Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00426)

Alexis, in the material below, you keep responding as if I wrote the
material.

I did NOT write what you are responding to.  It was Rich (I believe).
Rich, the one you have filtered out!

Daniel




>At 10:53 AM 5/6/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>>>>cut<<<<<<<<
>>>
>>>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.
>
>I think Daniel, that what has happened, over time, and it's hardly
>restricted to theosophy, is that the line that exists in people's definition
>of "Doctrine" is that it has insensibly merged to a great degree with many
>people's definition of "Dogma". This is a philological and semantic problem
>and not nearly so much a philosophical one. Much of the "blame" for this
>lies in the Religious community which has long confused "doctrine' and
>"Dogma". When mainstream Christianity, islam, and Judaism confuse the two
>how can ordinary people be blamed for the same confusion. I think we'd all
>be on far firmer ground if we'd replace "Doctrine" with "basic philosophy",
>or "basic belief", and leave dogma where it belongs, and that's totally alone.
>
>>>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 have two comments/questions here. One: It seems to me that
>"Brother-Sisterhood" is hardly an "intrinsic Spiritual truth", because if it
>were it would be a fact and not simply a dim hope and primary eventual goal.
>A "Spiritual truth", and I am far from sure that any such thing actually
>exists, would, if it did exist, be something both unavoidable and clearly
>extant. We all know that such is very far from true regarding
>"Brother-Sisterhood" as is proved daily in Bosnia, Palestine, Northern
>Ireland, and here in the USA. I have always thought the basic Theosophical
>Agenda" was to create a NUCLEUS FOR "BROTHER-SISTERHOOD,  a seed, as it
>were, out of which real "Brother-Sisterhood" could germinate.
>
>
>>>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.
>
>Daniel: That's a poor analogy. Adepts cannot "stake their lives" they're
>consciously immortal. Not physically so, but in consciousness.
>>>
>>>But it is still a "doctrine" which conceivably could (and daily IS) rejected
>>>by many.  The KKK are not alone in this.
>
>Brother-sisterhood is a principle which is rejected by most humans because
>while they admit intellectually that it's a "good idea" they just don't
>relate to it. And it is THAT that the Nucleus of Brother-sisterhood" was
>intended to slowly change.
>>>
>>>Why is it okay to say brotherhood is a fact, not a "doctrine" while other
>>>"doctrines" are "dogma"?
>
>I think here you have either a misstatement or a misunderstanding. I don't
>think too many people feel theosophy has any Dogmas at all. What I think
>some people are complaining about (and I am clearly one of them) is that
>there are those who TREAT basic theosophical philosophy as if it were Dogma.
>There's a very big difference.
>>>
>>>All alike were taught by the Masters, even if you are right about the
>>>emphasis placed.
>
>And that is clearly a matter of opinion.
>
>alexis d.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>