Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00088)

At 06:40 AM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>>>>>cut<<<<<<
>In 1889 HPB wrote:
>
>"No member is obliged to feel in sympathy with all three objects;
>suffice that he should be in sympathy with one of the three, and
>be willing not to oppose the two others, to render him eligible
>to membership of the T.S."   (B:CW XI, 335).
>
>It would be interesting if someone took the time to find out when
>the rule was changed and under what circumstances.
>
>
>JHE
>
>------------------------------------------
>   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
>      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
>         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
>            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
>               ------------------------------------------
>
>
>Jerry:

I have a question: did what H.P.B. wrote represent an actual "rule change",
or was it something she said on the spur of the moment to allay some ones
anxieties? I don't yet have a complete set of de Zirkoff's work so I can't
look it up myself. But I'd be very interested in the circumstances under
which she/he wrote those lines.

I have never, heretofore, seen any evidence that the basic "rule" of a
member being required to accept or support the three objects, ever got
changed. Could it be possible that she was trying to calm someone's fears
(or a group of "someone's") re: The Third Object, perhaps due to continuing
repercussions of The Hodson Report"? One thing about both Helena Blavatskaya
and H.P.B. consistency was never, ever, a "hobgoblin" to them.

alexis d.