Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00479)

At 11:28 PM 6/05/96 -0400, you wrote:

(Darrin and Eldon chewing on Brotherhood)

>Darrin:
>Thanks for responding to my wish that advocates of the doctrine
>of Universal Brotherhood attempt to spell out with some
>detail and substance how they understand the doctrine.
>
>>I'm not anti the doctrine but the following extract from the 
>>Notebooks of Paul Brunton rang with me when I first read it: 
>>Notebook Seven (Healing of the Self/The Negatives)
>
>Good ... we're talking about what the doctrine might mean,
>rather than repeating it mindlessly like a political slogan.

Yes, analysis of it is important and might help us take up the real challenge: really living it

>(I could picture a group of people picketing a theosophical
>convention, with signs reading "Universal Brotherhood Now!",
>marching back and forth outside the hall doors, chanting
>"We want brotherhood now!" I might ask one of them what it
>meant, and what exactly they wanted. The man might sputter,
>"Well, you know, it, er, means what it says -- brotherhood."
>I'd smile and say, "Well, that's fine," and go inside the
>hall, looking forward to something with a bit more substance
>to dwell on. <grin>)

:-) I'd go with you, hoping the same.

>
>>"... In the heart's deepest place, where the burden
>>of ego is dropped and the mystery of soul is penetrated, 
>>a man finds the consciousness there not different in any 
>>way from what all other men may find."
>
>Yes, it is this part of ourselves where we realize the
>heart of brotherhood. But even as we drop lower, and leave
>this realization behind, we find that inter-dependence is
>an essential rule of life. Even when we lose our awareness
>of our essential unity, we find that we cannot exist except
>in cooperation and interaction (and hopefully harmony!)
>with other living beings.

Being in my infancy with meditative/contemplative exercises, (and I'm assuming that this was what was being implied as one of the best route's to the ‘hearts deepest place‘, by the writer in the above quote),  I cannot speak with personal experience of ‘penetrating the mystery of soul’. Therefore, for me to pass comment on "dropping lower"(?) to even deeper realizations would be inappropriate. However, I can and do accept intellectually that inter-dependence is a fundamental rule of the One Life, and it is here that for me, the main pillar upon which brotherhood sits is found. So my friend, I'm standing outside the restaurant, smelling with approval the fine cuisine being cooked therein, and wondering what it tastes like. It seems I would do well to find the coinage, (grow proficiency with deep meditation?) and try the real thing. Maybe it might make it more natural for me (or anyone) to live with genuine compassion issuing forth from my (or their) point of consciousness, after dining regularly from the buffet table. 

>>"The mutuality of the human race is thus revealed as 
>>existing only on a plane where its humanness is transcended."
>
>I might put this differently. One of the ways that our 
>mind currently works creates the illusion of a separate,
>distinct personality, with its own private needs and desires.

It probably is illusory from a larger, more grand vantage point from where I spend a good deal of my time looking out from. The fact remains however, that I, and it seems a large portion of my brethren, have to function/deal within and from this particular quality of mind. Sometimes, for me, it feels that the personality projection from that mind, likes to feel loved, appreciated and cared for and feels well when doing the same in return - we all share this don't we? . Might it help the cause of brotherliness/sisterliness within the world (and within oneself) to hang onto and try to foster that within the personality? Or if one feels the grace of a ‘love-quality stream’ slowly beginning to trickle from within outwards, do all that is possible to make it's running path freer into the world by straightening any ‘crinks’ within the personality? My personality, and the personage of Darrin currently incarnate does feel ‘real’ and not entirely illusory. Although perhaps the apprehension of it, and from within it, often is.

>When our mind functions in this mode, we tend to be
>selfish and unbrotherly. When this functioning of the mind
>ceases, personal considerations simply don't occur to us;
>we see value in everyone's needs, and consider things and
>make choices based upon the greatest good. This is 
>practical brotherhood. It's not based upon someone's
>political agenda, it's simply the living of a higher mode
>of consciousness.

Wouldn't it be a nicer place if more minds functioned in the ‘higher consciousness’ mode that you point at. Sadly though, this is obviously not the case when we look around at the world. Many minds are obviously not ready (mine included although I'm trying to break these kinds of bonds) to naturally drop the ‘ugly and dark’ selfish concerns that you speak of below.

>
>>"This is why all attempts to express it in political and 
>>economic terms, no less than the theosophic attempts to form 
>>a universal brotherhood, being premature, must also be 
>>artificial. This is why they failed..."
>
>Brotherhood is more than an attitude towards others. It is
>the experience of life from a particular standpoint where
>the ugly and dark cloud of selfish concerns no longer blinds
>one to the true face of life. It is measured in intangibles,
>in modes of consciousness, not in the artificial terms of
>someone else's definition of what would be good for people
>to do.

What you say I agree with. Brunton does use the word premature, the use of which I took to mean that he felt a more brotherly/humanely way of living would (or could) come to pass for the race. I based that assumption on the understanding that for him, evolution of the individual human mind into a deepening affinity within Universal Mind, and consequently living in a manner concurrent with brotherliness, slowly occurred for most. To push and force that before the flowering naturally occurs (although certainly trying to help the process in the best way one finds possible) was therefore ‘artificial’ to him and might result in the internal fission, fighting, general acts of un-brotherliness etc. at which he points at.  That I feel I am not an equal in the physical, emotional, or mental sense to a crazed and murderous Rawandan soldier for example, or a psychotic/schizophrenic that happens to stumble into a lodge meeting in a drunken and dazed condition, doesn't mean that I don't believe as a metaphysical fact, there is a level where these things are transcended and that the part of my consciousness that joins the universal there, is in no way different to their own. 
>
>>The next one  (from Notebook 11) I also found incisive.
>
>>"...The term 'universal brotherhood' is idealistic but vague, 
>>pleasant sounding -- but windy. An attempt to form a society 
>>whose main object was to become the nucleus of a universal 
>>brotherhood was made by the Theosophists, and by less known 
>>cults."
>
>The way that I've often seen Universal Brotherhood described,
>I'd also find it "idealistic but vague, pleasant sounding --
>but windy." This is why I'd like to see it given the same
>degree of attention and respect that the other theosophical
>doctrines are accorded.

