Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00128)

At 05:10 PM 5/2/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>
>Alexis,
>
>      The alleged "rule change" I had in mind was not HPB's but
>the rule stated Doss' anonymous critic, that the TS requires the
>acceptance of *all* three objects as a condition for membership.
>This may be true today.  Only the gods know of all of the changes
>in policies and rules since the founding of the TS.  But as a
>historian who has read through a great deal of the early
>statements of the objects, rules, goals etc. my impression was
>much the same as Doss': that the first object was of primary
>importance, and acceptance of all three objects was never
>required by the founders--at least during HPB's lifetime.  It was
>also my understanding that the acceptance and practice of the
>second or third object would lead one toward sympathy with the
>first object anyway.  But Doss' anonymous critic made it clear
>that Doss' and my understanding is not at all like the current
>application of the three objects in Wheaton (and presumably in
>Adyar too).  Therefore, I cited an article that expressed HPB's
>understanding of the rules in 1889.  My assumption is that HPB's
>understanding of the rules is correct.  But I don't think my
>assumption is out of line.  My experience has been that HPB was
>pretty careful about correctly representing Olcott's rules,
>whether she agreed with them or not.  Of course It would have
>been better for me to dig though the early rules to see what they
>have to say on the subject.  I do have them, but don't have the
>time to investigate the issue in depth.  That is why I suggested
>that someone else might look into it.
>      The article itself has nothing particularly to do with the
>third object nor does it mention the Hodgson report.  It was
>concerned with Bradlaugh's misconceptions concerning theosophy
>and the TS, and she was trying to correct them.  HPB was
>responding to an article Bradlaugh had published where he made a
>lot of errors in his description of the TS and in his definition
>of "Theosophy" (as the word is used by HPB).  Among other things,
>Bradlaugh had concluded that since the dictionary definition of
>"theosophy" is "the wisdom of God" atheists would not be eligible
>to join the TS.  The issue of the three object entered the
>article when HPB raised the question as to whether Bradlaugh
>himself would be eligible to join.  She raised doubts concerning
>his eligibility.  It's an interesting article.
>
>
>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 think your assumptions regarding HPB are quite correct, and I'm glad to
learn the real cause behind her quote. I also agree with your analysis, each
of the objects leads inexorably to the others, and the second and third
objects can have no other result than the culmination of the hopes expressed
in the first object. It's really a shame that so many people choose to
interpret Theo - sophia as "wisdom of God" and not as "Divine Wisdom" as the
two things are very much different.

alexis d.