Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00032)

leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> 1. What theosophist or group of theosophists ever claimed that it was
> an "object" of the Theosophical Movement to "form a Universal
> Brotherhood"?
None, I believe. The Objects assume the Universal Brotherhood already 
exists, and does not need to be formed (by the way, I have pointed out 
that there IS a required belief in the Theosophical Society; in order to 
form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, one must 
believe that the Brotherhood already exists).

> 2. If someone doesn't accept the "Three Fundamental Principles" as
> being absolutely valid and immutable propositions, can he/she call
> him/herself a "theosophist"?
The Theosophical Society onnly requires that one agrees with the 3 
Objects; agreement with the Three Fundamental Principles is totally
unnecessary. Even the Mahatmas did not claim that there was no chance of
them being wrong, only that they, themselves, were convinced that they
were right.

> 3. How can anyone learn anything when they talk too much, prejudge
> everything, waffle in the negatives, and say nothing positive?
They can learn what it is to be obnoxious and disliked.

> 4. For such persons -- what would be their intents and purposes in
> haranguing a group of serious theosophists (among other students
> listening in) who are discussing theosophy as the synthesis of
> science, religion, and philosophy, along with its practical
> applications in every field on all planes of reality?
Beats the hell out of me. I can make guesses; perhaps they have been 
hurt badly by a person or group who called him/her/themselve/s 
Theosophical, and this is their way of getting revenge.

Bart