Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00164)

Yes, they are dogmatic and doctrinaire, but we already knew that.  In  the 
end, Theosophy is what Theosophists say it is.
 
Chuck the Heretic
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 10/6/2008 5:44:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

 
 
 
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"c

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" and in fact
promoting a "fundamentalistic" version of Theosophy  by LIMITING
which authors are promoted and/or  studied???

Daniel
_http://hpb.cc_ (http://hpb.cc/) 


 




**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!      
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]