Members of a family or group, that don't all
see eye to eye, band together, nevertheless,
in mutual defence of the greater whole when
a single member is threatened. What does it
say?
Members of nations, cultural groups and/or
religions, etc., even existing side by side with
widely differing views personally, nevertheless,
in numerous instances take a united stance
when a single member is attacked. Why?
Individuals find safety in numbers. A child
grows up in a loving family and is less prone
to become a criminal, whereas, another one
who comes from a broken family and/or an
unhappy home will join a criminal gang for
a sense of belonging, or maybe join a peer
group with undesirable traits to experience
belonging to a greater whole -as if it were
more im****tant to "fit in" than struggle as
an outcast of "society". What for?
A feeling of survival amplified by peaceful
coexistence with member****p to a greater
whole appears to be a basic instinct. What
does it mean?
Some of the happiest and most fulfilling
times I remember with the connection to
a family, a spiritual group, or religion were
those where every member counted all the
others as equally im****tant to the survival
of the group. If it were a satsang, the best
were those that exemplified the beginning
to Paul Twitchell's definition: "Union with
that which is pure and imperishable."
The key word in all of these examples,
IMO, is union. Somehow, that seems vital
to individual survival. Something members
to certain groups will give their lives for. In
other words, contribution to the survival of
what links them to the greatest conception
of union imaginable. A community that, in
one form or another, will remain a part of
them - even beyond death - according to
what they believe..
Where do people get these ideas? Ones
that argue in favor of some greater whole to
which they must seek to belong? As if that
were the supreme goal in life? A union with
"God", as if alone with themself they were
something less?
It's an admirable quality, IMO, when there
is safety in numbers and people can peace-
fully coexist in spite of personal differences.
Including different "languages" people use to
express God.
I wouldn't argue with the fact that Darwin
Gross wanted to preserve the writings of
his Master, Paul Twitchell, intact. At least
for historical purposes. (But others could
do this if they collected all the writings in
their original form). The language changes
though. Harold Klemp and Eckankar are
changing things constantly. The future is
probably going to bring more. All of this
change though, what does it add up to?
Is it the same homogeneous being? A
single being making for all the change?
Etznab
|
