Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01210)

I haven't been following the thread concerning races and "Eldon
bashing" so I don't know what has been said on the subject.  But
one of today's messages caught my eye, and I feel it to be
important to give my two cents worth, though I really don't have
to time to do so in a thorough manner.  To back up all of my
statements below with quotes would take the better part of the
day to dig them out, so p[lease forgive my not doing so.  But I
can give you the general references, and perhaps someone else
with more time with more time can supply the quotes.  Otherwise,
if this thread is still going, I will supply the quotes when the
semester is over.

The term "root race" was coined by A.P. Sinnett during his
Mahatma letter correspondence around 1881.  It was used in order
to describe the teachings concerning the evolutionary periods of
the human life wave here on earth--not the anthropological races.
According to my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary published in
1875, the term "race" denoted humanity: the meaning remains the
same when we use the phrase "human race."  The concept of having
a "black, yellow and white race" was only one of many ideas
current at the time and did not dominate their thinking as it
does ours today.  Other theories had five or even seven
anthropological races--so the idea was still unsettled.  Though
the 1875 dictionary also denotes the term "race" to indicate
those different anthropological theories of divisions, the
broader definition is the one that I think was most likely to
have been meant--at least by the Mahatmas.  Now, it is true that
Sinnett had racist attitudes, and there is at least one letter
from KH where he comes down pretty hard on him (hard for KH) and
teased him for his racist notions regarding Tibetans.  It is also
obvious from even the casual reader of CWL's books in their
unabridged versions that he was also very racist, and like most
Englishmen of the time, equated darker skin with inferiority.
Blavatsky, on the other hand, gives an explicit warning in a
footnote in the SD against taking her teachings concerning the
root races etc. in a racist manner.  I don't have time to find
it, but I assure you that it is there.  Those of you with the SD
on CD will be able to do this in minutes, where it might take me
an hour or more.

Further, even though HPB mentions "Eskimos"  and the "Tasmanians"
(who were exterminated by British settles almost two centuries
ago, and their flesh used for dog meat), she does not actually
say that these people are of any other than the fifth root race--
though she does attest to these people being incredably ancient
and having a link to the times of earlier races.  Rather, she
says that the fourth root race died out over a million years ago.
Therefore, for the last million years, only one race lives on
this planet--the fifth root race--or what we loosely call the
"human race."

Regarding GdeP's transcribed lectures where he gives attention to
what he called "the American Negro" he spoke of the terrible
karma of a people being oppressed by a dominant culture.  Rather
than racist, I consider this to be a fair statement.  At least it
recognizes the oppression under which these people live, and was
written during a time when most of the dominant culture in this
country was in a state of denial concerning these things.  While
teaching theosophy in Los Angeles, I did at one time have two
black students (as they described themselves in the early 1970s)
who asked me about theosophical material concerning them.  I gave
them the Purucker material to read and asked if they would give
me their frank opinion of it.  Both told me that they did not
feel that Purucker's remarks were racist, and they thought that
he handled the subject fairly.  Though this was only the opinion
of two individuals of color, it at least shows that whether or
not Purucker's opinions are racist is at least a matter of
interpretation.

Regarding the people of the African Continent who lived there
before the invasion of the Europeans, these people represent a
variety of physical types that are at least as diverse, if not
more so, than the Europeans.  These physical types represent
migrations in and out of and around Africa, and the mixing of
various groups that goes back to prehistoric times.  Some of
these groups represent the descendants of cultures that are
incredibly ancient, of which we know nothing or almost nothing
about.  Others, represent later migrations, some of which even
reach into historical times.  Therefore, I submit that even to
refer to these people under the blanket representation of
"blacks" or "negroes" or even "Africans" can itself under certain
circumstances be suggestive of a racism born out of ignorance of
the true diversity of that continent.

On another subject, I mentioned the occult status of CWL, and
noted that Ramadoss asked where this is written.  Also Alexis
attests that he has never seen it in CWL's books.  I believe that
I covered this subject two years ago, but it seems that the same
questions cyclically re-appear over and over again.  Recently I
have seen discussions almost identical to those which were
carried on when I joined theos-l several years ago.  But yes,
both Alexis and Ramadoss are correct.  As far as I know, the
accounts of CWL's and AB's initiations were only circulated among
the ES elite and CWL never wrote of it in his popular books.  So
you will not find it in his published writings.  Therefore, you
will have to find some very old ES members who were around in the
thirties and forties and ask them about it.  In Los Angeles, we
used to have several such members (all dead now) who used to
speak quite freely about this.  When you ask the old timer ES
members in you area (if any are still alive), use the term
"arhat" rather than "adept."  Arhat is more specific, and they
should be able to respond to this.

On still another subject: regarding Kay Ziatz's question about
as well as E. Lester Smith's re-evaluation.  Let me just say that
I don't agree with Smith, and I wonder if Smith would agree with
Smith if he were writing this today.  CWL's ideas taken as a
whole are very far afield of today's concepts concerning the
nature of atoms and sub atomic matter.  I'm also aware of
Philips' contribution on the matter (E.S.P. of Quarks), published
by TPH more than ten years ago.  But his material on CWL was not
part of his doctorial thesis, as popularly believed.  If this
topic is still current, I will pick up the thread when the
semester is over.

JHE
------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------