Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00260)

hi  -

I am (re)posting this epistle by JRC for reference in discussions
which I hope may be of interest within this list.  This was
first posted on theos-L with little response.  I think it
has relevance for discussion on "Buds" as to the nature
of Theosophy for the coming  generation(s).

the post is a reprint except for a minor deletion of some material
in brackets ( [..] ) which were not relevent :-)

peace -

john e. mead

==================


>Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 00:54:51 -0600 (MDT)
>From: JRC <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
>To: theos-l@vnet.net
>Subject: The Universal Family of Humanity
>Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960603005348.13724A-100000@selway.umt.edu>
>
>     [A long one folks (-:)]
>     It has, for some time now, been my belief that the concept
>of the formation of the nucleus of a universal family of humanity
>is the very core of modern Theosophy, the most profound idea
>within the Theosophical movement, the movement's "true north" ...
>that the compass of every theosophical sect ought to point
>towards to maintain its stability, its focus, and *its
>relationship to the foundational purpose of its existence*.
>     Even further, I believe that the *reason* modern Theosophy
>appears to be such a mess, has splintered into a hundred
>different factions, is irrelevant to and largely ignored by the
>humanity it was begun to serve, and has withdrawn into itself as
>a turtle into its shell, is because its animating idea - *The
>Formation of the Nucleus of a Universal Family of Humanity* has
>been buried and forgotten ... replaced by small sects of people
>taking slices of the current, little tributaries, and attempting
>to make of them the whole of Theosophy; by people unable to
>resist the terrible selfishness present in the *personal* desire
>to be admitted into a "Mystery School" (a failing the Masters
>fought - unsuccessfully - from the very beginning of the
>society); by people caught in the snare of secret-chasing,
>unknowingly chained by the deep delights of wrestling with ornate
>philosophy and bound to the addictive pleasures of "insight"
>apparently gained therefrom.
>     The First Object (I'll be so bold as to assert (-:) is much
>more than simply the statement of a nice sentiment, more than
>something to pay lip service to, to keep around like a pet
>goldfish ... in the room but usually ignored ... no, it is the
>tip of an idea so immense, so earth-shattering, so *kinetic* that
>if modern Theosophy were *truly* commit to it as an *Object*,
>that is, as a *goal* - the theosophical current would virtually
>instantaneously spring back to life.
>     We were, I believe, as Theosophists, handed an *opportunity*
>to accomplish a remarkable task on behalf of the spiritual
>kingdom on this planet. The *gift* we were given was the *chance
>to serve on a global scale* ... and all the "teachings", the
>esoterica, were *not* given for our *personal benefit*, and we
>certainly do not have some sort of charge to "keep them alive"
>(how ridiculous - Those Who Keep Them can release them to whom
>they want, in any form they desire, at any time they wish) - the
>"occult" knowledge is but little scraps of an impossibly huge
>body of knowledge, scraps *intended to serve the accomplishment
>of the Formation of the Nucleus of a Universal Family of
>Humanity*. The purported "next religion" about which there is so
>much argument? Look in the First Object and *it is there* ... and
>not only that, but the "keys" to reading the theosophical
>esoterica are *also* buried in it.
>     I understand these are bold claims ... and in fact they do
>not fit into *any* of the current theosophical sects, but bear
>with me (-:) - I'll try to support them ... to unpack what (IMO)
>are the first few layers of the remarkable idea/mission embedded
>in the First Object. No one may accept the totality of the
>premise ... but at least a discussion of the First Object - an
>idea the Adepts clearly and continually stated to be of prime
>importance to them - will be worth a bit of discussion. And
>curiously enough (IMO), of all the intense discussions I've seen
>in Theosophy over the years, discussion of the minutia of karma,
>of reincarnation, of the globes and races and rounds, of occult
>theory and occult practice in all its nuances, I've seen barely
>even an ounce of attention, a moment of intellectual energy,
>expended on understanding what the Formation of the Nucleus of a
>Universal Family of Humanity might mean. Its depths have *never*
>been explored, its door never even opened - yet this was the idea
>the Adepts held to be the one thing that *could not vary*
>regardless of what Sinnet, Hume, or even HPB wanted to do with
>Theosophy.
>     And I suppose the best way to start would be to frame, in
>succinct a fashion as possible, what I believe to be the
>*foundational vibration of the theosophical current, inspired by
>Adepts and initiated by HPB*:
>
>     The Adepts, understanding with foresight the century we are
>now in the midst of, and grasping the stunning burst of
