Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00665)

At 01:41 AM 12/26/96 +0000, "John E. Mead" <jem@vnet.net> wrote:
>
>The agreement each member makes when joining the society
>is to (conceptually) accept the three objects.
>
>a couple points:
>
>1. Hitler's acts violated these objects.

If this is being said because he had people killed, and it is acknowledged
that killing is not always wrong, then this is debatable.  If this is being
said because he had the idea that Germans were of the inherently superior
master race, and that that idea is untheosophical, it contradicts what you
said later.


>2. Paul Johnson has not violated these objects.

I do not know enough about his book about the identity of HPB's Masters to
believe it violates anything, and I am not commenting about Paul in
particular at all, but anyone who has ever acted in any spirit less than one
of pure brotherhood has violated at least one of the three objects.  There
is not that great of a difference between Hitler and everyone else.  All
human beings are mixtures of good and evil.


>(a very bad comparison)
>
>it is my experience that to *want to* define a line
>to demarcate ideas as "un-theosophical" is *itself* untheosophical.

If the word "untheosophical" cannot be defined, it should not be used.


>i.e.  we should not talk about *where* the line should be
>drawn ... but ...
>
>*why* would one even *WANT* to??

This would only be true if Theosophy does not have to do with ideas at all,
which may depend on what is meant by the word "idea."  Are you saying that
the only dogmatic statement that Theosophy makes is that dogmatism is
untheosophical?