I wonder why it hasn't Eldon. Certainly the importance of it was stressed in early literature like the ML (Mahachohan's letter another example). 

>
>>"Moreover, they added constant talk about 'the service of 
>>humanity' to their other prattle."
>
>Again, we have but an empty slogan if it's just a phrase
>that people parrot without really thinking about it.
>
>>"Not only did all such groups end in failure to actualize 
>>their ideal and in inability to influence the remainder 
>>of mankind, but most ended in bitter disputes, harsh quarrels, 
>>and internal fission."
>
>This may be partly due to a narrowness of mind that fails
>to accept and live in mutual tolerance with people of
>other views. It also shows a lack of depth to the insight
>and spirituality of the people involved. The spiritual
>is actualized *by internal awakening*, not by pious observation
>of the politically correct, of the socially correct, and of
>the religiously correct platforms -- other people's agendas
>to change people according to their ideas of what makes
>better people. If we don't change ourselves first, we have
>nothing to offer to others.

Yeah. Maybe ‘internal awakening’ is pretty thin on the ground.

>
>>"There are several different factors behind such failures. 
>>The two which concern us here are first, lack of any
>>practical workable method to implement the ideal,"
>
>Here, organizations can do good if they limit themselves
>to providing resources to members to discover and work towards
>their individual approaches to bettering the world.

Yes. And maybe things like meditation classes, for example, might do more good, and appeal to a lot more people than half-baked instruction in obscure and difficult to digest doctrines surrounding speculative metaphysics.

>
>>"and second, belief in the delusion that a group can do 
>>better what only an individual can do for himself."
>
>A group, per se, can do nothing. But there can be specific
>projects to do good in the world, and some people may find
>a group useful in working for a particular project. That
>choice to work with a group, though, is individual, and it's
>neither good nor bad to work independently. What is good is
>to work *according to one's inner dictates*, 

I'm trying to sort that out for myself at present.

and what is bad
>is to ignore what one feels is right, and remain inactive.
>We have the phrase that says that inactivity in an act of
>charity is an activity in a deadly sin, and I'd agree with it.

Me too.

>
>>"This is where philosophy shows its superiority. In reference to
>>the first of these two factors, it teaches us exactly what we 
>>can do with our bodies, our feelings, our thoughts, and our 
>>intuitions to bridge the wide gap between ideals and their 
>>actualization."
>
>Yes, one of our first steps towards actualizing brotherhood
>is to clean up ourselves, to make ourselves nobler people,
>to open up our minds and hearts and become better able to
>express the unseen beauties of life.

Thank you, well put. I agree. something I was getting at earlier but used way to many words...

>
>>"In reference to the second factor, it proves that to 
>>practice individualism, self-reliance, is essential to 
>>real progress....."
>
>And this is to neither be motionless in acts of mercy, devoid
>of pity for others in sad situations, inexpressive of
>compression, nor is it to be like the leaf in the wind, blown
>about by every passing gust, a passive expression of external
>forces. What it does refer to is the state where we're 
>becoming a positive force for good in the world, a channel
>of new impulses for intelligence, beauty, compassion -- all
>the higher qualities.

becoming less selfish...asserting the good, the true, the beautiful, into the world if and when one feels it...

>
>The quote that you gave is useful to the discussion on
>Universal Brotherhood, but it's also good to try to put
>some of the ideas in your own words.

I've tried, albiet somewhat weakly.

For myself, when Iput things in my own words, I understand the subject much
>better, and find that there are many new things that I 
>learn; it's a valuable experience. There's always the
>risk, though, that someone on the list won't like what
>you say, and trounce upon your views. That's also, though,
>a useful learning experience, helping one learn to deal
>with attacks upon one's ideas and pointing out where in
>one's writings a clearer reexpression is needed. 

Groovy stuff. Why is it a risk tho...? Not that I'd delight in finding opposition to anything that I might have expressed but how might it hurt me? Everyone is entitled to their say aren't they. I'll have to unsubscribe from the list soon though. Mainly because I don't feel I can keep up with, and do the discussions real justice. I would like the opportunity/permission to exchange with you personally through eldon@theosophy.com

>
>A playful name for this list is "theos-hell", as there seem
>to always be other people willing to play "demon" and
>come after one. <grin> When that happens, we have at
>least three options. We can oppose them, testing our
>hand-to-hand combat. We can practice avoidance, like a
>prey being stalked by a monster, a clever prey that gets
>away. Or we can practice magic, and term demons into
>princes and nobility!

I've watched some of your attempts at magic. Good for you..

>
>(Disclaimer. For those unable to detect that the previous
>paragraph was intended *to be funny*, I'll state the 
>obvious and say so. I'm not thinking of any particular
>person on the list, and don't need the question "Did you
>mean *ME* when you wrote that awful stuff about monsters!!!!")
>

I've only floated in here once before - is it really true that some people might need the above disclaimer to not feel personally intimidated by your description of this loka.

>Best wishes and greetings to the Blavatsky lodge,
>
>Eldon
>
I'm telling a few at Blavatsky about this strange new cyber activity and will explain that there is more than one kind, welcoming, inhabitant...
Peace to you and yours
Darrin