Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00004)

Rudy:
>When you and the rest of
>the list decided to change the objects of TI I accepted the new objects
>even though no mention of Universal Brotherhood was mentioned in the new
>objects nor in the rest of the document. That was inconceivable to me at
>that time, and I wrote it to you, and it is still inconceivable to me.

Rudy and Alan,
   I must have slept in class. I am very partial to the idea contained in
the word "universal brotherhood" - even if the wording are a bit unhappy.
The new text only mentions a nucleous (a germ!!!), etc. - without any of
the beauty of the original - as an IDEA. An idea which often makes me happy
when contemplating it, perhaps the grandest concept of theosophy. Despite
all the minds involved in creating the new text, I feel that it is rather
inferior to the original. Perhaps it cannot be done completely satisfactory
in english.
   More brain-storming needed! But Rudy?s post raises an interesting
objection: can these objects really be changed after people have signed up?
Many of us may have signed on to quite different things. I remember raising
the eyebrow of the mere postuation of such a thing as hidden objects behind
the objects of the TS some time ago.
   I may of course have voted in favor of these changes to the TI revised
objects, thinking I voted for Murray?s objection against the word "free"
(blush).

In friendship,

Kim