Theos-Talk Archives (February 1998 Message tl00041)

In response to various comments on this subject:  Thoa is quite
right that the Object of Universal Brotherhood is rather vague
and meaningless unless translated into more concrete goals (I
think that was the gist) of which learning about humanity's
spiritual heritage and our own inner potentials are most
important.  But the question of *priority* is all important here.
Is it accidental that the Founders chose to place the First
Object first and the others behind?  All Doss's quotes indicate
otherwise, and there a hundred more along the same lines.

*Why* should we engage in comparative study of science, religion
and philosophy?  *Why* should we explore innate human potential
and the hidden laws of the universe?  The Second and Third
Objects are both *instrumental*, *practical*, and therefore
lower-order in comparison to the First.  My opinion is that we
should do these things in order to enrich the spiritual life of
humanity by better understanding what we are and what our
spiritual heritage means.  And the ultimate objective behind that
enrichment is to bring people together through promoting
understanding of all the things that unite us.  I.e., creating a
nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of humanity.  When you ask
why we should do that, there's no answer.  It's either
self-evident or it's not.  The First Object cannot be treated as
instrumental toward some other goal; it's a higher-order
objective than the other two by its very nature.

I can only say that Brenda, if that's who it was that insisted
that the Mahachohan's letter saying a "nucleus of *the*
Universal Brotherhood" contradicts everything else in the
Theosophical literature about the First Object, is wrong, wrong,
wrong.  She seems to extract from this single article the idea
that the First Object really means what Algeo makes the Third
mean-- that the TS is supposed to be a sect worshipping and
serving the Masters, believing itself to be somehow a spiritual
elite as a result, and not particularly concerned with humanity
at large except as an afterthought.  Moreover, when they talk
about serving the Masters or elders, I get the distinct
impression their focus is not on the general category of all
humans who are spiritually advanced in understanding, but rather
serving the specific group of Masters of HPB named in
Theosophical literature.  They would be horrified at becoming the
objects of such devotion; the 1900 K.H. letter is quite eloquent
to that effect.  (Not assuming its genuineness here, I still
offer it as *possible* evidence of how HPB's teachers would
regard the cultic direction the TS took under Annie Besant which
is so clearly reflected in Algeo's revision of the Objects.)

The most powerful statement contradicting any such view is the
Original Programme manuscript.  I don't have it at hand but can
paraphrase.  HPB says that the Founders were never told by the
Masters exactly what they should do in practical terms, just
given general guidelines.  But they were very explicitly told
what the TS should *never* be.  Which is a sect like many others
which regard themselves as special, set apart, in possession of a
body of truth that makes them an elite.  Moreover she adds that
any dogmatic view of the Masters, or even belief in them, "had to
be checked from the start."  Yet now we have a high official of
the TS informing us that the *real* first objective is to create
a group who by studying the "Ancient Wisdom" (by which he means
not the whole spiritual heritage of humanity but the set of
doctrines found in books published by the TS) prepare themselves
to be instruments of the very Masters whose existence was
explicitly repudiated as a doctrine of the Society.  He is
essentially stating the objective of the *ES* and imposing that
on the 99% of TS members who are not ES members.

This is every bit as serious as Doss says it is, and constitutes
a hijacking of the TS by the very forces HPB and Olcott warned
against over and over.  I'll post some quotes to this effect
tomorrow.

Cheers,
Paul