Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00155)

At 10:46 AM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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)

The problem is that when "Doctrine" becomes "Dogma" what is it then? And
that is what I think has happened. HPB was "giving out' a theoretical model
of reality, since her death it has been made into an unquestionable doctrine
which is a synonym for Dogma. Those who claim that the model presented in
the Secret Doctrine etc. are "The Core Doctrine of Theosophy" are making an
hypothesis into a dogma and therefore in this new model dogma and doctrine
are inseparable and interchangeable. I'm sorry if you don't like that view,
but it's my view, and that's how I see it, and I don't think stating that
view is reprehensible in any way.
>
>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.

Gee, how fascinating, "repugnant" is unacceptable but "disgusting" isn't.
My comment was that I found some one person's attitude toward my comments
personally repugnant, your comment implies that my comment was universally
disgusting. Give me a break!  as far as Pharisee is concerned, I used it
because I felt it was perfectly descriptive! IO used the term "repugnant" to
that person because in his series of remarks addressed to me personally I
felt he had demonstrated an unacceptable amount of bigotry and I have
always, and always will, regarded bigotry as repugnant. If being a
theosophist means one can't find things repugnant then poor Blavatsky was
lucky she died in 1891 before that happened.
>
>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
>
There are not one but three "escape hatches" to this so-called lion's Den
Greg. One is the delete Key, another is a filter program if your supplier
has one, and the third is the one you just mentioned un subscribing. I
personally use the delete key and my filter program quite frequently now and
I even contemplated un subscribing because of the same reasons you give but
obviously a different point of view. You've got plenty of options. You don't
have to read what I write, but I am very tired of being the "fall guy" for
every so-called traditionalist on this list.

alexis