Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01269)

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, Blavatsky Foundation wrote:

> I thought that Rich and Eldon were talking about *this list* in their
> postings.   In other
> words, they were talking about Theos-l.  But then JRC gets off onto the
> objects of the T.S.
>
> I will quote a section or two from JRC's recent posting and then add several
> random, off-the wall comments of my own.
	<snip>

> End of JRC's posting.
>
> Now my random, aimless, and unedited comments follow:
>
> What do the objects of the T.S. have to do with this list---Theos-l?
>
> Does Theos-l have the same three objects that the T.S. does?
>
> And when JRC talks about the three objects of the T.S.,
>  what T.S. is JRC talking about?  There are now a number of Theosophical
> societies and even the United Lodge of Theosophists. And now there is Theosophy
> International.  Now if JRC wants to be a member of the Adyar T.S., or of
> T.I. or of whatever group,  that's fine.  But what does all that have to do
> with THIS LIST?

	I was responding to a post in which Eldon seemed to assert that
we needed to agree that "Theosophy" was composed of a "body of doctrines"
in order to have meaningful discussions. This body was to serve as a
referent, and while agreement *with* that body would not be required, it
would be according to that body that asserting a "Theosophical" view as
opposed to a "personal" view, or a "disagreement" with the "Theosophical"
view, would be evaluated.
	I responded by saying that *I* see the "body of doctrines"
perspective as simply one perspective of many. I then articulated *my*
perspective of what constituted being a Theosophist, and what "Theosophy"
was composed of ... and made the claim that this perspective is, IMO,
just as much "traditional" Theosophy as what is now called by that name,
and every bit (if not more) grounded in the intentions of the founders as
the "body of doctrines" perspective is.
	Read my post, however: I did *not* claim that *anyone else* on
the list needed to agree with my perspective in order for meaningful
discussions to ensue. Nor did I say problems and confusion would result
if people did not agree with me. Eldon seemed to assert that we needed to
agree that there *is* a "body of doctrines" of which Theosophy is
composed, or else problems and confusion would result.
	I did not say the Objects had anything to do with this list. Only
that the Adepts and HPB seemed to  say that their acceptance was what was
required to *call* oneself a "Theosophist", and that their expression
could be *called* "Theosophical activity", and this was *my* foundation -
	You need not ask what the Three Objects have to do with this
list, as I did not assert that anyone needed to agree with my
perspective. your question should more properly, I think, be addressed to
Eldon ... what does acceptance of a "body of doctrines" have to do with
being on this list? It is Rich and Eldon who are trying to define
parameters of discussion, not myself. Frankly, I like the list just as it
is.
						Regards, -JRC