.) In this situation, it is a Theosophist's duty to step in and help protect the Buddhist.

---

The three situations are quite different. Can you see the difference?

---

Lest I be accused of being anti-Christian, I would like to share one story. We have heard of christian prostelyters who cause trouble. As a matter of fact, the worst experience I ever had with a prostelyter was with a Buddhist prostelyter, not a Christian prostelyter!

"So how should we react to the issue of Tibet? Should we just shrug it off or should we take a stand at least to lend moral support say signing online petition?"

--> I think signing online petitions are a good thing. By the way, I started boycotting Coka-cola products three days ago.

Devil's advocate?

Good points, Nick.

Two people having an argument is one thing. That's their issue.

On the other hand, we have the right to step in if one party is being hurt. However, whether or not one has a moral responsibility to step into such a situation is a different, separate consideration, and is completely up to the individual.

Angus,

You said,

"...we have the right to step in if one party is being hurt."

--> I agree. There was a legal case in America of a Japanese woman who tried to commit suicide with her children. (She held them in her arms and walked out into the ocean.) Her children died, she survived, and she was accused of murder. Her defense was that such a thing is allowed in Japan by Japanese custom. (Apparently, that is how things are in Japan.)

She was convicted of murder in an American court. Theosophy agrees it was murder, and we should have stepped in to stop her, had we been there. The Ancient Wisdom knows no exceptions based on culture.

Jon,

You said,

"Devil's advocate?"

--> How would you play Devil's advocate in this situation?

My point was, if it is right to encourage and assist a Christian deciding to become a Buddhist, isn't it just as right to encourage and assist a Buddhist deciding to become a Christian? (active), rather than "We should not interefere with a person who is making progress along the path in life that they have chosen". (passive)?

There are three main areas we have full control over; our own actions, words & attitudes or thoughts.

Theosophy teaches, to my mind, always to have an attitude of sympathy for all forms of suffering beings undergo. That is the minimum foundation.

Which areas of suffering we may address with our words and/or actions, in addition to our sympathy, is not in any theosophical rule book.

Just keep in mind that even the Lodge of Masters can only change some of the minor karmic currents in world events. They cannot wipe out karma's fruition for most planetary or national problems.

So, we can always do more, if we wish, but do not be attached to results. They may not be very large results or even what we hoped for.

Jon,

Thank you for pointing out something that did not occur to me. Let me rephrase what I said.

I think it matters whether the person doing the encouraging turns out to be of the same religion the seeker ends up being interested in. This seems obvious now, but I did not think of it before. Let me explain.

Let's say the person doing the encouraging is a Christian. If the seeker happens to end up interested in being a Christian, it would only be natural for the Christian encourager to help the seeker pursue Christianity deeper. On the other hand, if the seeker ends up with an interest in Buddhism, the Christian encourager should then hand him or her off to a Buddhist for more information.

The same is true of a Buddhist encourager. Once the seeker shows an interest in something non-Buddhist, it would be only natural to hand him or her off to someone else.

There is also a danger of propogandizing rather than educating. There is always a danger an encourager will consciously (or unconsciously) guide a seeker to the encourager's own religion. This is something I always go out of my way to avoid, whenever I explain Buddhism to someone. By the way, it has been my experience that most seekers suffer from encouragers who try to get the seeker to join the encourager's religion. More than once, I have been thanked for not steering a person towards any one religion, but merely explaining basic concepts, while giving the seeker full freedom to go in any direction they wish. I have no axe to grind, no agenda to follow, so this makes things easy for me. (I have found that many religious encouragers have an agenda.)

"My point was, if it is right to encourage and assist a Christian deciding to become a Buddhist, isn't it just as right to encourage and assist a Buddhist deciding to become a Christian?"

--> Of course.

"...rather than "We should not interefere with a person who is making progress along the path in life that they have chosen". (passive)?"

--> I do not think the two ideas are in conflict. Encouraging a person to change religions, if they want to, is not interfering with them.

I already signed a petition. In some ways it is great to see the protests. Was in a few in my youth in the 60's. What I mean by great, is that in them there is a lot of youth. Of course, in some ways it has taken a violent turn. However, not to the extent of a G7 meeting. Maybe there is a cause within a cause, a shift to higher ideals. I don't see much to praise the USA about (a la Bush era). We should let freedom ring.

The results do seem to be unexpected. As said, I don't know what happened to my generations idealism, how that generation ended up so bloody conservative.

