Re: Theosophist - a fighting word
Aug 13, 1996 04:26 PM
by Ann E. Bermingham
>I took a member of our Lodge to the last Theosophy Convention and she was
>most upset at what she percieved as un-theosophical behaviour by a number of
>people and it seemed she had Theosophy on some sort of pedestal and it got
>knocked off and now she is slowly withdrawing from the Lodge as she no
>longer finds us quite what she thought.
This reminds me of my own experiences, particularly when I was heavily involved
with the LCC. Some members there felt that to be a member of the church, one
should be a Theosophist and "know" Theosophy, even though the church was readily
accepting people with no Theosophical background. It was also assumed that
everyone that was a church member/Theosophist was a strict vegetarian.
As for myself being a Theosophist, I have felt uneasy about putting that label
on myself, simply because I didn't quite know what it meant to be one. I
wondered - how do I measure up to the list of requirements when I don't even
know what they are? So what does *define* a Theosophist? Eats lots of soy
protein? Reads Blavatsky? Goes to the Annual Meeting? Fights with other
Personally speaking, I would prefer this definition: A Theosophist agrees to the
three objects. The rest is open to discussion. Lots of discussion.
-Ann E. Bermingham
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application