Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00168)

Constitution of  the TS does give complete freedom to all to read and
study any book and call any writing as Theosophy.
In theory it is very sweet to say that. However in practice this view
creates lot of problems.
Suppose I am in the lodge and some new member comes and says "I want
to study Theosophy, please tell me how I should proceed"
Should I answer him " Read any book and that is Theosophy"
I don't think such answer will help anybody. He will freak out if he
receives such answer.
Anand Gholap
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Should an "ideal", non-dogmatic, all-inclusive
> Theosophical Society study and "promote" all
> of the following books?
> 
> Books by Blavatsky, Sinnett, Judge, Besant,
> Leadbeater, Tingley, G. de Purucker, Olcott,
> Bailey, La Due, Ballard, Roerich,
> Prophet, Chaney, Steiner, Hodson, King, Crosbie,
> Wadia, Scott, Heindel, Innocente, Shearer, and
> other "Theosophical" writers.
> 
> As well as books by various yogis, lamas,
> metaphysicans, sufis, spirtualists, psychical reseachers,
> kabalists, religionists, etc. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> I believe that almost all the named individuals
> (in the 2nd paragraph above) have claimed contact with 
> the "Masters" and all their books could broadly be 
> called "theosophical".
> 
> Who is to say what and what is not Theosophy or
> Theosophical?
> 
> And who is to say what or what is not to be studied
> and promoted in a Theosophical Society or group?
> 
> It should be noted that the three major Theosophical organizations 
> (TS Adyar, TS Pasadena and ULT) all feature, study and promote (i.e., 
> SELL) ONLY CERTAIN authors and writers.
> 
> Therefore are these three groups being "dogmatic" or in fact
> promoting a "fundamentalistic" version of Theosophy by LIMITING
> which authors are promoted and/or studied???
> 
> Hopefully some food for thought...
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>