Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00626)

At 01:25 AM 12/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 04:03 AM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com> wrote:
>
>Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy."
>
         If you look at the three objects of TS, Theosophy - Theo-sophia has
never been officially defined. If it was that easy to *define*, I am sure
HPB would have simply and clearly defined it and written it into the three
objects. Perhaps, The first object would have read that TS is a society for
those who believe in Theosophy as defined in such and such a book. We would
have a TS Bible or Koran or some TS Holy Book.

       The problem it appears to me is that each T/theosophist can define
T/t as to what it is based on ones understanding. We have to go back to the
origins of the TS. When AP Sinnett had difficulty in understanding the one
key objective of the Real Founders was very simple - "The Chiefs want a
"Brotherhood of Humanity", a real Universal Fraternity started".

       Good luck to anyone or any group of individuals who want to *define*
Theosophy.


>
>>   What a change over a period of a century. When Olcott visited a city
>>in India where I used to live, during his visit he chartered not one but
>>two lodges in one single day in two parts of the city. These lodges were
>>not in any way or form put under *probation* neither by Olcott nor by
>>HPB, nor my the Real Founders.
>
>You seem to be implying that having no control over lodges is optimal.  But
>there would be no reason for the founders to found lodges if they did not
>care what those lodges would study.

        The spread and growth of the TS over the last century was due to the
total autonomy of the Lodges. The only time that the President was empowered
to act is when any lodge is involved in actions *against* the first object.

        MKR