Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00355)

Eldon, Liesel, and JRC wrote (in that order):

> > >The idea of "universal brotherhood", under whatever
> > >sanitized words we want to call it, *is a doctrine*.
> >
> > Eldon, Annie Besant says it's a fact, and I think if one looks around
with
> > an intuitive eye, one comes to the conclusion that she's right on.
> >
> Liesel ...
>    **Excellent**
>        -JRC

Yes, to me it is also a fact.  But surely Eldon is right in pointing out that
this "fact" is one of the "doctrines" of Theosophy, one doctrine among many
others.

It *is* curious to me why some people are so ready to accept this "doctrine"
as a fact with no qualms, but reject other doctrines as "dogma."

I'm not baiting for a fight, I'm genuinely curious.

Also, JRC writes,

>  It was not presented as simply one of many "doctrines" ... it
> was presented as a spiritual truth, who's manifestation and incarnation
> in human civilization they considered the single most important mission
> for the Theosophical Society.

But John -- I agree with you that it is a spiritual truth.  This is the
definition of "doctrine," at least among the community of believers in that
tradition.  I also firmly feel that "karma" is not a theory, it's a FACT.
 But others see it as a hypothesis, and others are quite sure karma is NOT a
fact.  All could agree it is a Theosophical doctrine, whether or not they
accept it.

I also agree with you that it is no accident universal brotherhood is the
FIRST Object, the single most important idea in Theosophy, and the one that
the Adepts would have staked Their lives on.

But it is still a "doctrine" which conceivably could (and daily IS) rejected
by many.  The KKK are not alone in this.

Why is it okay to say brotherhood is a fact, not a "doctrine" while other
"doctrines" are "dogma"?

All alike were taught by the Masters, even if you are right about the
emphasis placed.