Theos-Talk Archives (October 1996 Message tl00661)

Not everyone has to have the same idea, right?

I mean, someone on theos-l could say something that no one else liked but the
other people would still like him or her as a person, wouldn't they?

Wouldn't they?

OK, then put me down as the last person in cyberspace to not to want to
change one jot or tittle of THE THREE OBJECTS--and that especially includes
~brotherhood~.

It seems to me that at least half the trouble with the TS is not that that it
has been unwilling to keep up with times but rather, that the little groups
who have stumbled into leadership roles have felt free to change anything
anything they want according to their own lights.  Some years ago we had the
sudden appearance of "The Theosophical World View" which now shows up on the
back cover of every AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST.  More recently, we have witnessed
the introduction of "THE THREE AIMS"  (J.A.:  "They are the inner side of
those DECLARED OBJECTS").

Forget it.  I don't want any more messing around with THE THREE OBJECTS.  It
is, in my opinion, the thing which should never, ever be changed under any
circumstances.  The Theosophical Society needs one permanent, indelible,
sacred statement which can never be altered and by means of which all actions
of all leaders, past and present, can be measured and held to strict account.

And by this THREE-OBJECT measure, I find much that is blameworthy.  What in
THE THREE OBJECTS says that a lodge can be expelled for too much interest in
an author other than H.P.B.?  What in THE THREE OBJECTS says that the
Russians must be kept out until they can pass an entrance exam?  What in THE
THREE OBJECTS frowns on psychics and magicians?

Not only, in my opinion, is THE THREE OBJECTS "written in stone," but it is
the only stone we have to throw at the enemies of the Personal Quest.  Say
that it can be changed and improved and we have not a stone but a bit of
airborne fluff that is easily brushed aside.  Some committee brushed it aside
and we have an "official group philosophy"; someone else brushed it aside and
we have "AIMS" as well; sooner or later something else may brush it aside and
we may find ourselves repeating an obligatory Prayer to the Masters before we
can have a meeting.

I say that in the struggle to restore egalitarianism and freedom of thought
within The Theosophical Society our only ally is a simple question:  "How is
this new policy or this new action justified by or related to THE THREE
OBJECTS?"

Oh yes, those old people were stupid not to be able to predict that
~brotherhood~ etc. would get narrowed in meaning.  They were probably also
stupid in the way worded other things as well.  So what?  Is there anyone who
comes to Theosophy with any theosophical potential it at all who cannot see
what the old people were trying to say?  Sure, we have said it better in a
more modern form for more modern times; however, that is not the point.  The
point is that by doing so we are saying it ~can~ be changed and added to.

Perhaps no one ever really breaks a law; perhaps he or she only changes,
adds, or makes exceptions to it according to his or her own interest.  This,
again in my opinion, is what has been the corrupting agent in the
Theosophical Society for many, many years.  At least in their own minds, the
"inner circle" has often seemed to be operating from the basis of a changed,
added-to, exception-laded and sometimes maybe even ~completely disregarded~
THE THREE OBJECTS.

By my count there are forty-one words in the body of THE THREE OBJECTS.  By
my lights there is really only one problematic word--~brotherhood~.  It is an
antique, a relic, a museum piece.  Why should modern women have to put up
with this has-been?  I don't know.  Maybe because it can't be changed without
turning THE THREE OBJECTS into THE THREE OBJECTS--REVISED.

Will the modern women see this one word and think that the Theosophical
Society is just another male-dominated organization?  Maybe some will, I
don't know.  On the other hand, maybe some will stay long enough to look the
"B" facts--Blavatsky, Besant, Bailey, Burnier etc. and conclude something
quite different about the real Who's Who in the Society, past and present. .
. .

Anyway, I call upon your sense of kinship, siblinghood, fellowship etc. not
to hate me for standing alone, obdurate, and behind-the-times with this one
idea.

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle