Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00135)

In a message dated 96-04-28 14:53:57 EDT, you write:

>2. Do you realize that you, and I, Chuck, Alan, and Jerry Schueler, and some
>others I'm not ready to name, are actually the only "traditional"
>theosophists who regularly express themselves on this list? The others can
>only be described as Pharisees. I cannot begin to cite how many times and
>places in the earliest theosophical literature the words (or some variation
>thereupon): "THEOSOPHY HAS NO DOGMA, NO DOCTRINE" appear. And now Eldon et
>al are saying it does. Who then is the revisionist?

I think there needs to be some clarification here.  In many places, HPB and
others state that Theosophy has no Dogma.  However, I have not read ANYWHERE
where the statement is made that there is no Doctrine.  In fact, a quick
perusal of the Index to the SD lists many references to Doctrine, and many
times does HPB refer to the Theosophical Doctrines.  Is it too obvious to
point to the title:  THE SECRET DOCTRINE?  The following is from "Yours till
Death and After, HPB", an article by WQJ in which he quotes HPB in the
following:

. . . . . . "We are not working merely that people may call themselves
'Theosophists', but that the DOCTRINES WE CHERISH may effect and leaven the
whole mind of this century. This alone can be acccomplished by a small
earnest band of workers, who work for no human reward, no earthly
recognition, but who, supported and sustained by a belief in that Universal
Brotherhood of which our Masters are a part, work steadily, faithfully, in
understanding and putting forth for consideration the DOCTRINES OF LIFE AND
DUTY THAT HAVE COME DOWN TO US FROM IMMEMORIAL TIME . . . . . " (caps mine)

It seems naive to think that HPB was not giving out a body of doctrines.
 Now, how each of us understands those and works with them is another matter.
 But I would maintain that there is a "theosophical doctrine".

I just returned from a great break of sun, sand and surf, and am sorting
through alot of mail.  What I am finding is fairly disgusting.  It seems the
list has gone "over the top" as the Brits and NZs are fond of saying.  I see
a lot of gross name calling, endless barbs, jabs and rejections (all in the
name of "discussion") and too many instances of the accuser being the
guiltiest of offenses.  The worst was the use of "repugnent" to describe
individuals, groups and their ideas.  This coming from a "theosophist" and
refering to other theosophists.  A nucleus of Brotherhood does not exist
here.  Such public pronouncements, let alone the attitudes, should have no
place on this list.  Even in the above post exists the epitome of the us vs.
them, separatist, anti-brotherhood attitude.  And just what are you
accomplishing by refering to OTHERS as Pharisees?  I see the pot speaking to
the kettle.

I think I may have to leave, for even though words are supposed to be
harmless, there is no need to live with the risk that at some point my ideas
would be refered to as "repugnent" or, worse, merely dismissed as unworthy.
 There is an escape hatch in this lion's den.

Greg H