Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00675)

At 01:51 AM 12/27/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote:

>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?

It is only individuals who can uphold or violate the Objects.  You are
missing the trees by focusing on the forest.


>>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.

You are probably right about this, since it takes common experience, but not
necessarily a logical definition, for certain words to be understood.  Other
intuitive concepts such as "justice," "beauty," and "goodness" could be
added to your list.  It was untheosophical of me to be illogical.


>However, I'm all for the term 'brotherhood' to be tossed in the toidy.

What alternative do you suggest?


>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.

What she said, but more of it.  As competition would be meaningless if
winning were not possible, so would the search for truth be meaningless if
there were no truth to be found.