One story from our trip to Vancouver. Went to a Nepalize restaurant, late afternoon before the dinner hours. Just the owner, girl helper, and a friend. Of course all from Nepal. Good talk, and they were extremely excited by their elections. No bad things to say against the Maoists. So, it looks like that who will form the leadership, after these elections. I wounder about the results.

I did show the friend a pamphlet of our Native Plant Nursery, and said that it was becoming a little more difficult each passing year. He said, You take care of the plants, and they will take care of you.

His seriousness, under the watch full face of the Buddha, seemed like a word to take to heart; and could even be Theosophical.

Sort of left off my reading of the SD, after finishing the first 1/4. Been reading on the two truths ( Path to the Middle and The Two Truths by Newland). I see that Snow Lion has a couple new publication coming out on Emptiness.

Jim

Jon, it is right to do what one feels is right. The heart knows. That is the only true answer to these kinds of questions.

And while I personally believe it's not appropriate to interfere with another's spirtual life choices, I can't speak for you or anyone else. Again, each person is free to act in the way they feel is correct.

this struck me the same way Jon

My point was, if it is right to encourage and assist a Christian deciding to become a Buddhist, isn't it just as right to encourage and assist a Buddhist deciding to become a Christian? (active), rather than "We should not interefere with a person who is making progress along the path in life that they have chosen". (passive)?

Angus,

You said,

"...it is right to do what one feels is right. The heart knows."

--> I am not so sure. I am reminded of the evangelical-Christian philosophy of proselytizing. They say that, if we see someone about to jump off a cliff, it is our duty to step in and do something. What this means is, if they think our rejection of their religion will cause us to go to Hell, they think they have the right to start pushing their religion on us, no matter what.

One the most difficult things in religion is to stand by and say nothing, even when we see someone "about to jump off a religious cliff."

Nick, what you said is an impossibility within Xianity. I should know, as I have been excommunicated from the church 3 times. None for moral reasons, but theological.
On all times, I was turned over to Satan, because the Bible told them so.
Turned over to Satan, the Light Bearer, well.

Any thoughts on this being?

Jim B.

Jim,

HPB had a great deal to say about Satan. Here is a quick summary.

1) There is no Satan (as taught by Christianity).

2) In order for there to be a really good God, there has to be a really bad Satan. The two concepts require each other.

3) There really was something called "The Fall of the Gods." Christianity jumped all over this, and combined all of the "Evil Gods" into one Satan.

---

Believe it or not, I was actually preparing to become a Catholic priest at one time. One of the priests told me my ideas were heretical. That one event really helped me change my direction away from ordination and membership in the Catholic Church.

Hi Nick. I think you misunderstood. I was simply saying one only need follow their heart as far as deciding whether or not to 'step in', whatever the situation and/or circumstances.

I'm not big on religious or spiritual rules to govern individual behavior, choice and 'moral obligation', in other words. :)

Angus,

You said,

"...I think you misunderstood."

--> OK, I got it now.

"I'm not big on religious or spiritual rules to govern individual behavior...."

--> I think we are all afraid of following dogmatic rules handed down from some high muck-muck religious leader. Clearly, Theosophy teaches against doing such a thing.

As a matter of fact, I believe the Mahatmas take a very hands-off approach to training new students. They give us the basic ideas, and then we are on our own to figure out how to blend their ideas into our belief systems. (At first I thought this was a bad system, but I now see it as is a good system.) I also believe it is only after we become advanced students that they start prescribing strict rules.

Nick, I see you did give a short summery, as John P. Van Mater has a long list in the Index he prepared.
On page 412 of Book 1, HPB writes, " Satan never assumed an anthropomorphic, individualized shape... A screen was needed; a scape-goat to explain the cruelty, blunders, and but too-evident injustice,...This was the first Karmic effect of abandoning a philosophical and logical Pantheism, to build a prop for lazy man..."

Now that I have had a bit of rest, I want to begin reading the S.D., Book 1, part 2.

Jim,

I was just reading a thread at the Buddhist Forum.

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...pic=68306&st=20

One person made an observation: The anthropomorphizing of the concept Mara in Buddhism is the same as the anthropomorphizing of the concept Satan in Christianity.

Fascinating!

That's an interesting comment. As much as it goes against my nature and beliefs, I can certainly imagine reaching a point in one's development where the natural progression would include adherence to higher codes of behavior.

And I say 'higher codes' as opposed to 'rules', given I believe all true laws are easily recognizable as such. And any student of the spirit would honor that knowledge and understanding the moment it became apparent to them. Different than 'rules', which people are made to follow, often against their will.

