Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tt00036)

Jerry writes,

"So for a start, I hope to at least reintroduce
the idea that ethics is part of Theosophy."

The very idea that such a position has to be REINTRODUCED speaks
volumes about the (public) state of Theosophy today. How the
Masters must our inability to follow simple, clear instructions.

I agree completely with what Jerry has said about the
universality of first-generation Theosophical presentations (HPB,
Judge, the Mahatma Letters, a few others) and the watered-down,
disfigured nature of "theosophical" productions from the 1910s
and 1920s. When most people today hear the word Theosophy they
think Annie Besant, Leadbeater and Krishnamurti, auras and
chakras and out of body journeys. Shirley Maclaine and the
"Shirley Maclaine Theosophical Society" haven't done much to firm
up the public image.

Jerry, what is that line in the Mahatma Letters, about "all of
our knowledge would not be sufficient to reward one who worked
unselfishly for humanity?" Something like that. Without ethics,
there IS NO THEOSOPHY. It's my personal belief, but I feel it is
perfectly defensible, that the entire extended teachings,
philosophy, principles, cosmology, etc. were given out as
SUPPORTS for the basic teaching of brotherhood in practice and
the amelioration of suffering, largely caused on this planet by
selfishness and immorality.

Rounds, races, etc, etc, fascinate me, and I find them useful in
many ways, but I think they form only a philosophical framework
whose centerpiece is "strenuous self-evolution toward altruism
for the betterment of the whole." Lose the centerpiece, and the
framework is, as Jerry says, at best useless and at worst frankly
dangerous.

Rich