>intellectual development - with all its power and its delusions -
>that was immanent, and understanding as well that the chief
>characteristic of the intellect is the *differentiating function*
>(i.e., that it is the "great slayer" of the (unified) "real", the
>*source* of the "heresy of separateness"), understanding that it
>was a *required stage of evolution*, but that it harbored
>tremendous dangers, and desirous of aiding in that evolution by
>trying to mitigate the great pain inherent in the delusions of
>the intellect, sought then a means of *immunizing* our race
>against the worst of the viral infections the spirit of
>differentiation (that is the core of the intellect) had almost
>inevitably to cause.
>     The source of the *danger* exists in the very core of the
>intellect - whose first and most fundamental sentiment is "I, not
>I". It *seeks* to differentiate, to pull apart what is whole, to
>*magnify* differences, to see how many pieces compose the atom,
>how many different hierarchies can be named as composing the
>natural world, how many categories it can create to demonstrate
>how *different* humans are from one another. (Want to see this in
>action? *Every* race, every philosophy (*including Theosophy!),
>and every religion has produced a "ranking system" in which its
>members are the *highest*, and all others descend "downward" from
>the defined peak). Its development, for aeons possessed by but a
>few every generation, was on the verge of becoming widely
>diffused. Its powers are unprecedented - it can cure diseases,
>produce food, clothing and shelter for everyone on earth, but its
>downside is virulent. And the anti-virus, the immunizing agent,
>had to (of necessity) be of the nature of the virus - i.e., had
>to be *an idea* ... an idea *as basic and powerful as the
>predilection to say "I, not-I", but *diametrically opposed*.
>
>     "To form a nucleus of a universal family of humanity,
>*without distinction* of race, creed, sex, caste or color."
>
>     This, this remarkable idea, *is* the "anti-virus". In a
>world now completely deluged under the effects of "Us *vs.*
>Them", it was to be a powerful, focussed and deliberate
>articulation of the sentiment "Us *and* Them". But the means of
>introducing it could not be simply to state it - various forms of
>it had been stated for *millennia* with little effect. This
>merely had the effect of a doctor *telling* a patient they were
>going to get some medicine. To actually *inject it* into the body
>of humanity, it would require *a group of humans ... not Adepts,
>*humans*, to *actualize* the idea within the confines of the
>human civilization*. At least some minority of members of *our
>kingdom* had to have the courage, the perseverance, the
>tremendous creativity required to *begin demonstrating what the
>human kingdom as a whole would look like *after* it had completed
>the development of the mind* ... when it will begin to *resolve
>and unify instead of differentiate*. That is, the "anti-virus",
>from another perspective, is the *idea that will govern us in the
>future*: That we *are* a "universal family of humanity" - and we,
>we as *Theosophists*, were handed the golden opportunity to *form
>its nucleus* ... to be the *first iteration*, the *seed*.
>     And yet, the founders (other than HPB) almost to the person
>failed to grasp this - either the idea or the opportunity. The TS
>itself fell prey almost immediately to the virus itself. But the
>idea itself is so powerful that it *remains* the animating agent
>behind whatever life is left in the Theosophical current. And not
>only that, but precisely those things that are complained about
>continuously in theosophy (and certainly on this list) are those
>things that constitute the actual living work of the First
>Object. (To explain this will take a bit of an articulation of
>the first layer of the Object (-:):
>
>     The biggest initial problem is that the First Object is easy
>to read, and everyone thinks almost immediately that they
>understand it - but look even a bit more closely (with even half
>the effort that "karma" is looked at in TS circles (-:) - and
>suddenly it appears positively immense in its ramifications. To
>accomplish it, and accomplish it *genuinely*, even upon first
>glance indicates some very interesting (and perhaps even
>counterintuitive) realizations ...
>     It has virtually *nothing* to do with "being nice". Notions
>like politeness, "reasoned discourse", "manners", "insults",
>etc., etc. vary by culture, by race, by personal upbringing, the
>exigencies of fate and fortune, and numerous other factors. If we
>are talking about a universal family, the first huge idea to be
>faced (and great courage indeed it takes to face it) is that
>*there is no "correct" mode or style of discourse*. At *every*
>layer of personality there *are* differences, and very
>substantial ones, between people ... and the era we live in, the
>era of mind, has served to do little other than greatly intensify
>our perception of those differences. The problem is that for most
>of history, the large majority of humans have been used to
>assuming that *their acculturated norms are "the" norms*. And
