Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00770)

At 10:33 PM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>...snip.....
>
>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<
>Thankyou for a thought provoking post. Would it not be better to say that
>Theosophy studies all these things but the Theosophical Society has the core
>teachings as it's rationale for being a Society. All these other groups are
>a liberty to set up a Society of their own to have their teachings as the
>basis for their existence. If we say that we have a Society set up because
>of theosophy (small t) in which to study this and all other related subjects
>and it is called Theosophy Society to differentiate it from e.g the Buddhist
>Society so that people may know what is the guiding light of a Society even
>if it both study buddhism and theosophy within their curicullum. They may
>then go to which ever Society suits their interest and find subject matter
>as the main feature in that Society along with other sidelines. I would be
>confused if I went to the Buddhist Society and found them teaching Sufism as
>a regular thing and their library full of books on it.
>
Bee:

I think it's completely rational and very useful for a society to exist
which has the development of an attitude towards unbiased investigation and
study as its core agends. The "Love of Truth" can easily be a "core
teaching" and it certainly encourages unbiased study and investigation.
While the present incarnation of the Theosophical Society can be argued to
have a clearly identifiable "core Teaching", I am not sure of that teaching
is compatible with what I very strongly believe was the original motivation
for the theosophical movement's foundation. To me there's far too much
"mahayana Buddhism as Theosophy" and not nearly enough unbiased
investigation and study. To me, if people come to Theosophy to be either
"saved" or "enlightened" they're going to be sorely disappointed. One must
"enlighten" ones self. When one contemplates the three objectives of the
original programme of the theosophical movement, a "theosophical library"
has absolutely no limits on what it might contain. If one wants to study
religion one should pick a religion and go to it. If one wants to learn
about religion as a thing in itself, then theosophy is the answer.

>As to the "new Age movements" we agree entirely.


>
>It is a puzzlement indeed. The 'good' are also often the 'meek' and so the
>'not so good' can win the small battle at lodge level even if it all comes
>right in the end, it  can close a small lodge for a while and maybe even for
>good as people loose confidence in a place that stands for 'spiritual'
>things and yet bicker among itself.
>>
>Bee Brown
>Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch.
>Theos Int & L
>
>The problem which you outline above is a real problem indeed, and what to
do about it is one of the most useful learning opportunities in the field of
human relations. It seems to me that each instance is utterly unique and can
only be considered and worked with on it's own merits.
"Bickering" is so common in spiritual groups that perhaps its oart of the
spiritual growth pattern. Quien Sabe?

alexis dolgorukii
'Member TI,FTSA