Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00143)

Coherence quotes the following:

>>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 must say that I agree with Coherence's remarks on the above quote.

"Who then is the revisionist?"

Good question.

But concerning the word "doctrine," Master K.H. writes in the Mahatma
Letters (3rd edition):

"...learn what you can under the circumstances---*viz*.---the *philosophy*
of the phenomena
and our doctrines on Cosmogony, inner man, etc."  p. 370

"...the septenary doctrine [concerning the 7 principles of a human being]
had not yet been divulged to the world at the time when *Isis was
written....' p. 180

..it is one of the elementary and fundamental doctrines of Occultism that
the two
[spirit and matter) are one...."  p. 138


Then HPB writes (ML, p. 457):

..Mahatma K.H. told you a hundred times that you could not be told the
*whole* doctrine...."

And K.H. says elsewhere in the same M.L.s:

"...Theosophy is no new candidate for the world's attention, but only the
restatement of
principles [doctrines?] which have been recognised from the very infancy of
mankind...."
pp. 34-35

 In *The Key to Theosophy*, HPB writes that:
 "Theosophy, in its abstract meaning, is Divine Wisdom, or the aggregate of
the knowledge
and wisdom that underlie the Universe.....)  p. 56

And then on p. 60, HPB says:

"What is meant by the [Theosophical] Society having no tenets or doctrines
of its own is,
that no special doctrines or beliefs are *obligatory* on its members; but,
of course, this
applies only to the body as a whole.  The Society, as you were told, is
divided into an outer
and inner body.  Those who belong to the latter have, of course, a
philosophy, or---if
you prefer it---a religious system of their own."

And further down that same page, HPB again describes that philosophy or
religious system
as follows:

"It is based  on the oldest philosophy in the world, called the
Widom-Religion, or the
Archaic Doctrine."

Also in the *Key*, HPB writes about:

"the genuine doctrines of the "Wisdom-Religion [Theosophy?]..."

Doctrine????!!!!   Religious???!!!!

I don't believe it is too much of a stretch of the imagination to say that
HPB and her
teachers stated that Theosophy, at least in one sense of the word,  consists
of a body of doctrines or teachings.  Now, it is also true that this body of
doctrines or principles are not
obligatory on the members of any of the various Theosophical societies and
groups.  This
latter statement does not nullify the former statement.

And to A.O. Hume, Master K.H. wrote:

"You and your colleagues may help furnish the materials for a needed universal
religious philosophy; one impregnable to scientific assult because itself
the finality
of abosolute science; and, a religion, that is indeed worthy of the name,
since it includes the relations of man physical to man psychical, and of the
two to all that is above and below them."

I would say that Theosophy can be defined as that  "universal religious
philosophy."

Those who are interested in the original materials written by HPB and the
Masters, should
consult for example, *The Key to Theosophy* and *The Mahatma Letters*.  Also
consult
the index (Volume 15) to HPB's *Collected Writings*.

Should HPB and KH also be included among the "revisionists"?

Food for thought.

Daniel