>this is the first profound truth embedded in the First Object: To
>take it as a *goal* means we must assume the responsibility of
>*continually* striving to function *as spiritual entities* ...
>that is, at the layers of our own energy systems where
>personality level differences *are not relevant*.
>     This is important. For much of history, different races and
>cultures simply did not even come into contact with one another
>.. and when they did, either warfare resulted in the domination
>of one over the other, or migration happened and the conflicts
>ceased because the parties separated - did not remain in relation
>to one another. Both of these *avoided the fundamental issue*. In
>our current world, with its population explosion and the global
>telecommunications net, there *is* no place to go - differences
>that have existed since the beginning of exoteric recorded
>history must, for the first time, be *resolved*.
>     The *challenge* of the First Object is to find *the way
>out*. On this list both "traditional" avenues have been tried.
>Almost everyone has, at one time or another, attempted to
>establish a correct "norm" - both for content and mode of
>communication ... but in this unique forum, no one has been able
>to dominate. And currently, the other "safety valve" is being
>tried - a usenet list on one hand, and a completely moderated
>list on the other. Both have been generated (IMO) as *reactions*
>to the tremendous tension and *pain* that surrounds the formation
>of a universal family. While I hope both are successful, my own
>*personal* hope is that people stay connected to theos-l ...
>because the actual *work* of the First Object is *happening
>here*.
>     Almost no one thinks they are making personal attacks, and
>almost everyone feels as though they are subject to them. *WHAT
>DOES THIS MEAN?* More to the point (to deeply, if somewhat
>gratuitously stroke those that have stuck it out (-:) - it means
>that we have *begun the work* - make no mistake, *look* at the
>First Object ... race, cultures and personalities are *very*
>different, and to actually form the nucleus of a universal family
>means that, perhaps for the first time in our race's history ...
>a group of people, in whom exist the *entire spectrum of those
>differences*, instead of resolving through the domination of one
>perspective over another, or simply fleeing one another and
>avoiding the issue, have chosen to *stay in relation to one
>another for the sake of an ideal* ... and virtually everyone that
>has stayed has been virtually *required* to reach for the
>spiritual aspects of their being - the only place where *actual*
>resolution exists.
>     Even further, in the very depth and viciousness of the
>apparent combat itself is the sign that *genuine* work is being
>done. There are multiple personality types on this list . types
>that in the human family as a whole have *never* resolved the
>differences between them. To be willing to *remain connected*, to
>try to dominate if one has the desire to dominate, to resist that
>domination if one feels that desire, to be *fully who we are
>without any compromise*, and hence face the full pain of the
>conflict with others in whom very different beliefs and standards
>exist, ... is to begin the *carve the paths that humanity as a
>whole may someday follow* ...
>     We are, my brothers and sisters, playing the biggest game on
>earth, and messin' with the very fabric of human reality here -
>we are *seeking that road, the hidden perspective, the unknown
>solution, through which even the greatest differences may be
>somehow resolved - the two "pressure release valves" - domination
>or avoidance - that have always been the way resolution has come
>(neither of which every *truly* produced a resolution) we have
>forgone. Are their not "Alexis' and Liesels, Chucks and Bjorns,
>JRCs and Eldons, Daniels and K. Paul Johnsons (etc., etc)"
>throughout the world? Not only at the individual level, but even
>at the largest scales ... Muslims and Hindus, Catholics and
>Protestants, first world and third world, Jews and Iraqis,
>Chinese and Taiwanese ... the list goes on ad infinitum. Thing
>is, increasingly *no one* is able any longer to either dominate
>or avoid. But not one is seeking the means of *genuine*
>resolution ... nor even knows how to look.
>     To pursue the actualization of the First Object is really
>the commitment to *discover historically unprecedented patterns
>of relationship* ... patterns that literally do not yet exist ...
>but that *when discovered in practice* ARE the patterns humanity
>is almost desperately (if still virtually unconsciously) seeking
>right now. And if we succeed in *finding* those patterns, *we
>will have produced the "anti-virus" that can be replicated ...
>can be *applied* to some of the oldest and deepest problems
>facing our race*. Does it make *sense*, even with this little
>brief exploration of the First Object, that the Adepts elevated
>the idea of universal family above all others? That they tried,
>constantly and throughout their contact with the founders, to
>continue to bring people back to that central idea?

