Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01262)

Responding to JRC, Doss writes,

> 1. Theosophy - Theos-Sophia has not been defined in the Objects. I do not
> think it is an oversight. I think it is very deliberate considering the
> fact Divine Wisdom or Truth is not something fixed.


Absolutely.  But the objects defined what was required for membership in the
Theosophical Society at large.  The net was cast wide, and all were welcome
to come in who had even a modicum of interest in truth and brotherhood.

This does not mean that belonging to the T.S. by merely accepting the three
objects brings one particularly close to the minds of the Adepts.

> This is in total agreement with
> what was stated to AP Sinnett in the letter from the Great Master wherein
> it was Their intention not to form a school of psychology but to get men
> and women who will help in the great idea of Universal Brotherhood.


Again, no disagreement here.  But the T.S. was an effort to help mankind at
large, and an effort which K.H. wrote in 1884 was almost a "total failure in
Europe; partially so in India."

What was done to staunch the tide and try and turn it around?  The E.S. was
formed (over Olcott's objections).  HPB had an entirely new set of criteria
for who was to be admitted into that body of students.  And again a new set
of criteria as to who would belong to the Inner Group.

This wasn't merely elitism.  It was what the Masters required of those who
wanted to actually approach the Mysteries and study the truths preserved by
Their lodge over the ages.

It is fine and well that people should quote the three Objects and defend
their rights to be called Theosophists and post on theos-L while totally
having their own veiwpoints and even disagreeing with HPB constantly.  Fine.

But this is no red badge of courage.  HPB did not require Theosophists to
accept HER PERSONAL DEFINITION of Theosophy, but she did require this of her
inner students.

Those who wish to pursue truth -- in whatever way -- and seek brotherhood
have every right to be called Theosophists.  But those wh fancy themselves
Theosophical occultists, tulkus, gurus, whatnot, and yet throw out much of
what the Masters offered us as BEGINNING practice in the Mysteries, are very
much deluded.  "Theosophists" they surely are -- but so what?  What's in a
name?

The interesting thing is not what to call people, but how to absorb the truth
as far as possible.  HPB and her Masters offered the T.S. as a possible
gateway, but we live in flatland if we imagine that all that was required for
a deep student was to accept a little plank of three Objects and suddently
find themselves in the midst of the Temple of Wisdom.