Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01060)

At 03:47 PM 4/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Alexis,
>
>You write:
>
>> We know today that Darwin was as wrong about some things as
>>Blavatsky was.
>
>
>But still we (the collective we on theos-l) do NOT know exactly what HPB was
>wrong about!  For the nth time, could you please provide us with a few specific
>examples. We don't need a lengthy essay just a few examples with a little
>detail.
>
>I don't mean to be confrontational but I have no idea what you are referring
>to since I
>cannot read your mind.
>
>Hoping that you will give us a few examples and also thanking you in advance,
>
>Daniel      See my P.S. below.
>
>P.S.  Did you get the book?
>
>
>Daniel:

I did get the book and sent you a message to that effect this morning. In
any case, thank you very much, I appreciate it immensely and when my book is
at at last "at large" I will see that you receive a copy early on.

Now, as to my objections to the Anthropogenesis in the Secret Doctrine. I
have discussed this with others in some detail but you obviously haven't
read those postings. My objections are to the "Root Races", the Dating, and
the inherent divisiveness that is part and parcel of this anthropogenesis. I
don't know if you followed my discussion with Alan Bain re: the basic
inspiration of Hitler's racist theories. But surely you are aware that there
is a major segment of educated public opinion which considers Blavatsky's
Secret Doctrine as a major source of Hitler's Racist theories. Now, I don't
because I know what his sources were and they certainly weren't Blavatsky.
But the S.D. contains material that give people just cause (they believe) to
make such charges. If Homo Sapiens , and that's the only kind there is, is
no more than 70,000 to 100,00 years old and the latest
anthropological/paleontological studies all generally agree that is true.
Then all the Anthropogenesis falls to pieces. If all of humankind is
descended from a breeding stock of some 10,000 individuals, and this too is
generally accepted, and if all the races are simply mutations of that one
group in response to an entire congerie of influences ranging from
environmental pressures, to simple survival and a thousand or so other
influences in between the two, then the entire "Root Race Premise" falls
apart. Homo Sapiens is a new species (my wolf is some 3,000,000 years old
genetically) and it is a single species. That there was a precursor culture
i personally have no doubt, but it certainly doesn't present adequate proof
of it's existence to accept it as gospel. When you combine these, which are
a very concise version of my objections, with my equal objections to the
Cosmo genesis. I think you can understand why I prefer "Isis Unveiled" to
the "Secret Doctrine"......

Now I personally believe that while Yelena Petrovna Blavatskaya was simply
an "advanced Chela", H.P.B. was an Adept. Do I believe Adepts are
infallible? No I don't, they don't make small mistakes but certainly can
make big ones. Do I believe the contents of the Secret Doctrine were the
result of ignorance on H.P.B.'s part? Partly, there was so very much less to
know in that period of time. Do I believe that the "errors" were at least
partially intentional? I do. I think H.P.B. was trying to create an
intellectual equivalent of an earthquake in Western Materialistic Thought.
Do I think he succeeded? I do. I personally love both H.P.B. and Helena
Blavatsky as individuals, do I worship them? No, I certainly do not! Do I
believe that to be a Theosophist you have to worship her? No, I do not! Do I
accept the Secret Doctrine as a valid statement of truth? No I do not! Do I
think you must do so to be a Theosophist? No, I do not! Do I believe in the
Adepts? No, I do not believe, I know them to be real! Do I believe one has
to accept the reality of the Masters to be a Theosophist? No I do not!What
then must one be to be a Theosophist? One must be truly a philalethian, a
"lover of truth". One must truly believe "There is no Religion Higher Than
Truth". One must not simply agree with the three objects but desire to be
actively engaged in supporting them to the highest extent of one's abilities.

I believe that "living Theosophy" should make one an eclectic student of
religion, philosophy, sociology, history, and all the sciences one can
comprehend. I believe that "living theosophy" tends to make one a social
liberal, or it should. I believe that "Living theosophy" should make one
terribly curious about the "powers latent in humankind". I very strongly
believe that an attempt to "Live Theosophically" would and should preclude
joining the E.S. I believe that an attempt to "Live Theosophically" should
preclude (almost automatically) a religious approach to the search for truth
because, as I see it, religion precludes a search for truth.

alexis dolgorukii
The Eclectic Theosophist
Shaman, Healer, Psychic