Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00950)

At 07:41 PM 5/16/96 -0400, you wrote:

That was a reasonable set of comments and they clearly deserve a reasoned
answer. I will start by saying that I have not seen any strong evidence that
we have any racists among the subscribers to this list. But I have seen
people doing what seems to be apologizing for, or "explaining away" the
comments made by past theosophical writers which could be construed as racist.

I have said before that the Anthropology of the Secret Doctrine, as I see
it, is of a highly questionable nature. And yes, I did call it "Balderdash",
and I'm afraid to say I mean that term. The Human Race, as I see it, based
upon what I read in various non-theosophical but allegedly valid sources, is
a fairly monolithic thing. The so-called Races are simply adaptation to
climactic circumstances, diet, and other environmental causes such as Solar
Radiation, The Ozone level, and genetic variances,that are infinitely more
complex than Charles Darwin's simplistic "survival of the fittest". But I am
afraid I must say that based upon my studies and understanding I must reject
the entire concept of human beings being representative of cyclic
development which results in putative racial differences. There are only
Homo-Sapiens, some of them fall into several sub-sets which we call Mongol,
African, or Caucasian depending on place of origin. But they are all
Homo=Sapiens. This is demonstrated by the ease with which they can
inter-breed producing virile offspring. Were they that different, this would
not be so and the best they could do would be the human equivalent of Mules.

I am afraid Eldon that this particular concept is a very negative one and
may, indeed, have borne deadly fruit. While I do not believe it to be
accurate, there are many authors (Lewis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier being
only a pair out of many) who believe that Hitler got his racial theories
from the secret Doctrine. I believe otherwise, and feel that his sources
were Friedrich Nietzsche and a man named Guido von Liszt who was probably
the major philosopher in the German Nationalist Movement. But, were it so,
and was it true that it was the Secret Doctrine that influenced at least von
Liszt, then the society which claims to use that book as the basis for its
"Core Doctrines" bears some Karmic Responsibility for the results of that
influence.

One of the things that troubles me is that over the many years of my
involvement in the Civil Rights Movement, I have seen too many practicing
Racists preach Brotherhood out of ther Pulpits on sunday and put the Bed
sheets on that night.

No organization should permit any doctrine, especially scientifically
questionable doctrine, to be part of its intrinsic make-up if that doctrine
can be construed as anyway racist.

Now while I think it would be nice if all that you say is true, believe me
Eldon, there's a tremendous difference between being a White Supremacist and
boasting about the price of your car or the neighborhood you live in. Ego
trips are simply ego-trips and most humans have some or another
manifestation of one, but being any kind of "racial Supremacist" is not an
ego trip, but a social malignancy. The very concept that some racial groups
are IN ANY WAY more advanced, or more spiritual, or more intelligent, than
other "races" based on the criterion of race and race alone, has only one
result, it kills people.

I think the thing all theosophists have to accept is that Blavatsky could be
wrong, and quite possibly was frequently wrong. I personally believe that
the Mahatma Letters may have been completely the work of HPB. That doesn't
mean I don't believe in the Adepts, it just means that my view of them is
not the same as yours. It also doesn't mean that I believe that those
letters were produced by any other adept than HPB.

I am clearly not a traditionalist using your definition of that term, I am a
theosophist because I actively support and actively pursue all three of "The
Three Objects", and because I do so, it doesn't matter a bit whether or not
I think the Secret doctrine is "balderdash" (I do), or that I don't believe
in the validity of those particular "Mahatmas" (I don't). But I do live
Theosophy vary actively indeed, and I am particularly devoted to the idea
that: THERE IS NO RELIGION HIGHER THAN TRUTH", and because I believe that, I
am constrained to tell the truth as I see it, and when I see it, even if no
one else alive on this planet agrees with me. But that is far from the case.

You base all your arguments on your acceptance, which I strongly respect,
upon a book which I reject almost, but not entirely, totally. That makes for
a difficulty of our experiencing a "meeting of the minds". But that's what
this list is for, I think. People who would never actually interact can do
so and hopefully they both learn from it. because of our discussions I am
learning a great deal about the mind set of people I would otherwise have
never contacted, and because of that contact, I am organizing my own
thoughts and beliefs far more carefully, and I am beginning to understand my
own beliefs far better now that I must defend them so often. For that I
thank you,

alexis