Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00624)

Tom Robertson writes:
>>> Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy."
JRC:
>>	They most assuredly do *not*. The Three Objects "define" the
>>purpose of theosophical organizations. Neither HPB, nor Olcott, nor the
>>Masters in the Mahatma Letters *ever* even suggested, let alone insisted
>>upon, any of that controlling garbage.
Tom:
>If the belief that Jesus died on the cross to save from their sins those who
>believe that he died on the cross to save them from their sins is just as
>Theosophical as to believe in the one divine, homogeneous
>substance-principle, which HPB referred to as a "fundamental dogma," then
>the word "Theosophy" is meaningless.

Not really.  The difference between Theosophy and and Christianity is that
Christians are reluctant to change.  They try desperately not to investigate
their beliefs, and prefer to act on faith.  I don't think HPB wanted future
Theosophists to believe in the principle as an act of faith.  I think she
simply wanted developing Theosophists to add it into the equation.
>
>>There is an *enormous* range of opinion and
>>belief about what constitues Theosophy - as there was *designed* to be.
>
>If you are saying that John Algeo's opinion of what constitutes Theosophy is
>too limited, what limit would you say, without being dogmatic yourself, it
>should have?  If you believe there should be no limit, you are saying that
>the word "Theosophy" is meaningless.
>
>>It was meant to be something broad enough to encompass all races, religions,
>>creeds and castes
>
>What about the creed that men should dominate over women?  What about the
>creed that, since Jews threaten the existence of the master Aryan race, they
>should all be annihilated?  Do you consider those creeds just as
>Theosophical as the laws of karma and of cyclicity?  If you would never draw
>a line, the word "Theosophy" is meaningless.  You would also face strong
>disagreement with most participants on this list, since one of the
>aforementioned creeds was categorically condemned as being untheosophical,
>and I assume the pro-Nazi one would be, too.  There is no way to be
>completely open-minded without throwing out all ideas and being a blank
>slate.  The search for truth includes standing for what truth has been
>found.

I see that JRC has limited himself by his statement.  So all creeds are not
acceptable.  However, both of your examples above would go directly against
the "tenet" that Theosophists' prime concern should be to help all humanity as
defined in the Three Objects, as JRC stated.  Do you have any examples of
limitation which need to be imposed which are not "excluded" by the T.O.?

---
The Triaist