Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00465)

>Jerry Schueler <gschueler@netgsi.com> writes
>> I suppose the Big Question
>>is whether or not post-HPB writings are "theosophy?"
>
>I suppose the Big Answer is neither. All of the writings are *about*
>theosophy - it is up to us to study and use our discrimination to detect
>what, to us, appears to be "true" or "false".
>
>Alan

Alan, while I agree with you that what you say is exactly how we
should be looking at it, nevertheless "Theosophy" needs some
kind of definition. Most theosophists accept HPB and the ML
as being "core teachings" while everything else may or may
not be. What you are really saying here is that we need to
accept or reject the core teachings as necessary, and I agree
with you. But the question of "what is theosophy" has never
been answered very well, and the TSs especially need to be
able to define themselves. Or do we need a fixed definition at
all?

Jerry S.