Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00628)

At 03:34 AM 12/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 07:48 AM 12/24/96 +0000, JRC <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote:
>
>>> Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy."
>
>>	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.
>
>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.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
   Every member, has a right to have his/her own opinion of what constitutes
Theosophy  so long as it does not conflict with the first object, IMHO.


>>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.

    The only uniting and fundamental basis for TS is, IMHO, the first
object. Any opinion or idea or action that is in conflict with the first
object cannot be Theosophy. While it is not easy to *define* Theosophy, it
is very easy to see what is not.

    The driving force behind the TS is, I think, very clearly explained in
the following statement which seem to explain what practical Theosophy is:

       "To all, whether Chohan or chela, who are obligated workers among us
the first and last consideration is whether we can do good to our neighbor,
no matter how humble he may be; and we do not permit ourselves even to think
of the danger of any contumely, abuse or injustice visited upon ourselves.
We are ready to be "spat upon and crucified" daily -- not once -- if real
good can come to another can come of it."