Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00074)

Dallas and Katinka wrote:

>>[Dallas] As I see it, Theosophy is anything but sentimental.

>[Katinka] I agree, all I am trying to say is that to reach someone,

Why is it so important, especially for those in the Western world, for
doctrines to be void of sentimentality and emotion in order for them to be
taken seriously?  Why do many theosophists (some on this list and many who
write books on theosophy) attempt to make sure that doctrines, and
opinions, avoid emotion as much as possible, focus primarily on logical and
objective theory.  I can't think of one "enlightened" being, including HPB,
who wasn't jammed full of emotion and sentimentality - both in person and
in their doctrines.  The emotions displayed by the "enlightened" ones tend
to be glossed over, or named "something else," made excuses for, or ignored
altogether.

Does the presence of emotion or sentimentality make something less valid or
truthful?  Does the presence of emotion or sentimentality make something
more dangerous?  Is emotion or sentimentality a sign of weakness or
ignorance?

On the other hand, does objectivity make something more valid or truthful?
Does objectivity make something less dangerous?  Is an objective person
stronger or more knowledgeable?

Main point: Is the objective, or scientific (logical), path more conducive
to Truth and Compassion than subjective, or emotional, path?

Clearly, many theosophists think the objective is the best way, and that
even "God" is objective, but I fail to see any 'objective proof or
reasonings' for those conclusions.

Kym