Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00905)

At 02:47 AM 5/16/96 -0400, Richtay wrote:
>Alexis writes,
>
>> having the gall to suggest that the entire "Root-Race" and
>> so-called Racial Hierarchy concepts of so-called "Core Theosophy" was pure
>> balderdash. Actually, I strongly believe it's far more than simply
>> "balderdash" it is arrant white supremacist. There's a large body of
>opinion
>> out there in the real world that strongly believes that Theosophy and the
>> Old Nazis were not unconnected. I have, as you know, already defended HPB
>> against allegations that she was the primary inspiration for Hitler's
>Racial
>> Theories. She wasn't,  Nietzsche and Guido von Liszt were. I am beginning
>to
>> think that those of us who are not racists or other "ists" really had best
>> make it clear that we will not accept this aspect of Theosophical
>> Institutional History.
>
>There is a lot of contradictory stuff here:
>
>(1)  The root-race teachings of Theosophy are "arrant (?) white supremacist."
>(2)  This kind of thinking was involved in Nazism
>(3)  HPB was not the inspiration of Nazism
>(4)  We won't accept these doctrines from "instituional Theosophy"
>(5)  HPB founded these doctrines which became institutionalized.
>(6)  Those who don't want to be labelled "racists" had better distance
>themselves from this teaching
>(7)  We love old HPB
>
>
>Hmmm.  It seems that if one is going to call the doctrines "white
>supremacist" then there is no way to defend HPB from the same label, since
>she taught them.
>
>Yet she taught universal brotherhood almost in the same breath.
>
>Was the poor old woman senile, stupid, or unaware of how contradictory all
>this seemed?  I think that there is a far deeper teaching going on here.
>
>Jerry S. has pointed out that such Theosophical doctrines aren't "politically
>correct."  Well, smoking isn't politically correct either.  But we all know
>HPB smoked a ton.  I guess, then, we can conclude that HPB cannot be made to
>appear in the image we should like her to appear before the modern audience
>of language and thought-police.  Ah well.  She never has "fit in" well, has
>she?  Even her own family thought her passing strange.
>
>Yet if one accepts two basic ideas of Theosophy, then the theory of different
>stages of development among humans seems almost necessarily entailed:
>
>(1)  Reincarnation is a fact
>(2)  Evolution is gradual
>
>If these two doctrines are true (and I'm making no guarantees, just a logical
>argument) then we can only assume that all beings are contantly progressing
>into higher and higher levels of consciousness and self-awareness.  Then it
>seems obvious that not all humans alive today entered the human kingdom all
>at the same time.  Some came earlier, some later.  Some have profited from
>coming earlier and have become quite spiritual.  Others have squandered the
>extra time, and have developed Lower Manas at the expense of Buddhi.
>
>Under a possible third law, (3) evolution is cyclic, then it seems that
>beings would have to come in waves, or clumps, up to higher levels of
>perception, and thus human "races" (so-called) are required, as bunches of
>people move up more or less together.
>
>The question is: how are we going to define these "races"?  By skin color?
> (I defy anyone to find an HPB or Mahatma Letter quote that shows skin color
>expresses one's spiritual "development.")  By language?  (ditto)  By costume?
>(ditto)
>
>The concept of root races is rather about the development of the inner
>principles, primarily Manas, and to judge this development by outer physical
>characteristics, or to assume that various "racial" groups (so-called) on the
>planet today are even vaguely shadowing what HPB is talking about, seems to
>me to miss the teaching entirely.
>
>[Then again, I've been a buffoon before, and I could be totally off base.
> Yup, it's possible.]
>

Rich: You are not totally off base here.

As for the theory that some are further in evolution (spiritually) than
others and its possible application to the humanity at large I do not see
any problem at all. For example, a young child in a family, we know in due
course of time is going to grow up. The youngest in the family is generally
provided most protection and care and not treated as somewhat inferior to
the rest. In some families, the youngest is also given most importance and
attention. By using this analogy,  HPB's teaching is easy to understand.

        ....Ramadoss