Re: Brotherhood first
Feb 12, 1998 09:13 AM
by Bart Lidofsky
K. Paul Johnson wrote:
> *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.
My opinion differs mostly in terms of emphasis; I believe that the
second two objects are a mechanism for making it known to the rest of
the world that there is, in fact, a Brotherhood of Humanity. If a
comparative study of science, religion and philosophy are made, the
univestigated laws of nature and the powers latent in humanity are
investigated, the Brotherhood of Humanity becomes and inevitable
conclusion. Annie Besant (who wasn't ENTIRELY evil) stated that for
membership in the Theosophical Society, one needs only believe in the
Brotherhood of Humanity, and that we must always remember that those who
don't believe in it are STILL our brothers.
> 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.
> 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.)
Keeping in my policy not to quote from any private communications,
all I can say is that, from what I have been told, it is the official
position of the TS that the letter is genuine (and therefore binding). I
must reserve judgement myself on what John Algeo wrote, as I did not
read the full article, and therefore am not aware of the context in
which it was stated.
> 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."
I know of at least one Arcane School member who is rather annoyed at
the custom at the New York Lodge for speakers talking about the Mahatmas
to point out that they may or may not have existed, and if they existed,
they may or may not have been what they said they were. I have been
told, however, that the New York Lodge is an unusual Lodge.
> 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)
Now, at the risk of my being called a mindless running dog for the
TS establishment for daring to ask this question (thankfully, not by
you), what evidence do you have about what John Algeo really means when
he says "Ancient Wisdom?"
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application