Theos-Talk Archives (January 2000 Message tt00009)

The following was intended by Jim Rodak for theos-talk,
but I'm not sure that it made it out on the list.

-- Eldon Tucker

----

 >From: "Jim Rodak" <rodakjl@pcola.gulf.net>
 >Subject: Language of the Third Object
 >Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 13:33:38 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0056_01BF545C.CFCE6E40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

Greetings and Happy New Millennium --

      In the November 1996 issue of The Theosophist, N. Sri Ram's article
"The Open Field of the Third Object"  (a reprint of an article originally
published in the December 1964 issue of the same journal), makes what I
consider an interesting observation that I would like to share with you.  I
quote:

      "The Third Object of the Society reads: 'To investigate unexplained
laws of Nature and the powers latent in man.'  First of all, is the word
'unexplained' the right word in the sentence?  Should it not really be
'undiscovered'?  The word 'unexplained' implies that we have already
identified the laws, and perceived their existence, but they have not been
explained because of some obscurity in them or because of their complex or
complica-ted nature, whereas the word 'undiscovered' would imply only the
presumption that there are laws unknown to us at present."

      Sri Ram continues his article with a comprehensive overview of the
history of the Third Object and I commend it to my brethren for their
perusal and consideration.  Without sounding heretical, I would also ask if
the word 'laws' is the right word in the sentence and whether the word
'mysteries'  or 'secrets' might better convey what the Third Object intends
for the reader to contemplate.

      I believe that revisiting the language of the Third Object with a
view to wording it more clearly might help eliminate the ambiguity that
present-day readers might perceive in it.  Words conjure up impressions and
meanings that often, from my experience, are not what was originally
intended to convey to the reading audience by the writer.  I think it safe
to say that we all have had to re-articulate our writings, thinking that
what we had published originally was crystal clear.

      In closing, I think it worthy to quote again from Sri Ram's
informative article:

      "Third Object: Scope and Limitations

      To sum up what I have said:  The study of Occultism in general can
do much good.  It is the study of Nature, taking her as a totality, not only
what appears on the surface but also the hidden laws and processes.  It can
be marvelously enlightening, when one takes it up in earnest; for then
instead of seeing only the superficial aspect of things, he sees through it,
penetrates to the heart of existence, sees what lies behind the facade, the
extension behind the appearance.  We can all engage in such study, but to
'investigate' the hidden laws and powers requires the necessary capacity.
The development of such capacity is an individual affair, not the business
of the Society, which cannot have schools for such development.  The seeking
of power is dangerous, as it builds up self-importance, the desire to enjoy
it and dominate, whether it is power in this world or power of a different
character.

      Whatever anyone declares to be true by the exercise of psychic
powers may be worthy of consideration -- that depends upon the person.  But
it should be taken with a grain of discrimination.  When you do not accept a
statement or reject it but just look at it or contemplate it you will know
your own response.  If you respond to the truth of it, you register that
fact.  This is really the attitude needed with regard to the pursuit of the
Third Object, which to many minds is exceedingly vague because they have not
sorted out all the implications of what they believe or refuse to believe,
do not have any clear idea of what Occultism is and what we can accept and
what not.  It is necessary to have in our minds a certain clarity with
regard to our aims and undertakings, whether pertaining to the Third Object
of the Society or anything else."

      I look forward to your comments.  And for those so interested, I
commend the whole of the aforementioned issue of The Theosophist for your
edification.

                                              Respectfully and fraternally
yours,   Jim Rodak


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.