Theos-Talk Archives (June 2011 Message tt00003)

> Maybe you misunderstood my question.
> I was thinking about what kind of Constitution and 
> Rules one aught to forward these days compared to 
> the one given in 1886 by H. P. Blavatsky:

Yes, if you meant it that way, I misunderstood it.



> ...Because, such a reformulation would turn the 
> Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891 
> in to a sect, and this was not the original aim 
> with the Society. But if your are syaing that we 
> aught to turn the The Theosophical Society into a 
> sect with a doctrine and all, I think I would like 
> to know why this should be an improvement compared 
> to the original aim? What are your views on this, Diwata?



Well, the reformulation (or re-elucidation) by Vitvan involves the most basic teachings of Theosophy (Subtle Bodies and Palingenesis) needed in a programme of Self-development. He did not say anything about Races and Rounds and Hierarchies, where most issues arise (In fact, he explicitly wrote that his gnosis could not yet reach knowledge of this level.) Anyway, my idea is, re-elucidation of the basic teachings are nearly uniform everywhere and not very prone to turn into sectarian doctrines. The difference in Vitvan is that these teachings are utilized in his Self-development system, which is what he felt was the more pressing need of the New Age.



Anyway, I must admit I was carried away in my last posts about reformulation of Theosophy. I take it back. :) The **society** must follow its constitution, the classic one or the revised. As for Theosophy, I said Vitvan reformulated (re-elucidated) its basic teachings for more clarity and utility in a self-development process.