Theos-Talk Archives (April 2007 Message tt00102)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Compare & contrast Nigel's & Perry's statements about
> HPB and the T.S. with what the late John Coats
> wrote about Blavatsky and the T.S.:
> 
> "The percentage of [Adyar T.S.] members, who have not as yet
> ever read any books by H.P. Blavatsky is
> regrettably high." The Theosophist, Feb., 1975
> 
> Why is this "regrettable"?
> 
> "There's a great need for the deepening of the
> individual member's understanding of theosophy.
> A lot of people skate superfically over the
> surface of theosophy without really going into
> it in depth." The Theosophist, Dec. 1975.
> 
> But what Theosophy does one study?  
> 
> And why should members of the TS study
> Theosophy?  The three objects of the
> Society do not directly mention Theosophy,
> whatever Theosophy may or may not be.
> 
> What does Theosophy offer the student that
> one cannot find by pursuing the 3 objects
> especially the comparative study of religion,
> philosophy and science and also investigations
> into psychic powers, etc.
> 
> There are many, many different organizations devoted especially
> to these specific subjects.  Why not join these
> instead of the TS.  What does the TS offer that
> these other organizations don't?
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc

Hello Daniel
You raise interesting and important questions which I am sure you 
have discussed with many people over many years as have I.
>From what you write it would appear we have come to a similar 
conclusion.
Why would the Theosophical Society have been so named if Theosophical 
information/teachings were to have no part in it.

Kind regards
Nigel