Angus,

I am reminded of how some religious traditions require their male acolytes not to touch women, not to speak with women, or even ride in a car with women. I used to think these were the dumbest rules I had ever heard. However, I have come to realize how difficult celibacy is, and how just a little trigger can ruin a great deal of hard work. Seeing as how celibacy is (to me) one of the last steps to Enlightenment, I can now see the value of such harsh rules for certain people.

We do need to consider the other side of the story. Anyone who forces someone into celibacy against their will does everyone a great disservice, and they cause your hostility towards overly-strict rules to be fully justified.

Nick said,

To me, there is no point in merely refraining from doing something. From an esoteric point of view, as long as you desire something the hindrance is there. As it is said in the article The Elixir of Life:

So, what is required is to uproot the cause of any vice or habit, not to refrain its manifestations. One person may practice celibacy for many years, but that won't necessarily make him/her free from sexual impulse. Abstinence is useful only to reduce any given desire, but it is not enough.
Besides, how can anybody work on something that is latent? If you are a monk, if you have the tools to realize the illusory, you shouldn’t be afraid of exposing yourself to the stimulus, in order to work with it. I’m not saying you should have a sexual life if you are trying to transcend that. I’m saying we should let life bring whatever stimulus, and work with the inner forces that arise in answer.
That is an example of the difference between the religious path and the esoteric one.

Pablo,

How do we uproot the cause of vices? For example, if a person has a problem viewing porno, what should they do? What is the inner force that is really at work here?

Well, to know the exact procedure I should be in that place, but I could give an example.... Viewing porno is obviously not the cause. The sexual urge is the cause. Now, I’d think that the cause for viewing porno is probably different if I have a sexual life or if I don't. If I don’t have a sexual life, the answer is plain: there is a sexual urge that needs release. But if I have it, then the problem could be more psychological, since pleasure is associated to mental images and even the actual sexual life is not fulfilling that need. So I would try to examine that.
I would probably meditate on my need, trying to recall the whole development of that habit in the past. I’d try to become very aware of that, let that urge tell me its story. Sometimes all that is there is simply psychological. Sometimes it is not that we need the sex because of a physical pleasure but because we need to feel loved, or that feeling of surrender, of self-forgetfulness, or union... I’d try to identify the exact feelings by meditating on it, recalling, observing the feelings and thoughts, etc. It is a work of self-investigation to discover, and it may take several months or even years of work. Once I have certain clarity as to the cause (need to be loved, to feel in unity, to forget myself, etc.) I would try to incorporate in my daily life a spiritual attitude that could tend to fulfill that need.
Another thing I’d do is to go on viewing porno for a while, but being extraordinarily aware of everything: the expectation, how I turn the pages of the magazine (for example), what I feel, what I think... everything. Now I’m an aware witness of all that happen. I would go on with that practice as longs as necessary. Eventually, the urge would become less strong, and then naturally I would reduce the amount of time spent in that. At certain point, when the urge is not so compelling, I’d begin to stop viewing porno and instead to remain with the feeling of necessity. I’d observe it, question it, ask who is feeling that... The key point is to be aware.
Here it may be useful what Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj said about meditation:

That is, of course, the same Krishnamurti used to say. "To see is to act". Reading these two authors and also Ramana Maharshi, for example, may give us a good idea as to how to work on those lines...

Oh boy, it took me a while to come to terms with letting someone make their own choices even if it is wrong or we think it is wrong. I would never let another hurt another if I saw it happening. however I had a friend who was heavily into drugs and i knew I had to let him sink or swim. It was a choice he made and I had no right to interfere. Believed they had to hit rock bottom before they would bring themselves back up. I also know that going into rehab does not work unless you make that decision on your own. My friend was sent to rehab numerous times by the courts and it never took, he ended up committing suicide a few years ago. I had another friend that was even worse off and he quit just like that and has not done anything in over twenty two years. He said when he found theosophy the books and the teachings gave him the guts to stop. My first teacher made cassette tapes for me and I loaned them to my friend , and he was grateful. I do not know. I have cited two scenarios and what is the answer, providence or just one of those things.

Sara,

You said,

"It was a choice he made and I had no right to interfere."

--> A wise person once said, "Sometimes, the most difficult thing for us to do is to only observe, and do nothing." I congratulate you on having the strength to do just that — nothing.

Thank You. I still think about my friend.

When you interfere, you take on part of that person's Karma. This is one the many lessons of The Mahatma Letters. The Master cannot force the chela, only advise.

You are right. This is what my teacher said. I have since reconciled myself with what I had to do. When he committed suicide there was a time when I thought it was my fault. The master came to me and told me that it was a choice he had to make and I would do well to realize I could not save him.