Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00674)

John 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.

I do not see how Hitler's acts or motives are even relevant to this
discussion.  The Three Declared Objects have to do with the actions of the
Theosophical Society as a group - not individuals.  How could one, as an
individual, "do" or violate the Objects?

Tom wrote:

>If this is being said because he had people killed, and it is acknowledged
>that killing is not always wrong, then this is debatable.

Everything is debatable; however, to use John's term, it is the acceptance
of the 'concept' that killing is wrong which governs the world.  If you want
to search the records of the Third Reich and find a person who may have
deserved to die, and therefore help exonerate Hitler and his cronies - go
ahead.  But I feel quite comfortable making the blanket statement that what
Hitler did was wrong.

>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.

It seems you are declaring that anyone who claims that the Theosophical
Society is anything but sacred may be guilty of the crime of acting "in any
spirit less than one of pure brotherhood."  I tire of the assumption that it
is those who dare to point out the spiritual nakedness of supposed leaders
as being the ones who are causing the discord.

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

Can one truly define the word 'love?'  Can one truly define the word
'brotherhood?'  I say they cannot - does this mean they shouldn't be used?
Your logic is flawed.  However, I'm all for the term 'brotherhood' to be
tossed in the toidy.

>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?

Theosophy has declared a dogma by the writing and acceptance of the Three
Declared Objects and The Theosophical World View; although, in the World
View, it boldly declares it does not.  Theosophy, the Theosophical Society,
and those who call themselves Theosophists certainly want us to accept the
dogma of "brotherhood."

It seems, especially among those who call themselves intellectuals, that to
declare the embracing of a dogma is to somehow suggest you do not possess an
independent nature.  We all have dogmas (beliefs, personal creeds, arrogant
opinions) and there's nothing wrong with it.  To completely espouse the
opposite would make us nothing but a bunch of namby-pamby's.  One can still
have a dogma, and be open to change, improvement, and learning - which in
reality, is simply the acceptance of other dogmas.  All our life is spent
picking and choosing dogmas - I don't see how it is possible to live
dogma-less.  The argument is not whether the Society has a dogma but rather
that it has the "right" one.


Kym