[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: RE: 1906 Controversy Sources

Mar 17, 2006 09:21 AM
by Steven Levey

       I think you are missing the spirit of Carlos's words here. He is not simply talking about some kind of authoritarian sense of Theosophical ethics, at least I don't think so. It would be heretical for him to do that, for it would be in a dead letter sense, or interpretation, of this ethic had that been his intention. 
      I think he is saying (or rather implying) that by definition, theosophical thought is ethical because it implies the need for humane thought and compassion as part of its systematic approach to wisdom. This actually makes theosophical thought Wisdom. Otherwise it would be just another intellectual mask for it and as sterile as any other. So, this is what makes the Theosophical Movement, being that is capable of containing true theosophical thought, potentially useful. But it's only potential, since any aspect of the so-named Movement can become, and has become in many instances, selfrighteous, giving the philosophy itself a bad name.
  Steve wrote:
In a message dated 3/17/2006 8:40:12 AM Central Standard Time, writes:

Now, when people say that Theosophy is just words, so that the Ethics of 
Theosophists is of no importance, this is absolutely not true.

No, it is absolutely true.

There is no holy writ in Theosophy. Everything is open to debate and 
question and interpretation so one may be a Theosophist and still reject the ethics 
of everyone else. The two really do not go hand in hand no matter what 
Blavatsky said. This isn't the 19th century any more. We do not mix things they 
way they did.

Chuck the Heretic

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 

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

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application