Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01175)

At 08:49 PM 5/20/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>>>cut<<<<<<<
>Alexis has continued to say that racism is sold as a
>part of Theosophy, that it makes judgmental and
>condemnatory racial comparisons, with the goal of
>subjective racism, to put down people of certain races.

alexis comments: No  Eldon, that is not what I said. That is your
understanding of what I said. Perhaps I didn't make my meaning sufficiently
clear. What I am saying is that I have spent years defending theosophy
against just such a charge, and that, as I felt the entire Root-Race concept
was totally invalid no matter what the perspective one views it from (here I
disagree entirely with Eldon's views),that I therefore felt it was
unfortunate,to say the least, that theosophy contained certain doctrines
having the force (in some eyes) of dogmas, that encouraged the malevolent in
their views. There are considerable numbers of books which accuse the T.S.
of inspiring Hitler's Racial theories. Now I have, I believe, made it very
clear that I do not believe that to be accurate, but I cannot deny that some
of the people who became his followers may have been so influenced. Most of
the Members of the Thule Group came out of the German O.T.O,and their
inspiration was The Vril, The Vehm, and The Golden Dawn, and no knowledgable
person denies the influence of the Esoteric Section of the T.S. on the
Golden Dawn. I repeat, I do not accuse the T.S. of "selling" racist
doctrines, but I do say that the T.S. has doctrines that are very useful to
racists. I hope you can see the difference.
>
>Apart from our individual interpretations of Theosophy,
>I'd have to protest, and say that Theosophy teaches
>nothing of that. Some writers may have misunderstand
>and represented the idea of Root Races in that way,
>but that is their mistake and not the teachings of Theosophy.

Eldon: One of the most important "rules" in metaphysics and occultism is
that the "teacher" is absolutely responsible for any harm arising from the
misunderstanding of his or her teachings. It is the teacher's responsibility
to totally avoid the slightest chance of either misunderstanding or misuse!
I am a teacher, I have students all over the world, and when a person says
to me "I am your student" and I do not deny them, then I become totally
responsible for the use they make of what I teach them. That is the "Law of
the Teacher"! And it effects the Theosophical society as much as it effects me.
>
>He also seems to find it outrageous to compare occult
>teachings to scientific fields like sociology and
>economics. I tend to find value in the comparisons, and
>don't dismiss off hand the body of occult teachings we
>have access to in Theosophy.

Yes I do, because it seems to me to indicate a total confusion about the
meaning of the term "science" Economics and sociology are "soft sciences"
and are rather more theoretical than not. Chemistry and biology are "hard
sciences" and while they have their theoretical "leading edge" the material
behind that edge is factual and no longer theoretical having passed the test
of proof. "Occult Teachings" have absolutely nothing to do with either
"hard" or "soft' science. Now being on this list has taught me a new thing.
I had always thought that "The Occult" implied and required experiential,
and ONLY experiential participation. On this board i have been introduced to
a "new breed" as it were, and that is the hypothetical or theoretical
occultist.  Tome personally it seems unfortunate that any person should
claim to be an "occultist" based ONLY on their acceptance of the Occult
dicta of someone else. The entire history of occultism demands and require
that it not be the acceptance of some Core Doctrine but a personal learning
experience. Accepting the Secret doctrine as ""gospel" does not an occultist
make, in my view it makes a religious literalist-traditionalist who
"BELIEVES"  rather than 'KNOWS". the entire history of occultism and all the
great literature which discusses it, absolutely denies the possibility of an
"occultism" based on "faith", whether that "faith" be in a document or an
individual. There is almost nothing on this subject upon which I think we
can possibly agree, so why don't we just accept that fact.
>
>I find it impossible to imagine how someone would think
>that theosophists would be intentionally, deliberately,
>and knowingly promoting racism. Alexis keeps saying that,
>but apart from his imagination, I'm not aware of any
>such thing being thought or spoken or felt at any
>theosophical gathering that I've been to.

