Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00117)

Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Nisk98114@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Yes, Wry, some good examples might help


> (snip? If part of this is missing, I think only a letter, my computer did
> this. Sorry) >ll its students were expected to do was individually form
the
> > "nucleus" (which means "A central or essential part around which other
> parts
> > are gathered or grouped") -- not THE Brotherhood itself.
>
> WRY: This is gobbledy-gook, plus no such nuculeus has been formed, as far
as
> I know, and there is NOT unlimited time to do so.
> ========================================
> As far as YOU know!
> Who am i?
> Who are you?
> Leaves an opening in the "fog" of life , doesn't it?

WRY: Well put. Yes, it does. But the point is that to use the above quote,
which I was replying to, is sort of meaningless in the sense that there is
nothing to grip into it. If simply being conscious, FULLY conscious, from
point a to point be to point c over a continuum (not so easy, infact almost
impossible to do) the people who are doing such would in my oinion, be
connected in such a way as to form a nucleus or inner circle of humanity, as
material would function under different laws, (which I am prepared to
explain in detail sometime in the future), but I do not believe this is
happening in theosophy. Honestly, most if not all of us already believe
ourselves to be fully conscious, do we not, and function under this
presumption most if not all of the time, do we not? If pressed, we may give
lip service to the fact we are not fully aware, but in reality we do believe
it. In any case, there may be a few, probably only a handful of such people
who are fully conscious, but they would be from different groups..

But if the quote above is referring to a group of people who are in physical
communication and are theosophists, around which other people will be
forming a brotherhood, this does not seem to be happening, from everything I
have seen and heard. It is stupid, in my opinion, for Dallas or whoever
wrote that to consider it relevant to even mention this point. The
mentioning of this point is actually counter productive. It implies that
this brotherhood is being established somewhere and in some way by
theosophists, which is very probably not true. What is a real brotherhood?
Is it a pipe-dream? Whether people are polite or not to another on this
list is meaningless. It is better to speak the truth and cut the grease
before the window of potential that has recently started to open, begins to
close.

People from other religions are not going to come to a common brotherhood by
reading monotonous, repetitive and no longer time-appropriate material by
Madame Blavatsky. Maybe they could by understanding the writings of
Krishnamurti, but they will not read him. He has already advanced this
cause of universal brotherhood to a degree greater than people realize. It
might be best for individual theosophists to study his writings, When there
are three religions or twenty and we want there to be one, which is not even
a religion, but a brotherhood, we do not say STUDY THE WRITINGS OF THEOSOPHY
THOROUGHLY FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND THEN ASK YOUR QUESTIONS. THIS IS BIZARRE
AND LUDICROUS. We start immediadly with simple questions and enquire into
them together WITHOUT A REFERENCE POINT OF WHAT WE FANTASIZE WE KNOW
ALREADY. In this way people come together and the proper atmosphere is
established. Wry
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>