>     While this has probably gone on too long for now, I couldn't
>finish without mentioning (IMO) yet another significant point
>about the First Object. And that is that the "teachings" given
>out are all - if ya think about it - meant to *support* the work
>of the First Object? That the Second and Third Objects, the
>notions of cosmo and anthrogenesis, and the framework for
>understanding how to reach for more interior states of
>consciousness are all meant to be used *in the service* of the
>work of forming the nucleus for a universal family of humanity?
>That to study them alone and for one's personal development is
>inherently deeply selfish, to believe that one has, *because one
>has studied them*, somehow "above" the rest of humanity ... that
>is, to *use* those teachings as a means of *strengthening the
>sense of difference rather than understanding them as the means
>of discovering the road to resolution* ... is to seriously
>*misuse* those teachings? And this, I believe, is why Theosophy
>really is in trouble right now - the teachings have been
>virtually *severed* from the work of universal brotherhood ...
>they are being presented as things that can be (even should be)
>learned in and of themselves, rather than as both the larger
>paradigm and the personal knowledge needed to actualize the
>formation of the universal family.
>     To anyone that feels like it, might I suggest this "key"?
>Any particular aspect of the theosophical you happen to be
>studying right now, try studying and meditating on it *assuming
>the furtherance of the First Object is the reason that particular
>knowledge was released by the Adepts* ... that out of all the
>immensity of the wisdom possessed, particular pieces were
>deliberately chosen (and others not even mentioned) with a very
>specific end in mind - *to fit those forming the nucleus of a
>universal family with what they would need to accomplish the
>task*. While I cannot say this is the truth, I *can* say that
>reading theosophical literature *with the First Object foremost
>in mind* changes every bit of it into *something else*, seems to
>trigger the intuitive understanding of it at a vastly increased
>scale, and provides *the* thread that *links* the immense body of
>literature, and suggests connections between apparently
>completely unconnected parts. *It functions as a key*.
>
>     Anyway ... `nuff for now. Start taking your shots (har har
>har har har har har! Get it?! Tee hee).
>                                        With Love,    -JRC
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
John E. Mead  jem@vnet.net
Theos-L etc. list-owner
Member of Theosophical Society in America
Member of Theosophy International
[Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers]
[Mathematics is impossible without consciousness]
-----------------------------------------------------------