theos-l

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: The New Adepts

Oct 16, 1997 04:32 PM
by JRC


>If I understood him, Bart said that a good group would have no contesting
>persons in it, thus making my question meaningless for these advanced seed
>groups. Look at the Masters, he said. I suppose I could imagine the chelas
and
>co-workers of the Masters being without destuctive dissensions, but every
>group *I've* known of has a Judas of some kind, i.e., one who has a divided
>mind and personal ambitions that can be a negative contagion. 

>I wish I knew the answer to my own question. But I have a comment on yours.
I
>don't think it is certain that "fake Adepts" will fall away. In my
experience
>many do, but some stay and try to take over.
>
For whatever its worth, I've been part of a working group that has been
togather for over ten years now, and we've never had anything like a "Judas"
experience. We do have great differences between us - coming from very
different value systems, social and economic classes, and age groups - and
we've certainly had our share of very intense battles ... but I guess I
could also say that from my experience the battles themselves were part of
the growth process, and that participation in a working group opens up
layers of growth and aspects of being that nothing else can even come close
to - IMO the personal energy-system enlarges, deepens and develops to the
extent to which it is pushed beyond the confines of its comfort zone, and
commitment to a group simply does that in a way that a century of solitary
reading and meditation cannot. IMO the "Judas" phenomena (and I've seen it
in other groups) is relevant in the *Piscean* model of groups ... one
leader/ideology  and many followers. The Aquarian model, IMO (and I'm
beginning to see it forming tentatively all over the place) cannot really
*have* a "Judas" - because it does not contain a single leader and ideology,
but rather is far more fluid ... a particular perspective is chosen for
whatever the work at hand is composed of, and *every member* has a say in
formulating that perspective and the means of working towards it. In the
Picsean model "Judas" had the choice of either just accepting the means and
the ends of Christ, or going against them. If *active, engaged conversation*
had happened, however ... if Judas had felt free enough to suggest his
option, had engaged in discussions with the others where they *also*
discussed their perspectives and the way they thought ends should be
accomplished, perhpas Judas would have come to an *understanding* of the
limitations of his point of view.

When there is a single group leader and single ruling ideology, there almost
cannot *help* but be a "Judas" arise eventually. But if a group forms on the
presumption that there is equality of spirit (regardless of  differences in
specific abilities in specific areas), a Judas is not even *possible* - in
the group to which I belong, after all we've been through with each other
we've become so tuned that I doubt any of us could operate with anything
other than genuine intentions without the rest of the group knowing
immediately. We do a lot of inner work on various projects, at at times
various ones of us have come up with ridiculously bad ideas - ideas as bad
as Judas' was - but it just wouldn't occur to any of us to slink off alone
and execute them without first just discussing it with everyone else.

Oddly enough, most of the points in the current theos-l discussion have
never really arisen in practice. The question of letting down barriers is
really a moot point - to do any joint inner work at all pretty much means
that everyone is fairly well fully exposed as they are ... the good and the
bad. Ego battles have not proved to be anything other than a minor
distraction ... and the group has had no problem recognizing them and
telling the two or three involved to go deal with themselves and and resolve
the petty personal stuff - the far bigger issue has been not ego, but the
really *substantive* disagreements that arise when fundamental differences
exist in core belief systems and backgrounds - to attempt to arrive, for
instance, at a single image the entire group can focus their energy through
for the sake of improving the circumstances of a war torn nation ... when a
Native American from the Blackfoot tribe, a former Roman Catholic, a
Buddhist, a neo-platonist and several totally eclectic people are all fully
engaged in the process...  Anyway, guess I've babbled enough. This group
thing has been the most interesting discussion I've seen on theos-l in quite
some time. 
-JRC    


[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application