Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00348)

John:

It does not take a genius or learned pundit to open their eyes and see what
is going on around the world. There is continual wars of all kinds going on.
People kill other people for politics, religion, nationalism, you name it.
Look at all the refugees all over the world. Look also at the exploitaion
that goes in various facets of all our lives. Greed and corruption and
exploitation of those who really need to be protected and cared for by those
who are with more knowledge etc.

An ounce of application of Universal Brotherhood will go a long way. Can one
person solve all world's problems. Certainly not. Can each one of us do
something about it in our own lives. Yes we can. If more and more of us
become sensitive to these issues with Universal Brotherhood as the backbone,
then gradually we can exponentially affect all those with whom we come into
contact in our daily life as well as not be involved in any activity which
is hurtful from the point of Universal Brotherhood.

Am I crying in the wilderness? May be? If we do not recognize the idea of
Universal Brotherhood, then what are our goals and how are they going to
affect other living beings? This is a question each one of us can ask and
try to find an answer.

        ...doss




At 11:03 PM 5/5/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Eldon wrote:
>
>> >This statement of Rich's is important, something that we overlook
>> >far too often. The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever
>> >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*.
>	No, on this I *strongly* disagree. It is not a doctrine (at
>as it is used in Theosophical circles), it is a *goal*, an "Object".
>
>> >As far as doctrines go, it is not any more supreme than any of
>> >the others. It can, though, be discussed in as great a depth as
>> >any of the others, going from superficial, casual descriptions
>> >into views that are profoundly occult.
>	In *the Theosophy of the Adepts*, it *IS* most definately
>"more supreme" - it is what they *continually* stressed ... whenever
>anyone, from Sinnet to Hume to HPB herself, wished to make Theosophy
>into a study of "doctrines", or the initial practices of some sort
>of practical occult development, they always responded by saying
>that any such things had to be pursued with the understanding that
>it was not to be at the *expense* of the work of Universal
>Brotherhood, and indeed that it was only to further the service of
>that work that such secondary studies were to be pursued.
>	You may evaluate it - for yourself - as being a "doctrine", the
>understanding of which is of no greater or lesser importance than the
>understanding of karma, or the races and rounds, but that is most
>assuredly not how the Adepts evaluated it (at least, if the ML can be
>taken as a sign of the importance they put on it), and in fact the ML are
>full of the seemingly almost continual frustration at not being able to
>get people to understand this (or to even take it seriously).
>	Were someone (say Sinnet) to have actually *asked* the Adepts
>"What is the *single* idea you'd most like the western world to
>understand as the result of Theosophical work?" - what do you think they
>would have answered? Karma? The particular "round" the earth is in? I
>believe they were quite clear, in numerous places, about the privileged
>position of "Universal Brotherhood".
>	It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it
>was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation
>in human civilization they considered the single most important mission
>for the Theosophical Society. They did not say that study groups intended
>to examine occult philosophy, anthro or cosmo genesis, or even to pursue
>occult "development" were not appropriate activities within the larger
>Theosophical umbrella, but they *did* always say these things were to be
>pursued *in addition to*, not *instead of* the work of Universal
>Bortherhood.
>								-JRC
>