Well Eldon, even though I have said no such thing, and can see no way you
could interpret what I said with how you just interpreted it. I have heard
Theosophists saying clearly racist things, and you quote G de P as saying
clearly racist things. I am not saying you are a racist,because I believe no
such thing. But back in the early part of this century, a lot of
Theosophists were clearly racists. I have read everyone of CWL's books and
he was clearly a racist.
>
>He's also continued to charge me with stating that
>psychics are mentally ill. This is twisting my words
>into saying something that I did not say. And it was not
>a single misunderstanding, since I've clarified what I've
>said to him more than once.

I think Eldon, that you regret what you said, and rather than apologizing,
you've chosen to "spin doctor" it. As you get older i think you'll find that
sometimes it's better to apologize for a faux pas than "clarify" it.
>
>(I've said that a form of accidental psychic abilities can
>arise through mental illness, and that the study of how
>we heal those people may provide clues to how we might
>tread the Path. I've also made it clear that there are many
>ways that the psychic appears and being psychic does not
>imply mental illness.)

Eldon, when that paragraph is added to your all together too clear record of
opinion of "psych ism" your "clarifications" ring terribly hollow.
>
>I'd wonder here what Alexis' motivation is in continuing
>to do this? I'll leave it to him to explain, since I
>won't take JRC's tactic and tell Alexis what his motivations
>are ...

Well, I think my motivation is to get you to admit you might have
inadvertently hurt some people's feelings very badly and apologize to them.
But in all  honesty I must admit that I do not believe it was at all
"inadvertent" and that you did it because you thought you could get away
with it. But that is just my personal opinion.
>
>JRC steps in to support Alexis in his latest wave of
>criticisms. JRC brings up my mark about "chasing phantoms of
>the psychic" and repeats Alexis' former charge that I was
>trying to start another argument. That remark was taken out
>of context, and I had already clarified it to Alexis. (I was
>both discounting paranormal powers and intellectual study as
>paling by comparison to the importance of the Path.) Again
>I see an intent to continue to misrepresent things that have
>been previously clarified.
>
>And JRC also wants to tell the world of my "condescension
>and low intent". Presuming low motives of others, and
>asserting to the world that they hold such -- this seems
>to be a strong personal attack.
>
>As to personalities, I'll generally pass over stray, nasty
>comments if they are only directed at me, and if there is
>nothing needing defense but my personal ego. But when the
>doctrines of Theosophy themselves are being bashed, then I
>feel it necessary to speak up. And this is where I've
>incurred the wrath of Alexis and JRC!
>
>When someone boldly asserts that Theosophy teaches
>racism with the intent of putting down people of inferior
>races -- this cannot pass without comment! It may piss
>off some people, but that's only because they are unwilling
>to give up their dark prejudices against the philosophy
>and admit that it may be based upon high-minded spirituality.

I have only one comment to make here. Any valid philosophy probably has no
"core doctrines" because they are hallmarks of religion, but in any case any
valid philosophy can stand on it's own merit and does not require avid
"defenders of the faith". Stop and thing a bit Eldon, how close your
attitude comes to that of "The Congregation for the preservation of the
Faith" the so-called "Holy Office". If theosophy is as great a thing as you
think it is perfectly capable of defending itself by its own intrinsic
rightness, it has no need of "White Knights"! I will say this eldon, and
it's meant in good faith, as far as I can see, it is people like you who
have driven more people away from Theosophy than drawn them to it. You
accuse people like myself and alan and JRC etc. of both "not understanding
the deeper nature of theosophy" and of harboring "ark prejudices" against
the philosophy because you can't seem to comprehend what we're saying. I am
sorry but i think that if you comprehended the "inner nature"of the
philosophy one one thousandth as well as you think you do, you'd be a lot
less harmful, for harmful you are.


alexis

>
>-- Eldon
>
>
>