Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00933)

Jerry S:

>Eldon, while I applaud your attempt to "explain away"
>the racist remarks of TS leaders, I still find that I have
>some problems.

Without picking out certain writers as racist and others
as knowing more, I'll admit that there's a certain bias
we can see. This was stronger in Sinnett and his time than
later on.

It's quite possible to misread the teachings, and to
accept them literally, or in a manner that would seem
to confirm racism. That's not what is being taught,
though, and the error is on the part of the person
doing the misreading, and not in the doctrine itself.

>My problem is with the teaching itself.

Perhaps not. Perhaps just with your reading of the
teaching. I read it differently, taking it a bit deeper
than the surface appearance of racism. You have to
realize that the terminology was minted in an era when
the superiority of white European males was presumed,
and dark-skinned Indian yogis where looked down upon.

>The basic premise that there is a hierarchy of
>human beings clearly implies that some are "better"
>than others. Some are "more mature" than others.

They are and they aren't. Is a six-year-old boy better
than a two-year-old girl? One is more mature, more
advanced in this lifetime. But that is only in terms
of this lifetime. Looking at their spiritual ages, the
girl may be the "oldest".

Perhaps, for purposes of this discussion, since race is
a misleading term, we could use "cultural context" or
"context" as a substitute term.

Here are some important points to keep in mind:

1. Our world as a whole, the overall status of humanity,
   has a particular context. That context will successively
   progress and unfold, going through two more major
   unfoldments during the remaining millions of years that
   humanity will be on earth (Globe D). (We are all, in
   the most basic sense, in the Fifth Root Race.)

2. There is some representation of all the possible
   contexts during the entire time we are on the earth.
   (The seven races appeared from the very beginning, and
   they have some representation during the entire time of
   human evolution on our globe.)

3. There are a number of highly-specialized contexts or
   cultures that exist at the same time. Life, for instance,
   in a small Greek fishing village, in a Chinese work
   collective, or as an educator in Oxford are in almost
   entirely different worlds.

4. We are not branded by the culture we live in, being
   capable of learning new languages, customs, manners of
   thought, and living in a different culture (like a
   Chinese child growing up and later becoming a French-
   speaking librarian in Paris).

5. We cannot be judged by the physical bodies that we
   occupy. Having an American Indian body, for instance,
   does not limit us from fully participating in any
   cultural context.

6. The various apparent different "races" that we see
   about us are like the multitude of courses offered
   at a college. We've signed up for one, but the
   course that we're taking says nothing about our
   overall background and status as a student. Someone
   "enrolled" as an white, Aryan, German male may not
   be any more advanced than an hispanic female in Brazil.

I could go on, but my typing fingers are tiring ...

>This whole line of thinking will lead us right into the
>conclusion that whites are superior to blacks because
>they are older and more mature.

I don't think so, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

>The plain truth is that we are all homo sapiens
>and genetically equal. Whether HPB's SD is correct or
>not, it is neither politically correct, nor very nice to
>suggest inequalities.

There are tremendous differences between, say, a Charles
Manson and a Ghandhi. And wider differences between a
Shakespear and a Chimpanzee, although the generic difference
may only be a percent or two.

Failure to acknowledge differences prevents us from
recognizing and striving to acquiring higher qualities.
When we put everyone on an equal basis, we lose the
ability to find and learn from teachers (since everyone
is a teacher now), gurus (since all are gurus), etc.

How would you go about studying mathematics, for instance,
if no one knew more mathematics than anyone else, and
you could not say that this person is a skilled educator
and professor, and that person has not yet studied algebra?
The gap widens even more when we deal with the spiritual
and the Path.

>And I can't help but grit my teeth every time I
>read G de P calling an animal a "beast." Most animals
>are more loving and forgiving than humans are.

But I don't think "beast" was meant to indicate savage,
cruel, monstrous. It meant more "in the wild" or
uncultured, or uncivilized in human terms.

>This is probably the only area of the TS core
>teaching that I simply cannot bring myself to accept.

I think that your stumbling block is the poor terminology
used. Somehow it keeps you from getting past the
awkward words and seeing the underlying teachings.

The whole concept has to do with the cyclic nature of
life, and with our education and evolution in and
through collectives, through cultural contexts or group
karma. We'll still unique individuals, and neither
worthy of honor nor of shame based upon the group we've
found ourselves drawn to in this lifetime. The only
honor or shame that we deserve is based upon how well we
take what comes before us in life and use it to make the
world a better place.


>
>	Jerry S.
>	Member, TI
>
>
>