Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00622)

At 07:48 AM 12/24/96 +0000, JRC <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote:

>> Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy."

>	They most assuredly do *not*. The Three Objects "define" the
>purpose of theosophical organizations. Neither HPB, nor Olcott, nor the
>Masters in the Mahatma Letters *ever* even suggested, let alone insisted
>upon, any of that controlling garbage.

If the belief that Jesus died on the cross to save from their sins those who
believe that he died on the cross to save them from their sins is just as
Theosophical as to believe in the one divine, homogeneous
substance-principle, which HPB referred to as a "fundamental dogma," then
the word "Theosophy" is meaningless.


>There is an *enormous* range of opinion and
>belief about what constitues Theosophy - as there was *designed* to be.

If you are saying that John Algeo's opinion of what constitutes Theosophy is
too limited, what limit would you say, without being dogmatic yourself, it
should have?  If you believe there should be no limit, you are saying that
the word "Theosophy" is meaningless.


>It was meant to be something broad enough to encompass all races, religions,
>creeds and castes

What about the creed that men should dominate over women?  What about the
creed that, since Jews threaten the existence of the master Aryan race, they
should all be annihilated?  Do you consider those creeds just as
Theosophical as the laws of karma and of cyclicity?  If you would never draw
a line, the word "Theosophy" is meaningless.  You would also face strong
disagreement with most participants on this list, since one of the
aforementioned creeds was categorically condemned as being untheosophical,
and I assume the pro-Nazi one would be, too.  There is no way to be
completely open-minded without throwing out all ideas and being a blank
slate.  The search for truth includes standing for what truth has been
found.