Theos-Talk Archives (October 2000 Message tt00287)

Thanks Peter for your letter... I had almost overlooked it with all of 
the missives flying around...

My concern is with the impression that there is a kind of 
"orthodoxy" view of Theosophy... this view stresses the writings 
of Madam Blavatsky and perhaps a few other writers and shuns 
or disapproves of later views and contributions.

I think it's apparent from the topics on this list that there are 
people on various sides..

I sense that Dallas is trying to posit that unless we are extremely 
studied in these writings we really can't debate them or consider 
other views, this I gathered from his sixth point as you recall.

What I dislike is making theosophy into a religion with prophets 
and sacred scriptures. I think that's behind some of the issues 
on this list. To me Leadbeater has worthwhile things to say as 
does Rudolf Steiner and Alice Bailey and others, so i am making 
a plea here to be theosophists with a small "t" as opposed to 
Theosophists I think.

- Art


--- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Peter Merriott" <nous@b...> 
wrote:
> Art,
> 
> I think you are misrepresenting what Dallas wrote. The subject 
of his
> discussion with Kym et al was: What does Theosophy teach?
> 
> He suggested, among many other things, that in order to 
answer this question
> it would be valuable to have studied the writings already given 
to us by HPB
> and the Mahatmas, the founders of the TS. He says if we don't 
know what
> they have given us we are not really in a position to debate the 
fundamental
> tenets found therein - either pro or con.
> 
> This makes sense, doesn't it. etc.


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000