Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00704)

A couple of days ago, Kym wrote:

>By the way, what does the phrase "form a nucleus" mean????  Besides the
>'brotherhood' term, the sentence itself is a bit muddled in meaning, at
>least to me.

I'm not surprised you feel like this. To me, the first Object as actually
worded is rather like the tip of an iceberg or, perhaps more aptly, like the
trunk of a tree into which a whole root system feeds and out of which many
branches and leaves grow.

"To form a nucleus" is a simple enough phrase, but to actually do it
"without distinction of race, creed, sex, ..." was pretty daring stuff in
its day and still is when you look around at how most of the human race is
behaving today.

One of the first things I think of when I read this Object, is the idea from
systems theory, of how a huge entity like the human race (to ignore the
other major life waves on the planet for now) is made up of many
subgroupings which in turn are made up of smaller subgroupings and so on
down in size, for example, nation, province, city, urban region, household
or family, parents and children. Then there are many other kinds of group
which cut across these boundaries, for example male, female, elderly, those
in mid-life, employed, students, teachers, and huge numbers of subdivisions
within these.

Looking a bit more inwardly, we see people linked by common interests or
goals, such as members of a horse riding club, those whose education
specialised in the same field, or a pressure group, and one of the exciting
trends today is how the social group we interact with is no longer just
those who live nearby, as in village life a few hundred years ago, but is
being more and more defined by common interest, aims and liking, for example
what is happening on the Internet where the members of a group are scattered
across the world and have usually never met each other. In my own
experience, it goes beyond the communication of thoughts or ideas, and
feelings often come across loud and clear, and special friendships can be
formed.

The Theosophical movement is made up of major groups defined by a common
general vision and especially a common perception of a need to be met, a
work to be done. Like everything else, they have developed their own
subgroupings, different branches on the common trunk, and I see nothing
wrong with this apparent fragmentation as long as there is a sense of
kinship, the commonality kept in mind. All part of the richness of
diversity. The reality has fallen short of this ideal, of course.

I think the nucleus in the Object was meant to be a place where a new step
towards actually realizing and doing the planetary human family could be
taken, and where it could be promoted in ways that an individual could not
achieve. To be an example as well as just a spreader of the ideas.

People being what they are, the idea of being a nucleus can easily slip into
one of being an elite in the separative sense, but I do not think this is
what those who developed the Objects wanted! They more likely saw their
nucleus as a centre through which life-giving energies could flow more
freely to the rest of the organism and new patterns be introduced into it,
somewhat as in a biological cell, but at more than one level.

Theosophical organizations today are faced with the fact that they are no
longer the only nucleus in this work of global transformation, no longer the
sole pioneer. They are now a nucleus amongst other similar nuclei and from
my viewpoint, the general organizational mindset is not keeping up with this
fact, let alone the words.

The global human family with all its groupings and subdivisions down to
every single individual, is linked in many ways, ways that theosophy itself
illuminates. The common cosmic origin, the common womb of Nature, the common
substance and energy at all their levels, the underlying common light of
consciousness embracing all, all of these and vastly more, are what our
humble little concept of siblingship is trying to express. No wonder that we
run out of words for the job.

But it is in the realm of relationships that I believe our immediate work
lies, relationships between all the groups and subgroups of system theory,
and especially those between each individual and the rest. This is where the
*real* work of forming a nucleus that meets the needs is to be done,  hard
as it often gets, and is where such a nucleus could serve the wider body of
humanity as it struggles with that same challenge.

The human-wide network of relationships is in a sense the global body of
humanity, but just as enough heat and pressure can convert a pile of
graphite into a diamond, so perhaps the conditions of today, with all the
"nuclei" available, will help to take humanity that much further towards the
inconceivably rich and sparkling diamond that it is undoubtedly destined to be.

Murray
Member TI and the TS in New Zealand