Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00873)

On Sun, 21 Apr 1996, Vegetarian Resource Center wrote:

> Why would a professing theosophist NOT be a vegetarian?
>
> Seems to me that what "theosophy" is today
> (if I can extrapolate rationally) is (by OPERATIVE definition
> rather than conceptual definition) the sum total of what
> is done by those who choose this as a primary identification,
> and therefore changes with history.
	The "sum total of what is done by those who choose this as a
primary identification"? This would make what "Theosophy is" fairly close
to what the "human race" is - as its members come from many countries,
and almost every religion and political organization. We are not a cult
with defined dietary restrictions.

> IF the early theosophists were all vegetarians, and many
> today just want a little more cognitive latitude, then what
> we are seening is PEOPLE who want cognitive latitude
> and chance upon theosophical societies and therefore
> opt to stay around, calling themselves theosophists
> according to their own understanding.
	The early theosophists were NOT all vegetarians. Are you
actually attemtping, by the way, to *accuse* anyone who belongs to the
society and eats meat of *not* being a Theosophist? (Ooohhh, I hope so!
That would be *so* much fun!).
	And tell me, do you consider yourself a Theosophist? Or have you
come here to promulgate vegetarianism - to *use* this list to further a
personal ideology? You speak as though Theosophists are separate from you
- as though you don't "identify" with theosophy.

> The questions I would have are:
>         How much are such people "in dialogue with" the
>         earliest founders of the theosophical movement, and
>         how is nonvegetarianism justified in a context in which
>         recognition of the personal status of each jiva is
>         crucial to the meanings theosophists espouse?
>         (Or is this meaning lost, and the movement is
>         perhaps rapidly becoming a place to read
>         the books about esoteric theories about the
>         supposed intentions of the practitioners of
>         rituals and concepts?)
>
> Tell me if this seems true to your observations and experience?
>
>                         - Maynard S. Clark

What positively remarkable logic! By the same reasoning, the earliest
vegetarians were probably Hindus. But many people today want more
cognitive latitude. What we are seeing, then, is PEOPLE who want
cognitive latitude, who stumble across vegetarianism and opt to stay around
calling themselves vegetarians according to their own understanding.

How could a professing vegetarian NOT be a Hindu?

Of course you might say "that's ridiculous, the early vegetarians might
have been Hindus, but there's never been a requirement that to be a
vegetarian one has to also be a Hindu." Exactly.

The requirement for being a Theosophist is the acceptance of the Three
Objects of the Society. Not belief in Maynard's own personal reading of
what a theosophist "should" be. I hope you stay on the list, but should,
perhaps warn you, that several people in the past have come on and
attempted to "convert" - fact, we even had a Christian fundamentalist a
while back - but to my knowledge not a single person has ever been
converted by a preacher here - a preacher of *anything* - any usually
such people wind up fleeing in a short period of time. We are not
*followers* here, bucko, but a list of exceedingly independent thinkers.
Many Theosophists are vegetrians. Many aren't. Attmepting to try to guilt
trip those who aren't by actually telling them they are somehow not
authentic Theosophists if they aren't vegetarians .... oooohhhhh! this
should be fun! (Chuck! Chuck, stop it! Now put that helmet down ...
slowly now .... keep your hands where we can see them ... tee hee)
						Regards, -JRC